Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 40

PRESIDENT: Mayor Harry Simmons Caswell Beach, North Carolina VICE PRESIDENTS: Thomas Campbell, P.E.

. Boca Raton, Florida Anthony P. Pratt Dover, Delaware Gerard Stoddard New York, New York Supervisor Tom Wilson Santa Ana, California SECRETARY: Russell Boudreau Long Beach, California TREASURER: Brad Pickel Santa Rosa Beach, Florida DIRECTORS: Steve Aceti, J.D. Encinitas, California David Basco, Ph.D. Norfolk, Virginia Noreen Bodman Sandy Hook, New Jersey Michael Bruno,Ph.D. Hoboken, New Jersey * David Cannon Long Beach, California Ralph Cantral Washington, D.C. Michael Chrzastowski, Ph.D. Champaign, Illinois George W. Domurat Pacica, California Scott Douglass, Ph.D. Mobile, Alabama Lesley Ewing San Francisco, California Deborah Flack Tallahassee, Florida Douglas Gaffney Cherry Hill, New Jersey Steve Higgins Fort Lauderdale, Florida James R. Houston, Ph.D. Vicksburg, Mississippi Tim Kana, Ph.D. Columbia, South Carolina Nicholas C. Kraus, Ph.D. Vicksburg, Mississippi Council member Ann J. Kulchin Carlsbad, California John Lee Dickinson, Texas James Leutze, Ph.D., Wilmington, North Carolina D.T. Minich, Fort Meyers, Florida * Jerry Mohn Galveston, Texas Mayor Robert E. Pinkerton, Jr. South Padre Island, Texas Joan Pope Alexandria, Virginia Jim Rausch Washington, D.C. Greg Reid Oakland, California Thomas W. Richardson Vicksburg, Mississippi Phillip Roehrs Virginia Beach, Virginia Gregory Rudolph Emerald Isle, North Carolina * Charles Shabica, Ph.D. Chicago, Illinois Supervisor Pam Slater-Price San Diego, California Kim Sterrett Sacramento, California Mayor Gary Vegliante West Hampton Dunes, New York Michael P. Walther, P.E., Vero Beach, Florida Howard Marlowe, Legislative Coordinator Washington, D.C. Kate & Ken Gooderham, Exec. Directors Fort Myers, Florida * By virtue of being a chapter president ADVISORY BOARD: Robert Dean, Ph.D., Chuck Hamilton, Syed Khalil, Stephen P. Leatherman, Ph.D., Orville Magoon, Ram Mohan, Ph.D., P.E., Joe Moseley, Ph.D., Patricia Newsom, William Stronge, Ph.D. DIRECTORS EMERITI: Charles L. Bretschneider, Paul Dennison, Thorndike Saville, Jr., George M. Watts, Henry M. von Oesen, Robert L. Wiegel EDITOR: Reinhard E. Flick, Ph.D. La Jolla, California E-mail: editor@asbpa.org EDITORIAL ASSISTANT: Amy Hsiao E-mail to: editorial.assistant@asbpa.org ASSOCIATE EDITORS: Thomas J. Campbell, Boca Raton, FL Michael J. Chrzastowski, Champaign, IL Lesley C. Ewing, San Francisco, CA Nicholas C. Kraus, Ph.D., Vicksburg, MS Holley Messing Editorial Assistant EDITORIAL OFFICE: Reinhard E. Flick, Ph.D. c/o Scripps Institution of Oceanography 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla, CA 92093-0209 E-mail manuscripts to: editorial.assistant@asbpa.org EXECUTIVE OFFICE: Address all membership dues, remittances, changes of address, and advertising correspondence to: Ken and Kate Gooderham, publishers ASBPA, 5460 Beaujolais Lane Fort Myers, Florida 33919-2704 Phone: (239) 489-2616, Fax: (239) 489-9917 E-mail: exdir@asbpa.org PUBLISHING COORDINATION: Yancy Young, 2596 Spyglass Drive, Suite A, Shell Beach, CA 93449-1764 Phone: (805) 773-0077, E-mail: publisher@asbpa.org

Volume 74 Number 2 Spring 2006

Cover: Wreck of HMCS Protector, built in 1884, sunk in 1943, and now protecting the shore against erosion on Heron Island on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Photo by H. Chanson, 27 December 2001.



SHORE & BEACH is published four times per year by the American Shore & Beach Preservation Association, ASBPA, 5460 Beaujolais Lane, Fort Myers, Florida 33919-2704. The views expressed and the data presented by the contributors are not to be construed as having the endorsement of the Association, unless specically stated. SHORE & BEACH is a refereed journal.


Shore & Beach Website: http://www.asbpa.org

Claims for missing issues should be made to the Membership Ofce. Such claims will be honored up to six months after publication.

American Shore & Beach Preservation Association is a tax-exempt non-prot organization under a tax exemption letter from the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, September 14, 1950. Articles appearing in this journal are indexed in ENVIRONMENTAL PERIODICALS BIBLIOGRAPHY. - ISSN 0037-4237 ASBPA makes no representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, truth, quality, suitability or reliability of information or products provided by any third-party sponsors, exhibitors, authors or presenters associated with any ASBPA-afliated event, publication or Web site.

From the Editors Desk


Reinhard E. Flick

In this issue we present an assortment of papers covering several of the disciplines important to coastal activities. These include beach economics (Pendleton and Kildow), wave erosion (McGehee), sand management engineering (Chase), the technical history of beach nourishment (Finkl, Benedet, and Campbell), construction monitoring (Makowski, Fisher, and We also welcome your letters and opin- Kruempel), and the scenic beauty and culion pieces. Surely, there is something nag- tural signicance of it all (Chanson). ging you about coastal management, or a controversial technical point in one of the Thank you all for your continued interpapers, or even some disagreement with est in, support of, and contributions to Even more than money and volunteer an editorial point that you just cant resist Shore & Beach. Please keep those papers time Shore & Beach needs papers - lots commenting on! coming! and lots of paper submissions. We thank

n interesting thing is happening on the way to producing Shore & Beach: we actually have a backlog of papers! This is welcome news for a publication that has often had a paper shortage (look at issues of 12 or 15 years ago and notice the bigger font size), including in 2004 and 2005, after I took over as editor from Nick Kraus. It may result in a little longer wait to see your paper in print. But it will also mean that we can be more selective, and publish only better quality papers.

those of you who have encouraged contributions and assembled issues, especially Tom Campbell and Lindino Benedet, and Lesley Ewing and Joan Pope, recent-volume guest editors. We especially thank those of you who have contributed articles! Please continue to consider Shore & Beach for your technical publishing.

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 2

Observation and Implications of Long Waves in St. Joseph Bay, Florida


David D. McGehee, P.E., M.Oc.E.

Emerald Ocean Engineering LLC Pensacola Beach, FL bigwave@emeraldoe.com

A section of Floridas St. Joseph Peninsula is experiencing signicant erosion. If it breaches, a new inlet into St. Joseph Bay will result. Water levels were measured inside, near the entrance, and outside of the bay to understand the hydrodynamic processes governing the bay system and to calibrate and verify a numerical hydrodynamic circulation model for predicting impacts. Long waves were observed during a frontal passage at sub-tidal frequencies with amplitudes that exceeded the mean tidal range. The phase lag of one component between the outside and the inside of the bay at the


potential breach site was near 180 degrees, resulting in a larger hydraulic head than tidal analysis alone would predict. Potential impacts include rapid growth of the inlet, beyond the equilibrium size, during certain meteorological events (including hurricanes), and introduction of water with much higher sediment loads discharged from adjacent Apalachicola Bay into St. Joseph Bay. ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Erosion, breach, inlet, long waves, seiche, phase lag, scour suspended sediment Paper Received: 20 June 2005, Revised and Accepted: 6 March 2006. Figure 3. Map showing project gage sites (xs) and area tide and met stations (os).

t. Joseph Bay, FL, is an embayment located on the northern shore of the Gulf of Mexico situated between the mainland and St. Joseph Peninsula, a curving sand spit with the prominent Cape San Blas located at its southern corner (Figure 1). The bay entrance opens to the northwest and is sheltered from direct offshore wave energy. Tides in the Gulf of Mexico to the east of Cape San Blas are mixed, while those west of the Cape are Figure 1. Map of region and project study predominantly diurnal (FDEP 2000). The area. tide in St. Joseph Bay is diurnal with a In recent history the peninsula has expemean range of about 1.5 ft. rienced signicant long term and episodic erosion along its western side the highest historical shoreline erosion rate in the state (Coastal America 1996). State Road 30E runs along St. Joseph Peninsula and provides routine access and the only evacuation route for the residents of the peninsula and visitors to the St. Joseph Peninsula State Park. A segment of roadway near a site called Stump Hole is particularly threatened, and is currently protected by a rock revetment (Figure 2). One of the options being considered by the Florida Department of Transportation is to allow the breach to occur naturally and replace that section of roadway with a bridge behind the resulting inlet.


2005). This paper describes the collection, analysis, validation and implications of that data set of water level time series. Three sites were selected to dene the important hydraulic characteristics of the system: Site 1, in the Gulf, offshore of Stump Hole; Site 2, in the bay, just north of Stump Hole; and Site 3, near the entrance to St. Joseph Bay (Figure 3). Water level time series were measured at each site using self-contained water level gauges with internal battery power and solid-state memory. The gauges measure and record ambient water pressure (absolute) and temperature at a programmable sampling scheme. The following parameters resulted in a battery-limited operational life of about two weeks: Sample Rate 2 Hz Sample Length 450 sec = 7.5 min Sample Interval 10 min.


The gauges software saved the average of the nine hundred samples over the sample length. Thus, a data point represents the mean of the 2 Hz samples of water pressure (and temperature) over a 7.5-minute interval, and there were six Measured water level time series at vari- data points retained every hour. ous sites in and around the bay are needed Gauge mounts were fabricated from to understand the hydrodynamic processes governing the bay and to calibrate and ver- PVC pipe to avoid galvanic corrosion of ify a numerical hydrodynamic circulation the stainless steel instrument housings and Figure 2. Aerial photo of Stump Hole and model (ADCIRC) of the system (Chen minimize weight. To discourage tampering
endangered section of roadway. 3

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 3-7

Table 1. Gage Deployment Sites

Figure 4. Gage mount with xed pile and deployment pipe ready for installation.

Table 2. Linear Spatial Trends of Datums and Datum Differences for Regional Tidal Stations

main housing was attached to adjacent pilings using heavy-gauge nylon cable ties. After installation, the deployment pipe was unscrewed, exposing the pressure sensor to ambient water pressure. Recovery Figure 5. Predicted Tides at Port St. Joe, was by reversing this process.
March 1- 14, 2005.

from the curious, the top of the housing was attached by cement, sealing the instrument inside. Removal of the instrument required sawing the main housing apart after recovery. A 2-in diameter by 5-ft long PVC pipe piling extended from the bottom of each of the main housings (Figure 4). A removable 2-in diameter deployment pipe could be threaded into the top of the main housing; a 2-in diameter hose with control valve was attached to the top end of this pipe. To deploy the mount, a portable pump forced water through the removable pipe, around the annular space between the gauge and the main housing, and out through the lower piling. Using the control valve to regulate the water ow, the pipe piling was jetted into the sand until the lower end of the main housing was at or below the level of the seabed. For additional support, the

hours. While the gauges could have operated for at least another week, the brief lull that presented itself between the afternoon of March 9 and the morning of March 10 seemed an opportunity for recovery worth grabbing. Just after retrieval of the last gauge, winds picked up and stayed The goal of the deployment was to above 12 kt nearly continuously for the obtain a minimum of three days of data next week, including the third front in two over a spring tidal cycle. Figure 5 shows weeks. the predicted tide at Port St. Joe inside St. The gauges horizontal position was deJoseph Bay, and Figure 6 shows the measured winds at SGOFI1, a meteorological termined to about +10 ft with a differential station located on an offshore platform GPS receiver. Elevations were determined about 20 nm SSE of Cape San Blas, dur- from an optical level on shore by reading a ing the rst two weeks of March 2005. The graduated rod placed on the top of the gage through the opening in the top of the main deployment interval is highlighted. housing. That level was then referenced A frontal passage brought moderate to to the nearest benchmark to provide the strong northwest winds the rst few days elevation of the top of the gage relative to of the month. Winds stayed between 10 NGVD. Table 1 summarizes the deployand 20 knots from the northeast between ment parameters at the three sites. March 3 and 4, and then veered more DATA ANALYSIS northerly on March 5 as a mild cold front passed through. Gauges were deployed Data Reduction on March 6. Two gauges, a primary and Measured absolute ambient pressure was redundant were placed at Sites 2 and 3. The redundant gauge mount at Site 1 was converted to gage pressure by subtractpressure, obtained from damaged during placement, so only the ing atmospheric 2 SGOF1 . Measured gage pressure is diprimary gauge was deployed. A strong cold front reached the rectly proportional to water depth by way area late on March 7 of seawater density, which is a function the rapid wind shift of water temperature and salinity. Water to the north around temperature was measured by the gages - it midnight is obvious. remained between 16 and 20 C at all sites Winds peaked at 35 -- but salinity had to be assumed. A converkt as the front passed sion factor 2.25 ft/psi was used to produce and remained above the water depth time series for each gage. 20 kt for the next 24 Water depth was converted to water surface
1 A 24-hour data gap beginning 0900 on March 9 was lled with data from Apalachicola Airport.

Figure 6. Plot of the measured winds in the area, March 114, 2005. 4

2 A 24-hour data gap beginning 0900 on March 9 was lled with data from Apalachicola Airport.

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 3-7

Figure 7. Plot of the qualied water level time series at Sites 1, 2, & 3.

Figure 8. Plot of the measured hydraulic head at Stump Hole with wind stress components during deployment.

elevation relative to NGVD by adding the ity control/quality assurance procedures, including comparisons between primary measured elevation of each gage. and redundant gages and comparisons to DATUM ADJUSTMENT adjacent NOS tide gages. A minor survey In the following sections, the project discrep3ency was identied and corrected. data set will be compared to both mea- The nal uncertainty of the measured water sured and predicted time series from tidal levels is approximately + 0.05 ft. Details of stations established by the National Ocean the validation process are found in McGeService (NOS). NOS tide gage data are hee (2006). Figure 7 plots the nal qualied typically archived relative to a local Da- data from the three measurement sites. tum of Tabulation, so all data (NOS 2005) DISCUSSION was adjusted to NGVD. This required esA notable aspect of the signal at all tablishing adjustments at each tide station between NGVD, NAVD and local MLLW. three project sites, as well as at Panama The results are provided in Table 2; these City Beach, is the prevalence of interare the recommended values for transfer- mediate oscillations between wind wave ring the project water level time series periods (order of seconds to tenths of a data, as referenced to NGVD, to either second) and tidal periods (order of a half NAVD or MSL. Note that the adjustment to full day). These oscillations, called is provided to only one decimal place - fur- long waves, can be generated directly by ther resolution is unjustied. Details of the forces of sufcient size and scale, such analysis process, which included evalua- as meteorological features, e.g.: fronts, or tion of the change in the rate of sea level indirectly from non-linear interactions berise within the Northwest Florida region, tween incident and reected wind waves, wind waves of different periods, or wind are found in McGehee (2006). waves and currents. Continuation of the Data Validation oscillations beyond one or two cycles The reduced data were subjected to qual- indicates that the frequency of the forcing

energy is near resonance with the natural frequency of oscillation, or sloshing, of one or more nearby basins. These resonant oscillations (including subharmonics) are called seiching, and will occur in St. Joseph Bay, as well as any area dened by a sudden change in depth, such as the offshore shoals, the bights to either side of the cape, even the continental shelf. Even when their amplitudes are small (on the order of inches), the horizontal water velocities associated with long waves can have signicant impacts (McGehee 1991). While long waves are usually detectable at most ocean sites, the persistence and amplitude of these harmonics at this site are fairly unusual. This weather event generated long waves inside the bay on the order of 1 ft, comparable with tidal amplitudes, but because they have shorter periods, horizontal current velocities associated with the seiche will exceed tidal currents. However, the most signicant effect of the long waves for any breach at Stump Hole is due to the geometry of the bay.

Figure 9. (A) Measured water levels during the frontal passage; (B) the measured and predicted hydraulic head during the frontal passage. Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 3-7 5

Stump Hole is located at the very back of St. Joseph Bay, and the time it takes for a long wave to travel from Cape San Blas to St. Joseph Point and back down the bay results in a phase lag between different locations. For the largest of the oscillations measured during this event, the phase lag is near 180 degrees between Sites 1 and 2. The impact is evident in the hydraulic head, as measured by the instantaneous difference in elevation at the two sites, available to drive currents through any breach connecting these sites. Figure 8 plots the Site 2 minus the Site 1 time series (solid line) along with the dominant factors affecting it: wind and tide. The winds inuence is better illustrated by separating it into southern and western components. The variance of the head is more dramatic than the water level; it cycles from + 1.8 ft to 1.6 ft and back to nearly + 1 ft in a 6-hour period beginning at 2200 on March 7 as the cold front passed through. Following the sequence of events that produced this signal will be aided with zoomed in plots of that period (Figures 9A, B).

Geometric Effects

3. Site 2 also has another set of waves with a similar height but with a shorter period about 1 hr, or about 5,400 sec. The mode 1 seiche period for a rectangular basin with the bays length (12 nm) and an average depth of 22 ft is 5,427 sec. The lower, shallower portion of the bay forms another basin, roughly 4 nm square and about 2-3 ft deep. The rst seiche mode for a basin with these dimensions is 5,456 sec, so these two long waves will reinforce each other, if in phase, or cancel if out of phase. Waves with periods between 1 and 1 hr are seen at Site 1 at high tide on March 6, so there is some offshore forcing energy perhaps related to seiche on the shoals Figure 10. Satellite image showing that is available to excite these resonant discharge of sediment-laden water from Apalachicola Bay into the Gulf of Mexico modes inside the bay.
directly offshore of Stump Hole.

Even under tidal inuence alone, there is sufcient hydraulic head at Stump Hole to drive signicant currents through an inlet. Figure 9B also plots the predicted tides at West Pass and Port St. Joe (tide stations 3 and 6, respectively, in Figure 3) and compares the head difference for predicted tides to the measured head difference on March 7 and 8. The general trend is similar, with sufcient head to move signicant currents through an inlet A strong south wind (causing northerly, during spring tides, but meteorological or negative south stress) peaks around effects magnify the tidal only head by a 2100, then rapidly switches to the west factor of 2 to 3. (negative west stress) as the front passes. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON The south wind causes wave and wind setADJACENT SHORELINES up in the Gulf, and that water travels into the bay. This ow coincides with the rising Calculation of inlet current velocities tide, as shown by the measured tide in the during a storm event and short-term evofar eld at Panama City Beach (Figure lution of any future inlet is well beyond 9A). Meanwhile, the southerly wind has the scope of this report. Qualitatively, hybeen blowing water northward inside the draulic heads measured in this deployment bay, causing a set down at Site 2 around will likely drive currents well above the 2100. When the wind rapidly switches threshold for movement of the sediments, west, the offshore water levels rapidly so the inlet, once opened, should continue fall, but the easterly stress continues to to grow until it reaches equilibrium. Emforce water into the bay through the wide, pirical rules derived from other inlets that eastward facing entrance. By the time the relate equilibrium cross sections to tidal water levels peak in the back of the bay, prisms may not be applicable for the shortlevels offshore have dropped. Coinciden- term response of the inlet during a storm tally, the water in the bay begins to ebb just event because the hydraulic head reverses as the tide is turning offshore. Water levels at frequencies much higher than tidal fredrop rapidly in the bay and continue to fall quencies. However, the tidal/equilibrium as far as 1.5 ft lower than offshore, so the approach is appropriate for predicting the ow reverses again. long-term fate of the inlet, assuming the The response of the system is an oscilla- proportions of the tidal prism captured by tion that continues for the remainder of the the new and old inlets can be reasonably measurement interval. The rapid switch in allocated. Chen (2005) predicted a stable cross-section of wind stress is, in effect, a pulse load on a inlet with a triangular 2 with a maximum approximately 276 m vibrating system. Because the periods of depth of 3.5 m and a width of 189 m. the seiche are harmonics of tidal periods, the oscillations can become large. Long waves with heights on the order of 1 ft at periods near 6 hrs, about half of diurnal tide periods, are evident at both Sites 2 and

sions. Triggering conditions, which will continue to occur even after the initial breach develops, include strong cold fronts and tropical storms. A hurricane passing nearby to the east of the bay will produce a similar, and much more severe, rapid reversal from southerly to northerly winds, and can be expected to produce even larger seiche response than observed in this study. Thus, the threat of short-term inlet growth beyond the equilibrium size will remain indenitely into the future.

Impacts on the Bay

An inlet at Stump Hole is likely to have signicant inuences on the water quality in the bay. Sediments to the east of Cape San Blas have higher silt contents than the sands that prevail to the west, and waters in Apalachicola Bay carry a much higher suspended sediment load than the waters of St. Joseph Bay. Figure 10 is a satellite image from April 1994. The sediment plume from Apalachicola Bay extends up the peninsula beyond Stump Hole, but is dissipated before it reaches St. Joseph Point and the bay entrance. The waters of St. Joseph Bay come from the Gulf of Mexico and are noticeably clearer. The water that enters the bay through a breach at Stump Hole will contain an increased suspended sediment load under similar conditions.

Meteorological effects strongly inuence, and at times dominate, water levels inside and outside St. Joseph Bay. The meteorological effects can produce incident long waves with periods on the order of hours in the Gulf offshore of Stump Hole If the event triggering long-wave seichand at Panama City Beach. ing lasts sufciently long, the short-term dimensions of the inlet could exceed these Incident long waves excite resonant predicted long-term equilibrium dimen- seiche modes inside St. Joseph Bay that
Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 3-7


amplify and sustain them. The geometry of the bay causes the seiche at the back of the bay near Stump Hole to be nearly 180 degrees out of phase with the incident long wave in the Gulf offshore of Sump Hole.

maintain it. Under routine meteorological events, the inlet will, for the short term, experience additional horizontal and vertical scour over that due to tidal forcing alone. A tropical storm or hurricane passing near and to the east of St. Joseph Bay The combination of the amplication would be one of those conditions. and phase shifting of the long waves An inlet at Stump hole will have a signican produce a signicant hydraulic head across Stump Hole that produces currents cant effect on water quality inside St. Joseph several times faster, and that reverses sev- Bay because water with high suspended eral times more quickly, than tidal forcing sediment concentrations from Apalachicola alone generates. Bay discharge into the region immediately offshore of Stump Hole. This water will be If a breach develops at stump hole, tidal captured on ood ows through any new currents alone will likely be sufcient to inlet and injected into the bay.

The study reported in this paper was conducted for the Florida Department of Transportation under subcontract to Volkert & Associates, Inc, of Mobile, AL. Feedback from Dr. Scott Douglass with the University of South Alabama was gratefully accepted. The author also wishes to recognize the knowledgeable watermen in the area who provided logistic support and keen insights into the natural processes of St. Joseph Bay.


Chen, Q. Jim, 2005. Hydrodynamic Modeling of St. Joseph Bay and Breach Stability Analysis at Stump Hole, FL, Final report prepared for Volkert & Associates, Mobile, AL. Coastal America, 1996. Coastal Restoration and Protection, Coastal America Technology Transfer Report - January 1996, http://www. coastalamerica.gov. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Survey and Mapping, 2000. Type of Tide, revised Dec. 14, 2000, http://data.labins.org/2003/SurveyData/ Wa t e r B o u n d a r y / M H W / d o c u m e n t s / 2typeoftide.pdf McGehee, D., 2006. Results of a Study of Water Levels in St. Joseph Bay, FL, Revised nal report prepared for Volkert & Associates, Mobile, AL. McGehee, D., 1991. Measured Response of Moored Ship to Long Period Waves at Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, Bulletin of the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses, Brussels, Belgium. National Ocean Service, 2005. Center for Operational Oceanographic Prducts and Services (various web paes), http://coos.nos.noa.gv

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 3-7

Beach Nourishment Experience in the United States: Status and Trends in the 20th Century

Charles W. Finkl, Lindino Benedet, and Thomas J. Campbell

Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. 2481 N.W. Boca Raton Boulevard Boca Raton, FL 33431 cfinkl@coastalplanning.net

Beach erosion is a worldwide problem that is particularly noticeable along developed shorelines that front open-ocean costs. Engineered response to the coastal erosion problem in the United States features the imposition of hard structures (such as seawalls and groins), and soft structures such as beaches and dunes. Beach nourishment has become the shore protection measure of choice because it is a multipurpose approach that provides economic and environmental advantages to threatened coastal systems. Experience with the procedure in the US over the last century identies trends towards improved methods of ll placement, better design strategies, and recognition of increased potential of performance associated with larger ll densities. Maintenance volumes (expressed in terms of total volume per unit length per year) for Atlantic, Gulf and Pacic coast nour-


ishment programs decrease from north to south along the Atlantic coast and from Atlantic coasts to Gulf coasts. Planning long-term nourishment requirements requires differentiation of volumetric maintenance needs from initial construction. Of the 1 x 109 m3 (one billion cubic meters) of sediments removed from Americas beaches by engineering works and anthropogenic activity in the past century, about 650 x 106 m3 (six-hundred fty million) have been returned to the beaches. There is thus a sediment decit that needs to be mitigated over the long term.

(A) Dune nourishment: Sediments are placed in a dune system behind the beach. (B) Nourishment of subaerial beach: Sediments are placed onshore to build a wider and higher berm above mean water level, with some sand entering the water at a preliminary steep slope.

(C) Prole nourishment: Sediments are distributed across the entire beach proADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Advance ll, le, subaerial beach plus the submerged beach erosion, shore protection, coastal engineer- prole.
ing, erosional hot spot, nourishment, sediment budget. Paper Submitted: 20 December 2005, Revised and Accepted: 7 March 2006.

(D) Bar or shoreface nourishment: Sediments are placed offshore to form an articial feeder bar.

each nourishment is an engineering process that mechanically places large volumes of sediment onshore or in the nearshore zone to articially compensate (vs. natural re-supply by coastal processes) for a net decit of sediment in a beach system. Articial nourishment has advantage over structural methods of shore protection because the procedure preserves aesthetic and recreational values of protected beaches by replicating the protective characteristics of natural beach and dune systems (Finkl and Walker 2002; Campbell et al. 2003). Advantages of nourished beaches compared to native beaches, or those beaches that fall behind scheduled renourishment, was poignantly demonstrated in the 2004 hurricane season that impacted the Florida coast with four major storms (Benedet et al. 2005a; Clark 2005). Renourished beaches provided a greater degree of shore protection and generally fared better than non-nourished beaches (e.g. Walker and Finkl 2002). Curtailment of beach nourishment or extension of the renourishment interval can have serious consequences to the effectiveness of degraded beach-dune systems for shore protection (Finkl 1996).


and construction volume per unit length of beach. Background information related to nourishment design practices is presented, and then followed by historical perspectives and simplied volumetric and economic analyses of beach nourishment trends.

Although there are several different approaches to beach nourishment, procedures are generally distinguished by methods of ll placement, design strategies, and ll densities (NRC 1995; Hanson et al. 2002; Dean 2002). Types of nourishment according to the method of Figure 1. Types of nourishment dened on the basis of where This paper summarizes some of the ll emplacement in- ll materials are placed: (A) Dune nourishment; (B) Subaerial larger U.S. beach nourishment programs cludes the following beach nourishment; (C) Prole or offshore; (D) Bar nourishment. and trends by emphasizing volumes placed (Figure 1):
Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16

Principles and Practices of Beach Nourishment

Type B (nourishment of the subaerial beach), the most common nourishment practice in the United States, occurs in response to economic factors and sedimentological properties of the ll material under coastal conditions that in turn translate into performance of the placed materials. Positioning of the ll on the subaerial beach initially produces a berm that is wider than the targeted design width because steeper construction slopes eventually equilibrate to milder natural angles of repose under post-construction wave action.

Renourished beaches are generally comprised of three main components: a design (targeted) shoreline, an advanced ll (ll needed to maintain the design shoreline during the project lifetime), and a conRecent work conducted by Dean (1991; struction template. 2000; 2002) questions the use of these The selection of additional beach width grain-size factors (RA and RJ) to estimate to be achieved by articial nourishment is beach ll volumetric requirements and usually determined by an iterative process performance. Present design approaches to that evaluates costs and benets as a func- beach nourishment instead favor the use of tion of width and goals of the nourishment equilibrium prole considerations (Deans program. Successful implementation of method to determine compatibility of bornourishment programs requires consider- row source and beach sediments) and comation of technical and economic factors binations of detailed coastal analysis (e.g. that, according to the NRC (1995) and analytical methods or numerical modeling of cross-shore and longshore transport Campbell and Benedet (2003), include: process, beach ll lateral diffusivity, background erosion rates, etc.). Because over(1) Establishment of baselines and objec- ll and renourishment factors (R and R ) A J tives, are essentially based on textural properties (grain size and sorting) of native beach (2) Denition of costs and benets, sediments and borrow areas, they do not (3) Search for and exploration of sand re- incorporate the physics and complexities source areas (which includes evaluation of of each coastal system into the design process. Their use in beach nourishment location and materials), design has thus declined. Uncritical appli(4) Testing available theory and techniques cation of standard design thus often althat form the basis for design and predic- lowed the coastal engineer to overestimate tion of project performance, or underestimate nourishment needs.

intersecting (ner sands) and submerged proles (similar sands) are characterized Two distinct approaches to beach nour- by a distribution of the ll across the beach ishment design in the U.S. include stan- prole and3 therefore less subaerial beach dardized design guidelines (USACE 1984; area per m of ll placed. 2002) and those that tend to be more Two overarching processes are relevant generally adapted to local problems and to the design and performance of most conditions. Independent of these two ap- beach nourishment projects: (1) crossproaches there is an inherent need to shore prole equilibration and (2) latcompare beach ll sands with native sands eral spreading of ll material to adjacent when building new beaches. Attempts to beaches (NRC 1995; Dean 2002). Other evaluate compatibility between native and processes that may account for losses borrow (dredged) sands originated on the of sediment from the active beach sysfederal side (e.g. Krumbein 1957, 1965; tem include: relative sea-level rise and James 1975; USACE 1984) with simpli- background erosion, loss of sediments ed one-dimensional parameters such as to expanding tidal inlets (Fitzgerald et the overll parameter (RA) and the renour- al. 2003), overwash processes on barishment parameter (RJ). rier islands (Campbell and Benedet 2003), planform adjustments of headland bay beaches, and other small and large scale coastal process.

Design Practices Related to Sediment Compatibility

Numerical models are often used to predict cross-shore responses of nourished proles to storms and alongshore transport of ll sediments (e.g. Larson and Kraus 1989; Hanson and Kraus 1989; Roelvink and Hedegaard 1993; Capobianco et al. 2002). To achieve satisfactory results, these models must consider capabilities and limitations in addition to being calibrated and veried. Analytical approaches may complement model results. Lateral spreading also may be predicted by analytical methods that relate ll length and grain size to ll spreading rates (e.g. Dean, 2002) or by numerical shoreline modeling (e.g. Hanson and Kraus 1989; Eysink et al. 2001). Initial designs are usually rened on long-term nourishment programs with post-nourishment monitoring data to ascertain renourishment needs and calibrate predictions. Monitoring is important because the performance of a sand-starved beach (pre-nourishment) can differ signicantly to the performance of a sand-rich beach system. When long-term (e.g. more than 10 years) monitoring data is available for a nourishment program, modeling requirements may be reduced by the analysis of observed beach performance. Good monitoring data of nourishment performance allow optimization of volumetric requirements to the most cost-effective number during design phases by understanding the morphodynamic responses of the coastal system in which the project is being built.

(5) Construction of initial nourishment Because the Dean equilibrium prole projects, method (Dean 1991; 2002) is based on the premise that a nourishment project dis(6) Monitoring initial projects, turbs the natural equilibrium of the coastal (7) Assessing the validity of preliminary system, analysis of initial performance of a ll project can thus be based on the assumptions, process of returning the system to equi(8) Identication of design strengths and librium. Particularly important to beach deciencies, nourishment design is the estimation of dry beach width that results after initial (9) Renements of design, prole equilibration. Compared to native (10) Development and presentation of beaches, ner-grained sands produce milder slopes and generate non-intersecting public awareness programs, proles. Coarser-grained sands produce (11) Evaluation of decisions to renourish steeper slopes and generate intersecting that are based on monitoring data and de- proles. Sand with similar grain size will sign expectations, and replicate the natural beach prole. Intersecting proles (coarser sands) translate (12) Improvement (modication) of initial to greater subaerial beach volumes per m3 design processes in subsequent renourishof sand placed on the beach, while nonment efforts.
Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16

Over the last three decades, beach nourishment has been the primary means of shore protection and beach restoration in

Background to Coastal Protection in the U.S.

line. At about the same time, a Committee on Shoreline Studies was formed in the Division of Geology and Geography at the National Research Council in Washington, D.C., resulting in the incorporation of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA). The ASBPA, now merged with the American Coastal Coalition, advocates protection of the U.S. coastline and promotes state and national conferences as well as publishing the Shore Figure 2. A section of the Galveston, TX seawall, currently 16 & Beach journal. km long and 5 m high, showing the concave outward shape
and rubble mound toe structure. The seawall was constructed after the 8 September 1900 hurricane, when a 3-m high storm surge ooded into the states then largest city with 36,000 residents. This hurricane, which killed 6,000-8,000 people, is considered by many authorities to be the worse natural disaster in U.S. history.

volume of sand placed on the shore) were initiated in New York, New Jersey, North Carolina and Florida. Not coincidentally, these states have the most intensely developed (urbanized) shores that require protection from storm surge ooding and erosion.

the United States, Europe, and Australia (Finkl and Walker 2002; Walker and Finkl 2002). Beach nourishment was rst attempted in the U.S. almost a century ago. Prior to World War II, the main approach to beach erosion and control of storm damage was the use of xed structures such as groins, jetties, and seawalls. A classic example of these early types of structures is the Galveston, Texas seawall (Figure 2) that was constructed in the early 1900s. By the 1920s and 1930s, xed structures were so common along resort sections of the nations coastline that they impeded recreational use of beaches. The late 1940s and early 1950s, however, witnessed a gradual migration away from structures toward beach nourishment. This change in approach to shore protection was driven by desires to preserve aesthetic and recBEACH NOURISHMENT reational values of protected beaches and PROGRAMS ALONG because nourishment gradually proved to THE ATLANTIC COAST be more cost-effective and functional by replicating the protective characteristics of Although all Atlantic coastal states adnatural beach-dune systems. Beach nour- opted beach nourishment as a means of ishment combined with a limited number shore protection, the most signicant proof structures (e.g., T-head groins), to main- grams (by number of projects and total tain post-construction stability, are also increasingly deployed for coastal protection in the U.S. (e.g., Silvester and Hsu, 1993; NRC, 1995).

In 1923, the rst large-scale beach nourishment project was constructed on Coney Island, New York, with local funds. The project used about 1.3 x 106 m3 of sand along 2.8 km of shoreline, providing 449 m3 m-1 (449 cubic meters per meter) construction density (in this context construction density refers to unit volume per unit length of shoreline, that is cubic meters per meter) of placed ll. During the 1930s and 1940s, with intense hurricanes affecting Gulf and Atlantic coasts, coastal protection was advanced by local initiatives while federal involvement was mostly limited to cooperative analyses and planning studies. From the late 1940s to the 1960s, many state coastal protection programs were implemented and some large-scale beach nourishment projects were constructed (e.g., Grand Isle, Louisiana; Palm Beach, Florida; Rockaway Beach, New York).

Due to coastal proximity of the New York City conurbation, the states of New York and New Jersey have spatially extensive and temporarily extended beach nourishment histories that include the rst large project built in the nation (Coney Island). Most large New York beach renourishments are federal projects built and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (e.g. USACE 1964; 1993). Total volumes dredged onto New York beaches since the 1930s is around to 80 x 106 m3 of sediments from offshore and channel maintenance sources (volumetric range modied from DUKE PSDS 2003, to eliminate repeated occurrences). Continuing nourishment programs in New York include Rockaway Beach, Gilgo Beach area, Coney Island area, Jones Beach, etc. Coney Island is the earliest beach nourishment project constructed in New York (and in the U.S.). The history of the Coney Island nourishment program is summarized in Table 1. The 1995 Coney Island project was constructed 30 years after the last renourishment and therefore required densities equivalent to initial constructions to restore the beach to a 30 m design berm width. The project provided 15 m of advanced ll for a 10-year renourishment cycle. Sediments were placed along 2.8 km of beach and provided a sand llet downdrift of terminal groins (USACE 2003). Total volumes dredged onto New Jersey beaches since the mid 1930s are estimated to be around to 60 x 106 m3 of sandy sediments from offshore and channel maintenance sources. Major nourishment programs have been maintained in the last decades in Ocean City (since 1950), Atlantic City (since 1936), and Cape May (since 1962).


