Venice Main Page
 
Location Map
 
Design Parameters
 
Shoreline Change Plots
 
Volume Change Plots
 
Hot Spots
 
Performance Table
 
Performance Summary
 
Planform Change Evaluation
 
Project Index

Venice Summary & Conclusions

 
From the Coastal Tech (CT) 2002 Report (Reference)
  • Through August 2000 the project had lost 391,170 cubic yards of the 1,914,000 placed. With essentially "no net change" in 2001, this means that 80% of the original fill still remains within the project limits after 4 to 6 years.
  • Looking at the results for only above Mean High Water (MHW), the project lost 275,857 cubic yards. Therefore, about 77% of the upland portion of the placed fill still remains in the project in 2001.
  • Compared to the fill volume which should be present throughout the project life in the minimum design berm, 931,308 cubic yards remain which is about 121% of the required volume. However, about 5000 linear feet (roughly 20 percent) of the project waterline has eroded to, or landward of, the desired position based on the minimum required berm.
  • Cross-shore adjustments seems to be complete. Profiles are either stable or slightly steepening.
  • On average the project performance is good, but the pattern of erosional "hot spots" continues to exist.
From the Coastal Tech (CT) 2004 Report (Reference)
  • Through the July 2003 renourishment survey, the project in total showed a volume change of roughly -10,000 cubic yards.  Through August 2000, the project lost 366,674 cubic yards of the 1,914,000 placed.  Even with the minor "net change" in 2003, 80% of the original fill still remains within the project limits after 9 years.
  • Approximately 6,600 linear feet (33 percent) of the project waterline has eroded to, or landward of, the desired position based on the minimum required berm.  This is comparable to the 2002 data, with some change in the location of the erosion.  Compared to 23 percent in 2000 and 27 percent through 2001 the project waterline appears to be stabilizing, however the "shift" in the location of the erosion indicates otherwise.

© 2004 Beaches & Shores Resource Center
Florida State University