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 Volume 74 • Number 2 • Spring 2006
SECRETARY:
Russell Boudreau – Long Beach, California
TREASURER:
Brad Pickel – Santa Rosa Beach, Florida Cover: Wreck of HMCS Protector, built in 1884, sunk in 1943, and now protecting the shore against erosion on
DIRECTORS: Heron Island on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Photo by H. Chanson, 27 December 2001.
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 CONTENTS
* David Cannon – Long Beach, California
Ralph Cantral – Washington, D.C. EDITORIAL 2
Michael Chrzastowski, Ph.D. – Champaign, Illinois Reinhard E. Flick
George W. Domurat – Pacifica, California
Scott Douglass, Ph.D. – Mobile, Alabama OBSERVATION AND IMPLICATIONS OF LONG WAVES
Lesley Ewing – San Francisco, California IN ST. JOSEPH BAY, FLORIDA
Deborah Flack – Tallahassee, Florida
Douglas Gaffney – Cherry Hill, New Jersey
David D. McGehee, P.E., M.Oc.E.
Steve Higgins – Fort Lauderdale, Florida
James R. Houston, Ph.D. – Vicksburg, Mississippi BEACH NOURISHMENT EXPERIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES:
Tim Kana, Ph.D. – Columbia, South Carolina STATUS AND TRENDS IN THE 20TH CENTURY
Nicholas C. Kraus, Ph.D. – Vicksburg, Mississippi Charles W. Finkl, Lindino Benedet, and Thomas J. Campbell
Council member Ann J. Kulchin – Carlsbad, California
John Lee – Dickinson, Texas HERON ISLAND, GREAT BARRIER REEF, AUSTRALIA
James Leutze, Ph.D., Wilmington, North Carolina Hubert Chanson, Reader
D.T. Minich, Fort Meyers, Florida
* Jerry Mohn – Galveston, Texas
Mayor Robert E. Pinkerton, Jr. – South Padre Island, Texas
SAND BACK-PASSING WITH LAND-BASED EQUIPMENT,
Joan Pope – Alexandria, Virginia A COST-EFFECTIVE APPROACH FOR BEACH RESTORATION
Jim Rausch – Washington, D.C. Stuart Chase, P.E.
Greg Reid – Oakland, California
Thomas W. Richardson – Vicksburg, Mississippi GREEN TURTLE (CHELONIA MYDAS L.) POPULATION ESTIMATE
Phillip Roehrs – Virginia Beach, Virginia FOR THE NEARSHORE REEFS OF BROWARD COUNTY:
Gregory Rudolph – Emerald Isle, North Carolina A SUMMARY AFTER THREE YEARS OF
* Charles Shabica, Ph.D. – Chicago, Illinois PRE-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Supervisor Pam Slater-Price – San Diego, California
Kim Sterrett – Sacramento, California
Christopher Makowski1, Lou Fisher2 and Craig J. Kruempel1
Mayor Gary Vegliante – West Hampton Dunes, New York
Michael P. Walther, P.E., Vero Beach, Florida BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY ANALYSIS NEAR A MAINTAINED
Howard Marlowe, Legislative Coordinator – Washington, D.C. NATURAL INLET
Kate & Ken Gooderham, Exec. Directors – Fort Myers, Florida Erin A. Hague and Robert M. Baron
* By virtue of being a chapter president
ADVISORY BOARD: THE NON-MARKET VALUE OF BEACH RECREATION IN CALIFORNIA
Robert Dean, Ph.D., Chuck Hamilton, Syed Khalil, Stephen P. Linwood Pendleton, Associate Professor, Judith Kildow,
Leatherman, Ph.D., Orville Magoon, Ram Mohan, Ph.D., P.E., James W. Rote, Distinguished Professor,
Joe Moseley, Ph.D., Patricia Newsom, William Stronge, Ph.D.
DIRECTORS EMERITI:
Charles L. Bretschneider, Paul Dennison, Thorndike Saville, NORTH STRADBROKE ISLAND, MORETON BAY, AUSTRALIA
Jr., George M. Watts, Henry M. von Oesen, Robert L. Wiegel Hubert Chanson, Reader
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. ORGANIZED 1926 — EIGHTIETH YEAR
SHORE & BEACH is published four times per year by the American Shore & Beach Preservation Association,
c/o Scripps Institution of Oceanography
ASBPA, 5460 Beaujolais Lane, Fort Myers, Florida 33919-2704. The views expressed and the data presented by the contribu-
9500 Gilman Drive tors are not to be construed as having the endorsement of the Association, unless specifically stated. SHORE & BEACH is
La Jolla, CA 92093-0209 a refereed journal.
E-mail manuscripts to: editorial.assistant@asbpa.org
EXECUTIVE OFFICE: Shore & Beach Website: http://www.asbpa.org
Address all membership dues, remittances, changes of address, Claims for missing issues should be made to the Membership Office.
and advertising correspondence to: Such claims will be honored up to six months after publication.
Ken and Kate Gooderham, publishers
ASBPA, 5460 Beaujolais Lane American Shore & Beach Preservation Association is a tax-exempt non-profit organization under a tax exemption
Fort Myers, Florida 33919-2704 letter from the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, September 14, 1950. Articles appearing in this journal
Phone: (239) 489-2616, Fax: (239) 489-9917 are indexed in ENVIRONMENTAL PERIODICALS BIBLIOGRAPHY. - ISSN 0037-4237
E-mail: exdir@asbpa.org ASBPA makes no representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, truth, quality, suitability or
PUBLISHING COORDINATION: reliability of information or products provided by any third-party sponsors, exhibitors, authors or
Yancy Young, 2596 Spyglass Drive, Suite A, presenters associated with any ASBPA-affiliated event, publication or Web site.
Shell Beach, CA 93449-1764
Phone: (805) 773-0077, E-mail: publisher@asbpa.org
 From the Editor’s Desk
By

Reinhard E. Flick

A
n interesting thing is happening those of you who have encouraged contri-In this issue we present an assortment of
on the way to producing Shore & butions and assembled issues, especially
papers covering several of the disciplines
Beach: we actually have a back- Tom Campbell and Lindino Benedet, andimportant to coastal activities. These in-
log of papers! This is welcome news for clude beach economics (Pendleton and
Lesley Ewing and Joan Pope, recent-vol-
a publication that has often had a paper Kildow), wave erosion (McGehee), sand
ume guest editors. We especially thank
shortage (look at issues of 12 or 15 years those of you who have contributed ar-management engineering (Chase), the
ago and notice the bigger font size), in- ticles! Please continue to consider Shore &
technical history of beach nourishment
cluding in 2004 and 2005, after I took over Beach for your technical publishing. (Finkl, Benedet, and Campbell), construc-
as editor from Nick Kraus. It may result tion monitoring (Makowski, Fisher, and
We also welcome your letters and opin- Kruempel), and the scenic beauty and cul-
in a little longer wait to see your paper in
print. But it will also mean that we canion pieces. Surely, there is something nag- tural significance of it all (Chanson).
ging you about coastal management, or a
be more selective, and publish only better
quality papers. controversial technical point in one of the Thank you all for your continued inter-
papers, or even some disagreement with est in, support of, and contributions to
Even more than money and volunteer an editorial point that you just can’t resist Shore & Beach. Please keep those papers
time Shore & Beach needs papers - lots commenting on! coming!
and lots of paper submissions. We thank

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

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

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

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

ABSTRACT potential breach site was near 180 degrees, result-

A section of Florida’s St. Joseph Peninsula is
experiencing significant 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 hydrody-
namic processes governing the bay system and to
calibrate and verify a numerical hydrodynamic cir-
culation 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
ing 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 (includ-
ing hurricanes), and introduction of water with
much higher sediment loads discharged from adja-
cent Apalachicola Bay into St. Joseph Bay.
ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Erosion, breach,
inlet, long waves, seiche, phase lag, scour sus-
pended sediment Paper Received: 20 June 2005,
Revised and Accepted: 6 March 2006.

S
Figure 3. Map showing project gage sites
BACKGROUND (x’s) and area tide and met stations (o’s).
t. Joseph Bay, FL, is an embayment
located on the northern shore of the 2005). This paper describes the collection,
Gulf of Mexico situated between analysis, validation and implications of
the mainland and St. Joseph Peninsula, a that data set of water level time series.
curving sand spit with the prominent Cape DATA COLLECTION
San Blas located at its southern corner
(Figure 1). The bay entrance opens to the Three sites were selected to define the
northwest and is sheltered from direct important hydraulic characteristics of the
offshore wave energy. Tides in the Gulf of system: Site 1, in the Gulf, offshore of
Mexico to the east of Cape San Blas are Stump Hole; Site 2, in the bay, just north
mixed, while those west of the Cape are Figure 1. Map of region and project study of Stump Hole; and Site 3, near the en-
predominantly diurnal (FDEP 2000). The area. trance to St. Joseph Bay (Figure 3).
tide in St. Joseph Bay is diurnal with a
In recent history the peninsula has expe- Water level time series were measured
mean range of about 1.5 ft.
rienced significant long term and episodic at each site using self-contained water
erosion along its western side – the highest level gauges with internal battery power
historical shoreline erosion rate in the state and solid-state memory. The gauges mea-
(Coastal America 1996). State Road 30E sure and record ambient water pressure
runs along St. Joseph Peninsula and pro- (absolute) and temperature at a program-
vides routine access and the only evacua- mable sampling scheme. The following
tion route for the residents of the peninsula parameters resulted in a battery-limited
and visitors to the St. Joseph Peninsula operational life of about two weeks:
State Park. A segment of roadway near Sample Rate – 2 Hz
a site called Stump Hole is particularly Sample Length – 450 sec = 7.5 min
threatened, and is currently protected by Sample Interval – 10 min.
a rock revetment (Figure 2). One of the
options being considered by the Florida The gauge’s software saved the aver-
Department of Transportation is to allow age of the nine hundred samples over
the breach to occur naturally and replace the sample length. Thus, a data point
that section of roadway with a bridge be- represents the mean of the 2 Hz samples
hind the resulting inlet. 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
to understand the hydrodynamic processes Gauge mounts were fabricated from
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.

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 3-7 3
 Table 1. Gage Deployment Sites

Figure 4. Gage mount with fixed 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 pil- hours. While the gauges could have oper-
ings using heavy-gauge nylon cable ties. ated for at least another week, the brief lull
After installation, the deployment pipe that presented itself between the afternoon
was unscrewed, exposing the pressure sen- of March 9 and the morning of March
sor to ambient water pressure. Recovery 10 seemed an opportunity for recovery
Figure 5. Predicted Tides at Port St. Joe, was by reversing this process. worth grabbing. Just after retrieval of the
March 1- 14, 2005.
last gauge, winds picked up and stayed
The goal of the deployment was to above 12 kt nearly continuously for the
from the curious, the top of the housing
obtain a minimum of three days of data next week, including the third front in two
was attached by cement, sealing the instru-
over a spring tidal cycle. Figure 5 shows weeks.
ment inside. Removal of the instrument
the predicted tide at Port St. Joe inside St.
required sawing the main housing apart The gauges’ horizontal position was de-
Joseph Bay, and Figure 6 shows the mea-
after recovery.
sured winds at SGOFI1, a meteorological termined to about +10 ft with a differential
A 2-in diameter by 5-ft long PVC pipe station located on an offshore platform GPS receiver. Elevations were determined
piling extended from the bottom of each of about 20 nm SSE of Cape San Blas, dur- from an optical level on shore by reading a
the main housings (Figure 4). A removable ing the first two weeks of March 2005. The graduated rod placed on the top of the gage
2-in diameter deployment pipe could be deployment interval is highlighted. through the opening in the top of the main
threaded into the top of the main housing; housing. That level was then referenced
A frontal passage brought moderate to to the nearest benchmark to provide the
a 2-in diameter hose with control valve
strong northwest winds the first few days elevation of the top of the gage relative to
was attached to the top end of this pipe. To
of the month. Winds stayed between 10 NGVD. Table 1 summarizes the deploy-
deploy the mount, a portable pump forced
and 20 knots from the northeast between ment parameters at the three sites.
water through the removable pipe, around
March 3 and 4, and then veered more
the annular space between the gauge and northerly on March 5 as a mild cold front DATA ANALYSIS
the main housing, and out through the passed through. Gauges were deployed Data Reduction
lower piling. Using the control valve to on March 6. Two gauges, a primary and
regulate the water flow, the pipe piling was redundant were placed at Sites 2 and 3. Measured absolute ambient pressure was
jetted into the sand until the lower end of The redundant gauge mount at Site 1 was converted to gage pressure by subtract-
the main housing was at or below the level damaged during placement, so only the ing atmospheric pressure, obtained from
of the seabed. For additional support, the primary gauge was deployed. A strong SGOF1 2
. Measured gage pressure is di-
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 20º C at all sites
Winds peaked at 35 -- but salinity had to be assumed. A conver-
kt 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

Footnotes
1
A 24-hour data gap beginning 0900 on March 9 was filled with data from
Apalachicola Airport.

