The abstracts of this issue are below. Note that ASBPA members only now have access to a full digital edition of Shore & Beach. Become a member now to get immediate access to the latest issue!
From the editor’s desk:
Advancing in a different direction
Lesley C. Ewing
Retrospective on the 1970’s “Low Cost Shore Protection” program
https://doi.org/10.34237/1008731
Joan Pope
In the 1970s, the U.S. Congress authorized and funded a five-year demonstration program on low-cost methods for shore protection called the “U.S. Army Engineers Shoreline Erosion Control Demonstration (Section 54) Program.” The Section 54 also known as the “Low-Cost Shore Protection” demonstration program is revisited. Demonstration and monitoring sites including the materials, devices, vegetative plantings, approaches tested, and program findings are discussed. Simply put, a major finding of the Section 54 program was that the concept of “low-cost shore protection” was a bit naïve. However, the program did lead to a wealth of public information documents and practical coastal engineering lessons that are still resonating as home owners, communities, and engineers consider alternative approaches for managing coastal erosion. The program structure and findings are applicable 40 years later as consideration is given toward the use of Natural and Nature-based Features (NNBF) for addressing coastal erosion. Evolution in thought relative to coastal erosion and shoreline enhancement activities since the 1970s has built upon many of the lessons and concepts of the Section 54 program and other real-world coastal erosion management success-failure experiences. This growth has led to a modern appreciation that those features that emulate NNBF are promising and responsible alternative coastal erosion management strategies if proper engineering standard elements of design are included in the project.
Myrtle Beach: A history of shore protection and beach restoration
https://doi.org/10.34237/1008732
Timothy W. Kana and Haiqing Liu Kaczkowski
The City of Myrtle Beach (South Carolina, USA) initiated a three-phase plan for beach restoration in the 1980s: Phase 1 — small-scale beach scraping; Phase 2 — mediumscale nourishment by trucks using inland sand; and Phase 3 — large-scale nourishment by dredge using offshore sand. Phases 1 and 2 were locally funded and served as interim measures (1981-1996) until a 50-year federal project could be constructed (1997 to present). In the course of this work, the city pioneered several approaches to beach management and became a model for the state. These include: the prototype SC beach survey program; the profile volume method for determining shorelines in the presence of seawalls, which was codified in the Beach Management Act (BMA) of 1988; the first locally funded nourishment (1986-1987) and FEMA-funded postdisaster renourishment after Hurricane Hugo 1989-1990; and the first surveys of offshore deposits for nourishment. Before restoration, nearly 65% of the 9-mile (14.5 kilometer) oceanfront was armored with seawalls, bulkheads, and revetments (1981). After nourishment, erosion control structures are now buried and fronted by a vegetated storm berm, while a wider beach accommodates millions of visitors each year. Total volumes and adjusted costs of nourishment from 1986 to early 2018 are 4,997,201 cubic yards (3,820,360 m3) and ~$70.8 million ($2018), respectively. On a unit annual beach length basis, the cost of beach restoration and improvement has averaged $46.80 per one foot of shoreline per year (~$153.50/m/yr) ($2018). Oceanfront property values on a unit length of shoreline basis presently range from ~$15,000/ft (~$49,200/m) for single-family homes to ~$75,000/ft (~$250,000/m) for high-rise buildings, suggesting that beach maintenance has cost well under 0.5% of oceanfront property values per year. Sand loss rates have averaged ~0.8 cy/ft/yr (2.0 m3/m/yr), and the rate of nourishment has been more than adequate to keep up with the ~0.37 ft (0.11 m) sea level rise between 1980 and 2018.
Unpacking storm damages on a developed shoreline: Relating dune erosion and urban runoff
https://doi.org/10.34237/1008733
Patrick Barrineau and Tim Kana
Hurricane Matthew (2016) caused significant beach and dune erosion from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, USA, to Cape Canaveral, Florida, USA. At Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, the storm caused beach recession, and much of the southern half of the city’s beaches appeared to be overwashed in post-storm surveys. Around half of the city’s beaches appeared overwashed following the storm; however, the Storm Impact Scale (SIS; Sallenger 2000) applied to a pre-storm elevation model suggests less than 10% of the city’s beaches should have experienced overwash. Spatial analysis of elevation and land cover data reveals dunes that were “overwashed” during Matthew drain from watersheds that are >35% impervious, where those showing only dune recession are <5% impervious. The densely developed downtown of Myrtle Beach sits on a low seaward-sloping terrace. Additionally, indurated strata beneath the downtown area can prevent groundwater from draining during excessive rain events. As a result, the most continuous impervious surface cover and near-surface strata lie within a half-kilometer of the beach and drain directly to the backshore. Along the U.S. Southeast coast, this is somewhat rare; many coastal systems feature a lagoon or low-lying bottomland along their landward border, which facilitates drainage of upland impervious surfaces following storm passage. At Myrtle Beach, all of the stormwater runoff is drained directly to the beach through a series of outfall pipes. Many of the outfall pipes are located along the backshore, near the elevation of storm surge during Matthew. Runoff from Matthew’s heavy rains was observed causing ponding on the landward side of the foredune and scouring around beach access walkways. Based on these observations, the severe dune erosion experienced near downtown Myrtle Beach during Hurricane Matthew may have been caused by runoff and/or groundwater flux rather than overwash. These results highlight an unexpected relationship between upland conditions and dune erosion on a developed shoreline. That is, dune erosion can be caused by mechanisms beside overwash during storm events.
An ASBPA white paper: The state of understanding of the effects of beach nourishment activities on coastal biogeochemical processes and conditions
https://doi.org/10.34237/1008734
Angelos Hannides, Nicole Elko, and Kenneth Humiston
Sandy beaches are sites of significant exchange of matter and energy between water and sediment. This rapid exchange is attributed to the high permeability of sandy deposits and is one of the key ingredients in understanding how a given beach will respond to a nourishment event as a habitat for many important organisms. The response is driven by fundamental abiotically and biotically mediated chemical reactions that are profoundly affected by the ability of chemicals to accumulate or to be flushed out of a sandy column in the beach substrate. So while attention has correctly been paid to the effects of nourishment projects on infaunal communities and the upper levels of the food web, the chemical reactions connecting physics and geology on the one hand and ecology on the other are treated as a black box. We synthesize existing findings on biogeochemical processes at source areas and renourished beaches before, during, and after nourishment activities, and identify gaps in knowledge. Among other processes, we highlight how the exposure of reduced sediment to an oxic water column can initially increase oxygen demand, fuel microbial primary productivity, and drive the mobilization of potentially harmful contaminants. Restoration of oxic conditions in surficial sands can proceed rapidly through rapid exchange between sand and the oxygenated water column under the influence of physical forces, such as waves and currents, and high sand permeability. Based on our findings, we recommend foci for research, outreach, and broader impacts in this field as well as discuss coastal management needs for policy makers, planners, contractors, and the public to encourage information sharing.