Brunswick Beaches Perservation Plan-1999

BrunsvAck
E
Consortium —
Holden Beach
DCM COPY DCM COPY
Long Beaach .' _
� � � � �
lease do not remove.....
YMAPM Beach,
Coastal Management Copy
CaswL41 Beach.
Division of
Ba Head Lsl111d
Brunswh* COW*
f
Bmns%Mck
V< ��
Bill Farns•Associates
1806 Grace Street
Wilmington, NC
7 January 1999

Brunswick Beaches Preservation Plan
Project Team
William B. Farris, AICP
c�
Project Manager
Right Angle Engineering
Jiro Vithalani, P.E. President,
Nancy Jewell, Engineering Technician
William J. Cleary,Ph.D. P.G. Coastal 'Geology
gY
Tara P. Marden, Coastal Geology, Field Studies
Carl Johansen, Coastal Geology,, Field Studies'
1
r

Table of Contents
Introduction
1
Objectives
1
The Brunswick Beaches Shoreline
4
LBeach
Erosion Trends
4
Holden Beach and Long Beach
5
Holden Beach
5
Long Beach
7
Yaupon Beach —Caswell Beach
8
Bald Head Island
10
Threat to Structures and Facilities
12
Summary of Field Data
14
Caswell Beach
14
Yaupon Beach
Long Beach
15
16
Holden Beach
17
Long Term Risk Assessment
18
Beach Preservation Projects
19
Bald Head Island Renourishment
19
Brunswick Beaches Project
21
Implications of Channel Realignment
22
Sea Turtle Habitat Restoration
23
Navigation Projects 24
Lockwoods Folly River Project 25
Wilmington Harbor Ship Channel Realignment 26
Availability of Sand for Restoration 28
Geologic Setting of the Long Bay Shoreline 28
Holden Beach 29
Oak Island 29
Inlet -Related Sand Bodies 29
Summary 30
Wilmington Harbor Project 30
Mainland Sources 30
1

Developing Funding Sources 31
Renourishment Cost Estimates 31
Beach Preservation Costs 32
Periodic Maintenance Costs 32
Prototype Budget 33
Funding Alternatives 34
Initial Capital Costs —Debt Finance 34
Revenue Sources for Debt Repayment and Operating Costs 36
Organization Options
38
Beach Preservation Aims
38
Organizational Considerations
39
Maintaining Regional Approach
39
Capacity to Implement Program
39
Developing Equitable Revenue Sources
40
Flexibility in Setting Priorities
41
Advocacy for Beach Preservation Funding
41
Review of Alternative Organizations
41
North Carolina Models
41
National Models
45
Local and Regional Beach Preservation Options 47
Recommendations 50
Exhibit 1. Field Data — Threats to Facilities and Structures
Exhibit 2. Alternative Beach Preservation Methods
Exhibit 3. Draft Interlocal Agreement
Exhibit 4. Sample Articles of Incorporation
ii

INTRODUCTION
'
The Brunswick Beaches Management Plan outlines strategies and actions to reserve the
g g p
Brunswick County shoreline that extends from the Shallotte inlet at Holden Beach to
Cape Fear at Bald Head Island. The shoreline is the region's most valuable asset. It
performs crucial function for the people who live here, who own property, and who visit
the region. The shoreline provides vital protection to life and property; it provides
essential habitat; it provides recreation for hundreds of thousands of people each year;
and it supports the local economy.
Preservation of these functions requires stewardship by the federal, state, and local
governments and residents, property owners, and visitors to the area. Stewardship
requires a long-range plan and an on -going program of preservation and maintenance.
The plan is the work of the Brunswick Beaches Consortium, which is an informal group
of beach communities that includes Holden Beach, Long Beach, Yaupon Beach, Caswell
Beach, Bald Head Island and Brunswick County. In all, these communities represent
approximately 25 miles of shoreline. Map lA shows the participating communities.
The mission of the plan is to protect life and property within the Brunswick Beaches Area
from flood hazards associated with Atlantic storms by creating and maintaining a healthy
beach system.
Objectives
The Beach Management Plan has three main objectives:
• Manage the region's shoreline to provide flood and storm protection for the
region's communities, environmental quality, and associated recreational
values.
• Developand c out a cost-effective combination of shoreline management
anS' g
ttactics
at the regional and local level.
• Develop a program to pay for the shoreline management strategy that
equitably allocates costs throughout the region, and among local, state and
federal resources.

1
P,
I
1
PJ
1
Approach
Generally, the shoreline in the Brunswick Beaches area is characterized by chronic
erosion. The only effective approach to preserving the shoreline is large-scale beach
renourishment. Therefore, this management plan focuses developing the organization
and resources to implement and maintain beach renourishment projects.
Within the context of the mission and objectives outlined above, this plan has two major
thrusts. The first is to review and recommend an organizational structure through which
the Brunswick Beaches communities can effectively work together to gain the benefits of
a regional approach to beach preservation. The second is to recommend financial options
that will insure that the participating local governments have adequate financial resources
to fund the local share of federally sponsored beach renourishment projects.
The Brunswick Beaches Shoreline
Beach Erosion Trends
In recent decades, beach erosion along Holden Beach, Oak Island, and Bald Head Island
has been chronic for most reaches and severe in some reaches. The only reaches that are
experiencing apparent long-term accretion are east of the Shallotte Inlet on Holden
Beach, and east of the Lockwoods Folly inlet and west of the Cape Fear River on Oak
Island. Within these areas, there are several erosion "hot spots" where shoreline
recession threatens both structures and public facilities.
There is no consistent database on beach erosion/accretion on these three islands. Bald
Head Island has collected data for more than 10 years. However, this data is not yet
available in synthesized form. Holden Beach has collected data for 2 years and Long
Beach on Oak Island has participated in a similar program for one year. The availability
of a consistent database on shoreline processes is an essential component of long term
beach preservation planning.
The NC Division of Coastal Management provides a map series that illustrates average
long-term erosion/accretion rates for a 50-year period. The most recent mapping
available is 1992. While average long term rates are useful for many planning and
permitting purposes, they tend to mask recent trends and make it difficult to respond to
"hot spots."
4

Beach erosion/accretion trends, using the best available data and mapping are discussed
below.
Holden Beach and Long Beach
Studies conducted by Dr. William J. Cleary, and associates, document the short term
shoreline changes on Holden Beach (1996-98) and Long Beach on Oak Island
(1997-98)1. These monitoring studies measured changes in the beach profile at 13
transects, or points, on Holden Beach and at 10 transects on Long Beach. Measurements
were taken at these transects on a bi-monthly basis.
Holden and Long Beach are divided into reaches and short-term shoreline change trends
are described below for each reach. Trends in Holden Beach are influenced by a dune -
building project conducted by the Town. The Town placed a total of approximately
200,000 cu. yd. of sand along 4.5 miles of shoreline beginning at a point near the
Lockwoods Folly inlet. The cost of this project was approximately $1,130,000.
Trends in Long Beach are influenced somewhat by beach bulldozing which was
undertaken during the winter and spring of 1997-98.
The location of transects and reaches are shown on Map 1B. Figures IA and 1B illustrate
the shoreline changes at the transects and in the reaches.
Holden Beach (June 1997 - May 1998)
HB Reach I — Updrift of Lockwoods Folly Inlet
• Reach length = 850 meters and includes Transects 3A and 2.
• Exhibits highest erosion rates in Brunswick County.
• Chronic erosion related to location of flood channel of Lockwoods Folly Inlet. Flood
tide washes sand from beach into inlet.
• Net gain of 10,400 cubic meters of sand at an average monthly gain of 1.0 cu m/m.
• Volume gains directly associated with 37,000 cubic meters of beach nourishment
materials placed on dune/beach.
• Foreshore changes ranged from +19.7 cu m/m at T2 to —10.0 cu m/m at T3A.
Cleary, William J., Shoreline Changes and Beach Monitoring Along Holden Beach, NC: September 1996
- June 1997, August 30, 1997.
Cleary, William J. and Marden, Tara P., Shoreline Changes and Beach Monitoring Along Holden Beach,
NC: June 1997 - June 1998, June 30, 1998.
Cleary, William J. and Marden, Tara P., Shoreline Changes and Beach Monitoring Along Long Beach,
NC: July 1997 - June 1998, August 31, 1998.
5

on = m =—= m m m m m 111111110 1m m = m = 1111111111110 m
A
HB III HBII I HB I LB IV LB 11
LB III LB i
Brunswick Beaches Preservation Plan
Map 1B
Shoreline Monitoring Studies
Transect Locations and Reaches
Municipal Boundaries
Water
• Transect location
Road
THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCED
IN PART THROUGH A GRANT PROVIDED BY THE
NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM, THROUGH FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972, AS
AMENDED, WHICH IS ADMINISTERED BY THE
OFFICE OF OCEAN AND COASTAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC
ANDATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION.
2 0 2 4 Miles
I N�

• Prognosis for future is poor due to orientation of inlet and continued rapid erosion.
HB Reach II — Outer Zone of Lockwoods Folly Inlet
• Reach length = 3280 meters and includes Transects 1 and 4.
• Net gain of 17,500 cubic meters of sand at an average monthly rate of 0.75 cu m/m.
• Volume gains directly associated with 20,000 cubic meters of beach nourishment
materials placed on dune/beach.
• Volume changes ranged from +16.70 cu m/m at T4 to —1.3 cu m/m at T1.
• Build up of foreshore reflects fill material and not natural processes. Prognosis for
future is poor.
HB Reach III — Mid -barrier Shoreline
• Reach Length = 6005 meters and includes Transects 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
• Majority of reach encompasses low and narrow former inlet zones.
• Foreshore changes ranged from +34.50 cu m/m at T8 to —5.7 cu m/m at T9.
• Net gain of 63,800 cubic meters at an average monthly rate of 0.9 cu m/m.
• During 1996-1997 study, prior to dune construction, net losses totaled 151,000 cubic
meters in this reach.
• Prognosis for future is poor. Pre -dune construction erosion rates of 1.0 to 4.07
m/month will likely continue in the future.
HB Reach IV — Accretion Zone Downdrift of Shallotte Inlet
• Reach length = 2550 meters and includes Transects 10, 11, and 12.
• Net loss of 57,900 cubic meters at a monthly rate of —1.9 cu m/m.
• Volume changes ranged from +2.24 cu m/m at T10 to —31.18 cu m/m at T12.
• Greatest loss occurred between T11 and T12 and totaled 27,470 cu in.
• No artificial materials placed along this segment.
• Erosion is directly linked to Shallotte Inlet.
• Short-term prognosis is fair and dependent of channel orientation at Shallotte Inlet.
HB Reach V — Inner Shallotte Inlet Segment
• Reach Length = 560 meters and included Transect 14.
• Volume losses = 9,200 cubic meters at a monthly rate of —1.37 cu m/m.
• Average recession of foreshore profile = 9.8 meters.
• Erosion consistent with data for 1996-1997 study.
• Prognosis for future is fair, dependent on channel orientation.

u
I
Figure 1
Holden Beach -Average Shoreline Recession 1996-
1998
40
Reach IV
Reach
30
Reach I
Reach II
Reach III
20
m
10
r
_ ■.
0
10
■
-20
-30
Survev Locations
-96-97---■•-• 97-98
Long Beach (1997-98)
LB Reach I — Eastern Town Limits
• Length of reach = 2,950 meters and includes Transects 1, 2, and 3.
• Net loss of 29,309 cubic meters of sand at an average monthly rate of 0.83 cu m/m.
• Foreshore volume losses ranged from —3.60 cu m/m at T2 to —15.54 cu m/m at T3.
• Peat, mud, cedar trees commonly found on intertidal beach.
• Some of the highest erosion rates along a mid -barrier segment in Brunswick County.
• Prognosis for future is poor.
LB Reach II — Mid -barrier segment of Long Beach
• Length of reach = 4700 meters and includes Transects 4, 5, and 6.
• Net gain of 30,110 cubic meters of sand at a monthly rate of 0.53 cu m/m.
• Greatest gain at Transect 5 which built up 9.19 cu m/m.
• Average seaward migration of foreshore contours ranged form 0.7m at T6 to 1.4m at
T4.
• Retreat of MLW at all Transects likely due to beach scraping efforts along lower
intertidal beach.
LB Reach III — Lockwoods Folly Downdrift
• Length of reach = 1230 and includes Transect 7.
• Only segment along mid -barrier which experienced erosion.
• Volume losses totaled 9,443 cubic meters of sand at an average monthly loss of 0.64
cu m/m.
• Average landward migration of foreshore contours =1.1m.
7

• Erosion likely due to position of transect downdrift of accretion zone associated with
Lockwoods Folly Inlet.
Figure 2
Long Beach -Average Foreshore Recession 1997-98
2
Reach I Reach
1
III
0
a� -1
w
-2
Reach II
Reach IV
-3
-5
Survey Locations
—s—Foreshore Changes
LB Reach IV — Accretion Zone Downdrift of Lockwoods Folly Inlet
• Length of reach = 2969 meters and includes Transects 8, 9, and 10.
• Net gain of 17,312 cubic meters at a monthly rate of 0.48 cu m/m.
• Volume changes ranged from +9.15 cu in at T9 to —10.84 cu in at T 10.
• All foreshore contours built seaward at Transects 8 and 9.
• All foreshore contours migrated landward at T10, except +2.4 in contour.
• Accretion/erosion patterns related to channel orientation of LWF.
• Prognosis for future is fair, and dependent on channel configuration.
Yaupon Beach —Caswell Beach
Specific studies on shoreline change in Yaupon Beach and Caswell Beach have not been
undertaken. Therefore, the mapping of shoreline change provided by the Division of
Coastal Management has been used to describe beach change in these communities.2
It is emphasized that this mapping is based on shoreline changes over the past 50 years.
These long-term trends may not be indicative of current and near term changes.
As detailed below, the westernmost 2.0 miles of these communities, Reaches II, III, and
IV, demonstrate some of the same serious erosion characteristics of Long Beach Reach I.
2 NC Division of Coastal Management, "Long Term Average Annual Shoreline Change Rates, Updated
through 1992, Raleigh, NC.

Long Beach Reach I lost the most sand of all reaches within the town. The long-term
prospects for this reach are poor. Without beach replenishment or dune construction,
homes and other facilities will need to be relocated. These same conclusions may apply
to Reaches II to IV in Yaupon—Caswell.
YB/CB Reach I
This reach begins just west of the Cape Fear River and extends approximately 1.6 miles
west to the CP&L cooling water outfall. In this area, the overall long-term trend appears
to be accretion. At the eastern end of the reach, the accretion rate may be as high as 5
feet per year. At the western end within about 0.6 miles of the outfall, the beach is
eroding at an annual rate up to 3 feet per year. In the western area, the dune line appears
to be landward of several homes.
YB/CB Reach II
Reach II extends west of the CP&L outfall for a distance of approximately 0.5 miles.
This section of shoreline is experiencing an average annual erosion rate of 4.0. Beginning
at the eastern end of the reach, the rate is approximately 3.0 feet per year. At the western
end, the rate is approximately 6.5 feet per year. In the western area where erosion is
greatest, the dune appears to be in or near the right-of-way for Caswell Beach Road.
YB/CB Reach III
Reach III extends approximately 1.0 mile west of Reach II. It extends about 0.7 miles
east of Long Beach Road and 0.3 miles west of the Beach Road. This section of
shoreline is experiencing the highest rate of erosion of all reaches in the two
communities. At the maximum point near Long Beach Road, the annual erosion rate is
more than 7.0 feet.
YB/CB Reach IV
This reach extends west from Reach III approximately 0.8 miles to the western town limit
of Yaupon Beach. This reach also experiences significant erosion, which is estimated at
approximately 5.0 feet per year. In the eastern area of this reach, the dune line appears to
be landward of several homes.
Figure 1 illustrates the long-term shoreline changes for Caswell Beach and Yaupon
Beach.
X

Figure 3
Caswell Beach-Yaupon Beach - Long Term
Shoreline Changes Erosion/Accretion
20
15 ^
10 a
5 d m
0
•5 >
•10 a
Miles from NC Assembly
Source: NC Division of Coastal Management
Bald Head Island
Approximate
location of
CP&L
cooling
water canal
From the late 1800's to about 1974, the Bald Head Island shoreline remained fairly
stable. Beginning in 1974, the island's shoreline began a rapid retreat. According to
preliminary observations by Erik Olsen, the erosion rate reached 60 feet per year in some
locations in the period since 1974.3 Installation of geo-textile groins in 1996 changed the
overall erosion patterns on South Beach. However, recent data indicate that overall
shoreline changes after installation of the groins is similar to changes before the groin
project. The average pre -groin volume loss rate was 11 yd3/ft/year compared to a post
groin loss rate in the range of 10 to 16 yd3/ft/year.4
The Village of Bald Head has monitored shoreline change on the South and West
Beaches for more than 10 years. Based on this data, long-term shoreline change trends
are being compiled; however, the information is not available at this time. Table 1, from
a study done by Olsen Associates, Inc., shows shoreline changes from 1987-96 and
predictions of shoreline change made by Olsen in 1989. The location of the transects is
shown on Map 1 C. This map also illustrates some of the property loss on Bald Head due
to erosion.
3 Olsen Associates, Inc., Jacksonville, FL, letter to Wade Horne, Bald Head Island Manager, September 25,
1998.
4 Coastal Technology Corporation, Vero Beach, FL, letter to Wade Horne, Bald Head Island Village
Manager, October 1, 1998.
10

0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
Bill Farris Associates, 1999
Rr„^nia+ick Beaches Preservation Plan
Map 1C
ioreline Monitoring Studies
Bald Head Island
Transect Locations for
V Monitoring Shoreline Changes
Source: Brunswick Surveying, Holden Beach, NC
The preparation of this map was financed in part
through a grant provided by the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program, through
funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by
the Office of Ocean and Coastal Zone Resource
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.

