EDITORIAL

					                               EDITORIAL


The Fox Guarding the Hen House
Oen     H. Piikey


Duke Universir:,
        NC
Durha=~. 27-08
                        ,37&
   T o d a more chan 3-00 beaches in the U.S. have
              ~                                        sunrnvized by i I o u s ~ o ~ iL995i and SGDAR ai.et
been replenished on coass in a wide variety of         (1295).
oceanographic settings. A careful review oi thac           Using data F o more than LOO replenished
                                                                         rm
experience should provide a sound basis for im-        beaches, a l Corps of E n r s e e r projecs. che pur;rie
                                                                   l
provement of beach design parameters.                                          ~
                                                       report conciudes t h a Corps cost periorrnance has
   -4 recent report by the U.S. Army Gorp of Pn-       been excellent: "Considering the program as a
gineers provides such a review of cne federzl ex-      whole, the actual and estimated costs for chose
aerience with replenished beaches. Unicrrunate-        projects. . . are 31,340,900,000 and S1,403,000,000
ly, the docunent presenu a defense o i rhe 2gen-       respectively." Similar success is ciaimed for the
cy's actions rather than azi objective mdysis of       Corps sand volume predictiocs ". . . there has been
them. The reporr can nor provide a basis for ob-       a n actual piacement of 7 2 3 m cu yds of sand fl
jective examination o i beach design.                  compared to a n eschaced 64.7 m cu yds." "For
   In 1992 the OSice of Managernen: and Budget         'ooch voluaes and toss ;he actual and predicted
(OMB) requested that the Corps of Engineers re-        totals fl within 5% o i one another." "Costs and
                                                                al
porr on their record of success in predicting the      volume estimates have been quite good in the
cos;s and sand volumes required for replenished        aggregate" accordins to H o t i s ~ o ~  (1995).
 beaches. The O M B reauesc was in resDonse to the         I don't dispute these numbers but they are n i s -
pubiic debate c0ncernir.g our Sndings (For e r -       leading. I disagree with che interpretation that.
 ample, PILXZY DI:<oN,1989; LEON^ e t al.,
                 and                                   the report demonstrates thac the Corps knows
 L990; HOGSTON,      1990, i991a,b: PILXEY      and    how to successfully estimate replenished beach
 LEONARD, PILKZY,1901,1992) that the Corgs
            1990;                                      lifespans. Perhaps the most fundamental problem
 has consistently underestimated the costs and re-      is that the OMB, ul agency thac impacts on the
 quired sand volumes for replenished beaches, with      budgets of other agencies, has asked a n agency to
 a few exceptions in South Fiorida. The result of       evaluate its own success. T h e truch is best sezvec
 the Corps' self examinadon. published in 1994, is      by a n independent review.
 IWR Report 94 PS-1 entiiled "Shoreline Protec-            T h e Corps' review of the national beach re-
 tion and Beach Erosion Control Study-Phase i:          plenishmenc experience and their assexion of
 Cost Comparison of Shoreline Protection Pr0jec.s       successful beach behavior prediction has ocher
 of the US Army Corps of Engineers." I t is avail-      problems.
 able from T h e U.S.A r n y Corps of Engineers,            Problen $1. Was a beach always present
 Water Resources S u p p o r ~
                             Center, Casey Building,    throughout the duration of the project? T h e pur-
 7701 Telegraph Road, .L\lexandria, VA 22310-3868.       ple report fails to take into account whether or
 This 119 page report is sandwiched between strik-      not the beach was maintained between nourish-
 ing purple covers and is hereafter referred to as       ments. PUKEY     (1988) summarizes published re-
 the purple report. Aspects of che report were also      ports on the success of East Coast replenished
beaches. In many cases, replenished beaches are            ciuding bays, estuaries. the Great Lakes and Alas-
substantially gone before the time has come for            ka! But replenishment is primarily an open ocean
the next nourishment I between scheduled nour-
                          f                                or lake phenomenon. Including vast areas of es-
ishments, a beach has disappeared or if a signif-          tuarine, rocky and undeveloped shoreline down-
icant number of erosion hot spots has resulted in          plays the importance of beach replenishment in
total beach loss in front of previously recognized         application and in ultimate cost A more realistic
critically eroding shoreline reaches, the beach i   s      value would be the percent of the total length of
not a success. Shoreline retreat was not halted, a         developed open ocean shoreline fronted by pre-
recreational beach was not maintained and build-           existing sandy beaches that has been replenished.
inm were not protected. In this situation, simple          All major coastal resort communities on the U.S.
comparison of cost and sand volumes predictions                                                  il
                                                           east coast are replenished or soon w l be. Fully
is not a measure of the agency's success.                  50 Srb of the developed open ocean shoreline mile-
    For example, the Corps notes correctly that the        age along the East Coast of Florida, south of Cape
1976 to 1987 Tybee Beach, Georgia, project was             Canaveral, is replenished or is about to be. Sound
under budget in terms o both dollars and sand
                            T                              coastal management in the future requires an ac-
volume but fails to note that the beach disap-             curate understanding of the role: that beach re-
peared within a year along the critically eroding          plenishment is playing.
north and south ends of the island. For 10 years               Problem S4. Part of the analysis in the purple
(between 1977 a d 1987) Tybee Beach' had no                report involves comparison of the actual and es-
beach where it needed one or when it needed one            timated costs and sand volumes for the initial
had a hurricane occurred. The Corps assertion, in          replenishment. Such comparisons, concerned with
the purple report, of being under budget a t Tybee         the h t time sand is pumped on a beach, have
Beach is meaningless!                                      Little bearing on the Corps design success or pre-
    Problem #Z. What was used as the "original"            dictive capabilities. Not surprisingly, the purple
estimate to be compared with the actual experi-            report finds that the agency has been quite suc-
ence? During the long process of justification,            cessful in predicting how much sand would be
 planning anddesign before a project is emplaced.          pumped in the initial effort. How could they miss?
 a number of sand volume and dollar estimates are              The drumbeat continues. Beaches continue to
 made. The Northern New Jersey project has at               be emplaced using non-probabilistic design meth-
 least tripled in cost since the £irst estimate. What      ods which would only work if we knew the sched-
 should count is the estimate that the Corps used           ule and intensity of storms for the next few de-
 as a basis for determining the economic viability          cades. Since this will obviously not happen, such
 of the project (the benefitlcost ratio). This is the       a design approach can't possibly work. Costs and
 estimate of cost used to determine the feasibility         sand volumes for the latest new projects on the
 of other management alternatives such as the re-           East Coast have been very poor. Ocean City,
 treat option or the do-nothing option. These are           Maryland, has already emplaced (in t h e e years)
 the estimates of societal importance but the re-           about one-thud of the volume of sand predicted
 port does not document which estimates are used.           to be needed over the next fifty years. The initial
 The lack of documentation in the purple report             1993 nourishment project at Folly Beach, South
  makes it impossible to directly compare our ac-           Carolina, was predicted to have a nourishment
  tualiestimated ratios with theirs. Clearly, how-          interval of 8 years. Sand loss has been very rapid
  ever, the Corps' view is more optimistic than ours.       and based on our own observations, the nourish-
  According to PILREY DIXON(1989),the ac-
                          and                               ment interval stage was achieved in less than one
  tudestimated cost ratio (inflation corrected in           year. New projects on the drawing board have
  all cases) at one point for the Wrightsville Beach        predicted cost and sand volume requirements
  and Carolina Beach, North Carolina, projects are          which are highly unlikely. Predicted nourishment
  6.53 and 13.12 respectively. The same ratios in            intervals of ten years for Myrtle Beach, South
  the purple book are 1.10 and 0.87.                         Carolina and North Myrtle Beach and 2 predic-
     Problem 8 3 . The importance of U.S.beach re-           tion of six years for the Northern New Jersey
  plenishment. The purple report notes that only             project are a t considerable odds with experience
  0.3% of our shoreline has been replenished. In             on nearby earlier replenished beaches (e.g., Folly
  determining this number the Corps uses the total           Beach, South Carolina and Sandy Hook, New Jer-
   mileage (84,000 plus) of all U.S. shorelines in-          sey).


                                   Journal of Coastal Research. Vol. 11, No. 3. 1995
    d ..Uas-          The shommings in the p q l e report highlight
    ? ocean         what is needed in the American approach to cesch           HOUSTON. 1 W . Discussion o i Piikey. O.H. and
                                                                                     J.X.
    j df es-        replenishment.                                                 Lzomrd er ai. 1990. J o u ~ of Coascal Researcn, 6 ,
                                                                                                                      i
                                                                                   1023-1036.
     down-                                                                     HOUSTON. 19912 Beachdl p e n ' o w c e . Snare and
                                                                                                J.R.
    lent in                                                                        aeach, 59(1). 15-24.
    ealistic        (I) Monitoring of all beach replenishment pro-             HOUSTON, 1991b. Rejoinder t discussion of P i k e y
                                                                                                J.R.                    o
    +     oi           jects-
                    (2) Consistent reporting of economic, environ-
                                                                                                                     M~
                                                                                   and h n a r d (1990).J O U ~ of Coastal Research. 7 .
                                                                                   565-577.
    3y pre-
                          m e n d a d engineering aspects of replenish-                          J.R.
                                                                               HOUSTON, 1995. Beach repienishmenr Shore and
    zli!iileci.                                                                    Beach. 63(1),      21-24.
    xe US.                ment projecs. Currently it is nearly inpos-
                          sibie to do more than a cursorj analysis o i the                                   K.
                                                                               k o ~ m L; DIXON, . and P~XGY. . . 1990. A
                                                                                                  .                             OH.
    : Fuily
    .                                                                              cornparkon of beach r e p i e n i s b e n t on the U.S. AL-
    e miie-
                          nationai replenishment esprience which has               !antic. Taciiic and Gulf coasts. ~.ournoloi Coasrci
    ~iCape                h i ~ value for evaluation o i d e s i g prin-
                                     d                                             8esearc:1. Special Issue 30. pp. 127-140.
                                                                                                                   6,
                          cipies.                                              PTLXEY. 0.3. Drxo?r. K.. 1060. Testimony o i Orrin
                                                                                                    and
     Sound                                                                         3- Piikey Jr. beiore h e Environment. Energy and
                    (3) &lessures of replesished be~c:?     success ~ n a c
    j    U1 LIC-                                                                   Narilral Xesources Subcornmitte o i the House Com-
    scn re-               are not simply internal accounting. Success              mittee on Government Operations. .\priI '78, !989.
                          zaessures must consider comnunitlr vieprs oi         ? : L ~ E O.H.. 1088. h thunonaii nethod for beacii com-
                                                                                             Y.
                          the situation.                                                                                r
                                                                                   a u n i t i e s ~ h c i o oi !on5 zm beach replenish-
                                                                                                               n
    uq!e                                                                           Zenc requirements. Shore and Beacn. 36. 43-32.
    m d es-         (4) Recognition of the randocl occ,arence of
                                                                               P:LXHY. O.X.and L z o x a o . LA. 1990. Reply u, tious-
    lniclai               s t o r m which would leac :o probablisiic es-           ton (14%). Jourm! o i Coatcl Researcn. 6 , 1047-
                          timates of beach durabilirj.                             1057.
    h. have         ( 5 ) Recognition that foxes should not be recruit-        P:L:<zY, 0.H.. 1991. Reply t souston (1491).J o u r ~ l
                                                                                                                 o
                          ed to guard hen houses. A g o v e m e n t agency         of Coastal Researcn, 7 3 ) . S7M9-l.
    or pre-                                                                                     ..
                                                                               ? I L K E Y . O H ,1992 Anorher view of beach iill perfor-
     purple               shouid not be requested to evaluate the suc-
                                                                                   mance. Shore and aeach. 60.20-25.
                          cess oi iu own activities. The p q l e repon         SUDAR. A . ; POPE, HILLYER. and CRU?A, 1Q95.
                                                                                                         J.;         T..              J.,
                                                       time by an inde-
                          shouid be done 3g3ii1, ~ 5 i s                          -.        L
                                                                                   snore protection projects oi the U.S. Xrzny Corps o i
                          pendent panel o i scientiss a d en,' ?:nee=.             Znainers. Shore and ,3eac.+.5 3 3 , 3-16.



    : sched-
        few de-
        :n. such

          on the
        n City,
        s ye-)
        .edicxd
        P initial
        ., South
        .shent
        ry rapid

        h a one
        rd have
        rements'
        ishmeat
        : South
         ,
        . predic-


,       I Jersey
        ~erience
        g, Folly
         .
        .iew Jer-




                                                        Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 11. No. 3, 1995
                      Journal of Coastal Research           13           1           259-264       !     Fort Lauderdale. Flonda     1    Winter   1997
                                                                                                                                                          i

                                                DISCUSSION


                Discussion of: Pilkey, 0. H., 1996. The Fox Guarding
                the Hen House (editorial),Journal o Coastal Research,
                                                    f
                11(3), iii-V.
1               Theodore M. Hillper and Eugene Z. Stakhiv

                Policy and Special Studies Division
                Water Resources Support Center
                U.S. Xrmy Institute for Water Resources
                7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building




                  -
                Alexandria, VA 22315, U S A




                  ..
                 ,. .
                  rrtllOPD81.
                                                                              ..
                                        H I L L E R . T.Y. and STXI.;HN, E Z ,1997. Discussion o Pilkey, 0. H., 1996. The Fox Guarding the Hen House
                                                                                                    E
                                        (editorial). J o u m l of Coastal Research, 13(1),353-264. Fon Lauderdale t Florida). ISSN 0749-0208.


                m-
                       .o.
                      roo   l




                ,
                ,                       T i paper discusses the editorial of Pilkey (1996).The discussion responds to a number of questions raised by Pilkey
                                         hs
                                        about the Corps evaluation merhodology and the underlying prermse that the Corps should not be conducting a self-
                                        examination.


