Geomorphology 191 (2013) 6474

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Geomorphology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph

A hydrologic and geomorphic model of estuary breaching and closure

Andrew Rich , Edward A. Keller
Department of Earth Science, University of California, 1006 Webb Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To better understand how the hydrology of bar-built estuaries affects breaching and closing patterns, a model
Received 27 September 2012 is developed that incorporates an estuary hydrologic budget with a geomorphic model of the inlet system.
Received in revised form 25 January 2013 Erosion of the inlet is caused by inlet ow, whereas the only morphologic effect of waves is the deposition
Accepted 10 March 2013
of sand into the inlet. When calibrated, the model is able to reproduce the initial seasonal breaching, seasonal
Available online 16 March 2013
closure, intermittent closures and breaches, and the low-streamow (closed state) estuary hydrology of the
Keywords:
Carmel Lagoon, located in Central California. Model performance was tested against three separate years of
Estuary hydrology water-level observations. When open during these years, the inlet was visually observed to drain directly
Inlet breaching and closure across the beach berm, in accordance with model assumptions. The calibrated model predicts the observed
Model 48-h estuary stage amplitude with root mean square errors of 0.45 m, 0.39 m and 0.42 m for the three
Coastal processes separate years. For the calibrated model, the probability that the estuary inlet is closed decreases
exponentially with increasing inow (streamow plus wave overtopping), decreasing 10-fold in probability
as mean daily inow increases from 0.2 to 1.0 m 3/s. Seasonal patterns of inlet state reect the seasonal pat-
tern of streamow, though wave overtopping may become the main hydrologic ux during low streamow
conditions, infrequently causing short-lived breaches. In a series of sensitivity analyses it is seen that the
status of the inlet and storage of water are sensitive to factors that control the storage, transmission, and
inow of water. By varying individual components of the berm system and estuary storage, the amount of
the time the estuary is open may increase by 57%, or decrease by 44%, compared to the amount of time the
estuary is open during calibrated model conditions for the 18.2-year model period. The individual compo-
nents tested are: berm height, width, length, and hydraulic conductivity; estuary hypsometry (storage to
stage relationship); two factors that control wave-swash sedimentation of the inlet; and sea level rise. The
elevation of the berm determines the volume of water that must enter the estuary in order to breach, and
it modulates the wave-overtopping ux and frequency. By increasing estuary storage capacity, the estuary
will breach less frequently (27% change in time open for modeled excavation scenario) and store water
up to 3 months later into the summer. Altering beach aquifer hydraulic conductivity affects inlet state, and
patterns of breaching and water storage. As a result of sea-level rise of 1.67 m by 2100, and a beach berm
that remains in its current location and accretes vertically, the amount of time the estuary remains open
may decrease by 44%. Such a change is an end-member of likely scenarios given that the berm will translate
landwards. Model results indicate that the amount of time the estuary is open is more sensitive to changes in
wave run-up than the amount of sand deposited in the inlet per each overtopping wave.
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and therefore engineering practices such as the impoundment of

Bar-built, coastal lagoons in the 21st century will experience a
number of stressors that will affect their function. These include
0.421.67 m of sea-level rise (Dalrymple et al., 2012), changing pre-
cipitation and temperature patterns (Seager and Vecchi, 2010), and
a growing human population that is largely concentrated near the
coast. As population growth continues, so too will the anthropogenic
impact on streamow (Beighley et al., 2003), which is a strong driver
of the function of bar-built estuaries. Similarly, the growth and decay
of beach barriers is linked to sediment availability (Carter et al., 1989)
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 805 893 4207.
E-mail address: andrewnrich@gmail.com (A. Rich).
sediment by dams (Willis and Griggs, 2003), beach groins and jetties.
As shown here, the existence and characteristics of beach barriers fun-
damentally controls estuary dynamics. Predicting how these stresses
may impact estuaries is important because estuaries are considered
to be the most valuable biome on earth per-area (Costanza et al.,
1997). This paper seeks to determine: 1) if the breaching and closing
processes can be modeled with a hydrologic and geomorphic model,
2) how estuarine variability, such as differences in beach-berm heights
or estuary storage, affect estuary function, and 3) how sea-level rise will
affect estuary function.
Bar-built coastal lagoons exist in microtidal (Cooper, 2001) and
mesotidal environments, are wave-exposed, and often occur where
streamow is highly seasonal, such as in California (Elwany et al.,

0169-555X/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.03.003
 A. Rich, E.A. Keller / Geomorphology 191 (2013) 6474
1998), Australia (Ranasinghe and Pattiaratchi, 2003), and South
Africa (Cooper, 2001). Estuaries are fronted by high supratidal
beach-berms when there is ample coarse littoral sediment (Kjerfve
and Magill, 1989; Cooper, 2001). For estuaries fronted by a supratidal
beach berm, wave energy is the major control on berm-height
(Takeda and Sunamura, 1982), though aeolian processes may con-
tribute via dune formation in the backbeach. Lower beach-berms
occur when nearshore conditions are dissipative (Cooper, 2001).
There is a considerable amount of research concerning the
processes that maintain an open inlet for larger, more tidally domi-
nated systems (Escofer, 1940; Jarrett, 1976; van de Kreeke, 1985;
Ranasinghe and Pattiaratchi, 2003). Relatively little work has investi-
gated the controls on estuary breaching and closing, especially of
smaller, bar-built estuarine systems, and such research has been pre-
dominantly empirical. For a Southern California lagoon, Elwany et al.
(1998) showed that streamow is the major control on inlet state,
and that tidal prism and wave processes play a smaller role during
closure. By analyzing a record of estuary closures of unprecedented
detail and length, Behrens (2012) showed that the length of time the
estuary remains closed before breaching is a function of streamow,
estuary storage at breaching levels and barrier seepage, whereas
inlet closure probability is best predicted using a ratio of inlet dis-
charge to sediment transport by waves. The understanding of inlet
morphodynamics was improved by Baldock et al. (2008) who was
able to accurately predict channel inlet elevation change by sand
deposition using predictions of shore-normal, wave-swash run-up
heights. Other authors emphasize the role of wave overtopping to in-
duce breaching (Hart, 2007) or as a counterbalance to evaporative
losses (Rustomji, 2007) while Kirk (1991) emphasizes the impor-
tance of barrier material in transmitting oods. Together these and
other studies demonstrate that estuary function is a result of many
interacting processes, and that isolating the effect of a single property
on function is difcult. Therefore, the approach taken in this work is to
develop a model of lagoon breaching and closing, and then to investi-
gate how individual properties of the estuary inuence its function.
The model addresses one of the processes that breach bar-built
coastal lagoons, namely uvial erosion of the beach barrier by channel-
ized ow through the estuary inlet. The two processes not addressed
are wave erosion and seepage-induced transport by exltrating
groundwater on the beachface. Seepage forces increase directly with
groundwater hydraulic gradient (Howard and McLane, 1988), and
therefore inversely with beach width (Kraus et al., 2008). Wave erosion
can cause breaching in two ways: incision of the beach berm by
overtopping waves or by landward erosion of the beachface as a result
of backswash. The erosive ability of overtopping waves is a function
of the height of overwash (Donnelly et al., 2006), and the geometry
and slope of the back-berm (Pierce, 1970); minor overwash builds the
berm, whereas steep, narrow berms promote erosion.
This paper is organized as follows: a description of the study site;
development of the hydrologic and geomorphic model; and a results
section highlighting the calibrated model results, followed by a sensi-
tivity analysis of the model, and a discussion of drivers of estuary
change.
2. Study site
The Carmel Lagoon is fronted by a steep, reective beach composed
of coarse sand derived from the Carmel Watershed (Storlazzi and
Field, 2000). The beach sits in a coastal embayment, with a southern
longshore sediment transport direction (Howell, 1972) and 100 m
water depths within half of a kilometer. Nearby beaches have been
observed to accrete and erode up to 60 m in a season (Bascom,
1951), and there is potentially a long-term net erosion of the beach
(Storlazzi and Field, 2000). From September to May, deepwater Hs
generally range from 1.3 to 3.7 m, sometimes exceeding 9 m, with
directions of 270310 and wavelengths ranging 1017 s. During
65
the summer, waves approach from similar directions, but with smaller
Hs and shorter wavelengths. Waves coming from the Northwest arrive
to the Carmel Beach unrefracted and unimpeded (Storlazzi and Field,
2000). For three scenarios, ranging 27 in deepwater wave direction
and each of different wavelength, refraction and shoaling modeling
of waves traveling from deepwater to 15 m depth reveals that waves
undergo less than a 10% change in wave height and wavelength off-
shore of the Carmel Lagoon (Laudier et al., 2011).
The Carmel River drains 660 km 2 of mountainous topography, and
the ow is highly variable (Fig. 1). As measured 5 km upstream of the
Carmel Lagoon, more than 90% of yearly streamow occurs between
January and May, and yearly mean streamow varies from zero ow
to 14.5 m 3/s. Such variability is often related to anomalies in tropical
sea-surface temperatures (Cayan et al., 1999), though the prevalence
of low ows in the Carmel River are also the result of groundwater
pumping of the alluvial aquifer (Kondolf et al., 1987), and until 2003
by abstractions of water at two upstream, nearly sediment-lled res-
ervoirs (MPWMD, 2008). To protect nearby properties from ooding,
the Carmel Lagoon is sometimes articially breached preceding the
rst major streamow of the year, at which time it would imminently
breach otherwise (James, 2005). Once breached, the Carmel Lagoon
inlet may migrate up to 500 m north, 200 m to the south, or, about
50% of the time, it will remain in its initial breach location, directly
across the beach berm (James, 2005). The estuary was excavated and
widened in 1997 and 2004 in order to increase habitat area (James,
2005), resulting in a 24% increase in estuary storage at typical breaching
levels (James, 2005; Hope, 2007).
The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD)
has operated a water-level recorder since 1993 in the Carmel Lagoon;
the USGS operates a streamow gage 5 km upstream of the estuary;
two wave buoys measure waves within 50 km; and tides are mea-
sured 9 km north of the estuary.
3. Methods
The breaching and closing model is based upon a hydrologic
mass-balance approach for estuary storage, with hydrologic uxes
from streamow, wave-overtopping, inlet discharge, evaporation,
and groundwater ow through the barrier. The model consists of
the following components: 1) a water balance for the estuary basin
and 2) a channel inlet component, for which channel geometry, uvial
erosion and wave deposition are calculated.
3.1. Estuary mass balance
The volume of water in the estuary through time is a function of
the difference in the uxes of water owing into or out of the estuary.
The mass balance is written as:


S qriver qovertop qinlet qgroundwater qevaporation t 1
where S is the change in storage, t is the timestep, qriver is
streamow, qovertop is the ux from wave overtopping of the beach
berm, qinlet is ow through the berm inlet, qgroundwater is groundwater
ow between the estuary and ocean through the beach barrier, and
qevaporation is evaporation of water from the estuary surface. River
ow and evaporation (DWR, 1974) are model boundary conditions,
whereas the other uxes are dependent upon estuary, tidal or wave
conditions.
3.2. Channel inlet discharge
Channel inlet ow only occurs when the estuary or tidal level is
higher than the inlet, and its velocity is determined by Manning's
equation. The depth, direction, and slope of inlet ow depend upon
66 A. Rich, E.A. Keller / Geomorphology 191 (2013) 6474

Fig. 1. Site Map. a. LiDAR DEM (csc.noaa.gov) of Carmel Lagoon showing Carmel River, beach-berm elevation, and location of waterlevel gage within the estuary. Wave rose shows
incident wave directional distribution. b. location map of Carmel Lagoon.

the tide level, estuary stage, and the height of the inlet (Fig. 2). The A h
width of the channel is calculated using hydraulic geometry relation- idt
ships, relating ow magnitude to channel width (O'Brien, 1931; chw
B ea La
Hughes, 2002; Behrens et al., 2009), and is calculated as: go
on
l
W
0:002 0:153
Q d50 S 2 ne
an
Ch
et
where and are coefcients, Q is ow discharge, d50 is median grain Inl
size, and S is the slope of the channel (Lee and Julien, 2006). The Be
model assumes that the inlet channel ows directly across the r m Beach
le
beach berm (i.e. no migration of channel), and that the beach width ng Berm
th
remains constant. The channel inlet elevation cannot exceed the (B
L)
elevation of the beach berm.
beachface slope,

