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

                     FEASIBILITY REPORT
                               AND
            ENVIRONIVI     ENTAL     ASSESSMENT
           ON SHORE AND HURRICANE WAVE
                        PROTECTION

                      WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
                         NORTH CAROLINA

           TC
           224    Corps
           N8
           U55 =eers
           1983 nioin District             SEPTEMBER 1982

                  SADPD-P (10 Dec 82) lst Ind
                  SUBJECT: Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina   13004

                  DA, South Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers, 510 Title Bldg, 30 Pryor St.,
                  S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303 17 December 1982

                  TO: Resident Member, Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors,
                       Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060

                  I concur in the recommendations of the District Engineer.
                                                     J
                                                          JAMES B. HALL
                                                          Colonel, CE
                                                          Acting Commander

                                              US Department of Commerce
                                                          @c

                                         NOAA C-astal Services Center Library
                                                  I South I-lobson Avcnua
                                               L--@@rleston, Se 29405-2413

                                                DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                                          WILMINGTON DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                                                        P. 0. Box 1690
                                             WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA     28402

                               IN REPLY REFER TO

                                                  FEASIBILITY REPORT

                                                          AND

                                              ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

                                           ON SHORE AND HURRICANE WAVE

                                                       PROTECTION

                                                   WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH

                                                      NORTH CAROLINA

                                                             SYLLABUS

                       This Feasibi lity Report presents the results of a study conducted to address
                       the need for beach erosion control, hurricane protection, and related
                       purposes at Wightsville Beach, North Carolina.

                       Wrightsville Beach is located on the Atlantic Ocean in New Hanover County.
                       It has a permanent population of about 3,000 and a peak summer population of
                       about 25,000.    The beach within the existing shore protection project is
                       publicly owned and constitutes 20 percent of the beach area in the State
                       that is   readily accessible and open to free public access.               Continued
                       existence of the beach and dune system is of vital importance to the
                       economic  security and community stability of Wrightsville Beach.

                       There are records of many hurricanes dating back to the early 1700's that
                       have caused severe damage in the Wrightsville Beach area.           Most recently,
                       heavy property damage resulted from hurricanes         occurring in 1944, 1954,
                       1955, 1958, and 1960.

                       In 1965 the Federal     Government, under authority contained in PL 82-874,
                       constructed a shore and hurricane wave protection project along 14,000 feet
                       of the ocean shore  line extending north from Masonboro Inlet.        This project
                       includes a dune and berm system that protects against hurricane wave action
                       from a 35-year storm.     Also included was Federal aid for. periodic nourish-
                       ment for a 10-year trial basis to determine the technical viability of
                       periodic nourishment.      The 10-year trial basis began in 1970 when the
                       project was considered officially completed and was turned over to the local
                       sponsor, the town of Wrightsville Beach.        After the 10-year period, which
                       ended  after   the most     recent   project   restoration    (November    1980   to
                       April 1981), the project was reexamined in this study to determine if
                       Federal participation in periodic nourishment is the most efficient and

                       economic solution.

                       Since completion of   this project, erosion has been about five times greater
                       than anticipated.   A shore,processes analysis shows that about 46 percent is

                                                                                  Rev 2/22/83

              induced by the Masonboro Inlet navigation project.     The remainder is due to
              natural. causes, including the increased erosion induced by an anomaly in the
              beach alignment.    Mitigation of the Mason6oro 'In-let navigation project
              damage has been performed under authority contained in Section Ill of
              PL 90-@483. The remaining 54 percent deficit in the sand budget will result
              in gradual and continual deterioration in the effectiveness of the existing
              project to a point where a significant threat to life and property will

              exist .

              Nonstructural and structural alternative solutions were considered and

              evaluated independently as well as 'in various combinations.      This included
              extension of the authorized project, relocation of the building line,
              property acquisition, flood proofing, construction of small floodwalls, and
              Fede ral participation.in beach nourishment for the project life.    All plans,
              with the exception of continued Federal participation in beich nourishment,
              were found to lack economic feasibilitT.

              Our reanalysis of the existing shore and hurricane wave protection project
              bears out continued Federal interest since it is       the most efficient and
              economic solution. Therefore, the recommended plan     is for continued Federal
              aid for periodic nourishment throughout    the life of the project.    The plan
              is also considered environmentally acceptable.@        Impacts to significant
              resources will be minor and temporary in nature.

              Average annual costs are estimated at $668,000.     Maintenance costs consist-
              ing of periodic beach nourishment will be shared evenly by the Federal
              Government and local sponsor.     The Federal share is estimated at $311,000
              and the non-Federal share is estimated at $311,000.          Maintenance costs
              consisting of periodic 'berm and dune maintenance will be the responsibility
              of the local sponsor and are estimated at $46,000.        Therefore, the total
              share for the Federal Governiqent is $311,000 and $357,000 for the local
              sponsor.   The average annual benefits are estimated at $910,300..            The
              recommended plan has a benefit-to-cost ratio      of  1.36 and is, therefore,
              considered economically justified.

                                                                          Rev. 2/22/83

                                                   FEASIBILITY REPORT

                                                WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, N.C.

                                                   TABLE OF OONTENTS

                                        Item                                                Page No.

                  SECTION I     INTRODUCTION                                                  1
                        Study Authorization                                                   1
                        Scope of the Study.                                                   1
                        Study Partic'ipation  and Coordination                                1
                        The Report and Study Process                                          2

                  SECTION II - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION                                         3
                        National Objectives                                                   3
                        Public Concern                                                        3
                        Resource Management  Problems                                         3
                        Study Area                                                            4
                        Existing Conditions                                                   4
                        General Overview and Prior Corrective Actions                         4
                        Other Studies                                                         9
                        Socioeconomic Resources                                              11
                        Natural Resources                                                    13
                             Seashore Area                                                   14
                             Invertebrate Species Occurring in Borrow Areas                  14
                             Water Quality                                                   14
                             Fisheries Resources                                             15
                             Endangered Species                                              15
                             Cultural Resources                                              16
                             Terrestrial Resources                                           17
                             Wetlands                                                        17
                        Condition if no Federal Action is Taken                              18
                        Future Condition at Masonboro Inlet                                  18
                        Future Condition of Natural Resources                                19
                        Future Condition of Socioeconomic Resources                          19
                        Problems, Needs, and Opportunities                                   20
                        Planning Objective                                                   20

                  SECTION III    FORMULATION OF PRELIMINARY PLANS                            21
                        Management Measures                                                  21
                        Plan Formulation Criteria                                            21
                             Technical Criteria                                              22
                             Economic Criteria                                               22
                             Environmental and  Other Criteria                               22
                        Description of Preliminary Plans                                     22
                             Plans 1A, 1B, 2, 3, and 3A - Extension of    the
                              Authorized Shore Protection Project Northward                  22
                             Plan 4 - Nonstructural Flood Damage Reduction Measures          25
                             Plan 5 - Evaluation of the Completed Shore Protection
                              Project                                                        26

                                         TABLE OF CONTENTS--Cont'd

                                  Item                                                Page No.

           SECTION IV - ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION     OF DETAILED PLANS                 35
                 Impact Assessment                                                      35
                      Impact to Socioeconomic Resources                                 36
                      Impact on Natural Resources                                       36
                 Evaluation of Detailed Plan                                            36
                      Contribution to Planning Objective                                36
                      Public Views                                                      36
                      Summary Comparison of Alternative Plans                           37-
                 Rationale for Designation of NED Plan and LED Plan                     40
                 Rationale for Selected Plan                                            40

           SECTION V - THE SELECTED PLAN                                                41
                 Economic Justification                                                 41
                 Apportionment of Costs                                                 42
                 Environmental Impacts                                                  43
                 Design and Construction                                                43
                 Recommendations                                                        44

           ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

                                               LIST OF TABLES

           Table No.                               Title                             Page No.

                 1    Wilmington, North Carolina Standard.Metropolitan
                       Statistical Area                                                 19
                 2A   Cost Estimate, First Sand Bypassing at Masonboro
                       Inlet in 1987                                                    29
                 2B   Cost Estimate,  Future Sand Bypassing at Masonboro
                       Inlet                                                            31
                 3    Summary - Annual Cost of Nourishment Allocated to
                       Shore Protection Project                                         31
                 4    Benefit-Cost Summary, Continued Maintenance.of
                       Wrightsville Beach Berm and Dune Project, 50-Year
                       Period of Analysis, 7-5/8 Percent-Interest Rate                  34
                 5    Summary Comparison of Alternative Plans                           38

                                              LIST OF FIGURES

           Figure No.                              Title                         Follows Page No.

                 I    Wrightsville Beach, N.C. and Vicinity     Study Area               4

                                               LIST OF PLATES

                                                                                     Follows
           Plate No.                               Title                           Page No. 45

                 I    Plan I@A - Extend Authorized Project, No Relocations
                 2    Plan I-B - Extend Authorized Project with Relocations
                 3    Profiles
                 4    Plan 2 - Extend Authorized Project, Recommend Building
                       Line Setback for Proposed.Developmeni
                 5    Plan 3 - Extend Authorized Project, Acquire and
                       Preserve Land North of Existing Development
                 6    Stage-Frequency Curve, Wrightsville Beach, N.C.
                 7    Proposed Wrightsville Beach Access Plan
                 8    Wrightsville-Beach, N.C.

                                                      ii

                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS-Cont'd

                                                  LIST OF APPENDIXES.

                    Appendix A             History of Hurricanes
                    Appendix B             Socioeconomic Conditions
                    Appendix C             Economic Analysis      I
                    Appendix  D            Reevaluation of Shore Processes at Wrightsville Beach
                    Appendix  E            Report by the U.S. Department of the Interior Fish
                                             and Wildlife Service

                    Appendix  F            Consistency Determination
                    Appendix  G            404(b) (P.L. 95-217) Evaluation Report
                    Appendix  H            Pertinent Correspondence

                                             SECTION I - INTRODUCTION

                                                   Study Authorization

                     The authority for this study is contained in a resolution of the Committee
                     on Public Works of the U.S. House of Representatives, dated 2 December 1970.
                     The resolution was initiated by (bngressman Alton Lennon, and requested the
                     Secretary of the Army to direct the Office of the Chief of Engineers to make
                     a survey of "Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina and adjacent beaches in the
                     interest  of beach    erosion control,     hurricane   protection    and   related
                     purposes, including oceanic and lagoonal shores and interconnected tidal
                     channels."

                     A no tice of this resolution was forwarded to the Chief of Engineers,
                     Washington, D.C., 2 December 1970.         On 5 December 1970 the Chief of
                     Engineers assigned the study to the South Atlantic Division (SAD) which, in
                     turn, assigned the study to the Wilmington District, 18 February 1971.
                     Funds to initiate the study were made available I October 1977.

                                                    Scope of the Study

                     The scope of the study, in accordance with the study authority, will address
                     the identific'ation of needs and development of plans related to beach
                     erosion control and hurricane protection at Wrightsville Beach.          The.scope
                     of the study will also encompass the range of economic,       environmental, and
                     other   impacts    associated   with    implementation    of   shore    protection
                     improvements.

                                          Study Participation and Coordination

                     A public meeting was held on 18 April 1978 at Wrightsville Beach to provide
                     the public an opportunity to express their views concerning the need for
                     shore protection at Wrightsville Beach.

                                                            1

           Also, during the course of preparation of this Feasibility Report, coordina-
           tion has been carried out with the United States Department of the Interior,
           Fish and Wildlife Service; the, North Carolina Department of Natural
           Resources and Community Development: and other Federal and State agencies
           having  responsibilities and interest related to this study.

           In addition to studies conducted by the Wilmington District, an analysis of
           the project was submitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is
           attached as appendix E of this report.

                                                1
                                    The Report and Study Process

           This document is basically structured in accordance with the four functional
           planning tasks:    (1) Problem identification, (2) Formulation of Alterna-
           tives, (3) Impact Assessment, and (4) Evaluation.    The. report consists of a
           main report and supporting appendixes.       The environmental assessment is
           included.in the main report.

                                                 2

                                     SECTIONJI - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

                    Problem identification is the first of four planning tasks described in the
                    preceding paragraph.     This task is undertaken to determine what problems
                    exist and should be addressed by the Federal Government, what geographic
                    study area will be affected, and what the ultimate goals of the study should

                    be.

                    This  sec t ion includes   (1)  a statement of National        Objectives,    which
                    describes the Federal interest in Wrightsville Beach; (2) identification of
                    public concerns; (3) analysis of resource management problems; (4) delinea-
                    tion of the study area; and (5) development of planning objectives.

                                                   National Objective

                    The Chief of Engineers, under authority contained in a resolution of the
                    Committee on Public Works of the U.S. House of Representatives, dated
                    2 December 1970, has authority to undertake studies related to shore protec-
                    tion.  The Federal objective in water resources planning is the enhancement
                    of the National economic development.     Projects formulated under this objec-
                    tive must be cost effective, environmentally sound, and in the best public
                    interest with National Economic Development as the principle objective.

                                                     Public Concern

                    Local interests have expressed a need for shore protection at Wrightsville
                    Beach, consisting of continued Federal participation in the -existing shore
                    protection project, extension of the existing project northward 2,800 feet,
                    and erosion control along the estuarine shoreline.

                                              Resource Management Problems

                    Wrightsville Beach has had a history of erosion problems and experienced
                    heavy property damages as a result of hurricanes occurring in 1944, 1954,

                                                            3

            1955,  1958., and 1960.  The  beach and adjacent waters represen   t many natural
            values which should be preserved or enhanced.          This is the basis of the
            resource management problems which this Feasibility Report will address.

                                                Study Area

            The specific area.included in this study, as authorized by the 2           December
            1970 congressional resolution, consists of "Wrightsville Beach and         adjacent
            beaches  ...  including oceanic and lagoonal shores and interconnected tidal
            channels."    The  actuaL physical boundaries of the study area are:             the
            Atlantic Ocean on the east, the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) on         the
            west, Mason Inlet on the north, and Masonboro Inlet on the south.         With   the
            exception of the northernmost 1,600 feet of the barrier beach island south
            of Mason Inlet, the entire study area is 'also within ei.ther the corporate
            limits of the town of Wrightsville Beach or the immediately_ adjacent zone of
            "extraterritorial jurisdiction."       Figure 1 shows the study area and the
            referenced physical features and boundaries.'      The problems' 'and needs of the
            study area are also viewed in the broader context of the:     southeastern region
            of the State which, in addition to New Hanover County,        includes Brunswick,
            Bladen, Columbus, and Pender Counties.

                                           Ex isting Conditions

            The purpose of this report section is to provide a general overview of the
            study area, prior corrective actions, other studies, and a discussion of
            significant resources identified therein.

                            General Overview and Prior Corrective Actions

            The town of Wrightsville Beach is comprised of two units, the estuarine
            island  known as Harbor Island and the barrier island of Wrightsville Beach.
            The former has an area of 293 acres, with 3.5 miles of shoreline exposed to
            current and wave activity.        The latter has an area of 354 acres, with
            16,80Q feet (3.2 miles) of oceanic shoreline and 16,000 feet (3.0 miles) of
            estuarine shoreline within the town's corporate limits.       The total length of
            ocean shoreline along the barrier island is about 23,000 feet (4.5 miles).

                                                     4

                                                                                                                                                                                                 A ETH
                                                                                                                                                                                                CITY                                                                                                              32' 1 2V 130' 1  50' 1     78'           84,      1

                                                                                                                                                             R, DURHAM                                                                                                                               16 -
                                                                                                                                                             R A LIE I G H         WASH,                                                                                                             14--                               1-12'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     12
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     to-
                                                                                                                                                                                                          'co       CAPE
                                                                                                                                                                                   NEW                             ATTERAS
                                                                                                                                                                                   BERN                                         C                                                                    6                                                                                 -A.2*M.H
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      N                                                                        Z     4 -
                                                                                                                                                                               N`I CtTl                     T     A     A   N                                                                  2                                                            1.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 c                                                                                                                                                                      0.0 M.L.W.
                                                                                                                                                                                                   CAPE      0                                                                                                                                                            k
                                                                                                                                                                WILM11                RIGHTSVI    LOO UT                                                                                             -2-
                                                                                                                                                                                               LIE VICINITY                 MAP                                                                           TYPICAL SECTION OF DUNE CONSTRUCTION AND BEACH FILL
                                                                                                                                                                      H IT              BEACH
                                                                                                                                                           LITT E             CAPE
                                                                                                                                                           RIV                 FEAR

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       A

                                                                                                                                                                       AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY SEP 81

                      Adjacent bodies of water include the Atlantic Ocean on the east, Banks and
                      Mott Channels and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) on the west,
                      Mason Inlet on the north, and Masonboro Inlet on the south.      Shinn Creek on
                      the south forms a hydraulic connection between the AIWW and Masonboro Inlet.
                      To the north of Mason Inlet is Figure Eight Island; to the south of

                      Masonboro Inlet is Masonboro Island.

                      Wrightsville Beach has evolved into an important recreational resource of
                      the State of North Carolina since the latter part of the 19th century.
                      In 1889, a link between the mainland and the barrier island was established
                      with the completion of a trolley route spanning over a mile of wetlands
                      and estuarine channels, and extending south along the beach.        This system
                      was the only means of access to the barrier island, other than by boat or
                      foot bridge, until the completion of a passenger car bridge to the island in
                      1935. The final trolley run took place in 1939.

                      Today Wrightsville Beach is accessible by two U.S. highway routes. It has a
                      permanent population of about 3,000 and a population on peak summer days
                      which has been estimated to approach 25,000, including day visitors.          The
                      14,000 feet of beach within the shore protection project limits are publicly
                      owned and constitute 20 percent of the State and municipal ocean beach
                      frontage in North Carolina readily accessible and open to free public
                      access.   Continued existence of this beach in a stable and esthetically
                      pleasing  condition is of vital importance to the economic security and
                      community stability of the town of Wrightsville Beach. The shore protection
                      project directly provides a large measure of recreational and protective
                      benefits to the town, as well as a recreational resource to a far greater
                      number of people from the adjoining region and beyond.

                      Wrightsville Beach has had a history of erosion problems dating -from the
                      earliest attempts to build within this dynamic barrier island zone.         Local
                      interests began   attempts to control erosion in 1923 when the town, with
                      assistance from    New Hanover County and the Tidewater Power Company,
                      constructed five   timber groins along the middle 6,400 feet of the ocean

           shoreline.    In 1925, six reinforced concrete groins were       added, with three
           to the north and three to the South of the timber groins.         The wooden groins
           functioned satisfactorily until about 1'928, by which time        attacks by marine
           borers had partially destroyed them.        The  concrete groins   were temporarily
           successful at the   southern end of the island, but those at       the northern end
           were eventually flanked and destroyed.         Then in 1939 the town, with the
           assistance of PWA funds, constructed 16 creosoted timber groins, each about
           325 feet long and spaced about 800 feet apart.         In addition, 700,000 cubic
           yards (cu.yds.) of sand fill were vlaced on the beach to replace some of

           that lost to erosion.

           Wrightsville Beach experienced he       avy property damages as. a result of
           hurricanes occurring in 1944, 1954, 1955, 1958, and 1960. Erosion caused by
           these hurricanes necessitated the placement         of a total of about 500,000
           cu.yds .. of sand_ dredged from Banks Channel in four separate: operations

           between 1955 and 1959,

           The involvement of the Federal Government in providing long-term beach
           stabili@zation began in     1962 when@ Congress (P.L. 87-874)        autho.rized the
           construction of a combined beach erosion control/hurricane. protection
           project   along the 14,00.0 feet of ocean shoreline extending: north, from
           Masonbqro Inlet     which  corresponded to the then-existing town       limits.   The
           project was construct'ed   in 1965.   The dune section had a design width      of 25
           feet at   the.crest  at an. elevation of +15 feet mean low water       datum  (MLW)9
           with- the  landward  to e of the dune on or near the town building line.          The
           berm section had a   design.width of 50 feet at an elevation of.+1.2 feet. NLW.
           A total  of about 2,993,000 cubic yards of sand from       Banks Channel was used.
           in the initial construction, which included both the       closure of Moore Inlet,
           located at about C.E. baseline station 150+00, and'      adv-anc e nourishment along
           a 2,800-foot section of be@4ch- north of the authorized. project              limit.
           Following closure of the inlet, Wrightsville Beach        extended its town limits
           northward to include this 2.,800 feet of beach.          Thi.s action created the
           present situation in which      the  town limits include. 16,800 feet of beach
           north of Masonboro Inlet      (to Station 168+00), whereas the Federal shore
           protection project limits     include  only  14,000 feet of beach north of the
           inlet (to Station 140+00).

                                                     6

                      Construction of the northern of the two Masonboro Inlet jetties, which were
                      authorized in 1949, took place between July 1965 and June 1966.      During the
                      period 1965 to 1970, the shore protection project suffered an unexpectedly
                      high rate of erosion of the sand fill, particularly along the northern 7,000
                      feet of the project shoreline. This erosion could not be totally accounted
                      for in terms of slope adjustments or sorting action on the fill. Continued
                      severe erosion necessitated the dredging and placement of about 1.4 million
                      cubic yards of fill on the shore protection project in the spring of 1970,
                      after which the project was considered officially completed and was turned
                      over to the local sponsor, the town of Wrightsville Beach.       No additional
                      fill was placed on the project until April 1980. At that time, an emergency
                      fill, consisting of approximately 500,000 cubic yards of sand, was placed
                      along the northern 7,000 feet of project shoreline under Public Law 84-99
                      authority.   Upon completion of this work in May 1980, the northern half of
                      the project still offered only a portion of the protection for which it was
                      designed.

                      Between December 1980 and April 1981, a complete restoration of the
                      authorized shore protection project was performed, returning it to the
                      design configuration and level of protection for which it was authorized.
                      This restoration required the dredging and placement of about 1.25 million
                      cubic yards of sand, obtained from Masonboro Inlet and distributed along the
                      northern 7,000 feet of project shoreline.       The restoration was completed
                      using a combination of funds, including:

                          0   Federal Construction, General funds for periodic nourishment of the
                      project shoreline. (Under existing authority, this nourishment represented
                      the last time that the Federal Government could participate in the cost-
                      sharing of nourishment.     The question of modifying existing authority to
                      allow continued Federal participation for the project life is addressed as a
                      part of this study.)

                          o Non-Federal cash contribution.

                                                        7

                  0   Sect ion III funds (to    mitigate erosion damage of the Wrightsville
              Beach shoreline judged to have     been caused by,the Federal    navigation project
              at-Masonboro Inlet).

                  0   Masonboro In-let Navigation Project Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
              funds (for restoration of project     depths and channel alignment).

              Prior to construction of the project in 1965, it was anticipated that
              periodic nourishment of the berm and dune would be essential to achieve
              expected benefits of hurricane flood protection and beach erosion control
              In fact, the Feasibility Report and subsequent Design Memorandum for the
              project sti pulated an estimated annual beach nour-ishment rate of 1.8 cubic
              yards of sand. per lineal foot of beach, for a net annual volume of 25,200
              cubic yards.    In addition, maintenance of the berm at +12. feet MLW would
              require 0.4 cubic yard per lineal foot, or       a net 5,600 cubic yards annually
              along with about 1,000 cubic yards annually for dune maintenance.           Thus, an
              annual requirement of about 32,000 cubic yards of fill material was
              anticipated prior to project implementation.

              The actual erosion rate experienced along        the project shoreline was about
              five times greater than the estimated 32,000 cubic yards per year.                 The
              determina tion of an average annual erosion quantity of 167,000 cubic yards
              per year,was made as part of an analysis of shore processes for a 19-mile
              segment of coast including Wrightsville Beach and Masonboro Inlet.               This
              analysis was submitted in October 1977 as a technical appendix to the
              General Design Memorandum (GDM) for the Masonboro Inlet south jetty.               The
              GDM was approved by SAD in February 1978.            The analysis indicated that
              155,000 of the 167,000 cubic yards.of annual erosion losses were the result
              of the Masonboro Inlet north jetty reducing natural sand bypassing at the
              inlet.   To mitigate this jetty-induced erosion, a plan was developed in
              which, material would be dredged from the deposition basin adjacent to the
              north jetty and placed along the affected reach of Wrightsville Beach shore-
              line at an average rate of 155,000 cubic yards per year.            Mas.onboro Inlet
              navigation project O&M funds would be utilized to perform this. work.             The
              balance of 12,000 cubic yards per year was identified as the historic,

                                                    8

                    natural erosion component.    Replacing this portion of the computed 167,000
                    cubic yards per year sand deficit at Wrightsville Beach would be a cost
                    allocated to the shore protection project.

                    The shore processes analysis in the Masonboro Inlet South Jetty GDM         was
                    limited in that the assumptions dictated that all the erosion losses        off
                    Wrightsville Beach were attributed to either the navigation project at
                    Masonboro Inlet or historical losses. However, recognition was given to     the
                    possible existence of other factors which could be contributing to          the
                    erosion, specifically, the anomalous convex shape of the Wrightsville Beach

                    shoreline.

                    The convex shape of the Wrightsville Beach ocean shoreline, as shown by
                    figure 1, is primarily due to Moore Inlet which was closed during the
                    initial placement of the hurricane and shore protection fill in 1965. Moore
                    Inlet, which was located between Station 140+00 and the present northern
                    town limits of Wrightsville Beach (see figure 1), had existed as the
                    northern boundary of the town since the mid-1800's and characteristically
                    had caused the shorelines immediately north and south to curve seaward.
                    Mien development began to spread northward along -Wright svil le Reach, roads
                    and houses were built more or less parallel to the,      shoreline  existing at
                    that time.   Also, the town building line was established seaward of the
                    development and parallel to the shoreline.     Consequently when the hurricane
                    and shore protection project was constructed, the fill was placed seaward of
                    the development and the town building line thus pr.oiducing the present convex
                    or bulbous shoreline configuration.

                    Since the normal shape of   barrier  islands in the vicinity of Wrightsville
                    Beach is concave, there is  a natural tendency for normal shore processes' to
                    reshape the beach planform to an alignment more compatible with prevailing
                    waves, currents, and inlet  positions.   In appendix D, a detailed examination
                    was made of the effects of  the bulbous shoreline shape on erosion losses off
                    Wrightsville Beach, as well as a complete reexamination of the historical

                                                      9
                                                                                  Rev. 2/22/83

             losses . and losses attributable to the Masonbo      ro  Inlet navigation project.
             The results of this analysis were as follows:

                  (a)  Total rate of erosion     . . . . . .. . . . . . .   130,000 cu yds/yr
                  (b)  Historical losses, i.e., losses occurring
                        prior to project construction    . . . . . . . .     29,000 cu yds/yr
                  (c)  Losses due to the bulbous shoreline      . . . . .    41,000 cu yds/yr
                  (d)  Losses due to the navigation project
                        at Masonboro Inlet    . . . . . . . . . . . . .      60,000 cu yds/yr

             Most of the erosion losses on Wrightsville Beach are occurring north of
             Station 50+00 (see figure 1), while the southern 5,000 feet, which consti-
             tutes the accretion fillet adjacent to the north jetty at Masonboro Inlet,
             only experienced minor losses during the time period selected for the shore
             processes a  nalysis.    Even though the fillet did experience some erosion,
             this t rend will not continue indefinitely due to the stabilizing effect of
             the Masonboro Inlet north jetty.         The north jetty has a low weir section
             which allows southward moving littoral sedi     ments-to pass over and deposit in
             a deposition basin from which they will be removed during sand bypassing
             operations.     Since the north jetty does not present. a' complete littoral
             barrier, minor fluctuations in the position of the fillet shoreline are to
             be expected.     Over a long period of time, however, the fillet will remain
             stable both   in width and length north of the jetty.

             The stability of    the fillet   is independent of Wrightsville.     Beach receiving
             any artificial   nourishment.     For example, the minor erosion of the fillet
             that was computed-for the shore processes analysis occurred         between 1968 and
             1979. However.,   in 1970, Wrightsville Beach was nourished with 1,377,000 cu.
             yds .of fill   which was  placed north of Station 50+00.       Since the-fillet did
             not  buildup following this nourishment- operation,           it was- obvious that
             material moving south     out of the fill area and onto the fillet-was being
             carried past the fillet and into Masonboro Inlet by       . normal shck.r.e processes.
             Also, in evaluating the effects of the bulbous shoreline on eros.'ion rates, a
             normal shoreline configuration was obtained for Wrightsville Beach by

                                                     10
                                                                            Rev.  2/22/83

                    analyzing the shape of natural barrier islands in       the general vicinity of
                    the study area.   This normal shoreline, which was assumed to represent the
                    ultimate quasi-equilibrium planform of the entire beach between Masons Inlet
                    and Masonboro Inlet, coincided with the existing alignment and position of
                    the shoreline along the 5,000-foot fillet.      Therefore, even if Wrightsville
                    Beach does not receive any additional nourishments, the southernmost 5,000
                    feet of the project shoreline will remain in essentially its present

                    location.

                    The long-term costs of replacing erosion losses induced by the north Jetty
                    will be allocated to the navigation project.            The long-term costs of
                    replacing erosion losses related to project alignment and natural erosion
                    will be allocated to the shore protection project.

                                                     Other Studies

                    Section 111 Report, Wrightsville Beach, N.C.:       This report, approved 2 Oct
                    1980, recommended the application of Section 111, PL 90-483, to mitigate
                    shoreline damages at Wrightsville Beach caused by the Fed"era        .I navigation
                    project at Masonboro Inlet.     Mitigation would be accomplished by placement
                    of dredged sand fill on the affected shoreline in conjunction with the
                    restoration of the shore protection project and the Masonboro Inlet channel
                    presently underway.

                    PL 84-99 Report, Wrightsville Beach, N.C.: This report, approved 17, January
                    1980, recommended application of PL 84-99 authority to provide emergency
                    rehabilitation to the shore protection subsequent to.erosion damage suffered
                    during Hurricane David 4-5 Sep 1979.       Rehabilitation was cost-shared with

                    non-Federal interests.

                    Masonboro Inlet, South Jetty GDM:        This memorandum, approved I February
                    1978, contained an analysis of shore processes for a 19-mile segment of the
                    North Carolina coast from Wrightsville Beach south to Kure Beach.              This
                    .analysis specifically identified the north jetty at Masonboro Inlet as

             inducing a net sand deficit at  WYightsville Beach of 155,000 cubic yards per
             year, and 184,000 cubic yards   per year along Masonbor.o Island, and raised
             the issue of possibl'e applicability of Section III (PL   90-483) authority to
             Wrightsville Beach.

             Unfavorable Report:   A report on hurr icane protection, Bogue Inlet to Moore
             Inlet, North Carolina (House Document No. 480/89/2) transmitted to Congress
             in August 1966, found hurricane protection to be of no public benefit along
             the undeveloped islands within the study area.     However, there has been an
             increase in residential and commercial development (Holiday Inn Motel
             constructed at location of @,Ioore Inlet which was closed in 1965 by private
             developers and Islander Condominium constructed just south of old Moore
             Inlet). The increased development   and increased recreational activity have
             caused the public interests in seeking remedial measures for the. study area.

             Wrightsville Beach Hurricane Protection Project:    The report on a hurricane
             protection study of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina (House. Document No.
             511/87/2) transmitted to Congress in August 1962 recommended the, authorized
             and completed berm and dune project at Wrightsville Beach.       This project
             extends from Masonboro Inlet to the northern town limit, a distance of
             14,000 feet.  Since completion of the project, the northern town limit has
             been extended 2,800 feet which has prompted the request by locals for an
             extension of the berm and dune project.

             Masonboro Inlet and. Connecting Channels:   The report on a navigation study
             of Masonboro Inlet and Connecting Channels (HD .341/81/1). transmitted to
             Congress Sep 1949 recommended the currently authorized project.      The north
             jetty was completed in 1966.   The south jetty was completed in 1980.

                                       Socioeconomic Resources

             The following is an overview of economic and social conditions of New
             Hanover County, the socioeconomic study area.     Both Wrightsville Beach and
             the city of Wilmington, North Carolina's largest coastal city and port, are
             situated in New Hanover County.      With its largely urban character, New

                                                 12

                   Hanover County is the primary market for Wrightsville Beach day use.

                   Base Socioeconomic Conditions.    The population of New Hanover County   grew at
                   an annual rate of 2.2 percent during the period 1970-1980, reaching      103,471
                   in 1980, and having a population density of 559.3 per square mile.       For the
                   period 1970-1975, net migration was +10.8 percent.      In 1970, the percentage
                   of urbanization in New Hanover County was 69.5, less than the United States
                   average of 73.5, but greater than the North Carolina average of 45.0.

                   In 1970, the median education level for persons 25 years old and over in New
                   Hanover County was 12.0.     The percentage of high school graduates in the
                   group was 50.

                   In 1978, per capita income in New Hanover County was $6,728, slightly higher
                   than the North Carolina per capita income of $6,640.          During the period
                   1970-1978, real per capita income increased at an annual rate of 2.81
                   percent. In 1979, the civilian labor force numbered 46,490, of which 43,690
                   persons were employed and 2,800 persons, or 6 percent were unemployed.
                   During the period 1970-1979, employment in New Hanover County grew at an
                   annual rate of 3.45 percent, a growth rate higher than the 2.2 percent for
                   population.    In 1979, 24 percent of all employed persons in New Hanover
                   County worked     in manufacturing    industries.      Of  the   76  percent    in
                   nonmanufacturing industries, one-third worked in the trade industry, and
                   one-fourth worked for a government.

                   The 1980 permanent population of Wrightsville Beach was 2,910, a 71.1
                   percent increase over.the 1970 permanent population. In 1980, the estimated
                   summer population was 8,024, excluding day visitors.

                                                  Natural Resources

                   During the course of this study, significant resources were identified and

                   evaluated as follows:

                                                          13

             Seashore Area.

             Within the town limits of Wrightsville Beach, there are many acres of high
             quality seashore area available for recreation activities., i.e., sunbathing,
             surf fishing, walking, jogging, bird watching, shell collecting, etc.             This
             intertidal zone also serves as habitat for an invertebrate community adapted
             to the high energy s    andy beach environment.      The organisms wfiich make up
             this community, i.e., mole crabs, coquina clams, amphipods, isopods, and
             polychaetes, are an important food source for surf feeding fish populations
             such as flounder, croaker, red drum, black drum, spot, northern kingfish,
             and pomDano.

             Invertebrate Species Occurring in Borrow Areas.

             Masonboro Inlet and the portions of Banks Channel south of channel marker 14
             are considered to be prime borrow sites because of the excellent composition
             of the sediment and sparse populations of benthic invertebrates.              Both of
             these, sites were used to obtain the nourishment materi,71 -for the restoration
             project undertaken during the winter of 80/81.            Prior to that dredging,
             common macro invertebrates inhabiting these areas includLsd the hemichordate
             worms, Balanoglossus auranticus and Saccoglossds kowl-evskii, the razor clam
             Ensis directus, the bivalves Dosinia, Tellina, and Mercenaria mercenaria
             (U.S.   Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979).        Sampling of these areas has not
             occurred since the dredging took place; however, it can be safely assumed
             that populations of benthic invertebrates have begun to recolonize the areas
             although they may have different levels of abundance and different community
             structures. 'Due to the shifting sand bottom and past history of disturbance
             at these  sites (for maintenance dredging of navigation projects as well as
             for beach _. nourishments) ,   it  is unlikely that they have been able to
             establish stable   benthic communities in recent years.

             Water Quality-

             The water quality -in     the vicinity of the      borrow sites is good.         Banks
             Channel has a classification of SB (suitable for bathing).          Masonbo ro   Inlet
             has a.. classification -of SA (suitable for shell fishing for market purposes) .
             The high quality of.    the.@water in these areas can be attributed         to'..  tidal

                                                   14

                   flushing and distance from any major pollution sources.         The town of
                   Wrightsville Beach prohibits the use of septic tanks.

                   Nonpoint pollution sources on Wrightsville Beach are not, considered to be a'
                   major problem.    Storm water from the community is removed by a separate
                   storm drainage system which drains into the surrounding waters.   Each storm
                   water drain inlet structure has a trap for silt, grit, and trash, which is
                   periodically cleaned and the debris treated as solid waste.     Less than 10
                   percent of the rainfall that falls on the  town enters the system due to the
                   high absorptive capacity of the soils.

                   Fisheries Resources.

                   Recreational and commercial fishing in the vicinity of Masonboro Inlet and
                   Banks channel are significant.        These areas support both sport and
                   commercial fisheries for such common saltwater finfish as black drum,
                   croaker, pigfish, red drum, flounder, spot, black seabass, and bluefish. In
                   addition, blue crab and penaeid shrimp are fished for both commercial and
                   recreational purposes.   Among other sport fish in the surf zone, northern
                   kingfish, pompano, and spot are actively fished for, both from the beach and
                   the two fishing piers located at Wrightsville Beach.        Nearshore waters
                   support an abundance of king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia.

                   Endangered Species.

                   Informal consultation as delineated in Section 7(c) of the Endangered
                   Species Act of 1973, as amended, has been concluded with the Fish and
                   Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service.    The following list
                   of species was considered in the biological assessment process:

                                                       15

                   Brown pelican (Pelicanus occidentalis)-E
                   Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus)-E
                   Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus)-E
                   Finback whale (Balaenoptera physulus)-E
                   Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)-E
                   Right whale (Eubalaena spp)-E
                   Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis)-E
                   Sperm whale (Physeter catadon)-E
                   Kemps ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi)-E
                   Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)-E
                   Leatherback turtle (Derimochelys coriacea)-E
                   Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)-E
                   Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)-T
                   Green turtle (Chelenia mydas)-T

               Cultural Resources.

               A cultural resources survey of Masonboro Inlet and Masonboro Island was
               conducted in connection with the construction of the South Jetty at
               Masonboro Inlet.    During the exploratory phase of this survey (October
               through November 1977), five major magnetic anomalies were recorded. Two of
               the five are located in the vicinity of the Masonboro Inlet borrow area.
               During April and May 1978, the N.C. Division of Archives and History made
               additional examinations of these two sites using a hydraulic probing device.
               By this method, it was determined that one of the sites is probably the
               remains of a relatively modern vessel lying belowa plane of -14 feet m.l.w,
               although it is possible that the modern vessel is positioned over a site of
               earlier vintage.   The other site was probed to a depth of -20 feet m.1 w.
               without encountering the anomaly  Watts et. al.)-.

               The Banks Channel borrow site is not considered to offer any potential for
               submerged cultural resources as it was dredged below the depths which will
               be required for continued maintenance during initial project construction;
               therefore, all of the sediments in the area are of recent origin.

                                                   16

                    Terrestrial Resources.

                    Within the study area, the most significant terrestrial resources occur on
                    the undeveloped portion of Shell Island and on the manmade and natural
                    estuarine islands which occur in Wrightsville Sound.       These areas offer the
                    only significant sites of natural vegetation communities available for

                    terrestrial wildlife.

                    An extensive, stable dune system comprises the undeveloped portions of Shell
                    Island.   Vegetated principally with grasses, its value to some species of
                    wildlife is limited.    Data on wildlife utilization of the area is sparse;
                    however, the data which does exist indicates that Shell Island offers good
                    habitat for many species of birds and small mammals.

                    Most of the manmade and natural estuarine islands of the area are heavily
                    vegetated with shrubs and small trees.       These islands are heavily used by
                    marsh foraging mammals and birds.       Unvegetated manmade islands have been
                    heavily used in the past by colonially nesting seabirds; however, this use
                    has tapered off in recent years due to the confinement of dredged mat.erial
                    disposal to just a few locations, thereby permitting most of the previously
                    bare sand islands to vegetate.

                    Wetlands.

                    Wetlands are extremely abundant in the study area with about 70 percent of
                    its 2,800 acres being salt marsh and tidal creeks.       The marshes of the area
                    are comprised principally     of Spartina alterniflora.      The transition zone
                    between the salt marsh and    upland areas is dominated by   Spartina patens   with
                    interspersed patches of       Distichlis spicata, Salicornia virginica, and
                    Borrichia frutescens.      These wet-lands are   very impo  rtant to the marine
                    resources and wildlife of the study area due- to their high primary
                    productivity and refuge/foraging value;      While- no studies are known to have
                    been done on the productivity of the salt       ,marshes of the study area, the
                    productivity for such marshes generally falls in the range of 329 to 1,296
                    dry wt/m2/yr (Keefe 1972).        When this   is  combined with the additional

                                                            17

               productivity       of    approximately       100g    carbon/m2/yr       f.or    phytoplankton
               (Thayer 1971)      .a.nd approximately     200g carbon/m2/yr for benthic microalgae
               (Peterson and Peter     &on 1979), the     high productivity     Iof these systems becomes

               apparent.

                                   Condition if no Federal Action is Taken

               The purpose of this report section is to examine the differences between the
               base condition of       the -study area's significant resources and future condi-
               tion.s,   based -'on.-  ..e'k i.s t i ng trends, scientific    judgments,     and     economic
               projections.        Th is, !report   section provides a basis of comparison for
               evaluating the impact        of any plans of improvement which ultimately emerge
               from the study.

               The  base condition for analyzing the authorized Shore and Hurricane Wave
               Protection project is that the project, as originally 'requested, was for
               Federal   aid for periodic nourishment for a 10-year trial basis .                At the end
               of the 10 years the project would be reexamined to determine the technical
               viability    of periodic nourishment and to determine if Federal participation
               inI periodic nourishment is the most eff           icient and economic solution.            The
               future condition of      the  p*roject is described below.

                                     Future   Condition at Masonboro Inlet

               Estimates indicate that the 60,000 cubic yards of sand, as determined in the
               shore processes analysis to. be a navigation project re             sponsibility, will be
               placed along the shoreline-of         Wrightsville Beach on an average annual basis
               by the Federal Government.            (See plate     8 for details on the navigation
               project.)

                                                             18

                                                                                     Rev. 2/22/83

                                               Future Condition of        Natural Resources

                          It is estimated that the Shore and Hurricane Wave Protection                       .-,project will
                          suffer an average annual deficit of 70,000 cubic yards of., sand.                               This
                          deficit will equal the total annual erosion rate minus the annual rate of
                          material placed as a navigation project responsibility.                        It is important
                          that the design profile for the berm and dune be maintained to provide
                          maximum storm protection.                The authorized Shore and Hurricane Wave
                          Protection project was formulated for storm protection.                     It was designed. to
                          protect against wave action from a 35-year storm.                      This   berm width is        in
                          excess of what is needed to support recreational benefits claimed.

                                             Future Condition of Socioeconomic Resources

                          Accompanying the annual deficit of sand on Wrightsville Beach will be an
                          annual decrease in the remaining level of shore, protection, and - a corre-
                          sponding decrease in the width of public beach available for recreation.
                          Thus, damages associated with the existing conditions can be expected to
                          occur in the future.         How6ver, -as discussed below, beach use demand in the
                          Planning Area is projected to increase.

                          The 1990 through 2035 projections of populations, employment, and per capita
                          income presented below are based on draft (1c)82) county disaggregations of
                          State OBERS projections for North Carolina.

                                                                    TABLE I

                                                                New Hanover Count
                              Year                     1990     -2000       2010       2020        2030      2035
                              Population              117,588   129,814     140,359   149.658   157,520     161,658
                              Empl.oymL-nt             57,582    63,701     68,075     69,245    70,552      71,221
                              Per Capita Income        6,246      7,905      9,869,    11,817    14,323      15,842
                              (in 1972 dollars)

                                                                Wrightsville Beach
                              Year                     1990       2000 1 1    20101 f'52020        2030      2035
                              Beach Day Visitation 593,200      878.000    299,70q     12'@ C'512'@       1,512,900
                              (Annual User Days)

                                                                      19

                                  Problems, Needs, and Opportunities,

            Based on the public concerns identified previously,. there exi.sts a need for
            shore protection improvements in the form of continued beach nourishment at
            Wrightsville Beach.    This need has been verified through the analysis of
            existing conditions described briefly in the previous report section.

            The   concerns   of    agencies   and    individuals   having    interests    and
            responsibilities related to environmental quality have also been verified.
            Studies by the Wilmington District, as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
            Service indicates that the area does indeed possess significant natural
            resources which are important to the Nation's continued environmental
            quality.

                                        Planning Objective

            Based on the public concerns identified    -previously, and verified through an
            analysis of existing and probable future conditions,       there is  a need for
            shore protection at Wrightsville Beach.        Therefore, shore protection at
            Wrightsville Beach is the planning objective.

            The problem of estuarine shoreline erosion was a Stage I planning objective
            that was evaluated dur ing Stage II, resulting in the following findings: . a
            field survey showed that 71 percent of the shoreline bordering develo.pment
            was stabilized by some form of structure; the shoreline is privately owned;
            erosion of the unstabilized portions of the shoreline has largely been
            attributable to the effects of boat wakes; the Wildlife Resource Commission
            of North Carolina has the enforcement authority for no-wake zones; model

            studies at Masonboro Inlet indicated that velocities in Banks Channel were

            not increase d enough by channel dredging to account for erosion expe   .rienced.
            Therefore, this planning objective was dropped during Stage II.

                                                  20

                                                Future Condition of        Natural     Resources

                          It is estimated that the Shore and Hurricane Wave Protection- project will
                          suffer an average annual deficit of 70                 1 000 cubic yards of,          sand.       This
                          deficit will equal the total annual erosion rate minus the annual rate of
                          material placed as a navigation project responsibility.                          It is important
                          that the design profile for the berm and dune be maintained to provide
                          maximum storm protection.                 The authorized Shore and Hurricane Wave
                          Protection project was formulated for storm protection.                       It was designed        to
                          protect against wave action from a 35-year storm.                       This   berm width is         in
                          excess of what is needed to support recreational benefits claimed.

                                             Future Condition of Socioeconomic Resources

                          Accompanying the annual deficit of sand on Wrightsville Beach will be an
                          annual decrease in the remaining level of shore. protection, and a corre-
                          sponding decrease in the width of public beach available for recreation.
                          Thus, damages associated with the existing -conditions can be expected to
                          occur in the future.          How6ver, as discussed below, beach use demand in the
                          Planning Area is projected to increase.

                          The 1990 through 2035 projections of populations, employment, and per capita
                          income presented below are based on draft (1982) county disaggregations of
                          State OBERS projections for North Carolina.

                                                                     TABIE I

                                                                 New Hanover Count
                              Year                      1990        2000      2010      2020        2030      2035
                              Populati.on              117,588   129,814     140,359   149.658   157,520      161,658
                              Employment                57,582     63,701     68,075    69,245    70,552       71,221
                              Per Capita  Income        6,246       7,905      9,869     11,817   14,323       15,842
                              (in 1972 dollars)

                                                                 Wrightsville Beach
                              Year                      1990        2000       20101 i__2020        2030      2031
                              Beach Day Visitation 593,200       878.000     299,      '512'@ f'512'@       1,512,900
                              (Annual User Days)

                                                                        19

                                  Problems, Needs, and,Opportuni  ties.

            Based on the public concerns identified previously, there.. exists. a need for
            shore protection improvements in the form of continued beach nourishment at
            Wrightsville Beach.    This need has been verified through the analysis of
            existing conditions described briefly in the previous report section.

            The   concerns    of   agencies   and    individuals   having    interests    and
            responsibilities related to environmental quality have also been verified.
            Studies by the Wilmington District, as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
            Service indicates that the area does indeed possess significant natural
            resources which are important to the Nation's continued environmental
            quality.

                                        Planning Objective

            Based on the public concerns identified -previou-sly, and verified through an
            analysis of existing and probable future conditions, there is a need for
            shore protection at Wrightsville Beach.        Therefore, shore protection at
            Wrightsville Beach is the planning objective.

            The problem of estuarine   shoreline erosion was a Stage I planning objective
            that was evaluated durin g Stage II, resulting in the following findings: . a
            field survey showed that 71 percent of the shoreline bordering develo.pment
            was stabilized by some form of structure; the shoreline is privately owned;
            erosion of the unstabilized portions of the shoreline has largely been
            attributable to the effects of boat wakes; the Wildlife Resource Commission
            of North Carolina has the enforcement authority for no-wake zones; model

            studies at Masonboro Inlet indicated that velocities in Banks Channel were

            not increased enough by channel dredging to account for erosion expe    .rienced.
            Therefore, this planning objective was dropped during Stage II.

                                                  20

                                  SECTION III - FORMULATION OF PRELIMINARY PLANS

                      Formulation of plans to address the planning objective is the second of the
                      four functional planning tasks described in the introductory section of this
                      report.   This section consists of three parts:       (1) Management Measures,
                      which describes the general approaches which might be used in addressing the
                      planning objective; (2) Plan Formulation Rationale, which describes the
                      basic assumptions and procedures used; and (3) Analysis of Preliminary
                      Plans, which analyzes the plans considered and identifies those which should
                      be retained for future consideration.

                                                 Management Measures

                      There are essentially two categories of management measures available to
                      address the need for shore protection improvements at Wrightsville Beach.
                      These  consist   of  (1)   structural  alternatives,   and   (2)   nonstructural

                      alternatives.

                      The preliminary plans described in the following report sections include
                      both structural and nonstructural alternatives, as well as a display of the
                      economic advantages'and disadvantages of each.

                                              'Plan Formulation Criteria

                      As noted previously, there exist two basic categories of management measures
                      to address the planning objective:      structural and nonstructural improve-
                      ments.    Preliminary plans based on these measures were developed and

                      evaluated within a framework of Plan Formulation Criteria.       These are set

                      out below, followed by a description of the preliminary plans considered.

                      Technical Criteria.

                      1.   Berm and dune designs were based on the design used for the existing
                      shore protection project which was just recently renourished (Avril 1981)
                      and is at the design level of protection.

                                                             21

             Economic Criteria.

                 Plans 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 3A, and 4 were not updated from Stage    II dev  elopment
             because their benefit-cost ratios were far below unity (0.44 or less).

             2.   For Plan 5, an interest rate of 7-7/8 percent and a period of analysis
             of 50 years were used for computation of benefits and costs.      The base year
             is 1987 and October 1982 price levels were used.      As explained previously,
             the southern 5,000 linear feet of the authorized berm and dune project is
             projected to remain stable even if Wrightsville Beach does not receive any
             additional artificial nourishment.

             3.   Any alternative, to be considered implementable, must produce economic
             benefits which exceed economic costs.

             Environmental and Other Criteria.

             No commitment of resources will be made until required permits and

             entitlements have been obtained.

                                  .Description of Preliminary Plans

             The preliminary plans presented in this report section were formulated
             utilizing both categories of management measures described previously:
             structural and nonstructural alternatives.        Also, the preliminary plans
             varied in scope in that one plan included an evaluation of the existing
             shore protection project, another plan included a nonstructural analysis for
             Wrightsville Beach, while the, remaining plans included both structural and
             nonstructural analysis for protection along the        northern  2,800 feet of
             Wrightsville Beach which is presently unprotected.      In all cases, the plan
             formulation criteria described previously were utilized in determining the
             economic, environmental, and technical feasibility of each plan.

             Plans 1A, IB, 2, 3; and 3A      Extension of the Authorized Shore Protection
             Project Northward.

                                                 22

                                                                         Rev. 2/22/83

                   Plan \'l-A provides for the extension of the authorized shore protectioti
                   project" northward, a distance of about 2,800 feet, to protect the developed
                   area immediately north of the existing project limits.      The berm and dune
                   fill would be constructed seaward of the present town building line along
                   that section of shore (see plates 1 and 3).     The benefit-to-cost ratio for
                   this plan is 0.23, therefore, this plan is not economically feasible and is

                   not recommended for further consideration.

                   Plan 1-B extends the authorized project northward the same distance as Plan
                   1-A, but requires the relocation of the building line and the oceanfront row
                   of structures.    This action would result in a less bulbous shoreline

                   configuration, reducing erosion losses relative to Plan I-A.     In both Plans
                   I-A and 1-B, the proposed dune extension would tie into the existing natural
                   dune to the north (see plates 2 and 3).    The benefit-to-cost ratio for this
                   plan is 0.24, therefore, this vlan is not economically feasible and is not
                   recommended for further consideration.

                   Plan 2. This plan combines the basic features of Plans     1-A and 1-B, with a
                   requirement that an y future development in the presently  undeveloped section
                   of the barrier island be required to locate landward of    a proposed building
                   line for the area. (See plate 4.) This plan was formulated with the intent
                   that by proper planning and land management, the development of the rest of
                   the Shell Island section could occur in a manner which maximized the avail-

                   able natural shore protection offered by the stable beach and large primary
                   dunes, and thus precluded the need to consider further extension of the
                   authorized shore protection project. This plan would have required that the
                   Town of Wrightsville Beach, through its planning and zoning Jurisdiction,
                   establish the recommended building line as a condition for the project
                   extension considered in Plan 1. if the regulatory approach to this question
                   was -found to be contrary to Corps   policy, then an alternate approach would
                   be considered.   In this approach, an alternate site development plan would
                   be formulated and evaluated to demonstrate that the site could be developed
                   to the same or greater density (and profit) as envisioned by the owner/

                                                      23

              developers, and yet in a manner which did not encroach on the large dunes
              which provide the last line of defense during storm events.

              Since Plans I-A and I-B were found not to be economically       feasible, Plan 2
              will not be considered further in this investigation.              However, all
              technical information developed by the Wilmington District      in the course of
              formulating and evaluating Plan 2 will be presented            to  the town of
              Wrightsville Beach.    If the town is successful in efforts to     establish the
              recommended building line, no future need of extension of the authorized
              project will occur.

              Plan 3. This plan combines the basic features of Plans I-A and I-B, with a
              recommendation that the entire presently undeveloped section of Shell Island
              be acquired for preservation in ' its natural state.      (See plate 5.)      Like
              Plan 2, Plan 3 was formulated to fulfill a planning objective, namely
              protection and enhancement-of environmental and esthetic qualities of the
              remaining undeveloped section of barrier island in the study area.            This
              objective derived from local citizen concerns, as well as from specific
              guidelines applicable to the conduct of Federal water resource planning
              investigations.     In particular, 33 CFR, Part 239, "Implementation of
              E.O. 11088 on Floodplain Management" states in Section 239.6, "Objectives of

              the Order" that:

                  "the Executive Order has as an objective the avoidance.          of long and
                  short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modifica-
                  tion of the base floodplain.        whenever there is a practicable alter-
                  native. The Corps is require&to provide leadership and take action to:
                  [a] avoid development in the base floodplain unless it is the only
                  practicable alternative.
                  [b] reduce the hazard and risk associated with floods.
                  [c] minimize the impact of-floods on human safety, health and welfare.
                  [d) restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values of the base
                  floodplain." [underlining added for emphasis]

              Additionally, it wag considered that a scheme such as Plan 3 would be
              directly responsive to meeting the National objective of Environmental
              Quality, and thus be a candidate EQ plan for this investigation.         In this
              regard, the acquisition of the remaining undeveloped barrier island would be

                                                      24

                    considered a "separable EQ measure to meet established planning objectives,"
                    as outlined in ER 1165-2-28.    This ER further states that "such separable EQ
                    measures for Corps implementation must be related to, or take advantage of,
                    opportunities created by a water resource development to be recommended for
                    implementation by the Gorps of Engineers."          Had the authorized project
                    extension considered in Plans 1-A or I-B been found feasible and thus "a
                    water resource development. . . for implementation by the Corps," then the
                    preservation of Shell Island could have been evaluated as a "Separable EQ
                    measure" of the overall plan. However, because Plans I-A and I-B were found
                    to be infeasible, the linkage between the "recommended water resource
                    development" and the "separable FQ feature" no longer existed.          Therefore,
                    this plan will not be considered further in this investigation.

                    Plan 3-A.  This plan was developed as an alternative to total preservation,
                    which presumes a minimum level of disturbance and human activity in the
                    area.   (See plate 5.)    Tinder Plan 3-A, the undeveloped Shell Island area
                    would be acquired and managed for recreation use, which provides NED
                    benefits riot obtained in Plan 3.      The estimated annual recreation benefit
                    could then be compared to the equivalent annual cost of acquiring the land
                    and managing it for recreational use.       The benefit-to-cost ratio for this
                    plan is 0.44; therefore, this plan is not economically feasible and is not

                    recommended for further consideration.

                    Plan 4 - Nonstructural Flood Damage Reduction Measures

                    Plan 4.   This plan involves the application of nonstructural flood damage
                    reduction measures to existing development within the study area.         The plan
                    was formulated with the intent of providing protection against inundation
                    damages accompanying up to a 100-year flood for every structure in
                    Wrightsville Beach. The basic stage frequency relationship used in develop-
                    ing this plan is the N.O.A.A. curve of total tide height (feet m.s.l.)
                    versus return period in years (see Plate 6).          The still water elevation
                    accompanying the 100-year storm is 13.1 feet m.s.l. The development of this
                    plan as one of the major areas of study effort"is directly responsive to the
                    increasing National emphasis in water resource planning for the considera-

                                                            25

            tion of nonstructural approaches to flood damage problems        The benefit-to-
            cost ratio for this plan is 0.36; therefore , this plan is not economical I V
            feasible and is not recommended for further consideration.

            Plan 5 - Evaluation of the Completed Shore Protection Project

            Evaluation of Completed Shore Protection Project.     This evaluation was added
            as a' study objective during the latter part of this investigation, in view
            of the fact that authority for further Federal contribution toward the cost
            of project nourishment expired with the recently completed (April 1981)
            restoration.   This expiration was in accordance with the terms of project
            cost   sharing  as   specified   in  the   original   authorization   (H.D. 511,
            PL 87-874, 22 October 1962) but inconsistent with Federal shore protection
            projects authorized after 1975.     Since that date, Federal participation in
            the cost of beach nourishment has been authorized for project life.      This is
            an, analysis of the existing Wrightsville Beach shore protection project with
            respect to two basic areas, namely:,

                o Study Area Shore Processes        specifically, a determination of the
            present erosion rate at Wrightsville Beach and the relative magnitudes of
            the factors which contribute to the erosion problem.

                o Economic feasibility of continued beach nourishment for project life.

            Economic Evaluation:    Costs.   As indicated earlier, the primary purpose of
            the shore processes analysis is to establish a better quantification of the
            causative factors related to the erosion of the shore protection fill,
            namely:

                (1) Erosion attributable to the effects of the Masonboro Inlet naviga-
            tion project (specifically, the jetties) in reducing the rate of natural
            sand bypassing to Wrightsville Beach.      The placement of this 60,000 cubic
            yards of sand onto Wrightsville Beach will be considered an annual cost in
            the operation of the navigation project.

                                               26

                            (2) Erosion attributable to the previously described unstable, convex-
                        seaward alignment of the shore protection project which is estimated to be
                        41,000 cubic yards of sand per year.

                            (3) Erosion attributabie to natural processes.      This will be equal to
                        the historic erosion rate prior to man-induced changes at Masonboro Inlet
                        and Wrightsville Beach which is estimated to be 29,000 cubic yards of sand

                        per year.

                        The total of  the erosion rates determined for items ( 1) , (2) , and (3) is
                        130,000 cubic yards and the average annual quantity of sand required to
                        maintain the  shore protection project at the design level of protection.
                        -item (1) will be a navigation project cost.   The sum of items (2) and (3),
                        the alignment-related and natural erosion components, respectively, will
                        represent the average annual quantity of sand allocated as a responsibility
                        of the shore protection project.    The cost of replacing the latter quantity
                        of' sand will then represent the equivalent average annual cost of nourish-
                        ment for the project life.     Discussion of the average annual costs to be
                        allocated to the shore protection project will be presented first, followed
                        by a discussion and summary of the benefits derived from continued project

                        nourishment.

                       ,There are two additional terms used in the following discussion which should
                        be defined to avoid confusion.    The "with project" condition is defined as
                        the continued existence and nourishment of the authorized shore protection
                        project for project life.    The completion of the recent restoration effort
                        (April 1981) is considered the start of the period for this analysis.        The
                        project is presently considered to be at its full authorized level of
                        protection.   The "with project" condition assumes that all erosion losses
                        will be replaced.

                        The "without project" condition is defined as that which would occur in the
                        absence of future nourishment allocated to the shore protection project.
                        This condition assumes that:

                                                              27

                 o The authorized project is at the design level of protection at the
             completion of the most recent beach renourishment (April 1981).

                 o 60,000 cubic yards of sand, as determined in the shore processes
             analysis to be a navigation project responsibility, will be placed along the
             shoreline of Wrightsville Beach on an average annual basis.

                 o The shore protection project will suffer an average annual deficit of
             70,000 cubic yards of sand.       This deficit will equal the total annua.1
             erosion rate minus the annual rate of material placed as a navigation
             project responsibility.

             Accompanying the annual deficit of sand on Wrightsville Beach will be an
             annual decrease in the remaining level of shore protection, and a corre-
             sponding decrease in the width of public beach available for recreation.
             The difference between the average annual damages with project and the
             average annual damages without project (in which damages     increase with time
             as the remaining level of protection decreases) is the            annual damage
             reduction benefit    for continued    project   nourishment.     Similarly,    the
             difference between recreational use with project and use     without project is
             the basis for determining the average annual recreation benefit.

             The annual cost of nourishment allocated to the shore protection project was
             determined in the following manner:

                 o Determine the cost of the first sand bypassing operation from
             Masonboro Inlet to Wrightsville Beach (1987).

                 o Determine the cost of future sand bypassing operations from Masonboro
             Inlet to Wrightsville Beach.

                                                   28

                                                                      Rev. 2/22/83

                          0 Determine the number of such operations required for          the remaining
                     project life.

                          o Discount the cost of each future sand bypassing operation to arrive at
                     present worth.

                          o Separate out those costs associated with maintenance of the hurricane
                     flood protection portion of the project.

                          0 Multiply   the   total  present   worth   of   future   bypassing ' by    the
                     appropriate I&A factor to determine the equivalent average annual cost.

                          o Apply the appropriate percentage to determine that portion of the
                     gross average annual cost of sand replacement allocated to the shore
                     protection project.     The balance is thus allocated as the average annual
                     cost of bypassing to be charged to Masonboro Inlet navigation project.

                                                        TABLE 2A

                     Cost Estimate,* First Sand Bypassing at Masonboro Inlet in 1987
                          Criteria:
                              Annual  gross erosion rate: 130,000 cubic yards/year
                              Years to first bypassing operation: 6
                              Bypasgi.ng charged to Masonboro Inlet navigation project is
                               bein&.accomplished and one will be scheduled concurrently
                               With,shore protection project bypassing in 1987
                              Quaritity to,be dredged, first operation:
                                Assigned to shore protectio7 project:
                                 (1405-000 CY + 280,000 cy)-L                          420,000 cy
                                Assig ned to navigation project:                       120,000 cy
                                Total.                                                 540,000 cy
                              Dredge: 18 inch
                              Maximum length pipeline: 20,000 fee
                              Unit Cost: $4.28/cubic yard inplace-
                              Dredging Cost: (540,000 cubic yards @      $4.28)     $2,311,000
                          Vegetative Maintenance                                          8,000
                          Mob. & Demob.- O.s.)                                         259,000
                              Subtotal                                              $2,578,00@
                          Contingencies (20%)                                          516,000
                              Subtotal                                              $3,094,000
                          E&D                                                            37,000
                          S&A                                                          173,000
                              Total                                                 $3,304,000

                                                         29

                                                                                  Rev 2/22/83

                 The first operation assigned to the shore protection project will
             include the initial placement of 140,000 cubic yards required at 2-year
             intervals and all periods of maintenance missed since project restoration in

             1981.

             2/
                 Unit cost is based on the contract cost (24 October 1980) for the
             1981 beach restoration at Wrightsville Beach updated to October 1982 price
             levels using programming price level update factors for contract dredging
             (pipeline) which includes beach erosion control projects.       Factor for 1980

             to 1981 is 1.15 and 1.07 for 1981 to 1982.

