Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 14
1
Introduction
This chapter describes the U.S. shorelines, regional differences, and major
historical efforts to control the eroding shoreface and introduces the concept of
beach nourishment as a shore protection measure. It also discusses the issues of
beach nourishment project performance and public perceptions of beach nourish-
ment.
THE CHANGING SHORE
Beaches form the barrier between the land and the water along most of the
coastline of the United States. They are susceptible to movement and reshap-
ing even temporary disappearance under the worst conditions by combina-
tions of winds, waves, and currents. In the public's perception, beach visitation
has become synonymous with ocean recreation. Living at or near a coastline,
particularly one with a sandy beach, is highly prized. The result is a marked
escalation in coastal population growth and in the value of land in many coastal
areas (Culliton et al., 1990; Edwards, 1989; Houston, 19951. At the same time,
some beaches are recognized as having significant environmental value as habi-
tats for a wide range of marine life, including threatened or endangered species.
The high value placed on the shorefront for economic and recreational purposes,
and more recently for environmental considerations, has resulted in great public
interest in protecting the shorefront.
The expenditure in the United States for shore protection and restoration is
small in comparison to the economic value of beaches. Travel/tourism is the
largest industry in the United States, and by far the largest employer. The in
14
OCR for page 15
INTRODUCTION
15
crease in tourist-related jobs in the past year is more than the increase of jobs in
all manufacturing industries in the United States, and beaches are a key element
of tourism. Forty percent of Americans list beaches as their preferred destination
for vacations, and 85 percent of tourism revenues are spent in coastal states
(Houston, 1995~.
The United States has spent about $15 million per year for the past 44 years
to help protect the nation's beaches. In contrast, federal subsidies of $ 134 million
and $53 million, respectively, per year were paid for wool and mohair produc-
tion. To put this in context, compare the production of wool and mohair ($60
million and $13 million, respectively, per year, although no longer strategic
materials) to tourism, with worldwide revenues of $2.9 trillion and which pro-
vided the United States with a $17 billion trade surplus in 1992.
The United States spends about $15 million per year (in federal dollars) to
protect beaches. A number of other countries, notably Spain, Germany, Japan,
and the Netherlands, spend proportionally and in actual dollars much more, from
twice the dollars in the Netherlands to 100 times in Japan (Houston, 19951. The
Dutch adopted a coastline preservation public policy that favors periodic sacrifi-
cial nourishment, reportedly because of its cost efficiency, flexibility, and mini-
mal environmental impact.
Natural forces change beaches considerably; they change seasonally in re-
sponse to storms and over long time scales. Some changes are more visible than
others. For example, beaches may change drastically in width and elevation
during storms, and they may effectively disappear for extended periods during
hurricanes and other extreme storms. Sand generally moves offshore from the
beach during these storms, but much or all of it often returns to the visible beach
during the spring and summer when waves are not as high. Sand also migrates
along the shore, transported by oblique waves and alongshore currents. As a
result, inlets tend to migrate as well, except where the inlet position is fixed or
stabilized, usually by jetties (Mehta, 1993; Rose et al., 1878; Silvester and Hsu,
19931.
The coastlines of the United States can be divided into regions that are
eroding at a significant rate, those that are stable or have negligible erosion rates,
and a few that are accreting. Significant erosion rates (averages of up to several
meters per year) are not constant but are strongly influenced by sand supply
variations and even more drastically by major storms. Moreover, just as moun-
tains continue to erode under all conditions, beaches are subject to continuing
processes that tend to remove material. If these processes are not matched or
exceeded by supply processes, erosion is inevitable regardless of subsidence or
sea-level changes (Amos and Amos, 1985; McConnaughey and McConnaughey,
1985; Perry, 19851. The erosion is aggravated by the gradual subsidence of the
coastline as a result of geological processes, by human interference with natural
processes, and by the global rise in sea level (Boesch, 1982; NRC, 1987, 1992~.
Among human activities that aggravate erosion are the construction of dams that
OCR for page 16
6
BEACH NOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION
impound sediment that would otherwise reach the shore and the stabilization of
naturally migrating inlets with jetties, which interfere with alongshore sediment
transport (Bruun, 1989a,b; Herbich, 1990, 1992a,b; Mehta, 1993; Silvester and
Hsu, 1993J.
Shore Protection
The history of public and private shore protection measures to reduce net
erosion and the movement of beaches and barrier islands is marked by "hard"
structures that were intended to have long service lifetimes when appropriately
maintained. These measures have included bulkheads, seawalls, breakwaters,
revetments, jetties, and groins. Hard structures are used less often today because
of problems related to restricted beach access, enhanced erosion, and cost of
maintenance. The method of choice has evolved toward beach fill with periodic
renourishment. This approach is popular largely because it preserves the beach
resource and occasionally serves as a response to criticism about the effects of
hard structures, discussed later (Charlier et al., 1989; USACE, 1994~. Beach
nourishment creates a "soft" (i.e., nonpermanent) structure by adding sand to
make a larger sand reservoir, which pushes the shoreline seaward. A wide beach
is effective in dissipating wave energy as a result of its increased interaction with
the waves, its larger surface area, and its greater bulk. The destructive force of
storm waves thus falls on the beach rather than on upland structures, although
extreme elevations of sea level produced by strong winds and low-pressure sys-
tems (which produce storm surge) and high astronomical tides may cause direct
wave impact on structures lacking fronting dunes.
The beach nourishment concept is not new. The first documented beach
nourishment project in the United States was at Coney Island, New York, in
1922-1923 (Farley, 1923~.
Although major beach nourishment projects have been constructed for de-
cades in the United States, Europe, and Australia, stabilization of shores using
this approach is controversial. Many beach nourishment projects have performed
successfully with respect to design criteria, but others have not met expectations.
Some failures can be traced to inappropriate sites or inappropriate application of
the technology; others can be attributed to gaps in knowledge concerning both the
wave forces and coastal processes. Nearshore processes are complex, and scien-
tific understanding of them is far from complete. There is also serious uncertainty
concerning data interpretation, particularly regarding the natural movement of
sand onto and off beaches in response to wave energy and water-level variations
(such as storm surges) and the shore protection benefits of sand just offshore.
Disagreements over the suitability of beach nourishment as a shore protec-
tion measure have polarized the debate with respect to both public policy and
technical issues. Critics regard nourishment as little more than building sand
castles that will be wiped away by the next storm and as a public subsidy of
OCR for page 17
INTRODUCTION
17
shorefront property owners. Others see management of the littoral sand budget as
preferable to beach erosion, wave damage, flooding, and potential economic
losses or to the use of hard structures. Proponents urge that beach nourishment is
a sound, cost-effective approach when properly engineered, constructed, and
maintained. To them, beach nourishment projects are formidable barriers against
the destructive potential of the sea. Both sides in the debate have found evidence
and rationale to support their positions.
The need to provide a sound basis for evaluating the suitability of beach
nourishment as a shore protection measure is becoming increasingly urgent. Fed-
eral, state, and local agencies and private property owners, all of whom collec-
tively bear the cost of beach nourishment projects, need objective estimates of
long-term costs and benefits. Current federal laws requiring state and local cost
sharing for projects and well-defined state coastal management programs high-
light limitations in the technical basis for decision making in this area. In addi-
tion, the United States public needs guidance in these matters.
Beach Nourishment Issues
Like hard shore protection structures, beach nourishment has a finite life,
which depends on the intensity of the destructive forces of nature and, occasion-
ally, of human activity. A nourished beach will generally require renourishment
over time to maintain its design function. This is inevitable, as are repairing
potholes in streets and highways, painting bridges, and replacing telephone poles.
Beach nourishment does not remove the physical forces that cause erosion, wave
damage, and flooding; it simply mitigates their effects. If the environment is
benign, the intervals between renourishment will be long, with obvious cost
reduction benefits. If the background erosion rates or the ferocity or frequency of
storms become great enough, it may not be possible to justify the continued costs
of nourishment. In this case, the alternatives range from constructing hard protec-
tive structures to retreating and abandoning shore development.
Coastal flooding caused by stow surge and wave runup may be a dangerous
and costly reality. In many locations, natural or constructed sand dunes are an
effective barrier to flooding and to serious erosion of the shore and damage to
upland structures. Sand dunes, stabilized by vegetation and protected by a broad
fronting beach, can limit damage from major storms. When beaches are eroded
and dunes depleted after a storm or series of storms, coastal landowners and some
federal and state agencies may want to rebuild the protective structures as rapidly
as funds are available.
On the other hand, various groups object to the nourishment of beaches.
Objections of some groups include concern for endangered species, particularly
sea turtles along the South Atlantic and other coasts. They fear that life and
reproduction cycles may be detrimentally affected by the construction activities
associated with renourishment. Other critics object to the technical and economic
OCR for page 18
8
BEACH NOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION
validity of constructing projects that they believe have relatively short and unpre-
dictable useful lifetimes.
Coastal engineers believe that in some cases the performance of a beach
nourishment project is enhanced by the construction of hard structures as part of
the design (see Chapter 4 and Appendixes C and D). However, some sectors of
the scientific community and the public believe that such structures are detrimen-
tal to the shorefront. In some states, laws or regulations restrict or prohibit the
construction of seawalls, groins, and other hard structures. Then beach nourish-
ment is the only legally acceptable shore protection measure, provided that envi-
ronmental restrictions are satisfied. Shore modification is restricted under federal
regulation; natural beach migration is typically allowed to continue unimpeded
for national seashores and large portions of the coastline that form undeveloped
barrier islands. However, exceptions exist.
The federal interest in protecting the shore and coastal development from
erosion and flooding is centered with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The management and
research aspects of shore protection are conducted by the Coastal Engineering
Research Center of the USACE, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration (NOAA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Minerals Man-
agement Service (MMS).
The USACE administers the federal shore protection program. Between 1950
and 1993, it invested $403.2 million, or about $9.4 million per year (in 1993
dollars), in 56 specifically authorized shore protection and beach erosion control
projects covering a total of 364 km (USAGE, 19941. A total of $327.9 millon, or
about $7.6 million per year, was spent on initial and periodic beach renourishment
(USAGE, 19943. The general location and number of major shore protection
projects with beach nourishment components are shown in Figure 1-1.
FEMA is concerned with the protection of coastal property subject to dam-
age from storm-related flooding. As an example, after a December 1992 storm,
FEMA provided $600,000 to two eligible communities (Avalon and Sea Isles,
New Jersey) for beach renourishment. In addition to providing assistance to the
states when there is a presidential declaration of disaster, FEMA administers the
flood insurance program that insures private property owners from damages cause
by coastal flooding and erosion losses. NOAA supports and subsidizes state
coastal zone management activities and is responsible for the protection of ma-
rine life resources. Research is conducted by the USACE, USGS, and MMS. The
USGS conducts nationwide basic and applied coastal and marine research on a
wide range of geological framework and coastal processes studies; its annual
budget is about $35 million. The USAGE's annual research budget averages $18
million. Other federal agencies with related interests are the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service sedimentation effects on shores and wetlands; the MMS-
sources of sand in federal waters needed for beach nourishment projects; and the
OCR for page 19
INTRODUCTION
:,_ 7k
-
-
\\ ;
19
General Project Location
O Number of projects in the area
· Single project
:;~
I'
FIGURE 1-1 General location and number of USACE major shore protection projects
with beach nourishment components in the lower 48 states. There is also a beach
nourishment project in Homer, Alaska (Adapted from USACE, 1994~.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the impacts on water and sediment qual-
ity and on the marine habitat. These agencies are mirrored in coastal state govern-
ments.
In an attempt to reduce federal inducements and subsidies that encourage
increased development of barrier islands, Congress established the Coastal Bar-
rier Resources System (CBRS), with passage of the Coastal Barriers Resources
Act (CBRA) of 1982 (P.L. 97-3843. Subsequently, the CBRS was greatly ex-
panded, with passage of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) of 1990
(P.L. 101-5919. In 1982 the U.S. Department of the Interior began to review U.S.
shores to identify undeveloped coastal barriers for inclusion in the CBRS. Once
included, areas may no longer receive direct or indirect federal financial assis-
tance for new construction or substantial improvements. The intent of both the
CBRA and the CBIA is to discourage development in CBRS areas because coastal
barriers are deemed inherently hazardous areas for long-term habitation or devel-
opment. To date, just under 600 CBRS units have been included, from Maine to
Florida along the Atlantic coast; from Florida to Texas along the Gulf coast; in
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands; and in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Minnesota on the Great Lakes.
OCR for page 20
20
BEa CH NO URISHMENT AND PR O TECTI ON
PHYSICAL ELEMENTS
The Beach
The physical characteristics of beaches are diverse, ranging from ill-defined
edges of broad, sandy islands to narrow ribbons of sand overlying coral or rock,
including those that consist principally of pebbles or cobbles. Thus, a precise or
universal physical definition of a beach is not practical. For purposes of this
study, "beach" is defined in terms of its mobility. The landward edge of a beach,
which in this broad definition often includes backing dune fields, is set by the
maximum shoreward movement of water during a severe storm. The seaward
extent is determined by the point at which substantial shore-perpendicular motion
of sand ceases. Both these limits depend on storm intensity during the period of
observation. Because of possible larger storms, the limits remain conceptual
rather than strictly definable points. The extent of a beach in the alongshore
dimension is set by large features that substantially inhibit or prevent the free
travel of sand along the shore. These features may be natural, such as an inlet,
headland, or submarine canyon, or of human origin, such as a jetty, a large groin,
a breakwater, or a dredged navigational channel.
Regional Differences
Coastlines differ significantly in their morphology (structural form), geo-
logical setting, and climate. These characteristics require different approaches to
both engineering and economics. Following are descriptions of U.S. coastal fea
tures.
Pacific Coast
Along the Pacific coast, the coastal lands are well above sea level and with
reduced impacts of worldwide sea-level rise because of tectonic uplift of the
coast. Mountains are typically near the shore, and rivers tend to be short and
discharge directly into the ocean with few large estuaries or embayments. Dunes
are rare, and barrier forms are limited to an occasional large spit. The continental
shelf is quite narrow, limiting significant increases in water level produced by
strong onshore winds. Sand sources are predominantly rivers and soft seacliff
erosion, with only a small contribution from shells or other biogenic sources
(Good and Toby, 1994; McConnaughey and McConnaughey, 1985~. There are
relatively few constructed harbors in sandy shores, and the greatest human contri-
bution to coastal erosion stems from flood control measures that trap sand in river
basins, mining sand from these basins and beach and dune deposits, stabilization
of naturally eroding seacliffs, and construction of jetties and groins that retard the
alongshore movement of sand. Large swells from the Southern Hemisphere are
OCR for page 21
INTRODUCTION
21
common in California in summer, and winter storms from the North Pacific are
energetic.
Great Lakes Region
The Great Lakes are nearly tideless but are subject to large annual changes in
water level that are driven by variations in rainfall and evaporation. Much of the
shorefront is backed by erodible cliffs. Beaches are found where glacial moraines
provided a supply of sand, but much of the shore is covered with cobbles or fine
cohesive sediments. When lake levels are low, erosion of sandy shores may be
minor for as long as a decade. During periods of high water levels, property
damage may be extreme. Lake levels are partially regulated but still fluctuate
significantly and cause shoreline damage at high stages. Dunes are extensive but
highly localized, and there are no barrier islands, although there are a few promi-
nent spits. The lakes are large enough to produce destructive waves and storm
surges but seldom the low swell that is beneficial in returning sand to the beach
following a storm. Extensive seawall construction has removed some of the cliff
material as a sediment source, and the jellied harbors have severely disrupted the
natural alongshore transport of sand.
Gulf Coast
The Gulf coast has extensive barrier island/dune systems composed of fine
sand. It enjoys a relatively benign wave climate except during hurricanes, which
cause large storm surges over the broad shallow continental shelf, allowing coastal
flooding and the penetration of large waves well inland of the normal position of
the ocean edge. The Mississippi delta is naturally unstable and changeable, in
part owing to subsidence and the formation of channels that transport sediments
to deep water. The west coast of Florida is predominantly sandy, with a long
segment of low-energy beaches with fine sediments (muds). The Panhandle sec-
tion of Florida, Alabama, and the contiguous coastline of Mississippi have exten-
sive beaches of white quartz sand. The shore is typically low lying and particu-
larly susceptible to coastal flooding. Astronomical tides are modest in range, but
meteorologically forced water levels can be large. Storm-surge water levels have
been as high as 7 m during hurricanes.
Atlantic Coast
The Atlantic coast can be conveniently divided into three sections. In the
north (from northern Maine to Long Island) the coast is rocky, tide ranges are
large, winter storms are typically severe, and beaches are restricted to local
protected areas. In the central section (the Atlantic coast of Long Island to the
Carolinas) are long stretches of barrier islands, most with extensive dunes. Virtu
OCR for page 22
22
BEACH NOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION
ally the entire section is fronted with sand beaches. Astronomical tide ranges are
moderate to large. Potential inland sources of sand are typically trapped in estu-
aries and bays, and the beaches and barrier islands are largely derived from
glacial moraines in the northern end of the section. Toward the southern end of
this reach, biogenically derived sand begins to appear (Amos and Amos, 1985;
Khalequzzaman, 1994; Perry, 1985; Williams, 1989~. The winter months are
marked by frequent storms, often severe, out of the northeast. Summers are
benign with an occasional hurricane making landfall or a close approach, causing
local flooding and erosion. Where coastal development is high (e.g., in New
Jersey), significant shore modifications include the stabilization of many inlets
by construction of jetties. They often cause accretion on one side and erosion on
the other side of the inlet, depending on the dominant wave direction.
The third section, from Georgia south to the Florida Keys, is also marked by
long stretches of barrier islands with extensive coral reefs in the southernmost
area. Astronomical tide ranges are small. Shell and coral are the principal sources
of sand. Hurricanes cause much of the erosion, wave damage, and flooding, and
the occasional penetration by a northeaster in the winter adds to the damage. The
entire stretch of coast is only slightly above sea level and is therefore prone to
flooding. In general, the wave climate is much less energetic than along the
sections to the north due to sheltering by the Bahama Islands. Southern Florida is
marked by many stabilized inlets that contribute significantly to beach erosion.
Arctic Coast
The coast of Alaska facing the Beaufort and Chukchi seas is icebound for
most of the year. Its narrow spits and barrier islands of sand and gravel are
occasionally overwashed during autumn storms. In many reaches there are near-
shore echelon bars in relatively shallow water. Some sections are backed by
eroding bluffs faced by narrow beaches. Tide ranges are small, and the local sea
level is dominated by wind. The shelf is shallow and wide, and storm surges up to
3.7 m have been observed. The Arctic coast experiences some of the highest
erosion rates in the world during the few ice-free months. A major beach nourish-
ment and protection plan has been developed for Barrow, Alaska.
Hawaii and Midocean Island Coasts
Hawaii's beaches are formed from both calcareous (coralline and shell
sources) and dark detrital siliceous grains from the weathering of basaltic lava.
The distinctive black sand beaches found on the southern part of the island of
Hawaii are glass grains formed during the explosive contact of molten lava flow
into the ocean (Moberly et al., 1965~. Because of the typically severe wave
climate on the windward coasts, beaches are often formed landward of protective
fringing coral reefs. The background erosion rates for the beaches are strongly
OCR for page 23
INTRODUCTION
23
influenced by the level of protection provided by the reefs, which cause large
waves to break well offshore. Human impacts on the reefs, ranging from the
effects of water pollution and turbidity on the growth rate of coral to the blasting
of deep channels to allow vessels into the lagoons, can significantly affect beach
lifetimes (Moberly and Chamberlain, 1964~. The midocean islands have small
tide ranges, and their steep slopes cause only modest storm-surge effects, al-
though wave runup may be large on windward shores.
Definitions
Shore protection terms have specific meanings for coastal engineers, but the
public often uses them loosely. For example, "beach nourishment" is the engi-
neering practice of deliberately adding sand (or gravel or cobbles) to an eroding
beach. But the term is often loosely applied to individual projects (one-time
placements of sand) and programs (a series of beach nourishment projects). The
terms as used in this report are defined in Box 1-1.
Long-Term Uncertainties
The typical beach nourishment program, consisting of a series of projects, is
based on analyses that assume that coastal conditions will remain reasonably
constant over the program's lifetime, on the order of 50 years. Of course, uncer-
tainties are associated with any of these assumptions. One of the biggest uncer-
tainties is the availability of nearby sand for the life of the program. The longev-
ity of beach fills depends largely on using sand of suitable size and composition,
and an affordable program depends on nearby sand deposits. For some factors,
experience indicates that the variability is small or predictable (e.g., the rise in
relative mean sea level over the project lifetime). Other factors may vary suffi-
ciently to have major impacts on the long-term success of the project. Some are
associated with major climate changes. A shift in world weather patterns could
significantly change the frequency and intensity of storms, thus changing the
renourishment interval from the original predictions upon which the project was
based.
A reduction in the ozone layer and the subsequent increase in ultraviolet
radiation and skin cancers could change attitudes about beach use and thus im-
pact recreational demands. Some apparently unrelated human act that is similar
to the local subsidence associated with the removal of hydrocarbons and ground
water in a coastal region or to the reduction in sediment availability through shore
or upland alterations far from the project (e.g., the construction of dams) could
significantly affect the viability of the project. Further, the program plan is predi-
cated on the continuing ability and willingness of the funding agencies to pay for
subsequent nourishment activities.
OCR for page 24
24
BEACH NOURISHMENT AND PROTECTION
OCR for page 25
INTRODUCTION
25
Geographical Scope
The committee's investigations of were generally limited to conditions in the
United States and to the coastal protection methods used here. When possible,
other countnes' technology was compared with U.S. practice, although it must be
recognized that physical conditions, laws, motivations, and methods of economic
analysis often differ. The technology of beach renourishment appears to diffuse
rapidly; the experience of other countries is included here when appropnate.
REFERENCES
Amos, W. H., and S. H. Amos. 1985. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Boesch, D., ed. 1982. Proceedings of the Conference on Coastal Erosion and Wetland Modification
in Louisiana: Causes, Consequences? and Options. FWS/OBS-82/59. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Bruun, P. 1989a. Port Engineering, Volume 1: Harbor Planning? Breakwaters, and Marine Termi-
nals. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.
Bruun, P. 1989b. Port Engineering, Volume 2: Harbor Transportation, Fishing Ports, Sediment Trans-
port, Geomorphology, Inlets and Dredging. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.
Charlier, R. H., C. De Meyer, and D. Decroo. 1989. "Soft" beach protection and restoration. Pp. 289-
328 in E. M. Birgese, N. Ginsburg, and J. R. Morgan, eds., Ocean Yearbook 8. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Culliton, T. J., M. A. Warren, T. R. Goodspeed, D. G. Remer, C. M. Blackwell, and J. J. McConough
III. 1990. 50 Years of Population Change Along the Nation's Coasts, 1960-2010. Rockville,
Md.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Edwards, S. F. 1989. Estimates of future demographic changes in the coastal zone. Coastal Manage-
ment 17:229-240.
Parley, P. P. 1923. Coney Island public beach and boardwalk improvements. Paper 136. The Munici-
pal Engineers Journal 9(4).
Good, J. W., and E. S. Toby. 1994. Coastal natural hazards policy in Oregon: a critique and action
plan. Pp. 685-697 in M. P. Lynch and B. Crowder, eds., Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference of the Coastal Society: Organizing for the Coast. Gloucester, Mass.: The Coastal
Society.
Herbich, J. B. 1990. Handbook of Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Volume 1: Wave Phenomena and
Coastal Structures. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.
Herbich, J. B. 1992a. Handbook of Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Volume 3: Harbors, Navigation
Channels, Estuaries and Environmental Effects. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.
Herbich, J. B. 1992b. Handbook of Dredging Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Houston, J. R. 1995. Beach nourishment. Shore and Beach 63(1):21-24.
Khalequzzaman, M. 1994. Factors influencing coastal erosion in Delaware. Pp. 419-428 in M. P.
Lynch and B. Crowder, eds., Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Coastal
Society: Organizing for the Coast. Gloucester, Mass.: The Coastal Society.
McConnaughey, B. H., and E. McConnaughey, eds. 1985. Pacific Coast. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Mehta, A. J., ed. 1993. Beach/Inlet processes and management: a Florida perspective. Journal of
Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 18, Fall.
Moberly, R., Jr., and T. Chamberlain. 1964. Hawaiian Beach Systems. Report No. HIG-64-2. Hono-
lulu: Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawaii.
OCR for page 26
26
BEA CH NO URISHMENT AND PROTECTION
Moberly, R., Jr., D. Baver, Jr., and A. Morrison. 1965. Source and variation of Hawaiian littoral
sand. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 35(3):589-598.
NRC. 1987. Responding to Changes in Sea Level: Engineering Implications. Marine Board, Com-
mission on Engineering and Technical Systems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NRC. 1992. Coastal Meteorology: A Review of the State of the Science. Board on Atmospheric
Sciences and Climate, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. Washing-
ton, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Perry, B. 1985. A Sierra Club Naturalist's Guide: The Middle Atlantic Coast. San Francisco: Sierra
Club.
Rose, T. F., T. T. Price, and H. C. Woolman. 1878. History of the New Jersey Coast. Philadelphia:
Woolman and Rose.
Silvester, R., and J. R. C. Hsu. 1993. Coastal Stabilization: Innovative Concepts. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
USACE. 1994. Shoreline Protection and Beach Nourishment Projects of the U.S. Arrny Corps of
Engineers. IWR Report 94-PS-1. Fort Belvoir, Va.: Institute of Water Resources, Water Re-
sources Support Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Williams, S. J. 1989. International Geological Congress Field Trip T219: Geomorphology and Coastal
Processes Along the Atlantic Shoreline, Cape Henlopen, Delaware to Cape Charles, Virginia.
Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
shore protection
