profiles near the ends of the fill tended to be slightly higher than 

 those for profiles located in the middle. This implies that the ends of 

 the fill eroded at a slightly faster rate than did the center, which can 

 be expected since the relative changes in beach angle and nearshore 

 bathymetry at the ends are greater than the relative changes in the 

 center, and thus cause greater concentration of wave energy and sediment 

 transport. Together with the fact that 20- to 30-meter excursions 

 occurred on either side of the fill soon after placement, this informa- 

 tion supports the concept that significant quantities of fill material 

 spread laterally from the fill ends. It should be noted, however, that 

 nonhomogeneity in the fill material properties may have been the real 

 cause of the variation in the rate of initial loss along the project 

 length. Approximately 70 percent of the fill material was obtained from 

 a shoal in the Banks Channel, and the balance which was extremely fine 

 sand of poor beach-fill quality was obtained from the sound area behind 

 Shell Island (U.S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, 1977). 



The most significant feature of the variation in long-term excursion 

 rate along central Wrightsville Beach is that the rate calculated for 

 the 1965 to 1975 decade (i.e., 5 years before and 5 years after fill 

 placement) was significantly higher in the vicinity of the fill than 

 along adjacent beach sections. This means that the reason for the high 

 erosion rates, which existed before and probably resulted in the need of 

 the 1970 fill, still existed after 1970 and caused high annual sediment 

 losses to the fill. 



There are two possible causes for these localized higher erosion 

 rates. In 1965, the north jetty of Masonboro Inlet was completed and 

 effectively cut all northward sand transfer from Masonboro Island to 

 Wrightsville Beach. Consequently, Wrightsville Beach suffered higher 

 erosional losses since 1965 due to the partial lack of sediment supply. 

 South of the fill the growth of the accretion fillet may have offset the 

 increased erosional trends; however, the same is not true for the area 

 adjacent to the north fill boundary. 



An oblique aerial photo of Wrightsville Beach taken between 1968 and 

 1969 (Fig. 45), shows a significant deviation in the present-day shore- 

 line alinement near the center of the island. The uniform-width dark 

 band between the beach and the seawardmost houses is the grassed part of 

 the constructed dune of the 1965 beach-fill project. The misalinement 

 of the north end of the Wrightsville Beach fill, relative to the present 

 tendency of the shoreline, resulted from Moore Inlet which, prior to its 

 artificial closure in 1965 as part of the overall beach nourishment 

 plan, was located just north of arrow A. The closure of Moore Inlet 

 eliminated the interaction between tidal and littoral forces in this 

 area, which had existed since 1887 and which had combined to form a 

 seaward concavity in the shoreline alinement immediately south of the 

 inlet. Erosion prior to the 1965 beach fill exposed the northern 

 building line of the township of Wrightsville Beach and so the aline- 

 ment of the 1965 beach fill was forced to follow this line, thus causing 

 a bulge in the resulting beach planform. Arrow B points to profile 



87 



