Citation
Beach nourishment prediction methodology, monitoring and sediment characteristics report of CETAC workshop 2

Material Information

Title:
Beach nourishment prediction methodology, monitoring and sediment characteristics report of CETAC workshop 2 results from a workshop on beach nourishment, monitoring and sediment characteristics held under the auspices of Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Department of Environmental Protection, State of Florida : workshop held in Atlantic Beach, FL, October 24 to 26, 2000
Series Title:
UFLCOEL-2001009
Creator:
Dean, Robert G ( Robert George ), 1930-
Coastal Engineering Technical Advisory Committee -- Workshop, 2000
Florida -- Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems
Place of Publication:
Gainesville Fla
Publisher:
Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Program, University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 v. (various pagings) : ill. ; 28 cm. +

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Beach nourishment -- Congresses ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
bibliography ( marcgt )
conference publication ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (p. 20-21).
General Note:
"May 23, 2001."
General Note:
Disc contains 10 PowerPoint presentations.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Robert G. Dean.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
49575832 ( OCLC )

Full Text
UFL/COEL -2001/009

BEACH NOURISHMENT PREDICTION METHODOLOGY, MONITORING AND SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS REPORT OF CETAC WORKSHOP 2
by
Robert G. Dean

May 23,2001
Results from a Workshop on Beach Nourishment, Monitoring and Sediment Characteristics Held Under the Auspices of: Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems Department of Environmental Protection State of Florida
Workshop Held on October 24 to 26, 2000 Atlantic Beach, FL




BEACH NOURISHMENT PREDICTION METHODOLOGY, MONITORING AND SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS REPORT OF CETAC WORKSHOP 2
May 23,2001
Results from a Workshop on Beach Nourishment,
Monitoring and Sediment Characteristics
Held Under the Auspices ofOffice of Beaches and Coastal Systems
Department of Environmental Protection State of Florida
Workshop Held in
Atlantic Beach, FL
October 24 to 26, 2000
Prepared by:
Robert G. Dean Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611




TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST O F FIGURES ........................................................... v
LIST O F TABLES ........................................................... vi
EXECUTIVE SUM M ARY ..................................................... 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 2
2.0 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT ..................................... 2
3.0 COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR PREDICTING PERFORMANCE OF
BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECTS .................................... 3
3.1 Introduction ...................................................... 3
3.2 A pproach ........................................................ 3
3.3 Results for Individual Projects ........................................ 3
3.3.1 G eneral .................................................... 3
3.3.2 M anatee County Project ....................................... 4
3.3.3 M artin County Project ........................................ 6
3.3.4 Captiva Island .............................................. 8
3.3.5 Longboat Key ............................................... 8
3.3.6 O cean Ridge ................................................ 8
3.3.7 K ey Biscayne .............................................. 13
3.3.8 Juno B each ................................................ 15
3.3.9 St. Johns County ........................................... 16
4.0 QUANTITATIVE MEASURE OF PREDICTIVE SKILL .................... 16
5.0 RESULTS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 18
5.1 Use of Models in Prediction of Beach Nourishment Performance ........... 18
5.1.1 G EN ESIS ................................................. 19
5.1.2 DN RB S .................................................. 19
5.2 M onitoring ...................................................... 19
5.3 Rule Revision and Sand Specification ................................. 20
6.0 ACKNOW LEDGMENTS ............................................... 20
7.0 REFERENCES ........................................................ 20




APPENDICES
A WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS ...................................... A-i
B WORKSHOP PROGRAM........................................... B-i
C MONITORING PROGRAM OF THE OFFICE OF BEACHES AND COASTAL
SYSTEMS....................................................... C-i
D SEDIMENT CRITERIA FOR BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECTS ........... D-1
E INTRODUCTION OF A "SIMPLE" METHOD FOR CALCULATING BEACH
NOURISHMENT PROJECT PERFORMANCE WITH- EXAMPLES FOR DELRAY
BEACH, FL, MIDTOWN BEACH, FL AND MANATEE COUNTY, FL .........BE-i F A "WHITE PAPER" ON SHORELINE MODELING ........................ F-i
G RESULTS OF WORKING GROUP 1: "Role of Modeling in Beach Nourishment
Design". ........................................................ G-1
H RESULTS OF WORKING GROUP 2: "Monitoring Issues".................... H-i
I RESULTS OF WORKING GROUP 3: "Design Accuracy Assessment and
Calibration Methods"................................................. I-1
J MATERIAL PROVIDED FOR CASE STUDY 1: MANATEE COUNTY BEACH
NOURISHMENT PROJECT.......................................... J-1
K MATERIAL PROVIDED FOR CASE STUDY 2: MARTIN COUNTY BEACH
NOURISHMENT PROJECT......................................... K-i
L MATERIAL PROVIDED FOR CASE STUDY 3: CAPTIVA ISLAND BEACH
NOURISHMENT PROJECT.......................................... L-i
M MATERIAL PROVIDED FOR CASE STUDY 4: LONGBOAT KEY BEACH
NOURISHMENT PROJECT......................................... M-i
N MATERIAL PROVIDED FOR CASE STUDY 5: OCEAN RIDGE BEACH
NOURISHMENT PROJECT......................................... N-i
0 MATERIAL PROVIDED FOR CASE STUDY 6: KEY BISCAYNE BEACH
NOURISHMENT PROJECT......................................... 0-1




P MATERIAL PROVIDED FOR CASE STUDY 7: JUNO BEACH NOURISHMENT
PROJECT........................................................ P-1
Q MATERIAL PROVIDED FOR CASE STUDY 8: ST. JOHNS COUNTY BEACH
NOURISHMENT PROJECT......................................... Q-1
R REVIEW COMMENTS BY EBERSOLE AND GRAVENS OF U. S. ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS .................................................. R-1




LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE
1 Measured and Predicted Volumetric Performance of the Manatee County Beach
Nourishment Project ................................................. 5
2 Measured and Predicted Longshore Distributions of Volume Density Remaining
After 4.8 Years. Manatee County Beach Nourishment Project ....................5
3 Proportional Volumes and Plan Areas Remaining Within Project Limits. Manatee
County Beach Nourishment Project....................................... 6
4 Measured and Predicted Volumes Remaining. Martin County Beach Nourishment
Project............................................................ 7
5 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Shoreline Changes. Martin County Beach
Nourishment Project ................................................. 7
6 Comparison of Measured and GENESIS Predicted Volumes Remaining. Captiva
Beach Nourishment Project ............................................ 9
7 Comparison of Measured and Predicted Percent Volume Remaining by DNRBS.
Longboat Key Beach Nourishment Project ................................ 10
8 Measured and Predicted Shoreline Changes. Mid-Key Longboat Key Beach
Nourishment Project................................................. 10
9 Calibration Results of GENESIS With Historical Data. Ocean Ridge Beach
Nourishment Project................................................. 11
10 Predictions With GENESIS. Ocean Ridge Beach Nourishment Project .............11
11 Flow Diagram for GENESIS Calibration Method. Ocean Ridge Beach Nourishment
Project........................................................... 12
12 Predictions Using DNRBS. Ocean Ridge Beach Nourishment Project .............12
13 Comparisons of One Year Monitoring Results With Predictions by GENESIS and
DNRBS........................................................... 13




14 Calibration Results Based on GENESIS and DNRBS. Key Biscayne Beach
Nourishment Project................................................. 14
15 Measured and Predicted Shoreline Changes. Key Biscayne 1962-1987 ............14
16 Comparison of Measurements and Predictions Based on GENESIS and DNRBS for
1987 Key Biscayne Beach Nourishment Project............................. 15
17 Predicted Performance of Juno Beach Project by GENESIS and DNRBS, 5 Years
After Project Construction............................................. 16
18 Predictions of Volumetric Change After 10 Years for St. Johns County Project ...... 17
TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Projects Examined in the Workshop ...................................... 4
2 Summary of Normalized Standard Deviations for Projects Having Measured Data
and Two Model Predictions Available ................................... 18




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The second CETAC workshop was held on October 24 26, 2000 to evaluate beach nourishment design methodology, monitoring and acceptable sediment characteristics. The main results developed during this workshop are presented below.
BEACH NOURISHMENT DESIGN METHODOLOGY
Two design methodologies were evaluated based on eight beach nourishment case studies: (1) A method that simplifies the bathymetry and forcing, and (2) A method that utilizes the detailed bathymetry and forcing. For purposes of discussion, the first method is termed the "simple" method and the second the "detailed" method. Additionally, for the simple method, representative wave forcing and other required design parameters have been developed for the sandy beach segments of the State of Florida. The detailed method requires calibration and verification phases which ideally apply concurrent wave information and measured volumetric (or less desirably, shoreline) changes. The required time and effort to apply the simple method are considerably less than for the detailed method.
For five of the eight beach nourishment case studies examined in this report, it was possible, through comparison with monitoring results, to carry out nine quantitative comparisons of the predictive capabilities of the two methods. It was found that in five of the comparisons, the simple model provided substantially better agreement, in two of the comparisons, the simple method provided marginally better results, in one of the comparisons, the two methods were of equal skill and in one comparison, the detailed method provided marginally better results. Possible reasons for the relative performance of the two models are discussed.
MONITORING
Guidelines for monitoring beach nourishment and other projects were discussed. It was agreed that annual surveys of projects are justified. Other monitoring components were left more flexible and should be tailored to the particular project under consideration.
GUIDELINES FOR ACCEPTABLE NOURISHMENT SEDIMENT
There was general agreement with the overall concept of similarity of sediment serving as a guideline. However, it was noted that in some areas, available sources of sediment that could meet this criterion may be limited and that caution is in order to ensure that limitations are not set that could inappropriately jeopardize future nourishment projects. A committee was established to develop specific sediment guidelines for further consideration by CETAC.
TOPICS FOR FUTURE CETAC WORKSHOPS
Possible topics for future workshops were discussed and identified as: (1) Environmental considerations of beach nourishment, and (2) Performance predictions of a beach nourishment project in advance of construction, monitoring and comparison of monitoring and predictions.




BEACH NOURISHMENT PREDICTION METHODOLOGY,
MONITORING AND SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS REPORT OF CETAC WORKSHOP 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Coastal Engineering Technical Advisory Committee (CETAC) was formed by the Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems (OBCS) as a group of coastal engineering and geology professionals and educators to evaluate and develop recommendations for some of the more immediate and difficult issues facing the OBCS and the State of Florida in their roles as Stewards of Florida's valuable beach resources. The approach to accomplishing these objectives has been through a series of focused workshops in which individuals are requested to prepare materials and/or recommendations in advance of the workshop and to make presentations for discussion/evaluation by the workshop Participants. The second CETAC Workshop was held in Atlantic Beach, FL from October 24 to 26, 2000 with 28 Participants representing a broad cross-section of the coastal engineering, and geology communities in attendance; this report summarizes the findings of this second workshop. A roster of the Participants is presented as Appendix A and a Workshop Agenda is presented as Appendix B.
As indicated in the Agenda (Appendix B), issues addressed at the second workshop included: (1) Rule revision and sand specification, (2) Monitoring issues, and (3) Predictability of beach nourishment performance. One-half day was dedicated to the two first issues and the remaining day focused on predictability of beach nourishment performance. During the last one-half day of the workshop, three working groups were formed to develop "position papers" on the following: (1) Working Group 1: Numerical models in beach nourishment design, (2) Working Group 2: Monitoring issues, and (3) Working Group 3: Design accuracy assessment and calibration methods. The Working Group reports are presented as Appendices with only minor editorial and formatting changes. Findings related to the focus of this workshop are summarized in the following sections of this report. This report is organized with this main body of the report providing relatively brief summaries of the deliberations and findings and with additional details provided in the 18 appendices.
2.0 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
As noted, the focus of this second workshop was the comparison of the two methodologies that have been employed in Florida for predicting the performance of beach nourishment projects. Thus the organization of this report differs from the order in which the three issues noted above were addressed during the workshop process. Section 3 of this report summarizes the results and presents the findings related to two methodologies for predicting performance of beach nourishment projects. Additional detail is presented in Appendix C which describes one of the models used in the comparison, and Appendices G through S which contain material presented at the workshop and through the copies of the individual Powerpoint presentations which are provided in the compact disk (CD) in the back cover jacket of this report. Appendices F and R are documents developed by Representatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to the Workshop and subsequent to the availability of the draft of this report. These two appendices address various aspects of the use of the two models exercised in this workshop for the prediction of beach performance. Section 4 presents




