Click for next page ( 190


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 189
APPENDIX D Design of Beach Nourishment Projects INTRODUCTION A beach that is under consideration for nourishment typically will have eroded over an extended period, so that its storm protection and recreational potential have been substantially reduced. The objectives of beach nourishment are to improve shore protection and recreational opportunities. The design pro- cess for beach nourishment projects determines the quantity, configuration, and distribution of the sediment to be placed along a specific section of coast in order to restore natural storm protection, recreational area, or both. The design objec- tive is to identify a unique project that best addresses and accommodates site conditions, erosion rates, wave climate, available sand, costs, funding sources, and environmental considerations. The design must consider long-term erosion and storm impacts to assess the appropriate nourishment quantity, quality, and placement along the shore. As a rule of thumb, the nourished beach can be expected to erode at least as fast as the prenourished shoreline. Therefore, an allowance for continued erosion of beach fill is also part of the design assess- ment. Further, the combination of higher tides and waves during storm conditions can erode the upper beach and directly impact upland areas, causing damage and failure of structures. Thus, reducing the vulnerability of coastal structures to storm damage is also an important design consideration. Each nourishment project has unique environmental and economic condi- tions that affect the design process. The beach nourishment project ought to be of sufficient size to provide a financially feasible level of protection to the upland structures. Impacts to sensitive nearshore or offshore environments should be 189

OCR for page 189
190 BEACH NOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION minimized to the extent possible. The following defines the beach nourishment formulation processes. Design is the process of solving problems or achieving a desired objective or objectives by: proposing one or more alternative solutions; evaluating those solutions in view of physical, economic, environmental. and other constraints; adopting or adapting elements of the best alternatives; and formulating the solution that best meets the desired objective or objec tives. Good design is an iterative process that requires attention to details. Beach nour- ishment design involves selecting the project's length, beach profile cross- section, dune height, use of structures for erosion control, sediment characteris- tics, and borrow source. Analysis is an important tool by which various designs or elements of a design can be objectively evaluated. For beach nourishment, analysis brings knowledge of coastal processes to bear on the evaluation of alternative designs. Analytical and numerical models of alongshore sand transport and cross-shore transport are examples of coastal process models that are important in beach nourishment project analysis. Judgment is also needed in evaluating candidate designs or elements of a design because coastal processes are complex (NRC, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992) and design methodologies are constantly evolving. Judgment, however, is not totally objective because it depends on a designer's experience. Different design- ers may interpret objectives and constraints differently. Therefore, no two de- signers approach a problem in exactly the same way and, in general, will not arrive at identical designs. There are always trade-offs, and judgment is the factor that selects from among those trade-offs where no quantitative analytic proce- dures or criteria exist. Because judgment is not objective, design review is an important element of the process. Design review brings the experience and judg- ment of a number of designers to bear on a problem. The criterion for evaluating a design is how well it achieves the desired objectives within the given con- straints. For beach nourishment, project objectives usually include protecting backbeach areas from waves and flooding damage and providing a beach for recreational purposes. Where sea turtles nest on coastal beaches, replacing sea- walls with nourished beaches can reestablish nesting habitat. Public participation is important throughout the design process for any pub- lic works project such as beach nourishment, initially to ensure that objectives and constraints are clearly defined and later to ensure that the original objectives are still valid and have been met within the given constraints.

OCR for page 189
APPENDIX D 191 DESIGN HISTORY The design process has evolved over time from the first project design on Coney Island in 1922 (Farley, 1923; Davison et al., 1992; Dornhelm, 1995) to the latest computer-aided designs of nourishment at Ocean City, Maryland (Hanson and Byrnes, 1991), and the third periodic nourishment at Delray Beach, Florida (Coastal Planning and Engineering, 1992a). Since the early 1950s, the scientific basis for beach nourishment project design has increased significantly. Although some of the early projects used finer bay and lagoon sediments, which performed poorly, later projects used coarser offshore sand with more favorable results (Davison et al., 1992~. The evolution of the design process at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, demonstrates the changing nature of the design process. The early design cross- section placed sand primarily on the nearshore profile without consideration for building the offshore portion of the profile. The dry beach quickly adjusted to flatter natural slopes when sand moved offshore. The later renourishment designs for Wrightsville Beach provided enough fill for the entire active profile; the offshore movement of sand was properly anticipated. Hall (1952) documents 72 beach nourishment projects constructed in the United States between 1922 and 1950. Most were in New York, New Jersey, and Southern California. He also discusses design parameters and needs for further development of established source requirements and the quality of borrow mate- rials. Krumbein (1957) published the first papers that dealt with grain size as a design factor for nourished beaches. Later work by Krumbein and James (1965), James (1974, 1975), and Dean (1974) further developed the concepts of native beach sand as.a hydraulically stable population from which performance of a borrow material with dissimilar grain sizes can be compared. The work of James (1974, 1975) has been incorporated into the standard practices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE, 1984~. These practices are based on (1) the overfill factor, RAP which predicts how much fill will remain after sorting by hydrody- namic processes, and (2) the renourishment factor, RI, which predicts how much nourishment will be necessary when compared with the performance of native sand (Davison et al., 1992~. Early nourishment projects did not consider the offshore profile properly, often using unrealistic slopes, which subsequently caused an excessive loss of subaerial (dry) beach (Vallianos, 1974; Jarrett 1987; Hanson and Lillycrop, 1988; Davison et al., 19921. Hallermeier (1981a, b) developed donations of the active profile based on wave parameters. Two limiting depths were defined. One of them, dL, is the maximum water depth for sand erosion and seaward transport by an extreme yearly wave condition and corresponds to the seaward limit of appre- ciable seasonal profile change. The second is the maximum water depth for sand motion (on a flat bed) by median wave conditions and corresponds to the seaward