Table 1
Brunswick Beaches Preservation Plan
Bald Head Island Shoreline Changes
Transect
Number
Location
Shoreline Change (feet per
ear
Recent
Predicted
1-2
Sea Gull
-7
-5
3-4
Cape Fear Tr. (N)
-5
-4
5-6
Cape Fear Tr. (mid)
12
-5
7-9
Cape Fear Tr. (S)
-40
0 to 15
10-11
Sand Piper Tr. (W)
-18
-18 to 0
12-13
Sand Piper Tr.(E)
-23
-26
14-15
Former Inn
-27
-22
16
Blue Crab Ct.
-27
-23
17
Sea Oats Tr. (W)
-27
-18
18
Sea Oats TR. (E)
-19
-11
19-20
Flycatcher Tr.
-17
-5
21
Starrush
-8
-4
22-24
Sandspur
-4
-5
25-27
Silversides
-7
-4
28-29
Peppervine
-8
-5
30-32
Coquina
-14
--*
32-34
Brown Pelican
-18
--*
35-37
lCentral So. Beach
1 -21
--*
Source: Olsen Associates, Inc.
Mapping of long-term shoreline changes from the DCM, shown in Figure 4, illustrates
long term changes on the South Beach. A detailed description of the Bald Head
renourishment projects is provided in a separate section of the plan.
The east facing beach, extending from Cape Fear north approximately 1.5 miles, is
experiencing long-term accretion. North of this point for a distance of approximately 2.0
miles, the shoreline begins to erode at a rate of up to 8.0 feet per year. This section of
shoreline is sparsely developed on the south near Cape Fear and is undeveloped in the
northern area.
11

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Figure 4
Bald Head Island - Long Term Shoreline Change,
South Beach
0
-5
c
-10
m
-15
m
R R
-20
-25
Q
Miles from Cape Fear
Source: NC Division of Coastal Management
Threat to Structures and Facilities
While collection of field data was not part of the original scope of this plan, it was
determined that additional data was needed to assess the current risk to facilities and
structures from erosion and storms. Therefore, additional field data was collected at 33
locations between the eastern end of Oak Island and the western end of Holden Beach.
Data collection points were selected based on interpretation of aerial photographs for
erosion prone areas and the presence of roads and structures. At these locations, 9
measurements, distance and elevation, were taken using the centerline of the road as the
baseline:
1. Edge of pavement
2. Northeast corner of structure
3. Southeast corner of structure
4. Toe of dune
5. Primary dune
6. Crest of dune
7. Top of scarp
8. Toe of scarp
9. High water line
From these distances, the following measurements were taken:
C/L RD.-EP — Centerline of road — Edge of pavement
EP-SW/SE COR. — Edge of pavement — Seaward corner of dwelling
EP-TOP SCARP — Edge of pavement — Landward position of bluff
EP-CREST PRIMARY DUNE — Edge of pavement — Crest of seaward dune
12

EP-BULKHEAD — Edge of pavement — Top edge of manmade protection
EP-HWL — Edge of pavement — High tide elevation
SW/SE COR.-HWL — Seaward corner of house — High tide line
SW/SE COR.-CREST — Seaward corner of house — Crest of dune
SW/SE COR.-TOP SCARP — Seaward corner of house — Edge of bluff
BULKHEAD HEIGHT — Base of bulkhead — Top of bulkhead '
SCARP HEIGHT — Toe of scarp — Top of scarp
DUNE HEIGHT — Seaward toe of dune — Crest of dune
DUNE WIDTH — Landward toe of dune — Seaward toe of dune
DUNE SYSTEM WIDTH — Landward toe of secondary dune — Seaward toe of
primary dune
DRY BEACH WIDTH — Seaward toe of dune/scarp — High tide line
[Measurements with negative values indicate feature is landward of expected
position (i.e. A (-) distance from SE COR.-HWL indicates house is seaward
of the HWL.)]
It was possible to collect this additional data for Oak Island and Holden Beach because
baseline monuments were already established and the area was easily accessible to the
field survey team. Time constraints, plus these considerations, made it impossible to
collect similar on Bald Head Island.
The field surveys identified a number of locations where roads and structures are
threatened by erosion. At some of these locations, the high water line is within 100 feet
of a public street or road and the elevation of the road is lower than the elevation of the
high water line. Where these conditions exist, the facility is threatened by even normal
storms.
Houses face similar circumstances. Along with shoreline erosion, the protective dune
systems, where present, have migrated to a point where they are either under or behind
houses at some locations. Likewise, the high water line is under houses at some
locations. These houses are exposed to extreme risks from normal storms. '
Short-term action may be required to protect public roads and houses in some locations
while the renourishment project is designed and built. Short-term options permitted by
CAMA regulations include sandbagging, beach bulldozing, and dune construction using
fill. All options require a permit.
For the long term, local governments in concert with the Corps of Engineers must
consider the implications of protecting these facilities and properties in the design of the
renourishment project. As illustrated in the sketch, relocating the protective dune to the
front of these propert
ies at badly eroded locations may result in the creation of a
"shoulder" in the shoreline. This shoulder may be exposed to more severe erosion than
the typical profile. Also, it is more expensive to build. Policy options include the
following:
�
13

11
1
1
1. Design the project so that renourished dune is in front of the properties;
2. Require relocation where feasible; and
3. Acquire the property.
Beach
Renourished "shoulder"
Beach 00
Exi sti ng �► ' "'y' "r 600
shoreline
The location of the filed survey points is shown on Map 2A through 2H. These maps
also show the long term erosion rates from the Division of Coastal Management
mapping. In addition, the detailed measurements and corresponding graphs for each
point are shown in Exhibit 1.
The field data for Oak Island and Holden Beach is summarized below.
Caswell Beach
Summary of Field Data
' • BCBP-CB-1 at 121 Caswell Beach Dr. and BCBP-CB-2 at 501 Caswell Beach Dr.
are both fronted by a wide dune system, 128' and 284' respectively. Dune height is >
10' at both locations and crest elevation exceeds 15' at both locations.
• Southern corner of dwelling at both BCBP-CB-1 and BCBP-CB-2 is > 100' from the
position MHW. (316' at BCBP-CB-2)
' • BCBP-CB-1 exhibits a significant scarp, where the height of the scarp is > 10'.
Scarping indicates erosion along this area, even though a significantly wide dune
' system exists. Yucca plants, which grow in the back dune environment, are exposed
along the front side of the scarped dune indicating significant erosion.
• BCBP-CB-2 is the most stable transect location along the Caswell beach shoreline.
Ir-
LJ
14

Drive, dune is
• East of BCBP-CB-3 at 715 Caswell Beach to BCBP-CB-1, the system
well established and vegetated. This dune system should provide adequate storm
protection.
• BCBP-CB-3 and BCBP-CB-4 are both suffering from serious erosion.
• At BCBP-CB-3, the position of MHW has migrated landward of the southern corner
of the dwelling. The crest of a small artificial dune is almost to the position of the
northern corner of the dwelling. The elevation of the road is only one foot above
MHW, and this small artificial dune will be destroyed during storm events and
overtopping of the road will occur.
• BCBP-CB-4 across form the "Arboretum" is experiencing significant erosion. The
p g g
edge of the pavement is 23' to the top of the scarp, and 29' to MHW. The elevation
of the road is only 5' above MHW. Sandbags are exposed along the front side of the
scarp. Severe structural damage to the road will occur during a major storm event,
making access to the eastern segment of the island inaccessible.
'
• BCBP-CB-5 at Oak Island Villas, Bldg. 100, is fronted by a relatively wide, 50' dune,
with a crest at elevation 14.20. This dune is covered by back -barrier shrubs
indicating the original primary dune has already been eroded. The existing dune is
'
most likely a secondary dune, indicated by the type of vegetation growing on it, and
is scarped indicating erosion.
• The NC Division of Coastal Management long-term erosion rate data indicate 0-3'
feet of accretion/year at BCBP-CB-1, and Y-6' of erosion/year at all other Caswell
Beach locations to the west of BCBP-CB-1
Yaupon Beach
• BCBP-YB-1 at 107 Sellers Road lacks a dune system and is fronted by grassland,
which is significantly scarped. The SW corner of the dwelling to the top of the scarp
is < 50'. The scarp height is 5' and HWL is just seaward of the toe of the scarp.
• Along this segment of Yaupon Beach, in the vicinity of Sellers Rd., most of the
shoreline is characterized similarly to BCBP-YB-1.
• A dune or grassland area does not front BCBP-YB-2 at 407 Norton Street. The
homes are situated on the recreational beach with no storm protection. The crest of
the dune is landward of the seaward corner of the dwelling, and MHW is only 26'
from the foundation.
• Along this segment of Yaupon Beach, in the vicinity of Norton Street, the dune is
located between the homes and not in front of the homes. This area is plagued by
erosion and is exposed to severe damage during a major storm event.
15

�'. "ya._ # .., HI3...._. , �:;.+ ;Tu ,. �..d.: =`, a.::4 .. .. :.w„'°�^"•.--::1:s� . . N:n � , si -� .^'s!, - : y ` '.:c '}k-'. .:;.�:'3
" ..„r .. * .,,.: �..,
,; .:�ri .€'...:;
n j'�
..n,.,: .. '.: .-. ,.,:: .`a/<:...,, .. a. _.. ..: :aY.' !k .: e.%. 3' , x.i. ..... z.. _.-<... S.. ..... {+.n .nf ,�
.. u� ,
Beaches
Brunswick
„_ .,... ..: ..Ei.. 3 ...a..::..�ss , _. --,k ?�.•... ...-.��.-. .. . a- ,... _ «.<.:. ,,. .. 3-r, x.:.� , z az.- ..T .;. ,ems '�' .,3. �
5s
.:<. •,, i, "Fx.:a �y. :�1 ... _�:� �,. �, = 7._. ..., .. ::.a' a'-,.,�-, .. .; ::'.tea-. �'"� ` .-��. ": d ..,y ,:.
Preservation Plan
., „ „a ��.� ; �. , '� � '�,x '�'s-,., r '. : _ -� `�` , r.':�.. �,; ->ra a.:� .tea^, ':•,: , �"- . ,f ..= 33,, k'"a .,..�+�"t'�, �'� r � ��.
v -`:� d s S ,? ,.� ,c. ': ,.•.' ��-„' carp}, � ��;:a s � s �,.;n- �w a l `� s�""'' m�,: s 4' i st- x
.. 1- a
ram-.,
•:. .tie
: ^ , Current Conditions
�<
Threatened Structures and

m L ®31 '_
L m9
t -10
4
c
o
Q LE
c
0
DUNE WI[3TH >30 FEET, HEIGHT > 6, CREST > S` ABOVE MHW
DUNE WIDTH ,< 35, HEIGHT < 5',
CREST < 6' ABOVE MHW
D� -, s. FOC ACCRETION I� TO � NCO
EROSION _ YEAR
'
Map 2D
Brunswick Beaches
Preservation Plan
u _
Current Conditions
Threatened Structures and
., Facilities

1
� LB-13
-
L-1�
O
1�VELL,,E T LISHEDNE�GETATED DUNE DUNE WIDTH >30 FEET,
�• OR"'
ttEiGi-i i � � ,
DC m 0 TO 5 FEET ACCRETION I YEAR
Map 2F
Brunswick Beaches
-'
Preservation Plan
Current Conditions
Threatened Structures and
Facilities

I

Map 2H
Brunswick Beaches
Preservation Plan
k $��
Current Conditions
Threatened Structures and,':w,{_:
Facilities
�-
II

1
• BCBP-YB-3 at 1001 East Beach Road is fronted by a 1.51' scarp, with a scarp crest
elevation of only 9', or 2.57' above MHW. The elevation of the road is only 8.39', or
1.97' above MHW.
• All three locations at Yaupon Beach are characterized by severe erosion and are in
' acute need of renourishment. This segment of shoreline offers no protection during
storm events and significant structural damage will occur.
• The NC Division of Coastal Management long-term erosion rate data indicate this
segment of the shoreline is eroding at an average of Y-6' of erosion per year.
Long Beach
• BCBP-LB-1 located at 74th Street beach access, is fronted by a low (<_ 12'), and wide
(125') dune system. The primary dune is only 4' tall, and <6' above MHW.
BCBP-LB-2, BCBP-LB-3 and BCBP-LB-4 are all at a critical stage of erosion. At all
three locations the crest of the dune is located landward of the seaward corner of the
dwellings, and at BCBP-LB-3 it is actually located landward of the northern corner of
the dwelling. The position of MHW is located landward of the seaward corner of the
dwelling at all three locations.
The NC Division of Coastal Management long-term erosion rate data indicates that
the above described area is eroding at 0-3' feet per year. For the purpose of this study,
this area has been determined to be an "erosion hot spot".
' • BCBP-LB-5 at 3501 OBE and BCBP-LB-6 at 1929 OBE also fall into the "erosion
hot spot" category based on the existing condition of the beach. A low relief artificial
idune with elevations <5' fronts both locations. At BCBP-LB-5, the dune crest is at
the SW corner of the dwelling.
• BCBP-LB-7, BCBP-LB-8, and BCBP-LB-9 located from 1129 OBE to 201 OBW are
beyond the "erosion hot spot" designation. At all locations, the dune crest is seaward
of the southern corner of the dwellings. The dune crest elevation within this shoreline
segment ranges from 10.66' to 13.90'. The general width of the dune is < 35', height
<5' and the dune crest is <6' above MHW.
' • BCBP-LB-10, BCBP-LB-11, BCBP-LB-12, BCBP-LB-13 BCBP-LB-14, and BCBP-
LB-15 are in better shape than the eastern segment of Long Beach. Dune width is
>30', dune height is >5' and the crest of the dune is > 8'above MHW. The dune
along this segment of shoreline is for the most part, well vegetated and somewhat
established. The southern corner of the house is located > 50' from MHW with the
exception of at BCBP-LB-15 where it is 36'.
16

• The NC Division Of Coastal Management long-term erosion rate data indicate the ,
segment of shoreline between BCBP-LB-5 at 3501 OBE and BCBP-LB-14 at 3929
OBW is experiencing 1' accretion to 1' erosion per year. The area of the island to the
west of this including BCBP-LB-15 is experiencing 0-5' of accretion/year.
Holden Beach
,
• BCBP-HB-1 at Lockwoods Folly Inlet, BCBP-HB-2 at Holden Street beach access,
and BCBP-HB-3 at 125 OBW are all considered "erosion hot spot" areas based on the
existing condition of the beach and long term history of this segment of shoreline.
This area has been a chronic erosion zone for the past 15 year.
The artificial dune along the eastern segment of Holden Beach is scarped indicating
erosion. The dry intertidal beach is very narrow. Peat is commonly outcropping
along the intertidal beach throughout this area. Lockwoods Folly Inlet plays a
'
significant role in the erosion seen here.
• The NC Division Of Coastal Management long-term erosion rate data indicate the
segment of shoreline between BCBP-HB-1 and BCBP-HB-2 is eroding at only 0-3'
per year. DCM considers the segment in the vicinity of BCBP-HB-3 stable.
• BCBP-HB-4 at 297 OBW and BCBP-HB-5 at 481 OBW and BCBP-HB-6 at 583
OBW located to the west of the erosion hot spot has an artificial dune height >5',
dune width >60' and dune crest elevation >14'.
• The dune is scarped along some segments of shoreline between BCBP-HB-4 and 5. ,
The NC Division Of Coastal Management long-term erosion rate data indicate the
segment of shoreline between BCBP-HB-4 and BCBP-HB-9 is eroding at only 0-3'
per year.
• BCBP-HB-7 at 753 OBW and BCBP-HB-8 at Dolphin Street beach access is
considered a second "erosion hot spot" area along Holden Beach. The dune height is
<5' and crest elevation is <13'. Much of the dune through here is scarped.
• BCBP-HB-9 at 1017 OBW and BCBP-HB-10 at 1115 OBW is the most stable
location along the Holden Beach shoreline. The dune here is well established and
well vegetated. There is a primary and secondary dune here. Dune crest elevation
averages 14' and dune width >_ 99'. The position of MHW is > 100' from the '
southern corner of the dwellings.
• The NC Division Of Coastal Management long-term erosion rate data indicate the '
segment of shoreline between BCBP-HB-9 and BCBP-HB-10 is accreting at 0-7' per
year. Accretion at this site is directly linked.to Shallotte Inlet.
17

'
Long Term Risk Assessment
A rating system is used to help establish priorities for beach preservation within the
planning area. Various methods of risk assessment were reviewed to develop the rating
system, and the Coastal Risk Assessment Method (CRAM), which is based on work by
Bunce,-Bush, Pilkey, and Lennon, was adapted for use in this plan. The CRAM method
uses a point system to rate natural and developmental attributes of a barrier island to
assess risk.
The two primary factors used for risk assessment in CRAM are elevation and vegetation.
The secondary factors include the following: dune health, erosion and accretion rates,
location of historic or potential inlets, modern inlet dynamics, presence of engineered
structures, historic storm impact, underlying geology, and local long-term planning. For
this plan, endangered public and private facilities are also considered.
Two adjustments were needed to adapt CRAM for this plan. First, CRAM rates all areas
' within a "V Zone" as having extreme risk. Since all of the planning area is oceanfront
and located in the "V Zone," elevation alone was not sufficient to earn an extreme rating.
Second, this plan considers endangered public and private facilities and structures in
establishing beach preservation need ratings.
' This risk assessment is related to current conditions within the planning area and must be
considered in light of short-term and long-term beach change processes.
Ten sections of the beach in the planning area are rated in one of the following categories
according to the need for beach preservation: "extreme", "high", "moderate", and "low".
These ratings provide general guidance for establishing priorities for action.
Figures 1 through 4 illustrate the beach reaches within the planning area and describe the
factors used in rating each area for preservation need.
' • Shallotte Inlet Area. The risk assessment indicates that the section of beach
extending from the inlet east for approximately 3000 meters is a low risk area.
This assessment recognizes that the area has a wide, accreting beach and low
intensity development. However, recent shoreline changes in this area
indicate that the risk may be higher, perhaps moderate to high. The Cleary
beach erosion trends in this section that are related to
studies show recent
18

changes in the Shallotte inlet channel. The main channel has moved so close
to the beach that the main ebb channel is causing erosion.
• Lockwoods Folly Inlet - East. The section of beach extending approximately
3,200 meters east of the inlet is shown as a low risk area. The area is
accurately characterized as having a wide, accreting beach with a low
dune/berm system and sparse vegetation. The first year of the monitoring
study by Cleary indicates that the area continued to experience buildup over
the past year. However, there is a high potential for rapid changes in this area
as a result of changes in offshore shoals and reorientation of the main inlet
channel. This potential indicates that the risk may be higher in the moderate
to high range.
Beach Preservation Projects
Bald Head Island Nourishment Projects
During the past six years, Bald Head Island completed three significant nourishment
projects on its South Beach. These projects were a response to a "sudden" increase in the
erosion rate on the South Beach.
According to information from the project engineers, prior to 1970 the South Beach was
comparatively stable, experiencing beach erosion recession rates of 2 to 3 feet per year.
The engineers believe that the beach owed its stability to the presence of Bald Head
Shoal connected to the beach at its western end. This shoal was breached sometime in
1972-74, probably as the result of a storm. The result of the breach was an erosion rate of
25 to 40 feet along the central and western sections of the beach.
In 1992, approximately 10,000 feet of beach on the western end was nourished with
360,000 cubic yards of sand from maintenance dredging of the Cape Fear River channel.
Within 18 months, all of this sand, along with natural material, disappeared from the
beach.
To address the serious continuing erosion problem, Bald Head applied for another
nourishment project. This project, however, employed an innovative technology referred
to as "soft groins" which uses textile tubes filled with sand to keep the fill in place. Even
5 Paul S. Denison, P.E., "Beach Nourishment/Groin Field Construction Project: Bald Head Island, North
Carolina," Shore and Beach, January 1998, pp. 2-9.
19
El

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V;�'Z
E'y
7'
Z'
- e7-
MZ11
"14
Lj
E
_-4
E
LV
I �C7
0
t
j
Lk
ZZ
a;
-• ----------------
----------
;:Z:Z:
7
r
- Urr , -
ems.
. ....... .... . ..
................ . .. ............ . .....
...........
�__ __ - _7:5
Ti _S n
C
La
CA
L
LOW
cit
Characterized by wide, accreting beach,
low duneiberm system with sparse
vegetation.
SCALE 1:40,000
STATUTE MILES
RIGHT =-NCWr-4E=-E=-F:tjrC • P.C.
201 N. FRONT STREET, MITE 809
WILWINGTOf4, NC
(S'10) 251-8544 FAX [phone]--D8
YARDS 2
3000
Bill Farris -Associates
1806 grace street
wihmington, nc 28405
910-762-3577
SITE OF
HISTORIC
INLET
/CC
EXTREME
MODERATE
Characterized by high, wide dune system and
moderatz vezetation. Complicated by the
migrating ebb channel of Lockwoods Folly Inlet.
Characterized by narrow, eroding beach, disturbed or absent dune/berm system
with little or no vegetation. Additional factors include extremely narrow land mass
of low elevation further compromised by marina development. This stretch contains
two former inlet sites yielding high breach potential.
P, I r_1 I I P r* I n C, A
RISK ASSESSMENT MAPPING FOR BRUNSWICK BEACHES
HOLDEN BEACH, NC CONSORTIUM

