ocean park
DESCRIPTION
ÂTRANSCRIPT
OCEAN PARK, CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
Public Beach Assessment Report
January 1987 to June 1991
by
c. S. Hardaway, Jr.D. A. MilliganG. R. Thomas
VirginiaInstitute of Marine ScienceThe College of Williamand Mary
Gloucester Point, Virginia23062
January 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures
I. Introduction
A.B.C.
Statement of the ProblemLimits of the Study AreaApproach and Methodology
II. Coastal setting ......
A.
B.C.
Shoreline and Nearshore Morphologyand Sediment Transport . . . .Beach and Nearshore SedimentsWave Climate . . . . . . . .
III. Beach Characteristics and Behavior
A.B.
C.
Beach and Surf Zone Profiles and Their VariabilityVariability in Shoreline Position and Beach Volume
1-2.
Shoreline Position Variability. .Beach and Nearshore VolumeChanges
IV. Wave Modelling at Ocean Park
Anthropogenic Impacts to Shoreline Processes
A.B.C.
RCPWAVE Setup . . . .Wave Height Distribution and Wave RefractionLittoral Transport Patterns
V. Conclusions
VI. Acknowledgements
VII. References. . .
Appendix I
Appendix II
Ocean Park Profiles
Additional References About Littoral Processes and
Hydrodynamic Modeling
i
Page
ii
1
133
6
699
10
1024
2430
45
45
454649
54
57
58
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Study site location and the location of theThimble Shoalswave gage . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 2. Base map of Ocean Park Beach with profile and celllocations . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 3. Typical beach profile demonstrating terminology used inreport . . . . . . . . ...............
Figure 4. Shoreline and offshore bathymetry grid at Ocean ParkBeach used in the RCP wave evaluation . .
Profile 000 plot depicting changes involving the 1987fill project ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Profile 000 plot depicting changes involving the 1991
fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Profile 040 plot depicting changes involving the 1987fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Profile 040 plot depicting changes involving the 1991
fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Profile 080 plot depicting changes involving the 1987
fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Profile 080 plot depicting changes involving the 1991
fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Profile 120 plot depicting changes involving the 1987
fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Profile 120 plot depicting changes involving the 1991fill project .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Profile 160 plot depicting changes involving the 1987
fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Profile 160 plot depicting changes involving the 1991
fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Profile 200 plot depicting changes involving the 1987
fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Profile 200 plot depicting changes involving the 1991
fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Profile 240 plot depicting changes involving the 1987fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
Page
2
4
5
8
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
.
Figure SA.
Figure 5B.
Figure 6A.
Figure 6B.
Figure 7A.
Figure 7B.
Figure 8A.
Figure 8B.
Figure 9A.
Figure 9B.
Figure lOA.
Figure lOB.
Figure 11A.
Figure 11B. Profile 240 plot depicting changes involving the 1991fi11 project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 12A. Profile 280 plot depicting changes involving the 1987fi11 project . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 12B. Profile 280 plot depicting changes involving the 1991fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 13A. Profile 320 plot depicting changes involving the 1987fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 13B. Profile 320 plot depicting changes involving the 1991fill project .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 14A. Profile 360 plot depicting changes involving the 1987fi11 projact ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 14B. Profile 360 plot depicting changes involving the 1991fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 15A. Profile 400 plot depicting changes involving the 1987fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 15B. Profile 400 plot depicting changes involving the 1991fi11 p~oject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 16A. Profile 440 plot depicting changes involving the 1987fill project . . .
Figure 16B. Profile 440 plot depicting changes involving the 1991fi11 project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 17A. Profile 480 plot depicting changes involving the 1987fi11 project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 17B. Profile 480 plot depicting changes involving the 1991fillproject. . . . . . . . . .
Hi
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
25
25
26
26
27
Figure 18A. Distance of MHW from the baseline for Jan 01, May 20,Jul 20, Aug 18, and Sep 21, 1987
Figure 18B. Distance of MHW from the baseline for Sep 21 and Nov 24,1987; Mar 22, May 23, and Jul 27, 1988
Figure 19A. Distance of MHW from the baseline for Jul 27, Sep 20,Nov 16, and Dee 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
Figure 20A. Distance of MHW from the baseline for Aug 01, Sep 11,Oct 02, Nov 07, and Dee 15, 1989
Figure 20B. Distance of MHW from the baseline for Dec 15, 1989;
Jan 02, Feb 01,Mar 09 andApr 02, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 21A. Distance of MHW from the baseline for Apr 02, May 04,Jun OS, Jun 28, andAug 01, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28
FigUre 21B. Distance of MHW from the baseline for Aug 01, Oct 02,and Nov 16, 1990; Feb 01 and Mar OS, 1991 . . . . . . . .. 28
Figure 22A. Distance of MHW from the baseline for Mar OS, Apr 04,
May 01 and Jun 03, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
Figure 22B. Summary of the distance of MHW from the baseline before
and after each beach fill project and the last survey inJun 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 before and after each
beach fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Figure 37. Seasonal variability in the position of MHW atprofiles000 through120 . . . . . . . ...... 39
Figure 38. Seasonal variability in the position of MHW at
profiles160through280 . . . . . . . ...... 39
Figure 39. Seasonal variability in the position of MHW at
profiles 320 through 480 40
Figure 40. Net subaerial sand volumes 42
iv
Figure 45. Littoral drift transport rate (Q) (m3/hr) for
modal and storm condition using methods by
Gourlay (1982) and Komar and Inman (1970) . .. . . . 53
Figure 46. Gradient of alongshore energy flux (dQ/dy) (m3/hr)for modal and storm condition using methods byGourlay (1982)and Komar and Inman (1970) . . . . . . . . . 55
v
Figure 41. Net nearshore sand volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 42. Volume loss or gain of the fill material . . . . . . . . . 44
Figure 43A. Breaking wave heights (Hb) for modal waves impactingOPG shoreline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 43B. Breaking wave heights (Hb) for storm waves impactingOPG shoreline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 44A. Wave vectors for modal condition across OPG . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 44B. Wave vectors for storm condition across OPG . . . . . . . . 51
--- --- - --
I. Introduction
A. Statementof the Problem
Ocean Park Beach is located within the city of Virginia Beach, Virginia,
along the southern shore of lower Chesapeake Bay (Figure 1). It is an
important recreational beach for residents of the Ocean Park community and is
a valuable beach site for the resort industry of the city. In April, 1987,
Virginia Beach, in conjunction with the federal government, implemented a
beach nourishment project to increase the recreational potential of Ocean Park
as well as to decrease tangible primary flood damages and to prevent monetary
loss due to erosion of real estate. Another, smaller nourishment project was
performed in January, 1991. These projects involved the placement of 136,000
cubic yards (103,980 cubic meters) and 70,000 cubic yards (53,519 cubic
meters) of beach fill. Lynnhaven Inlet is routinely dredged as part of
channel maintenance and the dredged material was the beach fill placed at
Ocean Park Beach.
Historically, Ocean Park has been one of the many stretches of
Chesapeake Bay shoreline undergoing severe erosion. The Corps of Engineers
estimated the erosion rate prior to the 1987 fill to be approximately 2.6
ft/yr (0.79 m/yr) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1990). However, Bryne and
Oertel (1986) determined the recent erosion rate to be about 4.5 ft/yr
(1.4 m/yr).
In order to evaluate the beach losses due to shoreline erosion, the City
of Virginia Beach set up an intensive survey of the beach and nearshore along
Ocean Park. The surveys were performed monthly before and after each
nourishment project. This report presents the analysis of the surveys as well
as an evaluation of the general hydrodynamic setting of the Ocean Park
shoreline. The objective is to determine if beach losses and sediment
transport trends are discernible and, if so, what are the wave forces
1
..
VIMSWAVE
O~ GAGE
Figure 1. Study site location and the location of the Thimble Shoalswave gage.
2
:;
responsible. This information may lead to alternative, possibly more cost
effective, beach nourishment methods.
B. Limits of the study Area
Ocean Park is located in the lower bay west of and adjacent to Lynnhaven
Inlet. We are most interested in a section of shoreline that extends from
Lynnhaven Inlet westward for about 4,800 feet (1,463 m). This reach of
shoreline is the site of the 1987 and 1991 beach fill projects and is set
within a larger section of coast that is roughly defined by Lynnhaven Inlet on
the east and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (CBBT) on the west.
C. Approach and Methodology
Field data and computer modelling methods were used to address the
objectives. Data analyzed for this report include beach profiles measured at
Ocean Park during the period January, 1987 through June, 1991. Beach profile
surveys have been done monthly since the first renourishment project by the
City of Virginia Beach; however, individual profile lengths and depths were
not consistent over the monitoring period. The datum for vertical control is
mean low water (MLW). Thirteen beach profile transects were positioned at 400
foot (122 m) intervals along the shore (Figure 2). We used a baseline for
plotting the profiles and making calculations that is 100 feet (30.5 m) behind
the City of Virginia Beach's baseline which runs along the beach. Appendix I
contains the full set of profile plots with adjacent survey dates plotted
together for individual profiles. Data were summarized in terms of relative
shoreline positions to mean high water (MHW). Figure 3 gives a pictorial
definition of the profile terminology used in this report. Plotted profiles
were also used to calculate beach area and volume changes over time. All the
nearshore data were calculated by taking into account all sand below MLW to
the end of each profile. Subaerial beach changes occur above MLW. The mean
tidal range at Ocean Park is 2.6 feet (0.79 m).
3
--- ---
~
Profile480
~
OCEAN PARK, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Profile440
~
Cell 12 Cell 11
CHESAPEAKE BAY
Profile400~
Profile320
Profile280
Profile240
VIMS Baseline
~{WINDSOR
CRESCENT
Profile360
.Cell 10
ShorelineCell 9 Cell 8
· . Cell 7 fShoreline (MHW)
VIMS Base~
)t(ALBEMARLE
AVENUE
VIMS Baseline
Concrete Bulkhead
~tWOODLAWN
AVENUE
/ /VIMS Baseline',ROANOKE DINWIDDIE DUPONTAVENUE ROAD CIRCLE
EAST STRATFORDROAD
Concrete 8tJlkheqd
Figure 2. Base map of Ocean Park Beach with profile and cell locations.
Profile Profile Profile Profile Profile ProfileProfile 200 160 120 080 040 000240 . .
rCell 6 I Cell 5
ICell 4 Cell 3 I Cell 2 I Cell 1
Shoreline (MHW) I Shoreline
Duneor
Bulkhead
VI
Backshore
l~oreshore ~.Beach
Nearshore L.. Offshore
Subaerial
Berm Berm Crest
HW
MLW
Figure 3. Typical beach profile demonstrating terminology used in report.
The hydrodynamic forces acting along the Ocean Park shore reach were
evaluated using RCPWAVE, a computer model developed by the u.s. Army Corps of
Engineers (Ebersole et al., 1986). This program was modified to run on the
VIMSPrime 9955 mainframe. RCPWAVE is a linear wave propagation model
designed for engineering applications. This model computes changes in wave
characteristics that result naturally from refraction, shoaling, and
diffraction over complex shoreface topography. To this fundamental linear-
theory-based model, VIMS has added routines which employ recently developed
understandings of wave bottom boundary layers to estimate wave energy
dissipation due to bottom friction. The VIMS revision also estimates wave-
induced, longshore, surf zone currents and littoral drift by means of three
different theoretical models, two of which incorporate the effects of
longshore gradients in breaker height. The reader is referred to Ebersole et
al. (1986) and Wright et al. (1987) for a thorough discussion of RCPWAVE, its
use and theory.
The model was run using 14 separate sets of incident wave conditions
(wave height, period, and direction) which were selected on the basis of wave
gage data from the VIMS's Thimble Shoals Gage (TSG). Bathymetric data used to
create the Ocean Park Grid (OPG) was obtained from the National Oceanic Survey
(NOS, 1987) in digital format. The grid array has horizontal cell dimensions
along the x axis of 65.5 feet (20 m) and 131.2 feet (40 m) along the y axis.
Breaker wave conditions and littoral sediment drift were calculated for 110
beach cells.
II. Coastal Setting
A. Shoreline and Nearshore Morphology and Sediment Transport
The Ocean Park beach lies approximately six miles (9.7 km) west of Cape
Henry at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay (Figure 1). The shoreline is orientated
6
west-east and exists on a low flat coast. It is bordered to the east by
Lynnhaven Inlet and is part of a nearly continuous, narrow, sandy beach which
extends westward 17 statute miles (27 km) from the mouth of the bay to the tip
of Willoughby Spit. More specifically, the beach fill project area extends
from Lynnhaven Inlet westward for about 4,800 feet (1,463 m).
As previously mentioned, Ocean Park is set within a larger reach of
coast that we have defined for this study. The shoreline and offshore
bathymetry are contained in the OPG which extends northward into Chesapeake
Bay for about 3.0 miles (4 km) to about 25 feet (7.6 m) below mean sea level
(MSL) (Figure 4). There are several interesting morphologic features in the
OPG including Lynnhaven Inlet and its associated ebb shoals, the broad shoal
region on the west side of the grid and the east-west trending channel that
occurs between 0.5 miles (0.8 km) and 1.5 miles (2.4 km) offshore.