3.3. Inlet erosion and sedimentation lagoon

B
inlet
Changes to the channel inlet elevation are calculated by treating Fixed (MSL)
depth slope (s)
the inlet as an alluvial channel that is subject to deposition of sand
Rc Rinlet
by wave-swash deposition and erosion by uvial transport: R (wave run-up)

z qswash qfluvial t
where qswash is wave-swash deposition, and quvial is uvial erosion.
The change in channel inlet height occurs at the estuary side of the
inlet, whereas the beachside of the inlet remains xed at mean tide
(Fig. 2). The vertical erosion of sand by inlet discharge is calculated
by adapting the bedload transport equation of Meyer-Peter and
Mller (1948) as:
3=2
qfluvial crit
3
stillwater level
Fig. 2. Beach berm and denitions of variables. A. Beach width, berm height and length
are constant for each simulation. B. Cross section through the inlet channel showing
wave run-up (R), freeboard height of inlet channel (Rinlet), freeboard height of the
beach-berm (RC; for wave overtopping calculation), stillwater level, elevation of the
inlet (inlet), and elevation of the lagoon waterlevel (lagoon). Changes in inlet elevation
are a result of Z (see text). Inlet water depth and slope are dependent upon lagoon,
inlet, beach width, and the elevation of the tide when it is above mean sea level
(MSL). The left edge of the berm remains xed through all simulations at MSL. inlet
4 cannot erode lower than MSL.
 A. Rich, E.A. Keller / Geomorphology 191 (2013) 6474 67

where is a coefcient, crit is the shear stress below which transport
does not occur for the bedload material, and is shear stress caused
by the water owing through the inlet. crit is predicted using the for-
mulation of Miller et al. (1977).
Deposition of sand onto the channel inlet by overtopping wave-
swash is calculated using the methods of Baldock et al. (2008).
While longshore transport processes are clearly important in the
sedimentation of inlets, cross-shore, swash-driven sedimentation is
likely more important for the closure of supratidal inlet systems,
especially on embayed coasts where longshore currents are weak
(Ranasinghe and Pattiaratchi, 1999). The probability of a wave
overtopping the channel inlet is a function of the wave run-up (R) of
breaking wave bores, and the height difference between the stillwater
level and the channel inlet (Hunt, 1959) (Rinlet; Fig. 2), where:
p of the estuary. Both hypsometric curves are extended beyond their
R C tan Hs  L0 :
In this work the effect of refraction and shoaling in the near shore
are not incorporated. Rather, wave data observed at NOAA buoy
46042 located 57 km NW of the lagoon was transformed linearly to
Scripps buoy 46239 located 27 km to the SE of the lagoon (Fig. 1).
This was achieved through a linear regression of 2.5 years of contem-
poraneous Hs and Tp data between both buoys.
3.5. Estuary storage
Converting estuary storage to water-level, and vice-versa, is
performed using a hypsometric relationship of water storage to
water-level. Two hypsometric curves (James, 2005; Hope, 2007)
were used for the model simulations to account for changes to the es-
tuary bathymetry due to a restoration project that excavated a portion
4 original coverage using LiDAR observations from 2010 (csc.noaa.gov).

C is a calibration coefcient, Hs is signicant offshore wave height, 3.6. Goundwater ow

tan is beachface slope, and L0 is offshore wavelength. Assuming
a Rayleigh distribution of wave run-up, the probability of a wave Groundwater ow between the estuary and the ocean is calculated
overtopping the beach-berm is: analytically by assuming Dupuit conditions for groundwater ow,
h i
2
PR > Rinlet exp Rinlet =R : 5 Initial Conditions
Input Variables
Estuary storage (S0) Hypsometric curve
Inlet elevation (inlet, 0) Max berm height
The probability of waves overtopping the freeboard height of Beach width
the inlet channel (Rinlet) is calculated at each time step because the Berm length
inlet elevation is dynamic. To calculate the ux of deposited sand Convert estuary storage (S) to elevation Hydraulic conductivity
from wave overwash for a model timestep, the following method is (lagoon); then subtract Hevap Beachface slope
applied: Inlet roughness
OUTPUT

qswash htsand  N  P 6 lagoon > inlet Calculate channel depth,

or yes channel width and
where htsand is the height of sand deposited per wave (m) that tide >inlet channel velocity
overtops the berm inlet and N is the number of waves that arrive at
the beachface per timestep as determined from the wave period
Calculate channel inlet
(Baldock et al., 2008).
no discharge (Qinlet)

3.4. Wave overtopping and wave transformations

Calculate groundwater Calculate groundwater
The hydrologic ux from wave overtopping is calculated using the discharge (Qgw) discharge (Qgw)
wave overtopping model of Van der Meer and Janssen (1995), which
was calibrated specically for the Carmel Lagoon (Laudier et al.,
2011). The form of the wave overtopping equation is dependent Calculate change in estuary Calculate change in estuary
upon the Irribaren number (): storage (S) storage (S)
S = (Qstr + Qgw + Qover)t S =(Qstr + Qinlet + Qgw + Qover)

p1 q
Q A expBRc = r Hs  tan gH3S BL 2 7a
qfluvial=0 Calculate fluvial erosion
q from inlet discharge
Q C expDRC =r HS  gH3S BL >2 7b (qfluvial)
p
where tan= HS =L0 , RC is the freeboard height of the beach-
berm (Fig. 2B), Lo is the offshore wavelength, A, B, C and D are Si+1 = Si + S
calibration coefcients, r is a beach condition reduction factor, HS
is the signicant wave height, and BL is the length of the berm Calculate swash
over which overtopping occurs (Fig. 2A; Van der Meer and Janssen, deposition into channel
inlet (qswash)
1995; Laudier et al., 2011). In the original formulation, signicant
waveheight and peak wavelength at the toe of the beachface were
used (Van der Meer and Janssen, 1995), whereas Laudier et al. Calculate elevation change
of channel inlet
(2011) used refracted wave conditions at 15 m depth. Laudier et al.
inlet=(qswash-qfluvial)t
(2011) implemented the overtopping equation in a quasi-2D manner
by calculating the ux for 5 m intervals along dGPS beach surveys. For
this work, the ux is calculated in a 1D manner where the beachface inlet, i+1= inlet, i + inlet
slope and berm height are constant along the length of the berm OUTPUT
and for the duration of each model run. An ad-hoc adjustment was
applied to the wave overtopping whereby it is limited to a total
peak ux of 5 m 3/s. Fig. 3. Flow diagram of a model timestep.
68 A. Rich, E.A. Keller / Geomorphology 191 (2013) 6474

Table 1 and closing period, the following parameters were calibrated: htsand,
Data sources for model boundary conditions. , C, and . The model was calibrated by minimizing the root
Model Input Source Station Frequency and mean square error between the observed and modeled 48-h stage
units amplitude on the basis that it most closely reects the dynamics of
Tides NOAA/NOS/CO-OPS Monterey, Ca. 9413450 60-min, m NAVD88 the lagoon, which is the fundamental purpose of this study (Janssen
Streamow USGS Carmel River near 15-min, m3/s and Heuberger, 1995). The hydraulic conductivity of the beach
Carmel, 11143250 aquifer and the magnitude of the groundwater inow are adjusted
Waves National Data Buoy Monterey 46042 and 60-min, Hs and Tp
to maximize model t during the low-ow, closed period.
Center and California Point Sur 46239
Data Information
Project 4. Results
Evaporation DWR, 1974 Central Coast Coastal Inches per month
Valleys and Plains 4.1. Model conrmation