Vernamtotun
jl l 1��' vrrr� •i` i,• ' ?^' \ 1 t \\® �, _� `�� ` �fll__i/�,��,!_-J
- - .S._ 11 Poi :7. ,-�' � ! i 1 `•' � ��wJJ �_,r __ _ �' � ! _?_ •�-�' - r�_�-_�.-�l1' I � '��"- �'-\.' ,�� + � i'.
.Easier :. ll �. �\ :-�• "T I ; O-- I j=^` •�. =-__ �.��'__+����f _ �--�,
d>"a Bead - / . _ �_ _ �� _ - - _ _ i - w=•:�rJ i r
do>..in
r .� _l.-. _ o V I /'_•c....o.. c l i \� ^ �`\ .`i\� ��I- +*% O. +.` \-`1.-_-�_- -_'Po
`X.-.�-
-� ~�i.'.. r1 1•.:' .� a •�. i - v>- �y iT�'� - r� C� - = _ - - __ _ -'sue: 't-��_- _ =-1- 1•"=�..,� _ _; ^` '/
--------------
_ _ `_ ��; - �- (� � t p • f ❑mac C � �,^-_� / t-r �-- �;'� r� - _ � __ '�� : �_-' ,t Z. _ __ - _ ie\� .._ _ / .
� � _ -ter _ ✓-' ,•, - f _ \ .� �vf[ °' � �C�-�,,^ �. - . -c-'o �.� _ _- .� _ ;- ....-�`_ -✓' � - � _ - _ - _� -_ /---_-�� -. .
f � v .\_ 1•rPdrid/'•:Sun -- / j -\- _ _ .i.--"">F.�.,._ �--'.--�+r.��"�` _T -.. _ _-�_=-Hiekory= �Poi�.
— - � ; ar� �N B :_ - - V "�••..r'�., ` �` �� •l-larhoy-: l � ^_. � ' ��,{ _ - � _ . f : • `'j • r . _ -_- - - - - �_ _--:•-%�-�-"' � �_ ' - -_ -- � ' _ -c.� - - =` '�- � - _
_I
Pon/. ' -. • r - �y _ T�FwZT. ^mil _� �URr
' PO rrt' • - _ II
J - •\_ ..-, ter. - _
L-
�Mo -
' _ 1 _
o i _ -__ __ - f - I �_ ---=.-•4!: ��aCl BP.aCrl - r .- --� - � .•.Orr( - �- _
- -- - _- �`---- _ -m� - - 1.... - -
6v,o�-'-�, - n� - t�° - - - - ^ t -- t+cg. - --- - - - .F ':r • `l: i `ice:_`- c.-�
_ - — _ �� N+' 11 •mil:` - .�^^-• _ :rr• • - -:= • - :�. •; .'• _��s `-�
j _ � _ .. - - -• � -- - - - - - - — _ - `�z •••ram ' _ • J: � .� �.: - .r=. : r :
-- �.'� :' 3
_
_ -•'- - z. v -� :�..m----'---✓ -•-�-„ - _ -• -- i "_ _ � -_- yf>� .: J`• rJ: ••'ti r��. .. �:' r'L•.i::.:�':.-Ir. i
------------
•gip -_ c r �R:.. _ c i r__ .. _ �� _ _ -•° _ l .i j TiCh
Lo
oco
LOW
Characterized by wide accreting beach,
low dune,/berm system with sparse vegetation
SCALE 1:40,000 -
_ STATUTE MILES
1 t o 1
_ YARDS 2
1000 - _ - 0 1000 2000 3DW
RIGHT ANGLE Bill Farris • Associates
EIVGitNEEFi1NQ P.C.
201 N. FRONT STREET, SUITE 809 1806 grace Street
WILMINGTON, i -ilmingtOII, nc 28405
[phone] FAX [phone]
EXTREME
Characterized by narrow, eroding beach, absent or unstable dune/berm system
with little or no established vegetation. Narrow frontal land mass of low elevation
along with lateral canals and associative marsh creates high potential for overwash.
Private and public property endangered.
RISK ASSESSMENT MAPPING FOR
LONG BEACH, NC
JUNE, 1998
FIGURE 2 OF 4
BRUNSWICK BEACHES
CONSORTIUM
DTP. A f1TT 1! lT IYT1 rT ��.r.

I
/� �• ; `\. �./J.,\ .� % — SCALE 1:40,000
STATUTE MILES
2
YARDS
l( l� .� �� I . �./ J 1. •.,'y -. 11 ~ to `u' �� I000 20DO 30DQ
_ r.B_m'T ..._✓ III „ -�-- _ ---- s.a+o.., 1
_ _�. —?� BIB" - -!-_ �/ -\� If x ' - - o � ----i- - �� -ys^ -:\ _ c�nl _ 'd• ,-•' ✓'i/�y
-� I mar.. ''y,� _ 1 S _ �'-� _%:�-• ":
3irN/'../ - .�.�{_ � ems_ - _ I � - - - - �._ ^ � -� 7•a' / N / �(./-v.
:re•' 1 4 � f <n
_---___-
_ �`� :�' •�i' _ i Cwe Cara /'- _.=-_S �✓__-_ - �_ �iY _'\ \. j >�.i 1 ,/�-_Jj 1.
--•y III - / _ r_ _ ���ti ~ _ I:.a ID
_, .--'�----- yo
cm
\ �„ �i/ - c„ ry _ �.. .•� ne:,� _ � �_ tit .-_ \ N Y�
�:'` .\ 'I. I 11�(�l,/,// � '/- - � �- � �,`-"''^.:._„-: ,,,��1-__'.•'-.Fort � � � � � J(
O ~'N•_ V' �Laswd� .i'' �N �J 1
O i
0!
11111 I;!111!
N
E, to
v I
SRN B1Ch ANN
T �
i
a�
IN
EXTREME
Characterized by narrow, eroding beach, absent or unstable
dune/berm system with little or no established vegetation.
Low elevation with extensive backside marsh containing many
natural and man-made canals. Public and personal property threatened
RIGHT ANGLE Bill Farris -Associates
ENC3INEEFM4CA, P.C.
201 N. FRONT STREET, SUITE 809 1806 grace street
1MLMINGTON, NC Wilmington. nc 28405
[phone] FAX [phone]
910-762-3577
/ LOW
Characterized by wide, healthy dune/beach
s
system with moderate to dense natural vegetation.
RISK ASSESSMENT MAPPING FOR
YAUPON AND CASWELL BEACHES
FIGURE 3 OF 4
BRUNSWICK BEACHES
CONSORTIUM
JUNE, 1998
RFACTN MANAITF.MFNTT DT AAT

a LOW 23
Characterized by wide dune system which U
' is moderately vegetated and backed by 23 r a s �, s S Q �9
maritime forest areas.
/ ?�513
32
128
O
9..S}}1 ME`-- .��- ,r,.YY-' `�� y Kam' .' - 24
21-
Oc, �T y
29
12
100
0000
Q\/O 73 - OPT' ii�ti ..i�.i` -ter '�`,. .7 x\ >¢s�'�,}�-•.. >rt•� ^_.ts�-• ,s. � ~- � y�t7° L may.. '4:e� ^a_" - —
1g - ����: - y='�`01�.. d. �f�v.` c=�. tn^�a ^�= " .'�4„� __ L 17
�O X 6' -'� �.: '}l ^ry _ .0 4!{-.. _ ti 9 .
00'.0e� .6_ \\ = J \`': �,3�e'.': `�" sj•ri� 24 .— 27 :.
r- 1
24.
10' QU.J \M1
22
12
4r8 28
6G cfe, to 30
h °/'fhe
.�
17
'lot,
Gash 20.
sysf 14
17 P L1 - eq' Cull, 9 ` \\ 1 17, -
Sa� 16
24
1c
,s 3o 28
g/la Os ser �� LOW
.5 Characterized by wide dune
6 24 so 11 J7 system which is moderately
19 CAPE FEAR vegetated and backed by
maritime forest areas. 35
20
19
�
^y_ - \\ 2 5
IIIII 17 1O
20
9 4 -1-
28 23
- 13 27 I
14 �J 22
24 FRYING
24 PAN 9 33
—---�o--� 30 �R 14 �-%. a - SHOALS
= 1 SCALE 1:24000 r�
0' 1 MILE \�� '..•f1. 2_s - 23
17 .
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 22
1 5 0 1 KILOMETER - �.i` - '" f�.::-"`• FIGURE 4 OF 4
RIGHT ANGLE Bill Farris -Associates RISK ASSESSMENT MAPPING FOR BRUNSWICK BEACHES
ENCIINEEFi,NQ P.C. 1808 race street BALD HEAD ISLAND NC CONSORTIUM
201 N. FRONT STREET, SUITE 809 8 '
WILMINGTON, NC wilmingtoII, ne 28405
[phone] FAX [phone]
11 1NF' 'I QQS2 DVA0i7 tIAATrnnIrr+w.m

though beach "hardening" is prohibited in North Carolina, several factors contributed to
the approval of this project:
• Seriousness of the erosion and fact that several houses were threatened.
' • Project would be termed "experimental".
• Federal navigation project may have contributed to problem.
1 • Soft groins can be removed if problems arise.
The final project design included installation of approximately 30 fabric tubes placed 400
feet apart; a 80 to 100-foot wide berm; and 12,000 feet of beach. Total volume of sand
was 756,000 cubic feet.
Total cost of the project was $2,934,000. Of this total, groin installation was $550,000.
Only $100,000 of the project cost came from non -local sources.
The beach was renourished in May -June 1997 with material from Cape Fear River
channel maintenance. This project placed 456,000 yd3 of sand on the beach. The total
' cost of the project was $1,146,706, or approximately $2.50 per yd3. This project cost
represents the incremental cost of placing dredge material on the Bald Head beach versus
offshore disposal. The cost of the project was shared 50% local-50% federal under
Section 933 funding.
After very preliminary observations, two coastal engineering firms, Coastal Tech and
'
Olsen Associates, expressed the opinion that, while the geo-tubes have done no harm,
South Beach.
they have not been successful in altering overall erosion trends on the
According to these firms, erosion rates after installation of the fabric tubes is similar to
rates prior to the installation. The failure of the fabric and the placement of the tubes may
have diminished effectiveness of the project.6
Bald Head Island is in the process of applying to the Division of Coastal Management for
an extension of the geo-tube project.
i
Bald Head Island beaches are not included in the ACOE's Brunswick beaches project.
Corps staff indicates that adding Bald Head to the project is not possible at this point and
that a new project authorization would be required for this area. However, Bald Head
will be able to continue taking advantage of surplus materials from channel maintenance.
'
6 Correspondence to Wade Home, Bald Head Island Manager.
20

When funds are available, the ACOE will contribute up to 50% of the cost of these '
proj ects.
Brunswick Beaches Project
The original Congressional authorization for restoration of Brunswick County's beaches '
was obtained in 1966. The project authorization included the four of the communities in
the Consortium— Holden, Long Beach, Yaupon, and Caswell— plus Ocean Isle and ,
Sunset Beach. Bald Head Island, which was undeveloped at the time, was not included in
the original project authorization. ,
The original project consisted of a 25-foot wide vegetated dune at an elevation 20 feet
above mean sea level, fronted by a 50-foot wide berm at elevation 15 feet above mean
sea level. In the Consortium communities, approximately 0.7 mile is authorized for
Yaupon; 8.3 miles at Long Beach; and 7.6 miles at Holden Beach. ,
The Corps of Engineers completed design of the project in 1973. In 1974, a bond
referendum to finance the local participation at Long Beach and Yaupon Beach was
defeated. As a result, the entire project was placed in "inactive status".
Following Hurricane Hugo, the beach communities requested that the project be
reevaluated. An economic study of the Long Beach and Yaupon portion of the project
was completed in 1990. This study found that the project was not economically justified.
The towns requested a new study that began in January 1998. In this study, the Corps
will use economic and storm erosion models have been developed since 1990. The new i
study will be complete in September 19997. A similar reevaluation for Holden Beach
began in April 1998. The Holden Beach study will be complete in September 2000. '
Economics will be a central element of these reevaluations. However, location of a
suitable source of sand for the initial restoration and periodic renourishment. ,
Following completion of these studies, assuming that they are positive, the Corps will
complete plans and specifications for the projects. At that point it will be necessary to
obtain Congressional funding for the projects. The current funding formula is 65%
federal, 35% non-federal. The non-federal share must come from a combination of local '
and state funds. The State is authorized to contribute up to 75% of the non-federal share;
however, the State contribution will depend on budget decisions by the General
Assembly. ,
7 Tom Jarrett, ACOE, May 22, 1998. ,
21
h-1

Elements of the preliminary project plan are described below:
• Deepening and realigning the Shallotte inlet. Surplus materials from this project are
earmarked for the east end of Ocean Isle.
• Deepening and realigning the Lockwoods Folly inlet with materials earmarked for
east Holden Beach. The beach will be nourished from the inlet west to about the
location of the bridge. This is a distance of approximately 10,100 feet. The inlet
channel will become a sediment basin and will be used as a source of sand for
periodic maintenance on Holden Beach.
• On Oak Island, the project will include the area from Lockwoods Folly inlet east to
about the CP&L cooling water facility. This is a distance of approximately 56,100
feet. Surplus materials from the Wilmington Harbor Project will be evaluated as a
sand source for Oak Island.
• If sufficient suitable materials are available from the Harbor Project, the ACOE will
haul the sand to a disposal/storage site where it would be available for deposit on Oak
Island.
• Approximately 150 yd3 of sand per foot will be required for the project.
• Deepening and realigning the inlets may produce erosion on the west ends of Holden
and Oak Island. The ACOE will implement a monitoring and mitigation program for
these areas.
Implications of Inlet Channel Realignment
During the 1 to 10 year time scales, inlets play a major role in the coastal sediment
budget by retaining large volumes of sand impounded from the littoral system. Inlet
systems also dictate the erosion and accretion patterns over long shoreline stretches,
many times the current dimensions of the typical inlet. Dredging activities within inlet
systems including channel deepening and realignment usually promote changes along the
adjacent barriers. These changes can be anticipated and steps can be taken to mitigate the
impact of dredging.
Ebb -tidal deltas, the seaward shoals of an inlet, are formed through the interaction
of waves and tidal currents. Slight changes in the size or shape of ebb deltas can have a
significant effect on adjacent shorelines. Regardless of size, the offshore shoals influence
the ends of the barriers, acting as natural breakwaters and modifying the wave energy
impinging upon the shoreline. Waves approaching the islands are refracted (or bent) in
such a manner that a region of sediment transport reversal occurs downdrift of the inlet.
22

This mechanism of transport reversal has been proposed to account for the
bulbous shoreline segment immediately downdrift of inlets such as Lockwoods Folly and
Shallotte Inlets. It is now recognized that episodes of sand bar -welding events account for
a major portion of the observed progradation at Lockwoods Folly and Shallotte Inlets.
The aforementioned processes account for the wide accretion zone along the westernmost
one mile long segments of Long Beach and Holden Beach.
When the symmetry of the ebb delta is changed (altering the natural breakwater
effect) there is a concomitant change in the pattern of erosion or accretion on the adjacent
barriers. Erosion and accretion along locationally stable inlets such as Lockwoods Folly
and Shallotte Inlets, are related to cyclical changes in the symmetry or shape changes of
the ebb delta. Cycles are associated with the repositioning and reorientation of the main
ebb channel and corresponding position changes in the marginal flood channels and
locations where swash bars weld onto the adjacent oceanfront beaches.
Dredging activities will alter the orientation and geometry of the main ebb
channel and the shape of the ebb tidal delta. The scenario as proposed will favor accretion
on the oceanfront beaches on the western margin of the inlets. The eastern margins of
both Holden and Ocean Isle Beaches will build seaward and as a result will reverse the
historic erosion trends that have characterized these areas for the past several decades.
The extent of erosion on the oceanfront beaches on the eastern shoulders of the inlets is
difficult to determine. However, it is likely that the shore normal orientation of the main
ebb channel of Lockwoods Folly and Shallotte Inlets will promote erosion along a
significant portion of the shoreline segments currently experiencing accretion on the
western ends of both Holden Beach and Long Beach. The areal extent of the accretion
zones on Holden Beach and Long Beach differ considerably. As a result the impact of
erosion related to channel realignment will probably be greater on Long Beach due
smaller size of the accretion zone.
Sea Turtle Habitat Restoration Project
The ACOE is presently developing a feasibility study and plans and specifications for a
turtle habitat restoration project in the area of 19th Place East and 71st Street East. The
project is being developed under the federal Water resources Development Act of 1986.
Sea turtles have historically used this area of Long Beach for nesting. The turtles require
sand above the high tide line for successful nesting, and at present there is no suitable
beach at high tide. Therefore, turtles that return to this site are threatened.
23

1
feet 11,000 feet.
Current planning alternatives include two project lengths of 5,800 and
Depending on the length of the project and project design, costs will range between
1
$4,700,000 and $7,000,000 with a non-federal share of $1,250,000 to $2,300,000.
Assuming a state contribution of 75% of the non-federal share, the local share will range
1
between $312,000 and $575,000.
Logically, the location of this project corresponds to one of Long Beach's erosion "hot
spots" located between survey points LB6 and LB2. The turtle restoration project wold
benefit storm protection in this area.
1
Navigation and Nourishment Projectsg
Channel maintenance projects by the Corps of Engineers have been the only major means
of beach nourishment for Holden Beach and Long Beach during the 1980's and 90's. The
1
following table shows nourishment projects associated with channel maintenance. The
table is based on several databases and may not include all projects, but it does illustrate
the frequency of nourishment from this source.
Frequency of Beach Nourishment
Navigation Maintenance Projects
Brunswick Beaches Area
Location Year
Volume
Linear Feet
cu. ds.
Long Beach 1986
130,000
n.a.
'
1989
104,803
n.a.
1993
160,091
1,601
Holden Beach 1971
108,802
1,088
1973
108,627
n.a.
'
1974
92,774
n.a.
1975
62,303
n.a.
'
1977
1984
76,149
76,876
n.a.
n.a.
1986
95,927
n.a.
8 Duke University,g Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines,
www.2eo.duke.edu/nearolin.htm; NC
Division of Coastal Management, Database on Consistency Review; G. Wade Home
et al, Village of Bald
Head Island Shoreline Management Plan.
24

