USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Longshore sediment transport from northern Maine to Tampa Bay, Florida

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Longshore sediment transport from northern Maine to Tampa Bay, Florida a comparison of longshore field studies to relative potential sediment transport rates derived from wave information study hindcast data
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
van Gaalen, Joseph F
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Atlantic coast
Gulf of Mexico
coastal geomorphology
longshore current direction
deep-water waves
nodal zones
Dissertations, Academic -- Marine Science -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: This paper examines the regional longshore sediment transport pattern of the seaward coast of the United States and Gulf of Mexico from northern Maine to Tampa Bay, Florida. From previous studies it is known that along the coast there are variations in direction of sediment transport known as nodal zones as well as variations in sediment transport rate. Wave Information Study (WIS) hindcast data for the interval 1976 through 1995 (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2003) provide a spatially continuous model of the regional longshore current directions in the study area. In chapter one, all available published field studies of longshore current direction and sediment transport directions and rates are compiled to create a description of the direction and, whenever possible, magnitude of longshore transport. A detailed compilation of regional and local published studies are provided in tables. An interpretation of sediment transport rates and directions is provided in eight regional maps of the study area. In chapter two the results of the literature compilations are compared with gross and net potential sediment transport directions and rates modeled using WIS hindcast data. The WIS deep-water wave characteristics are used to predict the directions and rate of longshore sediment transport at local outer coast positions using the method of Ashton et al. (2003a). The WIS-derived transport directions, including nodal zones, generally agree with the published field studies, although there are a few local inconsistencies particularly near inlets, shoals and irregular bathymetry. Trends in longshore transport rates, such as increases and decreases in gross transport rates are well represented by the WIS-derived potential transport rates. The discrepencies between the published field studies and WIS results are apparently primarily due to assumptions in the WIS model, such as assuming shore-parallel bathymetric contours.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Joseph F. Van Gaalen.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 114 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001469372
oclc - 55644014
notis - AJR1126
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0000274
usfldc handle - e14.274
System ID:
SFS0024969:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001469372
003 fts
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 040524s2004 flua sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000274
035
(OCoLC)55644014
9
AJR1126
b SE
SFE0000274
040
FHM
c FHM
090
GC11.2
1 100
van Gaalen, Joseph F.
0 245
Longshore sediment transport from northern Maine to Tampa Bay, Florida
h [electronic resource] :
a comparison of longshore field studies to relative potential sediment transport rates derived from wave information study hindcast data /
by Joseph F. Van Gaalen.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2004.
502
Thesis (M.S.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 114 pages.
520
ABSTRACT: This paper examines the regional longshore sediment transport pattern of the seaward coast of the United States and Gulf of Mexico from northern Maine to Tampa Bay, Florida. From previous studies it is known that along the coast there are variations in direction of sediment transport known as nodal zones as well as variations in sediment transport rate. Wave Information Study (WIS) hindcast data for the interval 1976 through 1995 (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2003) provide a spatially continuous model of the regional longshore current directions in the study area. In chapter one, all available published field studies of longshore current direction and sediment transport directions and rates are compiled to create a description of the direction and, whenever possible, magnitude of longshore transport. A detailed compilation of regional and local published studies are provided in tables. An interpretation of sediment transport rates and directions is provided in eight regional maps of the study area. In chapter two the results of the literature compilations are compared with gross and net potential sediment transport directions and rates modeled using WIS hindcast data. The WIS deep-water wave characteristics are used to predict the directions and rate of longshore sediment transport at local outer coast positions using the method of Ashton et al. (2003a). The WIS-derived transport directions, including nodal zones, generally agree with the published field studies, although there are a few local inconsistencies particularly near inlets, shoals and irregular bathymetry. Trends in longshore transport rates, such as increases and decreases in gross transport rates are well represented by the WIS-derived potential transport rates. The discrepencies between the published field studies and WIS results are apparently primarily due to assumptions in the WIS model, such as assuming shore-parallel bathymetric contours.
590
Adviser: Tebbens, Sarah F.
653
Atlantic coast.
Gulf of Mexico.
coastal geomorphology.
longshore current direction.
deep-water waves.
nodal zones.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Marine Science
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.274



PAGE 1

Longshore Sediment Transport From Nort hern Maine To Tampa Bay, Florida: A Comparison Of Longshore Field Studies To Relative Potential Sediment Transport Rates Derived From Wave Information Study Hindcast Data by Joseph F. van Gaalen A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science College of Marine Science University of South Florida Major Professor: Sarah F. Tebbens, Ph.D. A. Brad Murray, Ph.D. Christopher C. Barton, Ph.D. David F. Naar, Ph.D. Date of Approval: February 27, 2004 Keywords: nodal zones, deep-water waves, longshore current direction, coastal geomorphology, atlantic coas t, gulf of mexico Copyright 2004 Joseph F. van Gaalen

PAGE 2

DEDICATION To my brother, Michael, who always br ings forth enlightening conversation and inspires a yearning to understand everything; a true lover of wisdom.

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank Sue Halsey of New Jersey Sea Grant for introducing me to the topic of nodal zones during the summer of 2001 at Sandy Hook, NJ. I al so thank my father, Lee, for his UNIX and various technical support a nd my mother, Judy, for her initial editing and comments. Special thanks also to those in the College of Mari ne Science who helped guide and support me along the way includi ng but not limited to Edward Van Vleet, David Hollander, Cynthia Heil and, of course, Nadina Piehl.

PAGE 4

i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................ii LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................iii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................vi CHAPTER ONE: A Compilation of Publis hed Longshore Sediment Transport Studies from Northern Ma ine to Tampa Bay, Florida......................1 1-1. BACKGROUND...........................................................................................1 1-2. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................2 1-3. STUDY AREA..............................................................................................2 1-4. DATA............................................................................................................4 1-5. DATA COMPILATION................................................................................5 1-6. DISCUSSION..............................................................................................31 Southern Florida .....................................................................................31 Northern Florida .....................................................................................32 Northern Florida, Georgia, and Southern South Carolina ....................33 Northern South Carolina and Southern North Carolina ........................34 Northern Outer Banks, Virginia, and the Delmarva Peninsula ..............37 Delmarva, New Jersey, and Western Long Island ..................................38 Southern New England ...........................................................................39 Maine ......................................................................................................42 1-7. CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................43 CHAPTER TWO: Comparison of Deep-water Wave Predictions with Literature Compilations................................................................................... 44 2-1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................44 2-2. DATA..........................................................................................................46 2-3. STUDY AREA............................................................................................51 2-4. METHODS..................................................................................................52 2-5. MODELING ERRORS...............................................................................55 2-6. RESULTS....................................................................................................57 2-7. DISCUSSION..............................................................................................69 Overview of WIS deep -water method results.......................................... 69 Southern Florida .....................................................................................72 Northern Florida .....................................................................................73 Northern Florida, Georgia, and Southern South Carolina ....................74 Northern South Carolina and Southern North Carolina ........................76 Northern Outer Banks, Virginia, and the Delmarva Peninsula ..............77 Delmarva, New Jersey, and Western Long Island ..................................79 Southern New England ...........................................................................80

PAGE 5

ii Maine ......................................................................................................81 2-8. CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................82 REFERENCES:..............................................................................................................84

PAGE 6

iii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1.1 Site-specific longshore se diment transport rate studies...................8 TABLE 1.2 Generalized l ongshore sediment transport information studies.....16 TABLE 2.1 Governing factors of 1976-1995 WIS hindcasts............................47 TABLE 2.2 Example of raw data tables provided by US Army Waterways Experiment Station......................................................48 TABLE 2.3 An example of deep-water calculations taken from station g10 in the Gulf of Mexico.....................................................................54 TABLE 2.4 Deep-water wave equation results for hindcasted shorelines........58

PAGE 7

iv LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1 Study are divide d into eight regions................................................3 FIGURE 1.2 Longshore transport for s outhern Florida based on compiled literature.........................................................................................23 FIGURE 1.3 Longshore transport for northeast Florida based on compiled literature.........................................................................................24 FIGURE 1.4 Longshore transport for northern Florida, Georgia, and Southern South Carolina based on compiled literature..................25 FIGURE 1.5 Longshore transport fo r northern South Carolina and southern North Carolina ba sed on compiled literature..................26 FIGURE 1.6 Longshore transport for nor thern North Carolina, Virginia and the Delmarva Peninsula based on compiled literature............27 FIGURE 1.7 Longshore transport for De laware, New Jersey and Western Long Island based on compiled literature......................................28 FIGURE 1.8 Longshore transport for eastern Long Island and southern New England based on compiled literature...................................29 FIGURE 1.9 Longshore transport fo r northern New England based on compiled literature.........................................................................30 FIGURE 2.1 Diagram of WIS bathym etry and Deep-water Equation bathymetry.....................................................................................48 FIGURE 2.2 Comparison of modeled wave height at Level 3 WIS Station 210 and measured wave hei ght at NDBC Buoy 44014 using years of data for a) hourly, b) daily, and c) monthly averages......50 FIGURE 2.3 Orientation of coastline ( ) and deep-water wave angle ( o)........53 FIGURE 2.4 Map of southern Florid a showing WIS hindcast stations, hindcasted shorelines, and poten tial gross and net sediment transport rates.................................................................................61

PAGE 8

v FIGURE 2.5 Map of northern Florid a showing WIS hindcast stations, Hindcasted shorelines, and poten tial gross and net sediment transport rates.................................................................................62 FIGURE 2.6 Map of northern Florida, Ge orgia, and southern South Carolina showing WIS hindcast stations hindcasted shorelines and potential gross and net sediment transport rates............................63 FIGURE 2.7 Map of northern South Ca rolina and southern North Carolina showing WIS hindcast stations hindcasted shorelines and potential gross and net sediment transport rates............................64 FIGURE 2.8 Map of northern North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and southern Delaware showing WIS hindcast stations, hindcasted shorelines and potential gross a nd net sediment transport rates....65 FIGURE 2.9 Map of northern Delawa re, New Jersey, and central and western Long Island showing WIS hindcast stations, hindcasted shorelines and poten tial gross and net sediment transport rates.................................................................................66 FIGURE 2.10 Map of eastern Long Island and southern New England showing WIS hindcast stations hindcasted shorelines and potential gross and net sediment transport rates............................67 FIGURE 2.11 Map of northern New England showing WIS hindcast stations, hindcasted shorelines and potential gross and net sediment transport rates.................................................................68 FIGURE 2.12 Percentage of gross relative potential sediment transport with a net direction ..................................................................................70 FIGURE 2.13 Gross and net relative po tential sediment transport index values.............................................................................................71

PAGE 9

vi Longshore Sediment Transport From Maine To Tampa Bay, Florida: A Comparison Of Longshore Field Studies To Relative Potentia l Sediment Transport Rates Derived From Wave Information Study Hindcast Data Joseph F. van Gaalen ABSTRACT This paper examines the regional longs hore sediment transport pattern of the seaward coast of the United States and Gulf of Mexico from northern Maine to Tampa Bay, Florida. From previous studies it is known that along the coast there are variations in direction of sediment tran sport known as nodal zones as well as variations in sediment transport rate. Wave Information Study (WIS) hindcast data for the interval 1976 through 1995 (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2003) provide a spatially continuous model of the regional longshore current directions in the study area. In chapter one, all available published fi eld studies of longshore current direction and sediment transport directions and rates are compiled to create a description of the direction and, whenever possible, magnitude of longshore transport. A detailed compilation of regional and local published studies are provided in tables. An interpretation of sediment tr ansport rates and directions is provided in eight regional maps of the study area. In chapter two the results of the litera ture compilation are compared with gross and net potential sediment transport direc tions and rates modeled using WIS hindcast data. The WIS deep-water wave characteristic s are used to predict the direction and rate of longshore sediment transport at local outer coast positions using the method of Ashton

PAGE 10

vii et al. (2003a). The WIS-derived transport directions, including nodal zones, generally agree with the published field studies, a lthough there are a few lo cal inconsistencies particularly near inlets, shoa ls and irregular bathymetry. Trends in longshore transport rates, such as increases and decreases in gr oss transport rates are well represented by the WIS-derived potential transpor t rates. The discrepancies between the published field studies and WIS results are apparently primar ily due to assumptions in the WIS model, such as assuming shore-parallel bathymetric contours.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER ONE A Compilation of Published Longshore Sediment Transport Studies from Northern Maine to Tampa Bay, Florida 1-1. BACKGROUND Knowledge of longshore sediment transport along a coast is vita l to understanding a region’s coastal dynamics. Numerous st udies of longshore current and longshore sediment transport have been published over the past decades (e.g., Caldwell, 1966; Davis, 1994; DeWall, 1977; Dolan and Gla ssen, 1973; Douglass, 1985; Everts et al., 1983; Fairchild, 1966; Jarrett 1977; Johnson, 1956; Knoth and Nummedal, 1978; Komar, 1998; Leatherman et al., 1982; McMaster 1960; Smith, 1991; Taney, 1961b). Using a multitude of methods, these longshore st udies have provided the foundation for understanding coastal features along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts Research on nodal zones, locations where longshore cu rrents converge or diverge, has provided detailed understanding of longshore transpor t directions (e.g., Ashl ey et al., 1986). Studies on inlets and their inte rplay with longshore currents have given rise to maps suggesting the littoral compartments along a particular coast (e.g., Belknap and Kraft, 1985). However, most previous studies have been local in nature, having been conducted at site-specific beaches or inlets. Only a few of these studies extend beyond the local scale and fewer still compile previous st udies to provide a la rge scale overview.

PAGE 12

2 1-2. INTRODUCTION The goal of this paper is to provide a complete view of the longshore sediment transport from Tampa Bay, Florida to the nor thern coast of Maine. The results of published longshore transport studies are comp iled to provide an accurate and spatially continuous summary of longshore sediment tr ansport directions and rates on both the local and regional scale for the entire study area. This work in cludes both local and regional studies of longshore transport to provide a complete assessment of longshore sediment transport rates and directions, incl uding regional and local nodal zones, for the eastern coastline of the United States. A complete and systematic data set is established in tables that provides summary informa tion on all the longshore transport studies included in the compilation. An interpreta tion of both directio n and magnitude of longshore transport is provided in ei ght regional maps of the study area. 1-3. STUDY AREA The study area is the coastline exposed to the open Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Mexico from the northern Maine border to the mouth of Tampa Bay, Florida. The coastline is divided into eight similar sized sections [Figure 1.1]. The same scale is used for all section maps in Chapter One and Ch apter Two. Care was taken to select a workable scale to represent th e longshore transport direction on the maps. In individual maps of each section, a scale of approximate ly 1:400,000 is used, which is a scale also used by NOAA for nautical charts.

PAGE 13

3 Figure 1.1. Study area divided into eight regions. The subsequent figures [Figures 1.2 – 1.9, and 2.4 – 2.11] for each region are all provided at the same scale to facilitate comparisons.

PAGE 14

4 1-4. DATA Research published over the last sixty years is compiled to create a complete and spatially continuous evaluation of longshore sediment trans port for the eastern United States coastline. Sediment transport field studies, published from 1941 through 2004, provide the most reliable repor ts of sediment transport rates. All studies used are presented in Table 1.1 and 1.2. An interpretati on of the compiled stud ies is presented in Figures 1.2 – 1.9. The objective in compiling field research is to be as inclusive as possible, with two exceptions. First, published field research that used hindcast wa ve data are excluded so that this compilation may be independently compared to longshor e transport rates and directions obtained from WIS hindcast data [Chapter Two]. Second, publications that used geomorphic indicators are excluded if the geomorphic indicators are not supported by other evidence. The geomorphology of a coastline does not always reflect longshore transport (e.g., Bagnold, 1941; Lynch-Blosse and Kumar, 1976). For instance, wind blown sands can accumulate along a shoreline yi elding features that are independent of the longshore current (Bagnold, 1941). Theref ore, geomorphic indicators alone are not deemed reliable and are noted. Examples of geomorphic indicators in the compiled literature that were used as supporting evidence to infer sediment transport along the coastline include spit growth, inlet migrati on, accumulation trends and the overall shape of the coastline.

PAGE 15

5 1-5. DATA COMPILATION Longshore sediment transport rate data co llected from publications are defined in two categories: site-specific and generalized. The first category of data includes all sitespecific, local, longshore sediment transport studies which report a direct measurement of transport rate (e.g., m3/yr or yd3/day) or calculation of tran sport [Table 1.1]. Some examples of direct sediment transport measurement methods include sediment trap studies, jetty impoundment measurements and inlet by-pass studies. Any site-specific data included in the compilation that was not an actual measurement was acquired through mathematical estimations using source data such as wave gauge data, longshore current measurements and wave ray studies. All site-specific studies reported a volume per unit time but not all studies that report a volume per unit time are site-specific. For each site-specific study, Table 1.1 lis ts the details of the study. The table orders the studies geographic location along the coast, proceeding from north to south. The first column provides the latitude (in degrees North) of the study, which enables cross-referencing between maps and supporti ng tables. Additional columns provide the geographic description at the study location. When a compiled article builds on prior results that are critical to determining sediment transport, the supporting study is included in a separate “Study” column. Additional columns provide gross and net measured and potential transport rates, when reported. M easured rates include reported values that were directly observed as well as values calculated by specific local models. Local models account for localized features that may affect sediment transport such as irregular bathymetry. Potential rates include studies based on broad observations, such as local

PAGE 16

6 transport rates inferred from regional longshor e currents. Potentia l rates also include results of mathematical models th at do not include local features. The second category, generalized studies, are defined as any longshore transport estimate for a given section or region of coastline [Table 1.2; solid arrows, Figure 1.2 – 1.9]. These estimates include an actual magnit ude and/or direction of sediment transport, depending on the source data. The compila tion also includes st udies that reported longshore currents, the driving mechanis m of longshore sediment transport. Frequently, generalized studies are not lo calized and provide a regional longshore transport direction or magnitude for a long sec tion of coastline. Examples of data used for these generalized longshore sediment tr ansport direction and magnitude studies include grain size analysis (Taney, 1961b), st ructural sediment impoundments (Morton et al., 1986) and wave front studies provided by remote sensing using LANDSAT (Gatto, 1978). The reasoning used by the authors to determine longshore transport rates and directions is provided in a separate column in Table 1.2. A notes column provides additional information regarding the dete rmined longshore transport [Table 1.2]. A graphic interpretation of the data comp iled in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 is provided in Figures 1.2 through 1.9. The study area is divide d into eight sectio ns (see 1-3. STUDY AREA). References to locations of possible lo cal reversals in transport direction reported in the literature are provided in the data tables, but not on the maps. Only when a longshore transport direction may be identified with supporting evidence other than local phenomena such as ebb-tidal delta wave refrac tion are reversals represented on the maps. An exception to including local phenomena is made for the New England states where

PAGE 17

7 much of the coastline lies within embaye d territories and lo cal phenomena are the dominant factor influenc ing longshore currents. The synthesis of the longshore sediment transport maps requires an interpretation of the study (at proper sc ale) listed in the data tables. The sediment transport directions and magnitudes were interpreted with greater weight given to t hose studies conducted on longer time intervals and with more reliabl e equipment or techniques. In addition, greater weight was given to results supporte d by many studies using a variety of reliable methods than to a minority of studies that re ported conflicting results. The selection of the results of one study over another does not refl ect the quality of the work but rather the appropriateness of the results to indicate l ong-term longshore behavior. For instance, a five year study of longshore cu rrents is given more weight than a five month sediment budget analysis. Similarly, a sediment trap measurement is given more weight than a wave energy calculation that di d not include the influences of the shoreline configuration. The criteria used for interpretation are sp ecified in the paper where appropriate. In Figures 1.2 – 1.9, site-specific longshor e measurements of transport directions and rates are shown with color-coordinated arrows located at i ndividual measurement sites. Where multiple studies exist for the same stretch of coast, all references are included in the table, but the results for that site are combined and shown in the figure with a single represen tative arrow. Generalized longs hore directions are shown with black and gray arrows [Figures 1.2 – 1.9]. Bl ack arrows are the prevailing interpretation while gray arrows indicate re sults of studies that strongl y disagree with the prevailing interpretation. Arrow length represents the stretch of shoreline for which the transport direction generalization is made and is inte rpreted from informati on listed in Table 1.2.