the procedures for and results from a quantitative assessment of eight examples for which measured results were available as well as predictions from the two models. Section 5 presents a summary and conclusions and Section 7 provides references cited in this report.
3.0 COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR PREDICTING PERFORMANCE OF BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECTS
3.1 Introduction
Beach nourishment technology is fairly young and the degree to which available calculation methods agree with reality over a broad range of design conditions is poorly established. By this series of workshops, we hope to contribute to: (a) An improved understanding of the predictability of present calculation methods, and (b) The establishment of a basis for and initiation of efforts to advance this capability. One approach toward the improvement of beach nourishment technology, and that which will be followed here is to establish a framework for the calculation of project performance and to compare the results of calculations of the performance of beach nourishment projects with monitoring results. The State of Florida is fortunate that monitoring results are available for a number of beach nourishment projects and thus can be compared with available methodology. The comparison of the measured performance of these projects with the predictions of an established methodology that is "blind-folded" in the sense that two individuals should predict the same performance is valuable and is one of the approaches of this workshop.
3.2 Approach
The approach adopted in this workshop for the evaluation of capabilities in prediction of beach nourishment project performance was to select a number of projects with ideally both design information and monitoring results available. The most often applied beach nourishment design methodology is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers model "GENESIS" which has been described in a number of documents (Hanson, 1989; Hanson and Kraus, 1989) and will not be discussed here except to note that, in general, calibration and verification phases form essential components of the process leading up to the design and prediction phases. The other model referred to as "DNRBS" has a number of advantages for projects in the State of Florida. No calibration is required and graphs are available which present recommendations for most of the parameters required in beach nourishment design in Florida and thus allows a "blind-folded" design, that is two individuals should predict the same results. For brevity, GENESIS and DNRBS will be referred to here as "detailed" and "simple", respectively although the terms "comprehensive" and "idealized" have been suggested. Table I presents the eight projects selected for examination in this workshop. As indicated, the monitoring information available for comparison purposes ranged from substantial to none.
3.3 Results for Individual Projects
3.3.1 General
Information provided in the following sections is based on the presentations at the workshop as well as other information available. For each project, material distributed at the Workshop is included as an individual appendix to this report. In addition to the discussions presented in the main body of




this report and the material in the appendices, the CD in the jacket on the inside back cover of this report includes the Powerpoint presentations for the individual case studies.
Table 1
Projects Examined in the Workshop
1 Year Detailed Methodology I Monitoring
Project IConstructed Predictions Available? Results
_ _ 1. _ .1 Available?
Manatee County 1992-1993 Yes Yes
Martin County 1995-1996 Yes Yes.
Captiva Island 1996 Yes Yes
Longboat Key 1997 Yes
Ocean Ridge 1998 Yes Yes
Key Biscayne 1987 Yes Yes
Juno Beach Completed Yes No
_______________ January 2001 _______St. Johns County Not Yet Yes No
Constructed ______________________3.3.2 Manatee County Project
Documentation of the performance of this project is more comprehensive than for most projects. Construction of this project was initiated on December 24, 1992 and completed on February 24, 1993. The "Storm of the Century" occurred in March 1993, shortly after completion of the Project. A total of 2.21 million yd' of sand was placed over a project length of 4.7 miles. The long-term background erosion rates for this project range from approximately 1 to 4 feet per year (Dean et a!., 1998). The short-term rates are similar.
Predictions and measurements of volumetric performance as provided in the presentation are in Figure 1. It is seen that GENESIS predicts a nearly linear decrease in volume of 40,000 ydt per year whereas DNRBS predicts that the volume decreases rapidly initially, then decreases more slowly later in the life of the Project. Additionally of interest is that the measured volumes remaining agree well with DNRBS for the first 20 months and after approximately 60 months, the measured volume remaining increases and after 66 months agrees better with GENESIS. The explanation for the increase in volume within the project area is unknown.
The predicted and measured longshore distributions of volume densities 4.8 years after nourishment are presented in Figure 2 where it is seen that the DNRBS predictions are somewhat better than GENESIS which predicts that the remaining fill volume is very similar to that at the time of construction.




MANATEE COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT
Fill Remaining in Project Area: Measured and Predicted

2400000

0 20 40 60 80 100

120

Time [months]
Figure 1. Measured and Predicted Volumetric Performance of the Manatee County Beach Nourishment Project.
MANATEE COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT Longshore Distribution of Fill: Measured and Predicted

80.000 60,000 "
40,010w

0 ..
-33 -32 -31 -30 -29 -28 -27 -28 -25 -24 -23 -22 -21 -20 -19 -18 -17 -16 -15 -14 -13 -12
FDEP Monument Number (South to North)
Figure 2. Measured and Predicted Longshore Distributions of Volume Density Remaining After 4.8 Years. Manatee County Beach Nourishment Project.




The proportional volume and plan areas remaining as determined by Wang and Dean (2001) are shown in Figure 3. It is seen that as of the last survey included here (February 1999, some 6 years after construction), 88% of the volume remained in the project area and 41% of the plan area remained. Of course, the Project performance is not uniform in the longshore direction and there are segments of the nourished shoreline where the performance is substantially better than the average and others where the performance is substantially worse. The nourishment sediments for this project were slightly smaller than the native sediments which may account for the somewhat greater loss of plan area than the usual approximately 50% of the volume remaining.
No predicted renourishment interval was provided for this project using GENESIS. This case study was presented by Tom Smith of the Jacksonville District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
1.0,.
0.9 Volume
i)
0 .
C 0.6
EV 0. ................................ A
E 0.5 .
0.3
0.1 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time After Construction (Years)
Figure 3. Proportional Volumes and Plan Areas Remaining Within Project Limits. Manatee County Beach Nourishment Project. Based on Monitoring
Results (Wang and Dean, 2001).
3.3.3 Martin County Project
Construction of the Martin County Project commenced in December 1995, was completed in April 1996 and comprised the placement of 1.34 million yd3 of sand along a project length of 3.75 miles of shoreline. Although the long-term erosion rates throughout the nourishment area are modest (z 1 ft/year), the average over the calibration period was approximately 3 ft/year and varied considerably in the longshore direction. The predicted renourishment interval based on the GENESIS model was determined to be 11 years. The values of the two sediment transport coefficients used in the GENESIS calibration were K, = 0. 1 and K2 = 0.1 .
The performance of this project has differed from predictions and expectations more than any other project in the State of Florida and certainly some of this anomalous response is due to the unusual




number and intensities of storms which have occurred starting in March 1996 and continued throughout the Project life.
Figure 4 shows the volumetric changes as presented at the Workshop. It is seen that after 4 years, only 3 1% of the volume remains within the Project area. Figure 5 presents comparisons of measured and predicted shorelines along the project from 1995 to 1999. It is seen that the measured postconstruction shoreline changes (recessions) are greater than predicted by either GENESIS or DNRBS; however, DNRBS provides better agreement for this time period. The presentation of this case study was by Cynthia Perez of the Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers.

1.8
o1.4
1.2
IC1.0 010.9
2
2004 2 0.2

K........... .....

1995 1IN8 1097 1998 1900 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2 05 Yemr

Figure 4. Measured and Predicted Volumes Remaining. Martin County Beach Nourishment Project

o 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Distance South of R-1 in Martin County (ft)
Figure 5. Comparison of Measured and Predicted Shoreline Changes. Martin County Beach Nourishment Project, 1995-1999.




3.3.4 Captiva Island

The Captiva Island beach nourishment project that was addressed in this Workshop was completed in 1996 with the addition of 817,300 yd' of sediment. As of the last survey prior to the Workshop (November, 1999), 63 7,000 yd' remained. The comparison between the measured and predicted total volumes remaining is presented in Figure 6. The measured volumes remaining within the Project area are somewhat surprising and show that volume remaining in the Project area first increased and later decreased. GENESIS predictions are nearly linear and overpredict the losses. The presentation of this case study was by Mike Jenkins and Tom Campbell of Coastal Planning and Engineering.
3.3.5 Longboat Key
The Mid-Key Longboat Key nourishment project reported here was completed in February 1997. Figure 7 presents a comparison of the measured and DNRBS (here called "Dean (1988) Diffusion + Recession Model") predicted volumetric remaining. It is seen that the DNRBS results are quite good. No graphical results were presented for the total volumes predicted by GENESIS, although the write-up stated that "The simulation indicated a reasonable performance of the fill, though key historic 'hot spot' regions were not evident within the model. Recession amounts within the model were less than historic rates in the Mid-Key region. Subsequent monitoring has indicated an underprediction of the losses by the GENESIS model." Figure 8 presents comparisons of the measured and predicted shoreline changes. The predicted changes by DNRBS are in somewhat better agreement with the measurements than are those based on GENESIS. The presentation of this case study was by Mike Jenkins and Tom Campbell of Coastal Planning and Engineering.
3.3.6 Ocean Ridge
The Ocean Ridge Shore Protection Project was constructed in early 1998; at the time of the Workshop, one year of data was available for comparison. In addition to nourishment with 784,300 yd3, this project included eight T-head groins located immediately south (downdrift) of South Lake Worth Inlet (also called Boynton Inlet) and the removal of eleven derelict groins.
The GENESIS modeling included a calibration/simulation phase and a prediction phase. The calibration/simulation phase was based on shoreline comparisons and encompassed the period January 1975 to November 1993. Results are shown in Figure 9. The simulation of future performance for a six year period is shown in Figure 10. The following values were adopted in the GENESIS calculations: K, = 0.245 and K2 = 0.300. As shown in Figure 11, this application employs a somewhat elaborate process of "back-refracting" the waves to deep water, then uses these waves as input to GENESIS.




PROJECT PERFORMANCE CAPTIVA ISLAND, FLORIDA
100%
S80%
U
a
A A U -5J l --- - -
"TI
0
M 6% --------- 6%.......
.- 4 ... c .
'II
0%
2m ------ -----c
--4--GDM Predicted Performance -Wl-Observed Performance Based on Survey Data P A Plied DNB eormane
Figure 6. Comparison of Measured and GENESIS Predicted Volumes Remaining. Captiva Beach Nourishment Project. 20% Uw
0 C U CC 0 C 0 C_ C_ C_ C_ C_ C_ C_ C_ C1 4
to 0 8 0
CD 0) .,~ *4 CD Qoo0
--4-GDM Predicted Performance W--Observed Performance Based on Survey Data b Predited DNRBSPefrac
Figure 6. Comparison of Measured and GENESIS Predicted Volumes Remaining. Captiva Beach Nourishment Project.




Performance of Longboat Key 1997 Md-Key Nourishment

60%
AnOI.

0 0 >_ K 0 -n
oCD CD W0CD
0 0
co
D CD CO C 0 0 0
4D CDCo 0 0o
--.-- Dean (1988) Diffusion + Recession Model Diffusion Only Observed Project Performance I
Figure 7. Comparison of Measured and Predicted Percent Volume Remaining by DNRBS.
Longboat Key Beach Nourishment Project.
Expected versus Observed Fill Performance, Longboat Key, FL

12000 15000 18000 21000 24000
Distance north of New Pass (feet)

27000 30000 33000

Modeled Shoreline Change Post Construction to Year 3
____ Observed Shoreline Change Feb. 1997 Post Construction to Aug 20001 + FDEP Monuments
--- Diffusion Model 3-year Estimate
Figure 8. Measured and Predicted Shoreline Changes. Mid-Key Longboat Key Beach Nourishment Project, February 1997 to August 2000.

100%. 80%-

-150 1
9000

i i i i i T

-",O




Ocean Ridge Verification Simulation 1 January 1975 to 30 November 1993
distne ou0l sellualV (lat)
t00 1000 100 I00 2 300 304 30 4000 4500 6000 SO 00 0000 *000 7000 7000 0M 000 0000 1 500 100 0000 11000 01500
- ,,,' , ., ,,,,I~u ~ i,,,I,,I2 i~i i,,,, ,,, I, i., l,. l ,.,,!,,, l
Proposed Project Limi t s
i iz i i
K.0245;KZ.0300
.- ---------ig76 measura.l
- m** ... .. ....................* eaw
10l 20lll n 0 40 II5nn 0 0 n 9ill 0 ln II00II In2l 0 10 40llll50l n 11n n 180 190 200

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
genesis grid cell
Figure 9. Calibration Results of GENESIS With Historical Data. Ocean Ridge Beach Nourishment Project.