Breaching events are identied in the observed records when

a vertical beachface, and vertical backside of the beach berm. A
vertical beachface eliminates the ltering effect of a sloping beachface
(Turner, 1993), and a vertical back-beach produces constant ground-
water ow lengths in contrast to varied ow lengths that arise with
a sloped back-beach. Tidal and lagoon elevations are the boundary
conditions for groundwater ow. When streamow is below a thresh-
old, a groundwater inow component from the catchment is modeled
to contribute to estuary storage.
3.7. Model setup
The routine for each model timestep is portrayed in Fig. 3, along
with the input variables necessary to run the model. Table 1 lists
the model boundary conditions, or the data necessary to derive
the boundary conditions and their sources. All model scenarios
were performed at 15-min timesteps and all model inputs were
interpolated to this interval.
3.8. Model calibration
The model is calibrated during water year 2003 when multiple
observations of the inlet indicate that it was immobile and drained
directly across the beach berm (James, 2005). During the opening
the water-level falls precipitously, and seasonal closure events are
identied when the water-levels cease to oscillate. As seen in Figs. 4
(WY1996) and 5 (WY2002), the breaching model is capable of
predicting the initial breaching, seasonal closure, intermittent clo-
sures and breaches, and the low-streamow estuary hydrology.
Fig. 6 shows only the portion of water year 2004 when the estuary
was continuously opening and closing in order to more clearly high-
light model performance during such conditions. For water years
2002 and 2004, the inlet channel was observed to remain in roughly
the same location (Fig. 7), draining directly across the ~ 60 m berm
and down the beachface (James, 2005), in agreement with model as-
sumptions. In these years, during the open period, the 48-h root mean
square error is 0.50 and 0.64 m, respectively (Table 2). In other years,
the inlet meanders to the north or south, increasing the inlet length
up to 10 the direct conguration, causing signicant differences
between the observed and modeled water level. This is illustrated
in Fig. 8 where the inlet conguration was observed in its direct
conguration from February 1st to April 6th, and, following a
10 m 3/s streamow storm, the inlet terminus was observed to
meander 500 m from its initial position (James, 2005), as has been
observed in the Russian River Lagoon (Behrens et al., 2009). Prior
to the increase in inlet length (Fig. 8), the model predicts rapid
uctuations in estuary stage, similar to observed data, with an RMSE
of 0.45 m. When the inlet length increases following the storm

20
Input (m3/s)

streamflow
10
wave overtopping

0
10/95 11/95 12/95 01/96 02/96 03/96 04/96 05/96 06/96 07/96 08/96 09/96 10/96
10
Hs (m)

5
0
10/95 11/95 12/95 01/96 02/96 03/96 04/96 05/96 06/96 07/96 08/96 09/96 10/96
4.5

4 berm inlet
stage (m, NAVD88)

3.5 model

observed
3

2.5

1.5

10/95 11/95 12/95 01/96 02/96 03/96 04/96 05/96 06/96 07/96 08/96 09/96 10/96

Fig. 4. Model validation for water year 1996. Top box is observed streamow (USGS gage 11143250) and predicted wave overtopping ux, and middle box is transformed signif-
icant wave height (see text for explanation). Bottom box shows model results and observed water level at Carmel Lagoon. Water level data is from Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District (James, 2005). Berm inlet height is a model output.
 A. Rich, E.A. Keller / Geomorphology 191 (2013) 6474 69

Hs (m) Input (m3/s) 20

missing data streamflow
10 wave overtopping

0
10/01 11/01 12/01 01/02 02/02 03/02 04/02 05/02 06/02 07/02 08/02 09/02 10/02
10
5
0
10/01 11/01 12/01 01/02 02/02 03/02 04/02 05/02 06/02 07/02 08/02 09/02 10/02
4.5

4
berm inlet
stage (m, NAVD88)

3.5 model

3 observed

2.5

1.5

10/01 11/01 12/01 01/02 02/02 03/02 04/02 05/02 06/02 07/02 08/02 09/02 10/02

Fig. 5. Model validation for water year 2002. See Fig. 4 for description.

event, the model continues to predict >1 m uctuations in estuary
stage, whereas the observed data indicates a muted amplitude oscil-
lation due to the reduced hydraulic efciency of the channel. With
the increased channel length, the model error nearly doubles to
0.87 m. A similar event occurs in April 1996 (Fig. 4), which explains
the large deviation between the model and observed data for that
period. Despite the poor model performance for the elongated inlet
conditions, the model is capable of predicting the seasonal closure
date within 10.5 days.
4.2. The effect of inow on inlet state
Using the calibrated conditions, the model was run for an 18.2-year
period, from 1993 to 2011. Under calibrated conditions, the amount
Input (m3/s)
of time that the estuary is open is controlled principally by the magni-
tude of inow, which consists of streamow and overtopping. The
inlet is considered open when the estuary waterlevel is higher than
the inlet. As mean daily inow increases from 0 to 2 m 3/s, the proba-
bility that the lagoon is closed decreases exponentially (Fig. 9); 98.5%
of open days occur when estuary inow is greater than 0.5 m 3/s and
only 12.5% of closed days occur above 0.5 m 3/s. The segregation
of inlet state by inow highlights the importance of inow on
inlet state, though the small overlap between estuary state and inow
indicates that factors other than inow inuence estuary state, albeit
to a small degree. Demonstrating the relative importance of wave
overtopping versus streamow is achieved by running the model
with zero wave-overtopping and normal streamow, and subse-
quently with normal wave overtopping and zero streamow. With

15 streamflow
10 wave overtopping
5
0
01/04 02/04 03/04 04/04 05/04
10
Hs (m)

5
0
01/04 02/04 03/04 04/04
4.5
berm height
4
model
stage (m, NAVD88)

3.5
observed

2.5

1.5
01/04 02/04 03/04 04/04 05/04

Fig. 6. Model validation during open period of water year 2004. See Fig. 4 for description.
70 A. Rich, E.A. Keller / Geomorphology 191 (2013) 6474

Hs (m) Input (m3/s)

20
streamflow
10 wave overtopping
0
04/00 05/00 06/00 07/00
10

0
04/00 05/00 06/00 07/00

~60m channel ~500m channel

stage (m, NAVD88)

RMSE =0.45m RMSE =0.87m
3.5

2.5

2
model
1.5 observed

04/00 05/00 06/00 07/00

Fig. 8. Effect of inlet length on model performance. Model inlet length is 60 m for
entire simulation. Channel inlet observations denoted as stars (James, 2005).

open 40100% of the time though for March the estuary is open
100% for 14 of the 18 years. By fall to early winter, streamow input
volumes often decrease to zero (15 of 18 years), causing the estuary
to convert to a coastal lake with water levels often > 1 m below
the berm. During this period, wave overtopping becomes important
in regards to the hydrology of the estuary, providing, along with
groundwater seepage through the berm and estuary periphery, the
main inux of water into the estuary. In some years (5 of 18),
streamow input remains zero in January while wave overtopping
reaches its peak, allowing breaches to occur from overtopping alone.
Such breaches are short-lived because there is not sustained inlet
ow to erode the inlet and the concurrent high wave energy quickly
rebuilds the inlet.