Figure 6. Plot of the measured winds in the area, March 1–14,

2
A 24-hour data gap beginning 0900 on March 9 was filled with data from
2005. Apalachicola Airport.

4 Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 3-7
Figure 7. Plot of the qualified 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, energy is near resonance with the natural
measured elevation of each gage. including comparisons between primary frequency of oscillation, or sloshing, of
and redundant gages and comparisons to one or more nearby basins. These reso-
DATUM ADJUSTMENT adjacent NOS tide gages. A minor survey nant oscillations (including subharmonics)
In the following sections, the project discrep3ency was identified and corrected. are called seiching, and will occur in St.
data set will be compared to both mea- The final uncertainty of the measured water Joseph Bay, as well as any area defined
sured and predicted time series from tidal levels is approximately + 0.05 ft. Details of by a sudden change in depth, such as the
stations established by the National Ocean the validation process are found in McGe- offshore shoals, the bights to either side
Service (NOS). NOS tide gage data are hee (2006). Figure 7 plots the final qualified of the cape, even the continental shelf.
typically archived relative to a local “Da- data from the three measurement sites. Even when their amplitudes are small (on
tum of Tabulation,” so all data (NOS 2005) the order of inches), the horizontal water
DISCUSSION velocities associated with long waves can
was adjusted to NGVD. This required es-
tablishing adjustments at each tide station A notable aspect of the signal at all have significant impacts (McGehee 1991).
between NGVD, NAVD and local MLLW. three project sites, as well as at Panama
While long waves are usually detect-
The results are provided in Table 2; these City Beach, is the prevalence of inter-
able at most ocean sites, the persistence
are the recommended values for transfer- mediate oscillations between wind wave
and amplitude of these harmonics at this
ring the project water level time series periods (order of seconds to tenths of a
site are fairly unusual. This weather event
data, as referenced to NGVD, to either second) and tidal periods (order of a half
generated long waves inside the bay on
NAVD or MSL. Note that the adjustment to full day). These oscillations, called
the order of 1 ft, comparable with tidal
is provided to only one decimal place - fur- long waves, can be generated directly by
amplitudes, but because they have shorter
ther resolution is unjustified. Details of the forces of sufficient size and scale, such
periods, horizontal current velocities as-
analysis process, which included evalua- as meteorological features, e.g.: fronts, or
sociated with the seiche will exceed tidal
tion of the change in the rate of sea level indirectly from non-linear interactions be-
currents. However, the most significant
rise within the Northwest Florida region, tween incident and reflected wind waves,
effect of the long waves for any breach
are found in McGehee (2006). wind waves of different periods, or wind
at Stump Hole is due to the geometry of
waves and currents. Continuation of the
Data Validation the bay.
oscillations beyond one or two cycles
The reduced data were subjected to qual- indicates that the frequency of the forcing

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
Geometric Effects 3. Site 2 also has another set of waves with
Stump Hole is located at the very back a similar height but with a shorter period
of St. Joseph Bay, and the time it takes about 1½ hr, or about 5,400 sec. The mode
for a long wave to travel from Cape San 1 seiche period for a rectangular basin
Blas to St. Joseph Point and back down with the bay’s length (12 nm) and an aver-
the bay results in a phase lag between age depth of 22 ft is 5,427 sec. The lower,
different locations. For the largest of the shallower portion of the bay forms another
oscillations measured during this event, basin, roughly 4 nm square and about 2-3
the phase lag is near 180 degrees between ft deep. The first seiche mode for a basin
Sites 1 and 2. The impact is evident in the with these dimensions is 5,456 sec, so
hydraulic head, as measured by the instan- these two long waves will reinforce each
taneous difference in elevation at the two other, if in phase, or cancel if out of phase.
sites, available to drive currents through Waves with periods between 1 and 1½ hr
any breach connecting these sites. Figure are seen at Site 1 at high tide on March 6,
8 plots the Site 2 minus the Site 1 time so there is some offshore forcing energy
series (solid line) along with the dominant – perhaps related to seiche on the shoals Figure 10. Satellite image showing
factors affecting it: wind and tide. – that is available to excite these resonant discharge of sediment-laden water from
modes inside the bay. Apalachicola Bay into the Gulf of Mexico
The wind’s influence is better illustrated directly offshore of Stump Hole.
by separating it into southern and western Even under tidal influence alone, there
components. The variance of the head is sufficient hydraulic head at Stump Hole sions. Triggering conditions, which will
is more dramatic than the water level; it to drive significant currents through an continue to occur even after the initial
cycles from + 1.8 ft to – 1.6 ft and back inlet. Figure 9B also plots the predicted breach develops, include strong cold fronts
to nearly + 1 ft in a 6-hour period begin- tides at West Pass and Port St. Joe (tide and tropical storms. A hurricane passing
ning at 2200 on March 7 as the cold front stations 3 and 6, respectively, in Figure nearby to the east of the bay will produce
passed through. Following the sequence 3) and compares the head difference for a similar, and much more severe, rapid
of events that produced this signal will predicted tides to the measured head dif- reversal from southerly to northerly winds,
be aided with “zoomed in” plots of that ference on March 7 and 8. The general and can be expected to produce even larg-
period (Figures 9A, B). trend is similar, with sufficient head to er seiche response than observed in this
move significant currents through an inlet study. Thus, the threat of short-term inlet
A strong south wind (causing northerly, during spring tides, but meteorological growth beyond the equilibrium size will
or negative south stress) peaks around effects magnify the tidal only head by a remain indefinitely into the future.
2100, then rapidly switches to the west factor of 2 to 3.
(negative west stress) as the front passes. Impacts on the Bay
The south wind causes wave and wind set- POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON
An inlet at Stump Hole is likely to have
up in the Gulf, and that water travels into ADJACENT SHORELINES
significant influences on the water quality
the bay. This flow coincides with the rising Calculation of inlet current velocities in the bay. Sediments to the east of Cape
tide, as shown by the measured tide in the during a storm event and short-term evo- San Blas have higher silt contents than the
far field at Panama City Beach (Figure lution of any future inlet is well beyond sands that prevail to the west, and waters
9A). Meanwhile, the southerly wind has the scope of this report. Qualitatively, hy- in Apalachicola Bay carry a much higher
been blowing water northward inside the draulic heads measured in this deployment suspended sediment load than the waters
bay, causing a set down at Site 2 around will likely drive currents well above the of St. Joseph Bay. Figure 10 is a satellite
2100. When the wind rapidly switches threshold for movement of the sediments, image from April 1994. The sediment
west, the offshore water levels rapidly so the inlet, once opened, should continue plume from Apalachicola Bay extends up
fall, but the easterly stress continues to to grow until it reaches equilibrium. Em- the peninsula beyond Stump Hole, but
force water into the bay through the wide, pirical rules derived from other inlets that is dissipated before it reaches St. Joseph
eastward facing entrance. By the time the relate equilibrium cross sections to tidal Point and the bay entrance. The waters
water levels peak in the back of the bay, prisms may not be applicable for the short- of St. Joseph Bay come from the Gulf of
levels offshore have dropped. Coinciden- term response of the inlet during a storm Mexico and are noticeably clearer. The
tally, the water in the bay begins to ebb just event because the hydraulic head reverses water that enters the bay through a breach
as the tide is turning offshore. Water levels at frequencies much higher than tidal fre- at Stump Hole will contain an increased
drop rapidly in the bay and continue to fall quencies. However, the tidal/equilibrium suspended sediment load under similar
as far as 1.5 ft lower than offshore, so the approach is appropriate for predicting the conditions.
flow reverses again. long-term fate of the inlet, assuming the
CONCLUSIONS
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 Meteorological effects strongly influ-
measurement interval. The rapid switch in allocated. Chen (2005) predicted a stable ence, and at times dominate, water levels
wind stress is, in effect, a pulse load on a inlet with a triangular cross-section of inside and outside St. Joseph Bay. The me-
vibrating system. Because the periods of approximately 276 m 2
with a maximum teorological effects can produce incident
the seiche are harmonics of tidal periods, depth of 3.5 m and a width of 189 m. long waves with periods on the order of
the oscillations can become large. Long hours in the Gulf offshore of Stump Hole
If the event triggering long-wave seich-
waves with heights on the order of 1 ft at and at Panama City Beach.
ing lasts sufficiently long, the short-term
periods near 6 hrs, about half of diurnal dimensions of the inlet could exceed these Incident long waves excite resonant
tide periods, are evident at both Sites 2 and predicted long-term equilibrium dimen- seiche modes inside St. Joseph Bay that

6 Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 3-7
amplify and sustain them. The geometry maintain it. Under routine meteorological ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
of the bay causes the seiche at the back of events, the inlet will, for the short term,
The study reported in this paper was
the bay near Stump Hole to be nearly 180 experience additional horizontal and ver-
conducted for the Florida Department of
degrees out of phase with the incident long tical scour over that due to tidal forcing
Transportation under subcontract to Volk-
wave in the Gulf offshore of Sump Hole. alone. A tropical storm or hurricane pass-
ert & Associates, Inc, of Mobile, AL.
ing near and to the east of St. Joseph Bay
The combination of the amplification would be one of those conditions. Feedback from Dr. Scott Douglass with the
and phase shifting of the long waves University of South Alabama was grate-
can produce a significant hydraulic head An inlet at Stump hole will have a signifi- fully accepted. The author also wishes to
across Stump Hole that produces currents cant effect on water quality inside St. Joseph recognize the knowledgeable watermen in
several times faster, and that reverses sev- Bay because water with high suspended the area who provided logistic support and
eral times more quickly, than tidal forcing sediment concentrations from Apalachicola keen insights into the natural processes of
alone generates. Bay discharge into the region immediately St. Joseph Bay.
offshore of Stump Hole. This water will be
If a breach develops at stump hole, tidal captured on flood flows through any new
currents alone will likely be sufficient to inlet and injected into the bay.

REFERENCES

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 final
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://co-
os.nos.noa.gv

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 3-7 7
 Beach Nourishment Experience in the United States:
Status and Trends in the 20th Century
By

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

ABSTRACT
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 pro-
vides economic and environmental advantages to
threatened coastal systems. Experience with the
procedure in the US over the last century identifies
trends towards improved methods of fill place-
ment, better design strategies, and recognition
of increased potential of performance associated
with larger fill densities. Maintenance volumes
(expressed in terms of total volume per unit length
per year) for Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific coast nour-
ishment programs decrease from north to south (A) Dune nourishment: Sediments are
along the Atlantic coast and from Atlantic coasts placed in a dune system behind the beach.
to Gulf coasts. Planning long-term nourishment
requirements requires differentiation of volumet-
ric maintenance needs from initial construction.
(B) Nourishment of subaerial beach: Sedi-
Of the 1 x 109 m3 (one billion cubic meters) of ments are placed onshore to build a wider
sediments removed from America’s beaches by and higher berm above mean water level,
engineering works and anthropogenic activity in
with some sand entering the water at a
the past century, about 650 x 106 m3 (six-hundred
fifty million) have been returned to the beaches.
preliminary steep slope.
There is thus a sediment deficit that needs to be
mitigated over the long term. (C) Profile nourishment: Sediments are
distributed across the entire beach pro-
ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Advance fill, file, subaerial beach plus the submerged
beach erosion, shore protection, coastal engineer- profile.
ing, erosional hot spot, nourishment, sediment
budget. Paper Submitted: 20 December 2005,
Revised and Accepted: 7 March 2006.
(D) Bar or shoreface nourishment: Sedi-
ments are placed offshore to form an arti-
ficial “feeder” bar.

B
INTRODUCTION and construction vol-
ume per unit length
each nourishment is an engineering
of beach. Background
process that mechanically places
information related to
large volumes of sediment onshore
nourishment design
or in the nearshore zone to artificially com-
practices is present-
pensate (vs. natural re-supply by coastal
ed, and then followed
processes) for a net deficit of sediment
by historical perspec-
in a beach system. Artificial nourishment
tives and simplified
has advantage over structural methods of
volumetric and eco-
shore protection because the procedure
nomic analyses of
preserves aesthetic and recreational val-
beach nourishment
ues of protected beaches by replicating
trends.
the protective characteristics of natural
beach and dune systems (Finkl and Walker Principles and
2002; Campbell et al. 2003). Advantages Practices of Beach
of nourished beaches compared to native Nourishment
beaches, or those beaches that fall behind
Although there
scheduled renourishment, was poignantly
are several differ-
demonstrated in the 2004 hurricane season
ent approaches to
that impacted the Florida coast with four
beach nourishment,
major storms (Benedet et al. 2005a; Clark
procedures are gen-
2005). Renourished beaches provided a
erally distinguished
greater degree of shore protection and
by methods of fill
generally fared better than non-nourished
placement, design
beaches (e.g. Walker and Finkl 2002).
strategies, and fill
Curtailment of beach nourishment or ex-
densities (NRC 1995;
tension of the renourishment interval can
Hanson et al. 2002;
have serious consequences to the effec-
Dean 2002). Types of
tiveness of degraded beach-dune systems
nourishment accord-
for shore protection (Finkl 1996).
ing to the method of Figure 1. Types of nourishment defined on the basis of where
This paper summarizes some of the fill emplacement in- fill materials are placed: (A) Dune nourishment; (B) Subaerial
larger U.S. beach nourishment programs cludes the following beach nourishment; (C) Profile or offshore; (D) Bar nourishment.
and trends by emphasizing volumes placed (Figure 1):

