THE INFLUENCE OF TIDAL INLET MIGRATION AND CLOSURE ON BARRIER

PLANFORM CHANGES: FEDERAL BEACH, NC

Emerson G. Hasbrouck

A Thesis submitted to the

University of North Carolina Wilmington in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science

Department of Geography and Geology

University of North Carolina Wilmington

2007

Approved by

Advisory Committee

_____________________________ _____________________________

_______________________________
Chair

Accepted by

_____________________________
Dean, Graduate School
This thesis has been prepared in a style and format
consistent with
The Journal of Coastal Research

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................v

DEDICATION.................................................................................................................. vii

LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................................4

Physical Setting....................................................................................................................4

History................................................................................................................................10

Previous Work ...................................................................................................................16

OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................17

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................18

T-Sheets .............................................................................................................................19

Aerial Photographs.............................................................................................................20

Measurement of Shoreline and Inlet Related Changes ......................................................20

Shoreline Position Error.....................................................................................................25

Delineation of Shoreline Reaches......................................................................................26

RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................28

Inlet Changes .....................................................................................................................30

New Inlet A........................................................................................................................30

New Inlet B ........................................................................................................................31

Inlet Migration Zones ........................................................................................................34

Inlet Migration Zone I........................................................................................................38

iii
Inlet Migration Zone II ......................................................................................................38

Inlet Migration Zone III .....................................................................................................39

Inlet Migration Zone IV.....................................................................................................40

Shoreline Change ...............................................................................................................41

Barrier-wide Shoreline Change..........................................................................................42

Zone-wide Shoreline Change.............................................................................................46

Shoreline Change Zone I ...................................................................................................48

Shoreline Change Zone II ..................................................................................................51

DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................53

New Inlet Morphology.......................................................................................................54

Inlet Migration and Shoreline Change...............................................................................62

Regional Context ...............................................................................................................68

Future Changes ..................................................................................................................70

CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................73

LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................................75

iv
 ABSTRACT

Federal Beach, a narrow 10 km-long barrier spit that connects the Fort Fisher

headland and the Cape Fear foreland, has been breached numerous times during the past

centuries. Prior to 1880 the storm breaches served as one of several conduits for the

exchange/discharge of the Cape Fear River. One long-lasting breach that opened in 1761

near the headland evolved into the second largest inlet system in the area until it was

artificially closed by the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers in 1880. Closure was

accomplished by the construction of a 4.6 km-long dam that dramatically reduced the

tidal prism and the extent of the ebb tidal delta. Long-lasting impacts associated with

inlet closure include the chronic erosion of the headland area and frequent breaching of

the barrier and the subsequent rapid migration of small inlets. Concurrent with inlet

migration is the realignment of the barrier spit shoreline.

A GIS-based analysis of aerial photographs from 1938 to 2005 was conducted to

quantify shoreline rate-of-change values for the barrier spit, and migration rates of the

associated inlet systems. The Federal Beach barrier spit shoreline accreted an average of

6 m, at a rate of 0.1 m/yr during this period. This study identifies two shoreline change

zones (SCZ). SCZ I is characterized as a retrograding reach, with long-term erosion

averaging 78 m from 1945 to 2005. Over the same period, SCZ II is characterized as a

prograding reach, with long-term accretion averaging 69 m.

Two inlet systems, New Inlet A (NIA) and New Inlet B (NIB) were active along

the Federal Beach barrier from 1938 to 1999. The NIA system opened in the 1890’s and

by 1959 had migrated approximately 6 km to the south where the system closed due to

shoaling of the inlet throat. New Inlet B opened in 1944 and closed in 1999. During this

v
period the NIB system migrated south a total of 6 km, at a mean rate of 106 m/yr. Both

the size and stability of the New Inlet B system was determined to be strongly influenced

by the morphology of the backbarrier environment with respect to inlet position.

As both of the New Inlet systems migrate along Federal Beach they actively

reshape the barrier spit planform, resulting in the progradation of the updrift barrier

shoreline. Anthropogenic and natural changes to the backbarrier environment have

impacted the behavior of the inlet systems, consequently resulting in long-term changes

of the Federal Beach barrier spit planform.

vi
DEDICATION

Mom and Dad

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Summary of Shoreline Change Calculations .........................................................22

2. Summary of Estimated Worst-Case Shoreline Position Error...............................27

3. Summary of New Inlet A Migration Rates and Inlet Minimum Width Values.....33

4. Summary of New Inlet B Migration Rates and Inlet Minimum Width Values .....36

5. Summary of Shoreline Change By Transect..........................................................43

6. Summary of Shoreline Change and EPR by Shoreline Change Zone ...................44

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Location map of Federal Beach, North Carolina .....................................................5

2. Map of regional geology. The shoreface of the study area is composed

of a headland, a wave-cut platform and unconsolidated sediments.........................7

3. (a) Major tropical storms affecting southwestern Onslow Bay and Cape
Fear regions from 1938 to 2003. (b) Five major storms to significantly
impact the study area ...............................................................................................9

4. Cape Fear region, southeastern North Carolina as shown in

“A New and Correct Map of the Province of North Carolina” by
EDWARDMOSELEY,1733 ........................................................................................11

5. Image showing the pre-Rock 1866 shoreline and the post-Rock 1899
shoreline. Note the extension of “Carolina Shoal Beach” and the collapse
of the ebb-tidal delta and Lower Haulover beach strand .......................................13

6. New Inlet Cycle showing (a) southern extension of barrier spit,

(b) formation of second inlet system, (c) closure of first inlet system ..................14

7. (a) Location of Shoreline Change Zones (SCZ) and their respective

transects for Federal Beach’s shoreline configuration as of 2003.
(b) Location of Inlet Migration Zones (IMZ) and the location of
New Inlet B for the years 1945 to 1998.................................................................29

8. Migration of New Inlet A (NIA) along the Federal Beach barrier

spit from 1938 to 1954...........................................................................................32

9. Migration of New Inlet B (NIB) along the Federal Beach barrier

spit from 1945 to 1976...........................................................................................35

10 Migration of New Inlet B (NIB) along the Federal Beach barrier

spit from 1979 to 1999...........................................................................................37

11. (a) Regions of historical shoreline fluctuation during the time

period (b) 1945 to (c) 2005. (d) Barrier spit shoreline position
01.23.1945 and 01.01.2005....................................................................................45

12. Federal Beach shoreline change by decade or closest interval

available from data set ...........................................................................................47

ix
13. Plot of (a) shoreline rate-of-change statistics and (b) standard deviation
and maximum change values, for each transect along Federal Beach
from 1938 to 2005..................................................................................................49

14. Shoreline change for SCZ I. (a) The largest net accretion occurred
during the 1949-1954 survey period. (b) The largest net erosion
occurred during the 1958-1962 survey period .......................................................50

15. Shoreline change for SCZ II. (a) The largest net erosion occurred
during the 1954-1958 survey period. (b) The greatest net accretion
occurred during the 1958-1962 survey period .......................................................52

16. Plot of (a) migration rate over time, (b) IMW over time and
(c) IMW vs migration rate .....................................................................................56

17. Representative aerial photographs showing the migration and

backbarrier configuration of the New Inlet B system from 1945 to 1973 .............58

18. Representative aerial photographs showing the migration and

backbarrier configuration of the New Inlet B system from 1973 to 1992 .............60

19. Representative aerial photographs showing the migration and closure

of the New Inlet B system from 1996 to 1999.......................................................63

20. Barrier planform changes as New Inlet B migrates along Federal Beach
from T6 to T11 (1945-1958). Notice positive shoreline change occurring
along T7 to 10 ........................................................................................................65

21. Barrier planform changes as New Inlet B migrates along Federal Beach
from T12 to T16 (1962-1973). Notice positive shoreline change occurring
along T12 to T15....................................................................................................67

22. Barrier planform changes as New Inlet B migrates along Federal

Beach from T7 to T16 (1945-1973). Notice positive shoreline change
occurring along T8 to T15 .....................................................................................69

x
 INTRODUCTION

Currently, over two thirds of the world’s population lives within 150 km of the

coast. In the U.S 54% of Americans live in coastal counties. The population density of

coastal areas in the U.S. is expected to double by 2025 (SADIK, 1994). With 20,506 miles

of shoreline seriously eroding within these coastal counties, there is an ever increasing

need for local, state and federal governments to establish and implement effective coastal

management policies.

North Carolina is just one of the many states whose coastal communities are

being threatened by chronic beach erosion problems. North Carolina is experiencing one

of the highest rates of population growth in the country. During the period from 1970 to

1995, the overall population of the state increased 40 percent, from approximately 5

million to 7 million. In 1995 North Carolina had the 10th highest population of all the

states. This growth is expected to continue, and by the year 2020 the population is

expected to exceed 9 million. As with other coastal states, much of this growth is located

along the ocean shoreline (US CENSUS BUREAU, 2005).

The majority of chronic-erosion zones along the North Carolina coastline are

associated with contemporary inlets or inlets that were closed artificially (CLEARY and

MARDEN, 1999). Currently, inlets comprise less then 1% of North Carolina’s coastline,

yet, during the past two centuries, they have influenced 65% of the barrier shorelines that

comprise the Onslow Bay Compartment (CLEARY and PILKEY, 1996). To mitigate this on

going erosion problem, North Carolina planned to spend approximately 12 million dollars

on beach nourishment for the FY 2005. Accurate prediction of shoreline retreat, land loss
rates, and the cost of management alternatives is critical to the planning of coastal zone

management strategies (CLEARY et al., 1996).

The coastal area is a highly variable and extremely dynamic environment.

Physical processes, such as tides, waves and wind, are constantly reshaping the many

morphological features of the coast to establish an environmental equilibrium. In

addition, the underlying geologic framework, offshore topography and human activity are

all reflected in the morphology of any given coastal system. Understanding the processes

and three-dimensional geologic framework that govern coastal morphology is vital to

determining the behavior of beaches, particularly those that have been replenished

artificially (CLEARY et al., 1996).

Tidal inlets are openings in the shoreline through which water infiltrates the land,

thereby providing a connection between the ocean and bays, lagoons, or marsh and tidal

creek systems (FITZGERALD, 1996).Tidal inlets are associated with barrier systems and

are found throughout the world in a variety of different environmental settings. Tidal

inlets most commonly occur along passive continental margins (INMAN and NORDSTROM,

1970) with microtidal to mesotidal conditions (HAYES, 1979).

Tidal inlets are one of the most studied systems in the coastal environment.

Nevertheless each tidal inlet is a unique system. The diversity in morphology, hydraulic

signature, and sediment transport patterns of tidal inlets attests to the complexity of their

processes (FITZGERALD, 1996). One of the problems with formulating models (numerical

and conceptual) or predictive relationships concerning inlets is the difficulty in devising a

model that includes a large population of inlets, while at the same time making the model

sufficiently accurate to supply quantitative information needed to answer specific

2
questions for a particular inlet or address broad management issues (FITZGERALD, 1996).

Numerous investigations dealing with almost every aspect of tidal inlets have been

undertaken. However, little work has been done on investigating the impact of inlet

closure on shoreline change.

There have been extensive investigations into tidal inlet systems of the Georgia

Bight, especially in North Carolina. Most notably are those by CLEARY and PILKEY

(1996), CLEARY and FITZGERALD (2003), CLEARY and MARDEN (1999), JOHNSON et al.

(1999), and HAYES (1994).