500
Fig. 7. Observations of inlet locations for water years 1996, 2002 and 2004.
Figures modied by permission from James (2005). 400
# of days open

300

zero wave-overtopping the inlet remains open for 38.9% of the time, 200
and with zero streamow it remains open for 0.1%. Under current
streamow and predicted wave overtopping, it is modeled to remain 100
open for 39.5% of the time. A similar relationship is observed on a
monthly basis; in January through April, volumetrically the greatest 0
0 1 2 3
wave overtopping and streamow months, the estuary is generally
500

Table 2 400
# of days closed

Model performance statistics. Root mean square error (RMSE) of the observed and pre-
dicted 48-h estuary stage amplitude. The rst statistic corresponds to when the estuary 300
is actively opening and closing, and the second statistic is for the entire water year n = 2119
(October to September). 200 3
n = 258 (when input = 0m /s)
Water year Period of statistic RMSE Period of statistic RMSE
(m) (m) 100

Calibration
0
2003 13/Dec/200217/Jul/2003 0.44 Entire water year 0.37 0 1 2 3
mean daily inflow
Validation
(streamflow + wave overtopping,m3/s)
1996 15/Dec/199505/Jun/1996 0.65 Entire water year 0.45
2002 01/Dec/200128/May/2002 0.50 Entire water year 0.39
Fig. 9. Hydrologic inow and days open. Histograms of model results of the number of
2004 29/Dec/200330/Apr/2004 0.64 Entire water year 0.42
days open and closed for streamow plus wave overtopping.
 A. Rich, E.A. Keller / Geomorphology 191 (2013) 6474 71

4.3. Model sensitivity

To determine the effect of individual model components on estu- 6

ary function, the calibrated model is re-run while only changing
one variable at a time. The model period is 18.2 years long and encap-
sulates long-term uctuations in the El Nio Southern Oscillations 5

elevation (m, NAVD88)

thereby by eliminating the bias such uctuations may introduce.
The wave buoy ceased to function during portions of the intense
1998 El Nio winter, and this non-consecutive 360 day period was
removed from the analysis. The variation in the model components
was chosen to reect physically realistic variability in such compo-
nents. The calibrated values, model sensitivity values, and model re-
sults are shown in Table 3, and the full hypsometry and excavated
hypsometry curves are shown in Fig. 10.
The hypsometry sensitivity results demonstrate that the accom-
modation space within the estuary plays a fundamental role in its
functioning. For the full hypsometry conditions, the frequency of
estuary waterlevel uctuations and breaching events increases
(Fig. 11). In the excavated hypsometry conditions, the estuary retains
stored water three months later than the full hypsometry conditions,
and for a 3-week period, it breaches nine-fold less than the full
hypsometry. Excavating the current estuary would reduce the time
open by 27% and lling it with sediment would increase time open
by 18%.
From three observations Carmel lagoon berm heights appear to
vary from 4 to 5 m NAVD88, though a dune formed in 2010 in the
back-beach with elevations of 5.5 m NAVD88. Berm-height for the
calibrated model simulations was 4.2 m NAVD88. The effects of a de-
creased (increased) berm-height on estuary breaching are two-fold:
1) an increase (decrease) in wave overtopping frequency and magni-
tudes, and 2) a decrease (increase) in volume of water necessary to
breach the berm. For 4 of the 18 years, the calibrated model permit-
ted large wave-overtopping events to initialize short-lived breaches
up to a month earlier than the higher berm. Once the estuary is
breached, the high-berm scenario behaves similar to the calibrated
conditions (4.2 m NAVD88). When the berm height is decreased
from 4.2 m NAVD 88 to 3.2 m NAVD 88, wave overtopping becomes
a strong determinant of estuary functioning, causing short, frequent
breaches, even when streamow is still zero. At a 95% daily stream
ow exceedance (14.7 m 3/s), it takes 0.2, 0.5 and 1.3 days to ll the
estuary (with no outow and zero initial storage) when the berm
height is 3.2, 4.2 and 5.5 m NAVD88, respectively. This daily
streamow magnitude is exceeded 15 out of the 18 years, whereas
the 99% daily exceedance ow is reached in 12 of the 18 years. At
the 99% ow exceedance, it takes 12 h to ll the high-berm estuary
4
3
2
MHHW
Carmel Hypsometry
1
MSL excavated hypsometry
full hypsometry
0 MLLW
0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000
volume (m3)
Fig. 10. Observed and Modeled Carmel Lagoon Hypsometry. Carmel hypsometry
is from James (2005), and excavated hypsometry and full hypsometry were used
in the sensitivity analyses. The tidal data MHHW, MSL, and MLLW represent the
mean higher-high water, mean sea level, and mean lower-low water, respectively
(tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov).
to breaching levels; at such timescales, the role of water transmission
through the beach berm in estuary functioning is unimportant. There-
fore, fairly common daily streamow volumes are capable of breaching
even the high-berm scenarios. The impact of monotonically increasing
beach-berm heights from near tidal levels to ~6 m above mean
higher-high water is an exponential-like decrease in percent time
open of the estuary inlet (Fig. 12). As shown in Table 3, during the
18.2-year model scenario the inlet of the high-berm scenario is open
only 3% less than the calibrated conditions, whereas a low-berm height
causes a 25% increase in the time the estuary is open.
Other results from the long-term modeling are non-linear, as well.
A ten-fold increase in hydraulic conductivity causes a 44% change
in time open, but a ten-fold decreased hydraulic conductivity causes
only a 10% increase in time open (Table 3). An increased hydraulic
conductivity causes breaches to occur only during high streamow
events, whereas during the low-ow summer conditions, estuary

Table 3
Calibrated values of the breaching model, their range of values tested in the sensitivity analysis and their effect on the amount of days the estuary is open during the 18.5-year
modeling scenario. Model values used in the sensitivity analysis are either shown directly or are a factor of the Calibrated Value (e.g. 10). Four of the model parameters were
not tested in the sensitivity analysis.