PAGE 18

Table 1.1. Site-specific longshore sediment transport rate studies. N Location St. Reference Study Gross Potential Gross Measured Net Potential Net Measured Method 42.75 Plum Island MA (Abele, 1977) ~ 150,000 S wave data calculations 42.66 Crane Beach MA (Smith, 1991) (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1984) 35,000 S wave data calculations 42.07 Green Harbor MA (Weishar and Aubrey, 1988) ~ 26,507 13,502 S wave data calculations 41.55 Eel Pond Inlet MA (DeWall et al., 1984)~ < 38,250 6,120 11,475 E visual observations 41.28 Misquamicut Beach RI (Morton et al., 1984) ~ 30,000 W visual observations, wave data calculations 40.83 Shinnecock Inlet NY (Koppelman and Davies, 1978) ~ 229,500 W beach erosion control studies Shinnecock Inlet NY (Cialone and Stauble, 1998) ~ 229,400 W sediment budget analysis 40.81 Westhampton Beach NY (DeWall, 1979) ~ 230,000 W wave studies, beach changes Little Pikes Inlet NY (Terchunian and Merkert, 1995) ~ 153,000 W beach erosion, inlet migration 40.78 Moriches Inlet NY (Taney, 1961b) ~ 229,500 W beach surveys Moriches Inlet NY (Koppelman and Davies, 1978) ~ 267,750 W beach erosion control studies 40.61 Fire Island Inlet NY (Fairchild, 1966) ~ 355,725 W beach erosion control studies Fire Island Inlet NY (Taney, 1961b) ~ 344,250 W beach surveys Fire Island Inlet NY (Koppelman and Davies, 1978) ~ 459,000 W beach erosion control studies 40.55 Jones Inlet NY (Koppelman and Davies, 1978) ~ 420,750 W beach erosion control studies 40.53 Rockaway Inlet NY (Taney, 1961b) ~ 344,250 W beach surveys 40.46 Sandy Hook NJ (Fairchild, 1966) ~ 377,145 N beach erosion control studies Sandy Hook NJ (Caldwell, 1967) ~ 382,500 382,500 N dredge records, wave observations, structural impoundments Sandy Hook NJ (Johnson, 1956) (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1954) 328,950 N accretion 40.21 Asbury Park NJ (Johnson, 1956) (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1954) 153,000 N accretion Continued on the next page 8

PAGE 19

Table 1.1 (Continued) 40.16 Shark R. Inlet NJ (Farrell, 1981) ~ 16,983 N dredge survey analysis Shark R. Inlet NJ (Johnson, 1956) (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1954) 229,500 N accretion 40.12 Dover Township NJ (Caldwell, 1967) ~ 765,000 0 dredge records, wave observations, structural impoundments 40.08 Manasquan Inlet NJ (Fairchild, 1966) ~ 56,610 N beach erosion control studies Manasquan Inlet NJ (Johnson, 1956) (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1954) 275,400 N accretion 39.73 Barnegat Inlet NJ (Fairchild, 1966) ~ 38,250 S beach erosion control studies Barnegat Inlet NJ (Caldwell, 1967) ~ 803,250 38,250 S dredge records, wave observations, structural impoundments Barnegat Inlet NJ (Johnson, 1956) (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1954) 191,250 S accretion 39.34 Atlantic City NJ (McCann, 1981) ~ 497,000 115,000 S visual observations, accretion, jetty impoundments Atlantic City NJ (Watts, 1956) ~ 306,000 S beach erosion control studies Atlantic City NJ (Caldwell, 1967) ~ 841, 500 76,500 S dredge records, wave observations, structural impoundments Absecon Inlet NJ (Johnson, 1956) (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1954) 191,250 S erosion 39.18 Ocean City NJ (Johnson, 1956 ) (United States Congress, 1953a) 306,000 S erosion 39.14 Ludlam Beach NJ (Everts et al., 1980) ~ 874,395 328,185 S wave observations 39.13 Sea Isle City NJ (Caldwell, 1967) ~ 879, 750 114,750 S dredge records, wave observations, structural impoundments 38.98 Cold Springs Inlet NJ (Caldwell, 1967) ~ 918,000 153,000 S dredge records, wave observations, structural impoundments 38.96 Cape May NJ (Fairchild, 1966) ~ 153,000 S beach erosion control studies 38.60 Indian River Inlet DE (Lanan and Dalrymple, 1977) ~ 60,435 N sediment budget analysis Indian River Inlet DE (Moody, 1964) ~ 91,800 N accretion 38.35 Ocean City MD (Johnson, 1956) (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1948) 114,750 S accretion 36.83 Rudee Inlet VA (Everts et al. 1983) ~ 200,000 N dredge records Rudee Inlet VA (Bunch, 1969) ~ 53,550 N structural impoundments Continued on the next page 9

PAGE 20

Table 1.1 (Continued) Rudee Inlet VA (Dean, 1989) ~ 150,000 N wave data, structural impoundments 35.76 Oregon Inlet NC (Dolan and Glassen, 1973) ~ 370,000 S wave energy calculations Oregon Inlet NC (Everts et al. 1983) US Army Engineer (1980) 500,000 S dredge records Oregon Inlet NC (Langfelder et al., 1968) ~ 1,323,450 S breaking wave energy calculations 35.65 North of Rodanthe NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 15,300 S breaking wave energy calculations 35.55 Rodanthe NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 153,000 N breaking wave energy calculations 35.45 Salvo NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 290,700 S breaking wave energy calculations 35.35 Avon NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 2,203,200 S breaking wave energy calculations 35.15 Hatteras Inlet NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 84,150 S breaking wave energy calculations 35.05 Ocracoke Inlet NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 298,350 S breaking wave energy calculations 34.85 Drum Inlet NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 1,201,050 S breaking wave energy calculations Drum Inlet NC (McNinch and Wells, 1999) ~ 400,000 500,000 Slongshore current estimates 34.75 North Cape Lookout NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 1,606,500 S breaking wave energy calculations 34.70 Beaufort Inlet NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 107,100 W breaking wave energy calculations Beaufort Inlet NC (Pierce, 1969) (Johnson, 1956) 22,600 W littoral drift studies Beaufort Inlet NC (Johnson, 1956) (United States Congress, 1948) 22,568 S accretion (58 year study) Beaufort Inlet NC (Hine, 1980) ~ 40,000 longshore current estimates 34.69 Emerald Isle NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 267,750 NE breaking wave energy calculations 34.65 Bogue Inlet NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 550,800 NE breaking wave energy calculations 34.61 Browns Inlet NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 703,800 SW breaking wave energy calculations 34.55 New River NC (Wang et al., 1998) ~ 110,000 S sediment trap studies Continued on the next page 10

PAGE 21

Table 1.1 (Continued) 34.52 New River Inlet NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 772,650 S breaking wave energy calculations 34.34 New Topsail Inlet NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 214,200 S breaking wave energy calculations 34.30 Rich Inlet NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 244,800 S breaking wave energy calculations 34.20 Masonboro NC (Wang et al. 1998) ~ 42,000 S inner surf zone longshore calculations 34.10 Carolina Beach NC (Jarrett and Hemsley, 1988) ~ 122,400 S sand trap, sand by-pass unit Carolina Beach NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 1,744,200 S breaking wave energy calculations 33.93a Yaupon Beach NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 99,450 E breaking wave energy calculations 33.93b Lockwoods Folly Inlet NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 122,400 E breaking wave energy calculations 33.92 Shallotte Inlet NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 68,850 E breaking wave energy calculations 33.88 Holden Beach NC (Chasten, 1992) ~ 229,500 76,500 SW wave data, visual observations 33.87 Tubbs Inlet NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 413,100 NE breaking wave energy calculations 33.86 Mad Inlet NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 153,000 NE breaking wave energy calculations 33.85 Little River Inlet SC (Chasten, 1992) (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1977) 229,500 1984 Shore Protection Manual equation estimates Little River Inlet SC (Chasten, 1992) ~ 229,500 76,500 SW geomorphology, wave data calculations, visual observations Little River Inlet SC (Langfelder et al. 1968) ~ 153,000 NE wave refraction studies 33.51 Murrells Inlet SC (Anders et al., 1990)(Kana, 1977) 128,000 S wave energy studies Murrells Inlet SC (Wang et al. 1998) US Army Corps. (n/a) 146,000 S sediment trap studies 33.30 North Inlet SC (Finley, 1976) ~ 350,000 visual wave observations 32.90 Bull Island SC (Anders et al. 1990)(Knoth and Nummedal, 1977) 290,000 S wave energy studies Bull Island SC (Hubbard et al., 1977)Kana, T.W. (1976) 128,000 visual wave observations 32.80 Capers Island SC (Anders et al. 1990)(Kana, 1977) 130,000 S wave energy studies 32.75 Charleston SC (Anders et al. 1990)(FitzGerald et al., 1979) 200,000 S wave energy studies Continued on the next page 11

PAGE 22

Table 1.1 (Continued) 32.55 Kiawah Island SC (Barwis and Sexton, 1986) ~ 150,000 200,000 Slongshore current studies 32.53 Capt. Sam In. SC (Barwis and Sexton, 1986) ~ 100,000 S ebb tidal delta by-pass studies 32.35 Hunting Island SC (May and Stapor, 1996) ~ 100,000 12,000 N WAVENRG model 31.20 St. Simon's Is. Entrance GA (Griffin and Henry, 1984) ~ 330,204 dredge records 30.75 St. Mary's Entrance FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) US Army Corps. (1971) 420,750 S updrift accumulation St. Mary's Entrance FL (Walton, 1976) ~ 153,000 S wave observations from ships 30.50 Ft. George Inlet FL (Kojima and Hunt, 1980) ~ 113,220 S 1918-1934 shoreline changes Ft. George Inlet FL (Kojima and Hunt, 1980) US Army Corps. (1971) 367,200 S updrift accumulation Ft. George Inlet FL (Kojima and Hunt, 1980) (Walton, 1973) 382,500 S wave observations from ships 30.40 St. John's River Entrance FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) US Army Corps. (1971) 367,200 S updrift accumulation St. John's River Entrance FL (Walton, 1976) ~ 191,250 S wave observations from ships 30.35 Ponte Verde Beach FL (DeWall, 1977) (Walton, 1973) 220,320 S energy flux measurements from SSMO 29.90 St. Augustine Inlet FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) US Army Corps. (1971) 336,600 S updrift accumulation St. Augustine Inlet FL (Walton, 1976) ~ 290,700 S wave observations from ships 29.70 Mantanzas Inlet FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) US Army Corps. (1971) 336,600 S updrift accumulation Mantanzas Inlet FL (Walton, 1976) ~ 221,850 S wave observations from ships 29.05 Ponce de Leon Inlet FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) US Army Corps. (1971) 382,500 S updrift accumulation Continued on the next page 12

PAGE 23

Table 1.1 (Continued) Ponce de Leon Inlet FL (Walton, 1976) ~ 137,700 S wave observations from ships 28.40 Port Canaveral FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) ~ 153,000 S beach erosion studies Port Canaveral FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) US Army Corps. (1971) 275,400 S updrift accumulation Port Canaveral FL (Walton, 1976) ~ 191,250 S wave observations from ships Port Canaveral In. FL (Hunt, 1980) ~ 142,366 S wave data studies 27.85 Sebastien Inlet FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) US Army Corps. (1971) 229,500 S updrift accumulation Sebastien Inlet FL (Walton, 1976) ~ 122,400 S wave observations from ships 27.50 Ft. Pierce Inlet FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) US Army Corps. (1971) 172,125 S updrift accumulation Ft. Pierce Inlet FL (Walton, 1976) ~ 107,100 S wave observations from ships 27.15 St. Lucie Inlet FL (Walton, 1974) ~ 76,500 S inlet bathymetric build-up St. Lucie Inlet FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) US Army Corps. (1971) 175,950 S updrift accumulation St. Lucie Inlet FL (Walton, 1976) ~ 153,000 S wave observations from ships 26.95 Jupiter Inlet FL (DeWall, 1977) ~ 1, 800,000 Littoral Environment Observations (LEO), longshore dye studies Jupiter Inlet FL (Watts, 1953) ~ 153,000 S structural impoundments (14 years) Jupiter Inlet FL (DeWall, 1977) (Walton, 1973) 700,000 94,100 S inlet bathymetric build-up Jupiter Inlet FL (DeWall, 1977) US Army Corps. (1971) 230,000 S dredge records, structural impoundments Jupiter Inlet FL (Das, 1972) ~ 1,459,188 536,592 S wave energy estimates Jupiter Inlet FL (Walton, 1976) 183,600 S wave observations from ships 26.75 Lake Worth Inlet FL (Watts, 1953) ~ 76,000 – 114,000 S wave data estimates Lake Worth Inlet FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) ~ 191,250 S sand by-pass studies Lake Worth Inlet FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) US Army Corps. (1971) 175,950 S updrift accumulation Continued on the next page 13

PAGE 24

Table 1.1 (Continued) Lake Worth Inlet FL (Walton, 1976) ~ 290,700 S wave observations from ships 26.55 South Lake Worth Inlet FL (Watts, 1953) ~ 61,200 S sand by-pass studies South Lake Worth Inlet FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) ~ 168,300 S sand by-pass studies South Lake Worth Inlet FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) US Army Corps. (1971) 175,950 S updrift accumulation South Lake Worth Inlet FL (Walton, 1976) ~ 214,200 S wave observations from ships South Lake Worth Inlet FL (Johnson, 1956) (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1947) 187,500 S accretion 26.45 Boca Raton In FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) US Army Corps. (1971) 114,750 S updrift accumulation Boca Raton In FL (Walton, 1976) ~ 214,200 S wave observations from ships 26.25 Hillsboro Inlet FL (DeWall, 1977) ~ 1,200,000 Littoral Environment Observations (LEO), longshore dye studies Hillsboro Inlet FL (DeWall, 1977) US Army Corps. (1971) 120,000 S dredge records, structural impoundments Hillsboro Inlet FL (DeWall, 1977) (Walton, 1973) 711,000 315,000 S inlet bathymetric build-up Hillsboro Inlet FL (Das, 1972) ~ 986,765 10,246 N wave energy estimates Hillsboro Inlet FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) ~ 153,000 S sand by-pass studies Hillsboro Inlet FL (Walton, 1976) ~ 214,200 S wave observations from ships Hillsboro Inlet FL (Johnson, 1956) (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1955b) 57,375 S accretion 26.10 Port Everglades FL (DeWall, 1977) ~ 480,000 Littoral Environment Observations (LEO), longshore dye studies Pt Everglades FL (DeWall, 1977) US Army Corp s. (1971) 50,000 S dredge records, structural impoundments Pt Everglades FL (DeWall, 1977) (Walton, 1973) 727,000 259,000 S inlet bathymetric build-up Pt Everglades FL (Das, 1972) ~ 416,463 9,780 wave energy estimates Pt Everglades FL (Walton, 1976) ~ 206,550 S wave observations from ships 25.85 Baker's Inlet FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) US Army Corps. (1971) 15,300 S updrift accumulation Continued on the next page 14

PAGE 25

Table 1.1 (Continued) Baker's Inlet FL (Walton, 1976) ~ 206,500 S wave observations from ships 25.75 Gov’t Cut FL (Dean and O'Brien, 1987) US Army Corps. (1971) 15,300 S updrift accumulation Gov’t Cut FL (Walton, 1976) ~ 206,500 S wave observations from ships 27.40 Longboat Key FL (Bruun, 1967) ~ 38,250 S structural impoundments Longboat Key FL (Cialone and Stauble, 1998) (Davis and Gibeaut, 1990) 45,800 S wave approach studies 26.45 Northern Estero Island FL (Jones, 1980) US Army Corps. (1980) 16,830 N wave sheltering/refraction estimates 26.30 Big Hickory Pass FL (Suboceanic Consultants Inc., 1978) ~ 36,425 N dredge records, inlet records *All measurements are in m3/yr 15

PAGE 26

Table 1.2. Generalized longshore sedi ment transport information studies. N Location St. Reference Drift generalizationNotes Reasoning 43.78 Reid Mile/Half Mile ME (Nelson, 1979) N grain size analysis 43.76 Small Point ME (Nelson, 1979) S possibly river flow affected currents structural impoundments, wave refraction studies, aerial photo analysis 43.73 Honeywell Beach ME (Goldschmidt et al., 1991) N gyre created by river output current measurements Honeywell Beach ME (Nelson, 1979) N Reversals common structural impoundments, wave refraction studies, aerial photo analysis 41.72 Morse River Beach ME (Nelson, 1979) S inlet induced re versals common structural impoundments, wave refraction studies, aerial photo analysis 43.50 43.56 Old Orchard Beach ME (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1957) N nodal zone near Old Orchard Beach sediment flux changes Scarborough Beach ME (Nelson, 1979) N grain size analysis Camp Ellis Beach ME (Nelson, 1979 ) N relict spits migrational trends 43.43 43.50 Saco ME (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1957) S nodal zone near Old Orchard Beach structural impoundments Hills Beach ME (Nelson, 1979) S structural impoundments 42.66 42.75 Merrimack Embayment MA (Smith and FitzGerald, 1994)S wave c limate studies, migrations, grain size analysis 42.62 Cape Ann MA (Cunningham and Fox, 1974)N/S divergence between beaches wave refraction, grain size analysis 42.40 Revere Beach MA (Hayes et al., 1973) N (very small) grain size analysis 42.14 Scituate MA (Brenninkmeyer and Nwankwo, 1987) S (very small) reversals are storm related wave energy studies, sediment movement 42.00 42.28 Pemberton Pt. to Gurnet Pt. MA (Weishar and Aubrey, 1988)S local revers als exist sediment movement studies 41.96 Plymouth MA (FitzGerald and Rosen, 1988)N wave approach studies, sediment source analysis, spit migration 41.95 41.89 (B) Manomet Hill to Sandy Neck MA (FitzGerald et al., 1994) S, then E following embayment wave approach studies, sediment source analysis 41.94 42.02 (B) Provincetown (embayed area) MA (Leatherman, 1987) N shadowing of Race Point Spit wave observations 41.87 41.94 (B) Sandy Neck MA (FitzGerald and Rosen, 1988) S spit migration, sediment source analysis 41.87 42.06 (B) Sandy Neck to Race Point MA (Miller and Aubrey, 1985) S spit migration, deposition trends, wave observations, erosion Continued on the next page 16

PAGE 27

Table 1.2 (Continued) 41.94 42.06 (E) Wellfleet to Race Point MA (Miller and Aubrey, 1985) N spit migration, deposition trends, wave observations, erosion Wellfleet to Race Pt. MA (Fisher, 1987) N spit migration, deposition trends, wave observations Wellfleet to Race Pt. MA (Leatherman, 19 87) N spit migration, shoreline studies 41.94 (E) Nauset Beach area MA (Gatto, 1978) Nodal zone 6. 5 mile variance of zone LANDSAT wave front studies 41.54 41.94 (E) Monomoy Island to Wellfleet MA (Miller and Aubrey, 1985) S spit migration, deposition trends, wave observations, erosion Monomoy Island to Wellfleet MA (Fisher, 1987) S spit migration, deposition trends, wave observations Monomoy Island to Wellfleet MA (Leatherman, 1987) S spit migration, shoreline studies Monomoy Island to Wellfleet MA (Goldsmith, 1972) S wave approach studies 41.60 (S) Dead Neck MA (Brownlow, 1979) W Convergence at Cotuit Bay spit orientation, structural impoundments, dredge records Dead Neck MA (Aubrey and Gaines, 1982a) Convergence at Cotuit Bay entrapment, sediment source analysis 41.58 41.60 (S) Popponesset Beach MA (Aubrey and Gaines, 1982b)N inlet dynamics strongly influence longshore drift spit orientation, structural impoundments, dredge records 41.54 41.55 (S) Eel Pond to Waquoit Bay MA (DeWall et al. 1984) E local reversals exist sp it migration, wave observations 41.50 41.65 (S) Embayment coast MA (FitzGerald and Rosen, 1988)E wind and wave studies 41.54 (S) Round Hill towards Apponaganset MA (FitzGerald et al., 1987) E longshore current measurements 41.54 (S) Round Hill towards Mishaum MA (FitzGerald et al. 1987) W longshore current measurements 41.50 41.54 (S) Mishaum Point to Round Hill MA (FitzGerald et al. 1987) E longshore current measurements 41.50 41.54 (S) Slocum, RI to Mishaum Point MA (FitzGerald et al. 1987) W longshore current measurements 41.50 41.54 (S) Slocum Neck to Slocum, RI MA (FitzGerald et al. 1987) E longshore current measurements 41.50 (S) Slocum Neck MA (FitzGerald et al. 1987) W longshore current measurements 41.46 41.50 (S) Gooseberry to Slocum Neck MA (FitzGerald et al. 1987) E current opposite of spit migration longshore current measurements, grain size analysis, wind data 41.46 41.50 (S) Westport River to Gooseberry MA (FitzGerald et al. 1987) W longshore current measurements Westport River to Gooseberry MA (Magee and FitzGerald, 1980) W local reversal at East Horseneck Beach longshore current measurements, grian size analysis Continued on the next page 17

PAGE 28

Table 1.2 (Continued) 41.45 41.50 (S) Sakonnet Point to Westport River MA (FitzGerald et al. 1987) E longshore current measurements 41.34 41.35 (M) Skiff Island, Martha's Vineyard MA (Ogden, 1974) E migrations, l ongshore current studies, shoaling studies 41.25 41.38 (N) Siasconset to Great Point MA (FitzGerald and Rosen, 1988)N wave approach studies, sediment source analysis 41.25 41.35 (N) Siasconset to Muskeget Island MA (FitzGerald and Rosen, 1988)NW dive rgence at Siasconset Point erosion 41.45 41.50 Sakonnet Point to Westport River RI (FitzGerald et al. 1987) E longshore current measurements 41.28 41.46 South shores RI (Fisher, 1988) E migration of inlets, sand deposits crossing bays 41.37 Point Judith RI (McMaster, 1960) E wave studies, mineralogical studies 41.34 41.37 South shores RI (McMaster, 1960 ) W wave studies, mineralogical studies 41.28 41.34 South shores RI (McMaster, 1960 ) E wave studies, mineralogical studies 40.61 41.56 Suffolk County NY (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1955a) S (approx. 229,500) reversals common at points nearer to Montauk beach survey studies 40.78 40.83 Shinnecock Inlet to Moriches Inlet NY (DeWall, 1977) S (approx. 230,000) net decreas es at points eastwardwav e studies, beach changes 40.55 Jones Beach NY (Morton et al. 1986) S (approx. 400,000 600,000) seasonal reversals common jetty impoundment 40.53 41.56 S. shores of Long Is. NY (Taney, 1961a) S reversal s common on east regiongrain size analysis, sediment source stu dies 39.80 40.50 N. Barnegat to Sandy Hook NJ (Fairchild, 1966) N nodal zone exists near Barnegat beach erosion control studies N. Barnegat to Sandy Hook NJ (Ashley et al. 1986) N nodal zone exists near Barnegat wave studies 40.08 40.21 Manasquan to Asbury Park NJ (Gravens et al., 1989) N wave studies, sediment budget analysis 40.08 Manasquan Inlet NJ (Gebert and Hemsley, 1991)N Littoral Environment Observations, structural impoundments 40.00 40.50 Mantaloking to Sandy Hook NJ (Kraus et al., 1988) N dredge records, sediment budget analysis 39.00 39.70 Cape May to Barnegat Inlet NJ (Fairchild, 1966) S nodal zone exists near Barnegat beach erosion control studies Cape May to Barnegat Inlet NJ (Psuty, 1980) S beach erosion Cape May to Barnegat Inlet NJ (Ashley et al. 1986) S nodal zone exists near Barnegat wave studies 39.00 39.40 Cape May to Brigantine Inlet NJ (Ferland, 1990) S wave variations from ebb delta refractions depositional trends, wave observations Continued on the next page 18

PAGE 29

Table 1.2 (Continued) 39.00 39.30 Cape May to Atlantic City NJ (Watts, 1956) S beach erosion control studies 38.60 38.80 Indian River Inlet to Delaware Bay DE (Kraft, 1971) N refraction related reversals from storms structural impoundments, accretion 38.55 38.80 Bethany to DE Bay DE (Lanan and Dalrymple, 1977)N Bethany / S. Bethany nodal zone sediment budget analysis 38.35 38.45 Ocean City, MD to MD-DE line DE (Anders and Hansen, 1990) S structural impoundments, island migration, accretion 38.00 38.45 VA-MD line to MD-DE line DE (Belknap and Kraft, 1985) S migration 38.35 38.45 Ocean City, MD to MD-DE line MD (Anders and Hansen, 1990) S structural impoundments, island migration, accretion 38.35 Ocean City, MD MD (Leatherman, 1979) S structural impoundments 38.00 38.45 VA-MD line to MD-DE line MD (Belknap and Kraft, 1985) S migration 37.10 38.00 Cape Charles to VAMD line VA (Leatherman et al. 1982) S large inlet induced reversals are common wave studies, bar by-passing 36.60 36.90 False Cape to Chesapeake Bay VA (Everts et al. 1983) N nodal zone at 36.60 latitude dredge records, uniform shoreline trends False Cape to Chesapeake Bay VA (Goldsmith et al., 1977) N wave observations, sediment trapping 36.84 Virginia Beach VA (Watts, 1959) N expected south drift but found north based on sediment impoundments 35.20 36.60 Hatteras to False Cape, VA NC (Everts et al. 1983) S based on uniform shoreline retreat Hatteras to Henry, VA NC (Fenster and Dolan, 1993) S budget analysis of littoral cells 36.55 NC-VA line NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) N breaking wave energy calculations 36.30 Corolla NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) N breaking wave energy calculations 36.10 Duck NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) N breaking wave energy calculations 35.90 Kitty Hawk NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) N breaking wave energy calculations 35.80 Kill Devil Hills NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) N breaking wave energy calculations 35.76 Nags Head NC (Langfelder et al. 1968) N breaking wave energy calculations 34.65 35.20 Cape Lookout to Cape Hatteras NC (Pierce, 1969) S sediment budget analysis 33.90 34.25 Wrightsville Beach to Ft. Fisher NC (Winston et al., 1981) S agrees with a ccretions energy flux calculations Wrightsville Beach to Ft. Fisher NC (Miller, 1976) S agrees with accretions visual observations, wave gauge data Continued on the next page 19

PAGE 30

Table 1.2 (Continued) Wrightsville Beach to Ft. Fisher NC (Jarrett, 1977) S inlet reversals common (refraction induced) visual observations, estimated shoreline changes 35.88 Holden Beach NC (Miller, 1983) S wave climate shows opposite current Littoral Environment Observation indicate westward transport 33.87 33.90 Mad Inlet, Tubbs Inlet NC (Chasten, 1992) N not considered representative of region wave data, visual observations 33.85 33.90 NC-SC line to Cape Fear NC (Brown, 1977) S wave energy studies 33.20 35.20 Arcuate strand area NC (Ashton et al., 2001) S local reversals exist inferred by large-scale morphodynamic models 32.05 33.85 South Carolina coast SC (Brown, 1976) S wave energy flux South Carolina coast SC (FitzGerald et al., 1978) S refraction reversals at most inletswave approach studies, structural impoundments 32.05 32.90 Drumstick area SC (Hayes et al., 1976) S drumstick modeling geomorphic evidence 33.86 Bird Island SC (Corson and Resio, 1980) NE (< Waties Is.) extremely variable RCPWAVE modeling 33.85 Little River Inlet SC (Hanson and Knowles, 1988)S no signi ficant transport sediment st udies, geomorphic indicators Little River Inlet SC (Chasten and Seabergh, 1993) NE extremely variable RCPWAVE modeling 33.84 Waties Island SC (Corson and Resio, 1980) NE (sma ll) extremely variable, very slight netRCPWAVE modeling 33.51 Murrells Inlet SC (Douglass, 1987) NE (ver y small) Net transport is only 1-14% of gross transport Littoral Environment Observations Murrells Inlet SC (Hanson and Knowles, 1988)S no signifi cant transport sediment st udies, geomorphic indicators 33.30 North Inlet SC (Finley, 1978) S Transport reversals common and are often caused by storm-related waves wave energy flux, Littoral Enviroment Observations, geomorphic evidence 32.85 Price Inlet SC (FitzGerald, 1976) S inlet refraction reversals wave studies Price Inlet SC (FitzGerald, 1977) S inlet revers als common wave observations, trends of accretion and erosion 32.75 Charleston Harbor SC (Hanson and Knowles, 1988)S no signi ficant transport sediment st udies, geomorphic indicators 32.75 32.90 Bull Island to Isle of Palms SC (Fico, 1978) S reversals common, sudden reduction of transport at Dewees Inlet SSMO wave climate evaluations 32.55 32.74 Kiawah Island to Morris Island SC (Hayes et al. 1976) S geomorphology, wave dominance Continued on the next page 20

PAGE 31

Table 1.2 (Continued) 32.54 32.75 Seabrook Island to Isle of Palms SC (Stephen et al., 1975) S reversals common, depostion N & S common beach erosion studies 32.00 Tybee Island GA (Oertel et al., 1985) N (small) 1 Hurricane can influence entire year of longshore sediment transport data Littoral Environment Observations, wave data 31.70 Tybee to Wassaw Is. GA (Griffin and Henry, 1984) S (v ery small) fairly stable mi gration geomorphic evidence 31.60 St. Catherine's Sound GA (Griffin and Henry, 1984) S migration studies 31.30 31.60 Central Georgia coast GA (Wang et al. 1998) S (2,000 52,000) only 2 sites studied sediment traps 31.50 Sapelo Island GA (Howard et al., 1972) S significant northward trend during most of year with occasional reversals longshore current studies Sapelo Island GA (Pilkey and Richter, 1965) S no significant seasonal wave energy beach profile studies Sapelo Island GA (Howard and Reineck, 1972)S wave energy studies Sapelo Island GA (Wunderlich, 1972) S wa ter temperature studies, ebb delta studies, longshore sand by-pass 31.20 31.40 Gould's Inlet GA (Griffin and Henry, 1984) S migration studies 31.10 Brunswick Harbor GA (Neiheisel, 1965) S ebb-discharge deflection 30.80 30.90 Cumberland Island at Long Point GA (Griffin and Henry, 1984) N migrat ion studies (130 yrs.), sediment movements 25.70 30.70 St. Mary's River to Government Cut FL (Bruun, 1967) S (15,300 382,500)steady decrease towards south dredge records, structural impoundments 26.90 29.70 Mantanzas Inlet to Jupiter Inlet FL (Wang et al. 1998) S (8,000 249,000) wave energy calculations and equations 29.70 Mantanzas Inlet FL (Davis and Fox, 1981) S inle t seasonal reversals common tidal channel change studies 25.70 26.90 Jupiter Inlet to Gov’t Cut FL (Stauble, 1993) S steady decrease towards south wave variations 26.90 Jupiter Inlet FL (Cialone and Staubl e, 1998)S ebb shoal mining documentation 26.40 Boca Raton Inlet FL (Cialone and Sta uble, 1998)S ebb shoal mining documentation 26.60 27.50 Anclote Key to Cape Romano FL (Hine et al., 1986) S (8,415 66,555) tidal inlet reve rsals common observed changes in jettied shoreline position 27.40 Anna Maria Island FL (Cialone and Stauble, 1998)S (approx 24,850) vague sediment budget sediment budget analysis Longboat Key FL (Cialone and Stauble, 1998)S reversals caused by ebb shoal refraction ebb shoal mining documentation 27.20 Siesta Key FL (Davis, 1994) N migr ation studies (3 km migration of geomorphic features over time) Continued on the next page 21

PAGE 32

Table 1.2 (Continued) 27.40 27.60 Sanibel Island FL (Davis 1994) S shoreline change studies 27.10 Midnight Pass FL (Davis, 1994) N shoreline change studies 26.40 Southern Estero Island FL (Jones, 1980) S northern por tion of Island exhibits a northward dredge records 25.10 25.80 lower Gulf coast FL (Bruun, 1967) < 76,500 (no net) low wave energy area wave energy studies *All measurements are in m3/yr. B – denotes locations within Cape Cod Bay S – denotes locations along the sout hern shores of Massachusetts M – denotes locations on Martha’s Vineyard N – denotes locations on Nantucket Island E – denotes locations along open ocean coast of Cape Cod 22

PAGE 33

23 Figure 1.2. Longshore transport for southern Fl orida based on compiled literature. The number beside each arrow is the latitude, which is given for cross-referencing with ta bles. Black arrows are the prevailing interpretation while gr ay arrows indicate results of st udies that strongly disagree with the prevailing interpretation.

PAGE 34

24 Figure 1.3. Longshore transport for northeast Fl orida based on compiled literature. The number beside each arrow is the latitude, which is given for cross-referencing with ta bles. Black arrows are the prevailing interpretation while gr ay arrows indicate results of st udies that strongly disagree with the prevailing interpretation.

PAGE 35

25 Figure 1.4. Longshore transport for northern Florida, Georgia, and southern South Carolina based on compiled literature. The number beside each ar row is the latitude, which is given for crossreferencing with tables. Black arrows are the prev ailing interpretation while gray arrows indicate results of studies that strongly disag ree with the preva iling interpretation.

PAGE 36

26 Figure 1.5. Longshore transport for northern South Carolina and southern North Carolina based on compiled literature. The number beside each ar row is the latitude, which is given for crossreferencing with tables. Black arrows are the prev ailing interpretation while gray arrows indicate results of studies that strongly disag ree with the preva iling interpretation.

PAGE 37

27 Figure 1.6. Longshore transport for northern North Carolina, Virginia and the Delmarva Peninsula based on compiled literature. The number beside each arrow is the latitude, which is given for crossreferencing with tables. Black arrows are the prev ailing interpretation while gray arrows indicate results of studies that strongly disag ree with the preva iling interpretation.

PAGE 38

28 Figure 1.7. Longshore transport for Delaware, New Jersey, and western Long Island based on compiled literature. The number beside each ar row is the latitude, which is given for crossreferencing with tables. Black arrows are the prev ailing interpretation while gray arrows indicate results of studies that strongly disag ree with the preva iling interpretation.

PAGE 39

29 Figure 1.8. Longshore transport for eastern Long Island and southern New England based on compiled literature. The number beside each ar row is the latitude, which is given for crossreferencing with tables. Black arrows are the prev ailing interpretation while gray arrows indicate results of studies that strongly disag ree with the preva iling interpretation.

PAGE 40

30 Figure 1.9. Longshore transport for northern Ne w England based on compiled literature. The number beside each arrow is the latitude, which is given for cross-referencing with tables. Black arrows are the prevailing interpretation while gray ar rows indicate results of studies that strongly disagree with the prevailing interpretation.

PAGE 41

31 1-6: DISCUSSION Southern Florida The Gulf coast of Florida as a whol e exhibits a southbound longshore transport (Hine et al. 1986) as shown with the generalized black arrow [Figure 1.2], though local reversals are common due to inlet dynamics and wave shadowing effects. A disagreement in longshore transport directi on is reported by Davis (1994) near Longboat Key, Florida (27.1 N), which extends to just south of the mouth of Tampa Bay. It appears this conflict is due to local regions of northward flow at several inlets including Longboat Pass, New Pass and Sarasota Pass. Th e conflict is included as a gray arrow on Figure 1.2. Upon closer inspection of the Gulf co ast, site-specific studies of longshore transports show a more complicated pattern. Working in a northto-south fashion, two studies at Longboat Pass, Florida, show a m oderate southbound transport. Davis (1990) reported a rate of 45,800 m3/yr based on wave approach studies while Bruun (1967) reported a rate of 38,250 m3/yr based on the volume of sand impounded at structures such as jetties or groins [Table 1.1]. A re presentative rate of approximately 40,000 m3/yr is shown in Figure 1.2. The southward direction agrees with generalized patterns and may suggest that disagreements reported by Davis (1994) near Longboat Pass may be ephemeral and was present at the time of the study. Local studies done at two different areas of Estero Island, Florida (26.4 N), exhibit relatively small northbound longshore tr ansports. Studies based on dredge records report rates of approximately 36,000 m3/yr (Suboceanic Consultants Inc., 1978)

PAGE 42

32 while studies of wave sh eltering refraction estimate s yield a rate of 16,830 m3/yr (Jones, 1980). Since dredge records can yield overestim ates of sediment transport rates (Cialone and Stauble, 1998), greater emphasis is given to the refraction estimates and a rate of 15,000 – 20,000 m3/yr is reported in Figure 1.2. T hough the site-specific measured longshore transport rates are small, they c onflict with the overall general southward transports reported for the Gulf coast. The re versal is believed to be due to sheltering effects created by Sanibel Island and the lo cal northern protrusion of the coastline westward into the Gulf. This coastal physiography allows northward traveling waves to become the predominant longshore influence within this area (Davis and Hayes, 1984). The generalized studies of the East co ast of Florida exhibit a steady southward longshore transport (Stauble, 1993). Site-sp ecific longshore studies provide a more indepth look at the longshore transport rates. The site-specific studi es yield a southward sediment transport that steadily decreases to the south [Figur e 1.2; Table 1.1]. A southbound sediment transpor t of approximately 175,000 m3/yr at Ft. Pierce Inlet (27.5 N) decreases to ra tes as low as 15,000 m3/yr at Government Cut, Florida (25.75 N), near Miami. This decrease is likely caused by the increasing wave sheltering of the Bahamas platform to the south al ong the east Florida coast (Dean and O'Brien, 1987). Northern Florida General and measured longshore sedime nt transport rate studies along the northeast coast of Florida yiel d results similar to those of the southeast Florida coast [Figure 1.3]. A gradual decrease in transport rates in a north-to-sout h direction is again reported in the site-specific st udies [Tables 1.1 and 1.2]. Meas ured transport rates reach a

PAGE 43

33 maximum for this section near Jacksonville, Florida (30.40 N), at approximately 335,000 m3/yr (Dean and O'Brien, 1987). The gradual decreasing trend reaches a nadir at Sebastien Inlet (27.85 N). Sediment transport rates at the inlet were measured at approximately 200,000 m3/yr. Taken together, the entire east coast of Florida exhibits southward transport with a continuous gradua l decrease in transport rates from near Jacksonville to Miami (Walton, 1976). Northern Florida, Georgia and Southern South Carolina The northern border of Florida shows a general southward longshore transport with site-specific studies lo cated at St. Mary’s River Entrance (Dean and O'Brien, 1987). Sediment transport rate measur ements of approximately 300,000 m3/yr are the maximum observed along the Florida coast [Figure 1.4]. Longshore transport rates decrease gradually towards the south behind the Baha mas platform and decrease rapidly over a short distance to the north as wave energy decreases towards the heart of the Georgia bight (Dean and O'Brien, 1987). In Georgia, it becomes increasingly more difficult and less constructive to interpret a predominant longshore sediment tr ansport direction in an area of coastline where longshore processes are replaced by tidal processes as the dominant factor shaping the coast (Dean and Walton, 1973; Hayes, 1975). This is evident in generalized field studies where a southward sediment transport is observed with frequent local reversals (Griffin and Henry, 1984; Howard et al. 1972; Howard and Reineck, 1972; Oertel et al. 1985; Wang et al. 1998). Site-specific field studies of longshore sediment transport in this area are uncommon due to the nature of the coastal region as stated above.

PAGE 44

34 A northward sediment transport is inte rpreted in the vicinity of Cumberland Island, Georgia (30.80 N). While this longshore transport is mostly based on geomorphic evidence, it is reported that the source of sediment for the migrations is coastal and not estuarine (Griffin and Henr y, 1984) and therefore acceptable evidence. One conflicting area, located at Tybee Island, Georgia (32.0 N), is shown in Figure 1.4, though the reference states this northward sediment transport is ephemeral (Oertel et al. 1985). The coast of South Carolina has numerous site-specific studies. All but one sitespecific field study reports a southbound longsho re sediment transp ort, though southward rates vary from 100,000 m3/yr to 300,000 m3/yr [Table 1.1]. This section of South Carolina remains within the tidally dominate d area of the Georgia bight system (Hayes, 1994). Therefore, it should be noted that reversals and local inlet dynamics commonly disrupt longshore sedi ment flow and should be taken into account when considering longshore sediment transport stud ies of this region. The s poradic distribution of large and small sediment transport rates reported al ong this section of co ast is suggestive of such local interactions. Northern South Carolina and Southern North Carolina The arcuate strand area of South Caro lina and North Carolina provides a good example of how coastal featur es can help create smaller sc ale reversals within a largescale, long-term, constant longshore se diment transport direction (Ashton et al. 2001). Longshore transport direction in this region is predominantly southward as represented by generalized arrows [Figure 1.5] (Brown, 1977; Jarrett, 1977; Jarrett and Hemsley, 1988; Miller, 1976; Miller, 1983; Pierce, 1969; Winston et al. 1981), though local

PAGE 45

35 reversals at inlets are quite common (Chasten and Seabergh, 1993; FitzGerald et al. 1978). Wave-sheltering effects created by the ca pe formations greatly affect the results of site-specific studies located within the wave shadow (Ashton et al. 2001). Three major embayments exist along the arcuate strand of the Carolinas. From north to south they are Raleigh Bay, Onslow Bay and Long Bay. At the latter two bays local longshore measurement field studies re port sediment trans port directions opposite of the general regional transport direction. These apparent reversals documented in sitespecific studies are located at 33.85 N, 33.92 N, 33.93 N, 34.65 N, and 34.69 N [Figure 1.5]. These five regions all sh are two characteristics. All of these studie s are within a proximal distance westward of a cape, which helps to shelter northward and eastward originating waves. Second, all five studies are calculated es timates at local shorelines using breaking wave energy (Langfelder et al. 1968). These common traits among several local studies suggest that beyond th e scope of site-specific phenomena, smallscale regional intera ctions also play a part in the dynamics of the syst em. In this case, the sheltering of these study areas and the shoa ls around the capes are the most dominant factors creating the local revers als in transport directions. Table 1.1 includes a study done by Chasten (1992) that is not represented on Figure 1.5. Chasten’s study, like Langfelder (1968), was done by numerical modeling. However, the results of Chasten (1992) st udy indicate an extremely variable sediment transport that may not be representative of the actual shoreline dyna mics. These results were not included on the map to maintain vi sual clarity, although this case makes the point that data tables contain a more complete record of the published literature than is depicted in the figure.

PAGE 46

36 A reversal in the generalized southbound sediment transport is reported between 33.5 N and 33.9 N (Chasten and Seabergh, 1993; Corson and Resio, 1980; Douglass, 1987). It is possible that this regional reversal is related to sheltering westward of a cape as mentioned above. However, examples of data used to in this area include wave modeling and Littoral Environment Observat ions (LEO). LEO is a project that documented shoreline interactions such as wave data, longshore current direction and occasionally beach changes (Gebert and He msley, 1991). These methods yield results more representative of longshore transport th an wave modeling and therefore are stronger evidence of a reversal and a nodal zone in this area. Th is interpretation suggests a directional divergence near Murrel ls Inlet, South Carolina (33.50 N), and a convergence near the North Carolina – S outh Carolina state line (33.85 N), as shown by the generalized transport arro ws (black) in Figure 1.5. One final observation for this region is a decreasing longshore transport rate from north-to-south similar to the east coast of Florida. Though not as pronounced, and highly variable, a decrease in sedi ment transport rate is s een with values around 300,000 m3/yr near Cape Hatteras to values as low as 50,000 m3/yr in South Carolina [Table 1.1, Figure 1.5]. In Florida, the steady decrease in transport rate was caused by th e increase in sheltering of waves by the Bahamian platform. Here, a steady decrease is likely caused by the increasing proximity to the Georgia Bigh t System or a widening of the continental shelf to lessen wave energy. Within th e Georgia Bight, wave energy impinges on the bottom further off shore because of the con tinental shelf configuration and thus wave energy and transport rates are de creased (Griffin and Henry, 1984).

PAGE 47

37 Northern Outer Banks, Virginia, and the Delmarva Peninsula This region is perhaps the most clearly defined Atlantic coas tline in terms of nodal zones. Three distinct nodal zones, both convergences and di vergences, exist along these shores [Figure 1.6]. While it is certain these large-scale reversals exist, the exact location of nodal zones remains somewhat contr oversial, in particular those that occur on exceptionally smooth coastlines where the locati on of the reversal tends to shift back and forth over time (Ashley et al. 1986). The generalized longshore sediment tran sport directions indicate three nodal zones located near False Cape, Virginia (36.6 N), the mouth of Chesapeake Bay (37.0 N), and in the vicinity of the Delaware – Maryland state line (38.5 N) (Anders and Hansen, 1990; Belknap and Kraft, 1985; Everts et al. 1983; Goldsmith et al. 1977; Komar, 1998; Leatherman, 1979; Leatherman et al. 1982). One area with conflicting reports of the generalized tran sport direction is between 35.7 N and 36.5 N. All of the studies report southw ard flow except Langfelder et al (1968), whose results are based on breaking wave energy calculations. Whethe r errors are a major cause for this disagreement or not, the majority of studies have characterized this region of the Outer Banks as southward and are the basis for a southward interpretation in Figure 1.6 (Everts et al. 1983; Fenster and Dolan, 1993; Johnson, 1 956; McNinch and Wells, 1999; Pierce, 1969). At Rudee Inlet there is a significant range in the magnitude of sediment transport rate between three studies. Bunc h (1969) reported a rate of 53,550 m3/yr northward based on structural impoundments. Later studies by Dean (1989) and Everts (1983)

PAGE 48

38 reported northward rates of 150,000 and 200,000 m3/yr, respectively. A representative rate of approximately 175,000 m3/yr is shown in Figure 1.6. Several littoral cell compartments have been documented along the Delmarva Peninsula, particularly along the Virginia coas t. These compartments are not included in Figure 1.6 as they are commonly caused by local inlet phenomena. To consistently report patterns at the same scale, as mentioned in the methods section, these compartments are included in the data tables only. The site-specific studies, with one exception, agree with the directions reported by the generalized studies, incl uding the presence of three noda l zones. The exception is a local northward direction reported at 34.55 N by Langfelder et al (1968). Along this region all reported conflicts in direction in both generalized and site-specific studies are from one paper, Langfelder (1968), s uggesting these resu lts are suspect. Delaware, New Jersey and Western Long Island This region, like the previous, has thr ee documented nodal zones [Figure 1.7]. Two regional convergences are located at the mouth of Delaware Bay (38.8 N) and at the mouth of the Hudson River (40.5 N). One divergence exists at approximately 39.9 N near the Barnegat Light region of the New Je rsey Shore. New Jersey’s divergence has been significantly studied through the years to determin e its exact location, its relationship to shoreline conf iguration, and the possibility of the nodal zone migrating over the Holocene (Ashley et al. 1986; Fairchild, 1966; Ferland, 1990; Gravens et al. 1989; Oertel and Kraft, 1994). The location of the divergence along the New Jersey coastline has often been attributed to the slight and gradual change in shoreline configur ation near Long Beach

PAGE 49

39 Island, New Jersey (approximately 39.7 N) (Ashley et al. 1986). Site-sp ecific longshore sediment transport directions [Table 1.1], and generalized studies [Table 1.2], agree at all study locations along the shores of Delaware New Jersey, and Western Long Island. Three studies at Barnegat Inlet agree in tran sport direction but not rate. Greater emphasis is given to the two studies that agree and both report a sediment transport rate of 38,250 m3/yr southward [Table 1.1] (C aldwell, 1967; Fa irchild, 1966). The southern portion of the New Jersey coastline is geomorphically characterized as a meso-tidal coast (Lynch-Blosse and Kumar, 1976). This dynamic setting often creates littoral compartments similar to those seen along the Delmarva Peninsula (Belknap and Kraft, 1985). A general sout hbound sediment transport direction is supported by numerous studies (Anders a nd Hansen, 1990; Belknap and Kraft, 1985; Komar, 1998; Leatherman et al. 1982). However, when conducting a study along this section of coast it is important to consider proximity to inlets which can have a drastic effect on wave refraction as far away as a few kilometers (Bird, 2000). Though inlet ebbtidal deltas can act as a sand by-pass unit, they can also interrupt sediment flow downstream and affect sediment transport measurements. These local compartments are not shown in Figure 1.7 but are included in Tables 1.1 and 1.2. Southern New England Figure 1.8 encompasses the eastern edge of Long Island, New York and the coastlines of southern New England in cluding Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Long Island has a constant west ward longshore current as indicated by both generalized studies (black) arrows (DeWall, 1979; Morton et al. 1986; Taney, 1961b; United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1955a) and site-specific longshore transport

PAGE 50

40 studies (color-coded) done at Shinnecock Inlet, New York (Cialone and Stauble, 1998; DeWall, 1979; Koppelman and Davies, 1978). It should be noted that for Figures 1.8 and 1.9 arrows are all drawn to a slightly sma ller scale than earlie r figures to better accommodate the intricate details of the region. As was stated in the methods section, longshore sediment transport trends in the New England region are shown in Figure 1.8 at a finer scale. It is necessary to express the sma ll-scale changes along the southward facing shores of Rhode Island and Massachusetts because the presence of Long Island, Block Island, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Island result in a coast highly sheltered from open ocean wave energy (FitzGerald et al. 1987). Because of this sheltering from deepwater waves, a large proportion of wave energy fluctuation and ultimately longshore current energy fluctuation is generated by local waves. Areas of in tense sheltering such as coastlines within Nantucke t Sound are so reliant on local energy that often times local wind patterns of the day primarily contro l wave energy and ultimately the longshore sediment transport (DeWall et al. 1984). The coast of Rhode Island results reflect the above-mentioned sheltering processes (Fisher, 1988; McMa ster, 1960). Three nodal zone s, apparently shelteringinduced, are observed along this shoreline. It should be noted however, that since these areas of coastline are highly responsive to local phenomena, conditions can often be ephemeral leading to revers als in longshore transport pa tterns depending on recent wind regimes. The small wave fetch of the shel tered areas is evidenced by relatively small longshore sediment transport rates. For inst ance, at Misquamicut Beach, RI the sediment transport rate is westward at 30,000 m3/yr (Morton et al. 1984). Minera logical studies

PAGE 51

41 done in the early 1960s have documented thes e three nodal zones based on sources of sediment and mineral complexes (McMaster, 1960). Later work done on the tracking of sand deposits across bays and inlets has sugge sted a coastline with just one reversal (Fisher, 1988), as indicated by the gray arrow in Figure 1.8. The Massachusetts coast within Buzzard’ s Bay becomes increasingly intricate as sheltering effects increase. It should be noted that only about one-half of all reported reversals are shown on the map. Beaches al ong this region are often littered with reversals as close as a kilometer apart wh ich make visual representation virtually impossible at this scale (FitzGerald et al. 1987; Magee and FitzGerald, 1980). As with the shores of Rhode Island, locally induced wave regimes may be ephemeral and yield relatively small longshore sediment transport rate s. For instance, at Eel Pond Inlet the net sediment transport is eastw ard at less than 12,000 m3/yr (DeWall et al. 1984). However, the prevailing winds of the region tend to establish representative longshore transport directions as outlined in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 (DeWall et al. 1984). Buzzard’s Bay also encases one of the best examples of why geomorphology is not always reliable as an indicator of th e local longshore sediment transport. At approximately 41.55 N is Allen’s Pond. At the east end of the beach is a spit that has been migrating westward over recent history (1934-1980). Initially the spit migration was attributed to a westward longshore sediment transport. It has since been shown that the longshore currents in the area are eastward, opposite that of the migrating spit direction (FitzGerald et al. 1987). The cause of the reversed spit migration is due to the configuration of the inlet behi nd the migrating spit. The ebb flow is directed in such a manner that it erodes the headland, similar to the way a longshore current would in a

PAGE 52

42 longshore induced migration of a spit. The sp it is supplied with sediment from the ebb flow completing a process th at creates a spit growing in a direction opposite of the longshore sediment tr ansport direction. The remaining areas of Southern New E ngland not yet discussed are not the focus of as much debate as are the sheltered areas of the coast. Both Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Island are well defi ned by generalized sediment tr ansport studies (FitzGerald and Rosen, 1988; Ogden, 1974). Nantucket Is land results show a nodal zone caused by the configuration of the eroding headland and ch ange in shoreline orientation. Martha’s Vineyard results show sheltering of waves or iginating from the east. The beaches of Cape Cod and Cape Cod Bay are also prim e examples of coasta l physiography driving longshore patterns. A shorel ine orientation change cause s a regional divergent nodal zone along Cape Cod, similar to that obser ved along the New Jersey coast (Dean and Walton, 1973). Maine The only areas in Maine where sediment transport is of any concern is along a scattered series of pocket beaches (Nels on, 1979) [Figure 1.9]. The remainder of the coast of Maine is essentially devoid of sediment. The largest of the Maine pocket beaches is Saco Bay (43.5 N). Saco Bay has been suggested to have a nodal zone in the area of Old Orchard Beach. The fundamental f eature of pocket beaches is that they are essentially a littoral compartmen t or cell (Nelson, 1979). This self-contained cell and its internal changes in longshore transport direction create lit tle effect on surrounding coastal regions, particularly in a region such as Ma ine where little sediment is available to transport.

PAGE 53

43 1-7. CONCLUSIONS Published field studies were compiled to create a complete and continuous description of longshore sedime nt transport directions and, where available, rates from Tampa Bay, Florida to northern Maine. Bo th generalized and s ite-specific longshore transport studies reported in the literature were compiled and interpreted. Generalized studies of trans port direction indicate sout hward transport on the Gulf coast of Florida, south of Tampa Bay. A s outhward transport dire ction is also found on the east coast of Florida, with rates decreasing to the south due to increased sheltering by the Bahamian platform. Further north, the longshore transport dire ctions are variable with the presence of nodal zones. A dive rgent nodal zone is present near the Florida/Georgia border, a convergent nodal zo ne is present a few 10’s of kilometers further north in the Georgia bigh t. In the region of the Oute r Banks, transpor t direction is primarily southward with a convergent noda l zone near the North Carolina/South Carolina border and a divergent nodal zone a few kilometers further south in Long Bay. Further north, nodal zones become more closely spaced, with a divergent nodal zone at the North Carolina/Virginia border, a converg ent nodal zone at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay and a divergent nodal zone near the Mary land/Delaware border. Even more closely spaced nodal zones are present in southern New England between eastern Long Island and northern Massachusetts. This increase in the density of nodal zones in the New England region is a direct result of more vari ables at the local level, such as inlet and local shoreline orientation in fluences. Further north, along the Maine coast, coastal sediment is limited to pocket beaches where local littoral cells control transport patterns.

PAGE 54

44 CHAPTER TWO Comparison of Deep-water Wave Predic tions with Literature Compilations 2-1. INTRODUCTION The geomorphic evolution of a coastline is a result of the nearshore processes interactive with the inherited geologic framework (Bird, 2000). While the geologic framework of a coastal area in fluences the long term evolut ion of the coast (McNinch, 2004; Riggs et al., 1995), longshor e processes are generally th e predominant influence in the evolution of coas tal features. Along the eastern Un ited States outermost coastline from the northern Maine border to the mout h of Tampa Bay, Florida, an important process of nearshore evoluti on is the longshore transport of sediment along the shoreline (Leatherman, 1988). Longshore sediment tran sport in this region clearly influences geomorphic features such as barrier islands and inlet migration by supplying sediment from sources and depositing at sediment sinks (Davis and Hayes, 1984; FitzGerald et al. 1994; Hine et al. 1986; Lynch-Blosse and Kumar, 1976). There have been many attempts to rela te wave energy with longshore sediment transport rates. Some methods rely on a model to relate factors influencing a shoreline to their effects. A model often used is th e United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Coastal Engineering Research Ce nter’s 1984 Shore Protection Manual model (Wang et al. 1998). This model has terms in common with Komar’s longshore sediment transport equation and the four transport equations compared by Wang et al. (1998) including a breaking wave angle, breaking wave height, and a relationship for water density and gravitational acceleration. Ot her methods of relating wave energy to

PAGE 55

45 longshore transport rely on comparison between measured longshore energy and measured wave energy (Das, 1972). Whether the method is a mathematical model or an evaluation of observations, a fundamental concept is converting wave energy to alongshore current and ultimately longshore se diment transport (Longuet-Higgins, 1970). It has also been shown that direct observati on of wave height and br eaker angle for use in modeling is often unreliable due to difficu lty in estimates (Galvin and Eagleson, 1965). The objective of this study is to derive from Wave Information Study (WIS) data a regional overview of the directions a nd relative magnitudes of longshore sediment transport rates. WIS hindcast data have been used to represent wave climate conditions (Douglass, 1985; Everts et al. 1983; Goldsmith, 1972; Sexton, 1987; United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1957; Weinman, 1971). WIS data have been tested against actual buoys, wave gauge data, observed wave charac teristics and longshore sediment fluxes for local regions of coastlin e (Douglass, 1987; Gravens et al. 1989; Helle, 1958; Jensen, 1983a; Jensen, 1983b; Vincent et al., 1978). In each of the above referenced studies, WIS data were used in wave energy flux a nd/or sediment flux e quations for a specific stretch of coastline. While the previous st udies have succeeded in evaluating the validity of WIS hindcasts at individual locations fo r representing a wave climate, a regional application of WIS data to infer alongshore transport directions and relative magnitudes has not been previously pub lished and is provided here. In this work, WIS hindcast data are used to determine relative potential gross and net sediment transport rates by applying the equations of Ashton et al (2003a), an approach herein referred to as the WIS Deep Water Method (WIS DWM). The directions and relative magnitudes of the calculated tr ansport rates are assessed by comparing the

PAGE 56

46 WIS DWM results to the literature compilation ge neralized results in Chapter One. It is the purpose of this paper to establish th e utility of the WIS DWM as a means of determining longshore transport rate s of the eastern United States. 2-2. DATA This study analyzes Level 2 WIS hindcas t data for 118 offshore locations over a 20 year interval beginning on January 1, 1976 and ending on December 31, 1995 (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2003). The WIS data are a time series hindcast produced in a mathematical wave model base d on meteorological observations and ocean basin characteristics (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2003; United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2003). Each hindcast is specified as a location, often referred to as a buoy, along the United States coastline for whic h the model produces a discretized time series consisting of a suite of data every three hours. There are no actual buoys at the WIS station locations, the data are model results. The wave model developed by the Unite d States Army Waterways Experiment Station (WES) used in the WIS hindcasts in corporates regional phenomena expected at an offshore location that might influence wave data in phases defined as Phase I, II and III [Table 2.1]. Phase I incorporates historic al temperature data, surface pressure data and wind data determined for a given site (o ffshore WIS stations) in order to develop an estimate of wave conditions over the hindcast interval (Jensen, 1983b). Phase II corrects the data to include the effects of wave sheltering from continental geometry and continental shelf depth assuming shore para llel contours [Figure 2.1 and Table 2.1]. The WIS model includes energy dissipa tion as the waves approach shore (Smith and Gravens,

PAGE 57

47 2003). One example of the difference between Phase I and Phase II is a decrease in the wave heights and frequency for waves appr oaching from the northeast at Sandy Hook, NJ due to the presence of Long Island, NY. Phase III further resolves the data set to include estimated coastline conditions [Table 2.1] (Jensen, 1983a). The data set used in this study (1976-1995), include hurricane-influenced waves within the hindcast to simulate storm events in regional-specific sites (Un ited States Army Corps of Engineers, 2003). Table 2.1. Governing factors of 1976-1995 WIS hindcasts. Iterations of WIS hindcast data Governing factors of results Phase I – initial wave data calculations ~ surface air pressure, wind regimes, and temperature data used in computations ~ Hurricane & large storm events are included Phase II – continental sheltering ~ a ccounts for sheltering of waves from continental geometry and landmasses ~ accounts for depth along shelf (assumed straight and parallel) Phase III – wave data calculated for 166 shorelines, each approximately 16 km in length along Atlantic coastline ~ bottom contours at the shore assumed straight and parallel ~ no added energy sources between input location and nearshore analysis ~ sea & swell are assumed independent ~ data generalized for 16 km stretch of coast Information compiled from Jensen (1983a). Hindcast conditions generated by the m odel include: wave height, peak wave period, peak wave direction, mean wave pe riod, mean wave direction, wind speed, and wind direction for the sample time and site in question. An example of raw data taken from station g10 located at 25.00 N, 81.50 W can be seen in Table 2.2. The WIS data represent an estimate of the conditions ove r a three-hour time period. The data are estimated 3-hour averages and not estimates of instantaneous condi tions at three-hour increments. In total, each WIS hindcast st ation contains 58,440 timestamps all of which include the above fields.