    I
    8                                INTRODUCTION                                       induced development. and environmental considerations as-
    I
    i                                                                                   sociated with shore protection projects.
                  This responds to an editorial T h e Fox Guarding the Hen
    i1         House" by Orrin H.PiJkey on the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
                                                                                           On some points, regardless of the information, there will
                                                                                        be disagreements. This is principally because much of what
               neers (Corps) shore protection program. Dr. Pilkey's review
                                                                                        is done, is derived from legal and institutional requirements.
               was on a report prepared by the Corps and published by the
                                                                                        These laws i d u e n c e project benefit-cost methodologies, im-
               Institute for Water Resources (TWRReport 94-PS-1) in Jan-
                                                                                        pact assessments, and decisions regarding the e-dent and du-
    :          uary 1994 (CORPS,1994). The report was the first of a two-
    :          phase effort performed by the Corps on its shoreline protec-             ration of beach erosion/stom damage reduction projects. I t is
                                                                                        L cocstantiy moving r?as=.linrfor the Corps, aj is tilt: science,
               don program under the direction of the Ofice of Management
               and Budget (OMB). The purpose of the first phase effort was              engineering and technology that support our program. A-
               to provide early input to OMB regarding the scope and cost               suming all planning and design processes are constant and
               of the Federal shore protection program. Dr. Pilkey refers to             that all projects must be judged by a singie standard is in-
               this report as the "purple report." The second phase of the              correct. It is clear that the overall performance of the Corps
               study has now been completed. This final report (CORPS,                   shore protection program has improved over the years, as our
            '
               1996) incorporates additional analysis of project cost and                knowledge has grown and our en-gineering experience in
             '.s& quantities, provides an overview of risk management in                 beach nourishment has increased. The entire set of projects
               the coastal zone, presents a discussion on environmental con-             in the Corps portfolio cannot be reviewed on the same basis,
'
    - :.,, ., .siderations, and gives a unique analysis of any induced de-
        '
                                                                                         however, because they have been modified periodically under
               velopment effects associated with the Federal shore protec-               diEierent sets of laws, rules and procedures.
               tion program. With the recent release of the final report,                   Regarding charges that the Corps should not be evaluating
               many of Dr. Pilkey's questions are readily answered. A paper              its own work, one must remember that evaluation is the iinal
               on this final report of the Corps is contained in this edition            step in a scizntific rmthod a d ali federal agencies curlduct
               of the Journal of Coastal Research. Since a report on the ini-            evaluations of their own programs. This evaluation may be
                tial effort of the Corps (CORPS,1994) was reported by Sudar              performed as a status report to Congress, a report on the
               et al. (19951, the accompanying Journal article, while updat-             condition of the environment, or as a n assessment of future
                ing some of the costs to 1995 price levels, focusses on the new          "needs." This report is not one internally generated by the
                data, i.e., benefits of shore protection projects, the question of        Corps to serve "marketing" purposes, but rather as indicated
                                                                                          previously, was in response to a request from OMB. The pur-
                96063 received and accepted 9 July 1996.                                  pose of the request was primarily for budgetary reasons in
260                                                       Hillyer and


order to update the current portfolio, provide an overview of           jects that could be compared. The report (CORPS, 1994) ex-
project performance and to develop a n estimate of future                plains:
commitments. The quenions asked were those submitted by
OMB. The Corps had little to do with the study agenda or                  "Estimated and actual costs for the 36 larger projecz
the underlying premise of this inquiry. An independent re-                were adjusted to 1993 dollars so that cost estimating per-
view would have required additional budgetary commit-                     formance could be evaluated. There were 49 out of 56
ments.                                                                    large shore protection projects involving the use of sand
  Certainly, the General .4ccounting Office or the Office of              fills for purposes of initial beach restoration. 40 involving
Technology .bsessment could have conducted this analysis                  periodic beach nourishment and 42 with a structural
as independent entities. The Corps, however, would still have             component. In order to pr2ser.t a meaningful evaluation,
had to undertake much of the analysis in the report, because              certain projects were not included in the comparison
the data and information available were internal and piece-               analysis due to the unavailability of complete cost data
meal, reflecting different authorizations, changing complex               or because the constructed project differed from that en-
cost-sharing rules and varying analytical requirements. A                 visioned a t the time of preconstruction estimate. The
great deal of effort went into the analysis and evaluation of             numbers of projects which had sufficient information to
the information by people who understood the history of those             make a valid comparison of actual and estimated costs
changes and their analytical implications. The federal world              are given in the table below."
is one of varying Congressional authorizations, appropria-                 The report (CORPS,1994) then goes on to show that for the
tions and executive orders under which the Corps and all                56 larger projects only 40 of the 49 projects that included
federal agencies operate.                                               initial restoration, 33 of the 40 that contained nourishment
   Finally, a study by the Yational Research Council (XRC)              and 35 of the 42 that included structural features had SUE-
was recently completed. This report (XRC, 19951.was devel-              cienc information co make valid cost comparisons. Only these
oped independently of, hut simultaneously with, the Corps               40 restoration. 33 nourishment and 35 structural portions oi
shoreline study and includes the Phase I effort of the Corps            the total 56 larger p r o j a were used in the comparison of
(CORPS,1994) as a reference. The XRC report examined all                the tocal cost performance of 31.340.9 million actual cost and
aspects of beach nourishment and protection including the               S1.403.0 milLion estimated cost (both in 1993 dollars) that is
federal role in beach nourishment. The report (NRC, 1995)               quoted in the editorial. The actual funds expended on the
supports the Corps shore protection program.                            total 56 projects were 5670.6 million. and when updated to
   This discussion is not meant to imply that the Corps shore-           1993 price levels. the cost becomes S1.489.5 million. Of this
line protection program is perfect or that improvements can-            tocal cost, approximately 60 percent were Federal eupendi-
 not be made. It is only an effort to set the record straight.          tures and the remaining 40 percent was contributed by the
                                                                        local sponsor. The procedure used for adjusting the costs of
                        RESPONSE                                        beacn restoration and nourishment projects for the report in-
                                                                         volved the volumes of sand placed and the current cost of
  To begin with. the Corps did not use data from more than
100 replenished beaches for the "purple report." Xs quoted               sand in each area for obtaining, transporting, and placing the
from page 33 of the report (CORPS,1994):                                 sand a t the respective project sites. Only structural costs
                                                                         were adjusted by means of the Engineering News Record Con-
   "Apreviously noted, the portfolio of constructed Feder-               stmction Cost Index. If all project costs were adjusted using
   ally spunsored shore protection projects contains 82 spe-             only the Engineering News Rrc0-d Construction Cost Index,
   cifically authorized projects of various types which span             the total cost of the 56 projects in 1993 dollars would be about
   a combined shoreline distance of approximately 226 stat-              20 percent less, a t $1,177.3 million.
  .u?,e miles. Of the total 82 projects, 26 were very small in             Specific problems identified in the editorial are addressed
   scope and covered only 16 of the 226 miles of protected               in the following paragraphs.
   shoreline distance. These 26 small projects, which cost a
    total of $4.56 million at time of construction, were not             Problem #1
   'considered in the detailed analysis which follows in this
    chapter. Therefore, the cost analysis presented below in-              w a s a beach always present throughout the duration of the
    cludes only the 56 large constructed projects."                      project?

