DOCSLIB.ORG

Use of Federal Offshore Sand Resources for Beach and Coastal Restoration in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia TABLE of CONTENTS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Use of Federal Offshore Sand Resources for Beach and Coastal Restoration in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia TABLE of CONTENTS DISCLAIMER This report has been reviewed by the Minerals Management Service and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Service, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. CONVERSION FACTORS Metric to U.S. Customary Multiply by To Obtain millimeters (mm)...................................................... 0.03937 .................................................................inches (in) centimeters (cm)........................................................ 0.3937 ..................................................................inches (in) meters (m) .................................................................. 3.281 ........................................................................feet (ft) kilometers (km) ......................................................... 0.6214 .................................................................. miles (mi) square meters (m2) ..................................................... 10.76 ...........................................................square feet (ft2) square kilometers (km2)............................................ 0.3861 ..................................................... square miles (mi2) hectares (ha) ............................................................... 2.471 ............................................................................acres liters (l)...................................................................... 0.2642 ...............................................................gallons (gal) cubic meters (m3) ....................................................... 35.31 .............................................................cubic feet (ft3) cubic meters (m3) ................................................... 0.0008110 ..................................................................acre-feet milligrams (mg).....................................................0.00003527 ............................................................ ounces (oz) grams (g) .................................................................. 0.03527 ............................................................... ounces (oz) kilograms (kg) ............................................................ 2.205 ................................................................. pounds (lb) metric tons (t) ............................................................ 2205.0 ................................................................ pounds (lb) metric tons (t) ............................................................. 1.102 .................................................................... short tons Celsius degrees (ºC)...............................................1.8(ºC)+32................................................. Fahrenheit degrees U.S. Customary to Metric Multiply by To Obtain inches.......................................................................... 25.40 ..................................................................millimeters inches........................................................................... 2.54 .................................................................. centimeters feet (ft)....................................................................... 0.3048 ........................................................................ meters fathoms ....................................................................... 1.829 ......................................................................... meters miles ........................................................................... 1.609 ...................................................................kilometers nautical miles.............................................................. 1.852 ...................................................................kilometers square feet ................................................................. 0.0929 .............................................................square meters square miles................................................................ 2.590 ....................................................... square kilometers acres........................................................................... 0.4047 ......................................................................hectares gallons ........................................................................ 3.875 ............................................................................liters cubic feet .................................................................. 0.02831 ............................................................. cubic meters acre-feet..................................................................... 1233.0 .............................................................. cubic meters ounces (oz) ................................................................. 28.35 .................................................................... grams (g) pounds (lb) ................................................................ 0.4536 ...................................................................kilograms short tons (ton) .......................................................... 0.9072 .................................................................metric tons Fahrenheit degrees .............................................0.5556(ºF – 32)...................................................Celsius degrees Page a SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Sorting and skewness values for graphically-obtained statistics expressed as verbal descriptive summaries (after Folk 1974) (from Leeder 1982). Page b Environmental Report-Use of Federal Offshore Sand Resources OCS Study MMS 99-0036 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Use of Federal Offshore Sand Resources for Beach and Coastal Restoration in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CONVERSION TABLE...................................................................................................................................... a SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE AND SORTING TABLES...................................................................................... b LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................. Acronym Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Report Objectives and Organization .....................................................................................1-2 1.1.1 Purpose and Need.....................................................................................................1-2 1.1.2 Historical Storm Damage.........................................................................................1-2 1.1.3 Report Organization.................................................................................................1-3 1.2 Study Area Description..........................................................................................................1-3 1.2.1 Region.......................................................................................................................1-3 1.2.2 Identified Borrow Areas...........................................................................................1-3 1.3 MMS and Federal/State Agency Coordination and Review..................................................1-5 2.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS.............................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Continental Shelf....................................................................................................................2-1 2.2.1 General Continental Shelf Morphology ...................................................................2-2 2.2.1.1 Paleoshorelines............................................................................................2-2 2.2.1.2 Shoals..........................................................................................................2-3 2.2.1.3 Filled Channels............................................................................................2-4 2.2.1.4 Shoal Retreat Massifs .................................................................................2-5 2.2.2 Geological Setting ....................................................................................................2-5 2.2.2.1 Pre-Quaternary Geology .............................................................................2-6 2.2.2.2 Quaternary Geology ..................................................................................2-6 2.2.2.3 Potential Sand Resources for Beach Nourishment ...................................2-7 2.2.2.4 New Jersey Continental Shelf ...................................................................2-8 2.2.2.5 Delaware Continental Shelf.....................................................................2-20 2.2.2.6 Maryland Continental Shelf ....................................................................2-25 2.2.2.7 Virginia Continental Shelf ......................................................................2-34 2.2.3 Climate ...................................................................................................................2-46
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Field Experiment on a Nourished Beach
    CHAPTER 157 A Field Experiment on a Nourished Beach A.J. Fernandez* G. Gomez Pina * G. Cuena* J.L. Ramirez* Abstract The performance of a beach nourishment at" Playa de Castilla" (Huel- va, Spain) is evaluated by means of accurate beach profile surveys, vi- sual breaking wave information, buoy-measured wave data and sediment samples. The shoreline recession at the nourished beach due to "profile equilibration" and "spreading out" losses is discussed. The modified equi- librium profile curve proposed by Larson (1991) is shown to accurately describe the profiles with a grain size varying across-shore. The "spread- ing out" losses measured at " Playa de Castilla" are found to be less than predicted by spreading out formulations. The utilization of borrowed material substantially coarser than the native material is suggested as an explanation. 1 INTRODUCTION Fernandez et al. (1990) presented a case study of a sand bypass project at "Playa de Castilla" (Huelva, Spain) and the corresponding monitoring project, that was going to be undertaken. The Beach Nourishment Monitoring Project at the "Playa de Castilla" was begun over two years ago. The project is being *Direcci6n General de Costas. M.O.P.T, Madrid (Spain) 2043 2044 COASTAL ENGINEERING 1992 carried out to evaluate the performance of a beach fill and to establish effective strategies of coastal management and represents one of the most comprehensive monitoring projects that has been undertaken in Spain. This paper summa- rizes and discusses the data set for wave climate, beach profiles and sediment samples. 2 STUDY SITE & MONITORING PROGRAM Playa de Castilla, Fig. 1, is a sandy beach located on the South-West coast of Spain between the Guadiana and Gualdalquivir rivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Dictionary for Grain-Size Data Tables
    Data Dictionary for Grain-Size Data Tables The table below describes the attributes (data columns) for the grain-size data tables presented in this report. The metadata for the grain-size data are not complete if they are not distibuted with this document. Attribute_Label Attribute_Definition SAMPLE ID Sediment Sample identification number DEPTH (cm) Sample depth interval, in centimeters Physical description of sediment textural group - describes the dominant grain size class of the sample (after Folk, 1954): SEDIMENT TEXTURE (Folk, 1954) Sand, Clayey Sand, Muddy Sand, Silty Sand, Sandy Clay, Sandy Mud, Sandy Silt, Clay, Mud, or Silt AVERAGED SAMPLE RUNS Number of sample runs (N) included in the averaged statistics or other relavant information MEAN GRAIN SIZE (mm) Mean grain size, in microns (after Folk and Ward, 1957) MEAN GRAIN SIZE STANDARD DEVIATION (mm) Standard deviation of mean grain size, in microns SORTING (mm) Sample sorting - the standard deviation of the grain size distribution, in microns (after Folk and Ward, 1957) SORTING STANDARD DEVIATION (mm) Standard deviation of sorting, in microns SKEWNESS (mm) Sample skewness - deviation of the grain size distribution from symmetrical, in microns (after Folk and Ward, 1957) SKEWNESS STANDARD DEVIATION (mm) Standard deviation of skewness, in microns KURTOSIS (mm) Sample kurtosis - degree of curvature near the mode of the grain size distribution, in microns (after Folk and Ward, 1957) KURTOSIS STANDARD DEVIATION (mm) Standard deviation of kurtosis, in microns MEAN GRAIN SIZE (ɸ) Mean
    [Show full text]
  • Littoral Cells, Sand Budgets, and Beaches: Understanding California S
    LITTORAL CELLS, SAND BUDGETS, AND BEACHES: UNDERSTANDING CALIFORNIA’ S SHORELINE KIKI PATSCH GARY GRIGGS OCTOBER 2006 INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT WORKGROUP Littoral Cells, Sand Budgets, and Beaches: Understanding California’s Shoreline By Kiki Patch Gary Griggs Institute of Marine Sciences University of California, Santa Cruz California Department of Boating and Waterways California Coastal Sediment Management WorkGroup October 2006 Cover Image: Santa Barbara Harbor © 2002 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project www.californiacoastline.org Brochure Design & Layout Laura Beach www.LauraBeach.net Littoral Cells, Sand Budgets, and Beaches: Understanding California’s Shoreline Kiki Patsch Gary Griggs Institute of Marine Sciences University of California, Santa Cruz TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 7 Chapter 1: Introduction 9 Chapter 2: An Overview of Littoral Cells and Littoral Drift 11 Chapter 3: Elements Involved in Developing Sand Budgets for Littoral Cells 17 Chapter 4: Sand Budgets for California’s Major Littoral Cells and Changes in Sand Supply 23 Chapter 5: Discussion of Beach Nourishment in California 27 Chapter 6: Conclusions 33 References Cited and Other Useful References 35 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY he coastline of California can be divided into a set of dis- Beach nourishment or beach restoration is the placement of Ttinct, essentially self-contained littoral cells or beach com- sand on the shoreline with the intent of widening a beach that partments. These compartments are geographically limited and is naturally narrow or where the natural supply of sand has consist of a series of sand sources (such as rivers, streams and been signifi cantly reduced through human activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Beach Nourishment: Massdep's Guide to Best Management Practices for Projects in Massachusetts
    BBEACHEACH NNOURISHMEOURISHMENNTT MassDEP’sMassDEP’s GuideGuide toto BestBest ManagementManagement PracticesPractices forfor ProjectsProjects inin MassachusettsMassachusetts March 2007 acknowledgements LEAD AUTHORS: Rebecca Haney (Coastal Zone Management), Liz Kouloheras, (MassDEP), Vin Malkoski (Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries), Jim Mahala (MassDEP) and Yvonne Unger (MassDEP) CONTRIBUTORS: From MassDEP: Fred Civian, Jen D’Urso, Glenn Haas, Lealdon Langley, Hilary Schwarzenbach and Jim Sprague. From Coastal Zone Management: Bob Boeri, Mark Borrelli, David Janik, Julia Knisel and Wendolyn Quigley. Engineering consultants from Applied Coastal Research and Engineering Inc. also reviewed the document for technical accuracy. Lead Editor: David Noonan (MassDEP) Design and Layout: Sandra Rabb (MassDEP) Photography: Sandra Rabb (MassDEP) unless otherwise noted. Massachusetts Massachusetts Office Department of of Coastal Zone Environmental Protection Management 1 Winter Street 251 Causeway Street Boston, MA Boston, MA table of contents I. Glossary of Terms 1 II. Summary 3 II. Overview 6 • Purpose 6 • Beach Nourishment 6 • Specifications and Best Management Practices 7 • Permit Requirements and Timelines 8 III. Technical Attachments A. Beach Stability Determination 13 B. Receiving Beach Characterization 17 C. Source Material Characterization 21 D. Sample Problem: Beach and Borrow Site Sediment Analysis to Determine Stability of Nourishment Material for Shore Protection 22 E. Generic Beach Monitoring Plan 27 F. Sample Easement 29 G. References 31 GLOSSARY Accretion - the gradual addition of land by deposition of water-borne sediment. Beach Fill – also called “artificial nourishment”, “beach nourishment”, “replenishment”, and “restoration,” comprises the placement of sediment within the nearshore sediment transport system (see littoral zone). (paraphrased from Dean, 2002) Beach Profile – the cross-sectional shape of a beach plotted perpendicular to the shoreline.
    [Show full text]
  • Cleaning Symbiosis Among California Inshore Fishes
    CLEANING SYMBIOSIS AMONG CALIFORNIA INSHORE FISHES EDMUNDS. HOBSON' ABSTRACT Cleaning symbiosis among shore fishes was studied during 1968 and 1969 in southern California, with work centered at La Jolla. Three species are habitual cleaners: the seAoriF, Ozyjulis californica; the sharpnose seaperch, Phanerodon atripes; and the kelp perch, Brachyistius frenatus. Because of specific differences in habitat, there is little overlap in the cleaning areas of these three spe- cies. Except for juvenile sharpnose seaperch, cleaning is of secondary significance to these species, even though it may be of major significance to certain individuals. The tendency to clean varies between in- dividuals. Principal prey of most members of these species are free-living organisms picked from a substrate and from midwater-a mode of feeding that favors adaptations suited to cleaning. Because it is exceedingly abundant in a variety of habitats, the seiiorita is the predominant inshore cleaning fish in California. Certain aspects of its cleaning relate to the fact that only a few of the many seiioritas present at a given time will clean, and that this activity is not centered around well-defined cleaning stations, as has been reported for certain cleaning fishes elsewhere. Probably because cleaners are difficult to recognize among the many seiioritas that do not clean, other fishes.generally do not at- tempt to initiate-cleaning; rather, the activity is consistently initiated by the cleaner itself. An infest- ed fish approached by a cleaner generally drifts into an unusual attitude that advertises the temporary existence of the transient cleaning station to other fish in need of service, and these converge on the cleaner.
    [Show full text]
  • Relative Gut Lengths of Coral Reef Butterflyfishes (Pisces
    Relative gut lengths of coral reef butterflyfishes (Pisces: Chaetodontidae) ML Berumen1, 2 *, MS Pratchett3, BA Goodman4 1. Red Sea Research Center, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, 23955, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 2. Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, 02543, USA 3. ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia 4. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309 * Corresponding author: Email: [email protected] Phone: +966 544700019 Keywords: Chaetodontidae; corallivory; Papua New Guinea; relative gut length Abstract Variation in gut length of closely related animals is known to generally be a good predictor of dietary habits. We examined gut length in 28 species of butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae), which encompass a wide range of dietary types (planktivores, omnivores, corallivores). We found general dietary patterns to be a good predictor of relative gut length, although we found high variation among groups and covariance with body size. The longest gut lengths are found in species that exclusively feed on the living tissue of corals, while the shortest gut length is found in a planktivorous species. Although we tried to control for phylogeny, corallivory has arisen multiple times in this family, confounding our analyses. The butterflyfishes, a speciose family with a wide range of dietary habits, may nonetheless provide an ideal system for future work studying gut physiology associated with specialisation and foraging behaviours. Introduction Relative gut lengths of vertebrates have long been studied and compared within and among species (e.g., Al-Hussaini 1949). The most common explanations for relatively longer guts in herbivores focus on the chemical defences of plants (e.g., Levin 1976; Hay and Fenical 1988), the indigestibility of plant fibre (e.g., Stevens 1989; Karasov and Martinez del Rio 2007), or the poor nutritional quality of plants as food.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gulf of Mexico Workshop on International Research, March 29–30, 2017, Houston, Texas
    OCS Study BOEM 2019-045 Proceedings: The Gulf of Mexico Workshop on International Research, March 29–30, 2017, Houston, Texas U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Gulf of Mexico OCS Region OCS Study BOEM 2019-045 Proceedings: The Gulf of Mexico Workshop on International Research, March 29–30, 2017, Houston, Texas Editors Larry McKinney, Mark Besonen, Kim Withers Prepared under BOEM Contract M16AC00026 by Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi 6300 Ocean Drive Corpus Christi, TX 78412 Published by U.S. Department of the Interior New Orleans, LA Bureau of Ocean Energy Management July 2019 Gulf of Mexico OCS Region DISCLAIMER Study collaboration and funding were provided by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Environmental Studies Program, Washington, DC, under Agreement Number M16AC00026. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM, and it has been approved for publication. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the US Government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. REPORT AVAILABILITY To download a PDF file of this report, go to the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management website at https://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Studies-EnvData/, click on the link for the Environmental Studies Program Information System (ESPIS), and search on 2019-045. CITATION McKinney LD, Besonen M, Withers K (editors) (Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Corpus Christi, Texas).
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Mass-Balance Food Web Model of the Eastern Chukchi Sea
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-262 Preliminary Mass-balance Food Web Model of the Eastern Chukchi Sea by G. A. Whitehouse U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Fisheries Science Center December 2013 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS The National Marine Fisheries Service's Alaska Fisheries Science Center uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible. Documents within this series reflect sound professional work and may be referenced in the formal scientific and technical literature. The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center continues the NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the Northwest Fisheries Center. The NMFS-NWFSC series is currently used by the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. This document should be cited as follows: Whitehouse, G. A. 2013. A preliminary mass-balance food web model of the eastern Chukchi Sea. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-262, 162 p. Reference in this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-262 Preliminary Mass-balance Food Web Model of the Eastern Chukchi Sea by G. A. Whitehouse1,2 1Alaska Fisheries Science Center 7600 Sand Point Way N.E. Seattle WA 98115 2Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean University of Washington Box 354925 Seattle WA 98195 www.afsc.noaa.gov U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Penny. S. Pritzker, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Kathryn D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Genus <Emphasis Type="Italic">Nephtys </Emphasis
    HELGOLANDER MEERESUNTERSUCHUNGEN Helgol~nder Meeresunters. 45, 65-96 (1991) The genus Nephtys (Polychaeta: Phyllodocida) of northern Europe: a review of species, including the description of N. pulchra sp. n. and a key to the Nephtu S. F. Rainer CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories; PO Box 20, North Beach, W.A. 6020, Australia ABSTRACT: Twelve species of Nephtys now known from northern Europe are described, including one new species, N. pulchra sp. n. A key is provided to the 14 species of Nephtyidae from the region. Geographic changes in the setiger in which interramal cirri first occur are recognized in N. caeca (Fabricius), N. cfliata (Miiller), N. hombergfi Savigny and N. pente Rainer. INTRODUCTION Nephtyid polychaetes occur in most marine environments. The first nephtyid described was Nephtys ciliata (O.F. Mfiller, 1776); by 1843, the three common shallow- water and intertidal species in northern Europe had been described (Nephtys caeca [Fabricius, 1780], N. hombergii Savigny, 1818 and N. longosetosa C)rsted, 1843). Between 1865 und 1911, many nephtyid species were described from material collected from northern European waters, by Malmgren (1865), Ehlers (1868), Malta (1874), Hansen (1878), Th6el (1879), Michaelsen (1896), McIntosh (1900, 1908) and Heinen (1911). The studies by Michaelsen (1896) and Heinen (1911), and those by McIntosh (1908) and Fauvel (1914), placed many of these in synonymy with previously described species, and provided the basis for the present systematic status of European nephtyids. Descriptions of northern European nephtyids given by Fauchald (1963), Woolf (1968) and Hartmann- Schr6der (1971) are based on these studies. The descriptions of some species of Nephtys, especially N.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution and Grain Size Distribution of Bahamian Ooid Shoals From
    Movement and grain size distribution of Bahamian sand shoals from remote sensing Kathryn M. Stack Michael Lamb, Ralph Milliken, Sebastien Leprince, John Grotzinger California Institute of Technology KISS Monitoring Earth Surface Changes From Space II 3/30/10 Motivation: Understand how sediment moves underwater Transport Grain size Implicaons Evoluon of shallow Petroleum and natural CO2 reservoirs bathymetry gas reservoirs 2 How remote sensing data can help • Obtain a 2-D snapshot of a modern day shallow carbonate environment • Build up a time series of morphology and grain size • Quantify the distribution and movement of sediment at a variety of temporal and spatial scales –Tides versus storms? • Use the modern to better understand the 3-D patterns of porosity and permeability in the rock record The Bahamas: A modern carbonate environment Florida The Atlantic Ocean The Bahamas Cuba 100 km Google Earth Tongue of the Ocean Schooner Cays 20 km 20 km Exumas Lily Bank 2 km 2 km Tongue of the Ocean 10 km 1 Crest spacing ~ 1‐10 km Google Earth 3 Crest spacing ~ 100 m 2 1 km Crest spacing ~ 1 km ASTER, Band 1 20 m Sediment transport and bedform migration Bedform spatial scales = 5-10 cm, 1 m, 10-100 m, 1-10 km Temporal scales = Hours, days, years Δy Δx Transport Ideal Imaging Campaign • High enough spatial resolution to see bedform crests on a number of scales - Sub-meter resolution - Auto-detection system • High enough temporal resolution to distinguish between slow steady processes and storms - Image collection every 3 to 6 hours • Spectral resolution depending on bedform scale of interest Also useful: • High resolution water topography (sub-meter resolution) • Track currents, tides, and water velocity Application of COSI-Corr • Use the COSI-Corr software developed by Leprince et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Variable Grain Size Distribution on Beach's
    Delft University of Technology Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences Department of Hydraulic Engineering MSc Thesis THE EFFECT OF VARIABLE GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ON BEACH’S MORPHOLOGICAL RESPONSE Graduation committee: Prof.dr.ir. A.J.H.M. Reniers Author: Dr.ir. Matthieu de Schipper Melike Koktas Ir. Tjerk Zitman Dr. Edith L. Gallagher May 2017 P a g e 2 | 67 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Field studies with in-situ sediment sampling demonstrate the spatial variability in grain size on a sandy beach. However, conventional numerical models that are used to simulate the coastal morphodynamics ignore this variability of sediment grain size and use a uniform grain size distribution of mostly around and assumed fine grain size. This thesis study investigates the importance of variable grain size distribution in a beach’s morphological response. For this purpose, first a field experiment campaign was conducted at the USACE Field Research Facility (FRF) in Duck, USA, in the spring of 2014. This experiment campaign was called SABER_Duck as an acronym for ‘Stratigraphy And BEach Response’. During SABER_Duck, in-situ swash zone grain size distribution, the prevailing hydrodynamic conditions and the time-series of the cross-shore bathymetry data were collected. The data confirmed a highly variable grain size distribution in the swash zone both vertically and horizontally. Additionally, the two trench survey observations showed the existence of continuous layers of coarse and fine sands comprising the beach stratigraphy. Secondly, a process based numerical coastal morphology model, XBeach, was chosen to simulate the beach profile response to wave and tidal action. A 1D cross-shore profile model was built and tested with the bathymetry data and accompanying boundary conditions that were collected during SABER_Duck.
    [Show full text]
  • The Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment Against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu
    MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TRADES, TOURISM, ENVIRONMENT AND LABOUR THE GOVERNMENT OF TUVALU THE PROJECT FOR PILOT GRAVEL BEACH NOURISHMENT AGAINST COASTAL DISASTER ON FONGAFALE ISLAND IN TUVALU FINAL REPORT (SUPPORTING REPORT) April 2018 JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY NIPPON KOEI CO., LTD. FUTABA INC. GE JR 18-058 MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TRADES, TOURISM, ENVIRONMENT AND LABOUR THE GOVERNMENT OF TUVALU THE PROJECT FOR PILOT GRAVEL BEACH NOURISHMENT AGAINST COASTAL DISASTER ON FONGAFALE ISLAND IN TUVALU FINAL REPORT (SUPPORTING REPORT) April 2018 JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY NIPPON KOEI CO., LTD. FUTABA INC. Table of Contents Supporting Report-1 Study on the Quality and Quantity of Materials in Phase-1 (quote from Interim Report 1) .............................................................. SR-1 Supporting Report-2 Planning and Design in Phase-1 (quote from Interim Report 1) ............ SR-2 Supporting Report-3 Design Drawing ..................................................................................... SR-3 Supporting Report-4 Project Implementation Plan in Phase-1 (quote from Interim Report 1)................................................................................................. SR-4 Supporting Report-5 Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report (PEAR) ....................... SR-5 Supporting Report-6 Public Consultation in Phase-1 (quote from Interim Report 1) .............. SR-6 Supporting Report-7 Bidding Process (quote from Progress Report) ...................................... SR-7 Supporting
    [Show full text]