Major developments in shore protection initiatives took place in the 1920s with the emergence of funding to form an engineering advisory board to study changes that were taking place along New Yorks coast- Table 1. History of the Coney Island nourishment program.
10 Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16

From the late 1980s to the present, the USACE conducted its largest beach nourishment project ever along 34 km of the New Jersey coast (Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet). The project was divided into two sections: Section I is 19 km long from Sea Bright to Ocean Township and Section II is 14 km long extending from Asbury Park to Manasquan Inlet. Feasibility and design level studies for the project were conducted during the late 1980s to early 2000 by a joint venture between Coastal Planning & Engineering Inc., URS, and the USACE (e.g., Beumel and Campbell 1988; Beumel and Bocamanzo 1989). Constructed project features included a design berm of 30 m plus 12 m of advanced ll for Section II and a design berm of 30 m plus 7 m advanced ll for Section 1. The beach was designed on a six-year cycle of renourishment for 50 years from initial construction. The project was constructed in ve different phases and used about 15 x 106 m3 of sediments in the initial construction cycle (USACE-Web 2003) with total construction densities (initial construction plus advanced ll) ranging from 330 m3 m1 to 730 m3 m-1 for the Sea Bright area. Fill densities from Shark Inlet to Manasquan Inlet averaged 570 m3 m-1. Maintenance renourishment of Phase I - Sea Bright to Monmouth Beach took place from May to December 2002 and used about 1.5 x 106 m3 of sediments along 8.8 km of beach (about 174,000 m3 m-1). Relatively smaller, maintenance dredging and storm-erosion control projects in Delaware (i.e., Indian River Beach, Dewey Beach, and Fenwick Island) collectively account for about 5 x 106 m3 of placed sediments. Marylands major nourishment program at Ocean City used about 7.5 x 106 m3 of sediments since it was implemented in 1988. The Ocean City project was initially constructed between 1988 and 1991, in two separate phases and extended for about 11 km (Grosskopf and Stauble 1993). Phase I was constructed in 1988 by the state and used about 1.7 x 106 m3 of sediments (153 m3 m-1) while Phase II was constructed from 1990 to 1991 and used about 2.7 x 106 m3 (237 m3 m-1) (McGean 2003). Since completion of the 1991 project, the beach has been renourished four times in response to severe storms (1992, 1994, 1998 and 2002). A nourishment program at Virginia Beach has been maintained since 1952. The state of Virginia generally nourishes the beach with smaller volumes (less than 250,000 m3) over short periods of time (1-2 yrs) using dredging maintenance sediments from the updrift side of Rudee Inlet and offshore

sources combined. Up to 11 x 106 m3 of sediments were placed on Virginia Beach since the beginning of nourishment in 1952. Recently the city of Virginia Beach jointly with the USACE Norfolk District prepared a 50-year storm protection plan for the city. The project consists of a large beach-wide initial construction and periodic maintenance using about 750,000 m3 on a 3 to 4 year renourishment interval. The initial construction was completed in 2002 when about 3 x 106 m3 of sediments were placed along approximately 9.6 km of beach (construction density of 316 m3 m-1). Maintenance volumes anticipated by the USACE are approximately 77 m3 m-1 every 3-4 years (about 19 m3 m-1 yr-1). (Maintenance requirements for beach ll are best expressed in terms of total volume per year, m3 yr-1, or volume per unit length of beach per year, m3 m-1 yr-1.)

of 125,000 m3 yr-1 by Bodge et al. (1993) based on a sediment budget developed for the area.

There are about 15 nourished areas in South Carolina that together received about 20 x 106 m3 of sediments since the late 1960s. Relatively large nourishment projects along the shore include Myrtle Beach, Folly Beach, Hunting Island, and Hilton Head Island. The last project (Hilton Head Island) used about 5.5 x 106 m3 of sediments since the 1970s (Olsen et al. 1993; 1987; Kana 1993). The two most recent nourishments were constructed in 1990 (1.8 x 106 m3 along 10.5 km of beach) and 1997 (1.7 x 106 m3 along 11.5 km) with average densities of 167 m3 m-1 and 165 m3 m-1, respectively. Recent maintenance needs for the Hilton Head Island project were estimated to be on the order

There are two project areas in Georgia. Both Tybee Island and Sea Island together received up to 5.5 x 106 m3 of sediments. Tybee Island, located downdrift of the Savannah River, received about 4.0 x 106 m3 of sediments during four different nourishments since 1975. The beach was initially nourished in 1975 with about 1.7 x 106 m3 of sediments along 4.1 km of beach (418 m3 m-1). From 1975 to 2000, the beach received about 3.8 x 106 m3 of sediments (153,000 m3 yr-1), giving an overall island density of about 35 m3 m-1. Major renourishments occurring in 1990 and 1994 used approximately 1.5 x 106 m3 each. Olsen and Bodge (1993) reports that a large portion of the 1994 renourishment volume was, however, lost during ll placement The South Atlantic Coast (North (dewatering) due to low quality of borrow Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, area materials (high percentage of nes). Florida) The beach was renourished in 2000 by the North Carolina has about 20 nourished USACE. locations where about 10 received more Florida, the most southern state, has than 1 x 106 m3 of sediments. Total vol- successful beach nourishment programs ume of sediments placed on North Caro- on both Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The lina beaches since the 1950s range up Atlantic coast has about 50 nourished to 40 x 106 m3. The two largest nour- areas that together received up to 65 x ishment programs (in terms of volume 106 m3 of sediments since the mid 1940s. placed) are Carolina Beach and Wrights- Miami Beach, built from 1978 to 1982, ville beach (USACE 1983; 1984; Jarrett was the largest single construction event 2003). Wrightsville Beach received about in the history of beach nourishment on 8.5 x 106 m3 since its initial nourishment the U.S. East Coast with about 9.2 x 106 in 1965. A major part of this volume is m3 of sediments dredged from several difbenecial material (about 50%) from the ferent borrow areas located in inter-reefal maintenance dredging or bypassing from sediment troughs along 17 km of shoreline Masonboro Inlet. The initial construction (construction density of 543 m3 m-1). The at Wrightsville Beach used 1.7 x 106 m3 Miami Beach nourishment project demof sediments along 4.2 km of beach to onstrates excellent performance relative achieve a construction density of about to other U.S. projects (NRC 1995; Wiegel 410 m3 m-1. Since that time, the North 1992). The success of the Miami Beach Carolina beach nourishment program has project may be attributed to the long extent been maintained with about 7 x 106 m3 of of the nourished area (17 km) that reduces sediments (about 200 m3 yr-1). ll spreading rates (e.g., Dean 2002), a relatively low wave energy, relatively high construction density, and the fact that the project ends at a very long downdrift jetty where the sand accumulates.

Other major nourishment programs on the Florida east coast include Jacksonville Beach, Amelia Island, Jupiter Island, Delray Beach, Boca Raton (north and south) beaches, Pompano Beach/Lauderdale-bythe-Sea, etc. Delray Beach is an example of a successful and well monitored beach nourishment program. Delray has been maintained since 1973 with ve periodic beach nourishments. Pertinent data for Delray Beach nourishment projects is summarized in Table 3.

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16


Based on Fernandez (1999), Dean (2002), Benedet et al. (2003), CPE (2002, 2003), proprietary data, and various other sources.

Table 3. Delray Beach, (Palm Beach County) Florida, renourishment project history.

Several projects have been constructed (since the 1990s) along Louisianas barrier islands and Chenier plains under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) of 28 November 1990 (www.lacoast.gov) under the supervision of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Some recent projects built along Louisiana barrier islands are shown in Table 4. Because of the high rate of land loss, and the need to restore back and front sides of barrier islands, construction densities (m3 m-1) employed in the Louisiana Barrier islands are generally greater than those employed in other Gulf coast projects. Louisiana contains a long shoreline composed of several deltaic barrier islands, bays (Arcadian bays), a long Chenier plain, and several major navigation channels. Over the last several decades, the greatest land losses in the country have occurred in the wetlands of the Mississippi delta and along barrier island fronts. Over the last few decades, prior to modern nourishment efforts, total volumes placed on Louisiana barrier islands and beaches (including recent CWPPRA projects and the Grand Isle program) are in the range of 12 x 106 m3 of sediments. Grand Isle is the only nourishment program maintained in the state since the mid-1950s, with about 4.1 x 106 m3 of sand placed since that time (USACE 1980). The latest major project (built in 19831984), the largest in terms of volume and lateral extent, used about 2.15 x 106 m3 of sediments along 11 km of shoreline (Combe and Soileau 1984) giving construction densities around 195 m3 m-1. Annual densities used to maintain the Grand Isle program since the 1950s range around 8 m3 m-1 yr-1. Several breakwaters, groins and T-head groins have been built in conjunction with beach nourishment on Grand Isle. Recent initiatives under the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) program provide support for the implementation of large-scale barrier island nourishment programs along this coast. Hurricanes Rita and Katrina in 2005 recongured Louisianas barrier island shorelines and plans to restore these eroded shores are being developed. Restoration interventions, including beach nourishment, have not been implemented because volume losses have yet to be calculated.

Based on Campbell, Benedet, and Finkl, 2005.

Table 4. Some recent projects constructed in Louisiana.

Since inception, about 4.5 x 106 m3 of sediments were placed on Delray Beach. The project employed an initial construction density of 293 m3 m-1 (Table 3), but from 1978 to 2001 the program was maintained with an average volume of about 10 x 105 m3 yr-1 or about 24 m3 m yr-1 (using the maximum project length of 4.2 km). Delray is an example of a successful beach nourishment program (Fernandez 1999; Dean 2002; Benedet et al. 2005b; CPE 2002) and currently contains a healthy restored beach-dune system. The interval between renourishments has been gradually increasing from 5 (initial renourishment) to 10 years (last renourishment).

Other large nourishment programs of the Florida Gulf coast (over 2 x 106 m3) include Perdido Key, Anna Maria Key, Longboat Key, Sand Key, and Captiva Island. Anna Maria Key and Longboat Key are two adjacent barrier islands; Longboat Key was nourished in its entirety in 1993 with about 2.4 x 106 m3 of sediments along 15 km of beach (about 170 m3 m-1) using sediments slightly ner than native sands (Jenkins and Keehn, 2001). The middle of the island was renourished in 1997 with about 680,000 m3 along 5 km of beach (132 m3 m-1) using coarser sand. The rst major nourishment project constructed in Alabama took place in 2001 at Gulf Shores. The project used about 1.6 x 106 m3 of sediment along 5 km of beach (330 m3 m-1). In addition to this initial project, local and state agencies joined efforts to restore 18 km of shoreline along Orange Beach, Perdido Key, and Gulf Shores in 2004. Volumes to be placed were not released to public at the time of this writing.

The Florida Gulf coast (including the Panhandle) has about 30 nourishment programs that received up to 38 x 106 m3 of sediments since the 1960s. Many Florida Gulf coast programs employ a combination of benecial sands and offshore sand sources to replenish beaches (e.g., Panama City, Lido Key, Treasure Island) but some, however, rely exclusively on benecial sands (e.g., Perdido Key, Fort Myers Beach, Gasparilla Island, Keewaydin Island). The largest project is Panama City Beach. Panama City had small nourishments in the 1970s and 1980s that used benecial materials from St. Andrews Inlet. In 1999, a major nourishment project was constructed along 28 km of beach. The project was the largest single construction event on the U.S. Gulf coast and used about 6.8 x 106 m3 of sediments (244 m3 m-1). Total volumes placed on Panama City Beach, combining small maintenance projects with the 1999 nourishment are on the order of 7.8 x 106 m3.


Major nourishments in Mississippi include a countywide program in Harrison County and a program that uses benecial sediments (navigation) to beaches adjacent to the Mississippi River channel. The largest program on the Mississippi coast and perhaps one of the largest (by total volume) on the U.S. Gulf coast, is Harrison County. Since 1952, about 8.1 x 106 m3 of sediments have been placed along about 40 km of coastline. The largest construction event in Harrison County occurred a PACIFIC COAST few decades ago, from 1951 to 1952. The NOURISHMENT PROGRAMS 6 3 project used about 5.3 x 10 m along 40 km of beach providing a construction denThere are many differences between the sity of 130 m3 m-1. U.S. Atlantic and Pacic coast beaches. Atlantic beaches are mainly open-coast
Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16

nourishment demand in most California pre-nourished coastal segments has been relatively low in recent years, but is expected to increase in the future (Flick 1993) as the large volumes placed in the 1940s to the 1960s are transported out of the littoral system through offshore canyons. Initiatives to support beach maintenance in California are being undertaken by many organizations including the Beach Erosion Authority for Control Operations and Nourishment (BEACON) in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, the Los Angeles Countys Department of Beaches and Harbors, and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). SANDAG (2000) reports the placement of about 1.7 x 106 m3 of sand on 12 San Diego beaches in 2001 (Hearon 2001). The Department of Boating and Waterway Numbers and approximate estimates obtained from Wiegel (1994) and Clayton (1991), and veried for accuracy (DBW, 1994; 2001) performed a statewide where possible. inventory of beach erosion and identied Table 2. Coastal segments that received the largest amount of sediments along the 15 project areas along the California coast U.S. Pacic Coast. that need immediate intervention, and nine project areas that will be subject to feasisandy beaches that extend for long and the 1930s. The largest nourishments oc- bility studies in the near future. straight coastal segments along a wide curred from the 1940s to the 1960s as a COMPARISON OF INITIAL continental shelf whereas most Pacic byproduct of warfare (e.g., Sand Diego BEACH FILL CONSTRUCTION shores are characterized by headland bay Bay dredging in 1946), construction of VOLUMES AND ANNUAL beaches backed by high cliffs fronted ports (e.g., Port Heneume, Santa Barbara MAINTENANCE DENSITIES by a narrow continental shelf that is not Harbor, Marina del Rey, Long Beach/Los conducive to development to large storm Angeles Harbor), sewage treatment faTwo components characterize most surges. Large (e.g., 10-m high) long-pe- cilities, and power plants (e.g., Hyperion nourishment projects along naturally unriod swells commonly affect Pacic coast facility for the city of Los Angeles). The protected coasts that are open to the ocean: beaches while short-period low-crested approximate magnitudes of the 10 largest (1) initial construction and (2) maintewaves predominate most of the year along nourished areas on the California coast are nance (advanced ll). Initial constructions the Atlantic coast. presented in Table 2. usually employ enough volume (higher In addition to the inherent geological and oceanographic differences between these two coasts, there is a pronounced difference in the practice of beach nourishment. Large single nourishment events using sand from offshore are common on Atlantic and Gulf coasts, but benecial sediments (from coastal construction, channel maintenance and bypass systems) predominate on the Pacic coast (Herron 1987; Flick 1993; Wiegel 1994). According to Clayton (1991) and Wiegel (1994), about 85% of the beach nourishment activity takes place in southern California (Point Conception to the Mexican border). While there are many nourished areas in south California, there are fewer projects in northern California, no projects in Oregon, and only one cobble-pebble nourishment project on the Washington coast (Wiegel 1994). Construction of the Hyperion Sewage Treatment plant facility for the city of Los Angeles provided a large amount of sediment for beaches along Santa Monica Bight (e.g., El Segundo, Dockweiller, and south of Santa Monica). About 23 x 106 m3 of sediments were placed on these beaches from the late 1930s to the late 1980s, mainly from the Hyperion works (Wiegel 1994; Clayton 1991). For example, between 1946 and 1948, the main construction of the Hyperion facility placed about 10.7 x 106 m3 along 10 km of beach with a construction density of about 1,200 m3 m-1). densities, Table 5) to restore the beach to a pre-determined design width and to provide enough sediment to maintain that design condition until the next renourishment (in the form of advanced ll). Subsequent renourishment will then only need to provide maintenance sediments. Smaller volume densities than initial constructions are thus anticipated in future renourishments. Advanced ll is an extra amount of sediment expected to erode before the next renourishment and should be added to design quantities. On the other hand, articial replenishment of beach sand in protected coastal cells (i.e., static headland bay beaches) (Benedet et al. 2005b; Hsu et al. 2005) may not be required because the headlands reduce or eliminate alongshore losses. Decrease in beach volume due to cross-shore transport (e.g., prole adjustment, response to relative sea-level rise or event-driven rip currents) will only require infrequent renourishment.

Nourishment of the Silver Strand, Coronado (San Diego) coastal segment beneted from the development of San Diego Bay into a major naval base during and just after World War II (Wiegel 1994). About 21 x 106 m3 of sediments were dredged at that time and placed along SilPacic Coast nourishment experience is ver Strand (about 10 to 20 km of beach) to summarized in data presented by Clayton give a very high density of about 1,000 to Table 5 demonstrates that initial con(1991), Wiegel (1994), and Hearon (2001). 2,000 m3 m-1). structions in the U.S. usually employ There are about 25 nourishment and bypass Due to the very high densities initially volumetric densities that range from 150 projects on the California coast that placed 3 -1 3 -1 more than 120 x 106 m3 of sediments since placed in some areas, the maintenance m m to 650 m m . Low construction
Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16 13

where high construction densities result from double-sided nourishment (front and back sides of barrier islands) designed for a 20-year lifetime. Extremely high construction densities (in the range of 1,000 m3 m-1) along the Pacic coast occur in California as a byproduct of coastal construction (opportunity nourishments). Due to these very high initial construction densities, the maintenance nourishment demand in most California pre-nourished coastal segments has been relatively low in recent years. This situation is expected to change in future as the large volumes placed on the 1940s to the 1960s are transported out of the littoral system.

Bernas, 2003; Ciorra, 2003; CPE, 2000; Jarrett, 1988, 2003; USACE, 1973; Weaver, 2003; and based on other references cited in the text for each state or project.

Table 5. Initial construction densities for selected U.S. beach (re)nourishment projects.

Proper maintenance of a nourishment project is important for the long-term success of a nourishment programs along open-ocean coasts. Because the design template is restored by initial construction, subsequent renourishment usually provides maintenance ll (advanced ll) to the project area in order to maintain the existing design template for the renourishment cycle. Erosional hot spots exhibit locally higher sediment loss rates than adjacent areas within a project. When development of a hot spot occurs, initial beach design conditions are usually exceeded. Therefore, subsequent renourishment supplies additional sediment in the erosional hot spot to (1) restore the beach to design conditions and (2) counteract higher rates of erosion that occur in the hot spot. Because mainly advanced ll is placed on renourishment beaches, smaller volumes per unit beach length (density) are required. In the example of the Sea Bright to Monmouth Beach, New Jersey project, initial construction (restoration) volume per unit length of beach was about 750 m3 m-1. The rst renourishment recently constructed in the same area used a density of about 175 m3 m-1. These maintenance volume requirements are shown for a few selected areas in Table 6. Maintenance volumes for these projects (Table 6) range from 15 to 25 m3 m-1 yr-1, with general decreasing trends from north to south and from Atlantic to Gulf coasts. These trends seem to be a function of decreasing wave energies resulting from the wave shadow of the Bahamian Archipelago and semi-enclosed Gulf of Mexico with limited fetches. These volumes return construction densities (considering total project length and design lifetime) that are signicantly lower than those shown in Table 5. Although initial construction


densities usually characterize projects that are designed for a short lifetime (e.g., four years) or that require little initial volume to meet design conditions, while high density constriction projects are usually designed for longer lifetimes (8-20 years) or require large initial volumes to meet the design conditions (e.g., a 30 m design beach restored from a 5 m existing beach). On the basis of this analysis (Table 5) and previous experience, the authors suggest that, generally, initial construction volumes can be divided into three categories: (1) low (< 200 m3 m-1), (2) intermediate (200 and 400 m3 m-1), and (3) high (> 400 m3 m-1). Table 5 also provides a basis for interpretation and inter-comparison of beach nourishment projects. Before factors are attributed to engineering performance of a specic nourishment project, due consideration should be given to the construction density (volume of sediment per unit length) placed on the beach. Experience in

the U.S. indicates that if very low initial construction densities (e.g., < 100 m3 m-1) are placed along an open-ocean coast, the project will be unlikely to succeed regardless of how comprehensive pre-project eld investigations and numerical modeling efforts were. Regional trends deduced from the construction densities summarized in Table 5 show some important relationships. Construction volumes seem to be directly related to the wave energy and magnitude of sediment transport along a given coastal segment. Along the northeast Atlantic coast (from New York to North Carolina), construction densities are generally in the high range (>400 m3 m-1), whereas along the southeast Atlantic coast (South Carolina to Florida) construction densities generally occur in the low to intermediate range. Gulf coast beach nourishment projects generally fall in the intermediate category with the exception of Louisiana

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16

Densities of beach lls vary signicantly with coastal regime. Initial construction volume per unit length of beach for shore protection works generally ranges from 150-600 m3 m-1. Based on the projects discussed here, we propose a classication of sediment volume per unit length of beach into three categories: (1) High, > 400 m3 m-1, (2) Intermediate, 200-400 m3 m-1, and (3) Low, < 200 m3 m-1.
Table 6. Deployed and predicted maintenance volumes for selected Atlantic and Gulf coast renourishment projects.

densities in the range 300-400 m3 m-1 are common (Table 5), maintenance densities usually range from 50-200 m3 m-1. Finally, assuming a ve-year design lifetime for the projects (Table 6), maintenance ll requirements would range from 70-120 m3 m-1. Thus, when planning long-term nourishment, it is essential to differentiate between volumetric maintenance needs and initial construction. Calculation of volumetric requirements should be based on project objectives and goals (desired beach width), design lifetime, pre-project beach conditions (existing volume/width), and local coastal processes (coastal energy regime, magnitude of background erosion, sediment transport out of the littoral cell, geometric dimensions of the beach, closure depth, berm height, etc.). This review indicates that the total volumes articially placed on the beach (various types of nourishment) since the early 1930s are in the range of a 650 x 106 m3 of sediments (Table 7). Douglass et al. (2003) estimated that about 1 x 109 m3 of sediments were removed from Americas beaches by engineering works (e.g., river damming, sediment disposal offshore, seawalls inhibiting cliff erosion, etc.) to date.

