Sediment Interaction at Modified Coastal Inlets: Processes and Policies

  • R. G. Dean
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies book series (COASTAL, volume 29)

Abstract

A substantial number of the existing inlets in the United States has been modified (or constructed) to serve navigation, recreation and water quality. The hydraulics and sedimentary processes associated with inlets are complex and our ability to understand and predict the detailed behavior of inlets must be the product of considerable future field, laboratory and analytical research. Yet in the absence of this capability, assessments and interpretations will be required leading to design decisions.

Addressed in this paper is the sediment interaction at modified inlets with particular reference to effects on adjacent beaches and the most appropriate remedial measures in those cases where the effects are adverse. Important interaction factors include the net and gross longshore sediment transport, geometric and permeability characteristics of the jetties and sand disposal practices associated with maintenance dredging. Sediment losses to adjacent beaches can be the result of: (1) blocking of the net longshore sediment transport by the updrift jetty, (2) flow of sand over and through low and permeable jetties, (3) jetting of sand farther seaward to the ebb tidal shoals, and (4) removal of sand to maintain channel depth with disposal in deep water.

The only responsible policy of inlet management must be one that reinstates or improves upon the natural transport processes around the inlet. This can be accomplished best by a system which captures the net longshore sand transport in the active surf zone and places it in a downdrift location such that transport continuity will be maintained. The efficient design of such systems to mitigate against potential adverse effects requires considerable insight into inlet processes and presents a challenge for the

Keywords

Modify Entrance Shoreline Change Sand Transport Longshore Sediment Transport Shoreline Change Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bruun, P., 1966. Tidal Inlets and Littoral Drift. H. Skipnes Offsettrykker, Trondheim, Norway, 192 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Campbell, T.J., Spadoni, R.H. and Beumel, N.H., 1981. The Boca Raton Inlet Weir Experiment. Proceedings, Oceans ′81, p. 196–199.Google Scholar
  3. Dean, R.G. and Perlin, M., 1977. Coastal Engineering Study of Ocean City Inlet, Maryland. Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference on Coastal Sediments, 77, Charleston, SC, p. 520–542.Google Scholar
  4. Dean, R.G. and Walton, T.L., 1975. Sediment Transport Processes in the Vicinity of Inlets with Special Reference to Sand Trapping. In: Estuarine Research, Volume II, Geology and Engineering, Edited by L. Eugene Cronin, Academic Press, New York, p. 129–150.Google Scholar
  5. Fineren, W.W., 1938. Early Attempts at Inlet Construction on the Florida East Coast. Shore and Beach, p. 89–91.Google Scholar
  6. Hall, J.V. and Herron, W.J., 1950. Test of Nourishment on the Shore by Offshore Deposition of Sand. Beach Erosion Board, Technical Memorandum No. 17, Washington, D.C., 32 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Hine, A.C., Mearns, D.L., Davis, R.A. and Bland, M., 1986. Impact of Florida’s Gulf Coast Inlets on the Coastal Sand Budget. Department of Geology, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL, 128 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Magnuson, N.C., 1967. Planning and Design of a Low-weir Section Jetty. ASCE Journal of Waterways and Harbors, 93(WW2), p. 27–40.Google Scholar
  9. Marino, J.N. and Mehta, A.J., 1986. Sediment Volumes Around Florida’s East Coast Tidal Inlets. Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 109 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Olsen, E., 1977. A Study of the Effects of Inlet Stabilization at St. Mary’s Entrance, Florida. Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference on Coastal Sediments, 77, Charleston, SC, p. 311–329.Google Scholar
  11. Purpura, J.A., Beechley, B.C., Baskette, C.W. and Roberge, J.C., 1974. Performance of a Jetty-Weir Inlet Improvement Plan. Proceedings, ASCE Fourteenth International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Copenhagen, p. 1470–1490.Google Scholar
  12. Schwartz, R.K. and Musalowski, F.R., 1977. Nearshore Disposal: Onshore Sediment Transport. Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference on Coastal Sediments, 77, Charleston, SC, p. 85–101.Google Scholar
  13. Walton, T.L., 1976. Littoral Drift Estimates Along the Coastline of Florida. Sea Grant Report No. 13, State University System of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 41 pp. + appendices.Google Scholar
  14. Walton, T.L. and Adams, W.D., 1976. Capacity of Inlet Outer Bars to Store Sand. Chapter 112, Proceedings, Fifteenth International Conference on Coastal Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Honolulu, HI, p. 1919–1937.Google Scholar
  15. U.S. Congress, 1948. House Document No. 6924, Santa Barbara, CA, Beach Erosion Control Study, Letter from Chief of Engineers, Army, Submitting Report on Cooperative Study for Beach Erosion Control at Santa Barbara, CA, Dec. 22, 1948, 35 pp, 3 pl., 6 maps.Google Scholar
  16. U.S. Congress, 1950. House Document No. 15787, Atlantic City, NJ, Beach Erosion Control Study, Letter from Chief of Engineers, Army, Submitting Report on Cooperative Beach Erosion Control Study of Atlantic City, NJ, vii, 51 pp., 5 pl., 10 maps.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. G. Dean
    • 1
  1. 1.Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering DepartmentUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations