The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-11-10 Minutes November 10, 2021 - Year 8 2 2021) - 2021) - 2021) - ay 2021 M 2021) - – Survey TransectsSurvey EquipmentShoreline ChangeVolume ChangeStorm ActivityMaintenance ActivityShoreline & Volume Change (2020 Inlet Conditions (2020 Background Erosion Rates (2005/2006 Nourishment Triggers (2014 Data CollectionProject MethodologyKey Events: March 2020 Summary of FindingsQ&A/Discussion Presentation Outline 3 2021) - 2021) - 2021) - ay 2021 M 2021) - – Survey TransectsSurvey EquipmentShoreline ChangeVolume ChangeStorm ActivityMaintenance ActivityShoreline & Volume Change (2020 Inlet Conditions (2020 Background Erosion Rates (2005/2006 Nourishment Triggers (2014 Data CollectionProject MethodologyKey Events: March 2020 Summary of FindingsQ&A/Discussion Presentation Outline 4 cing)cing) cing) 2021 2021 2021 7, spaspa 7, 2021 spa - - ftft 15, ft 2021 15, 2021 - - cing)cing)cing)cing) 15, Survey Transects 15, - - spaspaspaspa – ftftftft 14 Profiles (~500 and 1000 29 Profiles (~ 1000 22 Profiles (~ 2000 10 Profiles (~ 1000 23 Profiles (~ 500 and 1000 21 Profiles (~ 500 and 1000 19 Profiles (~ 1000 ••••••• Mason Inlet Relocation Project: May 2021 (GBA)Wrightsville Beach: January 5 Masonboro Island: January 6 Freeman Park: January 13 Carolina Beach: January 13 Kure Beach: January 13 Fort Fisher: January 13 2021 Survey Dates:Surveyed Early to Aid in Development of 2022 CSDR Plans Data Collection 5 Survey Transects – Survey Reach Landmarks: Data Collection 6 Survey Transects eaches R – - Survey Transects & Sub Data Collection 7 Survey Transects eaches R – - Survey Transects & Sub Data Collection 8 Survey Transects eaches R – - Survey Transects & Sub Data Collection 9 Survey Transects eaches R – - Survey Transects & Sub Data Collection 10 –TOPO DATA ATV AQUISITION Survey Equipment – HYDRO – Survey Performed By Geodynamics RV ECHO DATA AQUISITION Data Collection 11 2021) - 2021) - 2021) - ay 2021 M 2021) - – Survey TransectsSurvey EquipmentShoreline ChangeVolume ChangeStorm ActivityMaintenance ActivityShoreline & Volume Change (2020 Inlet Conditions (2020 Background Erosion Rates (2005/2006 Nourishment Triggers (2014 Data CollectionProject MethodologyKey Events: March 2020 Summary of FindingsQ&A/Discussion Presentation Outline 12 AVD88 Shoreline Change N ft – AVD88 N ft Elevation (ft NAVD88) Mean High Water (MHW) = +1.4 Recreational Berm = +5.0 Project Methodology 13 Volume Change – uter Bar MHW O Depth Of Closure (Upper Bracket)Depth Of Closure (Lower Bracket) – Wading Depth ––– – AVD88 AVD88 AVD88 AVD88 20 ftN 4 ftN14 ft NAVD88 30 ftN +1.4 ftN----Calculating Annual Volume ChangesCalculating/Updating Background Erosion Rates Calculate Volume Above Multiple Elevations:Use Volumes For: Project Methodology 14 Volume Change – ft 14 Volume NAVD88 Example Above - Elevation (ft NAVD88) Volume Calculation Lenses Project Methodology 15 2021) - 2021) - 2021) - ay 2021 M 2021) - – Survey TransectsSurvey EquipmentShoreline ChangeVolume ChangeStorm ActivityMaintenance ActivityShoreline & Volume Change (2020 Inlet Conditions (2020 Background Erosion Rates (2005/2006 Nourishment Triggers (2014 Data CollectionProject MethodologyKey Events: March 2020 Summary of FindingsQ&A/Discussion Presentation Outline 5/25/2021 0:00 16 5/15/2021 0:00 5/5/2021 0:00 4/25/2021 0:00 4/15/2021 0:00 4/5/2021 0:00 3/26/2021 0:00 3/16/2021 0:00 3/6/2021 0:00 2/24/2021 0:00 2/14/2021 0:00 2/4/2021 0:00 1/25/2021 0:00 1/15/2021 0:00 1/5/2021 0:00 12/26/2020 0:00 12/16/2020 0:00 12/6/2020 0:00 11/26/2020 0:00 11/16/2020 0:00 11/6/2020 0:00 10/27/2020 0:00 10/17/2020 0:00 10/7/2020 0:00 9/27/2020 0:00 9/17/2020 0:00 9/7/2020 0:00 8/28/2020 0:00 8/18/2020 0:00 8/8/2020 0:00 7/29/2020 0:00 7/19/2020 0:00 7/9/2020 0:00 6/29/2020 0:00 6/19/2020 0:00 6/9/2020 0:00 5/30/2020 0:00 5/20/2020 0:00 5/10/2020 0:00 4/30/2020 0:00 4/20/2020 0:00 4/10/2020 0:00 3/31/2020 0:00 3/21/2020 0:00 3/11/2020 0:00 2021: Storm Activity Significant Wave Height (ft) - – airly Quiescent ffshore Wave Heights ffshore Wave Heights ffshore Wave Heights ugust 2020 2021 Fairly Active 2 Events With Elevated OOver 2m (6.56 ft) 6 Events With Elevated OOver 2m (6.56 ft)Hurricane Isaias A8 Events With Elevated OOver 2m (6.56 ft) airly Active Spring & Summer 2020 FFall 2020 & Early Winter 2020/Late Winter 2021 & Spring 2021 F Key Events 2020 17 20 : Approximately 824,216 - (2020 = 25,312 cy, 2021 = 16,580 cy) 6.5 & 10 arch 2018 - M arch 2019 – M – pril 2019 A - KB Transects 1 2021: Maintenance Activity - 23 & 17: Approximately 763,000 cy Approximately 1,057,267 cy- Approximately 414,118 cy 14:20:16/ -- - 19: Approximately 41,892 cy - Transects 3 Transects 1 CB Transects 21 cyTransects 8 ••• • Transects 18 Mason Inlet Relocation Project: March 2020Carolina Beach CSDR: February Kure Beach CSDR: March Wrightsville Beach CSDR: February Carolina Beach Inlet Crossing: 2020 & 2021 Previous Projects: Key Events 2020 18 2021) - 2021) - 2021) - ay 2021 M 2021) - – Survey TransectsSurvey EquipmentShoreline ChangeVolume ChangeStorm ActivityMaintenance ActivityShoreline & Volume Change (2020 Inlet Conditions (2020 Background Erosion Rates (2005/2006 Nourishment Triggers (2014 Data CollectionProject MethodologyKey Events: March 2020 Summary of FindingsQ&A/Discussion Presentation Outline 19 ) ) ft ) +11.9 ft +1.6 ft – – *Survey Data Provided by the Mason Inlet Relocation Project 131.3 ft - 159.3 ft - Range = Range = t ( t ( 68.4 f - 43.0 f - ft Shoreline Position Changes ( 11,500 – Accretion Shoreline Change (ft) Erosion Recreational Berm (+5.0 ft NAVD88): Average = Mean High Water (+1.4 ft NAVD88): Average = Summary of Findings Mason Inlet Relocation Project 20 ) 167,660 cy - ) ft 14.6 cy/ft ( - *Survey Data Provided by the Mason Inlet Relocation Project 14 ft NAVD88 = - ft Volume Changes (cy/ otentially Some Northern Transport from 11,500 – P – Volume Change Above Volume Change (cy/ft) Accretion Erosion roject Significant Erosion Along Southern Portion of MIRP Due to Equilibration of 2020 MIRP PNorthern Portion of MIRP Stable Hurricane Isaias Summary of