There is thus a decit of about 350 x 106 m3 in the national sediment budget that needs to be mitigated over the long term. It is cautioned that the Douglass et al. (2003) sediment volumes and those summarized here are conservative estimates that are subject to unknown errors. Beach nourishment is the most commonly practiced method of shore protection and restoration in the United States. Over the last few decades, beach nourishment design has evolved from simple dredge and placement projects of standardized designs to holistic and site-specic designs that encompass most physical complexities of coastal systems. There are pronounced difference in the principles and practices of beach nourishment along U.S. coasts. Although nourishment projects on the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacic coasts were triggered by the need to provide shore protection against the impacts of storms and hurricanes (coastal ooding, shore erosion), East and Gulf coast nourishment projects largely depended on marine sand searches to locate suitable offshore borrows, whereas Pacic coast projects featured the use of benecial sediments from numerous coastal developments.


High volumes per unit length of beach generally characterize projects where large initial restoration needs and/or long design lifetimes are required. Most beach nourishments in the U.S. involve some initial restoration requirement and a 5-8 year design lifetime, thus falling into the intermediate range. Low volume per unit length of beach is associated with projects that provide only advanced ll for the design period. This classication of beach nourishment projects as a function of volume per unit length of shore should facilitate comparison of project magnitude. Aside from design lifetime and project objectives, many other local factors (e.g., the presence or absence of coastal structures, wave energy, closure depth, rate of littoral drift, relative sea-level rise, background erosion rates, sediment compatibility, etc.) inuence the volume per unit length of beach sediment that should be placed. Of the one billion cubic meters of sediments removed from Americas beaches by engineering works and human activity, it is estimated that a little more than 650 million m3 of sediments were returned to the beaches. There is thus a sediment decit on the order of about 350 million m3 of sediments that will need to be mitigated over the long term.

Benedet, L., Campbell, T., Finkl, C.W., Stive, M.J.F., and Spadoni, R., 2005a. Impacts of Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne on two nourished beaches along the southeast Florida coast, Shore & Beach, 73(2-3), 43-48. Benedet, L., Klein, A.H.F., and Hsu, J.R.C., 2005b. Practical insights and applicability of empirical bay shape equations, Smith, McKee, J., (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Singapore: World Scientic, 2, 2181-2193. Bernas, J., 2003. Personal e-mail communication, City of Virginia Beach: Public Works-Beach Management. BeumeL, N.H. and Bocamozo, L.B., 1989. Rebuilding the New Jersey Shoreline, Proceedings of Coastal Zone 89, 20602075. Beumel, N.H. and Campbell, T.J, 1988. Restoring the New Jersey Shoreline, Proceedings of the First Beach Preservation Technology Conference, 241-248. Bodge, K. R., Olsen, E.J., and Creed C.G., 1993. Performance of beach nourishment at Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, Proceedings Eighth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management (Coastal Zone 93). Campbell, T. and Benedet, L, 2003. Best Management Practices for Coastal Restoration in Louisiana, Science Based Restoration for the Louisiana Gulf Coast, Appendix O, Louisiana Coastal Area Study, 19 pp. Campbell, T., Benedet, L. and Finkl, C., 2005. Regional Strategies for Coastal Restoration along Louisiana Barrier Islands, Journal of Coastal Research, SI 44, 245-268. Campbell T., Benedet, L., Mann, D., Resio, D., Hester, M.W., and Materne, M., 2003. Coastal Restoration Tools for Louisianas Gulf Shoreline, Science Based Restoration for the Louisiana Gulf Coast, Appendix O, Louisiana Coastal Area Study, 30 pp. Capobianco, M., Hanson, H., Larson, M., Steetzel, H., Stive, M.J.F., Chatelus, Y., Aarnikhof, S., and Karambas, T., 2002. Nourishment design and evaluation: applicability of model concepts, Coastal Engineering, 47(2), 113137. Clark, R.R., 2005. Impact of the 2004 North Atlantic hurricane season in the coast of Florida, Shore & Beach, 73(2-3), 2-9. Clayton, 1991. Beach replenishment activities on U.S. continental Pacic coast, Journal of Coastal Research, 7(2), 1195-1210. Ciorra, A., 2003. Personal e-mail communication, USACE Philadelphia District. 15

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16

Coastal Planning & Engineering (CPE), 2000. Panama City Beach, Florida, Beach Erosion Control and Storm Damage Reduction Project: Preliminary Engineering Report. Boca Raton, Florida: Unpublished report. CPE, 2002. City of Delray Beach, Fourth Periodic Beach Renourishment Project: 2002 PostConstruction Monitoring Study. Boca Raton, Florida: Coastal Planning & Engineering, Unpublished report. California Department of Boating and Waterways and State Coastal Conservancy, 2002. California Beach Restoration Study. Sacramento, California. Dean, R.G., 1991. Equilibrium beach proles: Characteristics and applications, Journal of Coastal Research, 7(1), 53-84. Dean, R.G., 2000. Beach Nourishment Design: Consideration of Sediment Characteristics. Gainesville, Florida: UFL/COEL-2000/002, Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering, University of Florida. Dean, R. G., 2002. Beach Nourishment: Theory and Practice, River Edge, New Jersey: World Scientic, 397 pp. Douglass, S.L., Bobe, A., and Chen, Q.J., 2003. The amount of sand removed from Americas beaches by engineering works, Coastal Sediments 03, Clearwater, Florida, CD-ROM. Eysink, W.D., Walstra, D.J.R., and Stive, M.J.F., 2001. Comparison of Existing Long-Term Morphological Models, Delft, Netherlands: WL Delft Hydraulics, Report Z3005 [Dutch]. Fernandez, G.J.S., 1999. Erosion Hot Spots at Delray Beach Florida: Mechanisms and probable Causes, Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, Masters thesis, 120 pp. Finkl, C.W., 1996. What might happen to Americas shorelines if articial beach replenishment is curtailed: A prognosis for southeastern Florida and other sandy regions along regressive coasts, Journal of Coastal Research, 12(1), ii-ix. Finkl, C.W. and Walker, H.J., 2002. Beach nourishment, Chen, J., Hotta, K., Eisma, D., and Walker, J. (eds.), Engineered Coasts, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 1-22. Fitzgerald, D. M., Argow, B. A., and Buynevich, I. V., 2003. Rising sea lever and its effect on backbarrier marshes and tidal ats, tidal Inlets and barrier shorelines, Coastal Sediments03, CD-ROM. Flick, R. E., 1993. The myth and reality of southern California beaches, Shore & Beach 61(3), 3-13. Grosskopf, W.G. and Stauble, D.K., 1993. Atlantic coast of Maryland (Ocean City) shoreline protection project, Shore & Beach, 61(1), 3-7. Hanson, H. and Kraus, N.C., 1989. GENESISGeneralized Model for Simulating Shoreline Change, Vol. 1: Reference Manual and Users Guide, Technical Report, CERC-89-19. Vicksburg, Mississippi: US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, 247 pp. Hanson, H., Bramptom, A., Capobianco, M., Dette, H.H., Hamm, L., Lastrup, C., Lechuga, A., and Spanhoff, R., 2002. Beach nourishment projects, practices, and objectives - a European overview, Coastal Engineering, 47(2), 81-113. Hearon, G., Lockwood, B., and Sherman, D., 2001. California Public Beach Nourishment Program, California Beach Restoration Study, California Department of Boating and Waterways and California Coastal Conservancy, 5-1 to 5-34, (http://dbw.ca.gov/ beachreport.asp). Herron, W. J, 1980. Articial beaches in southern California, Shore & Beach 48(1), 3-12. Hsu, J.R.C., Klein, A.H.F., and Benedet, L., 2005. Geomorphic Approach for Mitigating Beach Erosion Downdrift of Littoral Barriers, Smith, J. McKee (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Singapore: World Scientic, 2, 2022-2034. James, W.R., 1975. Techniques in evaluating suitability of borrow material for beach nourishment. Vicksburg, Mississippi, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiments Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, TM-60. Jarrett, T., 1988. Performance of the Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina shore protection project,Proceedings of the First Beach Preservation Technology Conference, 59-65. Jarrett, 2003. Personal e-mail communication, Coastal Planning & Engineering Inc., North Carolina. Jenkins, M. and Keehn, S., 2001. Effects of beach nourishment on equilibrium prole and closure depth, Proceedings of Coastal Dynamics (Lund, Sweden), 1, 888897. Kana, T.W., 1993. South Carolina beach nourishment projects success and failures, Proceedings of the Hilton Head Island International Coastal Symposium, 255-260. Krumbein, W.C. 1957. A Method for Specication of Sand for Beach Fills, Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Board, Technical Memorandum 102. Krumbein, W.C. and James, W.R., 1965. A lognormal size distribution model for estimating stability of beach ll material, Fort Belvor, Virginia: U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, Technical Memorandum 16, 17 pp. Larson, M. and Kraus, N.C., 1989. SBEACH: Numerical Model for Simulating Storminduced Beach Change, Report 1: Empirical Foundation and Model Development. Vicksburg, Mississippi: US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Technical Report CERC-89-9. McGean, T. 2003. Personal e-mail communication, Ocean City, Maryland: Engineering Department. National Research Council, 1995. Beach Nourishment and Protection. Washington DC: U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, U.S, 290 pp. Olsen, E.J. and Bodge, K., 1993. Performance of Beach Nourishment at Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, Proceedings of the Hilton Head Island International Coastal Symposium, 145-150. Roelvink J.A. and Broker Hedegaard, I., 1993. Cross-shore prole models, H.J. de Vriend (ed.), Coastal Morphodynamics: Processes and Modelling, Coastal Engineering, 21, 163-191. Silvester, R. and Hsu, J.R.C., 1993. Coastal Stabilization, Singapore: World Scientic, 578 pp. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1964. Atlantic Coast of New York City from East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay, New York, Cooperative Beach Erosion Control and Interim hurricane study. New York District, USACE, 47 pp. USACE, 1973. Atlantic Coast of New York City from Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York (Coney Island Area), New York District, USACE: Cooperative Beach Erosion Control and Interim Hurricane Study, 52 pp. USACE, 1980. Grand Isle and Vicinity, Louisiana. Phase I General Design Memorandum, New Orleans District: Unpublished report prepared by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, 79 pp. USACE, 1983. Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment on Shore and Hurricane Wave Protection, Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, 45 pp. USACE, 1984. Shore Protection Manual, Vicksburg, Mississippi: Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering and Research Center, 1, 639 pp. USACE, 1993. Atlantic Coast of New York City from East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay, New York, Philadelphia District: Final Reevaluation Report (Section 934 of WRDA 1986), 89 pp. USACE, 2002. Coastal Engineering Manual. Washington, D.C.: Engineer Manual 11102-1100, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (6 volumes). USACE, 2003. Philadelphia District - www.nap. usace.army.mil. Walker, H.J. and Finkl, C.W., 2002. Beach nourishment: Case studies, J. Chen, D. Eisma, K. Hotta, and H.J. Walker (eds.), Engineered Coasts, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 23-59. Weaver, R. 2003. Personal e-mail communication, Harrison County, Mississippi: EngineeringSand Beach Department. Wiegel, R.L., 1992. Dade County, Florida, beach nourishment and hurricane surge protection project, Shore & Beach, 60(4), 2-28. Wiegel, 1994. Ocean beach nourishment on the USA Pacic Coast, Shore & Beach, 62(1), 11-36.


Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16


Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia

By Department of Civil Engineering University of Queensland Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia h.chanson@uq.edu.au
cluding ocks of mutton birds and terns. The island is also a breeding ground for green and loggerhead turtles. It remained untouched until 1932, when Captain Christian Poulson was granted a lease over the island to develop a tourist resort. Since 1932 it has been a resort, and today Heron Island is a typical Barrier Reef holiday resort. The University of Queensland maintains a research station on the southern side of the island. Figure 1 shows a map of the island and lagoon. Figures 2-5 present photographs of Heron Island taken Dec. 24-27, 2001. Figure 6 (Dec. 25, Figure 4. Shark Bay, eastern side of Heron Island on Dec. 26, 2001, at low tide. 2001) shows a female green turtle returning to the water after lying her eggs on the beach the previous night.

Hubert Chanson, Reader

Figure 1. Schematic map of Heron Island.

eron Island is a coral cay island located 72 km northeast off Gladstone, Queensland, on the Tropic of Capricorn (Figure 1). It is on the southern part of the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef extending along the North-East coast of Australia. The island area is only 42 acres with a circumference of 1.8 km.

The island was named by HMS Flys naturalist, Joseph B. Jukes, who mistook The wreck of HMCS Protector, shown the egrets for herons. The birds are part of in Figure 5, has been used since 1946 the rich wildlife that inhabits the island, in- as a breakwater to protect Heron Island.

Figure 2. South beach on Dec. 24, 2001.

Figure 3. Northwest beach, north of harbor at low tide. The wooden gantry (left) was used to transfer people and supplies prior to the construction of the harbour. Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 17-18

Figure 5. Wreck of HMCS Protector on Dec. 27, 2001, at low tide. Note the concrete block wall (foreground) used to maintain tide range in the reef despite the harbor excavations. 17

This wreck has an interesting history. HMCS Protector was completed in 1884 as a colonial warship. The steel twin-screw gunboat was 188 ft. long, had a 12.5-ft. draft and could cruise at 14 knots. Her most powerful gun was a 18 ft-8 inch breechloader able to hurl a cannon ball 7,500 yards. She was used in the Boxer War in China, and in World Figure 6. Green turtle at sunrise Dec. 25, 2001, and high tide War I. In 1912, her on the beach south of harbor. bow was heightened

and the heavy gun removed. She sunk in 1943 by accident. Figure 5 also shows the deep-water harbor with the concrete block system used to maintain the tidal range and times in the reef despite the harbor excavations. Access to the coral cay was facilitated by the construction of a deep-water harbor. Figure 3 shows the wooden gantry previously used to transfer safely people and supplies from the outer reef to the lagoon. Photographs of Coastlines of Australia http://www.uq.edu.au/~e2hchans/photo. html#Coast_Australia Heron Island Walk About http://www.walkabout.com.au/locations/QLDHeronIsland.shtml



Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 17-18

Sand Back-Passing with Land-Based Equipment, A Cost-Effective Approach For Beach Restoration
By Tetra Tech EC, Inc Stuart, FL 34994 stuart.chase@tteci.com ABSTRACT
less than 30,000 cu yd annually (which would take approximately one month to place). For placement volumes of more than 200,000 cu yd, use of a hydraulic dredge starts to become more cost-effective on a total cost per cubic yard basis, including placement and mobilization and demobilization. For placement amounts of less than 30,000 cu yd, a truck operation ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Beach nourish- would be more cost-effective.
vironmental concerns with other beach restoration methods. The system is best suited where erosion is a continual problem, and where sand needs to be placed annually or periodically. The range of cost effectiveness for this system is limited to between about 30,000 cu yd and 200,000 cu yd annually. Case histories of two sand bypassing transport methods using land-based equipment based on the same general concepts as the sand transport system presented herein are discussed. ment, sand back-passing, land-based equipment, agitator slurry pump, booster pumps. Article received: 28 March 2005, Revised and Accepted: 8 February 2006.

Stuart Chase, P.E.

One of the most signicant challenges facing beachfront coastlines is cost-effective nourishment of eroded beaches where there is a history of continued sand loss. This paper presents a conceptual, innovative sand back-passing beach restoration system that utilizes only land-based equipment that is completely mobile and adaptable to any beach shoreline conguration. The system can retrieve accreted or shoaled sand anywhere within a ve-mile shoreline distance of the beach to be restored, and within approximately 400 ft offshore of the mean water line. This system can reduce the cost of beach restoration to approximately $6.50 to $8.50 per cubic yard (cu yd), and can mitigate en-

ne of the most signicant challenges facing coastal environments, especially beachfront coastlines, is cost-effective beach restoration of eroded shorelines where there is a history of continued erosion. Typically, beach restoration involves either the mobilization of large hydraulic dredges to pump sand from an offshore borrow area or the utilization of a trucking operation to transport sand from a distant upland source of beach-quality sand to the eroded beach area.


These typical methods are costly. Dredge placement of beach sand can cost $9-$10 per cubic yard (cu yd), including dredge plant mobilization and demobilization, or more, for sand placement quantities of 300,000 to 500,000 cu yd or more. Truck transport with mechanical placement of beach sand can cost $15-$20 per cu yd, depending on the distance of the upland beach sand source from the impacted beach area and the cost of sand at the sand source. These typical methods also raise environmental concerns such as SAND BACK-PASSING disturbance of potential offshore borrow SYSTEM APPLICATION area bathymetry and its impact on marine The sand back-passing system is not biota with offshore dredging, and air quality impacts and trafc congestion with a intended for a one-time use, but is best suited where erosion is a continual probtrucking operation. lem and where sand needs to be placed Approved offshore borrow areas may annually or repetitively, between longer also be too far from the target beach area durations. The range of cost effectiveness or its sand may be ner than the sand at the is limited to not more than approximately target beach area, thus adversely impact- 200,000 cu yd annually (which would take ing performance of the target beach. The approximately four months to place), nor
Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 19-25

land-based equipped sand back-passing system proposed in this article (and referred to as the sand back-passing system) involves recycling eroded sand that has accreted at downdrift beaches by pumping this accreted sand back up-drift to restore the eroded shore. With this system, cost can be reduced to between $6.50-$8.50 per cu yd (including mobilization and demobilization); environmental impacts are minimized; the quality of the sand recycled is good; and conguration of the systems elements can be adjusted to meet conditions of any type of beachfront shoreline. In addition, existing sand resources are used to the maximum extent possible without acquiring new sand resources, which results in better sediment resource management. As an additional use of this system that cannot be accomplished with traditional sand trucking, barging or dredging (without an available offshore borrow area), sand can be pumped to remote locations such as islands or wetlands, with no vehicular or navigable approaches, as part of ecosystem restoration activity.