Ocean Ridge GENESIS Simulation Beach FIII/8 Groins
K,=0.24S Ka=0.300
K=0.300 Distance south of south jetly (llet)
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 1200
300 ll I lflilIIjII w b w L II IIIIIl llilwIl i ilalii Wi u l i is'u JJ fu
300
00
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 genesis grid cel
0
E
olsen a _ss oas, inC
Figure 10. Predictions With GENESIS. Ocean Ridge Beach Nourishment Project.
The DNRBS results are shown in Figure 12. Some difficulty was encountered in modeling with DNRBS and it was considered that the GENESIS results were more valid. Due to the short time available for modeling, the approach to introducing bypassing at the inlet was not represented directly in DNRBS. Instead an abnormally small value of the sediment transport coefficient (K =
2
0.25) was used for this model.
S.511
1O 20 30 Q0 50 60 70 80 90 MO 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 1il0 190 200 genesis grid cel
oison associates, inc.
Figure 1 0. Predictions With GENESIS. Ocean Ridge Beach Nourishment Project.
The DNRBS results are shown in Figure 12. Some difficulty was encountered in modeling with DNRBS and it was considered that the GENESIS results were more valid. Due to the short time available for modeling, the approach to introducing bypassing at the inlet was not represented directly in DNRBS. Instead an abnormally small value of the sediment transport coefficient (K=
0.25) was used for this model.
I1I

!




300 250
200
150 100 Sso
0
-50
-t00

Figure 11. Flow Diagram for GENESIS Calibration Method. Ocean Ridge Beach
Nourishment Project.
Ocean Ridge DNRBS Simulation Beach FIll/8 Groins jelty length = 600 eet qrel 0.000
alpha = 90 degrees K = 0.25
non.uniform background erosion
.2im lo lo- ioii tOJUlo-ll lji'4 inlJ.. ,u i Iloiw co
E E ~ --------. .- R aI

.>./ 8-ye s

I

"It-

Distance South of South Jetty (leel)

Olsen assoclaleS. Inc

Figure 12. Predictions Using DNRBS. Ocean Ridge Beach Nourishment Project.
12

tlI I I




Figure 13 presents a comparison of the measured and predicted results fifteen months after construction. The differences between the two models are relatively small (although again the necessity of using an unusually small value of K in DNRBS is noted). Neither of the two models predicts the erosion near the south end of the project. The presentation of this case study was by Chris Creed of Olsen Associates, Inc.
Ocean Ridge GENESIS & DNRBS Simulation Beach FIII/8 Groins Year I Results
GENESIS ONRBS K,=0.245 K=0.25
KI=0.300 Distance south of south jetty (feet)
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 1200 300o- 'I LLJtJIt..1.1UiIl1 LI II LI LII LI JL Li I J I I ~ I--Tjjj ....
GENESIS---250-DNRBS
I ilil ay, 98)
150
-,oo ....]~ ~n
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 50 90 too i0 120 130 I40 150 160 170 190 190 200 genesis gried cel
Figure 13. Comparisons of One Year Monitoring Results With Predictions by
GENESIS and DNRBS.
3.3.7 Key Biscayne
The forthcoming Key Biscayne Beach Nourishment Project had not been constructed at the time that the workshop was conducted. Two earlier projects had been constructed as follows. Crandon Park had been nourished in 1969 with the application of 196,000 yd3 of sand and Key Biscayne and Bill Baggs Park were nourished in 1987 with 420,000 cubic yards of sand. Comparisons were presented for both projects. The calibration phase of the GENESIS model was conducted for the period 19621974 and the verification phase was carried out for the period 1987 to 1990. The values used for the sediment transport coefficients were K1 0.2 and K2 = 0.1. The calibration results are presented in Figure 14 where the monitoring results are compared with the GENESIS and DNRBS calibrations. It is noted that the GENESIS and DNRBS calibrations use background erosion rates based on different time frames. Figure 15 compares measured and predicted shoreline changes from 1962 to 1987 which included the 1969 project. Figure 16 presents comparisons of measured and predicted performances for the period 1987-1990 which included the 1987 Key Biscayne beach nourishment project. GENESIS appears to provide better agreement than DNRBS; however, both models fail to predict adequately the large erosion immediately north of the project. This case study was presented by Rajesh Srinivas of Taylor Engineering.




Figure 14. Calibration Results Based on GENESIS and DNRBS. Key Biscayne Beach Nourishment Project, 1962 to 1974.

Key Biscayne 1962-1987

i I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Distance South of R-92, ft

Figure 15. Measured and Predicted Shoreline Changes. Key Biscayne 19621987.
14

275
250 225
200 175 150 125 100
75 50
25
0
-25
-50
-75
-100
-125
-150
-175
-200
-225
-250

*~~ --- IJJ.1. .. ---; ; ; ; ;'; I
0 Measured
------------ Predicted (GENESIS)
.. .- L . .. . . -.. . . .P red icted (D N R B S )
----------- ,u- 7 I I
. . .. .. . . . .. . .. .. - - f. . . . .. ..---- .. . . --- - 4 ---- - - . - ;T - --. ..
. ..- - . ' - - ..-- ---- . i . - - - . - i .
..... ,__ ~~~~...; ; ;;; _; _: _:
q
.. -- / "I 9 ', I : : I' I- I
------...... ------- 4-. ... t-' ..' . --- --...---.....-- ...-,--- t -I. .
_ : .. .. .
,--- .. . ---,--- -- y- --- ----.. --- r .- -- .r. . .
. . - . . ,_ _ - - - -,- - ,- -.... - - -- . .
--- --- -- r I .. . .. . .




Figure 16. Comparison of Measurements and Predictions Based on GENESIS and DNRBS for 1987 Key Biscayne Beach Nourishment Project.
3.3.8 Juno Beach
Completion of construction of this project was in January 2001, thus no monitoring results were available at the time of the Workshop. The material available included predictions by the two models. Figure 17 shows a comparison of the predicted performances by the two models.
The brief report stated, in referring to the GENESIS model "Problems were encountered in the calibration and performance of the model. Erosion and accretion trends were over emphasized within the model. In particular, an observed 'hot spot' region within the project area was predicted to be accretional within the GENESIS simulations."
The discussion of the results obtained through DNRBS modelling stated "Project losses predicted by the diffusion model are significantly greater than those predicted within the GENESIS simulations. These were accounted for with the project by the addition of diffusion losses, though these losses should theoretically be within the GENESIS simulations. The losses predicted by the diffusion model are in line with losses measured in a similar project within the region (Delray Beach), suggesting an underprediction of losses by the GENESIS simulations." The presentation of this case study was by Mike Jenkins and Tom Campbell of Coastal Planning and Engineering.




FIGURE IV-B

Predicted Shoreline Position 5 Years after Project Completion,
Juno Beach, FL

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Distance from Jupiter Inlet (miles)

5.0 5.5 6.0

-Initial Fill Width.--Genesis Model --Deanl
Figure 17. Predicted Performances of Juno Beach Project by GENESIS and
DNRBS, 5 Years After Project Construction.
3.3.9 St. Johns County
As noted, the St. Johns County beach nourishment project has not yet been constructed. Thus, this project comparison was limited to a comparison of the two model results. This project as designed will comprise the placement of 3.37 million yd' over a project length of 2.5 miles, resulting in a volumetric density added of 256 yd'/ft! The native and nourishment grain sizes are well matched. Figure 18 compares 10 year predictions by GENESIS and DNRBS. The coefficients used in the GENESIS calibration were K, = 0.58 and K2 = 0.45. Tom Smith of The Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers presented this case study.
4.0 QUANTITATIVE MEASURE OF PREDICTIVE SKILL
Graphical results are presented in the main body of this report, in the appendices relating to the individual projects and in the Power Point presentations at the Workshop. As noted previously, these Power Point presentations are provided in a CD in the inside back cover of this report.
One approach to judging the predictive performance of the two models considered in this Workshop is visually, that is to simply examine the available plots. However, it is desirable to provide a less subjective measure, one that is quantitative and independent of the individual carrying out the comparisons. For this purpose, the Normalized Standard Deviation (NSD) is introduced below. This

0
0 U)

80 60
40 20
0
2.0




measure is defined as the ratio of the root-mean-square deviations between the measurements and the model being compared to the root-mean-square of the measured quantity. Other measures of agreement could be established and compared. If the NSD is zero, the agreement between the model predictions and measurements is exact. NSD values of unity or greater are poor quantitatively, although the form of the predicted values of the quantity being compared may be quite similar to that of the measured values. The NSD was calculated only for those cases for which all three values were available: Measured, GENESIS predictions and DNRBS predictions. Full information is lacking for other cases. In addition to the NSD values, the Reader is encouraged to examine all additional information provided by the Workshop Participants and contained in this report.

ST. JOHNS COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT Longshore Distribution of Fill: Measured and Predicted
'C,
X00
137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 148 147 148 149 150 151 FDEP Monument NwrIoer (South to North) Figure 18. Predictions of Volumetric Change After 10 Years for St. Johns
County Project.
The NSD is defined as:

NSD =

1
! v%

where the variable "v" can represent total volumes, alongshore distribution of volume density or alongshore distribution of shoreline changes. The subscripts "in" and "c" denote measured and




calculated, respectively. The quantities "i? and "I" denote the individual variable and the total number of values in the summation, respectively.
The eight case studies examined in this report provided the basis for calculating a total of nine NSD values based on five of the case studies. The results are presented in Table 2 where it is seen that in five of the individual cases, DNRBS provides a substantially better fit than GENESIS (ratio of the two NSD values greater than 1.6), in two of the cases, DNRBS is marginally better (ratio ranges between 1.12 and 1.15), in one case, the two NSD values are identical (0.945) and in one case GENESIS provides marginally better results (ratio is 1.005). The fourth column in Table 2 references the plots on which the calculated NSD values are based.
Table 2
Summary of Normalized Standard Deviations for Projects Having Measured Data and Two Model Predictions Available
Type o DataNormalized Standard Deviation, Project Cofatad Time Span Reference NSD for Model
I_____ _________ ______I__ GENESIS I DNRBS
Manatee Volumes 1993 -2000 Figure 1 0.382 0.159
County Volume 1993- 2000 Figure 2 0.648 0.320
Densities
Martin County Volumes* 1995 -1999 Figure 4 (modified) 0.378 0.337
Shorelines 1995 1999 Figure 5 1.272 0.754
Longboat Key Shorelines 1997-2000 Figure 8 1.060 0.639
Ocean Ridge Shorelines 1999 -2000 Figure 13 0.389 0.391
Key Biscayne Shorelines 1962 -1974 Figure 14 1.154 1.003
Shorelines 11962 1987 1 Figure 15 1.289 0.800
hreline 11987 1990 1 Figure 16 0.945 0.945
*Note: This comparison was based on a modified version of Figure 4 in which all predicted initial volumes
were the same = 1.3 million cubic yards.
5.0 RESULTS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Use of Models in Prediction of Beach Nourishment Performance
Numerical models are useful in predicting the performance of beach nourishment projects. However, uncertainties will always remain in the accuracies of the predictions due to: (1) The variability of the actual nearshore climate affecting the project will always be different than that used in the predictions, (2) Natural and nourished shorelines are "noisy"; therefore, even if the exact wave climate affecting the nourishment were known in advance, the predictions would differ from reality, and (3) The models will never be "perfect" 'in representing the processes. Thus, there will always be a deterministic (predictable) and a probabilistic (unpredictable, except in the statistical sense) component of the project evolution. Comparisons such as those conducted here provide an effective




means of quantifying these two components as well as identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the two models evaluated in this workshop effort. Based on the results developed in this Workshop, comments follow describing the characteristics of the two models and their applications.
5.1.1 GENESIS
" This model predicted an almost linear decrease of volume with time within the project area, for
all cases in which these results were presented. See, for example, the results for Manatee County (Figure 1), Martin County (Figure 4), Captiva Island (Figure 6), St. Johns County (Slide 18 of presentation on CD), Juno Beach (Slide 4 of presentation on CD) and Key Biscayne (Slide 16 of presentation on CD). This is in contrast to the usual behavior in which the loss rates are greater at first and diminish with time. One possible explanation is that the small sediment transport coefficients (K, and K2) reduce the diffusive component of the evolution to a degree that the background conditions established in the calibration and verification phases comprise
the main predicted evolution.
" If the offshore contours are convoluted such as near the ends of a barrier island, it is necessary
to employ an external wave model with GENESIS which accounts for these contours.
" Representative annual seasonal shoreline changes on the east coast of Florida are approximately
15 feet (Dewall, 1977). Thus if shoreline changes are to be used rather than volume changes in the calibration phase, it is generally necessary to select a time interval substantially greater
than S/R, where S is the magnitude of seasonal shoreline change and R is the recession rate.
" The ranges of values of the two transport coefficients determined by calibration for the four cases
in which such values were presented were: 0. 1 < K, < 0. 5 8 and 0. 1 < K2< 0.45.
5.1.2 DNRBS
The background shoreline changes are input directly into this model. In areas where offshore shoals cause relatively short-term and rapid changes in the shoreline as was the case for the Key Biscayne Project, short-term predictions should rely more on the short-term shoreline changes
rather than on the long-term changes as was done in this DNRBS application.
The diffusive nature of the transport and continuity equations causes background shoreline changes which vary substantially over short distances to be smoothed out rather than reproduce the background shoreline changes. In those cases where this type of change is predominant, it may be worthwhile to incorporate a feature that would reduce the rate of smoothing of the
observed background shoreline change rates.
Application of this model for Florida projects is facilitated by the availability of design information, and no calibration or verification is required. Thus two individuals calculating the
performance of a beach nourishment project should obtain the same approximate results.