  The total number of Corps projects that was considered for             Answer
comparison was "82," which was reduced to 56 for a detailed
cost comparison analysis. Of these 56 projects, 49 contained                In the past, monitoring of Corps beach nourishment pro-
initial beach restoration, 40 projects had been renourished,             jects, on the whole, has not been a s good as i t should have
and 42 of the projects contained a structural component.                 been. However, since enactment of the Water Resources De-
  Next, "more than 100 projects" were not used to arrive a t             velopment Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) (WRDA'861, and
an actual cost of $1,340.9 million and an estimated cost of               the advent of more strict cost sharing and local cooperation
$1,403.0 million. We do not want to be misleading these                   agreements, monitoring has, and will continue to improve.
numbers are not total costs for all Federal shore protection              Adequate funds must be included in the Corps budget and in
projects. These lumbers are updated costs for only those pro-             local cooperation agreements to carry out this most valuable



                                              Journal of Covtal F(esearch,Vol. 13. Xo. 1 1997
                                                                                        .
              activity. When this has been accomplished, many of these                   concepts and the Bruun rule. The Bmun rule is an as-
              concerns can be more satisfactorily answered.                              sumption stating that beaches erode such that the equi-
                The hiRC report !1995) r e c o w e d this issue. Under the               librium profiie remains constant. and there is a sircple
              paragraph (page 150) on 'Environmental and Monitoring Is-                  lateral displacement of the proiile as erosion occurs. -    4
              sues," the report states:                                                  logical extension of this concept is that the effects of ero-
                                                                                         sion can be countered by building the profile Sack out
                 "Most beach nourishment programs are inadequately
                                                                                         uniformly, and this requires fill volumes to include ma-
                 monitored following construction. ;Monitoring of the
                                                                                         terial to build out the subaqueous ponion of the active
                 physical environment and the performance of the fill ma-
                                                                                         profile."
                 terial is often too limited in scope and duration to quan-
                 tlfy project performance adequately."                                    In other words, sand does not have to be seen to be a p a n
                                                                                       of the protection system. Standard engineering practice for
                 The report then goes on to recommend: "Sponsors of all
                                                                                       estimating nou-ishment rates (long term erosion) is to first
                 beach nourishment projects and programs should estab-                 develop a sediment budget. When determining a sediment
                 lish adequate monitoring programs to evaluate changes                 budget for a given area, compartment boun&es are estab-
                 in the physical anci environmental conditions."
                                                                                       lished. The seaward limit of such a boundary is usually es-
                   The Corps final report (1996) addresses this issue in the           tablished at or beyond the seaward limit of the active sedi-
                conclusions, which state: "Historically, funding has not been         -merit movement. The landward boundary is established be-
                provided to perform post-storm surveys of beach nourishment            yond the anticipated erosion limit for the life of the study
                areas. Therefore, Corps districts have been unable to mea-             (normally 50 years). The long term erosion rate is normally
                sure project performance of completed projects." .bother con-          defined as the net loss of material from within these bound-
                ciusion is: "There is no funding mechanism to maintain a               aries. The long term erosion rate is "not" the loss of dry beach
                national data base of Federal shore protection projects. This          sand only.
                makes it difficult to access the costs and other project speaf-           The underwater portions of the beach profile play more of
                ics of the program and respond to inquiries kom the Xdmin-             a role than the dry beach in reducing wave energy. Recent
                istration, Congress and others." These conclusions are re-             experience with near shore berms placed i n deep water in-
                peated in the accompanying Journal article.                            dicates there is sigmficant wave energy reduction from such
                   We are uncertain as to what is meant by "maintained" in             berms. Even if instances occur where the dry beach is under
                the discussion of problem 1 If it means "periodic nourish-
                                               .                                       water during storm events, the beach nevertheless still plays
                ment" then the report does address this comment. Table 13              a significant role in reducing damages. Humcane .hdrew
                in the report (CORPS,1994) (as well as Table 4-2 in the final          overtopped the beach projects in the southern portions of Bro-
                report [CORPS,19961) shows actual expenditures by project,             ward County, Florida in August 1992 and yet physical dam-
                including 'periodic nourishment." This table shows that for            ages from waves and storm surge were minimal. Similar con-
                the Tybee Island, Georgia project, it had an actual periodic           ditions were experienced earlier a t Myrtle Beach, South Car-
                nourishment cost of $1,989,000. Table 16 of the report                 olina during the passage of Hurricane Hugo in 1989, due to
                (CORPS. 1994) (as well as Table 4-10 in the final report               the presence of a locally funded beach project.
                [CORPS,19961) gives the volume of sand used in "periodic                  While there may be a necessity to have a "dry" beach for
                nourishment." For Tybee Island, both tables show a place-              recreation purposes, since enactment of WRDA '86, Corps
        :       mefit of 1,300,000 cubic yards. This shows the project was             projects are not justified on recreaticil b-ut on stcrm danagc
                "maintained."                                                          reduction. So a " d r f beach to provide recreation opportuni-
        1          The current Tybee Island project was initiated in 1975-              ties is an incidental benefit. See Figure 1in the accompany-
        i        1976 with the placement of 2,237,330 cubic yards of material.          ing Journal article for the relative importance of recreation
        1       Eight years later in 1984,1,529,960 cubic yards, or 68 percent          benefits versus storm damage reduction benefits.
        1i      of the volume was still in place. While the first renourish-               The NRC report (1995) on page 149, under a paragraph
                ment did not occur until 1986, 10 years after initial nourish-          heading of "Measures of Success," recognizes that:
        /i      ment, the latest Tybee Island Reevaluation Report, dated
                 1994, calls for a 7-year renourishment cycle. We believe the
                                                                                          "There% no single measure of success for beach nourish-
.                                                                                         ment programs because programs usually serve a variety
    .   .    , ,,project is performing as designed and is a successful project.
                                                                                          of objectives. Therefore, various measures of success
                   There could be some confusion between the terms "dry
                                                                                          need to be defined for beach nourishment programs. A
                 sand beach" and "designed beach." Just because sand is not
                                                                                          program may or may not be successful in meeting all
        :        visible does not mean it is not useful. X similar misunder-
                                                                                          objectives underlying its establishment. Some of the per-
        i        standing was raised earlier by Leonard et al. (1990). These
                                                                                          formance measures may occur in the near term, such as
        i        comments were addressed by Dr. James R. Houston (1991).
                                                                                          a program's response to physical forces. Other objectives
        :        In his article Dr. Houston states:              ... .-
                                                                                          may occur over a much longer term-for example, the
                 "A major deficiency in beachfill design in the past was                  realization of related shore comrnunicy economic devel-
                 failure to realize that the subaerial beach was a part of                opment goals and reduction of shoreline r e t r e a t . . . The
                 a larger beach system and the entire profile down to a                   fundamental measure of success is the life span o f t h e
                 closure depth had to be nourished. The idea of nourishing                beach fill and how nearly actual performance conforms
                 the entire active prose is based on equilibrium beach                    to predicted performance." (Underline added by author).



                                                             Journal of Coastal Research. Val. 13. No. 1 1997
                                                                                                        .
           262
                           .    .
                                                                     Hillyer and Stakhiv.      :




