REEF JOURNAL

Design of Surfing Reefs

K. Black and S. Mead ASR Ltd PO Box 67 Raglan, New Zealand www.asrltd.co.nz, k.black@asrltd.co.nz

ABSTRACT The current status of multi-purpose surfing reef development is evolving. Projects worldwide are in various stages of completion and lessons have been learned from each. This paper considers continuing developments in reef design and reef engineering construction, and the need for blending of the two aspects.

INTRODUCTION Multi-purpose surfing reefs for coastal protection and public amenity have come of age. For about 9 years, we have been researching and disseminating information about reefs and their benefits (BLACK et al., 1997; MEAD AND BLACK, 1999; BLACK; 2001; MEAD AND BLACK, 2000B; BLACK, 2004). In that period, a transition in attitudes has occurred from disbelief to common acceptance and there is a general understanding of the fact that if you block the waves on a reef offshore, the beach will be protected. Even the simple rectangular reefs built by Japanese engineers have led to salient development and beach widening (e.g. PILARCZYK, 2003), although more sophisticated shapes will optimize the benefits of the reef. On the Gold Coast Reef (BLACK and MEAD, 2001a), video monitoring has confirmed its coastal protection benefits (TURNER et al., 2001). In some instances of strong longshore currents, negative impacts may occur through compression of the surf zone currents if the reef is placed in the wrong position cross-shore (BLACK, 2003a). However, there are thousands of cases of natural reefs which have salients or tombolos in their lee, and people are looking at their own environment and seeing reefs/islands which are virtually always backed by a wider beach (Fig. 1). With the acceptance of multi-purpose reefs worldwide as a coastal protection measure, plus the potential to include public amenity and recreational aspects, reefs are now coming close to construction. Final detailed studies through field research, physical and numerical modeling are being undertaken (e.g. BOGLE et al., 1999; GREEN AND BLACK, 1999; PHILLIPS et al., 1999; SAYCE et al., 1999; MOORES, 2001; AAGARD et al., 2002; BRYAN et al., 2003; BLACK, 2003b; BEAMSLEY AND BLACK, 2003; SCARFE et al., 2003; RANASINGHE et al., 2004; BLACK et al., 2005). The penultimate stage in the sequence is to produce the quality of engineering that will match the scientific design work. In the last 3 years, innovative techniques have been considered in consultation with the major engineering and geotextile companies.

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009

Page 177

REEF JOURNAL

Figure 1. Natural salient behind an offshore reef, New South Wales, Australia.

This paper considers the design and construction of surfing reefs, and examines two multilevel reef cases developed to satisfy particular constraints, which are to optimize volume and maximize wave breaking height and quality respectively.

REEF DESIGN The designing of reefs is harder than you think. Indeed, its surprising how many people still believe that a 45o wedge boomerang dropped in the ocean will lead to a perfect left and right breaking barrel. Nothing is further from the truth (BLACK and MEAD, 2001; MEAD, 2003). There are numerous subtleties, particularly when trying to minimize volume (i.e. construction cost) while retaining maximum surfing potential. Similarly, reef shape has a strong influence on the coastal protection aspects, through rotation (BLACK and MEAD, 2001b) and dissipation of waves (BLACK, 1999; TURNER et al., 2001b). Each component in the reef design, such as crest height, arm lengths and orientation, foci, structure depth, width and volume, must be blended with the specific physical environment in which the reef is to be placed. The aspirations of the stakeholders can also determine outcomes. Several hundred different reef designs have been tested numerically using the 3DD Suite of Numerical Models ( BLACK, 2001), and there are some basic and complex rules that cannot be denied. The most important basic rule is that the reef is a holistic system; every part of the reef is joined to every other part through wave refraction, shoaling and breaking (MEAD and BLACK, 2001 a&b). A focus, for example, can take energy into the peak, but the same component can leave a wave shadow down the reef (BLACK et al., 1998; Black and Mead, 2001). A steeper reef face designed to make the wave break harder, can actually cause
Vol. 1, No. 1 2009 Page 178

REEF JOURNAL

the smaller waves not to break. This is due to the increased height/depth ratio for breaking as seabed gradient increases (BLACK and ROSENBERG, 1992). Moreover, poor alignment of the reef isobaths or shape of the reef face may lead to irreparable damage to the straightcrestedness of the wave, as it propagates along and past the reef, negatively impacting on surfing wave quality (BLACK et al., 2004).