5.2 Monitoring

The monitoring related material provided by OBCS at the meeting is presented as Appendix C. Discussions encompassed a broad range of issues as described in greater detail below.
Beach profiles are surveyed for general, storm impact and project purposes. Survey issues included: profile frequency, spacing, season and line length. Surveys in the vicinity of inlets were also discussed as were the methods of surveying. The merits (costs and accuracies) of sea sleds versus fathometers were discussed. It was noted that the most representative seasons for surveying were when the beach is most advanced and when it is most recessed since at these times, the beach position is approximately stationary. However, if surveying were limited to these times, survey costs would increase due to the need for many surveys in a relative short period of time and then little work at other times of the year. It was agreed that annual surveying of projects was justified. OBCS plans to have a central repository for survey data on their WEB Site. The value of wave data to the State's beach program was discussed. One application of wave data is in interpreting the performance of beach nourishment projects. Concern was expressed relative to both the duration and magnitude of required commitment by the State in the comprehensive development of wave data.
It was determined that a monitoring policy statement was not appropriate at this time and that additional information would be organized by the Staff of OBCS for later consideration and a recommendation by CETAC.
5.3 Rule Revision and Sand Specification
The OBCS had prepared in advance a draft Rule Revision which is presented as Appendix D. The intent of the proposed rule was to ensure that nourishment sediments were reasonably compatible with native sediments. Significant attributes of sediments under consideration for beach nourishment include: size, color, mineralogy, organic content and tendency for cementation. Discussions included details of the Rule and general issues related to acceptable sediment characteristics. A committee was appointed to develop a recommendation for consideration by CETAC. The committee consisted of: Tom Campbell, Chair, Bob Brantly, Skip Davis, Randy Parkinson and Doug Rosen.
6.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Author is indebted to all the participants in this second CETAC workshop. A special thanks goes to those who presented material which contributed so greatly to the overall significance of this effort. Of course, the workshop was possible only through the support provided by the Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Ms. Echo Gates of OBCS worked quietly behind the scenes and improved significantly the quality of the Workshop and this report.
7.0 REFERENCES
Dean, R. G. and JI Grant (1989) "Development of Methodology for Thirty-Year Shoreline
Projections in the Vicinity of Beach Nourishment Projects", UFLICOEL -8 9/026, Coastal and
Oceanographic Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.




Dean, R. G., J. Cheng and S.B. Malakar (1998) "Characteristics of the Shoreline Change Along the
Sandy Beaches of the State of Florida: An Atlas", UFL/COEL-98/015, Department of
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Dewall, A.E. (1977) "Littoral Environmental Observations and Beach Changes Along the Southeast
Florida Coast", Report No. CERC Technical Paper No. 77-10, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Hanson, H. (1989) "GENESIS A Generalized Shoreline Change Numerical Model," Journal of
Coastal Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, p. 1-28.
Hanson, H. and N.C. Kraus (1989) "GENESIS: Generalized Model for Simulating Shoreline
Change, Report 1, Technical Reference," Technical Report No. 89-19, Coastal Engineering
Research Center, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Wang, Z. and R. G. Dean (2001) "Manatee County Beach Nourishment Project: Performance and
Erosional Hot Spot Analysis", .UFL/COEL-2001/003, Coastal and Oceanographic
Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.




APPENDICES




APPENDIX A
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS




Gary Anderson PBS&J
7785 Baymeadows Way, Suite 202
Jacksonville, FL 32256
glanderson@pbsj.com
Bob Brantly
Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399
robert.brantly@dep.state.fl.us
Chris Creed
Olsen and Associates, Inc.
4438 Herschel Street
Jacksonville, FL 32210
ccreed@olsen-associates.com
Chuck Dill
Alpine Ocean Seismic Surveys, Inc.
Chuck@alpineocean.com
Emmett Foster
Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399
emmett.foster@dep.state.fl.us

Kevin Bodge
Olsen and Associates, Inc.
4438 Herschel Street
Jacksonville, FL 32210
kbodge@olsen-associates.com
Tom Campbell
Coastal Planning and Engineering 2481 NW Boca Raton Boulevard
Boca Raton, FL 33431
tcampbell@cpe.dynip.com
Al Devereaux
Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399
alfred.devereaux@dep.state.fl.us
Karyn Erickson
Applied Technology and Management
2770 NW 43rd Street, Suite B Gainesville, FL 32606-0995
kerickson@atm-s21i.com
Echo Gates
Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399
echo.gates@dep.state.fl.us

A-2




Mark Gravens
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory
Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, MS 39180
Mark.B.Gravens@wes02.usace.army.mil
Ed Hodgens
Jacksonville District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
400 West Bay Street
P. O Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019
ed.hodgens@saj02.usace.army.mil
Michael Jenkins
Coastal Planning and Engineering 2481 NW Boca Raton Boulevard
Boca Raton, FL 33431
mjenkins@cpe.dynip.com
Linda Lillicrop Mobile District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mobile, Alabama
Linda.S. Lillicrop@sajm.usace.army.mil
Cynthia B. Perez
Jacksonville District
U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers
400 West Bay Street
P. O Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019
Cynthia.B.Perez@saj02.usace.army.mil

Joe Gurule
Jacksonville District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
400 West Bay Street
P. O Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019
Joseph.E.Gurule@saj02.usace.army.mil
Steve Howard
Olsen and Associates, Inc.
4438 Herschel Street
Jacksonville, FL 32210
showard@olsen-associates.com
Mark Leadon
Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399
mark.leadon@dep.state.fl.us
Brett Moore
Humiston and Moore Engineers 10661 Airport Road N., Suite 14
Naples, FL 34109
bdm@humistonand moore.com
Cameron Perry
Coastal Systems International
464 South Dixie Highway Coral Gables, FL 33146
cperry@coastalsystemsint.com

A-3




Michael Poff
Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc
3106 South Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 33942 mpoff@cecifl.com
Tom Smith
Jacksonville District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
400 West Bay Street
P. O Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019 thomas.d.smith@saj02.usace.army.mil
Bruce Taylor
Taylor Engineering, Inc.
9000 Cypress Green Drive, Suite 200
Jacksonville, FL 32256
btaylor@taylorengineering.com
Paden Woodruff
Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399
paden.woodruff@dep.state.fl.us

Doug Rosen
Jacksonville District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
400 West Bay Street
P. O Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019
douglas.s.rosen@saj02.usace.army.mil
Rajesh Srinivas
Taylor Engineering, Inc.
9000 Cypress Green Drive, Suite 200
Jacksonville, FL 32256
Rsrinivas@taylorengineering.com
Mike Walther
Coastal Technology Corporation
3625 20th Streeet
Vero Beach, FL 32960
mpwll@aol.com
Bob Dean
Department of Coastal and Oceanographic
Engineering
University of Florida
P. O. Box 116590
Gainesville, FL 32611-6580
dean@coastal.ufl.edu




APPENDIX B
WORKSHOP PROGRAM




(OASTAL [NGIN[[RING TEICUAL
ADVISORY (OIAATTE
WORKSHOP NO. 2
MONViN GUIDLINE ANvBAC
NOURISMEN DESIG

Sea Turtle Inn
Jacksonville, Florida

Tuesday, October 24, 2000
to
Thursday, October 26, 2000

Florida Dept of Environmental Protection Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems




Tuesday, October 24
1:00-1:15 Welcome ............................. Tom Campbell
1:15-1:30 Introduction of Topics for Discussion
......................................... ........... B ob D ean
1:30 2:30 Rule Revision and Sand Specification
............................................... B ob B rantly
2:30 3:00 Monitoring Issues ................... Bob Brantly
3:00 3:15 Break
3:15 5:00 Monitoring Issues ............................. Group
Wednesday, October 25
8:00 10:00 Introduction to Model Calibration with
Mid-Town Beach as an Example ................
.................................................... B ob D ean
10:00- 10:15 Break
10:15 10:50 Duval County Beach Restoration ...............
................................................ U SA C E-Jax
10:50 11:25 Delray Beach Nourishment .............. CP&E
11:25 12:00 South Lake Worth Inlet ..............................
.................... Chris Creed-Olsen Associates
12:00- 1:30 Lunch
1:30 2:10 Martin County Beach Restoration ..............
................................................ U SA C IU-Jax

2:10 2:45 Key Biscayne Beach Nourishment .............
.......... Rajesh Srinivas-Taylor Engineering
2:45 3:00 Break 3:00 3:35 Longboat Key Beach Restoration .... CP&E 3:35 4:10 Captiva Island Beach Restoration .... CP&E 4:10 4:45 Anna Maria Island .................. USACE-Jax
4:45-5:00 Working Group Assignments .....................
Thursday, October 26 8:00 10:00 W orking Groups ........................................
* Role of Simple and Complex Models
in Beach Design
* Needs for Model Development
# Needs for Model Data Organization
0 Assessment of Design Accuracy
* Calibration Methodology
4 Monitoring
* Others (?)
10:00- 10:15 Break 10:15 11:15 Working Group Presentations .....................
11:15-11:45 Future CETAC Issues ......... Tom Campbell 11:45 12:00 Closing Remarks ......................... Bob Dean
12:00 Adjourn




APPENDIX C
MONITORING PROGRAM OF THE
OFFICE OF BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS




FDEP, Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems
Statewide Coastal Monitoring Program
Data Collection and Processing
Table 1. 5-Year Data Collection and Processing Schedule

Fiscal Year
1999/00
2000101 2001/02 2002/03
2003/04 2004/05

Location
East Coast (Nassau- Martin) SW (Pinellas Collier) SE (Brevard Dade) NE (Nassau- Volusia) NW (Escambia Franklin) SW (Pinellas- Collier)

Note: New technologies such as LIDAR and SHOALS will be incorporated as appropriate.