Ludwick (1987) defined the east-west channel as the Beach Channel, the
axis of which trends approximately parallel to the southern shoreline of the
Chesapeake Bay from Cape Henry westward past Lynnhaven Inlet, Little Creek
entrance, and on to Willoughby Spit. The water depth in this channel is
approximately 28 feet (8.5 m) along much of its length, compared to lesser
depths both closer and farther offshore. The flood currents in the Beach
Channel near the bottom are stronger and longer in duration than the ebb
currents. This channel may strongly affect the local wave climate.
In general, net sediment transport is from east to west along the
southern shore of the Chesapeake Bay from Lynnhaven Inlet to Willoughby Spit.
However, inlet tidal currents and refracted waves often cause west to east
drift along the Ocean Park shoreline (Byrne and Oertel, 1986). Also, sediment
from the accreting Cape Henry beaches will not reach the Ocean Park beach
because Lynnhaven Inlet and its extensive ebb shoals effectively hold on to
the sand and prevent it from bypassing to Ocean Park.
7
L _ Beach _ I
r-Channel~, "
1020304050 6070 80 90 10011012013014015016017018019<E0<El<E2<E3<E40110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
10 20 30-40 50 60 70 80 90100110l20130140l50l60l70l80l9ceOce1IE2ce3ce40 X - Axis
dx = 20 meters
Figure 4. Shoreline and offshore bathymetry grid at Ocean Park Beachused in the RCP wave evaluation.
8
VI
I>-
110
100
!Q) 90-Q)E0...,.
II 80>-'C
70
T60
50
OceanPark
140
30
LynnhavenInlet 20
'f10
B. Beach and Nearshore Sediments
According to the Army Corps of Engineers (1990) the average mean grain
size of the beach sands along Ocean Park is 0.35 mm (medium-grained). This
analysis is no doubt influenced by recent beach fill projects. Hobbs et ale
(1992) found the sediments in the nearshore to be between 0.2 mm and
0.35 mm.
C. Wave Climate
The wave climate within lower Chesapeake Bay has been the focus of
recent study (Boon et al., 1990). From September 1988 to October 1989, VIMS
deployed a bottom-mounted wave gage in the Thimble Shoals area of lower
Chesapeake Bay (Figure 1). The wave and current data sensed and recorded at
this station are indicative of conditions experienced at Ocean Park. Wave
characteristics of a moderate to severe northeast storm, perhaps typical of
late winter - early spring conditions, were "captured" by the wave gage on
March 8 and 9, 1989. Average wave height for the storm was 3.6 feet (1.1 m)
with a 6.0 s period. Highest waves recorded were 6.2 feet (1.9) m.
One of the unique features reported in the Thimble Shoals wave data set
is the bimodal distribution of wave directions reflecting a dual energy source
which impacts this area. Boon et ale (1990) found that 40 to 60\ of all waves
measured each month were between 0.67 feet (0.20 m) and 1.97 feet (0.60 m) in
height. During late spring and summer months, about 80\ of the measured waves
were directed west-northwest, thus generated outside the bay. During fall and
winter months, only slightly more than half of the 0.67 feet (0.20 m) to 1.97
feet (0.60 m) waves were generated outside the bay. Bay-external waves result
from swell and shelf-originated wind waves.
Of the fall and winter waves with heights greater than 1.97 feet
(0.60 m), almost all were directed south, thus generated within the bay.
These fall and winter waves result from northeasters (extratropical storms)
9
and northwesters, which produce strong north winds along the maximum fetch of
the bay. As Ocean Park is located at the southernmost end of Chesapeake Bay,
it receives waves generated over the whole north-to-south fetch of the bay
(over 100 miles, 160 km). The passage of extratropical, low pressure storms
also produces elevated water levels which further increase the wave height and
energy and strongly impacts Ocean Park's shoreline. In the summer months,
locally generated waves reached only minimal heights. Thus, the higher wave
energy in winter generally causes beach erosion while calmer conditions in
summer tend to cause beach accretion.
Although the largest wave heights recorded were associated with waves
generated inside the bay, these waves were relatively infrequent. The more
typical waves were intermediate in height, 0.67 to 1.97 feet (0.20 to 0.60 m),
with approximately 50% of these waves generated outside the bay in the fall
and winter and 80% in the summer. However, each of these energy sources
contributes to the conditions at Ocean Park, and each plays an important role
in altering the shore's morphology.
III. Beach Characteristics and Behavior
A. Beach and Surf Zone Profiles and Their Variability
Figure 2 is the basemap for Ocean Park. The 13 profile labels are
referenced to the City of Virginia Beach's field surveys where 000 is 0+00,
040 is 4+00, and so on to 480 which is 48+00. Profiles 000 to 200 cross a
bulkhead, and profiles 240 to 480 cross a dune system before reaching the
beach. The early profile sets were run out several hundred feet past MLW but
the later profiles only went to just beyond MLW. Therefore, nearshore volume
calculations could only be performed for the early profile set.
Figures 5 through 17 are plots of the individual profiles with five
significant dates plotted together for each of the 13 profiles. The survey
10
.,
, 30
OCEAN PARK
PROfILE NO. 000
NOV1690tJAY1487
JAN1987
20
fEET10( tJl \AI)
o
\',-"
'-.-''-.
"-
"-
-- '-',,-'- --'- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -----" ""':;..-
---------.---------------
A
tJLW
~"'-..~-~-.
-10
o 100 200 300
fEET
400 500 600
Figu~e SA. Profile 000 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project.
OCEAN PARK
PROFILE NO. 00030
JUN0391
J AN 1 0 9 1
NOV1690
20
fEET10(Ml\Al)
B
o .~. -- -- -- ULW.-. ~- -.':~ - - -- -- - - - - -- -- -- - - - - -- -- --
-10
o 100 200 300
fEET
400 500 600
Figure 5B. Profile 000 plot depicting changes involving the 1991 fill project.
11
300
fEET
Figure 6A. Profile 040 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project,
JOO
fEET
Figure 6B. Profile 040 plot depicting changes involving the 1991 fill project.
30
20
-10
fEET10(ULW)
-10
OCEAN PARK
PROfILE NO. 040
NOV1690
MAY1487JAN1987
o
A.:11I'"-.." ". \ "',
\ ".' "'..." "
" .., \
\
- -- -- -~,-,::- -- -- -- --.,...-- -- -- -- -- -- -- IJLW
...-.. ~.r.:-: , ... -- -- --- - -- "'-- ------..-.
o 100 200 400 500- 600
OCEAN PARI.<
PROfILE NO. 040JO
JUN0391
J AN 1 0 9 1
NOV1690
20
o
B,
--.....
' ,"\, -
'~,
'\- -- -- -- -- -- IAlW\~-~'~~.: ~ -- -- -- -- -- -- --
o 400 600200 500100
12
OCEAN PARKPROFILE NO. 080
30
NOV1690
MAY1487J AN 1 9 8 7
20
fEET10(MlW)
A.
\'-
o \.,~~ -- -- -_\.- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ULW.
~-_.------------
-10
O. 100 200 400 500 600300
fEET
Figure 7A. Profile 080 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project.
OCEAN PARK
PROFILE NO. 080
30JUN0391
JAN1091
NOV1690
20
fEET10(tJlW)
B~.
'-"''''--t
~'.
'''', -- -- -- IJlW.,.--,'. - -- -- -- -- -- --\. -- -- -- -.. .. --"--- -......
-- -- -- -- ,~-.-
o
-10300
fEET
Figure 7B. Profile 080 plot depicting changes involving the 1991 fill project.
o 100 200 400 500 600
13
OCEAN PARK
PROfILE NO. 120:50
NOV1690
tJAY1487
JAN1987
20
fEET10(tJL \II)
A
o . --\_"-~._- -- -~-~\-- -- -- -- ----"-" .
" .......
tJLW
-- --
-10
300
fEET
Figure 8A. Profile 120 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project.
o '00. 200 400 500 600
OCEAN PARKPROFILE NO. 120
30JUN0391
JAN1091
NOV1690
20
fEET10(ML\II)
o
--:\-,\...'
'\~.. __ __ __ __ __ __ __ u __ __ __ __
~'~~'.~:. ~ - -- ---....
B
tJLW
-10
o 100 200 300
FEET
depicting changes
400 500 600
Figure 8B. Profile 120 plot involving the 1991 fill project.
14
OCEAN PARK
PROFILE NO. 16030
NOV1690MAY2787JAN1987
20
fEET 10(MLW)
A
o
.-..
"- "
- -', - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- .-
'. '.
~LW
-10
JOO
fEET
Figure 9A. Profile 160 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project.
o 100 200 400 500 600
OCEAN PARK
PROFILE NO. 160JO
JUNOJ91JAN1091
NOV1690
20
o
I.
I
.
' B
'~:,~,.,'\:..'
,>.
'".~':-'-'- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---"':'. ~LW
... .'..
fEET10(MLW)
-10
JOO
fEET
Figure 9B. Profile 160 plot depicting changes involving the 1991 fill project.
o 100 200 400 500 600
15
.!
30
20
-10
OCEAN PARK
PROFILE NO. 200
NOV1690tJAY2787
JAN1987
o
\ A_.~ '-.
\ -".
..,~ --.'" '.
.
. - ..:.'- - " - - - - - - - . - . - - - . - - - . - . - .- - - - - - - - - tJL \AI
'.~-""
- ~'--~".-~ .-.- : ........
o 200 300
fEET.
400 500 600100
Figure lOA. Profile 200 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project.
20
fEET10( tJL\AI)
-10
OCEAN PARK .
PROFILE NO. 20030
JUN0391JAN1091
NOV1690
o
~..~
~--,--, :
. ,,',,
" ">. - .- ...W.~~-..".-~, -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -, ,
B
o 200 300
fEET
400 500 600100
Figure lOB. Profile 200 plot depicting changes involving the 1991 fill project.
16
300
fEET
Figure llA. Profile 240 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project.
fEET10( tJL W)
fEET10( tJL W)
OCEAN PARK
PROfILE NO. 240
30
NOV1690
~AY27B7.
JAN19B7
:20
o
A
,,
-- -- ':''-,-_"':.-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ~LW
~-_.-._--._-
-10
o 100 200 400 500 600
OCEAN PARK
PROFJLE NO. 24030
JUN039~
JAN1091
NOV1690
20
o
B,\""
"............
":.~.
''-. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ~LW- -' , :- -- -- -- -- -- --
...................
-10
o 100 200 300
FEET
400 500 600
Figure lIB. Profile 240 plot depicting changes involving the 1991 fill project.
17
300
fEET
Figure l2A. Profile 280 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project.
300
fEET
Figure l2B. Profile 280 plot depicting changes involving the 1991 fill project.
20
FEET10(tJLw)
fEET10(tJL \IJ)
OCE AN PARK
PROF ILE NO. 28030
NOV1690tJAY2787
JAN1987
o
-.-<:" , -=-."","- .- .- -
. -.. '.~ ~ ~.,-~ ....--......
A-- -. -- \
-. .".\
~""_.-
-'..\... ~ . ~ ..
. '\ -".
.. - .. - - - ,- .. -, -"-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ----
tJLW
-10
o 100 200 500400 600
OCEAN PARK
PROfILE NO. 28030
JUN0391
JAN1091
NOV1690
20
o tJLW
B
-10
o 200 400 600500100
18
300
fEET
Figure 13A. Profile 320 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project.
fEET10(~LW)
OCEAN PARKPROFILE NO. 320
30NOV1690tJAY2787
JAN1987
'20
\ 1',. "-- ,
i' " ,
-.~,~,~-...
,..................
A
o tJLW
"
-10
o 100 200 400 500 6.00
OCEAN PARKPROfILE NO, 320
30
-..-- JUN0391
JAN1091
NOV1690
20
o tJLW
B
-10
o 300
fEET
600400200 500100
Figure 13B. Profile 320 plot depicting changes involving the 1991 fill project.
19
fEET10( tJL \AI)
OCEAN PARK
PROFILE NO. 360
30NOV1690
tJAY2787
JAN1987
20
o tJLW
".. r\ . "
'/ ,". \
~.
'. <-..,.~.. ::.=~:..cc~ c~ :-: ~,~~ -:~Z~: ~ ; ~: ~:'--.
A
-10
o 100 200 300
fEET
depicting
400 500 600
Figure 14A. Profile 360 plot changes involving the 1987 fill project.
OCEAN PARK
PROFILE NO. 36030
JUN0391
JAN1091
NOV1690
20
o ULW
B
-10
o 300
fEET
depicting
400 500 600100 200
changes involving the 1991 fill project.Figure 14B. Profile 360 plot
20
OCEAN PARK
PROfILE NO. 40030
NOV1690t.JAY2787
JAN1987
.20
1\.-
. . . ~ - . - . . .
\
,......
A
o ---------------- - - - -'-.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .-
"__ '. _ -- -- tJLW
300
fEET
Figure 15A. Profile 400 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project.
o 100 200 500 600
-10
OCEAN PARK
PROfILE NO..40030
JUN0391
JAN1091
NOV1690
20
\ B\
\\I,~.
,"
-- -- -- -- -- -- -~~-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- tJLWo
-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 100 200 300
FEET
400 500 600
Figure 16A. Profile 440 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project.OCEAN PARK
PROFILE. NO. 44030
JUN0391
JAN1091
NOV1690
20
B
o
\.\,
""':t_
,'.
.\. --~-<--:::..;:.:-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ~W
-10 . .
0 100 200 :500 400 500 600
FEET
Figure 16B. Profile 440 plot depicting changes involving the 1991 fill project.
22
OCE AN PARK
PROf ILE NO. 480
30
NOV1690tJAY2787
20
A
o ML \!J
.. ~ ..'"~
-10
o 100 200 300
fEET
400 500 600
Figure l7A. Profile 480 plot depicting changes involving the 1987 fill project.
OCE AN PARK
PROfILE NO 480
30JUN0391
JAN1091NOV1690
20
fEET10( tJLW)
B
o':-" -
-- -- -- -- -- -- ~...........---..tJLW
-10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
fEET
Figure l7B. Profile 480 plot depicting changes involving the 1991 fill project.
23
date on the figures is listed as month, day, then year (e.g. Nov1690 = 16 Nov
1990). The profiles compare the pre-initial fill condition (Jan 87), the
post-initial fill condition (May 87), the pre-secondary fill condition (Nov
90),' the post-secondary fill condition (Jan 91), and the most recent survey
condition (Jun 91). Nearshore changes, including offshore bars can be seen
for the early dates up to November 1990. Also, there are no January, 1987,
survey data for profiles 440 and 480.
Beach losses after the initial fill are evident on each profile as seen
in the 'A' portion of Figures 5 through 17. Of interest in the nearshore
region is a slightly deeper trough just beyond MLW seen in Figures 8, 9, 10
and 11 (profiles 120, 160, 200, and 240). Further west the nearshore becomes
shallower with more shifting bar activity as seen in Figures 12 through 17.
B. Variability in Shoreline Position and Beach Volume
1. Shoreline Position Variability
The movement of the shoreline through time can be represented by
plotting the position of MHW. Figures 18 to 22 show the distance of MHW from
the baseline for each survey date. In general, several trends are evident.
Most obvious is the rapid adjustment of the beach to the first fill project.
Dates immediately following the fill show significant variations in shoreline
position from month to month. However, the later dates and those immediately
prior to the second fill show less movement of the shoreline. Another trend
is the wider, subaerial beach at the western end of the project between 360
and 440. This could be due to placement of a greater amount of sand during
the first beach fill project and the shallow nearshore region which would tend
to attenuate wave action, reduce breaking wave heights, and thus reduce beach
loss.
Another shore feature is a curvilinear embayed shoreline segment between
profiles 040 and 360. This feature persists through time and is accompanied
24
000 000
50
- SEP2187
NOV2487
MAR2288
.e. MAY2388
JUL2788
Feet
100 150 200 250 300 350
B
Figure 18A. Distance of MHW from the baselinefor 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 I I I .' teL I I 480
4401 I-JAN1987
}-
440.... MAY2087 . \.. \
4001 I ....JUl2087 / .f ............400
.e. AUG1887 . ....
360I SEP2187 I 360
320 320
'"d 280 '"d 280Ii Ii0 0HI HI
240 240(1)
A(1)
NVI Z Z.
200 § 2008C" C"(1) (1)Ii Ii
160 160
120 120
080 080
040 040
000
)
120
.
.. 080
040
000
Figure 19A. Distance of MHW from the baselinefor Jul 27, Sep 20, Nov 16, andDec 20, 1988; Jan 17, 1989.
50
Feet
150 200 250 300 350100
- JAN1789
MAR2589- JUN0789
"." JUL0789
AUG0189
B
Figure 19B. Distance of MHW from the baselinefor Jan 17, Mar 25, Jun 07, Jul 07
and Aug 01, 1989.
0
480
440
400
360
320"dIi0 2801-1'1t-'.I-'ro
Z 240N0' !3
0-ro 200Ii
160
120
080
040
Feet
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0
480
- JUL.2788 I " .. 440
....-SEP2088
- NOV1688I . I 400
-." DEC2088
JAN1789 I .. 360
320"dIi0 2801-1'1t-'-I-'(1)
z 240A
(1) 200Ii
160
000
50
-AUG0189
SEP1189
-+-Ocr0289
'.'NOV0789
DEC1689
Feet
100 150 200 250 300 350
A
Figure 20A. Distance of MHW from the baselinefor Aug 01, Sep 11, Oct 02, Nov 07,and Dec 15, 1989.
000
50
- DEC1689
JAN0290
-+- FEB0190
..' MAR0990
APR0290
100
Feet
150 200 300 350250
B
Figure 208. Distance of MHW from the baselinefor Dee 15, 1989; Jan 02, Feb 01,
Mar 09, and Apr 02, 1990.
0
480
440
400
360
320
"'d
280.,0HIl-f-' 240n>
N--.J Z
c:2008
e-n>.,
160
120
080
040
0
480
440
400
360
320
"'0
280.,aHI.....I- 240n>
zc:
2008e-n>.,
160
120
080
040
)
Figure 21A. Distance of MHW from the basel~nefor Apr 02, May 04, Jun 05, Jun 28and Aug 01, 1990.
50
- AUG0190
...OCT0290
NOV1690
...FEB0191
MAR0591
Feet
100 150 200 250 300 350
.,
J.
F~gure 218. Distance of MHW from the baselinefor Aug 01, Oct 02, and Nov 16, 1990;Feb 01 and Mar 05, 1991.
Feet
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0
480
fI I I 480
440 I I 440- APR0290
400-1... MAY0490 ,\.I I 400......JUN0590
... JUN2B90360
I
AUG0190 I . 360
320 320'"d .-.:1"'1 1"'1
0 280 0 280HI HI..... 1-'-to-' to-'(1) A (1)
N 240 24000 z Z
t:: t::
6-8
200C"'
200(1) (1)1"'1 1"'1
160 160
120 120
080 080
040 040
000 000
!B
.
...!
)
Figure 22A. Distance of MHW from the baseline
for Mar 05, Apr 04, May 01, andJun 03, 1991.
Figure 228. Summary of the distance of MHW fromthe baseline before and after each
beach fill project and the last surveyin Jun 1991.
Feet Feet
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
480 480
440 - MAR0591 440 -PRE.ICJAN87)
..... APA0491 ... POST-I (MAY87)
I)1/__/\400 -I I.......MAY0191
.. PRE-2CNOVIIOI
400 .. POST-2(FEBIII)
.e. JUN0391 PRESENT(JUNIII)
360 -I 360" ."
320 J I ./ "'\.320
280 280.
,'tI 'tI :111 11
:; 240 :; 240. I
.,. ..... ,..... .....(I) (I)
,fIJ :z: 200 A :z: 200 . '. 8\0 ,
! 160
\,
(I) 160 .11 11 ,
I120 .. 120 -I ( I .. "
,. ,080-1 ... 080 -I \ \.. . ')/
,/
040J I 0401 \ 'f<.J'. 'I
t. {, .
000 000
by the deeper region in the very nearshore. Here the beach width is
relatively narrow, and half of the embayed shore is backed by a bulkhead.
Bulkheads sometimes tend to reduce the frontage beach in both width and
elevation relative to adjacent non-hardened shores (Hardaway and Thomas,
1990) .
The annual rates of shoreline change (i.e. position of MHW) are shown in
Figures 23 to 35. The movements reflect the change in the subaerial beach.
Shoreline change is variable but a general trend of gain in the summer and
loss in winter exists.
Figure 36 shows the net movement of the shoreline for the 5 significant
dates. The two large gains reflect both fill projects. Highest erosion is
seen at profile 080 after each fill project and profiles 400 and 440 after the
first fill operation. A slight gain is seen at profiles 400 and 440 after the
second fill. Profile 000, near Lynnhaven Inlet, actually showed a loss after
the first beach fill project.
2. Beach and Nearshore Volume Changes
The amount of material either lost or gained along the shore for
the subaerial beach can be measured by changes in cubic yards per foot per
year (cy/ft/yr). The seasonal variability (i.e. summer and winter) is shown
in Figures 37, 38 and 39. The changes are measured from September, 1987, the
fall after the initial fill project. The three eastern most profiles
excluding 000 in Figure 37 show gains in the summer and losses in the winter.
Profile 000 trends the opposite, gaining in the winter and losing in the
summer. This may reflect partial eastward transport out of the region of
profiles 040, 080, and 120 toward profile 000 as well as sediment movement
westward and possibly offshore. All four of these profiles show the increase
from the second beach fill in April 1991.
30
Jan 89
Date
Jan90 Jan91 .Jun9!
Figure 23. Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 000.
Jan89
Dffie
Figure 24. Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 040.
Jan90 Jan91 Jun91
31
1000
800
600
400
200-....4? 0'-'
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000JanS7 JanSS
1000
800
600
400
200'&:'
4? 0'-'
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000Jan87 Jan88
Jan89
Date
Jan90 Jan91 Jun91
Figure 25. Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 080.
Jan89
Date
Jan90 Jan91 Jun91
Figure 26. Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 120.
32
1000
800
600
400
200-0-
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000Jan87 Jan88
1000
800
600
400
200-c-
0--200 .
-400
-600
-800
-1000Jan87 Jan88
,..-
Jan89
DateJan90 Jan9J. Jun91
Figure 27. Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 160.
Jan88 Jan89
DateJan90 Jan91 Jun91
Figure 28. Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 200.
33
1000
800
600
400
200,-...'->- 0-;t:::---
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1 000Jan87 Jan88
1000
800
600
400
200"C'
0--200
-400
-600
-800
-1000Jan87
Jan88 Jan90 Jan91 . Jun91
Date
Figure 29. Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 240.
Jan88 Jan89
Date
Jan90 Jan91 Jun91
Figure 30. Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 280.
34
1000
800
600
400
200.--.'-
0E.
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000Jan87
1000
800
600
400
200.--.'-
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000Jan87
Jan88 Jan89
DateJan90 Jan91 Jun91
Figure 31. Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 320.
Jan89 Jan90 Jan91 Jun91
Date
Figure 32. Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 360.
35
1000
800
600
400
200---'-
0-..-
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000Jan87
1000
800
600
400
200---'-
0-..-
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000Jan87 Jan88
Jan88 Jan89 Jan91 Jun91Jan90
Date
Figure 33. Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 400.
Jan90 Jan91 Jun91Jan89
Dffie
Figure 34. Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 440.
36
tooo
800
600
400
200"L:'
£' 0.........
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1 000 __Jan87
1000
800
600
400
200..-......
0-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000Jan87 Jan88
Jan89
DateJan90 Jan91 Jun91
Figure 35. Subaerial beach annual rates of change at profile 480.
37
1.000
800
600
400
200...-......
0.........
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1 000Jan87 Jan88
-100
o
480 440 400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 080 040 000Profile Number
Figure 36. Net movement of the shoreline before and after each beach
fill project.
38
600I I I -x-
Pre-1500 1---
Post-1, ,
400I Pre-2"C'
I / \/ \ , -
\ II ;:;-2-; 300
: I I f\ \ / I \ \ IIent:Jc 200cas10z
100
-20Sep87 Mar88 Sep88 Mar89 Sep89 Apr90 Oct90 Apr91
Date
-Profile 000
Profile 040~
Profile 080-+-Profile120
Figure 37. Seasonal variability in the position of MHW atprofiles 000 through 120.
-20Sep87 Mar88 Sep88 Mar89 Sep89 Apr90 Oct90 Apr91
Date
Figure 38. Seasonal variability in the position of MHW atprofiles 160 through 280.
39
40
30
20-'->-
10>-(,)-
0
-10
40 . .-Profile160
30 I :::Profile200---*-
20 Profile240- -+-'-
10 Profile 280>-(,)-
0
-10
-20
-30Sep87 Mar88 Sep88 Mar89 Sep89 Apr90 Oct90 Apr91
Date
Figure 39. Seasonal variability in the position of MHW atprofiles 320 through 480.
40
40 . .-30
Profile320. .
20 I Profile360I--*-
-- 10
Profile 400'--2:'
--t-
>-Profile 440
u 0"-'" -.-
I \ "" --'" I I Profile 480-10
I'
Profiles 160, 200, 240 and 280 (Figure 38) show similar trends of summer
gains and winter losses but at lesser rates than profiles 040, 080 and 120.
Profile 280 is the exception showing a gain in the winter of 87-88 and a slow
but steady loss up to the second fill. The second fill operation is once
again seen in April 1991.
For profiles 320, 360, 400, 440 and 480 (Figure 39) on the western edge
of the project area, the seasonal relationships are less clear. The second
beach fill had less impact on this section of beach but gains from it are seen
in profiles 320, 360, and 400. At the same time, a significant loss is shown
for profile 480.
Net sand volumes of the subaerial beach are shown in Figure 40 for the
period January, 1987 to November, 1990. The volumes are relative to the
first pre-fill condition (i.e. 0 = Jan87) and the cells are defined by the
profiles (see Figure 2). From pre-1 to post-1 (Jan87 to May87), all sand
volume placed shows accretion in each cell except 1 where a slight loss is
seen.
From post-1 to pre-2 (May87 to Nov90), all but cells 1, 8, and 9 lost
significant amounts of sand. Some of the highest losses occurred in cells 2,
3, 4, 5, and 11. Only cells 8 and 9 have maintained a significantly wider
subaerial beach than the pre-fill condition. Sand losses from adjacent cells
may have been transported into that area.
Figure 41 demonstrates changes that took place in the nearshore area
from January, 1987 to November, 1990 (pre-fill 1 to pre-fill 2). Fill
material was not uniformly placed in the nearshore, but net volumes did
increase from pre-fill 1 to post-fill 1. However, from May, 1987 to November,
1990, cells 2, 3, 11, and 12 showed losses of sand to the point where they
contained less sand than before the fill operation. Cells 1, 7, and 8 gained
material in that same time period. All other cells have lost material from
41
-2000
15
10
-10
-15-L12 ·11 4 · 3 2 · 1
Figure 40. Nee subaerial sand volumes.