THE MULTI-LEVEL REEF Mt Maunganui One of the several reefs designed for Mt Maunganui (in the Bay of Plenty of New Zealands east coast) has small volume and is particularly suited to moderate wave climates. Described as a Double-sided Multi-level Reef in the Delta Reef category, it makes an A-frame wave with a left and right tubing barrel (Fig. 2a,b). The reef shape is symmetrical about the centre and consists of 2 zones. There is a leading offshore focus zone which is low amplitude (with gradient of 1:20 to 1:50). This is backed by a pointed horseshoe-shaped breaking zone (with gradient of 1:20 to 1:10). In the design shown, the breaking distance is a minimum of 50 m on each side, but ride length increases with swell height. The lower level acts as a focus but also acts to condition the waves by starting the shoaling process before reaching the breaking zone (MEAD and BLACK, 2001 a&b). The volume of the reef in Figure 2b is minimized to only 5000 m3. Variations that could be applied include some loss of symmetry by favouring the left or right, widening the crest, increasing the length of the breaking zone (by adding to the rear of the reef on either arm, e.g. Fig. 2a), or accentuating the focus. Another adjustment (particularly for sites with different depths) would be to alter the depth location where the focus zone intersects with the breaking zone. To put into practice, these alterations would need to be tested individually within the guidelines of the design criteria. Double-sided reefs have the advantage of being suitable for more surfers (2 riders per wave, rather than 1). The focus on the front acts for both sides of the reef, thereby effectively making the cost of the focus cheaper to construct in relation to the benefits it brings. The reef is more compact than many designs.

Figure 2a. A generic design for the Mount Maunganui Multi-level Reef. Underlying depths are taken from recent surveys provided by the University of Waikato, Coastal Marine Group. The reef crest is at 0.5 m below CD and the seabed is 3.5 m deep around the crest, making the highest section of the reef approximately 3 m high. The reef is about 90 m x 80 m in plan.
Vol. 1, No. 1 2009 Page 179

REEF JOURNAL

Figure 2b. |The 1:30 scale model of the Mount Maunganui Reef, front and middle section only ( ASR Ltd, 2004). The other benefit is that the reef is more resilient in the presence of a broad spectrum of input wave angles. When the swell is more north, one side of the reef gets quicker (for the better surfers) and the other side is slower (for the weaker surfers), and vice versa. Thus, the reef will cater well for many different input swell directions, indeed better than the single-sided reef. The overall profile of the reef is concave. However, the convex bull-nose shape (Fig. 3) is separately applied to each of the two levels. This has the effect of reducing volume and construction complexity, while improving reef stability.

Figure 3. Convex bull-nose profile. The gradient of the profile decreases as the depth reduces. The dashed line shows an equivalent linear profile. The deeper thin section of the linear profile at the front of the reef is hard to construct and so the bull-nose overcomes this problem and reduces volume.
Vol. 1, No. 1 2009 Page 180

REEF JOURNAL

Numerical modeling predicts peel angles from 55o to 35o. With a tubing wave on the peak, the wave is ranked at 6-7 (Table 1). Combined with the relatively short ride which makes it easier to surf successfully through the tube, relatively low peel angles have been chosen. Physical model tests, conducted at scales of 1:30 in ASRs Raglan wave basin, confirm the presence of the A-frame (Fig. 4a) and the tubing character at the peak (Fig. 4b). The wave peels down the reef, as anticipated, with best results at low tide. The reef is numerically predicted to create an interference and dissipation pattern in its lee which will improve surfing sand banks at the beach, and the reef will protect the coast by wave breaking dissipation (e.g. BLACK et al., 2003).

Table 1. ASRs degree of difficulty ranking for surfing reefs.

ASRs Surfing Difficulty Ranking Scale

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009

Page 181

REEF JOURNAL

Figure 4a. Wave pool model of the Mount Maunganui Reef showing the A-frame take-off.

Figure 4b. Wave pool model of the Mount Maunganui Reef showing the tubing ride on the left and right.

