[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