rubble-mound seawall extending southward from the north end of the project, 

 and placement of an additional 346,000 cu yd of fill. The seawall was con- 

 structed in two stages, with the first stage along with placement of the fill, 

 completed in December 1970. The second stage of seawall construction was com- 

 pleted in September 1973. 



9. During the period between the two stages of seawall construction, 

 760,000 cu yd of fill was placed along the seawall's entire length to restore 

 the project to its authorized dimensions. Placement of this fill was com- 

 pleted in May 1971. 



10. The special investigation of the erosion problem at the north end of 

 the project was completed in 1970 with the results contained in a report by 

 Jarrett (1976).* This study and a subsequent study of the feasibility of 

 improving navigation through Carolina Beach Inlet (O'Brien 1931)** identified 

 the entrapment of littoral sediment in the inlet as the cause of the erosion 

 problem. The long-term solution recommended in the Carolina Beach Inlet re- 

 port involved bypassing 480,000 cu yd of sand every 3 years from a sediment 

 trap located in the throat of the inlet. This sand would be distributed along 

 the northern end of the fill and would serve as a source of sediment for the 

 beach to the south. The reports concluded that failure to accomplish the sand 

 bypassing on a regular basis would result in the continued deterioration of 

 the entire project. 



11. Between the 1971 nourishment and April 1980, no additional fill mate- 

 rial was placed on the project shoreline. As a result, severe erosion mi- 

 grated to the south, as predicted, leaving only the southernmost 2,000 ft of 

 the project showing any degree of stability. 



12. In December 1980, the southeastern coastal area of North Carolina was 

 struck by two severe storms, further aggravating erosion at Carolina Beach, 

 particularly along the section of the project located just south of the rubble 

 seawall. In this area, seven cottages were undermined and had to be con- 

 demned. Further south, the shoreline retreated to within 25 ft of 122 other 

 structures, making them vulnerable to damage by another moderate storm. In 



* J. T. Jarrett. 1976 (Feb). "Tidal Prism - Inlet Area Relationships," 

 GITI Report 3, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, 

 MS. 

 ** M. P. O'Brien. 1931. "Estuary Tidal Prisms Related to Entrance Areas," 

 Civil Engineering, Vol 1, No. 8, pp 738-739. 