For this sand back-passing system to be functional, a shoreline/surf zone source of shoaled or accreted sand must be present within approximately 4.5 mi. of the beach area to be restored, due to pumping restrictions, and within approximately 100-300 ft seaward of the mean high water line (depending on the steepness of the beach foreshore slope), due to crane reach and safety restrictions. Crane reach could be extended up to an additional 100-200 ft seaward by constructing a steel sheet pilelined and sand-lled supporting platform, extending seaward for 100-200 ft. Typically, sand eroded from a specic beach locale stays within the 4.5- to 5-mi pumping restriction for many months or shoals onto a more long-lasting accreted area (or spit) within this retrieval zone limit. The LIDAR system can be used to obtain topographic/bathymetric information for quantity availability in the shoaled or accreted area near and just offshore of the low water line within the retrieval zone limit. The LIDAR system sounding equipment, supported from an airplane or helicopter, can plot the ve-mile downdrift swath of topography/bathymetry quite inexpensively (at a cost of $40,000-$50,000, but generally less if the ve-mile area of interest is part of a more extensive area to be surveyed). The sand retrieval zone should ideally be located near the end of a littoral cell or at a location with zero net littoral drift. This is to avoid impacts downdrift of the accretion zone by recycling the accreted sand updrift. However, even if the sand retrieval zone is not ideally located pertaining to its position

a xed and buried eductor jet pump just updrift (or north) of the north breakwater that intercepted sand accreting at the updrift llet; it operated from November through March, when the primary littoral drift direction is from the north as it approaches the entrance channel. This buried jet pump was connected to a moored barge (pump platform) at a pile-supported pipe riser structure located on the downdrift side of the breakwater. A water supply pump on the barge fed water from the inlet, down the riser to the jet pump for slurry production; a booster pump on the barge discharged the slurry produced at the jet pump for transport under the inlet through a buried high-density plastic (HDPE) pipeline (12-in diameter). The slurry pipeline then continued across the south jetty to a permanent booster pump station (operating with 400 hp) and then on to the discharge points at two eroding beach locations approximately two miles further downdrift (Figure 1). The second sand bypassing location included two xed and buried eductor jet pumps on the inlet side of the south jetty which intercepted sand accreting at the entrance channel near the south jetty; it operated from April through October when the primary littoral drift direction is from the south as it approaches the entrance channel. These jet pumps were connected to the same pump platform barge used at the rst location, but which was moved and moored to a second pile-supported pipe riser structure located on the inlet side of the south jetty. Like the rst location, a water supply pump on the barge fed water from the inlet, down the riser to the eductor jet pumps for slurry production. A booster pump on the barge discharged the slurry produced at the jet pumps for transport through a buried HDPE pipeline (10-in diameter), then over the south jetty and on to two eroding beach locations approximately two miles further downdrift (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Map showing location and layout of the Oceanside, CA sand bypassing system.

in the littoral cell, the mobility of this sand transport system can be utilized as often as needed (based on monitoring the downdrift shoreline) to mitigate downdrift impacts. The system can alternately transport sand updrift from the accretion zone to the target beach for restoration or transport sand downdrift to restore shorelines that have been impacted by the recycling process. In other words, a balance can be attained between sand transport updrift and downdrift to mitigate downdrift impacts, especially by utilizing accreted sand in the retrieval zone upland and just outside the immediate littoral zone. This section highlights two essentially land-based sand transport (bypassing) systems that have been constructed, describing current technology of land-based sand transport systems including lessons learned developed from assessments of system performance. Comparisons to the land-based sand back-passing system will also be made. Even though the project goals of these two case history systems are different from the system presented herein, the basic sand transport concepts are similar. The two case history systems are at Oceanside, California, and at Indian River Inlet, Deleware, both located at inlets where shoaling at the channel entrance

and/or associated downdrift erosion is the problem. By their very nature, the locations of these systems were restricted to the vicinity of the inlet, so mobility over larger areas was not a goal as it is for the system discussed here. However, the effectiveness of the method that sand is retrieved from shoaled areas is a common goal of both the case history systems and the system presented here.

Oceanside, CA


The rst case history involves the sand bypassing plant at Oceanside, CA, which was built and operated intermittently from 1989 to 1993 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District, Los Angeles 1987; Weisman, Lennon and Clausner 1996). The system was terminated and removed in 1997 due to lack of funding and technical difculties. (A location map is shown on Figure 1.) This experimental system (with its use of jet pumps and uidizers on a large scale and in an oceanfront setting) was designed to remove sand that shoaled at the entrance channel from two locations in close proximity of the inlet, and to pump the sand approximately two miles to eroding down-coast beaches. The goal was to reduce the high cost associated with traditional maintenance dredging.

In order to increase the sand intercept area at the second location where the accretion area was more extensive, buried uidizer pipes in the entrance channel were utilized. Approximately 150 ft of 8-in diameter HDPE uidizer pipe fed the north jet pump and approximately 200 ft of 10-in diameter HDPE uidizer pipe fed the south jet pump, both with water supplied from the pump barge (Figure 1). The slightly sloped (toward the jet pumps) uidizer pipeline would hydrate sand to the sides and below the uidizer pipe through The system consisted of sand bypassing 1/8-in diameter holes spaced every two from two locations in the vicinity of the inches to create a ow of sand along the inlet (Figure 1). The rst location included
Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 19-25

Figure 2. Fluidizer pipe schematic.

length of the uidizer pipe, dropping into To improve the prothe crater produced by the jet pumps, for duction rate and make intake into the jet pumps (Figure 2). it more cost effective The jet pump has a nozzle which nar- than the average $20 rows the pipe ow and therefore increases per cu yd cost (inthe waters velocity, lowering the systems cluding capitalization pressure at the nozzle and creating a vac- of initial construction uum induced suction that draws sand into and operation and Figure 3. Location maintenance costs) bypassing system. the mixing chamber of the jet pump. over the approximate The target production rate for this sand two years of actual bypassing system was 200 cu yd per hr. operation time, it was planned to add uidHowever, the sand transport rate actu- izer pipelines to reach added shoaled areas ally achieved averaged approximately 100 at the entrance channel and to provide the cu yd per hr due to inefciencies in the uidizer pipelines with a separate water system. Only one water supply pump fur- supply pump. This addition would have nished water to both liquefy the sand at lowered sand placement costs to about the jet pumps for transport and operate the $15 per cu yd. However, due to lack of uidizers for sand hydration to feed the funding, this bypass system was removed jet pumps. Production time was also lost in 1997. due to required back-ushing of clogged uidizer pipelines, engaging/disengaging engine clutches and changing valve positions and engine speeds between water to the jet pumps and water to the uidizers. This resulted in actual sand transport for only 48 percent of total operation time. The major technical problem of this sand transport system was the down time due to both clogging in the jet pumps from debris at the intake and clogging in the uidizer pipelines from surrounding sand entering the jet holes during that time of the system operation when uidizer water was not owing. In addition, system startup was problematic due to the extensive shoaling over the jet pumps, which prevented pumping initiation without the time-consuming and costly airlifting of the jet pumps. Despite these problems, the system successfully demonstrated that jet pumps and uidizers perform well together (although not cost-effectively) in a large-scale oceanfront environment.

and layout, Indian River Inlet, DE sand

Indian River Inlet, DE

The second case history involves the eductor jet pump, semi-xed sand bypassing system at Indian River Inlet, DE (Rambo and Clausner 1989). This system was constructed in 1989 and continues to operate successfully. (A location map is shown in Figure 3.) This system was constructed as the most cost-effective method (vs. traditional dredging or protective stone structure) to correct a 1,500-ft-long

Figure 4. Plan schematic of the Indian River Inlet, DE sand bypassing system. Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 19-25


to approximately 50,000 cu yd due to low accretion rates. (2) Problems which increase the total sand transport cost are clogging in the slurry pipeline from debris sucked into the pipeline at the eductor intake (forcing lower pump efciency and higher fuel costs or system shutdown for clog removal) and occasional repair of the eductor intake from debris and excessive wear. In comparing the sand back-passing system with the two case history sand bypassing systems, the former system is designed to eliminate the technical problems encountered with the case history systems, i.e.:
Figure 5. Aerial view of the Indian River Inlet, DE sand bypassing system.

severe erosion problem on the downdrift (north) side of Indian River Inlet, which threatened to breach of Route 1 near the shoreline. The system consists of the following (Figure 4 with an aerial view on Figure 5): (A) An open nozzle eductor pump to produce sand slurry from sand accreted at the updrift (south) sand llet of the Indian River Inlet, supported from an approximate 100-ft-long boom of a crawler crane positioned at or landward of the mean low water line of the accreted llet; (B) A xed permanent pump station on the south side of the inlet that housed the diesel powered water supply (from the inlet) pump and slurry booster pump (400 hp), ow gages and controls; (C) Approximately 500 ft of mostly 12-in diameter exible hose for water supply from the pump station to the eductor jet pump for slurry production and then back to the pump station; this allowed the jet pump to be moved within an approximate 200 ft range for sand retrieval. (D) Approximately 4,000 ft of 12-in diameter HDPE pipeline from the pump station, across the inlet suspended from the Route 1 highway bridge and extending up to 3,500 ft along the downdrift eroding section of beach. An open nozzle eductor jet pump was selected vs. the closed nozzle eductor jet pump used at the Oceanside bypassing system, to reduce the problem of clogging in the closed intake nozzle as experienced at Oceanside. The system was designed to perform at a sand production rate of 200 cu yd per hr to bypass 100,000 cu yd, which is both

(2) Eliminate the slurry pipeline clogging problem of the Indian River Inlet and Oceanside systems by utilizing drag ow pumps to draw the sand into the pipeline with pump intake screens that prevent clogging debris (larger than 3.5 in) from entering the pipeline. In addition, the total cost per cu yd for sand placement, with the The major technical problems of this system presented herein, is lowered to besystem, based on coordination with the tween $6.50 and $8.50 vs. approximately $8.75 for the Indian River Inlet system and eld system manager, are: vs. $15-$20 for the Oceanside system. (1) The quantity of sand bypassed is limitLAND-BASED SAND ed to the quantity of sand naturally accretBACKPASSING SYSTEM ing at the updrift llet, within the approxiOVERVIEW mate 200-ft range of the crane supported eductor jet pump. This could impact the The land-based sand back-passing sysdegree to which downdrift beach erosion tem contains two basic components or that threatens Route 1 stability is miti- segments: (1) sand retrieval or excavation gated; e.g., there have been years when at the accreted shoreline, and (2) sand the bypassed sand quantity was limited

the net littoral sand transport rate to the north and the quantity required to stabilize the beach fronting the threatened section of Route 1. The span of system operation essentially occurs during non-summer months to avoid interference with heavier beach use. This system continues to operate successfully since 1990 with total current sand placement costs of approximately $8.75 per cu yd including operation, maintenance, capitalization of initial construction cost, disposal site grading and mobilization and demobilization of crane and jet pump.

(1) Increase the mobility and range of sand retrieval from that at the Indian River Inlet system by connecting sand slurry production at the drag ow slurry pump (supported by the crane) directly to a mobile booster pump system instead of a xed pump station near the crane supported eductor pump, and

Figure 6. Sand back-passing system layout ow chart. Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 19-25

transport of the excavated sand (in a slurry form) hydraulically pumped through a pipeline to the eroded beachfront. Figure 6 provides a schematic layout of the system. Sand grading of the transported sand at the destination site completes the process. The sand retrieval segment features equipment that is completely mobile and includes a sealwater supply hydraulic pump (coolant water necessary for booster pump operation) and booster pump on skids, a land-based crawler crane, a drag ow agitator slurry pump suspended from the crane that draws in accreted sand and water for slurry production, and a exibly aligned pipeline. This mobility has the advantage of allowing the sand retrieval equipment (except the self-propelled crawler crane) to be transported by all-terrain towing vehicles and set up wherever sand has accreted within the 4.5-mi retrieval zone limit from the beach area to be restored, whether on the beach or within approximately 500 ft seaward of the high water line. This exibility is unlike existing xed or semi-xed bypassing systems, which are restricted to retrieve sand from a xed area, whether sand has accreted there or not. Protective steel sheeting fronting the crane is necessary for sand retrieval in the vicinity of and seaward of the mean water line, for safe crane operation in the ocean front environment. The elements of the sand retrieval segment can be easily mobilized and demobilized to facilitate either separated or extended pit construction in the accretion zone. The pumps are on skids that can be easily moved to new locations with allterrain towing vehicles. The rubber and plastic pipelines from the drag ow pump, booster pumps and sealwater pump can be easily cut and recongured at each new pit location or pit extension. In addition, the sand retrieval segment can be completely demobilized after each operation. No permanent structures are required, unlike the existing xed or semi-xed bypassing systems. The drag ow pump, where the accreted sand enters the back-passing system, is equipped with a metal screen to avoid debris larger than 3.5 in from entering the system and clogging the pipeline. This has an advantage over xed or semi-xed bypassing systems that utilize eductor jet pumps for sand retrieval which allow larger debris to enter the slurry pipeline causing occasional line clogging with associated system shutdown.

Figure 7. Sand intake schematic at accreted shoreline.

and exible plastic pipeline alignment. This makes the entire sand back-passing system completely mobile and adaptable to any shoreline location where accreted sand exists within 4.5 mi of the beach to be restored. The system production rate of sand pumped to the beach to be restored is approximately 250 cu yd per hr. Therefore, with a 10-hr-per-day pump operation or a 20-hr-per-day pump operation (depending on the urgency of time to restore the impacted beach area), 2,500 cu yd per day (or 5,000 cu yd per day) could be delivered to the beach restoration area with this land-based sand back-passing system. This production rate is signicantly more than the production rate of a trucking operation and comparable to the production rate of a small hydraulic dredge. The system, with a 2,500 cu yd per day production rate, would require operating for up to approximately a four-month duration for a 200,000 cu yd operation. This four-month period can be scheduled during lower beach usage months to mitigate beach use impacts.

the waterline (to allow for faster booster or hydraulic pump relocation) and to the subsequent booster pumps in the sand transport segment of the system through a 2-in diameter HDPE pipe. A large land-based crawler crane with an approximate 150-ft boom positioned on the shore, near or seaward of the high water line (depending on the atness of the beach slope in the vicinity of mean high water), but not closer than approximately 100 ft from the bottom of the 15-20-ftdeep excavation pit. The crane can be moved closer to the pit bottom or moved further seaward to retrieve accreted sand within several hundred feet seaward of the low waterline by driving steel sheet piling (with reinforcing wales) fronting the crane to provide crane support and protect the crane against wave and tidal impacts (Figure 7). The crane and associated steel sheeting, if needed, can be moved to extend the limits of the excavation pit or used to create new pits. The steel sheeting for the next location of the crane, if required, would be installed with a pile-driving crew (with a separate pile driver) while the crane is still excavating sand at its current setup. In this way, no additional operation or down time is required, to keep costs down. The crane would support a drag ow pump from its boom to draw in accreted sand with ocean water to slurry the sand and pump it up to 300 ft through a 10-in diameter hose, to the rst booster pump (excavator booster pump). During excavation operations, the pit area would be cordoned off for safety considerations. In order to provide for safer subsequent beach use, during demobilization of the sand retrieval segment the crane would be tted with a clamshell bucket to re-grade the excavation pit area to better facilitate a more even natural relling of the pit from the littoral sand ow.

Sand Retrieval Segment

At the accreted beach area, sand retrieval components are as follows:

A diesel-powered centrifugal pump (5 hp) on a movable skid placed near the water line to draw water from the ocean, by way of a small excavated channel with an invert elevation of approximately 2 ft below low water, to the pump location (away from wave action). A 1-ft-high weir plate across the bottom width of the channel near the channels landward end with a geotextile channel lining overlain with a layer of bedding stone, landward of the weir, will reduce the undesirable entry of sand into the sealwater pipeline. This pump supplies water (sealwater to prevent The sand transport segment features booster pump overheating) to the rst equipment that is also completely mobile. booster pump (excavator booster pump) The components include a mobile control through a 2-in diameter exible hose near A drag ow, diesel-powered agitator trailer on skids, booster pumps on skids, slurry pump (90 hp) is supported from
Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 19-25


the boom of the crane (pump weight is approximately 2,500 lbs). The pump produces approximately 3,000 gal per minute of slurry to the rst booster pump (250 cu yd of sand per hr). The pump is equipped with an agitator at the bottom of the pump that loosens the accreted sand and facilitates hydration for sand slurry transport. The bottom of the pump is also equipped with a metal screen that precludes debris larger than 3.5 in from entering the pump. Smaller debris can pass safely through the pump and 10-in diameter discharge pipe without clogging the line. In order to avoid time and system operation delays, a similar stand-by drag ow pump would be available for immediate pump replacement in the event that there are mechanical problems with the original drag ow pump. It is noted that the drag ow pumps have a successful track record, and are mainly used in the unloading of deep draft sand barges. However, on occasion, the drag ow pump has been successfully used in the ocean surf zone to transport sand to an adjacent property, i.e.: on the south shore of Suffolk County, New York. An (excavator) booster pump (420 hp diesel powered slurry pump) on a movable skid is connected at its intake with a 10-in diameter exible hose (to enhance mobility) from the drag ow pump for slurry intake. At the pump outlet, a 10-in diameter HDPE pipe would deliver sand slurry to the sand transport segment of the bypassing system. Sealwater would also be delivered to the excavator booster pump through a 2-in diameter hose located up to approximately 300 ft from the centrifugal water pump, indicated above. From the vicinity of the accreted beach area to the beach area to be restored, sand transport components are as follows: Up to approximately 4,500 linear ft of 10-in diameter HDPE pipe connecting the excavator booster pump to a second booster pump. This pipe can have various alignments and can be easily recongured to t existing topography. Pipe can be buried or aligned above ground. The pipe alignment can be left in place for future use or can be easily disassembled and removed from the site, if so desired, after each use (up to a four-month period depending on the sand volume placement requirements). If the pipe is left in place, it would need to be rotated every ve to seven years to avoid uneven wear to the inside of the pipe from the sand slurry.

