|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. 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 190
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 191
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 192
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 193
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 194
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 195
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 196
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 197
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 198
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 199
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 240
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 241
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 242
OCR for page 244
OCR for page 245
OCR for page 246
OCR for page 247
OCR for page 248
OCR for page 249
OCR for page 250
Representative terms from entire chapter:
coastal engineering
242
6 1 r
-
z 4 _
o
2 _
us
J
O
BEACH NOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION
am
+3.6mto4.1m NGVD
+0 9 m m
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