8 Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16
 Type B (nourishment of the subaerial Design Practices Related intersecting (finer sands) and submerged
beach), the most common nourishment to Sediment Compatibility profiles (similar sands) are characterized
practice in the United States, occurs in Two distinct approaches to beach nour- by a distribution of the fill across the beach
response to economic factors and sedi- ishment design in the U.S. include stan- profile and3 therefore less subaerial beach
mentological properties of the fill mate- dardized design guidelines (USACE 1984; area per m of fill placed.
rial under coastal conditions that in turn 2002) and those that tend to be more
translate into performance of the placed Two overarching processes are relevant
generally adapted to local problems and to the design and performance of most
materials. Positioning of the fill on the conditions. Independent of these two ap- beach nourishment projects: (1) cross-
subaerial beach initially produces a berm proaches there is an inherent need to shore profile equilibration and (2) lat-
that is wider than the targeted design compare beach fill sands with native sands eral spreading of fill material to adjacent
width because steeper construction slopes when building new beaches. Attempts to beaches (NRC 1995; Dean 2002). Other
eventually equilibrate to milder natural evaluate compatibility between native and processes that may account for losses
angles of repose under post-construction borrow (dredged) sands originated on the of sediment from the active beach sys-
wave action. federal side (e.g. Krumbein 1957, 1965; tem include: relative sea-level rise and
Renourished beaches are generally com- James 1975; USACE 1984) with simpli- background erosion, loss of sediments
prised of three main components: a design fied one-dimensional parameters such as to expanding tidal inlets (Fitzgerald et
(targeted) shoreline, an advanced fill (fill the overfill parameter (RA) and the renour- al. 2003), overwash processes on bar-
needed to maintain the design shoreline ishment parameter (RJ). rier islands (Campbell and Benedet 2003),
during the project lifetime), and a con- Recent work conducted by Dean (1991; planform adjustments of headland bay
struction template. 2000; 2002) questions the use of these beaches, and other small and large scale
coastal process.
The selection of additional beach width grain-size factors (RA and RJ) to estimate
to be achieved by artificial nourishment is beach fill volumetric requirements and Numerical models are often used to pre-
usually determined by an iterative process performance. Present design approaches to dict cross-shore responses of nourished pro-
that evaluates costs and benefits as a func- beach nourishment instead favor the use of files to storms and alongshore transport of
tion of width and goals of the nourishment equilibrium profile considerations (Dean’s fill sediments (e.g. Larson and Kraus 1989;
program. Successful implementation of method to determine compatibility of bor- Hanson and Kraus 1989; Roelvink and He-
nourishment programs requires consider- row source and beach sediments) and com- degaard 1993; Capobianco et al. 2002). To
ation of technical and economic factors binations of detailed coastal analysis (e.g. achieve satisfactory results, these models
that, according to the NRC (1995) and analytical methods or numerical modeling must consider capabilities and limitations
Campbell and Benedet (2003), include: of cross-shore and longshore transport in addition to being calibrated and verified.
process, beach fill lateral diffusivity, back- Analytical approaches may complement
ground erosion rates, etc.). Because over- model results. Lateral spreading also may
(1) Establishment of baselines and objec- fill and renourishment factors (R and R )
tives,
A J be predicted by analytical methods that
are essentially based on textural properties relate fill length and grain size to fill spread-
(grain size and sorting) of native beach ing rates (e.g. Dean, 2002) or by numerical
(2) Definition of costs and benefits,
sediments and borrow areas, they do not shoreline modeling (e.g. Hanson and Kraus
(3) Search for and exploration of sand re- incorporate the physics and complexities 1989; Eysink et al. 2001).
source areas (which includes evaluation of of each coastal system into the design
location and materials), process. Their use in beach nourishment Initial designs are usually refined on
design has thus declined. Uncritical appli- long-term nourishment programs with
(4) Testing available theory and techniques cation of “standard design” thus often al- post-nourishment monitoring data to as-
that form the basis for design and predic- lowed the coastal engineer to overestimate certain renourishment needs and calibrate
tion of project performance, or underestimate nourishment needs. predictions. Monitoring is important be-
(5) Construction of initial nourishment cause the performance of a sand-starved
Because the Dean equilibrium profile beach (pre-nourishment) can differ signifi-
projects, method (Dean 1991; 2002) is based on the cantly to the performance of a sand-rich
premise that a nourishment project dis- beach system. When long-term (e.g. more
(6) Monitoring initial projects,
turbs the natural equilibrium of the coastal than 10 years) monitoring data is avail-
(7) Assessing the validity of preliminary system, analysis of initial performance able for a nourishment program, model-
assumptions, of a fill project can thus be based on the ing requirements may be reduced by the
process of returning the system to equi- analysis of observed beach performance.
(8) Identification of design strengths and librium. Particularly important to beach
deficiencies, Good monitoring data of nourishment per-
nourishment design is the estimation of formance allow optimization of volumet-
dry beach width that results after initial ric requirements to the most cost-effective
(9) Refinements of design,
profile equilibration. Compared to native number during design phases by under-
(10) Development and presentation of beaches, finer-grained sands produce mild- standing the morphodynamic responses of
public awareness programs, er slopes and generate non-intersecting the coastal system in which the project is
profiles. Coarser-grained sands produce being built.
(11) Evaluation of decisions to renourish steeper slopes and generate intersecting
that are based on monitoring data and de- profiles. Sand with similar grain size will Background to
sign expectations, and replicate the natural beach profile. Inter- Coastal Protection in the U.S.
secting profiles (coarser sands) translate Over the last three decades, beach nour-
(12) Improvement (modification) of initial
to greater subaerial beach volumes per m3 ishment has been the primary means of
design processes in subsequent renourish-
of sand placed on the beach, while non- shore protection and beach restoration in
ment efforts.

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16 9
 line. At about the same
time, a Committee on
Shoreline Studies was
formed in the Division
of Geology and Geog-
raphy at the National
Research Council in
Washington, D.C., re-
sulting in the incorpo-
ration of the American
Shore and Beach Pres-
ervation Association
(ASBPA). The ASB-
PA, now merged with
the American Coastal
Coalition, advocates
protection of the U.S.
coastline and promotes
state and national con-
ferences as well as
publishing the Shore
Figure 2. A section of the Galveston, TX seawall, currently 16
km long and 5 m high, showing the concave outward shape
& Beach journal.
and rubble mound toe structure. The seawall was constructed
In 1923, the first
after the 8 September 1900 hurricane, when a 3-m high storm
surge flooded into the state’s then largest city with 36,000
large-scale beach
residents. This hurricane, which killed 6,000-8,000 people, nourishment project
is considered by many authorities to be the worse natural was constructed on
disaster in U.S. history. Coney Island, New
York, with local
the United States, Europe, and Australia funds. The project used about 1.3 x 106
(Finkl and Walker 2002; Walker and Finkl m3 of sand along 2.8 km of shoreline, pro-
2002). Beach nourishment was first at- viding 449 m3 m-1 (449 cubic meters per
tempted in the U.S. almost a century ago. meter) construction density (in this con-
Prior to World War II, the main approach text “construction density” refers to unit
to beach erosion and control of storm dam- volume per unit length of shoreline, that is
age was the use of fixed structures such cubic meters per meter) of placed fill. Dur-
as groins, jetties, and seawalls. A classic ing the 1930s and 1940s, with intense hur-
example of these early types of structures ricanes affecting Gulf and Atlantic coasts,
is the Galveston, Texas seawall (Figure 2) coastal protection was advanced by local
that was constructed in the early 1900s. initiatives while federal involvement was
By the 1920s and 1930s, fixed structures mostly limited to cooperative analyses and
were so common along resort sections of planning studies. From the late 1940s to
the nation’s coastline that they impeded the 1960s, many state coastal protection
recreational use of beaches. The late 1940s programs were implemented and some
and early 1950s, however, witnessed a large-scale beach nourishment projects
gradual migration away from structures were constructed (e.g., Grand Isle, Loui-
toward beach nourishment. This change in siana; Palm Beach, Florida; Rockaway
approach to shore protection was driven Beach, New York).
by desires to preserve aesthetic and rec-
reational values of protected beaches and BEACH NOURISHMENT
because nourishment gradually proved to PROGRAMS ALONG
be more cost-effective and functional by THE ATLANTIC COAST
replicating the protective characteristics of Although all Atlantic coastal states ad-
natural beach-dune systems. Beach nour- opted beach nourishment as a means of
ishment combined with a limited number shore protection, the most significant pro-
of structures (e.g., T-head groins), to main- grams (by number of projects and total
tain post-construction stability, are also in-
creasingly deployed for coastal protection
in the U.S. (e.g., Silvester and Hsu, 1993;
NRC, 1995).
Major developments in shore protection
initiatives took place in the 1920s with the
emergence of funding to form an engineer-
ing advisory board to study changes that
were taking place along New York’s coast- Table 1. History of the Coney Island nourishment program.
10 Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16
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 de-
veloped (urbanized) shores that require
protection from storm surge flooding and
erosion.
THE NORTH ATLANTIC COAST
(NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY,
DELAWARE AND MARYLAND)
Due to coastal proximity of the New
York City conurbation, the states of New
York and New Jersey have spatially ex-
tensive and temporarily extended beach
nourishment histories that include the first
large project built in the nation (Coney
Island). Most large New York beach re-
nourishments 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 off-
shore and channel maintenance sources
(volumetric range modified from DUKE
PSDS 2003, to eliminate repeated oc-
currences). Continuing nourishment pro-
grams in New York include Rockaway
Beach, Gilgo Beach area, Coney Island
area, Jones Beach, etc.
Coney Island is the earliest beach nour-
ishment project constructed in New York
(and in the U.S.). The history of the Coney
Island nourishment program is summa-
rized 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 ad-
vanced fill for a 10-year renourishment
cycle. Sediments were placed along 2.8 km
of beach and provided a sand fillet down-
drift 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).
 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 Bar-
negat 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 Camp-
bell 1988; Beumel and Bocamanzo 1989).
Constructed project features included a de-
sign berm of 30 m plus 12 m of advanced
fill for Section II and a design berm of 30
m plus 7 m advanced fill 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 five different phases and used about 15 x
106 m3 of sediments in the initial construc-
tion cycle (USACE-Web 2003) with total
construction densities (initial construction
plus advanced fill) ranging from 330 m3 m-
1
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 dredg-
ing and storm-erosion control projects
in Delaware (i.e., Indian River Beach,
Dewey Beach, and Fenwick Island) col-
lectively account for about 5 x 106 m3
of placed sediments. Maryland’s 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) (Mc-
Gean 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) us-
ing dredging maintenance sediments from
the updrift side of Rudee Inlet and offshore
Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16
sources combined. Up to 11 x 106 m3 of of 125,000 m3 yr-1 by Bodge et al. (1993)
sediments were placed on Virginia Beach based on a sediment budget developed for
since the beginning of nourishment in the area.
1952. Recently the city of Virginia Beach
jointly with the USACE Norfolk District There are two project areas in Georgia.
prepared a 50-year storm protection plan Both Tybee Island and Sea Island together
for the city. The project consists of a received up to 5.5 x 106 m3 of sediments.
large beach-wide initial construction and Tybee Island, located downdrift of the Sa-
periodic maintenance using about 750,000 vannah River, received about 4.0 x 106 m3
m3 on a 3 to 4 year renourishment interval.of sediments during four different nourish-
The initial construction was completed in ments since 1975. The beach was initially
2002 when about 3 x 106 m3 of sediments nourished in 1975 with about 1.7 x 106 m3
were placed along approximately 9.6 km of sediments along 4.1 km of beach (418
of beach (construction density of 316 m3 m3 m-1). From 1975 to 2000, the beach
m-1). Maintenance volumes anticipated by received about 3.8 x 106 m3 of sediments
the USACE are approximately 77 m3 m-1 (153,000 m3 yr-1), giving an overall island
every 3-4 years (about 19 m3 m-1 yr-1). density of about 35 m3 m-1. Major renour-
(Maintenance requirements for beach fill ishments occurring in 1990 and 1994 used
are best expressed in terms of total volumeapproximately 1.5 x 106 m3 each. Olsen
and Bodge (1993) reports that a “large por-
per year, m3 yr-1, or volume per unit length
of beach per year, m3 m-1 yr-1.) tion” of the 1994 renourishment volume
was, however, lost during fill placement
The South Atlantic Coast (North (dewatering) due to low quality of borrow
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, area materials (high percentage of fines).
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 dif-
beneficial 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 dem-
of 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).
fill spreading rates (e.g., Dean 2002), a
There are about 15 nourished areas relatively low wave energy, relatively high
in South Carolina that together received construction density, and the fact that the
about 20 x 106 m3 of sediments since the project ends at a very long downdrift jetty
late 1960s. Relatively large nourishment where the sand accumulates.
projects along the shore include Myrtle Other major nourishment programs on
Beach, Folly Beach, Hunting Island, and the Florida east coast include Jacksonville
Hilton Head Island. The last project (Hil- Beach, Amelia Island, Jupiter Island, Del-
ton Head Island) used about 5.5 x 106 m3 ray Beach, Boca Raton (north and south)
of sediments since the 1970s (Olsen et al. beaches, Pompano Beach/Lauderdale-by-
1993; 1987; Kana 1993). The two most the-Sea, etc. Delray Beach is an example
recent nourishments were constructed in
of a successful and well monitored beach
1990 (1.8 x 106 m3 along 10.5 km of nourishment program. Delray has been
beach) and 1997 (1.7 x 106 m3 along 11.5
maintained since 1973 with five peri-
km) with average densities of 167 m3 m-1 odic beach nourishments. Pertinent data
and 165 m3 m-1, respectively. Recent main-
for Delray Beach nourishment projects is
tenance needs for the Hilton Head Island summarized in Table 3.
project were estimated to be on the order
11