Findings Mason Inlet Relocation Project 21 - 14 ft NAVD88 - & cy) ft 152,867 cy 167,660 cy - - = = 179,984 cy 213,330 cy - - = = 75,645 cy - = 13.3 cy/ft 14.6 cy/ft - - Total Volume Loss Above y/ft 15.7 cy/ft 18.6 cy/ft - Volume Changes (cy/ - 6.6 c – - 46.3 cy/ft +82.0 cy/ft+99.8 cy/ft+84.9 cy/ft+82.8 cy/ft + –––– – y/ft y/ft y/ft y/ft t NAVD88 (Offshore Bar) = t NAVD88 (Closure) = 11.9 c13.7 c28.7 c34.6 c ---- ft NAVD88 (Wading Depth) = ft NAVD88 (Offshore) = 4.0 14.0 f20.0 f30 ---- Range = +5.3 cy/ft Range = Range = Range = Range = 167,660 cy Which is Equivalent to 40% of the Placement Volume from the Above +1.4 ft NAVD88 (MHW) = Above Above Above Above Overall Volume Loss Along The MIRP:of -2020 MIRP Project. Accelerated Losses are Expected in the First Year PostConstruction. It Should be Noted that the Northern Portion of the Project was Very Stable and Most Losses Occurred Adjacent to the Inlet. Summary of Findings Mason Inlet Relocation Project 22 +67.4 ft) +68.0 ft) – – ) 43.3 ft - 41.9 ft - ft (Range = (Range = t t 6.1 f - 6.3 f - ft 21,703 Shoreline Position Changes ( – Accretion Shoreline Change (ft) Erosion Recreational Berm (+5.0 ft NAVD88): Average = Mean High Water (+1.4 ft NAVD88): Average = Summary of Findings Wrightsville Beach 23 ) 229,143 cy - Typical Behavior Typical Behavior Not Typical – – –10.6 cy/ft ( - 14 ft NAVD88 = - ) ft ft 21,703 Volume Change Above orth/Mason Inlet Experienced Volume Gains Volume Changes (cy/ entral Experienced Significant Volume Losses outh Experienced Significant Volume Losses CSN – ––– Volume Change (cy/ft) Accretion Erosion Wrightsville Beach Wrightsville Beach BehaviorWrightsville Beach Summary of Findings Wrightsville Beach 24 yr) yr = Average 14 ft yr - 8.5 cy/ft/ Background - Erosion Rate 184,679 cy/ 16 (- Subreach 229,143 cy - 30,618 cy - = = 373,966 cy & cy) 753,450 cy - - = : Volume Losses Above ft = 47,241 cy - Due to Quiescent Weather After : = 1.4 cy/ft 10.6 cy/ft - - y/ft 17.2 cy/ft 34.7 cy/ft - - 2.2 c - +13.2 cy/ft+17.4 cy/ft+17.3 cy/ft+14.5 cy/ft+3.4 cy/ft ––––– Volume Changes (cy/ – y/ft y/ft y/ft y/ft y/ft 229,143 cy Which is Slightly Higher than the Background - t NAVD88 (Offshore Bar) = t NAVD88 (Closure) = 11.1 c13.4 c26.5 c36.4 c63.4 c ----- ft NAVD88 (Wading Depth) = ft NAVD88 (Offshore) = 4.0 14.0 f20.0 f30 ---- Range = Range = Range = Range = Range = Above +1.4 ft NAVD88 (MHW) = Above Above Above Above Overall Volume Loss Along Wrightsville BeachNAVD88 Totaled Erosion Rate, Impacted Mostly by Higher Losses in the South Time Period Between Surveys = 10 Months2021 Survey, It Is Likely That Majority of Annual Changes Have Been Captured In This Analysis Summary of Findings Wrightsville Beach 25 Volume Change (cy/ft) – Elevation (ft NAVD88) Borrow Source For The Wrightsville Beach CSDR Project Summary of Findings Wrightsville Beach (Masonboro Inlet) 26 Volume Change (cy) – USACE Hydrographic Surveys - nlet I Masonboro Summary of Findings Wrightsville Beach (Masonboro Inlet) 27 Volume Change (cy) – eodynamics Lase Scanner Surveys G - Wrightsville