Research Paper

Austin Kosater

Professor Kenny Harmon

English 1920

Research Paper

1/29/2010

Eroding away the Future

            As Hurricane Ivan swirled away from the Gulf Coast in 2004, its wrath was just beginning to take full effect. Storm surge was tearing away at the Gulf Coast’s pristine beaches like a cat’s claw on shag carpet. Experts agree that beach erosion, like that caused by Hurricane Ivan, is not only costly but also detrimental to coastal communities, and a popular solution is artificial beach renourishment. However, in the article “Using LIDAR to Monitor a Beach Nourishment Project at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, USA”, Eastern Carolina professor Paul Gares and his associates state that, even with modern techniques and seemingly unlimited amounts of disposable money, artificial beach renourishment is not a practical long term answer to the powerful natural forces eroding away beaches everywhere. Professionals in the field of coastal studies agree that artificially nourished beaches erode faster than natural beaches. Likewise, Journal of Coastal Research contributor, Lindino Benedet and his associates state in the article Processes Controlling Development of Erosional Hot Spots on a Beach Nourishment Project, “This localized increase in current velocity is caused by changes in shoreline orientation induced by the beach nourishment and is the probable cause of the additional erosion of this beach segment” (Benedet et al. 14). The subject beach was renourished with 914,000 square meters, and by 2001, 448,000 square meters had re-eroded. The authors point out that two of the segments even had higher erosion rates than rates of nourishment. This is due to along shore currents that rapidly move the new sand away from the beach. Because of this rapid erosion, experts agree that that beach species, along with the beaches themselves must be closely monitored in order to determine whether beach renourishment is an ecologically acceptable solution to natural erosion.

            Beaches are not only inhabited by elderly northerners and tan seeking teens, but also many species of flora and fauna; however, experts believe that artificial beach renourishment may be irreparably damaging the delicate natural balance crucial to the survival of these species.  One such species that depends on the delicate natural order to survive is the Northeastern beach Tiger beetle. Experts state that, while being a federally threatened species, the beetle still suffers in many areas. However, in the study “Habitat Preference and the Effects of Beach Nourishment on the Federally Threatened Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle, Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis: Western Shore, Chesapeake Bay, Virginia”, in the Journal of Coastal Research, Randolph-Macon College professors Michael Fenster, Barry Knisley, and Christopher Reed  explain that beach nourishment has been supportive to the existence of the Tiger beetle. They relate that “…the two nourishment projects resulted in an increase in adults and larvae of C. d. dorsalis in the nourished sections…” (Fenster et al. 11). Fenster et al also points out that because of the more evenly sorted grains of sand and more consistent grain size, the beetles were able to access egg laying depth more easily. They also point out that, “The greater increase in the numbers of adults and larvae in the deposition area at Winter Harbor compared with Smith Point most likely resulted from the additional habitat (beach width)…” (Fenster et al 11). Researchers warn that, even though there was an increase in adults and larvae, this could be a very short term increase, due to the high risk of post-fill washout.  (Tiger Beetle)

            Many agree that the dredging done in order to locate the sand needed for the replenishment is detrimental to many deep sea organisms. The task of pumping sand from the sea floor is not a delicate procedure, and experts protest that oftentimes more than sand is sucked from the ocean. One of the organisms affected by the dredging and pumping necessary to fill the beaches is the Ghost shrimp or Callichirus islagrande.  In the study “Impact of Beach Restoration on the Deep burrowing Ghost Shrimp, Callichirus islagrande” in the Journal of Coastal Research, Lelania Biolodeau, and Robert P. Bourgeois, researchers in University of Louisiana-Lafayette’s Catfish Research Unit state that

            The effect of the Isles Demieres beach restoration on the C. islagrand                                             exemplifies the vulnerability of intertidal sandy beach communities. Temporary                                     elimination of C. islagrande has likely affected associated species of the                                             surrounding intertidal community. Recolonization by other infaunal species may                                    be retarded by             hypoxic and otherwise unhealthy sediments, tbereby affecting

            wading bird as well as            fishery species. (Biolodeau, Bourgeous 5)