Data Collection & Processing
Digital Aerial Photography (Processing only) Videography Conventional Survey (DEP Profiles) (Nassau-Flagler) Wave Program (Work started in FY 00/01)
Digital Aerial Photography Aerial Videography Conventional Survey (DEP Profiles) Multi-beam (inlets TBD) Wave Program
Digital Aerial Photography Aerial Videography Conventional Survey (DEP Profiles) Multi-beam (Inlets TBD) Wave Program
Digital Aerial Photography Aerial Videography Conventional Survey (DEP Profiles) Multi-beam (Inlets TBD) Wave program
Digital Aerial Photography Aerial Videography Conventional Survey (DEP Profiles) Multi-beam (Inlets TBD) Wave program
Digital Aerial Photography Aerial Videography Conventional Survey (DEP Profiles) Multi-beam (Inlets TBD) Wave program




APPENDIX D
SEDIMENT CRITERIA FOR BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECTS

D-1




10-19-00 Proposed revision of Rule

62B-41.007(2)(j)
All fill material being placed on sandy beach locations shall be sediment that is similar to that which naturally would or does exist on the site in color, grain size, gradation and. carbonate composition. Fill material shall: a) generally exclude peat and clay,
b) be free of construction debris and other foreign matter, c) not contain greater than 5 percent by weight sediment smaller that 0.74 millimeters,
exclusive of quartz sediment, 0
d) not contain greater than 5 percent by weight sediment larger than 4.75 millimeters, e) generally exclude material larger than 19 millimeter, exclusive of shell material, and f) not cause cementation or encrustation of the beach. If the natural beach exceeds any of the limiting parameters listed above, then the fill material shall not exceed the naturally occurring level for that parameter.
62B-41.008(i)(k)4.
Permit applications for inlet excavation, inlet bypassing, or beach restoration or nourishment shall include a sediment analysis of the native sand at the beach placement site and the sediment in the proposed borrow sites sufficient to determine the nature of the material to be dredged and its compatibility with the existing beach sand pursuant to Rule 62B-41.007(2)j). The analysis shall be conducted in accordance with established professional geological and engineering practice, and Office of Beaches and Coastal &' -0.A
RM
GO\lchmgmtGotechnicaIIO-l9-00.2 proposed rule.doc

D-2




APPENDIX E

INTRODUCTION OF A "SIMPLE" METHOD FOR CALCULATING
BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT PERFORMANCE WITH EXAMPLES FOR DELRAY BEACH, FL, MIDTOWN BEACH, FL AND MANATEE COUNTY, FL
by
Bob Dean
Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering University of Florida




APPENDIX E

INTRODUCTION OF A "SIMPLE" METHOD FOR CALCULATING
BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT PERFORMANCE WITH EXAMPLES FOR
DELRAY BEACH, FL, MIDTOWN BEACH, FL AND MANATEE COUNTY, FL
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purposes of this workshop are to better understand the present capabilities of beach nourishment performance prediction and to establish approaches to advancing this capability. The specific objectives are, through a number of case studies, some of which include comparison with monitoring results, to evaluate our current capabilities using methodologies that will be termed here as "Simple" and "Complex", to evaluate the merits of these two approaches and to recommend approaches for further improvement.
The most often applied complex methodology is GENESIS which has been described in a number of documents (Hanson, 1989; Hanson and Kraus, 1989) and will not be detailed here except to note that, in general calibration and verification phases form essential components of the process leading up to the design and prediction phases. The "Simple" model, also referred to as "DNRBS" herein to be compared in this workshop has a number of advantages for projects in the State of Florida. Graphs are available which present recommendations for most of the parameters required in beach nourishment design. Additionally, this method requires no calibration and verification and thus a substantial proportion of the design complexities is removed. The so-called "simple" method will be described and illustrated with examples later. The following section presents and provides a general discussion of some results which can be developed from beach nourishment theory. However, these results will not be derived or discussed in detail, Rather, they will be considered as a basis for the methodology to follow.
2.0 SEVERAL BEACH NOURISHMENT FUNDAMENTALS
Several beach nourishment fundamentals are presented and discussed briefly below.
2.1 Relative Insensitivity to Wave Direction
The performance of a project constructed with compatible sand on a reasonably long straight shoreline can be shown to be relatively independent (within about 10%) of wave direction. This result is quite significant since the characteristics of wave directions are much more poorly understood than are wave heights and thus the designer can concentrate his/her efforts on the much more critical and available wave height variable.

E -2




2.2 Superposability of Background and Project Components

Because the nourishment project always represents a small perturbation to the planform geometry, it can be shown that it is possible to superpose linearly the effects of the transport and shoreline changes due to the pre-existing system and that of the project. As indicated, this is due to the relatively shoreline width increase compared to the project length. As an example, a project of 3 miles length that increases the beach width by 100 feet results in an average planform angle of approximately 0.7 degrees. This allows the tangent and sine of this angle to be represented by the angle and justifies the superposition. This result is significant since it allows separation of the project shoreline changes and transport from those due to the system prior to project construction. It is noted that this small angle approximation forms the basis of the so-called "Pelnard-Considere" theory which is applicable to beach nourishment planform evolution.
2.3 Project Evolution is Independent of Storm Sequencing
Based on idealized beach nourishment theory (the Pelnard Considere theory), the evolution of a project at a particular time is relatively insensitive to the sequence in which previous storms occur. This result can be extended to demonstrate that it is possible to represent the wave climate on a long straight beach by a single effective wave height.
3.0 SIMPLE METHOD OF CALCULATING BEACH NOURISHMENT EVOLUTION
3.1 General
The simple method of calculating beach nourishment evolution is one developed and documented by Dean and Grant (1989) in a report to the Division of Beaches and Shores (the predecessor to OBCS). As noted, the desirable features of this method include: (a) No calibration nor verification phases are required, (b) Nearly all parameters requiring specification are available in graphical forms, thereby removing a substantial portion of the subjectivity in design. It is hoped that this workshop will contribute to answering the dual questions: (a) Is this approach valid for design and if so in what role?, and (b) Are any quantitative adjustments suggested by the case studies presented in this workshop? The sections below describe and present the rationale for the simple method. The method will be illustrated by application to the Delray Beach Nourishment Project, the Midtown Beach Nourishment Project (which was stabilized by eleven groins) and the Manatee County Beach Nourishment Project in later sections of this report.
3.2 Ad Hoc Transformation of Actual System to One With Straight and Parallel Bottom Contours
A basis of the Simple Method is the transformation of the actual beach and nearshore system to one with straight and parallel contours (one of which is the shoreline). This transformation is illustrated in Figure E-1. Although the justification for this transformation is somewhat intuitive in nature and certainly has its limitations, rationale is provided by the aforementioned superposability of the

E -3




background and project transport and shoreline change components. As will be discussed later, the background transport will simply be superimposed on the project related transport which is calculated on the transformed system. Upon completion of the project evolution in the transformed system, the results are simply transformed back to the actual system.
Shoreline Sho eIne
ContoursContours
Ad Hoc Tranufonnalm
a) Initial Actual Shoreline b) InItIal Shoreline and
and Contours Contours to be Modeled.
Figure E-1. Conceptual Illustration of the Ad Hoc Transformation of the Actual System to One With Straight and Parallel Bottom
Contours.
3.3 Specification of Parameters
The significant parameters in beach nourishment design include: (1) Effective wave height, (2) Effective wave period, (3) Depth of closure, (4) Berm height, and (5) Sediment transport coefficient, K. In cases where the nourishment will be placed in conjunction with or in proximity to one or more structures, either the background transport or wave direction is also required. In the following sections, the determination of the five parameters above will be described, followed by recommendations for determining wave direction and background transport in those projects where required.
3.3.1 Effective Wave Height
The effective, deep water wave height is determined from Figure E-2. An example will be illustrated later for the Midtown Beach Nourishment Project for which the value of effective deep water wave height is 1.4 feet, and the Delray Beach Nourishment Project is 1. 1 feet.

E-4




.Del rd I. I ;t

Figure E-2. Recommended Effective Wave Height Around the State of
Florida.
3.3.2 Effective Wave Period
This variable is presented for the State of Florida in Figure E-3 where it is seen that the values for the Midtown and Delray Beach projects are 6.6 seconds and 6.4 seconds, respectively.

.O~Jr~

1
Figure E-3. Recommended Effective Wave Period Around the State of Florida.

E-5




3.3.3 Depth of Closure
Figure E-4 presents these results where it is seen that the recommended values for the Midtown Beach and Delray Beach projects are 14.9 ft and 14.2 ft, respectively.

h. (Feet) 12 16 20 24

LL.
16
12
JA
MA
ST
cc CL vs
WP
M1 16 20 24
h. (Feet)

Figure E- 4. Florida.

Recommended Depth of Closure, h., Around the State of

3.3.4 Berm Height
No figure has been prepared for the berm height as this is usually available from the historic data base compiled by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and also from profiles surveyed in preparation for the project. Recommended values for the two projects of interest here are both 6 feet.
E -6

M__ 14.1f t




3.3.5 Sediment Transport Coefficient, K

The recommended sediment transport coefficient in the so-called "CERC equation", K, is a function of the median grain size, D, as shown in Figure E-5.

2.0

1.0

S"Result From This Stu y,
7= Santa Barbara
* -Relationship Sugges ed
Previously
0.5 1.0
DIAMETER, D (mm)

Figure E-5. Variation of Sediment Transport Coefficient, K,
With Median Grain Size, D.
3.4 Application of Methodology
The original computer program, DNRBS, which was developed to predict the evolution due to a single beach nourishment has been modified to represent multiple nourishments (renourishments). In general, the actual longshore distribution of placed nourishment volume can be represented. The application of DNRBSM will first be illustrated for the Delray Beach Nourishment Project for which a total of 4 nourishments have been conducted since 1973, for the Midtown Beach Nourishment Project which has been nourished once in late 1995 and Which includes eleven groins and finally for the Manatee County Project.
3.4.1 Evolution Prediction of the Delray Beach Nourishment Project
The Delray Beach, FL beach nourishment project was first nourished in 1973 and has been nourished a total of four times with the timing and volumes as shown in Table 1. Figure E-6 shows the alongshore volumetric distributions of the four nourishments. The annotated input file for DNRBSM

E-7




is presented in Figure E-7 for this project for zero background erosion and a wave height of 1. 1 feet in which the additional lines have been added between lines of data to allow space for the annotation. For purposes here, the project results have been calculated for uniform background erosion rates of 0 and 2 ft/year and deep water wave heights of 1. 1 and 1.2 feet and are presented in Figure 8. The reason for the ranges in background erosion rates and wave heights here is to provide a measure of sensitivity.
Table E- I
Timing and Quantities of Beach Nourishment Events at Delray Beach, FL
Nourishment Date I Volume (Millions of Cubic
Number __ _1Yards)
1 July to August 1973 1.63
2 February to May 1978 0.70
3 September to October 1984 1.30
4 November to December 1992 1.02

0.50 0.00 0.50
LW00O Owsbnc P-1

Figure E-6. Nourishment Densities for the Four Delray Beach Nourishment Projects.

E -8




SAMPLE INPUT FOR DELRAY BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT
Delray Beach Nour. Project, Wave Ht = 1.2 ft, BE = 0.0 ft/year
1.20 6. 85.0 90.0 180. 52.0 86400.0 N.,
14.2 6.0 1.10 1.34 0.0 1 180 10950 0 4
0.0 0.0 90000. 0.0 49500. 2.0 60000. 3.0
90000. 3.0 100000. 3.0 140000. 2.0
7 i10 1 0.989
75 20.0 76 155.0 77 164.0 78 163.0
79 133.0 80 116.0
81 116.04
82 116.0
83 116.0 U uI
84 116.0 85 116.0 86 116.0 87 116.0 88 116.0 89 116.0 90 116 O'Pz T o a r91 116.0 92 116.0 93 116.0 94 116.0 95 116.0 96 112.0 97 107.0 98 105.0 99 105.0
100 105.0 /VINow'S Cl) 101 90.0 4 o s()
102 8. 1- %-78 1 1720 1.025
78 15.0 79 48.0 I ou 80 49.0 81 67.0 82 86.0 83 86.0
84 86.0 85 104.0 NOeters.kW
86 106.0 87 87.0 88 86.0 89 115.0
90 77.0
Figure E-7a. Input File for Delray Beach Nourishment Project (First Part).

E-9




91
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
75 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
102
85 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102

J o a r i-hkvrnaA ( Cc i -

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 32.0 32.0 82.0 102.0 61.0 102 4076 0.993 28.0
90.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0
96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0
96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0 96.0
96.0 90.0 8.0
102 7057 0.848 31.0 123.0 134.0
114.0 112.0
142.0 147.0 161.0
163.0 110.0
94.0 125.0 147.0 180.0 187.0
148.0 142.0 20.0

AIo"4,s h

Figure E-7b. Input File for Delray Beach Nourishment Project (Second Part).