            The report goes on to recommend: "Sponsors of beach                           increase the level of contracting for technical jer.
            nourishment programs should quantify and report on                       vices by consultants to the CSXCE. and
            four measures of performance of beach nourishment pro-                        mociiiy the laws and, respiadons-to make feder3!
            jects. The measures are:                                                 funding for locally consmctea federal projecrs avaiiable
                  dry beach width,                                                   upon approval of preconstruction engineering and desim
                  total sand volume remaining,                                                                                         l
                                                                                     by the .hsistant Secretary of the - m y for C i ~Work.-
                  poststorm damage assessments, and
                  residual protection capacity."                                       It should be emphasized. however, that the benefit-cost n-
                                                                                   tio must always be positive, regardless of the change in cost5
             The final report (CORPS,1996) and the accompanying Jour-              and that decision criterion is the most essential one to meet.
           m articles do not address this issue directly, only that as
            i                                                                      Federal water resources development projects are the on!:,.
           indicated above, that additional funds need to be provided to           Federal projects subject to rigorous benefit-cost metho&.
           perform adequate beach surveys.                                         This benefit side of the equation was addressed in the final
                                                                                                               h
                                                                                   report (CORPS, 1996). T e attached Journal article also pm
           Problem 2                                                               vides information on benefits of Corps shore protection pm .
                                                                                   jects (see Table 1 in the accompanying writeup).
             What was used as the "originaln estimate to be compared                    Projects can change drastically over what is normally the
           with the actual experience?                                             extended period of time between first authorization and con-
                                                                                   struction. During the course of these years, land conditions,
                                                                                   Federal cost sharing and design requirements. and non-Fed-
                                                                                   eral ceeds and concerns change. For example. approximately
              The "purple reportn does not address what was used as "an            half of all the beach erosion centrol and storm damage re-
           original estimate." This oversight was rectiiied by the final           duction projects were first authorized by Congress by the
           repon (1996). This final report clarihes what is meant by               mid-1960's. Most of these eariy beach projects planned to uti-
           "original" (see following paragraphs) and presents the de-              lize borrow areas located in inland waterways, rivers, estu-
           tailed project history of six projects: Ocean City, &Iarylai~d;          aries, or dry land quarries. due to limited offshore dredging
           Carolina Beach and Vicinity, North Carolina; Tybee Island.               technology. Because of uncertainties involved, Federal par-
           Georgia; Grande Isle and Vicinity, Louisiana; Resque Isle                ticipation in peiiodic nourishment was limited to ten years
           Peninsula Erie, Pennsylvania; and Sun"side1Sunset and
           Sewport Beach. Orange County, California. This hlstory pro-
                                                                                    horn completion of construction. The Coastal Engineering Re- .
                                                                                    search Center, which was established in 1963, was just start-
                                                                                                                                                                 1
                                                                                                                                                                 .
           vides a succinct profile of how projects change over time.
              X fundamental question to ask regarding project evalua-
                                                                                    ing to develop the technology that is now available to all the               1
                                                                                                                                                                 !
                                                                                    Corps districts. Cost estimates for these early Corps projefts               i
            tion is what is the reference point for '%eforen and "after" cost       contained in the Congressional documents did not always ace
            estimates. There is no single answer, however, due to the
                                                                                    curately reflect what was finally constructed. Federal partic-
            planning, design and construction process. This process often           ipation in periodic nourishment was subsequently extended                    '
            takes 10-15 years for these projects. Cost estimates change
                                                                                    to 15 years in the Water Resources Development Act of 1935
            through the process each time new information is obtained.
                                                                                    (Public Law 94-587) and to 50 years in WRDA '86.
            new models are developed, or analysis is conducted far a n
                                                                                        The Corps find report (1996) attempts to corzlprr~   "cclcnl
            update. It would be foolish for the Corps or any entity to stay
                                                                                     estimatedn for Like projects rather than "actuaVestimated" for
            with a n initial cost-estimate, despite the fact that a decade
                                                                                     projects which changed drastically from authorization to con-
            passes and circumstances change.
                                                                                     struction. This explains why, in the above paragraph on corn-
               The XRC report (1995) also addresses this "time laf be-
                                                                                     paring costs, not all of the projects could be compared. To
            tween the start of study and the start in construction. On
            page 150 under the paragraph heading "Measures of Successn               measure performance, the report used the preconstruction
                                                                                     cost estimates available at the time the local cooperation (the
            the report states:
                                                                                     project) agreement was signed by the Corps and the non-Fed-
             'The federal process for renourishing a beach from the                  eral sponsor. Agreements are normally signed after precon-
. ,   ..     reconnaissance study through the first nourishment typ-                 struction documents are completed. The execution of the
             ically takes 10 to 15 years . . . These long planning times             agreement and project funding by the local, state and Federal
             burden the local sponsor with years of uncertainty about                interests is, in reality, the legal commitment by al parties to
                                                                                                                                        l
             storm damage. Some of the delays are caused by the rigid                fund and construct the project. -3s projects change over time.
             and sequential federal process, which includes detailed                 Congress is made aware of these changes during the yearly
             agency reviews and waiting times for next-phase fund-                   budget testimony and the non-Federal sponsor through re-
             ing. Other delays are caused by slippage @ USACE plan-                  finements to the project cooperation agreements.
              ning schedules." The report goes on to recommend: T h e                    If the "Northern New Jersey" project referenced tc in prob-
              federal government should reduce the time now needed                   lem 2 is the Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet (Seabright) pro-
              to process a beach nourishment project. The following                  ject, the report (CORPS,1994) lists the total cost a t $394 mil-
              steps should be taken:                                                  lion. This project is included in Table 22 under " ~ c t h o r i z e d ~
                   revise the federal approval process to streamline ap-              Awaiting Initiation of Construction." It was beyond the scope
              provals and funding time frames,                                        of the study to analyze costs for projects which were not con-



                                                                                       o.
                                                         Journal of Coastal Research. V l 13. No. 1. 1495
                                                                Discussim


strocted. The final report of the Corps (CORPS, 1996) lists this             Miami Beach. The Miami Beach tl has been in place
                                                                                                                    l
                                                                                                                    i
project as 'Under Construction" with a total 1995 cost esri-                 since the late 19'70s at a cost of S52 million. The capital-
mate of 5516.5 million.                                                      ized cost of Lie fill is about S3 million per year Thus the
                                                                             6li provides about SiOO annually in foreign revenue for
                                                                             each $1 invested in beach nourishment. l'lus amount is a
                                                                             remarhble return considering that agricultural subsidies
  The importance of the U.S. beach replenishment.                            do not result in much more than $1 in revenue ser $1 in
                                                                             subsidy."