I5
CELL NUMBER
Figure 41. Net nearshore sand volumes.
42
Jan8? to May8?-+-May8? to Nov90
-=-Jan8? to May8?-+-May8? to Nov90
5$='-() (/)'-" "'0
W0:E (/)
:J::::> 0....J .t=.0 C.>
-5
5000
4000
3000
$='2000
w:E::::>....J 10000>
0
-1000
the nearshore region but still have greater sand volume than their pre-fill
condition. In general, the areas of the subaerial beach that show accretion
(cells 1, 8, and 9) also tended to gain material in the nearshore region, and
the areas that were receding in the subaerial portion of the beach were losing
material from the nearshore region from May, 1987 to November, 1990.
Since the first beach fill, the subaerial beach has realized a net loss
(Figure 42). This precipitated the need for the second beach fill. Of the
initial 136,000 cubic yards (103,980 cubic meters) of material placed in
April, 1987, 51% was lost prior to the second fill in January, 1991. Losses
in the first year of the first fill were 37%, the second year 23%, the third
year 24%, and 16% of the initial fill was lost in the fourth year. Therefore,
initial losses were greatest in the first year following the first beach fill
project. A total of about 70,000 cubic yards (53,519 cubic meters) were lost.
Since significant nearshore gains occur only in cells 7 and 8, it is
assumed that most of the material has been transported east and west out of
the study area rather than offshore. However, nearshore surveys only go to
600 feet offshore and offshore transport beyond that zone is unaccounted for.
Surveys of the beach fill volume for the second fill project show a net
gain of 50,000 cubic yards (38,228 cubic meters) out of the reported 70,000
erosion. Beach volumes changes in the nearshore are not available due to
shorter surveys taken during that time. In June, 1991, the second fill volume
(subaerial) was reduced by about 5,000 cubic yards (3,823 cubic meters).
Given the above scenario, another fill project will be needed in the
winter of 1994-1995 to maintain the beach width the city needs to maintain a
43
dredged and placed on the beach. The 70,000 cubic yards approximates the
amount of material lost from the 1987 fill project most. Most of the second
fill (January, 1991) was placed in the shallow embayment, the area of chronic
140
130
70
601987 1988 1989
Year1990
Figure 42. Volume loss or gain of the fill material.
44
120-UJ"0'- 110as
0 '(jj"
:c't:Ic
:J CIS
0100-- 0
J:Q) t::..
E:J 90
g80
'I
viable protective and recreational beach at Ocean Park. However, intense storm
activity during the fall of 1991 and preliminary analysis of subsequent surveys
show additional beach fill may be required earlier.
C. Anthropogenic Impacts to Shoreline Processes
There are two main man-induced activities that affect the shoreline
processes at Ocean Park. They are the recurring (3 to 5 yrs) dredging of
Lynnhaven Inlet and the proximity of property improvements to the shoreline. A
natural beach system such as the area to the west of the bulkhead has a broad
beach and backshore with a dune system that allows for wave runup and some dune
erosion during storm periods. The beach tends to recover naturally after a storm.
However, the construction of roads and houses close to the shore along the eastern
part of the Ocean Park study area eventually required bulkheads for protection.
Bulkheads will restrict natural wave processes and may add to the beach erosion
through time, resulting in a reduced beach width (Hardaway and Thomas, 1990).
Therefore, it is necessary to maintain a protective beach in that area.
IV. Wave Modelling at Ocean Park
A. RCPWAVE Setup
A detailed discussion of wave processes, sediment transport and numerical
modelling are beyond the scope of this report; the interested reader can refer to
Appendix II for a listing of pertinent references. The technique 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). In
actuality, the local wave climate will be strongly influenced by tidal currents
operating along the lower Bay shoreline as well as the tidal effluent created by
45
Lynnhaven Inlet. Also, variations in water levels due to storm surges are not
incorporated into the model runs. The purpose here is to present a general
view of the wave climate.
The local wave climate input for RCPWAVE is based on wave data from the
VIMS Thimble Shoals Wave Gage for the period September, 1988 to October, 1989.
The wave gage is located about 7 miles (11 km) northwest of Ocean Park near
the Thimble Shoals Light (Figure 1). In order to model wave approach at Ocean
Park, only the waves that are directed toward the southwest, south, and
southeast are utilized. These conditions represent waves generated within the
bay from the northeast, north, and northwest for a duration of 9 hours or more
from the same direction. Also, the average wave condition for the March 8 and
9, 1989 northeaster was modelled.
Fourteen wave conditions were selected from the wave gage data for the
model runs (Table 1). For each condition, there is an incident wave height
(H) in meters, period (T) seconds, direction (degrees from north), and
duration (hrs). These conditions represent a wave window of 11% of the total
wave gage data. The weighted means for these conditions are 1.4 feet
(0.42 m) for Hand 5.0 see for T at 1800 incident wave direction. For this
study, the weighted mean represents the modal wave condition based mainly on
wave height. The northeast storm condition used has an incident wave height
of 3.6 feet (1.1 m), 6.0 see period, and 1860 incident wave approach.
B. Wave Height Distribution and Wave Refraction
RCPWAVE takes an incident wave at the seaward boundary of the grid and
allows it to propagate shoreward across the nearshore bathymetry. Frictional
dissipation due to bottom roughness is accounted for in this analysis and is
relative, in part, to the mean sand size (0.25 rom). Waves also tend to become
smaller over shallower bathymetry and remain larger over deeper bathymetry.
It is assumed (based on laboratory data) that waves break when the ratio of
wave height to water depth equals 0.78 (Komar, 1976).
46
From the perspective of beach stability and behavior, it is the energy
and momentum flux entering the surf zone that are important. Both quantities
are proportional to the square of the wave height; the height of the setup at
the shore is directly proportional to the breaker wave height (Komar, 1976;
Wright et al., 1987).
Figure 43A shows the distribution of breaking wave heights along the
shoreline of the Ocean Park Grid for the modal wave conditions. The highest
breaking wave conditions occur in the Ocean Park region, in particular between
profiles 120 and 240, the area of the nearshore trough. Some of the smallest
breaking waves in the OPG occur at the CBBT. This may be due to wave
dissipation across the broad nearshore shoal in that area. Breaking wave
height distribution within the area of Lynnhaven Inlet is suspect due to the
bathymetric contours running roughly parallel to the direction of wave
approach.
The breaking wave distribution for the northeast storm condition is
shown in Figure 43B. The distribution of breaking waves is somewhat more
47
TABLE 1. WAVE CONDITIONS USED IN MODEL RUNS.
Case Height Period Direction DurationNumber (m) (s) (deg) (hrs)
1 0.2 5 180 152 0.3 5 180 543 0.3 6 180 94 0.4 5 180 4865 0.4 5.5 180 876 0.5 6 180 1807 0.6 5 180 278 0.7 6 180 429 0.2 4.5 135 1810 0.3 5.5 135 911 0.4 6 135 1212 0.2 7 225 913 0.3 5.5 225 2114 0.4 5 225 63
4360
o0.11
Modal
~z
0.54Meters
Figure 43A. Breaking wave heights (Hb)for modal waves impactingOPG shoreline.
Storm
~z
0.45 1.3Meters
Figure 43B. Breaking wave heights (Hb)for storm waves impactingOPG shoreline.
B"-IA"IC.0,
T
..:;:0-0..:;:<.9E
Ocean
0
Park
L..
1
L1.00
Q).....Q)
LynnhavenInlet
f
uniform across the OPG than the modal wave condition. As with the modal
condition, some of the highest breaking waves for the storm condition occur
within the Ocean Park shore segment.
Upon entering shallow water, waves refract and the direction of wave
travel changes with decreasing depth of water in such a way that wave crests
tend to become parallel to the depth contours. Irregular bottom topography
can cause waves to be refracted in a complex way and produce variations in the
wave height and energy along the coast (Komar, 1976).
The direction of wave approach across the OPG is shown in Figure 44A and
448 for the modal and storm conditions. The wave vectors are the refracted
wave height and direction at that point in the nearshore and the plot stops at
the breakpoint. In the modal condition, higher relative breaking wave heights
on the east side of Ocean Park show a slight eastward bending wave front.
Smaller westward refracted waves on the west side of Ocean Park are also
evident.
8reaking waves in the storm scenario (Figure 448) occur near the edge
of the ebb shoal off of Ocean Park. The refracted waves appear to be bending
eastward on the east side of Ocean 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 plots (i.e. Figures 44A and 448).
c. Littoral Transport Patterns
The wave-induced movement of sand along a beach zone is dependent on
breaking wave height and angle of wave approach. These parameters were
evaluated to calculate the littoral drift transport rate, (Q) (expressed in
cubic meters per hour). Applications of littoral drift formulae are subject
to large errors; hence, the absolute magnitudes predicted must be considered
suspect or, at best, accepted with caution (Wright et al., 1987). However,
the relative magnitudes as they vary along the coast under different wave
49
50
0<D('i')
. 0000N
I11JJJJ J j j j jJ j j J JJ J1 .p.,
II J lJ JJ J J J j jj.1 j J jJ J 10CI]
1/ J J J J J J J J j J J j j j j J J 1
CI]0\0.1
JIIIIJJ J J J 1 Jl j j j jj j 1()ro
11// l1J 1 J J J JJ J J j jJ j 10.+J
Jill J 1 J J J J J J 1 J J J J J j 1
.c: '1:1..-
I I J J J J. J J J J J J J J l j J 1
0> 0'C ()o ,.....f
I I J J J 111 J J j l11J I "'C ro._ '1:1L.. 0
I I I J I J J J J J 1 j I \j I <9 sE \0.1
...-..
I J J 1 J J J J ! 1 I \/ lo 0.... L..
.c LL CI]
.Q>I I / J 1 1 1 1. I "- I I (/) \0.1
Q) L.. 0.c
. . I I 1 \ I I \ I IQ) +J.... ()
Q) Q) Q)>ro
I I J J I I \ \ IN Q)'"'-'
t(/)
J \ ;' 1 :
roL.. .,Q)....Q) .
<:..::t0 \ ..::t0 Q)L!) \0.10 ;::3
00II .
c<I.>
· I t-<1.>'-UCII 1000.. >.
...J
- = 1.000 Meters (wave height)-<-< £ <~v
~z
~
~~~~~~~------~~~~~---------~~ ~----
-~~~-------------~--~------------- ~--~~- -
--~ < :? ~ '< '< '<
~ ~~-<- ~ -"" " ....
--< ~,,~~>( '< '< '<
~-< <-~k '< 0( '< '<
_ '< :S--~..s:..s:" '< "
_ :£:: ~ k >( " '< 0( 0(
.--~~..s: "- :< ~+"'r<ot(-","
< - "" ..s: " ~ ~ '< 0(
< (""-~ ~~~ '(-<
- ( ( ~ '< ~ ~ ...
-- /~J'J'''''''''~'''
-~ '< '< '< -< -< -<
-, ~ " -< < '< '< '( '( '(
oMeters From Grid Origin
Figure 44B. Wave vectors for storm conditionacrossOPG.
4360
o2000
VI
TI-'
OceanPark
1 I ...--
/ ,- ./Lynnhaven
Inlet
t '- ....--
scenarios are probably more meaningful as are predicted directions of
transport. Estimates obtained using the two methods in this report include
the moderating effects of breaker height variations.
The methods of littoral drift used here are by Komar and Inman (1970)
and Gourlay (1982) as discussed in Wright et ale (1987). The reader is
'referred once again to Wright et ale (1987) for a complete discussion of these
formulae and their applications.
Sediment transport rates (Q) resulting from the modal wave condition
shows the same pattern for both methods (Figure 45A). There is generally a
net movement indicated to the east with several data "spikes," or extremes
located in the region of Ocean Park between profiles 040 and 280. There is
essentially no net movement along the west side of the OPG. Note the values
for transport rates for each of the two methods employed here. There are
several orders of magnitude difference between the methods but the relative
patterns are essentially the same.
The sediment transport rates for the northeast storm condition are seen
in Figure 45B. There is greater variation in sediment transport rate on the
west side of the OPG than for the modal condition. However, the sediment
transport rate "spikes" are still concentrated in the Ocean Park area with a
net movement indicated to the east.
The littoral drift transport rates at Ocean Park under modal and storm
conditions indicate movement both east and west. This area may be a shore
sector where divergence in transport directions occurs. It is also the area
where the subaerial beach suffers chronic erosion (i.e. the general location
of the shore embayment between profiles 040 and 360) as discussed in Section
III.
The absolute rates (Q) of littoral drift are not direct causes of either
erosion or accretion. Erosional or accretionary changes in the volume of sand
52
4360Modal
~z
Storm
~z
GourlayK&I
oI
-0.17
-50.9
-0.1 -0.05 0
o0.05 0.1 0.13 (m3/hr) -2.5 -2.0
45.3 (m3/hr) -900
o
o-1.0 0.77
711
Figure 45. Littoral drift transport rate (Q) (m3/hr) for modal (A) and storm (B)condition using methods by Gourlay (1982) and Komar and Inman (1970).
A negative value indicates transport to the west.