OCR for page 189
92 BEACHNOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION limit of the constructed wave profile. Hallermeier suggested that do be used as the basis of beach nourishment design; later analysis showed field observations sup- porting this recommendation (Houston, 1991a; Hands, l991J. Birkemeier (1985) refined the seaward limit of profile change. His results were based on more accurate surveys at Duck, North Carolina. Dean (1983, 1991) proposed the use of equilibrium profile concepts for beach nourishment design. He suggested that the shape of the offshore profile can be approximated by a shape described as follows: h(y' = Ay067 (D-1) where hays is the depth at distance (y) and A is a scale factor related to grain size. The use of the Dean and Hallermeier/Birkemeier concepts provides a direct method for estimating nourishment quantities for various wave and sand source conditions. These concepts are generally accepted in the industry but are not widely used by designers, because overfill and renourishment factors are used to determine fill compatibility. Since profile shape change and winnowing occur on nourished beaches, both measures need to be considered in a design when the borrow sand is finer than the native beach sand. When an unconsolidated beach is nourished for the first time, sand will move offshore in sufficient quantities to flatten the offshore profile. Significantly less sand will move offshore in subse- quent nourishments, because the slope of the beach will have already been mod- erated by the first nourishment. The response of the native and natural beach to higher sea levels was first addressed quantitatively by Bruun (1962~. He suggested a balance of onshore erosion with offshore deposition in response to a change in sea level. Storm recession methods were proposed by Edelman (1972) using an approach similar to that of Bruun and applying these principles to storm surge. Edelman's method was used in a number of federal beach nourishment designs in the 1970s and 1980s (Strock and Associates, 1981, 19841. His method tended to overpredict storm recession,-because the technique assumed the profiles would reach full equilibrium with the peak storm surge without consideration of the duration of the storm. Swart (1974) proposed methods to evaluate erosion induced by storms based on evaluation of coastal erosion problems on the Danish North Sea. Kriebel (1982) developed a time-dependent dune recession model based on the equilib- rium profile and a uniform dissipation of wave energy per unit volume in the surf zone. This method was further developed and described by Kriebel and Dean (19851. In the Kriebel-Dean method, storm duration, waves, and storm surge were combined for the first time to analyze the profile response in storms. More recently, this model has been refined (EDUNE) by Kriebel (1990) to account for the existence of coastal structures and overtopping of the profile by wave runup. From 1988 through 1990, Larson (1988) and then Larson and Kraus (1989b)

OCR for page 189
APPENDIX D 193 developed the SBEACH (Storm-Induced Beach Change) model for predicting beach and dune erosion. This model allows for offshore bar formation during storms. It was recently refined (Wise and Kraus, 1993) to include the effects of seawalls, runup, and overwash quantities of sand that are pushed over the dune. The EDUNE and SBEACH models are the two numerical dune recession models in use today by U.S. beach designers. An analytical model for storm recession was first developed by Kriebel et al. (1991) and refined by Kriebel and Dean (1993~. The erosion rate of the nourished beach has been estimated by beach design- ers primarily by using historical erosion rates. Fill is added to the design quantity in sufficient volume to account for beach losses between nourishments. This additional quantity is called advanced fill. Most federal designs prior to 1983 estimated advanced-fill requirements based on the rate of erosion of the native beach and grain-size considerations only. The USACE issued a technical note on beach fill transitions (USACE, 1982a) that suggested the inclusion of "end losses" in advanced-fill quantities. Pelnard-Considere (1956) developed an analytical one-line (i.e., the shore- line) model to predict spreading losses of nourished sand to adjacent beaches. Bakker (1968) developed a two-line analytical model to predict alongshore and cross-shore changes. Perlin and Dean (1979) developed an N line analytical model that enabled prediction of the evolution of multiple contours along a project's beach. As noted in Appendix C, Price et al. (1973) and Komar (1973, 1977) demonstrated a range of computer-based numerical models for shore pro- cesses. Price et al. (1973' correlated computer-based models with the perfor- mance of sand in a groin field. These models were not commonly used for nourishment designs until the late 1970s and early 1980s. Hanson and Kraus (1989) developed a one-line (i.e., the shoreline) numerical model that is referred to as GENESIS (Generalized Shoreline Simulation Sys- tem). This model was applied by the Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) to the design of the Asbury Park to Sandy Hook, New Jersey, beach nourishment project in 1985. The GENESIS model was refined by CERC as a personal computer application and applied to a number of beach nourishment designs in the early l990s (see Manatee County General Design Memorandum, USACE, l 991 c). Dean (1983J refined the work of Pelnard-Considere to further develop an analytical model for the prediction of performance of beach nourishment. It was applied to a number of beach nourishment projects in the late 1980s and early l990s (Coastal Planning and Engineering, 1992a, b; USACE, 1989b) and has shown good correlation to monitored projects in Delray Beach, Florida (USAGE, l991c); see also Appendix C.

OCR for page 189
94 BEACH NOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION DESIGN METHODS Fill placed on a nourished beach will erode over time, diminishing the pro- tection afforded by the initial construction. Most nourishment projects are actu- ally designed as a series of sequential fill placements over time to account for the long-term erosion process. For design purposes, it is convenient to consider the fill placed on a beach as comprised of two components: the design cross-section, which achieves the project purpose (storm protection and recreational area), and an advanced-fill amount, which erodes between nourishment events (see Figure 4-7~. Federal design policy (USAGE, 1991b) requires that the design cross-section be optimized to return maximum net benefits (benefits less costs). The advanced- fill quantities are designed to achieve the lowest annual cost for the renourishment program. The construction volume contains both design and advanced-fill quantities. Construction templates reflect dune and berm elevations. However, the construc- tion template incorporates a significantly wider berm and a steeper slope than the design and advanced-fill profile. The difference between the construction, de- sign, and advanced-fill profile is necessary to accommodate the sand placement capability of the construction equipment that is expected to be available for the project. Within the first year or so after placement of beach fill, the construction profile will be reshaped by waves to an equilibrium profile, causing the berm to retreat to the design and advanced-fill profile (see Figure 4-7~. For design pur- poses, the construction profile is treated as an anomalous temporary feature. The Design Beach ~' It is standard practice to provide sufficient sand to nourish the entire profile, from the dune (where one exists) to the depth of significant sand movement, do . Estimates of fill are based on transferring the entire active profile seaward by the design amount (see Figure D-1~. If the borrow sand matches the native sand and there are no rock outcrops, seawalls, or groins, the design profile at each cross- section should be a replica of the existing profile but shifted to a seaward loca- tion. Enough sediment should be accounted for by the designer to nourish the entire profile (Bruun 1986; Hansen and Lillycrop, 19883. The total volume, VT, is independent of profile shape, since the shape of the reflourished profile will be parallel and similar to the existing natural profile. Using the limiting depth of profile change, dL' the nourishment quantity can be directly estimated by VT = (B + dL ~ L W (D-2) where B is the elevation of the berm as discussed in Appendix C, L is the length