Calibrated value Sensitivity analysis

Model value Number of days open % change from best t

High value Low value High Low High Low

htsand, m/wave 0.0017 2 0.5 2400 2654 3% 7%

, erosion 2.15E07
C, run-up adjustment 0.47 2 0.5 1754 3059 29% 23%
, hydraulic geometry 0.43
, hydraulic geometry 0.67
b, berm ht, m NAVD88 4.2 5.5 3.2 2408 3100 3% 25%
Beach width, m 60 240 10 3907 2102 57% 15%
Hydraulic conductivity, k (m/s) 0.0062 10 0.1 1388 2742 44% 10%
Berm length, m 160 400 10 2268 2700 9% 9%
Beach face slope, m/m 0.09
Hypsometry See Fig. 10 Excavated Full 1809 2928 27% 18%
hypsometry hypsometry
Groundwater inow, m3/s 0.08
Sea level rise (m) 0 1.67 0.42 1388 2136 44% 14%
72 A. Rich, E.A. Keller / Geomorphology 191 (2013) 6474

Input (m3/s) 20
wave overtopping
streamflow
10

0
11/03 12/03 01/04 02/04 03/04 04/04 05/04 06/04 07/04 08/04 09/04 10/04 11/04 12/04 01/05
stage (m, NAVD88)

4 current hypsometry
full hypsometry
3

11/03 12/03 01/04 02/04 03/04 04/04 05/04 06/04 07/04 08/04 09/04 10/04 11/04 12/04 01/05
stage (m, NAVD88)

4 current hypsometry
excavated hypsometry
3

11/03 12/03 01/04 02/04 03/04 04/04 05/04 06/04 07/04 08/04 09/04 10/04 11/04 12/04 01/05

Fig. 11. Estuary Hypsometry Sensitivity. Model results showing the effect of estuary hypsometry on breaching and closing dynamics. Bottom two boxes show model output from
the calibrated model (current hypsometry) and the altered estuary hypsometry scenarios. Note the increase in breaching frequency in the full hypsometry conditions, and the
increased water retention in the excavated hypsometry conditions.

storage is negligible and strongly inuenced by tidally modulated
groundwater ow (Fig. 13). Breaching occurs throughout the year,
and water storage, and consequently residence times, are great
during the reduced hydraulic conductivity conditions. During high
streamow, the calibrated model and the reduced hydraulic conduc-
tivity scenario behave similarly.
Sea level is predicted to rise by between 0.42 and 1.67 m by 2100
(Dalrymple et al., 2012), and will likely cause the beach-berm to
translate landward. The effects of sea level rise on estuary function
were evaluated by increasing tidal elevations and berm elevations
by the sea level rise predictions, but keeping the beach berm in its
current location. By not translating the berm landwards, the predic-
tions should be interpreted as the maximal effect that sea-level rise
may have on the time open. The 0.42 m sea-level rise scenario causes
a 14% decrease in time open and the 1.67 m sea-level rise causes a
44% decrease.
5. Discussion
The model results indicate that the functioning of bar-built, coastal
lagoons are strongly dependent upon a variety of factors that control
100
80
% time open
the storage, inow, and transmission of water. For the estuary system
itself, realistic variations in each of the factors investigated here pro-
duces more than a 7% change in the amount of time the estuary is
open. Understanding how these factors affect estuary function allows
for improved restoration and management of these systems for their
ecological value. For example, with the use of the model developed
here, resource managers were provided quantitative predictions of
the effects of a proposed estuary excavation project on the breaching
and closing regime of a coastal estuary in Santa Barbara, Ca. (Rich,
2012).
Existing at the nexus of the coastal environment and watershed
outlet, the function of these systems is affected by a number of
drivers. These drivers can be grouped as: 1) water and sediment
discharge, 2) land use, 3) climate and sea level, 4) estuary geomor-
phology, and 5) coastal and barrier beach change. For the calibrated
Carmel Lagoon model, when beach berm heights adequately reduce
the wave overtopping ux, streamow is the primary determinant
on inlet state and on estuary storage. Elwany et al. (1998) demon-
strated that the long-term pattern of inlet state correlates well
with streamow and Behrens (2012) showed that both closure
and breaching timing are persistently inuenced by streamow. It
is therefore expected that processes affecting runoff ow-durations
such as groundwater pumping (Winter et al., 1998) and urbanization
(Ferguson and Suckling, 1990) will strongly impact estuary
function.
It is not clear if global warming will lead to a more El Nio-like cli-
mate (Collins, 2005), with its attendant increased yearly streamow