Beach Spit Summary of Findings Wrightsville Beach (Masonboro Inlet) 28 cy Volume Change (cy) – = +193,439 Inlet) 2021 2021 = +587,999 cy –– Masonboro Change 2018 ach Laser Scanner Data Within the Permitted Borrow Area each Laser Scanner Data and Missing Edges/Corners of Borrow Area Volume Change 2020 Volume Calculate Volume of the USACE Hydrographic Surveys & Wrightsville BeFilled in Data Gaps Between USACE Hydrographic Surveys & Wrightsville B Summary of Findings Wrightsville Beach ( 29 +46.0 ft) +36.3 ft) – – 70.1 ft 26.3 ft - - (Range = (Range = t 4.3 f - ft 39,293 Shoreline Position Changes (ft) – Shoreline Change (ft) Accretion Erosion Recreational Berm (+5.0 ft NAVD88): Average = Mean High Water (+1.4 ft NAVD88): Average = +9.4 ft Summary of Findings Masonboro Island 30 ) 65,754 cy - 1.7cy/ft ( Reaches - - Reach - 14 ft NAVD88 = - rth Sub No entral & South Sub – C – ft 39,293 Volume Change Above Volume Changes (cy/ft) – Erosion Accretion Volume Change (cy/ft) Moderate Erosion Along Masonboro Island Moderate Accretion Along Masonboro Island Summary of Findings Masonboro Island 31 yr) yr = Average yr 14 ft 2.2 cy/ft/ - 87,254 cy/ Background - Erosion Rate 16 (- +3,426 cy 65,754 cy - = = 370,441 cy 18,983 cy - : Volume Losses Above + 177,035 cy - = = Due to Quiescent Weather After = : 1.7 cy/ft +0.1 cy/ft - 4.5/ft 9.4cy/ft - - +0.5 cy/ft +17.0 cy/ft+18.4 cy/ft+21.5 cy/ft +6.9 cy/ft+8.6 cy/ft ––– –– Volume Changes (cy/ft & cy) y/ft y/ft y/ft 65,754 cy Which is Slightly Lower than the Background – y/ft y/ft - t NAVD88 (Offshore Bar) = t NAVD88 (Closure) = 4.3 c7.3 c16.9 c22.2 c36.3 c ----- ft NAVD88 (Wading Depth) = ft NAVD88 (Offshore) = 4.0 14.0 f20.0 f30 ---- Range = Range = Range = Range = Range = Above +1.4 ft NAVD88 (MHW) = Above Above Above Above Overall Volume Loss Along Masonboro IslandNAVD88 Totaled Erosion RateTime Period Between Surveys = 9 Months2021 Survey & Low Background Erosion Rates, It Is Likely That Majority of Annual Changes Have Been Captured In This Analysis Summary of Findings Masonboro Island 32 Volume Change – ; Therefore, Shoreline Change & Volume Beachface Ex: Transect 2) nclude A Dune, Berm, & Aerial Due To The Alignment Of The Transects Across Carolina Beach Inlet, Not All Profiles IChange Calculations Were Not PerformedShoaling & Use Of The Inshore Dredge Material Management Site For CSDR Project( Summary of Findings Freeman Park (Carolina Beach Inlet) 33 ) ft Volume Change (cy/ – Elevation (ft NAVD88) Borrow Source For The Carolina Beach CSDR Project Summary of Findings Freeman Park (Carolina Beach Inlet) 34 Volume Change (cy) – SACE Hydrographic Surveys U - Carolina Beach Inlet Summary of Findings Freeman Park (Carolina Beach Inlet) 35 cycy Volume Change (cy) – +636,587 = +328,322 = 2021 2021 –– 2019 Change rea ermitted Borrow Area Volume Change 2020 Volume Calculate Volume of the USACE Hydrographic Surveys Within the PFilled in Data Gaps Between Along Missing Edges/Corners of Borrow A Summary of Findings Freeman Park (Carolina Beach Inlet) 36 21.1ft) 15.4 ft) –- –- 