PAGE 58

48Table 2.2. Example of raw data tables provid ed by US Army Waterw ays Experiment Station. Station # Date/Time1 Wave Height (m) Peak Period (s) Peak Direction2Mean Period (s) Mean Direction2Wind Speed (m/s) Wind Direction2 10 1976010100 0.1 3 281 3 271 2 300 10 1976010103 0.2 3 295 3 275 3 350 1Date/Time stamp listed in GMT as (year, month, day, hour) 2Direction from which waves approach provi ded in degrees clockwise from true north Figure 2.1. Diagram of WIS bathymetry and Deep-water Equation bathymetry. Both WIS and the deep-water equation assume shore parallel contours, as shown. Influences seaward of the WIS Station are accounted for by the WIS data. Infl uences landward of the WIS Station are accounted for by the Deep-Water equation. The primary error s in the results are introduced by the WIS data set not accounting for some factors influenc ing the wave climate, such as shoals. WIS data have been tested against actual buoy data for local regions of coastline (e.g., Helle, 1958). A direct comparison of th e WIS station wave heights used in this work is not possible because observed wave height data from 1995 and earlier is not available. Level 3 WIS hindcast data, sp anning from 1990 through 1999, have been used to compare WIS wave heights to observed wave heights. Since this study was initiated, Level 3 data have been released. Since the Level 3 data represent a shorter time interval

PAGE 59

49 (1990-1999), the Level 2 data have been used for this analysis of long-term longshore sediment transport. Level 3 data are also not generally available and hence were not used as the primary WIS data set in this study. Wave heights calculated for level 3 WIS station 210, located at 74.92 W and 36.42 N, are compared to NDBC Buoy 44014 located at 74.83 W and 36.58 N. The two locations are ~ 19.5 km apart. A comparison of five years of reported wave height s for WIS station 210 to observed NDBC Buoy 44014 is shown in Figure 2.2 (Palmsten, 2004). If the WIS model data and observed data agree, the points should plot along a straight line with a sl ope of one. Ho urly and daily wave height comparisons show poor agreement, with r-squared values of best-fit linear trends less than 0.02. The monthly results show strong agreement, with an r-squared value of 0.92. This study uses a data set sp anning twenty years making disagreements at short time intervals insignificant. Th e agreement of WIS data and monthly buoy averages suggests that the WIS data provide wave conditions represen tative of long-term conditions.

PAGE 60

50 Figure 2.2. Comparison of modeled wave height at Level 3 WIS Station 210 and measured wave height at NDBC Buoy 44014 using 5 years of data fo r a) hourly, b) daily, and c) monthly averages. Distance between WIS station 210 and NDBC Buoy 44014 is ~19.5 km. For the shorter time intervals a disagreement exists while on the monthly scale the modeled wave heights agree with measured. (Figure courtesy of Margaret Palmsten, USGS, 2004.)

PAGE 61

51 2-3. STUDY AREA WIS hindcast stations used in this stu dy include 10 Gulf of Mexico stations located between the mouth of Tampa Bay, Fl orida and Florida Bay, labeled g10 through g19, and 108 Atlantic Ocean stations located between Key West, Florida and New Brunswick, Canada, labeled a1 through a108. Stat ions vary in proximity to shore, from less than five kilometers offshore on the Atlantic coast of Florida, to approximately 30 kilometers offshore of Maine. WIS stati ons are located at latitude and longitude distances of 0.25 [Figures 2.4-2.11]. Stations vary gr eatly in depth from less than three meters off the Gulf coast of Florida to as deep as 50 meters off the coast of Maine (NOAA, 2000; NOAA, 2001a; NOAA, 2001b; NOAA, 2002a; NOAA, 2002b; NOAA, 2002c; NOAA, 2002d; NOAA, 2002e). The study area consists of all areas of co ast open to oceanic wave regimes. Any shoreline where the majority of the region is situated in sheltered waters by landmasses is not included in this study. For example, due to the location of Long Island and Block Island, the majority of longshor e currents along the Connecticut coastline are influenced by local Long Island Sound phenomena and inlet dynamics (FitzGerald et al. 1994) and are excluded. Other smaller areas excluded include small sheltered sandy beaches located within the mouths of rivers on the coast of Maine as well as Staten Island, NY. The study area is the coastline from the northern Maine border to the mouth of Tampa Bay, Florida. The coastline is divide d into eight similar si zed sections [Figure 1.1] as outlined in Chapter One. In indi vidual maps of each s ection, all maps are

PAGE 62

52 presented at the same scale defined in th e previous chapter of approximately 1:400,000, which is a scale also used by NOAA for nautical charts. 2-4. METHODS In order for the WIS data to be useful in determining longshore sediment transport, the waves needed to be ‘brought to shore’ for a direct correlation. A method for calculating longshore transport developed by Ashton et al (2003a), which is built on the work of Komar (1998), was used. The Komar equation is: Qs = 1.1 g3/2 Hbr 5/2 sin ( b) cos ( b) Equation (1) where Qs denotes sediment flux in m3/day, accounts for the density of seawater, g denotes acceleration due to gravity, and b denotes angle between wave crests and shoreline. This equation is designed to qua ntify longshore sediment transport rates at a site-specific level using localized data. If one assumes waves shoal along shoreparallel contours, the Komar equation becomes: Qs = K Ho 12/5 cos6/5 ( o) sin ( o) Equation (2) where K is a constant that varies base d on local conditions and features, Ho is deepwater wave height, o is deep-water wave angle, and is shoreline orientation (Ashton et al. 2003a). A breaking wave angle ( o) of 0 is one in which the wave rays are traveling from East to West and the wave crest runs north to south. A shoreline orientation ( ) of 0 is one in which the shoreline runs from north to south with water to the east and landmass to the west [Figure 2.3]. The use of the WIS data in Equa tion (2) to determine longshore sediment transport rates is he rein referred to as the WIS DWM.

PAGE 63

53 Figure 2.3. Orientation of coastline ( ) and deep-water wave angle ( o). The value of K is the subject of many studies. Factors that may influence the value of K include beach-sediment grain sizes, water density, beach-sediment settling velocities, and beach slope (Komar, 1998). One of the more important of these contributing factors, grain size, is in versely proportional to the value of K (Dean and Dalrymple, 2002; del Valle et al., 1993; Ka mphuis et al., 1986). Estimates of K are variable, ranging from 0.4 (e.g., Haas and Hanes, 2003) to values as high as 1.65 (e.g, Komar 1998). A valid interpretation of the strike of the shoreline used in Equa tion (2) is critical to meaningful results. This is difficult to obtain in areas where WIS stations are located near capes or coastal promontories where any number of coastline strike angles are present. Table 2.4 and Figures 2.4 through 2.11 s how the angle used in the calculation to aid in the interpretation of the results. NOAA Nautical charts ranging in scale from 1:378,838 to 1:470,940 were used to determine a shoreline angle ( ) used in the deep-water e quation for each WIS station.

PAGE 64

54 The WIS data provided a wave crest angle ( ) and wave height (Ho) which when applied to the equation yields a net sediment flux (Qs). The sediment fluxes for each 3-hour hindcast were calculated for all 118 stations [Table 2.4]. Each of the 118 stations has 58,440 deep-w ater sediment transport calculations, one for each 3-hour period in the hindcast, similar to the example below [Table 2.3]. Since the hindcast stations are located offshore, angles of wave approach can occur in all directions. However, at the nearest shorelin e with the coastline angle used in the WIS DWM angles of wave approach can only be a maximum of 90 from shore normal in either direction, totaling in 180 of possible wave approach angles. The remaining 180 become imaginary numbers for relative sediment transport magnitudes in the calculations. Imaginary numbers represen t waves moving away from shore and are discarded as they will not cause longshor e transport (Murray, 2004). The calculated results of Equation (2) can be used to obt ain both net and gross longshore sediment transport. Positive values indicate one direction of longshore transport while negative values indicate the opposing di rection. The sum of these va lues yields a net longshore sediment transport while the sum of the ab solute values results in a gross longshore sediment transport [Table 2.3]. Table 2.3. An example of deep-water calculations taken from station g10 in the Gulf of Mexico. Date/Time Ho (m) Mean Wave Direction1 cos( ) Cos6/5( )sin( ) Ho 12/5 Qs GrossQs Net 1995122806 0.3 0 27025614 0.97029 0.96446 0.241920.05560 0.0129730.01297 1988081912 0.8 91 1 256-255 -0.25881 I 0.965920.58535 i I 1979022618 1.7 301 211256-45 0.70710 0.65975 -0.70710 3.57336 1.667166-1.66716 1Directions from which waves approach prov ided in degrees clockwise from true north. Note: Positive net sediment flux indi cates a right-to-left transport when facing o ffshore. A calculation in which the end result is imaginary denotes an instance where an offshore hi ndcast estimated wave approac hes from an onshore position, a scenario will not cause l ongshore sediment transport.

PAGE 65

55 Errors are introduced in the WIS DWM fr om both the initial WIS hindcast and the transformation of the deep-water wave data to longshore transport th rough the deep-water equation. The WIS data set introduces any er rors in all behavior seaward of the WIS station. The deep-water equation only acc ounts for behavior between the WIS station and shore [Figure 2.1] (Ashton et al. 2003a). The potential causes of errors introduced by the WIS data include those of the calculated values during Phase I, II and III calculations. More significant errors in the WIS data are probably due to factors that in fluence wave climate that are not accounted for by the WIS model. For instance, the WI S model assumes shore-parallel bathymetry on the continental shelf. Irregular bathymetry such as canyons and shoals can significantly influence wave climate. This assumption is anticipated to introduce the greatest errors to the WIS-deri ved longshore transport values. 2-5. MODELING ERRORS There are numerous potential errors introduced by the deep-water equation, Equation (2). First, as with the WIS m odel, the deep-water equation assumes shoreparallel bathymetry. Since the deep-water equation only accounts for behavior between the WIS station and shore, the assumptions of shore-parallel bathymetry will result in relatively small errors relative to the WIS data (Ashton et al. 2003a). Second, as discussed in the Met hods Section, the value of is K not well known. The reported values of K are highly variable. Since the parameters controlling K

PAGE 66

56 within the study are not sufficiently known, the K value was assumed to be equal to 1 to remove uncertainties caused by variations of K Because of this assumption, the values attained for Qs are only relative to other areas of co astline and are not representative of absolute values of longshore sediment trans port. When applying E quation (2) to the WIS data when the value K is not uniquely specified for each location, the calculated results yield estimates of sediment transport rates. Third, Equation (2) is appropriate for deep -water waves. Deep-water waves refer to those that do not interact w ith the bottom. Therefore, at stations in depths of 20m or greater Equation (2) is appropriate for waves with less than a five second period. In some stations, the water depths are less than 20m and/or wave peri ods exceed five seconds, so slight errors are expected in the calculated rates. However, the errors due to the deepwater assumption are estimated to be smaller than 5% (Murray, 2004), which is not significant relative to other errors. Fourth, the coastline orientation, used in Equation (2), can significantly effect the determined longshore sediment transport. This is the case at WIS station a59, located nearly equidistant from the nor th and south shores of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. Station a59’s wave information inputted into E quation (2) will yield ei ther a northerly or southerly sediment transport direction depending on the angle of the coastline used. Choosing the shoreline angle representative of the northern coast yields a southward longshore transport while a shoreline angle repr esentative of the southern coast shoreline yields a northward longshore transport, both in agreement with field studies.

PAGE 67

57 Equation (2) assumes shoaling and refracti on within the context of shore-parallel bathymetry (Murray and Ashton, 2003) but on a di fferent scale than th e WIS data [Figure 2.1]. A series of WIS stations along a partic ular coastline may refl ect a general longshore transport direction over a region of coast ranging from 10s to 100s of kilometers. However, local reversals on the order of 10s of kilometers or less may exist that are not representative of the results of the hind cast information due to wave refraction over irregular contours (Ash ton et al., 2003b). Other local pr ocesses and phenomena may also affect longshore sediment transport, such as ebb-tidal flow or anthropogenic structures (Lynch-Blosse and Kumar, 1976) making the WIS DWM only appropriate for regional scale interpretations. 2-6. RESULTS These results emphasize the relative magnitudes of net and gross longshore sediment transport rates between different loca tions in the study area. These values will be referred to as net and gross potential transports. Note that the ratio of the net transport direction magnitude to the gross transport is vital to interpreting relative longshore transport directions. Areas with large ratios of net to gross sediment transport have clearly defined transport direc tions. Areas with large gross sediment transport and small net sediment transport may be subj ect to further scrutiny [Table 2.4]. A representation of the results from the WIS DWM is shown in Figures 2.4 through 2.11 based on data from Table 2.4. A s outh-to-north presenta tion of the figures is provided to coincide with the num bering of the 1976-1995 Level 2 WIS hindcast stations. The WIS-derived l ongshore transport rates will be compared to large-scale

PAGE 68

58 (greater than 25 km) generalized longshore se diment transport results reported in Chapter One and not to more ephemeral, smaller-scale (less than 25 km) behavior. Table 2.4: Deep-water wave equation results for hindcasted shorelines. Station State Station Latitude Station Longitude Shoreline Latitude Shoreline Longitude Qs Gross Qs Net Net as % of Gross G10 FL 25.00 -81.50 24.85 -81.50 256 4552.0 482.1 10.6 G11 FL 25.00 -81.25 25.10 -81.15 147 1791.6 1441.7 80.5 G12 FL 25.25 -81.25 25.25 -81.20 165 1569.7 960.0 61.2 G13 FL 25.50 -81.50 25.65 -81.35 158 2382.8 1234.6 51.8 G14 FL 25.75 -81.75 25.85 -81.75 132 3083.1 1769.6 57.4 G15 FL 26.00 -82.00 26.00 -81.85 163 3096.4 968.3 31.3 G16 FL 26.25 -82.00 26.25 -81.87 173 2033.8 -468.4 -23.0 G17 FL 26.50 -82.50 26.50 -82.30 166 4309.3 771.0 17.9 G18 FL 26.75 -82.50 26.75 -82.35 170 3596.6 -98.2 -2.7 G19 FL 27.00 -82.50 27.00 -82.45 155 3068.0 -109.6 -3.6 A1 FL 24.50 -81.25 24.60 -81.25 76 12524.1 -11509.6 -91.9 A2 FL 24.50 -81.00 24.65 -81.00 69 15072.5 -13506.4 -89.6 A3 FL 24.50 -80.75 24.75 -80.79 63 16814.4 -14832.7 -88.2 A4 FL 24.75 -80.50 24.89 -80.57 49 21436.6 -18208.8 -84.9 A5 FL 25.00 -80.25 25.08 -80.35 40 23391.4 -18628.3 -79.6 A6 FL 25.25 -80.00 25.29 -80.21 29 23435.4 -16342.1 -69.7 A7 FL 25.50 -80.00 25.50 -80.12 17 24075.7 -14077.5 -58.5 A8 FL 25.75 -80.00 25.75 -80.08 10 24229.5 -12636.8 -52.2 A9 FL 26.00 -80.00 26.00 -80.05 5 26603.5 -14538.5 -54.6 A10 FL 26.25 -80.00 26.25 -80.02 6 27723.3 -15889.7 -57.3 A11 FL 26.50 -80.00 26.50 -79.97 7 29961.4 -18244.4 -60.9 A12 FL 26.75 -80.00 26.75 -79.97 0 34822.6 -22821.0 -65.5 A13 FL 27.00 -80.00 27.00 -80.01 344 35074.3 -19447.3 -55.4 A14 FL 27.25 -80.00 27.25 -80.11 338 35987.5 -15567.8 -43.3 A15 FL 27.50 -80.00 27.50 -80.23 343 20261.4 -5834.7 -28.8 A16 FL 27.75 -80.00 27.75 -80.25 339 43877.3 -8495.9 -19.4 A17 FL 28.00 -80.25 28.00 -80.37 336 34986.5 -1076.4 -3.1 A18 FL 28.25 -80.25 28.25 -80.43 358 46858.1 -29998.7 -64.0 A19 FL 28.50 -80.25 28.50 -80.40 337 42094.7 1671.3 4.0 A20 FL 28.75 -80.25 28.75 -80.52 330 45612.4 13670.1 30.0 A21 FL 29.00 -80.50 29.00 -80.71 332 35118.2 5151.9 14.7 A22 FL 29.25 -80.75 29.25 -80.87 337 34383.8 168.2 0.5 A23 FL 29.50 -81.00 29.50 -81.02 339 30676.9 1742.9 5.7 A24 FL 29.75 -81.00 29.75 -81.11 346 32104.5 -1301.6 -4.1 A25 FL 30.00 -81.00 30.00 -81.18 346 34381.0 2275.2 6.6 Continued on the next page Table 2.4 (Continued)