(Cayan et al., 1999) and increased wave heights along western North
60 America (Allan and Komar, 2006). If El Nios do become more fre-
quent, they will cause lagoons to remain open longer because estuary
40 closure is more sensitive to increases in streamow than increases in
wave height (Behrens, 2012). If the beach berm remains in its current
location, sea-level rise will cause the estuary to function more like a
20
coastal lake.
Other watershed processes will also impact estuary function,
0 primarily by controlling estuary geomorphology and hypsometry.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The size (volume, area, etc.) of coastal estuaries in active tectonic
berm height (m, NAVD88)
environments scale with watershed precipitation and stream gra-
Fig. 12. Sensitivity analysis of beach berm height on the percent of time that the inlet is
dient (Rich and Keller, 2012). The nature of this scaling is a func-
open. Each point represents the results of an 18.2-year model run for given beach berm tion of a variety of factors, with lithology, tectonics, and sediment
height. ux likely as key drivers. Sediment ux is inuenced by land use
 A. Rich, E.A. Keller / Geomorphology 191 (2013) 6474
20
Input (m3/s)
10
0
11/03 12/03 01/04 02/04 03/04
stage (m, NAVD88)
4 calibrated hydr. cond.
3
11/03 12/03 01/04 02/04 03/04
stage (m, NAVD88)
3
2
11/03 12/03 01/04 02/04 03/04
Fig. 13. Sensitivity analysis of beach hydraulic conductivity. Bottom two boxes show model output from the calibrated model (calibrated hydr. cond.) and the altered beach hydraulic
conductivity scenarios.
changes and reservoir construction (Syvitski et al., 2005), and
signicant sediment aggradation has been observed in a Central
California lagoon, likely as a result of land use change (Revell et
al., 2010).
Operative estuarine and coastal processes are those that control
the form, composition, size and existence of the beach berm, and
the functioning of the channel inlet. The construction of dams and
beach groins reduces littoral sediment supply, causing beach
narrowing (Willis and Griggs, 2003) and potentially reduction of
beach-berm heights. Dams also alter the caliber of sediment a river
transports (Kondolf, 1997), potentially impacting the composition
(e.g. hydraulic conductivity) of the beach barrier. Changes in grain
size also impacts surfzone sediment transport direction (Dean,
1973) and therefore processes affecting estuary closure (Ranasinghe
and Pattiaratchi, 2003).
5.1. Model uncertainty
The results indicate that the model works best when the channel
inlet ows directly from the estuary to the beachface, in accordance
with model assumptions. There does not exist a functional predictive
model of channel migration, and pursuing such a model is beyond the
scope of this work. Nonetheless, the model is still able to accurately
predict the seasonal closure timing within 10.5 days when this
assumption is invalid. The inlet conguration impacts the hydraulic
efciency of the inlet and erosive ability of the ow itself (van de
Kreeke, 1985), and is therefore important in the closure process
(Behrens, 2012).
The absence of a nearshore wave transformation model introduces
uncertainty into the model and results. This uncertainty is small for
Carmel Lagoon (Laudier et al., 2011), though if not, the heuristic
value of this work is still valid. For longer model runs, the uncertainty
in other model parameters likely produces a greater amount of uncer-
tainty than the lack of a wave model. The beachface slope, which at
Carmel has been observed to vary from 0.08 to 0.22 (Laudier et al.,
2011), introduces a large uncertainty into the wave run-up height,
which varies linearly with the beachface slope. For a given offshore
wave conditions, wave overtopping is a nonlinear function of berm
height, the reduction factor (r), and the beachface slope (Laudier
et al., 2011), all of which are not likely constant for > 1-month
periods.
73
streamflow
wave overtopping
04/04 05/04 06/04 07/04 08/04 09/04 10/04 11/04 12/04 01/05
10x calibrated hydr. cond.
04/04 05/04 06/04 07/04 08/04 09/04 10/04 11/04 12/04 01/05
0.1x calibrated hydr. cond.
calibrated hydr. cond.
04/04 05/04 06/04 07/04 08/04 09/04 10/04 11/04 12/04 01/05
6. Conclusions
The model results show that the breaching and closing of the
bar-built, Mediterranean climate, Carmel Lagoon can be predicted
using a hydrologic and geomorphic model. When calibrated, the
model is able to reproduce the initial seasonal breaching, seasonal
closure, intermittent closures and breaches, and the low-streamow
estuary hydrology. For three years when the estuary inlet drains
directly across the beach berm, and during the portion of the
year when the inlet is actively opening and closing, the root mean
square errors of calibrated versus observed 48-h estuary stage
amplitude are 0.65 m, 0.50 m and 0.64 m. For the entirety of the
three years, model performance improves to 0.45 m, 0.39 m and
0.42 m. Model performance deteriorates when the channel inlet
migrates from the direct conguration to one ~ 10 longer. Under
calibrated conditions, the probability that the Carmel Lagoon inlet
is closed is strongly linked to inow and seasonal patterns of inlet
state are a reection of streamow seasonality. The probability
of the inlet being closed decreases 10-fold as mean daily inow
increases from 0.2 to 1.0 m 3/s, whereas 98.5% of open days occur
when estuary inow is greater than 0.5 m 3/s. The estuary may
breach from overtopping alone, but such breaches are short-lived.
Wave overtopping does not play a large role in determining inlet
state under calibrated conditions.
In conjunction with beach processes, the hydrologic water balance
controls the functioning of these systems. Therefore, factors that
alter the storage, transmission, and inow control estuary function.
Changes to estuary hypsometry or beach-berm height increase stor-
age volumes; increasing berm heights diminishes the overtopping
ux, rendering streamow the important control on breaching,
whereas a reduced berm height allows wave overtopping to inuence
breaching. By excavating an estuary it will breach less frequently and
store water for longer periods. The transmission of inow through the
berm is controlled by the hydrologic properties of the berm itself, in-
cluding the beach width and length, and its hydrologic transmissivity.
The effect of altered beach conditions is not always linear, however.
The tendency for the inlet to be closed increases with wave energy
and wave run-up, and the availability of beach sand is relatively less
important in the closure process. Lastly, if beach berms remain in
their current locations, but aggrade vertically under predicted sea
level rise conditions, sea level rise will cause coastal lagoons to reduce
74 A. Rich, E.A. Keller / Geomorphology 191 (2013) 6474
the amount of time they are open by up to 44%. This prediction is an
end-member and does not account for beach-berm migration.
Finally, watershed and coastal processes that affect estuary func-
tion can be grouped as follows: 1) water and sediment discharge,
2) land use, 3) climate and sea level, 4) estuary geomorphology, and
5) coastal and barrier beach change. Restoration and management
of these systems should account for the above factors, especially for
changes in streamow.
References
Allan, J.C., Komar, P.D., 2006. Climate controls on US west coast erosion processes. Journal
of Coastal Research 511529.
Baldock, T.E., Weir, F., Hughes, M.G., 2008. Morphodynamic evolution of a coastal
lagoon entrance during swash overwash. Geomorphology 95 (34), 398411.
Bascom, W.N., 1951. The relationship between sand size and beach face slope. Transac-
tions of the American Geophysical Union 32, 866874.
Behrens, D.K., 2012. The Russian River Estuary: Inlet Morphology, Management, and
Estuarine Scalar Field Response. Dissertation, Univ. of California, Davis, 340 pp.
Behrens, D.K., Bombardelli, F.A., Largier, J.L., Twohy, E., 2009. Characterization of time