E-IO

JLtA-




3
QO
OL 4:
2 Zt.
E 0
E
0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 1
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Figure E-8. Comparison of Monitoring and Calculated Volume Remaining. Delray Beach Nourishment Project.
4.4.2 Evolution Prediction of the Midtown Beach Nourishment Project
As noted, this project was constructed with eleven groins to provide stabilization. A total of 880,000 yd' was placed over a distance of 5,400 ft with placement commencing in October 1995 and concluding in December 1995. Construction of the eleven groins started in December 1995 and was completed in April 1996. The input file for the project with the groins present is presented in Figure E-9. The evolution will be calculated with and without the effects of groins to illustrate their influence on project evolution.
The calculated and monitored total volumes remaining in the project area from 1976 to 2000 are presented in Figure E- 10.

F I I




SAMPLE INPUT FOR MIDTOWN BEACHNNOURISHMENT PROJECT

Midtown Beach Nourishment Project, with groins 40T ,/-4 D V
1.40 6.4 85.0 90.0 180.0 325.0 8
14.9 6.0 1.10 1.29 0.171 1 1
85 98.0 86 112. 87 136.0 88
90 143.0 91 167.0 92 143.0 93
0.0 0.0 90000. 0.0 49500. 2.0
90000 3.0 100000. 3.0 140000. 2.0
81 97
81 97 1 0.998

DtT
6400.0 o, Asr-Aur5
80 3650 11 1

136.0 136.0
60000.

89 145.0
94 124.0
3.0

0 e,' P-+rex L.7v, Ad,&4

87.0 175.0
175.0 175.0
175.0 175.0
175.0 175.0 175.0 175 .0 175.0
175 .0 175 .0 175.0
175 .0 117. 0 58.0

For' No Lrt6 i n 'ev

Figure E-9. Input File for Midtown Beach Nourishment Project
4.4.3 Evolution Prediction of the Manatee County Beach Nourishment Project
Construction of this project included the placement of 2.32 million yd3 over a total project length of 4.2 miles and was completed in April 1993. The project included a 1,500 ft transition at the south end. Comparisons of measured and calculated total volumes remaining in the project area are presented in Figure E-11.

E-12




0.9
0. .... .. ........... ...
.2- ...Gro~i.nlenqths In creased b.40Fe
E
E 0.4....... .
, o4 ....... .NO Groin
E 0.3
0.2 0.1
0.0 I,
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Figure E- 10. Midtown Beach Nourishment Project. Comparison of Monitoring Results and Calculations. Demonstrating the Stabilizing Effects of Groins.

0
1990

1995 2000
Years

Figure E- 11. Blind-folded Comparison of Predicted and Measured Performances for Manatee County Project E- 13




Figures E-12 and E-13 present comparisons between predicted and measured alongshore distributions of shoreline changes from pre-construction to February 1995 and pre-construction to February 1999, respectively. Figures E- 14 and E- 15 present comparisons between predicted and measured alongshore distributions of volume densities for the same periods.

U
U
U
a
U
U

Pre-Built-02/1 995

4 UL

0 Av4 Me. Skoreie Ad'anc mentl l5.8 -e- Measured
350 -A eL .Pte4.uIlaa.A Y'caanL.I..1 .i- -- -e- Predicted
Ave As- built Shoretine Advancement- 2 3.1 e As-Built 300
250 ---- --- ---- --- -- '---A.
2 -, .
150 - -----
150 ---- -9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39

Monument
Figure E-12. Blind-folded Comparison Between Predicted and Measured Shoreline Changes for the Manatee County Project, Pre-Construction to February 1995.

Pre-Built-02/1999

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Monument
Figure E-13. Blind-folded Comparison Between Predicted and Measured Shoreline Changes for the Manatee County Project, Pre-Construction to February 1999.

E-14




Pre-Built-02/1995

-40 t
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Monument
Figure E-14. Blind-folded Comparison Between Predicted and Measured Volume Changes for the Manatee County Project, PreConstruction to February 1995.
Pre-Built-02/1999

120 ',100 80
60 o 40

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Monument
Figure E-15. Blind-folded Comparison Between Predicted and Measured Volume Changes for the Manatee County Project, PreConstruction to February 1999.

E- 15




APPENDIX F
A "WHITE PAPER" ON SHORELINE MODELING Prepared By
Bruce A. Ebersole, Mark B. Gravens, Hans Hanson and Nicholas C, Kraus

F-I




White Paper on Shoreline Modeling

Prepared for
Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems Department of Environmental Protection State of Florida
CETAC Workshop No. 2 Monitoring Guidelines and Beach Nourishment Design
Prepared by
Bruce A. Ebersole', Mark B. Gravens1, Hans Hanson 2, and Nicholas C. Kraus'
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
2 Department of Water Resources Engineering Lund Institute of Technology, University of Lund Box 118, Lund, Sweden S-221 00
October 20, 2000




Introduction

This paper was prepared to provide experienced-based information and views for consideration by the workshop participants. Our understanding is that 1 !/2-days of the subject 2-day workshop will be dedicated to Beach Nourishment and Prediction Methodology. We further understand that the focus of this portion of the workshop will be comparison of prediction methodologies, specifically the treatment of the background erosion rate' (BER), calibration, model results, and ease of application. According to material provided prior to the workshop (Letter of Dr. Robert G. Dean dated August 3, 2000) the GENESIS model will be compared with "a very simple model (DNRBS)" which was developed by Dr. Dean.
Based on this understanding, we have concern about the "ease of application" premise, the a-priori association of "very simple" with the model DNRBS and use of "Number of person hours for calibration" as a leading point of comparison. We believe that the workshop participants should view the comparison of the two prediction methodologies in the context of larger engineering issues associated with development of the most reliable modeling result leading to an optimized project design. The following comments address selected central issues of modeling for beach fill engineering design.
Model fundamentals and prediction methodology
It should be recognized that the underlying basic theory is the same for the GENESIS and DNRBS models. The differences being compared in the workshop are, therefore, differences in methodologies of application and not differences in principles of model formulation. As such, the GENESIS model could be applied within the constraints of the proposed simplified methodology with the same ease of application evidently attributed only to the DNRBS model. The 1989 GENESIS Technical Reference and other literature clearly discuss simplified applications, called the "scoping mode," and detailed applications, called the "design mode."
Although the theory of the models is the same, there is an enormous difference in the capabilities and generality of the two models, with the DNRBS model limited to idealized conditions and GENESIS capable of simulating idealized to complex conditions that change in space and time over the modeling domain. Examples are discussed below.
1Also recognized as the historical rate of shoreline change, allowing for the possibility of both landward and seaward translation of shoreline position, referenced to a common vertical datum. A given stretch of coast will likely have a long-term rate of change that varies in magnitude and direction, depending on location. The historical rate of change typically depends on the time period selected.




Level of effort vs reliability

Apparent from the "Format for Presentation" outline provided by the workshop organizers, a major point of comparison is the time (person hours) required for calibration. This point of comparison is biased in favor of the DNRBS model because, among other issues, the DNRBS calibration methodology amounts to the enforcement of a user-specified (externally provided) BER that is implemented as a background transport gradient within the model. Consequently, the calibration of the IDNRBS model rests in great part on a userspecification and not on determination of time-varying model inputs to replicate conditions occurring at the project. As such, questions about the BER include how it was arrived at, its reliability and variability, and the time frame and spatial extent of its validity. Blind specification of the BER dangerously avoids the profound question of the causes of the erosion and accretion along the coast. We recommend that questions on the proposed DNRBS BER methodology such as the above be raised at the workshop.
More important than level of effort required for model calibration is the reliability of model predictions. We believe model calibration to replicate long-term measured shoreline change within the context of an acceptable sediment transport regime results in a more accurate treatment of the processes and leads to more reliable results than does calibration by user-specification of a rate of shoreline change. The process of calibration itself provides the modeler/designer with insights about the important coastal processes active at the project site.
Treatment of "background erosion"
The workshop organizers have not defined "background erosion" or how it should be estimated. Is background erosion produced by longshore transport or by cross-shore transport, or both? Can background erosion be described adequately by the seven allowable position-erosion rate pairs at all project domains? What is the appropriate time scale for determining the BER at a point? What are the limitations of the methodology? How well does the BER replicate observed shoreline change over the last 10 to 15 years? How does one compute the BER where the data indicate long periods (10 to 30 years) of shoreline progradation followed by long periods of shoreline erosion or vice a versa? How are possible changes in sediment inputs from the boundaries (e.g., bypassing at inlets, feeder beaches) of the project accounted for?
Ad-hoc transformation vs 2D wave model
The ad-hoc transformation recommended by the workshop organizers involves simulating the evolution of a beach fill placed on a long straight shoreline and transferring the predicted shoreline changes to the prototype. This simplification of procedure enables predictions to be made for coastal reaches with geomorphic features that may be "straightened out" if the predictions were made




using the arcuate prototype shoreline. We believe a modeling approach that aims to capture the processes that sustain an arcuate shoreline produces a more reliable modeling result than does the ad-hoc transformation. Examples include running a 2D wave model such as STWAVE to define nearshore wave conditions which act, in nature, to maintain the arcuate shoreline, or simulating the influence of stable regional contours that control the geomorphology within the project domain. How is the improved performance that comes with maturation of beach nourishment projects analyzed within the context of the ad-hoc transformation technique? Utilization of the ad-hoc transformation technique precludes the possibility of identifying post-construction hot spots and examining the influence dredging of nearshore borrow areas may have on incident wave conditions and associated shoreline change.
Coastal structures, beach fill and boundary conditions
Although the DNRBS model can represent beach fill and groins, it does not allow for multiple beach nourishments to occur within a given model simulation (as in life-cycle simulations), and the treatment of groins (and jetties) within the DNRBS model is simplified (e.g., no groin permeability, no diffraction, no bypassing prior to groin burial). GENESIS, on the other hand, includes capabilities to simulate both diffracting and non-diffracting groins, detached breakwaters (with wave transmission), seawalls, and complex structures (T- and L- groins and jetty spurs). GENESIS allows for the specification of multiple beach fills each with its own spatial and temporal characteristics, enabling great flexibility for the examination of multiple nourishment cycles and the interaction of multiple projects. GENESIS also allows for the simulation of multiple point or line sediment sources or sinks with arbitrary spatial and temporal definitions (for simulating mechanical bypassing, or sediment supply from rivers or streams, or accounting for losses or gains of sediment by cross-shore processes). GENESIS is equipped to handle a variety of lateral boundary conditions (pinned-beach, moving shoreline position, and gated). The DNRBS model allows only a pinnedbeach boundary condition.
Modeling shoreline change for project design and optimization
Although GENESIS can be applied within the context of the (simple) DNRBS methodology, it always contains all the features of a complete engineering design tool and is equipped to simulate the influence of a wide variety of coastal engineering activities and project settings. The IDNRBS model and methodology can analyze only the simplest of projects. Using the DNRBS model and methodology to simulate the evolution of a rectangular beach fill gives a sediment budget in which the net transport equals the gross transport at all calculation cells. Unlike GENESIS, the IDNRBS model is unable to simulate the interaction of multiple project features (seawalls, structures, beach fill transitions, natural sediment bypassing, mechanical bypassing operations, etc.) or to




quantify the performance differences between project alternatives that may include one or more of the project features previously listed.
There is an investment of time required for the development of a calibrated GENESIS model for a given project study area. However, the return on that investment by way of analysis capabilities we believe outweighs the limitations of adopting the DNRBS model and methodology. In addition, GENESIS may be applied using a layered approach, starting with a DNRBS-compatible scoping mode application and then gradually and, as necessary, including more complex features and methodologies. There is automatic upward compatibility and room for growth to more complexity in project design.
Recognizing differing scales of projects we acknowledge that the DNRBS model and methodology may be appropriate for some projects (fill placed on a long and straight shoreline with no seawalls, for example). However, if the project represents a significant investment of public resources we believe the engineering analysis should be performed utilizing a reliable modeling tool and methodologies for which various alternatives can be realistically described.
Future developments in shoreline change modeling
The US Army Corps of Engineers continues to invest in the development of GENESIS and associated tools. Model capabilities currently being worked on include representation of transport by tidal and wind-generated currents, and formation of tombolos at detached breakwaters and T-head groins. GENESIS (together with STWAVE and numerous related analysis and visualization tools, including 2D grid generation) has been integrated into a modern Windows-based modeling system known as NEMOS (Nearshore Evolution Modeling System). Veri-Tech Inc (a Cooperative Research and Development partner with the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center) markets the NEMOS software as a computational module within the Coastal Engineering Design and Analysis System (CEDAS). The Corps will host a training workshop on the application of NEMOS software prior to and in association with the 13t" Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology (February 6-7, 2001). The workshop will give the coastal consulting industry and academic communities the opportunity to hear about on-going R&D for GENESIS and the operation of the NEMOS interface, as well as to provide feedback for improvement of the NEMOS software. We welcome your comments on how to improve GENESIS and its associated toolboxes and models.