Sand Transport Segment

HDPE pipe can be demobilized offsite after each operation and stored at a neighboring public works storage facility. The booster, drag ow and centrifugal pumps can be adapted for electrical power; however, electric power supply to the pumps on the beach or in the transport segment can be costly and extremely difcult to implement depending on the proxim If the required pumping distance be- ity of existing electric power supply. The tween the excavator booster pump (in the cost-effective diesel-powered pumps are vicinity of the accreted beach area) and equipped with emissions control. the beach to be restored exceeds approximately 9,000 linear ft, then a third booster The overall bypassing system requires pump (similar to the other booster pumps) ve full-time personnel for the duration would be added for pumping distances of each operation (one to four months): up to approximately 14,000 linear ft A one person manning the control room; fourth booster pump would be added for one person operating the crane with an pumping distances up to approximately alternate; one person monitoring the sand 18,000 linear ft, and a fth booster pump retrieval system at the accreted beach; and would be added for pumping distances up one person monitoring the sand discharge to approximately 23,000 linear ft. Any ad- point at the beach to be restored. A sand ditional booster pumps would signicantly grading crew is also required at the beach drop sand slurry production rates at the re- restoration site to mechanically grade the stored beach discharge point, which there- sand pumped to the discharge point. In fore restricts the system to a maximum addition to a pile driving crew of four 4.5-mi pumping distance. Longer pumping pile drivers and a vibrating hammer (pile distances with larger pumps and slurry driver) with a generator for steel sheet pile pipelines can be designed, but would be installation would be a sand grading crew signicantly more costly. Each booster to push accreted beach sand seaward for pump added would include approximately crane platform construction behind the 4,500 linear ft of 10-in diameter and 2-in steel sheeting. diameter HDPE pipe entering the pump and 10-in diameter HDPE pipe exiting the Cost The most cost-effective method of impump to the restored beach or to the next booster pump, as required. The sealwater plementing this system, which is intended required for pump operation is supplied to for repeated use every year (or longer) at a each pump with a separate 2-in diameter historically erosive segment of beachfront, pipeline, generally running parallel with is to capitalize the purchase of: the 10-in diameter slurry pipeline. The 2in diameter HDPE pipeline ends with sup- (1) The mobile booster pumps with applying sealwater to the last booster pump. purtenant housing and skids (up to ve (Refer to Figure 6 for a schematic of the booster pumps at $250,000 per pump; sand transport segment.) (2) A 5 hp centrifugal pump at $5,000; on a movable skid connecting up to approximately 4,500 linear ft of 10-in diameter HDPE pipe from the excavator booster pump. This second booster pump would then pump the sand slurry up to another approximately 4,500 linear ft to the restored beach or to a third booster pump, if required. All the booster pumps are operated by radio control from a mobile control room trailer on skids generally located near the second booster pump. From the control room, pump rates, sand slurry mixture and velocity are controlled and monitored. This radio control reduces the required manpower for system operation, since the whole pump operation can be controlled by one person from the mobile control room. (3) One 90 hp drag ow agitator slurry pump and one stand-by, or two 90 hp drag ow pumps at $80,000 per pump; (4) One mobile control room trailer on skids at $120,000, (5) The following pipeline: (a) a maximum of approximately 23,000 linear ft of 10-in diameter HDPE pipe for sand slurry transport at approximately $28 per linear ft, (b) a maximum of approximately 18,000 linear ft of 2-in diameter HDPE pipe for water supply (sealwater) for pump operation at approximately $8 per linear ft, and (c) approximately 300 linear ft of 10-in diameter and 300 linear ft of 2-in diameter exible hose, at a combined $15 per linear ft, to supply slurried sand and sealwater to the excavator booster pump; and

Because the booster pumps are all on movable skids, the location of each booster pump can be adapted to best t the site-specic topography (with a range of 3,000-4,500 linear ft between each booster pump) and can be left in place and surrounded with architecturally treated, A second booster pump (420 hp and noise-controlled barriers, if desired. Howthe same as the excavator booster pump) ever, the booster pumps and connecting


Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 19-25

(6) Optional sound barriers and landscaping at each of up to four booster pump locations, if pumps are left in place after each operation (rather than demobilized and stored at a public works storage facility) at $20,000 per site. It is noted that the HDPE pipe, if left in place after each operation, would be buried (included in the unit prices indicated above). The maximum initial construction cost for the eight miles of pipe, control house, one centrifugal pump, two drag ow pumps, ve booster pumps and four developed booster pump sites, including mobilization and demobilization (for pipe and pump installation left in place for the life of the equipment), materials, labor, equipment, engineering (5 percent) and construction management (5 percent) totals $2,650,000 where the piping and pumping have an approximate 15-yr equipment life. This results in a maximum annual cost (capitalized at 6 percent interest over the 15-yr equipment life) of $265,000. This must be added to the following annual operating costs (assuming four months operation during the year): (1) The annual labor (ve personnel including a crane operator and alternate), mobilization and demobilization ($30,000) and annual fuel cost (60,000 gal at $2 per gal) totaling $350,000, (2) $80,000 for crane and steel sheet pile rental; (3) $400,000 for a sand grading crew with grading equipment (grading 200,000 cu yd) at the placement site and $100,000 for a sand grading crew with grading equip-

ment (grading 50,000 cu yd) at the sand Two options for management, operation, retrieval site; and and maintenance of the system once it is constructed, are: (4) $215,000 for a sheet pile installation crew, if required, (including pile driver, (1) Use of in-house personnel and some but not the operator (crane operator alter- in-house construction equipment. If availnate) which is included in Item (1) above able, in-house public works personnel for an average four-month period. could be trained to operate and maintain the system by the manufacturer of the This $1,410,000 total annual cost for specic features, i.e.: slurry booster pumps 200,000 cu yd of sand restoration results in with radio-controlled control house and a total sand placement cost of $7.05 per cu system monitoring equipment and the drag yd when the sand retrieval area is approxi- ow pump; the clamshell crane and steel mately 4.5 mi. from the beach restoration sheeting could be purchased, as part of area. For a sand placement of 100,000 cu initial construction of the system (although yd (two months of annual operation), the it is cost-effective to rent the crane with total unit cost for sand placement with this or without an operator), and the crane opback-passing system increases to $8.55 erator and pile driving crew supplied from per cu yd for the 4.5-mi pumping distance. trained in-house public works personnel; For a pumping distance of 3 mi, only four the grading of sand at the beach restorabooster pumps would be required, and the tion and sand retrieval sites could be actotal unit cost for sand placement becomes complished with available public works $6.80 per cu yd for a required quantity of owned/leased sand grading equipment and 200,000 cu yd, and $8.05 per cu yd for a in-house equipment operator personnel. required quantity of 100,000 cu yd. (2) Contracting out: A site work construcFUTURE DIRECTION tion contractor could be hired on an annual OF LAND-BASED SAND (or longer) basis to operate the system inBACK-PASSING SYSTEM cluding training from the manufacturer on The land-based sand back-passing sys- pump operation and maintenance; pump tem as detailed herein has not been imple- and appurtenant equipment repair could mented as yet. For each location where this also be contracted out. system is desired, plans and specications ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS would have to be developed to incorporate the site-specic requirements for sand Thanks to technical coordination asretrieval and transport employing all of sistance from Robert Hagler, president of the features summarized above. A coastal Hagler Systems, North Augusta, SC; Siegdesign consultant could be the prime con- fried Heger of Heger Pumps, Long Beach, tractor that would develop the subject plans CA; Joe Ryan of the U.S. Army Corps of and specications, prepare permits, man- Engineers, Los Angeles District; and the age construction and provide engineering sand bypassing operations ofce at Indian services for initial construction and post River Inlet, DE. construction periods of each application.

Rambo, Gus, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Philadelphia District), and Clausner, J.E., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WES. 1989. Jet Pump Sand Bypassing, Indian River Inlet Delaware, Dredging Research Program DRP-89-2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Weisman, R.N. and Lennon, G.P., Lehigh University, and Clausner, J.E., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WES. 1996. A Guide To The Planning And Hydraulic Design of Fluidizer Systems For Sand Management In The Coastal Environment, Dredging Research Program Technical Report DRP-963. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. 1987. The Experimental Jet-Pump Sand Bypass System At Oceanside.

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 19-25


Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas L.) Population Estimate for the Nearshore Reefs of Broward County: A Summary after Three Years of Pre-Construction Monitoring

Christopher Makowski1, Lou Fisher2 and Craig J. Kruempel1


Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. 2481 N.W. Boca Raton Boulevard Boca Raton, FL 33431 CMakowski@Coastalplanning.net

Broward County Environmental Protection Department Biological Resources Division Plantation, Florida 33324
or long-term variation in the population dynamic. This monitoring protocol will allow us to obtain an overall estimate of sea turtle populations along essential reef resources before and after beach construction. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. has been selected by Broward County to establish a GIS database of sea turtle populations along the countys nearshore hard bottom resources. Results from three annual pre-construction surveys produced an average of 48 turtles sighted along the 31.6 km of county shoreline, with continued in-water monitoring scheduled through 2006. Employing the Shark Fishing monitoring protocol will create a comprehensive account of nearshore juvenile sea turtle populations possibly impacted by beach construction. ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Turtles, juvenile, monitoring, populations, Broward County Paper Received: October 8, 2006, Revised and Accepted: February 17, 2006.

There has been a long-lived struggle to document and protect populations of endangered green turtles along the shores of Southeast Florida. Most conservation efforts have been focused towards nesting females and hatchling success upon the beaches; however, little has been done to investigate in-water juvenile (3-5 yr old; <65 cm Straight Carapace Length [SCL]) green turtle populations that are also critical to the species as a whole. As juvenile green turtles recruit to coastal waters, they undergo a dietary shift from omnivory to herbivory, and aggregate to patches of benthic macroalgae or seagrasses found along the nearshore reefs of South Florida. An annually updated database must be implemented in order to assess any effects beach renourishment activities may have on resident sea turtle populations. An archive of in-water records can be used to see if these effects cause either temporary uctuations


sponges, algae, etc.) growing on the reef surface with suspended sediments, or by partial or complete burial of the reef as new sand is worked by wave action and currents (Crain et al. 1995) and the beach equilibrates. Loss of reef habitat may have a signicant impact on green turtles that are using the habitat as foraging sites during this development phase of their life history. Broward County has implemented a shore protection project as a countermeasure to erosion of its beaches. The changes include installation of near-shore spurs and groins, creation of an articial (mitigation) reef, and two renourishment projects. The Broward County Environmental Protection Department contracted with Coastal Planning & Engineering Inc. to provide logistical support (a survey vessel and additional observers), and to record each turtle observation using a differential global positioning system (DGPS) for incorporation into Broward Countys GIS database so that turtle abundance could be superimposed on near-shore contour maps in the Project area. Three pre-construction surveys (2003, 2004, 2005) have been completed. Each was performed in late spring to early summer (April to July). In this manuscript, the results for the 2005 survey are presented. Additionally, conclusions with regard to the project design and the utility of the data for assessing an environmental impact are provided. The methods used to complete the surveys and data analyses have been described previously in consulting reports and are briey summarized below. Surveys were conducted within the 2005 project area

reen turtle hatchlings migrate offshore and spend one to three years as pelagic stage juveniles, feeding and growing in the open ocean (Bolten 2003). They then return to shallow coastal waters as immature dinner-plate sized (~ 25 cm SCL) juveniles (Musick and Limpus 1997). As they grow, they occupy a succession of developmental habitats and shift diet from omnivory to herbivory (Bjorndal 1997). Observations have revealed that Florida estuaries (Ehrhart 1996; Mendona 1983) and nearshore reefs (Wershoven and Wershoven 1988; Bresette et al. 1998; Slattery et al. 2002) are important developmental habitat for juvenile green turtles. Some of the turtles are recent recruits from the pelagic populations. Both habitats provide turtles with an abundance of forage (macroalgae and seagrasses) and resting sites (Mendona 1983; Holloway-Adkins 2003).


Until recently, no systematic efforts had been made to determine the abundance, distribution or daily movements of green turtles residing on South Floridas shallow reefs. The rst systematic survey was done in Palm Beach County, employing the shark shing method (Slattery et al. 2002; Makowski et al. 2005). Those studies revealed that a population of green turtles was present, and that the turtles were most often seen swimming over the reef. After sonic transmitters were placed on six turtles from this site, daily movements were recorded. These observations conrmed that the turtles occupied overlapping home ranges, and were diurnally active (Makowski et al. in press). Florida maintains many of its beaches through beach renourishment by adding sand from offshore or inland sources to replace beach habitat lost from erosion. In some cases, these projects may adversely impact the adjacent reefs by smothering benthic organisms (corals, bryozoans,



Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 26-28

for that reason alone should contain more turtles. However, when the number of turtle sightings is normalized with respect to segment length, there are no proportional differences in abundance (X2 = 0.74, p < 0.5, 1 d.f.). The results of the three pre-construction surveys lead to the following conclusions. (1) Shark-shing surveys make it possible for the rst time to quantitatively estimate the number of turtles that occupy a shallow reef habitat. However, the technique (like those for estimating any population) has its limitations, and as such it is important to emphasize that the estimates are just that: an approximation of the absolute density of the turtles. The limitations are discussed in detail in Makowski et al. (2005), and include those imposed Figure 1. Map exported from the Broward County GIS turtle database. Specic by water clarity and depth, as well as reef information on each turtle sighting are stored and accessible for viewing. shape. Long, narrow reefs, whose entire across-section can be seen by two observ(Segment 3, which is 13.3 km long from RESULTS ers, allow for the most accurate estimates. Port Everglades Inlet to the Broward-MiThe population estimates for the last three Some reef areas at our site were too wide ami/Dade County line) and adjacent Segto be seen in their entirety. years are given in Table 1. The results are: ment 2 project area (18.3 km, Hillsboro Inlet to Port Everglades Inlet). All were (1) The shallow reefs in Segment 2 and 3 (2) Our surveys were focused specically on made at shallow depths (< 8.0 m). Two contained an estimated 48 green turtles in juvenile green turtles that aggregate to the observers with snorkeling gear are towed 2003 (May-June), 39 in 2004 (July), and reef resources closest to shore. This serves approximately 10 m behind a slowly mov- 59 in 2005 (April). two benets. First, it allows observers to ing boat, parallel to shore and directly over sample a habitat where the entire water colthe reef. Observers scan the area for turtles (2) The estimated density of turtles/km, umn can be visually surveyed. Second, it immediately below them and to the side based upon the length of survey area (31.6 focuses our efforts on a species and resource (port observer to the left; starboard ob- km for both segments) varied between that are most vulnerable to suspended sediserver to the right). Surveys over the same 1.52 turtles/km in 2003, 1.23 turtles/km ments and sand transport as a consequence area are made twice and are initiated on in 2004, and 1.87 turtles/km in 2005. of the shore protection project. different days from the opposite direction The average over three years was 1.54 (3) It is tempting to conclude that the (south-north and north-south). An estimate turtles/km. turtles in the survey area (like those studof turtle abundance is made from the aver(3) Most (99 of 146) of the turtles were ied by Makowski et al. (in press) in Palm age of the number of sightings made in observed in Segment 2. The difference Beach County) occupy xed home ranges. each direction. After being located, the between segments (when compared to an However, turtles were not individually turtles usually swam in a perpendicular equal number of observations [73] in each identied and it was not possible to dedirection away from the vessel, decreasing segment) is signicant (X2 = 8.84, p < termine how long any turtle remained in the chances of being recounted. Turtles are 0.01, 1 d.f.). the area. While the data provide relatively never touched or put at risk. (4) The differences in turtle abundance in consistent estimates of abundance, that Each sighting is recorded on a laptop the two segments may be a consequence consistency could arise either as a consecomputer and identied via a Trimble of survey length. Segment 2 is longer quence of site tenacity and occupancy of differential GPS on board the boat. HY(18.3 km) than Segment 3 (13.3 km), and home ranges, or because migrants linger in PACK MAX software is used to store turtle position, date and time. Other data (weather conditions, sea state, underwater visibility, estimate depth of the turtle in the water column) are added to each sighting from eld notes. The data are then plotted on laser airborne depth sounder (LADS) contour maps, using ArcView Version 9.1. Field notes and photographs accompany each sighting and are incorporated into Broward Countys Sea Turtle GIS database (Figure 1).
Table 1. Results from the Three Pre-construction Surveys Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 26-28 27


the area for hours or a few days, and then move on (at relatively constant rates). Our data do not allow us to distinguish between these (or other) alternatives. (4) From a management perspective, what matters is how many turtles are present and to what extent they utilize resources on the reefs that might be damaged by the

be directly compared to these pre-construction estimates in order to evaluate whether juvenile sea turtle recruitment has been altered after beach renourishment. The fundamental question to be answered: Are there fewer turtles aggregating off(5) The pre-construction data yield a rela- shore of Segment 3 after the project comtively consistent estimate of turtle density. pared to Segment 2 (control for Segment 3 Ultimately, post-construction surveys will construction)? project. Our study indicates that on average between April and June, one turtle is present every 0.65 km. Our population estimates cannot be used to determine resource use.

Bjorndal, K. A., 1997. Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles. In P.L. Lutz & J.A. Musick, eds, The Biology of Sea Turtles, CRC Press, Boca Raton, I, 199-231. Bolten, A. B., 2003. Variation in life history patterns: Neritic vs. oceanic developmental stages. In P.L. Lutz, J.A. Musick, J. Wyneken, eds, The Biology of Sea Turtles, CRC Press, Boca Raton, II, 243-257. Bresette, M. J., J. Gorham, and B. Peery, 1998. Site delity and size frequencies of juvenile green turtles (Chelonia mydas) utilizing near shore reefs in St. Lucie County, Florida, Marine Turtle Newsletter, 82, 5-7. Crain, D. A., Bolten A. B., and K. A. Bjorndal, 1995. Effects of beach renourishment on sea turtles: review and research initiatives, Restoration Ecology, 3, 95-104. Ehrhart, L. M., 1996. A study of the population ecology of in-water marine turtle populations on the east-central Florida coast from 19821996, Final Report to the U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, 164 pp. Holloway-Adkins, K. G., 2003. A comparative study of the feeding ecology of Chelonia mydas (green turtle) and the incidental ingestion of Prorocentrum spp, Masters thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Makowski, C., R. P. Slattery, and M. Salmon, 2005. Shark shing: A method for determining the abundance and distribution of sea turtles on reef habitats, Herpetol. Rev, 36, 36-38. Makowski, C., J. A. Seminoff, and M. Salmon, 2005. Home range and habitat use of juvenile Atlantic green turtles (Chelonia mydas L) on shallow reef habitats in Palm Beach, Florida, Mar Biol (in press). Mendona, M. T., 1983. Movements and feeding ecology of immature green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in a Florida lagoon, Copeia, 1983, 1013-1023. Musick, J. A. and C. J. Limpus, 1997. Habitat Utilization and Migration in Juvenile Sea Turtles. In P.L. Lutz, J. A. Muscik, eds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, The Biology of Sea Turtles, 137-163. Slattery, R. P., C. Makowski, and M. Salmon, 2002. Shark shing: a technique for estimating the abundance of green turtles (Chelonia mydas L) in shallow water developmental habitats, Palm Beach County, Florida, Unpublished report to the Department of Natural Resources Management, Palm Beach County. Wershoven, R. and J. Wershoven, 1988. A survey of juvenile green turtles and their resting and foraging habitats off Broward County, Florida. Unpublished report to the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Marine Resources, Broward County, 1-35.


Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 26-28

Biological Community Analysis Near a Maintained Natural Inlet


Erin A. Hague and Robert M. Baron

Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. 2481 N.W. Boca Raton Boulevard Boca Raton, FL 33431 ehague@coastalplanning.net

Mitigation reef siting is critical to the successes or failures of the intended relief, structural complexity, and habitat availability. In Boca Raton, FL two locations were chosen for articial reef placement: 1) Immediately south of Boca Raton Inlet in an active nearshore zone susceptible to the periodic burial of a bypassing bar, and 2) Four-thousand feet south of Boca Raton Inlet outside of the projected migratory path of the bypassing bar. The result is an articial reef to the north equivalent to


The natural hard-bottom areas found in the nearshore zone, 300-700 ft offshore, of the project area are generally low in ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Mitigation, hard- vertical relief (< 1 ft) and located in water bottom, sh community assemblage, ebb-tidal depths ranging from 1 to 10 ft (NGVD). shoal Paper Submitted: 18 October 2005, Revised Prior to construction of the beach nourishand Accepted: 27 February 2006. ment project (February 2002) six permanent monitoring stations were established

the ephemeral nearshore, natural hard-bottom, and a permanent articial reef to the south that exceeds the relief and structural complexity of the natural hard-bottom, providing persistent habitat for benthic cover, predatory and prey sh.


he study area is located directly south of Boca Raton Inlet, which is a maintained natural inlet. The inlet is situated 14.4 mi south of South Lake Worth Inlet (Boynton Inlet) and is the southernmost inlet of four located in Palm Beach County (Figure 1). The South Boca Raton beach nourishment project was constructed by the city of Boca Raton, Florida in 2002. Between March 28, 2002 and April 5, 2002, approximately 343,000 cubic yards (cy) of sand was dredged from the ebb-tidal shoal east of Boca Raton Inlet and placed along 1.5 km of severely eroded beach located south of the inlet. The dredged material was placed between Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) monuments R-223.3 and R-227.9.


Potential direct and secondary impacts to approximately 2.4 acres of natural nearshore hard-bottom located within the projected equilibrium toe of ll were identied and mitigated for as part of the project activities. The mitigation reef was constructed from May 31 through June 26, 2003 and installed south of Boca Raton Inlet, between FDEP monuments R-223 and R-224 (north mitigation site) and R226.5 and R-227.5 (south mitigation site). Both the north and south mitigation sites were constructed in water depths similar to the hard-bottom habitat impacted by the project.

Figure 1. Map showing study area location in Boca Raton, FL. Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 29-33 29

tion method allows for the diver position and site description information to be incorporated directly onto the video record. Video surveys of the natural hard-bottom formations were consistently lmed in an offshore (east) to onshore (west) direction, and from south to north along the shore The pre-construction (March 13, 2002), parallel transect. initial post-construction (June 3, 2002), one-year (April 2003), two-year (April/ A series of photographs was taken inMay 2004), and three-year post-construc- side of the six 1 m2 monitoring stations tion (April/May 2005) biological moni- during each monitoring event to capture toring surveys of the natural hard-bottom community coverage over time. These habitats included a biological inventory and photographs were later placed together to photo-documentation of the epibenthos. form an enlarged mosaic view of the benBenthic communities were evaluated us- thic organisms at each monitoring station. ing a modication of the Atlantic and Gulf Comparison of pre-construction mosaics to Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA) proto- post-construction mosaics and the modied col (Ginsburg 2000; Miller 2002). Modi- AGGRA assessments were used to capture cations to the AGRRA method included benthic community structure over time. omitting the line-intercept, rover diver sh In addition to benthic characterizations, survey techniques, and expanding the quadsh community structure was also studied rat component. The algae portion of the quadrat component estimated the overall macroalgae, turf, and coralline algae percent cover, and estimated percent cover of the two dominant macroalgal species. The algae canopy height and maximum relief portions were omitted. The animal portion of the quadrat component enumerated octocoral and Scleractinia and measured the maximum dimensions. The presence of Porifera, Bryozoa, and Hydroidea were also recorded. Sand was documented only if 100% of the quadrat contained sand and no other benthic organisms were present. Sediment depths were also measured to account for the migration of sediment along both the shore-parallel and shore-perpendicular transects. This assessment method was employed along both transects every 3 m using 25 x 25 cm quadrats. In November 2003, a total of eight permanent transects were established along the north and south mitigation reefs. These transects originated on the west side of the reef and extended across the exposed rock to the eastern side of the sand / rock interface. The transects had an average length of 15-20 m, and were spaced 20 m apart. Four transects (AR1 to AR4) were established on the south mitigation reef, and four on the north mitigation reef (AR 5 to AR8). A 1 m2 permanent monitoring station was established mid-transect for identifying 100% biotic coverage. Sessile organisms identied along transects were also reported and classied to the lowest taxon practicable.

along the natural hard-bottom habitat. Two 30-m transects (shore-parallel and shoreperpendicular) were established at each station. A 1 m2 permanent monitoring station was established at the intersection of the two transects.

using the transect-count methodology for visual assessment along the mitigation and natural hard-bottom transects. Transectcounts were utilized for visually assessing the sh assemblage structure along the mitigation and natural reefs. Currently, the transect-count is among the most widely used methods for visually assessing nearshore reef sh assemblages. The method is quantitative and open to detailed statistical analysis. However, one problem with the method is that only diurnally exposed sh species are observed, while cryptic or hidden species may be neglected (Jones and Thompson 1978; Brock 1982; Willis 2001). In order to obtain a complete list of sh species, including those cryptic or hidden species, destructive sampling techniques, such as rotenone, explosives, trawls, or other invasive techniques would be required. Although certain species may be unintentionally left out of the assem-

Digital video integrated with differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) was collected to document the location and benthic community coverage along each Figure 2. Linear bar feature observed north and south of Boca Raton Inlet in proximity of the transects. This type of video collec- to north mitigation reef.
30 Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 29-33

blage, nondestructive methods (i.e., visual census techniques) are considered the most practical and accepted methods, because destructive or invasive techniques may damage or disturb coral reefs or reef associated biota (Sale and Douglas 1981). The use of any destructive sampling methods was avoided in this study. Sixteen 30-m permanent transects were established over the mitigation reef and adjacent natural hard-bottom. A 30-m line was stretched out in a west-east orientation, with the west end of the transect set at the western edge of exposed hard-bottom or articial reef depending upon transect designation. A biologist swam above the transect while recording all sh within an imaginary 60 m3 tunnel (1 m to either side and 1 m above the line). Number of sh and total length (by size class: <2 cm, 2-5 cm, 5-10 cm, 10-20 cm, 20-30 cm, 30-50 cm and >50 cm) were recorded. A 1-m T-stick with the size classes marked was used to aid in identifying sh length and transect width. Species, numbers, and size classes associated with the mitigation reef were then compared to those on the nearby natural hard-bottom. The one- and two-year post-construction sh monitoring events were performed during the months of May, June, and July 2004 and 2005. The spring/summer surveys were established to account for seasonal changes in shallow water sh communities along the natural hard-bottom and articial reefs. Quantitative assessments of the sh community were performed during each monitoring event using the visual census technique described above.

result, the sand volume that traditionally deposited south of the inlet and over buried hard-bottom was temporarily reduced, providing a false indication that this area could be an acceptable articial reef placement area. The original articial reef project design included the placement of 2.39 acres of limestone boulders approximately 4,000 ft south of the Boca Raton Inlet, outside of the projected migratory path of the bypassing bar. However, during installation of the articial rock reef, Palm Beach County assessed the nearshore environment and concluded that the area immediately south of the inlet was also suitable for mitigation. Consequently, the articial reef was constructed in two locations: immediately south of the inlet (north mitigation reef) and approximately 4,000 ft south of the inlet (south mitigation reef). The south mitigation site is located along a continuous hard-bottom platform that shows historic burial, providing for a natural transition from existing reefs to the articial reef. The north mitigation reef was placed in an area that is susceptible to frequent burial by the bypassing bar resulting in less available habitat than originally planned.

Articial Reef Monitoring Results

In April/May 2005, an average of 45 cm of newly exposed rock was observed along the north mitigation reef (AR5 to AR8). As a result, most of the 2.5-inch PK1 nails used for station establishment in November 2003 along these four transects, were found. An average of 30-90 cm of relief was observed during this monitoring event. Monitoring of the south mitigation reef (AR1 to AR4) in April/May 2005 documented worm rock (Phragmatopoma caudata (=lapidosa)) and two encrusting sponge types (Monanchora unguifera and Holopsamma helwigi) dominating the benthic community. A worm rock thickness of 12-15 cm was observed at the limestone boulder/natural hard-bottom interface at the west ends of the south mitigation reef (AR1, AR2 and AR4). Community coverage of boring and encrusting organisms was persistent throughout the south mitigation reef, thereby inhibiting pin location along each transect. Due to these limitations, transects at AR1 through AR4 were established using GPS positions acquired during the six-month and one-year postconstruction monitoring events. Figures 3 and 4 show the average percentage of biotic and abiotic cover documented on the north and south mitigation reefs. Abiotic cover includes both sediment and scoured rock. The fractional cover of sessile benthos recorded during the 2005 investigations along the articial reefs ranged from 62-100%. While benthic organisms recorded along the natural hardbottom accounted for 47% biotic coverage at Transect 3 and 65% biotic coverage at Transect 5, Transects 2, 4 and 6 recorded 0% biotic coverage and control Transect 1 was limited to 4% biotic coverage. Monitoring results from the sh monitoring dives include comparisons of the nearshore hard-bottom benthic and sh communities to those of the mitigation articial reef. In the 2004 survey, a total of 6,126 sh from 36 families were reported on both natural and articial reef substrates. The 2005 survey reported a decrease in the number of sh families in 2005 (32 families), yet an increase in the total number of sh counted (7,272 sh). Species richness also increased on the articial reef in 2005 (74 species compared to 67 species in 2004). However, species richness along the natural hardFootnote
1 Parker-Kalon hardened masonry nails, zinc-plated to resist rust.

The natural hard-bottom transects (control Transects 1 and 6 and compliance Transects 2 through 5) are located in an active sand migration zone that is susceptible to burial from

Natural Hard-bottom Monitoring Results

the ebb-tidal shoal regressing and transgressing the nearshore zone. The direction of migration has been observed from the south and east, with sand depths measuring 15-20 cm or greater in areas of accumulaRESULTS AND DISCUSSION tion. Similar to the two-year monitoring A relatively large ebb tidal shoal occurs event, all measured sediment depths deoffshore, south of Boca Raton Inlet. Depo- creased to the west, indicating an offshore sition in the ebb-tidal shoal occurs due to sand source. trapping of sands transported alongshore The biotic response to the uncoverby cross-shore tidal currents (Finkl 1993; ing of the exposed hard-bottom was best Hine et al. 1986; Hayes 1980). A prominent geomorphic feature occurring south observed at compliance Transects 3 and of Boca Raton Inlet is a shore-oblique by- 5. During the two-year monitoring event, passing bar. Bypassing bars are well known compliance Transect 3 showed the enin the published literature (Bruun 1978; tire transect and central monitoring staKraus 2000; Walton and Adams 1976). tion buried under 15-24 cm of sediment. The South Boca Raton bypassing bar was Macroalgae cover dominated the center further mapped and described by Benedet monitoring stations with up to 46% cover. (2002), Benedet and Finkl (2003), Kruem- Although the north and east ends of compel and Spandoni (1998), and Dombrowski pliance Transect 5 were documented with and Mehta (1993). The bar is readily seen 100% sand coverage ranging in depth in high-resolution bathymetric images and from 8-12 cm, the benthic diversity and percent cover increased since the two-year aerial photographs (Figure 2). monitoring event. The three-year postDue to the excavation of 343,000 cy of construction monitoring event reported a sand from the ebb-tidal shoal in 2002, the 46-79% sediment cover at each of the volume of material fed to the bypassing sample stations along the shore parallel bar system was temporarily reduced. As a and shore perpendicular transects.

Fish Monitoring Results

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 29-33


Figure 3. Biotic cover decreased from 73 to 25% from the six-month to one-year post-construction monitoring events as a result of the decrease in available substrate from the bypassing bar.

Figure 4. Biotic diversity and percent cover remained consistent from the one to two-year post-construction monitoring events.

bottom decreased from 46 species in 2004 to 31 species in 2005. Higher abundance and species richness of sh observed at the articial reef transects can be attributed to the increase in relief and structural complexity of the reef. Specically, the natural nearshore transects established on typically low relief hard-bottom in water depths and distance from shore were comparable to the articial reef transects. The maximum vertical relief observed on the natural transects was approximately one foot compared to the maximum vertical relief in excess of two-three feet on the articial reef.


Monitoring Schedule

The nal three-year post-construction in situ monitoring of the natural nearshore hard-bottom community was completed in April/May 2005. Per specic conditions of the project permit, one additional biological monitoring event is scheduled to occur along the north and south mitigation reefs in April/May 2006. The nal post-construction sh survey is scheduled to occur in May, June, and July 2006.

Both the natural hard-bottom and articial reef-monitoring areas have been documented to support a diverse and productive benthic community that includes macroalgae, sponges, tunicates, Scleractinians, and Octocoralia. Overall, the south mitigation reef appears to be supporting a greater abundance and diversity of organisms due to the high, variable relief and available substrate, versus the natural hard-bottom habitat (Figures 5 and 6). Despite the limited number of recruits found at the north mitigation reef, the diversity and total percent biota exceeds the coverage and diversity found along the natural hard bottom. The ephemeral nature of the nearshore hard bottom and reduced structural complexity and relief limits the diversity and density of benthic and sessile organisms establishing on the natural nearshore hard bottom.

Higher abundance and species richness of shes observed at the articial reef transects can be attributed to the increase in relief and structural complexity. The maximum vertical relief observed on the natural transects was less than 1 ft compared to the maximum vertical relief in excess of 2-3 ft on the articial reef.

Both the one- and two-year post-construction monitoring events documented a greater percentage of juvenile sh on the natural hard-bottom, whereas a large number of adult and intermediate phase predatory sh and prey sh were reported on the articial reef. The low percentage of juveniles reported on the articial reef may be attributed to a variety of factors including: an increased number of predatory and prey sh; increased substrate complexity and relief, which provide gaps and voids for juveniles, small and cryptic species, and supplies ample space for shelter; and the use of the transect-count method, which Fish Community Assemblage does not account for cryptic and hidden In 2004 and 2005, sh abundance was species. The nal post-construction sh greater on the articial reef transects than transect counts are scheduled to occur in on the natural hard-bottom transects. May, June, and July 2006 along both the nearshore and articial reefs.

Figure 5. Sergeant Majors (Abudefduf saxatilis ) and Spottail Pinsh (Diplodus holbrooki ) nding viable habitat and resources on the south mitigation reef. 32

Figure 6. Low relief, nearshore hardbottom habitat (Station 5) was dominated by Phaeophyta (brown algae) cover. Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 29-33

The mitigation originally proposed by the city of Boca Raton included placement of the entire articial reef at a distance of 4,330 ft south of Boca Raton Inlet, in a gap within the natural hard-bottom platform and in an area where adjacent hard-bottom had been relatively persistently exposed. However, the citys proposed reef siting plan was altered resulting in the placement of much of the articial reef near the A 2.39-acre articial reef was constructmouth of Boca Raton Inlet. ed from May 31 through June 26, 2003 Unfortunately, the city was not consult- as mitigation for the coverage of surf ed concerning the change in the articial zone rock formations resulting from sand reef placement site, and much of the reef placement. The 2005 mapping results of was constructed near the inlet mouth. The the exposed articial reef structures were north mitigation reef site was placed in calculated as follows: the north mitigation an active sand-shoaling environment, just site yields 1.29 acres and the south mitigasouth of Boca Raton Inlet, while the south tion site yields 0.93 acres, for a total area site was located 4,000 feet south of the in- of 2.22 acres. let. Since construction of the articial reef,

Articial Reef Construction

the ebb tidal shoal bypassing Boca Raton Inlet has returned to a more normal size and volume following sand removal for the 2002 beach nourishment project. Not unexpectedly, the shoal covers a portion of the northern articial reef. As evidenced by the sand migrations from the east, the nearshore natural hard-bottom community undergoes similar covering events as a result of migrating ebb tidal shoal.

The north articial reef is undergoing similar episodic burial events, similar to the nearshore natural hard-bottom, as a result of the bypassing bar. Although the total articial reef acreage is less than the constructed amount, the ephemeral nature of the articial reef habitat is comparable with the adjacent nearshore natural hardbottom habitat. The persistent exposure of the south mitigation reef provides suitable substrate for benthic organisms to establish permanent residence and available habitat for sh to utilize. The dataset collected for the project is the result of a team effort by the CPE Environmental Studies Department, with assistance from the Survey Department. Funding for data collection and analysis were provided by the city of Boca Raton, FL.


Benedet, L., 2002. Interpretation of Beach and Nearshore Morphodynamics Based on Geomorphological Mapping, Boca Raton, Florida: Master of Science thesis, 163 pp. Benedet, L. and Finkl, C. W., 2003. Using geographic/marine information system (GIS/MIS) frameworks to determine spatial variability of beach sediments and nearshore geomorphology in subtropical southeast Florida, Proceedings of Coastal Sediments 03, Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers, CD-ROM. Brock, R. E. 1982. A Critique of the Visual Census Method for Assessing Coral Reef Fish Populations, Bulletin of Marine Science 32, 269-276. Bruun, P., 1978. Stability of Tidal Inlets: Theory and Engineering, Elsevier Scientic Publishing Company, 258-260. Dombrowski, M. R. and A. J. Mehta, 1993. Inlets and Management Practices: Southeast Coast of Florida, Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 18, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 29-57. Finkl, C. W. 1993. Tidal Inlets in Florida: Their morphodynamics and role on coastal sand management, Proceedings of the Hornafjordur International Coastal Symposium, 67-85. Ginsburg, R., 2000. Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment 2000, University of Miami. Hayes, M.O., 1980. General morphology and sediment patterns in tidal inlets, Sedimentary Geology., 26,139-156. Hine, A. C.; Mearns, D. L.; Davis, R. A., and Bland, M., 1986. Impact of Florida Gulf coast inlets on the coastal sand budget, Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores, By the Department of Marine Science and Geology, University of South Florida, Tampa and St. Petesburg, FL, 128 pp. Jones, R. S. and Thompson M. J., 1978. Comparison of Florida reef sh assemblages using a rapid visual technique, Bulletin of Marine Science, 26,159-172. Kraus, N.C. 2000. Reservoir model of ebbtidal shoal evolution and sand bypassing, Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, 126, 305-313. Kruempel, C. J. and R. H. Spadoni, 1998. Inlet Management Plan Implementation at Boca Raton Inlet Boca Raton, Florida, Proceedings of the 1998 National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, 185199. Miller, C. 2002. Personal communication regarding modied version of AGGRA methodology, Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. Sale, P. F. and Douglas, W. A., 1981. Precision and accuracy of visual census technique for sh assemblages on coral patch reefs, Environmental Biology of Fishes 6, 333339. Walton, T. L., Jr., and W. D. Adams 1976. Capacity of inlet outer bars to store sand, Proceedings 15th Coastal Engineering Conference, Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1919-1937. Willis, T. J. 2001. Visual census methods underestimate density and diversity of cryptic reef shes, Journal of Fish Biology 59,1408-1411.

