• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Main
 Reference
 Beach profile survey data
 Summary plots of longshore distribution...














Group Title: Dade County, Florida, Beach Nourishment Project
Title: Part 1: Description and analysis of changes
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091373/00001
 Material Information
Title: Part 1: Description and analysis of changes
Series Title: Dade County, Florida, Beach Nourishment Project
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Liotta, Roberto
Publisher: Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Dept. of Civil & Coastal Engineering, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00091373
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
    Reference
        Page 31
        Page 32
    Beach profile survey data
        Page A-1
        Page A-2
        Page A-3
        Page A-4
        Page A-5
        Page A-6
        Page A-7
        Page A-8
        Page A-9
        Page A-10
        Page A-11
        Page A-12
        Page A-13
        Page A-14
        Page A-15
        Page A-16
        Page A-17
        Page A-18
        Page A-19
        Page A-20
        Page A-21
        Page A-22
        Page A-23
        Page A-24
        Page A-25
        Page A-26
    Summary plots of longshore distribution of shoreline and volume changes
        Page B-1
        Page B-2
        Page B-3
        Page B-4
        Page B-5
        Page B-6
        Page B-7
Full Text




UFL/COEL-98/018


DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEACH NOURISHMENT
PROJECT

PART 1: DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF CHANGES










by

Roberto Liotta
and
Robert G. Dean


November 1998













Dade County, Florida, Beach Nourishment Project


Part 1: Description and Analysis of Changes





November 18, 1998




by

Roberto Liotta
and
Robert G. Dean


Project Sponsor:

Division of Beaches and Coastal Systems
Department of Environmental Protection
Tallahassee, Florida 32399





Submitted by:

Department of Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611









Dade County, Florida, Beach Nourishment Project Description and Analysis ofchanges



Table of Contents




Page
List of Figures. iii
List of Tables. v
1.0 Introduction and Purpose 1
2.0 Background. 1
2.1 General. 1
2.1.1 Government Cut. 2
2.1.2 Bakers Haulover Inlet. 3
2.1.3 September 1926 Hurricane. 3
2.1.4 Construction of Shoreline Stabilization Structures. 3
2.1.5 Dade County, Florida, Beach Erosion and Hurricane
Surge Protection Project. 5
2.1.6 Renourishments. 7
3.0 Data Sources. 8
4.0 Data Analysis. 10
4.1 Beach Profiles and Sand Characteristics. 10
4.1.1 Beach Profiles. 10
4.1.2 Sand Characteristics. 11
4.2 Shorelines. 13
4.3 Sand Volume Changes 18
4.4 Interpretations. 25
4.4.1 Model for Shoreline Displacement. 25
4.4.2 Consideration of Shoreline Change due to
Profile Equilibration. 27









Dade County, Florida, Beach Nourishment Project

5.0 Conclusions

6.0 References.

Appendix A: Beach Profile Survey Data

Appendix B: Summary Plots of Longshore Distribution of
Shoreline and Volume Changes.


Description and Analysis ofchan es









aLCLCC tflULL v. a ii, ,tta Iv o CUr JV L IJLuLJIL C i u t i [ac aa tl L a at umetn ,aua V.a.- Ua n-Lun eCs


List of Figures





Figure Page

1 County Location for the Study Area. 2

2 Bal Harbour Beach after the 1975 Nourishment and Surfside Beach
Before the 1976 Nourishment. 4

3 Groin System North of Lummus Park. 4

4 Borrow Site Locations for the Beach Nourishment Project. 6

5 Map of the Different Phases of the Beach Nourishment Project. 7

6 Comparison between 1980 and 1996 Average Profiles. 11

7 Sand Grain Size Distribution, Dade County Nourishment Project. . 12

8 Sand Grain Size Composite Frequency Curves,
Dade County Nourishment. 13

9 Cross-Shore Distribution of Average Median Sediment Size. 13

10 Shoreline Positions for Different Periods Relative to
the Shoreline Position of 1962. 14

11 Annual Rate of Shoreline Change for a Five Month Period
Between 1980 and 1981. 16

12 Annual Shoreline Change Rate for the Period 1992 to 1996,
Shoreline Change from 1962 to 1996 and Number of Years for the
Shoreline to Reach the 1962 Position Based on 1992 to 1996
Erosion Rate. 17

13 Total Volume Changes and Volume Added Relative to 1962
Between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Government Cut. 21


n,~r, r,....~.. cl,,:~, a,,,r. hl,..,;,l.,.,,, Drin~r


no~rrinri~ ~nrJ An~~l;r. ,rl^-.-^I










f~lad rn,nti,, FinridA Ronch Aln,,ri'ghnint Prnioct


nFlr"vrint~n and Annlrvriv nfXrhnnuov


Figure Page

14 Total Volume Changes Relative to 1980 Between Bakers Haulover
Inlet and Government Cut. 23

15 Comparison Between Volume Changes per Unit Length Based on
Profile Changes and Shoreline Changes. 24

16 Components of Measured Shoreline Displacements. 26

17 Model for Shoreline Changes due to a Single Nourishment. 28

18 Average Shoreline Changes (Best Fitting Curve) for the Reach
Between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Monument R-65. 29


Dade Countv Florida Beach Nourishment Proiect Descri tion and Analvsis of chan- -~ I-., c









fladt Ctnunt FinridA Ronch Nn,,riditnront Prni~.-


S't'Lt3Jt U, o lnuan 3L3 (8 U lanles


List of Tables





Table Page

1 Characteristics of the Five Phases of the Dade County Beach
Nourishment Project. 6

2 Available Survey Data for Miami Beach. 8

3 Volume Changes Characteristics for Various Beach Segments,
1992-1996. 19

4 Hot Spot Characteristics, 1992-1996. 19

5 Volumetric Changes Characteristics, from R-58 to R-65 for
Various Depth Ranges, 1981-1986. . 20

6 List of the Most Significant Events. . 22

7 Comparison of Average Shoreline Changes Relative to 1980. . 27

8 Data Used in Determining Decay Parameter, k. . 28









Dade County, Florida, Beach Nourishment Project






Part 1: Description and Analysis of Changes




1- Introduction and Purpose


This report documents the background and performance of the "Dade County Beach
Nourishment Project", which was constructed over the period 1976 to 1983. This report presents data
and analysis results based on beach profile monitoring, and the resulting shoreline changes and sand
volume changes. The report draws upon monitoring data available for the period preceding and
following the beach nourishment project for quantitative analysis of the beach fill performance and
understanding of coastal processes in the study area, focusing particularly on areas within the project
which, atypically, perform poorly compared to expectations or neighboring areas. These areas are
called "Erosional Hot Spots" (EHS). Also presented are evaluations of the overall performance of
the project.
This report includes appendixes that provide access to much of the processed data for
analysis by others, who may be interested in greater detail. Appendix A presents plots of the profile
survey data listed by DEP Monument Number for visual inspection and Appendix B provides plots
of shoreline and volume changes for different periods.


2- Background
2.1 General
The study area, which is approximately 9.2 miles (14.8 km) long, is located in Dade County
on the southeast coast of Florida (Figure 1) and includes the beaches of Miami Beach, Surfside and
Bal Harbour. The most substantial shoreline changes in this general area have occurred as a result









flovrrintinn Ann'A nnAr,ei nFrh~nnaoc


of various coastal engineering projects and natural processes, including:


The excavation of Government Cut at the south end of Miami Beach in 1904, included the

construction of two jetties.

The excavation of Bakers Haulover Inlet at the north end of Miami Beach in 1925, included

the construction of two jetties.

The September 1926 hurricane which impacted the Miami area.

The construction of a system of seawalls and abutting groins along the beach.

The encroachment of construction onto the active beach.

The Dade County, Florida, Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Surge Protection Project

(1976-1981).

Renourishments in 1960-69, 1981-92 and 1994.

Each of these is discussed in the following sections.















Dad
County

FLORIDA -


Figure 1: County Location for the Study Area.

2.1.1 Government Cut

The initial Government Cut federal navigation project commenced in 1904 and included the

construction of a north jetty, which was extended seaward different times in subsequent years,

reaching the present length of 4,688 feet (1434 m) in 1929. It was repaired and sand tightened in


n .4- fl- Z1- ;.4- 12 1. At- ;h f P fsc YYC IIUrU ~rU~l~VICIUIXC


n,~, r-rkl I~I~,;A~ ~nnl hlnrirlmnnt L)mis~)









L' ... W--o . ,in.__szs r~ cnsF


-.-....... = ....De ............,,, , ,w uescription ana Analysis o[ chan-es

1959-60 in order to reduce the deposition of sand in the entrance channel, due to the longshore
sediment transport toward the south. In 1973, another project to further sand-tighten the north jetty
was conducted. At that time, significant quantities of sand and rock were placed along the north side
of the jetty. After the beach nourishment project was completed in 1983, another repair effort was
necessary to sand-tighten the more seaward section of the jetty.


2.1.2 Bakers Haulover Inlet
The Bakers Haulover Inlet project was excavated in 1925 and sponsored by local interests.
It was stabilized by two short jetties. After the south jetty was destroyed by the 1926 hurricane, it
was rebuilt in 1964, as part of a Federal navigation project. In July 1975, the south jetty was
extended seaward about 735 feet (224 m) and curved southerly to deflect alongshore currents to the
south and encourage a gyre to reduce these currents and minimize sand losses (Figure 2).