    It is true that the Corps Phase I report (CORPS,1994) re-               Problem M
 ports t h a t only 0.3 percent of the nations' total shoreline is            Beaches continue to be emplaced using non-probabilistic
 protected by Corps projects. The report, recognizing that this             design methods which would only work if we knew the sched-
number could be misleading, also shows that the Corps pro-                  ule and intensity of storms for the ne-xt few decades.
jects are located in the 2,700 miles of coastline identiiied in
 the Corps (1971) shoreline study as 'critical erosion areas."
.As further indicated in the report, 226 miles of the nation's
coastline is protected by 82 specifically authorized and con-                 Nourishment intervals are est;mates and may vary depend-
structed projects. These projects protect 1.1 percent of the                ing upon the number and magnitude of storms. There is no
significant erosion areas and 8.4 percent of the critical ero-              one model that can predict exactly what nature will do to
sion areas. The final report (CORPS, 1996) further subtracts                beach nourishment projects and the associated renourishment.
the coastline of .Alaska and arrives a t (respectively) percent-            We believe, however, that che Corps' numerical modeling ca-
ages of 0.6. 1.3 and 8.7. Under any standard, the Corps shore               pabilities w h i ~ 5 based on engineering and scientific prin-
                                                                                               are
protection program is minor and does not provide compre-                    ciples are as close to state of the art as is available. to date.
hensive, continuous protection as some would have us be-                    In addition, methodology is currentIy being developed by the
 ueve.                                                                      Corps to incorporate risk analysis in planning and design pro-
    Another indication of the scope of the nations' shore pro-              cedures. A d nourishment intervals are also a function of
tection was explored by Houston (1995). In an article for                   Federal and local budget constraints as well as other nontech-
 Coastal Forum 1, Dr. Houston shows figures for shore prc-                  nical constraints (e.g., availability of dredges). The report
 tection in West Germany, Japan. Netherlands and Spain. He                  (CORPS,1994) focuses on the total amount of sand placed ver-
 notes that the Netherlands spends twice as much annually                   sus the estimated volume: the nourishment interval was not a
 as does the United States; Germany six times as much; Spain                feacure of the report. Over a 50-year project life, actual nour-
 15 times that of United States expenditures and Japan 100                  ishment intervals will vary, some shorter than predicted and
 times as much on a n annual basis. Those expenditures are                  some longer, but on the average, only time wiU tell if Corps'
 for much shoder coastlines than those of the United States.                estimates are accurate. As noted earlier in the discussion of
 Further, each country spends a much greater share of its                   problem 1, the XRC report (1995) states on page 149;
 G h i for shore protection than does the United States.                      T h e fundamental measure of success is the Life span of
    With respect to the southeastern coast of Florida, which                  the beach fill and how nearly actual performance con-
 may be the most heavily developed coastal area in the United                 forms to predicted performance."
 States, the coastline from Canaveral Harbor to Key Biscaylle
 is about 195 miles. Of this distance, almost 75 percent or 145                The enactment of WRDA '86 has changed the role of the
 miles is developed. Of the developed area, 39.1miles are pro-              Corps in executing civil works projects. Provisions of WRDA
 tected by completed Corps projects (27 percent) and an ad-                 '86 require the increased participation of local cost sharing
 ditional 31.5 miles (22 percent) are covered by authorized                 partners and imposed specific restrictions on all cost growth,
 projects which may or may not ever be constructed. To state                not just for shoreline protection projects, but for all projects.
 that "Fully 50% of the developed open ocean shoreline mile-                A project cost estimate for each civil works project is estab-
 age along the East Coast of Florida, . . . is replenished or is            lished, which if exceeded by 20 percent, requires additional
  about to be," (underline added) is overstated. Please note that            Congressional action. These changes have resulted in a com-
  these authorized projects can only be constructed with full                mitment by the Corps to more efficiently and effectively man-
  Federal and local support, including funding. The h a l report             age civil works projects by establishing an increased account-
  (CORPS,1996) contains this information as well as additional               ability for project estimates, budgets and schedules. -4.5 an
  information on the Florida coastline. As noted above, project              example, in the Jacksonville District, recent experience has
  selection is based largely on benefit cost analysis. The fact              been that work for shoreline protection projects is being bid
  that the Corps is more involved in some locations than in                  consistently under or near the Government estimate (Man-
  others, merely suggests that there is a great seal of economic             atee County, Sarasota County, and Dade County).
  activity at risk. The NRC (1995) reports that for the Miami                   Concerning the Ocean City, Maryland project, the editorial
  Beach area (included in the above Canaveral Harbor to Key                  is correct in that about 30 percent of the 50-year estimate of
  Biscayne stretch of beach):                                                sand has already been placed on the beach. This project was
                                                                             subjecc to back to back severe storms in the winter of 1991-
   "[Flor example, foreign tourists spend $4 billion a year at               1992, just as the original beach restoration project was near-



                                               Journal of Coastal Research. Vol. 13,No. 1, 1997
ing completion. During this period. Ocean City mayor Roland
Toweil was quoted as telling the Baitimore Ecening Sun on
                                                             Hillyer and Stakhiv
                                                                                      ..
                                                                                       -   .


                                                                          50-year period should be 6-years. It will take many
                                                                          project iife to prove or disprove this average inteRai.
                                                                                                                                        -    ,,(
November 1. 1091 thac "Millions of doilars of propeny have                   The ind s p o n ;CORPS. i996i con-&S ix3een:!;;              ,
                                                                                                                                         ,-
been saved . . . it's very comiorting to have that protection."           comparison a a u on sand empiacemenrs. ixiuding r -      j
                                                                                                                                   )
                                                                                                                                   ,
                                                                                                                                   C        ;I
On January 6, 1992. after the second major storm. mayor                   projecr dam ior both initial restoranon and periodic nour,ih.
Powell praised the project for saving the boardwalk, one of               ment. The data show there is sigrdicant deviation on a pro:,c
che area's major economic assets. Maryland Governor WiI-                  by project basis. For example, for i i i l restoratwq :here, .%
                                                                                                                nta
!ism D. Scnaefer said that public and private property in                 39 projects which couid be analyzed. Of these ! projecj. ,