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 29-33


The Non-Market Value of Beach Recreation in California


Linwood Pendleton, Associate Professor

Environmental Health Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles and, Lead Non-Market Economist, The National Ocean Economics Program

Judith Kildow, James W. Rote Distinguished Professor,

Division of Science and Environmental Policy, California State University at Monterey Bay and Director, The National Ocean Economics Program

magnitude of beach values that never enter the market. These non-market values represent the Beach-going represents a major economic use of value that day users place on access to the beach the California coast and ocean. Concession stands, beyond what they pay in terms of travel costs, paid parking lots, and waterfront restaurants reveal parking fees and tolls. Beaches in California repthat beach-goers contribute to a thriving coastal resent a recreational and open-space resource that market economy. We draw on estimates of beach provides a level of public access rarely matched non-market values and estimates of beach visita- elsewhere in the United States. Using a conservation in California to estimate the potential eco- tive estimate of 150 million beach visits, and a nomic value of day-use beach-going in the state. A range of estimates for the non-market value of a number of different sources estimate beach visita- California beach day, we estimate that non-market tion days for California. These estimates of annual expenditures by beach-goers in California could beach visitation range from 150 million visits to substantially exceed $2 billion each year. more than 378 million beach visits. Using a conservative estimate of 150 million beach visits, we Article Received: 28 August 2005; Revised and Acestimate that market expenditures by beach-goers cepted: 8 February 2006. in California could substantially exceed $3 billion each year. Less obvious, however, is the economic


each recreation is a cornerstone of the California coastal economy and even California culture. For at least four decades, Hollywood has carefully documented the California beach life. A more complete and accurate assessment of the number of actual beach users and the economic value of beach use, however, has only just begun. Nevertheless, the emerging picture of beach visitation and the potential value of market and nonmarket economic impacts of beach use in California corroborate the obvious importance of beach visitation for the California coastal economy.


The California Coastal Act protects access to public beaches throughout California. As a result, beaches are an important source of recreational open space for Californians with as many as 63.4 percent of all Californians making at least one visit to a California beach each year 2.5 times the national average (California Department of Boating and Waterways [CDBW] 2002). A survey by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC 2003) nds that 72 percent of all Californians make at least one trip to the beach each year.

Day trips to beaches generate two distinct kinds of economic impact for the coastal and ocean economy: market expenditures and non-market consumer surplus values. The former represents 1) economic input for the local economy when visitors from out of the area spend money, and 2) a transfer of spending occurs from other activities to beach activities when visitors are local residents. While not technically a value from societys perspective, expenditures are important because they allow the analyst to better understand what prots, employment, wages and taxes may be associated with beach spending. In California, day visitors to beaches spend money locally on food, beverages, parking and beach-related activities and rentals (e.g., body boards, umbrellas, etc.). In addition, beach-goers may purchase more durable goods to better enjoy beaches including surfboards, umbrellas and towels. To date, only the variable expenditures of beach goers in California have been estimated. King (1999) estimated the scal impact of beaches in California and reported that, in 1998, Californias combined day visitors and tourists spent $14 billion dollars ($16.4 billion in 2005 dollars) on beachrelated expenditures (King 1999).1

Two other studies examine beach-related expenditures by day visitors in California. A survey of beach-goers in southern California (Hanemann et al. 2002) found that per-person per-trip expenditures on beach related items and services were $23.19 ($25.18 in 2005 dollars) for beach-goers who took at least one trip in the summer of 2000. In another study by King (CDBW 2002), average beach-related expenditures (excluding gas and automobile costs) were $29.66 ($32.20 in 2005 dollars). While the study by Hanemann et al. (2002) estimates expenditures to only those visitors that actually touch the sand at least once during their trip, King (CDBW 2002) includes expenditures by visitors to piers, boardwalks, parks, and restaurants adjacent to beaches. Visitors to beaches also place a value on beach visits above and beyond what they spend at the beach the consumer surplus of beach visits. Unlike many marketed goods, access to the beach is largely free (aside from parking fees) in California. Because of the low cost of beach access and the importance of beach recreation to Californians, numerous studies have estimated the consumer surplus of beachgoing in California to better measure the total economic value of beaches and beach management in the state. Yet, no study has attempted to compile these values to nd an estimate for the total non-market value of beaches in California. As we show below, the value of non-market beach uses is substantial and may even be within an order of magnitude of the market expenditures associated with beach recreation in the state. Failure to fully account for nonmarket values of beaches in California could lead to explicit and implicit errors in the evaluation of beach projects. We estimate the total non-market value of beaches in California using a two-step



Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 34-37

process. First, we estimate the total beach visitation activity days (herein referred to as beach days) where a beach day represents a visit to one beach by one individual on one day. An estimate of total annual beach days represents the total number of person days spent on the beaches of California in one year. If a visitor goes to the same beach or different California beaches 10 times in one year then it is counted as 10 beach days. Second, we draw from the literature to nd what we believe to be a representative range of estimates of value for one day of beach visitation to nd the total non-market value of beach visitation for California. The people who visit a beach on a given day may engage in multiple outdoor recreation activities. They swim, sunbathe, walk, jog, view birds and wildlife, or just watch sunsets. Our estimates include beach visits for any recreational activity.

BEACH) to estimate beach visitation in California. The authors estimate the attendance per mile of beach using EPA BEACH attendance estimates for four different regions of California: northern California, San Francisco Bay area, central California, and southern California, and then extrapolate to get the estimates of attendance for those beaches for which only length is known. The BEACH Watch program of EPA2 covers only 224 beaches, but the authors supplement the data with other sources including guide books and the California Coastal Commissions Coastal Access Guide. In all, the authors identify at least 417 California beaches (see appendix for a complete list of beaches) and estimate the attendance at these beaches to be 153.1 million beach days. The estimates of Kildow and Shivendu are in line with those of the NSRE (2000) estimates, the United States Lifeguard Agency (2002) data and the estimates for beach attendance given by Morton and Pendleton (2001), but are signicantly lower than those of Kings estimates for the California Department of Boating and Waterways (2001). It is not clear why the estimates from King diverge so greatly from other estimates. Kings estimates represent and average of more than 10 beach day visits for every resident of the state. The Public Policy Institute of California found that 36 percent of Californias 35.9 million (2004 Census estimate) residents who were surveyed went to the beach more than once per month, while 51 percent of the population went between once and several times each year. For the purposes of this study, we use a conservative estimate of 150 million beach days each year at California beaches with a clear understanding that the total number of beach days made statewide are likely to be larger.

error in our estimates lies in the degree to which non-market beach values for southern California beaches may not be representative of the values placed on beaches elsewhere in California. Nevertheless, because Kildow and Shivendu (2001) nd that more than 85 percent of all beach visits in California are made to beaches in Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties, the sensitivity of our results to this geographical extrapolation error are likely to be relatively small. Two primary methods have been used to value consumer surplus estimates: 1) travel cost methods that use market-based data on travel to beaches, and 2) contingent valuation methods that use survey approaches to elicit the value of beach recreation. Chapman and Hanemann (2001) argue that contingent valuation estimates of California beach visits to date have been awed and generate unreliable estimates, largely because the contingent valuation surveys often are not site-specic and fail to account for varying travel costs to beaches around the state. We focus the discussion that follows on estimates from the many travel cost studies that have been undertaken to estimate the values of beach days in California. Travel cost estimates of consumer surplus for beach visits have been employed to estimate the value of beach days, largely along the central and southern California coast. Table 1 provides estimates of consumer surplus values for visits to beaches in California. Consumer surplus estimates range from a low of $10.98 (in 2001 dollars) for a beach day to Cabrillo Beach in Los Angeles County (Leeworthy and Wiley 1993) to a high of greater than $70 (in 2005 dollars) day visits to San Diego beaches (Lew 2002). In 1997, Michael Hanemann estimated the value of the consumer surplus of beach days at Huntington Beach at $15/day visit (in 1997 dollars; Hanemann 1997). Hanemanns estimate of beach related consumer surplus was later discounted by 10 percent and used as the basis for a jury award regarding lost beach recreation due to the American Trader oil spill (Chapman and Hanemann 2001). The exact non-market value associated with a beach day depends importantly on the quality of the beach, the season, the geographic location and even water temperature. Similar, the consumer surplus value of a beach day depends on characteristics of the beach-goer, including their age, income and the activities they undertake while at the beach. Detailed data on beach specic non-market values and detailed data about beach-specic at35

A number of different sources estimate beach days for California. King (CDBW 2002, Chapter 3) updates beach attendance gures originally based on a random telephone survey of California households by King and Potepan (1997). Adjusting for increases in state population, King estimates that as many as 378.5 million beach days were made to California beaches by Californians in 2001; these beach days include both day visits and multi-day visits (e.g., by tourists or out of town visitors) to beaches and piers, boardwalks, parks and restaurants adjacent to beaches. Leeworthy and Wiley (2001) use data from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, a national telephone survey, to estimate that 151.4 million beach days were taken at California beaches in 2000. In addition to telephone surveys, beach attendance records are kept by county and state agencies as well as private rms hired to provide lifeguard services at some southern California beaches. Using lifeguard estimates, the United States Life Saving Association estimates that as many as 146 million beach days were taken at southern California beaches alone (USLA 2002). In another study, Morton and Pendleton (2001) estimate that total beach attendance in Los Angeles and Orange County in 2000 exceeded 79 million beach days. Morton and Pendletons estimates, detailed in a report to the State Water Resources Control Board, are taken directly from lifeguard records.


No attempt has been made to estimate the aggregate non-market value of beaches for large areas in general, and for California in particular. Aggregating non-market values studies can be complicated if the studies estimate the value of different types of uses (e.g., surng, swimming or just sunbathing) and the value of uses during different seasons. Fortunately, most studies that have estimated non-market values for beach use in California have estimated the value of a general beach day, usually during the summer. Unfortunately, Kildow and Shivendu (2001) use nearly all of the studies we cite estimate data from the Environmental Protection values for southern California beaches. Agencys BEACH Watch Program (EPA As a result, the potential for extrapolation


Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 34- 37

tor to Californias economy. The market value of beach going is widely recognized. Concession stands, paid parking lots, and waterfront restaurants reveal that beach goers contribute to a thriving coastal market economy. Less obvious, however, is the economic magnitude of beach values that never enter the market. Beaches in California represent a recreational and open space resource that provides a level of public access rarely matched elsewhere in the United States. We estimate that beaches in California continue to produce non-market economic benets that are likely to be signicantly greater than $2 billion annually. Despite the potentially large economic value of beach recreation in California and the fact that 72 percent of all Californians will visit the beach each year (PPIC 2003), the state does not collect any standardized, consistently estimated data on beach use or beach values. An authoritative record of annual beach visitation does not exist, and the attendance data that are available are estimated based on a variety of methods (Morton and Pendleton 2001), few of which have been rigorously tested for accuracy. Similarly, a statewide non-market valuation of beach recreation has not been undertaken for use values at California beaches. To date, beach valuation studies in the state have been conducted on an ad hoc basis, with only the Southern California Beach Valuation Project (Hanemann et al. 2002; 2003; 2004) attempting a valuation study using standard methods across beaches within an entire region3. Without standardized, regularly collected data on beach visitation and non-market beach values, county beach agencies, California Department of Parks and Recreation and coastal municipalities are mostly ignorant regarding the economic health of the beaches and beach-goers within their charge, and have little information about the value of the assets they are managing.

Table 1. Travel cost estimates of the nonmarket value of beach days in California.

2001); the upper limit represents a midpoint between the median beach value found by 1) Leeworthy and Wiley (1993) and Leeworthy (1995), and 2) the median value of the preferred estimates from Lew (2002). (All values are adjusted to dollars in 2005.) Based on a conservative estimate of beach attendance of 150 million beach days annually, we estimate the non-market value of beach visits in California to range We use both low and high estimates of from $2.25 billion dollars to $7.5 billion $15/beach day and $50/beach visit day re- annually. spectively to estimate a range of potential ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS economic non-market values that may be CONCLUSION associated with beach recreation in CaliThe authors would like to thank the Beach-going is more than just an idle fornia. The low estimate for the value of a past time in California. Beach-going repre- reviewers for helpful comments. Additionbeach day is based on the court-appointed sents a major economic use of the Califor- ally, we thanks Bonnie Lockwood for help value of a beach day from the American nia coast and ocean and a major contribu- in preparation of the manuscript. Trader case (Chapman and Hanemann tendance and the characteristics of beachgoers at all 471 beaches in the state are not available. Nevertheless, we can begin to better understand the order of magnitude of the non-market value of beaches in California by examining the likely value of beaches using a range of estimates for the economic non-market value for beach days and extrapolating this over the state.


Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 34-37

California Department of Boating and Waterways and State Coastal Conservancy, 2002. California Beach Restoration Study, Sacramento California. Chapman, D. and Hanemann, W. M., 2001. Environmental damages in court: the American Trader case, The Law and Economics of the Environment, Anthony Heyes, editor, 319-367. Hanemann, W. M., 1997. Final conclusions of Professor Michael Hanemann regarding lost recreational damages resulting from the American Trader Oil Spill. Report submitted to the State of California Attorney Generals Ofce. Hanemann, M., L. Pendleton, J. Hilger, and D. Layton, 2002. Expenditure Report for the Southern California Beach Valuation Project, Prepared for the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, Minerals Management Service (Department of the Interior), the California State Water Resources Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Game. Hanemann, M., Pendleton, L., Mohn, C., Hilger, J., Kurisawa, K., Layton, D. and Vasquez, F., 2003. Interim Report on the Southern California Beach Valuation Project. Prepared for the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, Minerals Management Service (Department of the Interior), the California State Water Resources Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Game. Hanemann, M., Pendleton, L., Mohn, C., Hilger, J., Kurisawa, K., Layton, D. and Vasquez, F., 2004. Using revealed preference models to estimate the affect of coastal water quality on beach choice in Southern California. Prepared for the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, Minerals Management Service (Department of the Interior), the California State Water Resources Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Game. Kildow, J. and S. Shivendu, 2001. Valuing California Beaches, Presented at the Beach Economics Workshop, University of Southern California. King, P., 1999. The Fiscal Impact of Beaches in California, Public Research Institute, San Francisco University, report commissioned by California Department of Boating and Waterways. King, P., 2001. The Economic Analysis of Beach Spending and the Recreational Benets of Beaches in the City of San Clemente, mimeo, San Francisco State University. King, P. G. and Potepan, M., 1997. The Economic Value of Californias Beaches, San Francisco State University: Public Research Institute. Leeworthy, V. R. and Wiley, P. C., 1993. Recreational Use Value for Three Southern California Beaches, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Ofce of Ocean Resource Conservation and Assessment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville Maryland. Leeworthy, V. R., 1995. Transferability of Bell and Leeworthy Beach study to Southern California Beaches, Memo to David Chapman, June 22 (Exhibited 939) reported in Chapman, D. and M. Hanemann, 2001. Environmental damages in court: the American Trader case. The Law and Economics of the Environment, Anthony Heyes, editor, pp. 319-367. Leeworthy, V. R. and P. C. Wiley, 2001. Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Lew, D. K., 2002. Valuing recreation, time, and water quality improvements using nonmarket valuation: an application to San Diego beaches, Doctoral dissertation. University of California Davis. Morton, J. and L. Pendleton, 2001. A Database of Beach Closures and Historical Water Quality, Prepared for the State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, California. PPIC, 2003. Special Survey on Californians and the Environment, Public Policy Institute of California. San Francisco, California. United States Lifesaving Association, 2002, (USLA) http://www.usla.org/PublicInfo/.

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 34-47



North Stradbroke Island, Moreton Bay, Australia

By Department of Civil Engineering University of Queensland Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia h.chanson@uq.edu.au

Hubert Chanson, Reader

Figure 2. Photograph of Main Beach, viewed from Point Lookout on Dec. 22, 2002.

construction of the historic township of Dunwich, but the development was halted because of hostile local aborigines and inadequate water supply. Subsequent European settlements in Dunwich included a Catholic mission (1843-1847), a quaranFigure 1. Map of Moreton Bay. tine station (1850-1865) and a benevolent North Stradbroke Island is located 30 institution (1867-1947). km southeast of Brisbane, Queensland, Locally known as Straddie, North Australia. It is part of a series of three large sandy islands separating Moreton Stadbroke Island has several freshwater Bay from the Pacic Ocean. These are lakes, waterways and lagoons. Whales, South Stradbroke Island, North Stradbroke Island and Moreton Island (Figure 1). On Sept. 3, 1894, the barque Cambus Wallace wrecked off Stradbroke Island around the narrow isthmus of Tuleen. Explosives from the salvaged cargo were detonated, weakening the dunes. Storms and rough seas in the following years helped the sea to break through Stradbroke island, creating the Jumpinpin Bar. North and South Stradbroke islands were separated by a storm in 1896. North Stradbroke Island is about 38 km long and 11 km wide. On the Pacic Ocean side, Main Beach extends for 32 km (Figures 1, 2 and 3).

dolphins, turtles and manta rays are regularly spotted from Point Lookout headland and the North Gorge (Figures 4 and 5). More than 253 species of bird life live here, including Little Penguin, Wandering Albatross, Great Cormorant, Black Swan, Whistling Kite, White-bellied SeaEagle, Galah, Tawny Frogmouth, Azure Kingsher, Forest Kingsher, Red-backed Kingsher and Sacred Kingsher. Figure 6 shows a whale spotted off Main Beach.

The rst recorded European landing on this island was in 1803 by Matthew Flinders, who came into contact with local aborigines. European settlement started in 1825 with a pilot station at Amity Point to guide the ships for the Brisbane penal colony through the South Passage Bar. The island was given its name in 1827 after the Earl of Stradbroke. Between 1827 and 1831, a convict settlement saw the Figure 3. Northern end of Main Beach, Point Lookout on July 17, 2004.
38 Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 38-39

The writer acknowledges the help of YaHui Chou, Bernard and Nicole Chanson (Brisbane), and Professor S. Aoki (Japan).
Carter, P., Durbidge, E. and Cooke-Bramley, J., 1994. Historic North Stradbroke Island. North Stradbroke Island Historical Museum Association, Dunwich Qld, Australia. Clifford, H.T. and Specht, R.L., 1979. The Vegetation of North Stradbroke Island. University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, Australia.



Figure 4. Frenchman Beach, Lookout on Aug. 14, 2002.


Photographs of Coastlines of Australia http://www.uq.edu.au/~e2hchans/photo. html#Coast_Australia North Stradbroke Island http://www.stradbrokeholidays.com.au/index.php North Stradbroke Island Historical Museum Association http://amol.org.au/guide/instn. asp?ID=Q042 Moreton Bay and islands http://www.moretonbayislands.com.au/


Figure 5. The Gorge, Point Lookout Island on Aug. 14, 2002.

Figure 6. Whale off Point Lookout, North Stradbroke Island on July 17, 2004. Whales were swimming from south to north (from right to left in the photo). Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 38-39 39


Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 49-52

Centres d'intérêt liés