58.9 ft - 27.5 ft - ) (Range = (Range = ft t t 38.2 f - 23.3 f - ft 5,510 Shoreline Position Changes ( – Accretion Erosion Shoreline Change (ft) Recreational Berm (+5.0 ft NAVD88): Average = Mean High Water (+1.4 ft NAVD88): Average = Summary of Findings Freeman Park 37 77,709 cy) - 14.1 cy/ft ( - 14 ft NAVD88 = - ) ft ft 5,510 Volume Change Above Volume Changes (cy/ – Erosion Volume Change (cy/ft) Accretion Volume Losses Along Entire Reach Above All Elevations AnalyzedLargest Losses Near Carolina Beach Inlet Summary of Findings Freeman Park 38 yr yr) = Average yr 66,900 cy/ Background 12.1 cy/ft/ Erosion Rate - 15 (- 14 ft NAVD88 - 77,709 cy - 31,652cy - = = 137,219 cy 207,499 cy - - = = 25,892cy - & cy) = 5.7cy/ft 14.1 cy/ft - Due to Quiescent Weather After 2021 - ft : : Volume Losses Above y/ft 24.9 cy/ft 37.7 cy/ft - - 4.7c - 6.3 cy/ft19.2 cy/ft +0.5 cy/ft 0.9 cy/ft +2.2 cy/ft ––-–- ––- y/ft y/ft y/ft y/ft y/ft Volume Changes (cy/ t NAVD88 (Offshore Bar) = t NAVD88 (Closure) = 7.4 c9.6 c41.8 c56.6 c63.7 c – ----- ft NAVD88 (Wading Depth) = ft NAVD88 (Offshore) = 77,709 cy Which is Slightly Higher than the Background Erosion Rate 4.0 14.0 f20.0 f30 - ---- Range = Range = Range = Range = Range = Above +1.4 ft NAVD88 (MHW) = Above Above Above Above Overall Volume Loss Along Freeman ParkTotaled Time Period Between Surveys = 8 MonthsSurvey, It Is Likely That Much of the Annual Changes Have Been Captured In This Analysis but High Background Erosion Rates Indicate Potential for Additional Erosion Even with Quiescent Weather Summary of Findings Freeman Park 39 +0.0 ft) 2.3 ft) – –- 47.8 ft - 40.4 ft - ) ft (Range = (Range = t t 22.1 f - 16.8 f - ft 18,089 Shoreline Position Changes ( – Erosion Accretion Shoreline Change (ft) Recreational Berm (+5.0 ft NAVD88): Average = Mean High Water (+1.4 ft NAVD88): Average = Summary of Findings Carolina Beach 40 253,732 cy) - 14.0 cy/ft ( - 14 ft NAVD88 = - ) ft ft 18,089 Volume Change Above rth & Central Experienced Significant Volume Losses As is Typical outh Also Experienced Volume Losses (Typically Some Transects Volume Changes (cy/ NoS –– – Subreaches Accretion Erosion Volume Change (cy/ft) Carolina Beach for These Carolina Beach Experience Accretion) Summary of Findings Carolina Beach 41 yr) yr = Average yr Background 16.4 cy/ft/ Erosion Rate 296,563 cy/ - 15 (- 14 ft NAVD88 - 253,732 cy - 115,845 cy - = = 305,481 cy 514,696 cy - - = = 81,535 cy - & cy) = 6.4 cy/ft ft 14.0 cy/ft - Due to Quiescent Weather After 2021 - : Volume Losses Above : y/ft 16.9 cy/ft 28.5 cy/ft - - 4.5 c - 0.2 cy/ft2.7 cy/ft +1.4 cy/ft+1.9 cy/ft+0.1 cy/ft ––––-–- y/ft y/ft y/ft y/ft y/ft Volume Changes (cy/ – t NAVD88 (Offshore Bar) = t NAVD88 (Closure) = 17.1 c23.1 c39.8 c47.1 c71.2 c ----- ft NAVD88 (Wading Depth) = ft NAVD88 (Offshore) = 253,732 cy Which is Slightly Lower than the Background Erosion Rate 4.0 14.0 f20.0 f30 - ---- Range = Range = Range = Range = Range = Above +1.4 ft NAVD88 (MHW) = Above Above Above Above Overall Volume Loss Along Carolina BeachTotaled Time Period Between