                                                                                                                               :
                                                                                                                               9
Ocean City would have been damaged more seriously if the                  timates ran h m an underestimation in sand require,j f,,          ;
                                                                                                                                            ,
dunes had not existed. He also said the cost of maintaining               to 85 percent, to overestimation of the sand requked by
the dunes is jusdiied. The development a t Ocean City cur-                percenr. For the program as a whole, there were nine ,        m
rently exceeds a value of S2,000 million. The cost ofthe Ocean            projects which showed underestimadons than showed overM.
City project through 1993, a t 1993 dollars, is estimated at              timation. Similarly, the repon (CORPS, 19963 shows dam for
$45 million. The Baltimore District estimates a total of S93              31 periodic nourishment projecrs. Of these. estimates          frcm
miition in storm damage reduction benefits for the 1991-1992              an underestimation of 298 percent to overestiiation of 100
period alone. From a cost-effective standpoint, Ocean City.               percent. For the program as a whole, there were 16 more pm
Maryland is one of the Corps' most eKective projects.                     jecs whic!! showed overestimation than showed undereSc.
   The .NRC (1995) made specific reference to the Ocean Cicy               mations. . n overestimation of 100 percent (for ten of the pro-
                                                                                     l
project. In the writeup beginning on page 37 under the para-              jects) showed that nourishment was noc carried out as planned
g a p h heading "Public Expectations About Design Perfor-                  for several reasons. In some cases. the 1 0 4 sponsor withdrew
mance." the repon in p a n stated:                                         from the project agreement. in some recently constrdcted p m
                                                                          jects the schedule had slipped so that nourishment was really
     T h e rnedia generally report the visual resuits of a storm           noc due yet and in only trvo c a . e was the lack of nourishxeot
     buc often fail to note that designers e-xpected and                   an hdicator of less-than-expected erosion races.
     planned for signrficant movement of sand off a beach dur-                Because or^ the Sghly varinole and largely unpredichblc
     ing a storm . . . Media coverage of beach fll performance             nature of c o a s d storms, the t o d actual cost of projects and
     at Ocean City,XaryIand, is a case in point. . . The Ocean             the volume of sand required can differ greatly from those
     City project has attracted widespread news media atten-               forecasted during planning and design. The key to this anal-
     tion owing to its visibility, scale, and large investment of          ysis of project performance is based on a probabilistic LS-
     federal and state funds. Damage prevented has limited                 sumption thac. over the period of analysis (generally 50
     news vaiue, especially to the broadcast news media. In                years), a comparable sequence of events will occur as in the
     the absence of damage to buildings. news coverage has                 past. Hence. the longer the period cif record, the more likely
      focused on apparent storm impacts on the beach and                   that the "estimated" cosu and quanticies of sand will con-
     dune. Xuch of the sand that had moved off the beach                   verge on the *actual" or measured costs and quantities of
      was later determined through site surveys to still be                sand. However. as e.xpressed in the "purple report," for the
      present in the designed project profile, just seaward of             program as a whole,-from 1950 to 1993. the Corps estimates
      the visible beacn . . . Through public education it was ex-           of both quantities of sand and cost of projects is excellent.
      plained chat the sacrificial nature of beach nourishment              with quancities of sand being slightly g e a t e r chan estimated
      is an esser.tial eiemezt of such pr~jects. a result therc
                                                 As                         and c o s being slightly less than estimated.
                                                                                      ~
      is strong and continued local and state-level support for                                     mnaE CITED
      the project and planned renourishment program. How-                  H o v s ~ oJ. R.. 1991. Beachfill performance. Shore a d
                                                                                       ~,                                             each .July
      ever. members of the public outside the local area gen-                 1991.
      erally lack this background and depend on news media                 Housron. J. El, 1995. Coastal Engineering Research Center. Wa-
      coverage, which has ranged from accurate technical re-                 terways Experiment Station, Coastal Forum I , January 1995.
                                                                           LEONARD, et aL.. 1990. -4n analysis of replenished beach desip
                                                                                         L.
      porting to sensationalistic live reports from the beaches              parameters on U.S. East Coast Bamer Islands. Journal of Coastal
 3    during the height of the storms."                                      Research 6(1). 15-26.
                                                                           NATIONAL      RESE~RCHC O ~ C IWRC), Committee on 'Beach Xour-
                                                                                                                 L
  In further discussion of problem 4, a t Folly Beach, South                 ishment and Protection."Beach :Vourishment and Protecfion Marine
Carolina, technological advances in numerical modeling for                   Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, 1395.
beach projects had occurred by the time the'Foily Beach                    PILKEY.0.H.. 1996. The fox guarding the hen house. Journal of
                                                                             C o a t a l Research. 11(3), iii-v.
study was conducted. The methodology used for the project                  SUDAR.                                  T.,
                                                                                      RA.; POPE.J.; HILLYER. and C R ~ I M . 1995. Shore
                                                                                                                                   J..
was based on historical data of beach loss for the area which                protection projects of the U.S. A m y Corps of Engineers. Shore and
incorporated a i l erosive factors into the calculation. For the             Beach 63f2). 3-16.
Myrtle Beach area, the Corps used the best methodology                     U.S. - R CORPS OF E N G ~ E R S . ~Vational
                                                                                 4 .  w                           1971.        Shoreline Study
                                                                                                                    S,
                                                                           U.S. ARw CORPSOF E N C ~ E E R Shoreline Protection and Beach
available at the time the project studies were conducted. The                Erosion Control Study; Phase I: Cost Comparison of Shoreline Pr*
renourishment cycles for the area were based on long-term                     tection Projects o[ the U.S. A m y Corps of Engineers. IlVR Report
erosion rates in accordance with Corps' policy for determining               94-PS-1,     January 1994.
the amount of advanced nourishment a t the time of the anal-               U.S. - k . w CORPSOF ENCTSEERS,          Shoreline Protection and Beach
                                                                              Erosion Control Study; F i a l Report: An Analysis of the U.S. -a?
ysis. Modeling by the Corps indicates, that for the Seabright,                Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Program, IIVR Report 96-PS-
New Jersey area, the average nouris'nment interval over a                     i. June 1996.

                                                            b




                                                 .Journal of Coasml Research. Vol. 13.30. 1, 1997
     I     Journal of Coasbd Research                13     1           265-26i    1     Fon Lauderdaie. Flondn         Winter 1997    I
     r




                                     REPLY


: Reply to: Hillyer, T. M. and Stakhiv, E. Z., 1997.
i Discussing of: Pilkey, 0. 1996. The fox guarding
                            H.,
i the hen house (editorial). Jacmal o Coastal Research,
                                     f
' 11(3), iii-v.



     Duke University Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines
     Deparnnenc of Geology
     Durham. NC 27708. U.SX


     WHEN THE FOX PRFACHES, LOOK TO YOUR GEESEa                                  f
                                                                          that i you consider underwater sand to still be p a n of the
                                                                          projecc, things aren't all that bad. I wish that the public was
        Hillyer and Stakhiv discuss my editorial entitled T h e Fox
     Guarding the Henhouse" (Pilkey, 1995). I welcome the                 told about all of these things during the soaetal debate about
     opportunity to continue a dialogue on this important issue.          whether or not to nourish a beach. Because the public is not
     The discussion of the success or failure of the Corps in             told about these uncertainties and because replenished
     predicting beach nourishment costs is a critical one at this         beaches are regularly underestimated in te~ms cost and
                                                                                                                              of
     time. The current administration in Washington is                    sand volumes, the procedure amounts to a bait and switch
     attempting to reduce federal funding of such projects and the        operation. Perhaps even worse, the underestimation of costs
     Corps is in the middle of a large campaign to assure their           precludes consideration of other modes of shoreline
     future financial welI being by continuing to replenish               management such as relocating buiIdings from the shoreline.
     American beaches.                                                       Hillyer and Stakhiv note that some of the shortcomings in
        The original editorial (PILXEY, 1995) described numerous          the purple report have been addressed in purple report, part
     shortcomings in the 1994 Corps of Engineers report entitled          2. At the time of this writing, we have been unable to obtain
     Shoreline Protection and Beach Erosion Control Study; Phase          a copy of purple report, p a n 2 although organizations
     I: Cost Comparison of Shoreline Protection Projects of the US        promoting Corps participation in beach replenishment have
     Army Corps of Engineers (hereafter referred to as the "purple        already quoted from it enensively.
     report" in reference to the color of it's cover). My editorial           Although they do not contest my condusions,
     basically argued that the Corp's claims of excellent success          accompanying Hillyer and Stakhivs article is a large fogging
     in predicting the upkeep needs or the long term costs of              cloud of beside-the-point statements (paraphrased below in
     replenished beaches were wrong. This was primarily because            italics) some of which I will address.
     they-report compared actual and predicted cost and sand
                                                                             Why shouldn't the Corps be emluating its own work, other
     volume numbers without considering whether or not the
                                                                             agencies do it. The Corps is different from other agencies
     beach remained in place between nourishments. In addition,
                                                                             such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.
      th~  purple report failed to note which of the many cost
                                                                             Geological S w e y . These agencies have been assigned long
      predictions that come out during the planning phase of a
                                                                             term tasks and are not required to live from task to task.
      project were used for comparison. However, predictions given
.>                                                                           Corps districts must survive on project funding. This
      to the Congress and the public are the oniy ones that count.
                                                                             means that proof of success is a life or death matter for
        Hillyer and Stakhiv don't fundamentally dispute my
                                                                             the agency, realistically making objectivity an
      conclusions. The point brought forth in my editorial, that cost
      prediction success does not equate to project success, remains         impossibility.
      uncontested. We are told that the situation is complex, that           Hillyer and Stakhiv claim a misunderstanding of a critical
      storms are highly variable and unpredictable, that the                 phrase in my Tybee Beach example. I agreed with the purple
      required volumes of sand can vary widely,'that there has               report that predicted and actrral costs for the Tybee beach
      been little monitoring of beach behavior, that things are              project were close but I pointed out that the purple report
      improving, that we have learned from past mistakes, and                did not address the point of "whether or not the beach was
            -
                                                                             maintained between nourishments': This seems Like a very
      A German proverb.                                                      clear statement to me but Hilyer and Stakhiv claim to be
     96101 receiued a n d acczpted 23 August 1996.                            uncertain as to the its meaning. They lote "we are
.    .       .    .
  -.&certain what is meant by 'maintained' in the discussion                do 4 t h the subject at hand; the predictive succers of C,,T,
  (by Pilkey on the Tybee Island project]. If it means                      beach nourishment OX: az~dsand volume estimate, !             ,
  [maintenance through] 'periodic nourishment' then the                     fact. althougn underestimation is the norm, the ,C     ,
                                                                                                                                   ,
  [purple] report does address the comment." -4sit turns out                greatly overescimarea cosir and rand V O I - ~ ~ for hliaR: -
  the beach was basically gone for a decade between the                     Beach (LEON.-       et ai. 1990bj.
  initial and the second emplacement which was the point I                  The mayor. the governor and the Corps are all happy
  made and the point they chose to ignore. Puttingit another                the way the Ocean City, Maryland beach perfirmed
  way, the purple report seems to have been written by                      during a storm. [This assertion comes in response to mr,
  accountants concerned only with the numbers of sand                       assertzon that close to a third of the uoiume of
  volume and costs a?ld unconcerned with the critical public                predicted to be necdcd i;: 50 Tears has already bee,,
  issue of whether the beach stayed in place.                               placed on the Ocean City beach in 3 years.] The fact that
  In e&ing         project success, undenuater sand shouM be                the beach did what it was supposed to do in a few stoms
  taken into account and therefore the disappeanzce of the                  has absolutely nothing to do with the predictive success
  subaerial beach is not a good memure of beach pe+rmance.                  of the Corp's nourished beach design. The
  The evidence (eg. THIELERet al? 1995) indicates that                       predictions of cost and sand volumes for the Ocean City
   eroded replenishment sand eventually is spread across and                beach are spectacularly off target;. As in the case of
   well beyond the shoreface. There is no study, theoretical                 Ocean City, underestimation of sand requiremenu i,
   or field, that shows that this layer of sand impacts in any               frequently explained away by unexpected or unusuai
   significant way on storm damage mitigation or on the                      storm events.
   quality of the recreational beach. Such a sheet of sand is                Broward County, Florida, and myrtle Beach, South
   not part of the storm damage mitigation discussed in                      Carolina, replenished beaches successjully precented
   project design documents. Damage prevention is assumed                   property damage from hurricanes. Neither of these beaches
   in Corps documents to be a function of berm or dune                       was struck by the brunt of the storms. Broward county
   design. Certainly the public is not warned ahead of time                  experienced only a small storm surge in Hurricane
   that, even after the subaerial beach has disappeared, the                 Andrew. In the case of Ny-rtle Beach, there was, in my
   project may be considered a success. The underwater sand                  opinion, no replenished beach remaining when Hurricane
   argument is a sham.                                                       Hugo struck. . h d of course whether damage was
   The Corps numerical modeling capcbiiities are based on                    prevented by the beach is beside the point. I did not argue
   engineering and scientific principles which are as close to               this point in my editorial.
   the state of the art as is mailable The computer modeling                 "77L.E key to analysis of project perfomnce is based on a
   k g . HANSON, 1989) may be state of the art but it is not                 probabilistic assumption that over the period of analysis
   even close to the state of nature (PILICEY al, 1993;
                                                      et                     (generally 50 years) a comparable sequence of events roil1
   YOUNG ET h ~ 1995; RIGGS et al, 1995)). Beach design
                       ,                                                     occur as in the past" This i in response to my criticism that
                                                                                                         s
   which assumes a sandy shore face of uniform grain size                    the Corps uses deterministic models rather than
   without rock outcrops, an erosion rate unaffected by                      probabilistic ones recognizing the random occurrence of
   underlying geology, an equilibrium grain size, a system in                storms. A probabilistic approach should provide a
    which all sand movement is by wave orbital interaction                    prediction with an error bar; "the nourishment interval
    with the bottom bounded by a sediment fence called                        will be 3 years plus or minus 4 years." But this does not
    c!osure depth and a system where wave height is the only                  happen. Making the zssnmytion that the shoreline will
    controiiing factor in beach changes depends on                            behave in the next 30 years like it did in the last 50 yean
    oceanographically invalid assumptions.                                    is wrong. It's wrong because this assumes that repledshed
.* On the basis of H o u s ~ o ~(1995) report, it is apparent that
                                 fs                                           beaches behave like natural beaches which is decidedly not
    the US natwnai nourishment effort is a small one compared                 the case.
    to other countries. Houston's 1995 estimates of the national              In summary, my conclusions concerning the lack of validity
    federal expenditures for beach replenishment ($15 million              of the purple report remain unchallenged. If one reads the
 , per year for the last 40 years) are used by Hillyer and                 Hillyer and Stakhiv discussion, keeping in mind the ori@al
    Stakhiv to make the point. We are currently reviewing and              criticisms in my editorial. it should be clear why the corps
    updating a summary of the national beach replenishment                 should not evaluate its own projects. Hillyer and Stakhiv
    experience and I believe Houston's numbers for the annual              wander far from the point throwing in numerous facts and
    cost of beach replenishment in this country will prove to              assertions which serve only to befuddle and baffle the reader
    be off by one order of magnitude. His numbers are vastly           '   and prevent a clear objective andysis -of the national
    understated because of the long time frame for averaging               replenishment program.
     beach nourishment costs (in the last decade, US
     nourishment costs have skyrocketed) and because he does                                     L.ITER4TVR-E CITED
     not include many federal projects, such-& mitigation and
     navigation dredge disposal projects and no state and local            HANSOS,H., 1989. GEhESIS, A generalized shoreline change nu-
                                                                             merical model. Journal of Coastal Research. 5 , 1-27
     projects. Replenishment in this country consists of far                                             E .
                                                                                                          .
                                                                           HILLYER,T.M. and STIUCHN, Z ,1996. Discussion of Pilkey, O H .  ..
                                               et
     more than the federal effort (LEONARD al, 1990a).                       1996, The fox guarding the hen house (editorial). Journal of Coost-
     Miami Beach has been a huge success. This has nothing to                 1
                                                                             a Reseurcir. 13(2), xci-.m.



                                               Journalof C a t l Resea~rch. o . 13,No. 1, 1997
                                                          osa             Vl
        J.R. 1995. COASTAL FORUM I. shore and Beach Jan-
Hoti~roN,                                                                 RXCGS,        - , W.J. and SNYDER,S.W..
                                                                                 S.R; C Y                                  1995. W.uence cf
 uary,                                                                     inherited geoiogic framework on barrier shorehcl? rnorphoiogy
LEONARD.   LA: DDCON, and PI=. O.H..
                        KL.                    1990a. A comparison         dynamics. .Marine Gedogy, 116. 213-234
  of beach repienishment on the US -4tlandc. Pacific and Gulf             TAELER. B m -lL:Y
                                                                                   EAT.                -
                                                                                                       C.       W.J.: HOBBS.  C.H. and CA\G
                    1
  Coasrs. J m i 0 Cmstal Research. SI $6. 127-140                          ~SCH.   RX. 1995. Geology of the Wrigcrsville Beach NC shore-
LEONARD. Lh;               T.
                CLAYTON, and FXKEY, O K , 1990b. . analysis
                                                        Q
                                                                           face; implications for the concept of the shoreface profie of equi-
  of replenished beach design parameters on U.S. East Coast barrier
  Islands. Journal of Cowtal Research. 6, 15-36                            librium. Marine Geolcm 126. 271-287
RLKEY.   OH.: YOWG. RS.;RIGGS, S.R.; S m , AW.S.; WU. K and               Yomc. RS., m y , O.H.. BUSH. D.31. and THIELER,. . lags. RS.
           W.,
  PILKEY, 1993. The concept of shoreface profile of equilibrium.           X discussion of the generalized model for simulation of shoreline
  Jouml of Coastal Research, 9, 255-278                                    change (GEAUESIS).    Jounial of Coastal Research, 11. 8752386




                                                 .Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 13, 30. 1997
                                                                                           1.

				
DOCUMENT INFO