• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Florida beach nourishment...
 Beach nourishment projects outside...
 Methods of sand placement
 Acknowledgement






Group Title: Technical paper ;, no. 2
Title: Beach nourishments in Florida and on the lower Atlantic and Gulf Coasts
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072264/00001
 Material Information
Title: Beach nourishments in Florida and on the lower Atlantic and Gulf Coasts
Series Title: Technical paper
Physical Description: 64 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Walton, Todd L
Publisher: Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla.?
Publication Date: 1977
 Subjects
Subject: Shore protection -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Shore protection -- Atlantic Coast (U.S.)   ( lcsh )
Shore protection -- Gulf Coast (U.S.)   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: by Todd L. Walton, Jr.
General Note: "This paper was developed under the auspices of the Florida Sea Grant College Program, with support from the NOAA Office of Sea Grant, U.S. Department of Commerce, grant number 04-7-158-44046."
General Note: "December 1977."
Funding: This collection includes items related to Florida’s environments, ecosystems, and species. It includes the subcollections of Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit project documents, the Florida Sea Grant technical series, the Florida Geological Survey series, the Howard T. Odum Center for Wetland technical reports, and other entities devoted to the study and preservation of Florida's natural resources.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00072264
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000501500
oclc - 08643615
notis - ACS1161

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Florida beach nourishment projects
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Cape Canaveral Beach - Brevard County, Florida
            Page 5
            Page 6
        Fort Pierce - St. Lucie County, Florida
            Page 7
            Page 8
            Page 9
        Jupiter Island Beaches - Martin County, Florida
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
            Page 13
            Page 14
            Page 15
        Delray Beach - Palm Beach County, Florida
            Page 16
            Page 17
            Page 18
        Pompano Beach - Broward County, Florida
            Page 19
            Page 20
        Hallandale Beach - Broward County, Florida
            Page 21
            Page 22
        Bal Harbour - Dade County, Florida
            Page 23
            Page 24
        Virginia Key/Key Biscayne beaches - Dade County, Florida
            Page 25
            Page 26
            Page 27
            Page 28
        Key West - Monroe County, Florida
            Page 29
            Page 30
            Page 31
        Captiva Island - Lee County, Florida
            Page 32
            Page 33
        Lido Key beach - Sarasota County, Florida
            Page 34
            Page 35
            Page 36
        Mullet Key - Pinellas County, Florida
            Page 37
            Page 38
        St. Petersburg Beach - Pinellas County, Florida
            Page 39
        Treasure Island - Pinellas County, Florida
            Page 40
            Page 41
            Page 42
            Page 43
            Page 44
            Page 45
        Indian Rocks Beach - Pinellas County, Florida
            Page 46
            Page 47
            Page 48
    Beach nourishment projects outside of Florida
        Page 49
        Harrison County, Mississippi
            Page 50
            Page 51
            Page 52
        Hunting Island, South Carolina
            Page 53
            Page 54
            Page 55
        Carolina Beach, North Carolina
            Page 56
            Page 57
            Page 58
            Page 59
            Page 60
    Methods of sand placement
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
    Acknowledgement
        Page 64
Full Text

Florida Sea Grant

Technical Paper


BEACH NOURISHMENTS IN FLORIDA
AND ON THE LOWER ATLANTIC AND GULF COASTS

BY

Todd L. Walton, Jr.
Coastal Engineering Specialist
Marine Advisory Program
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory


















BEACH NOURISHMENTS IN FLORIDA
AND ON THE LOWER ATLANTIC AND GULF COASTS


BY


Todd L. Walton, Jr.
Coastal Engineering Specialist
Marine Advisory Program
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory


The information contained in this paper was
developed under the auspices of the Florida Sea Grant
College Program, with support from the NOAA Office of
Sea Grant, U.S. Department of Commerce, grant number
04-7-158-44046. This document is a Technical Paper
of the State University System of Florida Sea Grant
College Program, 2001 McCarty Hall, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. Technical Papers
are duplicated in limited quantities for specialized
audiences requiring rapid access to information,
which may be unedited.







Technical Paper No. 2
December 1977











TABLE OF CONTENTS




Page

INTRODUCTION.................................. 1

FLORIDA BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECTS............. 3
Cape Canaveral Beach Brevard County..... 5
Ft. Pierce St. Lucie County............. 7
Jupiter Island Beach Martin County...... 10
Delray Beach Palm Beach County.......... 16
Pompano Beach Broward County............ 19
Hallandale Beach Broward County......... 21
Bal Harbour Dade County................. 23
Virginia Key/Key Biscayne Dade County... 25
Key West Monroe County.................. 29
Captiva Island Lee County............... 32
Lido Key Sarasota County................. 34
Mullet Key Pinellas County.............. 37
St. Petersburg Beach Pinellas County.... 39
Treasure Island Pinellas County......... 40
Indian Rocks Beach Pinellas County...... 46

BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECTS OUTSIDE OF FLORIDA.. 49
Harrison County, Mississippi.............. 50
Hunting Island, South Carolina............ 53
Carolina Beach, North Carolina............ 56

METHODS OF SAND PLACEMENT...................... 61

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................. 64







INTRODUCTION


In the past fifteen years, the State of Florida has embarked upon a
course of action aimed at "holding the line" against increasing erosion of
its shoreline. This is contrary to some undeveloped coastal areas where pub-
lic policy has evolved toward letting erosion take its toll; for example, the
National Park Service has now resolved to end its beach nourishment and stab-
ilization programs. Most of Florida's coastline though is already heavily
developed with tremendous sums of money tied up in ocean front property
and would suffer catastrophically if there were a similar discontinuance of
erosion control measures.

In areas along the lower east "Gold Coast" of Florida, coastal property
values for a one mile ocean front strip can total over 300 million dollars.
With such high property values at stake, Florida cannot afford to idly sit
by and let its beaches erode and its developments fall into the sea.

The evidence for concern of our rapidly eroding shoreline is shown by
a 50 million dollar beach restoration project presently scheduled for a ten
mile section of Miami Beach, Florida. Numerous other projects will be sim-
ilarly proposed and implemented in future years if Florida is to keep its
beaches. The National Shoreline Study (1) has noted that 210 miles of Florida's
beaches are in a critical state of erosion. These critically eroded areas
will have to be protected by means of artificial nourishment or some other
type of coastal protective structure to prevent further erosion. At an
assumed cost of one million dollars a mile (average present cost of a beach
nourishment project), this will cost over 200 million dollars just to protect
critical areas of erosion, not to mention other eroding areas.

Based on past experience in Florida and elsewhere, it has been established
that the best means of fighting erosion and protecting upland property is by
the creation of wide beaches by artificial nourishment. It should be noted
though that in specific instances coastal structures (offshore breakwaters
or groin fields) may still represent a viable solution to the erosion problem
(i.e. Presque Isle, Pennsylvania (2); Imperial Beach, California). The
dominance of the artificial nourishment concept over coastal structures such
as seawalls and groins is due to a variety of factors:

(1) On a large scale, beach nourishment is less costly than a coastal
structure.

(2) Beaches act to dissipate energy, breaking down the organized
kinetic energy of ocean waves rather than increasing it as in
the case of seawalls or similar structures.

(3) Esthetically, beaches are much prettier than groins or seawalls,
and they provide an additional benefit of added beach space for
recreational uses.

(4) Nourished beaches help remedy; rather than cause, problems for
the beaches downdrift (and uplift) from them by providing a
supply of sand to these neighbor beaches.








(5) Beach nourishments are not a hazard to users of the beach such as
structures which may cause rip currents (i.e. groins, offshore
breakwaters).

Due to the rising importance of beach nourishment in the State of
Florida and the lack of adequate information on past nourishment projects,
it was felt that a summary of available knowledge on past beach nourishments
in Florida and along the South Atlantic and Gulf Coasts was needed.

It is hoped that this paper will promote a better understanding of beach
nourishments and those relative successes and failures, such that engineers.
planners, and interested coastal property owners can make better decisions
regarding the future of Florida's beautiful sandy shorelines.

References:

1. National Shoreline Study Regional Inventory Report South Atlantic-
Gulf Region, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, District,
Jacksonville, Florida.

2. Personal communication Buffalo District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Buffalo, N.Y., and U.S. Army Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.







FLORIDA BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECTS


This section is intended as a short summary of the past beach nourish-
ments in Florida where information was available. Not all nourishment pro-
jects have been covered to date due to a lack of existing available informa-
tion. Also, some of these projects have been renourished since the original
project but for which no information was available. Some of the more recent
nourishment projects have available information which was not analyzed at
the time of this paper and on many projects information is still being col-
lected. This paper does not present past sand transfer operations at Florida
inlets which is a subject worthy of another paper.

Various questionnaires were sent out to the concerned officials and
engineers of these projects to collect this information. Quite often it was
found that information was lacking on various important technical aspects of
the project such as sand size placed on the beach, or the natural beach char-
acteristics. Additionally, information from various sources sometimes is con-
tradictory. The material presented though is correct to the best knowledge
of the author. Should any discrepancies exist, it would be appreciated that
these be brought to the attention of the author such that any future updates
of this publication (which will be made as monitoring data becomes available
or new beach nourishments are constructed) can be corrected.

It should be noted that sand sizes of the natural beach and borrow areas
presented have in most cases been determined from a very small number of
samplings and therefore cannot be considered an accurate estimate of the
natural beach sand or the borrow area sand, but only the best estimate that
can be made of these quantities at this time.

Florida beach nourishment projects are located on the Florida map
shown in Figure 1.













S*. .,.**., ,*-- .. (



10"'U"n,


Cape Canaveral


Indian Rocks.
Treasure Island
St. Petersburg
Mullet Key


Captiva Island


Fort Pierce


Jupiter Island


Delray
Hallandale
Pompano


Figure 1. Locator Map for Florida Beach Nourishment Projects.


Key West
4 a6







CAPE CANAVERAL BEACH BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA


Date of Nourishment Project: June 1974 March 1975

Material Placed on Beach: 2,300,000 cubic yards sand and shell material

Location of Fill and Borrow Areas:

Borrow area was in Trident Submarine Basin being dredged for Navy
(see Figure 1-A).

Length of Fill: 2.1 miles

Height of Berm: +10 feet mean low water

Characteristics of Borrow Material:

Ranging in size d50 from 1.00mm to .0625mm. Results of a postfill
survey of sand size are included in Figure 10 of reference CC-1.

Characteristics of Natural Beach Material:

Ranging in size d50 from 0.7mm. to 0.1mm. depending on location along
offshore profile. Results of a prefill survey of sand size are included
in Figure 9 of reference CC-1.

Method of Spoiling Material on the Beach:

Floating Hydraulic pipeline dredge pumping across inlet to shore-
line of spoil area.

Cost of Project: ?

Engineers: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Dredger/Contractor: ?