A T I -c::--T B
OceanPark
\J11 21
1w
LynnhavenInlet
f
-+ ~-----
stored in a beach are determined by the gradients in alongshore flux (dQ/dy).
Specifically, when the rate of littoral drift entering a given coastal sector
exceeds the rate exiting the sector, accretion results. Erosion results when
output exceeds input; there is no change when input and output are equal
(Wright e~ a1., 1987). Onshore-offshore sediment fluxes are not accounted for
in the estimates of (dQ/dy) here.
Once again the two methods used to derive sediment transport rates (Q)
are used to determine alongshore sediment flux (dQ/dy). Figure 46A displays
the (dQ/dy) for the modal wave condition. High relative rates of erosion and
depostion occur as data "spikes" in the east two-thirds of the Ocean Park
region. These extremes once again occur in the area between profiles 040 and
360 and indicate a net loss. A high deposition rate is seen in the region of
prof He 000.
The northeast storm values for (dQ/dy) are shown in Figure 46B. The
largest rates of erosion and deposition west of Lynnhaven Inlet are evident in
the area of Ocean Park. The net change in the Ocean Park area shows a slight
loss for this wave condition.
The "spikes" in (Q) and (dQ/dy) at Ocean Park (between profiles 040 and
360, i.e. the embayment) for both modal and storm wave conditions indicate
active sediment movement in that area. This is an area of high erosion rates
and large sediment volume losses as shown in the profile data analysis. This
would appear to be a zone of divergence where sand is transported east and
west out of that shore sector.
V. Conclusions
The beach nourishment projects done at Ocean Park in 1987 and 1991
reflect the commitment of the city of Virginia Beach to maintain a protective
beach along that section of shoreline in the City of Virginia Beach. The fact
54
Modal Storm
4360
~z ~z
o 0.1 0.21 (m3/hr) -2.01 -1.0
60.9 (m3/hr) -2500
o 1.0 2.48
2450o o
Gradient of alongshore energy flux (dQ/dy) (m3/hr) for modal (A) andstorm (B) condition using methods by Gourlay (1982) and Komar andInman (1970). A negative value indicates erosion.
0
Gourlay -0.15 -0.1
K&I -37.8
Figure 46.
TI ...P BA
OceanPark\JI I ?
1\JI
Lynnhaven .Inlet
t
_ . _. __ h
III.
that this creates a recreational area is an added feature. Also, the chronic
erosion of the beach area in front of the existing bulkhead would reduce the
beach width and threaten the integrity of the shoreline structures.
The 1987 beach fill (136,000 cubic yards, 38,228 cubic meters) lost half
of its volume in about four years. The beach width had been reduced to the
point where a second beach fill project was initiated (70,000 cubic yards,
53,519 cubic meters) in January 1991. Most of the second fill was placed in
the region of severe erosion that is in front of and just west of the bulkhead
(i.e. the shoreline embayment). The second fill lost about 5,000 cubic yards
(3,823 cubic meters) by June 1991. Analysis of subsequent surveys indicate
additional fill maybe needed earlier than the winter of 1994-1995 projection.
The reason for the area of active erosion at the embayed shoreline at
Ocean Park appears to be related to the local wave climate. Analysis of wave
data from September, 1988 to october, 1989 shows wave heights for that period
average about 1.38 feet (0.42 m) for waves travelling southward toward Ocean
Park within Chesapeake Bay. Northeast storm waves averaging 3.6 feet (1.1 m)
were recorded by a wave gage near the study area. Relatively high breaking
waves for both wave conditions are predicted at the area of the shoreline
embayment by the hydrodynamic computer model RCPWAVE. The resulting
predictions in longshore sediment transport at the Ocean Park shoreline show
intense data "spikes" (high rates of erosion and deposition) in the area of
the embayment. This corresponds to measured consistent loss of beach material
over the period of profile surveys by the City. This is the area where
sediment transport appears to diverge and results in net beach loss. Further
additions of beach material will be needed to maintain a protective and viable
recreational beach. Another option may include a combination of beach fill
and offshore structures to reduce beach loss.
56
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 would come from maintenance dredging of Lynnhaven Inlet.
This' material would then be prevented from re-entering Lynnhaven Inlet, thus
reducing dredging frequency. Second, the stabilized fill and the offshore
breakwaters would offer a significant system of shore protection for Ocean
Park. Finally, an enhanced, stable and longer recreational shoreline would be
created. The exact extent and design of such a system would relate to long
term shoreline management goals to be defined by the city of Virginia Beach.
VI. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Don Wright, Rick Berquist, Woody Hobbs,
and Lee Hill for their editorial reviews. Kay Stubblefield was responsible
for the fine drafting of the figures. A special thanks to Beth Marshall for
report preparation and compilation.
57
VII. References
Bpon, J.D., S.M. Kimball, K.D. Suh, and D.A. Hepworth, 1990. Chesapeake BayWave Climate, Thimble Shoals Wave Station. Virginia Institute of MarineScience Data Rept. No. 32, 39 pp.
Byrne, R.J. and G.F. Oertel, 1986. Present Shoreline Status andRecommendations for Beaches of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia.Report Prepared for the Virginia Beach Coastal Study Committee, 10 pp.
Carter, R.W., 1988. Coastal Environments. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego,CA, 617 pp.
Bbersole, B.A., M.A. Cialone, and M.D. Prater, 1986. RCPWAVE - A Linear WavePropagation Model for Engineering Use. U.S. Army Corps of EngineersRept. 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. ChesapeakeBay sediment budget. J. Coastal Res. 2:292-300.
Komar, P.D., 1976. Beach Processes and Sedimentation. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 429 pp.
Komar, P.D. and D.L. Inman, 1970. Longshore sand transport on beaches. J.
Geophys. Res. 73(30):5914-5927.
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. Ocean Park Beach. Section 933 Evaluation
Report, Norfolk, VA, 75 pp.
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
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach-
30 .Line Survey Date
000 100 19 JAN 87000 105 13 APR 87000 110 14 MAY87000 120 20 JUL 87
20r
-..-..- 000 125 18 AUG 87
IL.
C010...
III>CII...W
0I' _.- '-.- 8'fU:..- '---'
--r--'--'
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey Date
000 125 18 AUG87000 130 21 SEP B7000 135 24 NOV B7000 140 5 JAN BB
20r
-...-..- 000 145 26 FEB BB
IL.
C0
10...
III>CII...W
0I ....
..........-.-.-.----:::::-.-.--.
....I&.
co 10......IV>GI...W
30
Ocean Park 8each
-10o 100
30
20
o
-10o 100
,
Line
000000000
. - - - 000000
Survey145150155160165
Date
26 FE8 8822 MAR8820 APR 8823 MAY8824 .JUN 88
200 300
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
400
Line Survey000 165000 170000 175000 180000 185
500 600
Date
24 JUN 8827 JUL 88
7 SEP 8820 SEP 8817 OCT 88
~"::::"::::: "-"-"-"-"-..-..-..-.
200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
20
....II.
C0
10......IV>GI...W
0
I-\I.
Co 10......III>Q)....w
I-\I.
Co "10......III>Q)....w
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
30
"20
o
Line000000000000000
400
Survey185190195200205
Line Survey000 205000 210000 215000 220000 225
Date
17 OCT 8816 NOV 8820 DEC 8817 JAN 8910 MAR89
500 600
Date
10 MAR8925 MAR89
6 JUN 897 JUL 891 AUG 89
,.~.:::: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-10o 200 300
Distance. FT100 400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line Survey000 225000 230000 235000 240000 245
Date
1 AUG 8911 SEP 892 OCT 897 NOV 89
15 DEC 89
.-u..
Co 10......10>CII....UJ
a
-10a 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
-10.a 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey Date
000 245 15 DEC 89000 250 2 JAN 90000 255 1 FEB 90000 260 9 MAR90
20r
-....-..- 000 265 2 APR 90
.-u..
C0 10......10>CII....UJ
0
....-
Ocean Park Beach
30
....I&.
Co to.....III>III-W
-too 100 200 300
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
o
400
Line Survey000 285000 290000 295000 300000 305
500 600
Date
1 AUG 902 OCT 90
16 NOV 9010 JAN 91
1 FEB 91
.......----.--.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-.-.--.--.-.-
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
20
....I&.
C0
to.....III>III-W
0, -.
Line Survey Date000 265 2 APR 90000 270 <4 MAY 90000 275 5 JUN 90000 280 28 JUN 90000 2B5 1 AUG90
~u.
Co 10....oJIII>G.I...W
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
o
Line Survey000 305000 310000 315000 320000 325
Date
1 FEB 915 'MAR914 APR 911 MAY913 JUN 91
-----------------
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Profile 040
30
-10o
30
20
l-II.
c:o 10........cu>QI....UJ
o
-10 .
o
Ocean. Pa~k Beach
100 200 300
Distance. FT
Ocean Pa~k Beach
100 200 300
Distance. FT
Line Su~vey040 100040 105040 110040 120040 125
400
Line Su~vey040 125040 130040 135040 140040 145
400
Date
19 JAN 8713 APR 8714 MAY8720 JUL 8718 AUG 87
500 600
Date
18 AUG 8721 SEP 8724 NOV875 JAN 88
26 FEB 88
500 600
20
l-II.
C0
10....,JJcu>QI....UJ
0
30
20
g 10.....oJ"'>CII...LIJ
o
-10. 0
, ,
30
20
c:o 10........"'>CII...LIJ
o
-10o
Ocean Park Beach
Line
040040040040040
-------------
100 200
Ocean Park Beach
100
300
Distance. FT
400
Survey145150155160165
Line Survey040 165040 170040 175040 180040 185
Date
26 FEB 8822 MAR8820 APR 8823 MAY8824 JUN 88
---
500 600
Date
24 JUN 8827 JUL 88
7 SEP 8820 SEP 8817 OCT 88
-.~:::..:::..._.._..-.._..-.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.
200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
30
20
l-LL.
g 10...../0>III....I.&J
o
-10o
30
20
l-lL
c:o 10...../0'>III....I.&J
o
-10o
Ocean Park Beach
100 200 300
Oistance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
Line Survey040 1B5040 190040 195040 200040 205
400
Line
040040040040040
Survey205210'215220225
Date
17 OCT BB16 NOV BB20 DEC BB17 JAN B910 MARB9
500 600
Date
10 MARB925 MARB9
6 JUN B97 JUL B91 AUG89
'~--~~-------------
100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
30
20
l-I/,.
g 10....
.tJ
10
>Q).....
UJ
o
-10o
30
Ocean Park Beach
Line Survey040 225040 230040 235040 240040 245
Date1 AUG 89
11 SEP 89
2 OCT 897 NOV 89
15 DEC 89
100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
-10. 0 100 200 300
Distance. FT400 500 600
Line Survey Date
040 245 15 DEC 89040 250 2 JAN 90040 255 1 FEB 90040 260 9 MAR 90
2°T
-...-...- 040 265 2 APR 90
l-I/,.
r:0
10....tJ10>Q)....UJ
0
, ,
30
20
I-u..
co 10.......10>cu...UJ
o
-10o
30
-10o
Ocean Park Beach
100 200
100 200
-.
300
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
Line
040040040040040
400
Survey265270275280285
Line Survey040' 285040 290040 295040 300040 305
Date
2 APR 904 MAY905 JUN 90
28 JUN 901 AUG 90
500 600
Date
1 AUG 902 OCT 90
16 NOV 9010 JAN 91
1 FEB 91
~ '-'-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-'--?S=='\'tz:..-=--""-,,,-:-o_
300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
20
I-u..
C100...
....10>cu...UJ
0
30
20
I-U.
Co 10.~....."'>QI~UJ
o
-10o
Ocean Park Beach
100 200 300
Distance. FT
Line Survey040 305040 310040 315040 320040 325
Date
1 FEB 915 MAR914 APR 911 MAY913 JUN 91
----------
400 500 600
Profile 080
Ocean Park Beach
30Line
080080080080080
Survey100105110120125
Date
19 ..IAN8713 APR 8714 MAY8720 .JUL 8718 AUG 87
-' -,e:;.=:.=.._.._.._.. '-'-.-.-.-.
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
20
u.
C10
0-4J10>III...W
0
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30Une Survey
080 165080 170080 175080 180080 185
Date
24 JUN 8827 JUL 88
7 SEP 8820 SEP 8817 OCT 88
...-...-..-..-..-...-...-...' ..-..-..-........-..-..-..-....-
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30Une Survey Date
080 145 26 FEB 88080 150 22 MAR88080 155 20 APR 88080 160 23 MAY88
20r
-...-...- 080 165 24 JUN 88
II.
C0
10.......n:I>QI....I&J
O. ...........
'''-- -.- -....-..
20
II.
C10
0.......n:I>QI....I&J
0
30
-10o
30
20
l-I&.
eo 10.....10>QI-IIJ
o
-10o
Ocean Park Beach
100 200 300
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
Line Survey080 185080 190080 195080 200080 205
400
Line
OBO080080080080
Survey205210215220225
Date
17 OCT 8816 NOV 8820 DEC 8817 JAN 8910 MARB9
500 600
Date
10 MAR8925 MAR89
6 JUN 897 JUL 891 AUG 89
~ = - - - - - - - - - - - - .MLW
100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
20
l-I&.
e10
0.....10>QI-IIJ
0
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line Survey080 245080 250080 255080 260080 265
Date
15 DEC 892 JAN 901 FE8 909 MAR902 APR 90
l-Ll.
Co 10.......III>QI...UJ
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey Date
080 225 1 AUG 89080 230 11 SEP 89080 235 2 OCT 89080 240 7 NOV 89
20r
-..-..- 080 245 15 DEC 89
l-Ll.
C010...
....III>QI... I \"\UJ
01:.
""'::::.
30
20
c~ 10~III>QJ...W
o
-10o
30
-10o
Ocean Park Beach
100 200 300
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
100 200 300
Distance. FT
Line SurveyOBO 265080 270OBO 275080 280080 285
400
Line Survey080 285080 290080 295080 300080 305
Date
2 APR 904 MAY905 JUN 90
28 JUN 901 AUG 90
500 600
Date
1 AUG 902 OCT 90
16 NOV 9010 JAN 91
1 FEB 91
'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'.
400 500 600
20
IL
C100
....
III>CII...W
0
30
20
CQ 10....~/0>4J...UJ
o
-10o 100
Ocean Park Beach
200 300
Distance. FT
Line Surveyoeo 305oeo 310oeo 315oeo 320OBO 325
Date
1 FEB 915 MAR914 APR 911 MAY913 JUN 91
------------
400 500 600
Profile 120
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
~oo 500 600
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
~oo 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey Date
120 100 19 JAN 87120 105 13 APR87120 110 1 MAY87120 120 20 JUL 87
20r
-...-..- 120 125 18 AUG87
I-u.
C0 10-...
I r'-
III>GI "- I '\::wI , ". .
',:,-.......- - ..0
30
20
l-I&.
C~ 10..../0>QI...LLI
o
-10o
30
-10o
Ocean Park Beach
100
Line120120120120120
Survey145150155160165
Date
26 FEB BB
22 MAR Be
20 APR ee
23 MAY ee24 JUN ee
~
', ~~~~~~~:.......--------
200 300
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
400 500 600
400
..~,":: .-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..I ..'""'..........._.._.._.
20p 300
Distance. FT
100 500 600
20
l-I&.
C0
10.r<..../0>QI...LLI
0
Line Survey Date
120 165 24 JUN 88120 170 27 JUL 88120 175 7 SEP 88120 180 20 SEP 88120 185 17 OCT 88
30
20
....IL.
C.2 10....10>III...W
o
-10o
30
20
....IL.
co 10........10>III...W
o
-10o
Ocean Park Beach
100 200 300
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
Line
120120120120120
400
Line
120120120120120
Survey185190195200205
Survey205210215220225
Date
17 OCT 8816 NOV 8820 DEC B817 JAN 8910 MAR89
500 600
Date
10 MAR8925 MAR89
6 JUN 897 JUL 891 AUG 89
."":::::-.. -----------------
100 300
Distance. FT
200 400 500 600
-10o
30
20
I-U.
c:o 10....4J10>QI....W
o
-10o
100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
Line Survey120 245120 250120 255120 260120 265
Date
15 DEC 892 JAN 901 FEB 909 MAR902 APR 90
100 600200 300 400 500
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey Date
120 225 1 AUG 89120 230 11 SEP 89120 235 2 OCT 89120 240 7 NOV 89
20r
-..-..- 120 245 15 DEC 89
I-u.
C0 10-4J10>QI....W
0I -, ,..........
30
20
l-lL
co 10....u10>cu...UJ
o
-10o
30
-10o
Ocean Park Beach
Line
120120120120120
Survey265270275280285
100 200 300
Distance. FT
400
Ocean Park Beach
Line Survey120 285120 290120 295120 300120 305
Date
2 APR 904 MAY905 JUN 90
28 JUN 901 AUG 90
500 600
Date
1 AUG 902 OCT 90
16 NOV 9010 JAN 91
1 FE8 91
100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
20
l-lL
C10
0....u10>cu...UJ
0
30
-10o 100
Ocean Park Beach
Line Survey120 305120 310120 315120 320120 325
Date
1 FEB 915 MAR914 APR 911 MAY913 JUN 91
----------.------
200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
20
l-I&.
C0
10."It!>OJ-UJ
..
I
0
Profile 160
Ocean Park Beach
30I
Line Survey Date160 100 19 JAN B7160 105 13 APR 87160 110 14 MAY87160 120 20 JUL 87
20r
-..-..- 160 125 18 AUG 87
l-Ll.
C010....
.../0
I l-,>
QI "-...::::..w
......
0.
.....
----..:.-,._...
-100 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey Date
160 125 18 AUG 87160 130 21 SEP 87160 135 24 NOV 87160 140 5 JAN 88
20r
-...-...- 160 145 26 FEB 88
l-Ll.
C0
10......./0>QI...W
0
I
'-...;::.-...;;.-.-.
.-.;;;;.--.--.
I
-100 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance. FT
30
20
l-I&.
c~ 10.oJ/0>GI....W
o
-10o
30
-10o
Ocean Park Beach
Line160160160160160
Survey145150155160165
Date
26 FEB 8822 MARBB20 APR BB23 MAY8B24 JUN B8
100 200 600300
Distance. FT
500400
Ocean Park Beach
~ , _u u_.u ..
100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
20
....I&.
C10
0....oJ/0>GI....W
0
Line Survey Date
160 165 24 JUN Be160 170 27 JUL BB160 175 7 SEP BB160 1BO 20 SEP 8B160 1B5 17 OCT BB
30
20
l-lL.
Co 10...~III>ell...W
o
-10o
30
20
l-lL.
co 10...~III>ell...W
o
-10o
Ocean Park Beach
Line
160160160160160
Survey1B5190195200205
100 200 300
Distance. FT
400
Ocean Park Beach
Line
160160160160160
Survey205210215220225
~ ,...-............---'= " ",........---
100 200 300
Distance. FT
400
Date
17 OCT BB16 NOV BB20 DEC BB17 JAN B910 MARB9
500 600
Date
10 MARB925 MARB9
6 JUN B97 JUL B91 AUGB9
.......-----
500 600
-10a
30
20
l-II.
co 10........II)>QI...W
o
-10o
100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
Line Survey160 245160 250160 255160 260160 265
Date
15 DEC 892 JAN 901 FEB 909 MAR902 APR 90
100 400 600500200 300
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey Date
160 225 1 AUG 89160 230 11 SEP 89160 235 2 OCT 89160 240 7 NOV 89
20r
-...-...- 160 245 15 DEC 89
l-II.
C010....
....II)>QI...W
0
I ,,---
Ocean Park Beach
30
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
30
Line
160160160160160
400
Line
160160160160160
Survey265270275280285
Survey285290295300305
Date
2 APR 904 MAY905 JUN 90
28 JUN 901 AUG 90
500 600
Date
1 AUG 902 OCT 90
16 NOV 9010 JAN 91
1 FEB 91
~...~ .-.-...........-.,: ~ -'-.~ ~~ .....................--.-.-.-.
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
20
u..
C0
10...
III>CI.J
UJ
0
.-I
20
u..
C100...
III>CI.J
UJ
0
30
-10o
Ocean Park Beach
Line Survey160 305160 310160 315160 320160 325
Date
1 FEB 915 MAR914 APR 911 MAY913 JUN 91
",..,.----..............
--~ ""------
100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
20
....LL.
C10
0....4.JIII>GJ...W
0
Profile 240
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey Date
240 100 19 JAN 87240 105 13 APR 87240 110 14 MAY87240 120 20 JUL 87
20r
-..-..- 240 125 18 AUG 87
I-11-
C0 10...4J =---'IV>
..,III...UJ . ,::." .".,.. ,'."'o .'" ....:.
.......... ............._---..... -. . ..-
........---.......
I
-100 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey Date
240 125 18 AUG87240 130 21 SEP 87240 135 24 NOV B7240 140 5 JAN 88
20r
-..-..- 240 145 26 FEB 88
I-11-
C0
10-+- /\...4JIV>
I\\III...
UJ .\;..
..
01
......,
"',-'-''
Ocean Park Beach
30Une
240240240240240
Survey145150155160165
Date26 FEB Ba22 MARea20 APRee23 MAYaa24 JUN ee
~ - - - -. ~---_.-10
o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30
".,.,
.,.,~,.......~ ,.,.
. ..-..-.--..-.-..-..-..-..-..---.-.,." .-..-..-
.........................
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
20
....u.
tE10
0......co>QI...UJ
0
20
....u.
tE10-b\.
0......co>QI...UJ
0
Une Survey Date240 165 24 JUN ee240 170 27 JUL ee240 175 7 SEP ee240 1eO 20 SEP ee240 1e5 17 OCT ee
....I&,
c:
.2 10
....III>CII...W
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
30
Line
240240240240240
400
Survey185190195200205
Date
17 OCT B816 NOV B820 DEC 8817 JAN 8910 MARB9
500 600
400
~~ ----------------~-,
500 600-10
o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
20
....u.
C0
10r.......III>CII...W
0
Line Survey Date
240 205 10 MAR89240 210 25 MAR89240 215 6 JUN 89240 220 7 JUL 89240 225 1 AUG 89
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line
2~02~02~0240240
Survey2252302352402~5
Oate
1 AUG 8911 SEP 892 OCT 897 NOV 89
15 DEC 89
l-I&.
-10o 100 200 300
Oistance. FT
400 500 600
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
,
l-Ll.
Co 10......IV>ell...W
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
o
-10o 200100 300
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line
240240240240240
400
Survey265270275280285
Line Survey240 285240 290240 295240 300240 305
Date
2 APR 904 MAY905 JUN 90
28 JUN 901 AUG 90
500 600
Date
1 AUG 902 OCT 90
16 NOV 9010 JAN 91
1 FEB 91
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-..---
-10o 200 300
Distance. FT
100 400 500 600
l-Ll.
C0
10......IV>ell...W
.0
30
-10o
Ocean Park Beach
100 200
Line . Survey240 305240 310240 315240 320240 325
Date
1 FEB 915 MAR914 APR 911 MAY913 JUN 91
=----------------
300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
20
...IL
Cc 10......10>QJ-UJ
0
Profile 280
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line
280280280280280
Survey125130135140145
Date
18 AUG 8721 SEP 8724 NOV 87
5 "'AN 8826 FEB 88
~I&.
co 10.......to>(II....UJ
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30Line 'Survey Date
280 100 19 "'AN 87280 105 13 APR 87280 110 14 MAY87280 120 20 "'UL 87
20r
-..--.- 280 125 18 AUG87
I&.
Cc
10.......to ...........>(II ""' .:".... ,."UJ
,.-.:..::::." -.-.::" , .o .
-.._.--.........
-100 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
30Line
2BO2BO2BO2802BO
Survey145150155160165
Date
26 FEB 8822 MAR8B20 APR BB23 MAYB824 JUN BB
HLW
----................- - -, ---................----
-10o 100 200
Ocean Park Beach
30
... -
300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
400
..:"-7."_~-'::_"_..,..,-:...:::- ... ..............-..-..-..-..
300
Distance. FT500 600
-10o 100 200
20
I-u..
C0
10.......IU>Q)...w
0
20
I-u..
C0
10........IU>Q)...w
0
Line Survey Date
2BO 165 24 JUN BB2BO 170 27 JUL BB2BO 175 7 SEP BB2BO 1BO 20 SEP BB2BO 1B5 17 OCT BB
l-lL.
a 10....
4J/0>QI...UJ
l-lL.
Co 10....
4J/0>QI...UJ
30
20
o
-10o
30
20
Ocean Park Beach
100 200 300
Distance. FT
Line Survey2BO 185280 1902BO 1952BO 2002BO 205
400
Line2BO2BO2BO2BO2BO
Survey205210215220225
Date17 OCT 8B
16 NOV BB
20 DEC BB
17 JAN 89
10 MAR 89
500 600
Ocean Park Beach
Date
10 MAR B9
25 MAR 89
6 JUN 89
7 JUL 89
1 AUG 89
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
c
o 10....~co>Q)~UJ
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
o
Line Survey2BO 225280 230280 235280 240280 245
400
Date
1 AUG 89
11 SEP 89
2 OCT 89
7 NOV 89
15 DEC 89
500 600-10
o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
30
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Line Survey Date
280 245 15 DEC 89
280 250 2 JAN 90280 255 1 FE8 90
280 260 9 MAR 90
20-+- -..-..-280 265 2 APR 90
I-U.
C0
10....
co>Q)
UJ
0
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park 8each
30Line
280280280280280
Survey285290295300305
Date
1 AUG 902 OCT 90
16 NOV 9010 JAN 91
1 FEB 91
. :.;.~.::::",-~."::::::.._.
.:::::"...'.,..,..-:,,_~:;;oo- _._._._._._._._..
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey Date
280 265 2 APR 90280 270 4 MAY90280 275 5 JUN 90280 280 28 JUN 90
20+ --.-..- 280 285 1 AUG 90
u.
C0 10.....III>QJ...I&J
0I ... ... -:::.-:--- -
20
u.
C10
0.....III>QJ...I&J
0
Ocean Park Beach
30Line
2802802802BO280
Survey305310315320325
Date
1 FEB 915 MAR914 APR 911 MAY913 JUN 91
~.==----
- ~---------10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
20
l-lL.
C100...
.oJIII>CII....W
0
Profile 320
....u.
c:o 10...~/II>CII....ILl
....u.
co 10...
~/II>CII....ILl
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line
320320320320320
Survey100105110120125
Date
19 JAN 8713 APR 8714 MAY8720 JUL 8718 AUG 87
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line Survey320 125320 130320 135320 140320 145
o.-.-.-.-.-.-........-.
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
'400
500 600
Date
18 AUG 8721 SEP 8724 NOV.87
5 JAN 8826 FEB 88
500 600
~I&.
Co 10....~ra>CII...UJ
co 10....~ra>CII...UJ
Ocean Pa~k Beach
30
20
o
Line320320320320320
Su~vey145150155160165
Date
26 FEB BB22 MARBB20 APR BB23 MAYBB24 JUN BB
':"", L ,.".- ",.--, ,... / - <. >- -~ t'_."..". - - -'" ....
-10o 100 200
Ocean Pa~k Beach
30
20
o
300
Distance. FT
400
Line
320320320320320
Su~vey165170175180185
500 600
Date
24 JUN B827 JUL 88
7 SEP 8820 SEP 8817 OCT 88
...~ ,....-..-..........~, .,/ ./., -"-- ./ .........-.'-'
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
"400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line320320320320320
Survey185190195200205
Date
17 OCT 8816 NOV 8820 DEC 8817 JAN 8910 MAR89
o
l-LL.
g 10-.u10>QI-W
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park 8each
30I
Line Survey Date320 205 10 MAR89320 210 25 MAR89320 215 6 JUN 89320 220 7 JUL 89
20t
--.-..- 320 225 1 AUG 89
l-LL.
C010...
.u10>QI-W
0 - --=.....- -- ""-- - -"" ---:"-
l-I&.
Co 10....4J"'>QI...W
l-I&.
6 10....4J"'>QI...W
,
Ocean Pa~k Beach
30
20
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
Ocean Pa~k Beach
30
20
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
Line
320320320320320
.400
Su~vey2252302352.402.45
Line Su~vey320 2.45320 250320 255320 260320 265
.400
Date
1 AUG 8911 SEP 892 OCT 897 NOV B9
15 DEC 89
500 600
Date
15 DEC 892 JAN 901 FEB 909 MAR902 APR 90
500 600
l-I&.
co 10....o6J10>QI...W
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line
320320320320320
Survey265270275280285
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey
320 285320 290320 295320 300320 305
Date
2 APR 904 MAY905 JUN 90
28 JUN 901 AUG 90
500 600
Date
1 AUG902 OCT 90
16 NOV 9010 JAN 91
1 FEB 91
-10o 100 200 300
. Distance. FT
400 500 600
20
l-I&.
C0
10....o6J10>QI...W
0
g 10...4JIII>QI...ILl
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line Survey320 305320 310320 315320 320320 325
Date
1 FEB 915 MAR914 APR 911 MAY913 JUN 91
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Profile 360
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line360360360360360
Survey100105110120125
Oate
19 JAN 8713 APR 8714 MAY8720 JUL 8718 AUG 87
o
~u.
Co 10....../II>ell...UJ
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey Date
360 125 18 AUG87360 130 21 SEP 87360 135 24 NOV 87360 140 5 JAN 88
2°TA
-...-..- 360 145 26 FE8 88
u.
C0 10....../II>ell...UJ
0
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line360360360360360
...II.
Co....,6JII)>QI...I&J
I
10
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line
360360360360360
...II.
c:o 10...,6JII)>QI...I&J
o
Survey145150155160165
Survey165170175180185
Date
26 FEB BB22 MARBB20 APR 8823 MAY8824 JUN 8B
500 600
Date
24 JUN BB27 JUL B8
7 SEP B820 SEP 8817 OCT 8B
.-..-~. ;,"- ..-..-..-.""' :: ..;,.,~................
-10o 300
~istance. FT400100 200 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line
360360360360360
Survey185190195200205
Date
17 OCT 8816 NOV 8820 DEC 8817 JAN 8910 MAR89
o
....I&.
C.2 10~co>CII...UJ
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30
-10o 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance. FT
20
....I&.
C0
10...
co>CII...UJ
0
Line Survey Date360 205 10 MAR89360 210 25 MAR89360 215 6 JUN 89360 220 7 JUL 89360 225 1 AUG 89
Ocean Park Beach
30Line
360360360360360
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400
Ocean Park Beach
30
Survey225230235240245
Line Survey360 245360 250360 255360 260360 26520
.....~
C
Q 10......./0>C1I...UJ
o
-10o 300
Distance. FT
400100 200
Date
1 AUG 8911 SEP 892 OCT 897 NOV 89
15 DEC 89
500 600
Date
15 DEC 892 JAN 901 FE8 909 MAR 902 APR 90
500 600
20
.....
CQ
10......./0>C1I...UJ
01::::--.::>.
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30
o
Line Survey360 2B5360 290360 295360 300360 305
Date
1 AUG 902 OCT 90
16 NOV 9010 JAN 91
1 FEB 9120
l-LL.
c.~ 104J111>III....\IJ
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey Date
360 265 2 APR90360 270 4 MAY90360 275 5 JUN 90360 2BO 2B JUN 90
20r 1\-..-..- 360 2B5 1 AUG 90
l-LL.
C0
10...4J111>III....\IJ
0I ""- ,. --:::::'...
5 10........II)>CII-ILl
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line Survey360 305360 310360 315360 320360 325
Date
1 FEB 915 MAR914 APR 911 MAY913 JUN 91
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Profile 400
-10o 100 200 300
Distance, FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line Survey400 125400 130400 135400 140400 145
Date
1B AUG 8721 SEP 8724 NOV 87
5 JAN BB26 FEB 8B
....I&.
Co 10......./II>CIJ...W
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey Date
400 100 19 JAN 87400 105 13 APR 87400 110 14 MAY87400 120 20 JUL 87
20j
-..-..- 400 125 18 AUG 87
-.....I&.
C0
lOT
...I '--=:.....
/II"
> ';,CIJ " .",...w " "'::.0.." ......;"_.
" "" .................01 " "'"'
Ocean Park Beach
30 '.Line Survey
400 145400 150400 155400 160400 165
Date
26 FEB BS22 MARas20 APR aa23 MAyaS24 JUN aa
....I&.
c:o 10....,fj10>QI...UJ
-10o 100 200
Ocean Park Seach
30
20
o
-10o 100 200
300
Distance. FT
400
Line
400400400400400
Survey1651701751S01S5
500 600
Date24 JUN aa27 JUL aa
7 SEP aa20 SEP SS17 OCTaa
~-a..:.-;;.-:::._.._.._.._........_........._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._
300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
20
....I&.
C100-
,fj10>QI...UJ
0
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
4100 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line
400400400400400
Survey205210215220225
Date
10 MARB925 MARB9
6 JUN B97 JUL B91 AUG B9
~II.
c:o 10....oJIII>QI...W
.~--=-~ -:._~------o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey Date
4100 1B5 17 OCT BB4100 190 16 NOV BB4100 195 20 DEC BB400 200 17 JAN B9
.or
-.-..- 400 205 10 MARB9
.-II.
C0
10....oJIII
I
\>GI '. ........ \ .,w " . "-
..,. "-..
01"-
- .._.-.
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line Survey
400 245400 250400 255400 260400 265
Date15 DEC 89
2 JAN 901 FE8 909 MAR 902 APR 90
c:o 10.......10>QJ....W
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line Survey400 2B5400 290400 295400 300400 305
Date
1 AUG 902 OCT 90
16 NOV 9010 JAN 91
1 FEB 91
co 10.........10>11.1-UJ
...11.
o::-::~~"==-.--._.--._._._._._._._._.
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey Date
400 265 2 APR 90400 270 4 MAY90400 275 5 JUN 90400 280 28 JUN 90
20r
-...-..- 400 2B5 1 AUG 90
,....,,,...11.
C0 10.rO....10>11.1-UJ
O. --00:::::.....o;o
......-
co 10...4J10>III....W
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
o
Line400400400400400
Survey305310315320325
Date
1 FEB 915 MAR914 APR 911 MAY913 JUN 91
--------------
-10o 200100 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Profile 480
l-II.
co....~to>III....W
l-II.
c:o 10....~to>III....W
Ocean Pa~k Beach
30Line Su~vey
480 110480 120480 125
20
10
!\ /1\
.j L_I \
\~,0-00_0_0'"
.~- "~:...'- .~.'\;.~.-o
Date14 MAY8720 JUL 8718 AUG 87
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400
Ocean Pa~k Beach
30
20
Line
480480480480480
Survey125130135140145
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400
500 600
Date
18 AUG8721 SEP 8724 NOV 87
5 JAN 8826 FEB 88
500 600
...u.co 10....~III>Qj...LIJ
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
o
-10o 100 200
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
30
-10o 100 200
Distance. FT
Line Survey4BO 145480 150480 155480 160480 165
Date
26 FEB B822 MAR8820 APR 8823 MAYB824 JUN 88
,/ ....."'"- - - - --:~-,... ""'"~--.,...-
300 400 500 600
...=:r:...:....._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..-..-..-..-
300 400 500 600
20
...u.C0
10....
III>Qj...LIJ
0
Line Survey Date480 165 24 JUN 88480 170 27 JUL 88480 175 7 SEP 88480 180 20 SEP 88480 185 17 OCT 88
l-I!.
co 10........III>QI....UJ
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line Survey480 185480 190480 195480 200480 205
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400
Ocean Park Beach
30Line
480480480480480
Survey205210215220225
-10o 200 300
Distance. FT
400100
Date
17 OCT 8816 NOV 8820 DEC 8817 JAN 8910 MAR89
500 600
Date
10 MAR8925 MAR89
6 JUN 897 JUL 891 AUG89
-----.
500 600
20
l-I!.
C0
10........III>QI....UJ
0
I-U.
c:o 10.r<.../0>III.....UJ
I-U.
c:o 10.r<.../0>III.....UJ
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
o,;;;: : .:::-.- -
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
o-....--
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
Line
480480480480480
400
Survey225230235240245
Line Survey480 245480 250480 255480 260480 265
400
Date
1 AUG 8911 SEP 89
2 OCT 897 NOV 89
15 DEC 89
500 600
Date
15 DEC 892 JAN 901 FE8 909 MAR 902 APR 90
500 600
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30
20
Line
480480480480480
Survey285290295300305
Date
1 AUG 902 OCT 90
16 NOV 9010 JAN 91
1 FEB 91
10
."--'"-.-.-.---.-.-.-.-.-.--.-
....u.co.....oJIt)>OJ....W
o
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30I
Line Survey Date
480 265 2 APR 90480 270 4 MAY 90480 275 5 JUN 90480 280 28 JUN 90
2°T
-...-..- 480 285 1 AUG 90
1\ ......u.
C0
10.....oJIt)>OJ....
W
0
-I ---.::
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey
4BO 305480 310480 315480 320480 325
Date
1 FEB 915 MAR914 APR 911 MAY913 JUN 91
,---------
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
20
....u.
c:10
0....4J10>OJ....UJ
0
Bagnold, R.A., 1963. Beach and nearshore processes; Part I: Mechanics of~marine sedimentation. In M.N. Hill (ed.), The Sea, Vol. 3, Wiley-
Interscience, pp. 507-528.
Bowen, A.J., D.L. Inman, and V.P. Simmons, 1968. Wave "set-down" and "set-up." J. Geophys. Res. 73:2569-2577.
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 in
a combined current and wave motion. Ocean Enginr. 12(5):387-424.
Dally, W.R., R.G. Dean, and R.A. Dalrymple, 1984. Modelling wavetransformation in the surf zone. u.S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment 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. Proceedings, 1stIntl. Conf. Coastal Enginr., pp. 140-154.
Grant, W.D. and O.S. Madsen, 1979. Combined wave and current interaction with
a rough bottom. J. Geophys. Res. 84:1797-1808.
Grant, W.D. and O.S. Madsen, 1982. Movable bed roughness in unsteadyoscillatory 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, Wiley-Interscience, pp. 529-553.
Jonsson, I.G., 1966. Wave boundary layers and friction factors. Proceedings,10th Intl. Conf. Coastal Enginr., pp. 127-148.
Kamphuis, J.W., 1975. Friction factor under oscillatory waves. ASCE, J. Wat.Barb. Div., ASCE, 102(WW2):135-144.
Kinsman, B., 1965. Wind Waves, Their Generation and Propagation on the OceanSurface. Dover, New York, 676 pp.
Komar, P.D., 1975. Nearshore currents: Generation by obliquely incidentwaves and longshore variations in breaker height. Proceedings, Symp.Nearshore Sediment Dynamics, Wiley, New York.
Komar, P.D., 1976. Beach Processes and Sedimentation. Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey, 429 pp.
Komar, P.D., 1983. Nearshore currents and sand transportJohns (ed.), Physical Oceanography of Coastal ShelfYork, pp. 67-109.
on beaches. l!!
Seas, Elsevier, New
Komar, P.D. and D.L. Inman, 1970. Longshore sand transport on beaches. J.Geophys. Res. 73(30):5914-5927.
Kraus, N.C. and T.O. Sasaki, 1979. Effects of wave angle and lateral mixingon the longshore current. Coastal Enginr. in Japan 22:59-74.
LeMehaute, B. and A. Brebner, 1961. An introduction to coastal morphology andlittoral processes. C.E. Research Report No. 14, Dept. of civilEnginr., 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 SedimentAcademic Press, New York, pp. 203-248.
Longuet-Higgins, M.S. and R.W. Stewart, 1962. Radiation stress and masstransport in gravity waves, with application to surf beats. J. FluidMech. 13:481-504.
Madsen, O.S., 1976. Wave climate of the continental margin: Elements of itsmathematical 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. Littoral drift formula. Beach Erosion Board Bull.4(4):1-31.
Nielsen, P., 1983. Analytical determination of nearshore wave heightvariation due to refraction, shoaling and friction. Coastal Enginr.7(3):233-252.
Savage, R.P., 1962. Laboratory determination of littoral transport rates. J.WW and Harbours Div., ASCE 88(WW2):69-92.
Weggel, J.R., 1972. Maximum breaker height. J. WW and Harbours Div., ASCE78(WW4):529-548.
Wright, L.D., 1981. Beach cut in relation to surf zone morphodynamics.
Proceedings, 17th IntI. Conf. Coastal Enginr., Sydney, Australia, pp.978-996.
Wright, L.D. and A.D. Short, 1984. Morphodynamic variability of surf zonesand beaches: A synthesis. Mar. Geol. 56:93-118.
Wright, L.D., R.J. Guza, and A.D. Short, 1982. Dynamics of a high energydissipative surfzone. Mar. Geol. 45:41-62.
Wright, L.D., A.D. Short, and M.O. Green, 1985. Short-term changes in themorphodynamic states of beaches and surfzones: An empirical predictivemodel. Mar. Geol. 62:339-364.
Wright, L.D., P. Nielsen, N.C. Shi, and J.H. List, 1986b. Morphodynamics of abar-trough surfzone. Mar. Geol. 70:251-285.
Public Beach Assessment Report Update IIOcean Park, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
May 1994 through March 1995
by
D. A. MilliganC. S. Hardaway, Jr.
G. R. Thomas
Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceThe College of William and MaryGloucester Point, Virginia 23062
Data Report Obtained under Contract withThe Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
via theJoint Commonwealth Programs Addressing
Shore Erosion in Virginia
May 1995
~--T
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Contents l
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
I. Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1A. Limits of the Study Area 1B. History of the Shoreline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1C. Approach and Methodology 1
II. Analysis of Beach Profiles : 4A. Variability in Shoreline Position 4B. Changes in Beach Volume 6C. SeasonalChangesinWaveClimateandBeachVolume.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8D. DuneChanges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
III. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
IV. Recommendations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
V. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
Appendix I Ocean Park Profiles
i '.\
List of Figures and Tables
Page
Figure 1. Base map of Ocean Park beach with profile and cell locations 3
Figure 2. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 4A. Profile line 360 depicting changes between May 1991, May 1994 and March1995 10
Figure 4B. Profile line 400 depicting changes between May 1991, May 1994 and March1995 10
Figure 5A. Profile line 440 depicting changes between May 1991, May 1994 and March1995 11
Figure 5B. Profile line 480 depicting changes between May 1991, May 1994 and March1995 11
Figure 6. Slides taken on the Ocean Park Beach looking eastward from approximatelyprofile line 480 (48+00) on A.) 13 Feb 1990; B.) 29 June 1992; andC.) 22 May 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
Table 1. Distance to base of dune (BOD) from the baseline and volume change aboveMHW 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
Cell 12 I Cell 11 I Cell 10 I Cell 9Shoreline
Profile Profile Profile320 280 240
Cell 8 I Cell 7 1
Shoreline (MHW)
Profile Profile Profile Profile480 440 400 360
~~WINDSORCRESCENT
~tWOODLAWNAVENUE
VIMS Baseline
)t(ALBEMARLEAVENUE
August1990
VIMS Baseline
w
o 200 400I I I
Scale in Feet
Concrete Bulkhead
August1990
VIMS Baseline
./ /VIMS Baseline',ROANOKE DINWIDDIE DUPONTAVENUE ROAD CIRCLE
EAST STRATFORDROAD
Concrete8lJlkhead
Figure 1. Base map of Ocean Park beach with profile and cell locations.
Profile Profile Profile Profile Profile ProfileProfile 200 160 120 080 040 000240 I .
iCell 6' I Cell 5 I Cell 4 Cell 3 I Cell 2 I Cell 1
Shoreline (MHW) I Shoreline
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), post-
initial 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
300
250
3: 200:r:~.9~ 150---c:OJ1i5
is
Figure 2.
100
----.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~----------------------------------------------------.-----
50~ ~-- ------------------------.---------------------------
o480 440 400 360 320 280 240 200 160 120 080 040 000
ProfileNumber
Distance to MHW from the baseline for January and May 1987, November 1990,February 1991, May 1994, and March 1995.
5
---JAN8?-+-MAY8?"""*"""NOV90
-e-FEB91
......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
-~o---(l)E:Jo>
Figure3.
140
130 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
120 ......................................................................................................
nn \.........................................................................................
100
90
80......................................................................................
70........................................................................................................................................................................................
60 '
50 ,..........
40 ......................................................................................................................................-........-....-....-............................................................
30 ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
20 ....................................................................................................-.-....-.....-......................................................................................................
1 0,........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
o1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Year1992 1993 1994 1995
Subaerial beach volume loss or gain of the fill material.
7
during the second fill and has only 39,000 cubic yards (29,820 cubic meters) more than the pre-
initial 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 040-
240). 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
-10o 100 200 300
Oistance. FT
400 500 600
Ocean Park Beach
30Line Survey
400 320400 3B5400 392
Oate1 MAY 91
11 MAY 9413 MAR 95
B
HL~I
.........-------------
-10o 100 200 300
o istance. FT
400 500 600
Figure 4. Profile plot depicting changes between May 1991, May 1994 and March 1995 atlinesA.) 360 and B.) 400.
10
Ocean Park Beach
30Survey OateLine
360 320 1 MAY 91360 3B5 11 MAY 94360 392 13 MAR 95
I
20
I-I.J...
C0
101 v !t\.. A.oJ10>QJ......W
".:--'"".
0, ILI"
'::-:::.-...._--:---.c: -- -- --:__ _ _ _ _ __
20
I-I.J...
C0
10.<J10>QJ......W
()
-10o 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance. FT
-10o 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance. FT
Figure 5. Profile plot depicting changes between May 1991, May 1994 and March 1995 atlines A.) 440 and B.) 480.
11
Ocean Park 6each
30Line Survey Date
460 320 1 MAY91460 385 11 MAY94480 392 13 MAR95
I20
l-lL.
C0
10.........II)> I :,...."Iu BIIIUJ "
",,;--0 ',\. MLW
....-..-::---::-...-... ..........
A.)
Outer
Piling
13 February 1990
B.) 29 June 1992
c.) 22 May 1995
Figure6.
OuterPiling
Outer
Piling
--- ..,..- ,
-~_.-::.z ...
."....-.;~.': ..? ~
Slides of the Ocean Park Beach looking east from approximately profile480 (48+00) on A.) 13Feb 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 May1994 and March 1995.
13
Profile MAY94 MAR95 NET CHANGE VOLUME CHANGENumber (ft) (ft) (ft) (cy/ft)480 86 84 -2 -3.50440 117 100 -17 -2.52400 100 92 -8 -5.73360 110 102 -8 -7.92320 100 91 -9 -1.58280 100 100 0 -2.88240 75 50 -25 -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 120-
240).
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 Report-Ocean Park Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Technical Report, Virginia Institute of MarineScience, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA.
Milligan, D.A., C.S. Hardaway, Jr., and G.R. Thomas, 1994. Public Beach Assessment ReportUpdate - Ocean Park Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Data Report, Virginia Institute of MarineScience, 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 199431 MAY 1994
6 JUL 19941 AUG 19941 SEP 19946 JAN 19951 FEB 1995
13 MAR 1995
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
-10o 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance, FT
Oceanpark 8each
30 .Line Survey Date
000 385 11 MAY 94000 386 31 MAY 94000 387 6 JUL 94
2°T
000 388 1 AUG 94-..-...- 000 389 1 SEP 94
l-LL
C0
10.........10>OJ......W
0 MLW
.....,
Oceanpark 8each
30Line Survey Date
000 389 1 SEP 94000 390 6 JAN 95000 391 1 FE8 95
20 . 000 392 13 MAR 95
l-LL
C0
10.........10>OJ......W
0 MLW
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Oceanpark Beach
30Line Survey Date
040 3B9 1 SEP 94040 390 6 JAN 95040 391 1 FEB 95
20---1- 040 392 13 MAR95
l-lL.
C0 10......tU>QJ....W
O. <"<C, MLW
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
- --- -
Oceanpark Beach
30 .Line Survey Date
OBO 385 11 MAY94080 386 31 MAY94080 387 6 JUL 94
2°T
080 388 1 AUG 94--..-...- 080 389 1 SEP 94
I-u.
C0
10......oJIt)>QJ.....
W
0 MLW
Oceanpark 8each
30Line Survey Date
080 389 1 SEP 94080 390 6 JAN 95080 391 1 FE8 95
20 I080 392 13 MAR 95
I-u.
C0
10..........It)>QJ
.....w
01 ....:.;:--.. MLW
-10o 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance. FT
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Oceanpark Beach
30Line Survey Date
120 389 1 SEP 94120 390 6 JAN 95120 391 1 FEB 95
20 I120 392 13 MAR95
l-lL.
C0
10.......co>QJ.....UJ
01 -.- MLW
-10o 100 200 300
Distance, FT
400 500 600
-10o 100 200 300
Distance, FT
400 500 600
Oceanpark Beach
30 .Line Survey Date
160 3B5 11 MAY94160 386 31 MAY94160 387 6 JUL 94--- 160 388 1 AUG9420+160 389 1 SEP 94
II-LA..
C0
10.........III>OJ....UJ
O. """. KLW
-10o 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance, FT
-10o 100 200 300
Distance, FT
400 500 600
---
Oceanpark Beach
30Line Survey Date
200 3B5 11 MAY94200 386 31 MAY94200 387 6 JUL 94
2°L
200 388 1 AUG 94-..-..- 200 389 1 SEP 94
I-u.
C0
10.........<t1>QJ......w
01 ....- MLW
Oceanpark Beach
30Line Survey Date
200 389 1 SEP 94200 390 6 JAN 95200 391 1 FEB 95
20 '200 392 13 MAR 95
I-u.
C0
10.........<t1>QJ......w
01 - MLW
-10o 100 200 300
Distance, FT
400 500 600
Gceanpark Beach
30Line
240240240240
Survey3B9390391392
Date
1 SEP 946 JAN 951 FEB 95
13 MAR95
KLW
-10o 100 200 300
Distance, FT
400 500 600
20
I-U.
C0
10........III>QJ....UJ
01.'..",.
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Oceanpark 8each
30 .Line Survey Date
280 385 11 MAY94280 386 31 MAY94280. 387 6 JUL 94
2°T
280 388 1 AUG 94-..-..- 280 389 1 SEP 94
l-I£.
C0
10.r<....co>OJ.....W
0 MLW
''';;:::'
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Oaeanpark Beach
30Line Survey Date
320 389 1 SEP 94320 390 6 JAN 95320 391 1 FEB 95
20 I320 392 13 MAR95
I-u..
C0
10....../II>CIJ.....lJJ
01 i..:......_ KLW
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
-10o 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance. FT
Dceanpark Beach
30 .Line Survey Date
360 385 11 MAY 94360 386 31 MAY 94360 387 6 JUL 94360 388 1 AUG 94
2°T /\-..-..- 360 389 1 SEP 94
l-lL.
C0
10......CtI>QJ....UJ
01 ... HLW
.Dceanpark Beach
30Line Survey Date
360 389 f SEP 94360 390 6 JAN 95360 391 1 FEB 95
20 . 360 392 13 MAR95
l-lL.
C0
10......CtI>QJ....UJ
0 HLW
.
-10o 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance. FT
-10o 100 500 600200 300
Distance. FT
400
Oceanpark Beach
30 ILine Survey Date
400 385 11 MAY 94400 386 31 MAY 94400 387 6 JUL 94
20r
400 3BB 1 AUG 94-...-..- 400 389 1 SEP 94
I-u.
c:0
10.....+-'1'0>QJ.....UJ
0 ML\!
..-...;.
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
-10o 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance. FT
Oceanpark Beach
30Line Survey Date
440 3B5 11 MAY94440 3B6 31 MAY94440 3B7 6 JUL 94
2°T
440 388 1 AUG 94-..-..- 440 389 1 SEP 94
I-u.
c::0
10....1'0>QJ.....UJ
0 MLW-..'-'--,--,-,--,
Oceanpark Beach
30Line Survey Date
440 389 1 SEP 94440 390 6 JAN 95440 391 1 FEB 95
20 . 440 392 13 MAR95
I-u.
c::0
10....
1'0>QJ.....UJ
"'\:. .
0 KLW-..-...-. -
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
-10o 100 200 300
Distance. FT
400 500 600
Oceanpark Beach
30 ,Line Survey Date
4BO 385 11 MAY 94480 386 31 MAY 94480 387 6 JUL 94
2°T
480 388 1 AUG 94-..-..- 480 389 1 SEP 94
I-l1..
C0
10........co>QJ.....W "
0",...... MLW
'--';.--
.............."........
Oceanpark Beach
30 .Line Survey Date
480 389 1 SEP 94480 390 6 JAN 95480 391 1 FEB 95
20480 392 13 MAR95 "
I-l1..
C0
10........co>QJ.....w
01. .',- KLW