OCR for page 189
APPENDIX D 4 3 2 1 ~ O o -1 UJ -2 -3 -4 195 Design Beach Do .. _ , Hi; ~ NGVD Depth of Closure 1 1 1 1 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 DISTANCE (m) FIGURE D-1 Design cross-section transferred seaward. of the nourishment project, and W is the desired amount of beach widening (Campbell et al., 1990~. If rock outcrops or other nonerodible surfaces such as seawalls, revetments, or groins exist on the nearshore native beach, the existing profile shape will not be directly representative of the nourished profile. If a beach that is armored (such as with seawalls) has experienced erosion over an extended period, the nearshore bathymetry can become deeper and the profile will be steeper than the equilibrium natural profile. This condition would be expected to result in the need for a larger amount of fill during the initial nourish- ment. In such cases, the use of an equilibrium profile defined by the grain size of the borrow material or an adjacent natural beach profile can be used to approxi- mate the nourished profile. Further, if seawalls, groins, or other structures or features have caused the profile to deviate significantly from the anticipated equilibrated profile after nourishment, then Equation (D-1) would be applied with appropriate modifications. Figure D-2 shows the monitored profiles of a nourishment project in Captiva Island, Florida. The project was constructed in the winter of 1988-1989 with 0.56-mm sand; the sand was coarser than the native beach sand of 0.38 mm. The project has been monitored twice a year since nourishment. The profile shown in Figure D-2 is a typical profile 5 years after the construction of a project. The

OCR for page 189
96 4 3 2 ~ O _ By O _ ~ -1 - LU -2 3 4 BEACH NOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION ~08/1 3/88 _, ,,f<: \& \\ - APR. 1993 OCT. 1993 NGVD ~ r I I I I I ~ ~, . . . -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 DISTANCE (m) FIGURE D-2 Captiva Island beach nourishment monitoring cross-section. nourished profile is similar to the native profile at a seaward location. Review of the profiles shows that they experienced little change beyond the 4-m depth contour. It is common practice, however, to utilize uniform slopes for the design cross-section and to use this cross-section for the entire beach (see Figure D-31. When this is done, it can lead to an underestimate of the fill if the design cross- section intercepts the bottom above the depth of closure. If rock, clay, or peat outcrops (or, in the special case of the Arctic, perma- frost) exist, the shape of the native beach profile will be affected. In those cases, the nourished profile will take a different form than the native beach, and nour- ishment quantities cannot be estimated directly by shifting existing profiles sea- ward. Rock outcrops, offshore hard clay, and glacial till tend to flatten the native beach offshore profile and will perch the nourishment sand, requiring less sand to widen the beach a specific amount. Where rock exists, the best way to estimate design quantities is to use the equilibrium profile based on the grain size of the borrow materials and allow the profile to intercept the offshore areas above the depth of closure of the profile. Volumes of design fill can then be estimated by direct comparison between the nourished equilibrium and the native profiles. It is a customary objective for nourishment designs in the United States to establish a uniform beach width along a project's length. The existence of sea- walls can increase design beach requirements over estimates based on the sea- ward transfer of the profile. If a segment of the project shore has a seawall on or

OCR for page 189
APPENDIX D 4 2 1 o o IL 111 -c -4 197 Linearized Beach Slope - Approximation of Design NGVD Intercept Above Depth of a ; . . ~/ Closure Underestimates Design Fill - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 DISTANCE (m) FIGURE D-3 A linear design cross-section sometimes intercepts sandbars, providing an underestimate of design fill. near the water's edge, an amount of fill will be needed to bring the elevation of sand up to the proposed berm elevation in the area where seawalls exist. This can significantly increase the fill requirements where seawalls are in the water. Once these "seawall volumes" are established, nourishment fill estimates can be based on transfer of the entire profile. This is important because gross volume estimates are made in the preliminary phase of a project's design. The project's sponsors base their support and budgets on these early estimates. In the final design, template comparisons will include extra volumes to fill seawall areas. If the preliminary design volume is significantly deficient because the seawall volume was missing, the designer may encounter pressure to compromise the design in order to avoid project cost overruns. Figure D-4 shows the design cross-section of a nourishment project planned for Captiva Island, Florida. The shaded portion of the profile is that amount of sand needed to bring the beach level up to the proposed berm level before the beach berm is widened. Sand is needed along the entire profile both subaerially and below the water. Once this amount of fill is accounted for, fill volumes can be estimated by shifting the profile seaward using

OCR for page 189
198 - 4 _ 2 - O O UJ -2 -4 -6 BEACH NOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION Seawall _~: --- 08/13/88 APR. 1993 OCT. 1993 NGVD Extra Volume Needed for Beach Areas Where Seawalls are in the Water l L -50 0 N"W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 100 150 200 250 DISTANCE (m) FIGURE D-4 Captiva Island beach nourishment monitoring cross-section at R-98. Equation D-1. Because of the extra volume needed to build the berm in front of seawalls, the nourished shoreline will typically be shifted seaward in front of seawall areas as compared with nonseawall areas. This will cause alongshore gradients in littoral drift that need to be considered in advanced-fill designs. In USACE projects the target shoreline is designed to be fairly even. Any perturba- tion (such as a seaward-displaced shore to accommodate a seawall) will become an erosional hot spot. Surveyed profile variabilities are typically used to compute the quantities needed. The alternative to providing seawall volumes is to allow for narrower berms in front of seawall areas. The storm protective value of the seawall reduces the need for storm protection provided directly by the berm, enabling the use of a narrower width than would otherwise be necessary to achieve the same level of storm protection. The use of a narrower berm reduces or mitigates the littoral drift gradients associated with overly wide sections of nourished beaches in front of seawalls. The design beach is optimized by computing costs and benefits and determining the beach that would return the maximum net benefits (USAGE, l991b). Both storm damage reduction and recreational benefits are included in the analysis. Storm damage benefits are based on the reduction in storm damage over the life of the project with the design beach in place. Because of the existence of the design beach, the upland properties will suffer less damage during each storm

OCR for page 189
APPENDIX D 199 event. Damage estimates are based on inundation, wave attack, and erosion dam- ages (USAGE, 199 lb). Beach washout and profile response seaward of seawalls during a storm can be predicted using beach and dune recession models. Commonly used approaches include EDUNE by Kriebel (1986) and SBEACH (Larson and Kraus, 1990~. These models predict the evolution of the profile toward the equilibrium storm profile. Both models are driven by the deviation between the actual and equilib- rium wave energy dissipation per unit volume of water within the surf zone. The models assume that sand eroded from the upper beach deposits offshore, with no loss or gain of material to the profile. Storm surge estimates to be used in recession models and for calculating runup are based on methods described in Chapter 3 of the Shore Protection Manual and other engineering manuals published by the USACE (1984, 1986, 1989a). Many beach designers use published storm-surge frequencies developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Oce- anic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Storm hydrographs can be ob- tained from reports published by USACE, FEMA, and universities to generate storm recession probabilities that can be applied directly to damage functions and included in an economic model. Wave statistics can be obtained from wave gauge records, published summaries of observations, or wave hindcast estimates, such as the Wave Information Study (USAGE, 1990, 1993~. It has been recognized that storm surge frequencies are not necessarily the same as damage frequencies (Kriebel and Dean, 1985; USACE, 1986, 19884. Beach and dune recession, for example, is dependent on storm duration and wave heights, as well as on storm surge. To address this problem, the USACE (1988) developed a storm simulation model for a project in Seabright, New Jersey, which develops a family of storm events similar to the historical record. In this way a series of storms was developed and used in the storm recession model to establish a series of storm recession events that could be independently ranked. Similarly, wave runup and flooding can be ranked from the 500-year event to the 10-year event. A more representative damage frequency curve can therefore be used to compute storm damage and protection values. Natural and nourished beaches exhibit a variability in the level of storm recession measured along their length (USAGE, l991b). Some areas will show extensive washout, while others exhibit minor storm recession. Variability can be estimated by measuring poststorm beaches in the project area and establishing the levels of variability to be applied to the model. For example, if it is determined that beach recession varies by a factor of two, beach recession will vary from zero to twice the average that is represented by the computed value. As mentioned previously, the design beach is optimized by maximizing total net benefits, including storm protection and recreation. Recreational benefits are generated when a nourishment project rebuilds or maintains a public beach area. It is important for designers to recognize the basis for this economic benefit. If a

OCR for page 189
240 1.0 0.5 z o o us ~,~ 0.5 -1 .0 -1 .5 -2.0 _ 1 BEACH NOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION . ~ m "I Rock C: Existing Bottom 1 . =12 mail 1 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 DISTANCE (m) FIGURE D-20 Veneer beach fill cross-section, Key West, Florida. about 6,000 m3 of sand as a result of Hurricane Allen. The north end of the project continued to experience erosion, as evidenced by the growth of a spit there. As a result of this erosion, a terminal groin was constructed in November 1985 to stabilize the north end of the fill. Key West, Florida . A protective and recreational beach was constructed along the south shore of Key West by excavating a trench 2 m deep and 12 m wide in offshore relict coral and placing the rock material on the beach as an underlayer (USAGE, 1957, 1982a). A veneer of calcareous sand was placed on top of the rock underlayer. The offshore trench was excavated, and the excavated material was used as the base for the beach fill. (See the project cross-section depicted in Figure D-20.) The project was authorized in 1960 and involved the improvement of 2,000 m of beach (termed "smothered beach") along the south shore of Key West along South Roosevelt Boulevard. The project area is exposed to ocean waves but is somewhat protected by a coral reef some 8 km offshore. The mean tidal range is 0.4 m and the spring range is 0.5 m. Approximately 64,000 m3 of rock was excavated and covered by a 0.6-m-thick blanket of beach sand obtained offshore by dredging a nearby navigation channel. Approximately 103,000 m3 of blanket material (veneer) was used. The native beach material, when present, had a

OCR for page 189
APPENDIX D 241 median diameter ranging from 0.07 to 1.00 mm, with the finer materials coming from offshore. Veneer sand from two borrow area sources had sizes ranging from 0.24 to 1.00 mm. The bottom of the deepened offshore trench was also covered with a 0.6-m blanket of sand to an elevation of -0.6 m to serve as a bathing area. The slope of the trench on its seaward side is 1V (vertical) to 2H (horizontal). The elevation of the rock core beneath the berm is +0.6 m, while the sand blanket (veneerJ is 0.6 m thick and extends up to an elevation of +1.2 m. The width of the berm is 30 m, and the beach slopes seaward at 1V to 20H to the bottom of the trench. The beach in the project area is backed by a concrete seawall with a crest elevation of +1.8 m. The bottom elevation seaward of the trench is only about -0.3 m, so the constructed trench actually serves as a bathing basin. The project design anticipated a loss of about 15,000 m3/year of veneer sand, of which approximately 7,500 m3 was expected to be lost offshore to the trench while the other 7,500 m3 would be lost by alongshore transport from the project area. Project operation called for retrieving 23,000 m3 from the trench every 3 years and returning it to the beach. Every 6 years an additional 46,000 m3 was to be obtained from other sources, presumably offshore, to restore the beach. The offshore sands have not been used to date because the erosion occurred more slowly than expected. Grand Isle, Louisiana Grand Isle is a low-lying Mississippi River delta margin barrier island ap- proximately 12 km long, located 95 km south of New Orleans in Jefferson Parish (Combe and Soileau, 1987; Combe, 19933. Following Hurricanes Flossy (1956), Carla (1961), Betsy (1965), and Carmen (1974', all of which damaged Grand Isle, Congress authorized a beach nourishment and hurricane protection project. In 1983-1984 the USACE reconstructed the beach and dune using 1.8 million m3 of sand dredged from two offshore borrow areas. The material dredged from the offshore borrow areas was stockpiled between the shore and a shore-parallel dike and allowed to drain. The fill contained significant amounts of silts and clays; consequently, the stockpiled material was reworked using bulldozers and dra- glines to speed up drying so that the material could be reshaped into the design cross-section. Winter storms during 1984-1985 resulted in the loss of 175,000 m3 and led to the development of renourishment plans in 1985. However, Hurricane Danny struck in August 1985, Hurricane Elena in September 1985, and Hurri- cane Juan in October 1985, eroding 50,000, 30,000, and 280,000 m3 of sand, respectively, from Grand Isle. Between January and July 1986, an additional 50,000 m3 was lost. Hurricane Bonnie struck in September 1986 but caused little damage to the project; however, storms between July 1986 and February 1987 eroded an additional 95,000 m3. Renourishment was delayed when a storm struck in March 1987. Bids had been received several days earlier for Phase I of the renourishment but were rejected due to the altered site conditions caused by the