Location Year Volume Linear Feet
cu. ds.
1987 173,963 n.a.
Lockwoods Folly (site unknown) 1993 n.a. n.a.
Bald Head Island 1992 800,000 12,300
1996 715,000 13,000
From this information, it appears that maintenance dredging at the inlets will yield
approximately 100,000 yd3 of sand on a 2 to 3 year schedule.
Data on shoreline maintenance projects in North Carolina is sketchy and difficult to
access. Development of an easily accessible database with information on project scope,
costs, funding sources, contact person, and so on would be useful for beach preservation
planning.
Lockwoods Folly River Project9
In response to long term interest by Brunswick County residents, the Congress has
provided funds to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop an action plan to
improve water quality in the Lockwoods Folly River. While the major objective of this
study is to improve water quality, it may also aid in stabilizing the beach on eastern
Holden Beach. In addition, the impacts of these changes on western Long Beach must be
considered.
According to local observers, water quality deterioration in the lower Lockwoods Folly is
the result of changes to the River, creeks and tidal flats made to create the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (Waterway) in Brunswick County. The Waterway was dredged in
Brunswick County in 1930-31. The channel was located generally in its present
alignment north of Oak Island and Holden Beach. The Waterway cut across the
Lockwoods Folly channel near where the river curved into the Eastern Channel.
Soon after dredging the Waterway channel, the Corps dredged a channel from the
Waterway at Brown's Landing on the Brunswick mainland south toward the Atlantic
Ocean. This new channel connected to the river's natural Eastern Channel.
9 Description based on March 12, 1998 interview with Mr. John F. Holden and an article written by Mr.
Holden and published in The Brunswick Beacon on February 27, 1997. Mr. Holden was involved in the
original subdivision of Holden Beach and has lived on the island since the 1920's.
25

'
According to reports by Mr. Holden, dredging the new channel along with the changes
associated with the Waterway initiated several destructive processes: (1) erosion in
eastern Holden Beach; (2) siltation in the Eastern Channel and the flats at the mouth of
the river; and (3) restricted flushing in the river which lowers water quality. Erosion on
the eastern end of Holden Beach has claimed more than 300 oceanfront and interior
lots-60 to 75 percent of the lots had houses. From the standpoint of water quality, at
times more than 70 percent of the available shellfishing acreage is closed.
The conceptual plan to repair the damage includes reopening the Eastern Channel of the
'
river behind Long Beach and partial closing of the current channel near Brown's
Landing. When complete, 75 percent of the tidal flow will be through the Eastern
'
Channel and 25 percent at Brown's Landing.
The Corps of Engineers is developing a scope of study for the action plan. Public
meetings on the scope will be held in the late spring 1998 and submission of the project
plan is scheduled for late summer of 1998. The action plan will identify water quality
and erosion concerns, potential solutions, and develop a coordinated plan of action.
Reorientation of the main inlet channel is a primary caution associated with this project.
Monitoring studies conducted by Cleary indicate that reorientation of the inlet channel
may result in significant negative shoreline changes to the east and will stabilize the
'
shoreline to the west. Mitigation plans must be in place if the channel is reoriented.
Wilmington Harbor Ship Channel Realignmentlo
The Wilmington Harbor Project (NC-96 ACT) provides for deepening and widening the
rnavigation
channels in the Cape Fear River, the Northeast Cape Fear River, and the
Baldhead Shoal Channel. A value engineering study performed by the ACOE on the
Baldhead Shoal Channel portion of the project indicates that significant cost savings
could be realized if the channel was realigned to the east. The new alignment will cost
less because the amount of rock to be excavated will be reduced. The new alignment
'
goes through the existing Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site located south of Bald
Head Island. Map 3 illustrates the realignment project.
'
According to information provided by the ACOE, the environmental impacts of the new
alignment may be less than improving the existing channel. Local fishermen report that
is in the alignment. Therefore, less blasting will be required for
there no rock alternative
10 Notes provided by ACOE staff on 12/2/98.
26

Map 3
Wilmington Harbor Project —Ship Channel
Realignment
= uLONue SHOAL
LOW[.
awwfN
XIfTINi AUONMfNT
7
_
w
r
r
I
SOUT
PORT
NffW ALYONMLNT
1
js�
r.�x
.
ki Id a`.
/
P
Source
Army Corps'otEngineers
the project. In addition, the project will generate 8 to 10 million cubic yards of material.
It is expected that most of this material will be suitable for beach fill. The material is
"designated" for Oak Island where it is estimated that approximately 8.4 million cubic
yards of material will be required for the initial project.
Some impact on erosion rates on Bald Head Island and/or Oak Island may result from the
project. Realignment of the channel will significantly change the existing system and its
impacts on the Bald Head Island and Oak Island beaches. The nature and extent of the
impacts is not known at this time. Olsen Associates and Coastal Tech, coastal
engineering firms involved with the Village of Bald Head Island, believe that some
negative impacts from the realignment are possible. Olsen states that "it is highly likely
that the Corps' proposed alignment —to a location directly seaward of the Bald Head
Island south shore —has the greatest possibility for new adverse impacts to the island
shoreline.s11 Coastal Tech states that the project "will likely have minor effects over and
above the effects of the existing channel. Some steepening and increased erosion of West
Beach may occur if the edge of the channel is moved closer to the beach.i12
The ACOE is conducting an impact study. Core samples are being collected from the
new channel alignment and shoreline impact studies are being conducted. Accurate
11 Olsen Associates, page 6.
t2 Coastal Technology Corporation, page 3.
27

'
conclusions about beach erosion impacts of the project can only be made after this study
is complete. The target date for completion of these studies is summer of 1999.
If the impact studies find that the project will increase erosion rates, then the Federal
'
government will share in the cost of replacing lost sand. The amount of the Federal share
will be determined after the studies. The Corps of Engineers indicates that the Federal
government will pay for replacement of sand that is lost because of the project, leaving
the local governments) to come up with funds to offset existing erosion. Local
governments, however, argue for a larger Federal share.13
'
'li
Availability of Sand for Restoration
Sand availability is a key limiting factor in the regional beach management program. For
obvious financial reasons, close at hand sources are best. However, preliminary
investigations indicate that close -by offshore deposits are not available for the western
portion of Oak Island and Holden Beach.
'
Geologic Setting of the Long Bay Shoreline
from Cape
Primarily relatively old rock units underlie the low energy shoreline segment
Fear south to the South Carolina border. These rocks range in age from the Upper
'
Cretaceous through the Eocene. Some Pleistocene age material may be present in
scattered localities. In the region, only a thin and highly variable veneer of sands and
'
muds of Quaternary age were deposited during the last 1.6 million years. The sandstone
units that are exposed on the seafloor off Holden Beach and Oak Island are relatively
hard and form low relief hardbottoms.
With the exception of Yaupon Beach, a small Pleistocene headland segment, all of the
Long Bay shoreline consists of barriers comprised of a thin layer of sand that is perched
on top of older, eroding, geologic units. The headland dominated shoreline at Yaupon
'
Beach consists of a very thin layer of sand perched on top of an ancestral inter -stream
limestone,
divide. Yaupon Beach is underlain by highly weathered Quaternary coquina
similar to the rock found between Kure Beach and Fort Fisher. The Yellow Banks area on
'
the northern side of the AIWW represents deposits similar to those found in Snow's Cut
near Carolina Beach. These deposits are the landward extension of the materials
underlying the Yaupon Beach area. No major paleo-river channels have been identified
13 Wilmington Morning Star, "Bald Head Residents Worry About Beach Disappearing," December 5, 1998,
'
page 1B.
28

on the shoreface off either Holden Beach or Oak Island. Some minor channels do exist
but probably are infilled with fine sand and mud.
Holden Beach
Holden Beach is a low -relief transgressive barrier island. Muddy fine quartz sandstone of
Cretaceous Age crops out across much of the shoreface and forms low relief
hardbottoms. The hardbottoms are mantled in some cases by a rippled thin veneer of fine
sand and gravels. Thickness of the modern shoreface sand unit is variable and ranges
form 0 to 3 ft. This mobile sand sheet represents materials continually reworked by
storms. The majority of sediments are derived from the underlying rocks. Holocene peat
and mud units overlie the Cretaceous units and occur along 30% of the inter -tidal beach,
reflecting the island's transgressive nature. No significant offshore sand resources have
been identified with the exception of the bordering ebb tidal deltas.
Oak Island
Oak Island is composed of two barrier spits (Caswell Beach and Long Beach) and a
headland segment (Yaupon Beach). Rocks lithologically similar to those off nearby
Holden Beach characterize the shoreface off the Oak Island area. The units are generally
fine grained sandstones and some limestones of Pale-eocene to Eocene Age. The
shoreface off the headland at Yaupon Beach has not been investigated in detail for
sand resources. The lower portions of the Pleistocene sequence that form the Yellow
Banks area may be preserved on the shoreface and provide a potential borrow site.
The thickness of the modern shoreface sand unit is believed to range from 0 to 4ft.
Ongoing investigations and reconnaissance coring operations by the USACE in the early
1970's off the western portions of the area indicated that the shoreface would not be a
likely source area for beachfill due to the fine grained muddy nature of the underlying
rock units.
Inlet -Related Sand Bodies
The ebb tidal deltas that front Lockwoods Folly Inlet and Shallotte Inlet contain between
6 and 8 million cu y of beachfill quality sediment to depths of 18 ft. These sand bodies
represent short-term borrow sites for the adjacent beaches. The USACE estimate that
after an initial dredging effort involving of approximately 1.6 million cy of material
(estimate for Shallotte Inlet) an additional 300,000 cy of material could be dredged and
29
L
I I
I
P
F

'
placed on the adjacent beaches on a three year cycle. Dredging of these inlet sand bodies
should not be viewed as the long-term solution to the chronic erosion.
The Cape Fear River Estuary entrance shoal (ebb delta) is the largest inlet related sand
body in southeastern North Carolina. The shoals out to depths of 18 ft contain
approximately 90 million cy of material. Much of this material is located on the western
side of the Ship Channel within the Jay Bird Shoal Complex. Vibracores recovered by the
'
USACE from this area indicate the western shoal segment contains material of variable
quality. The exact nature of the sediment sequence is yet to be determined. Although the
shoal complex may contain some muddy sediments the site will probably represent the
long-term borrow site for much of the Brunswick County shoreline. However, sources at
the ACOE indicate that transport of this material will be expensive.
Summary
• Offshore area consists of thin layer of sediment overlying hard rock units.
'
• Little or no sediment cover exists seaward of -25 ft off Holden Beach.
• No major paleo-channel systems have been identified.
'
• The seaward extension and equivalents of Yellow Banks/Yaupon Beach may exists
beneath the shoreface and provide potential source.
• Inlet systems are estimated to yield an initial 1.0-1.6 million cy and an additional
'
300,000 cy on a three year cycle.
• Realignment of main channel will promote erosion on western segments of Holden
'
Beach and Long Beach along areas that are now accreting.
• The extent and severity of erosion is difficult to ascertain and predict
'
• The western segment of Long Beach will likely be affected to a greater extent than
Holden Beach due to smaller size of accretion zone.
• Dredging of the Cape Fear River Estuary Entrance shoal system will provide the
long-term beachfill needs for the Brunswick Co. beaches.
' Wilmington Harbor Project
The ACOE will begin dredging the Cape Fear River Channel in 2000 or 2001. This
' project will produce a large quantity of surplus material, some of which will be adequate
for beach fill. However, selection of beach -quality material and transport may be so
costly as to make this source impractical. According to information from ACOE staff,
the added costs of transport alone may be as high as $4 per yd3. These costs would be
' 100% non-federal.
30

Mainland Sources
The Yellow Banks area, located across the Waterway from Long Beach on the mainland,
contains significant stockpiles of beach -quality sand. There are also other potential
borrow sites on the mainland. Access and transportation costs, environmental impact,
and permitting are key considerations with these sources.
DEVELOPING FUNDING RESOURCES
Implementing beach preservation projects requires significant levels of funding. State
and federal funding will be available to cover a major portion of project costs. However,
local government members of the Consortium will bear significant costs. State and
federal sources will continue to be available from time to time; however, it is anticipated
that these sources will only cover a portion of the cost and that significant local funding
will be required. State and federal funds will most likely be available for the costs
associated with beach nourishment project planning and implementation and a share of
periodic maintenance. The bulk of the operating costs of a beach preservation program
will come from local revenues or private sources.
• Funding formulas must be equitable with costs apportioned according to benefits
received.
• Consortium members must have the flexibility to pursue a number of non-traditional
revenue sources —impact fees, utility rates, and enterprise charges are examples.
• Beach preservation projects have high up front costs that usually do not match the
revenue streams available at the local level. Debt may be required to meet these up
front costs and borrowed funds must be available in a timely manner to meet project
cost -sharing requirements.
• Special assessments to recover some or all of the costs of capital projects have a long
history in North Carolina. Assessments should be considered as a key part of the
financial plan for beach nourishment projects.
Renourishment Cost Estimates
Prior to the development of detailed plans and specifications, cost estimates for
renourishment of the Brunswick Beaches are at best a guess. However, the exercise is
31
I

useful to determine at least the magnitude of non -federal —local and state funding
required.
Beach Preservation Costs
As noted above, estimating costs for initial nourishment is difficult without knowing the
details of the project plan and identifying a source of sand. However, the cost experience
on two recent projects in the region provide some general guidance on the cost for a
project in the Brunswick Beaches area.
• Kure Beach Project. The approximate total cost of this project was $14,000,000 and
it nourished approximately 3.2 miles of beach. The profile of this beach project
included a 13-foot dune. Beach fill materials were close -at -hand for this project. The
' per -mile cost was $4.4 million.
• North Myrtle Beach Reach III Project. This project covered approximately 7.7
miles of shoreline at a cost of $11.5 million. The profile of this project included a 9-
foot dune and a narrower beach than the Kure Beach project. The per -mile cost was
$2.0 million.
According to preliminary planning, the Brunswick Beaches renourishment projects will
be more like Kure Beach than the Myrtle Beach project. The Kure Beach project used
more than 200 yd3 of sand per foot while the Brunswick projects will require
approximately 150 yd3 per foot. However, the lack of sand availability may push the
costs of the Brunswick project higher.
For planning purposes, it is assumed that the costs of initial nourishment for Oak Island,
including 56,100 feet from the inlet to the CP&L cooling facility, will be $617 per foot;
for Holden, including 10,100 feet from the inlet west to the bridge, the cost will be $550
per foot. Since it has already constructed a nourishment project, the costs Bald Head
Island will consist of periodic maintenance.
Periodic Maintenance Costs
Estimates for beach maintenance costs are derived from the experience of Wrightsville
and Carolina Beaches. These projects are maintained on a 3 to 4 year cycle. The costs
for the most recent maintenance projects are shown in Table 2 below. The table shows a
non-federal project cost of $836,676 per mile in Wrightsville and $972,780 per mile in
Carolina Beach. Assuming that the state pays 75% of the non-federal share, Wrightsville
32

must earmark $18,300/mile of beach renourished each year for project maintenance and
Carolina Beach must earmark $28,372/mile each year. The Wrightsville project includes
approximately 54% of the total length of 4.8 miles.
TABLE 2
Beach Nourishment Project Maintenance Costs
Wrightsville Beach
Total length of beach
renourished
14,000 feet
2.65 mi.
Frequency
Every 4 years
Total project cost
$2,218,458
Cost per mile
$836,676
Cost per mile per year
$209,169
Federal share (65%)
$135,959
Non-federal share (35%)
$73,210
Carolina Beach
Total length of beach
renourished
14,000 feet
2.65 mi.
Frequency
Every 3 years
Total project cost
$2,579,340
Cost per mile
$972,780
Cost per mile per year
$324,260
Federal share (65%)
$210,770
Non-federal share (35%)
$113,490
For the purposes of this plan, it is assumed that the Brunswick Beaches communities will
need to budget approximately $30,000 per mile/year for maintenance and that
approximately 60% of the project area must be renourished.
Prototype Budget
Table 3 provides very preliminary estimates of the initial capital costs for beach
nourishment and the annualized cost of periodic maintenance of the nourished beaches.
This budget is based on the assumptions outlined above. Capital costs are shown for
Holden Beach and the Oak Island communities. Since Bald Head Island has already
constructed a project on the south beach, only periodic maintenance costs are shown for
this project. It is assumed that maintenance will involve approximately 7,200 feet of
33

1
I
1
i
11
0
1
1
shoreline every three years and that cost sharing for Bald Head maintenance will be 50%
federal and 50% non-federal. However, cost sharing for Bald Head will depend on
availability of funds.
Table 3
Prototypical Budget for Beach Preservation
Holden Beach
I Oak Island
Bald Head Island
Region
Estimated Shoreline
Length (feet)
10,100
56,000
12,000
78,100
Estimated Initial Project Costs
Total Cost
$ 5,545,000
$ 34,600,000
-
$ 40,145,000
Federal Share
$ 3,604,250
$ 22,490,000
-
$ 26,094,250
State Share
$ 1,455,563
$ 9,082,500
-
$ 10,538,063
Local Share
$ 485,188
$ 3,027,500
-
$ 3,512,688
Annual Debt Service
5 yr note
($112,066.08)
($699,276.20)
-
($811,342.29)
10 yr note
($64,368.74)
($401,651.67)
-
($466,020.41)
Annual Cost of
Periodic Maintenance
$ 100,748
$ 558,600
$240,000
$ 899,348
Total Annual Cost of Beach
Preservation
5 yr loan
$212,813.58
$1,257,876.201
$240,000
$1,710,689.79
10 yr loan
$165,116.241
$960,251.671
$240,0001
$1,365,367.91
On Oak Island, approximately 8 1 % of the project is located in Long Beach, 6% in
Yaupon Beach, and 13% in Caswell Beach.
Funding Alternatives
Initial Capital Costs —Debt Finance
It is anticipated that the local share of the initial project costs will require debt financing.
Several tools are available to the Consortium members. These tools, with pros and cons,
are described below.
• General Obligation Bonds. General Obligation Bonds are the most common, best
understood and probably the least expensive means for local governments to finance
capital projects. Essentially, GO bonds allow the local government to borrow funds
for long terms (20 to 30 years) at tax exempt rates. Because the property taxing
power of the local government is pledged to repay these bonds, the lender's security is
high which yields very low interest rates. Even though property taxes are pledged to
34
1

repay these loans, other sources of revenue, such as the room occupancy tax, can be
used to make actual payments. The cost of issuing GO bonds is lower than other
forms of borrowing.
There is some risk involved with using GO bonds for beach nourishment. Since
property taxes are pledged for GO bond repayments, the voters in a referendum must
approve the bonds. If voters failed to approve bonds in a referendum, then local
funds would not be available when needed for the beach nourishment projects.
• Revenue Bonds. Revenue bonds are a long term finance alternative to general ,
obligation bonds. The key difference is that the local government issuer is required to
pledge a consistent revenue source, such as water revenues, to repay the bonds. Since
the taxing power is not pledged, revenue bonds do not require a vote. This feature
addresses some of the uncertainty associated with GO bonds.
Revenue bonds while tax exempt, generallcarry a higher interest than GO bonds
because of the higher risk to the lender. The costs of issuing revenue bonds are also
higher than GO bonds.
Some communities have established storm water utilities which charge monthly rates
for storm water related services. While beach preservation is not specifically defined
as a storm water service in the statutes, if the consortium communities could establish
a storm water utility and include beach preservation as one of its storm water
services, then it should be possible to pledge a portion of these revenues to repay
revenue bonds. A local act adding beach preservation as a storm water service would
provide a margin of safety.
• Short -Term Borrowing. Some North Carolina lenders are assisting local
governments with capital project financing through installment purchase loans.
Some loans have been made for beach preservation. These loans generally have
relatively short terms. Five years is typical and ten years may be the maximum. The
longer the term the higher the interest rate. A five-year installment purchase may
carry a rate of 5.0% while a ten-year loan may have a rate of 5.5%.
Discussions with lenders indicate that they would like to see a dedicated revenue
source for repayment of these loans.
1�
35