Boscombe With a larger available budget for construction, a more sophisticated Multi-level Reef was developed for Boscombe in Bournemouth, England (Black et al., 2004) The critical aspect at Boscombe is the very small wave climate and small directional spread, and so the design was

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009

Page 182

REEF JOURNAL

based around optimising the number of surfing days by ensuring that the reef would have the largest possible waves down the full length of the breaking section. The small wave climate precludes the top level rankings of 7-8, except in rare circumstances, and so the surfing difficulty ranking was set in the range 4-5 (Table 1). The hollowness and speed of the wave are defined by seabed gradients and peel angles. For a reef ranking 4-5 on the ASR scale, seabed gradients should be lower than 1:15 to 1:20. Peel angles, which determine the speed of the surfing ride, should be a minimum of 50 and an average of around 60. The reef was designed incorporating these specifications, with a crest height of 0.5 m above CD (i.e. out of the water at low tide), volume of 15,000 m3 and footprint of 10,000 m2.

The reef has some subtle, but important, features (Fig. 5). Once again, it consists of two levels. A low gradient conditioning platform spreads out in front of the breaking section to draw in the wave energy and thereby increase breaking wave height. Above this is the breaking segment, which is a steeper gradient (semi-circular) ridge that acts to make the wave break with speeds and intensities that match the required reef ranking of 4-5.

Figure 5. Reef designed for Boscombe in Bournemouth, England.

Subtle gradients in the lower level ensure that the wave energy is drawn smoothly up onto the full length of the breaking segment. There are three key features. First, the focus is offset and staggered. This brings extra wave energy into the shadow zone half way down the circular arc. The shadow is created by the focus, which draws energy into the take-off peak and away from adjacent parts of the wave. However, by staggering the focus as shown, energy is taken onto the peak and also brought in from the side to replenish the height losses, and thereby
Vol. 1, No. 1 2009 Page 183

REEF JOURNAL

eliminate the shadow. The second feature is the slow upward gradient of the platform towards the rear of the breaking zone. This brings further energy from the side of the reef into the rear region, thereby ensuring that wave height remains at its maximum along the full length of the reef. A third benefit of this design is that waves will also break on the lower level with slower peel angles, when the swell is large at low tide.

CONSTRUCTION It mostly takes about 3-5 years to develop a reef through to construction. There are phases of development from feasibility, through detailed design, environmental consents, fund raising and construction that impact on the duration of the process. Of the many projects currently in various stages of completion, four reefs may be built in the next 12-18 months. These are at Mt Maunganui, Opunake and Wellington in New Zealand and Oil Piers in Ventura, California (BLACK et al., 2003a, MEAD et al., 2003a,b,c). The Mt Maunganui Reef is currently being tendered for construction, while Oil Piers is planned for construction in June/July 2005. A reef for Bournemouth (England) (BLACK et al., 2004) is planned for development in their summer of 2006, while a reef at Borth (Wales) (BLACK et al., 2003a) is moving into the final stages of detailed design and funding approval. Other reefs are mooted for Britain, Costa Rica, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. There is a common belief among surfers that the next reef should be world class. It is our view that this will require the combination of design and construction to be closely amalgamated in order to take the computer design and make it a reality in the water. At the Gold Coast, the two stages were separated (we designed the reef and had no responsibility for the construction). The method of construction was mega-containers dropped from a split-hull barge to form the reef shape. The reef remains incomplete with segments of it still several metres deeper than the design (Fig. 6). However, the reef is currently meeting the coastal protection goals and surfing has been good in larger swells (Fig.7). The reef was designed to Rank 6-7 on the ASR scale from 1 to 10 (HUTT et al., 2001), but it is presently breaking around 4-5 over shorter segments. The Gold Coast City Council is committed to completing the reef, and each year the surfing quality is reported to be improving (MCGRATH, 2002). However, the construction method (while economic) lacks sophistication. The main problems confronted by the construction engineers were differential settlement (with sand being able to erode from between the bags and allowing bags to sink) and steps (irregularity in the reef face) leading to altered surfing wave quality.

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009

Page 184

REEF JOURNAL

Figure 6. Comparison of designed and actual depths on the Gold Coast Reef. Upper panel: Reef design. Middle panel: Depths in March 2001. Lower panel: Depths in April 2001. There are large differences between the designed and actual depths, as the reef construction has not been completed by the engineering team. However, the reef is providing coast protection, enhanced ecology and improved surfing.

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009

Page 185

REEF JOURNAL

Figure 7. Surfer on the Gold Coast Reef.