PAGE 69

59A26 FL 30.25 -81.25 30.25 -81.29 349 21441.1 -5983.6 -27.9 A27 FL 30.50 -81.25 30.60 -81.34 351 23302.0 4103.7 17.6 A28 GA 30.75 -81.25 30.75 -81.35 6 4584.6 4551.4 99.3 A29 GA 31.00 -81.25 31.00 -81.32 5 20265.0 7380.2 36.4 A30 GA 31.25 -81.00 31.25 -81.20 16 24926.3 -7054.1 -28.3 A31 GA 31.50 -81.00 31.50 -81.10 22 21198.2 -4888.3 -23.1 A32 GA 31.75 -80.75 31.80 -80.93 34 27650.5 -13052.3 -47.2 A33 SC 32.00 -80.50 32.07 -80.65 32 26007.1 -8823.0 -33.9 A34 SC 32.25 -80.25 32.31 -80.37 38 31079.4 -12875.0 -41.4 A35 SC 32.50 -80.00 32.55 -80.02 73 24066.8 -13741.4 -57.1 A36 SC 32.75 -79.50 32.84 -79.56 50 24871.0 -6344.4 -25.5 A37 SC 33.00 -79.00 33.06 -79.21 42 27965.3 -4076.1 -14.6 A38 SC 33.25 -79.00 33.28 -79.10 10 23728.2 -10246.1 -43.2 A39 SC 33.50 -78.75 33.55 -78.90 37 23251.8 -741.1 -3.2 A40 SC 33.75 -78.50 33.80 -78.55 66 24112.7 -6410.0 -26.6 A41 NC 33.75 -78.00 33.80 -78.00 68 29339.9 -2883.8 -9.8 A42 NC 34.00 -77.75 34.01 -77.82 18 29906.6 5433.1 18.2 A43 NC 34.25 -77.50 34.33 -77.58 46 26867.4 218.5 0.8 A44 NC 34.25 -77.25 34.45 -77.35 58 30637.7 213.7 0.7 A45 NC 34.25 -77.00 34.60 -77.03 59 33936.0 994.7 2.9 A46 NC 34.50 -76.75 34.65 -76.75 85 31296.7 -6076.5 -19.4 A47 NC 34.50 -76.50 34.54 -76.50 33 40382.3 -2546.5 -6.3 A48 NC 34.75 -76.25 34.79 -76.29 38 32166.7 -1902.3 -5.9 A49 NC 34.75 -76.00 34.95 -76.10 43 40441.7 2568.1 6.4 A50 NC 35.00 -75.75 35.11 -75.76 60 43926.3 -3953.2 -9.0 A51 NC 35.00 -75.50 35.15 -75.55 65 49930.5 2758.7 5.5 A52 NC 35.25 -75.25 35.28 -75.43 9 47479.0 -8815.4 -18.6 A53 NC 35.50 -75.25 35.50 -75.38 8 64553.0 -26832.0 -41.6 A54 NC 35.75 -75.25 35.75 -75.39 341 62728.5 -17854.4 -28.5 A55 NC 36.00 -75.25 36.00 -75.52 336 61494.9 -14642.8 -23.8 A56 NC 36.25 -75.50 36.25 -75.67 341 45480.8 -17895.1 -39.3 A57 NC 36.50 -75.75 36.50 -75.78 351 33024.6 -13061.1 -39.5 A58 VA 36.75 -75.75 36.75 -75.85 344 36038.2 5673.0 15.7 A59 VA 37.00 -75.75 36.90 -75.91 342 29925.5 9970.0 33.3 A60 VA 37.25 -75.50 37.25 -75.70 23 39607.3 -16549.8 -41.8 A61 VA 37.50 -75.50 37.52 -75.55 28 33183.5 -8596.2 -25.9 A62 VA 37.75 -75.25 37.79 -75.40 30 37904.0 -7021.2 -18.5 A63 MD 38.00 -75.00 38.04 -75.13 28 37441.9 -8180.4 -21.8 A64 MD 38.25 -75.00 38.26 -75.03 21 35400.1 -8795.5 -24.8 A65 DE 38.50 -75.00 38.50 -75.00 358 30616.5 2948.9 9.6 A66 DE 38.75 -75.00 38.75 -75.03 355 22213.8 10467.7 47.1 A67 NJ 39.00 -74.50 39.12 -74.62 30 36164.2 5739.0 15.9 A68 NJ 39.25 -74.25 39.34 -74.34 44 37687.3 761.8 2.0 A69 NJ 39.50 -74.00 39.60 -74.11 29 43601.0 448.3 1.0 Continued on the next page Table 2.4 (Continued)

PAGE 70

60A70 NJ 39.75 -74.00 39.75 -74.02 9 38335.0 6609.5 17.2 A71 NJ 40.00 -74.00 40.00 -73.98 11 34319.0 11400.0 33.2 A72 NJ 40.25 -73.75 40.25 -73.91 12 33406.0 12497.0 37.4 A73 NY 40.50 -73.75 40.55 -73.75 87 28778.2 -16076.4 -55.9 A74 NY 40.50 -73.50 40.53 -73.50 79 35649.0 -5614.0 -15.7 A75 NY 40.50 -73.25 40.58 -73.25 81 42339.2 -3773.0 -8.9 A76 NY 40.50 -73.00 40.66 -73.00 68 47797.5 2987.8 6.3 A77 NY 40.50 -72.75 40.68 -72.75 67 49083.8 2499.7 5.1 A78 NY 40.75 -72.50 40.77 -72.50 71 44203.3 -55.2 -0.1 A79 NY 40.75 -72.25 40.84 -72.25 65 51193.7 8981.2 17.5 A80 NY 40.75 -72.00 40.92 -72.00 61 51682.1 12374.6 23.9 A81 RI 41.00 -71.75 41.25 -71.75 62 48348.2 9587.9 19.8 A82 RI 41.00 -71.50 41.08 -71.52 73 53719.3 11127.5 20.7 A83 RI 41.25 -71.25 41.39 -71.25 75 41587.5 17047.1 41.0 A84 MA 41.25 -71.00 41.40 -71.05 79 44000.8 18663.4 42.4 A85 MA 41.25 -70.75 41.25 -70.75 82 45063.0 20130.8 44.7 A86 MA 41.25 -70.50 41.27 -70.50 90 45567.6 19164.4 42.1 A87 MA 41.25 -70.25 41.21 -70.25 123 47551.4 2715.3 5.7 A88 MA 41.00 -70.00 41.16 -70.00 72 57882.9 22934.8 39.6 A89 MA 41.25 -69.75 41.26 -69.88 354 49435.7 -8644.7 -17.5 A90 MA 41.50 -69.75 41.57 -69.89 11 46863.7 630.9 1.3 A91 MA 41.75 -69.75 41.75 -69.81 352 62957.8 -11719.7 -18.6 A92 MA 42.00 -69.75 42.00 -69.88 332 58658.8 -10252.4 -17.5 A93 MA 42.00 -70.50 42.00 -70.54 331 21814.2 -18766.5 -86.0 A94 MA 42.25 -70.50 42.20 -70.60 331 39377.6 -6769.2 -17.2 A95 MA 42.50 -70.50 42.57 -70.58 57 34897.8 -17960.4 -51.5 A96 MA 42.75 -70.50 42.75 -70.66 338 40508.1 4908.1 12.1 A97 NH 43.00 -70.50 43.00 -70.60 33 45013.9 -12455.6 -27.7 A98 ME 43.25 -70.50 43.25 -70.50 17 31758.2 5765.0 18.2 A99 ME 43.50 -70.25 43.50 -70.25 47 33948.3 4276.0 12.6 A100 ME 43.50 -69.75 43.70 -69.65 59 65274.9 15041.6 23.0 A101 ME 43.75 -69.50 43.77 -69.50 46 51527.0 28273.4 54.9 A102 ME 43.75 -69.00 43.95 -69.05 42 57117.9 25013.3 43.8 A103 ME 44.00 -68.50 44.01 -68.53 18 47228.6 31358.4 66.4 A104 ME 44.25 -68.00 44.29 -68.00 17 42643.1 30586.1 71.7 A105 ME 44.25 -67.50 44.38 -67.50 55 69160.9 41948.0 60.7 A106 ME 44.25 -66.75 44.64 -67.06 50 57825.3 44787.3 77.5 A107 ME 44.50 -66.50 44.61 -66.62 45 46688.3 35992.5 77.1 A108 ME 44.75 -66.25 44.89 -66.85 4 11137.7 -4746.2 -42.6

PAGE 71

61 Figure 2.4. Map of southern Florida showing WIS hindcast stations, hindcasted shorelines, and potential gross and net sediment transport rates. Spheres represent gross potential transports. Sphere size is related to magnitude as calculated by the deep-water equati on. Arrows indicate direction of net sediment transport, size of net value and strike parallel to the coastline orientation used in the deep-water equation. Spheres and arrows are moved near shore and are independently sized for clarity (net arrow sizes are enhanced for visual clarity).

PAGE 72

62 Figure 2.5. Map of northern Florida showing WIS hindcast stations, hindcasted shorelines, and potential gross and net sediment transport rates. Spheres represent gross potential transports. Sphere size is related to magnitude as calculated by the deep-water equati on. Arrows indicate direction of net sediment transport, size of net value and strike parallel to the coastline orientation used in the deep-water equation. Spheres and arrows are moved near shore and are independently sized for clarity (net arrow sizes are enhanced for visual clarity).

PAGE 73

63 Figure 2.6. Map of northern Florida, Georgia, and southern South Carolina showing WIS hindcast stations, hindcasted shorelines, and potential gross and net sediment transport rates. Spheres represent gross potential transports. Sphere size is related to magnitude as calculated by the deepwater equation. Arrows indicate direction of net se diment transport, size of net value and strike parallel to the coastline orientation used in the deep-water equation. Spheres and arrows are moved near shore and are independently sized for clarity (n et arrow sizes are enhan ced for visual clarity).

PAGE 74

64 Figure 2.7. Map of northern South Carolina an d southern North Carolina showing WIS hindcast stations, hindcasted shorelines, and potential gross and net sediment transport rates. Spheres represent gross potential transports. Sphere size is related to magnitude as calculated by the deepwater equation. Arrows indicate direction of net se diment transport, size of net value and strike parallel to the coastline orientation used in the deep-water equation. Spheres and arrows are moved near shore and are independently sized for clarity (n et arrow sizes are enhan ced for visual clarity).

PAGE 75

65 Figure 2.8. Map of northern North Carolina, Vi rginia, Maryland, and southern Delaware showing WIS hindcast stations, hindcasted shorelines, and potential gross and net sediment transport rates. Spheres represent gross potential transports. Sphere si ze is related to magnitude as calculated by the deep-water equation. Arrows indicate direction of net sediment transport, size of net value and strike parallel to the coastline or ientation used in the deep-water eq uation. Spheres and arrows are moved near shore and are independently sized for cl arity (net arrow sizes are enhanced for visual clarity).

PAGE 76

66 Figure 2.9. Map of northern Delaware, New Jersey, and central and western Long Island showing WIS hindcast stations, hindcasted shorelines, and potential gross and net sediment transport rates. Spheres represent gross potential transports. Sphere si ze is related to magnitude as calculated by the deep-water equation. Arrows indicate direction of net sediment transport, size of net value and strike parallel to the coastline or ientation used in the deep-water eq uation. Spheres and arrows are moved near shore and are independently sized for cl arity (net arrow sizes are enhanced for visual clarity).

PAGE 77

67 Figure 2.10. Map of eastern Long Island and southern New England showing WIS hindcast stations, hindcasted shorelines, and potential gross and net sediment transport rates. Spheres represent gross potential transports. Sphere size is related to magnitude as calculated by the deep-water equation. Arrows indicate direction of net sediment transport, size of net value and strike parallel to the coastline orientation used in the deep-water equati on. Spheres and arrows a re moved near shore and are independently sized for clarity (net arro w sizes are enhanced for visual clarity).

PAGE 78

68 Figure 2.11. Map of northern New England showing WIS hindcast stations, hindcasted shorelines, and potential gross and net sediment transport rates. Spheres represent gross potential transports. Sphere size is related to magnitude as calculated by the deep-water equati on. Arrows indicate direction of net sediment transport, size of net value and strike parallel to the coastline orientation used in the deep-water equation. Spheres and arrows are moved near shore and are independently sized for clarity (net arrow sizes are enhanced for visual clarity).

PAGE 79

69 2-7. DISCUSSION Overview of WIS deep -water method results Figure 2.12 provides a visual comparison of WIS DWM net and gross transport rates. Where net transport rates are a signi ficant proportion of gross transport rates there is a clearly determined longshore transport direct ion. When net is small relative to gross, the transport direction is not as well determined with no dominant transport direction. In these regions more disagreement within publis hed literature is expected. In addition, these regions are likely to have more disagreements between WIS DWM transport directions and directions repor ted in the literature compilation. As a general rule of thumb, if the net sediment transport rate cal culated by the WIS DWM is less than 10% of the gross calculation then it is anticipated that the WIS DWM results may fail to agree with the published literature. Figure 2.13 plots the pattern of gross re lative potential sediment transport predicted by the WIS DWM. An asymmetri cal saw-tooth pattern is observed with decreasing transport rates at de creasing latitudes. The peak s in gross potential transport correspond to geographical areas where the 100meter contour approaches the shoreline, allowing for more wave energy to reach shore. This pattern of a decrease in gross transport rates from north to s outh is repeated three times, wi th peaks located at stations a21 north of Florida, a55, off the Outer Ba nks of North Carolina, and a92 off Cape Cod, all of which correspond to regions of narrow continental shelf.

PAGE 80

70 Figure 2.12. Percentage of gross relative potential sedi ment transport with a net direction. Positive values denote longshore transport rates to the right when looking offshore.

PAGE 81

71 Figure 2.13. Gross and net relative potential sediment transport index values. Positive values denote longshore transport rates to th e right when looking offshore.

PAGE 82

72 Southern Florida It is difficult to compare WIS hindcast derived longshore estimates with measured values, as waves are inherently small along the s outhern section of the Florida Gulf coast. However, local conditions not withstanding, the WIS DWM results agree with the generalized longshore sediment tr ansport directions determined in Chapter One. Five of seven hindcasted shorelines exhibit a southwar d sediment transport consistent with the generalized transport direction (see Chapter On e) [Figure 1.2 and 2.4] The two stations in disagreement have net sediment transpor t results that are less than 10% of gross transport. Within the context of this st udy, potential sources of error outlined in subsection Overview of WIS deep water method results are believed to be capable of resulting in incorrect determin ations of transport direction when net transport is within 10% of gross transport. Along the Florida Gulf coast, the largest longshore measurements reported in the literature were a pproximately 40,000 m3/yr, which is relatively small compared to the Atlantic coast. Consistent with the local studies, the WIS DWM results exhibit the same pattern of small net and gross transport rates on the Gulf coast relative to the larger values on the east coast of Florida [Figure 2.4]. Gro ss sediment transport rates for many stations of the Gulf coast are less th an 25% of those along the Florida east coast [Figure 2.4 and Table 2.4]. Points south of Cape Romano (26.5 N; northwest of WIS Station g14) along the Gulf coast exhibit a mesotidal shoreline, desp ite having a tidal range similar to adjacent shorelines to the north. The increased sheltering of waves created by changes in shoreline configuration and th e location of the Florida Keys within this area cause a

PAGE 83

73 decrease in wave energy reaching the coast (Davis and Hayes, 1984). This region is well described by the WIS DWM results with sm aller longshore sediment transport rates [Table 2.4]. Along the east coast of southern Fl orida, WIS DWM results show a general decrease in gross sediment transport potential from north to south. This pattern of decreasing gross sediment transport rates is due to sheltering by the Bahamas platform and is consistent with the work of Hubba rd et al (1979). WIS DWM results show a southward flow reaching a maximum net poten tial sediment transport rate of 29,999 at 28.25 N, near Cape Canaveral, th e lowest values are 12,636 at 25.75 N, near Government Cut. Comparison between WI S DWM results and literature compilations south of Government Cut is not possible as longshore transport field studies are not conducted in the Florida Keys where coral reefs hinder wave-sed iment interactions. Overall, in the southern Florida region including both Gulf and Atlantic coasts there are 15 WIS stations where compiled liter ature studies are available for comparison. At 12 of 15 of these stations, the direction calculated by WI S agree with the generalized longshore sediment transport stud ies in the compiled l iterature. For two of the 15 stations that disagree, the net transport rate is with in 10% of the gross re sulting in no dominant transport direction. All three of the disagreei ng stations have net transport values within 25% of gross. The WIS DWM results accurate ly model the decrease in net transport from north to south along the eastern Florid a coast as reported in the compiled literature. Northern Florida WIS DWM results along nor th Florida’s east coast exhibit a general southward sediment transport pattern as determined for 5 of 12 stations in agreement with compiled

PAGE 84

74 literature results. The seven st ations that yield northward ne t transport disagree with the literature compilations. Five of these stations yield net sedime nt transport results that are within 10% of gross so there is again no dominant transport direction [Table 2.4]. Station a20 and a21 yield substan tial net northbound sediment transports of 13,670 and 5152, respectively [Figure 2.5 and Table 2.4]. Th e disagreements between WIS DWM and the literature at these locations may be influen ced by several local features including coral beds in parts of this region and inlet refraction. The local conditions not accounted for by the WIS DWM may explain the disagreement. The WIS model takes into account she ltering affects of landforms (Jensen, 1983b). This is evident in the decreasing values of WIS and compiled data along the Southeast Florida coast. However, the WIS model does not take in to account underwater landforms. The Bahamian submarine platform extends somewhat further north than the Bahamian Islands. The lack of consideration of irregular bathymetry such as underwater platforms in the WIS model is likely to have resulted in the large WIS DWM results. Thus, for the east coast of Florida the WI S DWM results generally yield an accurate southward sediment transport direction but overestimate the relative magnitude of sediment transport for the southeast coast. Northern Florida, Georgia, and Southern South Carolina The Georgia Bight system is similar to the low energy coast of southwest Florida in that it exhibits lower wave heights than its adjacent coastline due to sheltering by coastal physiography of the ad jacent coast (Davies, 1964; Davis and Hayes, 1984). Mean wave heights have been gauged as high as 1.2 meters in North Carolina, decreasing to 0.1 meters in central Georgia, the heart of the Georgia Bight and then increasing again

PAGE 85

75 towards the Florida coast (Hubbard et al. 1979). This nadir in wave height in central Georgia is observed in WIS DWM results. When comparing WIS DWM results to loca l field studies, it should be noted that inlet processes affecting the shoreline configuration along this section of coast are capable of causing a disagreement between WIS data and the actual wave climate. This disagreement is likely because the angles of wave incidence change drastically over very short spatial scales along the coast as shorel ine orientations abruptly change (Nelson, 2001). That said, the WIS DWM transport dire ctions at all 12 stations agree with generalized field stud ies in this region. The WIS hindcasted shorelines exhibit both southward transport and reduced potential transport results due to the reduced wave energy in the Georgia Bight System [Figure 2.6 and Table 2.4]. This reduction is not always evident in local field studies in this region. Sediment transport rate s mentioned earlier approached 300,000 m3/yr which may be evidence of how strongly local features may affect currents, as many of the local studies were conducted near inlets. Thus, fo r this region the reporte d transport rates are highly variable locally, while overall there a ppears to be a general southward sediment transport, which is correctly modeled by the WIS DWM. While a decrease in wave height in this region is modeled by WIS data, a change in tidal range is not. Unlike southwest Flor ida, the bight system exhibits a significant increase in tidal range. The magnifying as pect of the Georgia Bight embayment causes this increase and results in the highest tides in the south east United States (Griffin and Henry, 1984). Other local influences that play a role in this area include riverine water and sediment discharges (Davis and Hayes, 1984). Local phenomena that are augmented

PAGE 86

76 by a large tidal range, such as a larger ebb-tida l delta, are likely to result in errors in the WIS DWM which does not account for these conditions (Jensen, 1983a). As was the case with inaccurate reversals modeled by th e WIS DWM in the Florida region, for the conflicting stations along the Georgia Bight, almost all of the hi ndcasted shoreline net potential sediment transport rates are small compared to gross (e.g., less than 10%). Northern South Carolina and Southern North Carolina South of the arcuate strand of North a nd South Carolina is a transition zone between wave-dominated and tide-dominated coastlines (Hayes, 1994). Recent coastal models suggest a north-to-south sediment tr ansport based on the configuration of the capes within the arcuate strand (Ashton et al. 2001). Numerous inle t studies in this study region show that inlet dynamics and wave re fraction highly influen ce the local sediment movement near inlets, with longshore tran sport playing a lesser role (Chasten, 1992; Fico, 1978). WIS DWM results w ithin this region continue to show small net potential sediment transport rates along with moderate to small gross rates. The northern section of this study region is entirely wave-dominated. One wave dominated segment of coastline represented by WIS stations a52 and a53 is situated just north of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina [Figur e 2.7]. The net sediment transport rates for stations a52 and a53 are 18.6% and 41.6% of gross southw ard, respectively [Figure 2.7 and Table 2.4]. It should be noted that though this direction agrees with the literature, relative magnitudes might not accurately re flect wave energy reaching the shoreline because of significant coastal features such as shoals associated with the Outer Banks. Shoals, retreat massifs, capes and other ba thymetric irregularities are common to this section of North Carolina (Riggs et al. 1995). These features may account for

PAGE 87

77 enough dispersal of wave energy along the coas t to cause the WIS DW M to yield results that fail to agree with literature compilati ons. In a highly shoaled area such as Cape Hatteras, the shoal can act to dissipate wave s approaching from the south and therefore enhance the influence of waves approaching from the north. This appears to be the case for stations a46 and a50 where the WIS resu lts indicate a southward sediment transport and the literature reports northward transpor t. This southward sediment transport is likely caused by the WIS model not taking into account the nearby s hoals that inhibit westward and southward traveling waves. The sheltering effects of the Carolina capes are also reflected in the WIS DWM results [Figure 2.7]. While a stable, southwar d sediment transport is represented by the WIS results, over the large-scale, local reve rsals are commonly associated with these sheltered areas as is indicated by WIS stations a43, a45, a49, and a51. In each of these stations the WIS DWM reveals gr oss transport results as well as net transport results that are less than those in less shelte red regions of the Outer Banks. Northern Outer Banks, Virginia, and the Delmarva Peninsula Along the northern Outer Banks WIS DWM results agree well wi th the literature results (Anders and Hansen, 1990; Dolan and Glassen, 1973; Everts et al. 1983; Field, 1980; Harrison and Wagner, 1964; Leatherman et al. 1982; Weinman, 1971). WIS stations a54 through a65 all accurately model conditions that would result in the southward migrating pattern of regional inlets [Figure 1.6 a nd Figure 2.8]. Nodal zones are accurately modeled near False Cape, Virginia (36.6 N), the mouth of the Chesapeake (37.0 N) and at the Delaware-Maryl and state line [Figure 2.8].

PAGE 88

78 A change in shoreline orientati on on the order of approximately 35 at either side of Chesapeake Bay is sufficient to yield th e divergent nodal zone determined by the WIS DWM. It is worth noting that WIS is succe ssful in this region even with irregular bathymetry present. Wave refraction studies for the Virginia coastline near Chesapeake Light show that deep-water originating waves from both north and south directions gradually turn towards the West (Chao, 1974) This effect, caused by paleochannels surrounding the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, tends to decrease wave energy and decrease the incidence angle of waves. The irregular bathymetry is not take n into account by the WIS model. Large-scale bathymetric irregularities ar e common in this area. Buried shelf channels, usually caused by previous inlets are prevalent near the Maryland-Delaware nodal zone (Field, 1980) and many other areas along the Mid-Atlantic. These bathymetric features may have an affect on longshore sediment transport that are not accounted for in WIS hindcast data. Local inlet phenomena may also influence longshore transports but the regional longshore directions predicte d by WIS near the Maryland – Delaware are accurate as they agree with numerous local studies (Anders and Hansen, 1990; Belknap and Kraft, 1985; Lanan a nd Dalrymple, 1977; Leatherman, 1979). Local reversals are common along the De lmarva Peninsula and are often times part of a littoral compartment (Oertel and Kraft, 1994). The compartments are established based on the influence of local fe atures such as ebb-tidal flow within the longshore system. Therefore, the predictions based on the WIS data are accurate in determining the regional sediment transport directions despite know n complications in local conditions.

PAGE 89

79 Delaware, New Jersey, and Western Long Island Eight of 12 WIS DWM results agree with literature compilations of longshore transport studies [Figure 1.7 and 2.9]. Hind casted shoreline transport rates yield a longshore sediment transport that is consis tent with northern Delaware, northern New Jersey and Western Long Island. Disagreemen ts between the lite rature and the WIS DWM occur in southern New Je rsey and central Long Island. The New Jersey coastline south of Long B each Island is similar in nature to the Virginia Delmarva coast. Shores are littered w ith inlets with relatively large tidal prisms creating littoral compartments that influence longshore studies (Everts et al. 1980). Literature compilations indicate a southw ard regional longshore sediment transport (Ashley et al. 1986; Charlesworth, 1968; Everts et al. 1980; Ferland, 1990; McCann, 1981; United States Congress, 1953a; United States Congress, 1953b), which disagrees with the WIS prediction in this area. The discrepancies between the WIS prediction and the literature results in this region and centr al Long Island are probably linked to irregular continental shelf bathymetry. Along the coast of central New Jersey a noda l zone is well documented where the northern beaches of New Jersey experience a northward longshore transport and the southern beaches experience a sout hward longshore transport (Ashley et al. 1986). The WIS DWM results do not show a reversal in l ongshore sediment transport. However, the relative magnitude of WIS results suggest a pa ttern consistent with field studies. WIS stations a70 through a72 are north of the reported divergent no dal zone of New Jersey These stations exhibit net nor thbound longshore sediment tran sport rates that range from 17-37% of gross while stations a68 and a69, south of the nodal zone, while still

PAGE 90

80 exhibiting a northbound sediment tr ansport only have a net sedime nt transport rate that is 1-2% of the gross [Figure 2.13 and Table 2.4]. Thus, there is a significant change in transport rate determined by the WIS DWM across the nodal zone. Southern New England WIS hindcast predictions are not expected to be as reliable in the sheltered regions of New England. Despite Phase II calculations of WIS data accounting for landmass sheltering effects, these calculati ons are made for the locations of the WIS stations which often times experience very different sheltering effects than the shore (Vincent et al. 1978). Effects from local island s are not accounted for when no WIS stations are located landward of the islands Relative to longshor e sediment transport directions reported in the lit erature, WIS DWM results yi eld contradictory sediment transport directions for east ern Long Island and Nantucket. The southern shores of Massachusetts b ecome increasingly complex in the areas within and around Nantucket Sound. In this ar ea, local wind patterns are more likely to control longshore sediment transport than offshore wave patterns (Aubrey and Gaines, 1982b; FitzGerald et al. 1987). Increasingly small net tran sport results in concert with the extensive sheltering of Nantucket Sound make the WIS DWM unreliable for determining longshore transports. This situ ation is also evident on the shores of Nantucket Island. Discrepancie s transport directions betw een WIS DWM results and the literature on these islands may be related to local phenomena ra ther than sheltering. This is evident along the eroding headland of Na ntucket Island where the WIS DWM for three stations all disagree with the literature (FitzGerald et al. 1994). The literature suggests that longshore currents diverge northwar d and westward from Siasconsett, the

PAGE 91

81 southeastern point of Nantucke t Island [Figure 1.8] (FitzGerald et al. 1994), while WIS data indicate transport in the opposite di rection [Figure 2.10]. The cause of the discrepancy is probably due to highly irregular offshore bathymetry caused by glacial moraines and past glacial activit y in the region (Leatherman, 1987). Along the open ocean shores of New E ngland WIS DWM results more accurately represent the longshore transport directions reported in the li terature. Most of the WIS DWM results for eastern Rhode Island, Martha’s Vineyard an d Cape Cod agree with the patterns observed in field studies (Fisher, 1988; FitzGerald and Rosen, 1988; FitzGerald et al. 1994; Goldsmith, 1972; McMaster, 1960; Morton et al. 1984). WIS station a92 [Figure 2.10] offshore of northern Cape Cod is used to model transport at a shoreline position north of the Cape Cod nodal zone The WIS DWM determined southward direction observed is oppos ite the northward direction reported in field studies (Leatherman, 1987) [Figure 2.10]. It is lik ely that the WIS DWM is ill equipped to accurately determine longshore transport in th is area due to highly irregular continental bathymetry. Maine Field studies of longshore transport on the coast of Maine are scarce and often unnecessary. With over 6,000 m iles of coastline and only 36 miles of sandy beaches, longshore transport is of little concern within this region (U nited States Army Corps of Engineers, 1957). The WIS DWM was applie d in this region for completeness. A representative value of shor eline orientation was determin ed and included shoreline regions with rock outcrops, embayments and river mouths, yielding an insight into what sediment transport along the coast of Maine might look like [Figure 2.11]. Overall, the

PAGE 92

82 WIS DWM in the Maine region suggests northward transport and is at too large a scale to compare with transport along pocket beaches. 2-8. CONCLUSIONS Overall, the longshore sediment trans port directions determined by the WIS DWM at 118 stations agree with the compiled literature. Fo r ten stations along the coast of Maine and seven stations along the Florid a Keys there is insufficient sediment or published literature to make a comparison. Si xty-seven out of the remaining 101 stations along the Gulf and Atlantic pr edict a longshore sediment flux that agrees with regional geomorphic indicators. Thus, 66% of the tim e, the WIS DWM yields longshore patterns that agree with regional geomor phic indicators. Of the 34 sta tions that do not agree with the regional geomorphic indicators, 18 of thos e yield longshore sediment flux predictions with net transports less than 10% of gross. This means that at 18 of 34 stations that do not concur with the literature no dominant longshore transport direction is present. For regions with significant net transport (great er than 10% of gross), the WIS predicted longshore transport direction agr ees with 67 of 83 stations, or 81%. Given the relatively small effort involved in applying the WI S DWM versus conducting long-term field studies, this research suggests that in regions where the li terature agree with WIS DWM results, it may be appropriate to use th e WIS DWM for additional modeling of longshore transport. The WIS DWM also yields relative magnitudes of gross and net sediment transport. Clear patterns that agree with the literature are presen t in WIS DWM results

PAGE 93

83 such as decreases in transport rates from No rth to South along the east coast of Florida and a decrease in gross rate s within the Georgia Bight. In the past, WIS data have been used to estimate the general wave characteristics of a study area. Without understanding local in teractions, the data applied to shorelines through the WIS DWM are often di fficult to interpret. In terpretative errors may be avoided by addressing the limitati ons of the deep-water equati on and the WIS model. As mentioned earlier, whether local phenomena at a beach or inlet act to enhance or retard a longshore current is unclear. In most cases where WIS DWM results have significant net transport (>10% of gross) and disagree with literat ure, irregular bathymetry is pr esent. This work presents the notion that a further iteration of the WIS model that accounts for irregular bathymetry seaward of the WIS station might result in a significant improvement in agreement in predicted transport directions betw een WIS DWM and literature reports.

PAGE 94

84 REFERENCES Abele, R.W., 1977. Analysis of short-term variations in beach morphology for summer and winter periods, 1971-72, Plum Island, Massachusetts. Ft. Belvoir: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Report No. 77-5. Anders, F.J., and Hansen, M., 1990. Beach and borrow site sediment investigation for a beach nourishment at Ocean City, Maryland. Vicksburg: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Technical Report No. CERC-90-5. Anders, F.J.; Reed, D.W., and Meisburger E.P., 1990. Shoreline movements: Tybee Island, Georgia to Cape Fear, North Ca rolina, 1851-1983. Vicksburg: US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report No. CERC-83-1 Report #2. Ashley, G.M.; Halsey, S.D., and Buteux, C.B., 1986. New Jersey's longshore current pattern. Journal of Coastal Research 2, 453-463. Ashton, A.; List, J.H.; Murray, A.B., and Farris, 2003a. A.S., Links between erosional hotspots and alongshore sediment trans port using field measurements and simulations, in Coastal Sediments Clearwater Beach, FL, USA. Ashton, A.; Murray, A.B., and Arnoult, A., 2001. Formation of coastline features by large-scale instabilities i nduced by high-angle waves. Nature 414, 296-300. Ashton, A.; Murray, A.B., and Ruessink, G. B., 2003b. Initial tests of a possible explanation for alongshore sandwaves on the Dutch coast. Aubrey, D.G., and Gaines, A.G., 1982a. Rapid fo rmation and degradation of barrier spits in areas with low rates of littoral drift. Marine Geology 49, 257-277.

PAGE 95

85 Aubrey, D.G., and Gaines, A.G., 1982b. Recent evolution of an active barrier beach complex: Popponesset Beach, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Woods Hole: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, No. WHOI-82-3. Bagnold, R.A., 1941. The Physics of blown sand and desert dunes. New York, William Morrow and Co. Barwis, J.H., and Sexton, W.J., 1986. Barrier is lands as exploration targets: depositional environments and stratigraphy. In Barwis, J.H. (ed), AAPG Student Chapter Field Trip Guidebook, Kiawah Island, South Carolina. Tulsa, OK: American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Belknap, D.F., and Kraft, J.C., 1985. Influence of antecedent geology on the preservation potential and evolution of Dela ware's barrier island system. Marine Geology 63, 235-262. Bird, E., 2000. Coastal Geomorphology: An Introduction. New York, NY, John Wiley & Sons, 322 p. Brenninkmeyer, B.M., and Nwankwo, A.F., 198 7. Source of pebbles at Mann Hill Beach, Scituate, Massachusetts. In FitzGerlad, D.M.a.R., P.S. (ed), Glaciated coasts. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 251-277. Brown, P.J., 1976. Variations in South Carolina coastal morphology. In Hayes, M.O.a.K., T.W. (ed), Terrigenous clastic depos itional environments. Columbia: University of South Carolina, pp. II2-II15. Brown, P.J., 1977. Variations in South Carolina coastal morphology. Southeast Geology 18, 249-264.

PAGE 96

86 Brownlow, A.H., Cape Cod Environmental Atlas, edited by Brownlow, A.H., 1979. pp. 62, Boston University, Boston. Bruun, P., 1967. Tidal inlets and littoral drift. Oslo, Universit ets forlaget, 193 p. Bunch, J.W., 1969. A fluorescent tracer study of a tidal inlet (Rudee Inlet, VA). Norfolk, VA: Old Dominion University, MS thesis. Caldwell, J.M., 1966. Coastal processes and beach erosion. Journal of the Society of Civil Engineers 53, 142-157. Caldwell, J.M., 1967. Coastal processes a nd beach erosion. Vicksburg: Coastal Engineering Research Center Chao, Y.Y., 1974. Wave refraction phenomena over the continental shelf near the Chesapeake Bay Entrance. Vicksburg: Co astal Engineering Research Center, Technical Memorandum No. TM 47. Charlesworth, L.J., 1968. Bay, inlet, and nearsh ore marine sedimentation, Beach Haven Little Egg Inlet Region, New Jersey. A nn Arbor: University of Michigan, PhD thesis. Chasten, M.A., 1992. Coastal response to a dual je tty system at Little River Inlet, North and South Carolina. Vicksburg: Coas tal Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Paper No. CERC-92-2. Chasten, M.A., and Seabergh, W.C., 1993. Beach response and channel dynamics at Little River Inlet, North and South Carolina, USA. Journal of Coastal Research 9, 973-985. Cialone, M.A., and Stauble, D.K., 1998. Hi storical findings on ebb shoal mining. Journal of Coastal Research 14, 537-563.

PAGE 97

87 Corson, W.D., and Resio, D.T., 1980. Yearly litto ral transport statistic s for Murrells Inlet and Little River Inlet. Vicksburg: US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report. Cunningham, R.W., and Fox, W.T., 1974. Coastal processes and depositional patterns on Cape Ann, MA. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 44, 522-531. Das, M.M., 1972. Suspended sediment and long shore sediment transport data review, in 13th International Conference on Coastal Engineering pp. 1027-1048. Davies, J.L., 1964. A morphogenic appro ach to world shorelines: Zeits. Fur Geomorph 8, 127-142. Davis, R.A., 1994. Geology of Holocene Barrie r Island Systems, Sp ringer-Verlag, New York. Davis, R.A., and Fox, W.T., 1981. Interaction between wave and tide generated processes at the mouth of a mesotidal estu ary, Mantanzas River, Florida. Marine Geology 40, 49-68. Davis, R.A., and Gibeaut, J.C., 1990. Histori cal morphodynamics of inlets in Florida, models for coastal zone planning. Gaines ville, FL: Florida Sea Grant College Program, Technical Paper No. 55. Davis, R.A., and Hayes, M.O., 1984. What is a wave-dominated coast? Marine Geology 60, 313-329. Dean, R.G., 1989. The NSTS FIELD experime nt sites: Rudee Inlet experiment. In Seymour, R.J. (ed), Nearshore sediment transport. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Dean, R.G., and Dalrymple, R.A., 2002. Coastal processes with engineering applications. New York, Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 98

88 Dean, R.G., and O'Brien, M.P., 1987. Florida's east coast inlets, s horeline effects and recommendations for action. Gainesvill e, FL: University of Florida, Technical Report No. 87-17. Dean, R.G., and Walton, T.L., 1973. Sediment transport processes in the vicinity of inlets with special reference to sand trapping. In Cronin, L.E. (ed), Estuarine Research II. New York: Academic Press, pp. 129-149. del Valle, R.; Medina, R., and Losada, M. A., 1993. Dependence of the coefficient of K on the grain size. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering 118, 417-432. DeWall, A.E., 1977. Littoral environment observations and beach changes along the Southeast Florida coast. Vicksburg: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Technical Report No. 77-10. DeWall, A.E., 1979. Beach changes at Westhampton Beach, New York, 1962-1973. Vicksburg: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Report No. 79-5. DeWall, A.E.; Tarnowski, J.A.; Danielson, B ., and Weishar, L.L., 1984. Inlet processes at Eel Pond, Falmouth, Massachusetts. Vicks burg: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Paper No. CERC-84-9. Dolan, R., and Glassen, R., 1973. Oregon Inlet, North Carolina A history of coastal change. Southeastern Geography 13, 41-53. Douglass, S.L., 1985. Longshore sand transport statistics. Starksville, MS: Mississippi State University, MS thesis.

PAGE 99

89 Douglass, S.L., 1987. Coastal response to naviga tion structures at Murrells Inlet, South Carolina: Main text and appendices A & B. Vicksburg: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Technical Report No. CERC-87-2. Everts, C.H.; Battley, P.P., and Gibson, P. N., 1983. Shoreline movements; Report 1: Cape Henry, Virginia to Cape Hattera s, North Carolina, 1849-1980. Vicksburg: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Technical Report No. CERC-83-1. Everts, C.H.; DeWall, A.E., and Czernia k, M.T., 1980. Beach and inlet changes at Ludlam Beach, New Jersey beaches. Vicksburg: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Report No. 80-3. Fairchild, J.C., 1966. Correlation of littoral tran sport with wave energy along shores of New York and New Jersey. Vicksburg: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Technical Memorandum No. TM 18. Farrell, S.C., 1981. An evaluation of longshore sand transport at Manasquan Inlet, New Jersey. Philadelphia, PA: US Army Engineer District, Unpublished report. Fenster, M.S., and Dolan, R., 1993. Historical shoreline trends along the Outer Banks, North Carolina: Processes and responses. Journal of Coastal Research 9, 172188. Ferland, M.A., 1990. Holocene depositional history of Southern New Jersey barrier and backbarrier regions. Vicksburg: Coas tal Engineering Research Center, Technical Report No. CERC-90-2. Fico, C., 1978. Influence of wave refracti on on coastal geomorphology Bull Island to Isle of Palms, South Carolina. Columb ia, SC: University of South Carolina, Technical Report No. 17-CRD.

PAGE 100

90 Field, M.E., 1980. Sand bodies on coastal plain shelves: Holocene record of the US Atlantic inner shelf off Maryland. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 50, 505-528. Finley, R.J., 1976. Hydraulics and dynamics of North Inlet, South Carolina, 1974-1975. Washington, D.C.: Coastal Engineering Research Center, GITI No. 10. Finley, R.J., 1978. Ebb-tidal delta morphol ogy and sediment supply in relation to seasonal wave energy flux, North Inlet, South Carolina. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 48, 227-238. Fisher, J.J., 1987. Shoreline development of the glacial Cape Cod coastline. In FitzGerald, D.M., and Rosen, P.S. (ed), Glaciated coasts. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 279-305. Fisher, J.J., 1988. Coastal structures in Rhode Island. In Walker, H.J. (ed), Artificial structures and shorelines. Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 560-571. FitzGerald, D.M., 1976. Ebb-tidal delta of Price Inlet, South Carolina: geomorphology, physical processes and asso ciated inlet changes. In Hayes, M.O., and Kana, T.W. (ed), Terrigenous clastic depos itional environments. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, pp. II143-II157. FitzGerald, D.M., 1977. Hydraulics, morphology, a nd sediment transport at Price Inlet, South Carolina. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, PhD thesis. FitzGerald, D.M.; Baldwin, C.T.; Ibrahim, N.A., and Sands, D.R., 1987. Development of the northwestern Buzzards Ba y shoreline, Massachusetts. In FitzGerald, D.M., and Rosen, P.S. (ed), Glaciated coasts. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 327357.

PAGE 101

91 FitzGerald, D.M.; Fico, C., and Hayes, M.O ., 1979. Effects of Charleston Harbor, South Carolina jetty construction on lo cal accretion and erosion, in Coastal Structures 1979 pp. 641-664, American Society of Civil Engineers. FitzGerald, D.M.; Hubbard, D.K., and Nummedal, D., 1978. Shoreline changes associated with tidal inlets al ong the South Carolina coast, in Coastal Zone 1978 pp. 1973-1994, American Society of Civil Engineers. FitzGerald, D.M., and Rosen, P.S., 1988. Co astal structures in Massachusetts. In Walker, H.J. (ed), Artificial structur es and shorelines. Norwell, MA: Kluwer, pp. 545-560. FitzGerald, D.M.; Rosen, P.S., and van Heteren, S., 1994. New England Barriers. In Davis, R.A. (ed), Geology of Holocene Barrier Island Systems. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, pp. 305-394. Galvin, C.J., and Eagleson, P.S., 1965. Expe rimental study of longshore currents on a plane beach. Vicksburg: Coasta l Engineering Research Center, Technical Memorandum No. 1-80. Gatto, L.W., 1978. Shoreline changes along the outer shore of Cape Cod from Long Point to Monomoy Point. Hanover, NH: CRREL, CRREL Rep Hanover, NH No. 78-17. Gebert, J.A., and Hemsley, J.M., 1991. Monitori ng of jetty rehabil itation at Manasquan Inlet, New Jersey. Vicksburg: Coas tal Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Paper No. CERC-91-8. Goldschmidt, P.M.; FitzGerald, D.M., and Fink, L.K., 1991. Processes affecting shoreline changes at Morse River Inlet, central Maine coast. Shore and Beach 59, 33-40.

PAGE 102

92 Goldsmith, V., 1972. Coastal processes of a barrier island complex, and adjacent ocean floor: Monomoy Island Nauset Spit, Ca pe Cod, Massachusetts. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, PhD thesis. Goldsmith, V.; Strum, S.C., and Thomas, G.R., 1977. Beach erosion and accretion at Virginia Beach, Virginia and vicinity. Vi cksburg: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Report No. 77-12. Gravens, M.B.; Scheffner, N.W., and Huberz J.M., 1989. Coastal processes from Asbury Park to Manasquan, New Jersey. Vicks burg: Coastal Engi neering Research Center, Miscellaneous Paper No. CERC-89-11. Griffin, M.M., and Henry, V.J., 1984. Study of Georgia coastal shoreline changes. Georgia Geological Survey, No. Bulletin 98. Haas, K.A., and Hanes, D.M., 2003. Process ba sed modeling of total longshore sediment transport. Journal of Coastal Research 18. Hanson, M., and Knowles, S.C., 1988. Ebb-tidal delta response to je tty construction at three South Carolina Inlets. In Aubrey, D.G., and Weishar, L. (ed), Hydrodynamics and sediment dynamics of tidal inlets. Springer-Verlag. Harrison, W., and Wagner, K.A., 1964. Beach changes at Virginia Beach, VA. Washington, D.C.: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Paper No. MP6-64. Hayes, M.O., 1975. Morphology of sand accumula tion in estuaries: An introduction to the symposium. In Cronin, L.E. (ed), Estuarine Research II. New York, NY: Academic Press.

PAGE 103

93 Hayes, M.O., 1994. The Georgia Bight Barrier System. In Davis, R.A. (ed), Geology of Holocene Barrier Island Systems. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 233-304. Hayes, M.O.; FitzGerald, D.M.; Leita J.; Hulmes, and Wilson, S.J., 1976. Geomorphology of Kiawah Island, South Carolina. In Hayes, M.O., and T.W. Kana (ed), Terrigenous clastic depositional environments. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, pp. II80-II100. Hayes, M.O.; Hubbard, D.K., and FitzGeral d, D.M., 1973. Investigation of beach erosion problems at Revere, Winthrop, and Nant asket beaches, Massachusetts. Boston, MA: Boston Metropolitan District Commission, Final Commission Report. Helle, J., 1958. Surf statistics for the coast of the United States. US Beach Erosion Board, Technical Memorandum No. 108. Hine, A.C., 1980. Filed trip guide to Shacklefo rd Banks, North Carolina. Morehead City, NC: University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Field Trip Guide. Hine, A.C.; Davis, R.A.; Mearns, D.L., and Bland, M.J., 1986. Impact of Florida's Gulf coast inlets on the coasta l sand budget. Tallahassee, FL: National Reservation Division of Beaches and Shores, Final Report. Howard, J.D.; Frey, R.W., and Reineck, H., 1972. Georgia coastal re gion, Sapelo Island, USA: sedimentology and bi ology: Introduction. (ed), Georgia coastal region, Sapelo Island, USA: Se dimentology and biology. Senckenb Marit, pp. 3-15. Howard, J.D., and Reineck, H.E., 1972. Georgi a coastal region, Sapelo Island, USA: Sedimentology and biology: Physical a nd biogenic sedimentary structures of nearshore shelf. (ed), Georgia coastal region, Sapelo Island, USA: Sedimentology and biology. Senckenb Marit, pp. 81-123.

PAGE 104

94 Hubbard, D.K.; Barwis, J.H., and Nummedal, D., 1977. Sediment transport in four South Carolina Inlets, in Coastal Sediments 1977 pp. 582-601, American Society of Civil Engineers, Charleston, SC. Hubbard, D.K.; Oertel, G., a nd Nummedal, D., 1979. The role of waves and tidal currents in the development of tidal-inlet sedi mentary structures and sand body geometry, examples from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 49, 1072-1092. Hunt, S.D., 1980. Port Canaveral Entrance Glossary of Inlets. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Florida Sea Grant College Report No. 9. Jarrett, T.J., 1977. Sediment budget analysis, Wr ightsville Beach to Kure Beach, North Carolina, in Coastal Sediments 1977 American Society of Civil Engineers. Jarrett, T.J., and Hemsley, M.J., 1988. Beach f ill and sediment trap at Carolina Beach, North Carolina. Vicksburg: Coasta l Engineering Research Center, Technical Report No. CERC-88-7. Jensen, R.E., 1983a. Atlantic coast hindcast, shallow-water significant wave information. Vicksburg: US Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, WIS Report No. 9. Jensen, R.E., 1983b. Methodology for the calcula tion of a shallow-water wave climate. Vicksburg: US Army Engineers Waterway Experiment Station, WIS Report No. 8. Johnson, J., 1956. Dynamics of nearshore sediment movement. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 40, 2211-2232.

PAGE 105

95 Jones, C.P., 1980. Big Hickory Pass, New Pass, and Big Carlos Pass Glossary of Inlets 8. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Florida Sea Grant Program Report No. 37. Kamphuis, J.W.; Davies, M.H.; Nairn, R.B., and Sayao, O.J., 1986. Calculation of littoral sand transport rate. Coastal Engineering 10, 1-21. Kana, T.W., Suspended sediment transpor t of Price Inlet, South Carolina, in Coastal Sediments 1977 pp. 366-382, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1977. Knoth, J., and Nummedal, D., Rate of longs hore sediment transport on Bull Island, South Carolina determined by fluorescent traces, in Coastal Sediments 1977 pp. 383398, American Society of Civil Engineers, Charleston, SC, 1977. Knoth, J., and Nummedal, D., Longshore sedi ment transport studi es using fluorescent tracers: A critical assessment, in Coastal Zone 1978 pp. 2319-2332, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1978. Kojima, H., and Hunt, S.D., 1980. Ft. George Inlet Glossary of Inlets No. 10. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Florida Sea Grant College Report No. 38. Komar, P.D., 1998. Beach processes and sedimentation. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall, 544 p. Koppelman, L.F., and Davies, D.S., 1978. Polit ical problems of erosion control. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Technical Paper No. 7. Kraft, J.C., 1971. A guide to the geology of Delaware's coastal environments. Newark, DE, University of Delaware, 220 p. Kraus, N.C.; Scheffner, N.W.; Hanson, H.; Chou, L.W.; Cialone, M.A.; Gravens, M.B., and Mark, D.J., 1988. Coastal processes at Sea Bright to Ocean Township, New

PAGE 106

96 Jersey. Vicksburg: Coastal E ngineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Paper No. CERC-88-12. Lanan, G.A., and Dalrymple, R.A., 1977. A co astal engineering st udy of Indian River Inlet, Delaware. Newark, DE: University of Delaware, Ocean Engineering Technical Report No. 14 DEL-SG-5-77. Langfelder, J.; Stafford, D., and Amein, M., 1968. A reconnaissance of coastal erosion in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, NC Dept. of Civil Engineering Technical Report. Leatherman, S.P., 1979. Migration of Assat eague Island, Marland, by inlet and overwash processes. Geology 7, 104-107. Leatherman, S.P., 1987. Reworking of glacial outwash sediments along outer Cape Cod: Development of Provincetown spit. In FitzGerald, D.M., and ROSEN, P.S. (ed), Glaciated coasts. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 307-325. Leatherman, S.P., 1988. Barrier island handbook. College Park, MD, Coastal Publication Series Laboratory for Coastal Res earch, University of Maryland, 93 p. Leatherman, S.P.; Rice, T.E., and Gold smith, V., 1982. Virginia barrier island configuration: a reappraisal. Science 215, 285-287. Longuet-Higgins, M.S., 1970. Longshore currents generated by obliquely incident sea waves. Journal of Geophysical Research 75, 6778-6801. Lynch-Blosse, M.A., and Kumar, N., 1976. Evol ution of downdrift-offs et tidal inlets: A model based on the Brigantine In let system of New Jersey. Journal of Geology 84, 165-178.

PAGE 107

97 Magee, A.D., and FitzGerald, D.M., 1980. I nvestigation of the shoaling problems at Westport River Inlet and sedimentati on processes at Horseneck and East Horseneck Beaches. Boston, MA: Boston University, Coastal Environment Resolution Group Technical Report No. 3. May, J.P., and Stapor, F.W., 1996. Beach erosion and transport at Hunting Island, South Carolina. Journal of Coastal Research 12, 714-725. McCann, D.P., 1981. Beach changes at Atla ntic City, New Jersey (1962-1973). Vicksburg: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Report No. 81-3. McMaster, R.L., 1960. Mineralogy as an indi cator of beach sand movement along the Rhode Island shore. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 49, 404-413. McNinch, J.E., Evidence of the maintenan ce or recurrence of shore-oblique sandbars during Hurricane Isabel using Bar an d Swash Imaging Radar (BASIR), in AGU Ocean Sciences Meeting EOS, Portland, OR, 2004. McNinch, J.E., and Wells, J.T., 1999. Sedimentar y processes and depos itional history of a cape-associated shoal, Ca pe Lookout, North Carolina. Marine Geology 158, 233-252. Miller, G.H., 1976. An ERTS-1 study of coas tal features on North Carolina coast. Vicksburg: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Report No. 76-2. Miller, M.C., 1983. Beach changes at Holden Beach, North Carolina, 1970-1974. Vicksburg: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Report No. 83-5. Miller, M.C., and Aubrey, D.G., 1985. Beach changes on Eastern Cape Cod, Massachusetts, from Newcomb Hollow to Nauset Inlet, 1970-1974. Vicksburg: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Paper No. CERC-85-10.

PAGE 108

98 Moody, D.W., 1964. Coastal morphology and processe s in relation to th e development of submarine sand ridges off Bethany B each, Delaware. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, PhD thesis. Morton, R.W.; Bohlen, W.F., and Aubrey, D.G., 1986. Beach changes at Jones Beach, Long Island, New York, 1962-1974. Vicksbur g: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Paper No. CERC-86-1. Morton, R.W.; Bohlen, W.F.; Aubrey, D.G., and Miller, M.C., 1984. Beach changes at Misquamicut Beach, Rhode Island, 1962-1973. Vicksburg: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Paper No. CERC-84-12. Murray, A.B., Duke Universit y, Personal Communication, 2004. Murray, A.B., and Ashton, A., 2003. Sandy-coastline evolution as an example of pattern formation involving emergent stru ctures and interactions, in Coastal Sediments 2003 in press, Clearwater Beach, FL. Neiheisel, J., 1965. Source and distribution of sediments at Brunswick Harbor and vicinity, Georgia. Vicksburg: Coas tal Engineering Research Center, Technical Memorandum No. TM 12. Nelson, B.W., 1979. Shoreline changes and physiography of Maine's sandy coastal beaches. Orono, ME: University of Maine, MS thesis. Nelson, E.E., 2001. The role of subaerial geomorphology in coastal morphodynamics of barrier islands, Outer Banks, NC. St. Peters burg, FL: University of South Florida, MS thesis. NOAA, 2000. Charleston Light to Cape Canaveral Washington, D.C.: NOAA-NOS, scale 1:449,659, 1 sheet.

PAGE 109

99 NOAA, 2001a. Approaches to New York Washington, D.C.: NOAA-NOS, scale 1:400,000, 1 sheet. NOAA, 2001b. Havana to Tampa Bay Washington, D.C.: NOAA-NOS, scale 1:470,940, 1 sheet. NOAA, 2002a. Bay of Fundy to Cape Cod Washington, D.C.: NOAA-NOS, scale 1:378,838, 1 sheet. NOAA, 2002b. Cape Canaveral to Key West Washington, D.C.: NOAA-NOS, scale 1:466,940, 1 sheet. NOAA, 2002c. Cape Hatteras to Charleston Washington, D.C.: NOAA-NOS, scale 1:432,720, 1 sheet. NOAA, 2002d. Cape May to Cape Hatteras Washington, D.C.: NOAA-NOS, scale 1:419,706, 1 sheet. NOAA, 2002e. Georges Bank and Nantucket Shoals Washington, D.C.: NOAA-NOS, scale 1:400,000, 1 sheet. Oertel, G.F.; Fowler, J.E., and Pope, J., 1985. History of erosion and erosion control efforts at Tybee Island, Georgia. Vick sburg: Coastal Engi neering Research Center, Miscellaneous Paper No. CERC-85-1. Oertel, G.F., and Kraft, J.C., 1994. New Je rsey and Delmarva Barrier Islands. In Davis, R.A. (ed), Geology of Holocene Barrier Island Systems. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, pp. 207-232. Ogden, I.J.G., 1974. Shoreline changes along the southeastern co ast of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, for the past 200 years. Quaternary Research 4, 496508.

PAGE 110

100 Palmsten, M., USGS, Personal Communication, 2004. Pierce, J.W., 1969. Sediment budge t along a barrier island chain. Sediment Geology 3, 516. Pilkey, O.H., and Richter, D.M., 1965. Beach profiles of a Georgia barrier island. Southeast Geology 6, 11-19. Psuty, N.P., 1980. The forces that shape the islands. In Brown, P.M., and Renwick, H.L. (ed), New Jersey's barrier islands: an ever changing public resource. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, pp. 2-10. Riggs, S.R.; Cleary, W.J., and Snyder, S.W ., 1995. Influence of inherited geologic framework on barrier shoreface morphology and dynamics. Marine Geology 126, 213-234. Sexton, W.J., 1987. Morphology and sediment character of mesotidal shoreline depositional environments. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, PhD thesis. Smith, J.B., 1991. Morphodynamics and stratigra phy of Essex River ebb-tidal delta: Massachusetts. Vicksburg: Coasta l Engineering Research Center, Technical Report No. CERC-91-11. Smith, J.B., and FitzGerald, D.M., 1994. Sedime nt transport patterns at the Essex River Inlet ebb-tidal delta, MA, USA. Journal of Coastal Research 10, 752-774. Smith, J.M., and Gravens, M.B., 2003. Incident boundary conditions for wave transformation. Vicksburg, MS: Coas tal and Hydraulics Laboratory, Technical Report.

PAGE 111

101 Stauble, D.K., 1993. An overview of S outheast Florida inlet morphodynamics. Journal of Coastal Research 18, 1-27. Stephen, M.F.; Brown, P.J.; FitzGerald, D. M.; Hubbard, D.K., and Hayes, M.O., 1975. Beach erosion inventory of Charleston County, South Carolina: a preliminary report. Charleston, SC: South Carolina Sea Grant Program, South Carolina Sea Grant Technical Report No. 4. Suboceanic Consultants Inc., 1978. Big Hickory Pass, Lee County, Florida Hydrographic study. Suboceanic Consultants Incorporated, Technical Report. Taney, N.E., 1961a. Geomorphology of the south shore of Long Island, New York. Vicksburg: Beach Erosion Board, Technical Memorandum No. TM 128. Taney, N.E., 1961b. Littoral materials of th e south shore of Long Island, New York. Vicksburg: Beach Erosion Board, Technical Memorandum No. TM 129. Terchunian, A.V., and Merkert, C.L., 1995. Litt le Pikes Inlet, We sthampton, New York. Journal of Coastal Research 11, 697-703. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1947. Beach erosion report on co-operative study at Palm Beach, FL. Washingt on, D.C.: Beach Erosion Board, unpublished report. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1948. Su rvey of Ocean City Harbor and Inlet of Sinepuxent Bay, Maryland. Baltimore: Baltimore District, unpublished report. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1954. Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet. New York: New York District, Beach Erosion Control Report, unpublished report

PAGE 112

102 United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1955a Atlantic Coast of Long Island, NY, Fire Island Inlet and shore wester ly to Jones Inlet. New York: New York District, Beach Erosion Control Report, unpublished report United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1955b. Sand by-passing at Hillsboro Inlet, Florida. Beach Erosion Board Bulletin 9, 1-6. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1957. Saco, Maine beach erosion control study. Washington, D.C.: House Document, 85th Congress, 1st Session No. 32. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1977. Little River Inlet North Carolina and South Carolina navigation project. Charle ston, SC: US Army Corps of Engineers, General Design Memorandum. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1984. Shore Protection Manual. Vicksburg: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Manual. United States Congress, 1948. North Caro lina shoreline, beach erosion study. Washington, D.C.: United States Congress, House Document, 80th Congress, 2nd Session No. 763. United States Congress, 1953a. Cold Spring Inlet (Cape May Harbor), New Jersey. Washington, D.C.: United States Congress, House Document, 83rd Congress, 1st Session No. 206. United States Congress, 1953b. Ocean City New Jersey, beach erosion control study. Washington, D.C.: United States Congress, House Document, 83rd Congress, 1st Session No. 184.

PAGE 113

103 Vincent, C.L.; Resio, D.T., and Garcia A.W., 1978. Corps of Engineers Wave Information Study, in Coastal Sediments 1978 pp. 1531-1540, American Society of Civil Engineers. Walton, T.L., 1973. Littoral drift computations along the coast of Florida by means of ship wave observations. Gainesville, FL : University of Florida Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Laboratory, Technical Report No. 15. Walton, T.L., 1974. St. Lucie Inlet, Glossary of Inlets, No. 1. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Sea Grant Program No. 1. Walton, T.L., 1976. Littoral drift estimates along the coastline of Fl orida. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Florida Sea Grant Program No. 13. Wang, P.; Kraus, N.C., and Davis, R.A., 1998. To tal longshore sediment transport rate in the surf zone: FIELD measurements and empirical predictions. Journal of Coastal Research 14, 269-282. Watts, G.M., 1953. A study of sand movement at South Lake Worth Inlet, Florida. Vicksburg: Beach Erosion Board, Technical Memorandum No. TM 42. Watts, G.M., 1956. Behavior of beach fill at Ocean City, New Jersey. Vicksburg: Beach Erosion Board, Technical Memorandum No. TM 77. Watts, G.M., 1959. Behavior of beach fill at Vi rginia Beach, Virginia. Vicksburg: Beach Erosion Board, Technical Memorandum No. CERC 113. Weinman, Z.H., 1971. Analysis of littoral tr ansport by wave energy: Cape Henry, VA to Virginia-North Carolina border. Norf olk, VA: Old Domini on University, MS thesis.

PAGE 114

104 Weishar, L.L., and Aubrey, D.G., 1988. Inle t hydraulics at Green Harbor, Marshfield, Massachusetts. Vicksburg: Coasta l Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Paper No. CERC-88-10. Winston, T.C.; Chou, I.B.; Powell, G.M., and Crane, J.D., 1981. Analysis of coastal sediment transport processes from Wri ghtsville Beach to Fort Fisher, North Carolina. Vicksburg: Coastal Engineering Research Center, Miscellaneous Paper No. 81-6. Wunderlich, F., 1972. Georgia coastal regi on, Sapelo Island, USA: sedimentology and biology: III Beach dynamic and beach development. (ed), Georgia coastal region, Sapelo Island, USA: Se dimentology and biology. Senckenb Marit, pp. 47-79.