Surveys = 8 MonthsSurvey, It Is Likely That Much of the Annual Changes Have Been Captured In This Analysis but High Background Erosion Rates Indicate Potential for Additional Erosion Even with Quiescent Weather Summary of Findings Carolina Beach 42 +8.6 ft) +13.0 ft) – – 51.1 ft - 34.9 ft - (Range = (Range = t t ) ft 20.2 f - 12.2 f - ft 15,342 Shoreline Position Changes ( – Shoreline Change (ft) ErosionAccretion Recreational Berm (+5.0 ft NAVD88): Average = Mean High Water (+1.4 ft NAVD88): Average = Summary of Findings Kure Beach 43 152,157 cy) - 9.9 cy/ft ( - 14 ft NAVD88 = - ) ft ft 15,342 Volume Change Above rth & South Experienced Significant Volume Losses As is Typical for entral Also Experienced Volume Losses (Typically Several Transects NoC Volume Changes (cy/ –– – Volume Change (cy/ft) Erosion Accretion Kure Beach These SubreachesKure Beach Experience Accretion) Summary of Findings Kure Beach 44 yr) yr = Average yr 8.8 cy/ft/ Background - Erosion Rate 134,776 cy/ 15 (- 14 ft NAVD88 - 74,447 cy 152,157 cy - - = = 210,412 cy 401,001 cy - - = = 69,537 cy - = 4.9 cy/ft 9.9 cy/ft - Due to Quiescent Weather After 2021 - & cy) : y/ft ft : Volume Losses Above 13.7 cy/ft 26.1 cy/ft - - 4.5 c - 8.5 cy/ft +0.9 cy/ft+3.7 cy/ft+8.0 cy/ft+5.7 cy/ft –––––- y/ft y/ft y/ft y/ft y/ft t NAVD88 (Offshore Bar) = t NAVD88 (Closure) = 13.9 c18.3 c29.0 c38.3 c53.7 c ----- Volume Changes (cy/ ft NAVD88 (Wading Depth) = ft NAVD88 (Offshore) = – 152,157 cy Which is Slightly Higher than the Background Erosion Rate 4.0 14.0 f20.0 f30 - ---- Range = Range = Range = Range = Range = Above +1.4 ft NAVD88 (MHW) = Above Above Above Above Overall Volume Loss Along Kure BeachTotaled Time Period Between Surveys = 8 MonthsSurvey, It Is Likely That Much of the Annual Changes Have Been Captured In This Analysis but High Background Erosion Rates Indicate Potential for Additional Erosion Even with Quiescent Weather Summary of Findings Kure Beach 45 +29.1 ft) +47.2 ft) – – 39.4 ft 20.1 ft - - (Range = (Range = t ) ft 3.4 f - ft 16,799 Shoreline Position Changes ( – Shoreline Change (ft) Accretion Erosion Recreational Berm (+5.0 ft NAVD88): Average = Mean High Water (+1.4 ft NAVD88): Average = +7.3 ft Summary of Findings Fort Fisher 46 33,391 cy) - 2.0 cy/ft ( - 14 ft NAVD88 = - ) ft ft 16,799 Volume Change Above isher Central Experienced Volume Gains F - Volume Changes (cy/ – Accretion Volume Change (cy/ft) Erosion Mostly Volume Losses Along the Entire ReachSmall Portion of Fort Summary of Findings Fort Fisher 47 yr) yr = Average yr Background Erosion Rate+2.4 cy/ft/ 15 (+40,176 cy/ 14 ft NAVD88 - +34,761 cy 33,391 cy - = = 509,346 cy 141,736 cy - - = 3,408 cy = - = 2.0 cy/ft +2.1 cy/ft Due to Quiescent Weather After 2021 - : & cy) y/ft ft : Volume Losses Above 8.4 cy/ft 30.3 cy/ft - - 0.2 c - +17.2 cy/ft+22.7 cy/ft+20.6 cy/ft+21.0 cy/ft +7.4 cy/ft –––– – y/ft y/ft y/ft y/ft y/ft t NAVD88 (Offshore Bar) = t NAVD88 (Closure) = 8.0 c13.8 c24.5 c31.0 c73.5 c ----- ft NAVD88 (Wading Depth) = ft NAVD88 (Offshore) = Volume Changes (cy/ – 33,391 cy