1
1
1
I
I
I
1
i
L!
I
For all of these finance options, consortium members would benefit from a joint issuance.
The costs of issuing the bond or note would be lower and the larger principal amount may
attract lower interest rates.
Revenue Sources for Debt Repayment and Operating Costs
The North Carolina General Statutes give local governments some flexibility in
identifying revenue sources for beach preservation. These options are reviewed below.
• Property Taxes. The property tax may be the most straight -forward approach to
funding beach preservation. However, due to changes in needs from year-to-year, it
is difficult for local governments to dedicate a portion of the tax rate to beach
preservation.
• Municipal Service Districts (Special Tax Districts). GS 160A-535 specifically
authorizes local governments to create service districts to carryout beach erosion
control and hurricane protection works. The statutes state that the municipality must
find that the service is needed to a greater extent within the district than the rest of
the municipality.
The tax rate for the district plus the current municipal rate may not exceed the
property tax limit.
GO bonds may be used for projects in the service district. However, a majority of the
town and a concurrent majority of the district must approve them.
While the service district may be a workable option, the concept is simply an
additional property tax and it does not reflect the community -wide benefits of beach
preservation.
• Occupancy Taxes. All of the consortium members collect occupancy taxes on
lodgings within their communities. The rates are 5% for all communities except Bald
Head, which is at 6%. An estimate of the revenues generated by the tax is provided
in Table 4.
9�

TABLE 4
Occupancy Tax Revenues
Tax rate
Approximate annual
revenues generated
Funds Reserved for
Beach Preservation
Projects
Holden Beach
5%
$500,000
$200,000
Long Beach
5%
$330,000
Yaupon Beach
5%
$42,500
$25,000
Caswell Beach
5%
$93,000
$37,200
Bald Head Island
6%
$470,000
$470,000
Total
1$1,295,500
$732,200
Some communities have already pledged a portion of these revenues for beach
preservation. However, these revenues are also used to offset the costs of visitor
related services.
As shown in Table 3, under the 10-year finance option, occupancy revenues will
cover a major portion of preservation costs if dedicated to this service.
• Storm Water Utility Rates. GS 160A-314 and GS 153A-277 authorize cities and
counties to establish rates, fees, and charges for construction, operation, and
maintenance of structural and natural stormwater and drainage systems. Many
localities in North Carolina have taken advantage of this authority. The usual
approach is to establish a monthly stormwater utility fee based on the size of the
property and the area of impervious surfaces. The fees are similar to fees and charges
for water and sewer.
Beach preservation and hurricane protection works are not specifically mentioned in
the statutes' definition of public utility as they are in other provisions of the statutes,
such as the municipal service districts. Most communities, however, now consider
beach preservation to be one element of a comprehensive approach to stormwater
management. For added security, it should be possible to obtain a local act to allow
the Brunswick Beaches community to utilize this provision. A local act would
specify that beach preservation and hurricane protection works are part of storm water
utility services.
• Special Assessments. The General Statutes allow cities and counties to recover the
costs of beach preservation and hurricane protection works from special assessments.
37
1
1
t
1
a
1,
1

These assessments may be levied against property benefited by the project. Several
methods may be used to allocate project costs:
Front foot
Area of land benefited
Value of property after project
Combination
Special assessments may be used to recover all or a portion of the funds used for beach
preservation. However, local government must have sufficient funds to cover the local
share of the project at the time it is advertised for bids. Assessments are levied after
project completion. In addition, property owners are allowed up to 10 years to pay the
..: assessment.
Organization Options
Creation of an effective management structure is a basic requirement for developing and
implementing a regional beach preservation strategy. Beach preservation is an inter -
jurisdictional process requiring a significant amount of funds for implementation. In this
environment, it will be necessary for the presently informal consortium to evolve into a
more formal regional management organization.
In No g management North Carolina several regional models are available to local
government. The purpose of this memorandum is to review these management options
and to recommend the most effective short and long range approaches to achieve the
Consortium's basic aims. The memorandum addresses options that are currently
authorized under state statutes and includes research on the approaches that are taken in
other states.
As a foundation for evaluating alternatives and making recommendations, the memorandum
outlines basic aims and program areas for the evaluation of alternatives.
Beach Preservation Aims
The Consortium has three basic aims in its beach preservation program:
38

• To preserve valuable undeveloped beach and dune systems within the Brunswick
Beaches area.
• To restore and maintain the health of damaged beach systems.
• To prevent inappropriate development and redevelopment on the region's beaches.
Organizational Considerations
Maintaining the Regional Approach
Even though there are few examples of true regional approaches to beach preservation in
the nation, many experts interviewed emphasize the importance of the regional approach.
As noted beach preservation needs are inter jurisdictional and effective implementation
of beach preservation strategies is a cooperative process.
While preserving the flexibility of the member jurisdictions, the County and the five
municipalities should continue the regional preservation effort, and if possible, the other
Brunswick beach communities should be recruited to the effort.
The following factors are listed as reasons to preserve the regional approach:
— Beach erosion processes do not necessary confine themselves to political
boundaries
— Effectiveness of preservation projects will be increased if carried out on a
regional or multi jurisdictional basis
— Funding is easier on a cooperative basis
— Stronger advocacy is possible on a regional basis
Capacity to Implement Comprehensive Program
The critical needs of the area's beaches will require a comprehensive program of beach
preservation. The comprehensive program will include five main elements:
• Erosion prevention
• Beach restoration and renourishment
• Establish and preserve protective dune systems
• Beach maintenance
wt

r�
I• Beach acquisition
Implementation will require additional project planning, financial planning, project
design, and project management. Currently, responsibility for these elements of the plan
rests with various local, state, and federal agencies.
The key regional functions are to assist local governments in managing their role in the
beach preservation process and to insure that state and federal agency commitments are
adequate and timely. These functions require a regional organization with capabilities in
the following areas:
1. Work with local governments to develop a financial plan to provide the local
share of beach preservation projects.
2. Maintain an on -going program of field work to provide up-to-date physical
information on shore conditions.
3. Sponsor projects, such as local renourishment, beach maintenance, and
(� property acquisition, when designated by local governments.
Developing Equitable Revenue Sources
Implementing beach preservation projects requires significant levels of funding. The
regional organization must be capable of aggressively pursuing state and federal funding
sources, but it must also be capable of developing revenues on a regional basis in a way
that ensures equity and develops local understanding and support for the program. State
and federal sources will continue to be available from time to time; however, it is
anticipated that these sources will only cover a portion of the cost and that significant
local funding will be required. State and federal funds will most likely be available for
the costs associated with project planning and implementation. The bulk of the operating
costs of a beach preservation program will come from local revenues or private sources.
• Funding formulas must be equitable with costs apportioned according to
benefits received.
• The management entity must be flexible to pursue a number of non-traditional
revenue sources —impact fees, utility rates, and enterprise charges are
examples.
• Beach preservation projects have high up front costs that usually do not match
the revenue streams available at the local level. Debt may be required to meet
�
40

Cl
these up front costs. Therefore ideally, the management entity should have
the ability to borrow funds.
• Special assessments to recover some or all of the costs of capital projects have
a long history in North Carolina. The management entity should have the
capability to use this tool for beach projects.
Flexibility in Setting Priorities
Frequently, project needs will exceed funds available. The regional organization must
have the capacity to work with local, state, and federal agencies to gain agreement on
project priorities when this occurs. In addition, there should be flexibility to incorporate
new funds as they become available.
Advocacy for Beach Preservation Funding
Development of adequate funding from any source will be difficult. A regional
organization is needed to present a strong voice in the Legislature for a dedicated source
of funding for beach preservation and to lobby Congress to increase its funding of beach
preservation. These efforts must be supported by a strong public information program to
keep coastal residents and public officials cognizant of the environmental and economic
importance of the area's beaches and preservation needs and to keep them ready to
support programs with funding.
Figure 5 illustrates the organization for beach preservation.
Review of Alternative Regional Organizations
North Carolina Models14
The North Carolina General Statutes authorize local governments to cooperate on
projects of mutual benefit in a number of ways. Beach preservation is a new idea for
regional or multi jurisdictional undertaking so the management options that specifically
allow beach preservation programs are limited. However, it may be possible through
special legislation to modify or combine elements of one or more of these options to
create a new management entity for regional beach preservation. If special legislation is
required, the alternative should be considered a long range approach.
14 Conversation with Mr. Jake Wicker at the UNC Institute of Government confirms that the Interlocal
Agreement may the best available initial option but that special legislation may allow use of another option
such as the water and sewer authority.
41

I
Organization Chart
Brunswick Beaches Preservation Consortium
Brunswick Co.
Holden Beach Long Beach Caswell Beach Bald Head Is.
Yaupon Beach
Policy Regional Beach Preservation Consortium Administration
Making
Regional Beach
Management Goals
Preserve valuable undeveloped
beach and dune systems
Prevent inappropriate
development & redevelopment
on the region's beaches
Restore & maintain damaged
beach systems
Erosion
Restoration and
prevention
renourishment
C
Planning and
Finance
design
Programs
Beach
Acquisition
maintenance
Functional Areas
Public
Coordination
Service
information and
with local, state,
delivery &
advocacy
and federal
project
agencies
management
Figure 5.
42

Regional Planning Commission
GS 153A-391 authorizes counties and cities to create regional planning commissions by
adopting identical concurrent resolutions. The six members of the Brunswick Beaches
Consortium could create a formal planning agency for beach preservation by adopting
resolutions. The basis for funding the commission is spelled out in the resolution.
As its name implies, a regional planning commission is tasked primarily with planning
functions. These agencies are authorized to study needs, prepare plans to meet those
needs, coordinate with other agencies within the region, and to make recommendations to
its member governments and other public agencies within the region. The regional
commission can carry out these functions with its own staff, by contracting with one or
more of the member governments, or by contracting with consultants.
The regional commission organization is too limited for the purposes envisioned for the
Brunswick Beaches Consortium. Even though the commissions may be able to
coordinate implementation actions among its members, they are structured primarily for
planning and are not authorized to implement projects.
Joint Exercise of Powers (Interlocal Agreement)
Joint agencies established by interlocal agreement are the most flexible regional entity
with implementation powers.
Joint exercise of powers (JEP) through an interlocal agreement is authorized in NCGS
160A, Article 20. GS 160A-460 defines an undertaking as the joint exercise of any
power, function, public enterprise, right, or privilege of local government. Basically, this
means that participating units can perform any function or exercise any power through a
joint agency that it can on its own. The undertaking can be joint by two or more units or
it can be a contractual exercise by one unit for one or more other units. The statutes
(160A-461) require a contract or joint agreement to establish a joint undertaking.
Mechanically, the statutes (160A-462) authorize establishment of a joint agency to carry
out the undertaking. However, the joint agency may not own real estate. Any real estate
required for the undertaking must either be held individually by the participating units or
as tenants in common.
A board established by the interlocal agreement is the policy making body for the
undertaking. Depending on the structure of the agreement, the policy board may consist
of elected officials who represent the respective members. Arrangements for personnel

I
required to carry out the undertaking are specified in the agreement. These arrangements
may include separate staffing or staffing through a contract with a participating unit.
Member units participate in the overall operation of the agency through the appointment
process and the approval of the annual budget.
Statute (160A-464) requirements for the interlocal agreement are not complicated:
1. Purpose of the undertaking
2. Duration of the agreement
3. Description of the joint agency
4. Manner of appointing personnel
5. Method of financing and apportioning costs
6. Formula for ownership of real property
7. Method of contract amendment
8. Method of termination of the agreement
joint
Keylimitations of the agency re in its ability to pursue non-traditional revenue for
� g ya y p s
beach preservation. The joint agency could only utilize revenue sources authorized for its
member, eliminating sources such as special assessments, impact fees, and utility rates.
Municipal Service District
The municipal service district is not a regional entity. However when used in
conjunction with a joint agency, the service district allows an additional revenue source.
This statute provision (160A-535) has two important features. First, it specifically
authorizes beach preservation as a service in service districts. Second, the statute allows
special taxes within the service district to fund the cost of the service.
Special services within a district may be delivered with the municipality's own forces or
by contract. If members of a joint agency use the service district concept, then the joint
agency could contract with a private entity for services or it could contract with one or
�i more of the members to provide the service.
In order to establish a service district, the elected board must adopt a resolution defining a
service level for the district based on a finding that the service, facility, or function is
needed to a greater extent within the service district than the rest of the municipality.
These definitions must be based on a report that contains a map of the district and a plan
for delivering services.
44

A special property tax can be levied in the district but the total of the special tax and the
municipal rate may not exceed the tax limit established by the statutes.
Bonds may be issued for projects within the district. However, a majority of voters in the
municipality and a concurrent majority within the district must approve them.
Water and Sewer Authority
Beach preservation is not currently an authorized function of authorities. However, the
structure of a water and sewer authority offers some advantages for regional beach
preservation programs:
• Can issue revenue bonds
• Can assess benefiting property owners for improvements
• Can set rates, fees, or other charges for services
In addition, a water and sewer authority can adopt ordinances necessary for delivery of its
services and can assess civil fines and penalties for violations.
In the future, it may be possible to build some of these provisions into a regional beach
preservation organization through special legislation.
National Models
Nationally, two regional models were reviewed. The San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) is a regional planning organization that undertakes beach
preservation planning. In Broward County Florida, the county uses a special tax district
encompassing the entire county to fund local share of beach preservation.
SANDAG
SANDAG is a respected "joint powers agency" established under California state law.
Each of the 19 member jurisdictions signed a formal agreement to create the agency. In
this respect, the agency is similar to joint agency that would be created under a North
Carolina interlocal agreement.
SANDAG has a Board of Directors composed of elected representatives from the
region's 19 local governments. Advisory representatives from other key agencies in the
45

1
Regional Transportation
region ---Water Authority, Department of Defense, and the
Authority —supplement these voting members.
Shoreline Preservation is only one of a range of programs undertaken by the agency. Its
beach preservation activities are under the supervision of the Shoreline Erosion
Committee.
SANDAG's shoreline preservation strategy, adopted in 1993, provides regional guidance
for funding and implementation of beach preservation projects. The preservation strategy
is primarily a regional plan. Funding and implementation of specific projects are the
responsibility of various local, state, and federal agencies.
Broward County Florida
Broward uses a special tax district that encompasses the entire county, including
municipalities, for beach preservation purposes. The county has the authority to assess
ad valorem taxes in the district to support beach preservation projects. The funds raised
by the tax district are used to pay the local share of projects undertaken as a result of the
State's comprehensive shoreline preservation program.
Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Inc.15
FSBPA is a tax exempt, non-profit corporation established in 1957 as a public education
and advocacy association for beach preservation. According to its director, the
association has two bases of support which give it a strong voice and significant clout
with the Florida state legislature. First, FSBPA is a kind of "league of cities and
counties" with almost all of Florida's coastal counties and municipalities as members.
Public membership also includes universities and other public organizations. Second, the
association has more than 1,000 individual members.
The FSBPA has four major functions:
• e and Congress on beach reservation issues and
Lobbying the legislature g p
funding
• Working with local state, and federal agencies to promote beach preservation
projects
• Using local chapters to build support to get new projects started
15 Interview with Stan Tait, Executive Director, FSBPA.
46

1
• Educating public officials and the general public on the best ways to deal with
beach preservation needs
As part of its program, the FSBPA spearheaded enactment of Florida's Comprehensive
Beach Management Act. Through this act, the State of Florida assumes the major
responsibility for planning and funding beach preservation programs.
The association emphasizes the importance of local chapters. Implementing beach
preservation plans depends on support from local residents and property owners and from
towns and counties which must fund the construction projects.
The structure of FSBPA and its programs provide a model for developing a public
education program and lobbying effort in coastal North Carolina.
Local and Regional Beach Preservation Options I
While a range of shoreline stabilization alternatives are in use at various sites, the number
of available options in North Carolina is restricted by the Chapter 15A of the North
Carolina Administrative Code adopted pursuant to the Coastal Area Management Act.
Subchapter 07H .0308 (a)(1)(13) states that "permanent erosion control structures may
cause significant adverse impacts on the value and enjoyment of adjacent properties or
public access to and use of the ocean beach, and, therefore are prohibited (emphasis
added). Such structures include, but are not limited to: bulkheads; seawalls; revetments;
jetties; groins and breakwaters." This restriction applies to the ocean shoreline. (Exhibit
2, drawing heavily on the Bald Head Island Shoreline Management Plan, gives a brief
description and evaluation of typical shoreline stabilization methods.)
The coastal regulations do allow a series of "temporary" erosion control methods. These
methods include: sandbags placed above mean high water; beach nourishment and spoil
disposal; beach bulldozing; dune establishment and stabilization; and structural
accessways. The regulations do allow innovative or experimental measures if they are
shown to have potential for slowing the erosion rate while minimizing adverse impacts
on pubic beaches. Any innovative structure or measure that is permitted must be
removed if it proves to increase erosion on nearby beaches or property.
Beach preservation or stabilization measures permitted in North Carolina are described
below.
47

1
is
1)
Sandbags. Placement of sandbags to control erosion clearly a temporary measure.
Sandbags may only be used to protect imminently threatened roads and rights -of -way
and buildings and associated septic systems. A sandbag system may remain in place
for up to 2 years if it is protecting a building of less than 5,000 square feet; for up to 5
years if it is protecting a road or a building greater than 5,000 square feet. When the
time limit has expired or when the sandbag system is determined to be unnecessary, it
2)
must be removed.
Beach nourishment. The regulations require the sand used for nourishment to be
compatible with existing grain size and type, and it must be taken from areas where
resulting environmental impacts will be minimal. At the commencement of the
project, DCM will locate the vegetation line. This line will then be used for setback
3)
determinations for as long as the project is being maintained.
Beach bulldozing. This process consists of moving natural beach material from the
first line of stable vegetation to create a protective sand dike. The activity is
permitted as an erosion response under the following conditions:
a) Project follows pre -emergency beach slope to the greatest extent possible and
material movement does not exceed one foot in depth measured from the pre -
activity surface;
b) Project cannot exceed bounds of applicant's property;
c) Movement of material beyond the low water mark requires a Dredge and Fill
Permit; and
1
d) Project cannot significantly increase erosion on adjoining properties.
4)
Dune establishment and stabilization. The regulations allow the establishment and
stabilization of dunes under the following conditions:
a) New dunes must conform to the greatest extent possible with existing adjacent
dune ridges;
b) Except for beach renourishment and emergency response to erosion, existing
primary and frontal dunes may not be extended seaward;
c) Adding dunes must be accomplished in a manner than does least damage to
existing vegetation;
d) Sand used to establish or strengthen dunes must be of the same general
characteristics as existing sand in the area of the project; and
e) No new dunes may be created in inlet hazard areas.
5) Accessways. Accessways to cross primary dunes are permitted by the regulations as
a means to reduce damage to the dune system. There are restrictions on the purpose,
design and placement of the accessways:
a) The structure must entail negligible alteration to the primary dune;
b) It must be exclusively for pedestrian use;
c) The width must be less than 6 feet;
48

d) Wherever possible, the accessway must not touch the primary dune; and
e) Areas of vegetation that are disturbed must be re -vegetated as soon as feasible.
Structural accessways may not be considered "threatened structures" for the purposes
of the CAMA regulations.
From discussions with professionals involved with beach preservation in North Carolina,
it appears that the State's ban on hardened structures will withstand legal challenge and
that change in the regulations, in the foreseeable future, is unlikely. Therefore, short-
term and long-range planning for beach preservation should take place within the context
of current regulations.
Of the permitted erosion responses, beach nourishment is a long term response; dune
establishment and stabilization may be either a short term or long term response
depending on the approach; and beach bulldozing and sandbagging are considered to be
emergency measures undertaken when erosion accelerates or "hot spots" develop to
threaten structures and facilities. These techniques form a system of responses to beach
erosion and each must be employed with consideration of specific conditions, time for
mobilization, permitting requirements, cost, and effectiveness.
Erosion Response
Mobilization
Permitting
Cost
Effectiveness
Time
Requirements
Sandbags
Short
Not complicated,
Low
Low —approach
but clearly and
only for threatened
emergency
structures to allow
response. One-
time for
time permit to
nourishment or
allow removal of
relocation.
structure.
Beach nourishment
Depending on the
Not complicated.
Overall project
Most effective
scope of the
Blanket permits
cost may be high.
project response
project and
for disposal of
Generally requires
for storm
involvement by
dredge spoil.
partnership with
protection.
State and Federal
Must be
State and Federal
agencies, the lead
accomplished
agencies. Source
time for planning,
within "turtle
and quality of sand
designing, and
window."
is a key factor in
financing a
determining cost
nourishment
of these
project can be
approaches.
considerable
Beach bulldozing
Short
Not complicated.
Low —may be
I Low —nixed
!fit

1
11
Erosion Response
Mobilization
Time
Permitting
Requirements
Cost
Effectiveness
Must be
accomplished with
opinions on
accomplished
community's own
effectiveness; an
within "turtle
forces or through
interim measure
window."
regional sharing of
similar to
equipment and
sandbags. May be
personnel.
only response
available for "hot
spots."
Dune establishment
Moderate
Low, depending
High —can
and stabilization
on approach. If
maintain or create
sediment is hauled
dune systems to
in, cost can be
provide reasonable
high. Where dry
level of storm
beach is present,
protection.
vegetation can be
installed at cost of
about $2.50 per
foot, if plants are
purchased.
I Recommendations
1. Prepare for Participation in Federally -funded Beach
Preservation Projects
Large-scale beach nourishment with on -going maintenance is the best solution to the
chronic erosion problems experienced by the Brunswick Beaches communities. Due to
the relatively high costs of this alternative, it is essential that federal and state funding are
available and that the local funding share is in place to allow the project to proceed on
schedule. Without a nourishment project, the communities will be subjected to
significant risk of storm -related flood damage and will be forced to undertake expensive
stopgap measures such as dune fill and beach -bulldozing.
Several key steps are required to ensure that all preliminary planning and engineering is
completed and the federal project is ready to proceed on schedule. These tasks are
outlined below:
• Ensure that planning and engineering are completed on time. The Brunswick
Beaches Consortium should be the contact point for the staff at the ACOE. The
50

1
keep
Consortium should monitor progress on the re-evaluation studies and member
communities informed about compliance with the established schedule, changes in
project scope, and project cost estimates as they become available. If the project falls
behind schedule, the Consortium should coordinate with the ACOE on options for
getting the project back on schedule. The Consortium should also provide member
communities with reliable cost estimates as soon as possible so that financial plans
can be finalized.
The Consortium should also seek to expand the scope of the Oak Island and Holden
Beach projects. Caswell Beach was not part of the original project authorization.
Even though the ACOE has expanded the scope of the re-evaluation to include
Caswell, the Consortium should ensure that it is included in project funding.
Discussions with ACOE staff indicate that the scope of the Holden Beach project may
include only the eastern portion of the island, from the inlet west to the bridge. Sand
availability is the key factor in selecting this area. This segment of Holden includes
the reaches with the greatest current need. However, there are reaches to the west
be include these
that experience chronic erosion and efforts should made to segments
in the project.
Finally, Bald Head Island was not part of the original Brunswick Beaches
authorization and the island cannot be added to the project. The Consortium should
begin planning to obtain a project authorization for Bald Head. This will require
action by Congress.
Begin process of securing federal and state funding. The lead time required for
federal and state funding is significant. The Consortium should begin contacting its
state and federal representatives as soon as possible to inform them of beach
preservation needs, benefits, and funding requirements. Commitments for funding
be
should obtained as soon as possible.
• Develop policy on threatened properties. As discussed in the section on Threat to
Structures and Facilities, members of the consortium should develop policies for
structures where the location of dunes and/or the high water line will require a less
than optimal design for the renourishment project. Policies could include one or a
combination of the following: protection, relocation, or acquisition of structures.
Local conditions may prevent adoption of consistent policies throughout the
Brunswick Beaches area. The consortium can provide significant assistance by
developing a model policy that can be tailored by members.
51
i

• Determine how local funds will be developed. Local decisions about financing the
rinitial project and the on -going maintenance should be made as soon as possible.
These decisions require identification of the approach(es) for debt funding, how debt
repayment will be handled, and how on -going maintenance will be funded.
2. Establish Organization Structure to Implement Regional
1 Plan.
Two related organizations are recommended to implement the structure: a joint agency
formed by interlocal agreement and a non-profit association for education and advocacy.
T Joint Agency (Interlocal Agreement)
The interlocal agreement to form a joint agency is the most effective formal structure
currently available. It allows participating member's maximum flexibility, it is directly
accountable to the members, and it allows the members to implement any project or
service jointly that they can individually. The members of the Consortium will makeup
the initial membership. Long range, efforts should be made to expand membership to all
Brunswick coastal communities.
The joint agency should be focused on implementation of a comprehensive beach
preservation strategy. The recommended mission of the agency is as follows:
1. Develop funding sources for the local share of beach preservation projects that are
consistent and that equitably relate costs to benefits received;
2. Coordinate between local, state, and federal agencies to ensure that commitments are
adequate and timely;
3. Conduct an on -going planning and research program for beach preservation;
4. Provide project management on behalf of participating members where requested and
where cost-effective; and
5. Provide a means for sharing equipment and personnel among consortium members
for local beach preservation projects.
The policy making board should be small and responsive. One representative from each
participating unit seems ideal.
52

At the outset, it may be possible to obtain CAMA funding for plan implementation to
support the joint agency. It will be necessary for one of the members to act as "lead
member." For the long term, a dedicated source of funds for operations will be needed.
It is anticipated that one of the first tasks for the joint agency will be to seek authority to
utilize additional funding tools. These tools will include authorization of special
assessments for municipalities and clarification of the ability to charge "utility fees" for
beach preservation.
A draft interlocal agreement establishing the joint agency is included as Exhibit 3. Ocean
Isle Beach was not part of the original planning consortium. However, Ocean Isle has
indicated its interest in joining and is included in the draft agreement. Prior to adoption,
the agreement should be reviewed as to form by an attorney.
Shore and Beach Association I
The preliminary drafts of this plan recommended that the Consortium launch a non-profit
"North Carolina Shore and Beach Association" modeled after the very successful
FSBPA. This organization was designed to perform three essential purposes for the
beach preservation program:
• Educating the public on needs and the best ways to deal with beach preservation;
• Advocating for beach preservation issues at the Legislature and the Congress to gain
approval of local tools to fund projects, to secure adequate and consistent state
funding, and to increase federal funding; and
• Assisting localities to build support for specific projects.
A model Articles of Incorporation for the association was provided to the members of the
planning consortium. This model is provided in Exhibit 4.
Since this recommendation was made, the North Carolina Shore and Beach Preservation
Association has been formed with membership on the initial Board of Directors
representing the entire North Carolina coast. The initial work plan for the Association
includes the following elements: r
1. Public education initiative. A comprehensive education program that documents
the recreational, economic, and environmental values of the public beach; enhances
53
r

beaches
public awareness of the most effective methods of preserving the public's
and their costs; and identifies alternative sources for funding beach preservation.
2. North Carolina Legislative and Executive Advocacy Initiative. Create awareness
of the values of public beaches to the state and its residents, generate political and
financial support, and secure a dedicated long-term funding source for beach
preservation.
3. Coalition -building Initiative for Beach Preservation. Provide a vehicle that allows
the various groups interested in beach preservation to focus their efforts on a central
statewide goal of securing local, state, and federal understanding, support, and
funding for beach preservation.
This work plan is consistent with the needs of the Brunswick Beaches communities and it
in Association.
should be supported by memberships and active participation the
The joint agency will launch the association.
It is recommended that the new Beach Preservation Association develop g strop ties to the
local beach preservation and erosion control committees and organizations that have been
formed and that are in operation in most communities in the Brunswick Beaches area.
3. Develop Funding Mechanisms for Local Share of Beach
Nourishment and Maintenance.
Debt Repayment and Operating Funds
The key requirement for local funding is to identify and dedicate a consistent source of
revenues for debt repayment and on -going maintenance. A potential source is the
occupancy tax that is collected by all members of the consortium. In fact some members
are dedicating all or a portion of this tax to beach preservation. However, in other
communities, these funds are either dedicated to on -going programs already and/or the
funds are not adequate to match needs. The following considerations should guide plans
for local funding:
• Funding formulas must be equitable with costs apportioned according to
benefits received. Obviously, properties on or near the beach receive a
significant portion of the benefits of beach preservation, but all properties in
the community are benefited and should pay a comparable portion of the cost.
• Local governments should pursue a number of non-traditional revenue
sources —impact fees, utility rates, and enterprise charges are examples.
54

• Beach preservation projects have high up front costs that usually do not match
the revenue streams available at the local level. Debt will be required to meet
these up front costs. Local governments should be in a position to obtain debt
financing in a timely manner which may mean some avenue other than the
general obligation bond.
• Special assessments to recover some or all of the costs of capital projects have
a long history in North Carolina. Local governments should consider
assessments for beach renourishment project and on -going maintenance.
Alternative sources are available. The municipal service district or special tax district
is one option. However, this approach does not give adequate debt flexibility.
A better potential option to supplement revenues from occupancy taxes is to establish a
storm water utility. This mechanism allows the local government to charge monthly
fees for storm water services in a manner similar to the fees charged for water or sewer
services. The advantages of this approach are:
1. Possible to dedicate a predictable revenue source to the storm water program;
2. Monthly fees can be tied to the benefits received from the service;
3. Offers a full range of long term and short term debt options —general obligation
bonds, revenue bonds, and installment purchases;
4. Can be easily established after a public hearing.
Beach preservation is not specifically mentioned as a permitted activity in the current
enabling legislation for storm water utilities, and opinions vary as to whether the fees
generated by the utility can be used for beach preservation. Some people contacted
believed that they could if beach preservation was part of a comprehensive storm water
management program. Other people felt that specific authority is needed.
The storm water utility approach is well suited to the Brunswick Beaches needs and it is
recommended that the consortium members seek a local act authorizing beach
preservation services to remove any doubt.
Storm water utility fees should be tied to three key factors: lot size for residential
properties, lot size and impervious surface for commercial properties, and benefits from
flood damage prevention activities related to beach preservation. The NOAA model that
predicts storm inundation from various categories of hurricanes may be a workable tool
for determining flood damage prevention benefits.
55

Debt Options
General Obligation Bonds. The feasibility of general obligation bonds should be the
first option considered. These bonds will result in the lowest costs, best rates, and most
acceptable terms for local governments. The public information efforts associated with
these bonds also produce well-informed residents and property owners who will support
the beach preservation program.
Revenue Bonds. If general obligation bonds are not approved or they are considered not
to be feasible, then revenue bonds are the next best option. These bonds will require an
appropriate dedicated revenue source. They do not require a referendum, and while
issuance costs may be a little higher than general obligation bonds, their terms and rates
are similar.
Short -Term Debt. Banks may be willing to lend funds for short terms (5 years most
likely) for beach preservation. These loans do not require a referendum, but rates are
higher than for general obligation or revenue bonds.
If needed, it should be possible to use short-term debt initially for renourishment and then
refinance the debt with general obligation or revenue bonds.
Joint Issuance. The Consortium, acting through the joint agency, may find advantages
in joint issuance of bonds or short term debt. Costs of issuance are somewhat fixed and
pro rata shares maybe lower under a joint issuance. Also, the perceived risk of a joint
issuance may be lower than issuance by individual members, and as a result, rates may be
slightly lower.
Special Assessments
Special assessments may be used to recover all or a portion of the funds used for beach
preservation. Members should consider assessments for a portion of the project costs and
use these funds to establish a beach preservation reserve fund. In the future, the reserve
fund could be used to reduce the amount of borrowed funds required for maintenance
proj ects.
4. Continue to Use Beach Bulldozing and Dune Building to
Address Local Erosion "Hot Spots."
56

While opinions are divided on the effectiveness of beach bulldozing, it remains the
simplest tool available to address erosion "hot spots" prior to construction of a large scale
nourishment project. These efforts should be concentrated in areas where (1) dune
heights are minimal, say less than 5 feet; (2) the dry beach is very narrow or does not
exist; (3) public facilities and structures are threatened; and (5) private structures are
threatened.
Where opportunities exist, the effectiveness of bulldozing should be tested. An example
is the Long Beach "hot spot" between LB2 and LB6 (Map 2) and the adjacent area
between LB and LB2. It should be possible to compare the effect of bulldozing on the
overall beach profile in the hot spot with the profile of the adjoining area where no
bulldozing was done.
Depending on need, consortium members should consider joint bulldozing projects.
Some costs saving may be realized through reduced mobilization costs. Consideration
should also be given to studying the feasibility of joint purchase of equipment and hiring
of personnel.
5. Continue Search for Offshore and Upland Sand.
Beach quality sand is a non -renewal and scarce resource in the Brunswick Beaches
Region. Therefore, the consortium should seek financial assistance to continue
evaluation of both offshore and upland sources of sand.
While the potential for offshore sources other than the inlet related sources does not
appear to be good, there may be potential areas further offshore where information is
lacking or incomplete. It serves the consortium's financial interest to identify potential
offshore sand sources if they exist. Once these potential areas are known, detailed studies
could be conducted in the future as the need arises. I
Likewise, potential sources of upland sand should be identified. Holden Beach has
successfully constructed a dune building project using upland sand. While the approach
is expensive and complicated from an environmental and permitting standpoint, the use
of upland sand may become cost effective in the future. Installation of the Second Bridge
may change the economics of sand hauling for Oak Island.
1
57

6. Database Development.
An adequate information base for beach preservation planning is not available.
Experience has shown that useful information upon which to develop a plan is difficult to
obtain. Information that is available is in the hands of individuals, many of whom treat it
as proprietary, filed with various federal, state, and local agencies, or held by private or
quasi -private organizations such as universities. As a result, decision makers do not have
the best available information to provide a base for decisions regarding beach
preservation.
The consortium should begin development of a database to support the preservation
planning process. The database should have two main parts: data and analysis of beach
erosion/accretion processes within the Brunswick Beaches area; and data on beach
preservation projects.
Initial steps toward development of this part have been taken by Holden Beach, Long
Beach, and Bald Head Island to develop a database on beach processes. These efforts
should continue and any required modifications should be made to make the data
compatible and comprehensive. In addition, data collection should be expanded to
include all of Oak Island and any other communities that may join the consortium.
The Bald Head Shoreline Management Plan contains a model for development of a
database on beach preservation projects. This model provides the following information:
... Community in which the project was undertaken
... Community contact
... Project sponsor
... Project type
... Project description, including volume of sand and linear feet where
appropriate
'
... Project cost
The consortium should encourage further development of this database. Consideration
should be given to systematic expansion by geographic area, i.e. North Carolina,
Southeast US, Mid -Atlantic US, and so on.
1
W

Exhibit 1
Brunswick Beaches Preservation Plan
Field Data
Threats to Facilities and Structures
1
1

LOCATION
CASWELL BEACH, @ 121 Caswell Beach Dr.
STATION
BCBP-CB-1
DATE
9/18/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
6.60
EDGE PAVEMENT
13
6.58
NE CORNER
101
9.26
SE CORNER
129
11.86
TOE DUNE
129
11.86
PRIMARY DUNE
177
15.30
CREST DUNE
245
15.99
TOP SCARP
245
15.99
TOE SCARP
257
5.52
TOE DUNE
257
5.52
HWL
257
5.52
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.)
C/L RD. - EP
13
EP - SW COR.
116
EP - TOP SCARP
232
EP - HWL
244
SE COR. - HWL
128
SCARP HEIGHT
10.47
DUNE HEIGHT
10.47
DUNE WIDTH
128
DRY BEACH WIDTH
0

LOCATION
CASWELL BEACH, @ 501 Caswell Beach Dr.
STATION
BCBP-CB-2
DATE
9/18/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
6.65
EDGE PAVEMENT
11
6.65
NW CORNER
65
6.64
SW CORNER
105
7.22
TOE SECONDARY DUNE
105
7.22
CREST SECONDARY DUNE
187
21.54
SECONDARY DUNE
232
19.90
C/L SWALE
265
11.34
PRIMARY DUNE
295
17.13
CREST PRIMARY DUNE
319
19.36
TOE PRIMARY DUNE
389
9.19
HWL
421
6.22
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.)
C/L RD. - EP
11
EP - SW COR.
94
EP - PRIMARY CREST
308
EP-HWL
410
SW COR. - PRIMARY CREST
214
SW COR. - HWL
316
PRIMARY DUNE HEIGHT
10.17
SCNDRY. DUNE HEIGHT
12.35
DUNE SYTEM WIDTH
284
DRY BEACH WIDTH
32
25 SECONDARY DUNE
23 21.54 PRIMARY DUNE
21 19.90 19.36
19
17 17.13
15 ROAD
LL_
z 13
11
� 9 11.34 g 19 HWL
ji At
w 7 .65
5 6.64 7.22
3
1
.1 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425
DISTANCE (FT.) HOUSE HEIGHT NOT TO SCALE

1
1
u
u
LOCATION
CASWELL BEACH, @ 715 Caswell Beach Dr.
STATION
BCBP-CB-3
DATE
9/18/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.1
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
6.74
EDGE PAVEMENT
11
6.50
NW CORNER
49
9.42
CREST DUNE
55
10.40
TOP SCARP
75
8.03
TOE SCARP
79
6.14
TOE DUNE
79
6.14
HWL
80
5.46
SW CORNER
84
5.02
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.�
C/L RD. - EP
11
EP - SW COR.
73
EP - CREST
44
EP - TOP SCARP
64
EP - HWL
69
SW COR. - HWL
-4
SW COR. - CREST
-29
SCARP HEIGHT
1.89
DUNE HEIGHT
4.26
DUNE WIDTH
24
DRY BEACH WIDTH
1

LOCATION
CASWELL BEACH, @ "Arboretum"
STATION
BCBP-CB-4
DATE
9/18/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.�
ELEVATION (FT.1
C/L ROAD
0
11.40
EDGE PAVEMENT
12
11.20
TOP SCARP
35
10.79
TOE SCARP
41
5.60
HWL
41
5.60
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.1
C/L RD. - EP
12
EP - TOP SCARP
23
EP - HWL
29
SCARP HEIGHT
5.19
DRY BEACH WIDTH
0