 University of Louisiana-Lafayette professor Michael Felder states that “Despite its fossorial nature, C. islagrande is susceptible to disturbance as exemplified by temporary localized extinctions from intense storm events such as Hurricane Andrew” (Felder as qtd in Biolodeau, Bourgeous 2). The study states that before any nourishment took place, there were anywhere between 30 and 100 burrows in the area targeted for dredging and pumping; after the study, scientists were only able to collect three specimens in the entire area. The research team believes that, while the dredge and pump process is supportive to coastal marshes, the dramatic drop in shrimp population could be detrimental to surrounding ecosystems that depend on the Ghost Shrimp for survival. Biolodea and Bourgeous believe that a possible solution to the crude method employed today would be a slower, but much more expensive dredging and pumping process. They also state that a slower overall renourishment process could assist in the reduction of species harm. (Biolodea and Bourgeous)

            Along with the close monitoring of beach and ocean dwelling species, many concur that post nourishment observation of the beaches themselves is crucial to determining whether artificial nourishment is ecologically responsible. Experts claim that natural erosion is caused by years of waves corroding away at the sandy beaches; however, scientists now believe that global warming may be eroding beaches away more quickly than organic processes alone. In the article “Slip Sliding Away” in the publication National Wildlife, columnist David Fahrenthold interviews beach-side residents in the Chesapeake Bay of Maryland and Virginia.  Fahrenthold reports that, due to several natural and manmade factors, the sea level is rising twice as fast in the Chesapeake Bay area than anywhere else in the world, and due to this, many areas that depend on beaches to support tourism, will be dangerously eroded in the near future. According to Fahrenthold, some beach-side communities spend up to seven million dollars per restoration project, while other communities “…got a $22,000 grant to install a ‘living shoreline’ where sand-loving plants anchor the beach” (Fahrenthold). Experts reason that it is economically logical to believe that, with the huge amounts of money being spent on restoration projects, monitoring would be more commonplace. One new monitoring technique is described in the study, “Using LIDAR to Monitor a Beach Nourishment Project at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, USA”, Eastern Carolina Professor, Paul Gares, introduces the technique of airborne light detection and ranging to track post-nourishment beach erosion. After evaluating LIDAR data, Gares states that “About two thirds of the initial fill material was removed from the subaerial part of the beach in the first year, probably mostly as a result of the hurricanes. The highest rates of beach sediment loss occurred in the nourishment zones” (Gares et al). He later states that “Although the nourished beach undoubtedly provided a buffer against the storm waves, poststorm beach recovery was not evident 2 years after the storms, making the long-term success of this project questionable” (Gares et al).

            Because of the amount of notable loss on nourished beaches, experts agree that monitoring and comparing data is crucial to determining the potential of future nourishment projects. Because of this, The Virginia Institute of Marine Science Scientists Jun-Yong Park, Paul T. Gayes, and John T. Wells published the study “Monitoring Beach Renourishment along the Sediment-Starved Shoreline of Grand Strand, South Carolina”. In the study, Park and associates use data obtained by side scanning radar to study sediment and the form and structure of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and its surrounding coastal communities. From the study they were able to determine that “underlying geological framework in a sediment-starved environment might play an important role in beach erosion/deposition coupling with the physical factors of wave, wind, and tide” (Park et al 12). They believe that with further knowledge and studies of the erosional tendencies and geographical composition of beaches, experts may understand exactly how to nourish beaches not only more responsibly but also more efficiently.

            Although crucial, beach monitoring is hotly debated. In the deposition “Supreme Court Considers a Line in the Sand”, land use attorney Lora Lucero explains the debate raging in Destin and Fort Walton Beach, Florida. According to state law, when a Florida beach is proclaimed “critically eroded” the state is allowed to assign an erosion control line or ECL,  which is the boundary between public and private land. Florida home owners protest that these state proclaimed ECL’s oftentimes protrude onto and interrupt their otherwise unobstructed views of the beaches. Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc. is an activist group leading the anti-restoration charge. Their greatest claim against the state is that “the project was a taking without payment or just compensation” (Lucero). Experts warn the legality of beach restoration and erosion monitoring must be determined in order to ensure the future of any related projects.