Which is Atypical Given Background Erosion Rates are 4.0 14.0 f20.0 f30 - ---- Range = Range = Range = Range = Range = Above +1.4 ft NAVD88 (MHW) = Above Above Above Above Overall Volume Loss Along Fort FisherTotaled AccretionalTime Period Between Surveys = 8 MonthsSurvey & Historically Accretional Trends, It Is Likely That Much of the Annual Changes Have Been Captured In This Analysis Summary of Findings Fort Fisher 48 17.5 ft 8.9 ft - - ) ft Recreational Berm (+5.0 ft NAVD88) = Mean High Water (+1.4 ft NAVD88) = Shoreline Position Changes ( – Accretion Shoreline Change (ft) Erosion Summary of Findings Pleasure Island 49 516,990 cy) - 9.3 cy/ft ( - ) ft 14 ft NAVD88 = - Volume Change Above Volume Changes (cy/ – Volume Change (cy/ft) ErosionAccretion Summary of Findings Pleasure Island 50 MIRP F8 South MIRP F8 Mason Inlet North/Mason Inlet Wrightsville Beach North Wrightsville Beach Central ) Wrightsville Beach South ft Masonboro Island North Masonboro Island Central Masonboro Island South Freeman Park Carolina Beach North Carolina Beach Central Carolina Beach South Kure Beach North Unit Volume Change (cy/ Kure Beach Central – Kure Beach South Fort Fisher North Fort Fisher Central Fort Fisher South Accretion Erosion Average Volume Change (cy/ft) Summary of Findings New Hanover County 51 MIRP F8 South MIRP F8 Mason Inlet North/Mason Inlet Wrightsville Beach Wrightsville Beach Central Wrightsville Beach South Masonboro Island North Masonboro Island Central Masonboro Island South Freeman Park Carolina Beach North Carolina Beach Central Carolina Beach South Kure Beach North Kure Beach Central Cumulative Volume Change (cy) – Kure Beach South Fort Fisher North Fort Fisher Central Fort Fisher South Accretion Erosion Cumulative Volume Change (cy) Summary of Findings New Hanover County 52 – Could – – South - Slightly Less Than Background Erosion RateSlightly Higher Than Background Erosion Rate - Uncharacteristic Based on Historical Accretion Trends Annual Volume Change (cy/ft) – : Overall Moderate Volume Losses (Slightly Higher Than Background Erosion Rate) : Minor Volume Losses : Overall Substantial Volume Losses (Slightly Lower than Background Erosion Rate : Significant Volume Losses - : Overall Significant Volume Losses (Slightly Higher Than Background Erosion Rate : Minor Volume Losses – South Subreach Subreach – MIRP Confined to Southern Portion of Project and Stable Northern Portion of Project Wrightsville Beach With Much Higher Than Typical Losses in Wrightsville Beach Masonboro IslandFreeman ParkCarolina Beach Could be Impacted by 8 Month Timeframe), Including Losses in Historically More Stable Carolina Beach Kure Beach be Impacted by 8 Month Timeframe), Including Losses in Historically More Stable Kure Beach Central Fort Fisher Summary of Findings Overall Summary 53 Target is 0 -2021 Essential For Volume Losses = CSDR Projects Are Volume Placement Maintaining Beaches for NHC –2021 yr y/ft/ 6.3 c t NAVD88 From 2005/2006 - 14.0 f - Calculate Volume Change Above Subtract Out Placement Volumes From 2005/2006 