Erosion, navigation and sedimentation imperatives at Jupiter Inlet, Florida: Recommendations for coastal engineering management

Mehta, Ashish J. and Montague, Clay L. and Thieke, Robert J. (1992) Erosion, navigation and sedimentation imperatives at Jupiter Inlet, Florida: Recommendations for coastal engineering management. Gainesville, FL, University of Florida. Department of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering, (UFL/COEL, 92/002)

Preview

PDF - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (14Mb) | Preview

Abstract

In this final report on the investigation of the potentialities of improved coastal engineering management of Jupiter Inlet, Florida, three management-guiding issues were considered: better control of the erosion of the south beach, better navigation access and safety, and better control (reduction) of sediment influx into the inlet channel and upstream points in the Loxahatchee River estuary. The first two issues have been particularly outstanding, due to persistent concern for the inherent deficiencies in the protocol for sand pumping and placement on the beach that tends to erode away rapidly, and the concern for conditions for navigation of vessels in the proximity of the inlet in open waters. With regard to the third issue, despite the reasonably successful ongoing program to pump sand out of the borrow areas within the inlet channel, other areas such as some of the marinas in the inlet area, as well as the region of the Loxahatchee River west of the Florida East Coast Railroad bridge, have been experiencing slow but persistent sedimentation. Contingent upon a series of coastal and environmental engineering investigations, a range of engineering actions that could mitigate erosion, navigation and sedimentation problems were considered. Based on the physical and ecological impacts that would be caused by these actions, two sets of action options that have net beneficial impacts due to action implementation have been proposed. The first is a set of interdependent action options that must be instituted inherently in a time-wise phased manner. The second is a set of independent action options which can be instituted as and when desired. For determining the overall feasibility of any action option, it will be necessary to weigh the technical benefits against costs, which are provided. It should be emphasized however that, considering the overwhelmingly observational nature of coastal science, the estimates of potential benefits are essentially and inherently subjective, and the costs very approximate, especially in cases where the desired technology is in the "bench" stage. (Document has 231 pages)

Actions (login required)