2.1.3 September 1926 Hurricane
"The September 1926 hurricane has been the most severe hurricane that impacted Miami
Beach since records have been kept. The barrier island was inundated by a combination of
astronomical tide, storm surge, wave setup and wave runup, with water depths over the island up to
3 feet (1.0 m), and with water ponded in a few places near the ocean to an elevation of from 10 to
11 feet (3 m) above MLW. During the hurricane, a large amount of sand was transported up to 1,000
feet (300 m) inland from the beach covering the streets of the city with 3 feet (1 m) of sand" (Wiegel,
1992). It was also during this hurricane that the north and south jetties of Bakers Haulover Inlet were
destroyed and the bridge, located landward of the jetty, was left standing 160 feet (49 m) offshore
as a result of erosion. Later the bridge was relocated farther landward.


2.1.4 Construction of Shoreline Stabilization Structures
The development of the area resulted in many hotels and private construction located in
proximity to the shoreline. In some cases, hotels expanded their facilities seaward of the existing
MHW. An almost continuous line of seawalls was built to protect these facilities from wave attack.
These seawalls survived surprisingly well during the 1926 hurricane. After the 1926 hurricane, in


nnnP munh, FlnriAn Rpnrlr hln.rrirlrmon, Pmir~~r











Dladea ('nv Florida Beach Vouihin Prer, ,(-t Desc,, I',, ,',i v' ,,u,,, n I ,,aInd -Inas i ofrIIann


Figure 2: Bal Harbour Beach after the 1975 Nourishment and Surfside Beach
before the 1976 Nourishment.


Figure 3: Groin System North of Lummus Park (1954).


nn~lP r,,,,,rv Flrlrrrll Rllrrrlr Vl,,lrrrhlrr~,rl I),lll.rl











order to control the beach erosion processes (stabilize the shoreline), a system of perpendicular
groins was built from Bakers Haulover Inlet to Lummus Park, located approximately 2 km north
of Government Cut (Figure 3). Most of these groins were sponsored by private interests. Many
extended up to 50 m ( ft) seaward of the MHW line. By 1975, more than 48,000 linear feet (14.6
km) of seawalls and numerous groins have been constructed.


2.1.5 Dade County, Florida, Beach Erosion and Hurricane Surge Protection Project
The Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Surge Protection Project was authorized by
Congress in 1968 and was constructed from 1976-1981.This project was designed for beach erosion
control and also to provide hurricane protection for a storm of intensity similar to that which had
occurred in 1926. Moreover, it provided a recreational beach along Dade County. The design
increased the beach width to 250-300 feet (75-90 m) and included a dune with an elevation of 11.5
feet (3.5 m) above MLW. The design life of the project was 50 years, with estimated renourishment
on the order of 191,000 cu yd/year (145,160 m3 /year) for the reach between Government Cut and
Bakers Haulover Inlet, amounting to 3.75 cu yd/year per linear foot (9.35 m3/year per linear meter),
(R. L., Wiegel, 1992). The total amount of fill was approximately 13.9 million cu yd(10.5 million
m3), including the 1975 Bal Harbour fill. The sand was dredged from nearby offshore borrow areas
and pumped to the beach, as shown in Figure 4. The seawalls and the abutting groins were not
removed but were covered by the fill.
Local interests had placed sand south of Bakers Haulover Inlet on six occasions between
September 1960 and August 1969, averaging 30,500 cu yd/year (23,180 m3 /year). Also in July
1975, local interests contracted for the placement of 1.625 million cu yd (1.235 million m3) of beach
fill along the 0.85 mile (1.37 km) Bal Harbour reach; at the same time, as noted previously, the south
jetty of Bakers Haulover Inlet was extended approximately 735 feet (224 m).
Due to the magnitude of the complete Dade County project, it was realized in five different
phases and contracts (Figure 5), which are summarized in Table 1:


nnAo mrlnh, ~lnriAn Rpnr~t Nnrrrirlrm~n, Prniorr


nprrrinrinn nnA A nnlrri~ nrrlrnnnr.~









.uu Iuirly, r Lv ru t u4,uL i VVIur tC s iL ment . /iftft uo4t eIsuioyaIn uf CUC/nIj3e

Table 1
Characteristics of the Five Phases of the Dade County Beach Nourishment Project.
Phase Period of Work Area Encompassed Volume of Sand Unit Cost
no. (Streets) Placed ($/cu yd)
(cu yd)

1 May 1977 September.1978 from 80t to 96h 2,940,000 1.95
+ Haulover Beach Park

2 August 1978 1979 from 63rd to 80h 1,530,000 1.87

3 August 1978 1980 from 36th to 63rd 3,177,100 2.66

4 May 1980 October 1981 from 16' to 36th 2,200,000 4.95

5 October 1981 January 1982 from Govern. Cut to 16" 2,400,000 9.00


The total amount of sand placed was

cu yd of 1975 Bal Harbour fill.


13.9 million cu yd (10.6 million m3), including 1.65 million


Figure 4: Borrow Site Locations for the Beach Nourishment Project


nnln mrnt~, L-l~rirl, I)nrl AI,,,;,lm,,, Drinnt












a unc L'vre urea. acur trnsurtsmen L me escrjpton an nas VS3OCazs


R-30



R-40



R-50



R-60


Ist PHASE





111 PHASE

0
2nd PHASE


3rd PHASE



4th PHASE


" R-70 Sth PHASE


SGovernment Cut


Scale:
0 2 4 6 8
Miles
Dade County, FL


Figure 5: Map of the Five Different Phases of the Beach Nourishment Project



2.1.6 Renourishments

Before the Dade County Beach Erosion and Hurricane Surge Protection Project was

constructed, local interests placed sand south of Bakers Haulover Inlet between 1960 and 1969,

averaging 30,500 cu yd/year. After the project was constructed, in some particular areas


U







(0


n,~, r~rkl Cl~r;rl~ I)nr.rl Ar,r;rlr,,rr Dr,;nnr


D i i d A l h


F-









Q-4~ (nurnt,, FiriA,, Pan,'1, Af-rivA P- Drtr fl n -d A /nIi nf r1n.. nor


renourishment projects were required: 122,200 m3 (160,000 cu yd) between 63rd and 71st Streets. (R-

46 and R-41 Monuments) and 53,500 m3 (70,000 cu yd) between 27'h and 34th Streets

(approximately between R-61 and R-58) were placed in 1985, and 175,700 m3 (230,000 cu yd)
placed at Bal Harbour Beach in 1990. Moreover, 91,700 m3 (120,000 cu yd) of sand were placed

between R-55 and R-56 in 1994 (Dade County Regional Sediment Budget, 1997). The total

renourishment has been 653,000 m3 (855,000 cu yd).


3- Data Sources



Miami Beach has been one of the most important tourist areas in Florida since the beginning

of the century. Profiles in this study area have been surveyed several times and most of the data are
available on the internet at the web page "Beach and Offshore Profile Data" of the State of Florida,

Department of Environmental Protection.

The data available are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2
Available Survey Data for Miami Beach.
Date Source Offshore Extent of Data Description
Data on Average (m)

1962 DEP' -Shoreline Position

1969 UF Project 6906 400 Beach Profiles

1975 DEP -Shoreline Position

November 1980 DEP 450 Beach Profiles

March 1981 CCCL" -Shoreline Position

February 1986 DEP 100 Beach Profiles"**

August 1992'" DEP Water Line NGVD Beach Profiles*"**

June 1996 DEP 700 Beach Profiles
DEP Department of Environmental Protection.
CCCL Coastal Construction Control Line Photos.
After Hurricane Andrew
Wading profiles


nA, r~rnh, ~lnriAn Ronr.L hlnrrislrm~nt Pmior~


npFrrintinn nn~ dnnl.lris nrrl.nnrmr









fndr, Cn,,,, It) nriuin Ron,') AlnurivkmPni Pm wit


flov,'nrinin an,)A nnluvrit nf,'Irn no.,


The beach profile data of 1986 and 1992 did not extend very far seaward (wading profiles), while

the data of 1980 and 1996 extended seaward to the depth of closure (>15 ft). It must be noted that

in 1992 some monuments were moved seaward from their original locations. For calculation

purposes it has been assumed that only the cross-shore coordinates of the profiles from different

years changed. The data obtained from the sources listed above were used to compute Mean High

Water (MHW) shoreline changes as well as volume changes. Cross-sections are plotted and

compared to determine long-term changes that have occurred over the 1980-1996 time period.


Dade 1--un- Florida Beach Nourishment Proiect Descri tion and Anal-is of A- YI Clllr~jT













4- Data Analysis


4.1- Beach Profiles and Sand Characteristics


4.1.1 Beach Profiles
Comparative profiles have been plotted for the area of interest at each monument and are
presented in Appendix A. The 1980 and 1996 data extend farther offshore than the 1969, 1986 and
1992 data. The slope of the beach fill project was on average 1:20 as shown by the 1980 beach
profiles from Monument R-27 to R-65. The 1996 profiles are steeper in the foreshore zone followed
by a trough at approximately -2.0 m depth (6.0 ft) and by a milder slope over the rest of the profile
reaching the depth of closure, which is on average 5.0 m (16 ft). In most of the profiles from
Monument R-27 to R-49 and from R-58 to R-62 it appears that between 1980 and 1996 the sand has
migrated seaward from the foreshore, causing a recession of the shoreline, and deposited on the bar
but still inside the nearshore zone (see Figure 6, panel c). In the 1996 profiles from Monument R-50
to R-58 the sand from the foreshore zone has migrated cross-shore out of the nearshore zone or has
migrated longshore impounding downdrift near the north jetty of Government Cut (see Figure 6,
panel d). The 1996 beach profiles from Monument R-60 to R-74 have almost the same shape as the
previous 1992 profiles, as shown in Appendix A. Compared to the 1980, 1986 and 1992 data, there
has been deposition on the foreshore zone and also on the bar causing an accretion of the shoreline.
Panel a of Figure 6 compares the average profiles of 1980 and 1996 computed for the reach between
Bakers Haulover Inlet (Monument R-27) and Monument R-65, and panel b between R-65 and
Government Cut (Monument R-74). Also, panel a shows that the 1996 profile has adjusted toward
a new equilibrium. The significant difference between the 1980 and 1996 profiles in panel b is
primarily due to the construction of 5th Phase of the Nourishment Project.


-10-


n,~ r,,.,h, ~r,,;~, n,,,r, h~I,.,,;,~,,,, p,;,,,


norrrinrinn nnrl dnnh,~i~ nr~lrnnrmr










4 F i .. t. escrip.t n c Nranti AnalVsIS O cnanc es



4 4
a) b) -- 9
S 996 / 1996
2 2

0 MHW \ MHW

-2 -2 \-

-4 -4 .
-from Monum. R-27 to R65. -from Monum. R-66 to R74.
-6 -6
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400


4 4
C) -- d) 0j
11996!

S0 AMHW 0MHW

.22
-2 -. 2
UV
-4 -4. ..
-from Monum. R-27 to R-49 an
-6 -from Monum. R-58 to R-62. -6~ -from Monum. R-50 to R58.
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Offshore Distance from Monument (m) Offshore Distance from Monument (m)


Figure 6: Comparison Between 1980 and 1996 Average Profiles. (Panel a) from Bakers Haulover
Inlet to Monument R-65. (Panel b) from Monument R-66 to Government Cut.
(Panel c) from Monument R-27 to R-49 and from R-58 to R-62.
(Panel d) from Monument R-50 to R-58.




4.1.2 Sand Characteristics

In 1977-78, before the placement of fill, the Jacksonville District of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USA/CESAJ) took "native beach" sand samples along profile lines 0.5 miles apart. After

project completion, other samples were taken. Figure 7 is a sample curve and Figure 8 presents some

composite information, quantifying the profile characteristics. The mean grain sizes of the native

beach, borrow areas and project are 1.59 4 (d=0.33 mm), 1.71 ) (d=0.30 mm) and )=1.46 (d=0.36

mm), respectively. Based on these figures the Corps comments (USA/CESAJ, General Design

Memorandum Addendum III, Sept. 1986):


D(2lle Collnlv. Nori~a. 13enc~ NOllriFII))IPIII PmiPrl


Dr












Dlade CoiuItI, Florida Reach VNourishuen ,,t Proiect DsI-crintion (11An ,,nlvna v oi stc/n sov


" All three composite distributions are poorly sorted. The native beach curve is better sorted than the

Project borrow and post-nourishment curves. The post-nourishment material is slightly better sorted

than the in-place material". Also they comment that "The visual estimate of shell content for the

native beach was 23 percent. The in place borrow material was 34 percent shell and the post

nourishment beach was 39 percent shell. The higher percentage of shell in the fill material reflects

the high carbonate content of the sand in the borrow areas".

Figure 9 presents the cross-shore distribution of average median sediment size (d5o) computed by


DOADE CO. B.E.C. -
RENOURISHMENT
COMPOSITE GRAIN SIZE =
DISTRIBUTIONS 99

A NATIVE BEACH
19 77-78 95
GRAIN SIZE 1.59 5
PHI SORTING 1.04
A BORROW MATERIAL
B/A A, 5, C, D, E
PHI SORTIG 1.90 N
.-- PROJECT PERFORMANCE 7O
1982 BEACH
PHI SORTING 1.81 / 50









I






-4 -3 -2 -1 0 i 2 4
GRAIN SIZE (0 UNITS)


Figure 7: Sand Grain Size Distribution, Dade County Nourishment Project.




averaging data of 8 profiles within the area of interest (Charles, 1994). Note the relative high values

of d0 close to the shoreline, over 0.7 mm, and the decrease to around 0.2 mm at a seaward distance

of 100 m. Still farther seaward the value of d5s increases again reaching almost 0.45 mm at 300 m

offshore.


-12-


nnllc~ r~,rlrrv Flnririn Rpnrlr hlnrlriFl~,,rprr Prripr,


npFrrininn ,IrA Annllrir nrrhnno~r













Dade (nuntv Florida Beach AlNojrivkmuri nt Proioet flovrrintinn -44- 4nnA,..,g hfrrnnnnc


COMPOSITE FREQUENCY CURVES


NATIVE EACH MATERIAL.1 77- 178

A BORROW MATERIAL

E PROJECT PERFORMANCE-BEACH
SAMPLING 1982
PROJECT PERFORMANCE CURVE
IAMN URAI NU 2 ITATIIC IOCNTIFICATMa
- LOAMl ARUT UCAu AMUK UZI


16 4 2 I .5 0.25 0.125 0.063
MM
GRAIN SIZE


Figure 8: Sand Grain Size Composite Frequency Curves, Dade County Nourishment.


S 50 100 150 200
Offshore Distance from Shorine (m)


Figure 9: Cross-Shore Distribution of Average Median Sediment Size, (Charles, 1994).



4.2- Shorelines

Figure 10 presents the shoreline positions for different years relative to the shoreline

position of 1962, before the Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project was initiated.

Several results are evident from Figure 10:


nn~ mtlnh, FlnriAn Rpnrk ~h~ntlrirkmPnt P*ni~rt


n~nrrinlinn nn~ dnnhlrir nr~lnn~n~


//










r ..... :_ ,L ... .. i t._ _f l _- o_ j


45 50 5:
DEP Monument No.


Figure 10: Shoreline Positions for Different Periods Relative to the Shoreline Position of 1962.



Between Monument R-27 and R-33, which corresponds approximately to Bal Harbour

Beach, the 1975 shoreline position is located seaward of the 1962 shoreline, due to the beach fill

placed between Monuments R-27 and R-31 by local interests in 1975. Also, the 1975 shoreline has

advanced seaward along the remainder of the study area, but less than in the Bal Harbour area and

immediately north of Government Cut, where the net longshore sediment transport was impounded

by the north jetty. This general advancement of the 1975 shoreline position outside the area of

nourishment in 1975 is probably due to the natural recovery following the Ash Wednesday storm

in March 1962.

The 1980 data show the shoreline position after the beach fill was placed from Monument

R-31 to R-65. It is seen that the average shoreline advancement was approximately 410 ft (125 m).


L. -1, -1 it ,, , me ro,,,u Description and Anayi chne
D, 1,r~d ? 1, han ,es


nnlla mlrll,~, Fln*irln Ronrll hlrllr;rllnr Drinn,









Dade County, Florida, Beach Nourishment Project Description and Analysis ofchanees

The fifth phase of the beach nourishment project, approximately from Monument R-65 to
Government Cut, had not yet commenced.
The 1981 data, as the 1980 data, show that the fifth phase of the project had not
commenced. Figure 11 presents the annual rate of shoreline change between November 1980 and
March 1981. In only 5 months the shoreline receded on average 13.4 m (44.0 ft), equivalent to an
annual rate of 32.1 m/year (105.3 ft/year). This is a result of the beach fill profiles rapidly adjusting
to reach a new equilibrium. Between Monuments R-65 and R-66 the effect of the beach fill
spreading out is evident.
The 1992 data (Figure 10) show that the shoreline receded from its position in 1981 except
for the reach between Monument R-65 and Government Cut due to the shoreline advancement
associated with the fifth phase of the beach nourishment project. Considering only the beach area
between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Monument R-65, the annual rate of shoreline change on average
is -0.9 m/year (-2.95 ft/year), which clearly shows that the beach profiles have almost reached
equilibrium. A spreading effect due to the fifth phase of the nourishment can be noted updrift (north)
of Monument R-65; the shoreline advanced instead of receding.
Comparison of the data of 1996 to that of 1992 shows that the shoreline continued to
recede between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Monument R-60 on average of-2.4 m/year (-9.68 ft/year),
while advancing from Monument R-60 to R-70 on average of 1.7 m/year (5.58 ft/year).
Figure 12 presents the annual rate of shoreline change from 1992 to 1996 and the shoreline
change from 1962 to 1996. The shoreline advancement between 1962 and 1996 is on average 98.3
m (322.4 ft) with a peak of 189.8 m (622.5 ft) at Monument R-67 and a minimum of 39.1 m (128.2
ft) at Monument R-36. Considering the annual erosional rate of 1992-1996, which is -2.4 m/year (-
7.87 ft/year), it would take approximately 41 years before the average shoreline again reaches the
1962 shoreline position, which implies a good performance of the complete project. However, in
some locations it would take only 9-12 years to reach the 1962 shoreline position, such as at
Monuments R-34, R-36, R-58 and R-59 (Figure 12, Panel c). These areas are referred as Erosional
Hot Spots (EHS) with the most severe EHS at Monuments R-36 and R-59.











Dade Con Flrd Beach. Nouh. P-.. .. ,-, escription and Anay3i Ocanes


1980








Bakrs Haulovr Inlet Governamet Cut

-100




25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
DEP Monument No.



Figure 11: Annual Rate of Shoreline Change for a Five Month Period between 1980 and 1981.
(Note: This is Primarily the Result of Profile Equilibration).


-16-


nnAp mynh, FlnriAn Rpnrlr Nnlrr;.Lm~n, Pmiprt


D . ;. . 1.: L











Dade Cuniniv Florida Beach Nourishmentn Proioc flpDqt'rintinn and Analveis of chmnncw .


1U
(92-96) a)
5-







SBak.rs Haulovernlet Govermment Cut 1
-10
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75


-150

2100

1 50


30 35 40 45 50 55
DEP Monument No.


60 65 70 75


Figure 12: (Panel a) Annual Shoreline Change Rate for the Period 1992 to 1996.
(Panel b) Shoreline Change from 1962 to 1996. (Panel c) Number of Years
for the Shoreline to Reach the 1962 Position Based on 1992 to 1996
Erosion Rate.
(Note: in Panel c, only the points characterized by an erosion rate have
been included).


-17-


S* c)
40 -

,30 -

20 +
*
20 *

*
10 *

n I I I I I


nnAp mnnh, FlnriAn Rlnrk NnnrirkmPnr Pmiprt


nprrrinlinn nnli Annlvrir nfr~nnapr









Dade (ountv, Florida, Reach Nourishment Project Description and Analysis of changes
4.3- Sand Volume Changes
The net transport of sand along the east coast of Florida is toward the south, as inferred from
observations of sand impoundment at jetties and groins. Various estimates of the longshore sediment
transport rate are available for the Miami Beach area. Before the beach nourishment and hurricane
surge protection project started, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) estimated that the net
transport rate was 20,000 cu yd/year (15,280 m3/year) towards the south and the magnitude was
affected by the presence of groins along the beach (USA/CESAJ, General Design Memorandum
Phase I, July 1974). The Corps also estimated that the historic alongshore net transport rate would
be 217,000 cu yd/year (165,788 m3/year) towards the south if there were no barriers (groins) to affect
the transport, with 192,000 cu yd/year (146,688 m3/year) towards the north and 409,000 cu yd/year
(312,476 m3/year) towards the south. The Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) later
calculated a net transport of 95,000 cu yd/year (72,580 m3/year) towards the south, based on the
Wave Information Study (WIS) Phase III wave data, with a gross annual transport of 220,000 cu
yd/year (168,080 m3/year) (USA/CESAJ, General Design Memorandum Addendum II, June 1984).
A University of Florida study, reported by Wiegel (1992), estimated a net transport of 235,000 cu
yd/year (179,540 m3/year) towards the south, with 187,000 cu yd/year (142,868 m3/year) to the
north and 422,000 cu yd/year (322,408 m3/year) to the south, consistent with the previous estimates
of the USACE. Coastal Systems International Inc. in the Dade County Regional Sediment Budget,
1997, estimated a southerly net sediment transport of 5,000 cu yd/year (3,820 m3/year).
Data are available relative to the shoreline positions immediately after the beach restoration
projects for only the first and second phases while those relative to the third through the fifth phases
are available only for later periods.
Appendix B presents plots of the distribution of the annual rate of volumetric change per unit
longshore distance along the beach for different time intervals. Only the volumetric changes
between 1980 and 1996 have been computed from the profile data, because they extend farther than
the depth of closure. The other volumetric changes have been computed from changes in shoreline
position, using a berm elevation of 2.0 m (6.50 ft) and a depth of closure of 5.0 m (16.4 ft). It should
be noted that, based on shoreline positions, from 1992 to 1996 the beach between Bakers Haulover
Inlet and Government Cut has lost on average -8.56 m3/m per year (-3.41 cu yd/ft per year), which










nur~~,;n,;nVOL. fJr, UrLU,:, t~l~l


in four years equals 507,200 m3 (663,900 cu yd), (Table 3). Because these results are based on

shoreline changes, they are overestimates due to the effects of profile equilibration. It appears that

some sand lost between R-27 and R-60 has been deposited between R-60 and R-74 creating what

we can call an erosionall cold spot" (ECS).



Table 3
Volume Change Characteristics for Various Beach Segments, 1992-1996.
Monuments Annual Rate of Volume Annual Total Volume Total Volume Change
1992-1996 Change per Unit Distance Change between 1992 and 1996
per Year (m'/year) (m3)
(m3/m per year)
R-27 R-74 -8.56 -126,800 -507,200

R-27 R-60 -16.59 -170,922 -683,688

R-60 R-74 +9.80 +44,122 +176,488


(Based on Shoreline Changes)


Two erosional hot spots are located in the area of study: the first is between monuments R-55 and

R-60 and the second between monuments R-33 and R-37. The characteristics of these two hot spots

are summarized in Table 4.



Table 4
Hot Spot Characteristics, 1992-1996.
Hot Spot Annual Rate of Volume Change Maximum Annual Rate of Total Volume Change
on Average (m3/m per year) Volume Change (m'/m per (m3)
year)
R-55 R-60 -20.35 -39.24 (R-58) -148,200

R-33 R-37 -20.57 -32.35 (R-36) -126,280
(Based on Shoreline Changes)


Volumetric changes for the reach between Monuments R-58 and R-65 are shown in Table

5, based on losses to the -6 ft (2 m) and -12 ft (4 m) contours (USA/CESAJ, General Design

Memorandum Addendum III, 1986). The volumetric changes show that most losses occurred in the

nearshore region (landward of the 6 ft contour). This suggests that the apparent loss of sand was


nnllo rrlrn,~r ~ln*i~n Ron~lr hl~lr*irlr,.to..t Pnl;o~t









Dade County. Florida. Beach Nourishment Proiect


Des~" ri t; 4 A / ;lY3 1 L~L(


principally due to slope adjustment. Additionally, none of the profiles experienced erosion for the

-6 ft to -12 ft depth range indicating continuing profile equilibration.



Table 5
Volumetric Change Characteristics. from R-58 to R-65 for Various Denth Ranne 1 ORi -19 8R


DEP Monument No. Volumetric change, cu yd/ft from 1981 to 1986

Berm to MLW MLW to -6 ft -6 ft to -12 ft
R-58 -31.7' -5.3 +4.6'

R-59 -51.5 -7.8 0.0

R-60 -34.4 -6.1 +6.5

R-61 -16.1 +5.6 +13.9

R-63 -5.2 +11.9 +59.6

R-64 -11.1 +24.1 +12.0

R-65 +42.8 +9.8 +24.3


(+) indicates gain of material; (-) indicates loss of material;


Total volume changes between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Government Cut relative to 1962

have been calculated based on shoreline changes and are presented in Figure 13. The most significant

events which occurred in the area between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Government Cut are

summarized in Table 6. In 1975, the project area experienced an increase in volume of 2,169,000

m3 due to: (1) the Bal Harbour beach nourishment projects between 1962 and 1975 (181,400 m3),

(2) the Bal Harbour fill of 1,235,000 m3 in July 1975, (3) the extension of the south jetty of Bakers

Haulover Inlet and of the north jetty of Government Cut, and (4) the natural recovery of sand

following the 1962 Ash Wednesday storm. During the next five years, the first four phases of the

nourishment project were completed and the volume change in 1980 was 10,312,800 m3. The

apparent significant sand losses which occurred between November 1980 and March 1981 are due

in large part to a rapid adjustment of the nourished profiles toward a new equilibrium. The fifth and

last phase of the nourishment project was completed in 1982. In the period of time from 1982 to

1992, renourishment was required in some particular areas (Wiegel, 1992):


-20-


nurr*inti~n nrrl Ilnl..:l ~T~L^~~^^











flacr,,r;nnns. anti A ,,I,'cic; ,,,..,,


S' \C-
E S-

,, ,< o I+ " t +t
gU -x I0
+ '" O E i 1 7
5 =0
0.. .o .5
o -




.C E
.o 0 0/ J C ,




U 2 II
E-,o 4-:4
0 0

> 0 :







19601962 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998
E <2 4 *s










19601962 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998
Time



Figure 13: Total Volume Changes and Volumes Added Relative to 1962 Between Bakers
Haulover Inlet and Government Cut (Based on Shoreline Changes).


1I1( 1111 V, 111 It'"I IlllrlIII1II I 1L., u L, s ,L c a ngeslY(J(/ILIUI#T









Dade Countv. Florida. Beach Nourislment Project


Table 6
List of the Most Significant Events.
3/1962 Ash Wednesday Storm
62-69 Nourishment Projects (213,500 cu yd)

1973 Extension of the North Jetty of Government Cut
7/1975 Extension of the South Jetty of Bakers Haulover Inlet
1975 Bal Harbour Beach Fill (1,625,000 cu yd)
5/1977 Phase I of the Beach Nourishment Project (2,940,000 cu yd)
8/1978 Phase II (1,530,000 cu yd)
8/1978 Phase III (3,177,100 cu yd)
5/1980 Phase IV (2,200,000 cu yd)
10/1981 Phase V (2,400,000 cu yd)

1981-1992 Renourishments (460,000 cu yd)
8/1992 Hurricane Andrew
1994 Renourishment (120,000 cu yd)


122,200 m3 (160,000 cu yd) between 63rd and 71st Streets (T-46 and R-41 Monuments); 53,500 m3
(70,000 cu yd) between 27th and 34th Streets (approximately between R-61 and R-58) were placed
after about 6 years, and 175,700 m3 (230,000 cu yd) placed at Bal Harbour Beach after about 15
years. Moreover, 91,700 m3 (120,000) of sand were placed between R-55 and R-56 in 1994 (Dade
County Regional Sediment Budget, 1997). The total renourishment has been 624,500 m3 (817,200
cu yd). The combined renourishment rate is 67,700 m3/year (88,600 cu yd/year). Up to 1996, the
total volume change is 9,599,000 m3 (12,564,000 cu yd) and the total fill placed is 10,700,000 m3
(14,000,000 cu yd) including the renourishment fills. Therefore, the total volume loss over the 1962-
1996 period is 1,101,000 m3 (1,441,000 cu yd) resulting in an annual volume loss rate of 32,600
m3/year (42,400 cu yd/year).It can be noted that considering only the volume changes from 1992 to
1996 the volume loss is 507,200 m3 (663,800 cu yd) and the annual volume loss rate is 126,800
m3/year (166,000 cu yd/year) which is still lower than the estimated renourishment rate of 145,200












m /year (191,000 cu yd/year). The total volume change between 1980 and 1996 based on profile

changes (Figure 14) is positive while that based on shoreline change is negative (Figure 13). This

is due to the fact that not all of the shoreline recession is caused by volumetric losses, but a major

part is due to slope adjustment.


x 106
2.5 -1-


0.51-


Figure 14: Total Volume Changes Relative to 1980 Between Bakers Haulover Inlet and
Government Cut (Based on Profile Changes).


Figure 15 presents the volume change per unit length between 1980 and 1996 based on shoreline

changes and profile changes. The total volume change (after subtracting the volume added), based

on profile changes, is -508,000 m3 (665,000 cu yd). The related volume change rate is -31,700 m3

/year (41,500 cu yd/year), which is consistent with the long-term volume change rate obtained from

shoreline data between 1962 and 1996. The volume change rate based on shoreline data of 1980 and

1996 is -186,900 m3/year (244,600 cu yd/year), which is much higher than the previous value and

is believed to be an overestimation.


--- volume Changes
Volume Added




Renourishment


/-


"5th Phase "






Based on Profile Changes


X-


n,,L rlrlr, Clnr.,l,. Ran~h hlnlrrirllrlrrl1 Pm;rr~,


n~~~r;nr;nn nn~ dnnl.lri,,Tbrnl










Dae oni loid eahNorihen ro- ec o~iton and Anawi a hanges


80~


S Based on Profile Changes
--- Based on Shoreline Changes


t/-
I

/


V2
/


Nourished
in 1982


Government Cut


30 35 40 45 50 55
DEP Monument No.


60 65 70 75


Figure 15: Comparison Between Volume Changes per Unit Length Based on
Profile Changes and Shoreline Changes (1980-1996).


Volumetric losses could occur through the south jetty at Bakers Haulover Inlet, through the

north jetty at Government Cut, and landward or seaward of the project. Additionally, some settling

(consolidation) of the placed material may have occurred. Although some losses may occur through

the jetties, this sand transport pathway is believed to be relatively minor. It is known from personal

inspection that some of the material placed contained a substantial fraction of silt and clay. This

would have been carried out of the active profile by suspension, as was evident by the "milky" color

of the water for several years after nourishment. Our interpretation is that the two major contributors

of loss are due to fine sediment suspension and consolidation (loss of volume but not of sand). If this

interpretation is correct the volumetric loss rates should decrease with time.


-24-


Bakers Haulover Inlet


I _~~_


, ,i II I


I)nrip rorlllv Flnrill/~ Runr/r Nnrrirlrrrunr P*llior,


r. r









fla.crintin,, and ,lnaIv~i~ nfrAa,,o',~.p


4.4- Interpretations
4.4.1- Model for Shoreline Displacement
Since the longshore volumetric changes based on profile changes and the shoreline changes
are known, it is possible under particular assumptions to determine the percentage of measured
shoreline change that is due to profile equilibration process and that is due to material losses. This
has been carried out on an average basis considering only the reach between Bakers Haulover Inlet
and Monument R-65. After the initial nourishment project has been constructed, and in the presence

of following renourishments, the averaged measured shoreline change, Ay,,, can be expressed as:



AYm=AYeq+AYL + 4YR (1)


where Ayeq is the average shoreline change due only to profile equilibration (no volume change)

associated with all previous nourishments, AyL is the average shoreline change due to sand loss and

AyR is the average shoreline change due to renourishments (Figure 16). It is noted that Ay,, Ayeq,
and AyL are negative whereas AyR is positive. AyL and AyR can be calculated under the assumption

that the profile responds to volume changes (dV) without change of form:



dVL dVR
AyL AyR (2)
(h. + B) (h, + B)




where dVL is the average volumetric losses per unit length, dVR is the average renourishment volume

per unit length, h. is the depth of closure and B is the berm height. It follows that:



Ayeq=AYm- AyL -AR (3)


Table 7 summarizes the values of the shoreline changes for different years.


-25-


Dade C ouniv Florida Beach Nourishment Proiect Descri tionand r--na-vsi so f.han sc


n,,~ r,,,,,,,, Flnri~~~ I)ulrrlr hlnrri~lrrrlr~rr, Prriar,

















[-- y, ---


-Renourishment


AYr ZYeq+*yL+*yR


a) No Volume Changes


b) Volume Changes
Due to Renourishment


c) Measured Volume
Changes


Figure 16: Components of Measured Shoreline Displacements









Dade County, Florida. Beach Nourishment Proiect


Table 7
Comparison of Average Shoreline Changes Relative to 1980.
Year Ay,,, (n) dVL (m3/m) Ay, (m) dVR (m3/m) AyR (m) Ay, (m)

1981 -15.6 -2.3 -0.3 0 0 -15.2
1986 -17.4 -33.6 -4.8 14.2 2.0 -14.6
1992 -24.4 -67.2 -9.6 28.5 4.1 -18.8
1996 -32.4 -89.8 -12.8 35.9 5.1 -24.8
Note: Average Data from Monument R-27 to R-65.
L=12,330 m, h.=5.0 m, B=2.0 m.



Different assumptions have been made: (1) the renourishments have spread out simultaneously over
the entire length of the area of interest, (2) the volumetric annual loss rate is referred only to the
area between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Monument R-65 (69,000 m3/year), (3) the volumetric annual
loss rate, based on profile changes, is constant in time.


4.4.2- Consideration of Shoreline Change Due to Profile Equilibration

The average shoreline change, Ay(t), can be predicted assuming that it follows an exponential
form expressed as follows:



Ay(t) = Ay +(Ay Ay' )e-k(t-o) (4)



where, k is the "decay parameter", to is the initial time, Ayo is the average shoreline advance

immediately after the nourishment or renourishment projects, Ay is the average shoreline

displacment after the profile has achieved total equilibrium. It can be noted that for t=to, Ay(t) is

equal to Ayo, and for t tending to tintnity Ay(ti,,,fiy) is equal to Ay (Figure 17). Equation (4) can be

an important tool used to evaluate historic beach fill and to design future projects. The data used to
determine k are presented in Table 8. Figure 18 presents the best fit curves of the average measured
shoreline changes determined by applying the least square method. It is seen that the values of k


-27-


norrr;ntinn nlrJ .I~~ln:~ ^T^L_.~_^~










flarlo Cn,,,,t, Fin ri,1,, finnr A/nr, rlr,,~,n,, Pmirn~,t


were determined to be 0.099 yr' and 0.093 yr' for all data and omitting the 1981 data which

appeared anomalous. A value of k=0.095 yr' is equivalent to 50% of the profile equilibration

occurring in approximately 7 years.


Dnata


Table 8
TI T in in TptrTnirn n rrLi D r(mtor P t


Project to Volume added (m3) iyY (m) Ay ', (m)

Phase 1,2,3,4 1980 8,613,400 137.0 99.7

1" Renourishment 1985 175,700 3.1 -2.0

2nd Renourishment 1990 175,700 3.1 -6.0

3rd Renourishment 1994 91,700 1.6 -10.1

Ayo and Ay'p determined on an average basis from Monument R-27 to R-65.
L=13,330 m, h.=5.0 m, B=2.0 m


Ay0


Pre-Nourishment


Figure 17: Model for Shoreline Changes due to a Single Nourishment.


Dade Countv orida Beach Nourishment Proiect 2 ,, Un na vs .. C a jIes


no~rrinrinn nnl dlnlll,;r ,Tnl,,,rl










Dade Countv, Florida, Beach Nourishment Project


a)


120-
Best Fitting Curve
1 1 0 .. ...... .

k=0.099 yr"1
100
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996


140 r - 1 1
b)
130

E120

110

100 k=0.093 yr"
100--------------
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996
Time (year)



Figure 18: Average Shoreline Changes (Best Fitting Curve) for the Reach Between Bakers
Haulover Inlet and Monument R-65. (Panel b) Neglecting the 1981 Data, Which
Appears Anomalous.


Description and Analvsis ofchanzes











5- Conclusions


This analysis has shown that the Dade County Beach Nourishment Project has performed
very well globally. As of 1996, the required renourishment rate has been less than predicted. The
combined rate is 67,700 m'/year (88,600 cu yd/year) compared to the USACE estimated rate of
145,200 m3/year (191,000 cu yd/year) for the beach between Government Cut and Bakers Haulover
Inlet. Moreover, the annual volumetric loss for the period from 1980 and 1996 based on shoreline
changes is -186,900 m3/year (-244,600 cu yd/year) which is believed to be an overestimation, while
the annual volumetric loss, based on profile changes, for the same period is -31,700 m3/year (-
41,500 cu yd/year) which is much lower than the estimated renourishment rate.
The difference between the two estimations can be due to the fact that the shoreline changes
are primarily due to the profile equilibration process. Most of the sand placed during the nourishment
project and during the following required renourishments is still inside the active profile zone. The
low loss rate based on profile changes can be attributed, in large measure, to the south jetty at Bakers
Haulover Inlet and north jetty at Government Cut, which effectively "compartment" the nourished
beach. The major contributors of loss are believed to be due to fine sediment suspension and
consolidation. If this interpretation is correct the losses should decrease with time.
Globally, two different behaviors can be recognized within the area of interest: (1) the
shoreline between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Monument R-65 is receding on an average of 0.80
m/year in part due to profile equilibration and in part due to southerly sand transport, (2) the
shoreline between Monument R-65 and Government Cut is accreting significantly.
Locally, two hot spot have been identified, the first in the vicinity of Monument R-36 and
the second between Monuments R-55 and R-60. A cold spot is present between Monument R-60
and R-70 and it is likely related to the adjacent hot spot. Studies are in progress to better understand
the possible causes of these non-uniform coastal processes.
A model has been developed to represent the profile equilibration process. This model
applied to the data between Bakers Haulover Inlet and Monument R-65 indicates that approximately
7 years are required for one-half the profile equilibration.


-30-


Dadc Couniv, Floridal Beach Nourirrshmentr Proiect


Descrintion and.4 nalclvsis of chanvces









fn,/o frnr,,ni P/nri,/a Roar1, ANnri vi, ,on, Pinion,


6- References



Charles, L. L., 1994, "Application ofEquilibrium Beach Profile Concepts to Florida's East Coast",

UFL/COEL-94/016, Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida.


Chiu, T. Y.,1981, "Coastal Construction Control Line Study for Dade County, Florida",

UFL/COEL-81/006, Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida.


Coastal Systems International Inc., 1997, "Dade County Regional Sediment Budget", 84 pp. plus

appendices.


Dean, R. G., Dalrymple, R. A., 1991, "Water Waves Mechanics for Engineers and Scientists",

World Scientific Press.


Dean, R. G., Dalrymple, R. A., 1998, "Coastal Processes with Engineering Applications", Class

Notes.


University of Florida, Dept. of Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering, 1969, "Beach Erosion and

Stabilization Considerations for Bal Harbour Village ", 18 pp.


University of Florida, Dept. of Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering, 1969, "A Coastal Engineering

Study Related to Stabilization ofLummus Park Beaches ", 20 pp.


USA/CESAJ, 1964, "Dade County, Florida Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection

Report", 51 pp. plus appendices.


USA/CESAJ, 1981, "Dade County, Florida Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Surge Protection

Project .General Design Memorandum Addendum I".


USA/CESAJ, 1984, "Dade County, Florida Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Surge Protection

Project .General Design Memorandum Addendum II", 50 pp. plus appendices.


-31-


Dade Countv orida Reach Xouri shnwnt Pro -ILCIIIIIYJI


no~rrin,;nr. rrn~ i(n-l.,,:, ,rl~~~^I









- . -_ J A__ r_* 1 ,


(UI1 "wLI"vI i Y I, ru, uIua nuLer i 1u1rl IIcn, c ,L Descripilon ana Alnalvss oa canes


USA/CESAJ, 1986, "Dade County, Florida Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Surge Protection

Project .General Design Memorandum Addendum III", 29 pp. plus appendices.


USA/CESAJ, 1987, "Dade County, Florida Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Surge Protection

Project .General Design Memorandum Addendum IV", 29 pp. plus appendices.


Wang, W., Wang, H., 1987, "Data Compilation of the Historical Shorelines and Offshore

Bathymetry for the Southeast Coast of Florida ", UFL/COEL-87/015, Coastal & Oceanographic

Engineering Department, University of Florida.


Wiegel, R. L., 1992, "Dade County, Florida, Beach Nourishment and Hurricane Surge Protection

Project ", Shore & Beach, Vol. 60, No.4.


Work, P.A., Dean, R. G., 1990, "Shoreline Changes Adjacent to Florida's East Coast Tidal Inlets ",

UFL/COEL-90/018, Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida.


Zheng, J., 1996, "Improved Cross-Shore Sediment Transport Relationships and Models",

UFL/COEL-TR/112, Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida.










flat/a Cn,,nt,, Plant/a Roar/i Vn,,riglnaut Pyniart


Appendix A





Beach Profile Survey Data



Appendix A presents plots of the beach profiles used in this report. The plots are identified

by DEP Monument Number. The plots compare surveys of 1969, 1980, 1986, 1992 and 1996 (Table

A-i). The surveys extend from the baseline (0 m) to different offshore distances.



Table A-1
List of Available Survey Data.


Date Source Offshore Extent of Data Data Description
on Average (m)

1969 UF Project 6906 400 Beach Profiles

1975 DEP' -Shoreline Position

November 1980 DEP 450 Beach Profiles

February 1986 DEP 100 Beach Profiles'"

August 1992" DEP Water line NGVD Beach Profiles'"

June 1996 DEP 700 Beach Profiles
DEP Department of Environmental Protection.
"After Hurricane Andrew.
"" Wading Profiles.


Dade Count- orida 13 --- h M-rishn-nt Pro , r) 'I I I ;rorrurr 11rl~ra~II rrur~a
















R-27
6


4 969
1975
----- 1980
1986
2 / - -- - 9


0 ;' MHW







-2-
-4 -



-6 ----------


-100








6-



4-



2-






>-2
-2 -


0 100 200 300 400







R-28


500 600


200 300 400
offshore distance (m)


Figure A-l: Beach Profiles for Monument R-27 and R-28.






A-2


L'e---*U. -LLLF LSL( .I.--UIV--Y -0)-/ u^-___


me, ou..... -,.... cu,,. non,,,,,,,,,,. ,u,=u Description and s


nnrln mlrn,~r Clnri~n Ro~rl nl~rr;rl.llr L~r~i..~r


L









Dade County Flori t


D i i d A l


A-3


escrupt on an na ysis ouCrcankes




R-29
6
6 -------I-------i----------------


4-
----- 1969
1975
I---- 1980
2-1992
2-
- 1996

+0, MHW

2 \\




-4 N


-6 N



-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700






R-30
6


4 196
6|- -- ------ -- --------------------------


.. 1 975
------ 1980
1992
S/ ~- : ... .* 199S



MHW
0
cc
S-2-


-4 ..... .. ...* : .


-6
.... ---------------------S----------------

-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)






Figure A-2: Beach Profiles for Monument R-29 and R-30.









Dadec ('au,trv Floridan Rear/i hnarixhnw,r,i, Proiont


R-31



4
----- 1969
------ 1975
-,---- 1980
2 1992
- 1996


o 0 MHW
O \

-2 -


-4



-6 .- 1 ._: ... T .

-8
-8 --I - I I--
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700






R-32
6 I -i --i
6


4






g o MHW


.8 -2-----










-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)







Figure A-3: Beach Profiles for Monument R-31 and R-32.





A-4
-6


-8
















A-4


nLlrr*intinll nlrl d..nl.,,;r ,Tnln,,n,









It' 11W'~n nIIIrlI I,I,; VOdlt UICU~I^


J


A-5


n,~ r,,,,,r,, Flnr;,ln Rnnlh hl~ltrri~llrlrurl, Plninlt


R-33



4-
I I 1975
/ 'T 'rt'----- 1980
1988



MHW

|2o \ M. .
0


>-2


-4


-6


-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700






R-34




4 -. : 196













-4-
I 1975
e A-4: B P is f M R-3 a -. 1980
2 . -- \ : I 1992



SO \ ,
o

\-2 : ,



-4t





-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)







Figure A-4: Beach Profiles for Monument R-33 and R-34.










u mm. I'l L I..u u rue s me0,n,u ro,,c escr pton an na yI O~razs


R-35


* 1975
.----- 1980
1992
1996


MHW


S\
\ \


~\--,


0 100 200


400 500


R-36


* 1975
---- 1980
.......... 1986
- 1992
1996


A


S\ MHW



\ \ ; i
-2- \.



-4 -



-6 -- - __-i



-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 701
offshore distance (m)


Figure A-5: Beach Profiles for Monument R-35 and R-36.






A-6


D i d A l


--z,
=--
---
---
----















R-37




1969
4 1975
-------- 1980
1992
S\ - - 1996






.. A'--------- ---
1* \MHW















0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700






R-38
\ \



\ \



























MHW
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700


















offshore distance (m)
Figure A-6: Beach Profiles for Monument R-37 and R-38.
\ \ \



**\ '\


"~ - ^ ^ ~^ '--C -~ --






0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)







Figure A-6: Beach Profiles for Monument R-37 and R-38.


Dade County Florida t


0

o
>-2


. .. ..... in 4 ., I,, y J


nurrrinrinrr nrlA .IIIIIIIIPIP nr~hnlrrn,









lovr~rnintrn an,/ A,,nI~,,cv nfrhnnaov


Uaae O luniv, lonaa. Leacn ivourIs'li ln t U ,rI.,,I,. .,i,. .......e Ii -,.....,sVo


R-40


I 1\


1975
1980
1992
.. . ..... ... 199 6


MHW


\
N


-4



-6
- 6 .. ... .. . . . . .. ... . ...... .



-8 III
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)


Figure A-7: Beach Profiles for Monument R-39 and R-40.


4



2



0
o

>-2
I0


I 'u


ri In~L *r~....~r........~ D~^:^^r









a(u e UIrI, ru ao, seac eur mean, ro ec,, escrpt,on an na yvs U nLs


* 1975
---- 1980
1992
1996


MHW






-4
\ N








-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 70
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 70


R-42


MHW


N
\ N
N
N


200 300 4
offshore distance (m)


.00 500 600


Figure A-8: Beach Profiles for Monument R-41 and R-42.






A-9


n^.,.. r^....~.. cc.l:~,^ o..,,r, n,,..,;,L...,,~ D,~.;,,~


D i i d A l h









L


A-10


flavcrinhn~n nndl Annlvw~ nf cli,wos'p~


nJ. r_....... ~I^Y:-ll D-^^I ~r^l:^ll~lt Dr~;nrl


J(lf L .U t oafcllV urIs m n ruIce Lr LUL L- V(--JL3L f



R-43
6


4 I 1969
+ 1975
S---. 1980
'/, 1992
2 ..- 1996


S' MHW
g.o ----- r-.,--------~ ---
\ \-
.. \ ,












-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700






R-44




4


2


---- -- -----------
-6
S-8


















offshore distance (m)
Figure A-9: Beach Profiles for Monument R-43 and R-44.
6!
















-6 -.. ..



-8 ii
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)






Figure A-9: Beach Profiles for Monument R-43 and R-44.





D ri ti d A l i r h


nnrlu mrrlll, Fln*i~n Ronrl. iVnlrrirl.noll, Pmiort


ulr, n, ,tlvr P nt, Ruo r, A ,, /icl,,,,o p uO, n an na s o c llll n s




R-45
6I
6 I-------------------------------


4 i --969
+* 1975
----- 1980
1986
1992
2- - 1996






6 -2



-4










4* V- \ ^ I------------ 1969
-8 ------
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700







R-46




4..... 1969
1975
S------- 1980
1992
2 _-- --- 1996










-4 \
l-- - - - - - - -------'
-0 -
-- *- - -





-6 -


-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)







Figure A-10: Beach Profiles for Monument R-45 and R-46.






A-11









Dadel Cnunt~lV Florida Readir Norkhrlmeni Prnwu-t


R-47
6


4
1969
S* 1975
-.-.- 1980
2- 1996
1996


0 MHW





-4 -




-8 ---------------------------------------------------------------
- - - -

-6


-8


0 100


400 500


R-48


3 300 4
offshore distance (m)


Figure A-11: Beach Profiles for Monument R-47 and R-47.






A-12


nurrrinrin ~ I'JL LUI ALCl~r ~ flTI C3~


Dade C- -untv Florida Beach Nourishment Proiect w on an na vs O/I L111~ ~~lllYJI VI c anIKes









LiJLI*Jfl Aflt& Cl fltlt ~'.lI3 (fl UflLl~L~t3


R-49


R-50


-8 1 I I I
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)






Figure A-12: Beach Profiles for Monument R-49 and R-50.


A-13


Utatt Is IIt YI I Eur etos, vo td. i n1rsr lJtrltll a r I,/L eat tlrJct men trl eus r p OruY an a 13 (U[ C ItIa te"









Dade County Flori t


D J~LUlStULS511LLfI.!


A-14


S s e oee......... y r ' ,, s ~, ,, , ij n (z/cut _______cr ition and Analysis oi cihanes




R-51
6



1975
+ 1915
------ 1980
1 / .90619o
2- J-.--..A ------ 99 9
- - 1996


E 0 MHW


.2 -
o
S-2 .. . .. .. .. .. .\



-4 -


-6


-8 I
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700






R-52
6


4 969





6|~~~~~~~-----------------------------------------
*e 1975
.. ...--- 1980
1992
2 ... .. ..... ... . 1996

SMHW
0
2o





-4-






-8 -
6 ...... ..... . . . . .. .




-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)






Figure A-13: Beach Profiles for Monument R-51 and R-52.









flnldC' (tnnlv, Finrida Riinch Wn,,,-idr,r,l,,i Pmviir,,


D i i d A l


L


A-15


`.. ... . ....... r ........ i '. ". r ,,,, ., ,r^ __ JL.I .(I I .I c^l|escrwtn an I n any(i s ol f c anuries




R-53
6 i


4
-- 1969
+ 1975
----- 1980
2 1992
---6 1996





> -2 ...
\E






-4-







-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700






R-54



4 ...... .. . ....... ..... ..... ............... ... ... .... .---- + ^
1969
190
1975
-4~




'', : / - 1986
2 ;" -- -
















-8
Figure A-14: Beach Profiles for Monument R-53 and R-54.: MHW










.8------------------------------------------------
-99









2-






-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)






Figure A-14: Beach Profiles for Monument R-53 and R-54.









Dade County Flori t


D'3L CiJ&U d~ flf t 3 U Lfllg.


A-16


---*- -'-"', o' e'cU" u^-r .^r~im,(n i rescr _CJL^ ip Imn nu nnuY~i^ uf CIun~cs



R-55
6
6 ------------- I----------------


4
i- 1969
1975
S- .---. 1980
2 1992
--- 1996





2 + ..... .-
MHW




'\ \
-4 -
.. .. \ .. .. . . . .. .


-6 .-


-8 I I
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700






R-56



4-
6i - ------------------,------------------------------




2-
.--I
MHW
0
c I N :

>-2 "
-. -\\\

-4 ... ..


-6


-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)






Figure A-15: Beach Profiles for Monument R-55 and R-56.









Dad Cot Florid Beach Norihmn Proiectescrpton an na ysI OLra


R-58


200 300 400
offshore distance (m)


Figure A-16: Beach Profiles for Monument R-57 and R-58.


A-17


nnnP mrlntv Flnrir~n RPnrh Nnnrirhm~nr Pmiorr


D i i d A l









Dr ,i(J d A cu fltCV3L hii


A-18


Dad- C-unt~l Florkly Q-nrl h Af- ; 1.ol, 1 p Ir


iL. L, a, ,m, I ^ ru* I .,. nymI 4111 fn1 II III f./C____________L Vescr tion an na l sis oyrl c angel r




R-59
6


4 1969

S---- 1980
1992


S\ MHW
0
\

S- -






-6


-8 I I I i
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700






R-60
6


4 -- .-------------............-.--- 1969
1975
-1 --_ 1980
1986
1992
2.......... 1996



,0-
0 MHW













-8 I
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)

Figure A-17: Beach Profiles for Monument R-59 and R-60.




Figure A-17: Beach Profiles for Monument R-59 and R-60.









L


A-19


nn~o rnIIIIIIl Clnr;An Ronll hln.ris~rnnnt Prn;or,


vuuur ownes'I Yr 1 ylve~U I s CUn II ve a ru s lo an na zal Uf gages




R-61



4
S1969
1975
- ------ 1980
2- /- 1992
S^--'- N---_- 1996

0.- 0 MHW



S-2










-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700







R-62



4-






E 0 VMHW
CO
O4 \ \





-4 -
\. .. .. I "
.8 ---------i--------------------i---------















-6


-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)







Figure A-18: Beach Profiles for Monument R-61 and R-62.


norrrintinn ~n~ dn~l~ir;n ,CnLr~,l





A-20


nn~ rnrrrv Nnri~ln RPnrk Nnlrirhm~nt Pmiprt


R-63




* 1975
----- 1980
1980
1992


k \ MHW
0


~ -2


-4


-6


-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700






R-64
6


4 ....1969
S 1975
-1980
1992
2 ....... 1996


\"0 HW
go
0




-6 \ "
Ca
> -2


-4.