APPENDIX G
RESULTS OF WORKING GROUP 1
"Role of Modeling in Beach Nourishment Design"
Prepared by:
Chris Creed, Mark Gravens, Michael Poff, Bob Brantly
and Mark Leadon (Chairman)

G-1




CETAC Workshop # 2 (October 24-26, 2000) Presentation by Working Group 1
Discussion Topics
I. Role Of Simple and Complex Models in Beach Design II. Needs for Model Development III. Needs for Model Data Accuracy
Group Members
Mark Leadon, Chris Creed, Mark Gravens, Michael Poff, Bob Brantly
Discussion Summary
1. Role Of Simple (Idealized) and Complex (Generalized) Models in
Beach Design
General Role (of both types):
* Develop understanding of site specific coastal processes
* Predict overall project performance
* Predict localized project performance
* Predict potential adverse project impacts (ie, downdrift erosion)
* Assist in educating the public about project expectations (including
ability to provide simple graphical depictions of expected project
performance)
General Comment: Use of any model should be dependent on sitespecific project/site elements, such as;
" Economic constraints
" Environmental constraints
" Complexity of beach & nearshore areas
" Project components
- beach fill only
- structures (groins, breakwaters)
- seawalls
- inlet affects
- bypassing
- etc.




Note: Some members of the group suggested substituting the words simple and complex with "idealized" and "generalized", respectively.
Some specific model roles:
Simple/Idealized
* Develop order-of-magnitude volumetric requirement
" Provide estimation/verification of gross transport/shoreline
change rates (cross check for complex/generalized models)
* Tool for preliminary project evaluation (ie, budget, project
life, etc.)
Complex/Generalized
* Design & design optimization
" Provides a tool to demonstrate and assist in improving
understanding of coastal processes & morphological
changes
" Assists in identification of hot spots
" Evaluation of benefits/impacts of project features
(ie, complex bathymetry, structures, bypassing, sand sinks)
Comment: It was noted by group members that complex models can be set up and run in a simplified manner and, conversely, that simple
models may be used to provide insight into some of the items listed
under "Complex/Generalized" above.
II. Needs for Model Development
* Integration of cross-shore & longshore models/model results
(including storm response)
* Incorporation of possible performance variability (statistics)
* Improving representation of boundary conditions, model inputs,
project features (ie, structures, reefs, etc.)
* Generalize sediment transport relationship to include processes
other than breaking waves (ie, tide-driven currents, wind, etc.)
Additional input/comments during presentation:
Bob Dean 1) Need capability to represent profile response in cases
of mixed sediments, 2) In cases where projects do not perform to




expectations, a focused effort should be developed to identify and
document cause(s).
Emmett Foster Consider and develop alternative methods for
calibrating models.
111. Needs for Model Data Organization
*Standardization of formats for input and output
*Inventory of existing project model results and monitoring data,
and model prediction vs. monitoring performance analyses
*Develop database of project design components and model vs.
monitoring results with standardized project fact sheets and
comparative analyses results including standardized shoreline and
volumetric change graphics.
Fact sheets should include (w/attachments) the following:
" Summary of project including design components,etc.
" Design predictions
" Project performance
" Monitoring data/analyses
*Organize information into documented summary and provide
information through accessible medium (ie, internet)
Additional Point: Model calibration/verification intervals should be of sufficient duration that they represent reasonable approximation of the historical change and expected future without-project shoreline change.




APPENDIX H
RESULTS OF WORKING GROUP 2
"Monitoring Issues"
Prepared by:
Gary Anderson, Kevin Bodge, Chuck Dill, Cynthia Perez,
Linda Lillicrop and Echo Gates (Chair)

H-1




MONITORING ISSUES

Working Group Participants
Gary Anderson
Kevin Bodge
Chuck DIll
Echo Gates
Linda Lrnlycrop
Cynthia Perez
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
The Department at present requires project monitoring through the Joint Coast Permit (JCP) where non-compliance with timely data collection and reporting is difficult to enforce. Regulators have no rule to reference when compliance with monitoring requirements in a permnit is not met by project sponsors and their contractors. By shifting monitoring requirements to the project agreements the Department enters into with local governments, the task then comes through staff review through the scope of work submitted before initiation of work and enforcement of the requirement becomes possible through contractual obligation.
If project monitoring is to be successful, standardization of practices should be established and communicated to sponsor, engineers, surveyors and others interested in the monitoring process. The working group was charged with providing recommendations to the Department on project performance monitoring and graphic representations of the collected data. Recommendations from the group will provide input to the QA/QC+ Plan for use in project quality assurance and control at the contract/project agreement level. The plan is presently under development by Engineering Staff of the Beach Management Section of the Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems.
RECOMMENDATION FOR SPECIFICATION:
Topoeraphic and Bathymetric
" Annual surveys I month.
" Define acceptable accuracy and let the markettsituation determine method of data collection.
" Survey to depth of closure + additional 10% of the profile to capture bathymetry for extreme
events.I
" Survey to monument + 50' landward (minimum); further landward for profiles vulnerable to
erosion or inundation.
" Profile data to be collected at every monument depending on site.
" Extend surveys up/downdrift until out of expected projec-t influence.

H-2




" Establish level of confidence/accurancy of profiling with minimum of 3 repeats at every 1Ith
line or as appropriate to the situation.
" Off/onshore surveys completed within 10 days of each other. Sediment
" Pre-construction grab samples from a minimum of five sites: dune, berm, intertidal zone, bar,
and offshore. Quantity, storage methods, archive site are to be determined. Post-construction grab samples similar to pre-construction. One sample similar to pre-construction between nourishment cycles. Characterize all native beaches statewide. Archive materials and analysis of statewide characterization of native beaches in a single
repository and maintain in perpetuity.
" Describe date of collection and location by county and nearest R-monument for each sample. Reporting
" Reports should include all data, and subsequent interpretation. Provide all data in digital format; and print a hard-copy of all profile and sediment grain size
data in appendix, noting, dates, datum, etc.
" Report should include an after-action assessment stating why performance conformed to or
departed from design.
Graphics
" Include explanatory data on each graph; including, as appropriate,
a. Project and county name
b. Range or locations of R-monuments described by data
c. Depth to which volume calculation is made
d. Elevations (with datum) of depicted shoreline or contour data
e. Date or elapsed time to which data apply
f. Date of bathymetric survey g. Date of topographic survey
h. Name of contractor
" Where color is used to differentiate data, also use distinguishing line types or symbols fox
clarity in photocopies.

H-3




Maximum of four survey dates per graphic; maximum of three is preferred.
- Pre-project prediction curves can be depicted as a reasonably tight range in those instances
where performance is highly uncertain.
* These are minimum recommended guidelines; investigator is encouraged to prepare'
additional graphics and analysis that further describe project specific performance.
Examples:
Each of the following types of performance graphics should be prepared for each report and project, in addition to other graphics and analysis that might further illustrate specific project performance.
iBeach Profiles
im Include at all measured R-monuments, as an appendix if needed. Vertical exaggeration preferably 5:1 but less than 15:1.
* Limit to a maximum of four dates per plot.
* Add vertical and horizontal grid lines.
* Show full profile length. Preferable to also depict "blow-up" of profile data at beachface
(dune to -6') where profiles are long and changes in shoreface difficult to see.
Volume performance
100%
.c .Ca E
n- nE --e Actual
*---* Predicted
> 0%
0
Time (months post-construction)
Volume vs. time (a.k.a. cumulative volume change vs. time) Show for total volume above closure (specify depth) for total project length, or sub-reaches
of length where performance or objectives vary alongshore.
I* Depict for total volume above specified upper beach contour (ex., MHW, NGVD, MLW, etc) I* Display the design prediction in all graphs.

H-4




iShoreline and Planform Area Performance

F Initial post-equilibrium
J prediction or design value
-. . ---. --. -- --- 100%
I- Actual
<---* Predicted 00
0 Time (months post-construction)
Depict as total planform change or reach-averaged beach width change, versus time. Depict at a specified contour elevation with datum noted. Include design predictions, including minimum design value and or initial predicted
equilibrium adjustment value.
'Combined Volume Width (or Planform) Depiction

100%
E OR 0%

Total Volume above Closure Planform (or Average Width)

-4

Time (months post-construction)
Comparative temporal change of volume and berm width, relative to post-construction values of 100%, depicts equilibration process. (For example, a more rapid percentage decline in the postconstruction beach width or planform area, relative to the total measured change in beach volume, suggests cross-shore equilibration of the fill.)

H-5




Alonashore Variation

Post Equilibrium Advance Fill
----------- Design Benn
--------- Measured Shoreline or Volume

Shoreline Map

Show this graph for beach width (MHW, or referenced to 0' NGVD, etc.) and for total volume alongshore (cy/ft).
fath: G:lCETACWorkshopslO-24-OOlMonitor.Recommendations.doc

H-6

0
0




APPENDIX I
RESULTS OF WORKING GROUP 3
"Design Accuracy Assessment and Calibration Methods"
Prepared by:
Emmett Foster, Mark Leadon, Karen Erickson, Brett Moore,
and Tom Campbell (Chairman)




APPENDIX I
RESULTS OF WORKING GROUP 3
"Design Accuracy Assessment and Calibration Methods"
Working Group Participants
Emmett Foster, Karyn Erickson, Brett Moore, and Tom Campbell (Chairman)
INTRODUCTION
There are a number of projects that appear to be performing differently than designed; some of these projects have needed more nourishment sooner than expected creating a public perception of failure. Others have performed better than expected on average but have experienced the formation of hot spots that require early attention and the appearance of at least partial failure. The committee discussed the, scope of these problems and how the design process could be modified to address these concerns.
EXAMPLES AND CAUSES OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS
Martin County Beach Nourishment: Requires renourishment in 4 years rather than 11 as designed. Tfhe beach is less than half of the design width and surveys suggest that more than 2/3 of the placed material has eroded away.
Longboat Key 1993: Construction provided an average beach of only 50 ft instead of the 70 ft design and the mid key beach protecting the coastal road was only 25 ft wide after two years.
Anna Maria Island: Beach nourishment experienced an offshore movement of sand 30% higher than expected resulting in narrower than design beaches; compensating design procedures allowed for placement of additional sand that improved public perception of performance based on visual observation.
Captiva Island 1998/1999: Beach nourishment experienced two hot spots that lost most of their fill in 7 years even though the average losses were lower than expected.
Ocean Ridge 1998: Beach nourishment is eroding faster than predicted with the southern 1/3 of the project needing nourishment after only 2 years. The total remaining project volume is close to the expected design range however because of extra fill that the contractor placed outside the design template.
Jupiter Island 1974-1982: Projects lost all dry beaches in less than 3 years as finer sands moved offshore.
Delray Beach, Longboat Key, Captiva Island: Projects have required nourishment volumes 2-5 times the volume that would be predicted by the historic erosion rate of those beaches.