LOCATION
CASWELL BEACH, @ Bldg.#100
Oak Isl. Villas
STATION
BCBP-CB-5
DATE
9/18/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.1
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
13.68
EDGE PAVEMENT
17
13.20
NE CORNER
72
15.87
SE CORNER
123
14.44
TOE DUNE
123
14.44
CREST DUNE
167
14.20
TOE DUNE
173
1 8.34
HWL
193
1 6.78
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.)
C/L RD. - EP
17
EP - SW COR.
106
EP-HWL
176
SE COR. - HWL
70
DUNE HEIGHT
5.86
DUNE WIDTH
50
DRY BEACH WIDTH
20

LOCATION
YAUPON BEACH, @ 107 Sellers Rd.
STATION
BCBP-YB-1
DATE
9/18/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE -(ET
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
16.22
EDGE PAVEMENT
9
15.93
NW CORNER
118
12.3
SW CORNER
165
12.6
TOP SCARP
211
12.69
TOE SCARP
214
7.74
HWL
226
5.68
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE "
C/L RD. - EP
9
EP - SW COR.
156
EP - TOP SCARP
202
EP-HWL
217
SW COR. - TOP SCARP
46
SW COR. - HWL
61
SCARP HEIGHT
4.95
DRY BEACH WIDTH
12

t
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LOCATION
YAUPON BEACH, @ 407 Norton St.
STATION IBCBP-YB-2
DATE
9/18/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.1
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
11.84
EDGE PAVEMENT
9
11.69
NE CORNER
50
10.40
TOE DUNE
50
10.40
CREST DUNE
81
11.77
SE CORNER
90
8.62
TOE DUNE
94
7.61
HWL
116
5.48
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT )
C/L RD. - EP
9
EP - SW COR.
81
EP - HWL
107
SE COR. - HWL
26
DUNE HEIGHT
4.16
DUNE WIDTH
44
DRY BEACH WIDTH
22

LOCATION
YAUPON BEACH, @ 1001 East Beach Rd.
STATION
BCBP-YB-3
DATE
9/12/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION (FT.1
C/L ROAD
0
8.39
EDGE PAVEMENT
9
8.07
NW CORNER
73
8.82
SW CORNER
105
8.79
TOP SCARP
119
8.99
TOE SCARP
1 120
1 7.48
HWL
1 140
1 6.42
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE "
C/L RD. - EP
9
EP - SW COR.
96
EP - TOP SCARP
110
EP - HWL
131
SW COR. - TOP SCARP
14
SW COR. - HWL
35
SCARP HEIGHT
1.51
DRY BEACH WIDTH
20

LOCATION
LONG BEACH, @ 74th St. Beach Access
STATION
BCBP-LB-1
DATE
9/11 /98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.1
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
7.10
EDGE PAVEMENT
8
6.86
NW CORNER
95
7.62
SW CORNER
127
7.59
TOE SECONDARY DUNE
137
8.02
CREST SECONDARY DUNE
195
9.22
C/L SWALE
223
7.94
CREST PRIMARY DUNE
253
12.18
TOE PRIMARY DUNE
262
8.15
HWL
280
6.46
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.)
C/L RD. - EP
8
EP - SW COR.
119
EP - PRIMARY CREST
245
EP - HWL
272
SW COR. - PRIMARY CREST
126
SW COR. - HWL
153
PRIMARY DUNE HEIGHT
4.03
SCNDRY. DUNE HEIGHT
1.07
DUNE SYSTEM WIDTH
125
DRY BEACH WIDTH
18

LOCATION
LONG BEACH, @ SE 58th St.
STATION
BCBP-LB-2
DATE
9/12/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE "
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
7.70
EDGE PAVEMENT
14
7.55
NE CORNER
47
9.14
SE CORNER
82
4.94
BASE BULKHEAD
82
4.94
TOP BULKHEAD
82
10.04
TOP BULKHEAD
106
10.04
BASE BULKHEAD
106
3.09
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.�
C/L RD. - EP
14
EP - SE COR.
68
EP - BLKHD
92
EP-HWL
62
SE COR. - HWL
-6
HWL - BLKHD
-30
DUNE HEIGHT
3.16
DUNE WIDTH
13
DRY BEACH WIDTH
16

11
LOCATION
LONG BEACH, @ SE 58th St.
STATION
BCBP-LB-2A
DATE
9/12/98
DATUM
INAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.1
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
7.70
EDGE PAVEMENT
14
7.55
TOE DUNE
47
9.14
CREST DUNE
54
11.76
TOE DUNE
60
8.60
HWL
76
5.81

L'.
1
I

LOCATION
LONG BEACH, 5223 OBE b/w SE 52nd & SE 55th
STATION
BCBP-LB-3
DATE
9/12/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
7.18
EDGE PAVEMENT
14
6.94
NW CORNER
73
7.78
SW CORNER
121
7.38
TOP BULKHEAD
142
7.36
BASE BULKHEAD
142
0.79
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE - )
C/L RD. - EP
14
EP - SW COR.
107
EP - BLKHD
128
EP-HWL
61
SW COR. - HWL
-39
HWL - BLKHD
-60
BULKHEAD HEIGHT
6.57
DUNE HEIGHT
2.18
DUNE WIDTH
51
DRY BEACH WIDTH
10

LOCATION
LONG BEACH, 5223 OBE b/w SE 52nd & SE 55th
STATION
BCBP-LB-3A
DATE
9/12/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.I
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
7.17
EDGE PAVEMENT
21
6.96
TOE DUNE
21
6.96
CREST DUNE
64
10.26
TOE DUNE
72
8.08
HWL
82
6.92
1
a

1
11
11
1
LOCATION
LONG BEACH, 4301 OBE @ 43rd Place East
STATION
BCBP-LB-4
DATE
9/12/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.I
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
7.31
EDGE PAVEMENT
15
6.99
NW CORNER
71
8.43
TOE DUNE
71
8.43
CREST DUNE
87
9.73
TOE DUNE
93
7.49
HWL
100
7.12
SW CORNER
107
6.27
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.I
C/L RD. - EP
15
EP - SW COR.
92
EP - CREST
72
EP-HWL
85
SW COR. - HWL
-7
SW COR. - CREST
-20
DUNE HEIGHT
2.24
DUNE WIDTH
22
DRY BEACH WIDTH
7

LOCATION
LONG BEACH, 3501 OBE @ 35th Place East
STATION
BCBP-LB-5
DATE
9/12/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
7.43
EDGE PAVEMENT
14
7.25
NW CORNER
45
7.90
SW CORNER
89
10.80
CREST DUNE
89
10.80
TOE DUNE
101
7.64
HWL
112
6.67
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE "
C/L RD. - EP
14
EP - SW COR.
75
EP - CREST
75
EP-HWL
98
SW COR. - HWL
23
SW COR. - CREST
0
DUNE HEIGHT
3.16
DUNE WIDTH
12
DRY BEACH WIDTH
11

LOCATION
LONG BEACH, 1929 OBE @ 22nd Place East
STATION
BCBP-LB-6
DATE
9/12/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
7.42
EDGE PAVEMENT
14
7.09
NE CORNER
80
8.25
SE CORNER
115
9.07
TOE DUNE
125
9.37
CREST DUNE
151
12.63
TOE DUNE
159
8.14
HWL
174
6.81
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.1
C/L RD. - EP
14
EP - SE COR.
101
EP-CREST
137
EP - HWL
160
SE COR. - HWL
59
SE COR. - CREST
36
DUNE HEIGHT
4.49
DUNE WIDTH
34
DRY BEACH WIDTH
15

LOCATION
LONG BEACH, 1129 OBE @ 14th Place East
STATION
BCBP-LB-7
DATE
9/12/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
8.74
EDGE PAVEMENT
12
8.48
NW CORNER
61
10.46
SW CORNER
115
10.69
TOE DUNE
115
10.69
CREST DUNE
129
12.79
TOE DUNE
138
8.16
HWL
154
6.44
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.)
C/L RD. - EP
12
EP - SW COR.
103
EP - CREST
117
EP - HWL
142
SW COR. - HWL
39
SW COR. - CREST
14
DUNE HEIGHT
4.63
DUNE WIDTH
23
DRY BEACH WIDTH
16

LOCATION
LONG BEACH, 329 OBE @ 6th Place East
STATION
BCBP-LB-8
DATE
9/12/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
8.85
EDGE PAVEMENT
13
8.57
NE CORNER
52
8.64
SE CORNER
99
9.94
TOE DUNE
99
9.94
CREST DUNE
103
10.66
TOE DUNE
107
9.02
HWL
134
6.74
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.1
C/L RD. - EP
13
EP - SE COR.
86
EP - CREST
90
EP - HWL
121
SE COR. - HWL
35
SE COR. - CREST
4
DUNE HEIGHT
1.64
DUNE WIDTH
8
DRY BEACH WIDTH
27

LOCATION
LONG BEACH, 201 OBW @ 2nd Place West
STATION
BCBP-LB-9
DATE
9/12/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION (FT.�
C/L ROAD
0
8.04
EDGE PAVEMENT
10
7.85
NE CORNER
57
8.40
SE CORNER
94
8.86
TOE DUNE
104
9.43
CREST DUNE
120
13.90
TOE DUNE
129
8.99
HWL
134
7.53
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.�
C/L RD. - EP
10
EP - SE COR.
84
EP - CREST
110
EP-HWL
124
SE COR. - HWL
40
SE COR. - CREST
26
DUNE HEIGHT
4.91
DUNE WIDTH
25
DRY BEACH WIDTH
5

1
1
I
r
I
1
LOCATION
LONG BEACH, 1029 OBW @ 13th Place West
STATION
BCBP-LB-10
DATE
9/12/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE -CET.)
ELEVATION ET.)
C/L ROAD
0
7.81
EDGE PAVEMENT
11
7.73
NW CORNER
50
8.02
SW CORNER
91
7.97
TOE DUNE
98
8.52
CREST DUNE
117
16.50
TOE DUNE
134
10.28
HWL
158
7.39
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.1
C/L RD. - EP
11
EP - SW COR.
80
EP - CREST
106
EP-HWL
147
SW COR. - HWL
67
SW COR. - CREST
26
DUNE HEIGHT
6.22
DUNE WIDTH
36
DRY BEACH WIDTH
24

LOCATION
LONG BEACH, @ 23 Place West
STATION
BCBP-LB-11
DATE
9/12/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.j
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
6.83
EDGE PAVEMENT
11
6.77
NW CORNER
62
9.18
SW CORNER
101
9.15
TOE DUNE
110
9.43
CREST DUNE
127
16.12
TOE DUNE
145
9.60
HWL
160
7.67
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE ( L
C/L RD. - EP
11
EP - SW COR.
90
EP - CREST
116
EP-HWL
149
SW COR.: HWL
59
SW COR. - CREST
26
DUNE HEIGHT
6.52.
DUNE WIDTH
35
DRY BEACH WIDTH
15
20
18
16
14
12 ROAD
p 10
> 8
w
w 6 6.83
4--
2--
0
0 25
9.18 9.15
50 75 100
DISTANCE (FT.)
DUNE CREST
16.12
PUSHED UP
SAND
/VEGETA\TED
9.60
7.67
HWL
125 150 175

1
t
I
1
1
F
1
LOCATION
LONG BEACH, 27th Place West
STATION
BCBP-LB-12
DATE
9/11 /98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION (M
C/L ROAD
0
6.95
EDGE PAVEMENT
10
6.68
NW CORNER
67
7.01
SW CORNER
105
8.83
TOE DUNE
105
8.83
CREST DUNE
173
15.14
TOE DUNE
186
9.74
HWL
199
7.20
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.)
C/L RD. - EP
10
EP - SW COR.
95
EP - CREST
163
EP - HWL
189
SW COR.: HWL
94
SW COR. - CREST
68
DUNE HEIGHT
5.4
DUNE WIDTH
81
DRY BEACH WIDTH
13

LOCATION
LONG BEACH, 3601 OBW @ 36th Place West
STATION
BCBP-LB-13
DATE
9/11 /98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION (FU
C/L ROAD
0
16.88
EDGE PAVEMENT
9
16.65
NE CORNER
54
16.83
SW CORNER
85
16.13
TOE DUNE
85
16.13
CREST DUNE
130
16.78
TOE DUNE
140
9.49
HWL
152
7.40
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.1
C/L RD. - EP
9
EP - SE COR.
76
EP - CREST
121
EP-HWL
143
SE COR. - HWL
67
SE COR. - CREST
45
DUNE HEIGHT
7.29
DUNE WIDTH
55
DRY BEACH WIDTH
12

I
1
1
1
I
LOCATION
LONG BEACH, 3929 OBW @ 42nd Place West
STATION
BCBP-LB-14
DATE
9/11 /98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
C/L ROAD
0
18.00
EDGE PAVEMENT
11
17.76
NW CORNER
55
17.27
SW CORNER
101
17.07
TOE DUNE
101
17.07
CREST DUNE
115
17.36
TOP SCARP
125
14.74
TOE SCARP
134
9.41
TOE DUNE
134
9.41
HWL
155
7.64
MEASUREMENT
C/L RD. - EP
11
EP - SW COR.
90
EP - CREST
104
EP-HWL
144
SW COR. - HWL
54
SW COR. - CREST
14
SCARP HEIGHT
5.33
DUNE HEIGHT
7.95
DUNE WIDTH
33
DRY BEACH WIDTH
21

LOCATION
LONG BEACH, 5129 OBW @ 54th Place West
STATION
BCBP-LB-15
DATE
9/11 /98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION -(FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
9.88
EDGE PAVEMENT
11
9.65
NW CORNER
101
7.98
SW CORNER
149
8.06
TOE DUNE
149
8.06
CREST DUNE
170
10.33
TOE DUNE
183
7.95
HWL
185
6.54
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE "
C/L RD. - EP
11
EP - SW COR.
138
EP - CREST
159
EP-HWL
174
SW COR. - HWL
36
SW COR. - CREST
21
DUNE HEIGHT
2.38
DUNE WIDTH
34
DRY BEACH WIDTH
2

I
LOCATION
HOLDEN BEACH, @ Lockwoods Folly Inlet
STATION
BCBP-HB-1
DATE
9/15/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION
C/L ROAD
0
7.15
EDGE PAVEMENT
9
7.10
NW CORNER
65
9.08
TOP SCARP
91
9.03
TOE SCARP
93
5.78
HWL
93
5.78
SW CORNER
101
4.88
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.)
C/L RD. - EP
9
EP - SW COR.
92
EP - TOP SCARP
82
EP-HWL
84
SW COR. - HWL
-8
SW COR. - TOP SCARP
-10
SCARP HEIGHT
3.25
DRY BEACH WIDTH
0
2s
23
21
19
17
F=
15
LL
13
ROAD
Z
O
11
>
9
uw
J
u
7
7.15 7.10
5
3
1
.14
a•uu 9.03
SCARP
5.78
HWL IS LANDWARD /► HWL 4.88
OF SW CORNER
I 1
25 50 75 100 125
DISTANCE (FT.) HOUSE HEIGHT NOT TO SCALE

LOCATION
HOLDEN BEACH, @ Holden
Street
STATION
BCBP-HB-2
DATE
9/15/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.j
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
6.97
EDGE PAVEMENT
13
6.78
NW CORNER
56
8.16
SW CORNER
93
8.63
TOE DUNE
153
9.59
CREST DUNE
169
14.58
TOP SCARP
199
8.37
TOE SCARP
202
5.98
HWL
228
3.57
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.)
C/L RD. - EP
13
EP - SW COR.
80
EP - CREST
156
EP-HWL
215
SW COR. - CREST
76
SW COR. - HWL
135
SCARP HEIGHT
2.39
DUNE HEIGHT
8.60
DUNE WIDTH
49
DRY BEACH WIDTH
26
25
23
21
19
17 CREST ART.
DUNE
LL 15 14.58
Z 13
--
0 11 ROAD
w 9 l 9.59
8.37
w 7 816 8.63 SCARP
5 6.78 .98
C/L OLD ROAD
3 3.57
HWL
1
.1 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
DISTANCE (FT.)
HOUSE HEIGHT NOT TO SCALE*
250 1

LOCATION
HOLDEN BEACH, 125 OBW
@ Access Bridge
STATION
BCBP-HB-3
DATE
9/15/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION (FT.
C/L ROAD
0
12.89
EDGE PAVEMENT
22
12.32
NE CORNER
67
13.98
SE CORNER
109
14.11
TOE DUNE
148
14.14
CREST DUNE
167
15.79
TOE DUNE
177
7.85
HWL
194
5.46
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.1
C/L RD. - EP
22
EP - SE COR.
87
EP - CREST
145
EP-HWL
172
SE COR. - HWL
85
SE COR. - CREST
58
DUNE HEIGHT
7.94
DUNE WIDTH
29
DRY BEACH WIDTH
17
25
23
21 ROAD
19 CREST ART.
DUNE
17 15.79
15 TOE
0 13 13.98 14.11 14.14
0 11 12.89 12.32
w 9 7.85
J 7
W
5 5.46
HWL
3
1
_1 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
DISTANCE (FT.) *HOUSE HEIGHT NOT TO SCALE'

LOCATION
HOLDEN BEACH, 297 OBW
@ Neptune Drive
STATION
BCBP-HB-4
DATE
9/15/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
7.67
EDGE PAVEMENT
12
7.45
NE CORNER
71
8.98
SE CORNER
105
9.48
TOE DUNE
105
9.48
CREST DUNE
178
15.48
TOP SCARP
190
14.44
TOE SCARP
196
8.03
HWL
216
5.16
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.)
C/L RD. - EP
12
EP - SE COR.
93
EP - CREST
166
EP - HWL
204
SE COR. - HWL
111
SE COR. - CREST
73
SCARP HEIGHT
6.41
DUNE HEIGHT
7.45
DUNE WIDTH
91
DRY BEACH WIDTH
20

1
1
I
I
n
LOCATION
HOLDEN BEACH, 481 OBW @ Greensboro Street
STATION
BCBP-HB-5
DATE
9/15/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.1
ELEVATION (FT.�
C/L ROAD
0
7.28
EDGE PAVEMENT
12
7.06
NW CORNER
103
8.40
SW CORNER
136
8.40
TOE DUNE
158
8.70
CREST DUNE
203
15.42
TOE DUNE
220
9.91
HWL
251
5.93
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.)
C/L RD. - EP
12
EP - SW COR.
124
EP - CREST
191
EP-HWL
239
SW COR. - HWL
115
SW COR. - CREST
67
DUNE HEIGHT
5.51
DUNE WIDTH
62
DRY BEACH WIDTH
31

LOCATION
HOLDEN BEACH, 583 OBW @ Sanddollar St.
STATION
BCBP-HB-6
DATE
9/15/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
8.36
EDGE PAVEMENT
13
8.20
NW CORNER
81
9.03
SW CORNER
109
9.06
TOE DUNE
154
9.77
CREST DUNE
195
15.31
TOP SCARP
195
15.31
TOE SCARP
221
9.56
TOE DUNE
221
9.56
HWL
1 241
6.35
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.)
C/L RD. - EP
13
EP - SW COR.
96
EP - TOP SCARP
141
EP - HWL
228
SW COR. - HWL
132
SW COR. - TOP SCARP
45
SCARP HEIGHT
5.75
DUNE HEIGHT
5.75
DUNE WIDTH
67
DRY BEACH WIDTH
20