and spatial scales of a migrating rivermouth. Geophysical Research Letters 36 (9),
L09402.
Beighley, R.E., Melack, J.M., Dunne, T., 2003. Impacts of California's climatic regimes
and coastal land use change on streamow characteristics. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 39 (6), 14191433.
Carter, R.W.G., Forbes, D.L., Jennings, S.C., Orford, J.D., Shaw, J., Taylor, R.B., 1989. Barrier
and lagoon coast evolution under differing relative sea-level regimes: examples
from Ireland and Nova Scotia. Marine Geology 88, 221242.
Cayan, D.R., Redmond, K.T., Riddle, L.G., 1999. ENSO and hydrologic extremes in the
Western United States. Journal of Climate 12 (9), 28812893.
Collins, M., 2005. El Nio- or La Nia-like climate change? Climate Dynamics 24 (1),
89104.
Cooper, J.A.G., 2001. Geomorphological variability among microtidal estuaries from the
wave-dominated South African coast. Geomorphology 40 (12), 99122.
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997.
The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387 (6630),
253260.
Dalrymple, R.A., Breaker, L.C., Brooks, B.A., Cayan, D.R., Griggs, G.B., Han, W., Horton,
B.P., Hulbe, C.L., Mcwilliams, J.C., Mote, P.W., Pfeffer, W.T., Reed, D.J., Shum, C.K.,
Holman, R.A., Linn, A.M., Mcconnell, M., Gibbs, C.R., Ortego, J.R., 2012. Sea-level
rise for the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: past, present, and future.
National Research, Council.The National Academies Press, Washington DC.
Dean, R.G., 1973. Heuristic Models of Sand Transport in the Surf Zone, Australian
Conference on Coastal Engineering (1st: 1973: Sydney, N.S.W.). Institution of Engi-
neers, Australia, Sydney, N.S.W.
Donnelly, C., Kraus, N., Larson, M., 2006. State of knowledge on measurement and
modeling of coastal overwash. Journal of Coastal Research 22 (4), 965991.
DWR, 1974. Vegetative Water Use in California. State of California, The Resources
Agency, Department of Water Resources, Sacramento.
Elwany, M.H.S., Flick, R.E., Aijaz, S., 1998. Opening and closure of a marginal Southern
California lagoon inlet. Estuaries 21 (2), 246254.
Escofer, F.F., 1940. The stability of tidal inlets. Shore & Beach 8, 114115.
Ferguson, B.K., Suckling, P.W., 1990. Changing rainfallrunoff relationships in the
urbanizing Peachtree Creek Watershed, Atlanta, Georgia. Journal of the American
Water Research Association 26 (2), 313322.
Hart, D.E., 2007. River-mouth lagoon dynamics on mixed sand and gravel barrier
coasts, 9th International Coastal Symposium. Journal of Coastal Research, Gold
Coast, Australia, pp. 927931.
Hope, A., 2007. Carmel river lagoon: hydrographic survey and stagevolume relationship.
Prepared for: Monterey Peninsula Water Management District.
Howard, A.D., McLane III, C.F., 1988. Erosion of cohesionless sediment by groundwater
seepage. Water Resources Research 24 (10), 16591674.
Howell, B.F., 1972. Sand movement along Carmel River State Beach, Carmel, California
(71 pp.).
Hughes, S.A., 2002. Equilibrium cross sectional area at tidal inlets. Journal of Coastal
Research 18 (1), 160174.
Hunt, I.A., 1959. Design of seawalls and breakwaters. Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers 85, 123152.
James, G., 2005. Surface Water Dynamics at the Carmel Lagoon Water Years 1991
Through 2005. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Agency, Monterey, Ca.
Janssen, P.H.M., Heuberger, P.S.C., 1995. Calibration of process-oriented models. Eco-
logical Modelling 83, 5566.
Jarrett, J.T., 1976. Tidal prisminlet area relationships. US Army Coastal Engr. Res. Cent,
p. 55. G.I.T.I. Report 3.
Kirk, R.M., 1991. River-beach interaction on mixed sand and gravel coasts: a geomor-
phic model for water resource planning. Applied Geography 11 (4), 267287.
Kjerfve, B., Magill, K.E., 1989. Geographic and hydrodynamic characteristics of shallow
coastal lagoons. Marine Geology 88 (34), 187199.
Kondolf, G.M., 1997. PROFILE: hungry water: effects of dams and gravel mining on river
channels. Environmental Management 21 (4), 533551.
Kondolf, G.M., Maloney, L.M., Williams, J.G., 1987. Effects of bank storage and well
pumping on base ow, Carmel River, Monterey County, California. Journal of
Hydrology 91, 351369.
Kraus, N., Munger, S., Patsch, K., 2008. Barrier beach breaching from the lagoon side,
with reference to Northern California. Shore & Beach 76 (2), 3343.
Laudier, N.A., Thornton, E.B., MacMahan, J., 2011. Measured and modeled wave
overtopping on a natural beach. Coastal Engineering 58 (9), 815825.
Lee, J.-S., Julien, P.Y., 2006. Downstream hydraulic geometry of alluvial channels.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 132 (12), 13471352.
Meyer-Peter, E., Mller, R., 1948. Formulas for bed-load transport. Proceedings of the
2nd Meeting of the International Association for Hydraulic Structures Research,
Delft, Netherlands.
Miller, M.C., McCave, I.N., Komar, P.D., 1977. Threshold of sediment motion under uni-
directional currents. Sedimentology 24 (4), 507527.
MPWMD, 2008. California American Water Production by Source for Customers in its
Mains System; Water Years 1996Present. Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District, Monterey.
O'Brien, M.P., 1931. Estuary tidal prisms related to entrance areas. Journal of Civil Engi-
neering 738739.
Pierce, J.W., 1970. Tidal inlets and washover fans. Journal of Geology 78 (2), 230234.
Ranasinghe, R., Pattiaratchi, C., 1999. The seasonal closure of tidal inlets: Wilson inlet
a case study. Coastal Engineering 37 (1), 3756.
Ranasinghe, R., Pattiaratchi, C., 2003. The seasonal closure of tidal inlets: causes and
effects. Coastal Engineering Journal 45 (4), 601627.
Revell, D., Williams, P., Rich, A., Bozkurt, S., Collison, A., Ginney, E., Kunz, D., Vandever, J.,
Gamble, J., 2010. An Assessment of Potential Restoration Actions To Enhance
The Ecological Functions Of The Lower Santa Ynez River Estuary. ESA-PWA, San
Francisco.
Rich, A., 2012. Restoration of Devereux Slough: Effects on Estuary Breaching and Closing,
Cheadle Center for Biodiversity and Ecological Restoration. Univ. of California Santa
Barbara, Santa Barbara, Ca.
Rich, A., Keller, E., 2012. Watershed controls on the geomorphology of small coastal
lagoons in an active tectonic environment. Estuaries and Coasts 35 (1), 183189.
Rustomji, P., 2007. Flood and drought impacts on the opening regime of a wave-
dominated estuary. Marine and Freshwater Research 58 (12), 11081119.
Seager, R., Vecchi, G.A., 2010. Greenhouse warming and the 21st century hydroclimate
of southwestern North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
107 (50), 2127721282.
Storlazzi, C.D., Field, M.E., 2000. Sediment distribution and transport along a rocky,
embayed coast: Monterey Peninsula and Carmel Bay, California. Marine Geology
170 (34), 289316.
Syvitski, J.P.M., Vrsmarty, C.J., Kettner, A.J., Green, P., 2005. Impact of humans on the
ux of terrestrial sediment to the Global Coastal Ocean. Science 308 (5720),
376380.
Takeda, I., Sunamura, T., 1982. Formation and height of berms. Transactions, Japanese
Geomorphological Union 3 (2), 145157.
Turner, I., 1993. Water table outcropping on macro-tidal beaches: a simulation model.
Marine Geology 115, 227238.
van de Kreeke, J., 1985. Stability of tidal inlets, Pass Cavallo, Texas. Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science 21 (1), 3343.
Van der Meer, J.W., Janssen, W., 1995. Wave run-up and wave overtopping at dikes.
In: Kabayashi, D. (Ed.), Wave Forces on Inclined and Vertical Wall Structures.
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 127.
Willis, C.M., Griggs, G.B., 2003. Reductions in uvial sediment discharge by Coastal
Dams in California and implications for beach sustainability. Journal of Geology
111 (2), 167182.
Winter, T.C., Harvey, J.W., Franke, O.L., Alley, W.M., 1998. Ground water and surface
water a single resource. United States Geological Survey Circular 1139.