storm surge and overwashed by the large storm-generated ocean waves. Hurri- 

 cane Hazel caused millions of dollars in property damage at Carolina Beach, 

 particularly along the first several rows of oceanfront development. In 

 addition, the storm wiped out the frontal dune and caused considerable ero- 

 sion of the foreshore. Efforts to recover from Hurricane Hazel were initiated 

 in early 1955 with the construction of a small dune and the placement of 

 252,000 cu yd of beach fill along the ocean shoreline. 



3. Between August and September 1955, Carolina Beach was affected by 

 three more hurricanes, Connie (12 August), Diane (17 August), and lone 



(19 September), which caused additional structural damage and beach erosion. 

 Ocean still-water levels produced by Connie, Diane, and lone were 8.5, 6.6, 

 and 5.7 ft, respectively. As a result of the additional ocean shoreline 

 damage caused by these three storms, 200,000 cu yd of beach fill were placed 

 on Carolina Beach in the fall of 1956. Also in 1956, the town of Carolina 

 Beach constructed 12 groins along its shoreline at 1,000- to 1,200-ft inter- 

 vals. The groins, which were constructed with broken concrete and natural 

 stone, were low and rather short and terminated in water depths ranging from 

 -2 to -4 ft. 



4. Carolina Beach Inlet, located approximately 7,000 ft north of the 

 town limits of Carolina Beach, was artificially opened by local interests in 

 September 1952. Immediately following the opening of the inlet, an inordi- 

 nately high rate of erosion began to occur along the shoreline immediately 

 south of the inlet, and eventually progressed southward into the town limits 

 of Carolina Beach. Between 1952 and 1963, for example, the south shoulder of 

 Carolina Beach Inlet eroded 1,135 ft while the shoreline at the north town 

 limits lost 293 ft. For comparison, those same general areas eroded 33 and 



1 ft, respectively, during the period from 1938 to 1949. By 1963, shoreline 

 erosion was accelerating at a point 4,000 ft south of the northern town lim- 

 its. The difference in the extent of the erosion near the inlet and within 

 the town limits resulted in a change of alignment of this section of the 

 shoreline (Figure 3). 



5. Erosion and reorientation of the shoreline south of the inlet were 

 the direct result of the entrapment of littoral material in the ebb- and 

 flood-tidal deltas of the new inlet. With the predominant direction of lit- 

 toral transport in the area being southerly, the shoreline south of Carolina 

 Beach Inlet became starved of littoral material, particularly during the for- 