OCR for page 189
242 6 1 r - z 4 _ o 2 _ us J O BEACH NOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION am +3.6mto4.1m NGVD +0 9 m m OCR for page 189
APPENDIX D 243 REFERENCES Allison, M. C., and C. B. Pollock. 1993. Nearshore berms: an evaluation of prototype designs. Pp. 2838-2950 in Proceedings of Coastal Zone '93. New York: American Society of Civil Engi neers. Andrassy, C. J. 1991. Monitoring of a nearshore disposal mound at Silver Strand State Park. Pp. 1970-1984 in Proceedings of Coastal Sediments '91. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Bakker, W. T. 1968. The dynamics of a coast with a groin system. Pp. 492-517 in Prc~ceedin,,s of 11th International Conference on Coastal Engineering. New York: American Society of Civil . Englneers. Balsillie, J. H., and R. O. Bruno. 1972. Groins: An Annotated Bibliography. Miscellaneous Paper No. 1-72. Washington, D.C.: Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engi neers. Beachler, K. E. 1993. The positive impacts to neighboring beaches from the Delray Beach nourish- ment program. Pp. 223-238 in Proceedings of the 6th Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology. Tallahassee: Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association. Bender, T. 1992. Personal communication, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, with R. L. Wiegel. Birkemeier, W. A. 1985. Field data on seaward limit of profile change. Journal of the Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering 3(3):598-602. Bowen, A. J., and D. L. Inman. 1966. Budget of Littoral Sands in the Vicinity of Point Arguello. California, Technical Memorandum No. 19. Washington, D.C.: Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Bruun, P. 1962. Sea level rise as a cause of erosion. Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division 88:117-133. Bruun, P. 1986. Sediment balances (land and sea) with special reference to Islandic South Coast from Torlakshofen to Dyrholarey. River nourishment of shores practical analogies on artifi- cial nourishment. Coastal Engineering 10: 193 -210. Bruun, P. 1988. Profile nourishment: its background and economic advantages. Journal of Coastal Research 4:219-228. Bruun, P. 1990. Beach nourishment- improved economy through better profiling and backpassing from offshore sources. Journal of Coastal Research 6:265-277. Burke, C. E., and G. L. Williams. 1992. Nearshore Berms Wave Breaking and Beach Building. In: Proceedings of Ports '92 Conference. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Campbell, T. J., R. G. Dean, A. J. Mehta, and H. Wang, 1990. Short Course on Principles and Applications of Beach Nourishment. Organized by the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association and Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida. Chasten, M. A., J. W. McCormick, and J. D. Rosati. 1994. Using detached breakwaters for shoreline and wetlands stabilization. Shore and Beach 62(2):17-22. Coastal Planning and Engineering. 1992a. General Design Memorandum Addendum for Third Peri- odic Nourishment at Delray Beach with Environmental Assessment. Boca Raton, Fla.: Coastal Planning and Engineering. Coastal Planning and Engineering. 1992b. Boca Raton Beach Restoration Project: Three Year Post- Construction, Vol. I. Environmental monitoring report prepared for the City of Boca Raton, Florida. Boca Raton, Fla.: Coastal Planning and Engineering. Cohrssen, J. J., and V. T. Covello. 1989. Risk Analysis: A Guide to Principles and Methods for Analyzing Health and Environmental Risks. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Council on Environmen- tal Quality. Combe, A. J., III, 1993. Grand Isle, Louisiana, Hurricane Wave Damage Prevention and Beach

OCR for page 189
244 BEA CH NO URISHMENT AND PR O TECTI ON Erosion Control, Louisiana Shoreline Erosion: Emphasis on Grand Island. The Louisiana Governor's Office of Coastal Activities and the U.S. Minerals Management Service. Combe, A. J., and C. W. Soileau. 1987. Behavior of man-made beach and dune, Grand Isle, Louisi- ana. Pp. 1232-1242 in Proceedings of Coastal Sediments '87, Specialty Conference on Ad- vances in Understanding of Coastal Sediment Processes. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Dally, W. R., and J. Pope. 1986. Detached Breakwaters for Shore Protection. U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Technical Report CERC-86-1. Vicksburg, Miss.: Coastal Engi- neering Research Center, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Davis, R. A., Jr. 1991. Performance of a beach nourishment project based on detailed multi-year monitoring: Redington Shores, Florida. Pp. 2101-2115 in Coastal Sediments '91, Vol. 2. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Davison, A. T., R. J. Nicholls, and S. P. Leatherman. 1992. Beach nourishment as a coastal manage- ment tool: an annotated bibliography on developments associated with the artificial nourish- ment of beaches. Journal of Coastal Research 8(4):984-1022. Dean, R. G. 1974. Compatibility of borrow material for beach fills. Pp. 1319-1333 in Proceedings of the 14th Coastal Engineering Conference, New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Dean, R. G. 1983. Principles of beach nourishment. Pp. 217-232 in CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes and Erosion. Boca Raton, Fla..: CRC Press. Dean, R. G. 1987. Coastal sediment processes: toward engineering solutions. Pp. 1-24 in Proceed- ings of Coastal Sediments '87, Specialty Conference on Advances in Understanding of Coastal Sediment Processes, Vol. 1. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Dean, R. G. 1989. Pp. 313-336 in Measuring Longshore Transport with Traps in Nearshore Sediment Transport. R.J. Seymour, ea., New York: Plenum Press. Dean, R. G. 1991. Equilibrium beach profiles: characteristics and applications. Journal of Coastal Research 7(1):53-84. Dean, R. G., and J. Grant. 1989. Development of Methodology for Thirty-Year Shoreline Projection in the Vicinity of Beach Nourishment Projects. Prepared for Division of Beaches and Shore, Florida Department of Natural Resources, by the Florida Coastal and Oceanographic Engineer- ing Department, University of Florida, Gainesville. Dean, R. G., and C-H. Yoo. 1992. Beach nourishment performance predictions. Journal of Water- way, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering 118(6):567-586. del Valle, R., R. Medina, and M. A. Losada. 1993. Dependence of coefficient K on grain size. Technical Note, Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering 119(5):567-574. Dette, H., A. Fuhrboter, and A. J. Raudkiv. 1994. Interdependence of beach fill volumes and repeti- tion intervals. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering 120(6):580-593. Dixon, K. L., and O. H. Pilkey. 1989. Beach replenishment on the U.S. coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Pp. 2007-2020 in Proceedings of Coastal Zone '89 Conference. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Dixon, K.L.. and O. H. Pilkey. 1991. Summary of beach replenishment on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico shoreline. Journal of Coastal Research 7:249-256. Dornhelm, R. B. 1995. The Coney Island public beach and boardwalk improvement of 1923. Shore and Beach 63(1):7-11. Edelman, T. 1972. Dune erosion during storm conditions. Pp. 1305-1311 in Proceedings of the 13th Coastal Engineering Conference. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Egense, A. K., and C. J. Sonu. 1987. Assessment of Beach Nourishment Methodologies. Pp. 4421- 4433 in Coastal Zone '87. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Farley, P. P. 1923. Coney Island public beach and boardwalk improvements. Paper 136. The Munici- pal Engineers Journal 9(4). Ferrante, A., L. Franco, and S. Boer 1992. Modelling and monitoring of a perched beach at Lido di

