Items in cart [0]
| [ Top of Page ] [ Home ] [ Contact Us ] [ Help ] [ The National Academies Home ] | ||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Beach Nourishment
and Protection
Committee on Beach Nourishment and Protection
Marine Board
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1995
OCR for page R2
National Academy Press · 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW · Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the
panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for
appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures
approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sci-
ences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The program described in this report is supported by cooperative agreement no. 14-35-0001-
30475 between the Minerals Management Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior and the
National Academy of Sciences and by interagency cooperative agreement no. DTMA91-94-G-00003
between the Maritime Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National
Academy of Sciences.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Beach nourishment and protection / Committee on Beach Nourishment and
Protection, Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical
Systems, National Research Council.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-309-05290-4 (alk. paper)
1. Beach nourishment. 2. Shore protection. I. National Research
Council (U.S.). Marine Board. Committee on Beach Nourishment and
Protection.
TC332.B428 1995
627'.58 dc20
Copyright 1995 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Cover: Anna Maria, Florida, beach nourishment project. Photo courtesy of Aero Photo,
St. Petersburg, Florida.
95-46578
CIP
OCR for page R3
COMMITTEE ON BEACH NOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION
RICHARD J. SEYMOUR (Chair), Texas A&M University and Scripps
Institution of Oceanography
NANCY E. BOCKSTAEL, University of Maryland, College Park
THOMAS J. CAMPBELL, Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc., Boca
Raton, Florida
ROBERT G. DEAN, NAE, University of Florida, Gainesville
PAUL D. KOMAR, Oregon State University, Corvallis
ORRIN H. PILKEY, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
ANTHONY P. PRATT, Delaware State Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
MARTIN R. SNOW, Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, Chicago,
Illinois
ROBERT F. VAN DOLAH, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
J. RICHARD WEGGEL, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
ROBERT L. WIEGEL, NAE, University of California, Berkeley (Emeritus)
Liaison Representatives
MICHAEL K. BUCKLEY, Federal Emergency Management Agency
CHARLES B. CHESNUTT, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (from September
2, 1994)
A. TODD DAVISON, Federal Emergency Management Agency
JOHN G. HOUSLEY, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (until September 2,
1994)
NICHOLAS C. KRAUS, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
(until November 1994)
DAVID E. McKINNIE, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
S. JEFFRESS WILLIAMS, U.S. Geological Survey
RANDALL A. WISE, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
(from November 1994)
Staff
CHARLES A. BOOKMAN, Project Officer (from January 20, 1995)
WAYNE YOUNG, Project Officer (until January 20, 1995)
DELPHINE D. GLAZE, Administrative Assistant
LYNN D. KASPER, Editorial Consultant
. . .
OCR for page R4
MARINE BOARD
RICHARD J. SEYMOUR (Chair), Texas A&M University and Scripps
Institute of Oceanography
BERNARD J. ABRAHAMSSON, University of Wisconsin, Superior
JERRY A. ASPLAND, Arco Marine, Inc.
ANNE D. AYLWARD, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
MARK Y. BERMAN, Amoco Corporation
BROCK B. BERNSTEIN, EcoAnalysis
JOHN W. BOYLSTON, Argent Marine Operations, Inc.
SARAH CHASIS, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
CHRYSSOSTOMOS CHRYSSOSTOMIDIS, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
BILIANA CICIN-SAIN, University of Delaware
JAMES M. COLEMAN, NAE, Louisiana State University
BILLY L. EDGE, Texas A&M University
MARTHA GRABOWSKI, LeMoyne College and Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute
M. ELISABETH PATE-CORNELL, Stanford University
DONALD W. PRITCHARD, NAE, State University of New York at Stony
Brook
STEPHANIE R. THORNTON, Coastal Resources Center
KARL K. TUREKIAN, NAS, Yale University
ROD VULOVIC, Sea-Land Service, Inc.
E. G. "SKIP" WARD, Shell Offshore, Inc.
ALAN G. YOUNG, Fugro-McClelland BV
Staff
CHARLES A. BOOKMAN, Director
DONALD W. PERKINS, Associate Director
DORIS C. HOLMES, Staff Associate
IV
OCR for page R5
Acknowledgments
The committee gratefully acknowledges the contributions of time and infor-
mation provided by:
Ms. Cheryl Ryder, Environmental Specialist, Florida Department of Environ
mental Protection
Dr. Walter Nelson, Florida Institute of Technology
Dr. Timothy Kana, President, Coastal Science & Engineering, Inc.
Mr. J. Thomas Jarrett, Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Millard Dowd, Charleston District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Robert W. Lindner, Baltimore District, U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers
Mr. David V. Schmidt, Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Michael Kieslich, Galveston District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Adrian J. Combe, New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Dr. Donald K. Stauble, Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
Mr. Jeff Gebert, Philadelphia District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ms. Monica Chasten, Philadelphia District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. John G. Housley, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
v
OCR for page R6
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating
society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research,
dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the
general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in
1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal govern-
ment on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the
National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the
charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of out-
standing engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of
its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility
for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also
sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages
education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers.
Dr. Harold Liebowitz is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy
of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions
in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The
Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences
by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon
its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr.
Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of
Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology
with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal
government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the
Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in
providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineer-
ing communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the
Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. Harold Liebowitz are chairman
and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
OCR for page R7
Preface
BACKGROUND
Beaches are essential storm barriers. They protect natural and developed
areas and provide valuable recreational resources. But beaches are dynamic,
often eroding in winter and accreting in summer, moved by waves, currents, and
wind. Many beaches are naturally eroding, their shoreline position moving shore-
ward over time. Various strategies are used in an effort to manage shorelines to
satisfy socioeconomic needs. Fixed structures, such as seawalls, groins, and
shore-parallel breakwaters, have been used for many years to create a barrier
between land and sea. But they can interrupt the alongshore flow of sand, exac-
erbating erosion problems in some instances and creating new ones in others.
Beach nourishment, which involves the addition of sand in designed contours to
extend a beach and the nearshore shallows seaward, has grown in acceptance as
a shore protection and beach restoration measure in the United States, Europe,
and Australia.
The use of beach nourishment has encountered strong opposition as well as
ardent support. Proponents consider the management of littoral sand resources
the preferred solution to shoreline erosion. They view beach nourishment as
technically and economically sound when projects are well planned and well
executed. Opponents often view beach nourishment as little more than building
temporary sand dikes to protect against an advancing sea. Some projects have
performed well, and others have not, or they have failed to meet public expecta-
tions. The mixed results have stimulated considerable controversy. The technol-
ogy has been challenged with respect to perceived inadequacies in project loca
. .
V11
OCR for page R8
. . .
V111
PREFACE
lion, prediction, design, monitoring, cost-benefit analysis, sand placement and
distribution, cost-share allocations, and the understanding of complex shore pro-
cesses. Contributing to the controversy are perceptions about project perfor-
mance that are based on anecdotal information rather than technical performance
criteria.
Section 309 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-
640) has stimulated considerable public interest in beach nourishment by raising
the question of linking federal participation in the planning, implementation, or
maintenance of any beach stabilization or nourishment project with a state's
establishment or commitment to a beachfront management program. Further, the
requirement for a cost share for shore improvements, based on the Water Re-
sources Act of 1986, has raised the stakes for states and municipalities, which
now have a much more direct interest in the cost and performance of shoreline
projects.
Given the overall experience with beach nourishment and the growing inter-
est and reliance on it, an assessment was needed to establish an improved techni-
cal basis for decision making about the use of beach nourishment in shore stabi-
lization and management and in the design of beach nourishment projects in
which the federal government is involved.
THE NRC STUDY
As a result of its deliberations and informal discussions with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE), the Marine Board of the National Research
Council's (NRC) Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems detained
that an improved technical basis for decision making could be established by
exploring the engineering, environmental, economic, and public policy aspects of
beach nourishment. Important factors meriting assessment include improvements
in the. understanding of shore processes; definition of the appropriate role of
beach nourishment in shore management; and enhancements and improvements
in predictive capabilities, project monitoring, and performance evaluation. The
NRC convened the Committee on Beach Nourishment and Protection under the
auspices of the Marine Board.
Committee members were selected for their expertise and wide range of
experience and viewpoints. The principle guiding the constitution of the commit-
tee and its work, consistent with NRC policy, was not to exclude members with
potential biases that might accompany expertise vital to the study but to seek
balance and fair treatment. Committee members are experts in coastal engineer-
ing, coastal geology, economics, ecological preservation and response to coastal
change, development of beach areas for both public and private uses, and federal
and state coastal land-use planning. Academic, industrial, government, scientific,
engineering, and public perspectives are reflected in the committee's composi-
tion. Biographies of members are provided in Appendix A.
OCR for page R9
PREFACE
IX
The committee was assisted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Sur-
vey, and the USACE, all of which designated liaison representatives. The Miner-
als Management Service provided information and commentary useful to the
committee.
The committee was asked by the NRC to conduct a multidisciplinary assess-
ment of the engineering, environmental, economic, and public policy aspects of
beach nourishment to provide an improved technical basis for judging the use of
beach nourishment and protection technology in shoreline stabilization, erosion
control, recreational beach creation, dredged material placement, construction of
coastal storm barriers and protection of natural resources.
Included in the scope of the study are:
· measures of beach nourishment project performance;
methods for designing and predicting the engineering performance of
beach nourishment projects;
. . . . . ~ . .
engineering, economic, and env~ronmenta requirements for monitoring
the performance of beach nourishment projects and developing project
monitoring methodology;
the potential for improving beach nourishment projects in conjunction
with hard structures and other systems, and appraisal of the technical and
policy implications;
the potential environmental impacts of beach nourishment; and
economic issues, including the costs of design, construction, and mainte-
nance and the accuracy of prediction, the costs and benefits of beach
nourishment relative to other shoreline management alternatives, and a
determination of who benefits and who pays.
All elements of the beach nourishment system-the borrowing of fill, the
transportation of fill to the placement site, the placement of fill, and the possible
integration of beach nourishment with hard structures are within the scope of
this study.
The committee reviewed available data and literature and conducted site
visits to determine the state of practice of beach nourishment. The committee also
solicited data and views and met with expert practitioners and researchers in
federal, regional, and local government agencies; researchers and practitioners in
the coastal engineering community; and members of professional societies. In
addition, the committee visited beach nourishment projects in Florida (on both
the East and West coasts), Maryland, Delaware, and Southern California, and
individual members visited other locations. Case studies of specific projects are
cited in Appendix B. Appendixes C through I provide technical descriptions and
analyses of prediction, design, economic analysis, construction, environmental
considerations, and monitoring.
OCR for page R10
x
PREFACE
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report was prepared for policy and project decision makers; members of
the coastal and civil engineering communities concerned with beach nourishment
and shoreline protection; scientists and engineers concerned with prediction, de-
sign, construction, and maintenance of beach nourishment projects; and the gen-
eral public. Understanding the role of beach nourishment requires an understand-
ing of physical processes as well as their socioeconomic and environmental
effects.
Chapter 1 introduces the beach nourishment concept, discusses regional dif-
ferences in physical processes, and frames the issues associated with project
decision making.
Chapter 2 identifies and discusses management issues.
Chapter 3 discusses the roles and responsibilities of federal agencies relative
to shoreline protection and the application of beach nourishment.
Chapter 4 describes and assesses the state of practice in design and predic
tion.
Chapter 5 describes environmental issues, assesses monitoring capabilities
and needs, and discusses improvements in the state of practice.
Chapter 6 discusses physical, economic, and environmental monitoring in
the planning, design, and performance assessment of beach nourishment projects.
Chapter 7 presents the committee's conclusions and recommendations.
OCR for page R11
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 INTRODUCTION
The Changing Shore, 14
Physical Elements, 20
References, 25
14
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR SHORE PROTECTION 27
The Decision Process, 27
Project Formulation and Design, 32
Uncertainties, Risk, and the Measurement of Success, 40
Paying for Beach Nourishment, 43
Economic Issues, 45
Public Support for Beach Nourishment, 53
References, 56
3
THE FEDERAL ROLE IN BEACH NOURISHMENT
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 58
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 61
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, 62
The U.S. Geological Survey, 68
The Minerals Management Service, 70
Erosion Hazard Reduction Programs of Federal Agencies, 71
Xl
58
OCR for page R12
. ~
All
CONTENTS
Accrediting Beach Nourishment Projects to Qualify for
Flood Insurance Benefits, 73
Addressing Beach Nourishment in the NFIP, 75
A Strategy for Reducing Coastal Hazards, 79
References, 80
4 BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT DESIGN AND PREDICTION 82
The Design Process, 83
Nourishment Objectives and Constraints, 83
Significant Processes in Design, 83
Diversity of Settings for Beach Nourishment, 88
Use of Structures and Other Shore Protection Devices in
Conjunction with Beach Nourishment, 89
Limitations of Existing Models and Methods, 93
Prediction, 94
Sand Sources A Consideration in Project Design, 97
Sand Bypassing as a Source, 99
Sand Transfer Equipment and Methods, 101
Erosional Hot Spots, 101
Federal Design Procedures, 102
Postconstruction Design Refinement and Corrective Action, 103
Sand Bypass Systems and Hybrid Systems, 104
Professional Accountability for Design, 104
References, 105
5 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH
BEACH NOURISHMENT
Subaerial Beach Habitats, 107
Subtidal Beach Habitats, 112
Borrow Source Areas, 115
Restoration of Abandoned Projects, 120
References, 121
6 MONITORING
Overview, 127
Physical Monitoring, 130
Biological Monitoring, 134
Economic Monitoring, 136
References, 139
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General Findings, 140
Specific Findings, 141
107
127
140
OCR for page R13
CONTENTS
APPENDIXES
A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
B PAPERS PREPARED FOR THIS STUDY
. . .
Xlll
161
166
PREDICTION OF BEACH NOURISHMENT PERFORMANCE 167
D DESIGN OF BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECTS
E ECONOMIC CONCEPTS AND ISSUES: SOCIAL COSTS AND
BENEFITS OF BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECTS
F PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND SEDIMENT SOURCES,
TRANSFER, AND PLACEMENT
G PHYSICAL PROCESSES MONITORING
189
251
267
294
H U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DESIGN CRITERIA 31 1
I EXCERPTS FROM FEDERAL LAWS PERTAINING TO
PLACEMENT OF SAND FROM CHANNEL MAINTENANCE
PROJECTS ON BEACHES
INDEX
314
317
OCR for page R14
XIV
1-1 Terms Used in This Report, 24
BOXES, TABLES, AND FIGURES
Boxes
Beach Erosion Following the Breaching of Assateague Island, 30
Indication of Level of Public Understanding, 35
Summary Description of Acts Affecting Beach Nourishment, 44
3-2
3-3
3-1 Federal Disaster Assistance Programs for Shore Protection, 63
Potential Hazard Reduction Contributions of a Beach
Nourishment Project, 64
Coastal Floodplain Hazard Zones, 65
6-1
2-1
CONTENTS
Management Questions Requiring an Effective Monitoring Regime, 128
Information Needed to Plan a Beach Nourishment Project Based on
Quantitative Data, 215
Beach Nourishment Monitoring, Ocean City, Maryland, 297
Beach Nourishment Monitoring, Perdido Key, Florida, 298
Beach Nourishment Monitoring, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina,
300
Beach Nourishment Monitoring, Indian Rocks Beach, Florida, 303
Tables
Examples of Major Objectives, Criteria, and Approaches for Evaluating
Beach Nourishment Projects and Programs, 42
4-1 Estimated Prediction Capabilities, 96
4-2 Potential Sources of Beach Nourishment Sediment, 99
5-1
ld each Nourishment and Beach Disposal Projects Considered Beneficial
to Biota Using the Beach or Adjacent Upland Areas, 111
Biological Monitoring Studies that Examined Intertidal and Nearshore
Subtidal Beach Habitats Following Beach Nourishment Projects, 116
Physical and Biological Monitoring Studies that Examined Borrow
Areas Used for Beach Nourishment Projects, 119
Beach Nourishment Invariants, 185
D-1 Budget of Littoral Sediments, 235
OCR for page R15
CONTENTS
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
C-S
C-6
C-7
XV
Figures
General location and number of USACE major shore protection
projects with beach nourishment components in the lower 48 states.
There is also a beach nourishment project in Homer, Alaska, 19
Ocean City Inlet, Maryland, ebb-tide shoal, 33
Oceanside, California, beach and bluff, 33
4-1 Sand transport losses and beach profiles associated with a nourished
beach, 85
Two placement methods for beach nourishment material, 86
Planviews of various scenarios of nourishment placement and
stabilization, 89
Shoreline change at Delray Beach nourishment project, 1974-1990,
showing shoreline change outside the project area; nourishments
involved 2.78 million m3 of material, 90
Calculated example of beach nourishment project evolution, 91
Estimated ability to predict performance relative to various factors that
can affect beach nourishment projects, 95
Schematic of design and advanced-fill nourishment profiles, 103
Three phases of observed sediment transport in the vicinity of
nourished projects, 168
Variation of sediment-scale parameter, A, with sediment size and fall
velocity, 170
Three generic types of nourished profiles, 171
Variation of nondimensional shoreline advancement, /`yOIW*, with A'
and results shown for h*lB = 2.0, 172
Variation of nondimensional shoreline advancement, /\yOIW*, with A'
and results shown for h*lB = 4.0, 173
Proportion of material remaining, M, in region placed as a function of
the parameter, 175
Calculated planform and volumetric evolutions of an initially
rectangular beach nourishment project fronting a seawall. Deep-water
waves at 10° to shore normal, 184
Design cross-section transferred seaward, 195
Captiva Island beach nourishment monitoring cross-section, 196
Linear design cross-section sometimes intercepts sandbars, providing an
underestimate of design fill, 197
OCR for page R16
XVI
CONTENTS
D-4 Captiva Island beach nourishment monitoring cross-section at R 98, 198
D-5
D-6
D-7
The construction template, 204
Nourishment profiles, 205
Sand redistribution in the cross-shore direction to form a more natural
profile, 206
D-8 Ocean City, Maryland, project profiles, 207
D-9 Nourishment fill performance at Delray Beach, Florida, 216
D-10 Schematic of Delray Beach mean high water versus design, 217
D-l l Captiva Island project showing designed versus actual berm locations in
October 1993, 218
Historic barrier island breaching and inlet creation near Westhampton,
Long Island, New York, 221
Extremal Type I (Gumbel) distribution of annual maximum wave height
statistics based on hindcast data for Atlantic City, New Jersey, 228
Various economic elements of the probabilistic design procedure for a
range of beach berm widths, 232
Annual damages as a function of significant wave height and berm
width at the start of a storm, 233
D-16 Annual damages as a function of berm width and incident significant
wave height, 234
D-17 Sand sources for Ediz Hook, Washington, spit, 236
D-18 Profile envelopes showing depth of profile changes, 238
D-l9 Veneer beach fill cross-section, Corpus Christi Beach, Corpus Christi,
Texas, 239
D-20 Veneer beach fill cross-section, Key West, Florida, 240
D-21 Veneer beach fill cross-section, Grand Isle, Louisiana, 242
F-1
Sand bypassing at Indian River Inlet, Delaware. Jet pump positioned by
crane, 271
F-2 Layout of a typical offshore cutter dredge, 276
F-3 Schematic of operation of a trailing-suction hopper dredge, 277
F-4
Effect of grain size on production, 282
Sea sled for measuring beach profiles from the dry beach through the
surf zone to depth of closure, 302
Coastal Research Amphibious Buggy (CRAB), a sophisticated mobile
survey station used to profile the sea bed from the dune through the
surf zone out to a water depth of tom, 302
OCR for page R17
Beach Nourishment
and Protection
OCR for page R18