Historic overview

• Egmond: Kick off

• Plymouth: CSI table

• Utrecht: Introduction frame of reference

• Santander: Recasting CSIs into the frame of reference

Defined Not defined

Defined

Not defined

Strategic objective

Operational objective

IndicatorsParameters

-Monitoring-Measurement-Modelling

System knowledge

Reference state

Current state

3. Intervention procedure

1. Quantitative state concept

4. Evaluation procedure2. Benchmarking procedure

Momentary coastline

Intertidal Coastline

XBeach width Exceedance

curves

IBCSI

Overview Dutch presentations

• Arno (RIKZ): Introduction• Aart (UU): Scientific results and CSIs

– highwater line and beachwidth– storm Egmond

• Stefan (WL): Scientific results and CSIs– multiyear evolution of nourished beach (beach width) – video derived observations of longshore currents

• Troels (UCo): Scientific results• Arno (RIKZ): Recasting scientific results into the frame of

reference

Defined Not defined

Defined

Not defined

Strategic objective

Operational objective

IndicatorsParameters

-Monitoring-Measurement-Modelling

System knowledge

Reference state

Current state

3. Intervention procedure

1. Quantitative state concept

4. Evaluation procedure2. Benchmarking procedure

Momentary coastline

Intertidal Coastline

XBeach width Exceedance

curves

IBCSI

Example: Dynamic Preservation

• Strategic objective:

“Sustainable preservation of functions and values in the coastal zone”

• Structural erosion no longer acceptable

• Operational objective:

“Maintain the coastline at its 1990 position”

1. Quantitative State Concept

2. Benchmarking procedure

3. Intervention procedure

“Sustainable preservation of functions and values”

“Maintaining the coastline at its 1990 position”

System knowledgeState indicators

-JARKUS

BCL

TCL

3. Nourishment1. Momentary CoastLine (MCL)

4. Evaluation procedure2. Benchmarking procedure

OK?

Not OK?

Frame of reference: Dynamic Preservation

Video

Survey

Array y = -130 m

Array y = -1500 m

Video-based quantification of the MCL(Subtidal Beach Mapper, Aarninkhof 2003)

Working with the Intertidal coastline

• Strategic objective: – sustainable preservation of functions and values

• Operational objective: – maintain the coastline at its 1990 position

• QSC: – location of the coastline based on the intertidal beach volume - MICL

• Benchmarking procedure:– Reference: 10 year regression of MICLs to find the 1990 coastline - BICL– Test: 10 year regression of MICLs to find the year T coastline - TICL

• Intervention procedure:– IF the TICL exceeds the BICL THEN nourish

• Evaluation procedure:– Coastline will be maintained at its 1990 position– Maybe the existing procedure is represented but ARGUS data not effectively

used

NAP-5m

NAP+3m (Dunefoot)

MCL MICL

Time (months)

MC

L &

MIC

L (m

)Egmond MCL (surv.) and MICL (vid.) – Raw data

Time (months)

MC

L &

MIC

L (m

)

MICL (video)

MCL (survey)

Egmond MCL (surv.) and MICL (vid.) – Normalized data

Working with the high water line

• Strategic objective: – guarantuee sustainable safety of beach property

• Operational objective: – build no property seaward of the line with a 5% exceedance probability

• QSC: – probability curves of the high water line

• Benchmarking procedure:– Reference: location of the 5% exceedance line– Test: exceedance percentage of desired location

• Intervention procedure:– IF percentage of desired location is too high THEN relocate

• Evaluation procedure:– No property built at locations with exceedance probabilities higher than 5%– Long term developments unknown (system timescale & policy timescale)

Location of the exceedence curvesof the high-tide levels

14-09-20019 GMT

2001

Working with beach width

• Strategic objective: – guarantuee sustainable recreation on the beach

• Operational objective: – maintain a minimal beach width for bathing people

• QSC: – width of inter tidal and supra tidal beach (waterlines)

• Benchmarking procedure:– Reference: minimal beach width (to be defined by the end user - municipalities)– Test: actual beach width as measured by ARGUS

• Intervention procedure:– IF actual beachwidth smaller than reference beach width THEN nourish

• Evaluation procedure:– Beach width maintained constant throughout the season– Nourishments during wintertime could be inefficient

Width of the inter-tidal & supra-tidal beach

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

time (months)

tid

al ra

ng

e (

m)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

time (months)

be

ac

h w

idth

(m

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

time (months)

be

ac

h w

idth

(m

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

time (months)

be

ac

h w

idth

(m

)

d

c

b

abeach width (m)

beach width (m)

beach width (m)

tidal range (m)

Time: 2001-2002

Y = -250m

Y = -500m

Y = -750m

Inter-tidal beachMean width = 80 m

beach width (m)

beach width (m)

beach width (m)

tidal range (m)

Time: 2001-2002

Y = -250m

Y = -500m

Y = -750m

Supra-tidal beachMean width = 50-60 m

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

time (months)

tid

al ra

ng

e (

m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

time (months)

be

ac

h w

idth

(m

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

time (months)

be

ac

h w

idth

(m

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

time (months)

be

ac

h w

idth

(m

)

d

c

b

a

This presentation was brought to you by:

Arno de Kruif

Stefan Aarninkhof

Aart Kroon

Troels Aagaard

Susanne Quartel

Mark van Koningsveld

Discussion