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.
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 construc-
tion density of 293 m3 m-1 (Table 3), but
from 1978 to 2001 the program was main-
tained 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 gradu-
ally increasing from 5 (initial renourish-
ment) to 10 years (last renourishment).
GULF COAST
NOURISHMENT PROGRAMS
The Florida Gulf coast (including the
Panhandle) has about 30 nourishment pro-
grams that received up to 38 x 106 m3 of
sediments since the 1960s. Many Florida
Gulf coast programs employ a combi-
nation of beneficial sands and offshore
sand sources to replenish beaches (e.g.,
Panama City, Lido Key, Treasure Island)
but some, however, rely exclusively on
beneficial sands (e.g., Perdido Key, Fort
Myers Beach, Gasparilla Island, Keeway-
din Island). The largest project is Panama
City Beach. Panama City had small nour-
ishments in the 1970s and 1980s that used
beneficial materials from St. Andrews In-
let. In 1999, a major nourishment project
was constructed along 28 km of beach.
The project was the largest single con-
struction 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.
12
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 Is-
land. 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 finer 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 first major nourishment project con-
structed 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.
Major nourishments in Mississippi in-
clude a countywide program in Harrison
County and a program that uses beneficial
sediments (navigation) to beaches adjacent
to the Mississippi River channel. The larg-
est program on the Mississippi coast and
perhaps one of the largest (by total vol-
ume) 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 construc-
tion event in Harrison County occurred a
few decades ago, from 1951 to 1952. The
project used about 5.3 x 10 m along 40
6 3
km of beach providing a construction den-
sity of 130 m3 m-1.
Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16
Several projects have been constructed
(since the 1990s) along Louisiana’s bar-
rier 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 Depart-
ment of Natural Resources. Some recent
projects built along Louisiana barrier is-
lands 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 is-
lands, bays (Arcadian bays), a long Che-
nier 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 Missis-
sippi 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 1983-
1984), 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 con-
struction 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 reconfigured Louisi-
ana’s barrier island shorelines and plans
to restore these eroded shores are being
developed. Restoration interventions, in-
cluding beach nourishment, have not been
implemented because volume losses have
yet to be calculated.
PACIFIC COAST
NOURISHMENT PROGRAMS
There are many differences between the
U.S. Atlantic and Pacific coast beaches.
Atlantic beaches are mainly open-coast
 nourishment demand in most California
pre-nourished coastal segments has been
relatively low in recent years, but is ex-
pected 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 un-
dertaken by many organizations including
the Beach Erosion Authority for Control
Operations and Nourishment (BEACON)
in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties,
the Los Angeles County’s 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 verified for accuracy
where possible.
(DBW, 1994; 2001) performed a statewide
inventory of beach erosion and identified
Table 2. Coastal segments that received the largest amount of sediments along the 15 project areas along the California coast
U.S. Pacific Coast. that need immediate intervention, and nine
project areas that will be subject to feasi-
sandy 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
continental shelf whereas most Pacific byproduct of warfare (e.g., Sand Diego COMPARISON OF INITIAL
shores are characterized by headland bay Bay dredging in 1946), construction of BEACH FILL CONSTRUCTION
beaches backed by high cliffs fronted ports (e.g., Port Heneume, Santa Barbara VOLUMES AND ANNUAL
by a narrow continental shelf that is not Harbor, Marina del Rey, Long Beach/Los MAINTENANCE DENSITIES
conducive to development to large storm Angeles Harbor), sewage treatment fa- Two components characterize most
surges. Large (e.g., 10-m high) long-pe- cilities, and power plants (e.g., Hyperion nourishment projects along naturally un-
riod swells commonly affect Pacific 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) mainte-
waves predominate most of the year along nourished areas on the California coast are nance (advanced fill). Initial constructions
the Atlantic coast. presented in Table 2. usually employ enough volume (higher
In addition to the inherent geological Construction of the Hyperion Sewage densities, Table 5) to restore the beach
and oceanographic differences between Treatment plant facility for the city of to a pre-determined design width and to
these two coasts, there is a pronounced Los Angeles provided a large amount of provide enough sediment to maintain that
difference in the practice of beach nour- sediment for beaches along Santa Monica design condition until the next renourish-
ishment. Large single nourishment events Bight (e.g., El Segundo, Dockweiller, and ment (in the form of advanced fill). Subse-
using sand from offshore are common south of Santa Monica). About 23 x 106 m3 quent renourishment will then only need to
on Atlantic and Gulf coasts, but benefi- of sediments were placed on these beaches provide maintenance sediments. Smaller
cial sediments (from coastal construction, from the late 1930s to the late 1980s, main- volume densities than initial constructions
channel maintenance and bypass systems) ly from the Hyperion works (Wiegel 1994; are thus anticipated in future renourish-
predominate on the Pacific coast (Herron Clayton 1991). For example, between 1946 ments. Advanced fill is an “extra amount
1987; Flick 1993; Wiegel 1994). Accord- and 1948, the main construction of the Hy- of sediment” expected to erode before the
ing to Clayton (1991) and Wiegel (1994), perion facility placed about 10.7 x 106 m3 next renourishment and should be added
about 85% of the beach nourishment ac- along 10 km of beach with a construction to design quantities. On the other hand,
tivity takes place in southern California density of about 1,200 m3 m-1). artificial replenishment of beach sand in
(Point Conception to the Mexican border). protected coastal cells (i.e., static headland
While there are many nourished areas in Nourishment of the Silver Strand, Coro- bay beaches) (Benedet et al. 2005b; Hsu et
south California, there are fewer projects nado (San Diego) coastal segment ben- al. 2005) may not be required because the
in northern California, no projects in Or- efited from the development of San Diego headlands reduce or eliminate alongshore
egon, and only one cobble-pebble nour- Bay into a major naval base during and losses. Decrease in beach volume due to
ishment project on the Washington coast just after World War II (Wiegel 1994). cross-shore transport (e.g., profile adjust-
(Wiegel 1994). About 21 x 106 m3 of sediments were ment, response to relative sea-level rise or
dredged at that time and placed along Sil- event-driven rip currents) will only require
Pacific Coast nourishment experience is ver Strand (about 10 to 20 km of beach) to infrequent renourishment.
summarized in data presented by Clayton give a very high density of about 1,000 to
(1991), Wiegel (1994), and Hearon (2001). 2,000 m3 m-1). Table 5 demonstrates that initial con-
There are about 25 nourishment and bypass structions in the U.S. usually employ
projects on the California coast that placed Due to the very high densities initially volumetric densities that range from 150
more than 120 x 106 m3 of sediments since placed in some areas, the maintenance m m to 650 m m . Low construction
3 -1 3 -1

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16 13

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.
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 re-
stored from a 5 m existing beach). On the
basis of this analysis (Table 5) and previ-
ous 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 inter-
pretation and inter-comparison of beach
nourishment projects. Before factors are
attributed to engineering performance of
a specific nourishment project, due con-
sideration should be given to the construc-
tion density (volume of sediment per unit
length) placed on the beach. Experience in
14
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 regard-
less of how comprehensive pre-project
field investigations and numerical model-
ing efforts were.
Regional trends deduced from the con-
struction densities summarized in Table 5
show some important relationships. Con-
struction volumes seem to be directly
related to the wave energy and magnitude
of sediment transport along a given coast-
al segment. Along the northeast Atlantic
coast (from New York to North Caro-
lina), 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 intermedi-
ate 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
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 Pacific coast oc-
cur 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 trans-
ported out of the littoral system.
MAINTENANCE NOURISHMENT
(RENOURISHMENTS)
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 construc-
tion, subsequent renourishment usually
provides maintenance fill (advanced fill)
to the project area in order to maintain the
existing design template for the renourish-
ment cycle. Erosional hot spots exhibit
locally higher sediment loss rates than ad-
jacent areas within a project. When devel-
opment of a hot spot occurs, initial beach
design conditions are usually exceeded.
Therefore, subsequent renourishment sup-
plies 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 fill is placed
on renourishment beaches, smaller vol-
umes 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 first 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 Archi-
pelago and semi-enclosed Gulf of Mexico
with limited fetches. These volumes return
construction densities (considering total
project length and design lifetime) that
are significantly lower than those shown
in Table 5. Although initial construction

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 five-year design lifetime for
the projects (Table 6), maintenance fill
requirements would range from 70-120
m3 m-1.
Thus, when planning long-term nour-
ishment, 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, clo-
sure depth, berm height, etc.).
This review indicates that the total vol-
umes artificially placed on the beach (vari-
ous 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 America’s
beaches by engineering works (e.g., river
damming, sediment disposal offshore, sea-
walls inhibiting cliff erosion, etc.) to date.
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 Scientific,
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, 2060-
2075.
Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16
There is thus a deficit 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.
CONCLUSIONS
Beach nourishment is the most com-
monly practiced method of shore protec-
tion and restoration in the United States.
Over the last few decades, beach nour-
ishment design has evolved from simple
“dredge and placement” projects of stan-
dardized designs to holistic and site-spe-
cific 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 Pacific coasts were
triggered by the need to provide shore
protection against the impacts of storms
and hurricanes (coastal flooding, shore
erosion), East and Gulf coast nourishment
projects largely depended on marine sand
searches to locate suitable offshore bor-
rows, whereas Pacific coast projects fea-
tured the use of beneficial sediments from
numerous coastal developments.
REFERENCES
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.
Densities of beach fills vary significant-
ly 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 dis-
cussed here, we propose a classification 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.
High volumes per unit length of beach
generally characterize projects where large
initial restoration needs and/or long design
lifetimes are required. Most beach nour-
ishments in the U.S. involve some initial
restoration requirement and a 5-8 year de-
sign lifetime, thus falling into the interme-
diate range. Low volume per unit length
of beach is associated with projects that
provide only advanced fill for the design
period. This classification of beach nour-
ishment projects as a function of volume
per unit length of shore should facilitate
comparison of project magnitude.
Aside from design lifetime and proj-
ect 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 com-
patibility, etc.) influence the volume per
unit length of beach sediment that should
be placed.
Of the one billion cubic meters of sedi-
ments removed from America’s 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 defi-
cit on the order of about 350 million m3 of
sediments that will need to be mitigated
over the long term.
Campbell T., Benedet, L., Mann, D., Resio, D.,
Hester, M.W., and Materne, M., 2003.
“Coastal Restoration Tools for Louisiana’s
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), 113-
137.
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 Pacific coast,” Journal of
Coastal Research, 7(2), 1195-1210.
Ciorra, A., 2003. Personal e-mail communication,
USACE Philadelphia District.
15

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 Post-
Construction 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 profiles:
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 Scientific, 397 pp.
Douglass, S.L., Bobe, A., and Chen, Q.J.,
2003. “The amount of sand removed from
America’s 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, Master’s thesis, 120
pp.
Finkl, C.W., 1996. “What might happen to
America’s shorelines if artificial 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 flats,
tidal Inlets and barrier shorelines,” Coastal
Sediments’03, 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. GENESIS-
Generalized 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.
16
REFERENCES CONTINUED
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. “Artificial 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 Scientific,
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 profile
and closure depth,” Proceedings of Coastal
Dynamics (Lund, Sweden), 1, 888–897.
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 Specification
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 fill 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 Storm-
induced 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.
Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 8-16
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 profile 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 Scientific,
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 1110-
2-1100, 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: Engineering-
Sand 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 Pacific Coast,” Shore & Beach, 62(1),
11-36.
COASTAL OBSERVATIONS

Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia

By

Hubert Chanson, Reader

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

cluding flocks of mut-

ton birds and terns.
The island is also a
breeding ground for
green and loggerhead
turtles. It remained
untouched until 1932,
when Captain Chris-
tian Poulson was
granted a lease over
the island to develop
a tourist resort. Since
1932 it has been a re-
Figure 1. Schematic map of Heron Island. sort, and today Heron
Island is a typical

H
Barrier Reef holiday
eron Island is a coral cay island resort. The University of Queensland
located 72 km northeast off Glad- maintains a research station on the south-
stone, Queensland, on the Tropic of ern side of the island. Figure 1 shows a
Capricorn (Figure 1). It is on the southern map of the island and lagoon. Figures 2-5
part of the World Heritage-listed Great Bar- present photographs of Heron Island taken
rier Reef extending along the North-East Dec. 24-27, 2001. Figure 6 (Dec. 25, Figure 4. Shark Bay, eastern side of Heron
Island on Dec. 26, 2001, at low tide.
coast of Australia. The island area is only 2001) shows a female green turtle return-
42 acres with a circumference of 1.8 km. ing to the water after lying her eggs on the
beach the previous night.
The island was named by HMS Fly’s
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 5. Wreck of HMCS Protector

on Dec. 27, 2001, at low tide. Note the
concrete block wall (foreground) used to
Figure 3. Northwest beach, north of harbor at low tide. The wooden gantry (left) was maintain tide range in the reef despite the
used to transfer people and supplies prior to the construction of the harbour. harbor excavations.

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 17-18 17
 This wreck has an and the heavy gun removed. She sunk in
interesting history. 1943 by accident. Figure 5 also shows the
HMCS Protector was deep-water harbor with the concrete block
completed in 1884 as system used to maintain the tidal range
a colonial warship. and times in the reef despite the harbor
The steel twin-screw excavations.
gunboat was 188 ft.
long, had a 12.5-ft. Access to the coral cay was facilitated
draft and could cruise by the construction of a deep-water harbor.
at 14 knots. Her most Figure 3 shows the wooden gantry previ-
powerful gun was a ously used to transfer safely people and
18 ft-8 inch breech- supplies from the outer reef to the lagoon.
loader able to hurl INTERNET LINKS
a cannon ball 7,500
yards. She was used Photographs of Coastlines of Australia
in the Boxer War in http://www.uq.edu.au/~e2hchans/photo.
China, and in World html#Coast_Australia
Figure 6. Green turtle at sunrise Dec. 25, 2001, and high tide War I. In 1912, her Heron Island Walk About
on the beach south of harbor. bow was heightened http://www.walkabout.com.au/loca-
tions/QLDHeronIsland.shtml

18 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

Stuart Chase, P.E.