LOCATION
HOLDEN BEACH, @ 753 Ocean Blvd. West
STATION
BCBP-HB-7
DATE
9/15/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
6.07
EDGE PAVEMENT
10
5.82
NE CORNER
87
6.92
SE CORNER
119
7.97
TOE DUNE
152
8.77
CREST DUNE
157
13.02
TOP SCARP
184
11.26
TOE SCARP
186
8.65
HWL
212
4.51
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE "
C/L RD. - EP
10
EP - SE CORNER
109
EP - CREST
147
EP - HWL
202
SE CORNER - HWL
93
SE CORNER - CREST
38
SCARP HEIGHT
2.61
DUNE HEIGHT
4.37
DUNE WIDTH
34
DRY BEACH WIDTH
26

LOCATION
HOLDEN BEACH, 751 OBW @ Greensboro St.
STATION
BCBP-HB-8
DATE
9/15/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.1
ELEVATION (FT,�
C/L ROAD
0
6.71
EDGE PAVEMENT
10
6.43
NE CORNER
71
6.33
SE CORNER
110
6.43
TOE DUNE
117
6.62
CREST DUNE
165
12.28
TOP SCARP
165
12.28
TOE SCARP
170
9.44
TOE DUNE
170
9.44
HWL
226
5.27
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.)
C/L RD. - EP
10
EP - SE COR.
100
EP-CREST
155
EP-HWL
216
SE COR. - HWL
116
SE COR. - CREST
55
SCARP HEIGHT
2.84
DUNE HEIGHT
2.84
DUNE WIDTH
53
DRY BEACH WIDTH
56

1
1
1
LOCATION
HOLDEN BEACH, @ 1017 Ocean Blvd. West
STATION
BCBP-HB-9
DATE
9/15/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (EM.)
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
8.64
EDGE PAVEMENT
11
8.41
NW CORNER
57
10.99
SW CORNER
81
11.42
TOE DUNE
81
11.42
CREST SCNDRY. DUNE
100
14.06
C/L SWALE
133
11.41
CREST PRIMARY DUNE
155
17.01
TOE DUNE
180
9.91
HWL
239
7.31
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.�
C/L RD. - EP
11
EP - SW COR.
70
EP - PRIMARY CREST
144
EP - HWL
228
SW COR. - PRIMARY CREST
74
SW COR. - HWL
158
PRIMARY DUNE HEIGHT
9.70
SCNDRY. DUNE HEIGHT
4.15
DUNE SYSTEM WIDTH
99
DRY BEACH WIDTH
59

LOCATION
HOLDEN BEACH, @ 1115 OBW, By The Sea Dr.
STATION
BCBP-HB-10
DATE
9/15/98
DATUM
NAVD 1929, NAD 1983
STATION
DISTANCE (FT.)
ELEVATION (FT.)
C/L ROAD
0
8.06
EDGE PAVEMENT
8
7.82
NW CORNER
56
8.62
SW CORNER
91
9.20
TOE SECONDARY DUNE
136
10.29
CREST SECONDARY DUNE
150
14.91
C/L SWALE
189
8.31
CREST PRIMARY DUNE
220
13.41
TOE PRIMARY DUNE
285
7.30
HWL
376
3.67
MEASUREMENT
DISTANCE (FT.)
C/L RD. - EP
8
EP - SW COR.
83
EP - PRIMARY CREST
212
EP-HWL
368
SW COR. - HWL
285
SW COR. - PRIMARY CREST
129
SCNDRY. DUNE HEIGHT
7.61
PRIMARY DUNE HEIGHT
6.11
DUNE SYSTEM WIDTH
149
DRY BEACH WIDTH
91
25
23
21 SECONDARY
19 DUNE
17 14.91 PRIMARY
15 DUNE
Z 13 ROAD 13.41
O 11
w 9 10.29
w 7 .06 8.62 9.20 8.31 7.30
5 HWL
3
1
_1 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
DISTANCE (FT.)

1
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Brunswick County Beach Preservation
Long Beach Measurements
Dune Width
BCBP-LB-1
125
BCBP-LB-2
13
BCBP-LB-3
51
BCBP-LB-4
22
BCBP-LB-5
12
BCBP-LB-6
34
BCBP-LB-7
23
BCBP-LB-8
8
BCBP-LB-9
25
BCBP-LB-10
36
BCBP-LB-11
35
BCBP-LB-12
81
BCBP-LB-13
55
BCBP-LB-14
33
BCBP-LB-15
34
Dune Height Dry
Beach Width
S Corner - HWL
4.03
18
153
3.16
16
-6
2.18
10
-39
2.24
7
-7
3.16
11
23
4.49
15
59
4.63
16
39
1.64
27
35
4.91
5
40
6.22
24
67
6.52
15
59
5.4
13
94
7.29
12
67
7.95
21
54
2.38
2
36

Brunswick County Beach Preservation
Holden Beach Measurements
Location
Dune Width
Dune Height Dry
Beach Width
S Corner - HWL
BCBP-HB-1
0
3.25 SCARP
0
-8
BCBP-HB-2
49
8.6
26
135
BCBP-HB-3
29
7.94
17
85
BCBP-HB-4
91
7.45
20
111
BCBP-HB-5
62
5.51
31
115
BCBP-HB-6
67
5.75
20
132
BCBP-HB-7
34
4.37
26
93
BCBP-HB-8
53
2.84
56
116
BCBP-HB-9
BCBP-HB-10
149
SEC 7.61, PRI 6.11
91
285

t
1
I
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Brunswick County Beach Preservation
Caswell Beach Measurements
Location
Dune Width
Dune Height Dry Beach
Width S
Corner - HWL
BCBP-CB-1
128
10.47
0
128
BCBP-CB-2
284
10.17
32
316
BCBP-CB-3
24
4.26
1
-4
Dune is located landward of the home at CB-3
BCBP-CB-4
0
5.19 SCARP
0
N/A
BCBP-CB-5
50
5.86
20
70

Brunswick County Beach Preservation
Yaupon Beach Mesurements
Dune Width Dune Heiaht Dry Beach Width S Corner - HWL
BCBP-YB-1 0 4.95 SCARP 12 61
BCBP-YB-2 54 4.16 22 26
Dune is located landward of the home at Y13-2
BCBP-YB-3 0 1.51 SCARP 20 35

Exhibit 2
Alternative Beach Preservation MethodS16
Groins
Groins are barriers constructed perpendicular to the beach and are designed to block and
trap sand moving along the shoreline. The trapped sand fills the space between groins.
This accumulation of sand between groins serves as a barrier that can be eroded without
damage to upland beaches and dunes.
The number and placement of groins is dependent upon the specific needs and conditions
at the location of placement. Groins may be either "hard" or "soft", depending on the
construction material. Hard groins may use materials such as rock or sheet piles and soft
groins use materials such as oversized sandbags and sand -filled tubes.
The key advantage to groins is that they can be an effective long-term solution to chronic
beach erosion at a specific location. Their major disadvantage is disruption to the beach
system by interrupting littoral transport of sediments and starving downdrift beaches. For
this reason, groins are not permitted by the NC coastal management regulations.
Seawalls and Bulkheads
Seawalls, bulkheads, and revetments are terms for stabilization structures constructed
parallel to the shoreline. They are designed to halt the retreat of the shoreline and to
protect the property located behind them.
While this group of structures can be effective in protecting the property located behind
them, they have the major disadvantage of increased erosion rates on adjoining properties
and the loss of the sand beach in front of the structure.
Seawalls, bulkheads and revetments are not permitted by the NC coastal management
regulations.
Beach Dewatering
Dewatering is an innovative technology designed to create conditions for natural
accretion of sand along eroded shorelines. The principle of dewatering is to lower the
water table on the beach so that more of the wave uprush percolates into the sand which
1 16 Village of Bald Head Island Shoreline Management Plan, pages 35-63.

leaves less water to carry sand as it flows back down the beach face into the ocean. The
technology works similarly to the familiar dewatering systems used for subsurface
construction in areas with a high water table. The system consists of an implanted system
of piping, including a horizontal perforated drainpipe, and a sump pump installed below
the beach face in the intertidal zone. The perforated drainpipe collects water and the
sump pump pushes the water through a pipe system for ocean disposal at a point below
mean low water.
A major advantage of the dewatering process is its environmental friendliness. However,
the process is expensive to install and operate. There is also some question about its
effectiveness in a low -sediment system like Holden Beach and Oak Island.
A dewatering system was permitted for Long Beach in 1991 but the system was not
installed due to legal and cost concerns.
Breakwaters
Breakwaters are structures, made of a variety of materials, placed offshore parallel to the
beach to reduce wave energy and protect the shore immediately behind them. Reduction
in wave energy significantly reduces the ability of waves to transport sediment. Sand
moving along the shoreline will be slowed and trapped on the beach side of the structure
resulting in accretion of the beach. However, elimination of wave action also reduces
littoral transport and starving downdrift beaches. Increased erosion can be offset by
placing sand between the breakwater and the beach to increase the supply of sand to
downdrift beaches.
By reducing the movement of sand through the protected area, breakwaters are an
effective stabilization method. They are also an effective long-term solution. They have
two major disadvantages: they tend to increase erosion on adjacent beaches and they are
not permitted by the NC coastal management regulations.
Beach Renourishment
According to the Corps of Engineers definition, beach renourishment is the process of
mechanically or hydraulically placing sand directly on an eroding beach to restore, or
form, and subsequently maintain an adequate protective or desired recreational beach.
Replacement of sand on the beach is not a permanent solution to the erosion problem.
2

I
I
The same beach erosion processes continue and the renourished beach will require
periodic maintenance through application of additional beach fill.
The renourished beach serves as an erosion buffer zone and affords valuable flood hazard
mitigation to the land behind the beach. The nourishment process is the only long-term
stabilization method that maintains a natural shoreline.
Renourishment, as a long-term solution, offers several advantages. Key among these are
the fact that it affords uplands areas significant hazard protection while maintaining the
recreation values of the beach and creating no additional erosion to downdrift beaches.
Renourishment is also permitted by the NC coastal management regulations.
The major disadvantage of this approach is cost. The initial capital cost of the project is
high--$3 million or more per mile. In addition, there are additional costs of maintaining
the beach every 3 to 4 years.
Effectiveness of Preservation Methods
The following matrix, from the Bald Head Island Shoreline Management Plan, scores
each of the preservation methods according to the following factors:
Financial
Economic
Environment
Regulatory
Recreation
According to this decision approach, renourishment is the most effective approach to
long term stabilization.
F.ffPrtivPnPcc of RParh Precervitinn Methadc
Stabilization
Method
Financial
(25%)
Economic
(25%)
Environ-
ment
15%
Regulatory
(25%)
Recrea-
tional
10%
Weigh-
ted
Average
Rank
Order
Groins
2
2
2
1
1
1.65
4
Seawall/Bulkheads
1
2
1
1
1
1.15
6
Dewatering
2
1
2
2
3
1.55
5
Breakwater
2
3
3
1
3
1.95
2
Renourishment
2
1
2
3
1
1.80
3
3

Exhibit 3
NORTH CAROLINA
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
AGREEMENT FOR INTERLOCAL UNDERTAKING
WHEREAS, the Towns of Ocean Isle Beach, Holden Beach, Long Beach,
Yaupon Beach, and Caswell Beach, the Village of Bald Head Island, and the County of
Brunswick desire to enter into an agreement to establish an undertaking for a joint
program to restore and maintain the ocean beaches on Ocean Isle Beach, Holden Beach,
Oak Island, and the Village of Bald Head Island (hereinafter called Members); and
WHEREAS, NCGS 160A-460 to 464 authorizes municipalities and counties in
North Carolina to establish such undertakings.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTICIPATING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Brunswick Beaches Preservation Consortium
The Brunswick Beaches Preservation Consortium (hereinafter called
Consortium), a joint agency as defined in GS 160A-462, is established to
assist the local governments participating in this agreement to plan and
implement programs and projects directed toward preservation and
maintenance of the ocean beaches.
2. Membership
The Consortium will have a policy board with a total membership equal to
the number of participating local governments. Each Member will appoint
one representative to the policy board. Members of the policy board will
serve until replaced by the participating Member. The policy board will
elect its own chairman an
d other officers.
3. Budget and Cost Sharing
The Consortium will prepare a recommended annual budget for
presentation to Members. Except for projects undertaken or managed on
behalf of Members, the annual budget will be shared equally by the
Members.
I
4. Powers and Duties
The Consortium has the following powers and duties:
A. To keep Members informed about progress on federal and state funded
beach preservation projects and to serve as a single point of contact

with state and federal agencies concerning Members' wishes
concerning these projects;
B. To assist Members in planning and design of beach preservation and
maintenance programs and projects;
C. To develop financial plans and tools to assist Members in funding the
local share of federal and state funded beach preservation projects;
D. To seek grants for the operation of the Consortium and to fund projects
for Member(s);
E. To provide public information and advocacy for beach preservation
and maintenance;
F. To coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies to insure that plans
are consistent with the local needs of Members and that beach
preservation and maintenance projects are funded and implemented in
a timely manner;
G. To coordinate with and assist the projects and programs of local Beach
Preservation Committees and Beach Erosion Committee established
by Members;
H. To undertake projects and to manage projects on behalf of a Members
or Members when requested;
I. To assist Members to acquire property and rights -of -way necessary to
implement beach preservation and maintenance projects.
Personnel
The Consortium shall have the power to appoint any employees or agents
required to implement its programs. The Consortium shall also have the
right to contract with a Member to provide administrative services.
6. Ownership of Real Property
Any property acquired by the Consortium will be owned jointly by the
Members. When this agreement expires or is terminated, any property
acquired by the Consortium and owned jointly will be transferred to
Brunswick County to be held, managed, and used in a manner consistent
with the purpose(s) for which it was purchased.
7. Addition of Members, Amendment of Agreement, and Withdrawal of
Members
New Members may be added with the approval of all existing Members
and upon approval of the Agreement by the new member.
This agreement may be amended with the approval, by resolution, of all
Members.
A Member may withdraw from the undertaking by giving one (1) years'
notice to the Consortium.
2

8. Term
The agreement shall terminate 10 years after its effective date unless
extended by resolutions adopted by all Members.
iJ
ki

EXHIBIT 4
SAMPLE
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF
NORTH CAROLINA SHORE AND BEACH PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION
' The undersigned incorporator, a natural person 18 years of age or older, does hereby make
and acknowledge these Articles of Incorporation for the purpose of forming a non-profit
' corporation under and by virtue of the provisions of the Laws of North Carolina.
ARTICLE 1
NAME
The name of this corporation shall be the NORTH CAROLINA SHORE AND BEACH
PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION.
ARTICLE 2
PURPOSES
The purposes for which this corporation is established are:
a. To preserve the beaches and shorelines of the twenty (20) counties of the North Carolina
coastal area. Within this area, the Corporation shall seek to conserve, protect, restore and maintain
healthy dune and beach systems for the continued recreational enjoyment of residents, visitors, and
property owners in the North Carolina coastal area, to protect the coastal communities from
damage resulting from storm events, and to maintain the economy of the coastal area.
b. To conduct educational programs on shore and beach preservation and the importance
of preserving beaches and shorelines to the quality of life of the coastal area.
c. To work with local governments in the coastal area and state and federal agencies to
build local support for projects to preserve, maintain, and restore beaches and shorelines.
d. To encourage and sponsor research and monitoring of dune and beach systems to
' document needs and to develop new methods of shore and beach preservation.
e. To provide information on needs for tools and funding and assistance for shoreline and
beach preservation to the North Carolina Legislature, the U.S. Congress, and private and non-profit
corporations.
f. To apply for, acquire, and accept property, funds, grants, gifts, contributions and to use
then in such a manner as the Board of Directors shall deem appropriate to carry out the purposes set
forth herein.
g. To use all property and funds held by or controlled by the corporation and the net
' earnings thereof for the charitable, educational, and scientific purposes set forth herein.
h. To operate the corporation at all times exclusively for charitable purposes within the
' meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as now enacted or hereafter

LJ
1
r
amended, including, for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as
exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as now
enacted or hereafter amended.
ARTICLE III
EXEMPTIONS
At all times shall the following operate as conditions restricting the operations and activities of the
corporation:
The corporation shall not afford pecuniary gain, incidentally or otherwise to its members. No part
of the net earnings of this corporation shall inure to the benefit of any member of the corporation,
except that reasonable compensation may be paid for services rendered to or for the corporation
affecting one or more of its purposes. Such net earnings, if any, of this corporation shall be used to
carry out the nonprofit corporate purposes set forth in Article II above.
No substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall constitute the carrying on of propaganda
or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, or any initiative or referendum before the public,
and the corporation shall not participate in, or intervene in (including by publication or distribution
of statements), any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public
office.
Notwithstanding any other provision of these articles, the corporation shall not carry on any other
activities not permitted to be carried on by a corporation exempt from federal income tax under
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as now enacted or hereafter amended.
ARTICLE IV
DURATION
The duration of the corporate existence shall be perpetual.
ARTICLE V
MEMBERSHIPBOARD OF DIRECTORS
The corporation shall have one or more classes of members, as provided in the corporation's
bylaws. The management of the affairs of the corporation shall be vested in a Board of Directors, as
defined in the corporation's bylaws. No Director shall have any right, title, or interest in or to any
property of the corporation.
The number of Directors constituting the first Board of Directors is six (6), their names and
addresses being as follows:
2

1
Mr. Jerry Walters
1 PO Box 217
Long Beach, NC 28465
1
Mr. Wade Horne
PO Box 3009
1
Bald Head Island, NC 28461
Mr. Mike Morgan
1
110 Rothschild Street
Holden Beach, NC 28462-5037
Ms. Nancy Wilson
'
518 Yaupon Dr.
Oak Island, NC 28465-8111
Mr. Robert Spake
PO Box 460.
'
Oak Island, NC 28465-9820
Mr. Robert Hyatt
PO Box 249
'
Bolivia, NC 28422
' Members of the first Board of Directors shall serve until the first annual meeting, at which their
' successors are duly elected and qualified, or removed as provided in the bylaws.
ARTICLE VI
PERSONAL LIABILITY
1 No (member) officer, or Director of this corporation shall be personally liable for the debts or
obligations of this corporation of any nature whatsoever, nor shall any of the property of the
(members) officer, or Directors be subject to the payment of the debts or obligations of this
1 corporation.
ARTICLE VII
DISSOLUTION
At the time of dissolution of the corporation, the Board of Directors shall, after paying or making
' provisions for the payment of all debts, obligations, liabilities, costs and expenses of the
k1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
corporation, dispose of all of the assets of the corporation. In no case shall a disposition be made
which would not qualify as a charitable contribution under Section 170(c)(1) or (2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as now enacted or hereafter amended, in such manner as the Board of
Directors shall determine.
ARTICLE VIII
INCORPORATOR
The incorporator of this corporation is:
The undersigned incorporator certifies that he/she executes these articles for the purposes herein
stated.
Date:
4