             Annual costs for maintenance of the hurricane flood protection portion of
             the project is based on values reported in the Design Memorandum for the
             original project (see page 8 of this report)    and are:

             Hurricane Flood Protection Maintenance Costs

             Annual berm maintenance: 5,600 cy @ $4.28 =       $24,000
             Annual dune maintenance: 1,000 cy @ $4.28 =         4,000
             Annual vegetative maintenance:                      4,000
             Total                                             $32,000
             Total for 2- year intervals                       $64,000

             The cost allocation for the first bypassing operation     is:

             Navigation Project-020,000 cy/540,000 cy X $3,304,000)          $ 734,000
             Hurricane Flood Protection ($32,000 X 6 yrs)                        192,000
             Beach,Erosion (remaining costs)                                   2,378,000
             Total                                                            $3,304,000

                                                   30

                                                                    Rev. 2/22/83

                                                        TABLE 2B

                   Cost Estimate, Future Sand Bypassing at Masonboro Inlet
                        Criteria:
                            Annual gross erosion rate: 130,000 cubic yards/year
                            Bypassing operation interval: 2 years
                            Quantity to be dredged, each operation:                      260,000 cy
                            Dredge: 18 inch
                            Maximum length pipeline: 20,000 feet
                            Unit Cost: $4.28/cubic yard inplace
                            Dredging Cost: (260,000 cubic yards @ $4.28)              $1,113,000
                        Vegetative Maintenance                                              8,000
                        Mob. & Demob. (l.s.)                                             259,000
                            Subtotal                                                  $1,380,000
                        Contingencies (20%)                                              276,000
                            Subtotal                                                ..:$1,656,000
                        E&D                                                                37,000
                        S&A
                            Total                                                     $1,,786,000

                   The cost allocation for future bypassing        operations is:

                   Navigation Project (60,000 cy/130,000 cy        X $1,786,000)         824,006
                   Hurricane Flood Protection ($32,000 X 2 yrs)                           64 1,00.0'.1
                   Beach Erosion (remaining costs)                                       898,000,:.
                   Total                                                              $L,7M,000

                   It   was   estimated    that   a  total    of   25  sand   b ypa 9 s. iR9 operAtions   to
                   Wrightsville -Beach would be required at 2-year intervals           during the project
                   life.    Finally, the average annual cost allocated          to  the, authorized   shore
                   protection project for hurricane flood protection and beach           erosion is:

                                                        TABLE 3
                                          Summary - Annual Cost of Nourishment
                              Allocated to Shore and Hurricane Wave Protection Project

                   Hurricane Flood Protection                                   @ 7-7/8% Interest

                   @($192,000 + ($64,000)(5.948078))(0.08057)                      $ 46,000

                   -Beach Erosion

                   ($2,378,000 + ($898,000)(5.948078))(0.08057),=                   622,000
                   Total                                                           $668,000

                                                           31

                                                                                    Rev. 2/22/83

            Economic Evaluation:      Benefits.     The three basic categories of benefits
            generated    by   the   shore   protection    project     and  evaluated    in . this
            investigation are beach erosion control, flood damage reduction, and

            recreation.

            Beach Erosion Control. Benefits for beach erosion control include the value
            of land and improvements that would be lost to erosion.          The average annual
            value of the land losses would be $225,700.           The average annual value of
            structures lost to erosion would be $209,300.

            Flood Damage Reduction.        Flood damages as a function of storm return
            interval were computed, for the preproject shoreline condition and for the
            Authorized Project with continued maintenance (1981) conditiori.         The results

            are shown below:

                Average Annual Damages for Preproject                    $575,400
                    Shoreline Condition

                Average Annual Damages    for Authorized                 $300,400
                   Project With Continued Maintenance       Condition

                Average Annual Flood Damage Reduction      with          9275,000
                   Authorized Project and Continued Maintenance

            If the authorized project is not maintained,           and   after considering the
            average annual erosion rate and the resulting losses,            the average annual
            flood damage reduction benefits for the 50-year period of analysis would be
            $169,500.

            The increased   real value of damageable residential contents in the future
            was projected   using the projected growth rate of p      er capita income.      After
            considering the residential structures lost to erosion during the 50-year
            period of analysis, the average annual flood damage reduction benefits
            relat.ed to the projected increased value of residential contents would be
            $35,300.   Total flood damage reduction benefits would be $204,800 ($169,500
            + 35,300).

                                                    32

                                                                                  Rev. 2/22/83

                  Recreation.   The unit day value evaluation procedure for     'determining recrea-
                  tion benefits was selected, and a unit day value of $3.20 was established.
                  A maximum daily capacity of 22,500 was determined, and the total number of
                  days used in a beach season was 90.          Beach use demand was projected to
                  exceed parking capacity in the. year 2011.      Be nefits were projected to begin
                  -in the year 2003, when projected beach use demand would first exceed the
                  .capacity of the southern 5,000 linear feet of beach projected to remain
                  stable.   Benefits would increase yearly as demand increases until the year
                  2011 when parking capacity is reached.            From that point through the
                  remainder   of   the   50-year   period,    benefits    would  remain    the   same.

                  Recreational visitations and values are shown below:

                  Year         Unit Day Value       Visitations           Recreational Value

                  2003               $3.20                3,754                   121,013
                  2010               $3.20              360,365               $1 iI 5 1-68
                  2011               $3.20              387,900               $1.1:@).241- t180

                  The average   annual. value of the recreation benefits would

                  Table 4 presents     a.-summary   of the benefits and costs.       associated with
                  continued maintenance    of the authorized berm and dune    project.

                                                           33

                                                                                  Rev 2/22/83

                                                   TABLE 4

                                            Benefit-Cost Summary
                               Continued Maintenance of Wrightsville Beach
                                           Berm and Dune Project
                        50-Year Period of Analysis, 7-7/8 Percent Interest Rate

             Benefit Category                                   Average Annual Benefits

             Beach Erosion Control: Land                                $225,700
                                       Structures                        209,300
             Flood Damage Reduction                                      169,500
               Increase in Value of    Residential Contents               35,300
             Recreation                                                  270,500

             Total Average Annual Benefits                              $910,300

             Total Average Annual Costs                                 $668,000

             Benefit-to-Cost Ratio                                           1.36

                                                        34

                                                                         Rev 2/22/83

                          SECTION IV - ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF DETAILED PLANS

                  Based on the economic analysis summarized in the preceding report section,
                  Plan 5 is the only plan retained for detailed considerations.       This section
                  of the report consists of impact assessment and evaluation of the detailed
                  plan.

                  Impact assessment, task three of the four functional planning tasks
                  described in the introductory section of this report, is primarily an
                  objective analysis conducted to identify and measure the likely economic,
                  social, and environmental impacts expected to result from implementation of
                  the detailed plan.

                  Evaluation, task four of the funcfional planning tasks, involves an analysis
                  of the acceptability of the plan to the concerned public, and its contribu-
                  tion to fulfillment of the planning objective.      Also, the plan's contribu-
                  tion to the national economic development, the national environmental
                  quality, and other considerations of national importance must be     evaluated.

                                              Impact Assessment

                  The impact of Plan    5 on each of the study area's sighi*ficant re     .sIo:urces,
                  identified in the earlier section of the "Existing Conditions,"     is  de.scribed

                  below.

                  Imp act to Socioeconomic Resources.

                  Continued   maintenance,  of   the   existing   shore   protection   project.,  at
                  Wrightsville Beach will   have a favorable impact on the regional    economy due
                  .to recreation and prevention of land loss and loss to @property.            Those
                  categories of benefits, which were used         for economic analysis in the
                  pre-ceding evaluation of preliminary plans are described below.

                  Flood Damage Reduction    Physical damages   from water action Vill be reduced.
                  Flood, damages to increased real value of   residential contents in the future

                                                       35

            will be reduced to the extent that residential structure damages are reduced
            and residential structures lost     to erosion are prevented by the continued
            maintenance of the project.

            Beach Erosion Control - Physical loss of land and improvements due to
            erosion will be prevented by the continued maintenance of the project.

            Recreation    reduction in beach area available for recreation will be pre-
            vented by the continued maintenance of the project.

            Impact on Natural Resources.

            The,impact of Plan 5 to each of the area's significant natural resources is
            described in the "Existing Conditions" section as well as in the "Environ-
            mental Assessment" section of this report.       Based on the impact analysis
            presented in Section 4.01 of the ".Environmental Assessment," it was
            determined that the impacts to the aforementioned significant resources will
            be minor and temporary in nature.

                                   Evaluation of Detailed Plan

            The purpose of this report section is to evaluate the effectiveness of the
            detailed plan in meeting the planning objectives for shore protection at
            Wrightsville Beach. Also, under current water resource planning authorities
            and related laws, certain other effects must also be evaluated.

            Contribution to Planning Objective.

            The Detailed Plan described in this study, Plan 5, would provide continued
            shore protection at Wrightsville'Beach.

            Public Views.

            Publ ic views were obtained through the 18 April 1978 meeting, as well as
            numerous   informal   contacts   with   the   concerned   public   during    plan

                                                   36

                 formulation.   Also, coordination has been accomplished with the Federal and
                 State agencies having specific     interests   in the resources    t i ke I y to be
                 impacted by Plan 5.     Coordination of this project will continue through
                 distribution of this draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment.

                 Local interests support Plan 5 and Federal and State agencies consulted
                 during plan formulation are considered to regard the plan as environmentally
                 acceptable.

                 Summary Comparison of Alternative Plans.

                 Table 5 on the following pages presents a "Summary Comparison of Alternative
                 Plans."   This table presents an analysis of Plan 5 and the "No Action"

                 condition.

                 Included in table 5 are the "Four Accounts" which current water resources
                 planning guidelines required be appraised for any plan considered for
                 implementation.   These accounts are:    National Economic Development (NED);
                 Environmental Quality (EQ); Regional Economic Development (RED); and Other
                 Social Effects.(OSE). These four accounts encompass all significant effects
                 of a plan on the human environment as required by the National Environmental
                 Policy Act of 1969.    They also encompass social well being as required by
                 Section 122 of the Flood Control Act of 1970.     Each account shows particular
                 effects on the human environment.          The EQ account shows effects on
                 ecological, cultural, and esthetic attributes of significant natural and
                 cultural resources.   The OSE account shows community impacts and effects on
                 life, health, and safety.     The NED account shows effects on the national
                 economy.    The RED account shows the regional incidence of NED effects,
                 income transfers, and employment.     Contributions to, and detractions from,
                 these four accounts are shown in table 5 on the following pages.

                                                       37

                                                   TABLE 5

                                   SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

                                            PLAN 5                          NO ACTION

            A. PLAN DESCRIPTION             Continued maintenance of        Assume no Federal or
                                            the existing Shore              local action is taken
                                            Protection Project.             at Wrightsville Beach.

            B.   SIGNIFICANT D!PACTS        Maintain the present            Annual decrease in
                                            level of shore protection.      the remaining level of
                                                                            shore protection.

                                            Maintain the present design     Annual decrease in the
                                            beach as it presently           width of public beach
                                            exists for maximum              available for recrea-
                                            recreation benefits.            tion.

            C. PLAN EVALUATION

                 1.  CONTRIBUTION           Provides required shore         None
                     TO PLANNING            protection.
                     OBJECTIVE

                 2.  RELATIONSHIP TO FOUR
                     NATIONAL ACCOUNTS

                     NATIONAL ECONOMIC
                     DEVELOPMENT

                     Beneficial Contributions

                     a. Beach Erosion Control                                   0
                           Land                             $225,700
                           Structures                        209,300            0

                          Flood Damage Reduction             169,500            0
                           Increase in Value
                           of Residential Contents            35,300            0

                          Recreation                         270,500            0

                    Total Average Annual Benefits           $910,300            0

                                                    38

                               SUMMARY CD14PARISOIR OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS--continued

                                                    PLAN 5                    NO ACTION
                NATIONAL ECONOMIC
                DEVELOPMENT (Cont.)

                Adverse Contributions

                a. Annual Project Costs             $668,000                     0

                b. Benefit Cost Ratio                 1.36

                ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

                Beneficial Contributions            None                        None

                Adverse Contributions               None                        None

                OTHER SOCIAL EFFECTS

                Beneficial Contributions

                a. Enhancement of health,           Protection against          None
                safety, and community               flooding and erosion.
                well-being.

                b. Educational, cultural,           Increased water-oriented None
                and recreational                    recreational
                opportunities.                      opportunities.

                Adverse Contributions

                a. Enhancement of health,           None                        Future potential
                safety, and community                                           flood and erosion
                well-being.                                                     damages.

                b. Educational, cultural,           None                        Future water-oriented
                and recreational opportunities                                  recreational
                                                                                opportunities will be
                                                                                constrained.

                REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

                Beneficial Contributions

                a. Increased Income                 None                        Future decrease in
                                                                                beach area and
                                                                                recreational use will
                                                                              ..affect income from
                                                                                recreational related
                                                                              ..,,,,activities.

                b. Increased Employment             No significant increase.    None

                Adverse Contributions

                a. Increased Income                 None                        None

                b. Increased Employment             None                        -None

                                                          39                               Rev 2/22/83

                        Rationale for Designation of NED Plan and LED Plan

            Based on the contribution to the four accounts presented in table 5, the
            plan must be identified which produces the maximum net benefit to National
            Economic Development (NED Plan) and the maximum net benefit to Environmental
            Quality (EQ Plan).     If no plan can be identified which produces a net
            positive effect on environmental quality, the plan which is the least
            environmentally damaging (LED Plan) should be designated.

            In this case, Plan 5 was the only detailed plan developed, due to economic
            infeasibility of the other alternatives considered.          This plan has a
            positive benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.36.     Since there is no space available
            for additional parking along the project area due to the full level of
            development, recreational benefits claimed are the maximum to be achieved
            for the recommended plan.   Therefore, the recommended plan is designated the
            NED plan.   Also, while Plan 5 contains no measures to enhance environmental
            quality, its adverse environmental   impacts are considered to be minor and to
            be outweighed by economic benefits associated with the improvements.
            Therefore, Plan 5 is also designated the LED Plan.

                                   Rationale for Selected Plan

            As established in the previous sections of this report, Plan 5 is the only
            plan which would address the need for shore protection in a manner which is
            economically feasible.     Also, the environmental impacts   of this plan are
            considered to be minor.   Therefore, Plan 5 is designated the Selected Plan.

                                                    40

                                                                      Rev 2/22/83

                                        SECTION V - THE SELECTED PLAN

                  The purpose of this section is to summarize information, from the main
                  report and supporting appendixes, related to the Selected Plan. information
                  is presented as related to the economic justification and environmental
                  impacts of the Selected Plan.    A summary of Cost Allocation and Design and
                  Construction procedures is also included.

                                            Economic Justification

                  Economic justification is based on the determination that economic benefits
                  exceed economic costs.    A summary of economic costs for the Selected Plan

                  follows.

                  Economic Costs - Selected Plan.

                  Annual Costs.

                  Periodic Nourishment: $668,000.

                  As shown above, average annual costs for the Selected Plan are $668,000.
                  Average annual benefits must equal or exceed this amount if the plan is to
                  be considered implementable. A summary of economic benefits follows:

                  Economic Benefits - Selected Plan.

                             Benefit Categories                          Average Annual Benefits

                             Beach Erosion Control
                               Land                                              $225,700
                               Structures                                         209,300
                               Recreation                                         270,500
                             Flood Damage Reduction                               169,500

                               Increase-in Value of  Residential

                               Contents                                            35,300
                                               Total Average Annual Benefits $910,300

                                                     41                       Rev. 2/22/83

             As shown above, total average annual benefits equal $910,300.        With average
             annual costs of $668,000, the benefit-to-cost ratio is      1.36.

                               Allocation and Apportionment of Costs

             Costs for Plan 5 will be shared by the Federal Government and the local
             sponsor.    However, the current Administration is reviewing project cost
             sharing and financing across the entire spectrum of water resource
             development functions and has submitted proposed legislation to Congress for
             navigation projects.      The basic principle governing the development of
             specific cost-sharing policies is that whenever possible the cost of
             services   produced   by  water   projects   should   be   paid   for  by    direct
             beneficiaries.    It is  also recognized that the Federal Government can no
             longer bear the major portion of the financing of * water projects.             New
             sources of project financing, both public and private, will have to be

             found.

             While specific policies applicable for specific flood control projects have.
             not yet been established, non-Federal interest can expect that, under the
             Administration's financing and cost-sharing principles, the level of their
             financial participation could be significantly greater than in the past.
             Accordingly,   actual  apportionment of project cost will be          subject    to
             modified cost-sharing and financing arrangements which are satisfactory to
             the President and to Congress.

             However, under traditional guidelines applicable to beach erosion control
             projects, periodic beach nourishment costs are shared with the Federal
             Government and local sponsor      each paying 50 percent, whereas the cost of
             maintenance of hurricane flood protection projects is the sole responsi-
             bility of the local sponsor.      If the traditional methods of apportioning
             project cost are followed, apportionment of project first cost would be as

             shown below.

                                                   42

                                                                             Rev 2/22/83

                    Cost Allocation - Selected Plan.

                                                               Average Annual Cost

                    Hurricane Flood Protection                    $ 46,000
                    Beach Erosion Control                          622,000
                    Total                                         $668,000

                    Cost Apportionment - Selected Plan.

                                                               Average Annual Cost
                                                Federal Government              Local Sponsor

                Hurricane Flood Protection       $      0                      $ 46,000
                Beach Erosion Control             311,000                       311,000
                Total                            $311,000                      $357,

                                         Environmental Impacts

                The environmental impacts are discussed in the "Environmental Assessment"
                section of this report.   Based on the impact analysis presented in Section
                4.01, impacts to environmental resources in the study area will be minor and
                temporary in nature.

                                        Design and Construction

                The Selected Plan is to continue Federal participation in the Wrightsville
                Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project.    This Will consist
                of placing 70,000 cubic yards of sand on Wrightsville Beach on an average
                annual basis.    This material will be obtained from the Masonboro Inlet

                complex.

                                                    43

                                                                    Rev 2Z22/83

                                          Reco endations

             I recommend that the existing shore and hurricane      wave protection project
             for Wrightsville Beach, N.C., described in House       Document No. 511, 87th
             Congress, be modified to extend Federal participation in periodic nourish-
             ment for the life of the project.     This recommendation is subject to such
             modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be

             advisable.

             The total erosion rate is 130,000 cubic yards and is the average anr.ual
             quantity of sand required to maintain the shore and hurricane wave
             protection project at the design level of protection. The erosion attribut-
             able to the effects of the Masonboro Inlet navigation project (specifically,
             the jetties) in reducing the rate of natural sand bypassing to Wrightsville
             Beach is 60,000 cubic yards per year.      The placement of this 60,000 cubic
             yards of sand onto Wrightsville Beach will be considered an annual cost in
             the operation of the navigation project.     The remaining 70,000 cubic yards
             represents the av erage annual quantity of sand allocated as a responsibility
             of the shore and hurricane wave protection project which is being recommend-
             ed in this report.      The recommended nourishment is estimated to cost

             $668,000 on an average annual basis.

             It is further recommended that authorization of continued nourishment for
             Wrightsville Beach be contingent on the project sponsor giving written
             assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that it will:

                 a.  Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and
             rights-of-way,, including borrow areas, necessary for implementation of the
             project.

               1b.   Accomplish all relocations and alterations of sewerage and drainage
             facilities,  buildings,   streets,   utilities,   and  other   structures   made
             necessary by the construction.

                                                44

                                                                        Rev 2/22/83

                         c. Hold and save the United    States free from damages that may result
                    due to the maintenance of the project other than damages due to the fault or
                    negligence of the United States or its contractors.

                         d.  Contribute its proportionate share of the cost of the periodic
                    nourishment to be performed by the United States.

                         e. Maintain, during the economic life of the project, continued public
                    ownership of the publicly-owned shore upon which the Federal participation

                    is based.

                         f. Adopt   and enforce appropriate ordinances       to  provide   for   the
                    preservation of the improvement and its protective vegetation.

                         g. Continue to enforce flood plain regulations that comply with Federal
                    Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidelines.

                    It is also recommended that construction authorization of the recommended
                    modifications be subject to cost-sharing and financing arrangements with the
                    non-Federal agencies supporting the project which are satisfactory to the
                    President and the Congress.

                                                         ROBERT K. HUGHES
                                                         Colonel, Corps of Engineers
                                                         Commanding
                                                                       1E

                                                         45                    Rev 2/22/83

                                                            CORPS OF ENGINEERS

                                                                              A.

                                                                           L     1.

                                                                                                            J..

                                                                                             "o

                                                                                                                    SHEII   151 AND   SOUND

                                                                                                            lu m I A
                                                                       as gas                            CH O:L I @DA Y
                                                                                                                B           7
                                                                                                             INN         Im
                                                                            a- 91                                                0  -
                                                                0           ac m                                                  to
                                                                   M        m  Im                                db
                                                                 00.                                                       al
                                                                                               ISLANDER                             Is 13
                                                                           HIM at                   MIA 0-0                                  0S
                                                                                                               It" MEHL-

                                                                                                                                      ,'timslo

                                                                           EXISTING PROJECT-                                PROPOSED PROJECT EXTENSION
                                                                           LIM17 OF PROTECTION
                                                                                                                                    PLAN I-A
                                                                                                                                 (NO RELOCATIONS

                                                                                               A r L A 1v r         c                      0 C E

                                                                                    NEW HANOVER  C 0 u IN T v

                                                                                          MARDOR
                                                                                          ISLAND                      lb-

                                                                  M.
                                                                                WRI HTSVILLE BEACH

                                                                                  A r I A N r I C   0 C f A N

                                                                                      S H E E T   I N D E X

                                                                                             CORPS OF ENGINEERS

                                                                                                                      L

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        M

                                                                                                                                                  10

                                                                                                                                                                                       S H E I I    ISi AND         SOUND

                                                                                                                                                                                                             AV
                                                                                                                                                 NORTH                    I U M IA
                                                                                                                      Elm    Jim                                      C===
                                                                                                                                                                      HOLIDAY
                                                                                                            oleo           0                                               INN   El                    M                          a
                                                                                                     Elea: a         113                                                                                    13
                                                                                                               all
                                                                                                    M M     0 lo: M
                                                                                                                                                                                                             wSAA -
                                                                                                    MIMI! 131101,                                                                                                 o To
                                                                                                                                                              0                        .1                         @ @loc-
                                                                                                                                                                                       I "..M.Es
                                                                                                                                                    ISLANDER                             ... TO'
                                                                                                                                                                                           OCA_ D
                                                                                                                                                             140-00
                                                                                                      A

                                                                                                                                            "It *'Dl

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ...... ON

                                                                                                                     EXISTING      PROJECT                                                          PROPOSED PROJECT EXTENSION
                                                                                                                     LIMIT OF PROTECTION                                                                          PLAN I-B

                                                                                                                                                                                                   (BUILDING       LINE      RELOCATED

                                                                                                                                                    A r L A N r                         c                                    0 C E

                                                                                                                                   NEW     HANOVER       C 0 U IN T Y

                                                                                                                                                                   Z.
                                                                                                                                                                  IL

                                                                                                                                             ISLAND

                                                                                                                              WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH

                                                                                                                                 ATi  A N r / C               0 C f A N

                                                                                                                                      S H E E T          I N D E X

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ---- - ---- --
                                                                                                                                                                                       CORPS OF ENGINEERS                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              U. S. ARMY

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              STA. 140+20                                                                                                                                                                     STA. 145+00                                                                                                                                                                        STA. 149+95

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               -10
                                                                                                                                                                                                           I-0                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            PLAN I-A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            1101 Ll
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (I ENTICAL I                                                                                                                                        P F                           PLAN I-A                                                                                                                                                   -PL-. 1-11
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      WITHOUT PROJECT AND                                                                                                                                            PLAN                          PROFILE                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              PLAN I-A PROFILES
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                \, Pe ILE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                PLAN I-t___pk
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                PROFILE                                                                                                                                                      z                                                                                                                                                                     PROJECT>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             z         WITHOUT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    z                                                                                                                                                                                                      PROJECT                                                                                                                                                 PROFILE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           PROFILE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              0

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    v                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              RELOCATED
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     EXISTING                                                                                                                                                                      BUILDING
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     BUILDING                                                                                                                                                                      LINE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    z                                                                                                                                                                                1          0                                                                                                 1                                                       _I(o               'o                             10
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            5                                                 25
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                so         100             1"                                                                                                                        -50                             so   ]Do           150                                        00                                                                                    -S

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              -1.5
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ---EXISTING BUILDING LINE                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 PLAN
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     AT 'HOLIDAY INN                                                                                                                                    RELOCATED                                                                                                                                                                                        EXISTING
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        BUILDING                                                                                                                                                                                         BUIL04NG
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        L HE                                                                                                                                                                                             LINE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           24' @IIUILOING LINE AT-ISLANDER'                                                                                                                             PLAN 1-9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    -t-..LOCA-. 9U.I. IN. LINE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     At' LIDAY INN
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     IPt A"No   1-51
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              NOTE: CJ       SURVEY BASELINE STA.140-20
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           IS THE LA T STATION WITHIN THE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           EX ISTING' PROJECT. IT IS 23' SOUTH
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           OF THE PROJECT T        ERMINUS.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              STA. 155+00                                                                                                                                                         STA. 159+85                                                                                                                                                                                 STA. 168+85

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           PLAN I-A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             PROFILE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           AN I-A                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  PLA I-A                                         WITMOUT-P:OJECT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           20FILE                                                                                                                                                                           P    -6                                                                                                1-8 PROFILE                                           PROF,   L
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    jA                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             No FILL EGUIRED
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       FICIFILE                                                                                                                                     WITOUT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  PL N 1-6                                                                                                                                                                                                  PLA N I.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               I                            ROFILE                                                                                                             It
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    PIT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     WITHOUT                                                                                                                                                                        PROJECT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       OFILE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     PROJECT                                                                                                                                                               0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    SL               PROFILE                                                                                                                                              0          M5 L                                                                                                                                                   LL                                I                             I                         I                          I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    M
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     0                                                                                                                                       -100                             0            50,            4.T-                                                                                                                                             -50                lz0           so,                     150,                         50,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     EXISTING                                                                                                                                                    EXISTING BUILDING                            z
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    BUILD                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     _LINE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    tINE                                                                                                                                                                             MADIN                                                                                                                                                               EXTENSION
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    EXIS ING                    so          loo                                      2@O              60 -                                                                           LINE                                                                                                                                                        RELOCATION NOT                               4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 REGUIRED
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    RELOCATED
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    BUILDING                                                                                                                                                                         RELOCATED                                                                                                                                                                                                              NOLTE: C.I. SURVEY BASELINE STA.1".25
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    LINE                                                                                                                                                                             BUILDING                                                                                                                                                                                                               IS OCATED 160'SOUTM Of THE TERMINUS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    PLAN 1-6                                                                                                                                                                         LIKE                                                                                                                                                                                                                   OF THE PROPOSED EPROJECT EXTENSION.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     PLAN I-B                                                                                                                                                                                                 0             CONSTRUCTED DUN WOULD TIE INTO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            EXISTING NATURAL DUNI AT THIS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            LOCATION.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       WRIGHTSVILLE DBEACH , N.C. AND                          v ICINIT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        BERM AN DUNE EXTENSION
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 PLAN I-A,I-B AND WITHOUT PROJECT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          P R 0 F I L E S
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   I'l AON
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     'LA I-.                       R "Ll@A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     PRO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      W.'.-.T "oj                                                                                                                                L                   F@ft@
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ILAN  I@A @
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           T,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ILAN
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                PROFILE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       W"-OU         T
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           PROJECT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           PROF.     LE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           PLA     I-A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                OFI L,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            P
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            LA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            POFILIE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              @@T-O-T@,'*CUECT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    WIT    OUT                                                                                                                                                                                              1         1.0 @LE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    PRO'   ECI
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             @.O F

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       C.E. SURVEY BASELINE STATIONS

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                U. S. @v @INIDKP, DHlTPHCT. wILNINGTON, N.C.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               FILE NO.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     PLATE 3

                                                                                                                                                   CORPS OF ENGINEERS

                                                                                                                                                                                                     PLAN 2                    FEATURES

                                                                                                                                                                                      A.     E                                                            3000 FT. 1
                                                                                                                                                                                             F:TEND AUTHORIZED SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT
                                                                                                                                                                                              ONTING       EXISTING SMELL        ISLAND DEVELOPMENT.
                                                                                                                                                                                             P:CUICT DUNE TIES INTO EXISTING PRIMARY DUNE IN
                                                                                                                                                                                             POPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT STA. 170.00

                                                                                                                                                                                      B.     ReOUIRE SETBACK OF DEVELOPER'S PROPOSED BUILDING LINE
                                                                                                                                                                                             TO POSITION LANDWARD OF PRIMARY DUNE

                                                                                                                                                                                                     LAND CATEGORY                                                  AREA ACRES

                                                                                                                                                                                             TOTAL LAND AREA IN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:                                        83.4

                                                                                                                                                                                             AREA    LANDWARD OF DEVELOPER'S PROPOSED 6LDG. LINE:                            56.4

                                                                                                                                                                                             AREA    LANDWARD OF RECOMMENDED 111.00@ LINE                                    47 3

                                                                                                                                                                                                     NET DECREASE IN DEVELOPABLE LAND:                                       9.1
                                                                                                                                                                                                     AVERAGE BUILDING LINE SETBACK :                        81 FEET

                                                                                                                                                                                             NUMBER    OF PROPOSED STRUCTURES IN DEVELOPER'S SITE PLAN                       158
                                                                                                                                                                                             NUMB 4 OF PROPOSED STRUCTURES W14OLLY OR PARTIALLY
                                                                                                                                                                                             WITHIEll RECOMMENDED 'NO DEVELOPMENT ZONE:                                      34
                                                                                                                                                                                             NUMBER   OF PR?PO    SEDVSTRUCTURES PREEMPTED BY
                                                                                                                                                                                             RECOM   MINDED NO DE       ILOPMENT' ZONE;                                      10 t

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              c3tc@
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        0                                                    a

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        v                                                             Co

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  lop
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         0-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  c
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              C;bt

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                10\1                                                                        4,\o        @,tq
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       tc,        vo
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ov                a                                              V1.0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       lit"D
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   @o            0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             .,It        C3

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   N E W       HA N 0

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       v-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            7=
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ILI
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  HARB

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          WRIGHTSVILL E         BEAC

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                A f I A N r / c

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         S H     E E

                                                                                                     CORPS OF ENGINEERS

                                                                                                                                      PLAN 3            FEATURES

                                                                                                                             A. :XTEND AUTHORIZED SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT 3000 FT.
                                                                                                                                  RONTING  EXISTING SHELL ISLAND DEVELOPMENT.

                                                                                                                                  PROICT DUNE TIES INTO EXISTING PRIMARY DUNE IN
                                                                                                                                  PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT STA. 170.00

                                                                                                                             B. ACQUIRE 120!ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND NORTH
                                                                                                                                  Of EXISTING DEVELOPMENT FOR PRESERVATION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ca le@@

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         5 t@l

                                                                                                                                                                                                          0

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            t               .011
                                                                                                                                                                                          \), \Ap

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         kt:,-  0?
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       5X           tc.)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           .4t\
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                0@      'ot
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        \0      tv       go,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Ct      OIZO, t'O

                                                                                                                                                                                                      1@0       0      @,t

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  N E W   HAN

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             AR
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             @SL

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    'so  o
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            WRIGHTSVILL E  BEAC

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                A f I A N T I C
                                                                                                                     c@           0, c,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      S H E

                       20

                        18-

                        16-

                        14-

                        10

                        8
                    w
                    @7_                 04
                    -J  6-         loo

                    0
                        4-                                     NOAA CURVE

                                                       - - - - SAW TIDE GAGE
                        2-                                      DATA

                        0
                         1          5     10         50   loo        500
                                          RETURN PERIOD (yr)
                                 STAGE-FREQUENCY CURVE
                                WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, N.C.

                                                                           PLATE 6

                               LOW USE ACCESS                       LOW USE ACCESS                                   LOW USE ACCESS                   LOW USE ACCESS                                   LOW USE ACCESS
                                      POINTS                              POINTS                                       POINTS                                    POINTS                                       POINTS
                                MINIMUM MAIN-                       MINIMUM MAIN-                                    -PUBLIC ACCESS                  -PUBLIC ACCESS                                      NO IMPROVEMENTS
                                TENANCE                             TENANCE                                          SIGNS                              SIGNS
                                RESTRICTION SIGNS                   RESTRICTION SIGNS                                ITTER  CONTAINERS                  LITTER   CONTAINERS
                                                                    PUBLIC ACCESS                                    FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
                                                                    SIGNS                                            OF SMALL SAILBOAT
                                                                    FUTURE DEVELOP-                                  LAUNCHING AREA AT
                                                                    MENT OF SOUND-                                   BRIDGERS OR CHAD-                                                                                                                               it
                                                                    SIDE SWIMMING                                    BOURN 1981-1984
                                                                    AREA AT      SUNSET-
                                                                    1981-1"4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       _h_
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             09 @TREAtMENT
                                                        -4t                                                                                                                                                                                             JAL                 All        EWA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      PLANL_@-
                                                                                                                     tv                                M A R 8
                                                                                                                                                                                IS L A00
                                                                                                    'zIr
                                                                                   'R 4 ,/,r                                                                                                                                                                                        jk
                                                                                                                     4ANNEi
                                                                                                                                                            711                                                                                                 TOWN PROPERTY
                                                                                                                     ITOWN HALL
                            z                                                           souTH vml..                                                                                                                      tA                                 CLE
                                      .3                                                                                                                                            z                                                        C'n'.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            01",
                                                                            OUN
                                                                                                                                                                                                           0
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Z
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       SO                                    .. ..........
                                                                    CIIIIA'

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          milcl
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            FIER

                           MODERATE USE ACCESS                   RESTRICTED                 HIGH USE      ACCESS         MODERATE USE ACCESS                     HIGH USE ACCESS                 MODERATE USE            ACCESS          HIGH USE           ACCESS          MODERATE         USE ACCESS
                                      POINTS                     USE ACCESS                      POINTS                              POINTS                              POINTS                              POINTS                               POINTS                              POINTS
                                                    -               POINTS                  PUBLIC ACCESS SIGNS             PUBLIC ACCESS SIGNS                  - PUBLIC ACCESS SIGNS              PUBLIC ACCESS SIGNS                  -PUBLIC ACCESS SIGNS               - PUBLIC ACCESS SIGNS
                            PUBLIC ACCESS S17,S
                           :INFORMATION & RESTRIC-               -DEVELOP AS                INFORMATION & RE -              INFORMATION 9 RESTRIC-               -INFORMATION & RE-
                            TION SIGNS                              HANDICAPPED             STRICTION SIGNS                                                                                         INFORMATION & RESTRIC-               -INFORMATION & RE-                 -INFORMATION A RESTRIC -
                                                                    ACCESS POINT                                            TION SIGNS                            STRICTION                         TION SIGNS                             STRICTION SIGNS                  TION SIGNS
                           -LITTER CONTAINERS                       IN ACCORD               UTTER CONTAINERS                LITTER CONTAINERS                    -LITTER CONTAINERS               -LITTER CONTAINERS                     -LI TTER CONTAINERS                LITTER CONTAINERS
                           -RAMPS & WALKOVER                        WITH DESIGN             -R     & WA   LKOVER            RAMPS & WA,KOVER                     - RAMPS & WALKOVER                 RAMPS A WALKOVER                     -RAMPS & WALKOVER                  RAMPS & WALKOVER
                            S TR-JCTURES IN ACCORD                  GUIDELIN                SAMPS
                                                                              E S           TRUCTURES IN AC-                STRUCTURES IN ACCORD                  STRUCTURES ADD OB-                STRUCTURES IN ACCORD                   STRUCTURES IN AC-                STR       RESIN ACCORD
                            WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES                                          CORD NITH DESIGN                4VITH DESIGN GUIDELINES               SERVATION DECK &                  WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES                                                  WIT LICTU S
                                                                                            GLII DEL NES -ADD                                                                                                                              CORD WITH DESIGN                     H DE IGN GUIDELINES
                                                                                            0
                                                                                              5    lp                                                             CONNECTING WALK-                                                         GUIDELINES - ADD
                                                                                            B ERVATION DECK                                                       WAYS I" STONE                     DEVELOP ONE APPROPRIATE                OBSERVATION DECK
                                                                                                                                                                  TO OCEANIC                        POINT AS ADDITIONAL
                                                                                            FOOT SHOWERS                                                         -FOOT SHOWERS                      ACCESS POINT FOR HAN-                - FOOT SHOWERS                         RESTRICTED USE               _J
                                                                                            BIKE RACKS -30 SIKES                                                                                    DICAPPED                       I     -BIKE RACKS-30BIKES                    ACCESS POINTS
                                                                                            SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE                                                  -BIKE RACKS- 30 BIKES                                                   *SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE               -RESTRICT TO BIKE &FOOT
                                                                                                                                                                 - SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE                                                                                      TRAFFIC ONLY
                                                                                            LIFE GUARDS                                                          - LIFE GUARDS                                                           -LIFE GUARDS                       -PUBLIC ACCESS SIGNS
                                                                                            CHAIR & UMBRELLA                                                                                                                             -CHAIR & UMBRELLA                  -INFORMATION & RESTRIC-
                                                                                            CONCESSION                                                            CHAIR & UMBRELLA                                                         CONCESSIONS                      TION SIGNS
                                                                                                                                                                  CONCESSIONS                                                                                               -LITTER CONTAINERS
                                                                                                                                                                                       _j.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            RAMPS & WALKOVER
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            STRUCTURES IN ACCORD
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            WIT. DESIGN GUIDELINES
                                                                                                                                                                            SS                                                                              WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
                                                                                                                                                  [.A R @110,@

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            PS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            0 BIKES
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            SER"C    E
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            , JELLA

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       PROPOSED
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
                              0           Soo          1600         2400        3200        4WO           4800         $600          6400                                                                                                                            ACCESS PLAN

                                                        S C A L E                  I N            F E E T

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    (John J. Hooton & Associates, July 1979)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        PLATE 7

                                                 m  't

                                                             z-
                                                                 .
                                                                                                                                  @lvo
                                                   Jo
                                                                                                                                      0

                                                                         H
                                                                            R" or-

                                                                         76
                                                                                                          0
                                                             c
                                                                                                  h
                                                                  4,
                                                          it.     -,4,o.,
                                        U
                                                         IV. "
                                               'k k,.

                                                                    *P0

                             HE
                                                                k:                         WRI&TSVILLE
                                                                                           BEACH

                             y

                                                          L
                                             RSC H A N K E
                                                MARKEIR*'14:       V
                                          .0
                                         C*                                                               cj
                                 0OR90W AREA.

                                                                                                 ol
                                                                   0

                                           AST C-/-ARU
                                              SfATIO
                                    Of                                                 a ca  go
                                       ee        01,

                                       0                                                                  0 cy/yr SAND ACCUMULATIONt
                                      q-                *-              DEPOSITION     13ASIN     (298,00
                                     0
                                                                        BORROW AREA
                                  0
                                                            ASONBORO\
                                                                                                             PLATE 8

                                                                                                 WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, N.C.

                                                                                    SCALE 1,24000
                                     41'         1                                           0                                            1 MILE
                                     I

                                         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
                                                 FOR THE
                                      CONTINUED FEDERAL PARTICIPATION
                                                  IN THE
                                        WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH SHORE AND
                                         HURRICANE WAVE PROTECTION
                                                  PROJECT
                                      NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

                                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS

                    Paragraph                                                                 Page No.

                    Introduction                                                                   EA-3

                    A.   History of the Existing Project                                           EA-3

                    B.   Purpose of this Assessment                                                EA-4

                         1.00   SUMMARY                                                            EA-5
                         1.01   Major Conclusions and Findings                                     EA-5
                         1.02   Areas of Controversy                                               EA-5
                         1.03   Unresolved Issues                                                  EA-5
                         1.04   Relationship of Plans to Environmental Requirements                EA-6

                         2.00   PLAN FORMULATION AND EVALUATION                                    EA-7
                         2.01   Study Authorization                                                EA-7
                         2.02   Authorization of Existing Project                                  EA-7
                         2.03   Description of Existing Project                                    EA-7
                         2.04   Review of Planning Performed in this Study                         EA-8
                         2.05   Alternatives                                                       EA-9

                         3.00   AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT                                               EA-10
                         3.01   Geographic Setting                                                 EA-10
                         3.02   Population and Economics                                           EA-11
                         3.03   Significant Resources                                              EA-12
                                Seashore Area                                                      EA-12
                                Invertebrate Species Occurring in Borrow Areas                     EA-12
                                Water Quality                                                      EA-12
                                Fisheries Resources                                                EA-13
                                Endangered Species                                                 EA-13
                                Cultural Resources                                                 EA-13
                                Terrestrial Resources                                              EA-14
                                Wetlands                                                           EA-14

                         4.00   ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS                                              EA-15
                         4.01   Effects on Significant Resources                                   EA-15
                                Seashore Area                                                      EA-15
                                Invertebrate Species Located in Borrow Areas                       EA-16
                                Water Quality in the Vicinity of Masonboro Inlet                   EA-16
                                Fisheries Resources                                                EA-17
                                Endangered Species                                                 EA-17
                                Cultural Resources                                                 EA-17
                                Terrestrial Resources                                              EA-17
                                Wetlands                                                           EA-18

                                                         EA-1

                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

         Paragraph                                                               Page No.

              5.00 PUBLIC INTEREST                                                  EA-18
              5.01 Public Involvement Program                                       EA-18
              5.02 Required Coordination                                            EA-18
              5.03 Recipients of the Assessment                                     EA-18

         References                                                                 EA-20

                                            ATTACHMENTS
                  Title

         A        Finding of No Significant Impact                                  EA-21
         B        Comments and Responses                                            EA-22

                                             EA-2

                                                         Introduction

                       A. History of the Existing Project.

                           Wrightsville Beach has had a history of erosion problems dating from the
                       earliest attempts to build on the oceanfront.                Local interests began
                       attempts to control erosion in 1923 when five timber groins were constructed
                       along the middle 6,400 feet of the towns ocean shoreline. More groins were
                       added in 1925, 1928, and again 1939.        In addition, 700,000 Cubic yards (cu.
                       yds.) of sandfill were placed on the beach in 1939 to replace some of the
                       sand lost to erosion.

                           Wrightsville Beach experienced heavy property damages as a result of
                       hurricanes occurring in 1944, 1954, 1955, 1958, and 1960. Erosion caused by
                       these hurricanes necessitated the placement of a total of about 500,000 cu.
                       yds. of sand dredged from Banks Channel in four separate operations between
                       1955 and 1959.

                           The Federal Government became involved in providing long-term beach
                       stabilization     in   1962   when   Congress     authorized    (P.L.   87-974)     the
                       construction of a beach e     'rosion control and hurricane protection project
                       along the 14,000 feet of ocean shoreline extending north from Masonboro
                       Inlet, which corresponded to the then existing town limits. The project was
                       constructed in 1965.

                           The dune section had a design width of 25 feet at the crest at an
                       elevation of +15 feet mean low water (m.l.w.), with the landward toe of the
                       dune on or near the town building line. The berm section had a design width
                       of 50 feet at an elevation of +12 feet m.l.w.           A total of about 2,993,000
                       cubic yards of sand from Banks Channel was used in the initial construction,
                       which included both the closure of Moore Inlet, located at about C.E.
                       baseline station 150+00, and advance nourishment along a 2,800- foot section
                       of beach north of the authorized project limit.           Following closure of the
                       inlet, Wrightsville Beach extended its town limits northward to include this
                       2,800 feet of beach. This action created the present situation in which the
                       town limits include 16,800 feet of beach north of Masonboro Inlet (to
                       Station 168+00); whereas, the Federal shore protection project limits
                       include.only 14,000 feet of beach north of the inlet (to Station 140+00).

                           Construction of the northern of the two Masonboro Inlet jetties, which
                       were authorized in 1949, took place between July 1965 and June 1966. During
                       the period of 1965 to 1970, the shore protection project suffered an
                       unexpectedly high rate of erosion of the sand fill, particularly along the
                       northern 7,000 feet of the project shoreline.           This erosion could not be
                       accounted for in terms of slope adjustments or sorting action on the fill.
                       Continued severe erosion necessitated the dredging and placement of about
                       1.4 million cubic yards of fill on the shore protection project in the
                       spring of 1970, after which the project was considered officially completed

                                                            EA-3

              and was turned over to the local sponsor, the town of Wrightsville Beach.
              No additional fill was placed on the project until April 1980.           At that
              time, an emergency fill, consisting of approximately 500,000 cubic yards of
              sand, was placed along the northern 7,000 feet of project shoreline under
              Public Law 84-99 authority.    Upon completion of this work in May 1980, the
              northern half of the project still offered only a portion of the protection
              for which it was designed.

                  Between December 1980 and April 1981, a complete restoration of the
              authorized shore protection project was performed, returning it to the
              design configuration and level of protection for which it was authorized.
              This restoration required the dredging and placement of about 1.25 million
              cubic yards of sand, obtained from the Masonboro Inlet complex and Banks
              Channel and its distribution along the northern 7,000 feet of project
              shoreline.   The restoration was completed using a combination of funds,
              including:

                  1.  Federal Constructi   ,on-General funds for periodic nourishment of the
              project shoreline. (Undet existing authority, this nourishment represented
              the last time that the Federal Government could participate in the cost
              sharing of nourishment.      'The question of modifying existing authority to
              allow continued Federal phrticipation for the project life is addressed in
              this study.)

                  2. Non-Federal cash c'
                                           ontribution.

                  3.  Section III funds: (to mitigate erosion damage of the Wrightsville
              Beach shoreline judged to -have been caused by the Federal navigation project
              at Masonboro Inlet).

                  4.  Masonboro Inlet Ravigation Project O&M funds (for restoration of
              project depths and channel-  alignment).

              B. Purpose of this Assess@nent.

                  This environmental assessment discusses the environmental aspects of the
              current proposal to continue Federal cost sharing in the existing beach
              erosion control/hurricane protection project at Wrightsville Beach.           This
              proposal resulted from 0 general investigation study authorized by a
              resolution of the Commi:ttee on Public Works of the U.S.                House of
              Representatives, dated Z-, December 1970.          During the course of the
              investigation and subsequent report preparation, it became apparent that the
              preparation   of  a   detailed   environmental    impact   statement   would    be
              inappropriate due to the past history of disturbance on the beach and the
              lack of any known major environmental impacts associated with any of those
              events. Accordingly, attached to this environmental assessment is a signed
              Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSO.

                                                    EA-4

                      1.00 SUMMARY

                      1.01 Major Conclusions and.Findings.

                      It has been concluded that continued Federal participation in the authorized
                      Wrightsville Beach erosion control/hurricane protection project is warranted
                      and that impacts to- the natural resources  of the area will be minor and
                      temporary in nature.   Methods to be used   will be similar to those used
                      during initial construction and subsequent  maintenance events.   The basic
                      elements of this method are -outlined in   Section 2.03.    Borrow sites to
                      obtain the necessary sand will be located in the Masonboro Inlet complex and
                      in Banks Channel south of channel marker 14. These sites were selected due
                      to the quality of the material they contain; the lower diversity of benthic
                      organisms that they contain (as compared to surrounding areas); and the fact
                      that dredging of these areas will naturally be required to maintain the
                      navigation channels they contain.     It is projected that nourishment of
                      Wrightsville Beach will be performed at 2-year intervals during the project
                      life. Nourishment activities will be performed during the winter months.

                      1.02 Areas of Controversy.

                      There are no known areas of controversy concerning this proposal.

                      1.03 Unresolved Issues.

                      There are no major unresolved issues.

                                                      EA-5

        1.04 Relationship of Plans to Environmental Requirements.

                                                          Plans

        Federal Policies                       Continued Federal     No Action
                                               Participation

        National Historic                      Full compliance       Not applicable
        Preservation Act
        of 1966J. as amended

        National Environmental                 Full compliance       Not applicable
        Policy Act

        Clean Water Act of 1977                Full compliance       Not applicable

        Coastal Zone Management                Full compliance       Not applicable
        Act of 1972, as amended

        Endangered Species Act of              Full compliance       Not applicable
        1973, as amended

        E.O. 11990, Protection of              Full compliance        Not applicable
        Wetlands

        Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act     Full compliance        Not applicable

        E.O. 11988, Flood Plain Management     Full compliance        Not applicable

        State and Local Policies

        Coastal Area Management                Full compliance        Not applicable
        Act of 1974

       .N.C. Dredge and Fill Law               Full compliance        Not applicable
        N.C. General Stat. 113-229

        Local Land Use Plans

        Town of Wrightsville Beach,            Full compliance        Not applicable
        N.C..CAMA Land Use Plan

                                             EA-6

                   2.00 PLAN FOR14ULATION AN1Y- EVALUATION

                   2.01 Study Authorization.

                   The authority for this study is contained in a resolution of the Committee
                   on Public Works of the U.S. House of Representatives, dated 2 December 1970.
                   The resolution was initiated by Congressman Alton Lennon, and requested the
                   Secretary of the Army to direct the Office of the Chief of Engineers to make
                   a survey of "Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, and adjacent beaches in the
                   interest   of beach erosion control,      hurricane   protection   and    related
                   purposes, including oceanic and lagoonal shores and interconnected tidal
                   channels."

                   A notice of this resolution was forwarded to the Chief of Engineers,
                   Washington, DC, on 2 December 1970.        On 5 December 1970 the Chief of
                   Engineers assigned the study to the South Atlantic Division which in turn
                   assigned the study to the Wilmington District on 18 February 1971. Funds to
                   initiate the study were made available on 1 October 1977.

                   2.02. Authorization of Existing Project.

                   Authorization of the existing Wrightsville Beach, NC, project was provided
                   by Public Law 84-874, 87th Congress, H. R. 13273 23 October 1962 (House
                   Document 511, 87th Congress, 2nd session).

                   2.03 Description of Existing Project.

                   The authorized project consists of a dune with a landward toe at or near the
                   town building line, with a crown width of 25 feet at an elevation of 15 feet
                   above mean low water (m.l.w.) and a 50-foot-wide berm at an elevation of 12
                   feet above m.l.w.   The project extends 14,000 feet from Masonboro Inlet on
                   the south to the location of the northern town limit existing in 1965.
                   Initial construction included the closure of Moore Inlet, which previously
                   separated Wrightsville Beach from Shell Island to the north, and placement
                   of advance nourishment along 2,700 feet of beach north of the authorized
                   project limit.

                   The current proposal is to continue Federal participation in maintaining
                   this project, as original authorization provided for only 10 years of
                   Federal involvement after original project construction.

                   As erosion of the existing project is attributable to two sources, natural
                   erosion (53.8%) and erosion caused by the jetties at Masonboro Inlet
                   (46.2%), the costs of maintaining the project will be divided accordingly.
                   The Federal Government will bear 100% of the project maintenance costs
                   attributable to erosion induced by the navigation project at Masonboro
                   Inlet, while the project maintenance costs associated with natural erosion
                   will be cost shared with the local project sponsor (Town of Wrightsville
                   Beach) according to terms laid out in the authorizing document (50% Federal,
                   50% local).

                                                      EA-7

             Erosion of the shore protection project at Wrightsville Beach occurs at a
             rate of 130,000 cubic yards (cu. yds.) per year.         The first sand bypassing
             operation is planned for 1987 and approximately 540,000 cu. yds. of sand
             will be placed on the project.       (See table 2A of the main report.) There-
             after, nourishment of the project will occur once every two years and
             approximately 260,000 cu. yds. of sand will be placed with each nourishment
             event.    In order to avoid dredging and disposal during periods of high
             biological and recreational activity, nourishment work will be performed
             during the established dredging window (October through March).

             Two borrow areas will be used to obtain the nourishment material.              These
             borrow areas were used previously during the reconstruction of the project
             which occurred during the winter of 80/81.         one area is located in Banks
             Channel between Masonboro inlet and Channel Marker 14.          This site will be
             dredged to a plane of -30 feet mean low water (MLW) during maintenance
             events.   The other area is located in Masonboro Inlet.        The Masonboro Inlet
             site will only be dredged to a depth of -20 feet MLW in order to avoid
             impacting submerged cultural resources.         The boundaries of both of these
             sites can be seen on plate 8.

             Material excavated by the dredge in the borrow areas will be pumped through
             a submerged pipeline in Banks Channel and, with the aid of a floating
             booster station, transported to the beach. Short sand dikes will be used on
             the beach to delay the return of the effluent to the ocean.           This will aid
             in the retention of sand and reduce the amount of turbidity introduced into
             the surf zone.    Bulldozers will be used for spreading and shaping the sand
             placed on the beach.

             2.04 Review of Planning Performed in this Study.

             In Stage I of this study, a set of planning objectives was developed which
             responded    to  the   specific    request   of   the    congressional.   resolution
             authorizing the investigation, and to the resource management problems and
             needs identified, and the expressed public concerns.         The Stage I planning
             objectives are summarized below:

                 (1)   Evaluate the feasibility of reducing and/or controling         erosion of
             the estuarine and oceanic shoreline of Wrightsville Beach.

                 (2)   Evaluate the feasibility of reducing the potential          for hurricane
             wave and flood damage along northern 2,800 feet of the                town's ocean
             shoreline and other developed areas.

                 (3) Develop basic data and guidelines for protecting and          enhancing the
             environmental and esthetic quality of undeveloped sections of         estuarine and
             barrier beach islands and adjacent waters.

                 (4)    Develop and evaluate basic data and guidelines             to assist    im
             producing a rational. program of land use for undeveloped Shell. Island area.

                                                     EA-8

                      (5)   Develop guidelines for providing additional parking facitiLies 1:o
                  reduce traffic congestion and assist in improving public utilization of
                  existing beach area.

                  During Stage 2 of this investigation, information and analyses were
                  developed which led to a refinement of the original planning objectives.
                  Certain concerns, such as the reduction or control of estuarine shoreline
                  erosion, and the development of guidelines for providing additional parking
                  and   reducing     traffic   congestion,     were   eliminated     from     further
                  consideration.

                  One significant addition was made to the set of planning objectives.           This
                  involved the reevaluation of the functional and economic aspects of the
                  existing shore protection project in the following areas:            revising the
                  study area shore processes analysis and evaluating the future benefits and
                  costs of the project to determine if terms of project cost sharing should be
                  modified to extend Federal participation in beach nourishment for the
                  pro,ject life.   Existing authority for Federal cost sharing of nourishment
                  expired with the restoration completed in April 1981.        The set of planning
                  objectives addressed in Stage 2 was as follows:

                      (1)    Evaluate the feasibility of extending the limits of authorized
                  shore protection northward to include the area developed since initial
                  project construction.

                      (2) Develop data and recommendations to insure that if the northern end
                  of the barrier island is developed, it is done in a manner which utilizes
                  the high level of protection offered by the existing stable dune areas.

                      (3)   Develop basic data and guidelines for protecting and enhancing the
                  environmental and esthetic qualities of the remaining undeveloped section of
                  barrier island.

                      (4) Evaluate the feasibility of implementing nonstructural measures to
                  reduce storm-related inundation damages.

                      (5) *Evaluate the existing shore protection project with a view toward
                  more cost effective operation and possible extension on the period of
                  Federal participation in the cost sharing of beach nourishment.

                  2.05 ALTERNATIVES

                  During Stage 2 planning an array of alternatives was developed which met the
                  aforementioned objectives.      These alternatives were analyzed in greater
                  detail during Stage 2 planning and, as a result of this analysis, the
                  current proposal was determined to be the only one feasible from an economic
                  standpoint.   The following presentation summarizes all of the alternatives

                                                       EA-9

            considered in Stage 2. A complete discussion of the alternatives considered
            can be found in the Stage 2 report dated June 1981.

                0    Plan 1-A provides for the extension of the authorized shore
            protection project northward, a distance of 2,800 feet, to protect the
            developed area immediate'ly north of the existing project limits.      The berm
            and dune fill would have been constructed seaward of the present town
            building line along that section of shore.

                    Plan 1-B extends the authorized project northward the same distance
            as Plan I-A. but requires the relocation of the building line and the
            oceanfront row of structures.     This section would have resulted in a less
            bulbous shoreline configuration, reducing erosion losses relative to Plan
            1-A. In both Plans I-A and 1-B, the proposed dune extension would have tied
            into the existing natural dune to the north.

                o Plan 2 combines the basic features of Plans I-A and I-B with a
            requirement that any future development of the undeveloped section of the
            barrier island be located landward of a proposed building line.               The
            location of this proposed line was generally at the landward toe of a large
            primary dune ridge, and would have insured the preservation of a high level
            of natural shore protection for future development.

                * Plan 3 combines the basic features of Plans I-A and I-B with a
            proposal that the presently undeveloped section of the barrier island be
            acquired for preservation of its environmental and esthetic values.          Plan
            3-A was similar to Plan 3 except that the acquired barrier island area would
            be managed for recreation uses rather than preservation.

                * Plan 4 is an entirely nonstructural plan for the reduction or
            elimination of inundation damages to existing development in the study area.
            This plan involved the application of a variety of nonstructural measures,
            including raising in place, relocating the building or contents out of the
            flood hazard zone, and constructing small floodwalls.

                e Plan 5 is to continue Federal participation in beach nourishment for
            the project life.

                * The no action alternative would end           the   Federal   Government's
            participation   in   maintaining   the   authorized   beach    erosion/hurricane
            protection project at Wrightsville Beach.        Under this alternative, that
            percentage (53.8%) of the beach erosion occurring which is not attributable
            to the jetties at Masonboro Inlet would not be compensated for by cost
            shared beach nourishment actions.    This would allow a gradual and continual
            deterioration of the effectiveness of the project unless local interests
            assume 100% of the costs for its maintenance. Based on past performance, it
            is felt that this is unlikely, and that the project would deteriorate to a
            point where a significant threat to life and property will exist.

            3.00 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

            3.01 Geographic Setting.

            The Town of Wrightsville Beach is comprised of two unit       s, the estuarine
            island known as Harbor Island and the barrier island of Wrightsville Beach.

                                              EA-10

                   The former has an area of 293 acres, with 3.5 miles of estuarine shoreline
                   exposed to current and wave activity.      The latter has an area of 354 acres,
                   with 3.2 miles of oceanic shoreline and 3.0 miles of estuarine shoreline.
                   Adjacent bodies of water include the Atlantic Ocean on the east; Banks
                   Channel, Motts Channel, and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) on the
                   west; Masons Inlet on the north;      and Masonboro Inlet on the south.        Shinn
                   Creek forms a hydraulic connection between the AIWW and Masonboro Inlet. To
                   the north of Masons Inlet is Figure'8 Island;; to the south of Masonboro
                   Inlet is Masonbord Island.

                   Prior to the construction of the existing beac       'h erosion control /hurricane
                   wave protection project,, Wrightsville Beach was an island extending 15,400
                   feet north from Masonboro Inlet to the then existing Moores Inlet.               The
                   14,000 feet of oceanic shoreline within the town limits at that time was the
                   portion of the island for which Congress authorized the Wrightsville Beach,
                   N.C. project in Public Law 87-874, 23 October 1962. The 1,400 feet of beach
                   between the northern town limits and Moores Inlet were undeveloped and
                   privately owned.    However, upon completion of the existing project, surplus
                   project funds were used to close Moores Inlet in order to improve the
                   littoral transport in the area. This action connected Wrightsville Beach to
                   Shell Island, an undeveloped, privately-owned barrier island extending 8,000
                   feet northeast. The town of Wrightsville Beach then annexed the 1,400 feet
                   of beach immediately north of the original town limits, including a 600-foot
                   section formerly occupied by Moores Inlet, and the southern 800 feet of
                   Shell Island, thus, extending the length of the town's ocean shoreline to
                   16,800 feet (to Station 168+00). This section, referred to as Shell Island,
                   has developed into a predominantly residential area.

                   3.02 Population and Economics.

                   The preliminary results of a special 1976 census conducted by the town of
                   Wrightsville Beach show 2,521'persons permanently residing in the town. As
                   the following analysis from the town of Wrightsville Beach CAMA Land Use
                   Plan indicates, the total population that may be present in the town during
                   a peak period is considerably larger than that shown in this 1976 special
                   census. On a peak day, such as the Fourth of July, a total of nearly 25,000
                   persons may be present in the town at one time.

                                        Total Populationof Wrightsville Beach

                                        Permanent Population            2,521
                                        Summer Residents                3,291
                                        Overnight Visitors              6,566
                                        Day Visitors                   12,447
                                            Total                      24,825

                                                       EA-11

           Thus, instead of providing services and facilities for the 2,521 permanent
           population, the town must provide for a seasonnl population tip ro, 10 timps
           that size.

           The economy of Wrightsville Beach is tourist oriented with most of its
           residents being either retired persons or commuters who work in areas
           outside Wrightsville Beach.      There are three major nontourist oriented
           employers within the corporate limits of Wrightsville Beach. These are the
           town government, the Saline Water Research Plant, and International Nickel
           Company.   The remainder of the economy, with the exception of a few real
           estate agencies, exists to serve day visitors and overnight -visitors.
           Restaurants, lounges, retail stores, fishing piers, motels, hotels, and
           specialty shops are the base of Wrightsville Beach's economy.

           3.03 Significant Resources.

           Seashore Area.

           Within the town limits of Wrightsville Beach, there are'many acres of high
           quality seashore area available for recreation activities, i.e., sunbathing,
           surf fishing, walking, jogging, bird watching, shell collecting, etc. This
           intertidal zone also serves as habitat for an invertebrate community adapted
           to the high energy sandy beach environment.      The organisms which make up
           this community, i.e., mole crabs, coquina clams, amphipods, isopods, and
           polychaetes, are an important food source for surf feeding fish populations
           such as flounder, croaker, red drum, black drum, spot, northern kingfish,
           and pompano.

           Invertebrate Species Occurring in Borrow Areas.

           Masonboro Inlet and the portions of Banks Channel south of channel marker 14
           (see plate *0 are considered to be prime borrow sites because of the
           excellent composition of the sediment and sparse populations of benthic
           invertebrates.   Both of these sites were used to obtain the nourishment
           material for the restoration project undertaken during the winter of 80/81.
           Prior to that dredging, common macroinvertebrates inhabiting these areas
           included the hemichordate worms, Balzinoglossus auranticus and Saccoglossus
           kowlevskii, the razor clam Ensis    directus, the bivalves Dosinia, Tellina,
           and Mercenaria mercenaria (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979). Sampling
           of these areas has not occurred) since the dredging took place; however, it
           can be safely'assumed that populations of benthic invertebrates have begun
           to recolonize@the areas although they may have different levels of abundance
           and different community structures.     Due to the shifting sand bottom and
           past history of disturbance at these sites @for maintenance dredging of
           navigation projects as well as for beach nourishments), it is unlikely that
           they have been able to establish stable benthic communities in recent
           years.

           Water Quality.

           The water quality in the vicinity of the borrow sites is good.             Banks
           Channel has a classification of SB (suitable for bathing). Masonboro Inlet

                                               EA-12

                       has a classification of SA (suitable for shell fishing for market purposes).
                       The high quality of the water in these areas can be attributed to tidal
                       flushing and distance from any major pollution sources.         The town of
                       Wrightsville Beach prohibits the use of septic tanks.

                       Nonpoint pollution sources on Wrightsville Beach are not considered to be a
                       major problem.   Storm water from the community is removed by a separate
                       storm drainage system which drains into the surrounding waters. Each storm
                       water drain inlet structure 'has '. a trap for silt, grit, and trash, which is
                       periodically cleaned and the debris treated as solid waste.     Less than 10
                       percent of the rainfall that falls on the town enters the system due to the
                       high absorptive capacity of the soils.

                       Fisheries Resources.

                       Recreational and commercial fishing in the vicinity of Masonboro Inlet and
                       Banks channel are significant.       These areas support both sport and
                       commercial fisheries for such common saltwater finfish as black drum,
                       croaker, pigfish, red drum, flounder, spot, black seabass, and bluefish. In
                       addition, blue crab and penaeid shrimp are fished for both commercial and
                       recreational purposes.   Among other sport fish in the surf zone, northern
                       kingfish, pompano, and spot are actively fished for, both from the beach and
                       the two fishing piers located at Wrightsville Beach.        Nearshore waters
                       support an abundance of king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia.

                       Endangered Species,

                       Informal consultation as delineated in section 7(c) of the Endangered
                       Species Act of 1973, as amended, has been concluded with the Fish and
                       Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. The following list
                       of species was considered in the biological assessment process:

                           Brown pelican (Pelicanus occidentalis)-E
                           Florida manatee Trichechus manatus)-E
                           Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus)-E
                           Finback whale (Balaenoptera physulus)-E
                           Humpback whale (Megaptera novaean&1j1e)-E
                           Right whale (Eubalaena spp)-E
                           Sei whale (B@-Iaenoptera borealis)-E
                           Sperm whale (Physeter catadon)-E
                           Kemps ridley sea turtle ( =epidochelys kempi)-E
                           Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)-E
                           Leatherback turtle (Derimochelys coriacea)-E
                           Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirosEr-um)-E
                           Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)-T
                           Green turtle (Chelenia mLdas)-T

                       Cultural Resources.

                       A cultural resources survey of Masonboro Inlet and Masonboro Island was
                       conducted  in connection with the construction of the South Jetty at

                                                         EA-13

            Masonboro Inlet.     During the exploratory phase of this survey (October
            through November 1977), five major magnetic anomalies were recorded. Two of
            the five are located in the vicinity of the Masonboro Inlet borrow area.
            During April and May 1978, the N.C. Division of Archives and History made
            additional examinations of these two,'sites using a hydraulic probing device.
            By this method, it was determined that one of the sites is probably the
            remains of a relative modern vessel lying below a plane of -14 feet m.l.w,
            although it is possible that the modern vessel is positioned over a site of
            earlier vintage.    The other site was probed to a depth of -20 feet m.l.w.
            without encountering the anomaly (Watts et. al.).

            The Banks Channel borrow site is not considered to offer any potential for
            submerged cultural resources as it was dredged below the depths which will
            be required for continued maintenance during initial project construction;
            therefore, all of the sediments in the area are of recent origin.

            Terrestrial Resources.

            Within the study area, the most significant terrestrial resources occur on
            the undeveloped portion of Shell Island and on the manmade and natural
            estuarine islands which occur in Wrightsville Sound. These areas offer the
            only significant sites of natural vegetation communities available for
            terrestrial wildlife.

            An extensive, stable dune system comprise the undeveloped portions of Shell
            Island.   Vegetated principally with grasses, its value to some species of
            wildlife is limited.    Data on wildlife utilization of the area is sparse;
            however, the data which does exist indicates that Shell Island offers good
            habitat for-many species of birds and small mammals.

            Most of the manmade and natural estuarine islands of the area are heavily
            vegetated with shrubs and small trees.      These islands are heavily used by
            marsh foraging mammals and birds.       Unvegetated manmade islands have been
            heavily used in the past by colonially nesting seabirds; however, this use
            has tapered off in recent years due to the confinement of dredged material
            disposal to just a few locations, thereby permitting most of the previously
            bare sand islands to vegetate.

            Wetlands.

            Wetlands are extremely abundant in the study area with about 70 percent of
            its 2,800 acres being salt marsh and tidal creeks. The marshes of the area
            are comprised principally of Spartina alterniflora.         The transition zone
            between the salt marsh and upland areas is dominated by     Spartina patens with
            interspersed patches of Distichlis spicata, Salicornia virginica, and
            Borrichia frutescens.     These wetlands are very important to the marine
            resources and wildlife of the study area due to their high primary

                                                EA-14

                             productivity and refuge/foraging value.      While no studies are known to linve.
                             been done on- the productivity of the salt marshes of the study area, the
                             productivity for such marshes generally falls in the range of 324 to 1,296
                             dry wt/m  2/yr (Keefe 1972).      When  this is combined with the additional
                             productivity    of    approximately     100g  carbon/m2/yr     for    phytoplankton
                             (Thayer 1971) and approximately 200g carbon/m2/yr for benthic microalgae
                             (Peterson and Peterson 1979), the astonishing productivity of these systems
                             becomes apparent.

                             4.00 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS'

                             4.01 Effects on Significant Resources,

                             Seashore Area.

                             The disposal and shaping of sand for the maintenance of the berm and dune at
                             Wrightsville Beach will normally occur between 1 October and 31 March in
                             order to avoid adverse impacts to summer oriented tourism and disruption of
                             the   estuary   and   nearshore    ocean   during   times   of   high    biological
                             productivity. Even with this time restriction, the following impacts can be
                             expected to occur:

                                  A.   Esthetics - The esthetics of the beach will be diminished by the
                             presence of pipeline and heavy equipment on the beach during nourishment
                             activity.   Since the nourishment work would occur in the "off" season, this
                             impact will be felt principally by the beaches' resident population.
                             Overall, the esthetics of the beach will be enhanced through maintaining the
                             project, as the manmade berm and dune will provide a more pleasing prospect
                             to the eye than a heavily eroded beach.

                                  B.   Turbidity - Beach nourishment activities normally elevate levels of
                             turbidity in the surf zone due to the presence of silts and clays in the
                             nourishment material.       High levels of such turbidity are suspected of
                             causing temporary displacement of various species of sport fish although
                             this effect has not been documented.              Equally possible would be a
                             concentrated effect on sport fishes due to the presence of fragmented marine
                             organisms from the dredge slurry being present in the surf zone (high food
                             availability).        During   the   last   nourishment   action    undertaken    on
                             Wrightsville Beach,    nourishment related turbidity did not appear to be a
                             problem, as none was visible from the beach or from the air.          This lack of
                             noticeable turbidity   was likely related to the following factors:

                                       1) The use   of short sand dikes between the outfall and the surf
                             zone;

                                       2) The coarseness of the material being used for nourishment and an
                             overall   lack of silts and clays; and

                                       3) The natural turbidity in the surf zone.

                                                                  EA-15

               Since the same borrow sites and construction techniques will be used in the
               future maintenance of the project, turbidity      related impacts are expected to
               be minor.

                    C. Intertidal macrofauna - Disposal          operations may have negative
               impacts on the intertidal macrofauna through      various mechanisms. Changes in
               beach profile or grain size, direct burial, or the adverse effects of
               increased turbidity can singlehandedly or,      in combination, radically change
               the faunistic composition of a beach.        At Fort Macon, NC, beach disposal
               performed    during   the winter of '1977       essentially   destroyed     existing
               intertidal   macrofauna (Reilly and Bellis,       1978).    Investigators of that
               nourishment event concluded that turbidity      was the principal agent     involved
               in changing the community. Other studies (Hayden and Dolan, 1974)           indicate
               that beach nourishment actions with coarse sands can have virtually no
               impact on    intertidal macrofauna causing only temporary shifts in the
               distribution of the population.       Due to the coarseness of the sands which
               have been and will continue to be used for nourishment of Wrightsville
               Beach, turbidity induced change in intertidal macrofauna will probably be
               slight.      While no disposal       effect   studies have been      performed    at
               Wrightsville Beach which would corroborate this, random samples taken on the
               beach less than 2 months after the last nourishment action ended found that
               all life stages of the mole crab, Emerita talpoida, a key community species,
               were present.

               Invertebrate Species Located in Borrow Areas.

               The hydraulic dredging of sand from the borrow areas to maintain the design
               profile berm and dune At Wrightsville Beach will result in a total loss of
               all sedentary or slow-moving organisms in the borrow areas during each
               maintenance event.     The effects of these types of impacts are difficult to
               assess but should be of minor significance as the habitat value of the
               borrow areas is low due to the instability of the bottoms and the areas to
               be dredged are small in relation to the amount of subtidal habitat available
               in the study area.      Both borrow areas have been used for previous beach
               nourishment work. Benthic organisms will begin the recolonization of these
               borrow areas after each use; however, with the planned repeated use, they
               will not achieve any community stability during the remainder of the project
               life.

               Water Quality in the Vicinity of Masonboro Inlet.

               The dredging of the borrow areas will change bottom configuration and
               slightly alter current velocities at and adjacent to the borrow areas. This
               alteration may prove to increase the tidal flushing capacity of Masonboro
               Inlet, possibly improving water quality in the area to a slight degree.
               Turbidity caused by the dredging operations could cause a short term
               decrease in light penetration and dissolved oxygen but, due to the
               coarseness of the material to be dredged, these effects should be minimal
               and of short duration.

                                                    EA-16

                        Fisheries Resources.

                        The continued maintenance of the project may cause minor adverse impacts to
                        the fisheries of the area.      Impacts would occur principally through the
                        disruption of sources of food organisms and through direct mortality of
                        juvenile fishes taken by the dredge. Impacts from turbidity are expected to
                        be minimal.   These impacts will be temporary, but recurring.     Therefore, a
                        semi-permanent decline in the fisheries of the area may occur; however, due
                        to the small size of the areas to be dredged and the rapidness of the
                        beach's invertebrate community's recovery, the decline is not expected to be
                        noticeable or measurable.

                        Endangered SEecies.

                        Through the biological assessment process, the District has determined that
                        continued Federal participation in the Wrightsville Beach project will not
                        effect any threatened or endangered species.     Confirmation of this finding
                        by the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service has
                        been received.

                        Cultural Resources.

                        No impacts to cultural resources will result from the continued maintenance
                        of the project as proposed. The Banks Channel borrow area has been dredged
                        to the proposed limits and depths on two previous occasions. Therefore, the
                        sediments which have accumulated in that area are recent and offer no
                        potential for submerged cultural resources.

                        Two sites are known to occur in the vicinity of the Masonboro Inlet borrow
                        area. One site, actually within the limits of the borrow area, lies deeper
                        than the proposed dredging limit of -20 feet MLW and; therefore, will not be
                        affected.   Another site is located 400 feet seaward of the outer border of
                        the borrow area.    Strict limits have been placed on the Masonboro Inlet
                        borrow area so that neither of these sites will be impacted.

                        Disposal of beach fill is considered to be of no consequence to cultural
                        resources as it will simply replace material that has already washed away.
                        If any sites remain buried on the portions of the beach to be affected by
                        the project, they will simply be buried deeper, an action which has already
                        occurred several times.

                        Terrestrial Resources.

                        The impacts of the project will be confined to the borrow areas and the
                        ocean shoreline fronting the Town of Wrightsville Beach.      The beach to the
                        north of the authorized project limit will also gain some sand through
                        longshore transport; however, this process is so gradual that it will have
                        no discernable impact on natural resources.      The extensive dune system on
                        Shell Island will be unaffected.

                                                          EA-17

               Wetlands.

               The vast salt marshes of the study area will be unaffected by the project.
               As the dredge pipeline exits Banks Channel and crosses the beach strand, it
               may be necessary to lay it across the marsh fringe bordering the east side
               of Banks Channel. If this occurs, its impact will be minor, as no permanent
               disruption of the marsh will occur.

               5.00 PUBLIC INTHREST

               5.01 Public Involvement Program.

               Since the initiation of the study, two public meetings have been held. The
               first, in April 1978, was held for the purposes of informing t  .he public of
               the start of the General investigation Study of the Wrightsville Beach area,
               and to elicit public response on identification of water resources problem
               areas. The second meeting, held in December 1979, was held for the purpose
               of informing the public of the restoration work which was to be performed
               during the winter of 80/81.     In addition to these public meetings, the
               District has been in frequent contact with Wrightsville Beach officials and
               other interested State and Federal agencies.      A scoping letter seeking
               public input into Stage 11 of the planning process was sent out in March
               1981. The principal result of this involvement has been to establish a high
               level of public support for the authorized project.

               5.02 Required Coordination.

               Concurrent with the circulation of this environmental assessment, a Section
               404(b) (Public Law 92-500) Public Notice and evaluation was circulated, and
               a consistency determination was furnished to the North Carolina Office of
               Coastal Management and their concurrence was obtained.        The Corps has
               completed the Section 7(c) endangered species consultation, and a Section
               401 (Public Law 92-500) certificate has been received from the State of
               North Carolina.    A final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report was
               received in March 1982.

               5.03 Recipients of the Assessment.

               This assessment has been circulated for review and comment to the following
               concerned agencies and public for 30 days.     After reviewing the comments
               received, the District Engineer may sign the Finding of No Significant
               Impact and proceed with the proposed action.

               Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
               Department of Housing and Urban Development, Greensboro Area Office
               U.S. Department of Commerce
               Federal Energy Administration
               Fifth Coast Guard District
               Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Region IV
               League of Women Voters

                                                  EA-18

                             N.C. Wildlife Federation
                             Sierra Club
                             The Coastland Times
                             Soil Conservation Service, 'USDA
                             Forest Service, USDA
                             Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
                             Conservation Council of North Carolina
                             Federal Highway Administration
                             Mayor, Wrightsville Beach, NC
                             Clearinghouse and Information Center of North Carolina
                             Chairman, New Hanover County Commission
                             U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

                                                                EA-19

                                             REFERENCES

            Hayden, B., and R. Dolan. 1974. Impact of Beach Nourishment on
                Distribution of Emerita talpoida, the Common Mole Crab. Journal of the
                Waterways, Harbors, and Coastal Engineering Division ASCE 100:WWZ pp.
                123-132.

            Keefe, C. W.   1972. Marsh production: A Summary of the Literature.
                Contrib.  Mar. Sci. 16:163-181.

            Peterson, C.  H.,, and N. M. Peterson. 1979. The Ecology of Intertidal Flats
                of North  Carolina: A community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                Service,  Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-79/39. 73 pp.

            Reilly, F.J.  Jr., and V. J. Bellis. 1978. A Study of the Ecological Impact
                of Beach  Nourishment with Dredged Materials on the Intertidal Zone.
                Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources Technical Report No. 4. 107
                pp.

            Thayer, G. W. 1971. Phytoplankton Production and the Distribution of
                Nutrients in A Shallow Unstratified Estuarine System Near Beaufort, NC.
                Chesapeake Science 12:240-253.

            U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1981. Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina,
                Stage II report. Wilmington District. 61 pp.

            U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 5 October 1979. Letter from David Rackley,
                Acting Field Supervisor, to Col. Adolph Hight, District Engineer,
                Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers.

            Watts, G. P. Jr., R. W. Lawrence, D. B. Hill, and J. A. Pleasants. 1978.
                Final Report on the investigation of Magnetic Anomalies at Masonboro
                Island and Masonboro Inlet. Corps of Engineers Contract,
                SAWEN-E-78FO176.

                                                 EA-20

                                                 Attachment A

                                        FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT  IMPACT

                   The Corps of Engineers proposes to continue Federal participation in the
                   authorized beach erosion control/hurricane protection project at
                   Wrightsville Beach for the project life. Dimensions of the project and the
                   methods to be used in maintaining It are outlined in section 2.03, page
                   EA-7. Maintenance work will occur approximately once every 2 years and will
                   be performed during the winter months.

                   Alternatives to continuing Federal participation in the authorized project
                   are discussed in section 2.05, page EA-9.

                   Significant resources discussed in the assessment include:

                       a. Seashore Area, 3.03, page EA-12.

                       b.  Invertebrate Species occurring in the Borrow Area, 3.03, page EA-12.

                       c.  Water Quality, 3.03, page EA-12.

                       d.  Fisheries Resources, 3.03, page EA-13.

                       e.  Endangered Species, 3.03, page EA-13.

                       f.  Cultural Resources, 3.03, page EA-13.

                       g.  Terrestrial Re.sources, 3.03, page EA-14.

                       h.  Wetlands, 3.03, page EA-14.

                   I have determined, based on the impact analysis presented in Section 4.01,
                   page EA-15, that the impacts to the aforementioned significant resources
                   will be minor and temporary in nature and that the preparation of an
                   environmental impact statement will not be required. The alternatives
                   analyzed are either economically infeasible or, in the case of no action,
                   would permit deterioration of the effectiveness of the existing project at
                   Wrightsville Beach, leaving the community vulnera ! to the hazards
                                                                    r
                   associated with hurricanes and unchecked beach e   sion.

                                                      A. A. KOPC
                                                      LTCV Corps'of Engineers
                                                      Acting District Engineer

                                                    EA-21

                                                ATTACHMENT B

                                                COMMENT/RESPONSE-

                                         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS14ENT ON
                                      SHORE AND HURRICANE WAVE PROTECTION
                                           WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, N.C.

              FEDERAL AGENCIES

              A. Letter from Fifth Coast Guard District.dated*24 August 1982.

                  COMMENT: The Fifth Coast Guard District offers no comments concerning the
                             subject DEIS.

                  RESPONSE:  Noted

              B.  Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dated 1 September 1982.

                  COMMENT:   Generally, we believe the report is adequate with the exception of
                             specific concerns addressed herein. The Service participated
                             fully in the-planning process for this project, and we provided
                             comments and recommendations during that period. We are pleased
                             that the Corps hag utilized, and will apparently continue to
                             utilize, borrow sites which we identified as having relatively low
                             population densities of benthic organisms. Since it appears that
                             beach nourishment and sand bypassing will occur every two years,
                             we recommend that project maintenance be in accordance with
                             Service recommendations contained in our Final Fish and Wildlife
                             Coordination Act Report of March 2, 1982.

                  RESPONSE:  The schedule recommended by the Service is infeasible as it only
                             allows 60 days (I October through 30 November) for beach nourish-
                             ment activities. In order to accov odate Fish and Wildlife
                             concerns as much as possible, the nourishment activities will be
                             restricted to the established dredging window (October through
                             March).

                  COMMENT:   Although we generally-concur with your assessment of anticipated
                             project impacts, we do not believe that the impacts of periodic
                             placement of sand in the littoral zone of the ocean beach are
                             known. These impacts range in magnitude from minor short-term
                             losses of near shore fauna to prolonged reductions in the popula-
                             tion size of these species. Since any major long-term reductions
                             in near shore populations could adversely affect local recrea-
                             tional and commercial fisheries, we continue to reco end that the
                             effects of periodic disposal oU@dredged materials in the ocean
                             littoral zone be studied further.,.

                  RESPONSE:  Impacts of beach nourishment-on resident benthic fauna is an issue
                             of national concern and is currently being considered as a
                             research topic by the Coastal Engineering Research Center at Fort
                             Belvoir, Virginia4 Two studies performed to date illustrate the
                             wide divergence in results which can be obtained, depending on the

                                                      EA-22

                                  nature of the material being placed on the beach. At Cape
                                  Hatteras, N.C., studies :showed little e   'ffect,when coarse grained
                                  material is deposited;   ,at Fort Macon, N.,C,.,@,,,significant adverse
                                  effects were noted whensilty material was@dgposited. In neither
                                  case were long-term impacts analyzed. After ;the last beach
                                  nourishment at Wrightsville Beach, Corps biologists sampling the
                                  beach found little evidence of any severe impacts on benthic
                                  fauna. If the Coastal Engineering Research Center performs
                                  studies on the effects of beach nourishment on benthic
                                  communities, they will be designed to address long-term impacts.

                      COMMENT:    Page 23, paragraph 1: Clarification is needed to explain why the
                                  preservation of Shell Island cannot be linked to the selected
                                  alternative. We assume that Corps regulations prohibit the
                                  expansion of project's boundaries when non-structural features are
                                  involved; however, this is not clear in the draft report.

                      RESPONSE:   The measure referred to was an EQ feature which was linked to
                                  Plans I-A and 1-B. When these plans were found to be infeasible,
                                  the linkage between the "recommended water resource development"
                                  and the separable "EQ feature" no longer existed.

                                  A nonstructural measure (Plan 4) was evaluated for every structure
                                  on Wrightsville Beach, but was found to be economically infeasible
                                  (benefit-cost ratio =.0.36 to 1.0).

                      C. Letter from United States Environmental Protection Agency dated 29
                      September 1982.

                      COMMENT:    We have reviewed the draft Feasibility Report and Environmental
                                  Assessment on the Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control
                                  Project at Wrightsville Beach, New Hanover County, North Carolina.
                                  Our evaluation of the document revealed it to be well prepared and
                                  that the proposed action should cause little in the way of
                                  long-term and/or significant adverse environmental consequences
                                  over which this Agency has mandated authority.

                      RESPONSE:   Noted.

                      COMMENT:    However, we do observe that while the selected alternative may
                                  provide some temporary increase in the actual extent of the beach,
                                  it actually may foster the potential for future increased property
                                  losses there. For example, using excess project funds from a
                                  previous authorization, Moore's Cut was filled in and Shell Island
                                  connected to Wrightsville Beach. The subsequent development to
                                  the north including a Holiday Inn were seriously threatened until
                                  another emergency nourishment was undertaken (see inclosed
                                  photographs). Hence, it has been our experience that beach
                                  nourishment often engenders improvident development. This
                                  development in turn creates the demand for even more protection at
                                  ever increasing 'Federal cost.

                                                                         EA-23

                   RESPONSE:  The beach area behind the existing berm and dune*.project is fully
                              developed at the present time. If the project is not maintained
                              considerable erosion,damage to the existing development would
                              occur. Nourishment is a planned part of the maintenance of the
                              project. It has been performed in the past to insure the designed
                              protection along the authorized project. In the case of future
                              protection, the plan to extend the existing project northward
                              2,800 feet was found not to be economically feasible. Therefore,
                              at this time, more protection is not being recommended. Plan 5,
                              which is the recommended plan, is to continue Federal
                              participation in the maintenance of the existing project for the
                              life of the project.

                   STATE AGENCIES:

              A.   Letter dated 17 September 1982 from North Carolina Department of Natural
                   Resources and Community Development.

                   COMMENT:   Plan Number Five (5) has been the chosen alternative for continued
                              maintenance of the beach renourishment project. The same borrow
                              areas are proposed including that area south of Marker #14 in
                              banks channel and -the inlet weir collection reservoir. The Office
                              of Coastal Management's major agency concerns are not centered on
                              the continued use of these borrow areas which are highly disturbed
                              deep water, sandy bottom sites but are the timing of the dredging
                              activities. As stated before, it is very important in order to
                              protect juvenile shrimp and finfish populations that no excavation
                              or filling occur between April I and September 30 of any given
                              year. The Office of Coastal Management would recommend that the
                              winter months be considered for such operations to lessen impacts
                              to ocean surf feeding fish as well.

                   RESPONSE:  The nourishment activities will be restricted to the established
                              dredging window (October through March).

                   COMMENT:   The Wrightsville Be4ch Land Use Plan heavily concentrates its
                              biggest problem as finding funds to continue the maintenance of
                              the renourishment project. It states ..."That the preferred
                              alternative for erosion control be renourishment, supplemented by
                              land use controls, access planning and vegetation maintenance." It
                              is hoped that the Corps' recommendation would also include a note
                              that explains the-specific land use and flood proofing
                              recommendations described in Plans #2 and #4 to be implemented as
                              much as feasible,., . Even though the benefit-to-cost ratios were
                              found to be not favorable for these two plans, it should be
                              recognized that emergency phases of future maintenance north of
                              the defined project limits (Shell Island) are inevitable and that
                              the town should acquire public beach  access easements along these
                              private streets. The final Corp@s:'...recommendation should be

                                                       EA-24

                                 emphatically clear about Federal partici-pati-on contingent upon
                                 provision of beach access through the existing'Shell Island
                                 private development.

                      P
                       ESPONSE:  All technical information developed in the course of formulating
                                 and evaluating Plans 2 and 4 will be presented to the Town of
                                 Wrightsville Beach. Implementation of these plans would be at the
                                 discretion of the local government and property owners.

                                 Since the recommended proJect does not extend along Shell Island,
                                 the Corps cannot/require provision of beach access through the
                                 existing Shell Island private development.

                      COMMENT:   The rest of the Plan #5 appears to be consistent with the Land Use
                                 Plan and CAMA guidelines.

                      RESPONSE: Noted.

                  A.  Letter from New Hanover County Planning Department dated 3 September 1982.

                      COMMENT:   Impacts to the environment should be minor and of short duration.
                                 When combined with the maintenance objective of Masonboro Inlet
                                 this dual approach of dredging and beach nourishment seems quite
                                 acceptable.

                      RESPONSE:  Noted.

                      COMMENT:   In regard to the Feasibility Report several questions arise
                                 concerning the cost benefit analysis. Potential loss to land and
                                 structures includes damages to private property. Direct benefits
                                 to these properties are actually private rather than public.
                                 Since these individual landowners represent the greatest amount of
                                 benefit in any public expenditure, a more equitable comparison
                                 might be the potential annual tax value of the property.
                                 Certainly, that loss would have a broader impact on the
                                 community.

                      RESPONSE:  The benefit-cost analysis was   accomplished in accordance with
                                 guidelines and policies for Federal water resources agencies which
                                 attempt to measure potential pro.ject effects to the national
                                 economy, and public vs. individual ownership is not a criterion
                                 for determining acceptability of benefits from reducing or
                                 eliminating damages. Generally, individual property owners are
                                 considered as members of the public at large. Lost revenues to
                                 property taxing agencies are not considered to be losses from the

                                                        EA-25

                          national standpoint because the decreases in tax revenues become
                          increased discretionary income to the owners of the lost property.
                          Actually, lost tax revenues would probably be offset by increasing
                          taxes of other property owner-s.

                COM14ENT: Continued funding of beach nourishment projects shoidd he a blirklen
                          of those who utilize the beaches. This could be accomplished
                          through special district taxes or certain excise taxes.

                RESPONSE: This would be a decision that the Town of Wrightsville Beach, New
                          Hanover County, and the State of North Carolina would have to make
                          concerning the non-Federal share of project costs.

                                                                     I
                COMMENT:  Maximum setback requirements should be a condition of further
                          funding. Adequate setbacks can take advantage of the natural
                          shoreline and large primary dunes that act as barriers and offer
                          protection for inland development.

                RESPONSE: The Town of Wrightsville Beach has established an adequate
                          building line setback along the authorized shore protection
                          project.

                COMMENT:  Is the proposed plan consistent with the Department of Interior
                          and FEMA's classification of Shell Island as "Undeveloped?"

                RESPONSE: The proposed plan is continued Federal cost-sharing in the
                          existing shore protection project located along Wrightsville Beach
                          for the life of the.project. Therefore, the plan has nothing to
                          do with the classification of Shell Island as "Undeveloped."

           B. Letter from Town of Wrightsville Beach dated 27 September 1982.

                COMMENT:  We are in receipt of and have reviewed the draft Feasibility
                          Report and Environmental Assessment Document. While we are
                          perhaps disappointed in the benefit-to-cost ratios developed in
                          preliminary plans 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 3A and 4, the findings were not
                          totally unexpected.

                          It is the position of the Town that the conclusions drawn and the
                          recommendations made are in order and should be supported by the
                          Town. We further-totally agree that there is no necessity for an
                          EIS, and the Finding of No Significant Impact statement should be
                          signed.

                RESPONSE: Noted.

                                                  EA-26

       0

                                                   APPENDIX A

                                             HISTORY OF HURRICANES

        0

                                                     HISTORICAL RECORDS

                    1.  Lists of Hurricanes.      The following   tables present a chronological list
                    of tropical hurricanes which have likely affected the Wrightsville Beach
                    area.   However, many of them caused no appreciable damage and others prior
                    to 1871, which caused some damage, may not be listed:

                                      Records of 18th and 19th Century Hurricanes
                                        Affecting the North Carolina Coastal Area

                             Date                                                          Date
                    Year, Month, and Day                                          Year, Month, and Day

                        18th Century                                              19th Century (cont'd)

                    1700  September                                               1844 September      14
                    1713  September     16                                        1846 August         16
                    1728  August        -                                         1853 September      7
                    1728  September     14                                        1854 September      8
                    1752  September     15                                        1857 September      12
                    1753  September     15                                        1861 October        -
                    1757  October       -                                         1871 August         18-19
                    1758  August        23                                        1871 November       14
                    1761  June          1                                         1873 September      22-24
                    1761  September     23                                        1873 October        6-8
                    1770  June          6                                         1873 November       17
                    1781  August        10                                        1874 September      28
                    1783                                                          1874 November       22
                    1785  September     22-24                                     1875 October        13
                    1797  September     -                                         1876 September      17
                                                                                  1877 November       2
                        19th Centu  ry                                            1878 September      12
                                                                                  1878 October        22
                    1804  September     7                                         1879 August         19
                    1811  September     10                                        1880 August         15
                    1813  August        27                                        1881 August         27
                    1814  July          1                                         1881 September      9
                    1815  September     28                                        1883 September      11
                    1821  September     2                                         1885 August         24-25
                    1822  August        -                                         1888 October        11
                    1822  September     27                                        1893 August         28
                    i827  July          30                                        1893 October        13
                    1827  August        24-25                                     1894 September      27
                    1830  August        16                                        1894 October        9
                    1837  August        1                                         1896 September      20
                    1837  August        20                                        1897 November       7
                    1837  October       9                                         1898 October        2
                    1838  November      26-28                                     1899/October        30
                    1842  August        24

                                                           A-1

                             Records of 20th Century Hurricanes Affecting
                                New Hanover County, N.C. , Beach Areas

              Year       Month and Dav     Notes,severity, Da age Areas

                                           Major and Moderate
           11904        September 14       Moderate, S.E.N.C.

           1904         November 13        Moderate'"'N.C. coast

           11906        September 17       Severe, S.E.N.C. Barometer at Wilm., 27.90

           1910         October 19         Moderate, Wilmington area - inland
           11913        September 2-3      Hatteras - major, N.E.N.C.

           1916         July 19-20         Moderate, N.E.N.C. Heavy rainfall

           1918         August 24          Hatteras, moderate, small, N.E.N.C.

           1924         August 25          Moderate, skirted N.C. at Hatteras
           11925        December  2        Moderate, N.E.N.C. Unusual storm
                                           Barometer 28.90 near Wilmington

           1930         September  12      Hatteras and vicinity - moderate.
                                           Barometer 29.71 at Wilmington.

           11933        September  16      Severe N. of New Bern to Va. Capes,
                                           moderate to minor elsewhere. Barometer at
                                           Hatteras, 28.25 inches.

           1934         July 21-25         Very minor in vicinity of Wilmington
           11944        August 1-2         Wilmington - severe, S.E.N.C. Barometer
                                           at Wilmington, 29.41
           11944        September 14       Hatteras - severe. Barometer at Hatteras,
                                           27.97.

           1945         September 15-16    Beaufort area - moderate.

           1954         August 30          Moderate to light - whole coast - "Carol"
                                           Barometer 29.41 at Wilmington.
           11954        October 15        Very severe, S.E.N.C. "Hazel." Barometer,
                                           27.70 at Little River, S.C.

           I Storms actually striking    or entering N.C. coast with destructive force.

                                                    A-2

                                     Records of 20th Century Hurricanes Affecting
                                         New Hanover County, N.C., Beach Areas

                      Year        Month and Day-     Notes, Severity, Damage Areas, etc.
                                                                        j
                                                     Major and Moderate -- Cont'd
                    11955        August 11-12        Severe, E.N.C., heavy rains - "Connie."
                                                     Barometer, 28.40 at Fort Macon, N.C.

                    11955        August 17           Moderate in Wilmington Area - "Diane."
                                                     Barometer, 29.13 at Wilmington, N.C.
                    11955        September   19      Severe, E.N.C., excessive precipitation.
                                                     Barometer, 28.35 at Morehead City, N.C.
                                                     "Ione.11

                    11958        September 27        "Helene." Severe in Cape Fear area.
                                                     Maximum 5-minute wind, 69 mph. Minimum
                                                     barometer 28.80 inches - both at Wilm., N.C.

                    11960        September 11-12     "Donna." Severe in Cape Fear area, worse in
                                                     vicinity of Morehead City, N.C. Maximum 1-
                                                     minute wind velocity in Wilmington, 53 mph,
                                                     NW; minimum barometer 28.41 inches.

                                                     Minor

                    1901         September 18

                    1902         June 16

                    1903         September 16        Very minor - delayed flight of Wright Brothers

                    1908         August 31           Cape Lookout damaged - very unusual storm.

                    1916         July 14             Heavy rain in interior.

                    11920        September 20        Cape Fear River area - small storm - little
                                                     damage.

                    1923         October 23

                    1924         September 16-17

                    1924         September 30        Minor in Wilmington area.

                    1928         September 18        S.E.N.C. Barometer, 29.12 at Wilmington, N.C.

                                                           A-3

                                     Records of 20th Century Hurricanes Affecting
                                        New Hanover County, N.C., Beach Areas

                     Year        Month and Day      Notes, Severity, Damage Areas, etc.

                                                    Minor -- Cont'd

                   1929         September 1-2       Very minor

                   1934         September 7-8       Barometer at Hatteras, 28.56

                   1935         September 5-6

                   1937         July 31             Minor, not a hurricane in N.C.

                   1937         August 2-8          Minor, not a hurricane in N.C.

                   1937         September 26-30     Minor, not a hurricane in N.C.

                   1938         September 21        Hatteras and vicinity

                   1938         October 23-24       Minor, not a hurricane in N.C.

                   1940         August 15           Very minor, heavy rain

                   1940         September I         Heavy rains

                   1942         October 11-12       Very minor, not a hurricane in N.C.

                   1944         October 20

                   1945         June 24

                   1945         November 5          Very minor

                   1946         July 6              Very minor

                   1946         September.  19      Minor

                   1947         October 12-13

                   1950         August 19-20

                   1951         October 4

                   1952         August 30           Very minor "Able."

                   1953         August 0            "Barbara" Cape Lookout area.

                                                         A-4

                                    Records of 20th Century Hurricanes Affecting
                                        New Hanover County, N.C., Beach Areas

                     Year        Month and Day      Notes, Severity, Damage Areas, etc.

                                                    Minor -- Cont'd

                    1954         September 10       "Edna"

                    1973         February 17        Erosion and some property damage

                    1979         September-5        "David" 1-year frequency storm

                                                18th CENTURY HURRICANES

                    General.   In the following narrative account of hurricanes affecting the
                    beach areas of New Hanover County, North Carolina, it will be noted that not
                    all hurricanes listed in tables B-1 and B-2 are discussed.             Those not
                    discussed caused very little damage in the study area, or very little record
                    of their characteristics or damages is available.       In some cases the damage
                    a storm    caused outside the study area may be cited as background
                    information.

                    1752 - September 15.     A severe hurricane destroyed the Onslow County seat
                    which was rebuilt in   a new location.   This new location was around 40 miles
                    east of Wilmington.     In Charleston this storm was described, in part, as
                    follows:

                    "The wind blew so hard that it stemmed the Gulf Stream in its northern
                    course and threw it on the shores.      At 9 o'clock the flood came rolling in
                    with great impetuousity and in a short time the tide rose ten feet above
                    high water mark of the highest tide."

                    Among the ships involved was:          "The Hornet, sloop-of-war, with seven
                    anchors, drifted ashore where Gadsden's    Wharf now stands.    She was the only
                    vessel in the harbor which rode out the    storm." This hurricane was probably
                    one of the great hurricanes of the century.

                    1761 -__September 23.     "A London magazine of 1761 reports that a storm
                    occurred in North Carolina, which began on Monday, the 20th of September,
                    and continued until friday, but raged with most violence on the 23d.           Many
                    houses were thrown down, and all vessels, except one, in the Cape Fear
                    River, were driven ashore.     It forced open a new channel at a place called
                    the Haul-Over, between the Cedar House and Bald Head.       This new channel was
                    found on sounding to be eighteen feet at high water, and was near half-a-
                    mile wide." (Wilmington Directory for 1865-66 by Frank D. Smaw, Jr.)

                                                         A-5

                  "The Greatest Hurricane. - The year 1761 was quite an eventful one in the
                  history of Brunswick. It was in that year that the fearful hurricane along
                  the coast occurred which did great damage, throwing down many houses includ-
                  ing the roof of the church, and forcing open New Inlet - which remained for
                  a hundred years until after the. War between the States."          (History of New
                  Hanover County by Waddell.)

                  The records indicate that this also was one of the great hurricanes of North
                  Carolina and considered by some historians to be the most violent to occur
                  along the North Carolina coast.

                                               19th CENTURY HURRICANES

                  General.    Prior to 1871, few records have been found in North Carolina
                  pertaining to hurricanes.     By comparison of old shipwreck data with records
                  of hurricanes kept in adjoining states, it is the opinion of this office
                  that a number of the shipwrecks resulted from the effects of hurricanes.
                  Records of a total of 38 hurricanes affecting the coastal area of North
                  Carolina have been found and are briefly discussed in the following
                  paragraphs.

                  1804 - September 7.         This hurricane struck      the Atlantic coast near
                  Charleston, S.C., then passed, northward through       North Carolina.      Although
                  this storm was well inward of the North Carolina coast, it was so severe
                  that its effects were felt along the entire North Carolina coast.

                  1821 - September 2.      This hurricane, commonly known as the "Long Island
                  Hurricane," hit t@_e coast of North Carolina near 'Morehead City and passed
                  close to New Bern and Washington into Virginia, near Norfolk. Although this
                  was a very severe hurricane, there are no records of shipwrecks or other
                  losses in North carolina.

                  1822 - August.    The only available information states that this hurricane
                  struck the North Carolina   coast.

                  1822 - September 27 or October 27..      Conflicting records indicate that this
                  hurricane struck the coast of North Carolina on either September 27 or
                  October 2.7.  Records indicate that, the schooner ENTERPRISE was a victim of
                  the tropical storm by being wrecked near Rodanthe, N.C., on October 27.

                  1827 - July 30.   This was considered as one of three hurricanes recorded as
                  afecting the North Carolina coast in the year 1827. Records have been found
                  for one other of these hurricanes.      In all probability this was not a very
                  intense storm.

                  1827 - August 24-25.     Records indicate that this hurricane, known as the
                  "St. Kitts Hurricane," passed close offshore from Cape Hatteras,             Tearing
                  the Diamond Shoals Lightship from its anchorage and wrecking it on Ocracoke
                  Island, this hurricane was probably quite severe along the northeastern
                  coast of North Carolina from Beaufort to the Virginia line; probably minor
                  in the Wilmington area.

                                                       A-6

                  1830 - August 16.   This tropical storm, the "Atlantic Coast Hurricane," hit
                  the South Carolina coast near Charleston on August Ist, then moved up
                  through North Carolina and out to sea near Currittick on rho 16th,

                  1837 - August 1.   This tropical hurricane, "The Barbados Hurricane," moved
                  in a continuous arc through the eastern tip of Florida, up to a point south-
                  east of Wilmington, and then out to sea.        Damages from this storm were
                  relatively light in North Carolina.

                  1837 - August 20. "Calypso," as this tropical storm was named, passed close
                  off the shore from Cape Hatteras.    While in all probability this hurricane
                  had sufficient destructive powers, there are no records of loss or damage in
                  North Carolina.

                  1837 - October 9.     "Racer's Storm" first appeared southeast of Jamaica.
                  There were very high winds, and for 2 days (September 27-28) the Kingston
                  streets were flooded. The sloop RACER ran head-on into the hurricane in the
                  Yucatan peninsula and the Bay of Campeche. The hurricane destroyed the town
                  of Brazos, Santiago, on October 3-4.      It then curved north, flooded the
                  Texas coast, and struck Galveston on the 5th.     Curving more to the east it
                  hit New Orleans on the 6th, Mobile on the 7th, and Charleson on the 8th. It
                  was on the North Carolina coast on the 9th where it was credited with taking
                  around 90 lives in one of the worst marine disasters in North Carolina
                  history, the wreck of the proud new steamboat HOME.

                  1842 - August 24. At  'least three ships were known to have been wrecked and
                  others were reported aground.   This storm took a terrific toll in shipping,
                  lives, and property along the North Carolina coast.

                  1853 - September 7 - Cape Verde - Hatteras hurricane (Tannehill).             No
                  specific data are available on this memorable storm, but weather records in
                  1893 mention this day as a day of previous high flood on the Cape Fear
                  River.

                  1854 - September 8.   This hurricane of great violence has been recorded as
                  passing near Charleston on September 8 and Norfolk on the 9th.       Therefore,
                  it must have pased directly over eastern North Carolina, although no records
                  have been found proving this.

                  1857 - September 12.      Conflicting data make    it difficult to determine
                  whether this hurricane occurred in 1856 or 1857.     It was reported that this
                  September storm, or "Northeaster" as they were called in the middle 1800's,
                  was very severe in southeastern North Carolina.             A German farmer.,
                  Mr. Charlie Teigen, who lived about 6 or 7 miles east of Wilmington, related
                  that the wind blew for 2 days and then shifted to southeast to southwest.
                  He further related that Wrightsville Beach at that time contained many live
                  oak trees.   These trees, with the exception of a few which died soon after
                  the storm, were washed away.      He also related that fishing shacks were
                  washed away and that debris floated across the sound into his yard which was
                  some 30 feet above sea level.    Other reports tell of the hurricane passing

                                                     A-7

                off Hatteras, and of a new inlet resulting south of Federal Point. if this
                is a true account, there is little doubt but that this was one of the great
                storms of the 19th century in North Carolina.

                1861 - October.     Very little information is available pertaining to this
                storm.   However, records indicate that a terrific gale scattered a fleet of
                75 ships enroute from Norfolk to South Carolina.          It is felt that in all
                probability this storm was of sufficient strength         to be classified as a
                hurricane although there are no definite records to       this effect.

                1871 - August 18-19.     "The cyclone, after striking     Savannah and Charleston
                seems to have taken' a more easterly course, as only moderately high winds
                were felt here.

                "August 21.   Reports have been received that a very,severe gale was raging
                at Smithville (Southport) some 30 miles south of Wilmington, on the mouth of
                the Cape Fear River, on Saturday night, August 19.         (Data from journal of
                Wilmington Weather Station.)

                1871    November 14.    "The order UP SIGNALS was received at 1 p.m.            Rain
                continued thru the    night, the wind was blowing very fresh with signs of
                increasing force.     The barometer kept falling rapidly until 10:50 a.m.
                (lowest was 29.49).    The wind velocity up to that time had increased to 36
                mph blowing strong   gusts, the force of which could only be estimated.            A
                comparative lull of a few minutes was succeeded by a very heavy blast, at
                least 45 mph. At that time the wind veered to southwest and the barometer
                began to rise." (Wilmington data.)

                1873 - October 6-8. Village of Punta Rassa, Florida, destroyed. There were
                reports of damage at iacksonville and Charleston and destructive gales off
                Cape Henry. Winds from the west produced a maximum 5-minute velocity of 38
                miles per hour at Wilmington., 1

                1873 - November 17.    The Wilmington Weather Bureau reported winds from the
                northwest, producing a maximum 5-minute velocity of 36 miles per hour.
                Detailed information is not available on this 'hurricane.

                1874.- September 28. The Wilmington Weather Bureau recorded the following:

                "During the nights of the 27th and 28th the center passed northeasterly over
                upper Florida to the coast of Georgia, pursuing a track similar to the
                storms of 1873. It passed along the Carolina coast on the 28th developing a
                force that has been generally compared to the hurricane of 1854. The center
                of this storm passed a short distance east of Charleston and west of
                Wilmington and Norfolk, crossing Chesapeake Bay on the morning of the 29th.
                The lowest barometric pressures reported were: Charleston 29.06, Wilmington
                29.15, Norfolk 29.41.      The maximum 5-minute velocities were:          Savannah,
                N.W., 36 miles; Charleston, E., and N.W., 48; Wilmington, S.E., 45, and
                S.W., 50; Cape Hatteras, S.E., 75.11

                                                     A-8

                       "----The 2 p.m. observation showed a fall in the barometer of .189, the wind
                       from southeast and oscillating to southwest with a velocity of 28 mph. At 5
                       p.m. the wind oscillated continually between the east and west point blowing
                       in heavy gusts of which some were 45 mph. At 5:15 the rain ceased. At 6:15
                       p.m. the center of the storm was immediately near, the minimum height of the
                       barometer occurred which read 29.149.      The wind blowing in heavy gusts from
                       the east, southeast, and south and the anemoscope oscillating from the east
                       via south to the west several times to the northwest.           At 7:15 p.m. the
                       barometer read 29.234 the wind blowing in heavy gusts almost uniformly from
                       southwest some of which attaihed-a velocity of 48 to 50 mph .... The destruc-
                       tion was very great in the Cape Fear area, uprooting large trees and carry-
                       ing them at a considerable distance.         In many places along Water Street
                       (Wilmington) the waves of the Cape Fear River were above the wharf and the
                       business section was entirely deserted.              The    storm   at   Smithville
                       (Southport), 30 miles from Wilmington, was very disastrous. Several houses
                       were blown down, the warehouses on the Grrison wharf were completely
                       destroyed and the Oceanhouse was also demolished.             The Spanish Barque
                       "Arrina" lying in the roads was blown over in ten fathoms of water.              The
                       rice crop along the river was injured to the extent of 33 percent.               The
                       telegraph lines were blown down; several railroad bridges were destroyed.
                       The corner of the new Post office was blown down."

                       1874 - November 22.    This is another tropical storm which was considered of
                       hurricane force, although there are no records to substantiate it. Records
                       do report that the schooner HENRIETTA of Saco, Maine, captained by James H.
                       Sampson, lost both of her masts during a sudden blow on November 18.
                       Wilmington Weather Bureau records indicate that a maximum 5-minute wind
                       velocity was recorded blowing from the southwest at 38 miles per hour.

                       1875 - October 13. This hurricane passed off the North Carolina coast. The
                       only records available state that the brig NELLIE ANTRIM was damaged by a
                       northwest gale off Cape Fear.         Damage to the North Carolina coast was
                       probably light.

                       1876 -_September 17. This hurricane, moving up from the Bahamas, struck the
                       Atlantic coast near the North Carolina-South Carolina State line and then
                       continued north, passing over Washington, D.C., between 4 and 6 p.m. on the
                       17th.    Generally, the path of this hurricane coincided with that of
                       Hurricane Hazel in 1954, although this hurricane was not as severe a
                       hurricane as "Hazel."     The anemometers at both Wilmington and Cape Lookout
                       were disabled at the height of the storm after recording, respectfully,
                       north, 60 miles per hour; and southwest, 73 miles per hour.             The lowest
                       pressures were:      Smithville (Southport), 29.24; Wimington, 29.32; Cape
                       -Lookout, 29.46. Records indicate that there was considerable wind damage in
                       Wilmington and that at least one ship, the British bark EXCELSIOR, was
                       driven ashore near Wilmington.       Reports also tell of a camp being washed
                       away at New River near Swansboro, N.C., and two lives being lost due to
                       drowning.

                1877 - November 2. This hurricane is another of the many which have affect-
                ed the coast of North Carolina,, for which few records have been found.      The
                Wilmington Weather Bureau, however, has a record which shows that a maximum
                5-minute velocity of 38 miles per hour was recorded from the southwest.

                1878 - September 12. This hurricane moved almost due north from the Florida
                Keys to Lake Erie. Reports relate that a great many ships were disabled and
                wrecked and that the lighthouse on, St. John's Bar near Jacksonville,
                Florida, was blown down.     The steamer CITY OF NEW YORK reported that the
                hurricane lasted 40 hours between Charleston and Cape Hatteras.          Maximum
                winds recorded were:    Smithville (Southport), 48 miles per hour; and Cape
                Lookout, 75 miles per hour from the southeast.

                1878 - October 22.     The chart in the Annual Report of the Chief Signal
                Officer indicates that this hurricane passed directly over Cape Fear.       "The
                storm commenced at Wilmington at 3 p.m., wind E.; at 10:20 p.m. wind sudden-
                ly shifted from N.E. to N.W.; at 10:40 p.m. maximum velocity 36, N.W.
                occurred and at 11:56 p.m. the lowest pressure, viz., 29.12.       Cape Lookout
                barometer 29.05 wind S.E. 68 maximum velocity since 4:37. p.m., 100 miles.
                Portsmouth reported wind S.E. 82; Smithville E. 32 and Charleston N.E., 30.
                The steamer JUANITA, at Wilmington on the 22d, reported terrific N.E. gale
                between Charleston and Tybee. .    The steamer CITY OF HOUSTON was lost on
                Frying Pan Shoals.     A great many ships damaged or lost all along the
                Atlantic Coast." This was a very destructive storm along the coast.

                1879 - August_19.   This hurricane seemed to have followed a path resembling
                those of "Carol" (1954) and "Connie" (1955). It apparently struck the coast
                between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, probably in the Swansboro vicinity.
                There are many accounts of this hurricane in old books, records, and
                newspaper clippings. One account reads as follows:

                                      A TERRIBLE STORM August 19, 1879

                The worst storm every to have visited our coast took place today.        It was
                particularly terrific at Beaufort and Morehead City. The old Atlantic Hotel
                was the first to go, and it was blown down completely, the guests being
                forced to flee hurriedly, Next to go was the Ocean View Hot     'el.  Scores of
                buildings were blown down and several people lost their lives.      At least a
                dozen yachts also were smashed to pieces.     The Atlantic and North Carolina
                railroad tracks were torn 'up for about a thousand yards.        In Wilmington
                dozens of houses also were unroofed and it is reported that great damage
                took place elsewhere along the coast."

                At 5 a.m. -(18th) the wind reached its greatest velocity, 37 miles NW, at
                Smithville, and at 5 a.m. at Wilmington W, 68 miles.     At that time (5 a.m.,
                18th) at Cape Lookout, the wind had increased to SE, 80 miles, the rain fell
                in torrents, and a fearful sea swept away the stable and outbuildings.' The
                schooner SECCHELLE came ashore -as wind veered to southwest; and, although
                drawing 12 feet, was carried, a    total wreck, above the highest tidemark,

                                                  A-10

                     over ground never remembered to have been overflowed before.        Af ter 5 a.m.
                     the wind and rain abated at Smithville,- with 2. 10 inches rainfal I in the
                     preceding 10 hours. At 6"30 a.m'. (18th) at Macon, the anemometer registered
                     80 miles' and then the electrical connections failed.          At 6:30 a.m. the
                     barometer at Cape Lookout, which at 6 a.m. was 29.22, had fallen to 29.15
                     and the anemometer cups were blown away, the wind then blowing at the rate
                     of 138 miles per hour.    The barometer remained at 29.15 until 7 a.m., the
                     wind and sea still increasing.      By 7:30 a.m. the barometer had risen to
                     29.18, with wind at its greatest force - an estimated velocity of SW, 165
                     miles.  At 8:45 a.m. the wind at Portsmouth, N.C.., was SE, 97 miles, when
                     the recording apparatus became temporarily disabled.         At Macon the wind
                     veered to SW at 8 a.m. (18th) and the tide rose 4 feet        above the ordinary
                     tide. At 8:30 a.m. the wind reached its maximum recorded velocity at Cape
                     Hatteras, S.E., 74, when the cups were blown away; and at Kitty Hawk at 9:50
                     a.m., S.E., 100 miles. The gale continued at Wilmington until 10 a.m., with
                     a total rainfall of 4.60 inches in 6-1/2 hours.

                     The damage done by this storm cannot be enumerated.      The damage to maritime
                     property must have been enormous; reports at hand show that over 100 large
                     vessels were shipwrecked or suffered serious injury, while the number of
                     yachts and smaller vessels which were destroyed or seriously damaged must
                     certainly exceed 200. The journal of the Wilmington Weather Office gives a
                     detailed account of the destruction in the city and to ships in the
                     vicinity.   This was most certainly one of the great hurricanes that have
                     struck the southeastern North Carolina coast.

                     1881 -__August 27.    This hurricane hit the Atlantic coast near Savannah,
                     Georgia, where     re were over 335 casulaties.      It then continued westward
                     into the United States.         Relatively little damage occurred in North
                     Carolina. Reports' from Masonboro Sound near Wilmington tell of a heavy gale
                     on the night of the 27th, with heavy seas and unusually high tides.          Heavy
                     rains were experienced, and winds were recorded at 27 miles per hour from
                     the east.  Undoubtedly, this was one of the very minor hurricanes affecting
                     North Carolina.

                     1881 -_September 9.     A report at the Weather Bureau office in Wilmington
                     reads as follows:

                     "Brisk NE winds and light rain early. in the morning, and at 7:30 a.m.
                     accompanied by thunder and lightning.      At 9:45 a.m. 'UP SIGNALS' received.
                     At 10 a.m. the wind increased to a gale (35 miles) .        The lowest barometer
                     reading was 29.302 at I p.m.    The center passed station at I p.m. when wind
                     veered to the SW and to the west at 1: 15 p.m. when the wind -suddenly
                     increased to a hurricane blowing at the rate of 90 miles for 4 minutes when
                     the wires of the anemometer were carried away. At this hour the roof of the
                     Purcell House was blown off.      Bark LIVE OAK blown ashore, small schooner
                     capsized in the river.    Freight houses blown down, several vessels dragged
                     anchor in the river and were more or less damaged.        Houses were unroofed,
                     shade trees, brick walls, fences, telegraph and telephone wires prostrated.
                     The damage done is immense and estimated at $60,000.11              A report on

                                                         A-11

             September 10, 1881, estimated the damage at $100,000.         A maxiintain 5-minitte
             velocity of 65 miles per hour from the west waH recorded at Wi till i ligtoll.
             This is the highest ever recorded at this station.            This               is
             considered as one of the great hurricanes in North CaroLina history, and
             probably of greater intensity than Hurricane Hazel.

             1883-- September 11.    This tropical -storm moved inland in the vicinity of
             the North Carolina-South Carolina State line and spread over North Carolina.
             Wind velocities along the North Carolina coast were recorded as 93 miles per
             hour, SE, at Southport; 39 miles' per--h6uf, SE, at Wilmington; 60 miles per
             hour, NE, at Fort Macon and Cape Lookout; and 48 miles per hour, NE, at
             Hatteras.   Wilmington barometer read 29.41 inches.       Reports at Wilmington
             tell of little damage except to the telephone exchange and to one ship which
             broke loose from her mooring. The greatest damage caused by high water was
             sustained by the rice crop.

             1885 - August 24-25. This severe storm moved inland in the vicinity of the
             South Carolina-Georgia State line on-the 24th, passed landward of the coast,
             and emerged into the Atlantic Ocean on the 25th near Kitty Hawk, N.C.
             Maximum wind velocities recorded were:     SW, 98 miles per hour at Southport;
             SW, 52 miles per hour at Wilmington; SV, 92 miles per hour at Fort Macon;
             and S, 52 miles per hour at Hatteras.        The anemometer cups blew away at
             Southport before the peak of the storm arrived.        At the peak, winds were
             estimated at 125 miles per hour.         The Wilmington barometer read 29.36
             inches.  Property damage at South-port and surrounding locations approached
             $1 million.

             1888   October 11.    Records of this hurricane are very sketchy regarding
             damage inflicted or path of travel.     The records at the Wilmington Weather
             Bureau, however, show a maximum 5-minute velocity of 47 miles per hour from
             the NE and that the fastest mile recorded was 60 miles per hour, also from
             the. NE. The lowest barometric pressure reading was 29.454.

             1893 - August 28.    This seems to have been one of the great hurricanes of
             the 19th century.    The storm came from the Atlantic, passed north of the
             usual track (north of the West Indies and Bahama Islands), and struck the
             coast between Savannah and Charleston.       Islands along the South Carolina
             coast were submerged. At least 1,000 leves were lost in Charleston and the
             property loss was $10 million. The maximum wind velocity at Charleston was
             reported as 96 miles per hour for 5 minutes, with an extreme 1-minute
             velocity of 120 miles per hour.     The lowest barometer recorded was 29.076.
             Entries in the Wilmington station journal read in part as follows:

             TlWind continued to increase in     force during early a.m. hauling to SE.
             Pressure decreased to a reduced reading of 29.60 at 9:30 a.m. At 10:15 a.m.
             wind was blowing at the terrific rate of 49 mph from SE, veering to S & SW
             and moderating towards midnight.    The damage in this immediate vicinity was
             very slight from wind, but considerable damage (probably amounting to
             several thousand) was done to merchandise in s    'torms along river front. The
             river tide was highest ever known there.      All the wharves being submerged.

                                                 A-12

                   The greatest damage was to shipping.   The Norwegian bark 'Bonita' was blown
                   ashore in Cape Fear River near Southport and a number of vessels wrecked on
                   the coast."

                   The marine losses were much greater than the station journal indicates.
                   Four ships were wrecked between Lockwoods Folly and Cape Fear.     Eight more
                   were lost on Frying Pan Shoals. . There were other wrecks along the coast
                   between Cape Fear and Cape Lookout. One old newspaper report states that 36
                   ships were lost in the storm between Lockwoods Folly and Ocracoke Island.
                   The sea washed across Wrightsville Beach Island and Carolina Beach.         For
                   Wilmington and the Cape Fear area this hurricane seems to have been the most
                   severe since records began in 1871.    However, the old log books and news-
                   paper clippings state that the hurricane that followed in October was even
                   more severe.

                   Other maximum wind velocities recorded were 72 miles per hour from the south
                   at Southport and 50 miles per hour from the south at Kitty Hawk.

                   1893 - October 13. The following is from the station journal at Wilmington:

                   "Rain continued from yesterday, becoming heavy at times.      NE gale set in
                   during early morning.    Barometer fell steadily all night and until 12:15
                   p.m. today, reaching 29 inches even, the lowest on record at this station.
                   The wind held steadily from NE until about 10:35 a.m. when it    shifted to SE
                   blowing from that direction until 2 p.m. when it began to work   around to SW,
                   increasing very regularly until 12:25 p.m. at which time the highest
                   velocity (56 mph) was attained.      The wind was remarkable     for the very
                   regular rate of speed maintained, the instrument recording 45    to 48 mph for
                   several hours.   Very heavy gusts, of, only a few seconds duration, caused
                   extreme velocity of 60 mph several different times extreme for the day 68,
                   and the high puffs doubtless reached as much as 75 or 80 miles. The wind so
                   steady from SE caused the highest tide in the memory of the oldest river
                   men, exceeding the previous highest tide (that of 1853) by 16 inches.       The
                   water in the river was forced upstream by the tide and wind until it rose
                   over the docks, flooding Water Street and destroying great quantities of
                   stores, cotton, hay,'flour, etc.    Great damage was done to rice fields and
                   river docks.

                   "The storm had been  heralded by the Weather Bureau and no doubt much loss
                   and greater disasters were avoided by the public heeding the warnings.
                   About 12:45 p.m. the'barometer began to rise and it    went up nearly as fast
                   and steadily as it had gone down.     The wind began   to slacken very slowly
                   about sundown, and by 8 p.m. the most severe storm that has visited this
                   station in its history of 23 years was over."

                   (This hurricane evidently was very destructive in the southeastern North
                   Carolina area, but there were fewer ships wrecked.     The Charleston records
                   make no mention of the storm and it is barely mentioned in Tannehill's list.
                   This hurricane may have been similar to the one in 1961; perhaps it was

                                                      A-13

               small in diameter but of great intensity.' The ntunerotts newspaper clippillp's
               in the station journal indicate a very-,severe hurricalit., worse 01all the Olle
               that struck in August. The path of this hurricane is not known here.)
               1894 - September 2@.     This hurricane passed up through Haiti, Cuba, and
               Florida before causing high winds in North Carolina. The Wilmington Weather
               Bureau office recor@ed a maximum 5-minute velocity of 35 miles per hour from
               the northeast. No   other information is available.

               .1894 - October 9.    This hurricane moved northeastward along the Atlantic
               coast states inside the coastline.       At Wilmington, N.C., the storm was
               accompanied by heamy rainfall and high tides, with very little damage in
               that area. There are no other records of any value on this hurricane.

               .1898 - October 2. High east winds along the coast were reported. Hurricane
               signals were received at Wilmington at 11 a.m.       This hurricane appears to
               have been much more,severe along the coast than indicated by observations at
               Wilmington, since other reports state that a Navy lookout station at
               Carolina Beach was destroyed by a heavy surf.

               1899 - October 30.    Following is the record of this storm as written up in
               the Wilmington station journal:

               "Inappreciable showers during night. Light rain began at 8:20 a.m., became
               heavy toward evening and continued at midnight. Generally cooler and rapid-
               ly decreasing pressure after 10 a.m., The wind gradually increased in force
               from the NE reaching' a gale velocity at 3 p.m. and became very severe during
               evening.   Max. vel.' of wind to midnight 42 mph from the NE.          The gale
               continued very severe during the night and forenoon accompanied by heavy
               rain till 4:50 a.m. and light showers from 8:10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Rapid and
               decided fall in barometer till 5 a.m. when it reached 28.90 (actual). After
               this time it began to rise sharply. The wind gradually veered from NE to SE
               during the night, blowing with increased force, reaching a maximum velocity
               of 43 miles from the SE at 4:30 a.m. The wind came in great gusts at times,
               reached extreme velocities of 50 to 55 miles. Toward noon the wind began to
               shift to SW'ly becoming steady from that direction at 4 p.m. and gradually
               decreasing in force@.    Gale ended at 8:07 p.m.      Much higher temperatures
               after midnight, falling slowly during the day. The amount of damage done in
               Wilmington and vicinity is enormous, not so much by the high winds but by
               the tremendously high tide accompanying.     The tide reached nearly the high-
               est point in the higtory of the port, and much damage was due to submerged
               wharves and warehouse floors. At, many points the overflow covered Water and
               Nutt Streets.  In the city proper only a few other minor damages were done.
               Such as trees, signs, and awnings blown down and a section of the north wall
               of the Masonic Temple in course of erection.

               "At the summer resort beache.s - Wrightsville Beach 10 miles due east and
               Carolina Beach, 18    miles southeast - the wind and tide played havoc.
               Sixteen cottages were washed away at Wrightsville Beach and the remainder
               more or less damaged.. A large section of the railway trestle connecting the
               beach with the mainland and the track on the beach was washed away.

                                                  A-14

                    "At Carolina Beach the devastation was about as great and but few of Lhe
                    cottages remain.   From Southport only meager reports are to be had as the
                    telegraph wires are down.    Such reports as received indicate much damage.
                    The steamer SOUTHPORT was thrown up on the shore 100 feet above high water
                    mark.  The tug BLANCHE was thrown high and dry on the beach.        The launch
                    NAPTHA costing $1,800 was smashed and is a total wreck. All wharves except-
                    ing the Government dock were demolished. Several houses near the water edge
                    were washed away. The most conservative estimates place the known damage at
                    and near Wilmington as $200,000."

                    Records pertaining to damages in other areas of North Carolina are not
                    available.

                                               20TH CENTURY HURRICANES

                    General. While there have been numerous hurricanes which have passed north-
                    ward along the Atlantic coast, some skirting close to Hatteras, only those
                    which have shown a decided destructive force along the southeastern North
                    Carolina tidal areas, or those of unusual occurrences, are discussed in the
                    following paragraphs.

                    1904 - September 14.    This tropical  hurricane entered the Atlantic coast
                    near the North Carolina-South Carolina State line on the 14th, then recurved
                    northeastward, passing into Virginia. The Wilmington Weather Bureau office
                    recorded a maximum 5-minute velocity of 36 miles per hour from the south.
                    There was considerable damage to seaside property and many seagoing vessels
                    were wrecked.

                    1904 - November 13. This hurricane was born off the northern coast of South
                    America, moved in a northerly direction, and skirted the coast of North
                    Carolina. It was accompanied by heavy rains along the coast and snow in the
                    northern latitudes.   The observed central pressures were not usually low,
                    but the storm was fairly intense and caused considerable damage along the
                    coast.

                    1906 - September 17.   This very severe hurricane entered North Carolina in
                    the vicinity of Southport, passing almost due west into the United States.
                    The record in the Wilmington Weather Bureau office reads as follows:

                    "September 17. Rapid fall of barometer during night with wind shifting from
                    north to northeast, increasing to a severe gale, and reaching a maximum
                    5-minute velocity of 50 mph at 8:55 a.m. Wind blew a gale for several hours
                    diminishing towards noon and veering to east and southeast.        Considerable
                    damage was done in the city and on the beaches.    Trees and wires were blown
                    down in all directions and trestle on the trolley line to the beach badly
                    damaged. At the beaches a number of houses were washed away by the unusual-
                    ly high water. No lives were lost.

                                                       A-15

             "September 18.   Reports continue to come in of damage by yesterday's storm.
             (Note - There seemed to be a reluctance to use the word 'Hurricane' in the
             old days.)  Many small boats were driven ashore in the river and sounds but
             no loss of life is so far reported in these waters.        Steamer NAVAHOE from
             New York and the PENTUNIA from Savannah arrived today. Both encountered the
             storm of Monday off the mouth of the Cape Fear and reported it very severe
             and that the beaches are covered,with wreckage.     The Captain of the NAVAHOE
             reported the unusually low barometer reading of 27.95 at 9:30 a.m. Monday
             about 13 miles southeast of the mouth of the Cape Fear.         The fall became
             very rapid with great oscillation and.hurricane from southeast.       A calm of
             about 15 minutes ensued followed by a southwest hurricane.      Officers of the
             vessel estimate the velocity as much as a hundred miles per hour. The baro-
             meter observations taken during the storm preclude all possibility of an
             error being made in the lowest reading.     The vessel barometer, an aneroid,
             was carefully compared on the 22nd and found to read .05 too high.       (Note
             This would give a reading of 27.90 when corrected.)"

             Of this storm the Charleston record reads:

             "A tropical storm -entered the S.C. coast near Georgetown moving generally
             WNW up through SC.   An unofficial 28.72 inches was recorded at Goergetown.
             No reports were received from the immediate vicinity of the storm center as
             it moved inland, although it caused considerable loss to shipping."

             1908 - July 30.   This storm of marked intensity Moved northwestward through
             the Bahamas, skirted the east coast of Florida, passed over Hatteras, then
             moved out to sea.   Records at the Weather Bureau office at Wilmington show
             that the maximum 5-minute velocity recorded was 48 miles per hour from the
             NE and that the barometer reached-a low of 29.14. Winds reaching a velocity
             of 58 miles per hour from the northwest were recorded at Hatteras.           This
             storm was rather severe along the coast where much    damage was done. Records
             tell of the flooding of Wrightsville Beach, and of the many homes which were
             washed away.

             1908 - August 31 - September 1.      There was something very puzzling about
             this weak tropical storm.    It is not listed in any record of hurricanes or
             tropical storms and is barely mentioned in the Monthly Weather Review.         It
             apparently passed over the Weather Station at Cape Lookout.       A letter from
             the light house keeper says:

             "I have respectfully to inform you that the Hurricane of Aug. 31st and
             Sep. Ist, 1908, blew down the Storm-tower at this place; the lower section
             is badly twisted, bent and broken.-."

             There was no mention of a waterspout or tornado.      The CO in Washington was
             very much interested as this is the only instance of a regular storm-warning
             tower being destroyed in a hurricane.     The old letters do not explain the
             mystery. The storm was not felt in    southeastern North Carolina.