Annualized Background Erosion Rate = Summary of Findings Background Erosion Rate 54 yr, NOT ome S t NAVD88 i.e.2- 14 f - unds were to ever M&N Performed - Federal F tart the Process of Planning for and S Level of Protection yr) Using SBEACH - pproach to Design A yr, & 100 ourishments Projects if - N Level of Protection hore Transport for Various Return Period Storms ( S - yr, 50 - esign uture yr, 25 - each? What is the Largest Return Period Storm the Beach can Withstand?What Level Storm do we want to Ensure Protection Against for the Entire BVolume of Sand Required from the First Row of Structures out to to Protect Against the yr, 10 New Topic to be Included in the Monitoring Report Modeling as a Proactive Optimizing Fcome to Fruition.The Concept Of Nourishment Triggers Aims to Provide Equal Protection to all Parts of the BeachModeled Cross5-Determined the Existing “Level of Protection” for the BeachDetermine DDeveloped Nourishment Triggers Based on Desired Level of Protection Summary of Findings Nourishment Triggers 55 10 YR Level of Protection esign xisting Level of Protection E ––D Wrightsville Beach Wrightsville Beach Summary of Findings Nourishment Triggers 56 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 olume Status V – 14 ft NAVD88 (cy/ft)-Volume Above Wrightsville Beach Summary of Findings Nourishment Triggers 57 25 YR Level of Protection esign xisting Level of Protection E ––D Carolina Beach Carolina Beach Summary of Findings Nourishment Triggers 58 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 olume Status V – 14 ft NAVD88 (cy/ft)-Volume Above Carolina Beach Summary of Findings Nourishment Triggers 59 25 YR Level of Protection esign xisting Level of Protection E ––D Kure Beach Kure Beach Summary of Findings Nourishment Triggers 60 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 olume Status V – 14 ft NAVD88 (cy/ft)-Volume Above Kure Beach Summary of Findings Nourishment Triggers 61 Final Thoughts – erm Trends T - Project PerformanceNatural Erosion/Accretion PatternsRefinement Of Hotspot & Nodal Point LocationsProvides Data For Model Calibration (Shorelines, Bathymetry, etc.)Provides Current Conditions From Which To Assess Alternatives olumes And Cycles Assessment Of Specific Sand Placement Locations And VolumesAssessment of Beach Conditions With Respect to Nourishment TriggersEstablishment Of Long Assessment Of Background Erosion Rates With Respect To Maintenance VDetermination Of Longshore Extent Of Inlet InfluencesAssessment Of Borrow Area Volumes Throughout Nourishment CycleAnnual Monitoring Works In Conjunction With Coastal Modeling Summary of Findings Future Datasets Will Improve Analyses 62 2021) - 2021) - 2021) - ay 2021 M 2021) - – Survey TransectsSurvey EquipmentShoreline ChangeVolume ChangeStorm ActivityMaintenance ActivityShoreline & Volume Change (2020 Inlet Conditions (2020 Background Erosion Rates (2005/2006 Nourishment Triggers (2014 Data CollectionProject MethodologyKey Events: March 2020 Summary of FindingsQ&A/Discussion Presentation Outline 63 Q&A / Discussion