Comments:

Prior nourishment of this beach took place in 1972 with the trans-
fer of over 200,000 yd3 of sand from the north side of the inlet to the
south side of the inlet.

Results of a nourishment project monitoring study conducted over
the initial year after the project fill is presented in Table CC-1.











Table CC-1
LOSS RATES OF BEACH FILL AT CANAVERAL BEACH*


Date of Survey


Period
of Comparison


Cubic
Yards Lost


% of Original
Fill Lost


May 1975


April 1976


Initial Fill


April 76-May 75


(2,300,000)


269,000


*Surveys extended to -20 feet offshore and to approximately mile south
of project fill. Due to possible hydrographic survey errors in the portion
of surveys from -10 to -20 feet in depth, results of fill change include only
the beach face to -10 feet in depth.


No significant storm systems passed over the Canaveral area during the
period of monitoring which might lead to high erosion losses.


References:


CC-1 "Report on Monitoring of a Beachfill South of Canaveral Jetties, Bre-
vard County, Florida," Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Labora-
tory, July 1976. Gainesville, Florida.


3
II
3 ,


4, II ,,
I hI'
:%J ,'



5
4 3
I

7
s 40 ..,+

3 3
o p, ll '* 0


( 2
T^5
n'" r


I.oug P1
2
2
5


C 'A NA R .
2 3* 1 13 -


I 29
2 2
8 2 ?5 2 9

;3/ 32 -' +. 2
3 -.
33 31 ~ '
32 3 5 34 31
S35 34
\ 33 3.'
34 \,", 36

S 3 3 -
5 'L 3 37 3
35 ,
G3-9 3 i 9

1 40
I a,
S/ 4
S.3) 80

Scale 1:80,000


Figure 1-A.


Beach Nourishment at
June 1974-Morch 1975


Brevard County


Date of Survey







FORT PIERCE ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA


Date of Nourishment Project: May 1970 May 1971

Material Placed on the Beach: 718,000 cubic yards of sand

Location of Fill and Borrow Areas: (See Figure 2)

Length of Fill: 1.3 miles

Height of Berm: +10 feet MLW

Characteristics of Borrow Material: Unknown

Characteristics of Natural Beach Material:

Four composite surface sand samples from profiles P-1 through P-4
(see Figure 1), each consisting of a sample on the beach face, -8 feet,
and -12 feet, were analyzed in 1958. The results of the analysis are
below (references FP-1 and FP-2).


Sample Location Median Sand Diameter
(mm)
P-1 North of Inlet 0.12
P-2 South of Inlet 0.25
P-3 0.21
P-4 0.10


Method of Spoiling Material on the Beach:

The first 60,000 (approx.) cubic yards of material was pumped onto
the beach by an experimental underwater hydraulic dredge. The remainder
of material was pumped onto the beach by a floating hydraulic pipeline
dredge.

Cost of Project: $579,707.00 (includes engineering and supervision).

Engineers: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wood, Beard, Bell and Associates
Ft. Pierce, Florida

Dredger/Contractor: Ocean Science and Engineering operated the experimental
underwater dredge "Crawlcutter II."

C.F. Bean Company, New Orleans, operated the floating hydraulic
pipeline dredge "Buster Bean" (24" pipeline) 47,000 H.P.; capacity
20,000 cubic yards/day.

Comments:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is presently conducting a moni-
toring study of this project (reference FP5).







References:


FP1. Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study of Fort Pierce,
Florida, Dept. of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jackson-
ville District, October 1963.

FP2. Coastal Engineering Study of Fort Pierce Beach, Technical Progress
Report #7, Coastal Engineering Laboratory, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida, September 1958.

FP3. Information provided courtesy of Wood, Beard, Bell and Associates,
Fort Pierce, Florida.

FP4. Information provided courtesy of Weldon Lewis, County Administrator,
St. Lucie County, Florida.

FP5. Beach Erosion Control Monitoring Study, Ft. Pierce, Florida, Dept. of
the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, 1976.




































TYPICAL BEACH FILL SECTION
(Sta. 40 +00)


1971 Beach Nourishment at Fort Pierce, Florida


Figure 2.







JUPITER ISLAND BEACHES MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA


Date of Nourishment Project:


July October 1956
? 1963

September 1963, May September 1964
? 1967

June August 1973 Stage I
June August 1974 Stage II

Material Placed on Beach:


July October 1956
? 1963


55,000 cubic yards
60,000 cubic yards


September 1963, May September 1964 123,000
? 1967 50,000 70,000 cubic yards
June August 1973 2,376,000 cubic yards
June August 1974 1,000,000 cubic yards


cubic yards


Location of Fill and Borrow Areas:


1956 Borrow Area in
1963 Borrow Area in


September 1963, May September 1964

? 1967 Offshore borrow pits


Hobe Sound and Intracoastal WW
Hobe Sound and Intracoastal WW

Offshore borrow pits 200-800 feet
offshore.
200-800 feet offshore.


June August 1973 Offshore 3,500 4,500 feet (see Figure 3)

Length of Fill:

1963 2,000 feet
September 1963, May September 1964 5 locations each approximately
200 feet wide
June August 1973) r -^ / p. 3)
June August 1973 5 miles (see Figure 3)
June August 1974


Height of Berm:


1956 Stockpiled along shoreline
1963, 1964, 1967 Stockpiled beaches constructed, no specific elevation
1973 f
1974J +9 feet MLW


Characteristics of Borrow Material:


1956 d50= 0.20 mm (quartz sand) based on two samples from the vi-


July October
?







cinityof the borrow area, reference J-4

1963 d50 = unknown but probably of approximately same size as the ma-
terial borrowed in 1956

1967 d = 0.40 mm average of eight samples placed on the beach from
o4e location of the drag scraner, reference J-4

1973 d50 = 0.11 from representative composite samples down to -20 feet
1974 in borrow area. Sand size gradation curve is presented from ref-
erence J-6. (d = 0.12 estimated to be the material size placed
on the beach after losses due to fill construction run off.)

Characteristics of Natural Beach Material:

d50 = 0.39 Average of 12 surface sand samples taken by U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 1968, reference J-5. d ranged from 0.18 -
0.78 in those samples.

d50 = 0.81 Composite sample from foreshore down to -20 feet below the
surface of the sand.

Method of Spoiling Material on the Beach:

1956 Hydraulic pipeline dredge pumping to beach; also, limited quantit?
of material drag scraped to beach

1963 Hydraulic pipeline dredge pumping to beach

September 1963, May September 1964 Drag scraper arrangement
1967
1973)
1974) Floating hydraulic pipeline dredge pumping to beach

Cost of Project:

19731
1974J $3,000,000 (estimated for complete project)

Engineers:

1963, 1964, 1967 Gee and Jenson Consulting Engineers, Inc., West Palm
Beach, Florida


1973, 1974 Arthur V. Strock and Associates, Ii

Dredger/Contractor:

19731 a
1974 Dredge "Alaska" Great Lakes Dredging Company
1974jDeg


nc.


y







Comments:

Results of a monitoring of the most recent nourishment project showed
that (within the limits of accuracy of hydrographic surveys) little fill
material was lost to the project although a great deal of sand did move off-
shore to deeper water yet within the limits of survey coverage.

Artificial nourishment of the beaches on Jupiter Island was initiated
in 1957; since that time over 700,000 cubic yards of sand were pumped from
Hobe Sound by pipe dredge and placed on the beach at various locations and
in various quantities. The last known restoration project in which sand was
spoiled on the beach from the Hobe Sound area was in early 1963 when 60,000
cubic yards of Hobe Sound sand were placed on 2,000 l.f. of Jupiter Island
beach. The sand in the Hobe Sound borrow areas is not believed to have been
of a very good quality for placement on the beaches as bay sand is usually
of a smaller median diameter, having more organic and fines than sand from
offshore sources.

Prior to 1963, the natural sand on Jupiter Island's beaches was predom-
inantly siliceous with the remaining fraction primarily calcareous shell frag-
ments (median grain size d50 = 0.29 mm).

On September 1963, nourishment of Jupiter Island's beaches was initiated
using a three drum Saurman drag scraper with an offshore tow-point anchor
system and moving pulley. The drag scraper had a bottomless bucket with a
three cubic yard capacity and was dragged by cables over a wedge shaped
borrow area (references J-1, J-2). It was planned to use this system to place
500,000 cubic yards of sand on the island's beach between 1963 and 1965 at
a unit cost of approximately 33C/cubic yard which included some equipment
depreciation cost for the drag scraper. Results of the first two years
operation are as follows:

September 1963 4,644 cubic yards
May 1964 September 1964 118,312 cubic yards.

As to whether the above figures were determined from surveys or estimated
by dredge operation is unknown. It is not known what the total quantity
of sand placed on the island through 1966 amounts to, although based on the
1964 work, this amount would have been considerably under 500,000 cubic
yards.

In 1967 the drag scraper again operated in two areas. During 1967 oper-
ations, the drag scraper operation had logged 105,036 cubic yards placed on
the beach by counting bucket loads, although estimates of the actual volume
of sand placed by partial surveys of beach and borrow area give the quantity
to be more like 50,000 to 70,000 cubic yards. A study of the drag scraper
operation was made by the University of Florida and a total of 17 hydro-
graphic surveys were conducted at the site of the two scraper areas from
May 12, 1967, to June 28, 1968. In addition, tracing tests were conducted
to see if the borrow pits would fill with sand from the beaches. The borrow
pits in both cases were 200-250 feet offshore to the top sloping side of
the borrow pit. From that location, the borrow pits extended in an offshore
direction 500-600 feet and in a longshore direction 250-300 feet. The
maximum depths in the pits were 14 feet and 17 feet.







The method of sand placement on the beach consisted of dragging the
bucket to approximate MHW line, then in tipping the bucket and emptying
its contents, and then moving back to the borrow pit for another load. Much
of the sand originally dumped on the beach in this manner was rapidly lost
due to wave action and littoral currents. Also, the drag scraping caused
extreme turbidity in the borrow areas. Considerable sand was displaced in
these turbidity plumes downdrift from the borrow pit.

The nearness of the pits caused steeper than normal beach slopes, i.e.
1:14 and 1:10 in the areas of drag scraping. Tracer was placed in the spoil
areas and monitored over a 10-month period. Results of the surveys and the
tracer tests showed the pits to be filling with sand at a rate of 0.1 to 0.2
feet a day. The pits had completely filled in 4 6 months and no anomalies
were apparent in the offshore bathymetry.

Fine tracer was found in appreciable amounts in both borrow pits proving
that much of the fines in the borrow material had worked its way back out
to refill the pit. Sand samples in the refilled portions of the borrow
pits were analyzed and had a median diameter of dgo = 0.13 considerably
smaller than the actual borrow material as sampled on the beach with an aver-
aged do5 = 0.56 mm. In the borrow pits, 23 foot core borings showed smaller
diameters toward the bottom of the borrow pit, although all layers of the
refilled pit consisted of fines.