                                                A-16

                     1910 - October 19-20.     This hurricane developed in the Caribbean, in'OvOkl
                     northward, made a loop over            C11h4, CI-OrAMOd Fl.)Vi.14. 411.1 tholl 111.1ve-1
                     northward along the Atlantic coastline and out to sea at Hatteras.       Reports
                     indicate that this hurricane was of great violence along the North Carolina
                     coast, causing high tides and heavy seas at the beaches near Wilmington,
                     where a steel pier was partially washed away.

                     1913 - September 2.    This hurricane moved north from the Bahamas to Cape
                     Hatteras, then curved west across central North Carolina where it dissipat-
                     ed. Wind velocities recorded were: Norfolk, Virginia, 50 miles per hour E;
                     Hatteras, N.C., 74 miles per hour SE; Raleigh, N.C., 37 miles per hour NE;
                     and Wilmington, N.C., 30 miles per hour W. Although the storm caused only a
                     few marine disasters, it did great damge in eastern North Carolina, particu-
                     larly in Pamlico and Beaufort Counties.      Belhaven reported damages to be
                     approximately $350,000, while reports indicated that damages in Beaufort
                     County exceeded $2 million.    Winds at Washington, N.C., were estimated as
                     being 90 to 100 miles per hour.     The Neuse River at New Bern rose 11 feet
                     above mean low water, and along the Pamlico County coast the tide was
                     considered to be as high as that experienced in 1933 and 1955.       Five lives
                     were lost in eastern North Carolina, and the total property loss was
                     estimated between $4 and $5 million.    This hurricane was very minor in the
                     vicinity of Wilmington.

                     1916 - Julz 14.    This is another example of an odd storm.        The Monthly
                     Weather Review says:

                     "The hurricane is believed to have been one of the most severe that has
                     visited this coast since the Weather Bureau was established."

                     The storm apparently moved northwest, passed near Frying Pan Shoals, and
                     struck the coast in the area near the North Carolina-South Carolina
                     boundary.  It was hardly noticeable at Cape Fear, but as it moved inland it
                     was accompanied by the heaviest rainfall on record for North Carolina.        At
                     Altapass, N.C., the rainfall in 24 hours totaled 22.22 inches.

                     1918 - August 24. This small tropical hurricane moved inland just north of
                     New River Inlet, N.C., passed over the sound area of southeastern North
                     Carolina and into the Atlantic Ocean between Hatteras and Manteo.            The
                     storm, while severe on the immediate coast, did not extend more than 50
                     miles inland. Maximum wind velocities recorded were 34 miles per hour NE at
                     Wilmington and 64 miles per hour SW at Hatteras.           Considerable damage
                     resulted to beach resorts and towns along the North Carolina coast. A steel
                     pier was destroyed at Wrightsville Beach near.Wilmington.

                     1920 - September 22-23.     This hurricane is unique in that it originated
                     comparatively near an offshore area, north of the Bahamas.      It crossed the
                     coast near the mouth of the Cape Fear River, about 25 miles south of
                     Carolina Beach.   It was rather weak and caused little damage.      The maximum
                     5-minute wind at Wilmington was 33 miles per hour NE, and the minimum
                     barometric pressure was 29.93 inches.

                                                        A-17

               1924 - August 25.    The storm center moved up over Puerto Rico along the
               Atlantic coast and passed a short distance east' of Hatteras, where. highest
               winds were recorded as 72 miles per hour from the northwest.       The Weather
               Bureau at Hatteras rates this tropical storm as one of the greatest hurri-
               canes, both in intensity and extent, ever experienced 'off the Atlantic
               coast.

               The station journal at Wilmington reports as follows:

               "Very heavy swells from the east--.rol-led in at the beach ... The wind was
               considerably stronger at the beach than at Wilmington, the estimated maximum
               velocity being 45 mph. The maximum velocity at Wilmington during the storm
               was 28 mph ... No damage was done in the vicinity of Wilmington. Residents at
               Wrightsville Beach were considerably alarmed and several hundred people came
               to the mainland in the afternoon."

               1924 - September 20.    This disturbance originated in the east Gulf area,
               moved inland over northern Florida, skirted the Atlantic coast to the North
               Carolina-South Carolina State line where it moved inland, passing just north
               of Wilmington, N.C., and struck the Atlantic coast again just north of Cape
               Henry, Virginia.    Wind velocities recorded were as follows:       Wilmington,
               N.C., 40 miles per hour SW; Hatteras, 52 miles per hour S; and Norfolk,
               Virginia, 65 miles per hour W.     Easterly gales were experienced along the
               entire coast, but no reports of damages have been found.

               1925 - December 2.     This storm is of interest due to the late date of
               occurrence.   This hurricane passed through eastern North Carolina, hitting
               the'coast near Cape Lookout. Highest wind recorded was 40 miles per hour SW
               at Atlantic City.   A ship 100 miles SSE of Wilmington reported a barometer
               reading of 28.90 inches.    Unusually high tides were reported, but damages
               were light.

               1928 - September 18. This   hurricane originated near the Cape Verde Islands,
               moved to central Florida where it recurved to follow the coastline of the
               United States, then passed inward to the Great Lakes.      This storm, said to
               be one of the most violent and destructive of the century, was most destruc-
               tive in Florida wbere the barometer at West Palm Beach fell       to a low of
               27.43. As this storm moved northward from Florida it decreased in intensity
               and was not too severe inthe coastal areas of North Carolina;     however, the
               heavy ' rains  which   accompanied   it   caused   considerable   flooding    at
               Fayetteville. Maximum wind recorded at Wilmington was 24 miles    per hour SE,
               with a barometer reading of 29.12--inches.

               1930 - September 12. This tropical disturbance passed about 50    miles south-
               eastwardly from Hatteras and continued generally east into the ocean.        The
               Weather Bureau office at Wilmington reported the maximum wind as NE, 15
               miles per hour, with a barome 'ter. reading of 29.71 inches.   Reports tell of
               heavy seas at Wrightsville Beach but little damage. No other information is
               available.

                                                  A-18

                     1933 - September 16.    This tropical hurricane moved up the At I ant it. i oast
                     and pased slightly to the west of Hatteras, N.C.       Wind velocities ret-ortled
                     were 42 miles per hour NW at Wilmington and 16 miles per hour at Hatteras,
                     where the low barometer reading was 28.25 inches.      While this storm was not
                     particularly severe in  the Cape Fear area, it caused extensive damage in the
                     Hatteras area.   Record high water was reported all along the western shore
                     of Pamlico Sound.    At Oriental and Arapahoe the water was reported to be
                     about 8 inches higher   than during "lone" in 1955.      Atlantic also reported
                     higher water than that which occur   'red in 1955.  Old residents of Beaufort,
                     N.C., delcare it was    the worst storm they ever experienced.         Twenty-one
                     lives were lost, and the property damage along the North Carolina coast was
                     estimated at more than $3 million. Heaviest damages occurred from Carteret
                     County to the Virginia line.

                     1934 - July 21-25.    This hurricane was hardly noticeable in the Wilmington
                     area, but it is noteworthy because of its unusual origin and path.              it
                     originated off Cape Hatteras and, moving southwest, it crossed into the Gulf
                     of Mexico and struct Corpus Christi, Texas.

                     1935 -_September 5.    This hurricane caused minor wind damage in Wilmington
                     and practically none at nearby beaches.      It passed inland, about 100 miles
                     west of Wilmington, where the maximum 5-minute wind was recorded at 48 miles
                     per hour S, and the minimum barometric pressure was 29.63 inches.

                     1944 - August 1.    Originating several hundred miles north of Haiti, this
                     storm moved into North Carolina after striking the coast a short distance
                     south of the State line, went northward through North Carolina and Virginia,
                     then northeastward into the Atlantic with diminishing force.        The winds at
                     Wilmington reached an extreme velocity of 52 miles per hour from the south,
                     with gusts estimated as high as 72 miles per hour.           A maximum 5-minute
                     velocity of 46 miles per hour S was also recorded at Wilmington, where the
                     barometer fell to 29.41 inches.         No exact data on wave heights were
                     obtained.

                     Wrightsville Beach suffered heavy damages. Two piers were partially wrecked
                     and many roofs were damaged,     Total damage in southeastern North Carolina
                     was estimated at $1,600,000. However, there were no fatalities.

                     1944 - September 14.   The center of this storm, known as the Great Atlantic
                     Hurricane, passed almost directly over Hatteras, traveling about due north.
                     Highest wind velocities recorded in North Carolina were:       90 miles per hour
                     W at Hatteras; 70 miles per hour NNW at Elizabeth City; and 27 miles per
                     hour NW at Wilmington. The storm had little effect on the Wilmington area;
                     67 mile-per-hour winds were reported in the Morehead City-Beaufort area. A
                     low pressure of 27.97 inches was reported at Hatteras, the lowest reading in
                     over 70 years.      Along the North Carolina coast, property damage was
                     estimated to exceed half a million dollars, while damages to crops were
                     estimated at over $1 million.

                                                          A-19

             1945 - September 16-17.       @This tropical storm moved north-norLheast from
             Richmond County in southern North Carolina to      Person County in the norLhern
             part' of North Carolina. -Although the loss. of. life and livestock was small,
             chiefly because of adequate warning.service,       the economic losses were very
             large.    The heavy rains in the interior of       North Carolina caused record
             floods on many rivers.    The Cape Fear River at    Fayetteville reached a stage
             of 68.9 feet on the 21st,.     No estimate of the total damage caused by this
             hurricane has been made.     The maximum 5-minute wind velocity at Wilmington
             was only SSE, 32 miles per hour. Practically no damage was caused along the
             coast.

             1946 - July 6.    This tropical disturbance crossed the coast in the vicinity
             of Charleston, then moved north-northeastward, pasing approximately 20 miles
             west of Wrightsville Beach.        Barometric pressure was read at 29.71 at
             Wilmington, and gusts to 60 miles per hour were experienced at Wrightsville
             and Carolina Beach.       This storm was considered as being of moderate
             intensity, and property damage was of a minor nature.

             1947 - October 12-13.      This hurricane moved northeastward off the coast,
             causing high tides and heavy rain all along the southeastern coast.            High
             tides flooded much of -the lowlands 'and forced residents to evacuate some
             homes in Morehead City.     The waterfront in Wilmington suffered some damage
             to stock, due to high water in the street.

             1953 - August 13.      Hurricane Barbara, as this tropical disturbance was
             labeled, moved northward offshore of southeastern North Carolina on the
             12th, moved inland above Cape Lookout on the 13th, and then passed oceanward
             just south of the Virginia line early on the 14th.         Property damage along
             the shore was estimated at about $100,000, mostly to beach houses and ware-
             house roofs, with most of the damage resulting from vulnerable construction.
             One death was attributed to this hurricane when a man was swept from a pier
             at Wrightsville Beach and presumedly drowned.

             1954 - August 30 ("Carol"). This tropical storm moved from the Caribbean to
             a position about 400 miles off the coast of South Carolina on August 25.
             The storm developed into . full hurricane force, but moved very slowly.          In
             fact, it was still well off the Carolina coast 4 days later. On the evening
             of the 30th the hurricane moved suddenly north-northeastward, grazing the
             coast of North Carolina.     The beaches were pounded by high tides and heavy
             rains, but winds of hurricane force failed to reach shore.          The effect of
             Hurricane Carol on the North Carolina coast was not severe and the property
             damage in any given locality was light, but there was considerable erosion
             of the shoreline. Over the length of the coast, however, damages totaled an
             estimated $250,000, consisting,of approximately $225,000 damage to piers,
             roofs, television antennas, and about 1,000 feet of paved highway which was
             undermined on the outer banks by.high tides.       The remaining $25,000 damage
             was to crops, which resulted from corn and soybeans being blown down in the
             fields.    Considerable erosion. was experienced along the entire North
             Carolina coast.   The waterfront section of the town of New Bern experienced
             some flooding. A peak gust of 78 miles per hour was observed at Hatteras.

                                                 A-20

                     1954 - October 15.    Hurricane Hazel, the most desLructive and damaging -41orm
                     that has struck the North Carolina coast in over 50 vears, oriptii%etted '4
                     short distance south of Barbados on Lbe inorti.itig of October 5.       lbe cetiter
                     was first located about 50 miles east of Grenada.           The storm maneuvered
                     through the Caribbean and Atlantic Ocean, causing much damage in Haiti and
                     the Bahamas, and reached the coast of the United States on October 15.           The
                     tropical cyclone crossed the coast in the vicinity of         the North Carolina-
                     South Carolina State line.         It quickly passed east of Whiteville and
                     Clinton, west of Goldsboro, Wilson, and Nashville, and        across the Virginia
                     line.   This hurricane took    a' toll of 19 lives in North Carolina.          Total
                     damages throughout the State have been estimated at $125,309,000, of which
                     an estimated $31,190,300 occurred in the coastal and tidal areas.

                     1955 - August 12.     Hurricane Connie, the first of three moderately severe
                     hurricanes to strike North Carolina during 1955, originated on August 5 near
                     latitude 180-30'N. , ' longitude 55*-15'W.      The center moved      northwestward
                     until the afternoon of the 10th when it recurved northward, crossing the
                     coast of North Carolina on the 12th in the vicinity of Cape           Lookout.     it
                     then moved across Hyde and Tyrrell Counties, passing just east of Elizabeth
                     City before passing into Virginia.      Most of the damages were     attributed to
                     flooding. Total damages throughout the State were estimated at $50 million
                     as a result of this tropical storm.

                     1955 - August 17.    Hurricane Diane, the second tropical hurricane of 1955,
                     followed closely behind Hurricane Connie.       Hurricane Diane developed into a
                     tropical storm on August 10 near latitude 22*N., longitude 60"W., and
                     intensified to hurricane force that night.        The course was rather erratic,
                     traveling northwestward, northward, and north-northeastward until it abrupt-
                     ly turned westward on the 12th.         On the l3th the storm traveled west-
                     southwestward for a short time, then established a steady west-northwest
                     course for 3 days.    On the 16th it recurved northwestward, and crossed the
                     North Carolina coast near Wilmington on the 17th. It passed over Durham and
                     then headed toward Lynchburg, Virginia. Hurricanes Connie and Diane came so
                     close together that separate damage estimates for the entire State were
                     impossible. The combined loss, however, is estimated to exceed $90 million,
                     with an estimated $25,682,400 agricultural damages occurring in the tidal
                     areas.

                     1955 - September 19. Hurricane Ione, the third and most severe hurricane of
                     1955, originated on September 14-15 near latitude 19.5*N., longitude 62.6*W.
                     From there "Ione" pursued a northwesterly course toward the North Carolina
                     coast.  The greatest intensity was reached late on the 17th, with a central
                     pressure of 27.70 inchej and maximum winds of 125 miles per hour.                 The
                     center moved northward off the South Carolina coast and crossed the North
                     Carolina coast approximately over Morehead City on the morning of the 19th.
                     The center passed west of Cherry Point, between Oriental and New Bern, and
                     then northeastward to the coast near the Virginia line.           Principal damage
                     occurring from "Ione" was due to water.          Total damages throughout North
                     Carolina were estimated at $88 million, with an estimated $22,317,200
                     occurring in the tidal       area.     Agricultural damages were the         largest
                     suffered.

                                                          A-21

             1958 - September 27.      Hurricane Helene was a severe hurricane, more so
             because of its high winds than because of induced wave and tide action.        it
             formed as a tropical storm in an "easterly wave" in the Atlantic Trade Wind
             Belt on September 23, 1958, about 300 miles northeast of Hispaniola.           it
             continued to increase in severity as it approached the coast in a northwest-
             ward direction.

             Veering from a predicted landfall at Myrtle.Beach,    S.C., during the night of
             the 26th, it turned north towards the Cape Fear.      The hurricane apparently
             reached maximum intensity early Saturday, September 27th, with a lowest
             reported central pressure of 27.55 inches at a point south-southeast of Cape
             Fear.   Its center passed to the east of Wrightsville Beach near noon,
             September 27th, giving the highest winds recorded at Wilmington since the
             Weather Bureau station was established in 1871; a maximum 5-minute wind
             velocity of 69 miles per hour north and a peak gust of 135 miles per hour
             were attained.   The minimum barometric pressure recorded at Wilmington was
             28.80 inches.   It is estimated that damages were $221,800 at Wrightsville
             Beach.

             1960     September 11-12..     Hurricane Donna was a severe hurricane at
             Wrightsville Beach, and would have caused even more damage if it had struck
             about 3 hours later, so as to coinc   ide with a lunar high tide.      Its early
             path through the straits of Florida indicated a landfall on the gulf coast,
             but it suddenly turned north, traversed the Florida peninsula, went to sea,
             and made a second landfall in the Cape Fear area. It. subsequently struck in
             the Morehead City-Beau,fort, N.C.,.area, causing great water damage.

             The center of the eye is reported to have passed a few miles east of
             Wrightsville Beach, although Wilmington and Wrightsville Beach were in the
             eye for about an hour.    At Wilmington airport the lowest barometer reading
             was 28.41 inches and the maximum 1-minute wind velocity was 53 miles per
             hour, northwest, with a peak gust of 97 miles per hour.        Total damages at
             Wrightsville Beach were estimated at $338,000, of which $222,000 were
             attributed to wave action and tidal flooding.

             1964 - September 1. Hurricane.Cleo passed over Bodie Island, moving easter-
             ly.  Hatteras observed windspeeds up to 45 miles per hour.          The minimum
             pressure observed was 29.56 inches.      There was no damage reported on the
             North Carolina coast.

             1964 - September 13.    Hurricane Dora passed over Hatteras Island, moving
             northeasterly.   Hatteras fastest 1-mile windspeed was 35 miles per hour,
             north-northeast.   Gusts of 41.,miles-- per hour were recorded.     The minimum
             pressure observed was 29.56 inches.    -lTides of 2.52 feet above normal were
             recorded in Pamlico Sound. There was no damage reported in North Carolina.

             1964   October 16. Hurricane Isbell    passed over Morehead City, N.C., moving
             north-northwest.    Hatteras Weather Station recorded the fastest 1-mile
             windspeed as 36 miles per hour-.     The minimum pressure observed was 29.42
             inches. There was no damage reported in North Carolina.

                                                A-22

                    1967   September 16.   Hurricane Doria dropped to tropical storm iiften-IiLy
                    just before making landfall at the Virginia-North Carolina border. Hatteras
                    Weather Station recorded the fastest I-mile windspeed as 26 miles per hour.
                    There was no damage reported in North Carolina.

                    1971 - August 27. Tropical storm Doria passed over the North Carolina coast
                    west of Morehead City.   Hatteras fastest I-mile windspeed was 41 miles per
                    hour, south-southwest.    Gusts of 54 miles per hour were recorded.         The
                    minimum pressure observed was 29.61 inches.    Tides were 1. to 2 feet above
                    normal in Pamlico Sound.    Damage 'throughout North Carolina was minor, and
                    total property and crop estimates were set at about $150,000.

                    1971 - September 30.    Hurricane Ginger passed over Morehead City moving
                    northward.  Hatteras Weather Station recorded the. fastest 1-mile windspeed
                    as 44 miles per hour, southeast.   Gusts of 70 miles per hour were recorded.
                    The minimum pressure observed was 29.43 inches. Tides on Pamlico Sound were
                    4 to 7 feet above normal. Rainfall was heaviest along the shores of Pamlico
                    Sound, 10 to 13 inches.   Damage throughout North Carolina was estimated at
                    $10 million. Agricultural damages were the largest suffered.

                    1973 - February 17.   The most damaging winter coastal storm of the present
                    generation was on February 17,      1973.    The following newspaper quote
                    succintly describes the storm:

                    "North Carolina's land mass is smaller by several hundred acres this week as
                    a result of a severe coastal storm which gnawed away at beaches from Corolla
                    to Cape Fear.

                    "buring the two days following a freak storm that frosted the state's
                    eastern lowlands with up to 15 inches of snow, savage 56-knot winds and
                    powerful 40-foot waves hauled tons of sand from the shore.

                    "The wind-whipped sea toppled large buildings in resort communities on the
                    Outer Banks, nearly bisected at least two offshore islands, ripped up
                    highways, filled roadbeds with sand and carved away large chunks of sandy
                    beach.

                    "The worst of the storm's fury was directed at Buxton, Kitty Hawk, and Nags
                    Head, but severe erosion and some property damage occurred at the more
                    southerly resort communities    of Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach and
                    Topsail Beach." (Raleigh Ne s   and Observer, February 19, 1973.)

                    A typical description of local damage, from the same source, is "At Kitty
                    Hawk four beach cottages were washed away, nine were toppled by the waves
                    but left partially standing, 12 others received structural damage from the
                    pounding surf and dozens of others are left standing so near the encroaching
                    sea that another storm would undermine them."

                                                      A-23

            1979 - September 5.    Thi s storm originated as a zone of disturbed weather
            about 1,200 miles west of    the coast of Africa on 25,  August, and developed
            strength as it moved west across the South Atlantic. . The. stonu atLailled
            hurricane status on Monday,   27 August, at which point  it was 700 miles east
            of the Lesser Antilles.        By noon on 28 August, Hurricane David was
            accompanied by sustained 150 mph winds. From Tuesday,     28 August, to Monday,
            3 September, Hurricane David proceeded on a course north of west, skirting
            the southern coasts of Puerto Rico   'and Hispaniola, heading toward southern
            Florida.   At 0200 EDT on 2 September, David was 85 miles east-southeast of
            Miami.   Hurricane warnings were posted for southern Florida on Monday, 3
            September, and by 0400 on Tuesday, 4 September, warnings were in effect as
            far north as southeast North Carolina. At approximately 2000 hours EDT on 4
            September, Hurricane David went ashore near Savannah, Georgia, with maximum
            winds of 90 mph and an ocean storm surge of about 6 feet.      Once over land,
            David weakened to tropical storm status by 0300 EDT, 5 September, and to
            gale status by 1800 EDT, 5 September, while continuing on a generally north-
            northeast course through North Carolina and Virginia on into New York State
            and New England.

            The effects of storm David were first experienced in the vicinity of
            Wrightsville Beach during the afternoon and evening of Tuesday, 4 September.
            Sustained winds of 30 to 40 mph out of the south and southeast and higher
            than average spring (astronomical) tides resulted in a maximum ocean water
            level (stage) of +5.2 fet MSL (+7.0 local MLW) as recorded by the SAW tide
            gage on Cyrstal Pier, located about 3,000 feet north of Masonboro Inlet.
            This maximum water level occurred at 1830 EDT Tuesday, and was 2.0 feet
            above the predicted high tide elevation.     The following low tide at about
            0100 EDT Wednesday was 1.7 feet above the predicted tide.       Thereafter, the
            difference between predicted tide height and observed tide height decreased
            to about 0.6 foot during Wednesday, 5 September, and to about 0.3 foot by
            0100 EDT Thursday, 6 September.

            Highest wind speeds recorded by the National Weather Service and U.S. Coast
            Guard wind gages during this same period were: Wilmington Airport, 51 knots
            from the southeast at 0332 EST, 5 September; Wrightsville Beach Coast Guard
            Station, sustained 38-knot winds from the southeast, gusts to 52 knots, 0425
            EDT, 5 September; Oak Island Coast Guard Station, gusts to 53 knots, 0300
            EDT, 5 September; and Holden Beach, 60-knot gusts, 0400 EDT, 5 September.

            There were no wave gages operating in this vicinity during the passage of
            storm David.   Additionally, the Frying Pan Shoals Light Tower was evacuated
            because of the storm threat. Cons   *equently, only an estimated wave height of
            10 to 12 feet is available from visual observations of the surf at
            Wrightsville Beach on 4 and 5 September.

            Comparison of the maximum recorded stage during David of 5.2 feet above MSL
            (7.0 feet MLW) to the stage-frequency curve presented in the authorizing
            document for the Wrightsville Beach project (H.D. 511, Plate E-1; this
            report, figure 1) suggests a recurrence interval of one event per 3.5 years
            for a stage comparable to that from storm David.         However, a review of
            Crystal Pier tide gage records for the period January 1976 to the present
            showed that, although the +5.2-foot MSL stage during storm David was the

                                                A-24

                    maximum for this period, there were no less than 7 occurrences of stages
                    within 0.5 foot of the David maximum (two occurrences at 5.1, one at 5.0,
                    one at 4.9, and three at 4.8 feet MSL).             It was, therefore,* deemed
                    appropriate to adjust the stage-frequency curve such that a 5.0-foot MSL
                    (6.8 feet MLW) stage corresponded to a one-year recurrence interval, rather
                    than a 3.0-year interval.

                    The following paragraph is extracted from a field damage report for
                    Wrightsville Beach and is a portion of Report Number RR05202OZ Sept 79,
                    SITREP No. I - Hurricane David, which was sent via teletype to DAEN-CWO-E on
                    5 September 1979.

                        Additional erosion to the dune line on island of approx 2 to 3 ft.
                        The bulkhead on the north side of the Holiday Inn has experienced
                        some minor erosion.    The fill located between the sandbags and the
                        Garrabrant House on Shell Island has washed out.        The fill behind
                        the NE corner of the bulkhead at the house on the NE end of Scotch
                        Bonnet Lane has washed out and 20 ft of sidewalk has washed away.
                        Red house on the southeast end of Cowrie Lane has had a minor
                        washout to the north end of the bulkhead. On the north end of Shell
                        Island 3 to 4 feet of the southerly dune has washed away from Cowrie
                        Lane north.    There is an overwash area approx 100 ft wide on the
                        south side of the Islander extending to within 5-75 ft of the main
                        road.   There  is roughly 22 f t of erosion to the dune     from Mallard
                        Street to the  Islander.   One bent of Mercer's Pier has    been damaged
                        and the pier is sagging on the south side approx 50 ft      from the end
                        of the pier. There has been a washout of the dunes between Augusta
                        and Raleigh Streets.    The house on the south end of Augusta Street
                        has water partially underneath it.       And at this time a temporary
                        dune is being constructed at the end of Raleigh Street at a house on
                        the south-southeast end.      A porch roof on Stone Street has been
                        blown away.

                                                        A-25

                                        PS  OF ENGINEERS                                                                                                   U.S. ARMY
                                     W. VA.                                         MD.

                                                                                                             2

                                                                VA.                           14
                                                                               K

                                                                                                                                           26

                                                                 N.C.

                                                                                                                                0   ABLE,       AUG 18 -SEPT Z1952
                                        31                    17          GTON                                                  V   BARBARA     AUG. 11 -16i 1953
                                                                                             A rl ANr1c                         0   CAROL       AUG. 25-31,1954
                                                                                                                                *   CONNIE      AUG 3-14,1955
                                           S.C.                                                OCEAN                            A   DIANE       AUG 7@-21,W$5
                                                                                                                                x   EDNA        SEP 2-14,1954
                                                                                                                                0   HAZEL       OCT 5-18, 1954
                                            LESTON              27                                                              0   IONE        SEPT 10-23,1955
                                                                                                                                0   HELENE      SEPT 23-29,195B
                                                                       30           13                                          0* DONNA        SEPT. 4-13,1960
                                                                                                                            NOTE: NUMBERS BY SYMBOLS SHOW
                                                                                                                                DAY OF MONTH OPPOSITE 7A.M.
                                                                                                                                LOCATION. UNNUMBERED SYMBOLS
                                                                                                                                ARE LOCATIONS AT 7 P.M.

                                                                                                                        WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, N.C. AND VICINITY    (G.I.)
                                                                    29

                                                                                                                        PATHS     OF TROPICAL HURRICANES
                                                                                          2                           WITHIN 150 MILES OF N.C. COAST

                                                                                                            25
                                                                                                                     US, ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, VALMINGTOK Nit
                                                        50        0        50        loo      llso
                                                                                                                      oft@
                                                                   STATUTE MILES
                                                                                                                                                          PLATE A-1

                                                    APPENDIX B

                                             SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS

                                                        APPENDIX B

                                                Socioeconomic Conditions

                    The following is an overview of economic and social conditions of New
                    Hanover County, the socioeconomic study area.       Both Wrightsville Beach and
                    the city of Wilmington, North Carolina's largest coastal city and port, are
                    situated in New Hanover County.        With its largely urban character, New
                    Hanover County is the primary market for Wrightsville Beach day use.

                    Base Socioeconomic Conditions. The population of New Hanover County grew at
                    an annual rate of 2.2 percent during the period 1970-1980, reaching 103,471
                    in 1980, and having a population density of 559.3 per square mile. For the
                    period 1970-1975, net migration was +10.8 percent.       In 1970, the percentage
                    of urbanization in New Hanover County was 69.5, less than the United States
                    average of 73.5, but greater than the North Carolina average of 45.0.

                    In 1970, the median education level for persons 25 years old and over       in New
                    Hanover County was 12.0.      The percentage of high school graduates       in the
                    group was 50.

                    In 1978, per capita income in New Hanover County was $6,728, slightly       higher
                    than the North Carolina per capita income of $6,640.           Dur ing the  period
                    1970-1978, real per capita income increased at an annual rate of 2.81 per-
                    cent.   In 1979, the civilian labor force numbered 46,490, of which 43,690
                    persons were employed and 2,800 persons, or 6 percent were unemployed.
                    During the period 1970-1979, employment in New Hanover County grew at an
                    annual rate of 3.45 percent, a growth rate higher than the 2.2 percent for
                    population.    in 1979,    24 percent of all employed persons in New Hanover
                    County worked in manufacturing industries.         Of the 76 percent in non-
                    manufacturing industries, one-third worked in the trade industry, and one-
                    fourth worked for a government.

                    The 1980 permanent population of Wrightsville Beach was 2,910, a 71.1
                    percent increase over the 1970 permanent population. In 1980, the estimated
                    summer population was 8,024, excluding day visitors.

                    Projected Socioeconomic Conditions.      The 1990 through 2035 projections of
                    populations, employment, and per capita income presented below are based on
                    draft county disaggregations of State OBERS projections for North Carolina.

                                                         TABLE I
                                                   New Hanover County

                    Year                      1990      2000      2010     2020      2030      2035
                    Population                 117,588  129,814   140,359 149,658 157,520 161,658
                    Employment                  .57,582  63,701    68,075. 69,245     70,552    71,221
                    Per Capita  Income           6,246    7,905     9,869   11,817    14,323    15,842
                     (in 1972 dollars)

                                                         B-1

                                               TABLE t (Cont'd)

                                              Wrightsville Beach

              Year                   '990     2000      2010      2020        2030      2035
              Beach Day                       T,-O W 1,
                                    i9,3.201@ 87       299,70 1,512,90@ 1,512,90@ 1,512,900
               Visitation*
               (Annual User Days)

              *Parking capacity of 1,512,900 reached in the year 2011.

                                                   B-2

    APPENDIX C

    ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

                                                       APPENDIX C

                                                  Fconomic Appendix

                                                      Introduction

                     The evaluation of the shore processes, presented in detail in appendix D and
                     summarized in the main report, indicates that the total rate of volume loss
                     off Wrightsville Beach is 130,000 cu yds/yr.    Of this total, 60,000 cu yds/
                     yr was attributed to the Masonboro Inlet navigation project while the
                     remaining 70,000 cu yds/yr is due to historic losses        and the anomalous
                     convex shape of the Wrightsville Beach ocean shoreline.     The 60,000 cu yds/
                     yr deficit due to the Masonboro Inlet navigation project will be placed on
                     Wrightsville Beach at 100 percent Federal expense as part of the O&M cost of
                     this navigation project.     Therefore, in evaluating the without project
                     condition, only the effects of the 70,000 cu yds/yr deficit on the beach and
                     its development was considered.

                     Most of the erosion of Wrightsville Beach is occurring north of Station
                     50+00 which lies 5,000 feet north of the north jetty.     South of this point,
                     the beach is considered to be stable even though some erosion was measured
                     in this area during the time period used in the shore processes analysis.
                     Moreover, the southern 5,000 feet is expected to remain stable whether or
                     not Wrightsville Beach receives any additional artificial nourishment.

                     The movement of the shoreline within the 9,000-foot section associated with
                     the 70,000 cu yd/yr deficit varies from a low of 1.2 feet of erosion per
                     year at Station 50+00 to a high of 14.8 feet of erosion per year at Station
                     130+00 which is 1,000 feet south of the northern limits of the authorized
                     project.   Rather than deal with a variable rate of erosion, an average
                     erosion rate of 8.9 ft/yr, was determined from 10 profile stations within
                     the 9,000-foot reach, was adopted.

                     Based on the evaluation of the shore processes at Wrightsville Beach, the
                     economic benefit analysis considers the southern 5,000 linear feet of beach
                     stable and uses the average erosion rate of 8.9 feet per year for the
                     remaining 9,000 linear feet of beach.    An October 1982 price level applies

                                                         C-1

                                                                             Rev 2/22/83

             to all values.   An interest rate of 7-7/8 percent and a period of analysis
             of 50 years are used.    The base year is 1987.     The "without." condition in
             the economic benefit analysis is the authorized berm and dune project fully
             in place in 1981 but not maintained thereafter.        The "with" condition is
             continued maintenance of the authorized berm and dune project beginning in
             1987, the base year, by fully restoring the project and maintaining it
             throughout the period of analysis.

                               Beach Erosion and Flood Damage Reduction

             Benefits for beach erosion control include the value of land and improve-
             ments that would be lost to. erosion if the authorized berm and dune project
             were not maintained.   The assumption that the structures would be lost to
             erosion, is based on the fact that the structures could not be moved without
             sustaining severe damage and the fact that there is no place to move the
             structures except the mainland. . A 125-foot width of beach used in the
             recreation analysis was not included in the land lost to erosion.              The
             87-foot width, of dune was not included either.         At the average annual
             erosion rate of 8.9 feet, 2005 is the first year that erosion takes place

             landward of the 125 feet of recreati-on beach and 87 feet of dune.      For each
             year 2005 through 2023, land valued at $1,001,250 would be lost to erosion.
             This amount is based on ocean front, lots 160 feet deep being valued at
           .$2,000 per linear foot     in- October '1982 or $554,500 per acre.        With an
             eroding beach 9,000 feet  Iong, 1.83884 acre,s of land are lost annually. For
             each year 2024 through    2037, land valued at $667,499 would be lost to
             erosion. This amount is   based on second and third row lots of 60 feet by 80
             feet average size being valued at approximately $40,000 each or $363,000 per
             acre.  The erosion rate and length of eroding beach are assumed to remain
             the same throughout the 50-year period.     The average annual value of these
             land losses would be $225,700.

             A structure was assumed lost when-aporoximately one-half the lot on which it
             was built was lost to erosion. The-values of the structures lost by year of

             assumed loss are shown below.

                                                                          Rev 2/22/83
                                                 C-2

                                Year of Loss                         Value of Structures Lost

                                    2010                                   $ 1,500,000
                                    2016                                       8,224,000
                                    2022                                      18,441,000
                                    2027                                       1,220,000
                                    2030                                       1,684,000

                       The average annual value of these structure losses would be $209,300.

                       Flood damages as a function of storm return interval were computed for the
                       condition of "preproject shoreline" and for the full project in place
                       condition existing in 1981.     With the full  project in place, the dune has a
                       top elevation of 13.5 feet Tn.s.l. and          provides protection from ocean
                       flooding up to and including the 35-year       storm.   Table 1 is a surmnary of
                       numbers of units and damageable property       values for the areas subject to
                       benefit from the project.        Average annual flood damages for preproject
                       shoreline conditions, for authorized project and continued maintenance
                       conditions, and the resulting flood damage reduction benefits are shown in
                       table 2.   Figure C-1 shows the "without" condition of the authorized project
                       fully in place in 1981 but without continued maintenance, thereby resulting
                       in the    project  and   flood damage    reduction benefits     eroding   away to
                       preproject condition by the year 2005.        Without maintenance, erosion would
                       .continue throughout the 50-year period of analysis resulting in structure
                       loss as well as land loss.       In order to not claim flood damage reduction
                       benefits on structuresafter their loss to erosion during the 50-year period
                       of analysis, the following procedure was taken.          The values of the lost.
                       structures were c  onverted to percents of the total value of damageable
                       structures.   Those percents were then applied to and deducted from the flood
                       damage reduction benefits computed for the applicable years.

                       Figure C-2 shows the average annual flood damage reduction benefits for the
                       11with" condition of fully restoring the authorized project in 1987 and
                       maintaining it thereafter.     The decline in the average annual flood damage
                       reduction benefits after 2005 reflects the loss of structures that would
                       occur in the absence of continued maintenance of the project.           The total
                       average annual value of these flood damage reduction benefits would be
                       $164,500.

                                                              C-3                   Rev 2/22/83

                                             TABLE 1

                                        Damageable Property Summary*

                                                                     Damageable Property Value
                                                                      (Structures & Contents,
               Zone                Type          Number of Units       Oct 1982 Price Level)

            Oceanfront         Residential              122                    $13,772,800
            Oceanfront         Commercial               11.1 '0' -               2,511,700
            Mid-island         Residential              347                     30,434,300
            Mid-island         Commercial               38                       3,997,400

               Total                                    516                    $50,716,200

               *Includes only property within the       9,000 linear feet subject to benefit
                from continued maintenance.

                                                   TABLE 2

                        Average Annual Flood Damages and Flood Damage Reduction
                         Benefits, Authorized Project and Continued Maintenance

                                                            Average Annual       Average Annual
                                               Average       Damages with         Flood Damage
                                           Annual Damages     Authorized      Reduction Benefits
                                           for Preproject    Project and          With Project
                                              Shoreline       Continued           and Continued
               Zone            Type           Condition      Maintenance           Maintenance

            Oceanfront     Residential     -@$120,516         $ 70,454             $ 50,062
            Oceanfront     Commercial           48,633           26,890               21,743
            Oceanfront     Utilities             6,428            3,609                 2,729
            Oceanfront     Transportation           335           1 114                   221
            Mid-island     Residential         276,373          142,776               133,597
            Mid-island     Commercial          106,508           48,329               58,179
            Mid-island     Utilities            14,549            7,262                 7,287
            Mid-island     Transportation.        2.,105             860                1,245
                                             1_575,447.       $300,384'            $275,063

                                                        C-@4

                                                                       Rev 2/22/83

                                                       AVERAGE ANNUAL FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTIOtl RENEFITS
                                                 WITHOOT" CONDITION (PROJECT FULLY RESTORED IN 1981*
                                                       NO MAINTENANCE               THEREAFTERI              FIG.. C- I

                                                       PROJECT FULLY RESTORED-

                                      300.
                                           ' 751
                         02                ;,IZ.065

                            z  8
                            0
                                      200.             206,297
                               0.

                         Z     x
                         Z=
                         40
                            X         20M                                                        PREPROJECT CONDITION
                         w t:

                         w
                                         01
                                           1,981     1987                           2005

                                                       TIME IN YEARS

                                                         AVERAGE ANNUAL FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
                                                          BENEFITS WITH CONTINUEO MA(NTENAN                           FIG. C-2

                             2
                           w I=
                           00
                           .q Z
                           20

                           ot
                           00 3@      300
                           -1                                                         275,065
                           U.
                           -i E
                           4wo        200                                                                  204.28
                           = Z o
                           Z uj                      w
                           z co                      >-
                           41   x
                             z                       w
                           W2
                           0 @-         IOU
                           .4 u                                                                                      70,045
                           0: =
                           wo                                                                                                               0
                           >
                           4 a:
                             W                                                                                               F
                                           oL-
                                           Isel      0                               is      23         29         35       40 43             50
                                                     1961                           2005                                                     2037

                                                                                  TIME IN YEARS

                     The increase in value of residential contents in the future was projected
                     using the projected growth rate of per capita income for New Hanover County
                     as shown in the draft County disaggregations of State OBERS projections for
                     North Carolina.  Projections were limited to 75 percent of the value of the
                     residential structures.   As residential structures were assumed to be lost
                     due to erosion, commensurate deductions were made from content values.       Th6'
                     average annual benefits related to projected increasing value of residential
                     contents would be $35,300.

                                                       Recreation

                     General.   Applying the criteria in ER 1105-2-40, Subpart K - NED Benefit
                     Evaluation Procedures:    Recreation, 8 January 1982, figure 703.903-1, the
                     unit day value evaluation procedure was selected.       No applicable regional
                     model is available.    Uses affected do not involve specialized recreation
                     activities.    Estimated annual visits affected do not exceed 500,000.
                     Expected recreation specific costs affected do not exceed 25 percent of
                     expected total project costs.

                     Using the table K-3-2 Guidelines for Assigning Points for General Recreation
                     and table K-3-1 (FY 1983) Conversion of Points to Dollar Values in ER
                     1105-2-40, 8 January 1982, a total of 45 point-s were assigned and converted
                     to a unit day value of $3.20.

                     This evaluation is based on a projected growth in demand for beach use, and
                     takes into consideration the limits imposed on maximum daily and maximum
                     seasonal use by available parking capacity.     Parking capacity was found to
                     be the limiting factor on total seasonal beach use.     Existing bridge access
                     and traffic flow capacity were found to exceed parking capacity.      Beach use
                     and demand were developed for all of Wrightsville Beach.     However, since the
                     southern 5,000 linear feet is projected to remain stable, benefits are taken
                     on the remaining beach only    after total Wrightsville Beach demand exceeds
                     total capacity of the stable   5,000 linear feet.   Approximately 1,000 linear
                     feet of beach north of the     Wrightsville Beach project limit, within the

                                                        C-5

                                                                                  Rev. 2/22/83

             transitional zone, is accessible to the public for recreation.     This length
             of beach has an erosion rate similar to that of the 9,000 linear feet soutli
             of it.  Therefore, any possible recreational area would be lost to erosion
             before total recreational demand exceeded the capacity of the stable
             southern 5,000 linear feet of Wrightsville Beach.       Recreational benefits
             developed and attributed to the Wrightsville Beach project area include
             recreational use of the 1,000 linear feet of beach       north of the project

             limit in the transitional zone.

             Beach Capacity.   The beach area per person used in this analysis was 100
             square feet.  The authorized project design cross section offers a 125-foot
             width of usable beach.     Along the 5,000 feet of stable shoreline, this
             represents 625,000 square feet with an instantaneous capacity of 6,250
             persons and,.using a turnover rate o f 2, a maximum daily capacity of 12,500.
             Along the remaining 9,000 feet of shoreline, this represents 1,125,000
             square feet with  an instantaneous capacity of 11,250 persons and, using a
             turnover rate of 2, a maximum daily capacity of 22,500.

             Length of Season.    The total numb er of days in the beach use season was
             determined to be 90.    The following table presents the derivation of this
             value. The number of inclement days is based on monthly averages presented
             in the Wilmington, N.C., 307year climatological summary.

                                              TABLE 2A

                                 Beach Use Season, Wrightsville Beach

                                                                Inclement   Net Beach
               Month     Weekend Days    Holidays   Weekdays       Days      Use Days

             April            4              0          0           1             3
             May              10             1           9          3          17
             June             8              0         22           7          23
             July             7              1         23          11          20
             August           10             0-        21          10          21
             September        2              1         -4           1            6

               Total          41             3         79          33          90

                                                  c-6

                                                                  Rev. 2/22/83

                      Beach Use and Demand.     Statistics on present beach use were derived from
                      nine head counts of beach users made during the 1979 season.             Both low
                      altitude aerial photographs and in-person head counts were used as a data
                      base.  Counts were made between the hours of 12:30 and 2 p.m., EDT, and are
                      assumed to equal peak use for each occasion.       The average weekday peak use
                      value (4 counts) was 1,851 persons.     The average weekend day peak use value
                      0 counts) was 3,303. The single' holiday peak use value (4 July) was 5,193.
                      The assumption was made that the ratio of total daily use to peak use was 2
                      to 1.    The numbers of weekdays, weekend days, and holidays for the 1979
                      season (corrected for inclement weather days), as well as the turnover rate
                      of 2, were then applied to the average peak use values in each category.
                      The resulting value for the total 1979 beach use was 440,352.

                      The projected growth rate of the total seasonal use was determined from an
                      analysis of hourly traffic statistics for the AIWW drawbridge for the period
                      1975 to 1980.       Three categories of traffic statistics were examined:
                      average daily traffic, average summer weekday traffic (includes June, July,
                      and August), and average Saturday traffic, high month (July).          The annual
                      growth rate for the three categories, for the 1975 to 1980 period, was
                      determined to be 6.0 percent, 4.0 percent, and 3.0 percent, respectively.
                      The rate of 4.0 percent per year was thus adopted as the projected annual
                      growth rate for beach use demand, with a base year (1979) value of 440,352.

                      Parking.   Existing parking capacity adjacent to the shore protection project
                      was evaluated using the 4 July 1979 aerial photography.          All parked cars
                      were counted. The,breakdown of public versus private parking was based on a
                      public parking survey developed for the town of Wrightsville Beach.            That
                      survey stated that there were 2,018 public parking spaces.            Because the
                      island is relatively narrow, no parking space is more than 1/4-mile from the
                      authorized project beach.     A turnover rate of 2, with 2.5 persons per car,
                      was assumed for the public parking spaces.         Maximum daily use utilizing
                      public parking was determined to be 10,090 persons.        The parking available
                      on private property was de.termined by subtracting the public parking value
                      (2,018) from the total number of cars parked on 4 July 1979 (4,706).            The
                      resulting value was 2,688, which is considered a conservative estimate

                                                           C-7

           because of the number of cars parked in garages and carports and thus not
           visible on aerial photography.      The turnover rate and number of persons per
           car utilizing private parking spaces were estimated at I and 2.5,
           respectively.    This yields a maximum daily use of 6,720 persons utilizing
           private parking.     The maximum total daily    use limited by parking is thus
           10,090 plus 6,720, for a total of 16,810         users.    For the 90-day season
           derived earlier in this section, the .p?,tal    seasonal use is thus limited to
           .1,512,900 users.    Using the demand growth    rate developed in the preceding
           section, it was determined that existing seasonal parking capacity is
           exceeded by seasonal beach use demand in the year 2011.

           Benefit Analysis.    The southern 5,000 linear feet of beach, with an annual
           visitation capacity of 1,125,000, are projected to remain stable throughout
           the 50-year period of analysis.       The remaining 9,000 linear feet of beach
           .are projected to erode at an average annual rate of 8.9 feet per year.          The
           recreational beach width loss of-1-25 feet by 1995 was assumed to represent
           the point at which there was no remaining recreational value.            It is not
           until 2003, however, that demand exceeds capacity of the southern 5,000
           linear feet of beach projected to remain stable.       Benefits begin in 2003 and
           increase yearly until 2011 when parking capacity is reached.             From that
           point through the remainder of the 50-year period, benefits remain the same.
           The average annual value of these recreation benefits would be            $270,500.
           Table 3 presents recreational visitations and values for the 9,000 linear
           feet of beach being considered.

                                              Table 3

                          Recreational Visitations and Values for the 9,000
                       Linear Feet of Wrightsville Beach Under Consideration

                Year      Unit Day Value        Visitations        Recreational Value

                2003           $3.20                3,754             $     12,013
                2010            3.20              360,365               1,153,168
                2011            3.20              387,900                1,241,280

           Benefit - Cost Summary

           Table 4 presents a       summary of the benefits and costs associated with
           continued maintenance    of the authorized berm and dune project.

                                                                       Rev.2/22/83

                                                       TABLE 4

                                                   Benefit-Cost Summary
                                      Continued Maintenance of Wrightsville Beach
                                                  Berm and Dune Project
                                  50-Year Peri@d o'f Analysis, 7-7/8 Percent Interest

                    Benefit Category                             Average Annual Benefit

                    Beach Erosion Control: Land                          $225,700
                    Structures                                             209,300
                    Flood Damage Reduction                                 169,500
                      Increase in Value of    Residential Contents          35,300
                    Recreation                                             270,500
                    Total Average Annual Benefits                        $910,300

                    Total Average Annual Costs                           $668,000

                    Benefit-to-Cost Ratio                                      1.36

                                                           C-9

       0

                                                   APPENDIX D

                                       REEVALUATION OF SHORE PROCESSES

                                            AT WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH

       0

                                                            APPENDIX D

                                    EVALUATION OF SHORE PROCESSES AT WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH

                                                      Table of Contents

                       Item                                                                      Page No.

                       Introduction                                                                D-1
                       Shore Processes Reevaluation                                                D-2
                             Recent History of the Wrightsville Beach and
                              Shell Island Shorelines                                              D-3
                             Volumetric Changes-Wrightsville Beach and Shell
                              Island - August 1970 to July 1979                                    D-7
                             Sorting and Winnowing Losses from the 1970 Fill Material              D-7
                             Historical Losses off Wrightsville Beach (preproject
                              losses)                                                              D-12
                       Impact of the Shoreline Shape on Erosion Rates                              D-12
                             Magnitude of Shoreline Anomaly                                        D-14
                             Longshore Sand Transport Rates-Wave Climatology                       D-15
                             Numerical Simulation of Longshore Sand Transport                      D-20
                             Results of Bulge Analysis                                             D-25
                             Conclusions                                                           D-27
                       Revision of Wrightsville Beach Sediment Budget                              D-28
                             General                                                               D-28
                             Masonboro Island Volume Change                                        D-28
                             Masonboro Inlet                                                       D-28
                             Revised Sediment Budget                                               D-28
                       Future Source of Beach Nourishment Material for Wrightsville
                         Beach                                                                     D-29

                                                        List of Tables

                       Table No.                           Subject                               Page No.

                         D-1       1970 Beach Fill Widths vs. Shoreline Retreat
                                    as- of December 1971                                           D-5

                         D-2       Wrightsville B each -  Shell Island Shoreline
                                    Change Rates                                                   D-6

                         D-3       Volume Changes - Wrightsville Beach and Shell
                                    Island, August 1970 - July 1979                                D-8

                         D-4       1970 Borrow Material Grain Size Characteristics                 D-9

                         D-5       Adjusted Volumetric Changes - Wrightsville Beach &              D-10
                                    Shell Island, August 1970 - July 1979

                         D-6       Wrightsville Beach Shoreline Changes, 1939 - 1965               D-13

                         D-7       Average Distance Between Depth Contours, Wrightsville
                                    Beach                                                          D-16

                                                           D-i

                                             Table of Contents     Cont'd

                                                List of Tabl_@s   Cont'd

              Table No.                            Subject                                Page No.

                D-8        Monthly Wave Energy Percentage and Gross Littoral                D-18
                            Drift Rate

                D-9        Monthly Percentage and Volume of Littoral Drift
                            to the South and North Used in Bulge Analysis                   D-18

                D-10       Longshore Transport Volumes by Month and Wave period             D-21

                D-11       Random Order of Wave Input to Bulge Analysis                     D-23

                D-12       Numerical Shoreline Change Simulation, Computer
                            Program Listing                                                 D-26

                                              List of Figures

              Figure No.-                          Subject                       Follows Page No._

                D-1        Wrightsville Beach - March 1971                                  D-2
                D-2        Cumulative Shoreline Change, Station 60+00 to
                            100+00, August 1970 - December 1979                             D-4
                D-3        Cumulative Shoreline Change, Station    110+00 to
                            130+00 August 1970 - December 1979                              D-4
                D-4        Cumulative Shoreline Change, Station    1404-00 to
                            160+00, August 1970 - December 1979                             D-4
                D-5        Cumulative Shoreline Change and Trends within 1970
                            Fill Area-Wrightsville Beach                                    D-12
                D-6        Definition Sketch-Barrier Island Shoreline Shape                 D-14
                D-7        Barrier Island Shoreline Shape Relationship                      D-14
                D-8        Predicted Shoreline Shape for Wrightsville Beach
                            and Shell Island                                                D-14
                D-9        Simulated Bulge Shoreline and Depth Contours                     D-16
                D-10       Average Profile on Wrightsville Beach                            D-16
                D-11       Frying Pan Light Tower Location                                  D-18
                D-12       Breaker Angle vs. Wave Period, Wrightsville
                            Beach, N.C.                                                     D-20
                D-13       Refraction Diagram, 5.5 Sec. Wave Period, Waves
                            from North Quadrant                                             D-22
                D-14       Refraction Diagram, 5.5 Sec. Wave Period, Waves
                            from South Quadrant                                             D-22
                D-15       Refraction Diagram, 8.5 Sec, Wave Period,. Waves
                            from North Quadrant                                             D-22
                D-16       Refraction Diagram, 8.5 Sec. Wave Period, Waves
                            from South Quadrant
                D-17       Definition Sketch-Shoreline Change Computations                  D-22
                D-18a,     Computed Rates of Shoreline Changes on Simulated
                            Bulge Shoreline                                                 D-26
                Dwrlft     Observed Rates of Shoreline Change on Wrightsville
                            Beach.and Difference Between Computed and observed
                            Shoreline Change Rates                                          D-26

                                                 D-ii

                                                     Table of Contents     Contvd

                                                      List of Figures     Contid

                       Figure No.                          Subject                       Follows Page No.

                         D-19(a)   Previous Sediment Budget (1966-1975)
                                    Wrightsville Beach and Vicinity                                D-28
                         D-19(b)   Revised Sediment Budget (1970-1980)
                                    Wrightsville Beach and Vicinity                                D-28
                         D-19(c)   Present Sediment Budget with,South Jetty at
                                    Masonboro Inlet                                                D-28

                                                        List of Plates

                       Plate No.                           Subject                       Follows Page No.

                         1                              General Map                                D-29

                                                         D-iii

                                                            APPENDIX D

                                                REEVALUATION  OF SHORE PROCESSES

                                                     AT WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH

                                                           INTRODUCTION

                        In the spring of 1965,        a hurricane and shore protection project was
                        constructed along Wrightsville Beach.       This pr@oject involved the placement
                        of 2,9933,000 cu. yd. of material along 14,000 feet of ocean shoreline from
                        Masonboro Inlet to the then northern town limits of Wrightsville Beach. In
                        addition, Moore Inlet, which at the time of construction separated
                        Wrightsville Beach from Shell Island, was closed.       The fill was shaped into
                        a 25-foot-wide dune at elevation 15 feet above mean low @fater (mlw) which
                        sloped down to a 50-foot-wide storm berm at elevation          12 f eet m1w.     The
                        material for this fill was borrowed from Banks Channel.         Between June 1965
                        and July 1966, the north jetty at Masonboro Inlet was constructed.
                        Associated with this inlet stabilization project was           the excavation of
                        319,000 cu. yd. of sand adjacent to the inlet side of          the north jetty to
                        form a sediment trap for future sand bypassing around the inlet.                This
                        material, which was dredged in July 1966, was distributed on Wrightsville
                        Beach between the two fishing piers.           In October 1966, an additional
                        42,000 cu. yd. of material was placed along the northernmost 2,000 feet of
                        the authorized project.     This material was obtained from the lagoon behind
                        the presently developed section of Shell Island.        Thus, between the spring
                        of 1965 and the fall of 1966, a total of 3,294,000 cu. yd. of fill had been
                        placed on Wrightsville Beach.

                        Erosion of the northern most 8,000 feet of this fill (i.e., between baseline
                        stations 60+00 and 140+00 shown on plate D-1) occurred rapidly due in part
                        to hydraulic sorting and winnowing of the fill and initial slope adjust-
                        ments.    On the other hand, the southern .6,000 feet experienced a large
                        initial accretion due to the formation of an accretion fillet updrift of the
                        Masonboro Inlet north jetty.     The erosion of the northern 8,000 feet was so
                        severe that by 1970 the protective value of the project had been substan-
                        tially reduced.    Therefore, in the spring of 1970, the northern 8,000 feet
                        of the project was renourished with 951,000 cu. yd. of material obtained
                        from Banks Channel and 426,000 cu. yd. from the lagoon behind Shell Island.
                        Included in this renourishment was a 2,000-foot transition section between
                        stations 140+00 and 160+00 (i.e., outside the authorized project limits)
                        which provided a gradual return of the fill shoreline back to the natural
                        beach on Shell Island.

                        In October 1977, a General Design Memorandum (GDM) for the south jetty at
                        Masonboro Inlet (1) was published and contained an evaluation of shore
                        processes along 19 miles of shoreline from Wrightsville Beach to Kure Beach.
                        In this shore processes analysis, inlet sediment accumulation data and
                        shoreline change information dating from 1966 to 1975 was used in combi-
                        nation with wave refraction studies, to develop a sediment budget for the

                                                                  D-1

             entire 19-mile area.     In this analysis, an attempt was made to adjust the
             shoreline change rates observed between 1966 and 1975 on Wrightsville Beach
             for sorting and winnowing losses and initial profile slope adjustments for
             both the initial fill material and the 1970 renourishment fill.             However,
             due to the nature of this analysis, other factors that could have had a
             substantial impact on the erosion of Wrightsville Beach were not identified.
             As a result, approximately 92.8 percent of the erosion was attributed to
             navigation improvements at Masonboro Inlet, specifically, the construction
             of the north jetty.       The shortcomings of this earlier evaluation were
             recognized and a statement made to the effect that a more detailed
             evaluation of the shore processes along Wrightsville Beach would have to be
             made to differentiate the magnitude of the erosion associated with various
             possible causes. The analysis that follows is such an evaluation.

             Prior to the initiati-on of this present reevaluation, erosion had again
             essentially removed all but a minimum amount of the protective value of the
             northernmost 8,000 feet of the authorized project and the 2,000-foot
             northern transition.     in the most severely eroded section (located between
             baseline station 110+00*and 130+00), the shoreline had almost returned to
             its preproject position and posed a serious threat to development in the
             area. This prompted the placement of 500,000 cu. yd. of emergency beachfill
             along the northern segment of the project during April and May 1980.              The
             borrow area used for this emergency fill was a shoal in Banks Channel
             located opposite the U.S. Coast Guard Station.           This emergency fill was
             followed by a complete restoration of the authorized project between
             December 1980 and April 1981.          This latest restoration required 1.25
             million cu. yd. of sand, with the material being dredged from Masonboro
             Inlet and placed along the northern 8,000 feet of the project, i.e., between
             stations 60+00  ' and 140+00.       Due to fund limitations,        the 2,000-foot
             transition was not rebuilt.         However, shortly following renourishment,
             natural   processes had     spread   the   fill   northward    forming   a   gradual
             transition.

                                       SHORE PROCESSES REEVALUATION

             General. One of the apparent causes of the erosion of Wrightsville Beach is
             the shape of the present day shoreline.         Figure D-1 is an oblique aerial
             photograph of Wrightsville Beach looking toward the north from Masonboro
             Inlet. As is evident from this photo, there is a large protuberance in the
             shoreline beginning in the vicinity of the Blockade Runner Motel, baseline
             station 70+00, and extending northward to a point beyond the developed
             section on Shell Island. This protuberance, or bulge as it will be referred
             to later in this analysis, is primarily associated with the former Moore
             Inlet which, as mentioned above, was closed in 1965 during the initial
             placement of the hurricane and shore protection fill.             Moore Inlet had
             existed as the northern boundary of Wrightsville Beach since the mid-1800's
             and characteristically had caused the shoreline immediately to the north and
             south to curve seaward.    Since Moore Inlet had been a persistent feature of
             Wrightsville Beach, when the northern end of the island began to develop,

                                                        D-2

                                                                                                                                                                     cs'

                                                                                                                                                                     ..........I

                                                                                                                                                                            40

                                                                                                                                                                      ,follagif

                                                                                                                                     0 k.,
                                                                                                                                                                                                               fA

                                                                                                          FIGURE                       D-1. WRIGHTSVILLE                                                       BEACH. MAR 1971.

                      roads and houses more or less paralled the general shore alignment.            Conse-
                      quently, when the hurricane and shore protection project was constructed,
                      the fill was placed seaward of the development, thus producing the present
                      bulge.

                      Since the closure of Moore Inlet stopped the interaction between inlet tidal
                      flow, longshore currents, and sediment transport, which were the factors
                      responsible for the preproject shoreline shape, the planform of Wrightsville
                      Beach is now anomalous compared to other barrier islands in the vicinity.
                      It appears that the natural tendency for normal shore processes is to
                      reshape the beach planform to an alignment more compatible with prevailing
                      waves, currents, and inlet positions.        An estimate of the effects of the
                      bulge on shoreline change rates is given below.

                      Other factors which have contributed to the high rates of erosion include:
                      (a) sorting and winnowing losses from         the artificial fill material; (b)
                      beach profile slope adjustments following fill placement; (c) historical
                      deficits caused by sand entrapment in the inlets, offshore sand transport,
                      and sea level rise; and (d) the impact of the navigation improvements at
                      Masonboro Inlet.    An evaluation of the effects of each of these factors is
                      given below.     First the magnitude of the erosion problem is presented by
                      examining the recent shoreline history of Wrightsville Beach and Shell
                      Island.

                      Recent History ofthe Wrightsville Beach and Shell Island Shorelines. Beach
                      profile, surveys of Wrightsville Beach were initiated in 1965 after the com-
                      pletion of the first phase of fill placement.        These surveys were performed
                      quarterly (i.e. every 3 months) until August 1970, at which time the survey
                      program was changed to a bimonthly basis which continued until February
                      1974.    After February 1974, no surveys were made until April 1978.              The
                      April 1978 survey was followed by two more, one in July 1979 and one in
                      December 1979.     The December 1979 was the last survey that covered all of
                      Wrightsville Beach and Shell Island prior to the latest renourishment.

                      The August 1970 and July 1979 surveys covered the entire beach profile to
                      depths of about 32 feet below m.s.l., whereas the other surveys extended
                      only to approximately mean low water (-2 feet, m.s.l.).             Also, detailed
                      coverage of Shell Island northward to Masons Inlet was not begun until
                      October 1970.

                      As  previously stated, the largest amount of erosion on Wrightsville Beach
                      occurred between stations 60+00 and 160+00.        South of station 60+00 to the
                      north jetty at Masonboro Inlet, the shoreline experienced a rapid buildup
                      during and immediately following the construction of the north jetty as a
                      result of the formation of an accretion fillet. The growth of the accretion
                      fillet continued until about February 1968 at which time the shoreline
                      became fairly stable.        This stable condition continued until at least
                      February 1974. By April 1978, however, the survey data indicated that some
                      erosion of the fillet had occurred as the shoreline position at most
                      stations was landward of the February 1968 shoreline.           Between April 1978

                                                              D-3

            and December 1979, the fillet accreted slightly, but overall, the    net change
            on the fillet from February 1968 to December 1979 was erosion as indicated-,
            by the shoreline change rates from stations 3+50 to 50+00 in         table D-2.
            During the entire period following the construction of the north     jetty, the
            portion of the beach landward of the berm crest built up as a result of
            aeolian sand transport and associated dune formation.       Although the recent
            shoreline trend of the fillet has been erosion, this is not expected to
            continue indefinitely due to the stabilizing effect of the north jetty.

            For this reevaluation of the Wrightsville Beach shore processes,             the
            analysis of shoreline changes within the severely eroding area, that extends
            from station 60+00 to 160+00, was limited to the August 1970 to July 1979
            period, which is a period sandwiched between the 1970 and 1980-81 renourish-
            ments of Wrightsville Beach.     This period was selected primarily because
            detailed information was available on the characteristics of the borrow
            material used for the 1970 fill, thus allowing for an estimate of sorting
            and winnowing losses.

            Changes in the position of the mean sea level contour at each profile
            station within the severely eroding area were measured and graphs drawn of
            the cumulative shoreline change over time.      The graphs for each of these
            profiles are shown on figures D-2 to D-4. A notable characteristic of these
            shoreline change graphs is.that extremely rapid shoreline retreat rates were
            experienced between stations 70+00 and 140+00 immediately following the fill
            placement, and that after an initial period, the rate of shoreline change
            diminished and became relatively uniform over time.     The initial period of
            rapid shoreline retreat appeared to extend to about December 1971.
            Interestingly, the total amount of erosion between stations 70+00 and 140+00
            was, by December 1971, generally equal to or greater than the added width of
            beach, provided by the 1970 fill.    This is illustrated in table D-1.       The
            significance of this is that approximately all of the 1970 fill material had
            been exposed to the hydraulic sorting and winnowing action of the waves by
            this date.  Also, the initial beach profile slope adjustments had occurred
            by December 1971.

            Since the changes in the position of the m.s.l. contour between February
            1972 and July 1979 were rather uniform and relatively unaffected by sorting
            and winnowing losses, lines of best fit were computed through this portion
            of the shoreline change curves for each profile station within the severely
            eroding area (i.e. stations 60+00 to 160+00).     The slope of these best fit
            lines were interpreted to represent steady state trends in the shoreline
            behavior.   These trends, given in terms of feet of shoreline change per
            year, are summarized in table D-2.

            Shoreline change rates for Shell Island north of the fill to Masons Inlet,
            applicable to this reevaluation of shore processes, were based on the
            longest period available which was from October 1970 to December 1979.
            These rates are also given in table D-2.