The major reasons for performance problems are:

1. Cross-shore equilibration greater than expected
2. End losses greater than expected
3. Hot spot erosion
DISCUSSION
1. Cross-Shore Design
Cross-shore designs have been based on creating a beach that takes similar offshore slopes to the native beach. Early designs used a two-slope method and later designs use a profile translation method, which is more accurate. Grain size differences are accounted for by overfill or equilibrium profile adjustments; the latter having more basis in scientific design. The accuracy of the dry beach prediction is largely based on how close the offshore profile shape can be predicted.
The most accurate way to account for offshore movement of placed fill is to assume that the nourished profile at equilibrium will be similar to the prenourished beach profile with adjustments expected for grain size differences between the native and the nourished beach. Additional adjustments may be expected if the native beach was artificially steepened by structures, which will not be affecting the nourished beach; in those cases more sand will move offshore once the beach is nourished. Designers still use an array of design methods to develop their cross-shore design, which can lead to problems. It would be helpful if the design standard were developed by the state.
Reviewers can look for the depth that the equilibrated profile intercepts the native profile; if that depth is above the depth of closure than the project is probably under designed. It should be noted that the largest errors are possible when the native and nourished sand are computed to be exactly equal because a small difference in actual grain size would result in big differences in cross shore performance.
Even when a coarse grained material computes to provide a large fill savings because of shallow intercepting profiles it may be appropriate to consider only a portion of those savings because the post nourishment active profile will include the seaward portion of the native beach which has the finer sands.
2. End Losses
Early Florida beach nourishment considered only background erosion rates to estimate long-term nourishment needs of a project, which in all cases has led to significant underestimates of long-term nourishment needs. One reason for the underestimate was the lack of consideration of end losses due to the spreading or diffusion of the sand to the adjacent beaches. ( the other reason was the need to feed hot spots)




More recent design practice includes estimates of end losses. In many cases however the end losses are still underestimated leading to under design of the project. In some cases the underestimates are caused by reliance on the GENESIS model results, which often shows little or no end losses (because of calibration problems we suspect). In other cases a token amount of end loss (say 10, 000-15,000 cy/yr) is included to show that it was considered to project reviewers. In some cases it was stated that the overfill calculation somehow included the end loss which it doesn't.
Project reviewers should expect that on east coast projects, unconstrained nourishments with 8-year renourishment intervals would have end losses in the range of 50,000 -75,000 cubic yards per year depending on their length and re-nourishment interval. On West coast projects the end losses will be in the range of 25,000 -50,000 cubic yards per year. If projects were constrained at one end than end losses would be half of the stated amounts. End losses should be added to background erosion rates (and hot spot erosion) to estimate nourishment needs.
3. Hot Spot Erosion
All projects erode at different rates along their length; some project segments actually accrete. Nourished projects often develop hot spot areas that erode much faster than the average erosion rate of the project. This differential erosion rate creates a need for placement of additional fill in the project above the net erosion that the project experiences. This is why constrained project fills like Captiva Island and Longboat Key are being nourished at 2-3 times the net rate of erosion of the island and the reason why Delray Beach now contains more than twice the initial fill placed in 1973 after four nourishments.
The renourishment rate of a project should include the consideration that there will be differential erosion along the project length, which will require renourishment volumes greater than the net loss of sand. Designers almost never consider this when they first design the beach, which makes any review of long-term nourishment projections look bad. Long projects suffer the most from this underestimate since there are more opportunities for differential erosion. For example the 18 mile long Panama City beach project had a long-term average net erosion rate of only 30,000 cy/yr, which suggests that the project would need to be renourished with only 150,000 every 5 years. Considering that we placed 9,000,000 cubic yards of sand and the project is experiencing normal levels of differential erosion the early estimates of renourishment are in the range of 1,000,000 cy almost 7 times the net rate of erosion.
This is a new area for designers but it is not trivial and, if neglected, will unfavorably reflect the State's program. If hot spots are treated with structures, gross erosion can be brought closer to net erosion rates. However structures should only be used if they are cost beneficial or if sand is in limited supply. It is suggest that an amount of fill equal to 5-10,000cy /mile/yr be added to nourishment estimates to account for hot spot erosion.




APPENDIX J
Material Provided. for Case Study 1
MANATEE COUNTY BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT




U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
OFFICE OF BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS
Coastal Engineering Technical Advisory Committee Workshop 2
BEACH NOURISHMENT DESIGN AND PREDICTION METHODOLOGY: CASE STUDY

I. GENERAL PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
(a) Project Name:
(b) When Designed:
(c) Project Setting (DEP Monuments, County):
(d) Numerical Model Used:
(e) Project Length [miles]:
(f) Project Volume [cubic yards]:
(g) Project Cost:
(h) Distribution of Nourishment Volume Density:
(i) Borrow Area Location and Characteristics:
(j) Native Sand Size Characteristics:
(k)
(1) Nourishment Sand Size Characteristics:
(m) Additional Relevant Project Features:
(n) Has Project Been Constructed?:
(o) Are Monitoring Data Available?:
(p) If Answer to (o) is Yes, Please Describe:

Manatee County, Florida, Shore Protection Project
1988- 1991
Manatee County, FDEP Monuments R-12 to R-33.3
GENESIS
4.2
2,153,000 (5/91, GDM): 2,324,000 (3/93, As-Built)
$8,574,000 $3.69 per cy
97 cubic yard per foot of shoreline
Adjacent to project south end in depths of 15-20' (MLW). D50 = 0.36mm (Less Shell D50 = 0.17mm)
D50 = 0.30mm (Less Shell D50 = 0.12mm) Overfill Ratio = 1.20, Renourishment Ratio = 1.20 Taper at south end of project Is 0.5 mile long.

Yes
Yes
Beach Profile Surveys:
Dec-92 Feb-93 Mar-98

JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT




U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSJAKOVLEDSRC

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICE OF BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS Coastal Engineering Technical Advisory Committee Workshop 2
BEACH NOURISHMENT DESIGN AND PREDICTION METHODOLOGY: CASE STUDY [I. CALIBRATION EFFORTS AND RESULTS (Based on Previous Work)
(a) Special Efforts Required in Calibration: Recession rate of 2.3 ft/yr had to be imposed.
(b) Results (Calibration Error [ft]): 9.1
(c) Person Hours Required for Calibration Effort: 80
(d) Coefficients Used in GENESIS Calibration: K1 0.2

(e) Values in Design for: 111. APPLICATION OF SIMPLE METHOD
(a) Person Hours Required for Calibration Effort:

K2 =0.2
Depth of Closure, h* [ft] =20.2 Berm Height, B [ft] =5.0 Total 25.2

(b) Coefficient Use in Calibration: K =
(c) Values in Design for: Depth of Closure, h* [ft]
Berm Height, B [ft]=
IV. COMPARISON OF RESULTS FROM TWO METHODS
(a) Present, in Graphical Form, the Predicted Total Volume Remaining Within the Project Area,
versus Time for the Two Methods.
(b) Present, in Graphical Form, the Predicted Longshore Distribution of Volume Density for
Various Times for the Two Methods.
(c) If Monitoring Data for the Completed Project are Available, Present and Compare in
Graphical Forms, the Measured Volumes Remaining Within the Project Area for the Available Times and the Predicted Volumes Remaining Within the Project Area, for the Available Times
and for the Two Methods.
(d) If Monitoring Data for the Completed Project are Available, Present and Compare in
Graphical Forms, the Longshore Distribution of Measured Volume Density for the Available
Times and the Longshore Distributions of Predicted Volume Densities for the Available Times
and for the Two Methods.

JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT




Shore Protection Project
presented by:
Thomas D. Smith, P.E.
Jacksonville District
U.S. Army GQrps of Engineers

-

ITON L ',j AUTHORIZED STUDY
L-J AUTHORIZED PROJE(
CONSTRUCTED
MAINT. PLACEMENT
MANATEE
COUNTY I




i Lbupl o noui.nharWiatoium .tt --:
rrwArea Location iand Charactoirisics:-




_____e'so Hours Re lufred for Callbration Effort: 80-C H"erS n a I- ..
.(d)t felilents Ued In GENESIS Calibration: K( K(2 0.21
A) Values In Design for: Depth ofClosure f 20.2
ermHeght B[ft] 5.0
otal@.
ilAPPLICATION OF SIMPLE IEHOD ~ ~ 1 2.
".)i Lo.~i+ ...................
t++,l. +....... ..... PP I ATO +.....O S M LE- .. ..... ...... METHOD+ -, ............... 'r-..... fr.......v... ....... + i+ 1' +

'411t
4. 4-4E V 0----9-0 -0-* '




A N N: RUH.S6/SINUILATION-8.ZS.2, ILL/RCESSION

-+ INIT. SHORELINE 4---+--+ CALCULATED
S DIFF. GROIN
---...-.. SEMML
- BEACH FILL
-DESIGN SHORELINE

1 12 14 16

- I I I i

28 22 24
E COORDINATES

28 38

A N K: RUN.S89 SINUItTON/WS.2 /.'2/FILL/M.CR/REC.A0-B-8-1998

- +4 INIT. SHORELINE
-**+--+ CALCULATED 58- ** -* DIFF. GROIN
.......... SUMALL
oe- DESIGN SHORELINE
- .86 0'q.
- ",---- "
. ..
T ,.




Northern Portion of Project (Looking North)
2.000/ 9/12
Northern Portion of Project (Looking South)
2000/ 9 12




Central Portion of Project (Looking North)
20001 9/12
Central Portion of Project (Looking South)
20001 9/ 12




J-10

Southern Portion of Project (Looking North) v 1 2
Southern Portion of Projel-t (Looking South)
2 U 0 0 Y / 12




Years ,"
Blind-Fo ded Compison of Pred cled and M a aired Peafnfm mr fn IU ,m-n ,.k, n'...:

J-11

Longboat Pass (Looking North)
2000/ 9/ 12




a0 PIoje Am8
40- ------ --
20
20
so
0 2 3 4 6 7
Miles South of Passage Key Inet
iod-Folded Calculation of Shorine Position
for Manatee County Pojec 5.8 Years After Nourishment

J-12

MANATEE COUNTY SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT
Fill Remaining In Project Area: Measured and Predicted

2400000

100%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time [months]




J-13




APPENDIX K
Material Provided for Case Study 2
MARTIN COUNTY BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT

K- I




MODELING EFFORTS
AND
RESULTS

* Special Effor.s Req'F Calibation:
- Shorelines fitted at expense of historical transport rates
* Calibration Error 25 feet
* Person Hours Req'd for Calibration
- 176 hours (estimated)




AUTHORIZEDSTUDY
AUTHORIZED PROJE( CONSTRUCTED
MAINT. PLACEMENT
LOCATION MAP
NIARTIN COUNTY

K-3

MARTIN COUNTY




* Project Descriptibi
- Recommended Length 3.75 miles
- Dune Restoration 20' wide, +13.6' mlw, 1:5 slope
- Beach Berm 35' wide, +9.1 mlw, 1:8.5 &1:20 slopes
- Renourishment Interval 11 years
- Overfill Ratio 1.0 .(Native 0.27mm, BQrrow ..038 mm

Commenced Dec 95

K-4




March 1996
- Storm of the Century hits
during construction
Winter 1996
- Continuous northeasters
February 1998
. Northeaster

" Beach Profile Surveys
- Pre- & Post-fill ('92, '94, 5/95, 11/95, 6/96, 12/96, '97, '98, '99,'00)
- Post-storm (4/96,12/96, 11/99, 12/99) Aerials Photography
- B&W, controlled digital images ('92,'96, '97, '98, '99) Sand Samples
- 4 stations along profiles (19P 96 4P

K-5




Post-fill
8 months Post-fill 1st Year Post-fill 4th Year Post-fill
* Volume Changes

PROJECT STATUS

* Renourishment scheduledfor

K-6

+105 ft
-44 ft
-54 ft
-65 ft




MODELING EFFORTS
AND
RESULTS

* Special Efforts Reqd"Ga'libration.
- Shorelines fitted at expense of historical transport rates
* Calibration Error
25 feet
* Person Hours Req'd for Calibration
- 176 hours (estimated)
* Calibration Coeffigiepts




u measured
07
won
Legend
40.0 nlamPredicted
20 0 .....
C
measured
K-8
-20.0 lvAZ
-40.0 ........ ... ..... ... ....u re
. o. ......... ... ............. P redicted
5-mths
K-8




Shorelihne Changes (f19 5191

Pro

L measured

Legend
- Measured
- Predicted

a, a)
a) 0,
0 a,
0
I
0




2.0
2.0 .... ........ ........ .... ... ...... ... ... .
o ........._.. _... . ... .. _. ... ..
0.6
c .... ... .... . ...... :............ ........ ." .......... i.......... .......... ........ ....
4~~~ ~~~~~~ -- -- :---- ---.. .... ...
-2
P . .. ... ......... ..........;.....:.....!.......
.. .. .. .. .. . ....... .. . .:.... . .
..... .... ... . .
Years
, Predicted Performance for Marfin County Be ich Nour shment Pro act
:: MW N N..I .
K-10




K-11




APPENDIX L
Material Provided for Case Study 3
CAPTIVA ISLAND BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT