Issuu on Google+


OCEAN PARK, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH Public Beach Assessment Report January 1987 to June 1991

by c. S. Hardaway, Jr. D. A. Milligan G. R. Thomas

VirginiaInstitute of Marine Science The College of William and Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia23062

January 1993


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ii

List of Figures

I.

Introduction

1

A. B.

1 3 3

Statement of the Problem Limits of the Study Area Approach and Methodology

C.

II.

Coastal

Shoreline

B.

and Sediment Transport Beach and Nearshore Sediments

and Nearshore Morphology

. . . .

Wave Climate

6 9 9

........

Beach Characteristics

A. B.

and Behavior

10

Beach and Surf

Zone Profiles and Their Variability Variability in Shoreline Position and Beach Volume

1-

C.

Anthropogenic

Wave Modelling

A.

Impacts

at Ocean

RCPWAVE Setup

B. C.

to Shoreline

10 24

. .

24 30

Processes

45

Shoreline Position Variability Beach and Nearshore VolumeChanges

2.

IV.

6

A. C. III.

......

setting

45

Park

....

45 46 49

Wave Height Distribution and Wave Refraction Littoral Transport Patterns

V.

Conclusions

54

VI.

Acknowledgements

57

VII. References.

. .

Appendix

I

Ocean

Appendix

II

Additional

58

Park Profiles

Hydrodynamic

References

About

Modeling

i

Littoral

Processes

and


LIST OF FIGURES

Page Figure

1.

Study site location and the location of the

Thimble Shoals wave gage Figure

2.

3.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

2 4

.

Typical beach profile demonstrating terminology used in ........ ....... report .

Figure

.

Base map of Ocean Park Beach with profile and cell

locations . Figure

.

4.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

5

Shoreline and offshore bathymetry grid at Ocean Park

Beach used in the RCP wave evaluation

.

8

.

.

Figure

SA. Profile

000 plot depicting

fill project Figure

5B. Profile

6A. Profile

.

.

7A. Profile

7B. Profile

8A. Profile

Figure

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

8B. Profile 120 plot depicting fill project .. . . . . 9A. Profile

9B. Profile

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Figure lOA. Profile 200 plot depicting fill project .

Figure lOB. Profile

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

involving .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

ii

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

11

.

.

.

.

11

.

.

.

.

12

.

.

.

.

12

the 1987 .

.

.

.

.

13

the 1991 .

.

.

the .

.

.

.

13

1987 .

.

.

14

the 1991 .

.

.

.

.

14

the 1987 .

.

.

.

.

15

the 1991 .

.

.

.

.

15

the 1987 .

.

.

.

.

16

the 1991 .

involving .

.

the 1991 .

involving .

.

the 1987 .

involving .

.

the 1991 .

involving .

changes .

.

involving .

changes .

.

involving .

changes .

.

involving .

changes .

the 1987 .

involving .

changes .

.

involving .

changes .

.

involving .

changes .

.

involving .

changes .

.

involving .

changes .

240 plot depicting

fill project

.

changes .

200 plot depicting

fill project Figure 11A. Profile

.

.

changes .

160 plot depicting

fill project

.

changes .

160 plot depicting

fill project Figure

.

120 plot depicting

fill project Figure

.

080 plot depicting

fill project Figure

changes .

080 plot depicting

fill project Figure

.

6B. Profile 040 plot depicting fill project .

Figure

.

040 plot depicting

fill project Figure

.

000 plot depicting

fill project Figure

...

.

.

.

.

16

the 1987 .

.

.

.

.

17


Figure

11B. Profile

240 plot depicting

fi11 project Figure

12A. Profile

12B. Profile

13A. Profile

13B. Profile

14A. Profile

14B. Profile

15A. Profile

15B. Profile

16A. Profile

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

involving .

changes .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

440 plot depicting

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

changes

.

.

.

.

.

.

16B. Profile

Figure

17A. Profile

Figure

17B. Profile

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

480 plot depicting

.

.

.

changes .

.

.

.

changes

fillproject. . . . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

involving

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

the 1991 .

.

.

.

.

the 1987 .

.

.

.

.

the 1991 .

.

.

.

.

the 1987 .

.

the 1991 .

involving .

.

the 1987 .

involving .

.

the 1991 .

involving

changes .

480 plot depicting

fi11 project

.

.

440 plot depicting

fi11 project

.

the 1987 .

fill project Figure

.

the 1991 .

involving .

.

the 1987 .

involving .

changes .

.

involving .

changes .

the 1991 .

involving .

changes .

.

involving .

changes .

.

involving .

changes .

.

involving .

changes .

.

involving .

changes .

400 plot depicting

fi11 p~oject Figure

.

.

.

400 plot depicting

fill project Figure

.

360 plot depicting

fill project Figure

.

360 plot depicting

fi11 projact Figure

.

320 plot depicting

fill project Figure

.'.

320 plot depicting

fill project Figure

.

280 plot depicting

fill project Figure

changes .

280 plot depicting

fi11 project Figure

.

.

.

.

.

17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22

the 1987 .

.

.

.

.

23

the 1991

23

Figure 18A. Distance of MHW from the baseline for Jan 01, May 20, Jul 20, Aug 18, and Sep 21, 1987

25

Figure 18B. Distance of MHW from the baseline for Sep 21 and Nov 24, 1987; Mar 22, May 23, and Jul 27, 1988

25

Figure 19A. Distance of MHW from the baseline for Jul 27, Sep 20, Nov 16, and Dee 20, 1988; Jan 17, 1989

26

Figure 19B. Distance of MHW from the baseline for Jan 17, Mar 25, Jun 07, Jul 07, and Aug 01, 1989

26

Figure 20A. Distance of MHW from the baseline for Aug 01, Sep 11, Oct 02, Nov 07, and Dee 15, 1989

27

Hi


Figure

20B. Distance

of MHW from the baseline

for Dec 15, 1989;

Jan 02, Feb 01, Mar 09 and Apr 02, 1990 . Figure

21A. Distance

of MHW from the baseline

21B. Distance

of MHW from the baseline

.

.

.

.

22A. Distance

of MHW from the baseline

May 01 and Jun 03, 1991 Figure

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

27

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

28

.

..

28

.

..

29

for Aug 01, Oct 02,

and Nov 16, 1990; Feb 01 and Mar OS, 1991 Figure

.

for Apr 02, May 04,

Jun OS, Jun 28, and Aug 01, 1990 FigUre

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

for Mar OS, Apr 04, .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

22B. Summary of the distance of MHW from the baseline before and after each beach fill project and the last survey in

Jun 1991

29

Figure

23.

Subaerial

beach

annual

rates of change

at profile

000

31

Figure

24.

Subaerial

beach

annual

rates of change

at profile

040

31

Figure

25.

Subaerial

beach

annual

rates

of change

at profile

080

32

Figure

26.

Subaerial

beach

annual

rates

of change

at profile

120

32

Figure

27.

Subaerial

beach

annual

rates

of change

at profile

160

33

Figure

28.

Subaerial

beach

annual

rates

of change

at profile

200

33

Figure

29.

Subaerial

beach

annual

rates

of change

at profile

240

34

Figure 30.

Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 280

34

Figure

31.

Subaerial

beach

annual

rates

of change

at profile

320

35

Figure

32.

Subaerial

beach

annual

rates

of change

at profile

360

35

Figure

33.

Subaerial

beach

annual

rates

of change

at profile

400

36

Figure

34.

Subaerial

beach

annual

rates

of change

at profile

440

36

Figure

35.

Subaerial

beach

annual

rates of change

at profile

480

37

Figure

36.

Net movement

of the shoreline

beach fill project Figure

37.

Seasonal

variability

.

.

.

38.

Seasonal

variability

Figure

39.

40.

Seasonal profiles

variability 320 through

Net subaerial

.

.

.

and after .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

in the position 480

.

each .

.

.

.

38

of MHW at .

in the position

profiles160 through280 Figure

before .

in the position

profiles000 through120 Figure

.

.

......

39

......

39

of MHW at .

.

of MHW at

40 42

sand volumes

iv


Figure

41.

Net

nearshore

Figure

42.

Volume

Figure

43A. Breaking

volumes

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

loss or gain of the fill material wave

OPG shoreline Figure

sand

43B. Breaking

wave

OPG shoreline

heights .

.

.

.

heights .

.

.

.

(Hb) .

.

for modal .

(Hb) .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

42

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

44

.

.

.

.

48

waves .

.

.

impacting .

for storm waves .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

impacting .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

48

Figure

44A. Wave vectors

for modal

condition

across

OPG

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

50

Figure

44B. Wave vectors

for storm condition

across

OPG

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

51

Figure

45.

.

.

.

.

53

Littoral drift transport rate (Q) (m3/hr) for modal and storm condition using methods by

Gourlay (1982) and Komar and Inman (1970) Figure

46.

Gradient of alongshore energy for modal and storm condition

.

.

flux (dQ/dy) (m3/hr) using methods by

Gourlay (1982)and Komar and Inman (1970) . . . . .

v

. . . . 55


--- --- - --

I.

Introduction

A.

Statementof the Problem

Ocean

Park Beach

along the southern important

Virginia beach

beach

Beach,

project

as to decrease

performed

(103,980

meters)

of beach

channel

maintenance

and 70,000

Lynnhaven

Inlet

and the dredged

nourishment

(53,519

dredged

was the beach

1987, a

of Ocean

and to prevent

cubic yards

and is

implemented

the placement

is routinely

material

In April,

potential

smaller

involved

It is an

Park

monetary

project

was

of 136,000 cubic

as part of

fill placed

at

Park Beach.

Chesapeake estimated ft/yr

Ocean

Bay shoreline the erosion

(0.79 m/yr)

Oertel

Park has been one of the many undergoing

rate prior

severe erosion.

(1986) determined

stretches

The Corps

of

of Engineers

to the 1987 fill to be approximately

(U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers,

the recent

erosion

1990).

However,

rate to be about

2.6

Bryne

and

4.5 ft/yr

m/yr).

In order to evaluate of Virginia Ocean

These projects

Virginia,

Park community

government,

flood damages

Another,

Beach,

1).

of the city.

the recreational

primary

cubic meters)

fill.

Historically,

(1.4

tangible

(Figure

of the Ocean

with the federal

to increase

1991.

Bay

industry

of real estate.

in January,

cubic yards

the city of Virginia

for residents

in conjunction

loss due to erosion

Ocean

beach

site for the resort

nourishment

as well

within

shore of lower Chesapeake

recreational

a valuable

is located

Beach

Park.

nourishment

shoreline. transport

set up an intensive

The surveys project.

as an evaluation

losses due to shoreline survey of the beach

were performed

This report

of the general

The objective trends

the beach

monthly

presents

the analysis

hydrodynamic

setting

is to determine

are discernible

before

if beach

erosion,

and nearshore

along

and after each of the surveys

of the Ocean

Park

losses and sediment

and, if so, what are the wave

1

the City

forces

as well


..

VIMS WAVE O~ GAGE

Figure 1. Study site location and the location of the Thimble Shoals wave

gage.

2


:;

responsible. effective,

This information may lead to alternative, possibly more cost

beach

nourishment

methods.

B.

Limits of the study Area

Ocean

Park

Inlet.

is located

We are most

in the lower bay west of and adjacent

interested

in a section

Lynnhaven

Inlet westward

shoreline

is the site of the 1987 and 1991 beach

within

a larger

the east

section

Bay Bridge

C.

Approach and Methodology

Field

data and computer Data analyzed

Park during

surveys

have been

City of Virginia

January,

done monthly

however,

low water

(MLW).

foot

(122 m) intervals

the City of Virginia

Thirteen

beach

and making

the full set of profile

together

for individual positions

definition

nearshore

data were

the end of each profile. tidal

terminology

range

at Ocean

beach

calculated

June,

1991.

that

beach

---

and depths

is 100 feet

Figure

in this

survey

control

changes

at 400 for

I

plotted of relative

a pictorial

Plotted over time.

all sand below

occur

is

Appendix

dates

3 gives

were

(30.5 m) behind

in terms

report.

into account changes

by the

were positioned

summarized

(0.79 m).

3

project

at

profile

We used a baseline

with adjacent

by taking

Beach

runs along the beach.

(MHW).

the

measured

for vertical

transects

(Figure 2).

used

Park is 2.6 feet

lengths

The datum

area and volume

Subaerial

---

profile

Data were

to mean high water

also used to calculate

1987 through

profile

Inlet on

were used to address profiles

which

plots

profiles.

of the profile

by Lynnhaven

beach

calculations

baseline

contains

shoreline

defined

and is set

include

period.

along the shore

Beach's

fill projects

of

(CBBT) on the west.

methods

individual

mean

the profiles

Tunnel

from

This reach

since the first renourishment

over the monitoring

plotting

that extends

(1,463 m).

is roughly

for this report

the period

Beach;

feet

modelling

not consistent

were

4,800

of coast that

and the Chesapeake

objectives. Ocean

for about

of shoreline

to Lynnhaven

above MLW.

profiles All the MLW to The mean


OCEAN PARK, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA

CHESAPEAKE

Profile 440

Profile 480

~

Profile 400

Profile 360

~

.

~

Cell 11

Cell 12

BAY

Profile 320

Cell 10

Cell 9

Profile 240

Profile 280

Cell 8

f

路 . Cell 7

Shoreline

Shoreline (MHW) VIMS Baseline

VIMS Base~

~

)t(

~t

~{

WOODLAWN

AVENUE

WINDSOR CRESCENT

Profile 200

Profile 240

.

Cell 6

ALBEMARLE AVENUE

Profile 160

Profile 120

.

I Cell 5

I

Cell 4

Profile 080

Cell 3 r

Shoreline (MHW)

Profile 040

I Cell 2 I

I

Profile 000

Cell 1

Shoreline

Concrete Bulkhead VIMS Baseline ROANOKE AVENUE Figure

2.

/ /VIMS DINWIDDIE ROAD

Baseline', DUPONT CIRCLE

Base map of Ocean Park Beach with profile

EAST STRATFORD ROAD

Concrete 8

and cell locations.

tJlkheqd


Backshore

Nearshore

l~oreshore .Beach

Subaerial

Dune or Bulkhead

L.. Offshore

~

Berm Crest

Berm

HW

MLW VI

Figure

3.

Typical

beach profile

demonstrating

terminology

used in report.


The hydrodynamic

forces

evaluated

using RCPWAVE,

Engineers

(Ebersole

VIMSPrime

diffraction theory-based

model,

understandings dissipation induced,

shoreface

longshore,

routines

boundary

friction.

theoretical

longshore

gradients

models,

(1986) and Wright

et al.

To this

which

and littoral

height.

model

changes

recently

lineardeveloped

wave energy

also estimates

drift by means

incorporate

The reader

discussion

wave-

of three

the effects

is referred

(1987) for a thorough

in wave

and

fundamental

employ

of

to run on the

shoaling,

The VIMS revision

two of which

in breaker

computes

layers to estimate

surf zone currents

different

was modified

from refraction,

topography.

VIMS has added

due to bottom

shore reach were

by the u.s. Army Corps

This model

naturally

of wave bottom

Park

is a linear wave propagation

applications.

complex

developed

This program

RCPWAVE

that result

over

along the Ocean model

et al., 1986).

for engineering

characteristics

al.

a computer

9955 mainframe.

designed

acting

of

to Ebersole of RCPWAVE,

et its

use and theory. The model (wave height, gage data create

period,

the Ocean

Park Grid

in digital

wave

conditions

beach

cells.

II.

Coastal Setting A.

which

sets of incident were

Shoals Gage

(TSG).

(OPG) was obtained

format.

selected

wave conditions

on the basis

Bathymetric

from the National

The grid array has horizontal (20 m) and 131.2

and littoral

sediment

feet

of wave

data used to Oceanic

Survey

cell dimensions

(40 m) along the y axis.

drift were

calculated

for 110

Shoreline and Nearshore Morphology and Sediment Transport

The Ocean Henry

Thimble

the x axis of 65.5 feet

Breaker

14 separate

and direction)

from the VIMS's

(NOS, 1987) along

was run using

Park beach

at the mouth

lies approximately

of Chesapeake

Bay

(Figure

6

six miles 1).

(9.7 km) west of Cape

The shoreline

is orientated


west-east

and exists

Lynnhaven

Inlet and is part of a nearly

extends

westward

of Willoughby

on a low flat coast.

17 statute

Spit.

from Lynnhaven

More

coast that we have defined

Bay for about

3.0 miles

(MSL) (Figure

4).

OPG

Lynnhaven

including

region

on the west

occurs

between Ludwick

axis of which Chesapeake entrance,

are several

trends

approximately

28 feet

Spit.

This channel

Lynnhaven

currents

depth

beaches

shoreline

in this

it from bypassing

waves

often

will not reach ebb shoals

to Ocean

7

Creek

channel

compared

Park.

the

of the

is

to lesser

in the Beach than the ebb

along the

Inlet to Willoughby

(Byrne and Oertel,

Inlet and its extensive

that

Channel,

Inlet, Little

in duration

Bay from Lynnhaven

Park shoreline

Cape Henry

the sand and prevent

as the Beach

is from east to west

and refracted

shoal

(2.4 km) offshore.

affect the local wave climate.

inlet tidal

in the

channel

may strongly

However,

because

trending

and longer

shore of the Chesapeake

from the accreting

the broad

The flood currents

transport

sea level

ebb shoals,

are stronger

net sediment

along the Ocean

into Chesapeake

features

past Lynnhaven

offshore.

and offshore

to the southern

The water

reach of

morphologic

(8.5 m) along much of its length,

and farther

a larger

(7.6 m) below mean

channel

parallel

area extends

(1,463 m).

northward

interesting

the east-west

southern

drift

extends

which

of the bay to the tip

The shoreline

(0.8 km) and 1.5 miles

(1987) defined

In general,

feet

side of the grid and the east-west

near the bottom

currents.

in the OPG which

sandy beach

fill project

Inlet and its associated

0.5 miles

closer

narrow,

Park is set within

for this study.

and on to Willoughby

both

Channel

Ocean

Bay from Cape Henry westward

approximately depths

the beach

(4 km) to about 25 feet

There

to the east by

(27 km) from the mouth

for about 4,800

mentioned,

are contained

continuous,

specifically,

Inlet westward

As previously

bathymetry

miles

It is bordered

Spit.

cause west to east 1986).

the Ocean effectively

Also,

sediment

Park beach hold on to


VI I >-

1020304050

6070

L _ Beach r-Channel~ ,

_

I

"

80 90 10011012013014015016017018019<E0<El<E2<E3<E40

110

110

100

100

!

90 -Q) Q) E

90

0 ...,.

80

80

70

70

60

60

T

50

50

Park

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

II

>'C

Ocean

1

Lynnhaven Inlet

'f

10 20 30-40 50 60 70 80 90100110l20130140l50l60l70l80l9ceOce1IE2ce3ce40

dx = 20 meters Figure

4.

Shoreline and offshore bathymetry used in the RCP wave evaluation.

8

grid at Ocean Park Beach

X

-

Axis


B.

Beach and Nearshore Sediments

According

to the Army Corps

size of the beach analysis

of Engineers

sands along Ocean

is no doubt

influenced

(1992) found the sediments

Park

(1990) the average

is 0.35 mm

by recent

beach

in the nearshore

mean

grain

(medium-grained).

fill projects.

to be between

This

Hobbs

et ale

0.2 mm and

0.35 mm.

C.

Wave Climate

The wave recent

study

deployed

Bay

(Figure

with

- early

conditions,

Average

wave

a 6.0 s period.

Highest

waves

which

impacts

distribution this area.

measured

each month

height.

During

directed

winter

months,

features

were between

slightly were

Of the fall and winter

These

waves

at

Wave

typical

of

by the wave gage on

6.2 feet

(1.9) m.

Shoals wave

reflecting

(1.1 m)

data set

a dual energy

source

(1990) found that 40 to 60\ of all waves (0.20 m) and 1.97 feet

thus generated

about

outside

outside

the bay.

(0.60 m) in

80\ of the measured the bay.

more than half of the 0.67

feet

During

waves

fall and

(0.20 m) to 1.97

Bay-external

waves

result

wind waves.

waves

all were directed

fall and winter

Park.

storm, perhaps

in the Thimble

and summer months,

from swell and shelf-originated

(0.60 m), almost

were

0.67 feet

generated

and recorded

for the storm was 3.6 feet

recorded

Boon et ale

west-northwest,

(0.60 m) waves

height

1989, VIMS

area of lower

at Ocean

"captured"

of wave directions

late spring

only

experienced

were

reported

Shoals

data sensed

to severe northeast

8 and 9, 1989.

is the bimodal

feet

of conditions

spring

1988 to October

in the Thimble

The wave and current

of a moderate

One of the unique

were

1).

Bay has been the focus of

From September

wave gage

are indicative

characteristics late winter

lower Chesapeake

(Boon et al., 1990).

station

March

within

a bottom-mounted

Chesapeake this

climate

result

with

heights

south,

greater

thus generated

from northeasters

9

than

1.97 feet

within

the bay.

(extratropical

storms)


and northwesters, the bay.

As Ocean

it receives

waves

(over 100 miles, also produces energy

which Park

160 km).

elevated

generated in winter

summer

tend to cause beach

generated typical with

generally

the largest

inside

waves

were

causes

beach

low pressure the wave

storms

height

intermediate

while

recorded

Thus,

the higher

wave

calmer

conditions

in

in altering

the shore's

were

associated

waves were

relatively

in height,

0.67 to 1.97 feet

50% of these waves

to the conditions

generated

However,

at Ocean

infrequent.

outside

The more

(0.20 to 0.60 m),

the bay in the fall

each of these

Park,

with waves

energy

and each plays

sources

an important

role

morphology.

Beach Characteristics

and Behavior

Beach and Surf Zone Profiles and Their Variability

Figure referenced

2 is the basemap

for Ocean

to the City of Virginia

Park.

Beach's

The 13 profile

field surveys

labels

where

are

000 is 0+00,

040 is 4+00, and so on to 480 which is 48+00.

Profiles 000 to 200 cross a

bulkhead,

system before

beach.

and

In the summer months,

heights.

erosion

wave heights

and 80% in the summer.

A.

fetch of the bay

increase

shoreline.

Bay,

accretion.

contributes

III.

Park's

only minimal

the bay, these

approximately

and winter

Ocean

north-to-south

further

fetch of

end of Chesapeake

of extratropical,

levels which

reached

energy

Although

over the whole

water

along the maximum

at the southernmost

The passage

impacts

waves

strong north winds

is located

generated

and strongly

locally

produce

and profiles

240 to 480 cross

The early profile

the later profiles calculations

significant

sets were run out several

only went to just beyond

could only be performed

Figures

a dune

5 through

for the early

17 are plots

dates plotted

together

MLW.

hundred

Therefore, profile

of the individual

reaching

feet past MLW but nearshore

volume

set.

profiles

for each of the 13 profiles.

10

the

with

five

The survey


.,

OCEAN PARK PROfILE NO. 000

30

,

NOV1690 tJAY1487

JAN1987 20

fEET10 ( tJl

A

\

\AI)

',-" '-.

''-. ""-

o

-- '-',,-'- --'-"

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ----

""':;..-

tJLW

---------.--------------~"'-..

~-~-.

-10

o

100

Figu~e SA.

200

300 fEET

400

500

600

Profile 000 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project. OCEAN PARK PROFILE NO. 000

30 JUN0391 J AN

1 0 9 1

NOV1690 20

B

fEET10 (Ml\Al)

.~.

o

.-. ~- -.':~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

-- -- --

ULW

-10

o

Figure

5B.

100

Profile

200

000 plot depicting

300 fEET changes

11

400

involving

500

600

the 1991 fill project.


OCEAN PARK PROfILE NO. 040

30 NOV1690 MAY1487 JAN1987

20

.

A

"

.:11I'"-.."

\

"', \ ".

"

'

"'... "

"

..

,

o

\

\

- -- -- -~,-,::- -- -- -- --.,...-- -- -... -.. ~.r.:-:

,

...

-- --

-- -- -- --

IJLW

--- - -- "'-- ------..-.

-10

o Figure 6A.

100

200

300 fEET

400

500-

600

Profile 040 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project, OCEAN

PARI.<

PROfILE

NO. 040

JO JUN0391 J AN

1 0 9 1

NOV1690 20

,

fEET10 (ULW)

--.....

'

,

B

"

\,

-

'~,

o

'\-

-- -- -- -- --

\~-~'~~.:

IAlW

~ -- -- -- -- -- -- --

-10

o Figure

6B.

100 Profile

200

JOO fEET

040 plot depicting

12

changes

400

500

involving

600

the 1991 fill project.


OCEAN PARK PROFILE NO. 080 30 NOV1690 MAY1487 J AN

1 9 8 7

20

A

fEET10 (MlW) .

\ '-

o

\.,~~

-- -- -_\.- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ULW

.

~-_.

------------

-10 100

O.

200

300

400

500

600

fEET Figure

7A.

Profile

080 plot depicting

changes

OCEAN PARK PROFILE NO.

involving

the 1987 fill project.

080

30 JUN0391 JAN1091 NOV1690 20

fEET10

B

~.

(tJlW)

'-"''''--t ~'.

o

'''', -- -- --

.,.--,'. \... "---

--

.. --......

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

IJlW

,~-.-

-10 o Figure

7B.

100 Profile

200

300 fEET

080 plot depicting

400

changes

13

500

involving

600

the 1991 fill project.


OCEAN PARK PROfILE NO. 120 :50

NOV1690 tJAY1487 JAN1987 20

fEET10

A

(tJL \II)

.

o

\_"-~._- -- -~-~\-- -- -- -- ----

"-"

--

tJLW

.

"

. ......

--

--

-10

o

'00.

200

400

300

500

600

fEET Figure

8A.

Profile

120 plot depicting

changes

involving

the 1987 fill project.

OCEAN PARK PROFILE NO. 120 30 JUN0391 JAN1091 NOV1690 20

fEET10 (ML\II)

B

--:\-, \.. .'

'\~..

o

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ u ~'~~'.~:.

~

__ __ __ __

tJLW

- - - --

-....

-10

o Figure

8B.

100 Profile

200

300 FEET

400

500

120 plot depicting changes involving

14

600

the 1991 fill project.


OCEAN PARK PROFILE NO. 160 30 NOV1690 MAY2787 JAN1987 20

fEET

10

A

(MLW) .-..

"o

" -

-', - -

--

--

'.

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

.-

~LW

'.

-10

o Figure 9A.

100

200

500

400

JOO fEET

600

Profile 160 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project. OCEAN PARK PROFILE NO. 160

JO JUNOJ91 JAN1091 NOV1690 20

I .

fEET10

I .

(MLW)

'

B '~:, ~,

., '\:. .' ,>.

o

'".~':-'-'-

-- --

--

-- --

--

--

--

-- ---

"':'. ... .

~LW

'..

-10

o

Figure 9B.

100

200

JOO fEET

400

500

600

Profile 160 plot depicting changes involving the 1991 fill project.

15


.!

OCEAN PARK PROFILE NO. 200 30

NOV1690 tJAY2787

JAN1987 20

\

A

_.~

'-.

\

-".

..,~

--. '"

'. .

o

.-

..:. '- - " -

--

--

--

.-

.-

--

.-

--

.-

.-

.-

--

--

--

--

tJL \AI

'.~-""

- ~'--~".-~

.-.-

:

........

-10

o Figure lOA.

200

100

300 fEET.

400

500

600

Profile 200 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project. OCEAN

PARK

PROFILE

.

NO. 200

30 JUN0391 JAN1091 NOV1690 20

~. .~

fEET10 ( tJL\AI)

B

~--,-,

:

. ,,',

,

o

"

.~~-..".-~, , ,-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .">.

...W

-10

o Figure

lOB.

100

Profile

200

300 fEET

200 plot depicting

16

400

changes

500

involving

600

the 1991 fill project.


OCEAN PARK PROfILE NO.

240

30 NOV1690 ~AY27B7. JAN19B7 :20

fEET10

A

( tJL W)

, , o

-- -- ':''-,-_"':.--

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

-- -- -- --

~LW

~-_.-._--._-

-10

100

o

500

400

300

200

600

fEET Figure

llA.

Profile

240 plot depicting

changes

involving

the 1987 fill project.

OCEAN PARK PROF JLE NO. 240 30 JUN039~ JAN1091 NOV1690 20

fEET10 ( tJL

,

B

\"

W)

" "............

":.~.

o

, ''-. - -'

: - - - - - - - - - - - --

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

~LW

...................

-10

o

Figure lIB.

100

200

300 FEET

400

500

600

Profile 240 plot depicting changes involving the 1991 fill project. 17


OCE AN

PARK

PROF ILE

NO. 280

30 NOV1690 tJAY2787

JAN1987 20

A

FEET10 (tJLw)

-- -. --

-.

\

. ".\ ~""_.-'..\.. .

~ . ~ ..

. '\ -".

o

.. -

.. -

- -

,-

"

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---.. -,

tJLW

-

-.-<:"

-~ .

,

-..

-=-.""," .- . - -

....--...... ~ ~.,

'.~

-10

o

100

200

400

300

500

600

fEET Figure

l2A.

Profile

280 plot depicting

changes

OCEAN PARK PROfILE NO.

involving

the 1987 fill project.

280

30 JUN0391 JAN1091 NOV1690 20

B

fEET10 ( tJL \IJ)

o

tJLW

-10

o Figure l2B.

100

200

300 fEET

400

500

600

Profile 280 plot depicting changes involving the 1991 fill project. 18


OCEAN PARK PROFILE NO. 320 30 NOV1690 tJAY2787

JAN1987 '20

1', \ ", --

A

.

i'

" , -.~,~,~-... ,..................

"

o

tJLW

-10

o

100

200

300

400

500

6.00

fEET Figure

13A.

Profile

320 plot depicting

changes

involving

the 1987 fill project.

OCEAN PARK PROfILE NO, 320 30 -..--

JUN0391 JAN1091 NOV1690

20

B

fEET10 (~LW)

o

tJLW

-10

o Figure

13B.

100

Profile

300 fEET

400

320 plot depicting

changes

200

19

500

involving

600

the 1991 fill project.


OCEAN

PARK

PROFILE

NO.

360

30 NOV1690 tJAY2787 JAN1987

20

"

..\ .r " '/

fEET10

".

( tJL \AI)

A

, \

~.

tJLW

o

'. <-..,.~..

::.=~:..cc~ c~ :-:

~,~~ -:

~Z~: ~ ~: ~:'--. ;

-10

o

100

200

600

500

400

300 fEET

Figure

14A.

Profile

360 plot

depicting

changes

involving

the

1987 fill

project.

OCEAN PARK

PROFILE NO. 360 30 JUN0391 JAN1091 NOV1690

20

B

o

ULW

-10

o Figure

14B.

100

200

Profile

360 plot

300 fEET depicting

20

400

changes

600

500

involving

the

1991 fill

project.


OCEAN

PARK

PROfILE

NO. 400

30 NOV1690 t.JAY2787

JAN1987 .20

1\.. . .

~

-

.

-

.

.

A

.

\ , ......

---------------

o

- -

- -

-'-.. - -

"__ '.

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

_

- -

.-

-- -- tJLW

-10

o

100

200

500

300

600

fEET Figure

15A.

Profile

400 plot depicting

changes

involving

the 1987 fill project.

OCEAN PARK PROfILE NO.. 400 30 JUN0391 JAN1091 NOV1690

20

\

B

\

\

\I,

~.

o

-- -- -- -- -- --

," -~~--

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

tJLW

-10 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

fEET Figure 15B.

Profile 400 plot depicting changes involving the 1991 fill project. 21


OCEAN PARK PROFILE NO.

440

30 NOV1690 ~AY2787 20

A

"

o t

-- -- -- -- -- --':-_-'~'-.~_:~.:~_:~

~LW

-- -- -- -- ~

. - - . .-

-10

o

Figure 16A.

100

300 FEET

200

400

500

600

Profile 440 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project. OCEAN PARK PROFILE. NO. 440

30 JUN0391 JAN1091 NOV1690 20

B \ .\, ""':t_

,'. .\.

o

--

~-<--:::..;:.: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

-10

~W

. .

0

100

200

:500

400

500

600

FEET Figure

16B.

Profile

440 plot depicting

22

changes

involving

the 1991 fill project.


OCE AN PARK PROf ILE NO.

480

30 NOV1690 tJAY2787

20

A

o

ML \!J

~

..

~

..'"

-10

o

100

Figure l7A.

200

300 fEET

400

500

600

Profile 480 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project.

OCE AN PARK PROfILE NO

480

30 JUN0391 JAN1091 NOV1690 20

B

fEET10 ( tJLW)

':-" -

o

-- -- -- -- -- --

tJLW

~...........---..

-10 0

100

200

300

400

500

changes

involving

600

fEET Figure

l7B.

Profile

480 plot depicting

23

the 1991 fill project.


date on the figures 1990).

is listed

The profiles

post-initial

compare

fill condition

90),' the post-secondary condition

as month,

(Jun 91).

the pre-initial

fill condition

Nearshore

data Beach

for profiles losses

'A' portion

region

is a slightly

and 11 (profiles shallower

deeper

trough

are no January,

1987,

fill are evident

on each profile

as seen

17.

Of interest

just beyond

bar activity

of the shoreline

the position

of MHW.

Most

is the rapid

obvious

immediately

in the nearshore

MLW seen in Figures

Further

8, 9, 10

west the nearshore

as seen in Figures

from month

is the wider,

the first beach to attenuate

adjustment

becomes

12 through

18 to 22 show the distance

In general,

However,

beach

at the western

17.

action,

reduce

breaking

of the shoreline.

wave heights,

in shoreline

region

immediately

Another

end of the project

nearshore

of MHW from

fill project.

and those

amount

by

are evident.

variations

of a greater

and the shallow

trends

to the first

the later dates

could be due to placement

wave

several

of the beach

fill show less movement

fill project

time can be represented

the fill show significant

to month.

subaerial

This

through

Figures

survey date.

following

to the second

and 440.

bars can be seen

Shoreline Position Variability

for each

prior

survey

there

5 through

shifting

the baseline

position

recent

(Nov

Variability in Shoreline Position and Beach Volume

The movement

Dates

Also,

120, 160, 200, and 240).

1.

plotting

(Jan 87), the

fill condition

offshore

16 Nov

440 and 480.

of Figures

with more

B.

including

1990.

after the initial

in the

fill condition

(Jan 91), and the most

changes,

=

(e.g. Nov1690

(May 87), the pre-secondary

for the early dates up to November survey

day, then year

between

trend 360

of sand during which

would

and thus reduce

tend

beach

loss. Another shore feature is a curvilinear embayed shoreline segment between profiles

040 and 360.

This

feature

persists

24

through

time and is accompanied


Feet

Feet 0

50 I

480

4401

100 I

150 I

200

.'

I-JAN1987 .... MAY2087

4001

I ....JUl2087

/

.e. AUG1887

360 I

SEP2187

250

300

350

teL

I

I

..

0

440 \

400

............

I

360

'"d Ii 0 HI

8

350

SEP2187

MAR2288 JUL2788

280

B

Z

ยง

C" (1) Ii

200

160

160

120

120

080

080

040

040

000

000

Figure 18A.

-

(1)

200

C" (1) Ii

300

240 A

.Z

250

320

240 N VI

200

.e. MAY2388

280

(1)

150

NOV2487

\

320 '"d Ii 0 HI

100

480

..f}....

50

Distance of MHW from the baseline for Jan 01, May 20, Jul 20, Aug 18, and Sep 21, 1987.

Figure

188.

Distance of MHW from the baseline for Sep 21 and Nov 24, 1987; Mar 22, May 23, and Jul 27, 1988.


)

Feet 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0

480 440

-

" ..

JUL.2788 I

- NOV1688 I

440

. I

400

..

360

-." DEC2088

360

JAN1789

1-1'1

N 0'

250

300

350

JAN1789 MAR2589 JUN0789 JUL0789 AUG0189

320 "d Ii 0

280

1-1'1 t-'-

t-'.

I-' ro Z !3 0ro Ii

"."

I

320 "d Ii 0

100

480

....-SEP2088

400

50

Feet 150 200

280

I-'

(1) 240

A 200

z

240

(1)

200

Ii

B

160

160

120

120

.

080

080

..

040

040

000

000

Figure 19A.

Distance

of MHW from the baseline

for Jul 27, Sep 20, Nov 16, and Dec 20, 1988; Jan 17, 1989.

Figure

19B.

Distance of MHW from the baseline for Jan 17, Mar 25, Jun 07, Jul 07 and Aug 01, 1989.


Feet 0

50

100

150

200

Feet 250

300

350

0

440

-AUG0189

400

-+-Ocr0289

'.'NOV0789 360

DEC1689

360

n>

Z c: 8 en> .,

300

350

- DEC1689 -+- FEB0190

APR0290

"'0

280

HI

N --.J

250

320

"'d

lf-'

200

..' MAR0990

320 ., 0

150

JAN0290

SEP1189

400

100

480

480 440

50

., a

280

I-

240

HI .....

240

A

n>

B

z

c: 8 en> .,

200

200

160

160

120

120

080

080

040

040

000

000

Figure

20A.

Distance of MHW from the baseline for Aug 01, Sep 11, Oct 02, Nov 07, and Dec 15, 1989.

Figure

208.

Distance of MHW from the baseline for Dee 15, 1989; Jan 02, Feb 01, Mar 09, and Apr 02, 1990.


)

Feet 0

50

100

150

Feet

200

I

480 440 400-1

250

I

I

...

I APR0290

MAY0490

......JUN0590

AUG0190

I

350

I

I

0

100

50

150

200

250

300

350

480

f

440

- AUG0190

...OCT0290

,\.

I

... JUN2B90

360

300

400

NOV1690

...FEB0191

.

360

MAR0591

I

320

N 00

'"d 1"'1 0 HI ..... to-' (1)

z

t:: 6(1)

1"'1

320 .-.: 1"'1

0

280

Z

240

!

200

.

160

160

!

120

120

080

080

040

040

000

000

280 240

200

A

HI 1-'to-' (1)

t:: 8 C"' (1)

1"'1

Figure 21A.

Distance of MHW from the basel~ne for Apr 02, May 04, Jun 05, Jun 28 and Aug 01, 1990.

F~gure 218.

B

.

.. .,

.J Distance of MHW from the baseline for Aug 01, Oct 02, and Nov 16, 1990; Feb 01 and Mar 05, 1991.


)

Feet 0

50

100

150

Feet

200

250

300

350

0

480

-

440

MAR0591

400

-I

I

J

"" .

./

"'\.

320

, :1

280

'tI

'tI

:;. 240

:; 240 .....

11

:z: 200

A

..... (I)

11

..

120

...

080-1

'. ,

8 \

,

.

160

120

,

.

:z: 200

!

160

.

.I .,,

11

..... (I)

11

I)1/__/\

.. POST-2(FEBIII) PRESENT(JUNIII)

360

280

(I)

350

.. PRE-2CNOVIIOI

-I I.......MAY0191

320

\0

300

... POST-I (MAY87)

.e. JUN0391

fIJ

250

-PRE.ICJAN87)

..... APA0491

360

200

150

480

440 400

100

50

-I

I

(

,

I ..

"

. 080 -I

\..

\

. /

.

I

t. {

040J 000

Figure

'I

22A.

Distance of MHW from the baseline for Mar 05, Apr 04, May 01, and Jun 03, 1991.

\

0401 000

Figure

228.

,

,, ,

/ ')

. 'f<.J'

Summary of the distance of MHW from the baseline before and after each beach fill project and the last survey in Jun 1991.


by the deeper

region

relatively

narrow,

Bulkheads

sometimes

elevation

relative

1990)

in the very nearshore.

and half of the embayed

shore

tend to reduce the frontage to adjacent

non-hardened

is backed beach

shores

width

is

by a bulkhead.

in both width

(Hardaway

and

and Thomas,

.

The annual Figures

rates of shoreline

23 to 35.

Shoreline

change

loss in winter Figure dates.

The movements is variable

fill.

the first beach

trend

are shown

in the subaerial

in

beach.

of gain in the summer

and

both

for the 5 significant

fill projects.

fill project

Highest

and profiles

is

400 and 440 after

is seen at profiles Inlet,

erosion

the

400 and 440 after the

actually

showed

a loss after

Beach and Nearshore Volume Changes

beach

(cy/ft/yr).

of material

The seasonal

fall after the initial

variability

The changes

the opposite,

summer.

This may reflect

profiles

040, 080, and 120 toward

westward

and possibly beach

partial

are measured

eastern

profile

transport 000 as well

All four of these

fill in April

1991.

30

for

per foot per

and winter)

is shown 1987, the

most profiles

and losses

in the winter

eastward

the shore

from September,

in the summer

gaining

along

in cubic yards

(i.e. summer

The three

37 show gains

offshore.

lost or gained

by changes

fill project.

000 in Figure

000 trends

either

can be measured

37, 38 and 39.

from the second

of the shoreline

000, near Lynnhaven

The amount

Profile

the change

of MHW)

fill project.

2.

excluding

reflect

A slight gain

Profile

the subaerial

(i.e. position

but a general

080 after each

first fill operation.

in Figures

reflect

36 shows the net movement

The two large gains

second

change

exists.

seen at profile

year

Here the beach

in the winter.

and losing

in the

out of the region as sediment

profiles

of

movement

show the increase


1000 800 600 400

-.... 4? '-'

200 0 -200 -400 -600 -800

-1000 JanS7

JanSS

Jan 89

Jan90

Jan91

.Jun9!

Date

Figure 23.

Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 000.

1000 800 600 400 200 '&:'

4? '-'

0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000 Jan87

Figure 24.

Jan88

Jan89 Dffie

Jan90

Jan91

Jun91

Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 040. 31


1000 800 600 400

-

200

0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000 Jan87

Figure 25.

Jan88

Jan89 Date

Jan90

Jan91

Jun91

Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 080.

1000 800 600 400 200 -c-

-

0 -200 . -400 -600 -800 -1000 Jan87

Figure 26.

Jan88

Jan89 Date

Jan90

Jan91 Jun91

Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 120.

32


1000

,..-

800 600 400 200

-

,-... '>-

0

;t::: ---

-200 -400 -600 -800 -1 000 Jan87

Jan88

Jan89

Jan90

Jan9J.

Jun91

Date 27.

Figure

Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 160.

1000 800 600 400 200 "C'

-

0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000 Jan87

Jan88

Jan89

Jan90

Jan91

Jun91

Date Figure

28.

Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 200.

33


1000 800 600 400 .--. '-

E.

200 0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000 Jan87

Jan90

Jan88

Jan91

.

Jun91

Date Figure

29.

Subaerial

beach

annual

rates

of change

at profile

240.

1000 800 600 400 .--. '-

200

0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000 Jan87

Jan88

Jan89

Jan90

Jan91

Jun91

Date Figure

30.

Subaerial

beach

annual

34

rates

of change

at profile

280.


1000 800 600 400 --'-..-

200

0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000 Jan87

Jan88

Jan89

Jan90

Jan91

Jun91

Date Figure 31.

Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 320.

1000 800 600 400 200

--'-..-

0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000

Jan87

Jan88

Jan89

Jan90

Jan91

Jun91

Date Figure

32.

Subaerial

beach

annual

35

rates

of change

at profile

360.


tooo 800 600 400 200 "L:'

ÂŁ'

0

.........

-200

-400 -600 -800 -1 000

__ Jan87

Jan88

Jan90

Jan89

Jan91

Jun91

Date Figure

33.

Subaerial

beach

annual

rates

of change

at profile

400.

1000 800 600 400 200 ..-.. ....

0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000 Jan87

Jan88

Jan89

Jan90

Jan91

Jun91

Dffie

Figure 34.

Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 440.

36


1.000 800 600 400 200 ...-.. ....

0

.........

-200

-400 -600 -800 -1 000

Jan87

Jan88

Jan89

Jan90

Jan91

Jun91

Date Figure 35.

Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 480.

37


600

I

I I

500

-xPre-1

1---

Post-1 ,,

"C'

400 I

I

:

:J cc as

I

I

,

/ \/ \

-; 300

f\ \

-

II ;:;-2

\

I \

/

\

200

10

z

100

o -100

480 440 400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 080 040 000 Profile Number

Figure 36.

Net movement of the shoreline fill project.

38

Pre-2

before and after each beach

IIent


-

40

Profile 000

30 Profile 040

-'>->-

~

20

Profile 080

-+Profile 120

10

-

(,)

0 -10 -20 Sep87 Mar88 Sep88 Mar89 Sep89 Apr90 Oct90 Apr91 Date Figure 37.

-

Seasonal variability in the position of MHW at profiles 000 through 120.

40

..

30

I

Profile 160 :::

Profile200 ---*Profile240

20

'-

>-

-

-+Profile 280

10

-

(,)

0 -10 -20 Sep87 Mar88 Sep88 Mar89 Sep89 Apr90 Oct90 Apr91 Date Figure 38.

Seasonal variability in the position of MHW at profiles

160 through

39

280.


-'-2:' >u "-'"

-

40

..

30

..

20

I I--*Profile360 Profile 400 --tProfile 440

10

-.-

0

-10

Profile320

I

""

\

--'"

I

I

-20 -30 Sep87 Mar88 Sep88 Mar89 Sep89 Apr90 Oct90 Apr91 Date Figure

39.

Seasonal profiles

variability 320 through

40

in the position 480.

of MHW at

Profile 480


I'

Profiles gains

and winter

Profile

losses but at lesser rates than profiles

280 is the exception

but steady again

160, 200, 240 and 280 (Figure 38) show similar

loss up to the second

seen in April For profiles

of the project beach

showing

320, 360, 400, 440 and 480

area, the seasonal

320, 360, and 400.

for profile

480.

Net sand volumes

first pre-fill

placed

is once

1987 to November, condition

are less clear.

of beach

At the same time,

of the subaerial

beach

1990.

= Jan87)

(i.e. 0

profiles (see Figure 2). volume

fill operation

and a slow

(Figure 39) on the western

relationships

fill had less impact on this section

January,

of 87-88

1991.

in profiles

period

The second

of summer

040, 080 and 120.

a gain in the winter

fill.

trends

but gains

The volumes

The second

from it are seen

a significant

are shown

loss is shown

in Figure

40 for the

are relative

and the cells

edge

to the

are defined

by the

From pre-1 to post-1 (Jan87 to May87), all sand

shows accretion

in each cell except

1 where

a slight

loss is

seen. From post-1 significant

to pre-2

amounts

3, 4, 5, and 11.

(May87 to Nov90),

of sand.

Only cells

Some of the highest

Figure

1, 8, and 9 lost

losses occurred

8 and 9 have maintained

subaerial beach than the pre-fill condition. may have been transported

all but cells

a significantly

Sand losses from adjacent cells

changes

that took place

in the nearshore

from January, 1987 to November, 1990 (pre-fill 1 to pre-fill 2). was not uniformly

increase

from pre-fill

placed

in the nearshore,

1 to post-fill

1990, cells 2, 3, 11, and 12 showed contained material

less sand than before in that

wider

into that area.

41 demonstrates

material

in cells 2,

1.

However,

did

1987 to November,

losses of sand to the point where

the fill operation.

same time period.

Fill

but net volumes from May,

All other

41

Cells

area

they

1, 7, and 8 gained

cells have lost material

from


15 Jan8? to May8? -+-

10

$='() '-"

W

:E ::::> ....J

5

(/)

"'0

(/)

:J 0 .t=.

> C.

0

May8? to Nov90

0

-5 -10

-15-L12

11

Figure

4

40.

Nee subaerial

3

2

1

sand volumes.

5000

-=Jan8? to May8?

-+-

4000

May8? to Nov90

3000 $='

w :E ::::> ....J

0

2000

1000

> 0

-1000

-2000

5 CELL NUMBER

Figure

41.

Net nearshore 42

sand volumes.

I


the nearshore condition.

region

but still have greater

In general,

the areas of the subaerial

(cells 1, 8, and 9) also tended the areas material

that were

receding

region

Since the first beach

initial

cubic yards

1987, 51% was lost prior

losses were greatest

project.

A total of about

Since assumed

significant

that most

600 feet offshore Surveys

dredged amount

fill (January, erosion. shorter

surveys

(subaerial) Given winter

Losses

has been transported However,

transport

that

for the second

(38,228 cubic meters)

during

by about

to maintain

embayment,

In June,

43

width

70,000 the

Most of the second the area of chronic

1991, the second

due to fill volume

(3,823 cubic meters).

fill project

the beach

for.

show a net

approximates

are not available

5,000 cubic yards another

only go to

out of the reported

in the nearshore

that time.

surveys

fill project

most.

changes

lost.

7 and 8, it is

zone is unaccounted

lost from the 1987 fill project in the shallow

were

fill

east and west out of

nearshore

beyond

Therefore,

the first beach

only in cells

the above scenario,

of 1994-1995

following

yards

was reduced

1991.

37%, the second year 23%, the third

The 70,000 cubic

taken

in

gains occur

1991) was placed

Of the

placed

nearshore

on the beach.

losing

a net loss

fill.

(53,519 cubic meters)

fill volume

and

1990.

has realized

of material

were

fill was lost in the fourth year.

than offshore.

Beach volumes

region,

cubic yards

cubic yards

of material

show accretion

of the beach

fill in January,

in the first year

and offshore

and placed

beach

pre-fill

70,000

of the beach

gain of 50,000

that

1987 to November,

cubic meters)

fill were

of the material

the study area rather

portion

to the second

24%, and 16% of the initial

initial

beach

the need for the second beach

(103,980

in the first year of the first year

from May,

than their

in the nearshore

fill, the subaerial

This precipitated

136,000

April,

to gain material

in the subaerial

from the nearshore

(Figure 42).

sand volume

will be needed

in the

the city needs to maintain

a


140

130

120

-

UJ "0 'as

110

0

'(jj"

:c

't:I c

CIS

--

0 J:

:J 0

Q)

E :J

100

t::..

90

g 80

70

60 1987

1988

1989

1990

Year Figure

42.

Volume

loss or gain of the fill material.

44


'I

viable

protective

activity

during

and recreational

beach

fill may be required

Park.

There

are two main man-induced

natural

Inlet

beach

and backshore

Bulkheads through

will

time,

Therefore,

that affect

of property

improvements

with a dune system that allows

the construction

part of the Ocean

activities

Park

to the shoreline.

of roads

natural

resulting

and houses

has a broad

runup

and some dune

close to the shore along required

wave processes

in a reduced

it is necessary

for wave

A

The beach tends to recover naturally after a storm.

study area eventually

restrict

surveys

the shoreline

such as the area to the west of the bulkhead

erosion during storm periods. However,

of subsequent

storm

They are the recurring (3 to 5 yrs) dredging of

and the proximity

system

intense

earlier.

Anthropogenic Impacts to Shoreline Processes

Lynnhaven

However,

analysis

C.

processes at Ocean Park.

IV.

at Ocean

the fall of 1991 and preliminary

show additional

beach

beach

beach

to maintain

bulkheads

the eastern

for protection.

and may add to the beach

width

(Hardaway

a protective

beach

erosion

and Thomas, in that

1990).

area.

Wave Modelling at Ocean Park A.

RCPWAVE Setup

A detailed modelling

discussion

are beyond

Appendix

of wave processes,

the scope of this report;

II for a listing

of pertinent

sediment

transport

the interested

references.

and numerical

reader

The technique

can refer to

used here was

similar to that described by Ebersole et al. (1986): we applied a modified version

of the RCPWAVE

program

originally

developed

by the u.S. Army Corps

of

Engineers. The use of RCPWAVE

to model

the hydrodynamics

at Ocean

Park assumes

that

wave transformation is affected only by the offshore bathymetry (Figure 4). actuality, operating

the local wave climate

will be strongly

along the lower Bay shoreline

as well

45

influenced

as the tidal

by tidal effluent

In

currents created

by


Lynnhaven

Inlet.

incorporated

Also, variations

into the model

view of the wave

Shoals

The wave gage the Thimble Park,

climate

is located

Shoals

here is to present

for RCPWAVE

is based

for the period

about

Light

7 miles

(Figure 1).

north,

from the same direction. 9, 1989 northeaster

In order

B.

and northwest

were

(T) seconds,

the southwest,

south,

selected

direction

for a duration

from the wave

gage data

(degrees

from north),

for the

and

mean represents

the modal wave

storm condition

condition

based mainly

used has an incident

and 1860 incident

For this on

wave height

wave approach.

Wave Height Distribution and Wave Refraction takes

an incident

wave

at the seaward

boundary

of the grid and

allows it to propagate shoreward across the nearshore bathymetry. dissipation relative,

due to bottom

roughness

in part, to the mean

over

shallower

It is assumed wave

and

of 9 hours or more

5.0 see for T at 1800 incident wave direction.

(1.1 m), 6.0 see period,

RCPWAVE

smaller

at Ocean

The weighted means for these conditions are 1.4 feet

The northeast

of 3.6 feet

approach

These conditions represent a wave window of 11% of the total

the weighted

height.

wave

Park near

For each condition, there is an incident wave height

period

(0.42 m) for Hand study,

toward

to model

of Ocean

1989.

Also, the average wave condition for the March 8 and

conditions

model runs (Table 1).

wave gage data.

1988 to October,

was modelled.

wave

duration (hrs).

September,

from the

These conditions represent waves generated within the

bay from the northeast,

(H) in meters,

are not

a general

on wave data

(11 km) northwest

only the waves that are directed

Fourteen

surges

The purpose

input

Wave Gage

southeast are utilized.

wave

runs.

levels due to storm

climate.

The local wave VIMS Thimble

in water

height

sand size

bathymetry

(based on laboratory

to water

depth

is accounted

equals

data) 0.78

Waves

that waves

and is

also tend to become

larger over deeper

(Komar,

46

for in this analysis

(0.25 rom).

and remain

Frictional

bathymetry.

break when the ratio

1976).

of


TABLE 1.

WAVE CONDITIONS USED IN MODEL RUNS.

Case Number

Height (m)

Period (s)

Direction (deg)

Duration (hrs)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4

5 5 6 5 5.5 6 5 6

180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 135 135 135 225 225 225

15 54 9 486 87 180 27 42 18 9 12 9 21 63

From the perspective

4.5 5.5 6 7 5.5 5

of beach

stability

and behavior,

it is the energy

and momentum flux entering the surf zone that are important.

Both quantities

are proportional

of the setup at

to the square of the wave height;

the shore is directly Wright

proportional

to the breaker

the height wave height

(Komar,

et al., 1987). Figure

43A shows the distribution

of breaking

wave heights

shoreline of the Ocean Park Grid for the modal wave conditions. breaking

wave

profiles

120 and 240, the area of the nearshore

conditions

occur

in the Ocean

Park region,

breaking waves in the OPG occur at the CBBT.

trough.

distribution

bathymetric

within

contours

roughly

parallel

The highest between

Some of the smallest

This may be due to wave

the area of Lynnhaven

running

along the

in particular

dissipation across the broad nearshore shoal in that area. height

1976;

Inlet

Breaking wave

is suspect

to the direction

due to the

of wave

approach.

The breaking shown

in Figure

wave distribution

43B.

The distribution

for the northeast of breaking

47

storm

waves

condition

is somewhat

is

more


Storm

Modal

4360

~z

~z

"

I

C

.0,

I

A

B

"-

..:;:

0 -0 ..:;: <.9

T

E 0

L.. L1. 00

Ocean

Q) ..... Q)

Park

1

Lynnhaven

Inlet

f o 0.54

0.11 Figure

0.45

Meters 43A.

Breaking

wave heights (Hb)

for modal waves OPG shoreline.

impacting

Figure 43B.

1.3 Meters Breaking wave heights (Hb) for storm waves OPG shoreline.

impacting


uniform

across

condition, within

the OPG than the modal wave

some of the highest

the Ocean

Park

Upon entering travel

changes

breaking

condition.

waves

for the storm

shallow

water,

waves

depth

refract

of water

height

to be refracted

and energy

The direction

in a complex

along the coast

of wave

approach

height

and direction

the breakpoint.

and the direction

westward

crests

Irregular bottom topography

way and produce

across the OPG is shown

variations

in the

in Figure

44A and

at that point

The wave vectors are the refracted in the nearshore

and the plot

stops at

In the modal condition, higher relative breaking wave heights

on the east side of Ocean Park show a slight eastward Smaller

of wave

(Komar, 1976).

448 for the modal and storm conditions. wave

occur

in such a way that wave

tend to become parallel to the depth contours.

wave

condition

shore segment.

with decreasing

can cause waves

As with the modal

refracted

waves

on the west

bending

side of Ocean

wave

front.

Park are also

evident.

8reaking waves in the storm scenario (Figure 448) of the ebb shoal off of Ocean Park. eastward

on the east side of Ocean

occur near the edge

The refracted waves appear to be bending Park and westward

along the west

side of

Ocean Park.

The reader is reminded to note the difference in vector scaling

for the wave

refraction

c.

plots

(i.e. Figures

44A and 448).

Littoral Transport Patterns

The wave-induced

movement

of sand along

a beach

breaking wave height and angle of wave approach. evaluated

to calculate

the littoral

cubic meters per hour). to large errors;

hence,

zone is dependent

These parameters were

drift transport

rate,

(Q) (expressed

magnitudes

in

Applications of littoral drift formulae are subject the absolute

magnitudes

predicted

must be considered

suspect or, at best, accepted with caution (Wright et al., 1987). the relative

on

as they vary along the coast under

49

However,

different

wave


0 <D ('i')

.

00

I11JJJJ II lJ

JJ

J

1/

J

J

J

J

J

JIIIIJJ 11//

l1J

Jill

J

I

I

J

...-.. ....

.c .Q> Q)

.c

Q)

j j j jJ

J

J

J

j jj.1

j

J

j

j

J

J

j

J J j

J

J

J

1

Jl

j j

1

J

J

J

JJ

J

J

j jj j jJ

L.. Q) .... Q)

0

0 L!) 0 II

J J

J

J

J

J

J

1

J

J

J

J

J

j

J

J

J.

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

l

j

J

J

J

111

I I

J

I

J

I

J

J I

1

I

.

J J

/

N

t

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J

1

1

I

I

I

I

J

1

J

j l11J

j

1

!

1

1.

1

\ I J

I

0 CI]

1

\0.1 ()

1

o

l I

I

I

"-

I

\

I I

\

\

I

1

"'C ._ L.. <9

E

oL..

LL

'1:1. 0 () ,.....f

ro '1:1 0

s \0.1

0

CI]

(/)

\0.1

Q) .... Q)

+J () Q)

L..

0

Q)

ro

.,

\ ;'

.+J 'C

1

I

I \/

.0

.-c: 0>

1

I \j I

I

ro

j 1 j 1

J

J

p.,

CI] 0

J

ro '"'-' (/)

j

.

J1

jJ

J

.

>

j j J JJ

1

I I I

J

0 0 N

. <: ..::t ..::t

:

\

Q)

\0.1 ;::3

.00 c <I.> <1.>'-

UCII

00..

50

路 I...J>. t-

10


-

= 1.000 Meters (wave height)

4360 -<-<

ÂŁ

<~v

~ ~~~

~~~~-----~~~~~--------~~ ~----

~z

-~~~------------~--~------------ ~--~~--~ ~

VI

I-'

T

< :? ~

~~-<--<

~ ~,,~~>(

~-<

Ocean Park

_

_

1

/

t

'-

I

Lynnhaven Inlet

...--

<-~k

:ÂŁ::

<

~

-

<

....--

"

....

'<

'<

'<

0(

'<

'<

(

/

'< "

k

>(

"-

:<

~+"'r<ot(-","

""

..s:

(""-~

--

-""

'< :S--~..s:..s:"

.--~~..s:

,- ./

'<

'< '< '<

"

"

~

'<

0(

0(

~

'<

0(

~~~

(

'(-<

~

'<

~

~

...

'<

'<

'<

-<

-<

-<

<

'<

'<

'(

'(

'(

~J'J'''''''''~'''

-~

-,

~

"

-<

o

o 2000

Meters From Grid Origin Figure 44B.

Wave vectors

for storm conditionacross OPG.


scenarios

are probably

transport.

Estimates

the moderating

obtained

effects

The methods and Gourlay

more meaningful using

of breaker

of littoral

(1982) as discussed

and their

Sediment

the two methods

in Wright

et ale

et ale (1987).

rates

(Q) resulting

to the east with

several

indicated

in the region

patterns

are essentially

in Figure

45B.

rate

net movement

conditions

indicated

sector where where

profiles

between

There

is generally

"spikes,"

There

is

Note the values

here.

the methods

a

or extremes

040 and 280.

employed

for the northeast

variation

for the modal

There

are

but the relative

storm condition

in sediment

condition.

transport

However,

in the Ocean

are seen

rate on the

the sediment Park area with a

to the east.

drift transport movement

rates

at Ocean

both east and west.

in transport

beach

of the shore embayment

wave condition

side of the OPG.

are still concentrated

divergence

the subaerial

rates

is greater

"spikes"

indicate

along the west

difference

transport

There

The littoral

of these

the same.

side of the OPG than

transport

Park between

data

for each of the two methods

of magnitude

The sediment

west

of Ocean

no net movement

orders

is

discussion

from the modal

net movement

several

(1970)

The reader

(1987) for a complete

(Figure 45A).

rates

and Inman

applications.

transport

for transport

include

height variations.

for both methods

essentially

of

in this report

shows the same pattern

located

directions

drift used here are by Komar

'referred once again to Wright formulae

as are predicted

suffers

between

directions

chronic

profiles

Park under modal

and storm

This area may be a shore occurs.

erosion

It is also the area

(i.e. the general

040 and 360) as discussed

location

in Section

III. The absolute erosion

rates

or accretion.

(Q) of littoral

Erosional

drift

or accretionary

52

are not direct changes

causes

of either

in the volume

of sand


Storm

Modal

4360

~z

~z

A

T

I

-c::--T

B

Ocean Park \J1

w

21

1

1

Lynnhaven Inlet

f

o

I -0.17 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.13 (m3/hr) -2.5 -2.0 Gourlay o -50.9 K&I 45.3 (m3/hr) -900 Figure

45.

-1.0

Littoral drift transport rate (Q) (m3/hr) for modal condition using methods by Gourlay (1982) and Komar A negative value indicates transport to the west.

o

o

0.77 711

(A) and storm (B) and Inman (1970).


-+

stored

in a beach

Specifically, exceeds

are determined

when

exceeds

(Wright

1987).

in the estimates Once

depostion region.

accretion

Onshore-offshore

alongshore

occur

as data

"spikes"

extremes

largest

Park.

loss for this wave The "spikes"

when

are equal

fluxes are not accounted

sediment

flux

sediment

transport

(dQ/dy).

Figure

High relative

in the east two-thirds

rates

rates

for

(Q)

46A displays of erosion

of the Ocean

in the area between

for (dQ/dy) are shown

profiles

west of Lynnhaven

The net change

in the Ocean

and

Park 040 and

in (Q) and (dQ/dy) at Ocean

Park

Inlet are evident

(between profiles

active

in that area.

This

movement volume

losses as shown

appear to be a zone of divergence out of that

The in

condition.

and storm wave

and large sediment

46B.

Park area shows a slight

for both modal

sediment

in Figure

and deposition

360, i.e. the embayment)

conditions

040 and

indicate

is an area of high erosion

in the profile

where

data analysis.

sand is transported

rates This

east and

shore sector.

Conclusions The beach

reflect beach

results

A high deposition rate is seen in the region of

storm values

rates of erosion

the area of Ocean

V.

Erosion

sector

000. The northeast

west

(dQ/dy).

coastal

input and output

used to derive

once again occur

360 and indicate a net loss.

would

flux

a given

results.

sediment

for the modal wave condition.

These

prof He

drift entering

is no change when

again the two methods

(dQ/dy)

in alongshore

of (dQ/dy) here.

are used to determine the

the sector,

input; there

e~ a1.,

by the gradients

the rate of littoral

the rate exiting

output

~-----

nourishment

the commitment

projects

done at Ocean

of the city of Virginia

along that section

of shoreline

Park

in 1987 and 1991

Beach to maintain

in the City of Virginia

54

a protective

Beach.

The fact


Modal

Storm

4360

~z

~z

I

A

...P

B

T

I

\JI

\JI

Ocean Park

?

1

Lynnhaven .

Inlet

t 0 Gourlay

-0.15 -0.1

o

K&I

-37.8

o

Figure 46.

0.1

0.21

(m3/hr) -2.01

60.9 (m3/hr) -2500

-1.0

o

o

1.0

2.48 2450

Gradient of alongshore energy flux (dQ/dy) (m3/hr) for modal (A) and storm (B) condition using methods by Gourlay (1982) and Komar and Inman (1970). A negative value indicates erosion.


_

. _.

__

h

II I.

that this creates a recreational area is an added feature.

Also, the chronic

erosion

would

of the beach

beach width

area in front of the existing

and threaten

The 1987 beach of its volume point where 53,519

fill

in about

a second

(136,000

erosion

1991.

that

(i.e. the shoreline embayment). (3,823 cubic meters) additional

fill maybe

The reason Ocean data

Park within

waves

Chesapeake

recorded

by a wave

for both wave

embayment

intense

earlier

"spikes"

sediment

of profile

additions

transport

appears

storm waves

of beach material

recreational

beach.

Another

and offshore

structures

in

model

Analysis

of wave

toward

Ocean

3.6 feet

(1.1 m)

high breaking

The resulting

at the Ocean

consistent This

option may include

show

in the area of

loss of beach

material

is the area where

in net beach

will be needed to maintain

loss.

Park shoreline

and deposition)

and results

56

at

for that period

Relatively

RCPWAVE.

by the City.

to reduce beach

projection.

shoreline

southward

averaging

indicate

at the area of the shoreline

to measured

to diverge

climate.

travelling

transport

surveys

of 1994-1995

1989 shows wave heights

(high rates of erosion

over the period

surveys

at the embayed

to the local wave

computer

This corresponds

sediment

than the winter

are predicted

the embayment.

fill was placed

of subsequent

gage near the study area.

conditions

in longshore

data

Analysis

Northeast

by the hydrodynamic

predictions

1991.

(0.42 m) for waves Bay.

cubic yards,

is in front of and just west of the bulkhead

1988 to october,

1.38 feet

to the

The second fill lost about 5,000 cubic yards

to be related

from September, about

needed

the

lost half

reduced

(70,000

Most of the second

for the area of active erosion

Park appears

average

were

by June

cubic meters)

had been

was initiated

reduce

structures.

38,228

The beach width

fill project

in January

of severe

of the shoreline

cubic yards,

four years.

beach

cubic meters)

the region

the integrity

bulkhead

loss.

a protective

a combination

Further and viable

of beach

fill


strategically

placed

offshore

rock breakwaters

and an inlet

jetty would

serve several purposes.

First, the beach fill that would be added shoreward

of the breakwaters

come from maintenance

This' material reducing

Park.

would

Finally,

created. term

would

dredging

breakwaters

then be prevented

frequency.

an enhanced,

management

dredging

from re-entering the stabilized

of Lynnhaven Lynnhaven

system of shore protection

of such a system would

goals to be defined

Inlet, thus

fill and the offshore

stable and longer recreational

and design

Inlet.

for Ocean

shoreline

would be

relate to long

by the city of Virginia

Beach.

Acknowledgements The authors

and Lee Hill

would

like to thank Don Wright,

for their editorial

for the fine drafting report

Second,

offer a significant

The exact extent

shoreline

VI.

would

preparation

reviews.

of the figures.

Kay Stubblefield

A special

and compilation.

57

Rick Berquist,

thanks

Woody

Hobbs,

was responsible

to Beth Marshall

for


VII.

References

Bpon, J.D., S.M. Kimball, K.D. Suh, and D.A. Hepworth, 1990. Chesapeake Bay Wave Climate, Thimble Shoals Wave Station. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Data Rept. No. 32, 39 pp. Byrne, R.J. and G.F. Oertel, 1986. Present Shoreline Status and Recommendations for Beaches of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Report Prepared for the Virginia Beach Coastal Study Committee, 10 pp. Carter, R.W., 1988. CA, 617 pp.

Coastal Environments.

Academic Press, Inc., San Diego,

Bbersole, B.A., M.A. Cialone, and M.D. Prater, 1986. RCPWAVE - A Linear Wave Propagation Model for Engineering Use. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rept. CERC-86-4, 260 pp. Gourlay, M.R., 1982. Nonuniform Alongshore Currents and Sediment Transport A One-Dimensional Approach. Civil Eng. Res. Rept. No. CE31, Dept. Civ. Eng., Univ. of Queensland. Bardaway, C.S. and G.R. Thomas, 1990. Sandbridge Bulkhead Impact Study. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Sramsoe No. 305, 50 pp. Hobbs, C.B., III, J.P. Halka, R.T. Kerhin, and M.J. Carron, 1992. Bay sediment budget. J. Coastal Res. 2:292-300. Komar, P.D., 1976. Beach Processes and Sedimentation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 429 pp. Komar,

P.D. and D.L. Inman, 1970. Longshore Geophys. Res. 73(30):5914-5927.

Chesapeake

Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

sand transport

on beaches.

J.

Ludwick, J.C., 1987. Mechanisms of Sand Loss from an Estuarine Groin System Following an Artificial Sand Fill. Old Dominion University Tech. Rept. 87-2, 89 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1990. Report, Norfolk, VA, 75 pp.

Ocean Park Beach.

Section

933 Evaluation

Wright, L.D., C.S. Kim, C.S. Hardaway, S.M. Kimball, and M.O. Green, 1987. Shoreface and Beach Dynamics of the Coastal Region from Cape Henry to False Cape, Virginia. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Rept.,

116 pp.

58


Profile

000


Ocean Park Beach-

.

30

-..-..-

Line 000 000 000 000 000

Survey 100 105 110 120 125

19 13 14 20 18

Date JAN 87 APR 87 MAY87 JUL 87 AUG 87

20r IL. C 0 ...

10

III > CII ... W

0

_.-

I'

-10

o

100

'-.-

.-

200

300 Distance.

Ocean Park

8'fU:.

400

'---'

--r--'--'

500

600

FT

Beach

30

-...-..-

Line 000 000 000 000 000

Survey 125 130 135 140 145

18 21 24 5 26

Date AUG87 SEP B7 NOV B7 JAN BB FEB BB

20r IL. C 0

...

10

III > CII

...

W

0

-10

I

o

....

100

200

..........-.-.-.----:::::-.-.--.

300 Distance.

400

FT

500

600


,

Ocean Park 8each 30

.

20

---

Line 000 000 000 000 000

Survey 145 150 155 160 165

Date 26 FE8 88 22 MAR88 20 APR 88 23 MAY88 24 .JUN 88

.... II.

C 0

....

..

10

IV > GI ... W

0

-10

o

100

200

Distance.

Ocean Park

400

300

500

600

FT

Beach

30 Line 000 000 000 000 000

20

Survey 165 170 175 180 185

Date 24 JUN 88 27 JUL 88 7 SEP 88 20 SEP 88 17 OCT 88

.... I&. c .... o

..

10

IV > GI ... W

o ~"::::":::::

-10

o

100

200

"-"-"-"-"-..-..-..-.

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 000 000 000 000 000

20

Survey 185 190 195 200 205

17 16 20 17 10

Date OCT 88 NOV 88 DEC 88 JAN 89 MAR89

I\I. C .... o

..

10

III >

Q) ....

w

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

Ocean Park

400

500

600

FT

Beach

30 Line 000 000 000 000 000

"20

Survey 205 210 215 220 225

Date 10 MAR89 25 MAR89 6 JUN 89 7 JUL 89 1 AUG 89

I-

\I. C .... o

..

"10

III >

Q) ....

w

o

,.~.:::: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -10 o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 000 000 000 000 000

20

Survey 225 230 235 240 245

Date 1 AUG 89 11 SEP 89 2 OCT 89 7 NOV 89 15 DEC 89

.-

u.. C ... o ...

10

10 > CII .... UJ

a

-10

a

100

200

Distance.

Ocean Park

400

300

500

600

FT

Beach

30

-....-..-

.u.. C 0 ... ... 10 >

Line 000 000 000 000 000

Survey 245 250 255 260 265

Date 15 DEC 89 2 JAN 90 1 FEB 90 9 MAR90 2 APR 90

20r

10

CII .... UJ

0

....-

-10.

a

100

200

300 Distance.

400

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30

Line Survey 000 000 000 000 000

20

Date

265 270 275 280 2B5

2 APR 90 5 JUN 90 28 JUN 90 1 AUG90

500

600

<4 MAY 90

.... I&.

C 0

... ..

to

III

>

-W

III

0, -to

o

-. 100

200

400

300 Distance.

Ocean Park

FT

Beach

30 Line 000 000 000 000 000

20

Survey 285 290 295 300 305

Date 1 AUG 90 2 OCT 90 16 NOV 90 10 JAN 91 1 FEB 91

.... I&.

C ... o

..III

to

> III

W

o

.......----.--.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-.-.--.--.-.-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park

Beach

30 Line 000 000 000 000 000

20

Survey 305 310 315 320 325

Date 1 FEB 91 5 'MAR91 4 APR 91 1 MAY91 3 JUN 91

~

u. C ... o .oJ III >

10

G.I ... W

o

-----------------10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Profile

040


Ocean. Pa~k Beach 30

Line 040 040 040 040 040

20

Su~vey 100 105 110 120 125

Date 19 JAN 87 13 APR 87 14 MAY87 20 JUL 87 18 AUG 87

lII. C

0 .... ,JJ cu > QI .... UJ

10

0

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

500

600

FT

Ocean Pa~k Beach

30 Line 040 040 040 040 040

20

Su~vey 125 130 135 140 145

Date 18 AUG 87 21 SEP 87 24 NOV 87 5 JAN 88 26 FEB 88

l-

II. c: .... o .... cu > QI .... UJ

10

o

-10

.

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 040 040 040 040 040

20

g

Survey 145 150 155 160 165

26 22 20 23 24

Date FEB 88 MAR88 APR 88 MAY88 JUN 88

10

.... .oJ

"' >

CII ... LIJ

o

-10 .

------------0

100

200

300 Distance.

400

--500

600

FT

,,

Ocean Park Beach 30

Line 040 040 040 040 040

20

c: .... o ....

Survey 165 170 175 180 185

Date 24 JUN 88 27 JUL 88 7 SEP 88 20 SEP 88 17 OCT 88

10

"' >

CII ... LIJ

o -.~:::..:::..._.._..-.._..-.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 040 040 040 040 040

20

Survey 1B5 190 195 200 205

17 16 20 17 10

Date OCT BB NOV BB DEC BB JAN B9 MARB9

lLL. ... g

../0

10

> III .... I.&J

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Oistance.

500

400

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 040 040 040 040 040

20

Survey 205 210' 215 220 225

Date 10 MARB9 25 MARB9 6 JUN B9 7 JUL B9 1 AUG89

llL c: ... o

../0

10

'> III .... I.&J

o

'~--~~-------------10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 040 040 040 040 040

20

Survey 225 230 235 240 245

Date 1 11 2 7 15

AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

89 89 89 89 89

lI/,.

g

.... .tJ 10

10

> Q). ....

UJ

o

-10 o

100

200

300 Distance.

Ocean Park

400

500

600

FT

Beach

30 Line 040 040 040 040 -...-...-

l-

040

Survey 245 250 255 260 265

Date 15 2 1 9

DEC JAN FEB MAR

89 90 90 90

2

APR

90

2째T

I/,. r:

0 ...

10

.tJ 10 > Q) ....

UJ

0

-10 . 0

100

200

300 Distance. FT

400

500

600


,,

Ocean Park Beach 30

Line 040 040 040 040 040

20

Survey 265 270 275 280 285

Date 2 APR 90 4 MAY90 5 JUN 90 28 JUN 90 1 AUG 90

Iu..

c

... o ....

10

10 > cu ... UJ

o

-. -10

o

100

200

300

400

Distance.

FT

Ocean Park

Beach

30

Line 040' 040 040 040 040

20

500

Survey 285 290 295 300 305

600

Date 1 AUG 90 2 OCT 90 16 NOV 90 10 JAN 91 1 FEB 91

Iu.. C

0 ... .... 10 > cu ... UJ

10

0 '--?S=='\'tz:..-=--""-,,,-:-o_ '-'-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.~

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 040 040 040 040 040

20

Survey 305 310 315 320 325

Date 1 FEB 91 5 MAR91 4 APR 91 1 MAY91 3 JUN 91

IU. C .~ o

.....

10

"' > QI

~ UJ

o

----------10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Profile 080


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 080 080 080 080 080

20

Survey 100 105 110 120 125

19 13 14 20 18

Date ..IAN87 APR 87 MAY87 .JUL 87 AUG 87

u.

C

-4J 0

10

10 > III

... W

0 -'

,e:;.=:.=.._.._.._..

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

-10

o

100

200

400

'-'-.-.-.-.

500

600

FT

400

300 Distance.

-

FT

500

600


Ocean Park

Beach

30

-...-...-

Une 080 080 080 080 080

Survey 145 150 155 160 165

26 22 20 23 24

Date FEB 88 MAR88 APR 88 MAY88 JUN 88

20r II. C

0

... .... n:I > QI .... I&J

10

O.

...........

'''--

-10

o

100

200

-.-

300 Distance.

400

-....-..

500

600

Survey 165 170 175 180 185

Date 24 JUN 88 27 JUL 88 7 SEP 88 20 SEP 88 17 OCT 88

FT

Ocean Park Beach 30 Une 080 080 080 080 080

20

II. C

0 ... .... n:I > QI .... I&J

10

0

' -10

o

100

200

........-..-..-..-....-

400

300 Distance.

..-..-..-

FT

...-...-..-..-..-...-...-...

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 080 080 080 080 080

20

Survey 185 190 195 200 205

17 16 20 17 10

Date OCT 88 NOV 88 DEC 88 JAN 89 MARB9

l-

I&.

e0

...

..

10

10

>

-

QI

IIJ

0

-10

o

100

300

200

Distance.

Ocean Park

400

500

600

FT

Beach

30 Line OBO 080 080 080 080

20

Survey 205 210 215 220 225

10 25 6 7 1

Date MAR89 MAR89 JUN 89 JUL 89 AUG 89

l-

I&.

e ... ..o

10

10 > QI

-IIJ o

MLW

~

-10

o

100

200

------------.

=

300 Distance.

400 FT

500

600


Ocean Park

Beach

30

-..-..-

l-

Line 080 080 080 080 080

Survey 225 230 235 240 245

Date 1 AUG 89 11 SEP 89 2 OCT 89 7 NOV 89 15 DEC 89

20r

Ll. C 0 ...

.... III > QI ...

10

I

UJ

\"\

0

-10

1:.

o

100

""'::::.

200

300 Distance.

400

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 080 080 080 080 080

20

Survey 245 250 255 260 265

Date 15 DEC 89 2 JAN 90 1 FE8 90 9 MAR90 2 APR 90

lLl. C ... o ....

10

III > QI ... UJ

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line OBO 080 OBO 080 080

20

c ~~

Survey 265 270 275 280 285

Date 2 APR 90 4 MAY90 5 JUN 90 28 JUN 90 1 AUG 90

10

III > QJ

... W

o

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

Ocean Park

500

600

FT

Beach

30 Line 080 080 080 080 080

20

Survey 285 290 295 300 305

Date 1 AUG 90 2 OCT 90 16 NOV 90 10 JAN 91 1 FEB 91

IL

C

0 ....

10

III > CII ... W

0

'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'.

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30

Line oeo oeo oeo oeo 20

OBO

Survey 305 310 315 320 325

Date 1 FEB 91 5 MAR91 4 APR 91 1 MAY91 3 JUN 91

C .... Q ~ /0 > 4J ... UJ

10

o

------------10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Profile

120


Ocean Park Beach 30

-...-..I-

Line 120 120 120 120 120

Survey 100 105 110 120 125

Date 19 JAN 87 13 APR 87 1 MAY87 20 JUL 87 18 AUG87

20r

u. C

0 -... III > -wGI

10

I

",

r'I

'\::

I

-

-

". .

-10

o

100

..

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

0

200

Distance.

-10

o

100

200

~oo

300

300 Distance.

500

600

FT

~oo FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30

Line 120 120 120 120 120

20

Survey 145 150 155 160 165

Date 26 22 20 23 24

FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

BB Be ee ee ee

lI&. C

~ ....

10

/0 > QI ... LLI

o

~

', -10

o

100

200

.......--------

~~~~~~~:

400

500

300 Distance.

Ocean

Park

600

FT

Beach

30 Line 120 120 120 120 120

20

Survey 165 170 175 180 185

Date 24 27 7 20 17

JUN JUL SEP SEP OCT

88 88 88 88 88

l-

I&. C 0 .r< .... /0 > QI ... LLI

10

0

..~,":: .-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-.. I ..'""'..........._.._.._.

-10

o

100

20p

300 Distance.

400 FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 120 120 120 120 120

20

Survey 185 190 195 200 205

17 16 20 17 10

Date OCT 88 NOV 88 DEC B8 JAN 89 MAR89

.... IL.

C

.2 ....

10

10 > III ... W

o

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach

30 Line 120 120 120 120 120

20

Survey 205 210 215 220 225

Date 10 MAR89 25 MAR89 6 JUN 89 7 JUL 89 1 AUG 89

.... IL.

c .... o .... 10 > III ... W

10

o

---- -------------

."":::::-..

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park

Beach

30

-..-..-

I-

Line 120 120 120 120 120

Survey 225 230 235 240 245

Date 1 AUG 89 11 SEP 89 2 OCT 89 7 NOV 89 15 DEC 89

20r

u. C

0 -4J

10

10 >

QI .... W

0

-10

-, ,....

I

o

......

100

200

300 Distance.

400

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach

30 Line 120 120 120 120 120

20

Survey 245 250 255 260 265

Date 15 DEC 89 2 JAN 90 1 FEB 90 9 MAR90 2 APR 90

IU. c: .... o

4J 10 > QI .... W

10

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400 FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30

Line 120 120 120 120 120

20

Survey 265 270 275 280 285

Date 2 APR 90 4 MAY90 5 JUN 90 28 JUN 90 1 AUG 90

l-

lL

c .... o u 10 > cu ... UJ

10

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 120 120 120 120 120

20

Survey 285 290 295 300 305

Date 1 AUG 90 2 OCT 90 16 NOV 90 10 JAN 91 1 FE8 91

l-

lL C 0 .... u 10 > cu ... UJ

10

0

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 120 120 120 120 120

20

Survey 305 310 315 320 325

Date 1 FEB 91 5 MAR91 4 APR 91 1 MAY91 3 JUN 91

lI&. C 0 ." It! > OJ

10

-UJ

.. I

0

--- ---10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

----------. 500

600


Profile

160


Ocean Park 30

Beach

I

-..-..-

l-

Line 160 160 160 160 160

Survey 100 105 110 120 125

19 13 14 20 18

Date JAN B7 APR 87 MAY87 JUL 87 AUG 87

20r

Ll. C 0 .... ... /0 > QI ... w

10

l

I

-, "::::..

......

.

0

.....

----..:.-,._...

-10 0

100

200

300 Distance.

Ocean Park

400

500

600

FT

Beach

30

-...-...-

l-

Line 160 160 160 160 160

Survey 125 130 135 140 145

18 21 24 5 26

Date AUG 87 SEP 87 NOV 87 JAN 88 FEB 88

20r

Ll. C 0 .... ... /0 > QI ...

10

W

'

0 I

-...;::. -...;;.-.-.

.-.;;;;.--.--.

I

-10 0

100

200

300 Distance.

400 FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30

20

Line

Survey

160 160 160 160 160

145 150 155 160 165

26 22 20 23 24

Date FEB 88 MARBB APR BB MAY8B JUN B8

lI&. c

~.oJ

10

/0 > GI .... W

o

-10

o

200

100

300 Distance.

Ocean Park

400

500

600

FT

Beach

30

Line 160 160 160 160 160

20

Survey 165 170 175 1BO 1B5

Date 24 JUN Be 27 JUL BB 7 SEP BB 20 SEP 8B 17 OCT BB

.... I&. C

0 ... .oJ /0 > GI .... W

10

0 ~

-10

o

100

200

,

.. _u

u

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

u_.

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 160 160 160 160 160

20

Survey 1B5 190 195 200 205

17 16 20 17 10

Date OCT BB NOV BB DEC BB JAN B9 MARB9

llL. C ... o

~ III > ell ... W

10

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

500

600

Survey 205 210 215 220 225

Date 10 MARB9 25 MARB9 6 JUN B9 7 JUL B9 1 AUGB9

FT

Ocean Park Beach

30 Line 160 160 160 160 160

20

l-

lL. c ... o

~ III > ell ... W

10

o ---'= " ~ .......---

-10

o

100

200

",. ,...-............

300 Distance.

400 FT

.......-----

500

600


Ocean Park

Beach

30

-...-...-

l-

Line 160 160 160 160 160

Survey 225 230 235 240 245

Date 1 AUG 89 11 SEP 89 2 OCT 89 7 NOV 89 15 DEC 89

20r

II. C

0 ....

.... II) > QI

10

... W

0

,,---

I

-10 a

100

200

300 Distance.

400

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach

30 Line 160 160 160 160 160

20

Survey 245 250 255 260 265

Date 15 DEC 89 2 JAN 90 1 FEB 90 9 MAR90 2 APR 90

lII. c .... o .... II) > QI ... W

10

o

-10

o

100

200

300

Distance.

400

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 160 160 160 160 160

20

Survey 265 270 275 280 285

Date 2 APR 90 4 MAY90 5 JUN 90 28 JUN 90 1 AUG 90

u..

C 0 ...

10

III > CI.J UJ

0

.-

I -10

o

100

200

Distance.

500

600

Survey 285 290 295 300 305

Date 1 AUG 90 2 OCT 90 16 NOV 90 10 JAN 91 1 FEB 91

400

300 FT

Ocean Park Beach 30

Line 160 160 160 160 160

20

u..

C

0 ...

10

III > CI.J UJ

0 ~...~

.-.-...........

-.,: '-.~

-10

o

100

200

~~

~

400

300 Distance.

.....................--.-.-.-.

FT

500

-

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 160 160 160 160 160

20

Date 1 FEB 91 5 MAR91 4 APR 91 1 MAY91 3 JUN 91

Survey 305 310 315 320 325

.... LL.

C

0 .... 4.J III > GJ ... W

10

0

",..,.----...

--~ -10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

...........

""-----500

600


Profile

240


Ocean Park

Beach

30

-..-..-

I11C 0 ...

4J

Line 240 240 240 240 240

Survey 100 105 110 120 125

19 13 14 20 18

Date JAN 87 APR 87 MAY87 JUL 87 AUG 87

20r

10

=---'

IV > III ... UJ

..,

.

,::.

".,." .. ,

o

"

'."' .'

....:. .......... ....... ......_---..... -. . ........---.......

..-

I

-10

0

200

100

300 Distance.

Ocean Park

400

500

600

FT

Beach

30

-..-..-

I11-

Line 240 240 240 240 240

Survey 125 130 135 140 145

18 21 24 5 26

Date AUG87 SEP 87 NOV B7 JAN 88 FEB 88

20r

C 0

...

4J IV > III

10-+-

... UJ

I

/\

\\. \;..

.. ......,

"'

01

-10

o

,-'-''

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Une 240 240 240 240 240

20

Survey 145 150 155 160 165

Date 26 FEB Ba 22 MARea 20 APR ee 23 MAYaa 24 JUN ee

....

u.

tE 0 ... ... co > QI ... UJ

10

0

~

. -10 o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

---~---_. 500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach 30 Une 240 240 240 240 240

20

Survey 165 170 175 1eO 1e5

Date 24 JUN ee 27 JUL ee 7 SEP ee 20 SEP ee 17 OCT ee

.... u. tE 0 ... ... co > QI ... UJ

10-b\.

" .,.,

.,., ~,...... .~

0

,.,.

. -10

o

100

,."

200

.........................

.-..-..-

..-..-.--..-.-..-..-..-..-..---.-.

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park

Beach

30 Line 240 240 240 240 240

20

Survey 185 190 195 200 205

17 16 20 17 10

Date OCT B8 NOV B8 DEC 88 JAN 89 MARB9

.... I&,

c:

.2 ....

10

III > CII ... W

o

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 240 240 240 240 240

20

Survey 205 210 215 220 225

Date 10 MAR89 25 MAR89 6 JUN 89 7 JUL 89 1 AUG 89

....

u. C 0

... .... III > CII ... W

10r

0

~~ -10

o

100

200

~, ---------------300 Distance.

400 FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 2~0 2~0 2~0 240 240

20

Survey 225 230 235 240 2~5

Oate 1 AUG 89 11 SEP 89 2 OCT 89 7 NOV 89 15 DEC 89

l-

I&.

-10

o

100

200

300 Oistance.

-10

o

100

200

400

600

500

600

FT

400

300 Distance.

500

FT


,

Ocean Park

Beach

30 Line 240 240 240 240 240

20

Survey 265 270 275 280 285

Date 2 APR 90 4 MAY90 5 JUN 90 28 JUN 90 1 AUG 90

l-

Ll. C ... o ...

10

IV > ell ... W

o

-10

o

100

200

300

400

Distance.

FT

Ocean Park

Beach

500

600

30 Line 240 240 240 240 240

20

Survey 285 290 295 300 305

Date 1 AUG 90 2 OCT 90 16 NOV 90 10 JAN 91 1 FEB 91

lLl. C

0 ... ... IV > ell ... W

10

.0

---

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-..

-10 o

100

200

300 Distance.

400 FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 240 240 240 240 240

20

.

Survey 305 310 315 320 325

Date 1 FEB 91 5 MAR91 4 APR 91 1 MAY91 3 JUN 91

...

IL

C c ... ... 10 >

10

QJ -UJ

0

=----------------10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400 FT

500

600


Profile 280


Ocean Park

Beach

30

-..--.-

Line 280 280 280 280 280

'Survey 100 105 110 120 125

19 13 14 20 18

Date "'AN 87 APR 87 MAY87 "'UL 87 AUG87

20r I&.

C c .... ... to > (II ....

10 ""'

UJ

........... .:"

,."

""

o

,.-.:..::::.

-.-.::

,.

.

-.._.--......... -10

0

200

100

300 Distance.

400

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach 30

Line 280 280 280 280 280

20

Survey 125 130 135 140 145

18 21 24 5 26

Date AUG 87 SEP 87 NOV 87 "'AN 88 FEB 88

~ I&.

c .... o ... to > (II .... UJ

10

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 2BO 2BO 2BO 280 2BO

20

Survey 145 150 155 160 165

26 22 20 23 24

Date FEB 88 MAR8B APR BB MAYB8 JUN BB

Iu.. C

0 .... ... IU > Q) ... w

10

0

... -

-10 o

100

200

HLW

- 300

Distance.

-, ................---------................

400

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 2BO 2BO 2BO 2BO 2BO

20

Survey 165 170 175 1BO 1B5

24 27 7 20 17

Date JUN BB JUL BB SEP BB SEP BB OCT BB

Iu.. C

0 ....

.... IU

10

> Q) ... w

0

..:"-7."_~-'::_"_..,.., -:...:::... -10 o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

FT

..............-..-..-..-..

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line

2BO 280 2BO 2BO 2BO

20

Date

Survey

185 190 195 200 205

17 OCT

8B

16 NOV

BB

20 DEC

BB

17 JAN

89

10 MAR

89

llL.

a

....

4J /0 > QI

10

... UJ

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach

30

Line 2BO 2BO 2BO 2BO 2BO

20

Survey 205 210 215 220 225

Date 10 MAR

B9

25 MAR 6 JUN

89 89

7 JUL

89

1 AUG

89

llL.

C o 4J

....

10

/0 > QI

... UJ

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400 FT

500

600


Ocean

Park

Beach

30

Line 2BO 280 280 280 280

20

Survey 225 230 235 240 245

Date 1 AUG

89

11 SEP

89

2 OCT 7 NOV

89 89

15 DEC

89

c .... o ~ co

10

> Q) ~ UJ

o

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach

30 Line 280 280 280 280 -..-..- 280

20-+-

Survey 245 250 255 260 265

Date 15 2 1 9 2

DEC JAN FE8 MAR APR

89 90 90 90 90

IU.

C 0

....

10

co > Q) UJ

0

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park

Beach

30

--.-..-

20+

Line 280 280 280 280

Survey 265 270 275 280

Date 2 APR 90 4 MAY90 5 JUN 90 28 JUN 90

280

285

1 AUG 90

u.

C

0 ... ..

10

III > QJ ... I&J

0

-10

...

I

o

100

... -:::.-:--

200

-

400

300 Distance.

FT

Ocean Park

8each

30

Line 280 280 280 280 280

20

500

Survey 285 290 295 300 305

600

Date 1 AUG 90 2 OCT 90 16 NOV 90 10 JAN 91 1 FEB 91

u. C 0 ... .. III > QJ ... I&J

10

0 .

:.;.~.::::",-~."::::::.._.

.:::::"... '.,..,..-:,,_~:;;oo-

-10

o

100

200

_._._._._._._._..

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 280 280 280 2BO 280

20

Survey 305 310 315 320 325

Date 1 FEB 91 5 MAR91 4 APR 91 1 MAY91 3 JUN 91

llL. C

0 ... .oJ III > CII .... W

10

0

~.==----

- ~--------

-10o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Profile

320


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 320 320 320 320 320

20

Survey 100 105 110 120 125

19 13 14 20 18

Date JAN 87 APR 87 MAY87 JUL 87 AUG 87

....

u. c: ... o

~ /II > CII .... ILl

10

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 320 320 320 320 320

20

Survey 125 130 135 140 145

Date 18 AUG 87 21 SEP 87 24 NOV.87 5 JAN 88 26 FEB 88

....

u.

c ... o ~ /II

10

> CII .... ILl

o

.-.-.-.-.-.-........-.

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

'400 FT

500

600


Ocean Pa~k Beach 30

Line 320 320 320 320 320

20

Su~vey 145 150 155 160 165

26 22 20 23 24

Date FEB BB MARBB APR BB MAYBB JUN BB

~ I&.

C .... o ~ ra > CII ... UJ

10

o ':"",

,

-10

o

100

200

L

/ ~ t'_."..". ,...

300 Distance.

-

400

,.".-

",.--

- <.- -'">- - ....

500

600

FT

Ocean Pa~k Beach 30 Line 320 320 320 320 320

20

Su~vey 165 170 175 180 185

Date 24 JUN B8 27 JUL 88 7 SEP 88 20 SEP 88 17 OCT 88

c .... o ~ ra > CII ... UJ

10

o ...~

~, - '-' ./ .,/

-10

o

100

200

"400

300 Distance.

./., .........-.

FT

,....-..-..........

500

-"-

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 320 320 320 320 320

20

Survey 185 190 195 200 205

17 16 20 17 10

Date OCT 88 NOV 88 DEC 88 JAN 89 MAR89

lLL.

-.ug -

10

10 > QI

W

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

Ocean Park 30

400

600

8each

I

--.-..-

l-

500

FT

Line 320 320 320 320 320

Survey 205 210 215 220 225

Date 10 MAR89 25 MAR89 6 JUN 89 7 JUL 89 1 AUG 89

20t

LL. C 0 ... .u 10 >

10

-QI

W

0

-10

-

o

100

200

--

--=

.....-

300 Distance.

""--

"" -:"400

FT

500

- - -600


Ocean Pa~k Beach 30 Line 320 320 320 320 320

20

Su~vey 225 230 235 2.40 2.45

Date 1 AUG 89 11 SEP 89 2 OCT 89 7 NOV B9 15 DEC 89

l-

I&. C .... o

"' >

4J

10

QI ... W

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

.400

500

600

FT

Ocean Pa~k Beach 30 Line 320 320 320 320 320

20

Su~vey 2.45 250 255 260 265

Date 15 DEC 89 2 JAN 90 1 FEB 90 9 MAR90 2 APR 90

l-

I&.

6 "' >

.... 4J

10

QI ... W

o

-10

o

100

200

Distance.

,

.400

300 FT

500

600


Ocean Park

Beach

30 Line 320 320 320 320 320

20

Survey 265 270 275 280 285

Date 2 APR 90 4 MAY90 5 JUN 90 28 JUN 90 1 AUG 90

l-

I&.

c o

.... o6J 10

10

> QI ... W

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 320 320 320 320 320

20

Survey 285 290 295 300 305

Date 1 AUG90 2 OCT 90 16 NOV 90 10 JAN 91 1 FEB 91

l-

I&. C

0 .... o6J 10 > QI ... W

10

0

-10

o

100

200

300 .

Distance.

400

FT

500

600


Ocean Park

Beach

30 Line 320 320 320 320 320

20

... g 4J III > QI ... ILl

Survey 305 310 315 320 325

Date 1 FEB 91 5 MAR91 4 APR 91 1 MAY91 3 JUN 91

10

o

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Profile

360


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 360 360 360 360 360

20

Survey 100 105 110 120 125

19 13 14 20 18

Oate JAN 87 APR 87 MAY87 JUL 87 AUG 87

~

u. C ... o ... /II > ell ... UJ

10

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

Ocean Park

400

500

600

FT

Beach

30

-...-..-

Line 360 360 360 360

Survey 125 130 135 140

360

145

18 21 24 5

Date AUG87 SEP 87 NOV 87 JAN 88

26 FE8 88

2째TA u.

C 0 ... ...

10

/II > ell

... UJ

0

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 360 360 360 360 360

20

Survey 145 150 155 160 165

26 22 20 23 24

Date FEB BB MARBB APR 88 MAY88 JUN 8B

... II. C o ....

,6J II) > QI ... I&J

I

10

o

-10

o

100

300

200

Distance.

400

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 360 360 360 360 360

20

Date 24 JUN BB 27 JUL B8 7 SEP B8 20 SEP 88 17 OCT 8B

Survey 165 170 175 180 185

... II. c: ... o

,6J II) > QI ... I&J

10

o ~. ""'

-10

o

100

200

::

300 ~istance.

..;,., ~................

400

FT

;,"-

..-..-..-.

500

.-..-

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 360 360 360 360 360

20

Survey 185 190 195 200 205

17 16 20 17 10

Date OCT 88 NOV 88 DEC 88 JAN 89 MAR89

.... I&.

C

.2 ~

10

co > CII ... UJ

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 360 360 360 360 360

20

Survey 205 210 215 220 225

Date 10 MAR89 25 MAR89 6 JUN 89 7 JUL 89 1 AUG 89

.... I&.

C

0 ... co > CII ... UJ

10

0

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400 FT

500

600


Ocean Park

Beach

30 Line 360 360 360 360 360

20

Survey 225 230 235 240 245

Date 1 AUG 89 11 SEP 89 2 OCT 89 7 NOV 89 15 DEC 89

.....

C Q .... ... /0 > C1I ... UJ

10

01 ::::--.::>.

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 360 360 360 360 360

20

Survey 245 250 255 260 265

Date 15 2 1 9 2

DEC JAN FE8 MAR APR

89 90 90 90 90

..... ~

C .... Q ... /0 > C1I ... UJ

10

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 360 360 360 360 -..-..-

l-

2B5

Date 2 APR 90 4 MAY90 5 JUN 90 2B JUN 90 1 AUG 90

1\

20r

LL. C 0 ... 4J 111 > III ....

360

Survey 265 270 275 2BO

10

\IJ

0

-10

""-

I

o

100

200

,.

--:::::'...

300

400

Distance.

FT

Ocean Park

Beach

500

600

30 Line 360 360 360 360 360

20

Survey 2B5 290 295 300 305

Date 1 AUG 90 2 OCT 90 16 NOV 90 10 JAN 91 1 FEB 91

lLL. c .~

4J 111

10

> III .... \IJ

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 360 360 360 360 360

20

5

.... .... II) > CII

Survey 305 310 315 320 325

Date 1 FEB 91 5 MAR91 4 APR 91 1 MAY91 3 JUN 91

10

-ILl o

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Profile

400


Ocean Park

Beach

30

-..-..-

....

Line 400 400 400 400 400

Survey 100 105 110 120 125

19 13 14 20 18

Date JAN 87 APR 87 MAY87 JUL 87 AUG 87

-.

20j

I&. C 0 ... ....

I

/II > CIJ

... w

'--=:.

""

lOT

01

-10

o

100

"

';,

"

"

.",

"'::.0.. ......;"_. "" .................

"

"'"'

200

300 Distance,

Ocean Park

400

500

600

FT

Beach

30 Line 400 400 400 400 400

20

Survey 125 130 135 140 145

Date 1B AUG 87 21 SEP 87 24 NOV 87 5 JAN BB 26 FEB 8B

.... I&.

C ... o .... /II > CIJ ... W

10

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30

'.

Line 400 400 400 400 400

20

Survey 145 150 155 160 165

26 22 20 23 24

Date FEB BS MARas APR aa MAyaS JUN aa

.... I&.

C

0

,fj

10

10

> QI ... UJ

0

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Seach 30 Line 400 400 400 400 400

20

Survey 165 170 175 1S0 1S5

Date 24 JUN aa 27 JUL aa 7 SEP aa 20 SEP SS 17 OCTaa

.... I&.

c: .... o

,fj 10 > QI ... UJ

10

o ~-a..:.-;;.-:::._.._.._.._........_........._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400 FT

500

600


Ocean Park

Beach

30

-.-..-

Line 4100 4100 4100 400

400

Survey 1B5 190 195 200

205

Date 17 OCT BB 16 NOV BB 20 DEC BB 17 JAN B9 10 MAR B9

.-

.or II.

C

0 ... .oJ III

10

\'.

> GI ... w

\

I

01

-10

o

100

..... ., " . "..,. ".. "-

-

200

.._.-.

300 Distance.

4100

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 400 400 400 400 400

20

Survey 205 210 215 220 225

Date 10 MARB9 25 MARB9 6 JUN B9 7 JUL B9 1 AUG B9

~ II.

c: ... o .oJ III > QI ... W

10

o

-10

-:._~------

.~--=-~

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


-10

o

100

200

300

Distance.

400

500

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 400 400 400 400 400

20

c: ... o .... 10 > QJ .... W

Survey 245 250 255 260 265

Date 15 2 1 9 2

DEC 89 JAN 90 FE8 90 MAR 90 APR 90

10

o

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park

Beach

30 Line 400 400 400 400 400

-...-..-

... 11. C 0

.rO .... 10

20r

Survey 265 270 275 280 2B5

Date 2 APR 90 4 MAY90 5 JUN 90 28 JUN 90 1 AUG 90

,....,,,

10

>

-11.1 UJ

O.

--00:::::

.....o;o

......-

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

Ocean Park

400

500

600

Survey 2B5 290 295 300 305

Date 1 AUG 90 2 OCT 90 16 NOV 90 10 JAN 91 1 FEB 91

FT

Beach

30 Line 400 400 400 400 400

20

...

11. c ..... o .... 10 >

10

-11.1 UJ

o ::-::~~"==-.--._.--._._._._._._._._.

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 400 400 400 400 400

20

c ... o 4J 10

Survey 305 310 315 320 325

Date 1 FEB 91 5 MAR91 4 APR 91 1 MAY91 3 JUN 91

10

> III .... W

o

-10o

--- -- --------100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Profile

480


Ocean Pa~k Beach 30 Line 480 480 480

Su~vey 110 120 125

Date 14 MAY87 20 JUL 87 18 AUG 87

20

lII.

co

.... ~ to > III .... W

!\

/1

\

.j L_I \

\

10

~

,

0-00_0_0'"

.~-

"~ :...''\;.~.-.~.

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

500

600

FT

Ocean Pa~k Beach 30 Line 480 480 480 480 480

20

Survey 125 130 135 140 145

18 21 24 5 26

Date AUG87 SEP 87 NOV 87 JAN 88 FEB 88

l-

II. c: .... o ~ to > III .... W

10

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

FT

500

600


Ocean Park

Beach

30 Line 4BO 480 480 480 480

20

Survey 145 150 155 160 165

26 22 20 23 24

Date FEB B8 MAR88 APR 88 MAYB8 JUN 88

... u. c o

.... ~ III > Qj ... LIJ

10

o ,/

- - - - --:~-,... ~--.,...- " "'" -10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

500

"'"

.....

600

FT

Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 480 480 480 480 480

20

Survey 165 170 175 180 185

Date 24 JUN 88 27 JUL 88 7 SEP 88 20 SEP 88 17 OCT 88

... u. C 0

....

10

III > Qj ... LIJ

0

...=:r:...:....._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..-..-..-..-

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400 FT

500

600


Ocean Park Beach 30 Line 480 480 480 480 480

20

Survey 185 190 195 200 205

17 16 20 17 10

Date OCT 88 NOV 88 DEC 88 JAN 89 MAR89

lI!. c .... o .... III > QI .... UJ

10

o

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

Ocean Park

400

500

600

FT

Beach

30

Line 480 480 480 480 480

20

Date 10 MAR89 25 MAR89 6 JUN 89 7 JUL 89 1 AUG89

Survey 205 210 215 220 225

lI!. C

0 .... .... III > QI .... UJ

10

0

-----. -10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park

Beach

30 Line 480 480 480 480 480

20

Survey 225 230 235 240 245

Date 1 AUG 89 11 SEP 89 2 OCT 89 7 NOV 89 15 DEC 89

IU. c: .r< o ... /0 > III ..... UJ

10

o ,;;;: :.:::-.- -

-10

o

100

200

Distance.

Ocean Park

400

300

500

600

FT

Beach

30 Line 480 480 480 480 480

20

Survey 245 250 255 260 265

Date 15 2 1 9 2

DEC JAN FE8 MAR APR

89 90 90 90 90

IU. c: .r< o ... /0 > III

10

.....

UJ

o

....-- -

-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean 30

Park

Beach

I

Line

-...-..-

.... u. C 0 .... .oJ It) >

2째T

1\

480 480 480 480 480

Survey 265 270 275 280 285

Date 2 4 5 28 1

APR MAY JUN JUN AUG

90 90 90 90 90

..

10

OJ .... W

0

I

-10

o

-

100

200

---.::

300 Distance.

Ocean Park

400

500

600

FT

Beach

30 Line 480 480 480 480 480

20

Survey 285 290 295 300 305

Date 1 AUG 90 2 OCT 90 16 NOV 90 10 JAN 91 1 FEB 91

.... u.

co

.... .oJ It) > OJ .... W

10

o

."--'"-.-.-.---.-.-.-.-.-.--.-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Ocean Park

Beach

30 Line 4BO 480 480 480 480

20

Survey 305 310 315 320 325

Date 1 FEB 91 5 MAR91 4 APR 91 1 MAY91 3 JUN 91

....

u.

c:

0 ....

10

4J

10 > OJ .... UJ

0

,---------10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

FT

500

600


Bagnold, R.A., 1963. Beach and nearshore processes; Part I: Mechanics of~ marine sedimentation. In M.N. Hill (ed.), The Sea, Vol. 3, WileyInterscience, pp. 507-528.

Bowen, A.J., D.L. Inman, and V.P. Simmons, 1968. up." J. Geophys. Res. 73:2569-2577.

Wave "set-down" and "set-

Bretschneider, C.L. and R.O. Reid, 1954. Modification of wave height due to bottom friction, percolation and refraction. Beach Erosion Board Tech. Memo, No. 45. Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1984. Shore Protection Manual. 4th ed., u.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Christoffersen, J.B. and I.G. Jonsson, 1985. Bed-friction and dissipation a combined current and wave motion. Ocean Enginr. 12(5):387-424.

in

Dally, W.R., R.G. Dean, and R.A. Dalrymple, 1984. Modelling wave transformation in the surf zone. u.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Misc. Paper, CERC-84-8, Vicksburg, MS. Dean, R.G., 1973. Heuristic models of sand transport in the surf zone. Proceedings, Conf. Enginr. Dynamics in the Surf Zone, Sydney, pp. 208-

214. Eaton,

R.O., 1950. Littoral processes on sandy coasts. Intl. Conf. Coastal Enginr., pp. 140-154.

Proceedings,

Grant,

W.D. and O.S. Madsen, 1979. Combined wave and current a rough bottom. J. Geophys. Res. 84:1797-1808.

1st

interaction

with

Grant, W.D. and O.S. Madsen, 1982. Movable bed roughness in unsteady oscillatory flow. J. Geophys. Res. 87:469-481. Inman, D.L. and R.A. Bagnold, 1963. Beach and nearshore processes; Part II: Littoral processes. In M.N. Hill (ed.), The Sea, Vol. 3, WileyInterscience, pp. 529-553. Jonsson, I.G., 1966. Wave boundary layers and friction 10th Intl. Conf. Coastal Enginr., pp. 127-148.

factors.

Kamphuis, J.W., 1975. Friction factor under oscillatory waves. Barb. Div., ASCE, 102(WW2):135-144.

Proceedings,

ASCE, J. Wat.

Kinsman, B., 1965. Wind Waves, Their Generation and Propagation on the Ocean Surface. Dover, New York, 676 pp. Komar, P.D., 1975. Nearshore currents: Generation by obliquely incident waves and longshore variations in breaker height. Proceedings, Symp. Nearshore Sediment Dynamics, Wiley, New York. Komar,

P.D., 1976. Beach Jersey, 429 pp.

Processes

and Sedimentation.

Prentice-Hall,

New

Komar, P.D., 1983. Nearshore currents and sand transport on beaches. l!! Johns (ed.), Physical Oceanography of Coastal Shelf Seas, Elsevier, New York, pp. 67-109.


Komar, P.D. and D.L. Inman, 1970. Longshore sand transport on beaches. Geophys. Res. 73(30):5914-5927.

J.

Kraus, N.C. and T.O. Sasaki, 1979. Effects of wave angle and lateral mixing on the longshore current. Coastal Enginr. in Japan 22:59-74. LeMehaute, B. and A. Brebner, 1961. An introduction to coastal morphology and littoral processes. C.E. Research Report No. 14, Dept. of civil Enginr., Queen's Univ., Kingston, Ontario. Longuet-Higgins, currents. Transport,

M.S., 1972. Recent progress in the study of longshore In R.E. Meyer (ed.), Waves on Beaches and Resulting Sediment Academic Press, New York, pp. 203-248.

Longuet-Higgins, M.S. and R.W. Stewart, 1962. Radiation stress and mass transport in gravity waves, with application to surf beats. J. Fluid Mech. 13:481-504. Madsen, O.S., 1976. Wave climate of the continental margin: Elements of its mathematical description. In D.J. Stanley and D.J.P. Swift (eds.), Marine Sediment Transport and Environmental Management, Wiley, New York, pp. 65-90. Munch-Peterson, J., 1938. 4(4):1-31.

Littoral drift formula.

Beach Erosion Board Bull.

Nielsen, P., 1983. Analytical determination of nearshore wave height variation due to refraction, shoaling and friction. Coastal Enginr. 7(3):233-252. Savage, R.P., 1962. Laboratory determination of littoral WW and Harbours Div., ASCE 88(WW2):69-92. Weggel, J.R., 1972. Maximum 78(WW4):529-548.

breaker

height.

transport

J. WW and Harbours

rates.

Div.,

Wright, L.D., 1981. Beach cut in relation to surf zone morphodynamics. Proceedings, 17th IntI. Conf. Coastal Enginr., Sydney, Australia, 978-996.

J.

ASCE

pp.

Wright, L.D. and A.D. Short, 1984. Morphodynamic variability of surf zones and beaches: A synthesis. Mar. Geol. 56:93-118. Wright, L.D., R.J. Guza, and A.D. Short, 1982. Dynamics of a high energy dissipative surfzone. Mar. Geol. 45:41-62. Wright, L.D., A.D. Short, and M.O. Green, 1985. Short-term changes in the morphodynamic states of beaches and surfzones: An empirical predictive model. Mar. Geol. 62:339-364. Wright, L.D., P. Nielsen, N.C. Shi, and J.H. List, 1986b. bar-trough surfzone. Mar. Geol. 70:251-285.

Morphodynamics of a


Public Beach Assessment Report Update II Ocean Park, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia May 1994 through March 1995

by

D. A. Milligan C. S. Hardaway, Jr. G. R. Thomas

Virginia Institute of Marine Science The College of William and Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062

Data Report Obtained under Contract with The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation via the Joint Commonwealth Programs Addressing Shore Erosion in Virginia

May 1995

~-T


TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents List of Figures

I.

.........................................................

ii

Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A. B. C.

II.

l

1 1 1 1

Limits of the Study Area History of the Shoreline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Approach and Methodology

Analysis of Beach Profiles : A. Variability in Shoreline Position B. Changes in Beach Volume

C. D.

SeasonalChangesinWaveClimateandBeachVolume.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. DuneChanges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 4 6 8 9

III.

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

14

IV.

Recommendations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

15

V.

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

16

Appendix I

Ocean Park Profiles

i '.\


List of Figures and Tables Page Figure 1. Figure 2.

Base map of Ocean Park beach with profile and cell locations

3

Distance to MHW from the baseline for January and May 1987, November 1990,

February1991,May1994,andMarch1995

................ 5

..................

Figure 3.

Subaerial beach volume loss or gain of the fill material

Figure 4A.

Profile line 360 depicting changes between May 1991, May 1994 and March 1995

10

Profile line 400 depicting changes between May 1991, May 1994 and March 1995

10

Profile line 440 depicting changes between May 1991, May 1994 and March 1995

11

Profile line 480 depicting changes between May 1991, May 1994 and March 1995

11

Figure 4B.

Figure 5A. Figure 5B.

Figure 6.

Table 1.

7

Slides taken on the Ocean Park Beach looking eastward from approximately profile line 480 (48+00) on A.) 13 Feb 1990; B.) 29 June 1992; and

C.) 22 May 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

12

Distance to base of dune (BOD) from the baseline and volume change above MHW

13

ii I


I.

Introduction The purpose of this report is to update the information contained in both the Ocean Park

Beach Assessment Report (Hardaway et aI., 1993) and the Ocean Park Beach Assessment Report Update (Milligan et al., 1994). Those reports contain an assessment of the Ocean Park shoreline from a range of data analyses including beach profiles, sediments, and wave climate. This report is an analysis of beach profile data taken between May 1994 and March 1995. A.

Limits of the Study Area

Ocean Park is located within the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia on the southern shore of the Chesapeake Bay west of and adjacent to Lynnhaven Inlet. The public beach and limit of the study extends westward from Lynnhaven Inlet approximately 4,800 feet (1,463 meters). B.

History of the Shoreline

The City of Virginia Beach, in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, implemented a beach nourishment project in April, 1987, to increase the recreational potential of Ocean Park as well as to decrease tangible primary flood damages and prevent monetary losses due to erosion of real estate. This project involved the placement of 136,000 cubic yards (103,986 cubic meters) of beach fill dredged from Lynnhaven inlet as part of its channel maintenance. In January, 1991, another nourishment project was performed; however, this project was much smaller and included the placement of only 70,000 cubic yards (53,522 cubic meters) of sand. Today, the beach area is continuing to erode, but recently a nourishment project has been undertaken; no data are available as yet, and it is not included in this report. C.

Approach and Methodology

The City of Virginia Beach has implemented a beach profiling program at Ocean Park to monitor changes in the shoreline on a monthly basis. Beach profiles taken between 1987 and

1


1991 were analyzed by Hardaway et al. (1993) and those taken between 1991 and 1994 were analyzed by Milligan et al. (1994). For this update report, profiles taken at Ocean Park from May 1994 to March 1995 were analyzed. Thirteen beach profile transects are positioned at 400 foot (122 meter) intervals along the shore (Figure 1). We utilize a baseline for plotting the profiles and making calculations that is in the dunes, 100 feet (30.5 meters) behind the City of Virginia Beach's baseline which is located on the subaerial portion of the beach. The datum for vertical control is mean low water (MLW). Appendix I contains the set of profile plots analyzed for this report. Data were summarized in terms of relative shoreline position of mean high water (MHW) as well as volume changes over time. The mean tidal range at Ocean Park beach is 2.6 feet (0.79 meters).

2


OCEAN PARK, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA

CHESAPEAKE BAY

Profile 480

Profile 440

Cell 12

I

Profile 400

I

Cell 11

Profile 320

Profile 360

Cell 10 I Cell 9 Shoreline

Profile 280

Cell

I

8

Profile 240

Cell 7

August 1990

1

Shoreline (MHW) VIMS Baseline

VIMS Baseline w

)t( ALBEMARLE AVENUE

~t

~~

WOODLAWN AVENUE

WINDSOR CRESCENT

o

200

I

I

Scale

Profile 200

Profile 240 Cell 6'

Profile 160

I

.

I Cell 5

I

Profile 120

Cell 4

i

Cell 3

Shoreline (MHW)

I Cell 2 I

I

Shoreline

I

in Feet

Profile 000

Profile 040

Profile 080

400

Cell 1 August 1990

Concrete Bulkhead VIMS Baseline ROANOKE

AVENUE

Figure 1.

./ /VIMS DINWIDDIE ROAD

Baseline', DUPONT CIRCLE

EAST STRATFORD

ROAD

Base map of Ocean Park beach with profile and cell locations.

Concrete8 lJlkhead


II.

Analysis of Beach Profiles A.

Variability of Shoreline Position

The movement of the shoreline through time can be represented by plotting the position of MHW. Figure 2 shows the distance to MHW from the baseline for six summary survey dates. These dates include important "benchmark" shorelines, such as pre-initial fill (Jan., 1987), postinitial fill (May, 1987), pre-secondary fill (Nov., 1990), and post-secondary fill (Feb., 1991), as well as summary dates May 1994 and March 1995. As stated in Hardaway et al. (1993), several trends and shoreline features are evident from the position of MHW. These include: the rapid adjustment of the beach to the fill; the wider subaerial beach at the western end of the project between profiles 360 and 440; and the curvilinear embayed shoreline segment between profiles 040 and 360. According to Milligan et al. (1994), more erosion occurred on the western portion of the beach while the eastern portion in front of the bulkhead was nearly unchanged between 1991 and 1994. The bulkhead portion of the beach was still narrowest, but profile 360 and those to the west (Le. 400, 440, 480) eroded back to their pre-initial fill position or beyond. The rate of erosion after the second fill and until 1994 was greatest at the western end of the project and decreased steadily to the east with little erosion at profiles 040 and 000. The curvilinear embayment was still evident along the shoreline from profile 040-280. From the spring of 1994 to March 1995, the bulkheaded portion of the beach between profiles 120 and 240 showed the greatest amount of subaerial beach erosion. In addition, profiles 120 through 200 were on the verge of eroding back past the 1987 shoreline. Between May 1994 and March 1995, profile 120 lost 19 feet (5.8 meters) of subaerial beach, profile 160 lost 27 feet (8.2 meters), and profile 200 lost 26 feet (8 meters). In March, profile 120 was only 15 feet (4.6

4


350

--JAN8? ----.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

300

-+MAY8? """*""" NOV90

~----------------------------------------------------.-----

250 3: 200 :r: ~ .9

~ c: 150--OJ 1i5

is 100 50~

o

~--

------------------------.---------------------------

480 440 400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 080 040 000 Profile Number

Figure 2.

Distance to MHW from the baseline for January and May 1987, November 1990, February 1991, May 1994, and March 1995.

5

-eFEB91 ...... MAY94 ~ MAR95


meters) in front of the pre-project initial 1987 shoreline, profile 160 was only 30 feet (9.1 ( meters), and profile 200 only 11 feet (3.3 meters). Since four profiles (360-480) are already eroded back beyond the pre-initial fill shoreline at the historical rate of change, by next spring seven (120, 160, 200, 360, 400, 440, and 480) out of the thirteen profiles at Ocean Park would have had a narrower beach than before the initial sand nourishment was placed. However, the present nourishment project will certainly affect a change in this trend. Profiles 440 and 000 actually accreted between May 1994 and March 1995. However, the increase in subaerial beach width at profile 440 most likely occurred at the expense of the dune, but profile 000 was probably due to the local eastward transport in winter (Hardaway et ai, 1993). Profiles 040 and 080 showed little change. Profile 280 is interesting since its net change between May 1987 (post-initial fill) and March 1995 has only been a loss of 20 feet (6.1 meters).

(

This profile may be a nodal point for beach change since there has been a little accretion and erosion over time, but for the most part it has remained fairly stable eroding at an average overall rate of 2.5 feet per year (0.76 meters per year). B.

Changes in Beach Volume

Since the first beach fill, the subaerial beach has realized a net loss (Figure 3). Of the initial 136,000 cubic yards (103,986 cubic meters) placed on the beach, 51%, or about 70,000 cubic yards (53,522 cubic meters), was lost prior to the second fill in January, 1991. During the second fill, approximately 50,000 cubic yards (38,230 cubic meters), out of the reported 70,000 cubic yards (53,522 cubic meters) dredged, was shown in the beach surveys. Most of this fill was placed in the curvilinear embayment, the area of chronic erosion. Beach volume changes in the nearshore are not available due to shorter surveys taken during that time. Presently, the

(

beach has lost all of the 50,000 cubic yards (38,230 cubic meters) placed on the subaerial beach

6


140 130

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................

120

......................................................................................................

nn

\.........................................................................................

100

~

o ---

90 80......................................................................................

(l)

E :J

o >

70........................................................................................................................................................................................

60

'

50 40

,.......... ......................................................................................................................................-........-....-....-............................................................

30 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

....................................................................................................-.-....-.....-......................................................................................................

1 0,........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

o

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

Year Figure3.

Subaerial beach volume loss or gain of the fill material.

7

1993

1994

1995


during the second fill and has only 39,000 cubic yards (29,820 cubic meters) more than the preinitial fill shoreline (January 1987) remaining on the beach above MLW. C.

Seasonal Changes in Wave Climate and Beach Volume

As stated in Hardaway et ai. (1993), one of the unique features of the wave climate impacting Ocean Park Beach is the bimodal distribution of wave directions that reflects a dual energy source. From the wave data set collected by the Thimble Shoals wave gage, Boon et ai. (1990) found that during the late spring and summer months about 80% of the waves were generated outside the bay; however, during the fall and winter months, almost half of the waves were generated within the bay. These bay-internal waves can be the result of northeast storms which produce strong north winds along the maximum fetch of the bay. Since Ocean Park is located in the southernmost portion of the Chesapeake Bay, it is impacted by the waves generated over the entire north-to-south fetch of the bay. Northeasters have a significant effect on the Ocean Park shoreline as evidenced by the highest seasonal loss rates in the fall (Milligan et ai., 1994). Milligan et ai. (1994) found that in the 1992-93 winter season about 23,000 cubic yards (17,586 cubic meters) of sand on the subaerial beach was eroded from the Ocean Park shoreline, while the 1993-94 season was relatively mild with only 12,000 cubic yards (9,175 cubic meters) of sand eroded. Figure 3 shows that historically, only a small portion of the sand lost to winter storms will return to the beach. During the summer months in 1994, the beach appears relatively stable with only minimal changes in erosion and accretion, but overall, the beach accreted by about 2,000 cubic yards (1,530 cubic meters) of sand. These trends will most likely continue at Ocean Park. Since only 39,000 cubic yards (29,820 cubic meters) of the combined fill material placed at Ocean Park during the 1987 and the

8


1991 renourishment projects remains on the beach, about 60% of this remaining sand could be lost if the 1995 fall and winter months are as severe as the 1992-1993 season. D.

Dune Changes

Hardaway et at. (1993) showed that a greater amount of sand was placed at the western end of the beach during the initial fill project in 1987. This significantly widened the subaerial beach as well as the dune area. However, during the second fill project in 1991, most of the sand was placed on the eastern end of the project in the area of chronic erosion (profiles 040240). Milligan et at. (1994) showed that from 1990 to 1994 peak elevation of the foredunes decreased and the dune face steepened. In addition, the distance to the base of dune (BOD) generally decreased indicating that the dunes are receding landward. Figures 4 and 5 are included to show the change in the well-established dunes at the western portion of the beach at Ocean Park between May 1991, May 1994 and March 1995. Figure 6 shows the location of the storm water run-off pipe at Ocean Park (between profiles 440 and 480) relative to the dune over the past five years and demonstrates the large scale changes occurring at the western end of the Ocean Park shoreline. In 1990, just the end of the pipe is exposed. By 1992, the three sets of pilings on the first section of the pipe have held up, but the exposed landward sections of pipe have collapsed under their own weight. In 1995, the beach and dunes have eroded back so that the three sets of pilings once on the upper portion of the beach are nearly covered at high tide. A limited analysis has been performed on the dunes at the western end of the project area, specifically at profiles 240 to 480, from spring 1994 to spring 1995. Table 1 lists the distance to BOD for each dune profile in both May 1994 and March 1995. It also shows the change in volume above MHW in cubic yards per foot (cy/ft). The volume change includes the entire beach above MHW; this consists of a backshore region as well as the dune area.

9


Ocean Park Beach 30

Line 360 360 360

Survey 320 3B5 392

Oate 1 MAY 91 11 MAY 94 13 MAR 95

I

20

II.J...

C

.0 .oJ 10 > QJ

101

v

A

!t\.

......

W ".:--'"

".

0

,

ILI"

-...

'::-:::.

._--:---.c:

-- -- --:__ _

_

_

_

__

-10

o

100

200

300 Oistance.

Ocean

400

500

600

FT

Park Beach

30

Line 400 400 400

Survey 320 3B5 392

Oate 1 MAY 91 11 MAY 94 13 MAR 95

20 II.J...

C 0 . <J 10 > QJ

10

......

W

B HL~I ()

.........-------------

-10

o

100

300

200

o istance.

Figure

4.

Profile

plot depicting

changes

between

linesA.) 360 and B.) 400.

10

400

500

600

FT

May 1991, May 1994 and March 1995 at


-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

500

600

FT

Ocean Park 6each 30

20

Line 460 460 480

I

Survey 320 385 392

Date 1 MAY91 11 MAY94 13 MAR95

llL. C

0

10

.... ..... II) >

I

III

:,...."Iu

UJ

"

B

",,;-',\.

0

MLW ....-..-::---::-...-...

-10

o

100

200

..........

300 Distance.

Figure 5.

400

500

600

FT

Profile plot depicting changes between May 1991, May 1994 and March 1995 at lines A.) 440 and B.) 480. 11


---

Outer Piling

..,..-

,

A.) 13 February 1990

Outer Piling

B.) 29 June 1992

Outer Piling

c.) 22 May 1995 -~ _.-::.z

...

."....

-

.;~.': ..? ~

Figure6.

Slides of the Ocean Park Beach looking east from approximately profile 480 (48+00) on A.) 13 Feb 1990; B.) 29 June 1992; C.) 22 May 1995.

12


The BOD at profile 240 eroded back 25 feet (7.6 meters) from 1994 to 1995 while profile 280 shows no change in the distance to the BOD from the baseline. The BOD remained at the same approximate distance at profile 280, but erosion of sand in the backshore region of the beach did occur, as indicated by the negative volume change above MHW in Table 1. If profile 280 is a nodal point for the Ocean Park shoreline, little change is expected. Profiles 320, 360, and 400 had about the same amount of erosion occur at the BOD, but profile 440 lost approximately 17 feet (5.2 meters) of dune in one year. Profile 480 only had 2 feet (0.6 meters) of net change in the BOD.

Table 1. Distance to Base of Dune (feet) and volume change above MHW (cy/ft) between May 1994 and March 1995.

Profile Number 480 440 400 360 320 280 240

MAY94 (ft) 86 117 100 110 100 100 75

MAR95 (ft) 84 100 92 102 91 100 50

13

NET CHANGE (ft) -2 -17 -8

-8 -9 0 -25

VOLUME CHANGE (cy/ft) -3.50 -2.52 -5.73 -7.92 -1.58 -2.88 -5.14


III.

Conclusion The general pattern of shoreline change appears to persist through time, but the area of

highest erosion shifts up and down the beach with profile 280 as the nodal point. Between 1991 and 1994, erosion was greatest at the western end of the beach (profiles 320-440), but during 1994 and 1995, the erosion was greatest at the westernmost end of the bulkhead (profiles 120240). In March 1995, four profiles (360-480) had eroded back beyond their pre-initial fill (1987) shoreline, and without the ongoing nourishment project, three more profiles (120-200) probably would have also been before spring 1996. Of the 206,000 cubic yards (157,510) placed on the Ocean Park shoreline during the 1987 and 1991 fill projects, only 39,000 cubic yards (29,820 cubic meters) of sand remained on the beach as of March 1995. Summer generally shows a slight overall accretion of the beach, but not nearly enough to make up for the losses during the fall and winter seasons. The retreat of the dunes are indicative of the severe chronic erosion occurring at Ocean Park Beach. In the last year, profiles 240 and 420 have eroded 25 and 17 feet (7.6 and 5.2 meters), respectively. In fact, the dune at profile 280 was the only one whose base did not recede landward; however, all of the profiles in the non-bulkheaded section of the beach showed a loss of sand volume above MHW. The original projection for additional fill to be placed was the winter of 1994-1995; this fill is presently being placed on the beach. The additional sand will help prevent a severely erosional season from further reducing the recreational beach at Ocean Park and also prevent flood damage and monetary loss due to erosion of real estate on the non-bulkheaded shore.

14


IV. Recommendations In order to prevent property damage as well as improve the recreational beach at Ocean Park, several options are available. These include: 1.

The placement of fill material to the Ocean Park shoreline in order to bring it back

to the post-initial fill volume. The volume of sand presently being placed on the shoreline has not been ascertained; however, the addition of sand to the system may not change the obvious trends of shoreline erosion but would abate the problem for several years. 2.

The construction of offshore structures in combination with the beach fill would

change the wave climate immediately impacting Ocean Park providing shore protection and reducing the loss of fill material. An inlet jetty would prevent sand losses into Lynnhaven Inlet thereby reducing channel maintenance. 3.

Slowing the retreat of the large dunes in the western section by installing sand

fences, planting appropriate dune grasses as well as depositing nourishment sand on the subaerial and nearshore portion of the western reach of shoreline.

15


V.

References

Boon, J.D., S.M. Kimball, K.D. Suh, and D.A. Hepworth, 1990. Chesapeake Bay Wave Climate, Thimble Shoals Wave Station. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Data Report. No. 32, 39 pp. Hardaway, C.S., D.A. Milligan, and G.R. Thomas, 1993. Public Beach Assessment ReportOcean Park Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Technical Report, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA. Milligan, D.A., C.S. Hardaway, Jr., and G.R. Thomas, 1994. Public Beach Assessment Report Update

- Ocean

Park Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Data Report, Virginia Institute of Marine

Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA.

16


APPENDIX I Ocean Park Profiles 000, 040, 080, 120, 160, 200, 240, 280, 320, 360, 400, 440, and 480

Datum = 0.0 ft MLW Survey Dates: 11 MAY 1994 31 MAY 1994 6 JUL 1994 1 AUG 1994 1 SEP 1994 6 JAN 1995 1 FEB 1995 13 MAR 1995


Oceanpark

8each

.

30

Line 000 000 000

000 -..-...lLL C 0 ....

..... 10 > OJ

000

Survey 385 386 387 388 389

Date 11 31 6 1 1

MAY 94 MAY 94 JUL 94 AUG 94 SEP 94

2째T

10

...... W

MLW

0

.....,

-10

o

100

200

300

400

Distance.

FT

Oceanpark

8each

500

600

30 Line 000 000 000 20

000

.

Survey 389 390 391 392

Date 1 SEP 94 6 JAN 95 1 FE8 95 13 MAR 95

l-

LL

C

0 .... ..... 10 > OJ

10

...... W

MLW

0

-10

o

100

200

300

Distance,

400

FT

500

600


-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

Oceanpark

400

500

600

FT

Beach

30 Line 040 040 040 040

20---1-

Survey 3B9 390 391 392

Date 1 SEP 94 6 JAN 95 1 FEB 95 13 MAR95

l-

lL.

C 0 ....

..

10

tU > QJ .... W

O.

-10

o

<"<C,

100

200

MLW

300 Distance.

400 FT

500

600


Oceanpark Beach

30

.

Line OBO 080 080 080 --..-...-

Iu. C 0

..... .oJ It) >

080

Survey 385 386 387 388 389

Date 11 MAY94 31 MAY94 6 JUL 94 1 AUG 94 1 SEP 94

2째T

10

QJ

.....

W

MLW

0

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

Oceanpark

400

500

600

FT

8each

30

Line

20

080 080 080 080

I

Survey 389 390 391 392

Date 1 6 1 13

SEP JAN FE8 MAR

94 95 95 95

Iu. C 0

..... ..... It)

10

>

QJ .....

w

01

MLW

....:.;:--..

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

- ---

-

400 FT

500

600


-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

Oceanpark

400

500

600

FT

Beach

30

20

Line 120 120 120 120

I

Survey 389 390 391 392

Date 1 SEP 94 6 JAN 95 1 FEB 95 13 MAR95

l-

lL. C 0

.....

..co

10

> QJ ..... UJ

-.-

01

-10

o

100

MLW

200

300 Distance.

400 FT

500

600


Oceanpark Beach

.

30

---

20+

Line 160 160 160

Survey 3B5 386 387

160 160

Date 11 MAY94 31 MAY94 6 JUL 94

388 389

1 AUG94 1 SEP 94

I

I-

LA.. C

0 .... ..... III > OJ .... UJ

10

O.

""".

KLW

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance,

-10

o

100

200

500

600

400

500

600

FT

300 Distance,

400

FT


Oceanpark

Beach

30 Line 200 200 200

200 -..-..-

Iu. C

0 ....

..... <t1 > QJ

200

Survey 3B5 386 387 388 389

Date 11 MAY94 31 MAY94 6 JUL 94 1 AUG 94 1 SEP 94

2째L 10

......

w

-

....

01

-10

o

100

MLW

200

300 Distance,

Oceanpark

400

500

600

FT

Beach

30 Line 200 200 200 200

20 '

Survey 389 390 391 392

Date 1 6 1 13

SEP JAN FEB MAR

94 95 95 95

I-

u. C

0 ....

..... <t1 > QJ

10

......

w

-10

o

MLW

-

01

100

200

Distance,

---

400

300 FT

500

600


-10

o

100

200

300 Distance,

Gceanpark

400

500

600

FT

Beach

30 Line 240 240 240 240

20

Survey 3B9 390 391 392

Date 1 SEP 94 6 JAN 95 1 FEB 95 13 MAR95

IU. C

0 .... .... III > QJ .... UJ

10

KLW

01 .'..",.

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance,

400 FT

500

600


Oceanpark 30

8each

.

-..-..l-

Line 280 280 280. 280 280

Survey 385 386 387 388 389

Date 11 MAY94 31 MAY94 6 JUL 94 1 AUG 94 1 SEP 94

2°T

I£.

C

0 .r<

.... co > OJ ..... W

10

MLW

0 ''';;:::'

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

400

500

600

400

500

600

FT

-10 o

100

200

300 Distance.

FT


-10

o

100

200

400

300 Distance.

Oaeanpark

500

600

FT

Beach

30

20

Line 320 320 320 320

I

Survey 389 390 391 392

Date 1 SEP 94 6 JAN 95 1 FEB 95 13 MAR95

Iu.. C

0 ....

..

10

/II > CIJ ..... lJJ

01

i..:......_

KLW

-10 o

100

200

300 Distance.

400 FT

500

600


Dceanpark

30

Beach

.

Line

-..-..llL. C 0 ..

....

2째T

360 360 360 360

Survey 385 386 387 388

360

389

Date 11 31 6 1

MAY MAY JUL AUG

94 94 94 94

1 SEP 94

/\

10

CtI > QJ .... UJ

01

HLW

...

-10

o

100

200

300 Distance.

.Dceanpark

400

500

600

FT

Beach

30

20

Line 360 360 360 360

.

Survey 389 390 391 392

Date f SEP 94 6 JAN 95 1 FEB 95 13 MAR95

l-

lL. C 0 ....

..

10

CtI > QJ .... UJ

HLW

0 .

-10

o

100

200

400

300

Distance.

FT

500

600


Oceanpark

30

Beach

I

Line

-...-..Iu.

400 400 400 400 400

Survey 385 386 387 3BB 389

Date 11 31 6 1 1

MAY MAY JUL AUG SEP

94 94 94 94 94

20r

c: 0

..... +-' 1'0 > QJ ..... UJ

10

ML\!

0 ..-...;.

-10

o

100

200

Distance.

-10

o

100

200

400

300

600

500

600

FT

300 Distance.

500

400 FT


Oceanpark Beach 30

Line 440 440 440 440 -..-..-

I-

440

Survey 3B5 3B6 3B7 388 389

Date 11 MAY94 31 MAY94 6 JUL 94 1 AUG 94 1 SEP 94

2째T

u. c:: 0 .... 1'0 >

10

QJ

..... UJ

0

-10

-..

o

100

200

MLW

'-'--,--,-,--,

300

400

Distance.

500

600

FT

Oceanpark

Beach

30

20

Line 440 440 440 440

.

Survey 389 390 391 392

Date 1 SEP 94 6 JAN 95 1 FEB 95 13 MAR95

I-

u. c::

0 ....

10

1'0 > QJ

..... UJ

"

'\:. . 0

-10

o

100

200

KLW

-

-..-...-.

300 Distance.

400 FT

500

600


Oceanpark

Beach

30 ,

Line 4BO 480 480

480 -..-..-

I-

480

Survey 385 386 387 388 389

Date 11 31 6 1 1

MAY 94 MAY 94 JUL 94 AUG 94 SEP 94

2째T

l1.. C 0 .... .... co >

10

QJ

.....

W

" ",......

0

MLW '--';.-.............."........

-10 o

200

100

400

300

500

600

Distance. FT

Oceanpark

30

Beach

.

Line 480 480 480 480

20

Survey 389 390 391 392

Date 1 SEP 94 6 JAN 95 1 FEB 95

13 MAR95

I-

l1.. C 0

....

.... co > QJ ..... w

10

.

01

KLW

.',-

-10 o

100

200

300 Distance. FT

400

500

600

"


Public Beach Assessment Report- Ocean Park Beach