                                                 D '4

         20
                                                                                                                                                               Ff 3 Rill:   ..2
           0                                                                                                                                     CUMLI.ArIVE dwr)R LINE              I-ANGE
                                                                                                                                                        STA 6c       0        100 0)
        -20
                                                                                                                                                         A id 9            EC'9 9

        -40

        -60
        -80                                                         Xt@llpol- I    I  I
                                                                               x
                                                                                                                                                                         --6(+(10

        -100 -
                                                   V I I
        -120
                                                                                                                                                         4
        -140

                                                                                                                                x
        :-160
                                                                                                                                            4x
                                                                                                                                                                             8 +(0
        -180---
        -200     1                                                       XX KYL                                                                             .7
                                                                                 XX (x) xx
                                                                                         xx
        -220
                                                                                                  x
        li-240                                                                                r@FxZT-7`                         I .     I    I
        -260                                                                                  11111 7XjX+XKXj.,_                           -    .        1            ..9( + 0
        -280   - - - - - - -                                                                                            lx, xx 4xi ul           I I         (X]  I
        -300 - - - - - - -                                                                                                        I    -"Xlx, xlxx@x@  XX XX   lxx xxitX)q 1010
                                                                                                                                                                           L

                                                                                                                                                     X

           A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D
                7071            71 72            72 73            7374            74 75            75 76            7677

        .20
                                                                                                                                                     F1   RE! ) 3
                                                                                                                                        CUTU.ArtlE         IAl Ur           T(_ @ _E
                                                                                                                                                      C            lio,   Al
        -20                                                                                                                                   S TA     +TO    T        'o)

        -40                                                                                  1 @l I t I
                                             11 -TIT[                    I
        -60

        -80
        u

        =-100

        u
        -5-120
        -140                    L_d .11,
        _j

        Li
        -160

        180 -
                                                        X). x

        -200
                                                                  KXXX

        (J-220
                                        I        V I                                             X) x
        )-240                                                                                              x
                                                                                                                   x
        -260                                                                                           __T_: - xrx" X),                   W
                                                                                                        I    1711.-                                    :K
        -280                                                                                                                    Ilk                          1204 oe
        -300                                                                                                                                                     4 01)
                                                                                                                                                             130
                                                                                              X;
                                                                                                                @X) X1
                                                                                              XX

              fl H I                                                                                    I       Ll I I I I I         I I I
           A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D
                7071           71 72          72 73           7374           74 75           75 76          7677

          20-

                                                                                                                                                         F1    RE     4
           0-                                                                                                                                  MUATIJE@tGRMN
                                                                                                                                                                      jj@@ ANGE
                                                                                                                                            T     S A 1 0        T,         oc
                  xx
         -20-                                                                                                                                       kL G. I         E
                  0                                                                                                                                                         9.
         -40     ",q V, I                I ;     I I I      I
              Ui 'I y                              I I I    VVY-1 I        I 170
         -60                                                t

                                                                                                                      od.,
      SU  -80                                                                                                                 0  el
                                                       x                                                                                 ol
       -100                        f                                                                                                  LXN x
                                                                    xx xx x x xx xx cx):x x                   "xx     xxx x cxfxx xx: cx
      m                              Ao                                                       XX KX) M@: CM": "XX (XXXX
      0-120                                                                                                                                      xlx:(x%'c        150+00
      z
                                                         0"

          140

      Z -160

      D -180

       -200
      ji

      't-220
      D
      :E         I       I    I                             I    I                                      I  I             I  :I]_
      :)-240

       -260

       -280                                                                                                                                                       1@ 0 co

       -300--

                                                                                                                                                   F A J A 0 D
            A 0 D-F-A-J A' 0 D F A J A 0 D                   0     F'   J' A-0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D
                7071            71 72          72 73            7374           74 75           75 76           7677

                                                         TABLE D-1

                                       1970 Beach Fill Widths vs.   Shoreline Retreat
                                                    as of December  1971

                                                Shoreline Advance                Shoreline Retreat
                           Station              by 1970 Fill (ft)                as of Dec 1971 (ft)

                            60+00                      74                                 -30
                            70+00                      85                               -108

                            80+00                     113                                 -96

                            90+00                     144                               -180
                           100+00                     166                               -208

                           110+00                     190                               -172
                           120+00                     176                               -182

                           130+00                     165                               -160
                           140+00                      84                               -132
                           150+00                      50                                 -56
                           160+00                      14                                 -60

                                                             D-5

                                                TABLE D-2.

                                   Wrightsville Beach - Shell Island
                                          Shoreline Change Rates

                                                                     Computed Shoreline
                                    Measured Rate of Change           Trend within 19701
                                     Outside 1970 fill area          Fill Area (2/72-
                  Station                     (ft/yr)                7/79 data) (ft/yr)

                     3+50                      -15.4*
                   10+00                       -9.6*
                   20+00                       -3.2*
                   30+00                       -0.6*                          Deficit2
                   40+00                       +3.2*                            x 0.54
                   50+00                       -2.3*                     2.3     -1.2
                   60+00                                              -11.5      -6.2
                   70+00                                              -11.4      -6.2
                   80+00                                              -17.0      -9.2
                   90+00                                              -16.7      -9.0
                  100+00                                              -14.4      -7.8
                  110+00                                              -22.7     -12.2
                  120+00                                              -22.1     -11.9
                  130+00                                              -27.5     -14.8
                  140+00                                              -19.3     -10.4
                  150+00                                                -9.8     88.9/10=8.89
                  160+00                                                -6.2
                  169+00                       -6.5**                            Say 8/9/yr.
                  180+00                       -2.2**
                  190+00                       -1.3**
                  197+00                        0 **
                  227+00                       +1.3**

              Negative and positive signs represent erosion and accretion, respectively
            2 Erosion rate adjusted to reflect placement of 60,000 cubic yards per
            year from Masonboro Inlet Navigation Project (70,000/130,000         0.54)

              February 1968 to December 1979 data
               October 1970 to December 1979 data

                                                   D-6

                      Volumetric Changes - Wrightsville Beach and Shell Island - August 1970 to
                      July 1979.  The two onshore-off shore surveys taken in August 1970 and July
                      1979 were used to estimate the volumetric       changes on the beach profile
                      between Masonboro and Masons Inlets.       The  results of the volume change
                      estimate are given in table D-3.     Since the August 1970 survey was taken
                      immediately after the 1970 fill was completed, the total volume change
                      within the fill area includes losses due to sorting and winnowing of the
                      fill material along with the losses associated with the other effects being
                      evaluated.  Therefore, before an annual rate of loss of material from this
                      area can be computed, an adjustment must be made for these sorting and
                      winnowing losses.

                      Sorting and Winnowing Losses from the 1970 Fill Material.         As ment ioned
                      earlier, the 1970 fill material was obtained from       two sources, namely a
                      shoal area in Banks Channel opposite the U.S. Coast Guard Station and from
                      the lagoon behind Shell Island.       The quality of these two sources of
                      material were strikingly different; specifically, the Banks Channel sand was
                      relatively coarse (mean grain size of 0.26 mm) and widely distributed in
                      terms of grain size, whereas the Shell Island sand was fine (mean grain size
                      of 0.17 mm) and poorly sorted.   A total of 951,000 cu. yd. of material were
                      removed from Banks Channel and placed between stations 60+00 and 110+00
                      while the Shell Island material, totaling 426,000 cu. yd., was spread
                      between stations 110+00 and 160+00.

                      A considerable amount of grain size information was available for the two
                      borrow areas from core borings taken prior to the placement of the fill.
                      This grain size information was used along with the before and after
                      dredging surveys of the borrow areas to estimate the composite grain size
                      characteristics of the two borrow materials.

                      In the case of the Banks Channel borrow area, the before and after dredging
                      cross sections were plotted along with the vertical distribution of the
                      material characteristics obtained from the analysis of the boring samples.
                      From these plots, the borrow area was separated into three sections in which
                      the grain size characteristics were similar.         Based on the volume of
                      material removed from these three sections and the average grain size char-
                      acteristics in the sections, a weighted composite grain size distribution
                      was constructed for the Banks Channel borrow material.     With respect to the
                      Shell Island borrow area, there were no distinct variations in the quality
                      of the material from one end of the borrow area to the other or from top to
                      bottom.   Therefore, the composite characteristics of this material was
                      obtained by averaging the size distributions of 38 samples taken from 14
                      borings.   The resulting composite size characteristics of the two borrow
                      materials are summarized in table D-4.

                                                            D-7

                                                TABLE D-3

                           Volume Changes - Wrightsville Beach & Shell Island
                                         August 1970 - July 1979

                                        Volume Change
                                     Btwn Baseline Stas.
                   Station              (cubic yards)

                      0+00*
                                             -17,400
                      3+50
                                             -41,200
                    10+00
                                             -77,700          0+00 to 60+00
                    30+17*                                    Total Change    -125,700 CY
                                             +18,400          Rate = -14,000 CY/Yr
                    40+00
                                             +17,000
                    49+05*
                                             -24,800
                    60+00*
                                             -66,100
                    70+00
                                            -105,300
                    80+00
                                            -311,300          60+00 to 160+00 (Fill Area)
                   100+00                                     Total Change = -1,474,900 CY
                   130+00                   -5141100          Rate - N/A**
                                            -478,100
                   160+00*
                                             -56,600
                   167+00                                     160+00 to 227+00
                                             +22,700          Total Change = +314,500 CY
                   197+00                                     Rate - +34.,900 CY/Yr
                   227+00                   +3481400

               Interpolated    no offshore profiles taken at these stations
                Not applicable due to sorting and winnowing losses from fill

                                                      D-8

                                                         TABLE D-4

                                     1970 Borrow Material Grain Size Characteristics

                      .Borrow Area             Mean         Standard Deviation           % silt
                                     I  @ units     mm              units               and Clay

                      Banks Channel      1.95      0.26            1.05                   5.0
                      Shell Island       2.54      0.17            0.49                  10.2

                      An estimate of the sorting    losses from the borrow material is obtained    by
                      comparing the composite characteristics of the borrow material to that       of
                      the surficial sediments comprising the native beach profile. In the case     of
                      Wrightsville Beach, a truly native beach sand did not exist due to the
                      placement of previous artificial fills. Therefore, the size characteristics
                      of the beach material was based on samples collected from the profiles in
                      early 1980 prior to the latest renourishment.         In this case, the 1980
                      samples reflect the characteristics of the 1970 fill material that were
                      retained on the active beach profile; and therefore   should, when compared to
                      the borrow material characteristics, give a reasonable estimate of sorting
                      losses.

                      A total of 73 samples taken from profile stations 70+00,        90+00, 110+00,
                      130+00, and 150+00 to depths of 24 feet below m.s.l. were      used to compute
                      the composite characteristics of the beach material.       Note that all of the
                      sample stations are within the limits of the 1970 fill.          The resulting
                      composite distribution of the beach material had a phi mean    of 2.31 (0.20mm)
                      and a standard deviation of 0.66.

                      The procedure for computing a value known as the fill factor (RA), Which
                      is a measure of the number of cubic yards of fill material needed to retain
                      one cubic yard of sorted material on the beach profile, is given in the
                      Shore Protection Manual (2).     Based on this procedure, the Banks Channel
                      material had an RA value of 1.1, whereas the Shell Island material           @A
                      was 3.0.   Adjusting these two RA values for the amount of silt and clay in
                      the borrow areas which would be winnowed from the fill during placement, the
                      final fill factors were 1.16 for Banks Channel and 3.34 for Shell Island.
                      By applying these fill factors to the volume of material removed from each
                      borrow area, the estimated sorting and winnowing loss from the Banks Channel
                      material was 130,000 cu. yd. while the Shell Island material           lost an
                      estimated 298,000 cu. yd.     This results in a total sorting and winnowing
                      loss of 428,000 cu. yd.      from the entire fill.      Since the two borrow
                      materials were spread along different sections of the beach, the estimated
                      sorting losses were applied station by station to the fill area to arrive at
                      an adjusted or net volumetric change on Wrightsville Beach between August
                      1970 and July 1979.   This adjustment, shown in table D-5, resulted in a net
                      rate of loss of material from the fill area of about 116,000 cu. yd./year.
                      For the entire Wrightsville Beach fill area which extends from Masonboro
                      Inlet northward to the end of the transition section (0+00 to 160+00), the

                                                              D-9

                                                                        TABLE D-5

                                         Adjusted Volumetric Changes - Wrightsville Beach & Shell Island
                                                                August 1970 - July 1979

                           Observed Vol     Est Vol 1970                  Est Sorting
                           Change Btwn      Fill Placed         Source    Losses Btwn     Net Vol
                 Station     Stas (CY)      Btwn Stas (CY)      of Fill    Stas (CY)     Change(CY)

                    0+00
                               -17,400                  0                                 -17,400
                    3+50
                               -41,200                  0                                 -41,200
                  10+00
                               -77,700                  0                                 -77,700        0+00 to 60+00
                  30+17                                                                                  Total Change     -125,700 CY
                  40+00        +18,400                  0                                 +18,400        Rate    -14,000 GY/Yr
                               +17,000                  0                                 +17,000
                  49+05
                  60+00        -24,800                  0                                 -24@, 800
                               -66,100           117,700        Banks Ch     16,100       -50,000
                  70+00
                              -105,300           146,500        Banks Ch     20,000       -85,300
                  80+00
                              -155,600           190,200        Banks Ch     26,000      -129,600
                  90+00
                              -155,700           229,400        Banks Ch     31,300      -124,400        60+00 to 160+00
                 100+00                                                          -                       Total Change = -1,046,900 CY
                              -171,400           267,200        Banks  Ch    36,600      -134,800        Rate = -116,000 CY/Yr
                 110+00
                              -342,700           261,700        Shell  1.&   183,000     -159,700
                 130+00
                              -159,400             91,500       Shell  Is    .64,000      -95,400
                 140+00
                              -318,700             72,800       Shell  Is    51,000      -267,700
                 160+00
                               -56,600                                                    -56,600
                 167+00                                                                                  160+00 to 227+00
                               +22,700                                                    +22,700        Total Change = 314,500 CY
                 197+00                                                                                  Rate = +34,900 CY/Yr
                              +348,400                                                   +348,400
                 227+00

                      total rate of loss was 130,000 cu. yd./year. This total rate of volume loss
                      is less than that reported in reference (1) which was 167,000 cu. yd./year.

                      As has been discussed, shoreline changes on Wrightsville Beach following the
                      1970 renourishment occurred rapidly during the initial 16 months (August
                      1970 - December 1971) as a result of sort ing-winnowing losses and profile
                      slope adjustments.     However, the rate of shoreline change at each profile
                      station within the fill area eventually developed into uniform rates after
                      this initial period.      It is assumed that this uniform rate of change was
                      free of any sorting and winnowing losses.           Accordingly, by applying this
                      rate to the 9-year period corresponding to the time between the August 1970
                      and July 1979 offshore surveys,          the difference between the volumetric
                      erosion predicted by the uniform shoreline change rates and that measured
                      from the comparison of the offshore profiles, gives an order of magnitude
                      check of the computed sort ing-winnowing losses given above.               Since the
                      uniform rate is given in terms of the linear change in the shoreline
                      position per year (i.e. ft/yr), a volumetric equivalent factor             had to be
                      .developed to convert.the shoreline movements to volumetric change.

                      Repetitive soundings were made from Johnnie Mercers Pier, located near
                      station 120+00, between March 1972 and July 1979, which approximately
                      corresponds to the post slope adj us tment --s or t ing /winnowing loss period.
                      The depth of water at the end of the pier is around 18 feet below m.s.l.,
                      which is near the seaward limit of the active profile.               Based on these
                      soundings, the mean sea level contour at the pier moved landward 130 feet
                      between March 1972 and July 1978 while the volume of material on the profile
                      decreased by 99.3 cu. yd./linear foot of shoreline. Based on these measured
                      changes, a volumetric equivalent         factor obtains wherein every foot of
                      lateral change in the position of the mean sea level contour results in a
                      loss of 0.76 cubic yards from the profile per lineal foot of shoreline.

                      The 1970 fill was divided into three segments, namely: (1) the southern
                      transition (stas. 60+00 to 80+00);          (2) the main fill (stas. 80+00 to
                      140+00); and (3) the northern transition (stas. 140+00 to 160+00).                  The
                      cumulative shoreline change at each station within the three segments were
                      averaged for the period February 1972 to July 1979, and a single shoreline
                      trend curve computed for each segment.        A plot of these cumulative changes
                      and associated trend curves are shown on figure D-5.           The resulting trends
                      in the three segments were@         -13.8 ft./yr. for the southern transition;
                      -18.4 ft./yr.    for   the main    fill;   and -9.7     ft./yr.   for  the northern
                      transition.     These shoreline    trends along with the volumetric equivalent
                      factor given above applied@over the 9-year survey period from August 1970 to
                      July 1979, convert to a total predicted volumetric loss of 1,077,00 cu. yd.
                      The measure volumetric loss from the fill area between August 1970 and July
                      1979 was 1,479,000 cu. yd. which is 3?7,900 cu. yd. more than the erosion
                      predicted from the uniform shoreline trends.         Assuming that this difference
                      was for the most part due to sorting and winnowing, the estimated 428,000
                      CU. yd. of sorting and winnowing losses computed from the material
                      characteristics appears to be within the correct order of magnitude.

                                                             D-11

            Historical Losses Off Wrightsville Beach (Preproject Losses).       Wrightsville
            Beach has had a history of erosion problems dating from the earliest
            attempts to build within this dynamic barrier island zone. Local interests
            began attempts to control erosion in 1923 when the town, with assistance
            from New Hanover County and the Tidewater Power Company, constructed five
            timber groins along the middle 6,400 feet of the ocean shoreline. In 1925,
            six reinforced concrete groins were added, with three to the north and three
            to the south of the timber groins.     The wooden groins functioned satisfac-
            torily until about 1928, by which time attacks by marine borers had
            partially destroyed them.    The concrete groins were temporarily successful
            at the southern end of the island, but those at the northern end were
            eventually flanked and destroyed.    In 1939 the town, with the assistance of
            PWA funds, constructed 16 creosoted timber groins, each about 325 feet long
            and spaced about 800 feet apart.     Also, between 1955 and 1959, four beach
            nourishment operations placed a total of 477,800 cu. yd. of fill on
            Wrightsville Beach.     The timber groins were apparently effective for a
            while; however, the seaward ends of the groins deteriorated rapidly so that
            by 1957 their impact on the beach.was negligible. in spite of these efforts
            by the town, the shoreline along Wrightsville Beach retreated between 1939
            and 1965.

            The magnitude of the preproject shoreline change was obtained by comparing
            onshore profiles (i.e. landward of the -2 foot, m.s.l. contour) made in 1939
            with a preproject survey made in 1965.    The measured change in the position
            of the m.s.l. contour at each profile station during this time is given in
            table D-6.   The weighted average shoreline erosion along the entire beach
            was 60 feet. Since Wrightsville Beach was only 12,500 feet long during this
            period, the 60 feet of landward movement of the m.s.l. contour is equivalent
            to a volume loss of 562,000 cu. yd. over the 26-year period.

            The four beach fills placed on Wrightsville Beach between 1955 and 1959 used
            Banks Channel as a borrow source.      Since the quality of that material in
            terms of its compatibility with the native beach is not known, this fill
            material was assumed to have the same fill factor as the original hurricane
            and shore protection fill placed in 1965.      The 1965 fill material had an
            estimated fill factor of 2.5 (1).     Thus, the net volume of fill placed on
            the beach between the 1939 and 1965 surveys was approximately 191,000 cu.
            yd.  If this fill volume is added to the net loss computed from the profile
            surveys, the total. volume   loss off Wrightsville Beach during the 26-year
            period was 753,000 cu. yd., corresponding to an average annual loss rate of
            29,000 cu. yd.  In terms of shoreline movement, a volumetric loss of 29,000
            CU.   yd./year is equivalent to a lateral movement of -3 ft./year at the
            m.s.l. contour.

                         IMPACT OF THE SHORELINE SHAPE ON EROSION RATES

            The evaluation of the effects of the anomalous shape of the Wrightsville
            Beach shoreline was accomplished through a numerical simulation of sand
            transport along a shoreline bulge comparable to that of Wrightsville Beach.

                                                                                                    4k

                                                    D-12

          20
           0                                                                                                                                                             Fl LR@          5
                                                                                                                                                          c AW      ATIVE SH RELN                ANGE
        -20                                                          - - - - - -                                                                                   A14C     REN S -)VI        I
                                                                                                                                                                       1 ?7) -VIjL Al
                                                                                                                                                                   WFIGHTI LL- IE             H
        -40
                                                Oil-
        -60                                       --low
        -80                                 n if           N                                      ir
                         xI                                                                                                                TRE D (FE .7 JUL.;'9)=-9.            FYAR
                        x                                                       IT-
        -100

        -120
                                                                                                                                                                      so     f4w%li-I   I K LW al 1 RAN

                                                                                                                                                                               URI -@z    -      U- fR
        -140                                                                                                                                                 E      F:
                                     x                                                                                                                                      iCUJ@H
                                    x          114A                                                                                                                                  TRANS ON
                                                                 XX

        -180
        -200                                              IXX

        -220
        ?
                                                                                                                   pn 1XI
        :-240                                                                                                                   X-)
                                                                                                                                  X X @x@x                (FEB1721-       7
                                                                                                                                                                      UL ?): -1     1 F   IR
                                                                                                                                               ZE@D
        -260                                                                                                                                                              -
                                                                                                                                                                                  NI F  L@

        -300
            @xx

            A 0 D F A i A 0 D F A i A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A J A 0 D F A j A 0 D
                 7071             71 72             72 73            7374              74 75             75 76             7677

                                                             TABLE D-6

                                               Wrightsville Beach Shoreline Changes
                                                             1939     1965

                          CE                 Dist Btwn              m.s.l. Change             Area Change
                          Sta                Stas (Ft)                   (ft)                   (ft2)

                          1+00                                           -10
                                                 470                                            -12,925
                          5+70                                           -45
                                                 530                                            -11,925
                         11+00                                              0
                                                 530                                            -16,960
                         16+30                                           -64
                                                 525                                            -35,700
                         21+55                                           -72
                                                 480                                            -30,960
                         26+35                                           -57
                                                 377                                            -16,588
                         30+12                                           -31
                                                 208                                              -7,904
                         32+20                                           -45
                                                 880                                            -46,200
                         41+00                                           -60
                                               1,000                                            -70,000
                         51+00                                           -80
                                                 900                                            -45,450
                         60+00                                           -21
                                               1,100                                            -29,700
                         71+00                                           -33
                                                 850                                            -48,025
                         79+50                                           -80
                                               1,280                                            -124,800
                         92+30                                           -115
                                                 810                                            -87,075
                        100+40                                           -100
                                               1,000                                            -65,000
                        110+40                                           -30
                                                 603                                            -28,643
                        116+43                                           -65
                                                 387                                            -26,123
                        120+30                                           -70
                                                 390                                            -30,420
                        124+20                                           -86
                                                    Total Area Change    (ft2)                  734,398
                                                    Average MSL Change = 734,398/12,320         -60 ft

                                                                     D-13

             The numerical longshore transport simulation had, as input, wave character-
             istics observed at Wrightsville Beach and normal longshore transport rates
             applicable to the area.     The simulation of the physical characteristics of
             the bulge was based on the variation of the Wrightsville Beach shoreline
             from an average shape that is characteristic of barrier islands in the
             vicinity.   Each of the features of this analysis, i.e., the evaluation of
             the magnitude of the shoreline anomaly, wave characteristics applicable to
             Wrightsville Beach, longshore sand transport rates, and the development of
             the longshore transport numerical simulation, are discussed below.              This
             will be followed by a presentation of the results obtained from the
             analysis.

             Magnitude of Shoreline Anomaly.      The shape of most barrier islands in the
             vicinity of Wrightsville Beach, which are bounded on the updrift and down-
             drift sides by tidal inlets, is concave seaward. This concavity is normally
             sharpest immediately downdrift of the updrift inlet until a point of maximum
             indention occurs from which the degree of curvature decreases in the
             downdrift direction.     A sketch of a typical barrier island, identifying
             terms to be referred to later, is shown on figure D-6.

             Several barrier islands, both past and present, were selected for the
             purpose of determining an average ocean shoreline shape of islands in the
             area.    These included the:         1857 Wrightsville Beach shoreline;         1887
             Wrightsville Beach shoreline; 1938 Shell Island shoreline; 1949 Shell Island
             shoreline; 1970 shoreline between Old Topsail Inlet and Rich Inlet; 1970
             Figure Eight Island shoreline; 1970 Lea Island shoreline; and 1970 Masonboro
             Island shoreline.

             For each of these islands, a baseline was established connecting the protu-
             berant shoulders of the updrift and downdrift inlets as shown on figure D-6.
             From this baseline the relative offset distance, Y/Ymax, was measured at
             various relative distance, X/L, along the baseline.         These relative values
             were then plotted, as shown on figure D-7, and lines of best fit drawn
             through various segments of the data set to produce a relationship for the
             average shape of a barrier island.

             In order to apply the shoreline shape relationship given by the curve on
             figure D-7 to Wrightsville Beach, the length of the island and maximum
             indenture had to be defined.     With respect to the island length, a value of
             17,700 feet was selected which is the distance from Masons Inlet to station
             50+00 on Wrightsville Beach.     South of station 50+00 to Masonboro Inlet the
             shoreline curvature approximates that of the average barrier island.               A
             maximum indenture of 350 feet was also selected which is the average
             indenture of  six of the eight barrier islands. The 1,200-foot indenture of
             Figure Eight Island and the 1,500-foot indenture of Masonboro Island were
             not included in this average as they were considered to be too large for
             Wrightsville  Beach.    The shape and position of the predicted shoreline
             relative to   the 1970 shoreline is shown on figure D-8.           This predicted
             shoreline is  presumed  to represent the eventual shoreline position and shape
             for Wrightsville Beach that would develop after some period of time if the

                                                     D-14

                                                 SOUND

                ui

                                                                                          ui
                                      AIL      MARSH  Ac      St-  e

                                                    SAND
                ae

                                                                    y
                                                             YMAX
                0                                                    IYMAX
                                                 BASE LINE
                                                                          x
                                                     L                    T_

                                                   OCEAN

                                           PREDOMINANT SAND TRANSPORT

                                                FIGURE D-6
                                      DEFINITION SKETCH-BARRIER ISLAND
                                              SHORELINE SHAPE

                         1.0                            A

                         0.9
                                                                   A +         s

                                                                                                          s
                         Q8                                                                                                                       LEGEND
                                                                                                                                        0   1857  WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
                                                                                                                                            1887  WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
                         0.7-                                                                                                               1933  SHELL ISLAND
                                                                                                                                            1949  SHELL ISLAND
                                                                                                                                            1970  OLD TOPSAIL INLET
                                                                                                                                                  TO RICH INLET
                                                                                                                                            1970  FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND
                                                                                                                                        (B  1970 LEA ISLAND
                         CIA                                                                                                            +   1970 MASON80RO ISLAND

                         Q5
                                                                                                                                        FIGURE D-7
                                                                                                         13
                                                                                                                                        BARRIER ISLAND SHORELINE
                         Q4-                                                                                  +\                        SHAPE RELATIONSHIP

                         03

                         0.2

                         0.1

                           0
                            0         0.1        0.2         0.3         0.4        0.5         0.6         0.7        0.8         0.9          1.0
                            UPDRIFT INLeT                                            X/L                                       DOWNDRIFT INLET

                                                                                                                                   kw,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              re

                                                                                                                                                             t4.

                                                                                                                                                    V  A                       NORF16L*X
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              It w1w

                                                                                                                                                N 0 R T H
                                                                                                                                 . ...... . .

                                                                                                                               MILE                         RALE"       WASHIMN
                                                                                                                                         C A R 0 L I N A                                    CAPE
                                                                                                                                           GCMARLOTTE                     E.                .......
                                                                                                                                                                        KA @,-
                                                                                                                                                                       WIPEkc,",     F1,P,  T
                                                                                                                                                                                   CAIIA
                                                                                                                                     S. C APCOLAP811                              VICINITY MAP
                                                                                                                                                             'S'POR
                                                                                                                                                            Wt E
                                                                                                                                                            RIIE      CAPE

                      beach were not maintained by artificial means and Masons Inlet remains in
                      the same relative position.

                      The concave shape of the barrier islands is to a large extent the result of
                      the interaction of tidal flow through the inlets with longsbore sediment
                      transport by waves.    If this perturbation to sediment movement is removed,
                      the shape of the shoreline would probably conform to that of the nearshore
                      contours. For example, if the nearshore contours are straight and parallel,
                      the shoreline would also be straight.     This particular concept was used to
                      develop the simulated offshore hydrography to be used in the numerical
                      simulation of sand transport along the bulge shoreline.

                      The shape of the idealized shoreline bulge was determined from the differ-
                      ence between the 1970 Wrightsville Beach shoreline and the predicted average
                      shape of this barrier island as shown on figure D-8. The maximum difference
                      between these two shorelines occurred from station 100+00 to 140+00 and
                      averaged approximately +600 feet.     If the predicted average shoreline for
                      Wrightsville Beach is normalized into a straight line, the angle between the
                      point of maximum protuberance on the 1970 bulge shoreline and the normalized
                      straight shoreline was estimated to be around 3.8*.

                      The idealized bulge shoreline used in this analysis is shown on figure D-9
                      and consists of: (1) two straight shoreline segments north and south of the
                      bulge; (2) a north transition and a south transition with angles of 3.4*
                      from the idealized straight shoreline; and (3) the main bulge section offset
                      600 feet from the straight shoreline.     This idealized shoreline reasonably
                      represents the relative shape of the 1970 Wrightsville Beach shoreline.

                      The offshore bathymetry of the bulge was developed by averaging the distance
                      to various depth contours at 23 profile stations along Wrightsville Beach
                      and Shell Island located between stations 40+00 and 196+84. Station 196+84
                      is approximately 3,000 feet south of Masons Inlet and is not affected by the
                      inlet's ocean bar.   These average distances between the contours are given
                      in table D-7 and a plot of this average profile is shown on figure D-10. In
                      constructing the offshore bathymetry, the depth contours out to -24 feet,
                      m.s.l. were made parallel to the bulge shoreline, whereas the -30 feet,
                      m.s.l. depth contour was maintained at a constant distance of 3,050 feet
                      relative to the straight shoreline. Thus, in the vicinity of the bulge, the
                      slope of the offshore profile between the 30- and 24-foot, m.s.l.           depth
                      contours was steeper than along the straight portion of the simulated ocean
                      bottom.  This appeared to be the actual case as reflected by both the 1970
                      and 1979 offshore surveys.    The resulting offshore bathymetry used in this
                      bulge analysis is also shown on figure D-9.     From this offshore bathymetry,
                      a depth grid with spacings in both the X (shore parallel) and Y
                      (perpendicular to the shore) directions of approximately 208 feet was
                      generated for use in the numerical simulation of longshore sand transport
                      along the bulge.

                      Longshore Sand Transport Rates - Wave Climatology.        The annual rates of
                      longshore sand transport to the north and south along Wrightsville Beach

                                                           D-15

                                                 TABLE D-7

                                Average Distance Between Depth Contours
                                            Wrightsville Beach

             Contour Interval          Distance Between              Cumulative Distance
               (ft, M.S.1.)             Contours (ft)                Betwn Controus (ft)

                   0-2                        75                              75

                   2-4                      100                             175

                   4-5                        50                            225

                   5-6                        90                            315

                   6-12                     250                             565

                   12-18                    335                             900

                   18-24                    980                            1,880

                   24-30                   1,170                           3,050

                                                   D-16

                                                                       FIG RE D-9
                                              SIMWLATED BULGE S-IORILINE AND CEPTfl CONTOURS

                                                                                                                           CqNTO A       IT
                                                                                                                             E LOM
             3000                                                                                  4- 4                                30'

                                                                                                               z-Qiiir=

         Lu 4000

         >

         Lu

                                                             100,
         z
                                                                                        71
         0   1000
         0                                                                                                                             18,

                                                             ool
                                                                                                                                       121

                                              o,   000,                                                                                6
                                         ooo".'                                                                                        5
                                                                                                                                       4
                                                                                                                                     sl
                                                                                                                                    ms

               0-                                  rx F@//" F///@  m
                     M,        m m y1h M vZ/1 Y/// //// @&z ////,               I          /////V///,                   Y&

                                                 0@   -1   cl   tq   r**@  ON                                cl) to        ol        cn
                                  cl   u@   rl":                     C14   C-i           C-i
                I   cil 0                             04   04   C14
                                    X  COORDINATE VALUES ALONG              SIMULATED BULGE SHORELINE            (104 FT)

                0

               -2

               -4

               10

          0  -12
          -j
          ui

             -14
          ui
          Lu
          u-
          Z  -16
                                              AVERAGE PROFILE FOR WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
                                              USED IN BULGE ANALYSIS
             -is
          Lu                             N"

             -20

             -22

             -24
                                                                                                     FIGURE D-10. AVERAGE PROFILE
                                                                                                     ON WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
             -26

             -28

             -30

             -32

                0                      1000                     2000                     3000                     4000
                                                          DISTANCE IN FEET FROM 0' MSL CONTOUR

                     were determined in reference (1). Since the computed rates varied along the
                     Wrightsville Beach and Shell Island shorelines, the annual longshore trans-
                     port rates to the north and south used in this study were averages of the
                     rates computed between Masonboro Inlet and Masons Inlet. These rates are:

                          769,000 cu. yd./yr. to the south (70.2% of the gross drift)
                          326,000 cu. yd./yr. to the north (29.8% of the gross drift)
                        1,095,000 cu. yd./yr. gross drift

                     The gross annual longshore drift rate of 1,095,000 cu. yd./yr. was prorated
                     to the months of the year based on the percentage of annual wave energy
                     occurring in a given month.      The monthly percentage of the annual wave
                     energy was determined from recorded wave gage records collected at Johnnie
                     Mercers Pier between 1971 and 1975.    The monthly percentage of the annual
                     wave energy and the prorated gross drift rate in each month ar     e given in
                     table D-8.

                     Visual wave observations made by U.S. Coast Guard personnel from the Frying
                     Pan Light Tower, located off Cape Fear approximately 40 miles south-
                     southwest of the study area (see figure D-11), were used to separate the
                     monthly gross drift into north and south components.   Due to the presence of
                     Frying Pan Shoal, which has minimum depths of between 7 and 8 feet m1w,
                     observed wave heights at the Light greater than 6 feet out of the south and
                     south-southwest were not included in the directional wave energy distribu-
                     tion since waves larger than 6 feet would break on the shoal.    In addition,
                     average breaker angles for each wave direction, determined from the results
                     of the extensive wave refraction analysis reported in reference (1), were
                     used to adjust the wave energy to an alongshore component.

                     The gross monthly sand transport rates given in table D-8 were multiplied by
                     the percentages of wave energy from the northern quadrants determined from
                     the Frying Pan Light data.      The resulting southward transport was 66.8
                     percent of the gross annual longshore transport.     Since this percentage of
                     the gross drift rate was less than the 70.2 percent southward transport
                     given above,   the monthly directional drift distributions were adjusted
                     slightly to make the annual southward drift 70.2 percent of the gross. The
                     final monthly distribution in sand transport to the south and north are
                     given in table D-9.

                     As will be discussed below, the transport of sand along the simulated bulge
                     shoreline was based on repetitive    refraction analysis using various wave
                     periods applicable to Wrightsville Beach.      The wave periods used in the
                     analysis were 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5,    8.5, 9.5, 11.0, and 13.0 seconds.       In
                     order to perform the analysis of     the effects of the bulge shoreline on
                     Wrightsville Beach erosion rates,    the north and south monthly transport
                     volumes were proportioned between the various wave periods.     To do this, a
                     value termed the relative longshore wave energy flux (Pr) was computed for
                     each period in each month and the amount of transport for each period
                     assigned on the basis of its percentage of the total monthly Pr.            The
                     relative longshore wave energy flux is defined as:

                                                           D-17

                                                 TABLE D-8

                                      Monthly Wave Energy Percentage
                                      and Gross Littoral Drift Rate

                  Month         Percent Annual Wave Energy            Gross Drift  (CY)

                   Jan                       9.8                            107,000
                   Feb                       9.4                            103,000
                   Mar                       8.8                            96,000
                   Apr                       8.8                            96,000
                   May                       8.7                            95,000
                   Jun                       5.8                            64,000
                   Jul                       5.8                            64,000
                   Aug                       7.1                            78,000
                   Sep                       7.6                            83,000
                   Oct                       7.9                            87,000
                   Nov                       8.1                            89,000
                   Dec                       12.2                          133,000

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

                                                 TABLE D-9

                            Monthly Percentage   and Volume of Littoral Drift
                             to the South and North Used in Bulge    Analysis

                                      Southward Drift                Northward Drift
                  Month                 %     Vol (CY)               -%      Vol (CY)

                   Jan                80       86,000                20        21,000
                   Feb                75       77,000                25        26,000
                   Mar                70       67,000                30        29,000
                   Apr                65       62,000                35        34,000
                   May                65       62,000                35        33,000
                   Jun                40       26,000                60        38,000
                   Jul                35       22,000                65        42,000
                   Aug                55       43,000                45        35,000
                   Sep                90       75,000                10          8,000
                   Oct                90       78,000                10          9,000
                   Nov                80       71,000                20        18,000
                   Dec                75       100,000               25        33,000

                                               D-18

                                                                                                      OGU S

                                                                                                                                          CAPE    LOOKOUT               Ile

                        WILMINGTON                           r, .14
                                             WRIGHTSVILLE         B

                                          M A SO N 60 R OC. I N L E T
                                                      c @ j                                                                      lip
                                                      i Nk                                                                   -  \
                            ai                       16 Q
                            at         CAROLINA3 B.
                            <          INLET
                            ui
                           q44.                V   ?4
                                 NEWINLEJ-,@
                            Ab              c
                                                                                                                                                  bo
                                                                                                                               @@/CAPE

                                                             FRYI                                                                FIGURE D-11
                                                                  NG PAN                                                         FRYING PAN
                                                             LIGHT TOWER                                                         LIGHT TOWER LOCATION

                                   Pr    Z (% ObvsxH  2)T(KR)2TT sin2(a b)T                  (Eq. 1)

                      where:
                      E (%ObvsxH  2)T   Sum of the percentage of observations fo   .r a given wave
                                        height (H) and period (T) times the wave height squared
                               (KR)T    Refraction coefficient for wave period T computed from
                                        the 30-foot depth contour to the point of breaking
                                    T   wave period
                                 (ab)T  Average breaker angle for wave period T
                      Since Pr depends on the average breaker angle for each wave period, visual
                      wave observations, made by employees of the Wilmington District from Johnnie
                      Mercers Pier between May 1970 and December 1971, were used to develop rela-
                      tionships between wave period, breaker angle, and wave direction.

                      The visual observations of breaker angles from Johnnie Mercers Pier were
                      made by sighting down a    breaking wave crest with a hand-held compass.        The
                      wave periods and heights associated with the breaker angles were determined
                      from the recorded wave     records with supplemental data provided by visual
                      estimates when the gage was not operating.         A plot of the observed data
                      relating breaker angle     to wave period for waves from the northern and
                      southern quadrants is shown on figure D-12.      Also shown on this figure are
                      the averages of the observed breaker angles associated with the wave periods
                      used in this analysis.     Although there is a considerable amount of scatter
                      of the individual observations, the average breaker angles -show a high
                      degree of correlation with wave period for waves from both the north and
                      south quadrants. Accordingly, linear regression lines were computed through
                      the average breaker angle wave period points and resulted in the following
                      two relationships:
                           waves from the north;      (ab) = 20.0 - 1.46T                       (Eq. 2)
                           waves from the south;      (ab) = 16.2 - 1.08T                       (Eq. 3)
                      Breaker angles determined from these two relationships were used in       the conr-
                      putation of Pr.

                      The refraction coefficient for each wave period was determined from Snell's
                      Law by computing the change in wave angle from the break point out to the
                      30-foot depth contour. Snell's Law is:

                                                                D-19

                                (C 30
                     SIN(a 30          SIN(ab

                                                                                      (Eq. 4)

                  where:
                    a    =angle wave crest makes with the 30-foot    depth contour
                      30 =wave celerity in water depth of 30 feet
                    C30
                    Cb   =wave celerity at point of breaking
                     ab   angle wave crest makes with the shoreline at point of breaking
             FroIm this  MOT is computed as:        (KR)T     Cosa 3@0 1/2            (Eq. 5')

             The longshore transport volumes associated with each period during each
             month computed on the basis of the above proportioning procedures are given
             in table D-10.    In the analysis of the effects of the. bulge shorline on
             longshore sediment transport rates, the values given in table D-10 were
             .assumed to represent sand transport along a coast with straight and parallel
             bottom contours and a straight coastline (i.e. these transport values served
             as boundary conditions for the bulge analysis).

             Numerical Simulation of Longshore Sand TransRort. Longshore sediment trans-
             port is related to the longshore component of wave energy flux (P S) by
             the general.relationship:

             where: QS    = @Pk S_
                          = constant                                                  (Eq. 6)
                     Pks  = P92  T (Ho  KR 2 SIN  2a b
                            647r

             in which:

                  P =    mass density of seawater
                  g =    acceleration due to gravity
                  T  =   wave period
                  Ho =   deepwater wave height
                  KR.=   refraction coefficient
                  ab =   breaker angle

             Since sediment transport rates along a straight shoreline associated with a
             certain wave period are'known (table     D-10), the variation in the transport
             rate along the bulge shoreline for a given wave period depends on the
             difference in the breaker angle at a     point on the bulge shoreline relative
             to the breaker angle on the straight shoreline and the difference in the
             refraction coefficient for those two shoreline conditions.       This dependency
             is given by the following:
                                                              ic
                                                                oslab

                                                   P-20

                                                                                                                                                     LEGEND

                                                                                                                                      OBSERVED BREAKER ANGLE FOR WAVES
                                                                                                                                      FROM THE SOUTH QUADRANT
               350-                                                                                                               +   OBSERVED BREAKER ANGLE FOR WAVES
                                                                                                                                      FROM THE NORTH QUADRANT
               300                                                                                                                    AVERAGE BREAKER ANGLE FOR SOUTH
                                                                                                                                      WAVES FOR GIVEN WAVE PERIOD

               250                                                                                                                    AVERAGE BREAKER ANGLE FOR NORTH
                                                                                                                                      WAVES FOR GIVEN WAVE PERIOD

                                                           +                                                                          REGRESSION LINE THROUGH AVERAGE
          uj   200
                                                           +            +                                                             BREAKER ANGLES.
                                                                       +

               15"                                                     +
          0
          09
                                                              +2 OD                                 +
               loo
          UA
          >                                                                2 2+4D
          3:   50
          cc       NORTH                                                                   +  +          +                                                                    1-2
          0
          u-   0

          I
                   SOUTH                                                                              41                           C.
               50
          tn                                                                               92  0  ------

          0    loc                                                                                  0     92
          z

          cr                                   ..................0
          ui   150                                     --------- 40           0

          'm   2 0*
          co   250

               300

               350
                                                                                                                                                      FIGURE      D-12. BREAKER
                                                                                                                                                      ANGLE VS.WAVE PERIOD
                                                                                                                                                     WRIGHTSVILLE BEAC
                                                                                                                                                                                      H, N.C.

                             4.0            5.0            6.0           7.0           8.0           9.0            10.0           11.0         12.0           13.0          14.0
                                                                                      WAVE PERIOD (SECONDS)

                                                                      TABLE D-10

                                              LONGSHORE TRANSPORT VOLUMES BY MONTH AND WAVE PERIOD

                             Southward Northward        Southward Northward        Southward Northward        Southward Northward
                   Period    Transport Transport        Transport Transport        Transport Transport        Transport Transport
                                (CY)         (CY)          (CY)          (CY)         (CY)         (cy)          (CY)          (CY)
                                       JAN                          FEB                       MAR                         APR

                     4.5        4,500      1,000           5,300      1,600           5,200      2,400           6,900      3,700
                     5.5       15,200      3,600         13,900       4,400         13,600       6,600         12,900       7,200
                     6.5       13,900      3,300         10,900       3,500         15,600       3,800         10,200       5,800
                     7.5       13,700      3,300           9,100      2,400           8,000      2,500           7,800      4,400
                     8.5       26,600      6,500         19,900       6,500         13,500       6,800         17,400       10,100
                     9.5        9,000      2,400         11,900       4,200           6,400      3,500           3,800      1,200
                    11.0        2,900         800          3,800      1,500           3,200      1,900           2,500      1,000
                    13.0           200        100          2,200      1,400           1,500      1,500              500         600

                                       MAY                          JUN                       JUL                         AUG

                     4.5        6,300      3,200           2,400      3,100           2,500      4,500           8,500      6,600
                     5.5       13,300      6,900           3,100      7,100           4,700      8,700           8,000      6,300
                     6.5        8,400      4,400           6,800      9,000           3,800      7,100           7,000      5,600
                     7.5        9,500      5,000           4,200      5,700           1,900      3,600           4,400      3,600
                     8.5       19,400     10,500           7,900      10,800          7,600      14,800        10,400       8,600
                     9.5        4,500      2,600           1,500      2,100           1,100      2,200           2,700      2,300
                    11.0           400        200             100        200             200        300          1,800      1,600
                    13.0           800        200               0           0            200        800             200         400

                                       SEP                         OCT                        NOV                         DEC

                     4.5       12,100      1,200           7,500         800          8,700      2,100           4,600      1,400
                     5.5       14,500      1,500         15,900       1,800         16,300       4,000         17,400       5,600
                     6.5       12,700      1,300         15,100       1,700         11,900       2,900         18,700       6,000
                     7.5        6,200         600          7,800         900          7,700      1,900         13,700       4,400
                     8.5       15,700      1,700         23,000       2,700         18,200       4,600         31,500       10,400
                     9.5        5,800         600          6,300         800          5,300      1,500         10,000       3,500
                    11.0        5,900         700          1,700         200          1,800         500          3,800      1,500
                    13.0        2,100         400             700        100          1,100         500             300         200

                   (q S) x  (qS)N  S IN 2 (ab  x     (KR      2                             (Eq. 7)
             where:                SIN  2 (ab  N     (K R)N)

                     (qs)x   sand  transport at point x on the bulge shoreline associated
                             with  a given wave period   '
                     (qs)N  sand transport along a straight shoreline associated with
                             the same wave period (table D-10)
                     (ab)N= breaker angle on a straight shoreline for the wave period
                     (ab)x= breaker angle at point x on the shoreline for the same
                             period
                     (KR)N= refraction coefficient for the wave period on a straight
                             shoreline
                     (KR)x= refraction   coefficient at point x on the bulge shoreline
                           . for the same period

             The initial    variation in the breaker angles and refraction coefficients
             along the bulge shoreline for the various wave conditions were computed by
             refracting waves across the bottom bathymetry shown on figure D-9.                  Wave
             rays for each of the eight wave periods out of both the north and south
             quadrants were refracted shoreward from the 30-foot depth contour to the
             shoreline. Examples of these refraction diagrams are shown on figures D-13
             to D-16.     Angles at which the wave crests approached the 30-foot depth
             contour were determined by first computing the average breaker angles in
             accordance to eqs. 2 and 3, and then refracting the waves seaward from the
             break point over the straight-parallel bottom contours.

             With the basic information provided by the refraction analysis, the
             computation of shoreline and offshore bottom changes proceeded as follows:

                     1. The simulated bulge shoreline was divided into cells equal in width
             to two grid spacings on the depth grid or approximately 416 feet as shown on
             the definition sketch in figure D-17.

                     2. Breaker angles and refraction coefficients for the various wave
             conditions were interpolated at each upcoast and downcoast boundary of the
             cells.

                     3. The monthly sediment transport quantities associated with each wave
             period and direction were arranged in a random order.            The random order of
             the 16 wave events is shown in table D-11.         This random order of wave input
             was repeated twice each month with one-half of the transport associated with
             a given wave condition in that month allowed to move along the simulated
             shoreline and the resulting shoreline changes computed before simulating the
             next sediment transport condition.        Since there are 16 wave conditions, 32
             such computations were carried out for each month resulting in a total of
             384 shoreline change computations during a 1 year simulation.

                                                        D-22

                                      BULGE SHORELINE AFTER
                                      3 YEARS SIMULATED
                                      SAND TRANSPORT.

                                                                             FIGURE D    13
                                                                         REFRACTION DIAGRAM
                                                                         5.5 SEC. WAVE PERIOD.
                                                                         WAVES FROM NORTH
                                                                         QJJADRANT.

                                   BULGE SHORELINE AFTER
                                   3 YEARS SIMULATED
                                   SAND TRANSPORT.

                                                                      FIGURE D  14
                                                                  REFRACTION DIAGRAM
                                                                  5.5 SEC. WAVE PERIOD.
                                                                  WAVES FROM SOUTH
                                                                  QUADRANT.

                                        BULGE SHORELINE AFTER
                                        3 YEARS SIMULATED
                                         SAND TRANSPORT.

                                                                               FIGURE D - 15
                                                                           REFRACTION DIAGRAM
                                                                           8.5SEC. WAVE PERIOD.
                                                                           WAVES FROM NORTH
                                                                           QUADRANT.

                                    BULGE SHORELINE AFTER
                                    3 YEARS SIMULATED
                                    SAND TRANSPORT.

                                                                       FIGURE D -16
                                                                   REFRACTION DIAGRAM
                                                                   8.5 SEC. WAVE PERIOD.
                                                                   WAVES FROM SOUTH
                                                                   QUADRANT.

                                                                                             X(l), X(2),X(3),--.X(J) =COORDINATES OF CELL BOUNDARIES
                                                                                            XMID(l), XMlD(2),---XMlD(i)= MIDPOINTS OF CELL (i)

                                                     ,&X= CELL WIDTH
                                                              416'

                                                                                                                                                                                           x

                                                                                                                                                        x
                                                                                  C14
                                                                 x                x                 x                                 x
                                                                                                                                                               .,      A     (4y) P)            .4
                                                                                                                                                          000,               T
                                                                                                                                                       ooo
                                                                                                                                                                                           qs
                                                                                                                                                     (3)
                                                                                                                                                                                               5
                                 7rrryrl                                                         ...........                                                           CELL (4)
                                                                                             AY (2)                                                        S4
                                                qsl                                 qs?                              qS3
                                                             C E LL (1)                          CELL (2)                            CELL (3)

                                 UPCOAST                                                                                                                                                DOWNCOAST

                                                                                                                                                             FIGURE D-17
                                                                                                                                          DEFINITION SKETCH - SHORELINE
                                                                                                                                                                   f
                                                                                                                                                                       14
                                                                                                                                                                       AY (4)@
                                                                                                                                                                             T

                                                                                                                                                CHANGE COMPUTATIONS

                                                          TABLE D-11

                                       Random Ordqr of Wave Input to Bulge Analysis

                     Order                    Wave Direction                    Wave Period (sec)

                        1                          north                              11.0

                        2                          south                              13.0

                        3                          north                               8.5

                        4                          north                               5.5

                        5                          north                               7.5

                        6                          south                               7.5

                        7                          north                              13.0

                        8                          south                               4.5

                        9                          south                               8.5

                       10                          south                               5.5

                       11                          south                              11.0

                       12                          north                               6.5

                       13                          north                               4.5

                       14                          south                               9.5

                       15                          south                               6.5

                       16                          north                               9.5

                                                                   D-23

                 4. The change in the shoreline position due to each sand transport
            episode was determined from the difference in the rate of sand transport at
            each cell boundary in accordance with the following equation:
                          AY(i) = AVOL(i)                                                (Eq. 8)
                                     AX C

                 in which:

                     AY(i)        change in position of the shoreline at the midpoint of
                                  cell W
                     AVOL(i)         (qs(j+l))k         (qs(j))k         difference    in     sand
                                  transport volume at the downdrift cell boundary Q+l)
                                  and upcoast cell boundary Q) for wave condition
                                  k(k=l to 16)

                 (qs(i))k         sediment transport at the cell boundary computed in
                                  accordance with eq. 7.          Since only one refraction
                                  analysis was performed for each year's simulation, the
                                  refraction coefficient ratio in eq. 7 for a given wave
                                  condition remained the same at a given cell boundary
                                  during a year's simulation of sediment transport.           Thus
                                  during the year's simulation only the breaker angle
                                  ratio changed for each sediment.transport episode.
                             AX = length of the cell.
                             C =  volumetric equivalent factor relating volume change on
                                  the profile to a linear change in the shoreline
                                  position.

                 5. The change    in shoreline position, Y(i), applied to the midpoint of
            each cell results     in a change in the shoreline angle across the cell
            boundaries (see figure D-17).       This change in the shoreline angle between
            the midpoints of the cells is computed by:
                 AOM = Tan-    I  AY(i+l) - AYW                                         (Eq. 9)

                                          AX

                 6. This change in the shoreline angle across the cell boundary results
            in a new breaker angle at the cell boundary which is given by:

                                                    D-24

                             b 0) k       bO  (j) + AO(i)                                         (Eq. 10)
                            where:
                               ab(i) k      =  new breaker angle at cell boundary (j)             for wave
                                               condition k
                               ot  bO(j)k   =  initial breaker angle at cell boundary (j) for wave
                                               condition   k   computed    from    the   wave     refraction
                                               analysis,' ie., this is the breaker angle at the
                                               beginning   of the I year simulation of sediment
                                               transport
                               Ae M            change in shoreline angle between the midpoints of cell
                                               (i+l)'and M given by eq. 9.          (Note that when j=n,
                                               i-n+l)

                            7. Steps 4-6 are repeated for each cell until all 384 yearly transport
                       episodes are completed. This yields the new shoreline position at each cell
                       midpoint after 1 year.

                            8. Once this new shoreline position was found, an entirely new depth
                       grid was generated by assuming that all depth contours out to -24 feet,
                       m.s.l. remained parallel to the new shoreline. The -30-foot, m.s.l. contour
                       was maintained 3,050 feet from the original straight shoreline throughout
                       the analysis.

                            9. The wave refraction analysis, for the 16 wave conditions, was
                       repeated using the new offshore depth grid.        This resulted in a new set of
                       initial breaker angles,,abO(j)k         *  and refraction coefficients,        (KR)Ts
                       which were used in the computation of shoreline changes during the second
                       year of simulated longshore sediment transport.

                           10. The entire procedure was repeated until a total of 5 years of long-
                       shore transport and shoreline change had been simulated.

                       The above described numerical simulation of shoreline change was accomp-
                       lished on the Wilmington District's Harris 120 Computer System and involved
                       the use  of seven computer programs.        Table D-12 contains a list of the
                       programs giving their file name and a general description of what each
                       program   does.   Printouts of these programs ' can be made available upon
                       request.

                       Results  of Bulge Analysis.       The computed theoretical rates of shoreline
                       change along the bulge shoreline after 5 years of simulated littoral trans-
                       port are shown on figure D-18(a).       Figure D-18(b) shows a similar plot of
                       the observed rates of shoreline change on Wrightsville Beach and Shell
                       Island.   The observed rates plotted on figure D-18(b) are those given in
                       table D-2.    Also plotted on figure D-18(b) is a curve of the difference
                       between the observed rates of shoreline change and the theoretical rate
                       computed at comparable points on the simulated bulge shoreline.                     As
                       indicated by the shaded area on figure D-18(b), a large portion of the
                       erosion that occurred within the limits of the 1970 fill, specifically from

                                                                D-25

                                              TABLE D-12

                               Numerical Shoreline Change Simulation
                                       Computer Program Listing

            Program File Name          Description

            1. NEWCTUR                 Generates depth contours over the depth grid area
                                       based on a given shoreline position. (SAW)

            2. GRDW4                   Computes depth values at each X, Y grid point from
                                       the position of the depth contours generated by
                                       NEWCTUR. (SAW)

            3. RI                      Main wave refraction program. Computes the path
                                       of the individual wave rays over the depth grid.
                                       (CERC)

            4. R2                      Takes each wave ray pair and computes the value of
                                       the wave refraction coefficient and the angle the
                                       rays make the the X-axis at various points along
                                       the path of the ray pair. Input is from Rl.
                                       (CERC-SAW)

            5. R3                      Computes the refraction coefficient and wave angle
                                       relative to the shoreline at the point of breaking
                                       of the wave. Input is from R2. (SAW)

            6. SHOEVO                  Data from R3 is used to compute the change in the
                                       shoreline position in accordance with the steps
                                       given in the text. (SAW)

            7.  SLCHG                  Computes the rates of shoreline change from
                                       resu,lts of SHOEVO.

            (SAW) - program written by Wilmington District
            (CERC) - program written by the Coastal Engineering Research Center
            (CERC-SAW)   program written by CERC and modified by SAW

                                               D-26

            +30                                                  FIGURE 18a. COMPUTED RATES
                                                                 OF SHORELINE CHANGES ON
                                                                 SIMULATED BULGE SHORELINE.

            +20

            tu

            z+10
            <

            u
            x
            uj 0
                                                                                          -10
            z
            -a               \N .../ 1                                                100 COMPUTE                         ER 5 YRS
            lu -lo-                                                                 Id               SL C HANGE ItAtE AF-
                                                                                          OF SIMULATED LONGIHORI IAND TRAIISPORT
              20

            wi

              3
            X           STIAI   T Sj         NORTH TRANS]l ION             BULGE    CREST                         si rION         ST AIGH r SL
            0                                                                                         SOJTH T AN             1w -
            u  0L_                       0144- ---t-- i -*-- -                                                           I   b-l - I     -I-
                   0.7 0.9     1.1  1.3   1.5  1,7   1.9  2.1   2.3  2.5   2.7   2.9  3.1   3.3   3.5  3.7   3.9  4.1   4.3  4.5   4.7   4.9  5.1    5.3
                                                      X COORDINATE   VALUES ALONG SIMULATED      SHORELINE

            +30
                                                              FIGURE 18b. OBS@ERVE'D RA'TES 6F SH'OREILINE
            +20-                                            -CHANGE ON WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH AND
                                                              DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMPUTED AND
            uj                                                OBSERVED     SHORELINE CHANGE RATES
            +10

            cc

            Lu
            0  0--
            z                                                              DIFFERENCE SETWEEN    COMPUI ED AND
                                                                           CBS R%ED Sl CHA14GE RATES                 Zop,
              10
            ui                                                         Oslo 4 DUE
            z                                                          @O SL. SH
                                                                               A                                                                      u1i
            -20                                                                                                                                        a
            us                                  OBSE VED SL.                                                                                          Z
                   ui
                   _j                            CHAIsGE RATE
                   Z_                                                                                                                                 0
            -30           t:A:l Gj
                                                                 @\mbb
                                                                 Itooss",

                   z                                                                                                                                  z
               L
                                  200+00                      150+00                       100+00                      50+00                          0
                                                                 WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH BASELINE STATIONS

                     station 100+00 to 160+00, can be explained by the effects that the bulbous
                     shoreline has had on longshore transport along Wrightsville Beach.             North
                     and south of this particular reach the observed rates of shoreline change
                     appear to be independent of the effects associated with the shoreline
                     shape.

                     The average rate of shoreline change observed between stations 100+00 and
                     160+00 was -16.2 feet/yr.     over a comparable stretch of the simulated bulge
                     shoreline, the average rate of shoreline change attributed to the bulge
                     shoreline was -9.1 feet/yr. or 56.2 percent of the total observed rate.
                     Within this 6,000-foot reach,        the adjusted volume loss,        as given in
                     table D-5 over the 9-year period from August 1970 to July 1979 was 657,600
                     cu. yd.     which is equivalent to an annual rate of 73,000 cu. yd./yr.
                     Therefore, based on the theoretical bulge shoreline analysis, 56.2 percent
                     of this volumetric loss, or 41,000 cu. yd./yr., was due to the protuberant
                     shape of the shoreline.

                     Conclusions. The present estimate of the total rate of volumetric loss from
                     the Wrightsville Beach project, adjusted for sorting and winnowing losses
                     from the 1970 fill, is 130,000 cu. yd./yr.       Of this total, 29,000 cu. yd./
                     yr.. is attributed to historical or long-term losses that were occurring
                     before the construction of the hurricane/shore protection project and the
                     stabilization of Masonboro Inlet. These historical losses included sediment
                     entrapment in the inlets, storm induced erosion, and losses due to a gradual
                     rise in sea level .       In addition,    the anomalous shape of the present
                     shoreline of Wrightsville Beach, which is convex seaward rather than con-
                     cave, has accelerated the natural loss from the project by 41,000 cu. yd./
                     yr.   In all, approximately 70,000 cu. yd./yr. of the erosion, or 53.8 per-
                     cent, is attributed to factors other than the navigation improvements at
                     Masonboro Inlet .    Although it is not precisely clear whether or not the
                     remaining 60,000 cu. yd./yr. loss, or 46.2 percent, is due entirely to the
                     Masonboro Inlet navigation improvements, no other causes could be identi-
                     fied.   Therefore, 46.2 percent of the total loss off Wrightsville Beach is
                     assigned to the Masonboro Inlet navigation project.

                     Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (PL 90-483), requires the
                     Federal   Government   to mitigate erosion caused by           Federal    navigation
                     projects.    In the case of Wrightsville Beach, 46.2 percent of the erosion
                     from the beach project has been attributed to the navigation improvements at
                     Masonboro Inlet.    Therefore, this portion of any future renourishment of the
                     beach would be paid for by Federal navigation funds.                The remaining
                     53.8 percent of the cost required to rebuild the beach would be shared
                     between Federal and non-Federal interest.

                                                             D-27

                             REVISION OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH SEDIMENT BUDGET

             General.    The  current estimate of the volumetric erosion on Wrightsville
             Beach differs   from that contained in the sediment budget presented in the
             Masonboro Inlet south jetty GDM (1).      Also, 5 more years of survey informa-
             tion was available for both Masonboro Inlet and Masonboro Island compared to
             that used in the previous sediment budget.       Therefore, the sediment budget
             applicable to Wrightsville Beach, Masonboro Inlet, and the north end of
             Masonboro Island was revised to reflect the latest information available for
             these areas.

             Masonboro Island Volume Change.     Beach profile surveys of Masonboro Island,
             which extended out to the -30-foot    .m.s.l. depth contour, were made in July
             1969 and August 1979.    From a comparison of these two offshore surveys, the
             northern 6,000 feet of Masonboro Island, which corresponds to the same area
             used in the GDM sediment budget-, lost a total of 832,000 cu. yd. of sand,
             which is equivalent to an average annual rate of -83,000 cu.        yd./yr.    This
             volumetric erosion rate is down from the GDM estimate in which      the loss rate
             was estimated to be 155,000 cu. yd./yr. The difference in the       two rates can
             be explained in part by the difference in the quality of the survey data, in
             that the GDM estimate was only based on shoreline movements over a 4-year
             period from July 1969 to September 1973, whereas the current estimate
             included changes in the entire active profile over a 10-year period.          Along
             the remainder of Masonboro Island the measured rate of volume change over
             the July 1969 to August 1979 survey period was -179,000 cu. yd./yr., which
             is also below the GDM estimate of -310,000 cu. yd./yr.

             Masonboro  Inlet.   The revised rate of sand accumulation in Masonboro Inlet
             was based  on survey of the ocean bar made between July 1970 and August 1980
             and surveys of Banks Channel made in 1970 and 1978.          The 1970 survey of
             Banks Channel was made following the 1970 beach renourishment in which this
             particular area was used as a borrow source for the fill material.              The
             total rate of sand accumulation in the inlet complex computed from these
             surveys was 256,000 cu. yd./yr. of which 95,000 cu. yd./yr. was being
             trapped in Banks Channel and 161,000 cu. yd./yr. on the ocean bar.             This
             total rate of sand accumulation in the inlet is also lower than the previous
             estimate of 435,000 cu. yd./yr. contained in the GDM.         The one consistent
             trend between these old and new rates of volume change is that the newly
             computed rates are lower than the previous rates.

             Revised Sediment Budget. The old sediment budget for the Wrightsville Beach
             -Masonboro Inlet area is shown on figure D-19(a).         Figure D-19(b) is the
             revised sediment budget based on the new estimates of volume change.            The
             revised sediment budget was derived from the old in the following manner:

                  (a)  The longshore transport rates into and out of the Wrightsville
             Beach littoral cell were reduced by the ratio of the new rate of volumetric
             erosion to the old rate, i.e. 116,000/160,000 = .725.

                                                   D-28

                        413000                  463000                      0                        292000                  353000
                        --40W    N. END                  MASCINBORO      ---- ON-     N.JETTY        ---40o  WRIGHTSVILLE    -41110
                               MASCINBORO                     INLET                    FILLET                   BEACH
                                  ISLAND
                        532000  -155000         429000    +435000     uJ 401000        -7000         684000      160000      592000
                                     42000                                                42000                     43000
                                                                    FIGURE D-19(a)
                                                  PREVIOUS SEDIMENT BUDGET (1966-1975)
                                                            WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH &VICINITY

                        427000                  272000                       0                       210000                  256000
                        --bw      N. END                  MASONBORO       ---4w       N. JETTY                WRIGHTSVILLE
                               MASCINBORO                     INLET                      FILLET                  BEACH
                                  ISLAND

                                                            +256000    uj
                        550000   -83000         314000                    298000       -14000        496000     -116000      429000
                                                %le-     L                                        1  490-    L

                                        2000                                                 2000                      3000

                                                                    FIGURE D-19(b)
                                                  REVISED SEDIMENT BUDGET (1970-1980)
                                                          WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH &VICINITY

                        477000                     0                         0                       210000                   256000
                                                          MASONBORO                   N. JETTY       ---4mw   WRIGHTSVILLE
                                                              INLET                     FILLET                    BEACH

                                                            +298000                     -14000                   -116000
                        550000    -125000          0      Lu              298000                     496000                   429000
                                                          -n
                                                         E                                        1  .40-    L

                                         2000                                                2000                      3000

                                                                   FIGURE D-19(c)
                                                    PRESENT SEDIMENT BUDGET WITH SOUTH
                                                                JETTY AT MASONBORO INLET

                         (b) As in the old sediment budget, natural sand movement across
                    Masonboro Inlet to Wrightsville Beach was assumed to be zero.  Based on this
                    assumption, a total of 298,000 cu. yd./yr. must pass by the north jetty and
                    enter Masonboro Inlet.

                         (c)  Sand transport off the north end of Masonboro Island into Mason-
                    boro Inlet was reduced by the rati'o of the new and old sand entrapment rates
                    in the inlet which was 256,000/435,000 = .589.    With this assumption, the
                    natural sand bypassing from Masonboro Inlet to the north end of Masonboro
                    Island (presouth jetty rate) was 314,000 cu. yd./yr.

                         (d) The relative rates of sand transport.at the south boundary of the
                    north end of Masonboro Island littoral cell was assumed to stay the same as
                    in the old budget, i.e. if the northward transport at this boundary is taken
                    as QN, the southward transport would be 1.288 QN'     The revised transport
                    rates at this particular boundary were within 3.3 percent of the old
                    estimate.

                    Now that the sou'th jetty at Masonboro Inlet has been completed, sand trans-
                    port from Masonboro Inlet to Masonboro Island, and vice versa, has been
                    stopped. As a result, sand accumulation in Masonboro Inlet should increase
                    to around 298,000 cu. yd./yr. whereas erosion of the north end of Masonboro
                    Island should be 125,000 cu. yd./yr.  This present sediment budget is shown
                    on figure D-19(c).

                         FUTURE SOURCE OF BEACH NOURISHMENT MATERIAL FOR WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH

                    In the south jetty GDM (1), a sand bypassing and backpassing scheme was
                    developed in which material trapped in the inlet each year would have been
                    placed on Masonboro Island and Wrightsville Beach during alternate years.
                    This particular scheme was recommended since, at the time, the erosion on
                    both beaches which was attributed to the inlet navigation improvements
                    appeared to be equal.    Based on the present sediment budget as shown in
                    figure D-19(c), the total rate of erosion along the north end of Masonboro
                    Island, which is 125,000 cu. yd./yr., is 'still essentially equal to the
                    130,000 cu. yd./yr. rate of loss off Wrightsville Beach.       However, only
                    60,000 cu. yd./yr. of the Wrightsville Beach loss is now       attributed to
                    Masonboro Inlet.  In any event, the bypass ing-backpassing scheme developed
                    in (1) still appears feasible since no adverse effects would be expected on
                    Masonboro Island as a result. of placing inlet trapped material back on to
                    Wrightsville Beach.   For example, the biennial requirement for Masonboro
                    Island would be 250,000 cu. yd. whereas the Wrightsville Beach biennial
                    requirements would be 260,000 cu. yd.     Since 298,000 cu. yd. of sand is
                    expected to accumulate in Masonboro Inlet each year, enough of this material
                    should be available for placement on these two beaches.

                                                         D-29

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 71
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      olz

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 X.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                A I         f--

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 A                                                                                                                                   ------
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               r      N".

                                                                                                                                                                                      V A.                              RORfOLK
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           A.,  T.@
                                                                                                                                                                                    @R T.H
                                                                                                                                                                                       GREENS DR%
                                                                                                                                                                                                  DON1.
                                                                                                                                                            EVILLE                                "AL1111        11SN1!qGTG.
                                                                                                                                                                                                  A
                                                                                                                                                                        C A R 0 L I N                            RE.            ""A      CAPE
                                                                                                                                                                          6CMARLOTTE                                                   1111ENAS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 BERN
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 MORENEAD. Cll"Z6 CRT  T
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            CAPE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            LOOIDUt
                                                                                                                                                                          *COLUMBIA                 G@THPO                  VICINITY MAP
                                                                                                                                                                                                  L
                                                                                                                                                                                                  7LE
                                                                                                                                                                                                  .T             CAP           O@CAIE   ItD  MILET
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Rl             FEAE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        m2l

        0

                                                  APPENDIX E

                                    REPORT BY U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

       0

              I

                   tsT 0
                               United States Department of the Interior
                                           FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
                                             PLATEAU BUILDING, ROOM A-5
                                           50 SOUTH FRENCH BROAD AVENUE
                                          ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801
                                                    March 2, 1982

                          Colonel Robert K. Hughes
                          District Engineer
                          U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                          P.O. Box 1890
                          Wilmington, North Carolina 28402

                          Dear Colonel Hughes:

                          Enclosed is the Service's Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
                          Report on the proposed Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection
                          project at Wrightsville Beach. Letters of concurrence from the North
                          Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina Office of
                          Coastal Manaaement and your letter reviewing the draft version of the
                          report are contained in Appendix E of the report.

                          The Service appreciates the opportunity to.provide this final report to
                          you and your staff.

                                                             Sincerely,

                                                             William C. Hickling
                                                             Area Manager

                          Enclosure

                          cc:
                          Mr. Randy Cheek, National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental
                               Assessment Branch, Piver's Island, P.O. Box 570, Beaufort, NC 28516
                          Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV, 345 Courtland Street, N.E.,
                               Atlanta, GA 30308
                          Mr.*Preston P. Pate, Jr., Office of Coastal Management, P.O. Box 769,
                               Morehead City, NC 28557
                          Mr. Rich Carpenter, Division of Marine Fisheries, 7725 Wrightsville
                               Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
                          Mr. Frank Reilly, Department of Surqery, Trace Elements Lab, East
                               Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27834
                          FWS, Washington, DC (ES--Attention Mr. Don Dobel, Branch Chief, Branch
                               of Federal Projects)
                          Raleigh,ES

                                      UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                                           U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

                                   FINAL FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT
                                       WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH EROSION CONTROL AND
                                             HURRICANE PROTECTION STUDY
                                         WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA

                                                   Prepared by:
                                            Ecological Services Division
                                           U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                               Raleigh, North Carolina

                       Planning Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District

                                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                Page

                         Introduction                                                           1

                         Description of the Area                                                2
                              General Description                                               2
                              Description of the Problem                                        6
                              Plan  of Development                                              7

                                    Plan 1                                                      7
                                    Plan 2                                                      8
                                    Plan 3                                                      8
                                    Plan 4                                                      8
                                    Evaluation of Existing Shore Protection Project             9
                         Existing Resources                                                     9
                              Aquatic Resources                                                 9
                              Commercial and Recreational Fisheries                             9
                              Marine Invertebrates                                              15
                              Nursery Areas                                                     15
                              Wildlife Resources                                                16
                              Endangered Spec .ies                                              18

                         Future Conditions                                                      20
                              Without the Proposed Action                                       20
                                    Aquatic Resources                                           20
                                    Wildlife Resources                                          21
                              With  the Proposed Action                                         22
                                    Plan 1 - Aquatic Resources                                  22
                                    Plan 1 - Wildlife Resources                                 24
                                    Plan 2 - Aquatic Resources                                  24
                                    Plan 2 - Wildlife Resources                                 24
                                    Plan 3 - Aquatic Resources                                  24
                                    Plan 3 - Wildlife Resources                                 24
                                    Plan 4 - Aquatic Resources                                  27
                                    Plan 4 - Wildlife Resources                                 27
                                    Evaluation of Existing Shore Protection Project -
                                      Aquatic Resources                                         27
                                    Evaluation of Existing Shore Protection Project -
                                      Wildlife Resources                                        28

                                                                                Paqe

            Discussion                                                           29

            Recommendations                                                      30

            Literature Cited                                                     31

            Appendices
                 Appendix A.   Fishes which may occur in Wrightsville Beach      35
                               and the immediate vicinity based on sampling
                               at Wrightsville Beach and in the Cape Fear
                               River.

                 Appendix B.   Common and scientific names of birds which        44
                               may occur on or in the vicinity of Wrights-
                               ville Beach and their residence and numerical
                               status based on those occurring on other
                               southeastern barrier islands.

                 Appendix C.   Birds likely to occur within specific habitats 55'
                               of Wrightsville Beach, N.C., and vicinity,
                               based on studies at other southeastern U.S.
                               barrier islands and at Wilmington, N.C.

                 Appendix D.   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service correspondence     74
                               with the Corps regarding endangered or threat-
                               ened spe cies.
                 Appendix.E.   Correspondence from the North Carolina wild-      76
                               life Resources Commission, the North Carolina
                               Office of Coastal Management and the Corps of
                               of Engineers providing comments on the Draft
                               FWCA report for this project.

                                                     INTRODUCTION

                        The following report addresses the Wrightsville Beach Erosion Control
                        and Hurricane Protection Study being conducted by the Wilmington Dis-
                        trict Corps of Engineers. On December 2, 1970, the Committee on Public
                        Works of the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a resolution requesting
                        the Secretary of the Army to direct the-Chief of Engineers to conduct a
                        survey of Wrightsville Beach in New Hanover County, North Carolina
                        including the adjacent beaches, oceanic and lagoonal shores and intercon-
                        nected tidal channels. The survey was authorized in the interest of
                        formulating measures for beach erosion control, hurricane protection and
                        related purposes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District,
                        conducted a survey in accordance with that resolution which identified
                        the principal problems at Wrightsville beach as: 1) potential hurricane
                        flood damage as a consequence of low elevation; and 2) loss of land and
                        structures as a consequence of erosion of estuarine and oceanic shorelines.
                        In addition to evaluating the feasibility of reducing and/or controlling
                        the principal problems, Corps planning objectives as stated in the Stage
                        I report (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1978) were to:

                             *Develop basic data and guidelines for protecting and enhancing the
                             environmental and esthetic quality of undeveloped sections of
                             estuarine and barrier beach islands and adjacent waters.

                             *Develop and evaluate basic data and guidelines to assist in pro-
                             ducing a rational program of land use for undeveloped Shell Island
                             area.

                             *Develop guidelines for providing additional parking facilities to
                             reduce traffic congestion and assist in improving public utilization
                             of existing beach area.

                        Structural and non-structural measures to address the stated objectives
                        were presented for consideration in the Stage I report (U.S. Army Corps
                        of Engineers 1978). Alternative plans for alleviating the principal
                        problems are presented ,and evaluated in the Corps' Stage II report (U.S.
                        Army Corps of Engineers 1981).
                        This report is submitted under authority of Section 2 (b) of the Fish
                        and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661
                        et seq.) and should be incorporated as an integral part of the Corps'
                        Stage III report. This report was prepared in cooperation with the N.C.
                        Department of Natural Resources and Community Development-Division of
                        Marine Fisheries (DMF), the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC),
                        the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the N.C. Office of
                        Coastal Management (OCM) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                        (EPA).

            In addition to fulfilling our responsibility under the Fish and Wildlife
            Coordination Act, this document also serves to fulfill the Service's
            responsibility to provide comments to other Federal agencies regarding:
            1) environmental impacts of projects wherein we have special expertise
            or jurisdiction by law (National Environmental Policy Act; 42 U.S.C.
            4332 (c) (v)); 2) endangered or threatened species (Endangered Species
            Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1536); 3) floodplains (Executive
            Order 11988, Floodplain Management, May 24, 1977); and 4) wetlands
            (Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 24, 1977)..

            The objectives of this report are to:

                 *Provide a brief description of the existing conditions at Wrights-
                 ville Beach.

                 *Summarize previous efforts in regard to controlling beach erosion
                 and preventing hurricane damage at Wrightsville Beach;

                 *Describe the aquatic and wildlife resources present at Wrightsville
                 Beach and in the vicinity;

                 *Summarize the alternatives considered for solving existing problems
                 at Wrightsville Beach;

                 *Assess the impacts of each alternative upon aquatic and wildlife
                 resources at and in the vicinity of Wrightsville Beach; and

                 *Make recommendations as to which alternative(s) would be most
                 desirable from an environmental quality standpoint.

            Previous reports were provided by the Service to the Corps for the
            present study and for a previous study concerning Wrightsville Beach. A
            survey report was provided February 26, 1960 in regard to proposed
            hurricane-tidal flood protection at Wrightsville Beach. Subsequent to
            that report, the Service provided a report to aid in the Corps' Stage II
            planning (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979) and a supplementary
            report dated March 18, 1981 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1981) as a
            consequence of the present Corps study.

                                    DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA

            General Description

            The town of Wrightsville Beach is located on two islands, an estuarine
            island known as Harbor Island and the barrier island of Wrightsville
            Beach in New Hanover County, North Carolina about 25 miles northeast of
            Cape Fear and eight miles east of Wilmington, N.C. (Figure 1). A second
            barrier island, Shell Island, is now part of Wrightsville Beach Island
            as a result of the filling of Moore Inlet by the Corps in 1965 (U.S.
            Army Corps of Engineers 1978).

                                              2

               MASONBORO CHANNEL                                        ___-MOTTS CHANNEL                             LEES CUT
                                                                                      ---- --- -         @ ! @ @ ! !   I C         R A C 0 A S     A L N A r E      it A y
                  SHINN CREEK

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

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

                                                                                                   ..........
                                                                                 ... :AAR001t ISI-MD::::*'**'
                                             BAWK@ CHANNEL                                        ...    ......             .......
                                                                                            ...... ... ............ .         ...... .. . .....        ELL
                                      ......... .
                            ............ .................... .                                                   ...... . ..
                                  ................    .........

                                                                                             A T L  A N T I C       C    A N

                                         LEGEND
                                  DEVELOPED           -BARREN                                                                                                         WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, N.C.
                                                                                                                                                                          EXISTING LAND USE
                                  TRANSITION       w -WETLAND                                                                                                             AND CLASSIFICATION
                                  CONSERVATION     u -UNDEVELOPED                                                                                                       1200 600      0             1200
                                  CITY LIMITS                                                                                                                                  SCALE  IN FEET
                                  EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

           Figure 1. Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina and vicinity, indicating land use and classification in                                                                       1978 (U.S. Army
                              Corps of Engineers, 1978). Present land use is essentially the same.

                The island of Wrightsville Beach is oriented northeast-southwest and is
                bounded on the northeast by Mason Inlet, on the east by the Atlantic
                Ocean, on the southwest by Masonhoro Inlet, and on the west by.the
                Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). Access to Harbor Island and
                Wrightsville Beach is provided by US Highways 74 and 76.

                The Wrightsville'Beach-Shell Island complex is approximately 4.8 miles
                in length and its high ground area is only 0.25 mile wide at its widest
                point (Figure 1). There are approximately 4.5 miles of oceanic shoreline
                (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1981), and 3.2 miles are within the corporate
                limits of the town of Wrightsville Beach. Harbor Island's shoreline is
                entirely estuarine and encompasses 3.5 miles. There are an additional
                3.0 miles of estuarine shoreline on the barrier island located within
                the Wrightsville Beach corporate limits.

                Harbor Island has a total area of 293 acres. About 171 acres of the
                island are developed. The remaining acreage consists primarily of an
                expanse of salt marsh, tidal creeks and tidal flats located between US
                74 and 76 in the central portion of the island. An additional undeveloped
                marsh and tidal creek area lies north of US 74-76'along the AIWW.

                High ground areas with elevations in excess of five feet above mean sea
                level occupy approximately 477 acres on the Wrightsville Beach-Shell
                Island complex. The developed portions of the complex occupy 354 acres.
                An additional 123 acres located immediately north of the developed tract
                is presently undeveloped. Associated with the barrier island complex is
                an extensive area of salt marsh, intertwining tidal creeks and dredge
                spoil islands, located to the northeast and southwest of Harbor Island
                along the AIWW (Figure 1). The marsh and associated tidal creeks occupy
                approximately 1872 acres. There are approximately 179 acres of dredge
                spoil islands where elevations exceed 5 feet above mean sea level.
                Table 1 presents total acreages and acreages by landform and land-use
                classification for the project area.

                The usual oceanic tidal range at Wrightsville Beach is approximately 4.0
                feet, with spring tides ranging to 4.7 feet. The highest tides ever
                recorded at Wrightsville Beach occurred during Hurricane Hazel in 1954
                and attained a level of approximately 12 feet above mean sea level.
                Elevations on Harbor Island and Wrightsville Beach are primarily between
                0-10 feet above mean sea level. Some dunes in the undeveloped northern
                portion of the barrier island approach an elevation of 20 feet above
                mean sea level (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1978).

                                                  4

                   Table 1. Acreages by usage and/or landform for Harbor Island and the
                   Wrightsville Beach-Shell Island Complex.

                   Island                      Landform/Usage                                   Acresi

                                                          2
                   Harbor Island               High Ground    Developed                          171

                                               High-Ground, Undeveloped                            22

                                               Marsh, Tidal  Flats, Tidal Creeks                 100

                                               Total Area                                        293*

                   Wrightsville Beach-         High Ground, Developed                            354*
                   Shell Island
                                               High Ground, Undeveloped                          123*

                                               Marsh, Tidal Flats, Tidal Creeks
                                               (NE Harbor Island)                                1147

                                               Marsh Tidal Flats, Tidal Creeks
                                               (SW Harbor Island)                                725

                                               High Ground, Dredge Spoil Islands
                                               (NE Harbor Island)                                105

                                               High Ground, Dredge Spoil Islands
                                               (SW Harbor Island)                                  74

                                               Total Area                                        2528

                   1* Acreages are approximate as determined by polar     planimeter except for
                   values followed by an asterisk which were cited in U.S. Army Corps of
                   Engineers (1978; 1981).
                   2High ground is defined    as any area greater than five feet above mean
                   sea level in elevation.

                                                               5

               Vegetation remaining on the undeveloped portions of Harbor Island and
               Wrightsville Beach is typical of that'found on other barrier islands in
               the dune and shrub thicket communities. Upland areas on Harbor Island
               are almost completely developed with little natural vegetation remaining,
               but some shrub thicket exists bordering the remaining expanse of marsh.

               The undeveloped northern portion of Wrightsville Beach contains an
               extensive dune community dominated by grasses with occasional shrubs
               interspersed. Principal species include sea oats (Uniola paniculata),
               spike grass (Uni6la laxa), saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens),
               broomsedge (A           virginicus) and sea elder (Iva .imbricata).
               Interspersed among the  grasses, particularly in the swales between the
               dune ridges, are yucca  (Yucca filamehtosa), blanket flower (Gaillardia
               pulchella), prickley pear (0 untia sp.), sea rocket (Cakile
               and sea lavender (Limonium          canum). The transififon zone between
               the dune community-a-n--d -the extensive t marshes to the west is dominated
               by saltmeadow cordgrass with interspersed patches of saltgrass (Distichlis
               spicata), glasswort Salitornia sp.), scattered sea ox-eye (Borr'ichla
               fruTescens), and silverling (    charis halimifolia). The marshes are
               composed of smooth cordgrass (Soartina alterniflor-a). Dredge spoil
               islands located along the AIWW which have remained-undisturbed for a
               number of years have typical maritime shrub thicket communities.

               Development is present along approximately 3 miles of the 4.5 miles of
               oceanfront beach on the barrier island. Development began in 1899 when
               a trolley which provided access from the mainland was established.
               Presently there are 1,161 structures located within. the town of Wrightsville
               Beach, 66 of which are commercial (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1981).
               The remaining structures are residential. Approximately 80 percent of
               the high ground area on Harbor Island and Wrightsville Beach is currently
               developed (Table 1), largely with single-family frame dwellings which@
               serve as vacation homes.

               The resident population of Wrightsville Beach is approximately 3,000 and
               peak summer populations may approach 25,000 if day visitors are included
               (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1981). The currently undeveloped northern
               end of the barrier island is owned by the Shell Island Corporation (83
               acres) and the Hutaff family (approximately 40 acres). There are no
               -known plans for development of the Hutaff tract, but the Shell Island
               Corporation is planning to develop their tract which is adjacent to
               Wrightsville Beach.

               Descri2tion of the Problem

               Harbor Island and the Wrightsville Beach-Shell Island complex have
               historically been subjected to hurricane flood damage, overwash and
               erosion of both oceanic and estuarine shorelines. The barrier island is
               also subject to property loss from inlet migration. Hurricanes which
               occurred between the years of 1944 and 1960 caused physical property

                                                  6

                       damage of about $4,000,000 in 1960 dollars (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                       1978) and caused erosion which necessitated the placement of a total of
                       approximately 500,000 cubic yards of sand. on four separate occasions
                       between 1955 and 1959 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1981).

                       Historically, overwashes have occurred on the northern end of the Wrights-
                       ville Beach-Shell Island complex although none have occurred in the last
                       20 years since hurricane activity has been minimal. The Shell Island
                       Corporation tract was overwashed on several occasions prior to 1938, but
                       there is no indication that overwashes have occurred subsequent to that
                       year. The Hutaff tract is generally lower in elevation and has been
                       overwashed twice since 1938 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1981).

                       Inlet migration is a likelihood only at Mason Inlet on the northern end
                       of the barrier island. Mason Inlet is migrating south at a long-term
                       average rate of 84 feet per year, and if that rate continues, will
                       migrate through the Hutaff tract and encroach on the Shell Island Corpor-
                       ation tract within 25 years (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1981). The
                       southern inlet, Masonboro Inlet, is stable by virtue of two jetties
                       which were constructed by the Corps in 1965-66 and 1979-80 respectively.

                       Erosion problems have existed at Wrightsville Beach since the first
                       attempts to build structures there. Groins were constructed in 1923,
                       1925 and 1939 by local interests but all were ultimately destroyed by
                       marine borers and/or the sea (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1981).
                       Federal involvement began in 1962 when Congress authorized construction
                       of 14,000 feet of dune and berm along the Wrightsville Beach ocean
                       shoreline. That project, completed in 1965, included the closure of
                       Moore Inlet and nourishment of 2,800 feet of beach north of the authorized
                       project limits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1978). The project has
                       been maintained by periodic renourishment and was essentially rebuilt in
                       1970 and more recently in 1981.

                       Plan of Development

                       Consideration of the Stage II Corps planning objectives led to the
                       development of four plans, several of which have options associated with
                       them. The plans fall into essentially two categories: plan 4, which
                       would reduce or eliminate inundation damages, is a nonstructural measure;
                       plans 1, 2, 3 and the variations thereof are plans which would require
                       some structural measures in conjunction with nonstructural ones. In
                       addition, the Corps also conducted an analysis of the existing Wrights-
                       ville Beach shore protection project which may include structural
                       measures if it is implemented.

                            Plan 1

                            Plan 1 would extend the authorized shore protection project north-
                            ward by 3,000 feet to protect the developed portion of the barrier
                            island which is adjacent to the existing project.

                                                          7

              Plan I is under consideration to alleviate ocean beach erosion and
              to minimize hurricane damage potential immediately north of the
              existing project'. The convex shoreline created at the junction of
              the existing project with the natural beach has eroded at a rapid
              rate and jeopardized the Holiday Inn motel and four residences to
              the extent that bulkheading is required to prevent undermining of
              the structures. Plan 1-A would require construction of a 50-foot-
              wide berm and 25-foot-wide dune system seaward of the present
              building line along that shoreline. The dune would have an eleva-
              tion of +15 feet above mean low water (mlw) and the berm would be
              +12 m1w. The dune extension would tie in to the existing natural
              dune to the north. In addition, Plan I-B would require the reloca-.
              tion of the building line and the oceanfront row of structures.
              This additional action would create a more stable shoreline configuration
              and would reduce erosion losses relative to Plan 1-A.

              Plan 2

              Plan 2 combines the features of Plans 1-A and 1-B with the require-
              ment that any future development within the Shell Island portion of
              the barrier island be landward of a proposed building line which'
              follows the landward edge of the existing primary dune ridge. This
              additional requirement would insure a high level of natural shore
              protection for any future development.

              Plan 2 is under consideration to insure that subsequent development
              employs existing natural shore protection and alleviates the need
              for future extension of the existing shore project.

              Plan 3

              Plan 3 combines the provisions of Plans 1-A and 1-B with a proposal
              that the undeveloped northern portion of the island be acquired for
              preservation of its environmental and aesthetic value. Plan 3-A
              calls for managing the area for recreational uses rather than for
              preservation. '

              Plan 3 was considered largely in response to Executive Order No.
              11988 relative.U floodplain management and expressions of concern
              by local citizens over the possible development of the only remaining
              undeveloped section of barrier island within the study area.

              Plan 4

              Plan 4 is an  en,tirely nonstructural plan which would employ a
              variety of measures to reduce or eliminate damage to structures
              within the study area. Such measures would include elevating the
              structures on pilings, constructing small floodwalls, and relocating
              buildings out of the flood hazard zone.

                                            8

                            This plan was included for consideration as a means of providing
                            protection, against damages accompanying up to a 100-year flood,
                            for every structure within Wrightsville Beach.

                            Evaluation of Existing Shore Protection Project

                            Because authority for further Federal contributions toward nourish-
                            ment of Wrightsville Beach expired in April, 1981 and nourishment
                            for projects funded subsequent to 1975 has been authorized for the
                            full 50 years of project life, this evaluation was added as an
                            additional Corps Stage II study objective. The Corps has identified
                            three areas for consideration:

                                 (1)  Study Area Shore Processes - Specifically, a determin-
                                      ation of the present erosion rate at Wrightsville
                                      Beach and the relative magnitudes of the factors
                                      which contribute to the erosion problem.

                                 (2)  Economic feasibility of continued beach nourishment
                                      for the remaining 40 years of project life.

                                 (3)  Possible improvement of project cost effectiveness
                                      through use of shoreline stabilization structures.
                                      These would reduce the annual quantity of beach
                                      nourishment required to maintain the authorized level
                                      of protection.

                                                 EXISTING RESOURCES

                       Aquatic Resources

                       Commercial and recreational fishery resources at Wrightsville Beach are
                       of primary importance from an economic standpoint to those who fish for
                       them and to local merchants who depend on revenue generated by visiting
                       fishermen. The highly varied and diverse marine invertebrate fauna of
                       Banks Channel and surrounding area waters and intertidal flats also
                       serve as an important teaching resource for nearby academic institutions
                       (Dr. Anne McCrary, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, personal
                       communication). The waters surrounding Wrightsville Beach constitute a
                       third important resource since they serve as nursery areas for many
                       species of ecological, economic and academic interest.

                       Commercial and Recreational Fisheries

                       Significant commercial and recreational fisheries exist at and in the
                       vicinity of Wrightsville Beach. Both sport and commercial fishermen
                       fish Mason Inlet, Masonboro Inlet, Masonboro Channel, Banks Channel and
                       Lees Cut for common marine fish species as well as shrimp and blue
                       crabs. Several marinas and landings on Harbor Island or in the vicinity
                       provide access to the waters adjacent to Wrightsville Beach. Pedestrian

                                                           9

                 recreational fishing occurs from two fishing piers (Figure 1), the ocean
                 beach, the US 74 and US 76 bridges, and the banks of Banks Channel
                 (Dixon 1978).

                 Lees Cut and Banks Channel are the site of much of the commercial fishery
                 activity near Wrightsville Beach. As many as 20 commercial vessels fish
                 the area daily during brown shrimp (Ponaeus aztecus) and pink shrimp (P.
                 duorarum) seasons. The cut is also Ti-s-hed commercially by gill-netter-s
                 seeking weakfish (Cyhotcion regalis), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) and
                 pigfish (Orthoprit.tis thrysbotera) and by pot fishermen seeking blue
                 crabs (Callihettes.sapidus). Lee and Banks Channels are also important
                 crabbing areas. An area south of the US 76 bridge is the sole site
                 where commercial fishing for hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) occurs.

                 A survey of fishermen conducted in 1978 indicates that recreational
                 fishing in Wrightsville Beach occurs principally from piers, in the surf
                 and from private small craft (Dixon 1978). Masonboro Channel, Masonboro
                 Inlet and Mason Inlet are the primary sites for sport fishing and provide
                 excellent fishing,for flounder (Paralichthys sp.), bluefish (Pomatomus
                 saltatrix , pigfish, weakfish, croaker (Mictopogonias undulatusT and
                 spot. Fishermen surveyed indicated that they fished primariTy-for spot
                 and flounder in the summer and for bluefish in the fall (Dixon 1978).
                 The N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries trawl data indicate that Banks
                 Channel is heavily utilized by many other species of economic importance
                 (Table 2).

                 Species of commercial and recreational fishery importance contribute
                 significantly to the economy of Wrightsville Beach and vicinity. The
                 dockside value of commercial landings from areas adjacent to Wrightsville
                 Beach exceeded three quarters of a million dollars in 1980 (Table 3).
                 A survey of recreational fishermen done by Dixon (1978) indicated that
                 an average value of approximately $270 was spent by each fisherman
                 visiting Wrightsville Beach. No data are available which indicate the
                 value of the recreational catch.

                                                   10

                 0                                                                                                          0

               Tabl e 2. Economically important finfish and crustaceans found in Banks Channel based on North Carolina
               Division of Marine Fisheries trawl sampling (Rich Carpenter, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, personal
               communication).

               Family         Species                         Common Name                    Seasonality

               Clupeidae      Brovoortia tytannus             Atlantic menhaden              Spring, summer

                              Opisthohema oglinum             Atlantic thread herring        Summer

               Gadidae        Urophysis floridanus            Southern hake                  Spring

                              U. regius                       Spotted hake                   Spring

               Serranidae     Centropristis philadelphica     Rock sea bass                  Year round

                              Cent'(@,opristis ttriata        Black sea bass                 Year round

                              Mycteroperca microlepis         Gag                            Fall, spring

               Pomatomidae    Pomatomus satatrix              Bluefish                       Spring, summer, fall

               Carangidae     Trachinotus carolinus           Florida pompano                Summer

               Lutjanidae     Lutjanus griseus                Gray snapper                   Fall

                              L. mahogoni                     Mahogany snapper               Fall

               Pomadasyidae   Orthopristis chrysoptera        Pigfish                        Spring, summer, fall

               Sparidae       Archosargus probatocephalus     Sheepshead                     Spring, summer

                              Lagodon rhomboides              Pinfish                        Year round

                              Stenotomus caprinus             Longspine porgy                Summer

                Table 2 (cont).

                Scianidae       Bairdiella chrysura            Silver perch                    Year round
                                Cynoscion nothus                 Silver sea trout                Spring
                                C. regalis                     Weakfish                        Spring, summer,

                                Leiostomus xanthurus           Spot                            Year round

                                Micopogonias undulatus        Atlantic croaker                Year round

                                Pogonias cromis                Black drum                      Winter

                Mugilidae       Mugil cephalus                 Striped mullet                  Winter, spring,

                                M. curema                      White mullet                    Summer

                Stromateidae    Peprilus triatanthus           Butterfish                      Spring

                Bothidae        Ancylopsetta quadrocellata     Ocellated flounder              Spring, summer

                                Paralichthys                   Gulf flounder                   Fall

                                P. dentatus                    Summer flounder                 Winter

                                P. lethostigma                 Southern flounder               Spring, summer,

                                Scphthalmus aquosus           Windowpane                      Spring

                Tetraodontidae  Sphoeroides maculatus          Northern puffer                 Summer

                                                                                                                              0

               Table 3. Commercial landings and dockside values of the catch from Masonboro Sound and the Atlantic
               Intracoastal Waterway near Wrightsville Beach, 1980 (Katie West, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries,
               personal communication).

               Species                                                   Pounds                                     Value

                                                         MASONBORO'SOUND       AIWW                      MASONBORO SOUND        AIWW
                                                               (lbs. T-        -Ib-s-.-)                          ($)           -5T
               Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix)                  26,136          3,405                            4,498            562

               Atlantic croaker (Micropog0nias*undulatus)      33,542          5,456                          10,505          1,756
               Red drum (Scianops ocellata)                       220             166                              .54            50
               Flounders (Bothidae)                            31,487          5,600                          25,983          4,466
               Kingfishes (Menticirrhus spp.)                     125          -----                               34

               Striped mullet (Mugil Cephalus)                 32,877          12,159                           8,357         3,449

               Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis)                    36,367          6,255                            9,451         1,590

               Spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus)               40         1,215                               40         1,278

               Spanish mackeral (Scorhberomorus maculatus)        279          -----                              140         -----

               Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)                     49,746          17,675                         14,693          5,582

               Striped bass (Morone saxatilis)                 ------             250                         ------             250

               Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus)                 59, 119         4,000                          11,488             800

               Shrimp (Penaeus spp-)                           115,244        49,327                          181,213         86,074

                Table 3 (cont'd).
                Clams (Mercenaria)                  72,881         17,918                        27
                Oysters (Crassostea virginica)              25,291         8,668                          3

                                               Totals         483,361        132,104                        57

                     Marine Invertebrates

                     Little information is available regard ing invertebrate fauna inhabiting
                     Masonboro and Mason Inlets, Shinn Creek, Motts Channel, Lees Cut and the
                     AIWW (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979). There are viable populations
                     of hard clams (MercOnatia mercenaria) in Masonboro and Mason Inlets and
                     Lees Cut but harvesting is not allowed in much of the area as a consequence
                     of pollution (N.C. Dept. Natural,Resources and Comm. Devel. 1981).
                     Hosier and Parnell.(1979) reported the existence of significant assemblages
                     of benthic organisms both in and adjacent to the AIWW north and south of
                     the bridge to Harbor Island (sites 1-B, 2-B, 3-B, 4-B, 5-B, 7-B and 11-
                     B; John Baden, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, personal communication).
                     Sites were also reported in Mason Inlet (8-B) and on the south side of
                     Motts Channel (14-B). It is likely that all the relatively protected,
                     higher salinity areas of Shinn Creek, Motts Channel, Lees Cut and the
                     AIWW have diverse, abundant invertebrate benthic fauna.

                     Banks and Masonboro Channels are extremely rich in benthic invertebrate
                     fauna (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979; Dr. Anne McCrary, University
                     of North Carolina, Wilmington, personal communication). Among the
                     invertebrates recorded from the area are a number of uncommon and/or
                     disjunct species. Consequently, these areas are highly important collec-
                     tion and investigation sites for several publicly owned and supported
                     academic institutions in North Carolina, especially UNC-Wilmington.
                     Banks Channel and its richly diverse micro- and macro- invertebrate
                     populations have been studied by nationally known experts in the field
                     of marine invertebrate zoology. The area offers the advantage of being
                     readily accessible and close to laboratory facilities. With the possible
                     exception of estuaries located in the vicinity of Beaufort, North Carolina,
                     no other area in the state is as ideally suited for marine and estuarine
                     studies. Because there have been few substantial changes in the status
                     of the marine invertebrate fauna subsequent to the Service's Stage II
                     Planning Aid Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979) to the Corps,
                     the section of that report dealing with marine invertebrate fauna is
                     included herein by reference.

                     Nursery Areas

                     The waters surrounding Wrightsville Beach serve as nursery areas for the
                     larval and juvenile stages of many of the economically important fish
                     and shellfish. The perpetuation of the commercial and recreational
                     fisheries is totally dependent upon the continued maintenance of suitable
                     nursery habitat and sufficient water quality within the habitat. Numerous
                     other species of ecological importance as prey items also use nursery
                     areas adjacent to Wrightsville Beach. A list of fish which have occurred
                     or probably do occur at Wrightsville Beach is attached as Appendix A.

                     The State of North Carolina has designated as primary nursery areas
                     several expanses of salt marsh with intertwining tidal creeks adjacent
                     to Wrightsville Beach. Those areas designated are the expanses of salt
                     marsh and intertwining tidal creeks northwest of Shell Island and north
                     of Shell Island Sound and the area lying between Motts Channel and
                     Masonboro Inlet west of Wrightsville Beach.

                                                       15

                   Recent studies in the Cape Fear River estuary have shown that concentra-
                   tions of larval and juvenile organisms within such salt marsh habitat
                   far exceed concentrations in adjacent open water habitat (Hodson 1979;
                   Weinstein 1979) and that access to such habitats is often a prerequisite
                   for growth in several economically and ecologically important species
                   (Hodson, Hackman and Bennet, in press; Weisburg and Lotrich 1981). A
                   study of larval fishes near Wrightsville Beach indicates that the salt
                   marsh habitat in the area is utilized as a nursery area by a variety of
                   species and does contribute significantly to the perpetuation of commercial
                   and recreational fisheries (Dr. Gil Bane, UNC-W, unpublished data).

                   Wildlife Resources

                   The beaches, dunes, maritime shrub thickets, salt marshes, intertidal
                   flats and subtidal open water areas and associated vegetation on and
                   near Wrightsville Beach provide habitat, food, and cover for a number of
                   wildlife species (Table 4). Though habitat diversity is lower on Wrights-
                   ville Beach than on other North Carolina barrier islands, extensive
                   areas of both estuarine and oceanic shoreline are present on the barrier
                   island and its associated tidal creeks, marshes and dredge spoil islands.!

                   An extensive, stable dune system is present on the northern end of the
                   island. Maritime shrub thickets are present on dredge spoil islands and
                   to some extent on Harbor Island, and extensive expanses of salt marsh
                   lie between the barrier island and the AIWW.

                   Wrightsville Beach offers suitable habitat for a limited number of
                   reptiles and amphibians. With the exception of the loggerhead sea
                   turtle which is discussed under the Endangered Species section of this
                   report, the only reptile documented from Wrightsville Beach is the six-
                   lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlinOatus (Dr. P. Hosier, Dr. J.
                   Parnell, Mr. D. Webster, UNC-Wilmington, personal communications).
                   However, the black racer (CblUber constrictor), coachwhip (Masticophis
                   flagellum), rough green snake (0 hheodrys Aettivus), glass Iizard (Ophisaurus
                                                       0
                                                     T
                   spp.), skink (Eumeces spp-) ano?e A       carolinensis) and diamond back!
                   terrapin (Mala-cTeMys'terrapin) may also occur but have not been recorded'
                   from Wrigh    Ile Beach. Many of these latter species have been recorded
                   from Figure Eight Island to the north and Masonboro Island to the south
                   (D. Webster, UNC-W, personal communication; Hosier and Cleary, 1977).
                   No amphibians have been recorded from Wrightsville Beach (N.C. State
                   Museum of Natural History, unpublished data) but toads (Bufo sp) may
                   occur there.

                                                      16

               Table 4. A partial list of vegetation occurring on Wrightsville Beach and its
               relative value to wildlife (compiled from: Martin, Zim and Nelson 1951; Pierce
               1977; and Potter, Parnell and Teulings 1980).

               Species                                         Value

               Blanket flower (Gaillardia.pulChella)           No data; seeds probably eaten by birds.
               Broomsedge (Ahdropogon.virginicus)              Seeds eaten by songbirds; seeds and
                                                               leaves by small mammals; rootstalk by
                                                               muskrats.

               Cordgrass, saltmeadow (Spartina patens)         Seeds important to ducks, especially
                                                               black ducks; seaside and sharptailed
                                                               sparrows; shore and marsh birds; stems
                                                               eaten by muskrats.

               Cordgrass, smooth (Spartina alterhiflora)       Seeds eaten by ducks; marsh, shore and
                                                               song birds; and Virginia, sora, and
                                                               black rails; used for nesting by clap-
                                                               per and black rails, long-billed marsh
                                                               wrens and seaside sparrows.
               Glasswort (Salicornia.sp.)                      Seed-bearing stem tips eaten by
                                                               ducks in the fall.

               Prickley pear (Opuntia sp.)                     Birds and small mammals eat the seed   s
                                                               and fruit.

               Salt grass (Distichlis.spicata)                 Used by waterfowl for nesting; seeds,
                                                               young plants and roots used as food by
                                                               ducks, marsh and shore birds and small
                                                               mammals.

               Sea elder (Iva imbtiCata)                       Used for nesting by songbirds.

               Sea lavender (Limonium carolinianum)            No data.

               Sea oats (UniOla panitulata.)                   Seeds eaten by birds and small mammals.
               Sea ox-eye (Borrichia frutetcens)               Used for nesting by songbirds.

               Sea rocket (Cakile OdOntUla)                    No data.

               Silverling (Baccharis halimifolia)              Used for nesting by songbirds.

               Spike grass (Uniola laxa)                       Seeds eaten by birds and small mammals.

               Yucca (Yucca filamentosa)                       No data.

                                                         17

                  Numerous waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds and songbirds use the
                  available habitats, though no data are available specifically for Wrights-
                  ville Beach. The variety of birds which may use Wrightsville Beach is
                  considerable based upon those using other barrier islands in the south-
                  eastern U.S. (Appendix B). Appendix C contains bird species which may
                  occur within specific habitats on Wrightsville Beach based on those
                  appearing in the same habitats on Bogue Banks, Smith Island and the sea-
                  islands of South Carolina and Georgia. Birds recorded at and in the
                  vicinity of Wilmington, North Carolina during the winter of 1979-80
                  (Heilbrun et al. 1980) are also included in Appendix C. Additional
                  information on species recorded at Wrightsville Beach which have not
                  been reported in the published literature may be obtained from Dr. James
                  Parnell (Dr. J. Parnell, Univ. North Carolina - Wilmington, personal
                  communication).

                  In addition to the large number of species listed which may use the
                  various habitats for resting or foraging, some birds may also nest
                  within them. Fussell (1978) records mourning doves, Carolina wrens,
                  mockingbirds, catbirds, brown thrashers, prairie warblers, cardinals,
                  painted buntings and rufous-sided towhees as nesting in maritime shrub
                  thickets. Marsh nesters may include meadowlarks, red-winged black
                  birds, boat-tailed grackles, pied-billed grebes, least bitterns, clapper
                  rails, laughing gulls, long-billed marsh wrens, sharp-tailed sparrows
                  and seaside sparrows. Colonial nesting seabirds may use a variety of
                  habitats on dredge spoil islands adjacent to Wrightsville Beach (U.S.
                  Army Corps of Engineers 1978). Least terns were nesting on the southern-
                  most dredge spoil island adjacent to Masonboro Inlet in 1976 and 1977
                  (Parnell and Soots 1979).

                  Mammals which may occur at Wrightsville Beach or in the vicinity are
                  presented in Table 5. It is likely that mammalian fauna on Wrightsville
                  Beach is sparse and most comparable to that of Masonboro Island (Hosier
                  and Cleary 1977) due to extensive development.

                  Endangered Species

                  In accordance with Section 7 (c) of the Endangered Species Act, as
                  amended, the Corps requested a list of species that may be present
                  within the study area. The Service's response dated June 27, 1979
                  indicated that the brown pelican, manatee (Trichechus manatus), hawksbill
                  turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp's ridley turtle (Lepido helys
                           T -at
                  kempii , e herback turtle (D rmochelys coriacea), loggerhead turtle
                  (Caretta caretta) and green t7u-rtle-(Chelonia mydas may be present. A
                  biological asses ment was prepared and by letter dated February 12,
                  1980, the Service concurred with the Corps' conclusion of no impact on
                  the species for which we are responsible (Appendix D). However, consider-
                  ation of any alternative not related to the maintenance of the existing
                  beach erosion control project at Wrightsville Beach, listing of any new
                  species which may be affected, or the availability of new information
                  which indicates a listed species may be affected will require that
                  consultation between the Corps and the Service be reinitiated.

                  Although a determination of no effect was m?'cM for the loggerhead sea
                  turtle, that species does use the northern end of Wrightsville Beach for

                                                    18

               Table 5. Mammals which may occur on or in the vicinity of Wrightsville Beach based on thos
               Similar habitat on other N.C.    barrier islands (Parnell and Adams 1970; Hosier and Cleary 19

               Common Name                      Scientific Name                   Bogue Banks     Masonboro Island
               Opossum                          Didelphis-marsupialis                 X
               Least shrew                      Cryptotis parva                        ?
               Eastern mole                     Scalopus aqUaticus                     X
               Raccoon                          Procyon lotor                          X                     X

               River otter                     LUtra canadensis                       X

               Mink                             Mustela vison

               Gray fox                         Urocyon cinereoargenteus               X

               Cotton mouse                     Peromyscus gossypinus                  X

               Rice rat                         Oryzohmys palustris                    X

               Cotton rat                       Sigmodon hispidus                                            X

               Norway rat                       Rattus norvegicus                      X

               House mouse                      Mus. musculus                          X                     X

               Eastern cottontail               Sylvilagus floridanus                                        X

               Marsh rabbit                     Sylvilagus palustris                   X                     X

               Atlantic bottlenose dolphin      Tursiops trucatus                     X

                  nesting to a limited extent (Debby Crouse, N.C. Dept. of Parks and
                  Recreation, personal communication). Since the survey conducted by the
                  N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (Barick and Crouse 1980) sampled only
                  .twice weekly, use of the Shell Island portion of Wrightsville Beach may
                  have been underestimated (D. Crouse, personal communication). Any
                  aspect of future Corps activities at Wrightsville Beach which may occur
                  during the loggerhead turtle nesting season should be evaluated in light
                  of the most recent nesting data available.

                                              FUTURE CONDITIONS

                  Without the Proposed Action

                  Aquatic Resources. The future quality of aquatic resources in the
                  vicinity of Wrig   ville Beach is dependent upon management practices
                  employed by State agencies, the amount of fishing and collecting pres-
                  sure upon the resources, and the quality of nursery and nearshore habitats.
                  Commercial and recreational fishing pressure will undoubtedly increase
                  in the future. Overfishing could become a serious problem on a regional
                  basis if entry into commercial fisheries is not limited and competition
                  for the resource continues to increase. Competion and fishing pressure
                  will increase in recreational and sports fisheries as development facili-
                  tates access to more coastal areas and increases population densities
                  within and near Wrightsville Beach. If management decisions which
                  regulate creel, season and size limits are not reevaluated and updated
                  in a systematic manner, fishery resources will decline as coastal use
                  increases. Fishing pressure on all coastal stocks could ultimately
                  increase to such an extent that non-reproductive age individuals comprise
                  a majority of the harvest. Such pressure upon young age classes can
                  potentially result in complete loss of the fishery due to reproductive
                  failure.

                  Habitat quality may or may not decline in the future, depending upon the
                  regulation of future development on and in the vicinity of Wrightsville
                  Beach. Pollution from the Wrightsville Beach Sewage Treatment Plant has
                  already resulted in the closure of much of the adjacent area to shellfish
                  harvesting (N.C. Department of Natural Resources ahd Community Development
                  1981) and will increase as development proceeds, contributing to further
                  contamination of estuarine areas and potential closure,of'more estuarine
                  shellfish areas. If water quality near Wrightsville Beach continues to
                  decline as a consequence of increasing development and increased input
                  of pollutants, the usefulness of estuarine nursery areas to juvenile
                  fishes, shellfish and the public will decrease. The technology is
                  presently available to reduce contamination from sewage outfalls and, if
                  applied, could enhance future water quality and benefit fishery resources.
                  Nearshore and estuarine fishery resources may potentially be affected by
                  periodic events, such as oi,l spills, particularly if increases occur in
                  offshore shipping traffic. This will be especially true at Wrightsville
                  Beach if an oil refinery is ever built within the Cape Fear River estuary.
                  Increasing evidence suggests that, in regaft"to salt marsh nursery
                  areas, habitat quantity may be as'critical, or more so, than habitat

                                                    20

                        quality. Turner (1977) and Hodson and Hackman (In review) present data
                        which strongly suggest that production of penaeid shrimp, spot and
                        mullet are directly related to the areal extent of intertidal vegetation.
                        Any reduction of marsh kreage in or near the vicinity of Wrightsville
                        Beach is therefore likely to cause further declines in estuarine produc-
                        tivity. As long as stringent regulations are in force which prevent
                        marsh alteration or elimination, such declines should not occur.

                        Marine invertebrates, especially epibenthic ones which are relatively
                        immobile, are more susceptible in many instances to overharvest and
                        declining water quality than mobile fish and crustaceans. While fish
                        and crustaceans can often avoid poor water quality, benthic inverte-
                        brates may be totally eliminated by declining water quality. The least
                        change which would occur if water quality at Wrightsville Beach declines
                        would be a decrease in diversity and a shift in numbers as pollution-
                        tolerant species become more abundant. Because invertebrates are generally
                        less mobile, they are more susceptible to overharvest of local populations,
                        especially those species which have clumped distributions. Because they
                        are at present essentially unregulated, perpetuation of their numbers is
                        somewhat dependent upon the exercise of restraint by those using them as
                        a resource to insure that overharvesting does not occur.

                        Wildlife RetOUftes

                        Although there will undoubtedly be some decrease in wildlife resources
                        at Wrightsville Beach if the northern end of the barrier island is
                        developed, population levels of most species should remain at or near
                        present levels or decline slightly.

                        Development of the northern end of Wrightsville Beach will eliminate
                        some dune habitat presently used by the six-lined racerunner and various
                        birds and mammals. The extent of any decrease in utility to terrestrial
                        wildlife will be dependent upon the manner in which development occurs.
                        Development which gives consideration to maintaining as much of the
                        existing dune system as possible and minimizing the impact of the human
                        population by keeping densities at reasonable levels will tend to minimize
                        disturbance of the natural system. Wildl'ife can continue to coexist
                        with man under these circumstances. If, however, high density development
                        occurs which requires clearing of the maximum amount of habitat, resident
                        terrestrial wildlife population levels will decline or be completely
                        eliminated. Since the town of Wrightsville Beach exercises some control,
                        through extraterritorial jurisdiction, over the development of the
                        northern section, the potential exists for environmentally responsible
                        development to occur.

                        Changes in population levels of wildlife, primarily birds, which use the
                        beaches, marshes, dredge islands and waters around Wrightsville Beach
                        should be slight. Oil spills or other periodic events could drastically
                        reduce bird populations on beaches and in open waters if they occurred
                        when populations were at a peak during winter. Deterioration of estuarine
                        water quality to such an extent that prey species were eliminated could

                                                          21

                  also cause declines in bird populations. Appropriate enforcement of
                  existing legislation and regulations, however, should preclude.water
                  quality declining to such levels.

                  Marshes can be expected to support the same levels of wildlife which
                  they presently support provided there is no further decrease in available
                  habitat. Existing legislation and regulations, if enforced, should
                  preclude further losses of marsh habitat and thereby insure their continued
                  productivity.

                  Dredge islands should continue to support about the same levels of
                  wildlife which presently exist if proper management techniques are
                  employed. Techniques such as scheduling deposition between August and
                  May to avoid impacts on colonial nesting seabirds, limiting island size
                  and height, and careful placement of new material should insure optimum
                  conditions for use of dredge islands by wildlife (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                  Service 1979).

                  While deposition of new material upon old islands may eliminate habitat
                  for some species, it creates new habitats for others (Parnell and Soots
                  1975). As long as the total area of different habitat types present on
                  dredge islands within the vicinity of Wrightsville Beach remains relatively
                  constant, wildlife population levels should stay the same in the absence
                  of any other changes.

                  With the Proposed Action

                  Plan 1-Aguatic Resources.

                  The principle impacts on fishery and marine and estuarine invertebrate
                  resources from Plan 1 would be temporary losses in water quality associated
                  with dredging operations and beach nourishment and short- or long-term
                  reductions in littoral and benthic invertebrate populations. Secondary
                  impacts would be short- or long-term disruptions to marine and estuarine
                  food chains in the area as a consequence of reduced invertebrate populations
                  (Reilly and Bellis 1978; Reilly, Cobb and Bellis 1980). For the purpose
                  of discussion, we define short-term reductions and disruptions as localized,
                  temporary decreases in population density and localized, temporary
                  shifts in dietary habits. These are usually alleviated by recruitment
                  of new benthos from adjacent areas as a consequence of reproduction.
                  and/or by a return to pre-project levels of water quality and substrate
                  composition. Recovery may be complete within one to two years (Reilly
                  et al. 1980). Long-term reductions and disruptions are defined as those
                  impacts which impose semi-permanent decreases in population density or
                  cause semi-permanent dietary shifts. In this specific instance, frequent
                  (every two years) nourishment of Wrightsville Beach could result in a
                  decrease in mole crab and coquina populations for the 50-year life.of
                  the project. From the perspective of birds and fishes with much shorter
                  life spans than mans', such changes are essentially permanent. We
                  choose to call such changes semi-permanent because they are reversible
                  upon project completion. The magnitude and duration of adverse impacts,
                  both short- or long-term, is somewhat dependent upon the scheduling of
                  dredging and nourishment operations and the quality of material employed.

                                                   22

                        If sufficient time intervals between nourishments are provided to allow
                        the system to recover, the likelihood'of long-term impacts would be
                        greatly reduced.

                        Water quality decreases due to dredging and beach nourishment usually
                        occur as a consequence of increased turbidity and accompanying siltation.
                        Siltation may clog the gills and/or feeding apparatus of benthic inverte-
                        brates in nearby areas not being dredged. Turbidity may reduce or
                        temporarily eliminate larval recruitment of littoral (Reilly and Bellis
                        1978) and benthic fauna and may inhibit feeding of duirnally active
                        fishes and nocturnally active decapod predators (Reilly et al. 1980).
                        Larval stages of commercially important estuarine dependent fish and
                        crustaceans would also be impacted by increased turbidity levels if the
                        dredging site is located near or within migration routes and work is
                        performed concurrent with recruitment. The degree of siltation is to
                        some degree a consequence of the sediment composition of the material
                        used in nourishment. Material used for previous nourishment activity at
                        Wrightsville Beach was coarse material and produced little turbidity
                        (Col. H. Hughes, personal communication, January 6, 1982). If such
                        material is employed for future nourishments and nourishment activity is
                        confined to the winter months, adverse impacts should be minimal.

                        Initial project construction may temporarily eliminate or reduce popula-
                        tions of mole crabs, coquinas, ghost crabs and other littoral and sub-
                        littoral fauna. Deposition of dredged material upon Wrightsville Beach
                        would adversely impact fauna in localities where the material is deposited.
                        Fauna may be killed outright or leave the affected areas (Reilly and
                        Bellis 1978; Hayden and Dolan 1974). Such impacts should be considerably
                        reduced if nourishment occurs during the winter months when many organisms
                        have moved offshore to deeper waters. Biologists of the U.S. Army Corps
                        of Engineers, Wilmington District, conducted a cursory, one-day investigation
                        of mole crab abundance on Wrightsville Beach following nourishment in
                        1981 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, unpublished data). Although mole
                        crabs were collected, which may imply that recovery was taking place,
                        samples were not obtained quantitatively, therefore densities cannot be
                        calculated to allow comparisons with densities on undisturbed beaches.

                        Impacts which adversely affect mole crab and coquina populations at
                        Wrightsville Beach will have indirect effects on ghost crabs, shorebirds
                        and surf-zone fish and decapod predators. Ghost crabs feed primarily
                        upon mole crabs and coquinas (Wolcott 1978). If nourishment encompasses
                        a long stretch of beach and occurs during the time when larval recruit-
                        ment of mole crabs and coquinas normally occurs, prey populations could
                        conceivably be locally eliminated or much-reduced and consequently
                        either force a temporary dietary shift for ghost crabs or severely
                        reduce their abundance by eliminating their principal food source. The
                        same scenario is applicable to shorebirds and several commercially and
                        recreationally important fishes. Shorebirds (Sandifer et al. 1980),
                        pompano (Fields 1962), and kingfish (Bearden 1963) have been reported to
                        prey upon mole crabs and coquinas. Reilly and Bellis (1978) reported
                        that every fish stomach they examined contained identifiable amounts of
                        mole crabs and/or coquinas. Species which they collected included
                        kingfish, summer flounder, Florida pompano, Atlantic croaker, spot and
                        crevalle jack, the majority of which are of great importance to the
                        recreationallfishery at Wrightsville Beach.

                                                          23

                    Both Plans 1A and 1B would require approximately 300,000 to 670,000
                    cubic yards of material initially with annual nourishment quantities of
                    27,600 to 46,000 cubic yards. Areas from which material is taken for
                    beach nourishment may require from one to two years to recolonize if
     J              substrate quality is relatively unaltered. It is possible that permanent
                    alteration of the benthic community will result even if substrate and
                    other environmental conditions are restored. Diaz and Boesch (1978)
                    found that preproject population composition and densities had not been
                    re-established in borrow areas after one year. Any permanent changes
                    could cause localized long-term changes in predator diversity because of
                    alterations in food,webs. If borrow sites are confined to inlet areas
                    or to trap sites adjacent to the jetties at Masonboro Inlet, semi-
                    permanent changes would probably be less likely. These areas are already
                    inherently unstable and provide less suitable benthic habitat than
                    sheltered areas in channels, tidal creeks and the AIWW.

                    Plan I-Wildlife Resources

                    Impacts to wildlife resources from implementation of Plan 1 would be
                    slight. Some decrease could be expected as a consequence of loss or
                    deterioration of benthic prey items used by diving waterfowl and littoral
                    infauna preyed upon by shorebirds. Additional losses would be incurred
                    if protection of the shoreline spurred further development on Wrightsville
                    Beach. Impacts of Plan 1 on aquatic and wildlife resources are summarized
                    in Figure 2.

                    Plan 2-Aguatic Resources

                    Plan 2 impacts upon aquatic resources would be identical to those
                    described for Plan 1, since it incorporates the same provisions (see
                    Figure 2).

                    Plan 2-Wildlife Resources

                    Plan 2 would have less impact upon wildlife resources than Plan 1 since
                    it requires that a building setback line be implemented to restrict
                    future development on the undeveloped northern end of Wrightsville
                    Beach. Such a requirement would insure that the dune system which
                    presently exists would remain essentially intact, preserving its usefulness
                    as habitat to the six-lined racerunner, birds and small mammals which
                    live or forage there. Impacts of Plan 2 upon wildlife using littoral or
                    open water areas would be the same as Plan I (see Figure 2).

                    Plan 3-Aguatic Resources

                    Plan 3 would have impa cts upon aquatic resources identical to those
                    described for Plan 1, since it incorporates the same provisions (see
                    Figure 2).

                    Plan 3-Wildlife Resources

                    Plan 3 would have a beneficial impact upon terrestrial wildlife resources
                    since it would effectively eliminate or highly reduce any development of

                                                     24

              POSSIBLE AQUATIC IMPACTS                            PLAN      1     1A   1B   2     3    3A   4

              Temporary turbidity at borrow and deposition sites            X     X    X    X     X    X

              Temporary reduction in benthos at borrow sites                X     X    X    X     X    X

              Semi-permanent reduction in benthos at borrow sites

              Temporary reduction in littoral and benthic fauna at
                deposit site                                                X     X    X    X     X    X

              Semi-permanent reduction in littoral and benthic
                fauna at deposit site

              Temporary disruption in aquatic food  chain                   X     X    X    X     X    X

              Semi-permanent disruption in aquatic  food chain

              Temporary inhibition of larval recruitment                    X     X    X    X     X    X

              Temporary inhibition of larval migration                      X     X    X    X     X    X

            Permanent local disruption of longshore larval
                transport and migration*

              Temporary degradation of foraging habitat for benthos
                predators                                                   X     X    X    X     X    X

              Semi-permanent degradation of foraging habitat for
                benthos predators

              Creation of additional intertidal habitat                     X     X    X    X    X    X

              Creation of hard, stable substrate habitat in inter-
                tidal zone*

              Figure 2. Matrix of possible beneficial and detrimental impacts on aquatic and wildlife res
                         with each alternative plan of development, Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina.

             POSSIBLE AQUATIC IMPACTS                             PLAN      1     1A   1B   2     3    3A   4     Continue Exist. Proj.

             Temporary degradation of  foraging habitat for
               littoral predators                                           X     X    X    X     X    X                    X

             Semi-permanent degradation of foraging habitat
               for littoral predators                                                                                       X

             Preservation of dune habitat by establishing
               setback line                                                            X    X     X

             Creation of additional dune habitat                                  X    X    X

             Preservation of additional dune habitat   by
               extending setback line                                                       X

             Temporary disruption of dune habitat due   to
             - groin construction*                                                                                          X

             Preservation of terrestrial habitat by acqui-
               sition                                                                             X    X

             Elimination of some terrestrial habitat for
               parking and recreational needs                                                          X

             Upgrade terrestrial habitat by removing struc-
               tures                                                                                        X

             Eliminate some terrestrial habitat through
             - location of structures upon                                                                   X

             *These impacts would only be associated with groin construction. Groin construction is not included in the Corps'
              recommended alternative at this time.

             Figure 2 (cont'd). Matrix of possible beneficial and detrimental impacts on aquatic and wildlife resources
                                  associated with each a-Iternative plan of development, Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina.

                      the presently undeveloped northern end of Wrightsville Beach. Preservation
                      of the northern end would effectively create a sanctuary for wildlife.
                      Plan 3A, which would acquire the northern end as a recreational area,
                      would allow maximum development in the form of access roads, beach
                      access points and a bathhouse. It is less desirable from a wildlife
                      standpoint because it would require some land area for parking, access
                      and bathhouse facilities, but it would still preserve the majority of
                      terrestrial habitat for use by wildlife. Impacts of Plan 3 upon aquatic
                      wildlife would be the same'as those described for Plan 1 (see Figure 2).

                      Plan 4-Aguatic Resources.

                      Plan 4 would have no adverse impact upon aquatic resources.

                      Plan 44ildlife Resources.

                      Plan 4 might temporarily displace small mammal populations or birds
                      associated with human dwellings, but should have no substantial impact
                      on wildlife resources on Wrightsville Beach (see Figure 2).

                      Evaluation of Existing Shore Protection Project-Aquatic Resources

                      Continuation of the existing shore project would have essentially the
                      same impacts on aquatic resources as described for Plan 1 (see Figure
                      2). The longevity of those impacts would be dependent upon the scheduling
                      of nourishment activity at Wrightsville Beach. If nourishment is repeated
                      every two years as a consequence of sand-bypassing operations at Masonboro
                      Inlet, locally severe long-term impacts on littoral infauna and their
                      intertidal and surf-zone predators could result. Benthic and littoral
                      systems may require from one to two years to recover from the effects of
                      dredging and beach nourishment (Reilly and Bellis 1978; U.S. Fish and
                      Wildlife Service 1979).

                      If such a recovery period is necessary, benthic invertebrates in borrow
                      areas and deposition areas at Wrightsville Beach might not have sufficient
                      time between dredging or bypassing operations and nourishment operations
                      to ever fully stabilize to pre-project levels. Severe local reductions
                      or possible local elimination of littoral infauna as a consequence of
                      relatively continual disturbance could have, in turn, a locally severe
                      impact upon the surf and pier fisheries at Wrightsville Beach. If the
                      principal food:source of the species which comprise the fisheries is locally
                      reduced, then declines in local catches could be anticipated, producing
                      attendant economic losses. Some indication.that such a decline in local
                      catch could occur is given by Reilly et al. (1980) who noted a decline in
                      utilization of a nourished beach and adjacent areas by nocturnal decapod
                      predators. Such losses should not occur if sufficient time is allowed
                      between nourishments for fauna to completely recover.

                      If groins are added to the project, additional impacts on aquatic re-
                      sources will occur. Additional turbidity will occur in the nearshore
                      zone as a consequence of construction. Benthic organisms located on the
                      updrift side of groins will be buried if they cannot move away and

                                                       27

                   scouring and filling of areas adjacent to groins will keep production
                   low until the shoreline stabilizes. Other impacts which may occur as a
                   result of groin construction are increased sand surface for benthic and
                   littoral organisms, new hard substrate for the attachment of epibenthic
                   fauna and attraction of fishes (Mulvihill, Francisco, Glad, Kaster and.
                   Wilson 1980).

                   Evaluation of Existing Shore Protection Project - Wildlife Resources

                   Continued maintenance of the existing project would have only slight
                   impacts upon wildlife. Some decrease in utilization of the littoral
                   habitat by shorebirds and gulls would occur as a consequence of nourish-
                   ment activities. Such decreased use should be short-term in nature if
                   littoral infauna are allowed to sufficiently recover from each nourish-
                   ment effort. Any diving birds using habitat in borrow areas would also
                   be temporarily displaced and suffer a temporary reduction in their food
                   supply.

                   The impact of groin construction and maintenance on wildlife would
                   probably be slight, although little information exists concerning bio-
                   logical impacts (Mulvihill et al. 1980). Some terrestrial habitat in
                   the dunes may be temporarily disrupted as a consequence of construction
                   activities, but there should be no long term adverse impact. Groin
                   construction will create new habitat for resting and/or foraging for
                   several species of gulls and for purple sandpipers.

                                                    28

                                                    DISCUSSION

                      Although the Corps'has determined that Plans 1-4 are not cost efficient
                      and will not be given further consideration at the present time, the
                      Service would like to emphasize the benefi*ts which would result from two
                      of the provisions of those plans. Plan 2 calls for establishment of a
                      setback line to regulate beach front development on the undeveloped
                      portion of Wrightsville Beach, and Plan 3 calls for preservation of the
                      undeveloped portion. Both-options would not only insure perpetuation of
                      wildlife resources to varying degrees, but also would insure that future
                      storm-related damage to any development would be minimal or totally
                      eliminated. From a fish and wildlife perspective, and from the stand-
                      point of env,ironmental'quality, Plan 3 is the most desirable option.

                      The remaining possibility, that the existing shore project will be
                      continued for a period of 40 to 50 years, will have adverse impacts upon
                      benthic and nektonic fauna in the vicinity of borrow areas and upon
                      littoral and nearshore fauna on Wrightsville Beach. If renourishment
                      occurs at two-year intervals, it is possible that long-term reductions
                      in benthic and littoral fauna could occur. Some studies indicate that
                      benthic and littoral systems take from one to two year's time to recover
                      from dredging and beach nourishment operations (Diaz and Boesch 1978;
                      Reilley and Bellis 1978). It is possible that the benthic fauna in
                      borrow areas near Wrightsville Beach and littoral fauna on Wrightsville
                      Beach may not ever completely recover from initial nourishment operations
                      because of the short time interval between subsequent nourishment activities.
                      Such an impact would lessen future use of Wrightsville Beach by diving
                      waterfowl and shorebirds because of the reduced food supply and have
                      negative impacts upon the recreational fishery. These adverse impacts
                      can be considerably minimized by appropriately scheduling dredging and
                      nourishment activities to avoid seasonal biological activity and by
                      allowing longer intervals between nourishments.

                      Other impacts associated with the dredging and nourishment aspects of
                      proposed project, such as turbidity, would be short-term and have little
                      impact upon fish and wildlife resources as long as nourishment is conducted
                      at a time when,'biological activity is at a minimum.

                      Groins placed along Wrightsville Beach to further stabilize the system
                      would have both short- and long-term impacts. Short-term impacts of
                      construction would have little impact upon fish and wildlife resources.
                      From a long-term perspective, groins substantially affect littoral drift
                      resulting in d6wndrift beach erosion, scour on the lee side, and accretion
                      of sand landward of the groins. They do provide fishing access and a
                      hard, stable substrate for attachment by benthic epifauna and attract
                      reef-associated fishes inshore. They may also interfere with fish
                      spawning areasl,or migratory routes (Persaud and Wilkins 1976).

                      In general, the Service will continue to recommend against initial or
                      periodic sand borrowing in areas we have previously defined as being
                      productive or important estuarine study areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

                                                       29

                 Service 1979). These areas are Lees Cut, Banks Channel and the south-
                 west portion of the proposed Mason Inlet borrow area.

                                             RECOMMENDATIONS

                 In order to lessen the projects' impacts on fish and wildlife resources,
                 the Service recommends the following:

                 1.   Borrow sites shall be restricted to the immediate vicinity of
                      Masonboro and/or Mason Inlets with materials preferably obtained
                      from maintenance of the inlets and from Masonboro Inlet sand by-
                      passing operations. If insufficient material is obtained from
                      these sites, the Service encourages consideration of the following
                      sources of additional material: unstable bottoms and tidal sand
                      flats located along the southwest corner of Figure Eight Island;
                      unstable bottoms and tidal sand flats located along the northern
                      portion of.the channel connecting Mason Inlet and the AIWW; unstable
                      bottoms at the confluence of the AIWW and Mason Inlet Channel;
                      material from AIWW maintenance dredging; material from large dredged
                      material islands along the eastern shore of the AIWW.

                 2.   Studies should be implemented to assess the impact of borrowing and
                      nourishment upon benthic and littoral infauna since times for
                      recovery of those communities have not been definitively established
                      by previous studies. Such a study would be especially beneficial,
                      if nourishment is proposed every two years, in order to assess the
                      impact of frequent disturbance. Studies should also be concurrently
                      conducted to assess the secondary impacts of nourishment upon
                      shorebird and waterfowl use of the area, upon surf and pier recreational
                      fisheries, and upon recreational use. The proximity of this project
                      to Wilmington makes it suitable as a potential before, during and
                      after study by the Corps, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
                      State, and/or an independent contractor.
                 3.   Dredging and nourishment\should preferably be conducted between
                      October 1 and November 30. Studies of larval recruitment in the
                      nearby Cape Fear River estuary clearly indicate that any project
                      activities occurring during the months of December through March
                      would be concurrent with the peak period of larval recruitment for
                      spot, croaker, flounders (Bothidae) menhaden, mullets (Mugilidae),
                      and brown shrimp (Copeland, Hodson and Monroe 1979). Dates for
                      scheduled activity should be closely coordinated with the Office of
                      Coastal Management and the Division of Marine Fisheries.

                 4.   Any dune vegetation destroyed during construction shall be re-
                      planted in order to provide stabilization.

                                                    30

                                                Literature Cited

                     Barick, F. and D. Crouse. 1980. Sea turtle nesting surveillance
                          in North Carolina, 1980. Annual Rep. 1 October 1979-30 September
                          1980. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, N.C. 28 pp.

                     Bearden, C. M. 1963. A contribution to the biology of the king
                          whitings, genus Menticirthus, of South Carolina. Contrib.
                          Bears Bluff Lab. No. 38. Wadmalaw Island, S.C. 27 pp.

                     Birkhead, W. S., B. J. Copeland and R. G. Hodson. 1979. Ecological
                          monitoring in the lower Cape Fear River estuary. Report 79-1 to
                          Carolina Power and Light Co., Raleigh, N.C. 292 pp.

                     Carolina Power and Light Company. 1979. Impingement studies at
                          the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Southport, North Carolina,
                          1974-1978. Environmental Technology Section, Shearin Harris
                          Environmental and Energy Center, New Hill, N.C. 139 pp. +
                          appendices.

                     Copeland, B. J., R. G. Hodson and R. J. Monroe. 1979. Larvae and post-
                          larvae in the Cape Fear River Estuary, N.C. during operation of the
                          Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1974-1978. Rep. 79-3 to Carolina
                          Power and Light Co., Raleigh, N.C.

                     Diaz, R. J. and D. F. Boesch. 1978. Environmental effect of subaqueous
                          sand fill acquisition o*n the benthic communities of Hampton Bar,
                          James River, Virginia. Final Rep. to Newport News Shipbuilding and
                          Dry Dock Co. 73 pp.

                     Dixon, R. D. 1978. Wrightsville Beach recreational fishing: a study
                          of attitudes and behaviors. Technical Report to University of
                          North Carolina Sea Grant Program, N.C. State University, Raleigh,
                          N.C.' 67 pp.
                     Fields, H. M. 1962. Pompanos (TrachihOtUS Spp.) of South Atlantic
                          coast of the United States. Fish. Bun . 62 (207): 189-222.

                     Fussell, J. 0., 111. 1978. Bogue Banks, North Carolina: a description
                          of vegetative communities and annotated lists of amphibians,
                          reptiles, birds, mammals and endangered and threatened species.
                          Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological
                          Services, Raleigh, North Carolina. 115 pp.

                     Hayden, B. and R. Dolan. 1974. Impact of beach nourishment on distri-
                          bution of tmerita talpoida, the common mole crab. J. Waterways,
                          Harbors Coast. E gineering Division ASCE 100:WW2 pp. 123-132.

                     Heilbrun, L. H.,and the CBC Regional Editors. 1980. The eightieth
                          Audubon Christmas bird count. Amer. Birds. 34:327-681.

                                                       31

                  Hodson, R. G. 1979. Utilization of marsh habitats as primary nursery
                       areas by young fish and shrimp, Cape Fear Estuary, North Carolina.
                       Report 79-5 to Carolina Power and Light Company, Raleigh, N.C.

                  Hodson, R. G. and J. 0. Hackman. In review. Evidence for marsh residence
                       in some estuarine-dependent species. Dept. of Zoology, N.C. State
                       University. Raleigh, N.C.

                  Hodson, R. G., J. 0. Hackman and C. R. Bennet. 1981. Food habits of
                       young spots in nursery areas of the Cape Fear River Estuary, North
                       Carolina.' Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 110:495-501.

                  Hosier, P. E. and W. J. Cleary. 1977. A resource inventory of Mason-
                       boro Island, North Carolina, Draft Report. University of North
                       Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, N.C. 35 pp.

                  Hosier, P. E. and J. F. Parnell. 1979. Aquatic resources associated
                       with the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Wilmington District North
                       Carolina. Final Contract Rep. to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
                       Wilmington District. Contract DACW54-78-C-0055. 21 pp. + Appendices.

                  Huish, M. T. and J. P. Geaghan. 1979. A study of adult and juvenile
                       fishes of the lower Cape Fear River near the Brunswick Steam Electric
                       Plant, 1975-1976. Report 79-4 to Carolina Power and Light Company,
                       Raleigh, N.C. 148 pp.

                  Martin, A. C., H. S. Zim and A. L. Nelson. 1951. American wildlife
                       and plants: a guide to wildlife food habits. McGraw-Hill Book
                       Company, Inc. New York, New York. 500 pp.

                  Mulvihill, E. L., C. A. Francisco, J. B. Glad, K. B. Kaster and R. E.
                       Wilson. 1980. Biological impacts of minor shoreline structures on
                       the coastal environment:- state of the art review. Vol. I. U.S.
                       Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biol. Serv. FWS/OBS-77/51.
                       156 pp.

                  N. C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
                       1981. North Carolina Fisheries Regulations for Coastal Waters,
                       1981. N.C.D.N.R.C.D., Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City,
                       N.C. 88 pp.

                  Parnell, J. F. and D. A. Adams. 1970. Smith Island: a resource capability
                       study, interim report. Report to Univ. of North Carolina Sea Grant
                       Program.  83 pp.

                  Parnell, J. F. and R. F. Soots. 1975. Proceedings of a conference on
                       management of dredge islands in North Carolina estuarines. Rep.
                       UNC-SG-75-01. UNC Sea Grant Program, N.C. State University,
                       Raleigh, N.C.  142 pp.

                                                   32

                       Parnell, J. F. and R. F. Soots, Jr.       1979.  Atlas of colonial waterbirds
                             of North Carolina estuaries. Sea GrantPub. UNC-SG-78-10, Univ. of
                             North Carolina Sea Grant Program, N.C. State University, Raleigh,
                             N.C. 269 pp., 2 appendices.

                       Persaud, D. and W. D. Wilkins. 1976. Evaluating construction activities
                             impacting.on water resources. Canada Ministry of the Environment.
                             Plannin g and Co-ordination Section, Water Resources Branch.

                       Pierce, R. J.     1977. Wetland plants of the eastern United States.
                             U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic Division, New York,
                             New York.

                       Potter, E. F., J. F. Parnell and R. P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the
                             Carolinas. Univ. North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
                             408 pp.

                       Reilly, F. J., Jr., D. M. L. Cobb and V. J. Bellis. 1980. Biological
                             implications of beach replenishment. pp 269-280 in N. P. Psuty and
                             D. McArthur (eds.). Utilization of science in thi@-decision-making
                             process. Proc. Sixth Annual Conference. The Coastal Society.
                             Arlington, Virginia. 330 pp.

                       Reilly, F. J., Jr., and V. J. Bellis. 1978. A study of the ecological
                             impact of.beach nourishment with dredged materials on the intertidal
                             zone. Tech. Rep. No. 4, Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources,
                             East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C. 107 pp.

                       Robins, C.  R., R. M. Bailey, C. E. Bond, J. R. Brooker, E. A. Lachner,
                             R. N. Lea and W. B. Scott. 1980. A list of common and scientific
                             names of fishes from the United States and Canada. Amer. Fish.
                             Soc., Spec. Pub. No. 12: 1-174.

                       Sandifier,  P. A., J. V. Miglarese, D. R. Calder, et al. 1980. Ecological
                             characterization of the sea island coastal region of South Carolina
                             and Georgia. Vol. III: Biological features of the characterization
                             area. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Ofc. Biol. Serv., Washington,
                             D.C. FWS/OBS-79/42. 620 pp.

                       Schwartz, F. J., P. Perschbacher, L. Davidson, K. Sandoy, J. Tate,
                             M. McAdams, C. Simpson, J. Duncan, and D. Mason. 1979. An ecological
                             study of fishes and invertebrate macrofauna utilizing the Cape Fear
                             Riverestuary, Carolina Beach Inlet and adjacent Atlantic Ocean.
                             Annual Report to Carolina Power and Light Co., Raleigh, N.C. 326
                             PP.

                       Turner, R. E. 1977. Intertidal vegetation and commercial yields
                             of penaeid shrimp. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 106:411-416.

                       U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. Plan of study, Wrightsville
                             Beach, North Carolina. Wilmington District, Wilmington, N.C. 95
                             PP.

                                                             33

                 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1981. Wrightsville Beach, North
                      Carolina, Stage II report. Wilmington, N.C. 62 pp., 8 plates.

                 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Report of the U.S. Fish and
                      Wildlife Service on the study of beach erosion and hurricane
                      protection at Wrightsville Beach by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
                      Wilmington District. Division of Ecological Services, Raleigh
                      Field Office, Raleigh, N.C. 23 pp. 2 tables.

                 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Planning aid report of the
                      U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on the study of beach erosion
                      and hurricane protection (BEHP) at Wrightsville Beach by the Wilming-
                      ton District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Division of Ecological
                      Services, Raleigh Field Office, Raleigh, N.C. 7 pp.

                 Weinstein, M. P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for
                      fishes and shellfish, Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Fish. Bull.
                      77:339-357.

                 Weisburg, S. B. and V. A. Lotrich. 1981. The importance of the intertidal
                      marsh surface as an energy source for the mummichog, Fundulus
                      heteroclitus: an experimental approach. Paper presented at the
                      joint Atlantic Estuarine Research Society and Southeastern Estuarine
                      Research Society meeting March 13, 1981, Wrightsville Beach, N.C.

                 Wolcott, T. G. 1978. Ecological role of ghost crabs, Ocypode
                      quadrata (Fabricius). on an ocean beach: scavengers or predators?
                      J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 31:67-82.

                                                   34

                                                 APPENDIX A.

                        FISHES WHICH MAY OCCUR IN WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH AND THE IMMEDIATE
                          VICINITY BASED ON SAMPLING AT WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH AND IN THE
                             CAPE FEAR RIVER (Birkhead, Copeland and Hodson 1979;
                               Carolina Power and Light Company 1979; Hull and
                                    Geaghan 1979; Schwartz et al. 1979).

                                                      35

               Family               Common Name                    Scientific Name

               Petromyzontidae      Sea lamprey                    Petromyzon marinus

               Carcharhinidae       Silky shark                    Carcharhinus falciformis

                                    Blacktip shark                 C. limbatus

                                    Dusky shark                    C. obscurus

                                    Sandbar shark                  C. plumbeus (formerly milberti

                                    Smooth dogfish                 Mustelus canis

                                    Lemon shark                    Nega_prion brevirostris

                                    Atlantic sharpnose shark       Rhizoprionodon terraenovae

               Sphyrnidae           Scalloped hammerhead           Sphyrna lewini

                                    gonnethead                     S. tiburo

               Squalidae            Spiny dogfish                  Squalus acanthias

               Rhinobatidae         Atlantic quitarfish            Rhinobatos lentiginosus

               Torpedinidae         Lesser electric ray            Narcine brasiliensis

               Rajidae              Clearnose skate                Raja eglanteria

               Dasyatidae           Southern stingray              Dasyatis americana

                                    Roughtail stingray             D. centroura

                                    Atlantic stingray              D. sabina

                                    Bluntnose stingray             D. sayi

                                    Smooth butterfly ray           Gymnura micrura

               Myliobatidae         Spotted eagle ray              Aetobatus narinari

                                    Bullnose ray                   Myliobatus freminvillei

                                    Cownose ray                    Rhinoptera bonasus.

               Acipenseridae        Atlantic sturgeon              Acipenser oxyrhynchus

               Elopidae             Ladyfish                       Elops saurus

                                    Tarpon                         Megalops atlanticus,

                                                        36

                Anquillidae          American eel                   Anguilla rostrata

                Congridae            Conger eel                     Conger oceanicus

                Ophichthidae         Speckled worm eel              Myrophis punctatus
                                     Shrimp eel                     Ophichthus gomesi
                                     Palespotted eel                Ophichthus ocellatus

                Clupeidae            Blueback herring               Alosa aestivalis

                                     Hickory shad                   A. mediocris

                                     Alewife                        A. Pseudoharengus

                                     American shad                  A. sapidissima

                                     Yellowfin menhaden             Brevoortia smithi

                                     Atlantic menhaden              B. tyrannus

                                     Gizzard shad                   Dorosoma cepedianum

                                     Threadfin shad                 D. petenense

                                     Atlantic thread herring        Opisthonema oglinum
                                     Spanish sardine                Sardinella aurita (formerly anchovia

                Engraulidae          Striped anchovy                Anchoa hepsetus

                                     Bay anchovy                    A. mitchilli

                                     Longnose anchovy               A. nasuta

                Synodontidae         Inshore lizardfish             Synodus foetens

                Ariidae              Hardhead catfish               Arius felis

                                     Gafftopsail catfish            Bagre marinus

                                     Atlantic midshipmen            Porichthys plectrodon

                Gobiesocidae         Skilletfish                    Gobiesox strumosus

                Antennariidae        Ocellated frogfish             Antennarius ocellatus

                                     Sargassum fish                 Histrio histrio

                                                         37

              Ogcoceph alidae      Shortnose batfish               02cocephalus nasutus
              Gadidae              Carolina hake                   ULophycis earlli

                                   Southern hake                   U. floridana

                                   Spotted hake                    U. regia

              Ophidiidae           Bearded brotula                 Brotula barbata

                                   Blotched cusk-eel               Ophidion grayi

                                   Crested cusk-eel                Ophidion welshi

              Exocoetidae          Flyingfish                      Cyps@lurus sp.

              Belonidae            Atlantic needlefish             Strongylura marina

              Cyprinodontidae      Sheepshead minno'w              Cyprinodon variegatus

                                   Marsh killifish                 Fundulus confluentus

                                   Mummichog                       F. heteroclitus

                                   Spotfin killifish               F. luciae

                                   Striped killifish               F. majalis

              Poeciliidae          Mosquitofish                    Gambusia affinis

                                   Sailfin molly                   Poecilia latipinna

              Atherinidae          Rough silverside                Membras martinica

                                   Tidewater silverside            Menidia beryllina

                                   Atlantic silverside             M. menidia

              'Fistulariidae       Bluespotted cornetfish          Fistulari tabacaria

              Syngnathidae         Lined seahorse                  Hippocampus erectus

                                   Oppossum pipefish               Oostethus brachyurus

                                   Dusky pipefish                  Syngnathus floridae

                                   Northern pipefish               S. fuscus

                                   Chain pipefish                  S. louisianae

              Centropomidae        Snook                           Centropomus undecimalis

                                                        38

                   Percichthyidae      Striped bass                   Morone saxatilis

                   Serranidae          Bank sea bass                  Centropristis ocyurus

                                       Rock sea bass                  C. philadelphica

                                       Black sea bass                 C. striata

                                       Sand perch                     Diplectrum formosum

                                       Red grouper                    EpineRhelus morio

                                       Warsaw grouper                 E. nigritus

                                       Nassau grouper                 E. striatus

                                       Black grouper                  Mycteroperca bonaci

                                       Gag                            M. microlepis

                                       Scamp                          M. phenax

                   Priacanthidae       Bigeye                         Priacanthus arenatus

                                       Short bigeye                   Pristigenys alta

                   Pomatomidae         Bluefish                       Pomatomus saltatrix

                   Rachycentridae      Cobia                          Rachycentron canadum

                   Echeneidae          Sharksucker                    Echeneis naucrates

                   Carangidae          Yellow jack                    Caranx bartholomaei

                                       Blue runner                    C. crysos

                                       Crevalle jack                  C. hippos

                                       Horse-eye jack                 C. latus

                                       Atlantic bumper                Chloroscombrus chrysurus

                                       Leatherjacket                  Oligoplites saurus

                                       Atlantic moonfish              Selene setapinnis

                                       Lookdown                       S. vomer

                                       Florida pompano                Trachinotus carolinus

                                       Permit                         T. falcatus

                                       Rough scad                     Trachurus lathami

                                                            39

            Lutjanidae           Mutton snapper                 Lutjanus analis

                                 Gray snapper                   L. griseus

                                 Dog snapper                    L. jocu

                                 Lane snapper                   L. synagris

            Lobotidae            Tripletail                     Lobotes surinamensis

            Gerreidae            Irish pompano                  Dia_pterus auratus

                                 Spotfin moiarra                Eucinostomus argenteus

                                 Silver jenny                   E. gula

                                 Yellowfin mojarra              Gerres cinereus

            Haemulidae           Pigfish                        OrthoRristis chrysoptera

            Sparidae             Sheepshead                     Archosargus probatocephalus

                                 Spottail pinfish               Diplodus holbrooki

                                 Pinfish . N                    Lagodom rhomboides.

                                 Longspine porgy                Stenotomus caprinus

            Sciaenidae         'Silver perch                    Bairdiella chrysoura

                                 Spotted seatrout               Cynoscion nebulosus

                                 Silver seatrout                C. nothus

                                 Weakfish                       C. rpgalis

                                 Banded drum                    Larimus fasciatus

                                 Spot                           Leiostomus xanthurus

                                 Southern kingfish              Menticirrhus americanus

                                 Gulf kingfish                  M. littoralis

                                 Northern kingfish              M. saxatilis

                                 Atlantic croaker               Micropogonias undulatus

                                 Black drum                     Pogonias cromis

                                 Red drum                       Scianops ocellatus

                                 Star drum                      Stellifer lanceolatus

                                                     40

                  Ephippidae           Atlantic spadefish:..          Chaetodipterut faber

                  Labridae             Tautog                         Tautoqa onitis

                  Mugilidae            Striped mullet                 Mugil cephalus

                                       White mullet                   M. curema

                  Sphyraenidae         Great barracuda                Sphyraena barracuda

                                       Northern sennet                S. borealis

                                       Guaguanche                     S. guanchancho

                  Uranoscopidae        Northern stargazer             Astroscopus guttatus

                                       Southern stargazer             A. y-graecum

                  Blenniidae           Striped blenny                 Chasmodes bosquianus

                                       Crested blenny                 Hypleurochilus geminatus

                                       Feather blenny                 Hypsoblennius hentzi

                                       Freckled blenny                H. ionthas

                  Eleotridae           Fat sleeper                    Dormitator maculatus

                                       Spiny cheek sleeper            Eleotris pisonis

                 ,Gobiidae             Darter goby                    Gobionellus boleosoma

                                       Sharptail goby                 G. hastatus

                                       Freshwater goby                G. shufeldti

                                       Marked goby                    G. stigmaticus

                                       Naked goby                     Gobiosoma bosci

                                       Seaboard goby                  E. ginsburgi

                                       Green goby                     Microgobius thallassinus

                  Microdesmidae        Pink wormfish                  Microdesmus longipinnis

                  Trichiuridae         Atlantic cutlassfish           Trichiurus lepturus

                  Scombridae           King mackeral                  Scomberomorus cavalla

                                       Spanish mackeral               S. maculatus

                  Stromateidae         Harvestfish                    Peprilus alepidotus

                                                            41

                                  Gulf butterfish                P. bUrti

                                  Butterfish                     P. triacanthus

             Scorpaenidae         Barbfish                       Scorpaena brasiliensis

             Triglidae            Northern searobin              Prionotus carolinus

                                  Striped searobin               P. evolans

                                  Blackwing searobin             P. salmonicolor

                                  Leopard searobin               P. scitulus

                                  Bighead searobin               P. tribulus

             Dactylopteridae      Flying gurnard                 Dactylopterus volitans

             Bothidae             Ocellated flounder             Ancylopsetta quadrocellata

                                  Spotted whiff                  Citharichthys macrops_

                                  Bay whiff                      C. spilopterus

                                  Fringed flounder               Etropus crossotus

                                  Gulf flounder                  Paralichthys albigutta

                                  Summer flounder                P. dentatus

                                  Southern flounder              P. lethostigma

                                  Broad flounder                 P. squamilentus

                                  Windowpane                     Scophthalmus aquosus

             Soleidae             Hogchoker                      Trinectes maculatus

             Cynoglossidae        Blackcheek tonguefish          Symphurus plagiusa

             Balistidae           Orange filefish                Aluterus schoepfi

                                  Gray triggerfish               Balistes capriscus

                                  Planehead filefish             Monacanthus hispidus

             Ostraciidae          Spotted trunkfish              Lactophrys bicaudalis.

                                  Honeycomb cowfish              L. polygonia

             Tetraodontidae       Smooth puffer                  Lagocephalus laeviqatus

                                  Northern puffer                Sphoeroides maculatus

                                                     42

                                   Bandtail puffer               S. spenglori

              Diodontidae          Striped burrfish              Chilomycterus schoepfi

              lPredominantly freshwater species which occurred in the Cape Fear River
               estuary periodically are not included in the list.
              2Common and scientific names are based on Robins et al. 1980.

                                                       @43

                                                        APPENDIX B

                                   COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF BIRDS WHICH MAY OCCUR
                                   ON OR IN THE VICINITY OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH AND THEIR
                                  RESIDENCE AND NUMERICAL STATUS BASED ON THOSE OCCURRING
                                 ON OTHER SOUTHEASTERN BARRIER ISLANDS. (Compiled from:
                                Parnell and Adams 1970; Fussell 1978; Heilbrun et al. 1980;
                                                  Potter et al. 1980).

                                                      44

             Fami ly                        Common Name.                          Scientific Name                 Residencel /Abundance 2,3
             Gaviidae                       Common loon                           Gavia immer                              RW/C

                                            Red-throated loon                     G. stellata                              RW/FC-C
             Podicipedidae                  Horned grebe                          Podiceps auritus                         RW/C

                                            Pied-bill grebe                       Podilymbus Podiceps                      RP/C
             Procellariidae                 Gr e.. ater shearwater                Puffinus gravis                          TS/FC
                                            Sooty shearwater                      P. griseus                               TS/FC

                                            Audubon's shearwater                  P. Iheeminieri                           TS/FC

                                            Wilson's storm petrel                 Oceanites oceanicus                      RS/C
             Pelicanidae                    Brown pelican                         P61ecahus occidentalis                   RP/FC-C

             Sulidae                        Gannet                                Morus bassanus                           RW/C

             Phalacrocoracidae              Double-crested cormorant              Phalacrocorax auritus                    RW/C

             Ardeidae                       Great blue heron                      Ardea herodias                           RP/FC-C

                                            Green heron                           Butorides striatus                       RS/C

                                            Little blue heron                     Florida caerulea                         RP/C

                                            Great egret                           Casmerodius albus                        RP/C

                                            Snowy egret                           Egretta thula                            RP/C

                                            Louisiana heron                       Hydranassa tricolor                      RP/C

                                            Black-crowned night heron             Nycticorax nycticorax                    RP/C

                                            Yellow-crowned night heron            Nyctanassa violacea                      RP/FC

                                            Least bittern                         Ixobrychus exilis                        RS/FC-C

                                               American bittern                       Botaurus lentiginosus                     RW/FC
              Ciconiidae                       Wood stork                             Mycteria americana                        TF/U
              Threskiornithidae                Glossy ibis                            Plegadis falcinellus                      RP/U-C

                                               White ibis                             Eudocimus albus                           RP/FC-C
              Anatidae                         Whistling swan                         Olor columbianus                          RW/R-U

                                               Canada goose                           Branta canadensis                         RW/U

                                               Brant                                  B. bernicla                               TW/R

                                               Snow goose                             Chen caerulescens                         RW/R

                                               Mallard                                Anas platyrhynchos                        RW/C

                                               Black duck                             -A. rubripes                              RW/FC

                                               Gadwall                                A. strepera                               RW/U-FC

                                               Pintail                                A. acuta                                  RW/C

                                               Green-winged teal                      A. crecca                                 RW/C

                                               Blue-winged teal                       A. discors                              T-WSp/FC-C

                                               American wigeon                        A. americana                              RW/C

                                               Northern shoveler                      A. clypeata                               RW/C

                                               Redhead                                Aythya americana                          RW/U

                                               Ring-necked duck                       A. collaris                               RW/C

                                               Canvasback                             A. valisineria                            RW/U-FC

                                               Greater scaup                          A. marila                                 RW/U-FC

                                               Lesser scaup                           A. affinis                                RW/FC

                                              Common goldeneye                      Bucephala clangula                        RW/U

                                              Bufflehead                            B. albeola                                RW/FC-C

                                              Oldsquaw                              Clangula hyemalis                         RW/U

                                              White-winged scoter                   Melanitta deglandi                        TW/U

                                              Surf scoter                           M. perspicillata                      RW-TSp/FC-C
                                              Black scoter                          M. nigra_                             RW-TSp/FC-C

                                              Ruddy duck                            Oxyura jamaicensis                        RW/C

                                              Hooded merganser                      Lophodytes cucullatus                     RW/FC

                                              Red-breasted merganser                Mergus serrator                           RW/C

             Cathartidae                      Turkey vulture                        Cathartes aura                            RP/FC-C

                                              Black vulture                         Coragyps atratus                          RP/C

             Accipitridae                     Sharp-shinned hawk                    Accipiter striatus                     TF-RW/U-FC

                                              Red-tailed hawk                       A. cooperii                               RP/FC

                                              Marsh hawk                            Circus cyaneus                            RW/C

             Pandionidae                      Osprey                                Pandion ha7iaetus                         RS/FC

             Falconidae                       Peregrine falcon                      Falco peregrinus                      TF-RW/R-U

                                              Merlin                                F. co7umbarfus                            TF/U-FC

                                              American kestrel                      F. sparverius                             RW/FC-C

             Rallidae                         Clapper rail                          Rallus longirostris                       RP/C

                                              Virginia rail                         R. limicola                               RW/FC-C

                                              Sora                                  Porzana carolina                       TF-Sp/C

                                           American coot                        Fulica americana                         RW/C

           Haematopidae                    American oystercatcher               Haematopus palliatus                     RP/FC

           Recurvirostridae                American avocet                      Recurvirostra americana                   T/R

           Charadriidae                    Semipalmated plover                  Charadrius semipalmatus              TF-Sp/FC-C

                                           Wilson's plover                      C. wilsonia                              RS/FC

                                           Killdeer                             C. vociferus                             RP/C

                                           Piping plover                        C. melodus                               RW/FC

                                           Black-bellied plover                 Pluvialis squatarola                TWSpSF/R-C
           Scolopacidae                    Marbled godwit                       Limosa fedoa                         TF-RW/FC-C

                                           Whimbrel                             Numenius phaeopus                      TFSp/FC-C
      CO                                   Long-billed curlew                   N. americanus                            RW/R

                                           Greater yellowlegs                   Tringa melanoleuca                       TW/FC
                                           Lesser yellowlegs                    T. flAyiRfs                         TFSp-RW/U-FC
                                           Willet                               Catoptrophorus semiRalmatus              RP/C
                                           Spotted sandpiper                    Attitis macularia                        RP/C
                                           Ruddy turnstone                      Ar-enaria interpres                      RP/FC-C
                                           Northern phalarope                   Phalaropus lobatus.                  T-SpF/C
                                           American woodcock                    Scolqpax minor                           RP/FC
                                           Common snipe                         Gallinago gallinago                      RW/C
                                           Short-billed dowitcher               Limnodromus griseu                     TFSp/FC-C
                                           Long-billed dowitcher                L. scolopaceus                       TF-RW/R-U

                0

                                            Red Knot                              Calidris canutus

                                            Sanderling                            C. alba                                 RP/C

                                            Semipalmated sandpiper                C. pusilla

                                            Western sandpiper                     C. mauri

                                            Least sandpiper                       C. minutilla

                                            Purple sandpiper                      C. maritima

                                            Dunlin                                C. alpina

                                            Buff-breasted sandpiper               Tryngites subruficollis
             Stercorariidae                 Pomarine jaeger                       Stercorarius pomarinus                  RP/U

                                            Parasitic jaeger                      S. parasiticus                          RFW/C
            Laridae                         Great black-backed gull               Larus marinus                           RW/FC

                                            Herring gull                          L. argentatus                           RP/C

                                            Ring-billed gull                      L. delawarensis                         RP/C

                                            Laughing gull                         L. atricilla                            RP/C

                                            Bonaparte's gull                      L. philadelphia.                        RW/FC-C

                                            Gull-billed tern                      Gelochelidon nilotica                   RS/FC

                                            Forster's tern                        Sterna forsteri                         RW/C

                                            Common tern                           S. hirundo                              RS/C

                                            Least tern                            S. albifrons                            RS/FC

                                            Royal tern                            S. maxima                               RP/C

                                           Sandwich tern                        S. sandvicensis                          RS/FC

                                           Caspian tern                         S. caspia                              T-SpF/FC

                                           Black tern                           Chlidonias niger                      T-SpF/U-C
           Rynchopidae                     Black skimmer                        Rync.hops niger                          RP/C

           Columbidae                      Rock dove                            Columba livia                            RP/C

                                           Mourning dove                        Zenaida macroura                         RP/C

                                           Ground dove                          Columbina passerina                      RP/FC

           Cuculidae                       Yellow-billed cuckoo                 Coccy2us americanus                      RS/FC-C

           Tytonidae                       Barn owl                             Tyto LIba                                RP/R-U
      Ln   Strigidae                       Great horned owl                     Bubo virginianus                         RP/U-FC
      CD
                                           Short-eared owl                      Asio flammeus                          T-SpF/U

           Caprimulgidae                   Common night hawk                    Chordeiles minor                         RS/U-FC

           Apodidae                        Chimney swift                        Chaetura pelagica                        RS/C

           Alcedinidae                     Belted kingfisher                    Megaceryle alcyon                        RP/FC

           Picidae                         Common flicker                       Colaptes auratus                         RP/C

                                           Red-headed woodpecker                Melanerpes erythrocephalus               RP/U-FC
                                           Yellow-bellied sapsucker             Sphyrapicus varius                       RW/C
           Tyrannidae                      Eastern kingbird                     Tyrannus tyrannus                        RS/U
                                           Eastern phoebe                       SMornis_phoebe                          R-FW/FC
                                           Least flycatcher                     Empidonax minimus                          T/R

              Hirundinidae                   Tree swallow                         Iridoprocne bicolor                   T-SpF/C

                                             Bank swallow                         Riparia riparia                      T-SpF/U-FC

                                             Rough-winged swallow                 Stelgidopteryx ruficollis               RS/FC

                                             Barn swallow                         Hirundo rustica                       R-SpS/C

                                             Purple martin                        Progne subis                            RS/FC-C
              Corvidae                       Blue jay                             Cyanocitta cristata.                    RP/C

                                             Common crow                          Corvus brachyrhynchos                   RP/C

                                             Fish crow                            C. ossifragus                           RP/C
              Paridae                        Carolina chickadee                   Parus carolinensis                      RP/C
              Sittidae                       Red-breasted nuthatch                @itta canadensis                        TW/R-C
              Troglodytidae                  House wren                           Troglodytes aedon                       RW/C

                                             Winter wren                          T. troglodytes                          RW/FC

                                             Carolina wren                        Thryothorus ludovicianus                RP/C

                                             Long-billed marsh wren               Cistothorus palustris                   RP/C

                                             Short-billed marsh wren              C. platensis                            RW/FC-C

              Mimidae                        Mockingbird                          Mimus polyglottos                       RP/C

                                             Gray catbird                         Dumetella carolinensis                  RP/U-C

                                             Brown thrasher                       Toxostoma rufum                         RP/C

              Turdidae                       American robin                       Turdus migratorius                      RW/C

              Sylviidae                      Golden-crowned kinglet               Regulus satrapa                         RW/C

              Motacillidae                   Water pipit                          Anthus spinoletta                       RW/C

           Bombycillidae                     Cedar waxwing                          Bom@ycillq cedrorum,                      TW/U

           Laniidae                          Loggerhead shrike                      Lanius ludovicianus                       RP/U-FC

           Sturnidae                         Starling                               Sturnus vulgaris                          RP/C

           Vireonidae                        Red-eyed vireo                         Vireo olivaceus                           RS/C

           Parulidae                         Orange-crowned warbler                 Vermivora celata                          RW/FC

                                             Northern parula                        Parula americana,                         RS/FC-C

                                             Yellow warbler                         Dendroica petechia_                         T/U

                                             Magnolia warbler                       D. magnolia                            T-SpF/R-U

                                             Cape May warbler                       D. tigrina                             T-SpF/R-U

                                             Black-throated blue warbler            D. caerulescens                        T-SpF/U

                                             Yellow-rumped warbler                     coronata                               RW/C

                                             Blackpoll warbler                      D. striata.                             T-Sp/FC

                                             Prairie warbler                        D. discolor                               RS/C

                                             Palm warbler                           D. palmarum                            T-SpF/C

                                             Northern waterthrush                   Seirurus noveboracensis                T-SpF/FC

                                             Common yellowthroat                    Geothly2is trichas                     RSpSF/C

                                             Yellow-breasted chat                   Icteria virens                            RS/U

                                             American redstart                      Setopha2a. ruticilla.                  T-SpF/U-FC
           Ploceidae                         House sparrow                          Passer domesticus                         RP/C
           Icteridae                         Bobolink                               Dolichonyx oryzivorus                  T-SpF/FC-C
                                             Eastern meadowlark                     Sturnella magna                           RP/C

                                            Red-winged blackbird                 Agelaius phoeniceus                     RP/C

                                            Boat-tailed grackle                  Quiscalus major                         RP/C

                                            Common grackle                       Q. quiscula                             RP/C

                                            Brown-headed cowbird                 Molothrus ater                          RW/C

            Fringillidae                    Cardinal                             Cardinalis cardinalis                   RP/C

                                            Rose-breasted grosbeak               Pheucticus ludovicianus                  T/R-U

                                            Blue grosbeak                        Guiraca caerulea                        RS/FC-C

                                            Indigo bunting                       Passerina cyanea                        RS/C

                                            Painted bunting                      P. cirus                                RS/C

                                            Purple finch                         Carpodacus purpureus                    RW/C
       LO
                                            Pine siskin                          Carduelis pinus                         RW/U-C

                                            American goldfinch                   C. tristis                              RW/C

                                            Rufous-sided towhee                  Pipilo erythrophthalmus                 RP/C

                                            Savannah (Ipswich) sparrow           Passerculus sandwichensis               RW/C

                                            Sharp-tailed sparrow                 Ammospiza caudacuta                     RW/C

                                            Seaside sparrow                      A. maritima                             RW/C

                                            Lark-sparrow                         Chondestes grammacus                    TF/U

                                            Dark-eyed junco                      Junco hyemalis                          RW/C

                                            Chipping sparrow                     Spizella passerina                      RP/U-C

                                            Field sparrow                        S. pusilla                              RP/C

                                            White-crowned sparrow                Zonotrichia leucophrys                  RW/FC

                                         White-throated sparrow              Z. albicollis                          RW/C

                                         Fox sparrow                         Passerella iliaca                      RW/FC

                                         Swamp sparrow                       Melospiza georgiana                    RW/C

                                         Song sparrow                        M. melodia                             RW/C

           Residence: F=fall; P=permanent; R=resident; S=summer; Sp=spring; T=transient; and W=winter.
           2Abundance: C=common; FC=fairly common; R=rare; U=uncommon
           3
           All res i dence/ abundance designations are based on the information contained in Potter et al. 1980 and pertain as
          nearly as possible to the immediate vicinity of'Wrightsville Beach.

                                                  APPENDIX C

                               BIRDS LIKELY TO OCCUR WITHIN SPECIFIC HABITATS OF
                               WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, N.C., AND VICINITY, BASED ON
                              STUDIES AT OTHER SOUTHEASTERN U.S. BARRIER ISLANDS
                               AND AT WILMINGTON, N.C. (Parnell and Adams 1970;
                                 Heilbrun et al. 1980; Sandifer et al. 1980).

                                                   55

                                          PELAGIC (may approach shore)

                                                    Smith Island    Bogue Banks     SC-GA     Wilmington

               Greater shearwater                                        x             x

               Sooty shearwater                                          x

               Audubon's shearwater                                      x             x

               Wilson's storm petrel                                     x             x

               Northern phalarope                                                      x

               Pomarine jaeger                                           x

               Parisitic jaeger                           x              x

                                                  NEARSHORE OCEAN

                                                    Smith Island    Bogue Banks     SC-GA     Wilmington

               Sandwich tern                              x              x             x

              .Black tern                                 x              x             x

               Black skimmer                                             x             x            x

               Greater scaup                              x                                         x

               Lesser scaup                               x                            x            x

               Caspian tern                               x                            x

               Horned grebe                               x                            x            x

               Canvasback                                                              x

               Common goldeneye                                                        x

               Ruddy duck                                                x             x            x

               Mallard                                    x                                         x

               Pintail                                    x                                         x

               Blue-winged teal                           x                                         x

               Bufflehead                                 x                                         x

               Red-breasted merganser                     x                                         x

               Osprey                                     x

                                                      56

                                                NEARSHORE OCEAN

                                                  Smith Island    Bogue Banks    SC-GA      Wilmington

               Common loon                               x               x           x            x

               Red-throated loon                         x               x           x            x

               Brown pelican                             x               x           x            x

               Gannet                                    x               x           x            x

               Double-crested cormorant                  x               x           x            x

               White-winged scoter                       x               x

               Unidentified scoter                                                                x

               Surf scoter                               x               x           x

               Black scoter                              x               X         x            x

               Oldsquaw                                                  x

               Great black-backed gull                   x               x          X           X

               Herring gull                              x               x           x            x

               Ring-billed gull                          x               x           x            x

               Laughing gull                             x               x           x            x

               Bonaparte's gull                          x               x           x            x

               Gull-billed tern                          x               x           x

               Forster's tern                            x               x           x            x

               Common tern                               x               x           x

               Least tern                                x               x           x

               Royal tern                                x               x           x            x

                                                        57

                                             INTERTIDAL BEACH

                                                Smith Island   Bogue Banks     SC-GA     Wilmington
           Wilson's plover                           x                           x

           Semipalmated plover                       x               x                         x

           American oyster catcher                   x                           x

           Piping plover                             x               x           x             x

           Black-bellied  plover                     x               x           x             x

           Brown pelican                             x

           Ruddy turnstone                           x               x           x             x

           Willet                                    x               x           x             x

           Whimbrel                                  x               x                         x

           Red knot                                  x               x           x

           Purple sandpiper (jetties)                                x

           Least sandpiper                           x               x           x

           Dunlin                                    x               x           x             x

           Short-billed. dowitcher                   x               x           x             x

           Semipalmated sandpiper                    x               x           x

           Western sandpiper                         x               x           x             x

           Buff-breasted sandpiper                   x

           Marbled godwit                            x               x                         x

           Sanderling                                x               x           x             x

           Great black-backed gull                   x               x           x             x

           Herring gull                              x               x           x             x

           Ring-billed gull                          x               x           x             x

           Laughing gull                             x               x           x             x

           Bonaparte's gull                                          x           x             x

           Sandwich tern                             x                           x

           Common tern                               x               x           x

           Gull-billed tern                          x               x           x

                                                     58

                                               INTERTIDAL BEACH

                                                  Smith Island
                                                                   Bogue Banks    SC-GA     Wilmington
              Least tern                               x               x           x

              Forster's tern                           x                           x            x

              Royal tern                               x                           x            x

              Caspian tern                             x                           x

              Black skimmer                                                        x            x

              Black tern                               x                           x

              Fish crow                                                x           x            x

              Boat-tailed grackle                      x               x           x            x

              Snowy egret                              x                           x            x

              Scaup                                                                x            x

              Turkey vulture                                                       x            x

              Black vulture                                                        x            x

              Peregrine falcon                         x                           x

              Common crow                                                          x            x

              Merlin                                   x                           x

              Lesser yellowlegs                        x                                        x

              Water pipit                              x                                        x

                                                       59

                                                     DUNES

                                                  Smith Island    Bogue Banks     SC-GA     Wilmington

              Sharp-shinned hawk                                                    x            x

              Red-tailed hawk                                          x                         x

              American kestrel                         x               x            x            x

              Mourning dove                            x               x            x            x

              Marsh hawk                               x                                         x

              Ground dove                              x               x            x            x

              Barn owl                                                 x

              Short-eared owl                                          x

              Common flicker                                           x                         x

              Lark sparrow                             x

              Bank swallow                                             X

              Tree swallow                             x               x            x            x

              Barn swallow                             x               x            x

              Palm warbler                                             x            x            x

              Yellow-rumped warbler                                    x            x            x

              Red-winged blackbird                     x               x            X           x

              Pine siskin

              Dark-eyed junco                                                       x           x

              American goldfinch                       x               x            x            x

              Ipswich sparrow                          x               x            x

              Savannah sparrow                         x               x            x            x

              Field sparrow                                                         x            x

              Least tern                                                            x

              Common night hawk                                                     x

              Fish crow                                                             x            x

              Boat-tailed grackle                      x                            x            x

                                                        60

                                                       DUNES

                                                    Smith Island   Bogue Banks     SC-GA      Wilmington

               American oyster catcher                                                x            x

               Wilson's plover                           x                            x

               Willet                                                                 x            x

               Gull-billed tern                                                       x

               Chimney swift                                                          x

               Common crow                                                            x            x

               Eastern meadowlark                        x                            x            x

               Common grackle                                                         x            x

               Cardinal                                                               x            x

               Painted bunting                                                        x

               Song sparrow                                                           x            x

               Great horned owl                                                       x            x

               Rough-winged  swallow                                                  x

               Purple martin                                                          x

               Bobolink                                                               x

                                                        61

                                           MARITIME SHRUB THICKET

                                                 Smith Island    Bogue Banks     SC-GA     Wilmington

             Sharp-shinned hawk                                       x            x             x

             Red-tailed hawk                                          x                          x

             American kestrel                          x              x            x             x

             American woodcock                                        x                          x

             Willet                                                   x                          x

             Gull-billed tern                                         x

             Mourning dove                                            x                          x

             Ground dove                               x              x            x             x

             Barn owl                                  x              x

             Common night hawk                                        x

             Common flicker                            x              x                          x

             Red-headed woodpecker                                    x                          x

             Yellow-bellied sapsucker                                x                          x

             Least flycatcher                          x

             Eastern kingbird                                         x            x

             Eastern phoebe                                           x                          x

             Tree swallow                                             x            x             x

             Bank.swallow                                             x

             Chimney swift                                                         x

             Barn swallow                                             x            x

             Blue jay                                                 x                          x

             Common crow                                                                         x

             Fish crow                                 x              x                          x

             Red-breasted nuthatch                                    x

             House wren                                x              x                          x

                                                      62

                                             MARITIME SHRUB THICKET

                                                   Smith Island    Bogue Banks     SC-GA     Wilmington

               Winter wren                                x                                         x

               Carolina wren                                              x                         x

               Mockingbird                                x               x          x              x

               Gray catbird                               x               x          x              x

               Brown thrasher                             x               x          x              x

               American robin                                             x                         x

               Golden crowned  kinglet,                                   x                         x

               Cedar waxwing                                              x                         x

               Red-eyed vireo                                             x

               Orange-crowned  warbler                    x               x

               Northern parula                                            x

               Yellow warbler                                             x

               Magnolia warbler                                           x

               Cape May warbler                                           x

               Black-throated blue warbler                                x

               Yellow-rumped warbler                      x               x          x              x

               Blackpoll warbler                                          x

               Prairie warbler                            x               x          x

               Palm warbler                               x               x          x              x

               Northern water thrush                      x               x

               Common yellowthroat,                       x               x          x

               Yellow-breasted chat                                       x          x

               American redstart                                          x         x

               Red-winged blackbird                                       x          x              x

                                                         63

                                           MARITIME SHRUB THICKET
                                                  Smith Island   Bogue Banks    SC-GA      Wilmington*

             Boat-tailed grackle                       X               X            X             X

             Common grackle                                            X                          X

             Cardinal                                  X               X            X             X

             Rose-breasted grosbeak                                    X                          X

             Painted bunting                           X               X            X

             Pine siskin                                               X

             American goldfinch                       X               X                          X

             Rufous-sided towhee                       X               X            X             X

             Dark eyed junco                                           X                          X

             Savannah sparrow                          X
             Chipping sparrow                                          X                         X
             Field sparrow                             X               X                          X

             White-crowned sparrow                     X               X
             White-throated sparrow                   X               X                          X
             Fox sparrow                                               X                          X
             Swamp sparrow                             X               X                          X
             Song sparrow                             X               X                          X

             Bobolink                                                               X

             Blue grosbeak                                                         X
             Indigo bunting                            X                            X

             Yellow-billed cuckoo                      X

                                                     64

                                            SALT MARSH (high and low)

                                                    Smith Island    Bogue Banks     SC-GA     Wilmington

               Great bl ue heron                         x                x            x             x

               Green heron                               x                x            x             x

               Little blue heron                         x                x            x             x

               Great egret                               x                x            x             x

               Snowy egret                               x                x            x             x

               Louisiana heron                           x                x            x             x

               Black-crowned night heron                 x                x            x             x

               Yellow-crowned night heron                x                x            x             x

               Least bittern                                              x            x

               American bittern                          x                x            x

               Glossy ibis                               x                             x

               White ibis                                x                x            x             x

               Mallard                                                    x                          x

               Black duck                                                x            x             x

               Bufflehead                                                              x

               Gadwall                                                    x                          x

               Ruddy duck                                                              x

               Pintail                                                    x                          x

               Lesser scaup                                                            x

               Green-winged teal                                          x                         x

               Blue-winged teal                                           x                          x

               American wigeon                                            x            x             x

               Common goldeneye                                                       x

               Northern shoveler                                          x                          x

               Red-breasted merganser                                                  x             x

               Hooded merganser                                           x            x             x

                                                         65

                                        SALT MARSH (high and, low)
                                                Smith Island- Bogue Banks      SC-GA     Wilmington

           Sharp-shinned hawk                                                    x              x

           Red-tailed hawk                           x               x                          x

           American kestrel                                                      x              x

           Marsh hawk                                x               x           x              x

           Osprey                                                                x

           Clapper rail                              x               x           x              x

           Virginia rail                             x               x           x              x

           Sora                                      x               x           x              x

           Common snipe                                              x                          x

           Spotted sandpiper                                                    x

           Whimbrel                                                  x                          x

           American oyster catcher                                               x              x

           Greater yellowlegs                                       x           x              x

           Lesser yellowlegs                                         x           x              x

           Caspian tern                                              x           x

           Barn owl                                                  x

           Long-billed marsh wren                    x               x           x             x

           Short-billed marsh wren                                   x           x              x

           Bobolink                                  x               x           x

           Yellow warbler                            x

           Eastern meadowlark                        x               x                          x

           Palm warbler                              x                                          x

           Red-winged blackbird                      x               x           x              x

           Common yellow throat                      x

           Boat-tailed grackle                       x               x           x              x

                                                     66

                                           SALT MARSH (high and low)
                                                   Smith Island   Bogue Banks     SC-GA     Wilmington

               Song sparrow                             x                                          x

               Sharp-tailed sparrow                     x               x             x            x

               Savannah sparrow                         x                                          x
               Seaside sparrow                          x              x             x
               Swamp sparrow                            x                                          x
               Herring gull                                                           x            x
               Ring-billed gull                                                       x            x
               Laughing gull                                                          x            x

               Forster's tern                                                         x            x

               Least tern                                                             x

               Black skimmer                                                          x            x

               Belted kingfisher                                                      x            x

               Tree swallow                                                           x            x

               Barn swallow                                                           x

               Fish crow                                                              x            x
               Semipalmated plover                                                    x            x
               Black-bellied plover                                                   x            x
               Ruddy turnstone                                                        x            x
               Whimbrel                                                               x            x

               Willet                                                                 x            x

               Least sandpiper                                                        x
               Dunlin                                                                 x            x

               Dowitcher                                                              x            x

               Semipalmated sandpiper                                                 x
               Western sandpiper                                                      x            x

               Gull-billed tern                          x                            x

               Common tern                                                            x

                                                        67

                                       SALT MARSH (high and low)

                                              Smith Island   Bogue Banks    SC-GA     Wilmington
           Royal tern                                                         x            x
           Sandwich tern                                                      x
           Black tern                                                         x
           Rough winged swallow                                               x
           Common grackle                          x                          x             x
           Wood stork                                                         x
           Merlin                                                             x
           Peregrine falcon                        x                          x
           American coot                                                      x             x

                                                 68

                                               INTERTIDAL FLATS
                                                  Smith Island   Bogue Banks     SC-GA     Wilmington

              American oyster catcher                  x               x            x             x

              Piping plover                            x                                          x

              Black-bellied plover                     x               x            x             x

              Wilson's plover                          x

              Least sandpiper                          x               x            x

              Dunlin                                   x               x            x             x

              Short-billed dowitcher                   x               x            x             x

              Spotted sandpiper                                        x           x

              Semipalmated sandpiper                   x               x            x

              Western sandpiper                        x               x            x             x

              Buff-breasted sandpiper                  x

              Great blue heron                         x              x            x             x

              Little blue heron                                        x           x             x

              Louisiana heron                          x              x            x            x

              Great egret                              x               x            x             x

              Snowy egret                              x              x            x            x

              Semipalmated plover                     x                            x             x

              Ruddy turnstone                          x                            x             x

              Willet                                  x                            x             x

              Herring gull                             x                            x             x

              Ring-billed gull                         x                            x             x

              Laughing gull                            x                            x             x

              Forster's tern                           x                            x             x

              Least tern                              x                            x

              Black tern                              x

              Royal tern                              x                            x             x

              Black skimmer                            x                            x            x

                                                   69

                                              INTERTIDAL FLATS

                                                 Smith Island    Bogue Banks    SC-GA      Wilmington
            Peregrine falcon                           x

            Boat-tailed grackle                        x                          x             x

            Brown pelican                                                         x             x

            Double-crested cormorant                                              x             x

            Yellow-crowned night heron                                            x             x

            Glossy ibis                                               x           x

            Killdeer                                                              x             x

            Long-billed curlew                        x              x

            Whimbrel                                   x              x           x             x

            Greater yellowlegs                         x              x           X            x

            Lesser yellowlegs                          x              x           x             x

            Marbled godwit                             x              x           x             x

            Red Knot                                   x              x

            Bonaparte's gull                                                      x             x

            Gull-billed tern                           x                          x

            Common tern                                x                          x

            Sandwich tern                              x                          x

            Caspian tern                               x                          x

            Fish crow                                                             x             x

            Green heron                                               x           x             x

            Black-crowned night heron                                 x          x            x

            Wood stork                                                            x

            White ibis                                                x           x             x

            American avocet                                                       x

            Pintail                                    x                                        x

          ..Green.-winged teal                         x                                        x

                                                  70

                                               ESTUARINE SUBTIDAL

                                                    Smith Island   Bogue Banks     SC-GA     Wilmington

               Horned grebe                              x               x           x              x

               Pied-bill grebe                           x               x           x              x

               Brown pelican                             x               x           x              x

               Great blue heron                          x               x                          x

               Green heron                              x                                          x

               Little blue heron                         x               x                          x

               Black-bellied plover                      x                                          x

               Great egret                               x               x                         x

               American oystercatcher                    x                                          x

               Snowy egret                               x               x                          x

               Dunlin                                    x                                          x

               Louisiana heron                           x               x                          x

               Short-billed dowitcher                   x                                          x

               Black-crowned night heron                 x               x                          x

               Yellow-crowned night heron               x                                          x

               Whistling swan                                            x                         x

               Lesser yellowlegs                         x                                          x

               Canada goose                                              x                          x

               Tree swallow                              x                                          x

               Barn swallow                              x

               Brant                                                     x

               Snow goose                                                x

               Gadwall                                   x                                          x

               Mallard                                   x               x                          x

               Green winged teal                         x                                          x

               Blue winged teal                          x                                          x

               Black duck                                x               x                          x

                                                      71

                                            ESTUARINE SUBTIDAL

                                                Smith Island    Bogue Batiks    SC-GA     Wilmington

           Pintail                                    x               x                          x

           Spotted sandpiper                          x

           Red head                                                   x            x             x

           Ring-necked duck                                                        x             x

           Canvasback                                                 x            x

           Greater scaup                                              x                          x

           Lesser scaup                                               x            x             x

           Common goldeneye                           x               x            x             x

           Bufflehead                                 x               x            x             x

           American wigeon                            x                                          x

           American coot                              x                                          x

           Surf scoter                                                x            x             x

           Black scoter                                               x            x             x

           Ruddy duck                                 x               x            x             x

           Hooded merganser                           x                            x             x

           Red-breasted merganser                     x               X            x             x

           Belted kingfisher                          x                                          x

           Osprey                                     x               x            x

           Great black-backed gull                                    x                          x

           Herring gull                               x               x            x             x

           Ring-billed gull                           x               x            x             x

           Laughing gull                              x              x           x          x

           Bonaparte's gull                           x               x            x             x

           Forster's tern                             x               x           x            x

           Common tern                                x               x           x

           Least tern                                x               x           x

           Royal tern                               x              x            x             x

                                                      72

                                              ESTUARINE SUBTIDAL

                                                  Smith Island   Bogue Banks     SC-GA     Wilmington

              Sandwich tern                                           x            x

              Caspian tern                             x              x            x

              Black tern                               x              x            x

              Black skimmer                            x              x            x            x

              Double crested cormorant                 x                           x            x

              Common loon                              x                           x            x

              Red-throated loon                                                    x            x

              Gull-billed tern                         x                           x

              Glossy ibis                              x

              White ibis                               x                                        x

                                             URBAN AND RESIDENTIAL

                                                  Smith Island Bogue Banks      SC-GA     Wilmington

              Killdeer                                                x                         x

              Rock dove                                               x                         x

              Loggerhead shrike                                       x                         x

              Starling                                                x                         x

              House sparrow                                           x                         x

              Common grackle                                          x                         x

              Brown-headed cowbird                                    x                         x

              Purple finch                                            x                         x

                                                         73

        0

    I

                                                   APPENDIX D

                             U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE
                               CORPS REGARDING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES.

    i

        0,

                                                       74

                                                     February 12, 1980

                  Colonel Adolph A. Hight
                  District Engineer
                  Department of the Army
                  Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
                  P.O. Box 1890
                  Wilmington, North, Carolina 28402

                  Re: 4-2-79-A-285

                  Dear Colone.1 Right:
                  We have reviewed the biological assessment on the proposed Wrightsville Beach
                  erosion control and hurricane wave protection project for several listed and/
                  or proposed endangered and threatened species. in New Hanover County, North
                  Carolinia, submitted February 8, 1980.

                  The biological assessment is adequate and supports the conclusion of no impact,
                  with which we concur.   In view of this, we believe that you have satisfied
                  the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

                  Your interest and initiative in enhancing endangered and threatened species is
                  appreciated.

                                                            Sincerely yours,

                                                            /S/ William C. Hickling

                                                            WILLIAM C. HICKLING
                                                            Area Manager
                  cc; Director, Fish.and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. (AFA/OES)

                       Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.% Atlanta, Georgia
                       (AFA/SE)
                       Field Supervisor, Ecological Services, Raleigh, N.C.
                  Murdock:W,CHickling: I r: 2/11/80

                                                           75

                                                  APPENDIX E

                           CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE NORTH CAR04INA WILDLIFE RESOURCES
                               COMMISSION, THE NORTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF COASTAL
                               MANAGEMENTAND THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
                                 WILMINGTON DISTRICT PROVIDING COMMENTS ON THE
                                      DRAFT FWCA REPORT FOR THIS PROJECT.

                                                    76

                                   North Carolina
                                   Wildlife
                                    Resources Commission
                                    Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1, 919-733-3391

                                                                                                              December 11, 1981

                               Mr. William C.Hickling
                               U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
                               Plateau Building, Room A-5
                               50 South French Broad Avenue
                               Asheville, N C6 28801

                               Dear Mr. Hickling:

                               We have reviewed the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service's Draft Fish and
                               Wildlife Coordination Act Report on the Corps of Engineers proposed
                               beach erosion control and hurricane protection project at Wrightsville
                               Beach, N. C. aid vicinity. We concur in the general findings and
                               recommendations concerning fish and wildlife impacts and proposed
                               mitigation and enhancement.

                               We wish to call          to your attention a minor duplication of data in
                               Appendix I for the fishery Family Bothidae. It appears that a page
                               should be deleted from the report in order to correct this duplication.

                                                                                   Sincerely,

                                                                                   W. Vernon Bevill

                               TSC/dlp
                                                                                                                            Lis
                                                                                                                           ASHEViLLE- AO
                               cc: Mrs. Mike Gantt
                                                                                                                          RECEIVED
                                                                                                                         DEC 14 1981

                                                                                                                     ALL -SL/T

                                                                                                                     AM -SE/T

                                                                                                                     ARW YA

                                                                                                                     ARW           YA

                                                                                                                       AE        CS

                                                                                                                     AF     CS
                                                                                                                     SE -----
                                                                                                                     SE/T

                                                                              77
                Robert Gordon, Laurinburg                             W. Vernon Bevill, Raleigh                              M.Woodrow Price, Gloucester
         Chairman                                                   Executive Director                                     Vice-Chairman

             David L Allsbrook, Scotland Neck                         Polie Q. Cloninger, Jr., Dallas                        Dan Robinson, Cullowhee
             Cy W. Brame, Jr., North Wilkesboro                       Steve Curtis, Shelby                                   Joseph E. Thomas, Vanceboro
             Eddie C. Bridges. Greensboro                             Foyle Hightower, Jr.. Wadesboro                        Jerry W. Wright, Jarvisburg
             Joe Carpenter. Jr., Fayetteville                         Henry (Buck) Kitchin, Rockingham

            4

                                                                                                                                 OFFICE OF
                               North Carolina Department of Natural                                              C1111AL MANAGEMENT
                                                                                                                         Kenneth D. Stewart
                               Resources &Community Development                                                                       Director
                               James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor                     Joseph W. Grims1ey, Secretary          Telephone gign33-2293
                                                                                       Field Services Section
                                                                                       7225 Wrightsville Avenue
                                                                                       Wilmington, NC 28403
                                                                                       919/256-4161

                                                                    January 12, 1982

                Ms. Mike Gantt, Field Supervisor
                U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                310 New Bern Avenue
                Raleigh, North Carolina 27601

                Dear Ms. Gantt:

                Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comlent on the "Draft Fish
                and Wildlife Coordination Act Report of the Wrightsville Beach- Erosion
                Control and Hurricane Protection Study".                      I agree with the Servicei-s
                                                                            on and potential impacts from
                the various proposed alternatives. In addition, I agree with the four
                reccmuendations in the end of the report. Our dredging moritorium is
                somewhat less, extending frcm April 1 through the end of SepteTber of
                any given year.

                This office has processed a Major Development CAMA application for the
                development plans enompassing the northern section of Shell Island. A
                conditional permit #44-81 was issued on March 20, 1981 to the Shell Island
                Development Corporation. Our permit requires two major objectives that
                appear to be consistent with your recommendations:
                (1) That all development be kept landward frcm the crest of the
                     primary dune; and
                (2) That three public access points be provided with no less than
                     390 public parking spaces distributed among these three points.

                A copy of our major development permit is attached for your files.

                At present the Shell Island Development Corporation is contesting our
                public assess conditions and a civil hearing proceeding is pending.
                Should you have any other questions about the project or need other
                assistance, please advise.