After a one-year study it appeared that there was not a substantial loss
to the beach of the additional sand. Only the finer portions of the fill
were washed back into the borrow pit while the remaining portion of the fill
mixed with the natural beach increasing its median diameter to d50 = 0.35 mm
nine months after the drag scraping operation shut down.

A recommendation of this study (reference J-2) was to either (1) locate
the sand source for beach replenishment at a point deeper than the "null
point" which represents the outer limit of the change in the beach between
its equilibrium profile and the storm profile. (On Jupiter Island, this
null point was found to be at the 15 foot depth contour or about 1200 feet
offshore) or (2) to locate borrow sand seaward of the winter bars (at Jupiter,
this criteria would specify a depth of 10 feet of water or 700 feet offshore).

Before recommending projects of this type, it should be kept in mind that
most dredging or drag scraping costs are in mobilization of the dredge or
drag scraper including set up costs at the site. In drag scraper operations,
the effective width (parallel to shore) that the scraper was able to handle
was approximately 300 feet. Thus, for a beach one mile long, it would take
17 or 18 setups to cover the total area thus increasing the cost of this
method enormously, possibly defeating its economic soundness. The only
alternative would be to drag stockpile feeder beaches which would mean con-
siderably more sand would have to be borrowed from one pit and consequently
would lower the offshore profile considerably in the borrow areass. This
could have a very detrimental effect on the surrounding beach. Also, when
one area is drag scraped only, an anomalous feature is created on the beach
and in the offshore area. The pit offshore tends to cause a zone of wave
energy divergence onshore of it with corresponding wave energy convergence
zones updrift and downdrift of it which may cause anomalous shoreline effects.








Much more research needs to be placed on projects of this type before they
are decreed an economical cure-all to beach erosion problems.

The tide at Jupiter Island is semidiurnal and has an approximate range
of 2.6 feet. Tidal currents in the area of study are very weak. The aver-
age breaking wave height at Jupiter Island is on the order of 2 2.3 feet.
The long term erosion rate at Jupiter Island is 120,000 cubic yards per
year from reference J-4.

References:

J1. "Beach Nourishment from Offshore Sources," by H.C. Gee. Journal of
Waterways and Harbors Div., American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.
91, No. WW3, August 1965.

J2. Cooperative Study at Jupiter Island, Florida, Dept. of Coastal and Oceano-
graphic Engineering, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, November 1969.

J3. Coastal Engineering Investigation at Jupiter Island, 1960 Coastal Engin-
eering Laboratory, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, November 1960.

J4. Beach Erosion Control Study on Martin County, Florida, Dept. of the
Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville,
September 1968.

J5. Town of Jupiter Island Beach Restoration Project, Phase I Preconstruc-
tion Engineering Analysis, Arthur V. Strock and Associates, Inc., Deer-
field Beach, Florida, June 1973.


























15

10 Vorible EL 9.0

5 20 Construction Profile

0 MSL MSL
^ Exists sign Profile
-5 le

-10
-15 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00

TYPICAL FILL PROFILE

TYPICAL DREDGE PROFIT


Figure 3. Beach Nourishment at Jupiter Island








DELRAY BEACH PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA


Date of Nourishment Project: June 16 July 19, 1973

Material Placed on the Beach: 1,634,513 cubic yards

Location of Fill and Borrow Area: (See Figure 4)

Length of Fill: 2.8 miles

Height of Berm (Design): +10.0 11.0 feet MLW

Characteristics of Borrow Material:

d50 = 0.21 mm average of 14 surface sand samples in the borrow area
d ranged from 0.18 0.25 mm in these samples.

d50 = 0.31 mm average of 5 samples ranging in depth 3 10 feet below
sand surface in the borrow area. d50 ranged from 0.27 mm 0.35
mm in these samples.

Characteristics of Natural Beach Material:

d50 = 0.44 mm average of 8 surface sand samples on the beach

d = 0.34 mm average of 2 sand samples, -2 and -4 feet MLW

d50 ranged from 0.32 to 0.50 mm in these samples.

Method of Spoiling Material on the Beach:

Floating hydraulic pipeline dredge pumping to shore

Cost of Project: $2,074,500.00

Engineer: Arthur V. Strock and Associates, Delray Beach, Florida

Dredger/Contractor: C.F. Bean Corporation
New Orleans, Louisiana 70139
Dredge: "Buster Bean"

Comments:

Monitoring of this project is being conducted by the Engineer.
An initial monitoring of the project fill from surveys conducted in
August 1973 and November 1973 showed negligible losses to the fill as
reported by the engineers, although the profiles had readjusted and a
large portion of the sand had moved from the foreshore to shallow depths
offshore. The cause of most of this profile adjustment was attributed
to waves from Hurricane Gilda which acted on the fill during November 1973.

Further monitoring of this project is being conducted by the
engineer.







References:


D1. City of Delray Beach Beach Restoration Project Interim Report, Arthur
V. Strock and Associates, Inc., Deerfield Beach, Florida, November 1973.

D2. Information provided courtesy of Arthur V. Strock and Associates, Inc.,
Deerfield Beach, Florida.








































SCALE
0 fo00 2000 3000 (FEET)




Figure 4. 1973 Beach Nourishment at Delray Beach, Florida







POMPANO BEACH BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA


Date of Nourishment Project: May 1970 October 1970

Material Placed on Beach: 1,033,000 cubic yards sand/shell

Location of Fill and Borrow Area: (See Figure 5)

Length of Fill: 16,800 feet

Height of Berm: +10 feet MLW

Characteristics of Borrow Material: Unknown

Characteristics of Natural Beach Material:

d5o = 0.92mm. average of 6 surface sand samples from foreshore and
the backshore. d50 ranged in size from 0.35 1.50mm. in these samples.

Method of Spoiling Material on the Beach:

Floating hydraulic pipeline dredge pumping to beach

Cost of Project: $1,873,437.00

Engineers: Duncan E. Britt and Associates, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

Dredger/Contractor: Ocean Science and Engineering Company
Washington, D.C.
(Contractor for locating borrow material)

C.F. Bean, Inc. (Dredger)
New Orleans, Louisiana
Dredge "Buster Bean" (24")


Comments:


The Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a monitoring study of this
project.


References:

PI. Information provided courtesy of Duncan E. Britt and Associates, Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida.

































TYPICAL PROFILE
+15-
I Figure 5. October 1970 Beach Nourishment
0 I ___ ___ at Pompano Beach, Florida

.E +5- --

o O
, I
D -5 -


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Horizontal Scale in Feet







HALLANDALE BEACH BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA


Date of Nourishment Project: July 13, 1971 September 21, 1971

Material Placed on Beach: 360,308 cubic yards of sand/shell

Location of Fill and Borrow Areas: (See Figure 6)

Length of Fill: 4,000 feet

Height of Berm (Design): Y +10 ft. MLW

Characteristics of Borrow Material:

d ranging from 0.20mm to 0.46mm as furnished by Engineer

Characteristics of Natural Beach Material: Unknown

Location of Borrow Area: Approximately 6,000 feet offshore

Method of Spoiling Material on the Beach:

Floating hydraulic pipeline dredge pumping to beach

Cost of Project: $524,270

Engineers: Duncan E. Britt Associates, Inc., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

Dredger/Contractor: Unknown

Comments:

No monitoring studies of this fill have been performed or are planned.
Performance of this fill is unknown.

References:

HI. Information provided courtesy of Duncan E. Britt and Associates, Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida.






.. 1. ., '; .'i .
c ,w ..." 7"
76
66 Borrow. Area

56


343
34
31 U7
-- \ ', 31


TYPICAL PROFILE


Profile as constructed


_____ MHW


50 0 50
I I I Sa I
Horiz. Scale in Feet


Profile


Figure 6. July-September 1971 Beach Nourishment at Hallandale Beach, Florida

22


- 10.




S-10.
1- !





BAL HARBOUR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA


Date of Nourishment Project: June October 1974
June August 1975

Material Placed on the Beach: 700,000 yd. 1974
1,000,000 yd. 1975
Total placed = 1,700,000 cubic yards
Location of Fill and Borrow Areas:

Fill directly south of Baker's Haulover Inlet

Borrow area in the Atlantic Ocean 7,000-10,000 feet directly offshore
of Bal Harbour Village in 607- 70.foot-depth ofwater

Length of Fill: 0.85 miles

Height of Berm: ----

Characteristics of Borrow Material:

d50 = 0.58 mm from samples furnished via project engineers from borrow
areas

Characteristics of Natural Beach Material:

d50 = 0.7 mm from samples furnished via project engineers from eroded
beach face

Method of Spoiling Material on the Beach:

Floating hydraulic pipeline dredge pumping onto beach

Cost of Project:

$5,047,000 (includes cost of dredge mobilization and demobilization)

Engineers: Zurwell-Whittaker, Inc., Miami Beach
H. Von Oesen and Associates, Wilmington, N.C.

Dredger/Contractor: Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company

Comments:

Along with the beach nourishment project, an extension of the
South Baker's Haulover jetty was constructed and 5"H" type concrete
king pile groins with concrete panels and adjustable treated wood slats,
were placed along the 0.85 mile reach.

No monitoring studies have been performed but the fill is noted
to be performing very well (excellent retention) according to city
officials.

References:

BH1. Information provided courtesy of Mr. Fred Maley, Town Manager, Bal Harbour

















27

188Z ~ ~jii:

2; 22
22 20 7-2 \\23
2.0
17 7,;3 t


'37
Ui Z


3

22 27 j Q 2 Z
2 21 22
22 27
14f 16
1_-~2-9)
;- N
7, 5 '5 iq


Ft5 A

-- -- -, -.--- _______


Scale in Feet
0 3000I
o 3000


Figure 7. Beach Nourishment at Bal Harbour, Florida







VIRGINIA KEY KEY BISCAYNE BEACHES DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA


Date of Nourishme


Material Placed c


Location of Fill

Length of Fill:


nt Projects: January July 1969
November 1973

n the Beach: 1969 373,000 cubic yards of sand/shell
(196,000 cubic yards placed on Key Biscayne;
177,000 cubic yards placed on Virginia Key)

1973 100,000 cubic yards placed on Virginia Key

and Borrow Areas: (See Figure 8)

1969 1.3 miles Virginia Key
1.2 miles Key Biscayne

1973 1.3 miles Virginia Key along with construction of
13 groins


Height of Berm: Virginia Key +6.0 ft. MLW
(Design) +7.0

Characteristics of Borrow Material:

1969 d50 = 0.27 from weighted average of samples from 5 core borings
in the borrow area. d50 ranged from 0.22 0.47mm in the samples.

Characteristics of Natural Beach Material:

d5o = 0.35mm average of 15 surface sand samples taken by Corps of
Engineers, reference VK1.

d5o ranges from 0.27 0.45 in these samples.