OCR for page 189
APPENDIX D 245 Ostia (Rome). Pp. 3305-3318 in Proceedings of the 23rd International Coastal Engineering Conference, Vol. 3. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Fiering, M. B., and B. B. Jackson. 1971. Synthetic Streamflows. Water Resources Monograph 1. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. Galster, R. W.? and M. L. Schwartz. 1990. Ediz Hook a case history of coastal erosion and rehabili- tation. Artificial Beaches, Special Issue, Journal of Coastal Research 6:103-113. Gordon, A. D. 1992. The restoration of Bate Bay, Australia-plugging the sink. Pp. 3319-3330 in Proceedings of the 23rd International Coastal Engineering Conference, Vol. 3. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Gordon, A. D. 1994. Letter to R. L. Wiegel dated 28 March 1994, 11 pp. Hall, J. V., Jr., 1952. Artificially constructed and nourished beaches in coastal engineering. Pp. 119- 133 in Proceedings of the 3rd Coastal Engineering Conference. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Hallermeier, R. J. 1981a. A profile donation for seasonal sand beaches from wave climate. Coastal Engineering 4:253-277. Hallermeier, R. J. 1981b. Seaward Limit of Significant Sand Transport by Waves: An Annual Zona- tion for Seasonal Profiles. Coastal Engineering Technical Aid No. CETA 81-2. Fort Belvoir, Va..: Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hands, E. B. 1991. Unprecedented migration of a submerged mound off the Alabama coast. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Western Dredging Association and 24th Annual Texas A & M Dredging Seminar, Las Vegas. Hands, E. B., and M. C. Allison. 1991. Mound migration in deeper water and methods of categoriz- ing active and stable berms. Pp. 1985-1999 in Proceedings of Coastal Sediments '91. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Hanson, M. E., and M. R. Byrnes. 1991. Development of optimum beach fill design cross-section. Pp. 2067-2080 in Proceedings of Coastal Sediments '91, New York: American Society of Civil . engineers. Hanson, H., and N. C. Kraus. 1989. GENESIS: Generalized Model for Simulating Shoreline Change. Report 1: Reference Manual and Users Guide. Technical Report No. CERC-89-19. Vicksburg, Miss.: Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hanson, H., and N. C. Kraus. 1991. Numerical simulation of shoreline change at Lorain, Ohio. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering 117:1-18. Hanson, M. E., and W. J. Lillycrop. 1988. Evaluation of closure depth and its role in estimating beach fill volumes. Pp. 107-114 in Proceedings of Beach Preservation Technology '88. Talla- hassee: Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association. Healy, T., C. Harms, and W. de Lange. 1991. Dredge spoil and inner shelf investigations off Tauranga Harbour, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. Pp. 2037-2051 in Proceedings of Coastal Sediment '91. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Herron, W. J., and R. L. Harris. 1966. Littoral bypassing and beach restoration in the vicinity of Port Hueneme, California. Pp. 651-675 in Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Coastal Engineer- ing. Vol 1. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Hirst, E. H. W., and D. Foster. 1987. The design and construction of Prince Street seawall at Cronulla. Pp. 201-207 in Proceedings of the 8th Australian Conference on Coastal and Ocean Engineer- ing. Launceston, Australia: Institution of Civil Engineers. Houston, J. R. 1991a. Beachfill performance. Shore and Beach 59:15-24. Houston, J. R. l991b. Rejoinder to: Discussion of Pilkey and Leonard (1990) [Journal of Coastal Research, 6, 1023 et. seq.] and Houston (1990) [Journal of Coastal Research, 6, 1047 et. seq.]. Journal of Coastal Research 7:565-577. James, W. R. 1974. Beach fill stability and borrow material texture. Pp. 1334-1349 in Proceedings of

OCR for page 189
246 BEACH NOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION the 14th International Conference on Coastal Engineering. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. James, W. R. 1975. Techniques in Evaluating Suitability of Borrow Material for Beach Nourish- ment. Technical Manual No. 60. Ft. Belvoir, Va.: Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Jarrett, J. T., 1987. Beach Nourishment A Corps Perspective. Paper presented at the Coastal Engi- neering Research Board's 48th Meeting, Savannah, Georgia. Vicksburg, Miss.: Coastal Engi- neering Research Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Jensen, R. E. 1983. Atlantic Coast Hindcast, Shallow Water Significant Wave Information. Wave Information Study Report No. 9. Vicksburg, Miss.: U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Kamphuis, J. W., 1990. Littoral sediment transport rate. Pp. 2402-2415 in Proceedings of 22nd Coastal Engineering Conference. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Kamphuis, J. W. 1991. Alongshore sediment transport rate. Journal of Waterways, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering 117(6):624-640. Kamphuis, J. W., M. H. Davies, R. B. Nairn, and O. J. Sayao. 1986. Calculation of littoral sand transport rate. Coastal Engineering 10: 1 -21. Kieslich, J. M., and D. H. Brunt III. 1989. Assessment of a two-layer beach fill at Corpus Christi Beach, Texas. Pp. 3975-3984 in Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, Coastal Zone '89. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Komar, P. D. 1973. Computer models of delta growth due to sediment input from rivers and longshore transport. Geological Society of America Bulletin 84:2217-2226. Komar, P. D. 1976. Beach Processes and Sedimentation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Komar, P. D. 1977. Modeling of sand transport on beaches and the resulting shoreline evolution. Pp. 499-513 in E. Goldberg et al., eds., The Sea, Vo1. 6. Komar, P. D., 1988. Environmental controls on littoral sand transport. Pp. 1238-1252 in Proceedings of 21st Coastal Engineering Conference, Vol. 2. New York: American Society of Civil Engi neers. Kraus, N. C., H. Hanson, and S. Blomgren. 1994. Modern functional design of groins. In: Proceed- ings of the 24th Coastal Engineering Conference. New York: American Society of Civil Engi neers. Kriebel, D. 1982. Beach and Dune Response to Hurricanes. M.S. thesis, University of Delaware, Newark. Kriebel, D. L. 1986. Verification study of a dune erosion model. Shore and Beach 54(3). Kriebel, D. L. 1990. Advances in numerical modeling of dune erosion. Pp. 2304-2317 in Proceed- ings, 23rd International Conference on Coastal Engineering. Kriebel, D. L., and R. G. Dean. 1985. Numerical simulation of time dependent beach and dune erosion. Coastal Engineering 9:221-245. Kriebel, D. L., and R. G. Dean. 1993. Convolution method for time-dependent beach profile re- sponse. Journal of Waterways, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering 119(2):204-227. Kriebel, D. L., N. C. Kraus, and M. Larson. 1991. Engineering methods for predicting beach profile response. Pp. 557-571 in Proceedings of Coastal Sediments '91. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Krumbein, W. C. 1957. A Method for Specification of Sand for Beach Fills. Technical Memorandum No. 102. Washington, D.C.: Beach Erosion Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Krumbein, W. C., and W. R. James. 1965. A Lognormal Size Distribution Model for Estimating Stability of Beach Fill Material. Technical Memorandum No. 16. Washington, D.C.: Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Larson, M. 1988. Quantification of Beach Profile Change. Report No. 1008. Department of Water Resources and Engineering, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden. Larson, M., and N. C. Kraus. 1989a. Prediction of beach fill response to varying waves and water