For the Mt Maunganui Reef, a higher quality reef face, eliminating gaps between the bags, is required. This level of vertical tolerance is greater than previous offshore coastal protection structures have required and so advances in engineering need to be made. At Mt Maunganui, the method of construction is expected to involve geobags sewn to match the reef shape in elements, that are sections of the reef. The geotextile elements are laid on the bed with precision positioning and filled by sand slurry in situ, using pumps with hoses attached by divers. A similar method is being adopted at Oil Piers. DISCUSSION Reef designs Every project has required a different reef shape in order to cater for the different wave climates, surfer aspirations, coastal protection requirements and budget. There are many successful reef designs and many that dont work. Reef design continues to advance, with shapes now responding to individual conditions e.g. small wave climate, fast, tubing, long or variable rides, low volume, optimised coastal protection. In this paper, we examined two reefs for surfing and coastal protection: one with low volume and another for small wave climates. Both were multi-level, using the principle of a low-gradient platform to draw wave energy onto selected parts of the reef where the breaking occurs on a steeper gradient breaking zone. Each of these zones has special features, particularly at Bournemouth where the small wave climate made it essential to design a shape that would maximize wave height along the full length of the reef. The reef shapes have similarities to artificial reef designs at Gold Coast Reef (BLACK and MEAD, 2001) and a reef for Dubai (MOCKE, 2003). The similarity to the Gold Coast Reef in plan becomes evident by joining the two halves of the reef and considering the front section alone. The similarity to Mockes design work is most apparent in his piriform platform-lens design, although he did not incorporate sophisticated structure in the platform. However, as noted above, different designs are applicable to different locations. The Delta shape and multi-level structure are strikingly similar to some world-class natural reefs. In plan, the Delta shape relates closely to the famous Pipeline/Backdoor combination in Hawaii (MEAD, 2000). The multi-level structure is very similar to Bingin in Bali. As described by MEAD and
Vol. 1, No. 1 2009 Page 186

REEF JOURNAL

BLACK (1999), Bingin consists of a focus, platform and breaking section with length scales and gradients that are close to the Mt Maunganui Reef. The cross-section profiles are reproduced in natural sand bar profiles at Kirra Point, Burleigh Heads and many natural beach bars (Fig. 8) (MEAD and BLACK, 2001 a&b; BLACK et al., 2003). The characteristic that recurs is the steeply rising sand bar face, lying on a lower gradient rising seabed, and flattening off again at the crest; essentially a two level reef with bullnose segments. The orientation of the reef to the wave approach direction is also similar to common directions when Kirra is breaking best. Mount Maunganuis wave climate is very similar to the Gold Coast climate (MEAD and BLACK, 1999).
-1

-2 1:12 -3 Depth (m) 1:20 -4 1:70 -5 1:350 I -6 III IV II -7 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 1:18

Distance Along Profile (m)

Figure 8: Profiles I-IV at Kirra Point, surveyed 7 October, 1996. Profiles are taken perpendicular to the seabed contours. Depths are relative to LAT (from MEAD, 2000).

THE FUTURE If quality reefs can be both designed and constructed successfully, there is considerable potential for future expansion of the multi-purpose reef industry and associated scientific research. Heavy engineering solutions are unfashionable due to their intrusiveness and they only exist for land protection, not beach protection (BLACK, 2004). This is particularly true of the dangerous and unsightly rock walls, groynes or breakwater structures positioned within public swimming zones or on the sand. Even nourishment has come under negative community scrutiny in places. Increased grain size has improved durability of the nourishment, but the safety of casual swimmers is reduced, with heavy plunging waves on the steeper beach face. Dissatisfaction also occurs when the nourishment sand is too shelly or silty. Another important transition for the future is the growth in surfing popularity and the aging of surfers, to the point where surfers now hold many senior positions within industry, government and the community. There is a slow recognition by surfers that, as the most consistent users of many beaches, they have obligatory rights in decision making. This power is preventing single-minded solutions such as placement of concrete, rocks or other

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009

Page 187

REEF JOURNAL

structures on the foreshore for protection of land, leaving the beach partially or totally decimated. The recent public outcry at Palm Beach Queensland (Mead and Black, 2004) is a good example of inadequate consideration of the surfing lobby. The project goal was to protect the front row of houses and widen the beach by building offshore a series of three longshoreparallel reefs. No useful surfing amenity was incorporated in the reef design. The surfers recognized that the reefs would block the waves on their beach and strongly opposed the development, which was eventually stopped by the City in response to the protests. Interestingly at the time, 3 surfers from Palm Beach were in the world top 100 rankings at the time of the project, and it was estimated that about 100 Palm Beach surfers in total had reached the top 100 ranking over the history of professional surfing. The growth in surfer power in combination with a strong environmentalist lobby will continue worldwide, forcing coastal protection projects to seek solutions that meet the aspirations of both the foreshore land owners and the environmental surfing community when protecting beaches. To consolidate this trend, some really good reefs that are well accepted by surfers need to be constructed in the ocean. The future rapid growth of the multi-purpose reef industry is now dependent on quality outcomes, which meet the expectations of surfers and coastal managers. This can be achieved by blending surfing and beach science with the engineering aspects, while abiding by some strict design rules. The final stage is to undertake every possible test of the designed reef before construction, using indicative natural reefs plus mathematical and physical models, as guiding tools. The engineering is inseparable from reef design, as a weakness in either will substantially reduce the quality of the waves, and construction needs to be considered while designing. During recent visits to Indonesia, India, Britain, Portugal, France, USA and Brazil (to name some examples), all their coastlines are suffering from developments placed too far seaward, coastal structures which have altered longshore sediment supply and the impending risks of Climate Change sealevel rise. With a rise in sea level, there is little doubt that rock walls can only protect the land, while the beach at the base of the wall will be lost. In this scenario, offshore reefs or breakwaters provide some breathing space (by widening the beach) and so their continuing popularity is assured. Example benefits of reefs, over traditional high breakwaters, are reduced cost, improved safety, enhanced amenity and ecology and the elimination of the unwanted visual impact.

CONCLUSIONS The growth of the multi-purpose reef industry is expected to be substantive with 4 reefs planned for construction in the next 18-24 months. The benefit of reefs (or low-crested breakwaters) over traditional breakwaters is reduced cost, improved safety, enhanced amenity and ecology and the elimination of the ugly visual impact. Of course, there is the potential to include all forms of surfing, diving, kite- and wind-surfing. Multi-level reefs presented in this paper have advantages in the cases described, but they are not applicable to all conditions. Each case is proving to be different, due to the changing wave climate, budget, client demands, surfer aspirations and the coastal protection requirements. Two reefs presented in this paper are designed respectively to minimize volume and to optimize wave height in locations with small wave climates. The reef industry is expected to expand once the ability to both design and construct the reefs successfully is fully demonstrated.

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009

Page 188

REEF JOURNAL

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper is funded by ASR Ltd. We thank the members of the Mt Reef Trust (www.mountreef.co.nz), and Roger Brown and Nigel Clarke of the Bournemouth Borough Council (www.bournemouth.gov.uk). Andrew Moores undertook the physical wave modeling. REFERENCES AAGAARD, T., K.P. BLACK and B. GREENWOOD 2002. Cross-shore suspended sediment transport in the surf zone: a field-based parameterization. Marine Geology 185: 283-302. BLACK, K.P. and ROSENBERG, M.A. 1992. Semi-empirical treatment of wave transformation outside and inside the breaker line. Coastal Engineering. 16: 313-345. BLACK, K.; ANDREWS, C.; GREEN, M.,O.; GORMAN, R.G.; HEALY, T.R.; HUME, T.M.; HUTT, J.; MEAD, S. and SAYCE, A. 1997. Wave dynamics and shoreline response on and around surfing reefs. 1st International Surfing Reef Symposium, Sydney, March 1997. p. 1-10. BLACK, K. P., J. A. HUTT & S. T. MEAD, 1998. Narrowneck Reef Report 2: Surfing Aspects. Report for Gold Coast City Council, June, 1998. BLACK, K. 1999. Designing the shape of the Gold Coast Reef: sediment dynamics. Proceedings of the Coasts & Ports 99 Conference, 14-16 April 1999, Perth, Australia. Vol 1, pp.58-63. BLACK, K.P.; and S. MEAD 2001a. Design of the Gold Coast Artificial Surfing Reef: Surfing Aspects. In: K. Black (ed) Natural and Artificial Reefs for Surfing and Coastal Protection. Special Issue 29 , Journal of Coastal Research, pp 115-130. BLACK, K. P., & S. T. MEAD, 2001b. Wave Rotation for Coastal Protection. Proceedings of the Australasian Coasts & Ports Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, 25-28 September 2001. BLACK, K.P. 2003. Perspective on Evolution in Sediment Modelling. Chapter 8 In: (C. Lakhan, ed) Advances in Coastal Modelling. Elsevier Publishing. pp. 217-236. BLACK, K., MEAD, S., BEAMSLEY, B., SCARFE, B., MCCOMB, P. 2003a. Studies for Resource Consent: Opunake Surfing Reef. Report for South Taranaki District Council and the Opunake Artificial Reef Committee. ASR Ltd. 167 pp. BLACK, K. P., C. BLENKINSOPP, S. T. MEAD, D. WEIGHT and B. GERRISH, 2003b. Borth Multi-Purpose reef for Coastal Protection and Amenity. Report prepared for Posford Haskoning Ltd,. December 2003. BLACK, K.P. and S.T. MEAD, 2003. Editors: 3rd International Surfing Reef Symposium Conference Preceedings, Raglan, New Zealand, 23-25 June 2003. BLACK, K., 2003. Numerical Prediction of Salient Formation in the Lee of Offshore Reefs. 3rd International Surfing Reef Symposium, Raglan, New Zealand, 23-25 June 2003. BLACK, K.P. 2004. Reefs for coastal protection are they just a fad or a sustainable solution which meets modern shifts in social attitudes and policies? Littoral 2004, Delivering sustainable coasts: connecting science and policy. A joint EUCC and Euro-Coast Conference. Aberdeen Scotland. Keynote address. Pp.12-24

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009

Page 189

REEF JOURNAL

BLACK, K., BLENKINSOPP, C., BEAMSLEY, B., JOHNSON, D., MEAD, S., MATHEW, J. 2004. Boscombe Surfing Reef: Field data and initial design report. For Bournemouth Borough Council. ASR Ltd. 212 pp. BLACK, K.P., KURIAN, N.P., MATHEW, J. and BABA, M. 2005. Open coast monsoonal beach dynamics. Journal of Coastal Research (in press). BEAMSLEY, B., and K. BLACK, 2003. The effect of offshore reefs on inshore surfing conditions. 3rd International Surfing Reef Symposium, Raglan, New Zealand, 23-25 June 2003. p. 99-144. BOGLE, J.A.; BRYAN, K.R.; BLACK, K.P.; HUME, T.M. and HEALY, T.R. 1999. Observations of Geomorphic Parameters Using Video Images. In: Proceedings of the Coasts & Ports 99 Conference: Challenges and directions for the New Century, Perth, Australia, vol. 1, pp.70-75. BRYAN, K.R.; BLACK, K.P. and GORMAN, R.M. 2003. Spectral Estimates of Dissipation Rate Within and near the Surf Zone. Journal of Physical Oceanography. pp. 979-993. GREEN, M.O. and BLACK, K.P. 1999. Suspended-sediment reference concentration under waves: field observations and critical analysis of two predictive models. Coastal Engineering. 38: 115-141. HUTT, J.; BLACK, K. and MEAD, S. 2001. Classification of Surf Breaks in Relation to Surfing Skill. In: K. Black (ed) Natural and Artificial Reefs for Surfing and Coastal Protection. Special Issue 29, Journal of Coastal Research, pp. 66-81. MCGRATH. J., 2002. Northern Gold Coast Beach Protection Strategy July 2002 Update. GCCC report from Coastal Management Engineer. MEAD, S. T., 2000. Incorporating High-Quality Surfing Breaks into Multi-Purpose Reefs. Doctor of Philosophy in Coastal Oceanography and Surfing Reefs thesis. University of Waikato. Pp 209 + appendices. MEAD, S. T., 2003. Surfing Science. Proceedings of The 3rd International Surfing Reef Conference. Karioi Centre, Raglan, New Zealand, 23-25 June 2003. MEAD, S. T. and K. P. BLACK, 1999. Configuration of Large-Scale Reef Components at a World-Class Surfing Break: Bingin Reef, Bali, Indonesia. Proceedings of the Australasian Coasts & Ports Conference, Perth, Australia, 13-16 April, 1999. MEAD, S. T. and K. P. BLACK, 1999. A Multi-Purpose, Artificial Reef at Mount Maunganui Beach, New Zealand. Coastal Management Journal 27(4). MEAD, S. T. and K. P. BLACK, 2000a. Field Studies Leading to the Bathymetric Classification of World-Class Surfing Breaks. In: K. Black (ed) Natural and Artificial Reefs for Surfing and Coastal Protection. Special Issue 29 , Journal of Coastal Research, pp 5-20. MEAD, S. T. and K. P. BLACK, 2000b. Functional Component Combinations Controlling Surfing Wave Quality at World-Class Surfing Breaks. In: K. Black (ed) Natural and Artificial Reefs for Surfing and Coastal Protection. Special Issue 29 , Journal of Coastal Research, pp 21-32. MEAD, S. T., K. P. BLACK, B. SCARFE, C. BLENKINSOPP and L. HARRIS, 2003. Oil Piers Reef: Section 227: National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program Ventura County California Demonstration Site. Report prepared for the US Army Corp of Engineers, May 2003. MEAD, S. T., K. P. BLACK, C. BLENKINSOPP and P. MCCOMB, 2003. Lyall Bay Surfing Reef: Reef Design and Physical Processes. Prepared for the Lyall Bay Reef Charitable Trust, March 2003.

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009

Page 190

REEF JOURNAL

MEAD, S., K. BLACK, B. SCARFE, and J. FRAZERHURST, 2003. The Impacts of Wave Focussing on Surfing Reef Site Selection, Surfing Wave Quality and ASR Design at Scales of Inner Continental Shelf to Sub-Tidal Reef. 3rd International Surfing Reef Symposium, Raglan, New Zealand, 23-25 June 2003. p.115-137 MEAD, S. T., K. P. BLACK and B. SCARFE, 2004. Review of the Palm Beach Protection Strategy. Prepared for Save Our Surf Incorporated, May 2004. MEAD, S. T., K. P. BLACK, B. SCARFE, L. HARRIS, J. SAMPLE and C. BLENKINSOPP. 2004. Oil Piers Reef: Phase II Detailed Design and Environmental Impact Assessment. Report prepared for the US Army Corp of Engineers, January, 2004. MOCKE, G., SMIT, F., FERNANDO, S., AL SAHED, K. 2003. Coastal protection and amenity value of a surf reef for Dubai. 3rd International Surfing Reef Symposium, Raglan, New Zealand, 23-25 June 2003. p.180-195. MOORES, A., 2001. Using Video Images to Quantify Wave Sections and Surfers Parameters. Unpublished MSc thesis. University of Waikato. PHILLIPS, D.; BLACK, K.; HUME, T., and HEALY, T. 1999. Sediment Dynamics along a Surfing Headland. In: Proceedings of the Coasts & Ports 99 Conference: Challenges and directions for the New Century, Perth, Australia. p.513-518. PILARCZYK, K. W., 2003. Design of Low-Crested (Submerged) Structures An Overview. 6th International Conference on Coastal and Port Engineering in Developing Countries. Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2003 PRASETYA, G., and K. BLACK, 2003. Sanur and Kuta Beaches in Bali Case studies for replacing traditional coastal protection with offshore reef. 3rd International Surfing Reef Symposium, Raglan, New Zealand, 23-25 June 2003. p. 165-175. RANASINGE, R., SYMONDS, G., BLACK, K. and HOLMAN, R. 2004. Morphodynamics of intermediate beaches: a video imaging and numerical modelling study. Coastal Engineering. 51(7): 629-655. SAYCE, A.; BLACK, K. and GORMAN, R. 1999. Breaking Wave Shape on Surfing Reefs. Proceedings of the Coasts & Ports 99 Conference, 14-16 April 1999, Perth, Australia. Vol 1, p.596-603. SCARFE, B.E., M.H. ELWANY, K. BLACK, and S. MEAD 2003. Categorizing the Types of Surfing Breaks around Jetty Structures. 3rd International Surfing Reef Symposium, Raglan, New Zealand, 23-25 June 2003 TURNER, I. L., T. D. T. DRONKERS, C. ROMAN, S. G. J. AARNINKHOF and J. MCGRATH 2001. The Application of Video Imaging at the Gold Coast to Quantify Beach Response and Sand Nourishment to Construction of an Artificial Reef. Proceedings of the Australasian Coasts and Ports Conference, Gold Coast, Australia. TURNER, I., LEYDEN, V., COX, R., JACKSON, A., MCGRATH, J. 2001. Physical model study of the Gold Coast Artificial Reef. In: K. Black (ed) Natural and Artificial Reefs for Surfing and Coastal Protection. Special Issue 29, Journal of Coastal Research, p. 131-146.

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009

Page 191