             Observers note that erosion is an extremely powerful, natural force that is at work every day, and because of this beach renourishment has become a popular solution; however, experts agree that if renourishment is to continue, beach dwelling creatures, along with the coastal shores themselves must be closely monitored to fully determine if restoration is a legitimate solution to the natural forces of erosion. Seaside restoration affects more than the people who frequent the subject beaches; it also concerns the species that live on the beaches and in the ocean surrounding the shores. One affected species is the federally threatened, Northeastern beach Tiger beetle. The beetle makes its home in the sands of the northeastern Atlantic beaches, a target of recent restoration projects. The beetle was affected positively by the new sand pumped in by the restoration efforts. The newly pumped sand was more hospitable to the beetle’s preferences. However, not all species are affected positively by man’s efforts to reverse nature’s processes. The Gulf of Mexico’s Ghost shrimp was almost completely eradicated by the dredge and pump methods used to nourish a Louisiana beach. Before the nourishment began, there were between thirty and one hundred burrows of ghost shrimp in the targeted area; however, after the pumping was complete, the scientists were only able to locate three total shrimp. Scientists believe that this temporary extinction of the shrimp population may have irreparably damaged the surrounding ecosystems. Scientists also believe that post-restoration beaches must be closely monitored in order to determine if beach restoration is ecologically responsible. Though erosion is a natural force, some now believe that global warming is speeding the natural processes along. One of the most heavily affected areas surrounds the Chesapeake Bay area. Communities have spent anywhere between 22,000 and seven million dollars to combat the natural erosion tearing away at the beaches surrounding their homes. Several methods have been employed to monitor post fill beaches. One method is airborne light detection and ranging or LIDAR, another is side scanning radar. Both styles of monitoring have determined that post-fill beaches erode faster than natural beaches. When a state evaluates the data collected from LIDAR or side scan radar, and realizes that a beach has become critically eroded, they can establish an erosion control line or ECL to combat the processes; however, some beach residents protest that ECL’s oftentimes trespasses onto their private property. The anti-restoration groups claim that the state’s boundaries constitute taking of land without just compensation. As nature continues to eat away at beaches, issues spring forth, and experts warn that many decisions made to combat these issues forever alter the future of that ecosystem. The ecological responsibility of beach restoration will be debated, but one fact seems apparent, man can simply not stand up to the organic forces of nature.

Works Cited

Benedet, L.C.W. Finkl, and W. M. Hartog. “Processes Controlling Development of Erosional       Hot Spots on a Beach Nourishment Project.” Journal of Coastal Research 23.1 (2007):        33-48. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 23 Jan. 2010.

Biolodeau, A. Lelania, and Robert P. Bourgeois. “Impact of Beach Restoration on the Deep-        burrowing Ghost Shrimp, Callichirus islagrande.” Journal of Coastal Research 20.3    (2004): 931-936. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 23 Jan. 2010.

Fahrenthold, David A. “SLIP SLIDING AWAY.” National Wildlife 47.6 (2009): 38-41. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 23 Jan. 2010.

Fenster, Michael S., C. Barry Knisley, and Christopher T. Reed. “Habitat Preference and the        Effects of Beach Nourishment on the Federally Threatened Northeastern Beach Tiger           Beetle, Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis: Western Shore, Chesapeake Bay, Virginia.” Journal of          Coastal Research 22.5 (2006): 1133-1144. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 23     Jan. 2010.

Fig 1.           http://coastalchange.ucsd.edu/images/nourishment3.png

Fig 2.           http://sacredday.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/green_tiger_beetle_med11.jpg

Fig 3.           http://library.thinkquest.org/J002608/ghost_shrimp2.jpg

Gares, Paul A., Yong Wang, and Stephen A. White. “Using LIDAR to Monitor a Beach   Nourishment Project at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, USA.” Journal of Coastal         Research 22.5 (2006): 1206-1219. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 23 Jan.          2010.

Lucero, Lora. “Supreme Court Considers a Line in the Sand.” Planning 75.11 (2009): 5.    Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 23 Jan. 2010.

Park, Jun-Yong, Paul T. Gayes, and John T. Wells. “Monitoring Beach Renourishment along the   Sediment-Starved Shoreline of Grand Strand, South Carolina.” Journal of Coastal       Research 25.2 (2009): 336-349. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 23 Jan. 2010.