Investigations of tidal inlet closure in North Carolina include MCGINNIS (2004),

RICE (2002) and WELSH (2004). Investigations of inlet closure outside the southeastern

U.S. have been primarily focused on seasonal inlet closures (e.g. RANASINGHE and

PATTIARATCHI 1999; RANASINGHE et al., 1999). Emphasis has been placed on

determining the mechanics and relative magnitude of the physical forces governing

closure. However, these studies have neglected to quantify the long-term shoreline

changes associated with inlet closure.

Of the many morphological features found in the coastal system, tidal inlets are of

particular importance for a number of reasons. Tidal inlets are a major influence affecting

almost all physical, biological and chemical processes active in the coastal area. Tidal

inlets serve a whole host of primary and secondary functions. In addition to serving as

entrances to harbors, tidal inlets actively flush estuaries with sea water and nutrients, act

as conduits for spawning and larval marine organisms, as well as impound a large volume

of sediment thus impacting large tracts of shoreline (FITZGERALD, 1996). In short, there

is little in the coastal environment that is not in some way influenced by a tidal inlet.

3
 The stability of a given inlet is perhaps the most important factor governing

management policy. Migrating inlets are a constant threat working to undermine

surrounding coastal infrastructure, and disrupt designated coastal waterways. From 1989-

1995, 82% of the flood insurance claims for erosion threatened buildings in North

Carolina were along tidal inlet influenced shorelines (JOHNSON et al., 1999). The

shoreline changes associated with tidal inlets are of particular importance when

evaluating the long-term effects of shoreline nourishment projects. In addition,

determining the migratory history of an inlet and understanding the environmental

variables acting to control that migration are of paramount importance when delineating

hazard zones and designating federal waterways.

STUDY AREA

Physical Setting

Nearly continuous chains of barrier islands flank the eastern and Gulf coasts of

North America. This expanse of coastal barriers is the apex of the longest single

development of barrier islands in the world, stretching from Cape Cod, Massachusetts to

the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico (HAYES, 1994). The island complexes found in the

southeastern states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida are known as

the Georgia Bight.The shoreline of the Georgia Bight, which extends from Cape Hatteras,

North Carolina to Cape Canaveral, Florida, is over 750 miles long (HAYES, 1994).

The Federal Beach barrier spit complex is located in southeastern North Carolina

along the Onslow Bay coastal compartment (Figure 1). Federal Beach is a 9.5 km long

4
Figure 1. Locator map of Federal Beach, North Carolina. Map shows the 1987
shoreline configuration. (Wave energy data from JACKSON, 2004.)

5
barrier spit connecting the Pleistocene units of the Fort Fisher sub-aerial headlands to the

unconsolidated Holocene sediments of the high-energy flank of the Cape Fear Foreland.

Southeastern North Carolina’s coast is classified as a wave-dominated, low

mesotidal barrier coast with mixed energy environments (HAYES, 1979, 1994; DAVIS and

HAYES, 1984). The Cape Fear region is located in a mixed semidiurnal tidal regime. The

mean tide range for the area is 1.15 m (National Ocean Service, 2005). The average wave

height for the region is 0.8 m with a period of about 8.0 seconds (JARRETT, 1976).

Onslow Bay is a sediment-starved shelf system dominated by hard bottoms

(CLEARY et al., 1996). Holocene sediment accumulation in Onslow Bay is negligible due

to low fluvial input, entrapment of sediments in extensive estuarine systems and minimal

sediment exchange between adjacent shelf embayments (CLEARY and PILKEY, 1968;

CLEARY and THAYER, 1973; BLACKWELDER et al., 1982). The shoreface of the study area

is characterized by hard bottoms of varying relief, morphology and lithology (Figure 2).

The northern portion of the study area is dominated by the Fort Fisher subaerial headland.

The coastal area here consists of a wave-cut platform incised into a series of Pleistocene

sediment units with a thin beach perched on top of the irregular geometry of the

Pleistocene units (MOOREFIELD, 1978; CLEARY et al., 1996).

Three major lithologies have been identified in the offshore. Erosion-resistant,

lithified and cross-bedded coquina sandstone forms the Fort Fisher subaerial headland. A

friable humate and iron-cemented Pleistocene sandstone fronts the shoreline south of the

headland forming a 2.0 m high wave-cut cliff and terrace (CLEARY et al., 1996). The

southern portion of the study area is a not a headland-dominated system, it is

characterized by estuarine and inlet fill sediments that are much less resistant to erosion

6
7
Figure 2. Map of regional geology. The shoreface of the study area is composed of a headland, a wave-cut
platform and unconsolidated sediments. (Data from CLEARY et al., 1996 and NC DEHNR, 1998.)
(SWAIN and CLEARY, 1992; RIGGS et al., 1995). The shape and evolution of the three

different coastal segments around Fort Fisher is clearly related to the presence and

lithology of the outcropping and underlying Pleistocene geologic framework (CLEARY et

al., 1996).

Since 1938, there have been 58 classified storms to impact the North Carolina

shore; 12 of which made landfall along the North Carolina shoreline from Bird Island to

Cape Lookout (Figure 3). Hurricane Hazel was the most destructive storm to have struck

North Carolina over the past 70 years (USACE, 1982). Hurricane Hazel, a Category 3

storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale, made landfall in 1954 near the North Carolina and

South Carolina border. During the period from July 1996 through September 1999, four

hurricanes (Bertha, Fran, Bonnie, and Floyd) ranging in scale from Category 2 to 3

storms, made landfall within the region causing substantial impacts to both beaches and

property. Historically, the impact of storms along Federal Beach has been significant.

The openings of one long-lasting inlet, in 1944; and several smaller ephemeral barrier

breaches, in 1954 and again in 1996, were due to tropical storm activity.

In addition, extratropical storms or nor’easters have impacted the region causing

substantial storm surge and heavy surf (HUDGINS, 2000; BARNES, 2001). Storm activity

has been a major influence in shaping the coast of North Carolina. The energy expended

and sediment transported during the few hours of a storm may equal many years of non-

storm work (MORTON, 1988).

The region is dominated by southerly longshore transport. However, seasonal

variations in wind and wave approach create local reversals in this trend. During the

spring and summer, wind and wave approach is from the south and southwest, while

8
9
Figure 3. (a) Major tropical storms affecting southwestern Onslow Bay and Cape Fear regions from 1938 to 2003.
(b) Five major storms to significantly impact the study area. (Source: NOAA)
during the winter north and northeast approaches dominate (CLEARY and PILKEY, 1996).

Despite seasonal variations, the overall dominant wave approach is from the northeast

resulting in a net littoral drift of approximately 230,000 cu m/ yr to the southwest

(SWAIN, 1993).

History

The earliest reliable historic map of the area attained by this study was produced

by MOSELEY in 1733. The map shows a long, narrow beach strand connecting the Fort

Fisher headland to the Cape Fear foreland (Figure 4). In 1761, a storm of significant

magnitude breached the area know as “Lower Haulover” (modern day Federal Beach),

forming a new tidal inlet system (SWAIN, 1993). New Inlet, as the system became known,

developed into the second largest inlet system in southeastern North Carolina.

Subsequently, New Inlet’s extensive flood-tidal delta and associated sand bodies

began to shoal the proximal Cape Fear River (CFR) shipping channel (Figure 1). Initial

attempts in 1852 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to mitigate the shoaling

were unsuccessful. Continuous attempts to mitigate shoaling over the next thirty years,

barring the extensive use of New Inlet by blockade runners during the Civil War, proved

unsuccessful. Ultimately construction of a swash dam by the USACE, completed in 1887,

effectively controlled the shoaling of the CFR shipping channel. Known as “The Rocks”,

the dam stretched 4.5 km, from Federal Point along Zeke’s Island to Muddy Slough, and

stood 30 m wide and 9 m high (Figure 1).

By 1887 however, it became evident that the impact of The Rocks was far more

extensive than simple shoal mitigation. The construction of The Rocks cut the hydraulic

10
Figure 4. Cape Fear region, southeastern North Carolina as shown in “A New
and Correct Map of the Province of North Carolina” by EDWARD MOSELEY,
1733.

11
connection between the Cape Fear River and the New Inlet system, effectively forming

an artificial estuary known as “The Basin” (Figure 1). The construction of The Rocks

resulted in a sharp decrease in the tidal prism of the New Inlet system. The tidal prism of

the system was reduced from 58.7 × 106 m3 in 1872 to 14.2 × 106 m3 in 1887. Continued

long-term changes in the back barrier basin capacity continued to reduce the tidal prism

(SWAIN, 1993). As a result, back barrier infilling and basin sedimentation further reduced

the size and stability of the system.

Concurrent to tidal prism reduction and back barrier infilling, inlet migration and

barrier spit formation began reshaping Lower Haulover Beach. By 1887 New Inlet had

migrated over 2 km to the south, extending the southern extent of the newly formed

barrier spit by the same magnitude (Figure 5). Consequently, by 1895 the barrier spit

began to overlap the existing down drift shoreline (Lower Haulover). The overlapped

shoreline has remained a stable backbarrier feature and was renamed North Island

(SWAIN, 1993). Originally the newly formed barrier spit was named “Carolina Shoals

Beach”. The name was subsequently dropped and since then the area has had no formal

name (NCDNER, 1970). This study will herein refer to the barrier spit as “Federal

Beach” due to it’s proximity to Federal Point.

The construction of The Rock, the resulting migration of New Inlet and the

extension of the Federal Beach barrier in 1887 marked the beginning of a sequence of

cyclic, morphological changes that would be repeated until the close of the New Inlet

system in 1999. The cycle, herein referred to as the “New Inlet Cycle” and summarized

in Figure 6, began with the southern migration of the 19th Century New Inlet and the

concurrent elongation and seaward offset of the updrift shoreline of the Federal Beach

12
Figure 5. Image showing the pre-Rock 1866 shoreline and the post-Rock 1899
shoreline. Note the extension of “Carolina Shoal Beach” and the collapse of the ebb-
tidal delta and Lower Haulover beach strand. (United States Coast and Geodeitic
Survey chart)

13
 SOUTHERN FORMATION OF
MIGRATION SECOND INLET
OF INLET

14
INLET
CLOSURE

Figure 6. New Inlet Cycle showing (a) phase one, southern extension of barrier spit, (b) phase two, formation of
second inlet system, (c) and phase three, closure of first inlet system
barrier spit. Continued southern migration of the inlet along North Island ultimately

resulted in an elongation of the inlet channel and a reduction in the hydraulic efficiency

of the system.

The second phase of the New Inlet Cycle is the opening of a second inlet. The

formation of a second inlet occurred during a storm event in 1944, where the potentially

large tidal prism caused a breach along the narrowest part of the Federal Beach barrier

near the point of spit attachment. As is typical in this system the northern, or newest, inlet

began to capture more tidal flow and effectively reduced the tidal flow of the southern, or

older, inlet system.

The third phase of the New Inlet Cycle is inlet closure. Once the dominance of the

northern inlet was established, the southern most inlet, due to a lack of tidal exchange,

began to shoal and eventually closed. HAYES (1991) identified two processes by which

inlets commonly form. In the first process, as is exemplified by the last two New Inlet

systems, storm generated scour channels result in shallow inlets prone to migration. In

the second process identified by HAYES (1991), an inlet forms through the closure of an

estuary entrance by the growth of a barrier sand spit. This is the way in which the

Carolina Shoal Beach barrier spit and associated inlet system formed after the instillation

of The Rocks was completed (Figure 5).

In 1996, the USACE completed another civil works project within the study area.

The USACE constructed a 926 m-long multi-layered rubble revetment fronting the Fort

Fisher historic site. Since the construction of The Rocks and the collapse of the large 19th

century New Inlet system and associated tidal-deltas, chronic erosion has characterized

the Fort Fisher historic site. This erosion threatened the 19th century earthen works of the

15
historic fort and the surrounding infrastructure. To mitigate shoreline erosion and prevent

further loss of the historic site the USACE stabilized the shoreline via a hard engineering

structure. The construction of the rubble revetment resulted in a loss of material to the

littoral system and an increased shoreline erosion rate of approximately – 2.5 m/yr just

south of the structure (USACE, 2004).

Since the construction of The Rocks, the Federal Beach barrier spit complex has

become a multi-inlet system, with at least three inlet cycles occurring since 1887

(SWAIN,1993). The focus of the current investigation is phase two, which opened in the

Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944, and the most recent phase, phase three.

Previous Work

The scope of the work conducted within the study area has been extensive. As

previously discussed, the USACE have been undertaking civil engineering projects in the

area since before the turn of the 19th century. Erosion monitoring began in 1946 when a

winter storm destroyed U.S. Highway 421. Moreover, by the 1950’s, both the state of

North Carolina and the county of New Hanover began a series of emergency action,

aimed at preserving the remaining structures of the Fort Fisher historic site. Detailed

shoreline change surveys predating revetment construction and continuing today monitor

the northern most section of the study area (USACE 1967, 1975, 1982, 1994, 1997 –

2005). Investigations by academic institutions began with MOORFIELD (1978) who

examined the role of underlying geology and inlet migration on shoreline orientation.

SWAIN (1993) examined the effects of inlet closure on Zeke’s Island Estuary. Thorough

investigations of the underlying geologic framework and its influence on the adjacent

16
shoreline have been conducted by RIGGS et al. (1995), CLEARY et al. (1996) and MARCY

(1997).

Although numerous investigations have been conducted within the study area, the

scope and depth have not been sufficient enough to draw a solid connection between

backbarrier modification, and its relative influence on inlet morphology and shoreline

change.

Overall, the study site poses a variety of challenges. The variability of the major

morphodynamic processes active, in combination with the coastal engineering activities

within the study area, provide a unique opportunity to study the influence of inlet

migration and closure on shoreline stability. The construction and evolution of an

artificial basin, the transition of an inlet system from a single, large stable inlet to small,

multiple unstable inlets; all have a distinctive and dramatic impact on shoreline stability

and barrier spit growth. Investigating the mechanisms of the shoreline change

experienced within the study site will provide valuable insight into determining the

relative influence of various environmental controls and help to dictate better local

management policy.

OBJECTIVES

This study proposed to investigate the impact of inlet migration and closure on

shoreline change within the study area. The primary goal was to quantify shoreline

changes through the collection of historical shoreline data and delineate both spatial and

temporal trends of shoreline change. In addition, this study attempted to establish

relationships between shoreline morphology and inlet behavior.

17
 To accomplish these goals, morphological changes in New Inlet and changes in

the nature of the backbarrier environment were quantified and then analyzed both

spatially and temporally to establish a link between backbarrier changes, inlet behavior

and shoreline morphology.

Although previous investigations within the study site tried to quantify shoreline

change, few had the accuracy afforded by recent technological advances of geographic

information systems (GIS) and digital shoreline mapping programs. In addition, there

have been no investigations into the resultant shoreline changes associated with the

closure of New Inlet. This investigation has attempted to establish a link between changes

in the behavior of the New Inlet system, including backbarrier modifications, and the

shoreline morphology of the Federal Beach barrier spit.

METHODOLOGY

This investigation was based on data derived from various remote sensing

sources. Near vertical aerial photographs, othorphotographs, and National Ocean Service

(NOS) T-sheets from various years were obtained from local and state archives. These

sources include the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), North Carolina

Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM), New Hanover County Department of

Geographic Information Systems, and Brunswick County Department of Geographic

Information Systems.

Remote sensing data coverage of the study area spans over 200 years. The first

historical map was produced in 1733 by MOSELEY (Figure 4). Historic charts from the

U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey from the years 1866 and 1889 were used to qualitatively

18
asses the historic nature of the area and establish a conceptual idea of early inlet location

and behavior. Contemporary changes, those occurring in the twentieth and twenty first

centuries, were quantified by analyzing 20 sets of aerial photographs from 1938 to 2005.

The shoreline, though strictly defined as the intersection of water and land surfaces, for

practical purposes, is a dynamic boundary, and its dependence on the temporal and

spatial scale at which it is being considered often results in the use of a range of different

shoreline indicators (BOAK and TURNER, 2005). In this study, 9 km shoreline was

identified and digitized following the methodology of such investigators as, DOLAN et al.

(1978, 1980, 1991); JACKSON (2004) and PAJAK and LEATHERMAN (2002); as the high-

water line (HWL). In this investigation the HWL was visually determined as a change in

tone left by the maximum runup from a preceding high tide (ANDERS and BYRNES, 1991;

CROWELL, LEATHERMAN, and BUCKLEY, 1991; SMITH and ZARILLO, 1990)

T-Sheets

The oldest reliable source of shoreline data in the United States is the National

Ocean Service, formally known as the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, T-sheets, which

date back to the early to mid-1800s (MORTON, 1991). These maps are constructed from

plane-table surveys based on the high-water line and not the mean high water line as

reported on the maps (SHALOWITZ, 1964). NOS T-sheets were digitized using a

Calcomp™ digitizing tablet and ArcView™ GIS v.3.2a software. Once the map was

registered the HWL was digitized into an ArcView polyline shapefile and attributed

(JACKSON, 2004).

19
Aerial Photographs

Aerial Photographs were selected from various archives based on scale, clarity,

presence of coastal features and temporal proximity to storm events. Photographs were

scanned using an EPSON Perfection ® 1650 scanner. To produce a consistent ground

pixel distance of approximately 3 ft. per pixel, scanning resolutions were calculated for

each set, and varied from 300 to 600 dpi. Data loss during photo georectification may be

minimized if the resolution of the scanned photo and the georeferenced base layer are

similar.

After scanning the original hard copy photo to create a digital file, polynomial

georectification was performed in three steps: (i) matching of ground-control points

(GCPs) on the scanned photo image and base layer, (ii) transformation of the GCP

coordinates on the scanned image from a generic raster set to a geographical projection

and coordinate system, and (iii) pixel resampling (HUGHES et al., 2006). In this

investigation the photographs were digitally rectified in ESRI® ArcMap™ 9.1 using the

georeferencing tool. Georeferenced photographs were saved as TIFF files. These files

were used to create a photo mosaic for each set of photographs. ArcMap™ 9.1 was then

used to digitize the visible wet/dry line (HWL), the main ebb channel, associated inlet

sand bodies, and subaerial back barrier features.

Measurement of Shoreline and Inlet Related Changes

Standard industry methods for calculating shoreline change and rate statistics

have yet to be adopted by the government, public and private sectors. However several

calculation methods, such as the endpoint rate (EPR) and “least-squares fit” linear

20
regression rate (LRR) calculation (Table 1), have been intergraded into a computational

extension created for ArcView™ called SCARPS (Simple Change Analysis of Retreating

and Prograding Systems). This investigation used SCARPS, programmed by JACKSON

(2004), as the primary method of calculating shoreline position changes and rates.

All digital shoreline files were projected to North Carolina state plane projection,

NAD 1983 datum, GRS 1980 spheroid, and feet map units prior to analysis. Shoreline

change was calculated by measuring the position differences of the HWL between each

historical shoreline within the GIS. For each analysis, shoreline change transects were

cast shore-normal from a baseline and spaced at 457.2 m (1,500 ft.) intervals. Shoreline

rate-of-change models and statistics were computed using SCARPS, which include the

calculation methods summarized in Table 1. A detailed explanation of each shoreline

change calculation is discussed in JACKSON (2004).

The EPR and LRR calculations, widely used by state and local agencies (National

Research Council, 1990), were the primary models used to estimate both long-term and

short-term shoreline change rates for the current study. Even though shoreline change is

not necessarily a linear process, especially adjacent to inlets, these models provide the

best approximation of annual change rates (CROWELL et al., 1991).

This study discusses the hydraulic nature of the New Inlet systems using the

industry standard term “tidal prism”. Tidal prism, as defined by JARRETT (1976) for all

inlets along the North Atlantic shoreline, is show by the empirical formula:

A=7.75 × 10-6 P1.05 (1)

21
22
Where P equals tidal prism and A equals the cross sectional area of the inlet. The cross

sectional area is measured below mean sea level along the narrowest section of the inlet

throat, also know as the inlet minimum width (IMW) (JARRETT, 1976). This investigation

however, does not discuss the tidal prism of the New Inlet systems as defined by JARRETT

(1976). Due to the constraints of the data set, this study was unable to calculate tidal

prism values, nor was it able to acquire field measured tidal prism data.

Generally, inlet tidal prism is a function of bay size, tidal range and frictional

factors within the conveyance channels (FITZGERALD et al., 2005). Investigations by

FITZGERALD and PENDLETON (2002) into the morphodynamics of New Inlet,

Massachusetts, indicate that the migration of tidal channels within the backbarrier control

the tidal prism and ultimately the stability of the inlet system Along the west coast of

Florida DAVIS AND BERNARD (2003) have shown that anthropogenic modifications of

backbarrier bays, including the construction of artificial tidal divides, reduced the tidal

prism at some inlets, resulting in instability or closure. Examples include Blind Pass and

Dunedin Pass. In addition investigations within Onslow Bay by FREEMAN (2001),

KNIERIM (2004), and WELSH (2004) all show a strong correlation between tidal prism

magnitude and cross-sectional area, which is consistently found to be reflected in the

minimum width of the inlet system. CLEARY and FITZGERALD (2003) have also found

that a reduction in the size of a tidal inlet system was the product of a diminished tidal

prism.

Moreover, FITZGERALD et al., (2001) noted that a decrease in the depth of an inlet

channel increased the propensity of the inlet to migrate. Therefore, this study assumed

that as the migration rate of an inlet increases, the depth of the inlet channel decreases.

23
Additionally, this study assumed that the cross-sectional area of the inlet had diminished

if an increase in the migration rate of the inlet occurred, indicating a decrease in the depth

of the channel, coincided with a decrease in the IMW.

Prior work within the study area by SWAIN (1993), where empirically derived

tidal prism values were evaluated, has shown that significant changes in inlet

morphology and behavior, shoreline morphology, and estuarine sedimentation occurred

solely from a reduction in tidal prism. Accordingly, this study has employed a number of

morphological indicators as natural proxies for field measured or empirically derived

tidal prism data.

Morphological changes associated with the New Inlet system, including migration

rate, IMW and channel orientation, were evaluated using on screen measurements based

on shore normal transects spaced at 6.1 m (20 ft.) intervals. Inlet position was then

defined as the exact midpoint along the inlet minimum width. Based upon on screen

evaluations the Federal Beach backbarrier area was classified as either backbarrier bay,

subaerial marsh or convenience / tidal channels. Changes occurring within the

backbarrier, such as variations in bay and subaerial marsh area, were evaluated using

SCARPS. Shoaling within the tidal channels was qualitatively evaluated on screen.

The on screen measurements of inlet channel length, width and bay size were

compared to produce qualitative tidal prism values. Tidal prism values herein are not

discussed in numerical terms but are qualitatively referred to as either “large” or “small”.

24
Shoreline Position Error

The advent of the personal computer and the subsequent development of high-

tech mapping software have allowed for unprecedented accuracy in assessing

contemporary shoreline position. Current mapping methods, however improved from

traditional mapping techniques, continue to have inherent error. Error in shoreline

position can be derived from several sources.

First, error can be introduced before rectification and analysis take place. The

acquisition, or image capture, of aerial photographs is in itself is a scientific pursuit, with

the challenge of balancing many physical variables. Common distortions include radial

distortion, relief distortion, tilt and pitch of the aircraft, and scale variations caused by

changes in altitude along a flight line (ANDERS and BYRNES, 1991; CROWELL,

LEATHERMAN, and BUCKLEY, 1991; MOORE, 2000; THIELER and DANFORTH, 1994).

Commonly, the HWL is visually determined as a change in tone left by the

maximum runup from a preceding high tide (ANDERS and BYRNES, 1991; CROWELL,

LEATHERMAN, and BUCKLEY, 1991; SMITH and ZARILLO, 1990). Natural variation in the

HWL can derive from cyclic changes in physical environmental forces. An individual

HWL has no reference to a tidal datum or a fixed elevation; instead, it may represent a

combination of a number of factors, including preexisting beach face morphology,

atmospheric (weather) conditions, and the prevailing hydrodynamic conditions such as

moon phase and tidal cycle. All of these variables introduce site-specific error associated

with the delineation of the HWL.

When assessing the error associated with the polynomial georectification of

scanned images, the root-mean-squared error (RMSE) equation is calculated by

25
comparing predicted points from a registered map or aerial photo against the actual points

referenced on a highly controlled base map or orthophoto. Error reduction and quality

control of digitized aerial photography were accomplished by recalculation of RMSE

values from randomly selected points across registered aerial photographs using the 2002

orthophotos as a standard. During the georeferencing process, a target RMSE value of

less than 9 ft was sought per photo and was easily obtained from higher quality controlled

imagery. Older imagery from the 1930s to 1960s generally contained more distortion and

produced higher RMSE values because of stretching, shrinking, and warping of the

photographic paper or medium. Unfortunately, due to limited technology, NOS T-Sheets

often contain elevated RMSE values (ANDERS and BYRNES, 1991). Table 2 provides a

summary of worst-case shoreline position errors associated with various shoreline data

sources.

Delineation of Shoreline Reaches

When examining long-term changes along large tracts of shoreline, both temporal

and spatial variations in the morphological changes can be expected. The influence of the

many dynamic environmental factors, as previously mentioned, is highly variable within

study area. Identifying and delineating zones along the barrier spit based on common

behavioral trends is critical to better understanding the evolution of the barrier’s shoreline

in response to various influences, both natural and anthropogenic.

The current study identified two “Shoreline Change Zones” (SCZ) (Figure 7). A

shoreline change zone was defined as a segment of the shoreline displaying an overall

difference in magnitude of erosion or accretion from adjacent reaches due to one primary

26
27
influencing factor, such as an inlet, or combination of factors (JACKSON, 2004).

Delineation of shoreline change zones was based upon quantitative long-term erosional

and accretional trends, coupled with an analysis of the rate-of-change statistics, standard

deviation of shoreline position change and a cursory examination of the GIS aerial photo

set.

In addition to SCZs, this study identified four “Inlet Migration Zones” (IMZ)

(Figure 7). An inlet migration zone is defined as a segment of the shoreline displaying an

overall difference in magnitude of migration rate from adjacent reaches due to one

primary influencing factor, such as backbarrier geometry, or combination of factors. Inlet

migration zones were identified both qualitatively and quantitatively. Visual

identification of the minimum width of the system was coupled with an analysis of the

inlet migration rate, as evaluated using the EPR calculation method, in order to delineate

shoreline segments into zones.

RESULTS

This study focused on both the morphological changes of the New Inlet system,

and how these changes have impacted the planform evolution of the Federal Beach

barrier spit. This investigation examined the changes occurring during the past century,

specifically from 1938 to 2005. However, the changes occurring along the Federal Beach

barrier spit, and the morphological changes of the New Inlet system, are reported here

separately. All shoreline change and inlet migration values reported below, unless

otherwise noted, are derived from the EPR calculation method. Additionally, the term

“average” is used to refer to the arithmetic mean.

28
 FEDERAL FEDERAL
POINT POINT

Figure 7. (a) Location of Shoreline Change Zones (SCZ) and their respective transects
for Federal Beach’s shoreline configuration as of 2003. (b) Location of Inlet Migration
Zones (IMZ) and the location of New Inlet B for the years 1945 to 1998.

29
Inlet Changes

The Federal Beach barrier spit and associated inlet systems are dynamic and

complex. There is a significant anthropogenic influence, both spatially and temporally, on

the behavior and nature of the New Inlet system. The Rocks, since construction in 1887,

has been the major factor influencing the morphodynamic evolution of the area (SWAIN,

1993). By vastly changing the hydraulic nature of New Inlet, The Rocks initiated the

collapse and migration of the large and stable New Inlet system. This in turn has led to

the development of a multiple inlet system. The scope of this study, from the years 1938

to 2005, will include two such migrating inlet systems. The first inlet herein referred to as

New Inlet A, opened previous to 1938, between 1887 and 1895, and closed between 1956

and 1959. The second, herein referred to as New Inlet B, opened between 1938 and 1945

and closed in 1999.

New Inlet A

Between 1887 and 1895 Federal Beach was breached near the point of spit

attachment, forming New Inlet A. By 1912 New Inlet A had migrated approximately 5

km to the south (SWAIN, 1993). The first geographically referenced inlet location used

in this study was the 1938 position of New Inlet A, approximately 6.5 km south of the

Fort Fisher Historic Site (Figure 8). This location was used as the baseline for all New

Inlet A migration measurements. The geographically referenced New Inlet A data set

used in this study spans from 1938 to 1954. Over the course of this period New Inlet A

migrated south a net distance of 384 m at an average rate of 47 m/yr, and the inlet

30
minimum width changed from 818 m (1938) to 2200 m (1954). New Inlet A minimum

widths and migration rates are summarized in Table 3.

New Inlet A from 1938 to 1945 migrated 213 m to the south averaging 30 m/yr.

From 1945 to 1949 New Inlet A migrated south 320 m at a much faster rate, 80 m/yr.

From 1949 to the last georectified position in 1954, New Inlet A migrated 150 m to the

north (Figure 8). The apparent reversal in the migration direction of the New Inlet A

system can be attributed to an expansion in the size of the inlet channel, 174 m (1949) to

347 m (1954), due to Hurricane Hazel, rather than a true migration of the system. This

apparent migration is caused by the analytical methodology used in this investigation to

measure inlet position, as previously described.

This investigation is unable to determine the exact location and year of New Inlet

A’s closure due to the unavailability of georectified photography from 1954 to 1962.

However, based on non-rectified imagery it can be concluded that the New Inlet A

system closed between 1956 and 1959, 1 km south of its 1938 position and

approximately 7.4 km south of the Fort Fisher Historic Site.

New Inlet B

The Federal Beach barrier spit was breached between 1938 and 1945, forming

New Inlet B. Again, due to the lack of aerial imagery during this period the exact date of

spit breaching is not known. However, the 1945 position of New Inlet B, approximately 1

km south of the point of spit attachment, suggested that New Inlet B opened within the

previous 2 years (Figure 9). Moreover, upon examining the history of tropical and extra-

tropical storms affecting the area, only two storms from 1939 to 1944 have had the

31
32
Figure 8. Migration of New Inlet A (NIA) along the Federal Beach barrier spit from 1938 to 1954
33
potential to significantly impact Federal Beach, both of which occurred during 1944. One

storm specifically, The Great Atlantic Hurricane (9/14/1944), is suspected as the cause of

the initial barrier spit breach that resulted in the formation of New Inlet B. This

investigation will therefore assume that the initial opening of New Inlet B occurred on

September 14, 1944. However, the 1945 aerial imagery was used to establish the first

geographically referenced location of New Inlet B. This location, approximately 2.5 km

south of the Fort Fisher Historic Site, was used as the baseline for all New Inlet B

migration measurements, summarized in Table 4.

The slowest migration rates occurred from 1987 to 1990, when New Inlet B

migrated only 6 m/yr (Figure 10). The maximum annual migration rate occurred from

1945 to 1949, with New Inlet B migrating 248 m/yr (Figure 9). From the initial opening

in 1944 to the closure of the inlet in 1998, New Inlet B migrated south a total of 6 km, at

a mean rate of 106 m/yr. The average IMW value from 1945 to 1998 was 204 m.

Seasonal, as well as geographic variations in the environmental factors influencing the

New Inlet system resulted in a relatively large standard deviation in migration rate and

IMW, 74 and 115 respectively. The large variation about the mean of these data sets

indicates a relatively unstable system.

Inlet Migration Zones

Inspection of the New Inlet B data set suggests that the Federal Beach barrier spit

can be subdivided into zones based on inlet behavior, specifically migration rate. By

comparing the migration rates of the New Inlet B system, four “Inlet Migration Zones”

(IMZ) were delineated. Migration rates were influenced by the location of the inlet along

34
35
Figure 9. Migration of New Inlet B (NIB) along the Federal Beach barrier spit from 1945 to 1976.
36
37
Figure 10. Migration of New Inlet B (NIB) along the Federal Beach barrier spit from 1979 to 1999.
the barrier spit with zone delineation corresponding to spatial variations in the systems’

physical setting with respect to the geometry of the backbarrier basin. Inlet migration

rates and IMW values for each of the four IMZ are shown in Table 4. The northern and

southern most zones (IMZ I and IV) were identified as areas of accelerated inlet

migration. The two middle zones (IMZ II and III) were identified as areas of decreased

instability, and exhibited migration rates that were less than IMZ I and IMZ IV.

Due to the lack of aerial photographs pre-dating 1938 Inlet Migration Zone

delineation for the New Inlet A data set was not conducted by this investigation.

Inlet Migration Zone I

New Inlet B occupied IMZ I during the years 1945 to 1949 (Figure 7 and Figure

9). As previously stated, this era can be described as a period of inlet re-equilibration.

The system migrated 1049 m to the south and, it is assumed, began capturing an

increasing amount of the overall tidal exchange, increasingly becoming the dominate

inlet. Moreover, during this period the IMW increased from 131 m to 174 m, indicating

inlet growth and suggesting an increase in stability.

Inlet Migration Zone II

Inlet migration zone II is defined by the position of New Inlet B along the Federal

Beach barrier from the years 1949 to 1973 (Figure 7 and Figure 9). In this zone the New

Inlet system continued to migrate south. Migration rates for IMZ II ranged from a

maximum rate of 155 m/yr (1962-1973), to a minimum migration rate of 84 m/yr (1949-

1954). The average rate for this era was 113 m/yr.

38
 The overall maximum IMW of the New Inlet B system, 347 m, occurred in 1954;

approximately one week after a major class 3 hurricane, Hazel, passed through the area.

Increased shoaling of the inlet throat by 1973 reduced the width of the system to a zone

wide minimum of 68m. The average inlet minimum width for IMZ II was 217 m.

Throughout the study area changes in inlet width were found to be consistent with

changes in inlet migration rates. The data from this investigation suggests a weak,

apparent inverse relationship between the two physical parameters. This relationship is

highlighted by observing the changes in the IMW and migration rate values between

1962 and 1973. As the migration rate of the inlet increases from 102 m/yr (1958- 1962)

to 155 m/yr, the IMW value decreases from 274 m (1962) to 68 m (1973). In addition,

evidence of this inverse relationship can be found by examining the IMW values and

migration rates from 1973 to 1976. The IMW of New Inlet B grows from 68 m (1973) to

335 m (1976) and migration rate decreases to an average of 57 m/yr. Moreover, the

relationship between these two inlet parameters can further be determined by comparing

the average IMW and migration rate values of IMZ II to IMZ III and IMZ IV (Table 4).

Inlet Migration Zone III

From 1973 to 1992 New Inlet B occupied IMZ III (Figure 7 and Figure 10). The

maximum migration rate for IMZ III, 87 m/yr (1990-1992), and the minimum migration

rate, 6 m/yr (1987-1990) occur in consecutive survey periods and mark the southern

boundary of IMZ III. The northern boundary of IMZ III is marked by the minimum

IWM, 68 m (1973), and by the maximum IMW 335 m (1976). There is a decrease in the

instability of New Inlet B along Zone III, as indicated by the low average migration rates

39
and large IMW. IMZ III has the highest IMW values and the lowest migration rates of all

the zones. The average IMW was 275 m and the average migration rate was 37 m/yr.

Again, this illustrates the partial link between the two inlet parameters, IMW and

migration rate. This is not a strict linear relationship however; this still suggests that the

rate of inlet movement and the resultant morphology of the Federal Beach barrier is a

function of several factors, including the position of the inlet with respect to the geometry

of the backbarrier basin.

Inlet Migration Zone IV

This zone is characterized by the closure of the New Inlet B system (Figure 7 and

Figure 10). Similarly to when New Inlet B was located along IMZ I, the New Inlet B

system in IMZ IV was a comparatively small, rapidly migrating system. The average

inlet migration rate within IMZ IV is 211 m/yr, and the average IMW is 40 m. From 1992

to 1998 New Inlet B migrated a net distance of 1.2 km. At this juncture it appears that the

hydraulic inefficiency of the channel begins to cause the inlet throat to shoal thus

initiating the closure of the system. By March 19, 1999 the system is completely closed.

Based on the non-rectified aerial imagery of New Inlet A, it appears that the New Inlet B

system closes in approximately the same location, suggesting that the same

environmental variables that triggered the closure of New Inlet A may have had a similar

impact on New Inlet B.

40
Shoreline Change

The shoreline, though previously defined as simply the intersection of the water

and land surfaces, is a dynamic and highly variable boundary. The morphology of any

given shoreline is the result of the interactions between the many physical forcing

mechanisms and the environmental variables of the area. The many factors influencing

coastal morphology work in concert on varying spatial and temporal scales. As discussed

in CAMFIELD and MORANG (1996), at least 10 years of continuous shoreline data are

needed to interpret short-term trends and a minimum of 50 years of data are needed to

identify long-term trends. Barring the availability of such an extensive and continuous

short-term data set, this investigation seeks to identify long-term shoreline change as it is

influenced by inlet migration and closure.

The focus of this study’s investigation on the shoreline changes occurring along

the Federal Beach barrier varied in scope. First, total barrier spit, or “net” changes were

evaluated. Secondly, zone wide changes were examined. This study identified two

Shoreline Change Zones, SCZ I and SCZ II (Figure 7) present along the Federal Beach

barrier spit. The changes occurring within the northern zone (SCZ I) are primarily

influenced by the absence of an inlet system after 1949, while the southern zone (SCZ II)

is characterized as a zone of strong inlet influence. The results from barrier-wide

shoreline change analysis, and from zone-wide analysis, are presented in Table 5 and

Table 6 respectively.

41
Barrier-wide Shoreline Change

The earliest georectified images obtained for this study were 1938 aerial

photographs. This data set however is incomplete, and the entirety of the study area

shoreline was not imaged. Therefore, in the following section the 1945 data set is utilized

as the baseline for all shoreline change analysis.

From 1945 to 2005 the Federal Beach barrier spit shoreline accreted

approximately 6 m at a rate of 0.1 m/yr (Figure 11 and Table 5). However, along the 21

survey transects, only ten showed positive net change values for the 1945 to 2005 era

(Table 5). The average change for the ten prograding transects was 86 m, at a rate of 1.4

m/yr. The maximum amount of accretion occurred along transect 13 and 14 (T13 & T14),

with each transect prograding 147 m and 155 m respectively. The least amount of

positive shoreline change, 17 m, occurred along T21 (Figure 11).

Additionally over the course of the study period ten transects experienced net

erosion. The average erosion along all retrograding transects was 73 m, at a rate of -1.2

m/yr. The greatest amount of shoreline retreat, 137 m, occurred at T4 (Figure 11). The

shoreline along the Transect 9 cell experienced the least amount of erosion, with only 19

m of net change. Shoreline change for the 1945 to 2005 era could not be measured at

transects 17. In 1945 T17 was located in too close of a proximity to New Inlet A to

provide an accurate shoreline position.

Inspection of the data pertaining to the decadal changes along Federal Beach

indicates progadation occurred more frequently then periods of erosion, with accretion

occurring during four of the six decades surveyed from 1945 to 2005 (Table 5). However,

42
43
44
45
Figure 11. (a) Regions of historical shoreline fluctuation durning the time period (b) 1945 to (c) 2005. (d) Barrier spit shoreline
position 01.23.1945 and 01.01.2005.
two of the three decades with the largest magnitude change have been periods

characterized by erosion greater then 10 m.

The maximum amount of seaward change, approximately 20 m, occurred during

the 1962-1973 survey period (Figure 12). The greatest changes during this period

occurred along Transects 11-15, each averaging 132 m of accretion, at a rate of 12 m/yr.

The greatest seaward shoreline change, 200 m, occurred along Transect 13. From 1962 to

1973 the average shoreline loss along all eroding transects was 41 m. The most

significant erosion occurred along Transect 17, with the shoreline translating 90 m

landward.

Federal Beach experienced the most significant losses during the period between

1954 and 1962; with erosion occurring along thirteen of the sixteen transects (Figure 12).

Average shoreline retreat per transect was 46 m at a rate of 6 m/yr. However, erosion

rates were as high as 123 m/yr (T13). Of the three transects where seaward change

occurred, the most significant accretion, 106 m, was along T12. Average change for all

prograding transects was 53 m, at a rate of 7 m/yr.

Zone-wide Shoreline Change

To better describe and discuss changes along Federal Beach, the shoreline was

subdivided into two separate reaches, SCZ I and SCZ II (Figure 7). Shoreline Change

Zones were delineated, as previously described, by a qualitative examination the

accretion and erosion trends of the digitized shorelines, coupled with an analysis of the

rate-of-change statistics and the standard deviation of shoreline position change (Figure

13).

46
47
Figure 12. Federal Beach shoreline change by decade or closest interval available from data set.
Shoreline Change Zone I

Shoreline change zone I, located in the northern most portion of the study area, is

approximately 3.6 km long. The zone is bound on the north by the Fort Fisher revetment

and T1, and bound at the south by T9 (Figure 7).

Shoreline Change Zone I is a retrograding shoreline reach. For each of the 17

periods defined by the photographic coverage, from 1945 to 2005, SCZ I experienced an

average net change of -5 m. From 1945 to 2005 the shoreline along each of the nine

transects within SCZ I experienced erosion (Figure 11 and Table 6). Net shoreline change

along the reach was -78 m at a rate of -1.3 m/yr. The shoreline along transect 4

underwent the most significant changes during this period with the shoreline eroding 137

m. The least amount of erosion, 20 m, occurred along T9.

There are, however, three periods in which net shoreline accretion occurred. The

largest net accretion for SCZ I occurred during the period 1949 to 1954 (Figure 14).

During this era the shoreline along each transect experienced positive change and the

entire zone prograded 22 m, at a rate of 4 m/yr. The most significant accretion, 77 m,

occurred along the shoreline at T9. The least seaward movement, 6 m, occurred along T1.

The portion of barrier spit within SCZ I prograded during two other eras, 1998-1999 and

2002-2005. The average net shoreline change for these two periods was 4.5 m at a rate of

2.5 m/yr.

The greatest zone-wide erosion occurred from 1958 to 1962 (Figure 14). During

this period the net landward movement of the shoreline within SCZ I was -19 m, at a rate

of -5 m/yr. The most significant change occurred along T6, which experienced 40 m of

48
Figure 13. Plot of (a) shoreline rate-of-change statistics and (b) standard deviation and
maximum change values, for each transect along Federal Beach from 1938 to 2005.

49
 FEDERAL FEDERAL
POINT POINT

Figure 14. Shoreline change for SCZ I. (a) The largest net accretion occurred during
the 1949-1954 survey period. (b) The largest net erosion occurred during the 1958-
1962 survey period.

50
erosion at a rate of 10 m/yr. The smallest significant change, -14 m, occurred along T7 at

a rate of -3.7 m/yr.

Shoreline Change Zone II

Shoreline Change Zone II, located in the southern portion of the study area, is 5.5

km long (Figure 7). The reach is bounded by T9 in the north and T21 in the south. SCZ

II is generally characterized by a prograding shoreline and has undergone the most

significant shoreline changes within the study area.

During the period 1945 to 2005, the shoreline along eleven of the twelve transects

within SCZ II prograded (Figure 12 and Table 6). The net accretion along SCZ II for this

period was 69 m, at a rate of 1.2 m/yr. The most significant changes occurred along T13,

with the shoreline moving seaward 155 m (2.6 m/yr). The least amount of change was

observed along Transect 21, where the shoreline accreted 0.3 m/yr, totaling 17 m.

The most significant period of progradation along SCZ II occurred between 1958

and 1962 (Figure 15). Net shoreline accretion along the reach was 92 m, adding 24 m/yr.

The largest change occurred along T11, where the shoreline prograded of 340 m. In

addition, during the period 1945 to 2005, shoreline change of no less then 100 m was

observed along the portion of Federal Beach south of T11.

However, there are several periods from 1945 to 2005 where net erosion along

SCZ II is observed. The most significant shoreline change occurred from 1954 to 1958,

when the entire SCZ II reach receded landward (Figure 15). Net shoreline change along

this portion of Federal Beach was -66 m, eroding 19 m/yr. The greatest change, -227 m,

51
 ROCK BAY

ROCK BAY

Figure 15. Shoreline change for SCZ II. (a) The largest net erosion occurred during
the 1954-1958 survey period. (b) The greatest net accretion occurred during the
1958-1962 survey period.

52
was measured along T16. The least amount of erosion during this period was at T12,

where -67m of shoreline change occurred.

DISCUSSION

Historic (pre 1945) changes to the hydrographic regime of the Old New Inlet

system were considerable. Closure of the tidal connection between the Cape Fear River

and New Inlet drastically decreased the tidal prism of the Old New Inlet system and

caused appreciable morphological changes throughout the study area. From 1872 to 1985

the inlet system underwent a 5.25 × 107 m3 reduction in tidal prism. Moreover, the

reduction in the tidal prism of the Old New Inlet resulted in the formation of the Federal

Beach barrier spit and the associated New Inlet A and B systems (SWAIN, 1993).

In addition, The Rocks have significantly influenced the evolution of the estuary

backing the Federal Beach barrier spit. Conservative estimates by SWAIN (1993) suggest

that 57% of ebb-tidal delta material was transported and redeposited in the backbarrier

basin due to the artificial closure of Old New Inlet. Backbarrier volume gains from 1887

to 1985 were in the order of 10.93 × 106 m3 at an average rate of 11.2 × 104 m3/yr

(SWAIN, 1993). Due to several early (pre 1880) failed attempts to mitigating the shoaling

of the CFR by Old New Inlet’s flood-tidal delta sediments, the estuary of the Federal

Beach barrier was partially segmented into two tidal basins, “The Basin” and “Rock Bay”

(Figure 1). Natural and artificial boundaries between these estuarine basins have

decreased the hydraulic connectivity between the two compartments and have resulted in

numerous and ever changing backbarrier channel configurations. The contemporary

changes (post 1945) to the physical parameters, IMW and migratory habit, of the New

53
Inlet systems, and the subsequent planform changes occurring along the Federal Beach

barrier spit were ultimately a result of the position of the New Inlet system with respect to

the geometry of the two backbarrier tidal basins.

New Inlet Morphology

Although two inlet systems were present, only New Inlet B opened and closed

during the study period 1938 to 2005. Thus, New Inlet B will be the system discussed

herein. The migration of the New Inlet B system along the Federal Beach spit has

resulted in significant changes to the barrier shoreline. Understanding the physical

processes and environmental changes influencing the migration of the New Inlet system

is of paramount importance when discussing the evolution of the barrier planform.

In addition to wave and tidal processes, there are many other external controls on

tidal inlets including sediment supply, backbarrier basin geometry and sedimentation

history (FITZGERALD, 1996). Specifically, the variability of the estuarine tidal basins and

the hydraulic parameters found throughout the backbarrier environment are reflected in

the dynamic behavior of the New Inlet system.

During the period from 1944 to 1999 the IMW and migratory habit of New Inlet

B has been highly variable. There have been periods of rapid migration, 247 m/yr (1945-

1949), as well as periods of relative stability, 6 m/ yr (1987-1990). Concurrent with these

variations in migration rate, have been changes in the inlet’s size, ranging from 335 m

wide (1976) to 30 m wide (1998). When these two inlet parameters, IMW and migration

rate, are plotted over time there seems to be an inverse relationship between the two

(Figure 16). For example, between the years 1976 and 1992 the general trend of the

54
system is a high IMW value and a low migration rate. Conversely, between 1992 and

1998 the trend of the system is a low IMW value and an increased migration rate.

However, when the two parameters are plotted against each other and correlated,

the degree of association is low, with an r value of only .354 (Figure 16). The weak

association between the two inlet parameters may be the result of several different

factors. First, due to the limited availability of aerial photography in the area, only 17

data points were measured over a sixty year period. An increase in the number of points

within the data set may result in a more representative sample and a stronger association

between the two variables. Moreover, there is not a concurrent relationship between the

two parameters. A response lag exists between a change in the size of the system, and a

change in the behavior of the system. For example, there is a period of adjustment within

the system between a decrease in the size of the inlet system and an increase in the

migration rate. It is assumed that with a more robust data set the association between the

two inlet parameters would be more readily observed and appear stronger. In addition,

numerous studies conducted within southeastern North Carolina, including SWAIN (1993)

and Cleary and FITZGERALD (2003), have found that changes in the size of an inlet

system strongly correlate to changes in the tidal prism of the system.

By examining the evolution of the backbarrier environment, changes in the nature

of the New Inlet system are found to coincide with changes in the tidal channel

configuration and the area of the backbarrier bays. In 1945 New Inlet B was located

along the northern portion of the barrier spit approximately 2.5 km south of the Fort

Fisher Historic Site (Figure 8 & Figure 17). In this location New Inlet B had the strongest

tidal connection to The Basin, a backbarrier bay approximately 17 km2 in size. However,

55
56
Figure 16. Plot of (a) migration rate over time (b) IMW over time and (c) IMW vs migration rate.
the hydraulic connection to the backbarrier during this period was reticulated and

segmented by numerous subaerial marsh islands. In addition, within The Basin, moderate

shoaling of the feeder channels was assumed to be further retarding the overall tidal

prism of the New Inlet B system. Moreover, during this period New Inlet A was still open

and continued to have a stronger hydraulic connection to Rock Bay; a significantly larger

bay then The Basin, with an area of 35.5 km. Both of these systems in 1945 are relatively

healthy, with moderately efficient drainage occurring through both inlets.

By 1962 the New Inlet B system was located 2.2 km further to the south along

Federal Beach, having migrated at an average rate of 140 m/yr (Figure 17). During this

17 year period the minimum width of New Inlet B increased from 131 m (1945) to 274

m, suggesting an overall increase in the tidal exchange of the system. However, converse

to an increase in the size of the inlet system during this period, is a 2 km2 reduction in the

overall area of The Basin bay to 15 km2 and a fifty percent increase in the area of

subaerial tidal marsh in the backbarrier. The increase in the tidal exchange of the New

Inlet B system is likely due to the closure of the New Inlet A system sometime between

1956 and 1959. Once New Inlet A closed, the remaining inlet system, New Inlet B, was

the only conduit for tidal exchange between the two backbarrier bays and the open ocean.

In multi-inlet systems DAVIS and BERNARD (2003) have found that the closure of one

inlet resulted in an increase in the tidal prism of the remaining open inlets in the system.

An increase in the size and stability of the system, despite the decrease of the bay area

and the increase of subaerial marsh growth in both basins; indicates that the combined

effluence of The Basin and Rock Bay increased the hydraulic flow through the inlet.

57
58
Figure 17. Representative aerial photographs showing the migration and backbarrier configuration of the New
Inlet B system from 1945 to 1973.
 In addition to backbarrier bay size, the hydraulic efficiency of the main feeder

channel, as characterized by the channel’s length and width, is a significant factor

influencing the overall nature and behavior of the inlet system. Elongation of the inlet

channel increases frictional resistance of tidal flow thereby reducing tidal range

(FITZGERALD et al., 2001). This influence is readily observed during the period 1962 to

1976. As the New Inlet system continued to migrate south along the Federal Beach

barrier spit, direct tidal flow to both of the bays in the backbarrier is blocked by North

Island (Figures 17 & 18). To maintain a hydraulic connection between the backbarrier

and the open ocean, as the inlet continued to migrate along North Island, the main inlet

channel became elongated and sinuous. By skirting the backbarrier island the elongated

inlet channel is inefficient and tidal exchange through the inlet is restricted by the

increased friction along the channel. In 1962 the inlet channel is approximately 1148 m

long and the IMW is 274 m. By 1973 the channel length has increased three fold to 3458

m and the IMW has decreased to 68 m (Figure 17). Moreover, the decreased tidal flow

through the inlet resulted in an increase in sedimentation within the inlet and backbarrier

channels, further reducing the hydraulic efficiency of the system. The marsh development

in Rock Bay between 1962 and 1973 increased by approximately 8 km2. The growth of

marsh in the backbarrier in concert with the increase in channel shoaling is further

evidence of a reduction in the magnitude of the tidal prism of the system.

Further highlighting the relationship between inlet dynamics and the backbarrier

environment are the morphological changes that occurred between 1973 and 1976. New

Inlet B dramatically increased in width from 68 m to 335 m. However during this same

59
60
Figure 18. Representative aerial photographs showing the migration and backbarrier configuration of the New
Inlet B system from 1973 to 1992.
period the inlet channel migrated only 146 m (Figure 18). With the inlet channel in

approximately the same location and the inlet width increasing five fold, one might

suggest that inlet location has little influence on the overall morphology of the system.

However, further examination of the data set implies the contrary. The position of the

1973 and 1976 inlet systems are just beyond the southern most extent of North Island,

with an unobstructed connection to Rock Bay. Examination of the aerial photographs and

future trends of the inlet system from 1973 to 1992 indicates a long period of decreased

migration rates with New Inlet B migrating only 670 m in 20 years while maintaining a

minimum width of no less than 200 m. The data suggest that the morphological changes

taking place between 1973 and 1976 are a rapid response to the increased tidal flow

through the inlet caused by a more efficient channel alignment with respect to the

configuration of the backbarrier. Moreover, from 1973 to 1976, the aerial imagery

indicates an increase in the area of Rock Bay, growing from 27 km2 to 33 km2, and a

decrease in channel shoaling; indicating resurgence in the tidal prism of the system and

an overall increase in size of the inlet system. It is clear that once an efficient hydraulic

connection between the backbarrier and Onslow Bay is established, the size and stability

of the New Inlet system dramatically increases (Figure 18).

The New Inlet B system maintained a strong hydraulic connection and showed

evidence of a relatively large tidal prism until 1992, when inlet migration, caused by the

dominant southerly longshore current, again began to result in channel elongation (Figure

19). The system continued to have a strong tidal draw in 1992 with an IMW of 274 m,

and a stable backbarrier area of 32 km2. However, by September 1996 New Inlet B began

to show signs of closure. Migrating 800 m in four years, in 1996 New Inlet B is again

61
backed by a large area of marsh (Figure 19). Similarly to when the inlet was backed by

North Island, the main feeder channel became elongated and sinuous. The channel length

grew by 1828 m as the associated increase in frictional drag continued to reduce the

efficiency of the system. A decreased tidal flow through the inlet is evident in the drastic

decrease of the IWM to 50 m. By March of 1998 the inlet migrated an additional 372 m

and the channel length increased to 2438 m. Shoaling within the inlet throat significantly

restricted the tidal flow, further reducing the IMW to only 30 m. At this juncture the

system is in the final stages of closure. In March of the following year (1999) the system

had completely collapsed and the main inlet channel had shoaled closed, with no tidal

exchange occurring between the backbarrier and Onslow Bay.

Both New Inlet A and B closed within a couple hundred meters of each other.

However, unlike when New Inlet A closed, there is no other system open at this time to

recapture the tidal exchange of the closed system, and absolutely no tidal exchange

occurring between the backbarrier bays and the ocean. Obviously there are numerous

physical factors acting in concert to control the evolution of any given tidal inlet system.

The relatively close proximity in which both of the New Inlet systems close is a strong

indication of the impact that backbarrier has on the morphodynamic evolution of their

associated tidal inlet systems.

Inlet Migration and Shoreline Change

The Federal Beach barrier spit is one of the few barrier systems in southeastern

North Carolina whose planform has translated seaward. The uniqueness of this area is

62
63
Figure 19. Representative aerial photographs showing the migration and closure of the New Inlet B system
from 1996 to 1999.
attributed to the civil works projects undertaken within the vicinity of the Federal Beach

barrier complex.

The shoreline changes along Federal Beach are largely the result of the migration

of the New Inlet B system along the barrier spit. The convex alignment of the pre-1945

shoreline has been reworked into a more linear feature by one of two mechanisms. First,

the seaward movement of the Federal Beach barrier is the result of the realignment of the

updrift shoreline associated with the migration of the New Inlet system (Figure 6).

Secondly, shoreline erosion along the spit is the long-term result of the collapse of the

Old New Inlet ebb-tidal delta and an overall deficit of near shore littoral material (Figure

5) (SWAIN, 1993).

This study has identified two Shoreline Change Zones. Over the period of this

investigation, from 1945 to 2005, SCZ I is characterized by net erosion, while SCZ II is

characterized by net accretion. On the whole, EPR calculations are useful for identifying

long-term trends and evaluating low frequency changes. However, in this investigation

the EPR values do not fully illustrate the impact of inlet migration on the study area

shoreline. The scope and magnitude of influence the New Inlet B system has on the

Federal Beach barrier spit is only fully realized when shoreline change values are

examined in conjunction with inlet location.

The relationship between shoreline position and inlet migration is evident when

examining the changes that occurred along the Federal Beach shoreline south of the 1945

location of New Inlet B. In 1945 New Inlet B was located immediately north of T7

(Figure 20). The southern migration of New Inlet along Federal Beach resulted in the

seaward displacement of the updrift barrier planform. From 1945 to 1958 New Inlet B

64
65
Figure 20. Barrier planform changes as New Inlet B migrates along Federal Beach from T6 to T11 (1945-1958). Notice
positive shoreline change occurring along T7 to T10.
migrated 1.9 km south. Progradation of the shoreline occurred along three of the four

transects (T7-T10) which New Inlet B migrated through (Figure 20). During this period,

transects 7, 8 and 10 experienced 23 m, 20 m, and 10m of accretion respectively. The

change experienced along these transects may appear to be small. However, when

examining the average shoreline change, -170 m, for all of the transects located downdrift

of the 1958 New Inlet B position, we see that the aforementioned updrift transects

strongly depart from the significant erosional trend that characterizes the downdrift

shoreline.

From 1962 to 1973 New Inlet B continued to migrate south along the Federal

Beach barrier spit, relocating from T11 to just south of T15 (Figure 21). The average

shoreline change for these transects was 131 m. The largest shoreline change, 200 m,

occurred at T13, and transects 11, 12 and 15 all experienced approximately 100 m of

accretion. Again, during this period the influence of the New Inlet B system is evident

when the average updrift shoreline accretion is compared to the average shoreline erosion

of -15 m occurring downdrift of New Inlet B.

The influence of New Inlet B on the shoreline of Federal Beach is further

highlighted when one examines the overall shoreline change that occurred from 1945 to

1973 (Figure 22). During this period New Inlet B migrated 4.2 km from T7 to T15. The

shoreline along each of these nine transects prograded an average of 92 m. Conversely,

the downdrift barrier shoreline during this period eroded an average of 40 m.

Since the closure of New Inlet B in 1998 the entire Federal Beach shoreline, with

the exception of the cell between T20 and T21, experienced erosion. The retrograding

barrier spit has undergone an average of -7 m of change from 1998 to 2005. The closure

66
67
Figure 21. Barrier planform changes as New Inlet B migrates along Federal Beach from T12 to T16 (1962-1973). Notice
positive shoreline change occurring along T12 to T15.
of the New Inlet B system has removed from the Federal Beach barrier spit complex the

mechanism responsible for the progradation of the barrier shoreline.

Regional Context

The unique nature of Federal Beach and the associated New Inlet systems is

readily apparent when the behavior of the barrier spit complex is compared to the

changes occurring along regional barrier systems. The Federal Beach barrier spit is of

significant interest due to the continued impact of the anthropogenic activities in the area

on the evolution of the barrier planform.

Net shoreline change along Federal Beach for the period between 1945 and 2005

was 6 m, averaging 0.1 m of accretion per year. Shoreline change of this magnitude may

not at first appear to be significant; however Federal Beach is the only barrier to

experience net shoreline gains over this period within southeastern North Carolina.

Surveys by the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management indicate that the three

major barrier systems directly north of Federal Beach, Kure/Carolina Beach, Masonboro

Island, and Wrightsville Beach, are all retrograding. The ocean front shoreline in these

areas is eroding at an average rate of 1 to 3 m/yr (NCDCM, 2003). Even with artificial

beach nourishment projects augmenting the natural erosion taking place the shorelines in

these areas continue to retreat.

The migratory habit of New Inlet is also distinct when compared to other inlets

found along Onslow Bay. The migration rate of New Inlet B during the period from 1945

to 1999 ranged from 6 to 247 m/yr, averaging 115 m/yr. The migration rate of Mason

Inlet, another historically unstable inlet in the region, varied from 0 to 90 m/yr, with an

68
69
Figure 22. Barrier planform changes as New Inlet B migrates along Federal Beach from T7 to T16 (1945-1973). Notice
positive shoreline change occurring along T8 to T15.
average rate of 50 m/yr (CLEARY and FITZGERALD, 2003). In addition Mason Inlet, from

1938 to 1996, migrated 2.1 km, whereas New Inlet migrated approximately 6 km

(CLEARY and MARDEN, 2004).

Moreover, the influence of New Inlet on adjacent shoreline change is markedly

different than that of Mason Inlet. The migration of New Inlet along the Federal Beach

barrier has resulted in the accretion of the updrift shoreline by as much as 200 m. In

addition, the migration of New Inlet has resulted in the seaward translation of the barrier

planform and significant realignment of the entire 7 km barrier spit. By contrast, the

influence of Mason inlet on the surrounding shoreline has been significantly less. During

the period from 1974 to 1996 the updrift shoreline has eroded and average of 17.5 m.

Also, the migration of Mason Inlet has influenced the shape of the shoulders, and

approximately 1 km of ocean front contours, along the adjacent barrier islands.

Future Changes

Future shoreline change predictions based on the EPR and LRR calculations of

the shoreline change along Federal Beach from 1945 to 2005 suggest that the overall

barrier spit shoreline will prograde an average of 2.5 m over the next twenty five years.

Similarly to the previous sixty years, the shoreline of Federal Beach can be divided into

two reaches based on the forecasted change trends. Shoreline change zone I will continue

to be characterized as a regressive zone. The average forecasted erosion for SCZ I is 32

m. Likewise shoreline change zone II is predicted to continue prograding, averaging 29 m

of accretion over the next twenty five years.

70
 This, however, is a very unlikely scenario for a number of reasons. First, the

forecasted shoreline change along Federal Beach is based on two statistical computations,

the EPR and LRR rates of change. The majority of the data, 54 out of 60 years, used in

these calculations was derived from shoreline change data collected while New Inlet A

and B were open. The inlet systems of the Federal Beach barrier spit complex are

mechanisms for shoreline realignment and actively translated the barrier spit planform in

the seaward direction. Since the closure of the last active inlet system in 1998 Federal

Beach has been a retrograding barrier. The potential for barrier spit breaching and inlet

formation in the immediate future is unlikely. The area most prone to breaching and

where past inlet systems have formed, directly south of the spit attachment, has

approximately doubled in width, 250 m (1938) to 500 m (2002), due to backbarrier

sedimentation and marsh growth over the past sixty years.

Projected shoreline change values derived from EPR and LRR calculations for the

shoreline change post inlet closure, from 1999 to 2005, indicate that the barrier spit

shoreline will retreat an average of -30 m over the next twenty five years. During this

period both shoreline change zones are forecasted to erode significantly. However this

projected shoreline change is also unreliable due to the limited range of the 1999-2005

data set.

Furthermore, both of the projected shoreline changes based on EPR and LRR

calculations do not factor in a change in sea level. The National Academy of Science

projects that the global sea level will rise 5 cm to 12 cm rise over the next century. This is

a relatively conservative projection, ignoring the possible occurrence of a major climatic

catastrophe. The US Environmental Protection Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel

71
on Climate Change (2007) both speculate that sea level could rise by as much as a meter

along the eastern coast of the U.S. by 2100. Projections by TITUS (1991), suggest that a

meter rise in sea level over the next century could translate to 100 m to 200 m of

horizontal land loss in North Carolina alone.

Even with a conservative estimated change, the future impacts of sea level rise on

the study area will be quite significant. A rise in sea level of only a couple of centimeters

would threaten the structural integrity of The Rocks and drown backbarrier marsh

growth, drastically increasing the size of the bay backing the Federal Beach barrier spit.

Collapse of The Rocks would have disastrous results. First, the increase in backbarrier

bay volume would undoubtedly result in a breach in the Federal Beach barrier during a

major storm event and create a new inlet system. Resumed sedimentation of the Cape

Fear River shipping channel would be the combined result of the new inlet system and

the destruction of The Rocks. Again, coastal engineering structures would need to be

constructed to mitigate the shoaling, at a sizeable cost to the state and county. The effects

of such a structure on the backbarrier environment would result in further morphological

changes of unknown magnitude along the Federal Beach barrier spit.

The Federal Beach shoreline is affected by the morphodynamics of adjacent

beach complexes and substantial portions of the offshore and backbarrier. It is uncertain

how much influence those areas will have in the future as they continue to endure

changes induced by man and nature. Unfortunately such changes often appear subtle in

the short-term and their capacity to promote major long-term shoreline changes are often

underestimated.

72
 Regardless of the reliability of the forecasted shoreline changes, it is clear that

natural process will continue to erode the Federal Beach barrier spit. Sea level rise will

also significantly contribute to the morphological evolution of the barrier planform and

will likely cause changes requiring costly mitigation actions.

CONCLUSIONS

The Federal Beach barrier spit, from 1945 to 2005, experienced positive net

shoreline change. The observed accretion is the result of the reconfiguration and

realignment of the barrier spit planform due to the migration of the New Inlet B system.

The migration of the New Inlet B system is in turn partially controlled by the

configuration and hydraulic nature of the backbarrier basin.

From 1945 to 1999 the New Inlet B system migrated along the Federal Beach

barrier a total of 6 km. Both the size and the migration rate of the system varied greatly

over this period. Examination of the data suggested that there was a weak relationship

between the changes in the migration rate of the system and changes in the IMW of the

system. This relationship suggests that the magnitude of the overall hydraulic discharge

of the system controls the relative stability the system. Moreover, variations in the

hydraulic nature of the New Inlet B system can be related to the geographic location of

the inlet along the Federal Beach barrier spit. Further examination of the Federal Beach

barrier spit complex, highlights the influence of backbarrier basin hypsometry on the

morphodynamic evolution of the New Inlet system and ultimately the configuration of

the Federal Beach barrier spit planform.

73
 Shoreline change along the barrier is not uniform. However, there are two general

trends in the EPR calculated data for the period 1945 to 2005. Statistical analysis of the

data indicates a zone of accretion and a zone of erosion. However, further examination of

the shoreline change data for various eras within each zone revealed a great amount of

deviation in the observed changes. When comparing the shoreline change trends of

Federal Beach to the variations in the location of New Inlet B, it became evident that

accretion of the shoreline typically occurs on the updrift side of the New Inlet B system.

When shoreline change data was coupled with inlet location the pattern of updrift

realignment is obvious. The migration of the New Inlet B system along the Federal Beach

barrier spit has caused the realignment of the barrier planform, and has resulted in the

progradation of the Federal Beach shoreline.

However, since the closure of the New Inlet B system in 1999 the Federal Beach

barrier spit has undergone consistent erosion. Future changes along Federal Beach will

depend significantly upon the reopening of another tidal inlet system and the subsequent

morphodynamic changes it imparts on the barrier spit.

The morphodynamic evolution of the Federal Beach barrier spit is the result of

complex interactions between man and nature. Subtle changes in the physical

mechanisms and environmental variables of the system will continue to have drastic

long-term effects on the barrier spit planform. Continued long-term monitoring is

essential to the implementation of effective coastal management policies in the area.

74
 LITERATURE CITED

ANDERS, F.J, and BYRNES, M.R,. 1991. Accuracy of shoreline change rates as determined
from maps and aerial photographs. Shore and Beach, 59(1), 17-26.

BARNES, J., 2001. North Carolina’s Hurricane History, 3rd Edition, North Carolina:
University of North Carolina Press, 31p.

BLACKWELDER, B. W., MACINTYRE, I. G. and PILKEY, O. H. 1982. Geology of the

continental shelf, Onslow Bay, North Carolina, as revealed by submarine outcrops.
AAPG Bulletin, 66, 44–56.

BOAK, E.H., TURNER, I.L., 2005. Shoreline definition and detection: a review. Journal of
Coastal Research, 21, 688-703.

CAMFIELD, F.E., and MORANG, A., 1996. Defining and interpreting shoreline change.
Ocean and Coastal Management, 32 (3), 129-151.

CROWELL, M., LEATHERMAN, S.P., and BUCKI.EY, M.K., 1991. Historical shoreline
change: error analysis and mapping accuracy. Journal of Coastal Research, 7(3), 839-
852.

CLEARY, W.J. and PILKEY, O.H., 1968. Sedimentation in Onslow Bay. In: Guidebook for
Field Excursions: Durham, North Carolina. Southeastern Geology Special Pub No. 1, 17
p.

CLEARY, W. J. and THAYER, P. A., 1973. Petrography of Carbonate Sands on the

Carolina Continental Shelf. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, Transactions,
23, 288–304.

CLEARY, W.J. and PILKEY, O.H., 1996. Environmental Coastal Geology: Cape Lookout
to Cape Fear, North Carolina Regional Overview. In: W.J. Cleary (ed.), Environmental
Coastal Geology: Cape Lookout to Cape Fear, NC, North Carolina: Carolina Geological
Society, pp.89-127.

CLEARY, W. J.; RIGGS, S. R.; MARCY, D.C.; SYNDER, S.W.; 1996. The Influence of
inherited geological framework upon a hardbottom-dominated shoreface on a high-
energy shelf: Onslow Bay, North Carolina, USA. In: De Batist, M., & Jacobs, P. (eds.),
Geology of Siliciclastic Shelf Seas. Geological Society Special Pub No. 117, pp. 249-266.

CLEARY, W.J. and MARDEN, T.P., 1999. Shifting Shorelines: A Pictorial Atlas of North
Carolina Inlets. UNC-Sea Grant, 99-04, 51p.

CLEARY, W.J. and FITZGERALD, D.M., 2003. Tidal inlet response to natural
sedimentation processes and dredging-induced tidal prism changes: Mason Inlet, North
Carolina. Journal of Coastal Research, 19, 1018-1025.

75
DAVIS, R.A., and HAYES, M.O., 1984. What is a wave-dominated coast?. Marine
Geology, 60, 313-329.

DAVIS, R.A., 1994. Geology of Holocene Barrier Island Systems. New York, New York:
Springer – Verlag, 464p.

DAVIS, R.A., and BARNARD, P., 2003. Morphodynamics of the barrier-inlet system, west-
central Florida. Marine Geology, 200, 77-101.

DOLAN, R., HAYDEN, B., and HEYWOOD, J., 1978. A new photogrammetric method
for determining shoreline erosion. Coastal Engineering, 2, 21-39.

DOLAN, R., HAYDEN, B.P., MAY, P. and MAY, S., 1980. The reliability of shoreline
change measurements from aerial photographs. Shore and Beach, 48 (4), 22-29.

DOLAN, R., FENSTER, M.S. and HOLMES, S.J., 1991. Temporal analysis of shoreline
recession and accretion. Journal of Coastal Research, 7(3), 723-744.

FREEMAN, C.W., 2001. Backbarrier sedimentation and inlet induced shoreline change
associated with a migrating tidal inlet: Mason Inlet, North Carolina. Wilmington, North
Carolina: University of North Carolina Wilmington, Master’s thesis 77p.

FITZGERALD, D.M., 1996. Geomorphic variability and morphologic and sedimentologic

controls on tidal inlets. Journal of Coastal Research, 23, 47-71.

FITZGERALD, D. M., KRAUS, N.C., AND HANDS, E. B., 2001. Natural mechanisms for
sediment bypassing at tidal inlets. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center, Vicksburg, MS.ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-30, 10p.

FITZGERALD, D.M., and PENDLETON, E., 2002. Inlet Formation and Evolution of the
Sediment Bypassing System: New Inlet, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Journal of Coastal
Research, (SI) 36, 290-299.

FITZGERALD, D. M., GEORGIOU, I., HUGHES, Z., KULP, M. A., MINER, M. D., and
PENLAND, S., 2005. Backbarrier and sea level controls on tidal prism and their subsequent
impacts on adjacent barrier islands. Transactions - Gulf Coast Association of Geological
Societies, 55, 223p.

HAYES, M.O., 1979. Barrier island morphology as a function of tidal and wave regime,
In: S.P. Leatherman (ed.), Barrier Islands. New York: Academic, pp. 3-22.

HAYES, M.O., 1991. Geomorphology and Sedimentation patterns of tidal inlets: a review.
In: KRAUS, N.C., GINGERICH, K.J., and KRIEBEL, D.L., (eds.), Coastal Sediments ’91.
American society of Civil Engineers, 1343-1355.

HAYES, M.O., 1994. The Georgia Bight barrier system. In: Davis, R.A. (ed.), Geology of
Holocene Barrier Island Systems. New York: Springer – Verlag, pp. 233-304.

76
HUDGINS, J.E., 2000. Tropical Cyclones Affecting North Carolina Since 1856 – An
Historical Perspective. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Technical
Memorandum NWS ER-92, 108pp.

HUGES, M.L., MCDOWELL, P.F., and MARCUS, W.A., 2006. Accuracy assessment of
georectified aerial photographs: Implications for measuring lateral channel movement.
Geomorphology, 74, 1-16.

INMAN, D.L. and NORDSTROM, C.E., 1971. On the tectonic and morphological
classification of coasts. Journal of Geology, 79, 1-21.

JACKSON, C.W., 2004. Quantitative shoreline change analysis of an inlet-influenced

transgressive barrier system: Figure Eight Island, North Carolina. Wilmington, North
Carolina: University of North Carolina Wilmington, Master’s thesis, 86p.

JARRETT, J.T., 1976. Tidal prism-inlet area relationships. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, GITI Report No. 3, 54p.

JOHNSON, C.D.; CLEARY, W.J.; FREEMAN, C.W.; SAULT, M.; 1999. Inlet induced
shoreline changes, high energy flank of the cape fear foreland, SE NC. Proceedings of
Coastal Sediments ‘99, (New York, NY, ASCE), pp. 1402-1418.

KNIERIM, A.C., 2003. A hydrographic investigation of a mixed-energy inlet: Rich Inlet,

North Carolina. Wilmington, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Wilmington,
Master’s thesis, 52p.

MARCY, D.C., 1997. Influence of inherited geologic framework upon a hard bottom
dominated shoreface: Fort Fisher subaerial headland, Onslow Bay, North Carolina.
Wilmington, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Wilmington, Master’s thesis,
123p.

MCGINNIS, B.A., 2004. Late evolution of a retrograding barrier: Hutaff Island, North
Carolina. Wilmington, North Carolina: University of North Carolina, Master’s thesis,
97p.

MOORE, L.J.. 2000. Shoreline mapping techniques. Journal of Coastal Research, 16 (1),
111-124.

MOORFIELD, T.P., 1978. Geological processes and history of the Fort Fisher coastal area,
North Carolina. Greenville, North Carolina: East Carolina University, Master’s thesis,
100p.

MORTON, R.A., 1988. Nearshore responses to great storms. In: Clifton, H.E. (ed.),
Sedimentologic Consequences of Convulsive Geologic Events. Geological Society of
America Special Paper 229, pp. 7-22.

77
MORTON, H.A., 1991. Accurate shoreline mapping: past, present, and future. In: KRAUS,
N.C., GINGERICH, K.J., and KRIEBEL, D.L., (eds.), Coastal Sediments ’91. American
Society of Civil Engineers, 997-1010.

MOSELEY, E., 1733. A new and correct map of the province of North Carolina.

NATIONAL OCEANS SERVICE, 2007. NOAA Tidal Current Data for the Coastal United
States. Silver Springs, Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
http://nosdataexplorer.noaa.gov/nosdataexplorer/explorer.jsp?goTo=search&north=90&s
outh=-90&east=180&west=-180&keyword=tides/currents

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NRC), 1990. Managing Coastal Erosion. National

Research
Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 182p.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES, 1970. Kure

Beach quadrangle, North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Series
Orthophotomap AMS 5451 IV NW, scale 1:24000.

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENt, 1998. Long-term average annual

shoreline change study. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management. http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Maps/ER_1998/NewHan_Rate.htm.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES

– Division of Land Resources, NC Geological Survey., 1998. onemap.SDEADMIN.geol.
Raleigh, North Carolina: NC OneMap.
http://www.nconemap.com/Portals/7/documents/metadata_records/geol.htm

PAJAK, M.J., and LEATHERMAN, S., 2002. The high water line as shoreline indicator.
Journal of Coastal Research, 18(2), 329-337.

RANASINGHE, R., and PATTIARATCHI, C., 1999. The seasonal closure of tidal inlets:
Wilson Inlet – a case study. Coastal Engineering, 37, pp. 37-56.

RANASINGHE, R., PATTIARATCHI, C., and Masselink, G., 1999. A morphodynamic model
to simulate the seasonal closure of tidal inlets. Coastal Engineering, 37, pp. 1-36.

RIGGS, S.R., CLEARY, W.J., and SNYDER, S.W., 1995. Influence of inherited geologic
framework on barrier shoreface morphology and dynamics. Marine Geology, 126,
pp.213-234.

RICE, T.M., 2002. What are we doing to our inlets? A cumulative analysis from Cape
Henry to Cape Romain. Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs
(Boulder, Colorado), 34 (2), pp. 110.

78
SADIK, N., 1994. Population Growth and Global Stability. New York: United Nations
Population Fund.

SHALOWITZ, A. L. 1964. Shore and Sea Boundaries, Volume 2. Washington, D.C: U.S.
Govt. Printing Office, U.S. Department of Commerce Publication 10-1, 749p.

SMITH, G.L., and ZARILLO, G.A., 1990. Calculating long-term shoreline recession rates
using aerial photography and beach profiling techniques. Journal of Coastal Research,
61, 111-120.

SWAIN, K.W. and CLEARY, W.J., 1992. Modification of a coastal plain/bar-built estuary,
southeastern North Carolina. Geologic Society of America, Abstracts with Programs
(Winston-Salem, North Carolina), 24 (2), pp. 69.

SWAIN, K.W., 1993. Modification of a coastal plain/bar-built estuary in southeastern

North Carolina. Wilmington, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Wilmington,
Master’s thesis, 48p.

THIELER, E.R. and DANFORTH, W.W.. 1994. Historical shoreline mapping (I): improving
techniques and reducing positioning errors. Journal of Coastal Research. 10 (3), 549-
563.

TITUS, J.G., R.A. PARK, S.P. LEATHERMAN, J.R. WEGGEL, M.S. GREENE, P.W. MAUSEL, S.
BROWN, C. GAUNT. M. TREHAN, and G. YOHE. 1991. Greenhouse effect and sea level
rise: the cost of holding back the sea. Coastal Management, 19, 171-210.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. United States Census 2000. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce. http://www.census.gov/.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1967. Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Wave
Protection: Carolina Beach and Vicinity, Area South of Carolina Beach, North Carolina.
Wilmington, North Carolina: Wilmington Corps District, Deign Memorandum, 28p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975. Fort Fisher and Vicinity, North Carolina.
Wilmington, North Carolina: Wilmington Corps District, Final Environmental Impact
Statement, 36p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1982. Fort Fisher North Carolina, General Design
Memorandum, Phase II. Wilmington, North Carolina: Wilmington Corps District, Design
Memorandum 2, Project Design, 35p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1994. Fort Fisher and Vicinity, North Carolina.
Wilmington, North Carolina: Wilmington Corps District, Environmental Assessment,
26p.

79
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997. Fort Fisher Monitoring Program. Wilmington
North Carolina: Wilmington Corps District, Report 1, 28p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004. Fort Fisher Monitoring Program. Wilmington
North Carolina: Wilmington Corps District, Report 7, 38p.

VINCENT, C. L., and CORSON, W. D. 1980. The Geometry of Selected US Tidal Inlet GITI Report
20. Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 53p.

WELSH, J.M., 2004. Characterization of the evolution of a relocated tidal inlet: Mason
Inlet, North Carolina. Wilmington, North Carolina: University of North Carolina
Wilmington, Master’s Thesis, 104p.

80