Tetra Tech EC, Inc
Stuart, FL 34994
stuart.chase@tteci.com

ABSTRACT less than 30,000 cu yd annually (which

One of the most significant challenges facing
beachfront coastlines is cost-effective nourishment
of eroded beaches where there is a history of con-
tinued 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 configuration. The system can
retrieve accreted or shoaled sand anywhere within
a five-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-
vironmental concerns with other beach restoration
methods. The system is best suited where erosion
would take approximately one month to
is a continual problem, and where sand needs to be
place). For placement volumes of more
placed annually or periodically. The range of cost
than 200,000 cu yd, use of a hydraulic
effectiveness for this system is limited to between
dredge starts to become more cost-effec-
about 30,000 cu yd and 200,000 cu yd annually.
Case histories of two sand bypassing transport
tive on a total cost per cubic yard basis,
methods using land-based equipment based on the
including placement and mobilization and
same general concepts as the sand transport system
presented herein are discussed. demobilization. For placement amounts of
less than 30,000 cu yd, a truck operation
ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Beach nourish- would be more cost-effective.
ment, sand back-passing, land-based equipment,
agitator slurry pump, booster pumps. Article re-
ceived: 28 March 2005, Revised and Accepted: 8
For this sand back-passing system to be
February 2006. functional, a shoreline/surf zone source of
shoaled or accreted sand must be present
within approximately 4.5 mi. of the beach

O
INTRODUCTION land-based equipped sand back-passing area to be restored, due to pumping restric-
system proposed in this article (and re- tions, and within approximately 100-300
ne of the most significant challeng- ferred to as the sand back-passing system)
es facing coastal environments, ft seaward of the mean high water line
involves recycling eroded sand that has (depending on the steepness of the beach
especially beachfront coastlines, is accreted at downdrift beaches by pumping
cost-effective beach restoration of eroded foreshore slope), due to crane reach and
this accreted sand back up-drift to restore safety restrictions. Crane reach could be
shorelines where there is a history of con- the eroded shore. With this system, cost
tinued erosion. Typically, beach restoration extended up to an additional 100-200 ft
can be reduced to between $6.50-$8.50 seaward by constructing a steel sheet pile-
involves either the mobilization of large per cu yd (including mobilization and
hydraulic dredges to pump sand from an lined and sand-filled supporting platform,
demobilization); environmental impacts extending seaward for 100-200 ft.
offshore borrow area or the utilization of a are minimized; the quality of the sand
trucking operation to transport sand from recycled is good; and configuration of the Typically, sand eroded from a specific
a distant upland source of beach-quality system’s elements can be adjusted to meet beach locale stays within the 4.5- to 5-mi
sand to the eroded beach area. conditions of any type of beachfront shore- pumping restriction for many months or
These typical methods are costly. Dredge line. In addition, existing sand resources shoals onto a more long-lasting accreted
placement of beach sand can cost $9-$10 are used to the maximum extent possible area (or spit) within this retrieval zone
per cubic yard (cu yd), including dredge without acquiring new sand resources, limit.
plant mobilization and demobilization, which results in better sediment resource
management. As an additional use of this The LIDAR system can be used to ob-
or more, for sand placement quantities tain topographic/bathymetric information
of 300,000 to 500,000 cu yd or more. system that cannot be accomplished with
traditional sand trucking, barging or dredg- for quantity availability in the shoaled
Truck transport with mechanical place- or accreted area near and just offshore
ment of beach sand can cost $15-$20 ing (without an available offshore borrow
area), sand can be pumped to remote loca- of the low water line within the retrieval
per cu yd, depending on the distance of zone limit. The LIDAR system sounding
the upland beach sand source from the tions such as islands or wetlands, with no
vehicular or navigable approaches, as part equipment, supported from an airplane or
impacted beach area and the cost of sand helicopter, can plot the five-mile downdrift
at the sand source. These typical methods of ecosystem restoration activity.
swath of topography/bathymetry quite in-
also raise environmental concerns such as SAND BACK-PASSING expensively (at a cost of $40,000-$50,000,
disturbance of potential offshore borrow SYSTEM APPLICATION but generally less if the five-mile area of
area bathymetry and its impact on marine interest is part of a more extensive area to
biota with offshore dredging, and air qual- The sand back-passing system is not
be surveyed).
ity impacts and traffic congestion with a intended for a one-time use, but is best
trucking operation. suited where erosion is a continual prob- The sand retrieval zone should ideally be
lem and where sand needs to be placed located near the end of a littoral cell or at a
Approved offshore borrow areas may annually or repetitively, between longer location with zero net littoral drift. This is
also be too far from the target beach area durations. The range of cost effectiveness to avoid impacts downdrift of the accretion
or its sand may be finer than the sand at the is limited to not more than approximately zone by recycling the accreted sand updrift.
target beach area, thus adversely impact- 200,000 cu yd annually (which would take However, even if the sand retrieval zone is
ing performance of the target beach. The approximately four months to place), nor not ideally located pertaining to its position

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 19-25 19

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 tar-
get 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 be-
tween 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.
CASE HISTORIES
This section highlights two essential-
ly land-based sand transport (bypassing)
systems that have been constructed, de-
scribing 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
20
and/or associated downdrift erosion is the
problem. By their very nature, the loca-
tions 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 first 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 Engi-
neers District, Los Angeles 1987; Weis-
man, Lennon and Clausner 1996). The
system was terminated and removed in
1997 due to lack of funding and technical
difficulties. (A location map is shown on
Figure 1.) This experimental system (with
its use of jet pumps and fluidizers on a
large scale and in an oceanfront setting)
was designed to remove sand that shoaled
at the entrance channel from two loca-
tions 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 slightly sloped (toward the jet pumps) flu-
traditional maintenance dredging.
The system consisted of sand bypassing
from two locations in the vicinity of the
inlet (Figure 1). The first location included
Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 19-25
a fixed and buried eductor jet pump just
updrift (or north) of the north breakwa-
ter that intercepted sand accreting at the
updrift fillet; it operated from November
through March, when the primary littoral
drift direction is from the north as it ap-
proaches 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 in-
let 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 in-
cluded two fixed 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 first 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 first loca-
tion, 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 ap-
proximately two miles further downdrift
(Figure 1).
In order to increase the sand intercept
area at the second location where the ac-
cretion area was more extensive, buried
fluidizer pipes in the entrance channel
were utilized. Approximately 150 ft of
8-in diameter HDPE fluidizer pipe fed the
north jet pump and approximately 200 ft
of 10-in diameter HDPE fluidizer pipe fed
the south jet pump, both with water sup-
plied from the pump barge (Figure 1). The
idizer pipeline would hydrate sand to the
sides and below the fluidizer pipe through
1/8-in diameter holes spaced every two
inches to create a flow of sand along the
Figure 2. Fluidizer pipe schematic.

length of the fluidizer pipe, dropping into To improve the pro-

the 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 flow and therefore increases per cu yd cost (in-
the water’s velocity, lowering the system’s 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 and layout, Indian River Inlet, DE sand
the mixing chamber of the jet pump. maintenance costs) bypassing system.
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 fluid- Indian River Inlet, DE
However, the sand transport rate actu- izer pipelines to reach added shoaled areas The second case history involves the
ally achieved averaged approximately 100 at the entrance channel and to provide the eductor jet pump, semi-fixed sand by-
cu yd per hr due to inefficiencies in the fluidizer pipelines with a separate water passing system at Indian River Inlet, DE
system. Only one water supply pump fur- supply pump. This addition would have (Rambo and Clausner 1989). This system
nished water to both liquefy the sand at lowered sand placement costs to about was constructed in 1989 and continues to
the jet pumps for transport and operate the $15 per cu yd. However, due to lack of operate successfully. (A location map is
fluidizers for sand hydration to feed the funding, this bypass system was removed shown in Figure 3.) This system was con-
jet pumps. Production time was also lost in 1997. structed as the most cost-effective meth-
due to required back-flushing of clogged od (vs. traditional dredging or protective
fluidizer pipelines, engaging/disengaging stone structure) to correct a 1,500-ft-long
engine clutches and changing valve posi-
tions and engine speeds between water to
the jet pumps and water to the fluidizers.
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
fluidizer pipelines from surrounding sand
entering the jet holes during that time of
the system operation when fluidizer wa-
ter was not flowing. In addition, system
startup was problematic due to the exten-
sive 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 fluidizers perform well to-
gether (although not cost-effectively) in a
large-scale oceanfront environment.
Figure 4. Plan schematic of the Indian River Inlet, DE sand bypassing system.

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 19-25 21

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 fillet of the Indian
River Inlet, supported from an approxi-
mate 100-ft-long boom of a crawler crane
positioned at or landward of the mean low
water line of the accreted fillet;
(B) A fixed permanent pump station on the
south side of the inlet that housed the die-
sel powered water supply (from the inlet)
pump and slurry booster pump (400 hp),
flow gages and controls;
(C) Approximately 500 ft of mostly 12-in
diameter flexible 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 di-
ameter 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
22
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 pipe-
line at the eductor intake (forcing lower
pump efficiency 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 prob-
lems encountered with the case history
systems, i.e.:
(1) Increase the mobility and range of sand
retrieval from that at the Indian River Inlet
the net littoral sand transport rate to the system by connecting sand slurry produc-
north and the quantity required to stabilize tion at the drag flow slurry pump (sup-
the beach fronting the threatened section ported by the crane) directly to a mobile
of Route 1. The span of system opera- booster pump system instead of a fixed
tion essentially occurs during non-summer pump station near the crane supported
months to avoid interference with heavier eductor pump, and
beach use. This system continues to op-
erate successfully since 1990 with total (2) Eliminate the slurry pipeline clogging
problem of the Indian River Inlet and
current sand placement costs of approxi-
mately $8.75 per cu yd including opera- Oceanside systems by utilizing drag flow
pumps to draw the sand into the pipeline
tion, maintenance, capitalization of initial
construction cost, disposal site grading and with pump intake screens that prevent
clogging debris (larger than 3.5 in) from
mobilization and demobilization of crane
and jet pump. 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 be-
system, based on coordination with the tween $6.50 and $8.50 vs. approximately
field system manager, are: $8.75 for the Indian River Inlet system and
vs. $15-$20 for the Oceanside system.
(1) The quantity of sand bypassed is limit-
ed to the quantity of sand naturally accret- LAND-BASED SAND
ing at the updrift fillet, within the approxi- BACKPASSING SYSTEM
mate 200-ft range of the crane supported OVERVIEW
eductor jet pump. This could impact the The land-based sand back-passing sys-
degree 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
Figure 6. Sand back-passing system layout flow 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
flow agitator slurry pump suspended from
the crane that draws in accreted sand and Figure 7. Sand intake schematic at accreted shoreline.
water for slurry production, and a flexibly
aligned pipeline. This mobility has the and flexible plastic pipeline alignment. the waterline (to allow for faster booster
advantage of allowing the sand retriev- This makes the entire sand back-passing or hydraulic pump relocation) and to the
al equipment (except the self-propelled system completely mobile and adaptable subsequent booster pumps in the sand
crawler crane) to be transported by all-ter- to any shoreline location where accreted transport segment of the system through a
rain towing vehicles and set up wherever sand exists within 4.5 mi of the beach to 2-in diameter HDPE pipe.
sand has accreted within the 4.5-mi re- be restored.
trieval zone limit from the beach area to be • A large land-based crawler crane with
restored, whether on the beach or within The system production rate of sand an approximate 150-ft boom positioned
approximately 500 ft seaward of the high pumped to the beach to be restored is ap- on the shore, near or seaward of the high
water line. This flexibility is unlike exist- proximately 250 cu yd per hr. Therefore, water line (depending on the flatness of the
ing fixed or semi-fixed bypassing systems, with a 10-hr-per-day pump operation or beach slope in the vicinity of mean high
which are restricted to retrieve sand from a a 20-hr-per-day pump operation (depend- water), but not closer than approximately
fixed area, whether sand has accreted there ing on the urgency of time to restore the 100 ft from the bottom of the 15-20-ft-
or not. Protective steel sheeting fronting impacted beach area), 2,500 cu yd per day deep excavation pit. The crane can be
the crane is necessary for sand retrieval (or 5,000 cu yd per day) could be deliv- moved closer to the pit bottom or moved
in the vicinity of and seaward of the mean ered to the beach restoration area with this further seaward to retrieve accreted sand
water line, for safe crane operation in the land-based sand back-passing system. This within several hundred feet seaward of the
ocean front environment. production rate is significantly more than low waterline by driving steel sheet pil-
the production rate of a trucking operation ing (with reinforcing wales) fronting the
The elements of the sand retrieval seg- and comparable to the production rate of a crane to provide crane support and protect
ment can be easily mobilized and demo- small hydraulic dredge. The system, with a the crane against wave and tidal impacts
bilized to facilitate either separated or 2,500 cu yd per day production rate, would (Figure 7). The crane and associated steel
extended pit construction in the accretion require operating for up to approximately sheeting, if needed, can be moved to ex-
zone. The pumps are on skids that can be a four-month duration for a 200,000 cu tend the limits of the excavation pit or used
easily moved to new locations with all- yd operation. This four-month period can to create new pits.
terrain towing vehicles. The rubber and be scheduled during lower beach usage
plastic pipelines from the drag flow pump, months to mitigate beach use impacts. The steel sheeting for the next location
booster pumps and sealwater pump can be of the crane, if required, would be installed
easily cut and reconfigured at each new pit Sand Retrieval Segment with a pile-driving crew (with a separate
location or pit extension. In addition, the At the accreted beach area, sand re- pile driver) while the crane is still excavat-
sand retrieval segment can be complete- trieval components are as follows: ing sand at its current setup. In this way,
ly demobilized after each operation. No no additional operation or down time is
permanent structures are required, unlike • A diesel-powered centrifugal pump required, to keep costs down. The crane
the existing fixed or semi-fixed bypass- (5 hp) on a movable skid placed near the would support a drag flow pump from its
ing systems. The drag flow pump, where water line to draw water from the ocean, boom to draw in accreted sand with ocean
the accreted sand enters the back-passing by way of a small excavated channel with water to slurry the sand and pump it up to
system, is equipped with a metal screen an invert elevation of approximately 2 ft 300 ft through a 10-in diameter hose, to
to avoid debris larger than 3.5 in from below low water, to the pump location the first booster pump (excavator booster
entering the system and clogging the pipe-(away from wave action). A 1-ft-high weir pump). During excavation operations, the
line. This has an advantage over fixed or plate across the bottom width of the chan- pit area would be cordoned off for safety
semi-fixed bypassing systems that utilize nel near the channel’s landward end with considerations. In order to provide for safer
eductor jet pumps for sand retrieval whicha geotextile channel lining overlain with subsequent beach use, during demobiliza-
allow larger debris to enter the slurry pipe-
a layer of bedding stone, landward of the tion of the sand retrieval segment the crane
line causing occasional line clogging withweir, will reduce the undesirable entry would be fitted with a clamshell bucket to
associated system shutdown. of sand into the sealwater pipeline. This re-grade the excavation pit area to better
pump supplies water (sealwater to prevent facilitate a more even natural refilling of
The sand transport segment features booster pump overheating) to the first the pit from the littoral sand flow.
equipment that is also completely mobile. booster pump (excavator booster pump)
The components include a mobile control through a 2-in diameter flexible hose near • A drag flow, 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 23
the boom of the crane (pump weight is on a movable skid connecting up to ap- HDPE pipe can be demobilized offsite
approximately 2,500 lbs). The pump pro- proximately 4,500 linear ft of 10-in di- after each operation and stored at a neigh-
duces approximately 3,000 gal per minute ameter HDPE pipe from the excavator boring public works storage facility. The
of slurry to the first booster pump (250 cu booster pump. This second booster pump booster, drag flow and centrifugal pumps
yd of sand per hr). The pump is equipped would then pump the sand slurry up to an- can be adapted for electrical power; how-
with an agitator at the bottom of the pump other approximately 4,500 linear ft to the ever, electric power supply to the pumps
that loosens the accreted sand and facili- restored beach or to a third booster pump, on the beach or in the transport seg-
tates hydration for sand slurry transport. if required. ment can be costly and extremely difficult
The bottom of the pump is also equipped to implement depending on the proxim-
with a metal screen that precludes debris • If the required pumping distance be- ity of existing electric power supply. The
larger than 3.5 in from entering the pump. tween the excavator booster pump (in the cost-effective diesel-powered pumps are
Smaller debris can pass safely through vicinity of the accreted beach area) and equipped with emissions control.
the pump and 10-in diameter discharge the beach to be restored exceeds approxi-
pipe without clogging the line. In order to mately 9,000 linear ft, then a third booster The overall bypassing system requires
avoid time and system operation delays, a pump (similar to the other booster pumps) five full-time personnel for the duration
similar stand-by drag flow pump would be would be added for pumping distances of each operation (one to four months):
available for immediate pump replacement up to approximately 14,000 linear ft A one person manning the control room;
in the event that there are mechanical prob- fourth booster pump would be added for one person operating the crane with an
lems with the original drag flow pump. It pumping distances up to approximately alternate; one person monitoring the sand
is noted that the drag flow pumps have a 18,000 linear ft, and a fifth booster pump retrieval system at the accreted beach; and
successful track record, and are mainly would be added for pumping distances up one person monitoring the sand discharge
used in the unloading of deep draft sand to approximately 23,000 linear ft. Any ad- point at the beach to be restored. A sand
barges. However, on occasion, the drag ditional booster pumps would significantly grading crew is also required at the beach
flow pump has been successfully used in drop sand slurry production rates at the re- restoration site to mechanically grade the
the ocean surf zone to transport sand to an stored beach discharge point, which there- sand pumped to the discharge point. In
adjacent property, i.e.: on the south shore fore restricts the system to a maximum addition to a pile driving crew of four
of Suffolk County, New York. 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
• An (excavator) booster pump (420 hp pipelines can be designed, but would be installation would be a sand grading crew
diesel powered slurry pump) on a movable significantly more costly. Each booster to push accreted beach sand seaward for
skid is connected at its intake with a 10-in pump added would include approximately crane platform construction behind the
diameter flexible hose (to enhance mobil- 4,500 linear ft of 10-in diameter and 2-in steel sheeting.
ity) from the drag flow pump for slurry diameter HDPE pipe entering the pump
intake. At the pump outlet, a 10-in diam- and 10-in diameter HDPE pipe exiting the Cost
eter HDPE pipe would deliver sand slurry pump to the restored beach or to the next The most cost-effective method of im-
to the sand transport segment of the by- booster pump, as required. The sealwater plementing this system, which is intended
passing system. Sealwater would also be required for pump operation is supplied to for repeated use every year (or longer) at a
delivered to the excavator booster pump each pump with a separate 2-in diameter historically erosive segment of beachfront,
through a 2-in diameter hose located up to pipeline, generally running parallel with is to capitalize the purchase of:
approximately 300 ft from the centrifugal the 10-in diameter slurry pipeline. The 2-
water pump, indicated above. in diameter HDPE pipeline ends with sup- (1) The mobile booster pumps with ap-
plying sealwater to the last booster pump. purtenant housing and skids (up to five
Sand Transport Segment (Refer to Figure 6 for a schematic of the booster pumps at $250,000 per pump;
From the vicinity of the accreted beach sand transport segment.) (2) A 5 hp centrifugal pump at $5,000;
area to the beach area to be restored, sand
transport components are as follows: • All the booster pumps are operated by (3) One 90 hp drag flow agitator slurry
radio control from a mobile control room pump and one stand-by, or two 90 hp drag
• Up to approximately 4,500 linear ft of trailer on skids generally located near the flow pumps at $80,000 per pump;
10-in diameter HDPE pipe connecting the second booster pump. From the control
excavator booster pump to a second boost- room, pump rates, sand slurry mixture (4) One mobile control room trailer on
er pump. This pipe can have various align- and velocity are controlled and monitored. skids at $120,000,
ments and can be easily reconfigured to fit This radio control reduces the required
existing topography. Pipe can be buried or manpower for system operation, since the (5) The following pipeline: (a) a maximum
aligned above ground. The pipe alignment whole pump operation can be controlled of approximately 23,000 linear ft of 10-in
can be left in place for future use or can be by one person from the mobile control diameter HDPE pipe for sand slurry trans-
easily disassembled and removed from the room. port at approximately $28 per linear ft,
site, if so desired, after each use (up to a (b) a maximum of approximately 18,000
four-month period depending on the sand Because the booster pumps are all linear ft of 2-in diameter HDPE pipe for
volume placement requirements). If the on movable skids, the location of each water supply (sealwater) for pump opera-
booster pump can be adapted to best fit
pipe is left in place, it would need to be tion at approximately $8 per linear ft, and
the site-specific topography (with a range
rotated every five to seven years to avoid (c) approximately 300 linear ft of 10-in
of 3,000-4,500 linear ft between each
uneven wear to the inside of the pipe from diameter and 300 linear ft of 2-in diameter
the sand slurry. booster pump) and can be left in place and flexible hose, at a combined $15 per linear
surrounded with architecturally treated, ft, to supply slurried sand and sealwater to
• A second booster pump (420 hp and noise-controlled barriers, if desired. How- the excavator booster pump; and
the same as the excavator booster pump) ever, the booster pumps and connecting

24 Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 19-25
(6) Optional sound barriers and landscap-
ing 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 facil-
ity) at $20,000 per site.
It is noted that the HDPE pipe, if left in
place after each operation, would be bur-
ied (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 flow
pumps, five booster pumps and four de-
veloped booster pump sites, including mo-
bilization and demobilization (for pipe and
pump installation left in place for the life
of the equipment), materials, labor, equip-
ment, engineering (5 percent) and con-
struction 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 (five personnel in-
cluding 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-
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.
Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 19-25
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 avail-
nate) 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 specific 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- flow 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 op-
back-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 restora-
booster pumps would be required, and the tion and sand retrieval sites could be ac-
total 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 construc-
FUTURE DIRECTION tion contractor could be hired on an annual
OF LAND-BASED SAND (or longer) basis to operate the system in-
BACK-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 specifications
would have to be developed to incorpo- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
rate the site-specific requirements for sand Thanks to technical coordination as-
retrieval and transport employing all of sistance from Robert Hagler, president of
the features summarized above. A coastal Hagler Systems, North Augusta, SC; Sieg-
design 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 specifications, prepare permits, man- Engineers, Los Angeles District; and the
age construction and provide engineering sand bypassing operations office at Indian
services for initial construction and post River Inlet, DE.
construction periods of each application.
REFERENCES
Weisman, R.N. and Lennon, G.P., Lehigh U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles
University, and Clausner, J.E., U.S. Army District. 1987. “The Experimental Jet-Pump
Corps of Engineers WES. 1996. “A Guide Sand Bypass System At Oceanside.
To The Planning And Hydraulic Design of
Fluidizer Systems For Sand Management
In The Coastal Environment,” Dredging
Research Program Technical Report DRP-96-
3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
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
2
Broward County Environmental Protection Department
ABSTRACT
There has been a long-lived struggle to docu-
ment 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 inves-
tigate “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 fluctuations
G
INTRODUCTION
reen turtle hatchlings migrate off-
shore 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; Mendonça 1983)
and nearshore reefs (Wershoven and Wer-
shoven 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 (mac-
roalgae and seagrasses) and resting sites
(Mendonça 1983; Holloway-Adkins 2003).
26
By
1
Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc.
2481 N.W. Boca Raton Boulevard
Boca Raton, FL 33431
CMakowski@Coastalplanning.net
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 con-
struction. Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc.
has been selected by Broward County to establish
a GIS database of sea turtle populations along the
county’s nearshore hard bottom resources. Re-
sults 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. Em-
ploying 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.
Until recently, no systematic efforts had
been made to determine the abundance,
distribution or daily movements of green
turtles residing on South Florida’s shal-
low reefs. The first systematic survey was
done in Palm Beach County, employing
the “shark fishing” 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 move-
ments were recorded. These observations
confirmed that the turtles occupied over-
lapping 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 adverse-
ly impact the adjacent reefs by smother-
ing benthic organisms (corals, bryozoans,
Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 26-28
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 significant 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 countermea-
sure to erosion of its beaches. The changes
include installation of near-shore spurs
and groins, creation of an artificial (miti-
gation) reef, and two renourishment proj-
ects. 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 differen-
tial global positioning system (DGPS) for
incorporation into Broward County’s 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 sum-
mer (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 im-
pact are provided.
METHODS
The methods used to complete the sur-
veys and data analyses have been described
previously in consulting reports and are
briefly summarized below. Surveys were
conducted within the 2005 project area
 for that reason alone should contain more
turtles. However, when the number of tur-
tle sightings is normalized with respect to
segment length, there are no proportional
differences in abundance (X2 = 0.74, p <
0.5, 1 d.f.).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of the three pre-construction
surveys lead to the following conclusions.
(1) “Shark-fishing” surveys make it pos-
sible for the first time to quantitatively
estimate the number of turtles that occupy
a shallow reef habitat. However, the tech-
nique (like those for estimating any popu-
lation) 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 limita-
tions are discussed in detail in Makowski
et al. (2005), and include those imposed
Figure 1. Map exported from the Broward County GIS turtle database. Specific 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-Mi-
The population estimates for the last three Some reef areas at our site were too wide
ami/Dade County line) and adjacent Seg- to 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 specifically 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 benefits. First, it allows observers to
ing boat, parallel to shore and directly over sample a habitat where the entire water col-
the 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 sedi-
server 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
(south-north and north-south). An estimate turtles/km. (3) It is tempting to conclude that the
of turtle abundance is made from the aver- turtles in the survey area (like those stud-
(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 fixed 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 identified and it was not possible to de-
direction away from the vessel, decreasing
segment) is significant (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 conse-
computer and identified 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 field 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 County’s Sea Turtle GIS data-
base (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
project. Our study indicates that on aver- be directly compared to these pre-con-
age between April and June, one turtle is struction estimates in order to evaluate
present every 0.65 km. Our population whether juvenile sea turtle recruitment has
estimates cannot be used to determine been altered after beach renourishment.
resource use. 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 com-
tively consistent estimate of turtle density. pared to Segment 2 (control for Segment 3
Ultimately, post-construction surveys will construction)?

REFERENCES

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 fidelity 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 1982-
1996,“ 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 fishing’: 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).
Mendonça, 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 fishing’: 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.

28 Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 26-28
 Biological Community Analysis Near a
Maintained Natural Inlet
By

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

ABSTRACT
Mitigation reef siting is critical to the successes or
failures of the intended relief, structural complex-
ity, and habitat availability. In Boca Raton, FL two
locations were chosen for artificial 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 pro-
jected migratory path of the bypassing bar. The
result is an artificial reef to the north equivalent to
the ephemeral nearshore, natural hard-bottom, and MATERIALS AND METHODS
a permanent artificial reef to the south that exceeds
The natural hard-bottom areas found in
the relief and structural complexity of the natural
hard-bottom, providing persistent habitat for ben-
the nearshore zone, 300-700 ft offshore,
thic cover, predatory and prey fish.
of the project area are generally low in
ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Mitigation, hard- vertical relief (< 1 ft) and located in water
bottom, fish 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 nourish-
and Accepted: 27 February 2006.
ment project (February 2002) six perma-
nent monitoring stations were established

T
INTRODUCTION
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 southern-
most 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) monu-
ments R-223.3 and R-227.9.
Potential direct and secondary impacts
to approximately 2.4 acres of natural near-
shore hard-bottom located within the pro-
jected equilibrium toe of fill were iden-
tified 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 R-
226.5 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
along the natural hard-bottom habitat. Two tion method allows for the diver position using the transect-count methodology for
30-m transects (shore-parallel and shore- and site description information to be in- visual assessment along the mitigation and
perpendicular) were established at each corporated directly onto the video record. natural hard-bottom transects. Transect-
station. A 1 m2 permanent monitoring sta- Video surveys of the natural hard-bottom counts were utilized for visually assessing
tion was established at the intersection of formations were consistently filmed in an the fish assemblage structure along the
the two transects. offshore (east) to onshore (west) direction, mitigation and natural reefs. Currently, the
and from south to north along the shore transect-count is among the most widely
The pre-construction (March 13, 2002), parallel transect. used methods for visually assessing near-
initial post-construction (June 3, 2002), shore reef fish assemblages. The method is
one-year (April 2003), two-year (April/ A series of photographs was taken in- quantitative and open to detailed statisti-
May 2004), and three-year post-construc- side of the six 1 m2 monitoring stations cal analysis. However, one problem with
tion (April/May 2005) biological moni- during each monitoring event to capture the method is that only diurnally exposed
toring surveys of the natural hard-bottom community coverage over time. These fish species are observed, while cryptic or
habitats included a biological inventory and photographs were later placed together to hidden species may be neglected (Jones
photo-documentation of the epibenthos. form an enlarged mosaic view of the ben- and Thompson 1978; Brock 1982; Willis
Benthic communities were evaluated us- thic organisms at each monitoring station. 2001). In order to obtain a complete list
ing a modification of the Atlantic and Gulf Comparison of pre-construction mosaics to of fish species, including those cryptic
Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA) proto- post-construction mosaics and the modified or hidden species, destructive sampling
col (Ginsburg 2000; Miller 2002). Modi- AGGRA assessments were used to capture techniques, such as rotenone, explosives,
fications to the AGRRA method included benthic community structure over time. trawls, or other invasive techniques would
omitting the line-intercept, rover diver fish be required. Although certain species may
survey techniques, and expanding the quad- In addition to benthic characterizations,
fish community structure was also studied be unintentionally left out of the assem-
rat component. The algae portion of the
quadrat component estimated the overall
macroalgae, turf, and coralline algae per-
cent cover, and estimated percent cover of
the two dominant macroalgal species. The
algae canopy height and maximum relief
portions were omitted. The animal por-
tion 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 ac-
count for the migration of sediment along
both the shore-parallel and shore-perpen-
dicular 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 per-
manent 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 identified along transects were
also reported and classified to the lowest
taxon practicable.
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., vi- result, the sand volume that traditionally Artificial Reef Monitoring Results
sual census techniques) are considered deposited south of the inlet and over buried In April/May 2005, an average of 45
the most practical and accepted methods, hard-bottom was temporarily reduced, pro- cm of newly exposed rock was observed
because destructive or invasive techniques viding a false indication that this area could along the north mitigation reef (AR5 to
may damage or disturb coral reefs or reef be an acceptable artificial reef placement AR8). As a result, most of the 2.5-inch
associated biota (Sale and Douglas 1981). area. The original artificial reef project PK1 nails used for station establishment in
The use of any destructive sampling meth- design included the placement of 2.39 acres November 2003 along these four transects,
ods was avoided in this study. of limestone boulders approximately 4,000 were found. An average of 30-90 cm of
ft south of the Boca Raton Inlet, outside of relief was observed during this monitor-
Sixteen 30-m permanent transects were the projected migratory path of the bypass-
established over the mitigation reef and ing event.
ing bar. However, during installation of
adjacent natural hard-bottom. A 30-m line the artificial rock reef, Palm Beach County Monitoring of the south mitigation
was stretched out in a west-east orienta- assessed the nearshore environment and reef (AR1 to AR4) in April/May 2005
tion, with the west end of the transect set at concluded that the area immediately south documented worm rock (Phragmatopoma
the western edge of exposed hard-bottom of the inlet was also suitable for mitiga- caudata (=lapidosa)) and two encrusting
or artificial reef depending upon transect tion. Consequently, the artificial reef was sponge types (Monanchora unguifera and
designation. A biologist swam above the constructed in two locations: immediately Holopsamma helwigi) dominating the ben-
transect while recording all fish within an south of the inlet (north mitigation reef) thic community. A worm rock thickness
imaginary 60 m3 tunnel (1 m to either side and approximately 4,000 ft south of the of 12-15 cm was observed at the limestone
and 1 m above the line). Number of fish inlet (south mitigation reef). The south boulder/natural hard-bottom interface at
and total length (by size class: <2 cm, 2-5 mitigation site is located along a continuous the west ends of the south mitigation reef
cm, 5-10 cm, 10-20 cm, 20-30 cm, 30-50 hard-bottom platform that shows historic (AR1, AR2 and AR4). Community cover-
cm and >50 cm) were recorded. A 1-m burial, providing for a natural transition age of boring and encrusting organisms
“T”-stick with the size classes marked was from existing reefs to the artificial reef. The was persistent throughout the south miti-
used to aid in identifying fish length and north mitigation reef was placed in an area gation reef, thereby inhibiting pin location
transect width. Species, numbers, and size that is susceptible to frequent burial by the along each transect. Due to these limita-
classes associated with the mitigation reef bypassing bar resulting in less available tions, transects at AR1 through AR4 were
were then compared to those on the nearby habitat than originally planned. established using GPS positions acquired
natural hard-bottom. during the six-month and one-year post-
Natural Hard-bottom construction monitoring events.
The one- and two-year post-construction Monitoring Results
fish monitoring events were performed Figures 3 and 4 show the average per-
during the months of May, June, and July The natural hard-bottom transects (con-
trol Transects 1 and 6 and compliance centage of biotic and abiotic cover docu-
2004 and 2005. The spring/summer sur- mented on the north and south mitiga-
veys were established to account for sea- Transects 2 through 5) are located in an ac-
tive sand migration zone that is susceptible tion reefs. Abiotic cover includes both
sonal changes in shallow water fish com- sediment and scoured rock. The fractional
munities along the natural hard-bottom and to burial from
cover of sessile benthos recorded during
artificial reefs. Quantitative assessments of the ebb-tidal shoal regressing and trans- the 2005 investigations along the artificial
the fish community were performed dur- gressing the nearshore zone. The direction reefs ranged from 62-100%. While benthic
ing each monitoring event using the visual of migration has been observed from the organisms recorded along the natural hard-
census technique described above. south and east, with sand depths measuring bottom accounted for 47% biotic coverage
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 15-20 cm or greater in areas of accumula- at Transect 3 and 65% biotic coverage at
tion. Similar to the two-year monitoring Transect 5, Transects 2, 4 and 6 recorded
A relatively large ebb tidal shoal occurs event, all measured sediment depths de- 0% biotic coverage and control Transect 1
offshore, south of Boca Raton Inlet. Depo- creased to the west, indicating an offshore was limited to 4% biotic coverage.
sition in the ebb-tidal shoal occurs due to sand source.
trapping of sands transported alongshore Fish Monitoring Results
by cross-shore tidal currents (Finkl 1993; The biotic response to the uncover- Monitoring results from the fish monitor-
Hine et al. 1986; Hayes 1980). A promi- ing of the exposed hard-bottom was best ing dives include comparisons of the near-
nent geomorphic feature occurring south observed at compliance Transects 3 and shore hard-bottom benthic and fish com-
of Boca Raton Inlet is a shore-oblique by- 5. During the two-year monitoring event, munities to those of the mitigation artificial
passing bar. Bypassing bars are well known compliance Transect 3 showed the en- reef. In the 2004 survey, a total of 6,126 fish
in the published literature (Bruun 1978; tire transect and central monitoring sta- from 36 families were reported on both nat-
Kraus 2000; Walton and Adams 1976). tion buried under 15-24 cm of sediment. ural and artificial reef substrates. The 2005
The South Boca Raton bypassing bar was Macroalgae cover dominated the center survey reported a decrease in the number of
further mapped and described by Benedet monitoring stations with up to 46% cover. fish families in 2005 (32 families), yet an
(2002), Benedet and Finkl (2003), Kruem- Although the north and east ends of com- increase in the total number of fish counted
pel and Spandoni (1998), and Dombrowski pliance Transect 5 were documented with (7,272 fish). Species richness also increased
and Mehta (1993). The bar is readily seen 100% sand coverage ranging in depth on the artificial reef in 2005 (74 species
in high-resolution bathymetric images and from 8-12 cm, the benthic diversity and compared to 67 species in 2004). However,
aerial photographs (Figure 2). percent cover increased since the two-year species richness along the natural hard-
monitoring event. The three-year post-
Due to the excavation of 343,000 cy of construction monitoring event reported a Footnote
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 1
Parker-Kalon hardened masonry nails,
bar system was temporarily reduced. As a and shore perpendicular transects. zinc-plated to resist rust.

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 29-33 31
Figure 3. Biotic cover decreased from 73 to 25% from the Figure 4. Biotic diversity and percent cover remained
six-month to one-year post-construction monitoring events consistent from the one to two-year post-construction
as a result of the decrease in available substrate from the monitoring events.
bypassing bar.

bottom decreased from 46 species in 2004
to 31 species in 2005. Higher abundance
and species richness of fish observed at the
artificial reef transects can be attributed to
the increase in relief and structural com-
plexity of the reef. Specifically, the natural
nearshore transects established on typically
low relief hard-bottom in water depths and
distance from shore were comparable to the
artificial reef transects. The maximum verti-
cal relief observed on the natural transects
was approximately one foot compared to
the maximum vertical relief in excess of
two-three feet on the artificial reef.
Monitoring Schedule
The final three-year post-construction
in situ monitoring of the natural nearshore
hard-bottom community was completed in
April/May 2005. Per specific conditions of
the project permit, one additional biologi-
cal monitoring event is scheduled to occur
along the north and south mitigation reefs
in April/May 2006. The final post-con-
struction fish survey is scheduled to occur
in May, June, and July 2006.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS Higher abundance and species richness of
Both the natural hard-bottom and ar- fishes observed at the artificial reef tran-
tificial reef-monitoring areas have been sects can be attributed to the increase in
documented to support a diverse and pro- relief and structural complexity. The maxi-
ductive benthic community that includes mum vertical relief observed on the natural
macroalgae, sponges, tunicates, Scler- transects was less than 1 ft compared to the
actinians, and Octocoralia. Overall, the maximum vertical relief in excess of 2-3 ft
south mitigation reef appears to be sup- on the artificial reef.
porting a greater abundance and diver-
Both the one- and two-year post-con-
sity of organisms due to the high, variable struction monitoring events documented a
relief and available substrate, versus the
greater percentage of juvenile fish on the
natural hard-bottom habitat (Figures 5 and natural hard-bottom, whereas a large num-
6). Despite the limited number of recruits
ber of adult and intermediate phase preda-
found at the north mitigation reef, the tory fish and prey fish were reported on the
diversity and total percent biota exceeds artificial reef. The low percentage of juve-
the coverage and diversity found along the niles reported on the artificial reef may be
natural hard bottom. The ephemeral nature
attributed to a variety of factors including:
of the nearshore hard bottom and reduced an increased number of predatory and prey
structural complexity and relief limits the
fish; increased substrate complexity and
diversity and density of benthic and ses- relief, which provide gaps and voids for
sile organisms establishing on the natural
juveniles, small and cryptic species, and
nearshore hard bottom. supplies ample space for shelter; and the
Fish Community Assemblage use of the transect-count method, which
does not account for cryptic and hidden
In 2004 and 2005, fish abundance was species. The final post-construction fish
greater on the artificial 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 artificial reefs.

Figure 5. Sergeant Majors (Abudefduf saxatilis) and Spottail

Pinfish (Diplodus holbrooki) finding viable habitat and resources Figure 6. Low relief, nearshore hardbottom habitat (Station 5)
on the south mitigation reef. was dominated by Phaeophyta (brown algae) cover.

32 Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 29-33
Artificial Reef Construction the ebb tidal shoal bypassing Boca Raton The north artificial reef is undergoing
The mitigation originally proposed by Inlet has returned to a more normal size similar episodic burial events, similar to
the city of Boca Raton included placement and volume following sand removal for the nearshore natural hard-bottom, as a
of the entire artificial reef at a distance of the 2002 beach nourishment project. Not result of the bypassing bar. Although the
4,330 ft south of Boca Raton Inlet, in a gap unexpectedly, the shoal covers a portion total artificial reef acreage is less than the
within the natural hard-bottom platform of the northern artificial reef. As evidenced constructed amount, the ephemeral nature
and in an area where adjacent hard-bottom by the sand migrations from the east, the of the artificial reef habitat is comparable
had been relatively persistently exposed. nearshore natural hard-bottom community with the adjacent nearshore natural hard-
However, the city’s proposed reef siting undergoes similar covering events as a bottom habitat. The persistent exposure of
plan was altered resulting in the place- result of migrating ebb tidal shoal. the south mitigation reef provides suitable
ment of much of the artificial reef near the substrate for benthic organisms to estab-
A 2.39-acre artificial reef was construct- lish permanent residence and available
mouth of Boca Raton Inlet. ed from May 31 through June 26, 2003 habitat for fish to utilize.
Unfortunately, the city was not consult- as mitigation for the coverage of surf
ed concerning the change in the artificial zone rock formations resulting from sand ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
reef placement site, and much of the reef placement. The 2005 mapping results of The dataset collected for the project is the
was constructed near the inlet mouth. The the exposed artificial reef structures were result of a team effort by the CPE Environ-
north mitigation reef site was placed in calculated as follows: the north mitigation mental Studies Department, with assistance
an active sand-shoaling environment, just site yields 1.29 acres and the south mitiga- from the Survey Department. Funding for
south of Boca Raton Inlet, while the south tion site yields 0.93 acres, for a total area data collection and analysis were provided
site was located 4,000 feet south of the in- of 2.22 acres. by the city of Boca Raton, FL.
let. Since construction of the artificial reef,

REFERENCES

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 Scientific
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:
Kruempel, C. J. and R. H. Spadoni, 1998. “Inlet
Their morphodynamics and role on
Management Plan Implementation at
coastal sand management,” Proceedings
Boca Raton Inlet – Boca Raton, Florida,”
of the Hornafjordur International Coastal
Proceedings of the 1998 National Conference
Symposium, 67-85.
on Beach Preservation Technology, 185-
Ginsburg, R., 2000. Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef
199.
Assessment 2000, University of Miami.
Miller, C. 2002. Personal communication regarding
Hayes, M.O., 1980. “General morphology and
modified version of AGGRA methodology,
sediment patterns in tidal inlets,” Sedimentary
Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc.
Geology., 26,139-156.
Sale, P. F. and Douglas, W. A., 1981. “Precision
Hine, A. C.; Mearns, D. L.; Davis, R. A., and Bland,
and accuracy of visual census technique
M., 1986. Impact of Florida Gulf coast inlets
for fish assemblages on coral patch reefs,”
on the coastal sand budget, Prepared for
Environmental Biology of Fishes 6, 333-
the Florida Department of Environmental
339.
Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores,
Walton, T. L., Jr., and W. D. Adams 1976. “Capacity
By the Department of Marine Science and
of inlet outer bars to store sand,” Proceedings
Geology, University of South Florida, Tampa
15th Coastal Engineering Conference,
and St. Petesburg, FL, 128 pp.
Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil
Jones, R. S. and Thompson M. J., 1978.
Engineers, 1919-1937.
“Comparison of Florida reef fish assemblages
Willis, T. J. 2001. “Visual census methods
using a rapid visual technique,” Bulletin of
underestimate density and diversity of
Marine Science, 26,159-172.
cryptic reef fishes,” Journal of Fish Biology
Kraus, N.C. 2000. “Reservoir model of ebb-
59,1408-1411.
tidal shoal evolution and sand bypassing,”
Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and
Ocean Engineering, 126, 305-313.

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 29-33 33
 The Non-Market Value of Beach Recreation in California
By

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

ABSTRACT magnitude of beach values that never enter the Two other studies examine beach-related
market. These non-market values represent the expenditures by day visitors in California.
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, A survey of beach-goers in southern Cali-
paid parking lots, and waterfront restaurants reveal parking fees and tolls. Beaches in California rep- fornia (Hanemann et al. 2002) found that
that 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
per-person per-trip expenditures on beach
non-market values and estimates of beach visita- elsewhere in the United States. Using a conserva- related items and services were $23.19
tion in California to estimate the potential eco- tive estimate of 150 million beach visits, and a ($25.18 in 2005 dollars) for beach-goers
nomic value of day-use beach-going in the state. A range of estimates for the non-market value of a who took at least one trip in the summer
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
of 2000. In another study by King (CDBW
beach visitation range from 150 million visits to substantially exceed $2 billion each year. 2002), average beach-related expenditures
more than 378 million beach visits. Using a con- (excluding gas and automobile costs) were
servative estimate of 150 million beach visits, we Article Received: 28 August 2005; Revised and Ac- $29.66 ($32.20 in 2005 dollars). While the
estimate that market expenditures by beach-goers cepted: 8 February 2006.
in California could substantially exceed $3 billion
study by Hanemann et al. (2002) estimates
each year. Less obvious, however, is the economic expenditures to only those visitors that ac-
tually “touch the sand” at least once during
their trip, King (CDBW 2002) includes ex-

B
INTRODUCTION
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 non-
market economic impacts of beach use in
California corroborate the obvious impor-
tance of beach visitation for the California
coastal economy.
The California Coastal Act protects ac-
cess to public beaches throughout Califor-
nia. As a result, beaches are an important
source of recreational open space for Cali-
fornians 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 Depart-
ment of Boating and Waterways [CDBW]
2002). A survey by the Public Policy In-
stitute of California (PPIC 2003) finds that
72 percent of all Californians make at least
one trip to the beach each year.
Day trips to beaches generate two dis-
tinct kinds of economic impact for the
coastal and ocean economy: market expen-
ditures 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 society’s perspective, expendi-
tures are important because they allow the
analyst to better understand what profits,
employment, wages and taxes may be as-
sociated with beach spending. In Califor-
nia, 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 fiscal impact
of beaches in California and reported that,
in 1998, California’s combined day visi-
tors and tourists spent $14 billion dollars
($16.4 billion in 2005 dollars) on beach-
related expenditures (King 1999).1
penditures 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 beach-
going 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 find
an estimate for the total non-market value
of beaches in California. As we show be-
low, the value of non-market beach uses
is substantial and may even be within an
order of magnitude of the market expen-
ditures associated with beach recreation in
the state. Failure to fully account for non-
market values of beaches in California
could lead to explicit and implicit errors in
the evaluation of beach projects.
METHODOLOGY
We estimate the total non-market value
of beaches in California using a two-step

34 Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 34-37
process. First, we estimate the total beach BEACH) to estimate beach visitation in error in our estimates lies in the degree to
visitation activity days (herein referred to California. The authors estimate the at- which non-market beach values for south-
as beach days) where a beach day repre- tendance per mile of beach using EPA ern California beaches may not be repre-
sents a visit to one beach by one individual BEACH attendance estimates for four sentative of the values placed on beaches
on one day. An estimate of total annual different regions of California: northern elsewhere in California. Nevertheless, be-
beach days represents the total number of California, San Francisco Bay area, central cause Kildow and Shivendu (2001) find
person days spent on the beaches of Cali- California, and southern California, and that more than 85 percent of all beach
fornia in one year. If a visitor goes to the then extrapolate to get the estimates of at- visits in California are made to beaches in
same beach or different California beaches tendance for those beaches for which only Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego coun-
10 times in one year then it is counted as length is known. The BEACH Watch pro- ties, the sensitivity of our results to this
10 beach days. Second, we draw from gram of EPA2 covers only 224 beaches, but geographical extrapolation error are likely
the literature to find what we believe to the authors supplement the data with other to be relatively small.
be a representative range of estimates of sources including guide books and the
value for one day of beach visitation to California Coastal Commission’s Coastal Two primary methods have been used
find the total non-market value of beach Access Guide. In all, the authors identify to value consumer surplus estimates: 1)
visitation for California. The people who at least 417 California beaches (see ap- travel cost methods that use market-based
visit a beach on a given day may engage pendix for a complete list of beaches) and data on travel to beaches, and 2) contin-
in multiple outdoor recreation activities. estimate the attendance at these beaches to gent valuation methods that use survey
They swim, sunbathe, walk, jog, view be 153.1 million beach days. approaches to elicit the value of beach rec-
birds and wildlife, or just watch sunsets. reation. Chapman and Hanemann (2001)
Our estimates include beach visits for any The estimates of Kildow and Shivendu argue that contingent valuation estimates
recreational activity. are in line with those of the NSRE (2000) of California beach visits to date have been
estimates, the United States Lifeguard flawed and generate unreliable estimates,
ESTIMATED TOTAL Agency (2002) data and the estimates for largely because the contingent valuation
BEACH DAYS beach attendance given by Morton and surveys often are not site-specific and
Pendleton (2001), but are significantly fail to account for varying travel costs to
A number of different sources estimate
lower than those of King’s estimates for beaches around the state. We focus the
beach days for California. King (CDBW
the California Department of Boating and discussion that follows on estimates from
2002, Chapter 3) updates beach attendance
Waterways (2001). It is not clear why the the many travel cost studies that have been
figures originally based on a random tele-
estimates from King diverge so greatly undertaken to estimate the values of beach
phone survey of California households by
from other estimates. King’s estimates rep- days in California.
King and Potepan (1997). Adjusting for
resent and average of more than 10 beach
increases in state population, King esti- Travel cost estimates of consumer sur-
day visits for every resident of the state.
mates that as many as 378.5 million beach plus for beach visits have been employed
The Public Policy Institute of California
days were made to California beaches by to estimate the value of beach days, largely
found that 36 percent of California’s 35.9
Californians in 2001; these beach days along the central and southern California
million (2004 Census estimate) residents
include both day visits and multi-day visits coast. Table 1 provides estimates of con-
who were surveyed went to the beach
(e.g., by tourists or out of town visitors) sumer surplus values for visits to beaches
more than once per month, while 51 per-
to beaches and piers, boardwalks, parks in California. Consumer surplus estimates
cent of the population went between once
and restaurants adjacent to beaches. Lee- range from a low of $10.98 (in 2001 dol-
and several times each year. For the pur-
worthy and Wiley (2001) use data from lars) for a beach day to Cabrillo Beach
poses of this study, we use a conservative
the National Survey on Recreation and the in Los Angeles County (Leeworthy and
estimate of 150 million beach days each
Environment, a national telephone survey, Wiley 1993) to a high of greater than $70
year at California beaches with a clear
to estimate that 151.4 million beach days (in 2005 dollars) day visits to San Diego
understanding that the total number of
were taken at California beaches in 2000. beaches (Lew 2002). In 1997, Michael
beach days made statewide are likely to
In addition to telephone surveys, beach Hanemann estimated the value of the con-
be larger.
attendance records are kept by county sumer surplus of beach days at Huntington
and state agencies as well as private firms ESTIMATING THE VALUE Beach at $15/day visit (in 1997 dollars;
hired to provide lifeguard services at some OF A BEACH DAY Hanemann 1997). Hanemann’s estimate of
southern California beaches. Using life- beach related consumer surplus was later
guard estimates, the United States Life No attempt has been made to estimate
discounted by 10 percent and used as the
the aggregate non-market value of beaches
Saving Association estimates that as many basis for a jury award regarding lost beach
as 146 million beach days were taken atfor large areas in general, and for Califor-
recreation due to the American Trader oil
southern California beaches alone (USLAnia in particular. Aggregating non-market
spill (Chapman and Hanemann 2001).
values studies can be complicated if the
2002). In another study, Morton and Pend-
leton (2001) estimate that total beach studies estimate the value of different The exact non-market value associated
attendance in Los Angeles and Orange types of uses (e.g., surfing, swimming or with a beach day depends importantly on
just sunbathing) and the value of uses dur-
County in 2000 exceeded 79 million beach the quality of the beach, the season, the
days. Morton and Pendleton’s estimates,ing different seasons. Fortunately, most geographic location and even water tem-
studies that have estimated non-market
detailed in a report to the State Water Re- perature. Similar, the consumer surplus
values for beach use in California have
sources Control Board, are taken directly value of a beach day depends on char-
from lifeguard records. estimated the value of a general beach day, acteristics of the beach-goer, including
usually during the summer. Unfortunately, their age, income and the activities they
Kildow and Shivendu (2001) use nearly all of the studies we cite estimate undertake while at the beach. Detailed
data from the Environmental Protection values for southern California beaches. data on beach specific non-market values
Agency’s BEACH Watch Program (EPA As a result, the potential for extrapolation and detailed data about beach-specific at-

Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 34- 37 35

Table 1. Travel cost estimates of the nonmarket value of beach days in California.
tendance and the characteristics of beach- 2001); the upper limit represents a mid-
goers 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. days annually, we estimate the non-market rant regarding the economic health of
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
economic non-market values that may be
associated with beach recreation in Cali-
fornia. The low estimate for the value of a
beach day is based on the court-appointed
value of a beach day from the American
Trader case (Chapman and Hanemann
36
tor to California’s 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 mar-
ket 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 benefits that are
likely to be significantly 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 meth-
ods (Morton and Pendleton 2001), few of
which have been rigorously tested for ac-
curacy. 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 Califor-
nia Beach Valuation Project (Hanemann et
al. 2002; 2003; 2004) attempting a valua-
point between the median beach value
tion study using standard methods across
found by 1) Leeworthy and Wiley (1993) beaches within an entire region3. Without
and Leeworthy (1995), and 2) the median standardized, regularly collected data on
value of the preferred estimates from Lew beach visitation and non-market beach
(2002). (All values are adjusted to dollarsvalues, county beach agencies, California
in 2005.) Based on a conservative estimate Department of Parks and Recreation and
of beach attendance of 150 million beach coastal municipalities are mostly igno-
the beaches and beach-goers within their
value of beach visits in California to range
charge, and have little information about
the value of the assets they are managing.
CONCLUSION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the
Beach-going is more than just an idle
past time in California. Beach-going repre- reviewers for helpful comments. Addition-
sents a major economic use of the Califor- ally, we thanks Bonnie Lockwood for help
nia coast and ocean and a major contribu- in preparation of the manuscript.
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
General’s Office.
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.
Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 34-47
REFERENCES
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 Benefits
of Beaches in the City of San Clemente,”
mimeo, San Francisco State University.
King, P. G. and Potepan, M., 1997. The Economic
Value of California’s 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, Office 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 non-
market 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/.
37
COASTAL OBSERVATIONS
North Stradbroke Island, Moreton Bay, Australia
By

Hubert Chanson, Reader

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

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

construction of the historic township of dolphins, turtles and manta rays are regu-
Dunwich, but the development was halted larly spotted from Point Lookout headland
because of hostile local aborigines and and the North Gorge (Figures 4 and 5).
inadequate water supply. Subsequent Eu- More than 253 species of bird life live
ropean settlements in Dunwich included a here, including Little Penguin, Wander-
Figure 1. Map of Moreton Bay. Catholic mission (1843-1847), a quaran- ing Albatross, Great Cormorant, Black
tine station (1850-1865) and a benevolent Swan, Whistling Kite, White-bellied Sea-
North Stradbroke Island is located 30 institution (1867-1947). Eagle, Galah, Tawny Frogmouth, Azure
km southeast of Brisbane, Queensland, Kingfisher, Forest Kingfisher, Red-backed
Australia. It is part of a series of three Locally known as “Straddie,” North Kingfisher and Sacred Kingfisher. Figure 6
large sandy islands separating Moreton Stadbroke Island has several freshwater shows a whale spotted off Main Beach.
Bay from the Pacific 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 Wal-
lace 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, creat-
ing 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
Pacific Ocean side, Main Beach extends
for 32 km (Figures 1, 2 and 3).
The first 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
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer acknowledges the help of Ya-
Hui Chou, Bernard and Nicole Chanson
(Brisbane), and Professor S. Aoki (Japan).
FURTHER READING:
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, Point

Lookout on Aug. 14, 2002.

INTERNET LINKS
Photographs of Coastlines of Australia
http://www.uq.edu.au/~e2hchans/photo.
html#Coast_Australia
North Stradbroke Island
http://www.stradbrokeholidays.com.au/in-
dex.php
North Stradbroke Island Historical Mu-
seum 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
40 Shore & Beach Vol. 74, No. 2, Spring 2006, pp. 49-52