-8 I I I
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)







Figure A-19: Beach Profiles for Monument R-63 and R-64.


np~r*ininn nn~ dnnl~~rir nr~l.nnn~~









flado Cntintv PinridA Ron,') ANnu,iehmont Prajort


R-65



4 -
*

2-


o 0 'MHW
0


.. \ \

-4 \



.8 -------------------------------------
-6 -


-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 6(






R-66







2-







-4 -2 .




-6 ..... ...


-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 6(
offshore distance (m)






Figure A-20: Beach Profiles for Monument R-65 and R-66.


A-21


Dade Count Florida Beach Aro Ilur urishment P roiec t Descri tio n and Anal is o1Cchan es-


n~rrrintinn nnrl nnnllrir nrrhnnoor





A-21


R-65
6


4 -I-- 1969
1975
S---- 1980
1992
2... 1996

'o MHW



o -2


-4 .


-6-


-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700






R-66
I6 I
4 -2 .. .. ... .. . . ......
S" 1975






0
:- 1980
1986
2






-2

-4 \ \ "



-6 -

-8 - -

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)






Figure A-20: Beach Profiles for Monument R-65 and R-66.
l|. ^:__ _ I B




z __.----^,/ ^ ;--- '*









L


A-22


nn,~r mlrnl, ~lnrirln Runr~ ~hlnrrri~bnlon, Pmior)


R-67
6


4

S1975
01980



> 2
2 -- .. . . _ 1992






-61996









-8
\ 8









-8JJ
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700







R-68
D-d CuntFlri--------------------------P---t------------nl-J-I































cF A 1 : "
4.








.
-. :






-6


-8 i i -
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)






Figure A-21: Beach Profiles for Monument R-67 and R-68.


norr*intinrl nnrl J~l..,i, ,Fnl,,,,,









Dade County. Florida Beach Nourishment Project


Bncrint inn and Alnal v.r4 nr'hano'pv


R-69



4
49 --69
2 .1975




-8 I MHW






















6 I I [ I
-4


-6 .. ..








---- 1980









--1992
-6



4 Y \ \ "-----------------
-81

o___ 1996
2 __* v9


MHW
-8 -------------------------i-------














Figure A-22: Beach Profiles for Monument R-69 and -70.
o

-





-6 -



-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)







Figure A-22: Beach Profiles for Monument R-69 and R-70.


A-23









A


S.....u-.....,.a'" u", . m ,iiui rLmeni ro lec't Description and Analysis of chances




R-71



4
---- 1969
I 1975
S----- 1980
2 1992
\ \ 1996


0- MHW



0 -2
S -2 i l^ "" \ .. .. ..



-4-



-6

-8 ------------------------____________1_
-8 l Ii i
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700







R-72



4
; . ..
. 1975
S- 1980
S 1986
-2- 1992
1996


E 0 MHW







-4



-6



-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)







Figure A-23: Beach Profiles for Monument R-71 and R-72.






A-24


rr . .









Inadp Cniiniv FinridA Rpncri Wnirrivhm~np Pmirnh,,


A-25


R-73
6


4
4- 1969
1975
.- 1980
1992
2-
-2 1996

MHW
0


6-2 "- '
>-2 H



-4 -


-6 -


-8
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700






R-74
6


4








. 2
S 2 .. .. .. .... .. .. ... .. . .. ... .. ..... : ........ .. ..... .. . ..... .. ... .... .. ... .... ...


-4


-6 . .
.-------------: ----------, '- ------


-8 I I
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
offshore distance (m)






Figure A-24: Beach Profiles for Monument R-73 and R-74.


n,,,,;,,;, ,,~ .I.,,r.,,;, ,ri.,,,,,










Dade Conuntv Florida Reach Nnnrkrhme,l, Prajoct


Appendix B





Summary Plots of Longshore Distribution of Shoreline and Volume Changes



Appendix B provides plots of the longshore distribution of: (1) Annual Rate of Volume

Change per Unit Beach Length, (2) Annual Rate of Shoreline Change, (3) Shoreline Change. The

plots are listed for different time intervals.


Dade ountvFloria Beah Nouishmet Proect 1 U, .11 a VS y OLCange


n,,,,;,t;,, ,,~ ,(,,,..,;, ~r~l111^^












vUnhC tLLOU iI JV,11, 1uL.t fI 1tUI .niIsnI I Im CLE urctj rperu nt escrus oVJn Ln L V IUf t5flut


Annual Rate of Volume Change per Unit Longshore Distance


20
E


25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

100 1 1 1 1 -

(80-96) b) Total: -44,616 m3 Jyr
50 .


E

-50 .
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

50 I I
(92-96) c) Total: -126,800 m3/yr








25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75


25 30 35 40 45 50 55
DEP Monument No.


Figure B-l: Volume Changes for Periods: 1962-1996 (Panel a), 1980-1996 (Panel b),
1992-1996 (Panel c), 1980-1981 (Panel d).
All Volume Changes Based on Shoreline Changes.


B-2


(62-96) a) Total: 282,330 m3/yr

*-* ^ ^ ^ ^

-~ ~~~ \-1~ ->x^ ^
^v^- ^ v v ---,


n,~., r,,,,,,, cr,,;,r, n,,,b hln,,,;~l,~,~,, Dr,;nrt


cn











fnvr~rintinn n.M AnnI.chi nf,-h,,,,,


Annual Rate of Volume Change per Unit Longshore Distance

10

(81-96) a) Total: 41,435 m3/yr
,0 -..





25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75


.50 --




-50
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
DEP Monument No.

100 -

(75-96) d) Total: 353,820 3/yr
50 -





25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
DEP Monument No.


Figure B-2:


Volume Changes for Periods: 1981-1996 (Panel a), 1981-1992 (Panel b),
1980-1992 (Panel c), 1975-1996 (Panel d).
All Volume Changes Based on Shoreline Changes.


B-3


VL ,Ly10 tVtuL, ra cs I I uIrcI men L--ur I 'll 2l, , a 1 a, ,a s


nn,~n mlnt~, Clnri~n Rnnr~ hl~l,;rl,nn, Dr~;nrr













Dlade Cuntv Flaridn Beac h Nourishmeont Prowt flfl)A& Iv3;. u' cIiu t *c


Annual Rate of Shoreline Change
10 1 1 1

(62-96) a)

5-


0


5
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

15

10-
(80-96) b)
5--

0

-5

-105 50 55 60 65 70 75
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75


Iu Ii I II
(92-96) c)
5




-5

-10
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75


100

50-
(80-81) d)




-100-

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
DEP Monument No.








Figure B-3: Annual Rate of Shoreline Changes for Periods: 1962-1996 (Panel a), 1980-1996

(Panel b), 1992-1996 (Panel c), 1980-1981 (Panel d).







B-4


nn~r mtrnlv Flnri~ln RPnrh Nnrrirlrm~n, P*nior,


norrr;ninn nn~ d,,l,n:, ,CIrrr,^l













a~u tin or u n, acn nur menem, ro, c, escrpt on an na Vss O~ nzs


Annual Rate of Shoreline Change


(81-96) a)
15 -

S10





5
0

5
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

20
(81-92) b)
15 -



1 0 -- ... -- ---. ....... .. ..- .. .---------j .....---------
10-



5
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

20
(80-92) c)
15 -

10. .

i 5 -



-5'
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
DEP Monument No.
20
(75-96) d)
15 -

i 10 -

5-

0

-5
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
DEP Monument No.


Figure B-4: Annual Rate of Shoreline Changes for Periods: 1981-1996 (Panel a), 1981-1992
(Panel b), 1980-1992 (Panel c), 1975-1996 (Panel d).


B-5


D i i d A l h


?n












Dadre ('attn IvP ri,1, Cout-oo a rlt- Af--uric mt Pri) int'l LLu-t. onLa nflalLI& VSL CIt


Shoreline Change
200
(62-96) a)
150 -

100

50 *

0

-50
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

200


100 (896)


0



25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

30
(92-96) c)
20 -

10 -
E 0


-20
-30
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75


DEP Monument No.


Figure B-5: Shoreline Changes for Periods: 1962-1996 (Panel a), 1980-1996
(Panel b), 1992-1996 (Panel c), 1980-1981 (Panel d).








B-6


nnrlo mrrrrr~l Fln*irln Ronrh hlntrr;~~mon, Pm;a~,










fnd~p (tnntv Flnridn Ron,'I Nln,,,-idhmrpn Pmirnt


Shoreline Change
200
(81-96) a)

100 -

0

-100
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

200
(81-92) b)



100 -


25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

200....


L (80-92) c)

1 0 0 .


-100
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 7!
DEP Monument No.
200
(75-96) d)

100 .c .' .,. -




-100


25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
DEP Monument No.


65 70 75


Figure B-6: Shoreline Changes for Periods: 1981-1996 (Panel a), 1981-1992 (Panel b),
1980-1992 (Panel c), 1975-1996 (Panel d).





B-7


Dade Count Florida Beach Nourishment Proi-et [)-"; ej- "d A / ;y 11 nrur yJ~ I1 ~rlrr~c


norrrint;nn nn~ dnnhlrir nC~lrnnrmr


111-




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

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