OCR for page 189
APPENDIX D 247 level. Pp. 607-621 in Proceedings of Coastal Zone '89. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Larson, M., and N. C. Kraus. 1989b. SBEACH: Numerical Model for Simulating Storm-Induced Beach Change. Report 1: Empirical Foundation and Model Development. Technical Report No. CERC-89-9. Vicksburg, Miss.: Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Water- ways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Larson, M., and N. C. Kraus. 1990. SBEACH: Numerical Model for Simulating Storm-Induced Beach Change. Report 2: Numerical Foundation and Model Tests. Technical Report CERC-89- 9. Vicksburg, Mississippi: Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Waterways Ex- periment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Larson, M., and N. C. Kraus. 1991. Mathematical modeling of the fate of beach fill. Coastal Engi- neering 16:83-114. Larson, M., and N. C. Kraus. 1994. Temporal and spatial scales of beach profile change, Duck, North Carolina. Marine Geology 117 :75 -94. Lee, G-H.. and W. A. Birkemeier. 1993. Beach and nearshore survey data: 1985-1991 CERC field research facility. Technical Report CERC-93-3. Vicksburg, Miss.: Coastal Engineering Re- search Center, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Leonard, L. A. 1988. An Analysis of Replenished Beach Design on the U.S. East Coast. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Department of Geology, Duke University, Durham, N.C. Leonard, L. A., T. D. Clayton, K. L. Dixon, and O. H. Pilkey. 1989. U.S. Beach replenishment experience: a comparison of beach replenishment on the U.S. Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Pp. 1994-2006 in Proceedings of Coastal Zone '89. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Leonard, L. A., K. L. Dixon, and O. H. Pilkey. 1990a. A comparison of beach replenishment on the U.S. Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts. Journal of Coastal Research, 6(Special Issue):127-140. Leonard, L. A., T. D. Clayton, and O. H. Pilkey, l990b. An analysis of replenished beach design parameters on U.S. East Coast Barrier Islands. Journal of Coastal Research 6(Special Issue):15- 36. Louisse, C. J., and F. van der Meulen. 1991. Future coastal defense in the Netherlands: strategies for protection and sustainable development. Journal of Coastal Research 7:1027-1041. McLellan, T. N. 1990. Nearshore mound construction using dredged material. Journal of Coastal Research 7(Special Issue):99-107. McLellan, T. N., and N. C. Kraus. 1991. Design guidance for nearshore berm construction. Pp. 2000- 2011 in Proceedings of Coastal Sediments '91. New York: American Society of Civil Engi- neers. Mikkelsin, S. C. 1977. The effects of groins on beach erosion and channel stability at the Limfjord Barriers, Denmark. Pp. 17-32 in Proceedings of Coastal Sediments '77. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Nersesian, G. K., N. C. Kraus, and F. C. Carson. 1992. Functioning of groins at Westhampton Beach, Long Island, New York. Pp. 3357-3370 in Proceedings of the 23rd International Coastal Engi- neering Conference, Vol. 3. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. NRC. 1987. Responding to Changes in Sea Level: Engineering Implications. Marine Board, Com- mission on Engineering and Technical Systems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. 1989. Measuring and Understanding Coastal Processes for Engineering Purposes. Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems. Washington, D.C.: National Acad- emy Press. NRC. 1990. Managing Coastal Erosion. Water Science and Technology Board and Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. 1992. Coastal Meteorology: A Review of the State of the Science. Board on Atmospheric

OCR for page 189
248 BEACH NOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION Sciences and Climate, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. Washing- ton, D.C.: National Academy Press. O'Brien, M. P., 1988. Letter to Professor Ben C. Gerwick, Jr., University of California, Berkeley (4 pp. plus four aerial photos concerning how a groin field functions, making the need for a sand fill part of the project). Pelnard-Considere, R. 1956. Essai de Theorie de l,Evolution des Formes de Rivate en Plages de Sable et de Galets. 4th Journees de l'Hydraulique, Les Energies de la Mar, Question III, Rap- port No. 1 (in French). Vicksburg, Miss.: U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Perlin, M., and R. G. Dean.1979. Prediction of beach planforms with littoral controls. Pp. 1818-1838 in Proceedings of the 16th Coastal Engineering Conference. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Pilkey, O. H., and T. D. Clayton. 1987. Beach replenishment: the national solution? Pp. 1408-1419 in Proceedings of Coastal Zone '87. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Pilkey, O. H., and T. D. Clayton. 1988. Summary of beach replenishment experience on the U.S. coast barrier islands. Journal of Coastal Research 5:147-159. Pope, J., and D. D. Rowen. 1983. Breakwaters for beach protection at Lorain, Ohio. Pp. 752-768 in Proceedings of Coastal Structures '83. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Price, R. C. 1966. Statement of the California Department of Water Resources. Shore and Beach 34(1):22-32. Price, W. A., K. W. Tomlinson, and D. H. Willis. 1973. Predicting changes in the plan shape <'f beaches. Pp. 1321-1329 in Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Coastal Engineering. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Richardson, T. W. 1991. Sand bypassing. Pp. 809-828 in J. B. Herbich, (ed). Handbook of Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 2. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co. Rosati, J. D. 1990. Functional Design of Breakwaters for Shore Protection; Empirical Methods. Technical Report CERC-90-15. Vicksburg, Miss.: Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Waterway Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Rouch, F., and B. Bellessort. 1990. Man-made beaches more than 20 years on. Pp. 2394-2401 in Proceedings of the 22nd Coastal Engineering Conference, Vol. 3. New York: American Soci- ety of Civil Engineers. Shih, S. M., and P. D. Komar. 1994. Sediments, beach morphology and sea cliff erosion within an Oregon coast littoral cell. Journal of Coastal Research 10:144-157. Silvester, R., and J. R. C. Hsu. 1993. Coastal Stabilization: Innovative Concepts. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Strine, M. A., Jr., and R. A. Dalrymple. 1991. A Probabilistic Prediction of Beach Nourishment Lifetimes. Research Report No. CACR-91-01. Newark: Center for Applied Coastal Research, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Delaware. Strock, A. V., and Associates. 1981. Phase I General Design Memorandum, Segment II of Broward County, Hillsboro Inlet to Port Everglades, Beach Erosion Control and Storm Protection Study, November. Strock, A. V., and Associates. 1984. General Design Memorandum, Second Periodic Nourishment Project. Delray Beach, Florida, January. Swart, D. H. 1974. Offshore Sediment Transport and Equilibrium Beach Profiles. Publication No. 131. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft Hydraulics Laboratory. Terry, J. B.* and E. Howard. 1986. Redington shores beach access breakwater. Shore and Beach 54(4):7-9. Tomasicchio, U. 1994. Personal communication with R. L. Wiegel. Tourman, L. 1968. The creation of an artificial beach in Larvatto Bay-Monte Carlo, principality of Monaco. Pp. 558-569 in Proceedings of 11th Conference on Coastal Engineering. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