                                                                    Sincerely,
          4W

                                                                    eb ;@l
                                                                    Field 0onsultant
                RM/cfp                                                 78
                Enclosure

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

                           IN REPLY RE FER TO
                  SAWEN-EA                                                 6 January 1982

                  Mr. William C. Hickling, Area Manager
                  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                  Plateau Building, Room A-5
                  50 South French Brc;ad Avenue
                  Asheville, NC 28601

                  Dear Mr. Hickling:

                  I have reviewed the Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report on the
                  Wrightsville Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Study,
                  Wrightsville Beach, NC, and have varied impressions of the document. The
                  description of the'existing resources presented in the report is excellent,
                  and the Service is to be commended on the thoroughness of its presentation.
                  Gathering data from unpublished sources is a difficult task which the
                  Service has performed well. I had some difficulty with the report's
                  analysis of potential impacts, however, and our general comments on this
                  matter follow. Our specific comments are clearly marked on the attached
                  photocopy of the text.

                      a. Many impacts are referred to which could occur, but the likelihood
                  of their occurrence is not discussed. Certainly, some impacts are more
                  likely to occur than others and this distinction should be sharpened.
                  Also, the significance of the impacts on the intertidal benthic fauna to
                  the region is left unclear. Considering that Wrightsville Beach is only
                  one part of a much,larger regional littoral/estuarine system, it is
                  questionable that even a worst case condition, consisting of total loss of
                  intertidal benthic fauna on the beach, would seriously affect regional
                  populations of birds and fishes. These potential losses, of undetermined
                  significance, must be weighed by the Corps against the real benefits (such
                  as recreation and aesthetics) which would result from the continued
                  maintenance of the project. It is, therefore, very important that the
                  likelihood of occurrence and significance of the impacts be as clearly
                  defined as possible.

                      b. Use of the 1978 report of Reilly and Bellis in determining impacts
                  for the Wrightsville Beach nourishment project should be done very
                  .carefully due to differences in the areas being discussed. At Fort Macon,
                  where the studied nourishment took place, sediments came from a reducing

                                                     79

                    SAWEN-EA                                                    6 January 1982
                    Mr. William C. Hickling                                                           0
                    environment and contained significant amounts of silt and clay. In fact,
                    after nourishment, clay balls were present on the beach for weeks after
                    nourishment. This contrasts very sharply with Wrightsville Beach where
                    nourishment material has been, and will continue to be, principally coarse
                    sand and with very little fine material. Reilly and Bellis theorize that
                    it was nourishment related turbidity which had such a dramatic adverse
                    impact on offshore overwintering Emerita, resulting in no adults appearing
                    on the nourished beach during the normal recruitment period. During the
                    nourishment of @rightsville Beach during the winter of 80/81, there was no
                    turbidity visible in the surf from the ground or air. More significantly,
                    during a field sampling effort conductqd by Corps biologists on 6/18/81,
                    all sizes of Emerita were found ranging from adult to post-megalops larvae,
                    indicating that offshore overwintering adults survived. This contrasts
                    sharply with what Reilly and Bellis found at Fort Macon where early
                    recruitment was entirely lacking in adult Emerita.

                    I hope that these comments, as well as those contained in the attached copy
                    of the draft report, will be given careful consideration during the
                    preparation of the final report. If you have any questions regarding any
                    of these comments, please feel free to contact me.

                                                             Sincerely

                    1 Incl                                   ROBERT K. HUGHES
                    As stated                                Colonel, Corps of Engineers
                                                             District Engineer
                    CF w/Incl:
                    Ms. Mike Gantt
                   Vd.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                    310 New Bern Avenue, Room 468
                    Raleigh, NC 27601

                                                    2

                                                   80

                                                                            WT
                               41                                                     -"@Oo
                                                   R
                                @-Q T t
                                                                      ;1v

                                                                  J.

                          0
                             Ir
                                           0
                                                           Bm
                                     d"

                          .,o               V'6        Cl

                  NE
                                                            WRI@HTSVILLE
                                                            BEACH

                  y
                                               C76j,"5
                        J
                               -CHANN,EL
                               MARKER"14,

                     BOROOVY AREA

                                  @T

                          <OAST UARD.
                             SfATIO

                         0
                                  IN
                                               BORROiIV AREA
                     0

                                        ASONBORO
                                       LET                              PLATE

                                                               WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, N.C.

                                                      SCALE  1,24000
                                              112            0                             1 MILE

                                             APPENDIX F

                                     CONSISTENCY DETERKINATION

        0

                                            CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
                                         CONTINUED FEDERAL PARTICIPATION
                                                       IN THE
                                             WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH SHORE
                                          AND HURRICANE WAVE PROTECTION
                                                      PROJECT
                                        NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

                   Project Description: The current proposal is to continue Federal participa-
                   tion in maintaining the existing shore and hurricane wave protection
                   project. as original authorization provided for only 10 years of Federal
                   involvement after original project construction.

                   The authorized project consists of a dune with a landward toe at or near the
                   town building line, with a crown width of 25 feet at an elevatlion of 15 feet
                   above mean low water (MLW) and a 50-foot-wide berm at an elevation of 12
                   feet above m.l.w.   The project extends 14,000 feet from Masonboro Inlet on
                   the south to the location of the northern town limit existing in 1965.
                   Initial construction included the closure of Moore Inlet, which previously
                   separated Wrightsville Beach from Shell Island to the north, and placement
                   of advance nourishment along 2,700 feet of beach, north of the authorized
                   project limit.

                   As erosion of the existing project is attributable to two sources, natural
                   erosion (53.8%) and erosion caused by the jetties at Masonboro Inlet
                   (46.2%), the costs of maintaiLning the project will be divided accordingly.
                   The Federal Government will bear 100% of the project maintenance costs
                   attributable to erosion induced by the navigation project at Masonboro
                   Inlet, while the project maintenance costs associated with natural erosion
                   will be cost shared with the local pyoject sponsor (Town of Wrightsville
                   Beach) according to terms laid out in the authorizing document (50% Federal.,
                   50% local).

                   Erosion of the authorized project at Wrightsville Beach occurs at a rate of
                   130,000 cubic yards (cu.   yds.) per year.   Nourishment of the project will
                   occur once every two years; therefore, approximately 260,000 cu. yds. of
                   sand @ill. be placed with each nourishment event. In order to avoid dredging
                   and disposal. during periods of high biological and recreational activity,
                   nourishment work will. be performed during the establ.-ished dredging window
                   (October through March).

                   Two borrow areas will. be used   to obtain the nourishment material.      These
                   borrow areas were used previously during the reconstruction of the project
                   which occurred during the winter of 80/81.      One area is located in Banks
                   Channel between Masonboro Inlet and Channel Marker 14.      This site will be
                   dredged to a plane of -30 feet mean low water (MLW) during maintenance
                   events. The other area is located in Masonboro Inlet. The Masonboro Inlet
                   site will only be dredged to a depth of -20 feet MLW in order to avoid
                   impacting submerged cultural resources.     The boundaries of both of these
                   sites can be seen on plate 1.

                                                        F-I

                 Material excavated by the dredge in the borrow areas will be pumped through
                 a submerged pipeline in Banks Channel and, with the aid of a floating
                 booster station, transported to the beach. Short sand dikes will be used on
                 the beach to delay the return of the effluent to the ocean.      This will aid'
                 in the retention of sand and reduce the amount of turbidity introduced into
                 the surf zone.   Bulldozers will be used for spreading and shaping the sand
                 placed on the beach.

                 The proposed continued Federal participation in the "Wrightsville Beach
                 Erosion Cont ro 1 /Hurricane Protection Project, New Hanover County, North
                 Carolina," is consistent with the Coastal Management Program of the State of
                 North Carolina.      The  following information supports      the    consistency
                 determination:

                 A. Areas of environmental concern (AEC's): The proposed dredging will take
                 place in the estuarine system, and the proposed disposal will take place in
                 the ocean hazard system. The following AEC's will be affected:

                 ESTUARINE SYSTEM

                 Estuarine Waters:   The proposed dredging in the estuarine system will
                 maintain navigability of the area and will provide borrow material for the
                 maintenance of the berm and dune at Wrightsville Beach.

                 Public Trust Areas :  The dredging operations will not have any significant
                 adverse effects on the biological and physical functions of the estuary.

                 OCEAN HAZARD SYSTEM

                 Ocean Erodible Area:   The discharge of dredged material will not have any
                 significant adverse effects on ocean beaches, primary dunes, or frontal
                 dunes. The proposed beach disposal will maintain the berm and primary dune
                 at Wrightsville Beach.

                 High Hazard Flood Areas: The maintenance of the berm and primary dune will
                 provide protection for the high hazard flood areas. The restoration of the
                 berm and dune at Wrightsville Beach would be a direct, significant,
                 beneficial effect to the ocean hazard system.

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

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

                     2.  The need for the prolect has been documented in numerous reports.,
                 most recently in the "Environmental Assessment, for the Continued Federal
                 Participation in the Wrightsville 'Beach Pro.ject," dated          April   1982.
                 (a)(2)(A)

                                                    2
                                                   F-2

                       3.  The  project   will have minimal      effects   on   important    natural
                  resources. (a)(2)(B)

                       4.  The project will not violate any applicable water and air quality
                  standards. (a)(2)(C)

                       5.  The project will not cause any major or irreversible damages to
                  documented archeological, scientifi!Z, prehistoric, or historic resources.
                  (a)(2)(D)

                       6. The   dredging   will   cause   a   temporary   increase   in   siltation
                  immediately adjacent to the areas being dredged. (a)(2)(E)

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

                       8. Maintenance of the pro.ject is currently planned to be performed
                  during the dredging window (October through March). (a)(2)(G)

                       9.  The dredging will promote navigation and use of public trust or
                  estuarine waters. (a)(2)(H)

                       10.  The project will be consistent with the standards for the ocean
                  hazard system AEC's defined in 15 NCAC 7H .0300. (a)(2)(0

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

                       12. (b)(2)(A) - N/A

                       13.  The material dredged by pipeline will    be taken from the estuarine
                  system   and will be deposited on Wrightsville Beach (i.e., ocean hazard
                  system)  for the purpose of beach nourishment. (b)(2)(B)

                       14. (b)(2)(C-F) - N/A

                       15.  Dredging will occur in the estuarine system, and disposal will
                  dccur in the ocean hazard system.            Although unconfined disposal is
                  inconsistent with standard (b)(2)(B), it is recognized as a viable disposal
                  alternative for beach restoration.        Specific exclusion from confinement
                  requirements is provided by standard (b)(2)(G), where overall public benefit
                  dictates departure from confined disposal. (b)(2)(G)

                       16. Dredge spoil and effluent from open shellfish waters in the
                  estuarine system shall be deposited on Wrightsville Beach (i.e., ocean
                  hazard system). No impact to shellfish areas is anticipated. (b)(2)(H)

                  With respect to general and specific use standards for ocean hazard system
                  AEC's (15 NCAC 7H .0306):

                                                       3
                                                      F-3

                     I . The proposed disposal is for maintenance of a beach erosion control
                project and, as such, is permitted seaward of the crest of the primary dune.
                (a)

                     2. The    proposed   disposal will reinforce         the primary dune         at
                Wrightsville Beach. (b)

                     3. The proposed disposal involves national and State interests in beach
                erosion control and hurricane flood protection and, as such, will provide
                public economic benefits and assure public access to the beach. (c)(1)

                     4.  The proposed disposal will not aggravate existing hazards or damage
                natural  buffers. (c)(2)

                     5.  The proposed disposal will prevent erosion related damage. (c)(3)

                     6.  Since Wrightsville Beach's ocean hazard system has been developed to
                its potential, the discharge of dredged material for beach restoration will
                not promote any further development. (c)(4)

                     7.  Disposal will not cause major or irreversible damage to valuable
                documented historic, architectural, or archeological resources. (d)

                     8. 15 NCAC 7H .0306 (e): Not applicable. (e)

                     9. 15 NCAC 7H .0306 (f): Not applicable. (f)

                     10.  The disposal is consistent with the general management objective
                for ocean hazard areas set forth in 15 NCAC 7H .0303. (g)

                     11.  The terms of local cooperation are documented in House Document
                511,  87th Congress, 2nd Session, dated 22 March 1962, "Interim Hurricane
                Survey of Wrightsville Beach, N.C.," authorized by PL 71, 84th Congress,
                approved 15 June 1955. One of those terms is as follows:

                          Ila. Assure continued public ownership of the shore upon which
                          the amount of Federal participation in the beach-protection
                          phase is based, and its administration for public use during
                          the economic life of the project."

                Therefore, legal access to and use of public resources is assured throughout
                the life of the project. (h)

                     12. The proposed disposal incorporates all reasonable means and methods
                to minimize adverse impacts. (i)(1-3)

                With respect to general and specific use standards for ocean hazard system
                (15 NCAC 7H .0308):

                                                                  "IOWA*

                                                     4

                                                    F-4

                          I .  The proposed disposal will not have      'any significant adverse impacts
                      on 'wildlife habitats., as set forth in Rule .0306 W (15 NCAC 7H .0306) of
                      this determination. (a)(1)

                          2.   The proposed disposal is timed to have minimum significant adverse
                      effects on biological activity. (a)(2)

                          3.   15 NCAC 7H .0308 (a)(3): Not applicable. (a)(3)

                          4.   The proposed maintenance is designed for erosion control and
                      hurricane wave protection. (a)(4)

                          5.   Beach maintenance is the most effective erosion control measure for
                      the site. (a)(5)

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

                          7.   15 NCAC 7H      .0308    (a)(7): The proposed beach maintenance at
                      Wrightsville Beach is    excluded from this specific use standard.         (a)(7)

                          8. The proposed disposal will maintain the dune                    and   berm     at
                      Wrightsville Beach at    its current alignment and configuration. (b)(1)

                          9.   15 NCAC 7H       .0308 (b)(2):     The proposed beach maintenance at
                      Wrightsville Beach is    excluded from this specific use standard. (b)(2)

                          10. The proposed     disposal will be accomplished in such a manner as to
                      limit adverse impacts to existing vegetation.              Dune vegetation will be
                      replanted as necessary. (b)(3)

                          11. The proposed "borrow" material will be excavated from the estuarine
                      system (see attached map) and is of the same nature as the sand in the
                      disposal area. (b)(4)

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

                          13.   15 NCAC 7H .0308 (c)(1-3): Not applicable. (c)(1-3)

                          14.   15 NCAC 7H .0308 (d)(1-10): Not applicable. (d)(1-10)

                      B. Land   Use Plans:    The project is located entirely in New Hanover County.
                      Wrightsville Beach land classification maps indicate that the dredging and
                      disposal    portions    of   the    project   are    in   an   area    designated     as
                      Isconservation."    The conservation class identifies lands that are fragile,
                      present hazards to development, or are necessary to maintain a balanced
                      environment.     Existing Wrightsville Beach land use maps indicate that the
                      disposal portion of the project is in an area designated as "barren," and
                      that the dredging portion of the project is in an area designated as
                      Ilwater."   Such areas will be maintained basically in their natural state.

                                                             5

                                                            F-5

               Impacts on the conservation, barren, and water areas are expected to be
               minimal.

               C. State Guidelines:

                   1. For AEC's: See paragraph A.

                   2. For Land Use Plan: See paragraph B.

                   3.    General Policy (15 NCAC 7M) Section .0202 - Shoreline Erosion
               Policies:

                         (a) No    losses   to   North   Carolina's    natural   heritage    are
               anticipated. (a)

                         (b) The proposed action at Wrightsville Beach will maintain the
               existing project    at   its congressionally authorized dimensions.           The
               maintenance will be conducted in a manner designed to minimize impacts on
               the estuary, the barrier island, and the nearshore zone, while still
               providiftg erosion control and hurricane flood protection. (b)

                         (c) 15 NCAC 7M .0202 (c): Not applicable. (c)

                         (d) The continued maintenance of the Wrightsville Beach, N.C.,
               project   has been coordinated with the appropriate planning agencies,
               affected  governments, and the interested public. (d)

                         (e) 15 NCAC 7M .0202 (e): Not applicable. (e)

                   4.    General Policy (15 NCAC 7M) Section .0303 - Shorefront Access
               Policies:

                          a. 15 NCAC 7M .0303 (a, b, CJ% d, e, and h): The public will have
               adequate access to public trust resources, the ocean, sounds, rivers, and
               tributaries.    The proposed beach maintenance will enhance public use of
               Wrightsville Beach.     The proposed disposal will not interfere with the
               public's right of access to the shorefront (see paragraph 11 under 15 NCAC
               7H .0306 of this determination) since public access is required as part of
               the terms of local cooperation for the project.

                         b. 15 NCAC 7M .0303 (f): Not applicable. M

                         c. The proposed disposal is designed to maintain the dune and berm
               at Wrightsville Beach at its authorized dimensions. (g)

               D.  Other State Policies:    Review of the State policies found in chapter 3
               of the Coastal Management Program document indicates that the project is in
               accordance with policies on navigation, water and air, recreational and
               tourism resources, Federal consistency and national interest.

                                                   6
                                                   F-6

                   The major policies and laws of the State that were specifically reviewed
                   were the following:

                       1. The Coastal Area Management Act of 1974.

                       2. The Dredge and Fill Law (See paragraphs   A-C of this determination.)

                   The proposed method of unconfined pipeline disposal does not conform to the
                   requirement for confined disposal as stated in the Dredge and Fill Law.
                   However, if the maintenance of Wrightsville Beach is to be accomplished, no
                   other viable alternatives are practicable.     (See paragraph A.13 under 15
                   NCAC 7H .0208 of this determination.)

                       3. The N. C. Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.

                   With respect to control of sedimentation and erosion, the proposed project
                   is designed to promote sedimentation and reduce erosion.   It was determined
                   that, due to the current persistent erosion of the beach, the proposed beach
                   maintenance would aid in erosion control.

                       4. Water quality regulations. A Section 401 Water Quality Certificate
                   has been requested concurrent with this consistency determination.

                   The proposed maintenance of the Wrightsville Beach, N.C., project (New
                   Hanover County, North Carolina) is consistent with the Coastal Management
                   Program of the State of North Carolina.

                                                     ROBERT K. HUGHES
                                                     Colonel, Corps of Engineers
                                                     District Engineer

                   I Incl:
                   Map
                   DATE:
                                   d

                                                     7
                                                    F-7

                            I

                                                APPENDIX G

                              SECTION 404(b) (PL 95-217) EVALUATION REPORT

       0

                                    SECTION 404(b) (PL 95-217) EVALUATION REPORT
                                           CONTINUED FEDERAL PARTICIPATION
                                                         IN THE
                                                WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH SHORE
                                            AND HURRICANE WAVE PROTECTION
                                                       PROJECT
                                          NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

                    I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

                        a. Location. Wrightsville Beach, New Hanover County, North Carolina.

                        b. General Description.

                    The authorized project consists of a dune with a landward toe at or near the
                    town building line, with a crown width of 25 feet at an elevation of 15 feet
                    above mean low water (MLW) and a 50-foot-wide berm at an elevation of 12
                    feet above MLW. The project extends 14,000 feet from Masonboro Inlet on the
                    south to the location of the northern town limit existing in 1965.       initial
                    construction included the closure of Moore Inlet, which previously separated
                    Wrightsville Beach from Shell Island to the north, and placement of advance
                    nourishment al.ong 2,700 feet of beach north of the authorized project
                    I imit.

                    The current proposal. -is to continue Federal participation in maLntaining
                    this project, as original authorization provided for only 10 years of
                    Federal *involvement after original project construction.

                    As erosion of the existing project is attributable to two sources, natural
                    erosion (53.8%) and erosion caused by the jetties at Masonboro Inlet
                    (46.2%), the costs of maintaining the project will be divided accordingly.
                    The Federal. Government will bear 100% of the project maintenance costs
                    attributable to erosion     induced by the navigation project at Masonboro
                    Inlet, while the project    maintenance costs associated with natural erosion
                    will -be cost shared with the local project sponsor (Town of Wrightsville
                    Beach) according to terms   laid out in the authorizing document (50% Federal,
                    50% local).

                    Erosion of the shore and    hurricane wave protection project at Wrightsville
                    Beach occurs at a rate of   130,000 cubic yards (cu. yds.) per year. Nourish-
                    ment of the project will occur once every two years; therefore, approximate-
                    ly 260,000 cu. yds. of sand wilt be placed with each nourishment event.        In
                    order to avoid dredging and disposal. during periods    of high biological and
                    recreati.onal activity, nourishment work will be performed during the
                    established dredging window (October through March).

                    Two borrow areas will. be used to obtain the nourishment material.          These
                    borrow areas were used previously during the reconstruction of the project
                    which occurred during the winter of 80/81.       One area is located in Banks
                    Channel between Masonboro Inlet and Channel Marker t4.       This site will be

                                                          G-1

               dredged to a plane of -30 feet mean low water (MLW) during maintenance
               events. The other area is located in Masonboro inlet. The Masonboro Inlet
               site will only be dredged to a depth of -20 feet MLW in order to avoid
               impacting submerged cultural resources.      The boundaries of both of these
               sites can be seen on plate 1.

               Material excavated by the dredge in the borrow areas will be pumped through
               a submerged pipeline in Banks Channel and, with the aid of a floating
               booster station, transported to the beach. Short sand dikes will be used on
               the beach to delay the return of the effluent to the ocean.      This will aid
               in the retention of sand and reduce the amount of turbidity introduced into
               the surf zone.   Bulldozers will be used for spreading and shaping the sand
               placed on the beach.

                   c. Authority and Purpose.

               Authorization of the existing Wrightsville Beach, NC, project was provided
               by Public Law 84-874, 87th Congress, H. R. 13273 23 October 1962 (House
               Document 511, 87th Congress, 2nd session).

               The authority for this study is contained in a resolution of the Committee
               on Public Works of the U.S. House of Representatives, dated 2 December 1970.
               The resolution was initiated by Congressman Alton Lennon, and requested the
               Secretary of the Army to direct the Office of the Chief of Engineers to make
               a survey of "Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, and adjacent beaches in the
               interest of beach erosion control, hurricane protection and related
               purposes, including oceanic and lagoonal shores and interconnected tidal
               channels."                                             I

                   d. General Description of Dredged or Fill Material.

                        (1) General Characteristics of Material:         The material to be
               discharged is predominantly sand, with minor amounts of shell fragments and
               silt and/or clay.

                        (2) Quantity of Material:     Approximately 260,000 cubic yards of
               material will be discharged during each maintenance event.

                        (3) Source of Material:    The material proposed for discharge is
               naturally occurring sands which have been deposited in Banks Channel and
               Masonboro Inlet.

                   e. Description of the Proposed Discharge Site.

                        (1) Location:   The location of the discharge site is shown on
               figure 1.

                        (2) Size:   The discharge area extends northward from Masonboro
               Inlet 16,700 feet (14,000 feet project length,,;@,,700 feet transition).

                                                   2
                                                  G-2

                             (3) Type of Site: The discharge will be on the beach at
                     Wrightsville Beach, NC.

                             (4) Type of Habitat:   Beachfront and nearshore ocean habitat will
                     be affected.

                             (5)   Timing and Duration of Discharge: Discharge will occur
                     approximately once every two years for the project life.     The discharges
                     will occur between I October and 31 March.

                         f. Description of Disposal Method. Sand will be pumped from the borrow
                     sites and discharged onto the beach by a pipeline dredge. Short sand dikes
                     will be used on the beach to delay the return of the effluent to the ocean.
                     Bulldozers will be used for spreading and shaping the sand placed on the
                     beach.

                     II. FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS

                         a. Physical Substrate Determinations.

                             (1) Substrate Elevation and Slope:   All of the discharged material
                     will be placed on the beach and will decrease the bathymetry of the area.

                             (2) Sediment Type: Material placed on the beach will be similar to
                     that which is covered.

                             (3) Dredged/Fill Material Movement: Material placed on the beach
                     will be subject to normal wave action and will undergo substantial movement.

                             (4) Physical Effects on Benthos:   Benthic populations on the beach
                     will be disrupted by the discharge. Populations should reestablish quickly
                     as the new substrate will be similar in nature to that which existed prior
                     to the discharge.

                             (5) Other Effects: Not applicable.

                             (6)  Actions Taken to Minimize impacts: None.

                         b. Water Circulation, Fluctuation, and Salinity Determinations.

                             (1) Water:

                                  (a) Salinity. No effect.

                                  (b) Water chemistry. No effect.

                                  (c) Clarity.    Some turbidity may result from deposition of
                     sand; however, due to the coarseness of the material, this effect is
                     expected to be limited.

                                                        3
                                                        G-3

                            (d) Color. No effect.

                            (e)  Odor. Not applicable.

                            (f)  Taste. Not applicable.

                            (g)  Dissolved Gas Levels. Not applicable.

                            (h)  Nutrients. No effect.

                            (i)  Eutrophication, No effect.

                            (j)  Others as Appropriate. Not applicable.

                       (2)  Current Patterns and Circulation:

                            (a) Current Patterns and Flow. No effect.

                            (b) Velocity. No effect.

                            (c) Stratification. No effect.

                            (d) Hydrologic Regime. No effect.

                       (3)  Normal Water Level Fluctuations: No effect.

                       (4)  Salinity Gradients: No effect.

                       (5)  Actions That Will Be Taken to Minimize Impacts: None.

                   C. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations.

                       (1) Expected Changes in Suspended Particulates and Turbidity Levels
               in Vicinity of Disposal Site:    Little turbidity should be associated with
               project maintenance as the disposal material will be principally coarse sand
               taken from Masonboro Inlet and Banks Channel.    Previous nourishment events
               using materials from this location have not produced significant turbidity
               levels.

                       (2) Effects on Chemical and Physical Properties of the Water
               Column:

                            (a)  Light penetration.  Reduction in light penetration should
               be slight as turbidity levels are expected to be low.

                            (b) Dissolved Oxygen. No significant effect.

                            (c) Toxic Metals and Organics. Not applicable.

                            (d) Pathogens. Not applicable.

                                                  4
                                                 G-4

                                 (e)  Esthetics.    Turbidity will not be of sufficient magnitude
                   to detract from the esthetics of the area.

                                 (f) Other. Not applilcable.

                            (3)  Effects on Biota:

                                 (a)   Primary production, photosynthesis.        Effects should be
                   slight, as turbidity levels will be low.

                                 (b) Suspension/filter feeders.         Deposition of sands will
                   disturb sedentary organisms occurring in the disposal site.            Effects of
                   turbidity are expected to be slight.

                                 (c)   Sight. feeders.   Turbidity is not expected to be serious
                   enough to significantly affect sight feeding,.organisms.

                            (4) Act  io"ns Taken-to Minimize impacts:     Short sand dikes will be
                  .used to  delay the return of effluent't6 the surf zone.

                       d.   Contaminant Determinations.    Due to the coarseness of the material
                   to be   disposed and the fact that it is from noncontaminated sources,
                   deposition will not introduce, relocate, or increase contaminants.

                       e. Aquatic Ecosystem and Organism Determinations.

                            (1)  Effects on Plankton:     Effects -should be slight, as turbidity
                   levels will be low.

                            (2)  Effects on Benthos:      Benthic communities within the project
                   area will be disrupted with each nourishment event.        Due to the similarity
                   of the fill material to that already occurring on the beach, reestablishment
                   of stable benthic communities should occur rapidly after each nourishment
                   event.

                            (3)  Eff ects on Nekton:    No significant adverse impacts on nekton
                   are anticipated, as losses of,b.enthic organisms will be temporary.

                            (4)  Effects on Aquatic Food Web:     Temporary disturbance of benthic
                   communities   will disrupt energy flow from lower to higher trophic levels.
                   This impact   will be limited in scope and duration, and is not considered
                   significant.

                            (5)  Effects on Special Aquatic Sites:

                                 (a) Sanctuaries and refuges. Not applicable.

                                 (b) Wetlands.     No wetlands will be affected by the proposed
                   discharge.

                                                         5
                                                         G-5

                             (c) Mud flats.    Not applicable.

                             (d) Vegetated shallows. Not applicable.

                             (e) Coral reefs. Not applicable.

                             (f) Riffle and pool communities. Not applicable.

                        (6) Threatened and Endangered Species: A "no effect" determination
               has been reached through the biological assessment process.

                        (7) Other Wildlife:       Wildlife   of   the  beachfront   should    be
               unaffected.

                        (8) Actions to Minimize impacts: None.

                   f. Proposed Disposal Site Determination.

                        (1) Mixing Zone Determination: The mixing zone will be minimal due
               to the coarse and uncontaminated nature of the material to be deposited.

                        (2) Determination of Compliance with Applicable Water Quality
               Standards:   A Section 401 Water Quality Certificate has been applied for
               from the State of North Carolina.

                        (3) Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics:

                             (a)  municipal and private water supply. No effect.

                             (b)  Recreational and commercial fisheries.     Fishing should be
               unaffected by the  project due to the minor affects on natural resources and
               the timing of the  disposal activities.

                             (c)  Water related recreation.     Recreation should be enhanced
               by the project,    as the existing heavily used beach will be kept from
               eroding.   Since disposal will be performed during the off-season (October
               through March), direct impacts on beach goers Will be limited.

                             (d) Esthetics. By maintaining the existing beach profile, the
               high quality esthetics of the beach will be retained.

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

                   g.   Determination of Cumulative Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem.        The
               project should not contribute to any adverse cumulative impacts, as it is
               relatively isolated from other areas where beach construction activity        has
               occurred or will occur.         Biennial disruv$49n of beach invertebrate
               macrofauna is not expected to have any significant long-term effects.

                                                   6
                                                  G-6

                      h. Determination of Secondary Effects on the Aquatic Ecosxt@@-     No
                  secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem are anticipated.

                                                   G77

                                            FINDING OF COMPLIANCE
                                                      FOR
                                       CONTINUED FEDERAL PARTICIPATION
                                                     IN THE
                                           WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH SHORE
                                        AND HURRICANE WAVE PROTECTION
                                                    PROJECT
                                      NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

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

               2. All alternatives, except flood proofing and no action, would require the
               placement of fill material.      Of all the alternatives considered, only the
               proposed continued Federal part ic lipat ion in the project Is economically
               feasible and environmentally acceptable; therefore, there is no practicable
               alternative to the proposed discharges which would have less adverse effect
               on the aquatic ecosystem.

               3.  A Section 401 Water Quality Certificate has been requested from the
               State of North Carolina.      Project construction will not violate the Toxic
               Effluent Standards of Section 307 of the Clean Water Act.

               4. Continued maintenance of the existing project 'will not harm any
               endangered specles or their critical habitat or violate the protective
               measures for any marine sanctuaries.

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

               6. Appropriate steps to minimize potential adverse impacts       of the discharge
               on aquatic systems include timing the nourishment actions to occur during
               periods of low biological activity and using short sand dikes on the beach
               to maximize retention of effluent.

               7.  On the basis of this analysis, the proposed fill si.te is specified as
               complying with the requirements of the guidelines.
                                                  O'L //
                                                     ROBERT K. HUGHES
                                                     Colonel, Corps of Engineers
                                                     District Engineer

               DATE: 4 Octob,., i 9A?

                                                      G-8

        0

                                                     APPENDIX H

                                              PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE

       0

        1,

                                                        APPENDIX H

                                                PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE

                                                    Table of Contents

                                                                                           Paae No.

                     Letter dated 24 August 1982 from United States Coast Guard              H-1
                     Letter dated 1 September 1982 from United States Department             H-2
                       of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
                     Letter from Planning Department, New Hanover County, dated              H-4
                       3 September 1982
                     Letter from North Carolina Department of Administration,                H-5
                       dated 20 September 1982
                     Letter from Town of Wrightsville Beach, dated 27 September 1982         H-8
                     Letter from United States Environmental Protection Agency,              H-9
                       dated 28 September 1982

                     Letter dated 11 May 1982 from United States Department of Commerce,
                       National Marine.Fishe,ries Service                                    H-10

                     Letter dated 7 May 1982 from United States Department of the
                       Interior, Fish,and Wildlife Service                                   H-11

                     Letter dated 29 October 1970 from Town of Wrightsville Beach            H-12
                                                   I
                     Resolution by Town of Wrightsville Beach, dated 10 February 1983        H-14

                                                           H-i

                     U.S. Department                                Commander                   Federal Building
                                                                    Fifth Coast Guard District  431 Crawford Street
                     of Transportation                                                          Portsmouth, VA 237Q5
                                                                                                Staff Symbol: ( dp I )
                     United States                                                              Phone:(804) 398-6270
                     Coast Guard

                                                                                               16000
                                                                                               Ser 2135
                                                                                                2 4 AUG 1982
                     From: Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District
                     To:     Department of the Army, Wilmington District, Corps of             Engineers, P.O. Box
                             1890, Wilmington, North Carolina 28400 (Attn: SAWPD-EA)

                     Subj:  'Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment on Hurricane
                             Protection and Beach Erosion Control at Wrightsville Beach, North
                              Carolina

                     1. The Fifth Coast Guard District offers no comments concerning the subject DEIS.

                                                                    H.  A. T WN
                                                                    By  dire ti@r
                                          's

                                                                   ?H.'A.-4TAWNE
                                                                             c

             ,VAT 0
                         United States Department of the Interior.
                                     FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
                                    Division of Ecological Services
                                     310 New Bern Ave. Room 466
                                   Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1470

                                                                               September 1, 1982

                 Colonel Robert Hughes
                 District Engineer
                 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                 P.O. Box 1890
                 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402

                 Dear Colonel Hughes:

                 In response to your letter of Aug'ust 19, 1982, the Service has reviewed
                 the Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment prepared for
                 the Hurricane Protection and Beach Ero'sion-Control Project at Wrightsville
                 Beach, New Hanover County, North Carolina (SAWPD-EA), and we offer.the
                 following comments for your consideration. This is the report of the
                 Service and the Department of the Interior and is submitted in accordance
                 with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401,
                 as amended; 16 U.S.C., 661 et seq.).

                 Generally, we believe the report is  adequate with the exception of
                 specific..-concerns addressed herein. The Service participated fully  in
                 the planning process for this project, and we provided comments and
                 recommendations during that period. We are pleased that the Corps has
                 utilized, and will apparently continue to utilize, borrow sites which we
                 identified as having relatively low population densities of benthi,c
                 organisms. -Since it appears that beach nourishment and sand bypassing
                 will occur every two years, we recommend that project maintenance be in
                 accordance with Service recommendations contained in our Final Fish and
                 Wildlife Coordination Act Report.of March 2,'1982.

                 Although we generally concur with your  assessment of anticipated project
                 impacts, we do not believe that the impacts of periodic placement of
                 sand in the littoral zone of the ocean beach are known. These impacts
                 range in magnitude from minor short-term losses of near shore fauna to
                 prolonged reductions in the population size of these species. Since any
                 major long-term reduction in near shore populations could adversely
                 affect local recreational and commercial fisheries, we continue to
                 recommend that the effects of periodic disposal of dredged materials in
                 the ocean littoral zone be studied further.

                 Specific Comments.

                 Page 23,Iparagraph 1: Clarification is needed to explain why the
                 preservation of Shell Island cannot be linked,,to the selected

                                                H-2

                    alternative   We assume that Corps regulations prohibit the expansion of
                    project's 'boundaries when non-structural features-are involved; however,
                    this is not clear in the draft report.

                    We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this report.

                                                        Sincerely yours,

                                                        L. K. (Mike) Gantt
                                                        Field Supervisor

                                                       H -@3

                                                                                                 VEJ?
                                     PLANNING DEPARTMENT
           DEXTER L. HAYES                NEW HANOVER COUNTY
           PLANNING DIRECTOR
                                              320 CHESTNUT STREET
                                        WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401                        QRTY@

              September 3, 1982

              Col. Robert Hughes
              Corps of Engineers
              P. 0. Box 1890
              Wilmington, NC 28402

                   RE: SAWPD-EA

              Dear Col. Hughes:

                   Our Planning  staff has reviewed the draft   Feasibility Report and Environ-
              mental Assessment  and would offer the following comments.

                   Impacts to the environment should be minor    and of short duration.    When
              combined with the maintenance objective of Masonboro Inlet this dual approach
              of dredging and beach nourishmentseems quite acceptabl,e.

                   In regard to the Feasibility Report several questions arise concerning
              the cost benefit analysis. Potential loss to land and structures includes
              damages to private property. Direct benefits to these properties are actually
              private rather than public. Since these individual land owners represent the
              greatest amount of benefit in any public expenditure, a more equitable compari-
              son might be the potential annual tax value of the property. Certainly, that:
              loss would have a broader impact on the community.

                   Continued funding of beach nourishment projects     should be a burden of those
              who utilize the beaches. This could be accomplished      through special district
              taxes or certain excise taxes.

                   Maximum setback requirements should be a condition of further funding.
              Adequate setbacks can take advantage of the natural shoreline and large primary
              dunes that act as barriers and offer protection for inland development.

                   Is the proposed plan consistent with the Department of Interior and FEMA's
              classification of Shell Island-as "Undeveloped?"

                   We hope these comments are useful and we appreciate the opportunity to
              review the report.

                                                       SincerelywyMrs,

                                                       Dexter Hayes
                                                       Planning Director
              cc Mr. G. Felix Cooper,    County Manager     H4

              nH/nlt

                                                         North Carolina
                                         D        rtment of Administ tion
                                            epa            -                 nist
                                                          116 West Jones Street    Raleigh 27611

               James B. Hunt, Jr. Governor                                    Margaret C. Riddle
               Jane Smith Patterson, Secretary                                Coordinator
                                                                              Office of Policy and.Planning
                                                                              (919) 7334131

                         September 20, 1982

                         Mr. Robert K. Hughes
                         Colon6l, Corps of Engineers
                         Department of the Army
                         Wilmington.District Office
                         P.O. Box 1890
                         Wilmington, North Carolina 28402

                         Dear Mr. Hughes:

                         RE: SCH File #83-  E-0000-5039; Feasbility Report and Environmental
                              Assessment for Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control
                              at Wrightsville Beach, N.C.

                         The State Clearinghouse has received and reviewed the above
                         referenced project. As a result of this review, the State
                         Clearinghouse has received the attached comments from the
                         North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
                         Development.

                         Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced
                         document.

                         Sincerely,

                         Chrys Baggett (Mrs.)
                         Clearinghouse Director

                         CB/njh

                         Attachment(s)

                         cc: Region (0)
                                                                                              7

                                                                                   ra

                                                        H-5

                                                                                                                NATURAL RESOURCES
                              North Carolina Department of Natural                                        PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
                                                                                                         t      Telephone 919 733-6376
                              Resources &Community Developmen                                                           Anne Taylor
                                                                                                            Deputy Assistant Secretary
                              James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor                 Joseph W. Grims1ey, Secretary        Telephone 9 19 733-4984

                                                                                                  r
                                                                                                     @F

                MEMORANDUM                                                                        St--p
                                                                                                               %z
                                                                                                      19812      A

                To:               Chrys Baggett
                                  State Clearinghouse

                From:             Melba Strickland
                                  Environmental Assessment Section

                Re:               83-5039 - Feasibility Report & Environmental                  Assessment on
                                                Hurricane FrGtection & Beach Erosion Control Project
                                  Wrightsville Beach

                Date:             September 17, 1982

                The DepartnIent of Natural Resources & Community Development has reviewed
                the subject proposal and has the following comments from the Office of
                Coastal Management to offer at this time. All other reviewing divisions
                had no comment.

                Plan Nunber Five         5) has been the chosen alternative for continued main-
                tenance of the beach renourishment project.                    The same borrow areas are
                proposed including that area south of Marker #14 in banks channel and the
                inlet wier collection reservoir. The Office                    of Coastal Management's
                major agency concerns aren't centered on the                   continued use of these borrow
                arpas which are highly disturbed deep water,                   sar)dy bott(n sites,       but the
                timing of the                                                                        ery
                                  _Llredging activities.. As stated before.. it is v                      important
                .in order to protect juve= shrimp and fin fish populations that no excava-
                tion or filling occur between April 1 and September 30 of any given year.
                The Office of Coastal Management would recommend that the winter months be-
                come considered for such operations to lessen impacts to.ocean surf feeding
                fish as well.

                The Wrightsville Beach Land Use Plwi heavily concentrates its biggesL pro-
                blem as finding funds to continue the maintenance of the renourishment pro-
                ject. It states -... "That thE@ preferred alteniative for erosion control be
                renourishment, supplemented by land use controls, access planriing and vege-
                tation main tenance ". It is hoped that the Corps' recommendation would also
                include a note that explains the specific land use and flood proofing recom-
                mendations'described in Plans #2 and #4 to be MMemented as much as feasible.
                Even though the benefit-to-cost.ratios were found to be not favorqhle for
                these two plans, it should.be recogpized that emergency phases of future
                maintenance north of the defined project limits (Shell Island) are inevitable
                and that the town should acquire public beach access easemenLs along these
                private streets. The final Corps' reccrImendation should be emphatically clear
                about Federal participation contingent Lipon provision of beach access through
                the existing Shell lsland private development.
                                                                  K-r6

                 Page 2

                 The rest of the Plan #5 appears to be 6onsistent with the Land Use Plan
                 and CAMA guidelines.

                 Thank you for the opportunity to review. If questions arise,.please no-tify
                 me at 733-6376.

                 MS:lp

                                                                               E   BEACH
                                    T 0 V       0 F WRIGHTSVILL

                                    TOWN HALL 400 WAYNICK BOULEVARD              P. 0. BOX 626
                                    WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH. N. C@- 28480

                                           September 27, 198,2

           Col. Robert  Hughes
           Department of Army
           Corps of Engineers
           P. 0. Box 1890
           Wilmington, North  Carolina 28402

           Dear Col. Hughes:

                   We are in  receipt of and have reviewed the draft Feasibility Report and
           Environmental Assessment Document.   While we are perhaps disappointed in the
           benefit-to-cost ratios developed in. preliminary plans IA, 1B, 2., 3, 3A and 4,
           the findings were not totally unexpected.

                   It is the position of the Town that the  conclusions drawn and the
           recommendations made are in order and should be   supported by the Town.  We
           further totally agree that there is no necessity for an EIS and the Finding of
           No Significant Impact statement should be signed.

                   Please advise if we may  be of further assistance.

                                             Sincerely yours,

                                          Eugene N. Floyd, Ma r
                                        TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH

                                                  H-8

    ~0

                                                                                                                                                                                 ~1~1~A      ~l~t~-      ~4.

                                                                                                                                                                                 ~O~p                                 ~z~n

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~p~t
                                                                                                                                                                                          Ohl~"  ~(~"~i      -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ~J~q@~O           ~*      ~,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ~I~U
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          NJ
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ~0 ~t~q                   ~T~r
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                4~A
                                                                                    ,I              lit                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ~!~V
                                            ~J~9~4~                                                                                                                                                                                 MAT                                                            ~4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~o~qq                                                                                                                                           ~'~j~
                                                                                                                                                                                                         ~4~4~1        ~J~~~i                                                ~1~0~~~4
                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~c~d
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ~1~4

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~4~1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ~I~p~.    ~S,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ~@~v
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              J
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ~0
                                                                                        ~I~j                                                                                       ~h~1~~i~t    ~IN            ~J~,~@~qj
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~1    ~q3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~r~o                                                                                                                                                                  ~I~N
                                               Toil,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ~F~1 ~d

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~~t~I~V ~4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ~Y~A     ,,A,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ~C~o
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ~W~-~1                                                                                          ~JA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ulm            IN

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~0~:~5
                                                                                                                                 o~qw                                                                                                                                                      ~J~,~.~,~,  ~      ~"~.~4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ~0~q0     111
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~'~0~4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ~4~4~g                     ~1~0     ~1~4~,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ~X~"~O    ~@~'~,~Q
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          '~qTI
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ~O~L~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ~a~o
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    It A~J~.~1p~ ~l~~~l~l
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~I~m
                                                                                                               I,                                                                                                                                                       ~ ~:~@                            ~" ~"         ~qZ
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ~1~2p~      -~1~
                                                                                                                                                                                                         is
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ~q4~4~.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ~t-~,                                                                                                 ~qT~qj     ~.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ILI                                                          ~I~q                    ~4~0           ~0~1~                        ~8q0~.~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ~g~r~,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~x                                                                               ~i~t
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ~q4~4
                                                                                                                                                                                          IV             ~V~;~q,~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ~J~k

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~qQ~s
                                                                                                                                                  ~0 ~I~q~@~'                                                     ~4      ~j~                                                   ~N~p
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ~qV~p
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~4~A   ~qW ~                                               ~1~1~4   1                                  ~I~d       ~N~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ~t~@~4

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~4~4  ~$~P,  ~"~'         Ph
                                                                                                                                        ~e~qn                                                                                                                       4~~6                                                                            ~qQ
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~qP~~         ~@~qj~o
                                                                                                                                                                                 ~4~V
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~e~~i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ~'All
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ~r~.~5
                                                                                                                                                  ~T~0~1                                     ~~4~, ~z                                                                                                                                         ~4~v       "I
                                                                                                                                                                                 ~u~n
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ~qV        ~qZ~q"                    ~1~

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Ito
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        I~:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ~P-~I  I-',
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~r~4
                                  ~~

                                                01

                                                         LIPJITED STATES DEPARTMEPJT OF COMMERCE
                                                         National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                                                         NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
                                                         Southeast Recion
                                                                      0
                                                         9450 Koger Boulevard
                                                         St. Petersburg, FL 33702

                                                         ?-lay 11, 1982           F/SER64:A@l

                  Colonel Robert K. Hughes
                  District Engineer, Wilmington District
                  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                  P. 0. Box 1890
                  Wilmington, NC 28402

                  Dear Colonel Hughes:

                       This responds to your April 30, 1982, letter regarding the multi-
                  objective planning study of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, and
                  Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).

                       We agree that the Corps' January 1980 biological assessment would
                  'also apply to the subject planning effort. Accordingly, our
                  @Tarch 3, 1980, letter on this project continues to apply (i.e., we
                  concur with your determination that endangered/threatened species under
                  our purview would not be affected).

                       This concludes consultation responsibilities under Section 7 of the
                  ESA. However, consultation should be reinitiated if new information
                  reveals impacts of the identified activity that may affect listed species
                  or their critical habitat, a new species is listed, the identified
                  activity is subsequently modified or critical habitat determined that
                  may be affected by the proposed activity.

                                                         Sincerely yours,

                                                         Charles A. Oravetz
                                                         Chief, @larine @tammals and Endangered
                                                           Species Branch

                  cc:
                  FWS, Asheville, NC

                                                      H-10     WOO

                             Unite(i States Department of tile Interior
                                                              SERVICE
                                         FISH AND WILI)LIFE
                                           PLATEAU BUILDING, ROOM A-5
                                         50 SOUTH F-ItENCH BROAD AVFNUE
                                        ASHEIVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801
                                                   May 7, 1982

                 Lieutenant Colonel A. A. Kopcsak
                 Actina District Engineer
                 U.S. @,rmy Corps of Engineers
                 P.O. Box 1890
                 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402

                 Re: 4-2-82-287

                 Dear Colonel Kopcsak:

                 Ve agree to accept your earlier biological assessment (4-2-79-A-285)
                 regarding pelican, manatee, and loggerhead turtle for the proposed 40-year
                 erosion control 'and h.urricane protection work at Wrightsville Beach in New
                 Hanover County, North Carolina, submitted April 22, 1982.

                 The bioloqical assessment is adequate and supports the conclusion of no
                 effect with which we concur. In view of this, we believe that the
                 requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied.
                 However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if (1)
                 new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
                 listed species or Critical Habitat in a manner not previously considered,
                 (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner which was not
                 considered in this bioloqical assessment (i.e. summer work), or (3) a new
                 species is listed or Critical Habitat determined that may be affected by the
                 identified action.

                 Your interest and initiative in enhancing Endangered and Threatened species
                 is appreciated.

                                                        Sincerely yours,

                                                        William  C. Hickling
                                                        Area Manager

                 cc:
                 Mr. Stuart Critcher, NC Wildlife Res. Commission, Raleigh, NC
                 Director, NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC
                 Director, FWS, Washington, DC (AFA/OES)
                 Regional Director, FW@, Atlanta, GA (ARD-FA/SE)
                 Field Supervisor, ES, FWS, Raleigh, NC

                                                     H-11

                                     TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
                    N. C.
                                     TOWN HALL 400 WAYNICK 13OULEVARD            P. 0. BOX 626
                                     WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, N. C. 28480

                                                               October 29, 1970

                The Honorable Alton A. Lennon,, M. C.
                Rayburn House Office Building
                Washington,, D. C.  20001

                Dear Congressman Lennon:

                                      I am authorized by the Board of Aldermen to request
                that you initiate the inclusion into the necessary authorization and ap-
                propriation acts of the Congress the following studies. It is our feel-
                ing that an early Accomplishment of these studies is necessary and vital
                to us here.

                           1.  A study to supplement and continue investigation of the
                               shore erosion and beach process on the ocean shore at
                               Wrightsville'Beach between Mason's Inlet and Masonboro
                               Inlet. This would expand current program and projects
                               to include all of the continuous shores between these
                               inlets and should result in renewal of the present
                               erosion and hurricane protection project at its presently
                               scheduled termination.

                               A separate study to investigate the present erosion of
                               the shores of Banks Channel, Motts Channel and other con-
                               nected waterways within and adjacent to the Town of Wrights-
                               ville Beach. Erosion from currents and wave wash is caus-
                               ing a rapid-loss of materials which threaten to ultimately
                               destroy improvements such as roadways, structures., dwell-
                               ings, piers, bulkheads, water supply well houses, pipelines.
                               and other facilities. This condition has appeared to
                               accelerate as a result of recent improvements and increased
                               traffic.

                                      We will be pleased to provide together with New
                Hanover County and the State of North Carolina sponsorship of projects
                which may be recommended as a result of these studies and will provide all
                available records, data and right of way for use in making the study.

                                                    H-12

    	We respectfully request that you keep us advised as to the
    status of this request and your action concerning it.

    Very sincerely yours,

    Luther T. Rogers, Jr, Mayor
    Town of Wrightsville Beach,
    North Carolina

    LTR.Jr:jb

    Copies to:

    Col. Paul Denison, District Engineer
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    P.O. Box 1890
    Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

    Mr. George E. Pickett, Director
    State of North Carolina
    Department of Water and Air Resources
    P.O. Box 27048
    Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

    Mr. John Van B Metts, Chairman
    New Hanover County Commissioners
    New Hanover County Court House
    Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

    H-13
    Wrightsville Beach, The Playground of the South
    and Convention Resort

                                                     RESOLUTION

                        Resolution providing   the Town's intent.to    comply with the federally
                        required items oflocal cooperation for the shore and        hurricane...
                        wave protection project for Wrightsville      Beach, North  Carolina.

            WHEREAS, in order for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to pursue          the required
            congressional ;authorization foe continued Federal participation        in the cost
            sharing of beach nourishment for the life of.the existing Shore         and Hurricane
            Wave Protection at Wri,ghtsville Beach, the Town of Wrightsville        'Beach has been
            requested-tocomply with the federally required items of local          cooperation,   and;

            WHEREAS, the federally required items of local cooperation are         as outlined
            below;
                 A.   Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including         borrow areas,
            nocessary-for construction of the project.
                 b. - Accomplish.all relocations and alterations of sewerage and         drainage
            facilities,. buildings, streets, utilitles, and other structures made necessary by
            the construction.
                 C.   Hold and save the Government free from damages that may result due to
            the maintenance of the project other than damages due to the fault or.negligence
            of the Government or the Contractors.
                 d.   Contribute its proportionate    'Share of the cost of the periodic    nourishment
            to be performed, by the Government.
                 e.   Maintain during the economic     life of the project, continued public
            ownership.of the.publicly-owned shore      upon whi'ch the Federal partici.  pation Js-
            based.
                 f.   Adopt and  enforce appropriate    ordinances to provide for the preservation
            of the  improvement  and its. protective vegetation.
                 9.   Control water pollution.fo the     extent necessary to safeguard the health
            of bathers.
                 h.   Continue to enforce flood plain     regulations that    comply with Federal
            Emergency Management Agency     (FEMA) guidelines.

                                                           H-14

              Now, Therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Aldermen of Wrightsville Beach,
              North Carolina.

                   Section 1.   Tha.t this Board hereby intends to comply with the above
              federally required items of local cooperation.

                   Section 2.' That this Board recognizes that this resolution does not bind.
              the Town to any or all of the required items of local cooperation, and prior
              to nourishment of the project an agreement must be entered'into between the
              Federal Government and Wrightsville Beach..

                    Done at Wrightsville.Beach, North Carolina this 10th day of February,  1983.

                                                         ugenWN. Floyd,- Maybr

              ATTEST-

              H- H. Perry, Jr., @o ',,C'r
                                       e

                                                        H-15

    Jun 14 1983

    DAEK-CWP-A

    Honorable Malcolm Baldrice
    Secretary of Commerce
    Washington, DC  20230

    Dear Mr. Secretary:

    	Four copies of the proposed report of the Chief of
    Engineers on Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, and
    other pertinent reports are being forwarded to the
    Director, Office of Regulatory Policy.

    	In accordance with established coordination pro-
    cedures on water resources reports, we would appreciate
    receiving your comments and recommendations on the report
    within 90 days, or perferably at such earlier date as may
    be convenient.  Please direct your response to:

    Lieutenant General J.K. Bratton
    Chief of Engineers
    ATTN:  DAEN-CWPL
    Department of the Army
    Washinton, DC  20314

    Sincerely yours,

    James E. Ray
    Colonel, Corps of Engineers
    Exectutive Director, Engineer Staff

    CF:

    Director, Office of Regulatory Policy, w/3  enclosures (4 cys)
    1.  Proposed Chief's Rpt
    2.  DERH Rpt
    3.  Dist Engr Rpt, dtd Sep 82

                                      Proposed Report*
                                   DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                                   OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
                                       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314

                       REMYTO
                       ATTUMON OF:

                DAEN-CWP-A

                SUBJECT: Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina

                THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

                1. 1 submit for transmission to Congress my report on
                Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. It is accompanied by the
                reports of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and the
                Division and District Engineers. These reports are in response
                to a resolution adopted 2 December 1970 by the Committee on
                Public Works of the United States House of Representatives. The
                Committee requested the Secretary of the Army to direct the Chief
                of Engineers to make a survey of Wrightsville Beach and adjacent
                beaches in the interest of erosion control, hurricane protection,
                and related purposes.

                2. The District and Division Engineers considered various
                structural and nonstructural plans to solve beach erosion
                problems and to meet the recreational needs of the area. The
                reporting officers recommend modification of the existing Federal
                project for beach erosion control and hurricane protection at
                Wrightsville Beach to extend Federal participation in periodic
                nourishment from 10 years to project life. Average annual
                charges, based on 7-7/8 percent interest rate and a 50-year
                period for economic analysis, are estimated at $688,000. Average
                annual benefits are estimated at $910,000, and the benefit-cost
                ratio is 1.4.

                3. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors concurs in the
                views and recommendations of the reporting officers. The Board
                recommends the plan subject to cost-sharing and financing
                arrangements satisfactory to the President and the Congress.

                4. 1 concur in the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
                the Board.

                                               J. K. BRATTON
                                               Lieutenant General, USA
                                               Chief of Engineers

                *This report contains the proposed recommendations of the Chief
                of Engineers. The recommendations are subject to change to
                reflect substantive comments.

                                                             UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                                             National.Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                                                             NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
                                                             Rockville, MD 20852
                                                             JUL    7 1983                 N/MB2x5:VLS

                                                                                 ACTI      CHANDLER/ALLIN
                                                                                      CC:  PT

             TO:        N/CG   H. R. Lippold, Jr.
                        N/OMS   Wesley V. Hull
                        WORM    Peter Tweedt

             FROM:      N/MB   Robert B. Rollin

             SUBJECT:   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Feasibility Report and Environmental
                        Assessment on Shore and Hurricane Wave Protection for Wrightsville
                        Beach, North Carolina

                  Please submit any comments   you may have regarding the subject report (copy
             attached) to this office by Wednesday, September 8, 1983.

             Attachment

                                      DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                              BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS
                                          KINGMAN BUILDING
                                      FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060

                            REPLY TO
                            ATTENTION OF:

                  BERH-PLN                                      23 March 1983

                  SUBJECT: Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina

                  Chief of Engineers
                  Department of the Army
                  Washington, DC 20314

                                       Summary of Board Action

                  The Board finds that modification of the existing project at
                  Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, for beach erosion control and
                  hurricane protection is needed and is economically justified and
                  environmentally acceptable. The Board concurs in the reporting
                  officers' plan to extend Federal participation in the cost of
                  periodic nourishment of the existing project from 10 years to
                  project life. The annual cost is estimated at $668,000, and the
                  benefit-cost ratio is 1.4. The Board recommends implementation
                  of the proposed plan subject to cost-sharing and financing
                  arrangements satisfactory to the President and the Congress.

                                   Summary of Report Under Review

                  1. Authority. This report is in response to a resolution
                  adopted 2 December 1970 by the Committee on Public Works of the
                  United States House of Representatives. The Committee requested
                  the Secretary of the Army to direct the Chief of Engineers to
                  make a survey of Wrightsville Beach and adjacent beaches in the
                  interest of erosion control, hurricane protection, and related
                  purposes. The resolution is quoted in the District Engineer's
                  Report.

                  2. Description of the study area. The study area is a barrier
                  island on the southern coast of North Carolina, about 10 miles
                  east of Wilmington in New Hanover County. The island is bounded
                  by the Atlantic Ocean on the east, the Atlantic Intracoastal
                  Waterway (AIWW) on the west, Mason Inlet on the north, and
                  Masonboro Inlet on the south. The entire study area, except for
                  the northernmost 1,600 feet of the island, is either within the
                  corporate limits of the Town of Wrightsville Beach or is serviced
                  by the Town. The area north of the Town's jurisdiction is known
                  as Shell Island and is undeveloped. Wrightsville Beach is a long
                  established seaside resort providing tourist homes, hotels,
                  restaurants, an inlet from the sea, a protected back-bay
                  waterfront, access to the AIWW, fishing, and ocean bathing.

                 BERH-PLN                                         23 March 1983
                 SUBJECT: Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina

                 Beach use in 1979 was estimated at 440,000 user days and is
                 projected to increase at a rate of 4 percent annually.

                 3. -Existing improvements.

                      a. A combined beach erosion control and hurricane protection
                 project for Wrightsville Beach was constructed by the U.S. Army
                 Corps of Engineers in 1965. The project extends north from
                 Masonboro Inlet for a distance of 14,000 feet. The project
                 provides for a 50-foot-wide berm in front of a 25-foot-wide
                 dune. Federal participation in periodic nourishment was limited
                 to 10 years. Following completion of the project, the Town of
                 Wrightsville Beach corporate limits were extended northward
                 an additional 2,800 feet.

                     b. A Federal navigation project was completed at Masonboro
                 Inlet in 1980. It consists of a channel 14 feet deep and
                 400 feet wide through the ocean bar; a depth of 12 feet and width
                 of 90 feet in Motts and Banks Channels connecting to the AIWW;
                 jetties on each side of the ocean channel; and a deposition basin
                 inside the north jetty.

                     c. A project at Wrightsville Beach was approved by the Chief
                 of Engineers in October 1980 under authority of Section 111 of
                 the River and Harbor Act of 1958. The Sect-ion III
                 would mJ_tAaatjz for daMaggs, L"thp Pyiqting hPanh nrotL--t-ion
                 iproject caus d hU thp          Ravigai-inu Qrn@act at Masonboro
                 1131 et-

                .4. -Problems and needs. Federal participation in periodic
                 nourishment of the existing beach erosion control and hurricane
                 protection project was authorized for only 10 years. After that
                 time, the project was to be reexamined to determine the technical
                 viability of periodic nourishment and to determine if continued
                 Federal participation in periodic nourishment is the most
                 effective and economic solution to erosion problems in the
                 area. There is a need to continue shore and hurricane protection
                 at the current level. Prior to the existing project, Wrights-
                 ville Beach had a history of erosion problems and damages during
                 hurricane events.

                 5. Improvements desired. Local interests desire continued shore
                 pro ction at Wrightsville Beach consisting of Federal partici-
                 pation in periodic beach nourishment for the life of the existing
                 project. They also desire extension of the existing project
                 2,800 feet northward to the present town limit.

                 6. -Alternatives considered. The District Engineer reexamined
                 the technical and economic viability of continued periodic
                 nourishment. He also considered several plans to extend shore

                                                   2

                BERH-PLN                                      23 March 1983
                SUBJECT: Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina

                protection about 2,800 feet to protect the developed area
                immediately north of the existing project limit. These plans
                have benefit-cost ratios significantly less than unity. Another
                plan, which would acquire the entire presently undeveloped
                section of Shell Island for preservation in its natural state,
                was determined to be a separable environmental quality feature
                and not eligible for Corps of Engineers implementation.
                Consideration was given to acquisition of Shell Island with
                management for recreational use. The benefit-cost ratio of this
                alternative was also well below unity. Nonstructural flood
                damage reduction measures such as raising structures in place,
                relocating buildings out of the flood hazard zone, and construct-
                ing small floodwalls were also considered and were economically
                infeasible.

                7. Plan of improvement. The recommended plan provides for
                modifying the existFn-gbeach erosion control and hurricane pro-
                tection project for Wrightsville Beach to extend Federal
                participation in periodic nourishment from 10 years to the life
                of the project. It is estimated that shore protection will
                require 70,000 cubic yards of beachfill annually in addition to
                the 60,000 cubic yards required annually under the Section 111
                project. Material would be obtained from the deposition basin in
                Masonboro Inlet and the adjacent Banks Channel.

                8. Economic evaluation. Based on October 1982 price levels, the
                District Engineer estimates the average annual costs of nourish-
                ment at $668,000. The Federal and non-Federal annual costs are
                $311,000 and $357,000, respectively, based on traditional cost-
                sharing policies. Average annual benefits are estimated at
                $910,300, consisting of $435,000 for beach erosion control,
                $204,800 for flood damage reduction, and $270,500 for recrea-
                tion. The economic analysis is based on an interest rate of
                7-7/8 percent and a 50-year period. The benefit-cost ratio is
                1.4.

                9. -Project effects. The proposed modification to the existing
                project would continue to reduce storm damages and stabilize the
                recreational beach. Adverse impacts to environmental resources
                in the project area would be minor and temporary in nature.

                10. Recommendation of the reporting officers. The District
                Engineer recommends that the existing Federal project for
                Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, be modified in accordance
                with the plan described in his report and subject to certain
                items of local cooperation. The Division Engineer concurs.

                     Review by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors

                11. General. The Board's review encompassed the overall tech-
                nical, economic, social, environmental, and policy aspects

                                                3

                 BERH-PLN                                       23 March 1983
                 SUBJECT: Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina

                 involved in the modifications proposed by the District Engineer,
                 including conformance with the essential elements of the Water
                 Resources Council's Principles and Standards for Planning water
                 and Related Land Resources. The Board also considered the views
                 of local interests, as well as Federal and State agencies.

                 12. Response to the Division Engineer's public notice. The
                 Division Engineer issued a public notice on 28 December 1982
                 stating the reporting officers' findings and recommendations and
                 inviting interested parties to present additional information to
                 the Board. No letters were received in response to the notice.

                 13. Findings and conclusions. The Board of Engineers for Rivers
                 and Harbors concurs in the findings and recommendations of the
                 reporting officers. The Board recognizes the need for continued
                 storm protection at Wrightsville Beach where development is
                 vulnerable to significant losses, and the continued need to
                 stabilize the beach for extensive recreational use.

                 14. General legislation authorizing implementation of water
                 resources projects, the most recent being the Water Resources
                 Development Act of 1976, generally contained local cooperation
                 requirements established by enactment of various laws. The
                 Administration is reviewing project cost sharing and financing
                 across the entire spectrum of water resource development
                 functions. The basic principle governing the development of
                 specific cost-sharing policies is that, whenever possible, the
                 .cost of services produced by water projects should be paid for by
                 their direct beneficiaries. It also is recognized that the
                 Federal Government can no longer bear the major portion of the
                 financing of water projects. New sources of project financing,
                 both public and private, will have to be found. While specific
                 policies applicable to the Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina,
                 project have not yet been established, non-Federal interests can
                 expect that, under the Administration's financing and cost-
                 sharing principles, the level of their financial participation
                 will need to be substantial.

                 15. Recommendations. The Board recommends that modification of
                 the Federal project for beach erosion control and hurricane pro-
                 tection at Wrightsville, Beach, North Carolina, to extend Federal
                 participation in periodic nourishment from 10 years to project
                 life, be authorized for implementation generally in accordance
                 with the reporting officers' plan, with such modifications
                 thereto as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may be
                 advisable, and in accordance with cost-sharing and financing
                 arrangements satisfactory to the President and the Congress. The
                 estimated annual cost to the United States is $311,000. This
                 recommendation is made with the provision that, prior to imple-
                 mentation, non-Federal interests will agree to comply with the
                 following requirements:

                                                  4

                 BERH-PLN                                      23 March 1983
                 SUBJECT: Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina

                     a. Provide without cost to the United States all lands,
                 easements, and rights-of-way, including suitable borrow and
                 disposal areas as determined by the Chief of Engineers to be
                 necessary for implementation and nourishment of the project;

                     b. Accomplish all relocations and alterations of sewerage
                 and drainage facilities, buildings, streets, utilities, and other
                 structures made necessary by the construction;

                     C. Hold and save the United States free from damages that
                 may result due to the maintenance of the project other than
                 damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or
                 its contractors;

                     d. Provide a cash contribution for its proportionate share
                 of the cost of periodic nourishment equal to the appropriate
                 percentage of the construction costs, the percentage to be in
                 accordance with existing law and based on shore ownership and use
                 at the time of implementation or nourishment;

                     e. Maintain during the economic life of the project con-
                 tinued public ownership of the publicly owned shore upon which
                 the Federal participation is based;

                     f. Adopt and enforce appropriate ordinances to provide for
                 the preservation of the improvement and its protective vege-
                 tation; and

                     g. Provide and maintain clearly marked beach access, nearby
                 parking areas, and other public use facilities, open and
                 available to all on equal terms.

                 FOR THE BOARD:

                                                E.  R. !AEIBERG III
                                                Major General, USA
                                                Chairman

                                                  5

                                I.

                                             r - -- --
                                             11 IIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII - @-i@
                                             1     102 5132
                                             I