Method of Spoiling Material on the Beach:

1969, 1973 floating hydraulic pipeline dredge pumped to Vriginia Key

Cost of Project:

1969 $544,000 (including engineering and supervision)
1973 $1,400,000 (including engineering and supervision, and groin
construction)

Engineers: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District

Dredger/Contractor: 1969 Marwell Caribe, Inc.
Dredge "Western Warrior" (24")

1973 Great Lakes Dredging and Drydock Company
Dredge "Alaska"








Comments:

The University of Florida monitored the beach fills with a survey
of the beach and borrow areas in September 1970.

The results of the volumetric erosion losses during the 15-month
period between the fill placement (surveyed July 1964) and the September
1970 survey are presented in Table VK-1.


Table VK-1
LOSS RATES OF BEACH FILL
AT VIRGINIA KEY/KEY BISCAYNE, FLORIDA

Period Cubic % of Original
Date of Survey of Comparison Yards Lost Fill Lost

Virginia Key
July 1969 Initial Fill (177,000)
September 1970 Sept. 70-July 69 61,000 35%

Key Biscayne
July 1969 Initial Fill (196,000)
September 1970 Losses = 0 0%


The comparative profiles of these surveys extend only to depths of 4-5
feet.

Long term annual losses prior to nourishment on Virginia Key were
30,000 cubic yards per year. Annual losses in the monitoring period
were thus 57% higher than the long term average annual losses presented
above.

In the borrow pits (shown on Figure 8) which are located in 5-10
feet of water and dredged to a depth typically 10 feet below the natural
sand level, no appreciable filling was noted in the September 1970 sur-
vey. It was thus concluded that most of the sand movement took place
well within the 5 foot contour as longshore movement. On Virginia Key
this movement was believed to be south into Bear Cut which accounts for
the loss of sand in the survey area. On Key Biscayne, although no sand
was lost from the survey area, a northward movement of the fill in
both sections was noted. A southward movement of the sand in the
offshore portion of the fill was also noted extending the existing off-
shore bar in a southward direction. No wave climatology was obtained
in the period between the initial fill and the September 1970 survey
although no major storms were noted during the intervening period.

Due to the poor performance of the Virginia Key fill as opposed to
the satisfactory performance of the Key Biscayne fill, the Corps of
Engineers decided to build groins in addition to nourishment on Virginia
Key in 1973. Thirteen impermeable kingpile and concrete panel groins
were constructed on Virginia Key along with the renourishment. The
cost of the 13 groins was $715.000.







The mean tidal range in this area is 2.5 feet and the average wave
height is unknown but probably under 1 foot.* The long term average
recession for the shoreline at Virginia Key is about 1 foot annually
while on Key Biscayne the long term shoreline is relatively stable.

References:

VK1. Beach Erosion Control Study of Virginia Key and Key Biscayne, Florida,
Dept. of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District,
1961.

VK2. Study Report to Determine the Behavior of Project Fill for Beach Erosion
Control, Virginia Key and Key Biscayne, Coastal Engineering Laboratory,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, March 1972.

VK3. Information provided courtesy of Jacksonville District Office, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.




























*The maximum tidal currents in the three inlets are approximately
5.5 feet/sec. at Government Cut, 2.2 feet/sec. at Norris Cut, and about
4 feet/sec. at Bear Cut.




































-8
*represents Core Borings series
CB KB -(number shown)


TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF FILL


________ ___________________________ 1 I


* .....Actual Fill

,P


Section

project Fill


I -


400


600 ft. from Baseline


Fi e 8 irg" Ke y elpy%1 ori Be aj our j* ent


+10-

+6-
+2.5
0


MLW


Existing1


Beach


1I I


200


:-
:
-. ;.s


I







KEY WEST MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA


Date of Nourishment Project: March 1959 April 1960

Material Placed on Beach: 67,000+ cubic yards sand
40,000+ cubic yards rock

The sand consisted of a 2 foot blanket, with 16"
of manufactured limestone sand and 8" of natural
sand.
Location of Fill and Borrow Areas: (See Figure 9)

Length of Fill: 3,000 feet

Height of Berm (Design): +4.0 MLW

Characteristics of Borrow Material:

Rock core consisted of limestone material dredged from the fill section
(to make the beach front deep enough for swimmers). The sand material in the
2 foot cover layer consisted of a 16" layer of limestone rock sand dredged
and ripped from the site and crushed at a nearby crushing plant, and an 8"
topping layer of natural sand. Originally plans had called for the natrual
sand to come from two sources: (1) The area at the jetties located at
the northwesterly end of the Northwest Channel to Key West:Harbor,-and (2)
between Calda Channel and Harbor Keys located 8'miles east-northeast of the
Northwest Channel. Criteria in placement of the natural sand due to its
large course fraction specified that at least 95% of the sand must pass
a #4 mesh (4.76mm) screen. Median diameters of the sand in the Northwest
Channel range from dco = 0.1 to 1.00mm. Specific gravities of the samples
ranged from 2.41 to 2.78.

Actual sand placed on the beach came from the area of Safety Harbor on
Stock Island (see Figure 9) in approximately 20 30 foot depths of water.
This material was then run through a crushing and screening plant on the is-
land to obtain a natural gradation of artificial sand.

Characteristics of Natural Beach Material:

Prior to 1960 there was no natural beach in this area although local
residents of the area have noted the existence of a natural beach of
limestone sand prior to the building of a sea wall in 1926. Local people
have attributed the loss of the beach to the seawall.

A few specific samples of sand material in the area ranged in size
from ds0 = 0.07 to 1.0 mm. Specific gravities ranged from 2.41 to 2.74.
The material was calcareous in nature.

Method of Spoiling Material on the Beach:


Trucked to site and dumped.








Cost of Project: $285,000


Engineer: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District

Dredger/Contractor: (Contractor) Charley Toppino and Sons, Inc.
Key West, Florida

Comments:

At the time of the fill, 4 rock groins spaced at 1,000 ft. each existed
at the fill area. During a November 1961 field inspection of the beach,
(reference KW2) considerable erosion had occurred in the two (2) easterly
groin cells while the westerly groin cell appeared relatively stable. The
accretion at the westerly end and erosion in the two easterly cells can be
attributed to a westerly movement of littoral drift in this area. These
groins appear to have actually helped stabilize the fill.

A survey in 1966 (reference KW2) revealed a loss of 25,000 cubic yards
of sand from the original fill (approximately 37%). Sand samples in the
trough area of the beach showed d50 sizes of 0.22 0.78 mm. Erosion of
finer portions of the beach fill may have been due in a large part to wind
erosion. Sand encroachment on Roosevelt Boulevard had been noted after the
fill was placed.

References:

KW1. House Document No. 413, 85th Congress, 2nd Session, Key West, Florida,
Beach Erosion Control Study, 1958.

KW2. File Report Key West Beach Restoration Project, Unpublished, Jack-
sonville District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Office, Jacksonville,
Florida.

KW3. Information provided courtesy of Jacksonville District Office, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.








































0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700


TYPICAL


SECTION


EXISTING SECTION
IMPROVED SECTION ---
Scale: as shown



Figure 9. Key West Beach Nourishment 1960








CAPTIVA ISLAND LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA


Date of Nourishment Projects:


Material Placed on the Beach:


November 1962
June 1963
September 1965


1962
1963
1965


7,000 cubic yards
50,000 cubic yards
50,000 cubic yards


Locations of Fill and Borrow Areas: (See Figure 10)


Length of Fills: Unknown


Height of Berm:


Material was stockpiled on beach, and
to distribute the material.


wave action allowed


Characteristics of Borrow Material: 1962 Unknown
1963 d50 = 0.18mm.
samples taken
in 1973
1965 d50 = 0.18

Characteristics of Natural Beach Material:


as determined by
from borrow area


d = 0.53mm as determined from 22 foreshore sand samples taken from the
upper dne foot of beach surface during three different sampling periods in
1973, reference CI-3.

d50 ranged from 0.25mm to 1.10mm in the samples

Method of Spoiling Material on the Beach:

Pumping from bay to beach by floating hydraulic dredge in all cases

Cost of Project: Unknown

Engineers: Duane Hall and Associates

Dredger: Unknown

Comments:

In addition to the nourishments listed, during the years 1960-1970, approx-
imately 75,000 cubic yards of sand was placed in the middle portion of Captiva
Island by the Lee County Road Department to prevent undermining of the county
road in the middle of the island.







References:

CI1. Coastal Engineering Study of Captiva Island, Florida, Coastal
Engineering Dept., University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 1974.

CI2. Information provided courtesy of Captiva Erosion Prevention District,
Captiva Island, Florida.

CI3. Beach Erosion Control Study on Lee County, July 1969, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District.


Beach Nourishment Projects on Captiva Island


Figure 10.








LIDO KEY BEACH SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA


Date of Nourishment Project: May 8 June 16, 1976

Material Placed on Beach: 350,000 cubic yards

Location of Fill and Borrow Areas: (See Figure 11)

Length of Fill: 3,370 feet

Height of Berm: +4.4 ft. MLW

Characteristics of Borrow Material:

d5o = 0.14 as determined from 24 wash boring samples in the vicinity
of the borrow area, reference L1 and Figure 11, d ranges in size from
0.12 to 1.28 (only 2 of the 24 samples were greater than 0.15 mm).

Characteristics of Natural Beach Material:

d50 = 0.47 from 10 surface sand samples foreshore and backshore locations.
d5o ranged from 0.16 0.92 discounting 2 largest sample d50's (references L1, L2).

Method of Spoiling Material on the Beach:

Floating hydraulic pipeline dredge pumping from offshore to beach.

Cost of Project: $333,000 (includes engineering and supervision)

Engineers: Smally, Wellford, and Nalven

Dredger: Hendry Corporation
Tampa, Florida
Dredge #4 (24") and #6 (16")
Comments:

One survey was made in April 1971, 11 months after placement of the
beach fill. Unfortunately, the survey was made only to wading depths and,
therefore, no estimate of the total sand loss to the beach could be made.
The average recession of the MHW shoreline from the design MHW shoreline
over the length of the nourishment project was 17 feet. The Corps of
Engineers is presently conducting a monitoring program on this project.

In January 1974 maintenance dredging material from New Pass was placed
on the beach at Lido Key.











References:

LI. Investigation for Source of Material for the Lido Beach Restoration
Project of the City of Sarasota, Ardaman and Associates Engineering
Laboratories, Sarasota, Florida, January 1969.

L2. Beach Erosion Control Study, Sarasota County, Florida, Interim Report
on Lido Key, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville
District, September 1968.

L3. Information provided courtesy of Smally, Wellford, and Nalven Consult-
ing Engineers, Sarasota, Florida.

L4. Information provided courtesy of Jacksonville District Office, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
I\


































Scale in Feet
0 2000 4000I I I
0 2000 4000


TYPICAL SECTION
(Not to Scale)


Aree


190'- 230'


+1.5 MSL
II 15


ii Area


L .N- ^VL^-^V.V (_ 200, _3 _.-
I- 5 50' -200'-1400' ---


Figure 11. May-June 1970 Beach Nourishment at Lido Key






MULLET KEY PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA


Date of Nourishment Projects: June November 1964 local project
November 1972 March 1973
Material Placed on the Beach: 1964 131,000 to 147,000
1972 1973 350,000 cubic yards
Locations of Fill and Borrow Areas: (See Figure 12)

Length of Fill: 1964 4,100 feet
1972-73 5,500 feet
Height of Berm (Design): +5 feet MLW

Characteristics of Borrow Material:

1964 Unknown
1972-73 d50 = 0.15mm (offshore) median grain size as determined from
5 representative core borings

d 0 size in core borings ranged from 0.09 to 0.38mm

Characteristics of Natural Beach Material:

Prior to 1964: d50 = 0.19 from 9 surface sand samples, reference MK1
d50 ranges from 0.14 0.22
Method of Spoiling Material on the Beach:

Floating hydraulic pipeline dredge pumping to shore

Cost of Project:

1964 $236,000 includes a 1150 ft. revetment placed at the southern
portion of the fill

1972-73 $363,000 (costs include engineering and supervision)

Engineers: 1964 Pinellas County Engineering Department
1972-73 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District

Dredger: 1964 Layne Dredging Company
1972-73 Hendry Corporation, Tampa, Florida
Dredge #4 (24") pipeline
Comments:

The 1964 fill area covered all except the northerly 1400 feet of the same
area as the 1972-73 fill. No monitoring of this fill project was done, and
none are planned.

References:

MK1. Beach Erosion Control Study, Mullet Key, Florida, Dept. of the Army,
Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, July 1965.






































83 3 3d 33
.... .. 77 -. _44 ... 44 .. "
SRepresen Core Borings Scale Noutical Miles
CB- MK- (Number Shown) I


TYPICAL DESIGN PROFILE
(1972-73 Fill)


Not to Scale


1964 and 1972 Beach Nourishment at Mullet Key, Florida


Figure 12.







ST. PETERSBURG BEACH PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA


Date of Nourishment Project: January March 1975

Material Placed on the Beach: 80,000 cubic yards

Location of Fill and Borrow Areas:

Fill area is directly south of Blind Pass. The offshore borrow area is
located offshore 2,500 feet southwest of the fill area. A second borrow area
is located in the Blind Pass channel.

Length of Fill: s 2,500 feet

Height of Berm (Design): + 5' MLW

Characteristics of Borrow Material:

d50 ranged from 0.13 0.20 mm in size from 6 samples taken in the
Blind Pass Channel borrow area (fine sand)

d5o ranged from 0.10 0.23 mm in size from 6 samples taken in the off-
shore borrow area (fine sand)

Characteristics of Natural Beach Material:

d50 ranged from 0.20 0.25 in size from 4 samples taken on the beach
face (fine sand)

Method of Spoiling Material on the Beach:

Pumping to beach from cutterhead hydraulic dredge

Cost of Project: $230,000 (includes engineering)
$447,000 (for structures)

Engineers: Gee and Jenson Consulting Engineers
West Palm Beach, Florida

Dredger/Contractor: Shoreline Dredging and Construction Company
Jacksonville, Florida
Comments:

Along with the nourishment project, a jetty was built on the north'end
of St. Petersburg beach and 2 king pile and concretepanel groins were built
over the fill length.

No monitoring of this project was done although the project appears to
be successful as of this data according to the project engineers.

References:

SP1I Information provided courtesy of Gee and Jenson Consulting Engineers.








TREASURE ISLAND PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA


Date of Nourishment Projects: April 10 July 18, 1969
October December 1971
October 1972

Material Placed on Beach: 1969 793,000 cubic yards
1971 76,000 cubic yards
1972 155,000 cubic yards
Locations of Fill and Borrow Areas: (See Figures 13, 14, 15)
1969 100,000 cubic yards from Blind Pass

693,000 cubic yards from offshore
borrow area

Length of Fill: 1969 1.7 miles
1971 1,500 feet
1972 2,000 feet

Height of Berm (Design): +4 feet MLW

Characteristics of Borrow Material:

1969 Offshore d50 = 0.17mm. from weighted average of 15 core borings
d ranged from 0.10 0.25mm. in majority of 15 core
bPring samples
Blind Pass d50 = 0.13mm. from weighted average of 2 core borings
d50 ranged from 0.10 0.26mm. in 2 core boring samples

1971 John's Pass Area d50 = 0.17 from weighted average of 3 core borings
dso ranged from 0.11 0.25mm. representative
of samples from 3 core borings

1972 Offshore d50 = 0.38mm. from weighted average of 3 core borings
d50 ranged from 0.11 1.00mm. from 3 core boring samples

Characteristics of Natural Beach Material:

d50 = 0.20mm. dro represents the average median diameter of 12 fore-
siore and backshore surface samples taken prior to nour-
ishment projects

d50 ranged from 0.12 0.24mm., reference TIl.

Method of Spoiling Material on the Beach:

1969 floating hydraulic pipeline dredge, pumping to shore

1971 trucked from John's Pass Area

1972 floating hydraulic pipeline dredge, pumping to shore







Cost of Project:

1969 $700,000 (includes engineering and supervision)

1971 $ 41,000 (includes engineering and supervision)

1972 $185,000 (includes engineering and supervision)

Engineers: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District

Dredger:

1969 Hendry Corporation, Tampa, Florida
Dredge No. 6, 16" pipeline
1971 C.H. Barko Company

1972 Hendry Corporation, Tampa, Florida
Dredge No. 6, 16" pipeline
Comments:

The University of Florida monitored the first Treasure Island beach fill
by two different field surveys dated October 1970 and April 1971 along the
same lines as the Corps of Engineers 1969 survey to estimate losses of sand
from the original fill project, where sand lost from the project was going,
and, if the borrow pit area offshore would refill with sand from the nour-
ishment project.

The results of the University of Florida surveys are presented in Table TI-1.

Table TI-1
LOSS RATES OF BEACH FILL AT TREASURE ISLAND, FLORIDA

Date of Survey Period of Cubic % of Original
Comparison Yards Lost Fill Lost

July 1969 Initial Fill Placed (763,000)

October 1970 July 69 Oct. 70 177,500 23%

April 1971 July 69 Apr. 71 246,500 32%

Most of the erosion was experienced at the center of the project fill
and at the south end of the island. Erosion at the south end of the island
was believed due to the poorer quality of material spoiled there which came
from the Blind Pass borrow area, Reference TI2. A more detailed look at the
erosion and accretion areas can be found in Reference TI2. The actual beach
profiles lost a great deal of sand in the upper portions of the profile
( -5 to -6 feet MLW) as expected due to the smaller sand size of the borrow
material. The project fill slopes of 1 on 20 above MLW and 1 on 30 below








MLW changed in the 20 month period to 1 on 10 above MLW and 1 on 28 below
MLW (averaged for all profiles). Thus, the actual slope above water for
the new beach (1:10) was much steeper than the predicted slope of 1:20.
Below MLW the actual and predicted slopes matched closely. It should be
noted that for this smaller borrow material size, a milder beach slope would
be expected than actually experienced. It is thus believed that the upper
portions of the fill had not yet reached equilibrium at the time of the
last survey.

Studies of the offshore borrow pit in 11-12 feet of water and dredged
to -30 feet MLW had filled in with 4-10 feet of material in the 20 month
period between project dredging and final survey thus reducing depths in the
pit to -20 and to -26 feet. Surface material was extremely silty and no core
borings were made, thus the extent of sand loss offshore to this pit is
unknown but was concluded small. The study concluded that most of the mat-
erial lost from the nourishment project had been transported south by long-
shore currents into the outer bar and borrow area of Blind Pass.

Since the April 1971 survey, considerable erosion has taken place due
to the passage of Hurricane Agnes in June 1972 along the Gulf Coast of Florida.
Beach losses due to this storm are not known.

Wave climatology during the study period was not recorded, but based on
past trends, the net littoral drift during this period would be predicted in
a southerly direction.

The tides at Treasure Island are of a mixed type with an average tidal
range of 1.8 feet. The tidal currents in John's Pass (north end of island)
and Blind Pass (south end of island) vary in strength up to 4 ft./sec. Off-
shore in the Gulf, currents are weak, usually less than 0.5 ft./sec. The
long term shoreline changes at Treasure Island are somewhat confusing due to
the presence of inlets at the ends of the island. Long term averaged annual
changes range from -8 feet/year recession to +10 feet accretion, with the
overall trend being toward erosion (especially so in the center portion of
the island).

Since April 1971, 2 beach fills have been completed, one in October-
December 1971, and one in October 1972. To date, no monitoring results of
these fills are available.

References:

TI1. Beach Erosion Control Study on Pinellas County, Florida, Dept. of
the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, January 1966.

TI2. Study Report to Determine the Behavior of Project Fill for Beach
Erosion Control, Treasure Island, Florida, Coastal Engineering Lab-
oratory, University of Florida, Gainesville, December 1971.

TI3. Information provided courtesy of Jacksonville District Office, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.







1 6 07 I s '

18 1 16



~ 1 I' I ...11 7 .'. ..... *"G,,,i \ 1
I / s 2. 1 "",.e 1











O F-... *6 *6 8 /m ff
10 .h...






S16 1 9 .7 b0 ; : B ..
"15. A





17 "Y w"
1 93 16 26 I

. .20 C3 77 .. R







2 1 19 ". 2r d'* T l
19- 1 6 3

"... q..... "r "4 ., 3'



.- 518 10 7 2 l &



93 "


23 .... o 3 ..'

8 922 1 : f15 "" '" ? -
19 16







..... .,: *r....:....:... ,. .

S 1 6 .. .. . 1. .



19 9 20 20 ,
S9 GULF3 18 `-STACK



22 F 6

SSh 20 6r







22 693,000 yds 20 7 / ,
94 O0 +














SCALE 2 6 .
200 Nautical Mile I .0 .7 B
19 219 .9














1 OOtr 1 N0 9
215 0 10d r8 d t'









,sh Haven 7
W4 Scn /5(t)
Borrow Area Quantity 19 'i


Figure 13. 1969 Beach Nourishment at Treasure Island







16
Sfi


16
............



18


SSh
16


19 20 20
19
19


16
hrd







.....
0 0
.\ //


I 4 "; 9\
17 14
1M

.Is 10


16 12


Figure 14. 1971 Beach Nourishment at Treasure Island


17 IS


18 17


19 19


15
15

13


0


SCALE


Nautical Mile


~~











13

13/ 9
Mitchell


19 16


17 15


18 17


20 h d It.
19 GULF13


22 13 16
2 i EXICO ........ ...
....* .. '" AI. ^r,
0
19 15

20 hr

22 19


16


19 20 20


23
S Sh


51) 15
1 7 v \


SCALE

0 Nautical Mile I


Obs'r
Fs. Haven 17
w o C' autn m,n /5fr
:.19


Figure 15. 1972 Beach Nourishment at Treasure Island


16


.......
""'8


:12
13

S12
'2

10
12

9
15
.


A, '


I5


6 i12


17 --..

.-................. ... 17








INDIAN ROCKS BEACH AND INDIAN ROCKS BEACH
SOUTH SHORE PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA


Date of Nourishment: April June 1969
March June 1973

Material Placed on the Beach: 1969 100,000 cubic yards
1973 400,000 cubic yards
Location of Fill and Borrow Areas: (See Figures 16 and 17)

Length of Fill: 1969 5,600 feet
1973 4.5 miles

Height of Berm (Design): +4.0 feet MLW

Characteristics of Borrow Material: Unknown

Characteristics of Natural Beach Material:

d50 = 0.21 (average of 15 surface sand samples from the foreshore and
backshore area), reference IR1

Method of Spoiling Material on the Beach:

1969 Floating hydraulic dredge pumping to shore at north end of Sand
Key, then trucked to location of fill

1973 Floating hydraulic dredge pumping to shore at north end of Sand
Key, then pumped to fill area

Cost of Project:

1969 $290,000 (including engineering and supervision)
1973 $1,711,000 (including engineering and supervision)

Engineers: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District

Dredger: 1969 Hendry Corporation
Dredge No. 4 (24" pipeline)

1973 Park-Hill Goodloe
"Ideal," (16" pipeline)

Comments: No monitoring of this project has taken place.

References:

IR1. Beach Erosion Control Study on Pinellas County, Florida, Dept. of the
Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, January 1966.



























BORROW AREA


Borrow
Area Channel


\ ..


I I I I
0 200 400
Horiz. Scale in Feet


10

-20
Vert. Scale
in Feet


TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH
BORROW AREA PRIOR TO
DREDGING


Figure 16.


April-June
Shore


1969 Beach Nourishment at Indian Rocks Beach, South










C" -
C..






""-



S(D
-,j



M- 3


L/I 0
o =




C
C+
(-

+ -.


C-,-
Q


Channel


-- -- ^ r



11 1 I I
0 200 400
Horiz. Scale in Feet


10

20
Vert. Scale
in Feet


Borrow Arei


Cleorwater
Pass


TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH BORROW
AREA PRIOR TO DREDGING


Stockpile


2000 0
e i
Scale in Feet







BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECTS OUTSIDE OF FLORIDA


In this section, three beach nourishment projects are presented. The
reason for including these nourishment projects was due to the availability
of extensive information existing and collected on them.

Each beach nourishment due to its unique environmental setting is a
separate entity and conclusions drawn from one location should not be extra-
polated to another location. Still, a good look at the relative success or
failure of these projects can provide a great deal of insight into possible
expected performance of beach nourishment under a similar environmental
setting.








HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI


Harrison County is located on the Mississippi Sound about midway between
New Orleans, Louisiana, and Mobile, Alabama. Mississippi Sound is separated
from the Gulf of Mexico by a chain of low narrow islands located 8 12 miles
offshore. Maximum offshore depths in the sound range from 15 18 feet below
MLW (see Figure 18). Prior to 1950, Congress had authorized the construction
of a beach fill to protect an existing stepped seawall fronting the county's
27 miles of Gulf shoreline. No beach existed at that time.

The artificial beach fill was placed from Biloxi Lighthouse to Henderson
Point (shown in Figure 18) during the period January November 1951. The
total quantity of the fill was approximately 7,004,000 cubic yards and was
borrowed from about 1500 feet offshore in Mississippi Sound in depths of
about -3 feet MLW. The borrow pit was dredged to about -14 feet MLW. Median
grain diameter of the sand near the seawall prior to the beach fill ranged
from d = 0.09 to 0.50 mm with an average d = 0.25 approximately. Median
grain size of the material placed on the beach was reported to be d = 0.27
mm. Within practical limits the material spoiled on the beach was about the
same quality and size as the material existing in the area prior to the
beach. The relatively few samples taken in both areas make this comparison
somewhat qualitative.

Surveys taken in the fill area along with the amounts of remaining beach
fill in the project area are presented in Table HC-1 below. Not shown in the
table is a fill of 200,000 cubic yards placed on the beach after the 1964
survey.

The survey taken in November 1948 (prior to the fill) extended out to
-3 to -4 feet MLW or 2000 3000 feet offshore with 16 profiles being run.
Profiles taken in April 1958 also extended to the same depths offshore which
encompassed the borrow zone. Unfortunately, only 8 profiles were run in
1958 making the spacing on the order of 3 miles. The rest of the surveys
extended to -2 to -3 feet MLW depths (short of the borrow zone) and spacing
ranged from 100 1000 feet.

Although profile adjustment in the fill did occur, it is apparent that
most of the material moving offshore into shallow water depths stayed within
the surveyed area.

Investigation of the offshore borrow zone in 1958 showed fine silts to
be the major portion of material settling into the borrow pit which therefore
confirmed that beach material was not moving offshore into the borrow area.
The profile closings noted at 300 to 400 feet landward of the borrow area
signified the limit of offshore transport, also confirming that little or no
beach material was moving back into the borrow pits.

The shoreline of Harrison County is exposed to waves generated in
Mississippi Sound and is not exposed to Gulf generated waves to any appre-
ciable extent. Due to the limited fetch and the extremely shallow profile
offshore, waves are very small in this area ( 1-2 feet) and therefore not
capable of moving beach material to any appreciable extent. No major storms







occurred in the year 1951 1958 therefore the beach was not exposed to any
heavy wave activity during this period.


Table HC-1


Date of Survey


Period
of Comparison


Cubic Yards
Lost r.umulativP


% of Original
Fill Int


November 1948


November 1951

May 1953

July 1954

March 1957

April 1958

March 1964

September 1969

December 1971


1951 Nov. 1948


1953 1951

1954 1951

1957 1951

1958 1951

1964 1951

1969 1951

1971 1951


7,004,000


62,000

468,000

625,000


1,074,000

1,594,000

1,936,500

2,062,000


(original placement)


1 %

6.7%

9.0%

15.3%

22.8%

27.7%

29.4%


In August 1969 Hurricane Camille, the worst hurricane in this century,
hit the Gulf coast in the Harrison County area. What is most surprising
is that the storm did not seem to have any adverse effects on this beach.
Speculation is that the storm tide rose and receded so fast in this area that
the beach did not feel the effects of heavy wave activity for an appreciable
time, therefore the beach was saved from the destructive effects of Camille,
reference HC2. Erosion rates over the survey period prior to and after
Camille showed similar erosion rates as other survey periods.

The offshore slopes of Mississippi Sound are best compared to the
shallow shelf of Apalachee Bay in Florida although Apalachee Bay would receive
harsh wave conditions due to the exposure of the entire Gulf rather than
a limited fetch area. The tides in the Mississippi Sound area are chiefly
diurnal with a mean range of 1.6 feet.

References:


HC1. Behavior of Beach Fill and Borrow Area at Harrison County, Mississippi,
Technical Memorandum No. 107, Beach Erosion Board (presently Coastal
Engineering Research Center), Washington, D.C., August 1958.

H1C2. Information provided courtesy of Mobile District Office, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.










Harrison County
AlRO


A
A


I Obstr II
= ===


Ii t
I 1


,,: t ,4'~, t Q


I.:' .|
A~~


31 ,

3 2 "

I '.. *


T '. h k D. 2 .3 .






714





Scale in Nautical Miles
S 4 56 ( 7 8 /0


4s 4 6

hartt /26 1 NS $A
4
6

41 Ms &S 7

5L 64
5 \ MS







Depths in fathoms (
331 5i fI



2i V( 3 IL

Depths in fathoms (I


6{
Q


61
7
,j


I 8 7

A
4 61 8
9 t I 12

f h 9 =I?
712

fto II
fathom =6')


TYPICAL FILL CROSS SECTION
(Not to Scale)


Figure 18. Beach Nourishment at Harrison County, Mississippi, November 1951







HUNTING ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA


Hunting Island is a 4.3 mile long coastal plain barrier island in South
Carolina, located approximately 16 miles east of Beaufort, S.C. In October
1965, Congress authorized the construction of a beach fill for recreation and
beach erosion control over a 10,000 l.f. area along the northern end of the
island, and a groin at the northerly end of the island to prevent sand losses
from the proposed fill into St. Helena Sound and Johnson Creek (see Figure 19).

The project was completed in December 1968, and 750,000 cubic yards of
sand obtained from a borrow area located on the westerly side of Hunting
Island were placed along the shoreline; 500,000 cubic yards of this material
was placed along 10,000 l.f. of beach, designated as the Feeder Beach on
Figure 19, and the rest of the material distributed along the island evenly.
Prior to the project fill, the sand size on the original beach taken from a
number of samples (reference HI1) was d50 = 0.16 mm with a standard deviation
S = 2.62 phi units or S = 0.71 mm. The sand size of material placed on the
beach from the borrow area as averaged from 12 profiles taken after the pump-
ing of the material to the beach was do0 = 0.18 0.19 mm with a standard
deviation of SA = .45 48 phi units of S = 0.73 0.72 mm. Samples from
cores taken in the actual borrow area showed average d50 = 0.13 mm., and
average standard deviations of S = 0.61 mm. Considering the similar charac-
teristics of the natural beach material, the borrow material, and placed
beach material, it is apparent that for all practical purposes the material
placed on the beach from the borrow area was about the same type of material
as that of the natural beach.

The predicted rate of erosion losses to the fill based on the similarity
of the grain size characteristics was 250,000 cubic yards per year. During
1969 and 1970 though, storm activity caused higher than expected erosion
losses, and the initial beach and feeder beach had all disappeared by the end
of 1970. In May August 1971 a second nourishment of the beach was carried
out by placement of 750,000 more cubic yards of sand from the original borrow
area onto the beach within the defined limits of the feeder beach area.

Continuous monitoring of this project has been accomplished by the
Charleston, S.C., District Corps of Engineers from inception of the project
in 1968 through June 1973. Results of the surveys are summarized in Table
HI-1. Survey lines in the various surveys extended 3200 feet out from the
baseline to the -10 to -12 foot depth contour. Erosion losses in the first
6 months of the fill were 538,244 cubic yards or approximately 72% of the
original fill. By the end of the first 18 months, erosion had caused losses
in excess of 770,000 cubic yards, i.e. losses greater than the original fill.
Due to the random nature of sounding errors in surveys, this erosion loss
figure is most likely on the high side, nevertheless, it is apparent an enor-
mous quantity of material was lost from the surveyed area within.the first
18 months after initial placement of the fill. Six months after the placement
of a second nourishment fill, a quantity of 728,135 cubic yards was lost from
the beach or approximately 97% of the total material placed in the second fill.

