Public Beach Assessment Report- Ocean Park Beach

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


fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Profile 120 plot depicting changes involving the 1991fill project .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


fill project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


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 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


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


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


o '00. 200 400 500 600


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


o 100 200 400 500 600

OCEAN PARK

PROFILE NO. 160JO

JUNOJ91JAN1091

NOV1690

20

o

I.

I

.

' B

'~:,~,.,'\:..'

,>.

'".~':-'-'- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---"':'. ~LW

... .'..

fEET10(MLW)

-10

JOO

fEET


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


fEET10(~LW)


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


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


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


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


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


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


Jan89

Date

Jan90 Jan91 Jun91


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


Jan88 Jan89

DateJan90 Jan91 Jun91


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


Jan88 Jan89

Date

Jan90 Jan91 Jun91


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



Jan89 Jan90 Jan91 Jun91

Date


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


Jan90 Jan91 Jun91Jan89

Dffie


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



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.


Date


39

40

30

20-'->-

10>-(,)-

0

-10

40 . .-Profile160

30 I :::Profile200---*-

20 Profile240- -+-'-

10 Profile 280>-(,)-

0

-10

-20


Date


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


----------

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

--~ ""------

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


=----------------

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


~.==----

- ~---------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


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


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


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


o

-10o 100 200 300

Distance. FT

400 500 600

Profile 360

Ocean Park Beach

30

20

Line360360360360360

Survey100105110120125

Oate


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


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


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


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

-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


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


,---------

-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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Documents

Public Beach Assessment Report- Ocean Park Beach