OCR for page 189
APPENDIX D 249 USACE. 1957. Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study of Key West, Florida. Jackson- ville, Fla.: Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USACE. 1982a. Beach Fill Transitions. Coastal Engineering Technical Note CETN-II-6. Fort Belvoir, Va.: Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USACE. 1982b. Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment on Shore and Hurricane Wave Protection, Wrightsville Beach, N. C.: Wilmington, North Carolina: Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USACE. 1982c. Final Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for Beach Erosion Control, Monroe County, Florida. Jacksonville, Fla.: Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USACE. 1984. Shore Protection Manual, 4th ed. two volumes. Coastal Engineering Research Cen- ter, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Publication No. 008-002-00218-9. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. USACE. 1985. Sediment Size and Fall Velocity Effects on Longshore Sediment Transport. Coastal Engineering Technical Note CETN-II-11. Vicksburg, Miss.: Coastal Engineering Research Cen- ter, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USACE. 1986. Storm Surge Analysis. Engineer Manual No. EM 1110-2-1412. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. USACE. 1988. Coastal Processes at Sea Bright to Ocean Township, New Jersey. Miscellaneous Paper CERC-88-12. Vicksburg, Miss.: Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Wa- terways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USACE. 1989a. Water Level and Wave Heights for Coastal Engineering Design. Engineering Manual 1110-2-1414. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. USACE. 1989b. Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, Renourishment Report and Supplement to the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. Wilmington, N.C.: Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USACE. 1990. Comparison of Atlantic Coast Wave Information Study Hindcasts with Field Re- search Facility Gauge Measurements. Technical Report CERC-90-17, Final Report. Vicksburg, Miss.: Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USACE. 1991a. Sand Bypassing System, Engineering and Design Manual. Engineering and Design Manual No. EM 1110-2-1616. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USACE. l991b. National Economic Development Procedures Manual Coastal Storm Damage and Erosion. Institute of Water Resources Report No. 91-R-6. Fort Belvoir, Va.: Institute for Water Resources, Water Resources Support Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USACE. l991c. Manatee County, Florida, Shore Protection Project, General Design Memorandum, with Environmental Impact Statement. Revised September 1991. Jacksonville, Fla.: Jackson- ville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USACE. 1992a. Shoreline Response to Redington Shores, Florida, Breakwater. Coastal Engineering Technical Note CETB III-48. Vicksburg, Miss.: Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USACE. 1992b. Monitoring Coastal Projects. Engineer Regulation ER 1110-2-8151. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. USACE. 1993. Reliability Assessment of Existing Levees for Benefit Determination, Engineering and Design, Engineer Technical Letter 1110-2-328. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of ~ . engineers. University of Florida. 1959. Bakers Haulover Inlet Tidal Model Study on Beach Erosion and Navi- gation, Industrial Experiment Station. Vallianos, L. 1974. Beach fill planning Brunswick County. North Carolina. Pp. 1350-1369 in Proceedings of 14th Coastal Engineering Conference. New York: American Society of Civil ~ . engineers.

OCR for page 189
250 BEACH NOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION Vera-Cruz, D. 1972. Artificial nourishment of Copacabana Beach. Pp. 1451-1463 in Proceedings of the 13th Coastal Engineering Conference. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Verhagen, H. J. 1990. Coastal protection and dune management in the Netherlands. Journal of Coastal Research 6: 169-179. von Oesen, H. M. 1973. A beach restoration project: Bal Harbour Village, Florida. Shore and Beach 41(2):3-4. Walker, J. R., D. Clark, and J. Pope 1980. A detached breakwater system for beach protection. Pp. 1968-1987 in Proceedings of 17th Coastal Engineering Conference, Vol. II. New York: Ameri- can Society of Civil Engineers. Walton, T. L. 1985. Sediment Size and Fall Velocity Effects on Lon,shore Sediment Transport. CETN II-11. Vicksburg, Miss.: Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Watson, I., and C. W. Finkl. 1990. State of the art in storm surge protection: The Netherlands delta project. Journal of Coastal Research 6:739-764. Weggel, J. R., and R. M. Sorensen. 1991. Performance of the 1986 Atlantic City, New Jersey, beach nourishment project. Shore and Beach 59(3):29-36. Weggel, J. R., S. L. Douglass, and J. E. Tunnell. 1988. Sand-bypassing simulation using synthetic longshore transport data. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering 114(2): 146-160. Wiegel, R. L. 1987. Trends in coastal erosion management. Shore and Beach 55(1):3-11. Wiegel, R. L. 1988. Keynote address: some notes on beach nourishment, problems and advancement in beach nourishment. Pp. 1-18 in Proceedings of Beach Preservation Technology '88. Talla- hassee: Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association. Wiegel, R. L. 1991. The coast-line, III, protection of Galveston, Texas, from overflow by gulf storms: grade-raising, seawall and embankment, American Shore and Beach Preservation As- sociation Coastal Project Award for 1990. Shore and Beach 59(1):4-10. Wiegel, R. L. 1992. Dade County, Florida, beach nourishment and hurricane surge protection. Shore and Beach 60(4):2-28. Wiegel, R. L. 1993. Dana Point Harbor, California. Shore and Beach 61(3):37-55. Williams, S. J., and E. P. Meisburger. 1987. Sand sources for the transgressive barrier coast of Long Island, N.Y.: evidence for landward transport of shelf sediments. Pp. 1517-1532 in N. C. Kraus, ea., Proceedings of Coastal Sediments '87. New York: American Society of Civil Engi neers. Wise, R. A., and N. C. Kraus. 1993. Simulation of beach fill response to multiple storms, Ocean City, Maryland. Pp. 133-147 in Proceedings of Coastal Zone '93. New York: American Soci- ety of Civil Engineers. Zwamborn, J. A., G. A. W. Fromme, and J. B. Fitzpatrick. 1970. Underwater mound for protection of Durban's beaches. Pp. 975-994 in Proceedings of the 12th Coastal Engineering Conference. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.