Due to possible hydrographic survey error, the presented volumetric cal-
culations are only approximations to the true accretional or erosional losses







on the island. Also, the profiles extended only to the -10 to -12 foot depth,
which is probably considerably short of the seasonal onshore-offshore movement
of sand, therefore respective survey volumes may be considerably further in-
fluenced by the effect of the littoral forces at work prior to the surveys,
i.e. if onshore transport of sand occurred prior to the survey, this would
have been recorded in the survey and a material loss figure on the low side
would be recorded, while if offshore transport had occurred, the quantity of
sand moved temporarily offshore would not have been recorded in the survey
and a material loss figure on the high side would be recorded.

Wave climate on Hunting Island is not known. Mean tide range at
Hunting Island is 6.2 feet and spring tide range is 7.3 feet. The large
tides in this area and the proximity of St. Helena Sound along with the
smaller Johnson Creek Inlet and Fripps Inlet bordering the island would tend
to cause strong tidal currents on waves and on the littoral currents although
unknown may be significant causative effects of the high erosion rates of
the beach nourishment project on this island.


Table HI-1
LOSS RATES OF BEACH FILL AT HUNTING ISLAND, S.C.


Date of Survey


Period
of Comparison


Cubic Yards Lost
(Cumulative)


% of Original
Fill Lost


December 1968


June 1969

June 1970

March 1971


May-Aug. 1971


March 1972

June 1972

Sept. 1972

March 1973

June 1973


Initial fill
placed


June 69-Dec. 68

June 70-Dec. 68

March 71-Dec. 68

Second nourish-
ment period

March 72-Dec. 68

June 72-Dec. 68

Sept. 72-Dec. 68

March 73-Dec. 68

June 73-Dec. 68


(750,000)


538,250

771,720

846,440

(750,000)


1,574,570

1,814,120

1,753,470

2,071,340

2,298,170


References:

HI1. "Case Study, Hunting Island Beach, South Carolina," by Dennis W. Berg,
and Morrison G. Essick, Proceedings of Seminar on Planning and
Engineering in the Coastal Zone, June 8-9, 1972, Charlestown, South
Carolina.

HI2. Information provided courtesy of Charleston District Office, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.


72%

103%

113%


105%

121%

117%

138%

153%


_















i'


"I


'


S* "? ,. ,.: '



...
2 25 5
3t 2 "--*...-.3. .. .... 25 3 ..16. 2 4 5 2... "
3 '- 2 .. .5 2 ', 2''' ,


20..4..... 7 3 U2 70.: 7 8 0 ...
.i 2 .. .. 7 .: 7;
3 .2 ,3 2 '
3 2




-/ 2 "' : "'- 2 22 ***"^-...-..21 14 "" 1..3 '
F J2




C' 2 ... ...* 4 l2... .. -' .. .... 3 i ". *, : .16 ... .2 \. 0
..21 3







27 262 28 2
7








0 3 ... .shoa .ng 20 8 6 ." .6
8 22 .9 N
.. .. .. 2 Constructed1. 2




14.9 '3 3.
S. .. .. 20 160 1 .:.
"' 5 *'. ." ; 4 U :::^ **"'C.*****' 3 7 :1 > ; *: : : .






5 c .... '" O 8 : " "" : 6 2"

210 13 19 19,. ..0 2 .1. 21 .










S1 9 7 N 2 15
2.blJ" 50 9:2..













C' 220 1











15 38 1 .. 15
14 10

2 8 s I 3 s/k












444.
0 14'..














2616J 42
8 .. " ': 3 "' ..''"j.G ".. 19 8 24' : -


6.4"0 33.'. 5 5 9 ... 23 9 , '

6."' 14 '. & 166.1
















,. ..Scale 9 .. 2 .. ..* '
.... ,, .. -roin Constructed 7.,.., .... 33
oi YVJ a 153 : 2 : i; *' 1 9


















Figure 19. Beach Nourishment Project at Hunting Island, South Carolina13
I3 o90 II 1..5 15 ". "
.."hrd. 16 8 :" I "
10 I 3 .19 .: :9 ". .....:[ i II 21
Feeder Beach 1 z i 7 ' ...... ....i 15'..
"8 A 12', 19 20 17.
9 14
20 ., o... ....... ,
hrd 17" : 7 ." .
marsh ,, "i' OOs 7 10 0 14 ".



FIXED R ",9 +. :1.9

,,s" .19 i II..:

15 3 15 I, 4 15
.15 ,.,,.....19 ,l...o

19 .. ....... .".


9 17 21

: ... 1 ,......... .-& :16 14 X.,
9 8 17 J6 :t:. 9 .. ." .. vt,,"
8 ".: 7.............. ... ..

f 2; 9'" .. 14 14 .-. ..........
S. 13 ....... .. ... 33
,2 0 3000 6000 Feet '47.. ".- .. ........ .








CAROLINA BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA


Carolina Beach, N.C., is a barrier island seaside resort on the
Atlantic Ocean in southeastern North Carolina. In October 1962 Congress
authorized the construction of a beach fill for hurricane protection and
beach erosion control over a 26,000 l.f. strip along this area. The his-
torical shoreline recession rate in this area prior to the cutting of Caro-
lina Beach Inlet (see Figure 20) in September 1952 was on the order of 1 foot
per year.

Due to a shortage of funds, only 14,000 l.f. of fill were constructed
in the original project in 1965. A total of 2,632,000 cubic yards of fill
was placed within the limits of Stations 0+00 to 140+00 in April 1965 (see
Figure 20). Borrow location for the original project was located in Myrtle
Grove Sound directly behind the beach fill. Following the construction of
the project, rapid erosion of the fill was experienced particularly in the
northern 4000 feet of the fill due to the proximity of Carolina Beach Inlet
and due to the predominant southward drift in this area. In the initial two
year period, 672,000 cubic yards of fill were lost (over profiles extending
beyond the 22 foot MLW contour) in the southern 10,000 l.f. of the project,
and 550,000 cubic yards were lost in the northern 4,000 l.f. of the project.
Therefore the total two year loss was 1,222,000 cubic yards or 46% of the
initial fill. The northern section had also receded 140 feet in places making
the situation critical by early spring of 1967. In March 1967 emergency mea-
sures were implemented to restore the most critically eroded areas of the
project. The emergency measures consisted of the placement of 360,000 cubic
yards of fill from a borrow area in the AIWW (see Figure 20), in the northern
sector of the project (Stations 123+00 to 157+00) and the construction of
a 405 foot long groin near the north terminal of the project. The groin was
to prevent fill loss to the Carolina Beach Inlet during seasonal reversals
of drift, when the drift would be northward. During the following year
approximately 203,000 cubic yards of emergency fill (56% of the new fill) was
lost to erosion, and the major portion of the shoreline had returned to
about the same position it had prior to emergency work. Table CB-1 compiled
from reference CB1 gives the volumetric changes in this project over a 3
year period from fill placement to August 1968.

Concurrently with this beach erosion study, a study was being made of
Carolina Beach Inlet to determine the feasibility of dredging a sand trap
on the bay side of the inlet throat area, and bypassing the sand trapped in
this section to the north end of the beach nourishment project. The sand
trap was initially dredged in May 1967 to a 115,000 cubic yard capacity, and
115,000 cubic yards of sand were placed in the area between Station 150+00
to 180+00 near Carolina Beach Inlet. By August 1968, the trap had again
filled and 97,000 cubic yards were dredged and placed in the same section of
beach. The quality of sand in both of these sections was equivalent or
coarser than existing beach sand, reference CB2. No account of this material
is made in Table CB-1 since the material was placed outside of the beach
nourishment project limits and the limits of the survey. Since a net south-
wards littoral drift exists in the area south of Carolina Beach Inlet, it
is likely that a considerable portion of this material found its way into the
survey limits of the project. Therefore the actual percentages of beach
material lost from the surveyed project area in terms of that placed in the







1965 and 1967 fills may be somewhat higher than the figures presented in
Table CB-1. Three (3) years and (3) months after construction of the original
beach fill less than 50% of the total material placed in both the emergency
and initial fills remained within the surveyed project area.

No sand sample size was determined for the native beach, although sand
samples were taken in May 1967 (2 years after initial fill placement) along
two profiles in the southern section of the project. The samples were taken
from depths ranging from top of berm to -30 ft. MLW. The median grain size
from those averaged samples was d50 = 0.31 mm., and the standard deviation
was S4 = 1.28 phi units. The median grain size of the original project
(1965) borrow material was d50 = 0.54 mm and the standard deviation was
S4 = .91 phi units.

Studies of the Carolina Beach project, references CB1 and CB2, conclude
that the higher erosion experienced in this project is due to the following
reasons: (1) Winnowing of fines from the active beach profiles and the
consequent displacement of such fines seaward of the active beach profile
(i.e. out of the survey range, 22-30 feet depth MLW), and (2) a deficit of
littoral drift material supplied to the project area in the amount of 130,000
cubic yards annually, caused.by the trapping of sand in Carolina Beach Inlet.

Since the original project in 1965 and the emergency fill project in
1967, two more fills-have been placed within the project limits (Stations
0+00 to 140+00). From 13 April to 3 June 1970, 346,000 cubic yards of sand
were spoiled between Stations 102+00 to 142+00. A rubble mound revetment
was also placed along the backshore of the northern protion of the project.
The spoil material for this fill was dredged from the sand trap at Carolina
Beach Inlet. Again from 11 December 1970 to 18 May 1971, 760,000 cubic
yards dredged from the Cape Fear River were spoiled on the project beach
between 8+00 to 122+00. Spoil material from both of these projects was of
high quality and comparable to existing beach material (CB3). Results of
monitoring to data show that the beach has responded to these two fills in
approximately the same manner as the previously discussed fills, (reference
CB3), and that annual losses of sand in these projects have been about
equal percentagewise to losses in the 1965 and 1967 projects discussed and
tabulated.

Average wave climate in the study area is not known but inferred from a
nearby wave gage installed at the U.S. Coast Guard Station on Frying Pan
Shoals, located about 40 miles southeast of Carolina Beach. This data shows
most frequent waves have heights ranging from 1-5 feet and periods ranging
from 5-10 seconds. Wave direction is not recorded at this site. Offshore
ship wave direction gives predominant wave approach from the northeast and
east during the fall and winter months, while waves from southeast and south
are more predominant during the winter months.
Tide range at Carolina Beach is approximately 4.0 feet.








References:


CB1. Investigation of Erosion, Carolina Beach Inlet, N.C., Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, N.C., 1970.

CB2. "Recent History of Erosion at Carolina Beach, N.C.," Limberios Vallianos,
Twelfth Coastal Engineering Conference, Sept. 13-18, 1970, Washington, D.C.

CB3. Information provided courtesy of Wilmington District Office, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.








Table CB-1
LOSS RATES OF BEACH FILL AT CAROLINA BEACH, N.C.


Date of Survey


April 1965


June 1966

Sept. 1966

Dec. 1966

March 1967

March 1967


May 1967

June 1967

Oct. 1967

Feb. 1968

April 1968

Aug. 1968


Period
of Comparison

Original fill
placed

June 66-Apr. 65

Sept. 66-Apr. 65

Dec. 66-Apr. 65

Mar. 67-Apr. 65

Second fill
placed

May 67-Apr. 65

June 67-Apr. 65

Oct. 67-Apr. 65

Feb. 68-Apr. 65

Apr. 68-Apr. 65

Aug. 68-Apr. 65


% of Original
Fill Lost


Cubic Yards Lost
(Cumulative)

(2,632,000)


847,500

1,055,600

1,121,000

1,122,200

(360,000)


1,384,200

1,180,800

1,269,900

1,754,300

1,530,500

1,464,400


46%

39%

42%

59%

51%

49%


32%

40%

43%

46%







-.. .: : .. C.
*




r., locationn of-
DOCTR 67 borr w
ao area, ..:
LORAN /
*a ,0: TOWERS i
e oa F


S23'
31

o- c25 '33 I2S
S. 34

[./; 32, 33

28,
y 26 ..338 ...2'

.23 24 34
SStation 140+00 31
-..,
... .... .

26.
,34; 26.' 37
-!project Limits
22 35
Obsr,40
22 : 390s Hvn
AROLINA BEACH
S32 -- 39


37 43
brSS.


39


38

brS
39


37


41


I -28 41

Station 0+00
32 42
WILMINGTON BEACH
S...21 32 36
28" ... 35 38
20.-
S31 32
S 31 35 34
-24 -34 9y, 41
T 37
S 28/ 36
KURE BEACH 41
272' 36 43
S34
i 24 36 32
46
S32 32 35
27 35
:br S 35 38 / $
27. ..'25 / 38 43 43
35 ,
'.23 72 .3 3
/ 33 11 39 39 42


S;3 ',-:"3 ", .\%
S 23 25 3
V 33 s~gS
i"- 23 27
32 36

23 26.

2 2 32 2 38

27 31
S 26 9 Sheeohead Rock 34
26 1A k 3
\ 32


28 / 33
32


40 42


41 47 '0


41 42 43
qys 4
7 39

Scale in Nautical Miles
I 0 i


Figure 20. Beach Nourishment at Carolina Beach, North Carolina







METHODS OF SAND PLACEMENT


To date, many methods have been used for placement of the fill on the
beach. The most common method is the pumping of material from a floating
hydraulic dredge located either offshore or in an inland lagoon (or river)
to the beach. Although this is the best suited method for the intended
purpose of placing material on the beach to a design profile, it is extremely
expensive in that mobilization and demobilization of such a dredge plant often
runs on the order of 10% of the total job construction cost. In addition,
tremendous technical problems are encountered when the dredge is offshore,
i.e., stabilizing the pipe from the borrow area to the beach in wave and
current activity, and operating the cutterhead without damage during periods
of heavy seas with consequent high pitch and roll of the floating platform.
These disadvantages make the floating hydraulic dredge, although the most
desirable from design standpoint, the least desirable from-an:econooric
standpoint.

Thus, it has been advantageous in many instances to consider other
means of placing sand on the beaches.

One such concept is that of mining the sand from an offshore borrow
zone or navigation channel by means of a hopper dredge and then using direct
pumpout facilities for pumping material from the hopper dredge to the beach.
This method does not overcome the problem of putting a pipeline through the
nearshore zone but does eliminate the pitch and roll problems encountered in
the presently existing floating hydraulic dredge plants. This method has
been tried with limited success off of the New Jersey coast (reference Al)
and at Jacksonville, Florida, in a channel navigation/beach nourishment project.
Unfortunately, few of the existing hopper dredges have pumpout facilities
at the present time but are only equipped for dumping of material from the
bottoms of their bins.

Due to the undesirable aspects of operating a floating dredge in heavy
wave activity, the concept of an underwater dredge has often been proposed.
Such a dredge was designed and operated with limited success in the Fort
Pierce beach restoration project. Due to many technical difficulties though,
the dredge did not complete the nourishment project, and pumping of fill
for the project was completed by conventional floating hydraulic dredge.
The underwater dredge is discussed in the section on the Fort Pierce Beach
Nourishment project. The concept of using an underwater dredge has been
proven possible in tests though, and merits future research attention.

A realizable benefit would accrue by dumping of the sand in shallow
depths offshore and then letting the normal wave activity move the material
onshore. This concept has been tried in beach nourishment in the United
States, and is discussed in references A2 and A3. In one project studied
by the Coastal Engineering Research Center, a total of 601,991 cubic yards
of sand was dumped in a 7 foot high ridge, 3700 feet long and 750 feet wide
mile offshore of Long Beach, New Jersey at a depth of 38 feet below mean
low water. Surveys of the beach area and the spoil ridge were made period-
ically throughout the period of April 1948 to October 1952 (50 months after
the dumping). From the results of these surveys, the conclusion was drawn







that no significant sand movement had occurred in the zone of the sand ridge,
and that no accretion on the beach had occurred as a direct result of the
offshore dumping of sand. In fact the beach, which was undergoing an ero-
sional trend prior to the project's inception, continued to erode at a simi-
lar rate after placement of the material offshore. Calculations based on
wave climatology determined from a wave gage on the Long Beach pier showed
that only during 3.4% of the year was wave activity capable of moving sand
at these depths. No predictions were made as to whether such movement would
be onshore or offshore.

A somewhat similar beach nourishment was also conducted at Santa Barbara,
California, discussed in reference A3, where 202,000 cubic yards of sand was
deposited by hopper dredge in 20 feet of water (MLLW) in September 1935. The
crest of the spoil ridge in this case was 17-18 feet below MLLW. Monitoring
over a 9-year period, 1935-1944, the crest was only lowered one foot in the
intervening period, and the shallow trough between the mound and the shoreward
slope of the natural bottom filled to a depth of 2 to 3 feet in most places.
No computations were made of the percent of time waves were capable of moving
the sand in this study.

A more recent beach restoration in Brazil, (reference A4), has used the
concept of offshore dumping with reported success. This beach restoration
project was conceived and carried out by SURSAN-Superintendgncia de Urbenizacao
e Saneamento do Estado de Buanabara, Brazil at Copacabana Beach, Brazil
during the period October 1969 to May 1970.

Two methods of sand placement were used along the approximately 21 mile
length of beach, stockpiling and offshore dumping (4-6 meters depth MLW),
upon recommendations from model studies made by LNEC Laborat6rio Nacional
de Engenhario Civil, Lisbon, Portugal.

Copacabana Beach, (near Rio de Janerio), is a relatively steep (compared
to most Florida beaches) pocket beach between headlands on the Brazilian
coast. Sand characteristics of the beach are somewhat similar to beaches of
the Florida Panhandle, consisting mostly of sand having a density of 2.6 g/cm3
(quartz) and a median diameter d50 of 0.3 to 0.4 mm. Wave climatology
(recorded at the shore) shows significant wave heights HI/3 less than 5.9
ft. for 90% of the time and less than 2.3 feet 50% of the time. Wave periods
were between 9 15 seconds for 70% of the time and 10 14 seconds for 50%
of the time. Tides are semidiurnal ranging from 4.6 ft. maximum to 1 ft.
minimum. Winds are predominantly offshore.

During the period October 1969 through May 1970, approximately 1.96
million cubic yards of sand (median grain size d50 = 0.30 mm) was pumped
from a nearby bay area and stockpiled on the beach in 6 locations. From
December 1969 through April 1970, approximately 2.61 million cubic yards
were transferred via hopper dredge from 30 ft. depths offshore and dumped
in depths of 13 19 feet of water offshore of the beach. Median grain
size of the dumped sand ranged from 0.4 mm to 0.5 mm and greater.

Results from actual monitoring of the beach showed that after a period
of approximately two years from the completion of the nourishment project,
the beach had been widened an average of approximately 290 feet which corre-







spends well to a total placement of 4.57 x 106 cubic yards of sand on a
beach 2.5 miles long (assuming 1 cubic yard of fill = 1 foot of plan beach
area).

Unfortunately no volmetric calculations of the amount of sand retained
in the profiles after dumping were presented in this study to validify the
claimed success in the offshore dumping project.

In Florida, experience with the tracing of flourescent materials (ref-
erence A5) has established that tracer materials dumped at up to 30 feet are
capable of being moved to shore (although in limited quantities) under
proper wave conditions. As depth decreases, the capability of the sand to
move sediment onshore is increased as would be expected.

In no cases though have significant percentages (enough to make beach
nourishment by the method economically sound) of tracer material dumped
offshore moved to the beach.

In fact, experience has shown that for conditions along Florida's
coast and much of the rest of the United States coastline, offshore
dumping of material is an unwise practice outside of the limits of the
seasonal offshore bar.

Another concept of placing the material on the beach is that of the
drag scraper. Drag scraping of sand from the offshore beach profile and
placement on the foreshore of the beach has been used often in Florida, most
notably at Jupiter Island where a study of the concept was made and is dis-
cussed in the Jupiter Island beach nourishment projects. Results using
this concept were not entirely satisfactory either.

References:

Al. "Experimental Use of Self-Unloading Hopper Dredge for Rehabilitation
of an Ocean Beach," Mauriello, L.J., Proceedings of the World Dredging
Conference (WODCON), New York, 1967.

A2. "Test of Nourishment of the Shore by Offshore Deposition of Sand,"
Technical Memorandum No. 17, Beach Erosion Board, Washington, D.C,
June 1950.

A3. "Restudy of Test Shore Nourishment by Offshore Deposition of Sand,"
Long Branch, New Jersey," Technical Memorandum No. 62, Beach Erosion
Board, Washington, D.C. November 1954.

A4. "Artificial Nourishment of Copacabana Beach," by Daniel Vera-Cruz,
Proceedings 13th Coastal Engineering Conference, July 10-14, 1972,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

A5. Tracing of Coastal Sediments Movement at Cape Canaveral, Florida,
Coastal Engineering Laboratory, University of Florida, Gainesville,
August 1970.








ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported in part by the Florida Sea Grant College
Program and Marine Advisory Program. The author would also like to thank
the following agencies and individuals who generously provided information
for this report:



Mobile District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mr. Gerry Ward, Gee and Jenson Consulting Engineers

Mr. Arthur V. Strock, A.V. Strock and Associates, Inc.

Duncan E. Britt and Associates

Mr. Randy Bushey, Broward County Erosion Control District

Mr. Fred Maley, Town Manager of Bal Harbour

Mr. Paul Stahlin, formerly Captiva Erosion Control District

Smally Wellford, and Nalven Consulting Engineers

Charlestown District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs