Shoreline erosion due to extreme storms and sea level rise

A summary is presented of research conducted on beach erosion associated with extreme storms and sea level rise. These results were developed by the author and graduate students under sponsorship of the University of Delaware Sea Grant Program. Various shoreline response problems of engineering interest are examined. The basis for the approach is a monotonic equilibrium profile of the form h = Ax2 /3 in which h is water depth at a distance x from the shoreline and A is a scale parameter depending primarily on sediment characteristics and secondarily on wave characteristics. This form is shown to be consistent with uniform wave energy dissipation per unit volume. The dependency of A on sediment size is quantified through laboratory and field data. Quasi-static beach response is examined to represent the effect of sea level rise. Cases considered include natural and seawalled profiles. To represent response to storms of realistic durations, a model is proposed in which the offshore transport is proportional to the "excess" energy dissipation per unit volume. The single rate constant in this model was evaluated based on large scale wave tank tests and confirmed with Hurricane Eloise pre- and post-storm surveys. It is shown that most hurricanes only cause 10% to 25% of the erosion potential associated with the peak storm tide and wave conditions. Additional applications include profile response employing a fairly realistic breaking model in which longshore bars are formed and long-term (500 years) Monte Carlo simulation including the contributions due to sea level rise and random storm occurrences. (PDF has 67 pages.)

Florida's West Coast inlets: shoreline effects and recommended action

This report responds to the 1986 Beaches Bill which, in recognition of the potential deleterious impact on Florida's beaches of inlets modified for navigation, mandated a study of those inlets with identification of recommended action to reduce the impacts. This report addresses west Coast inlets; East Coast inlets are the subject of a companion report. There are 37 inlets along that portion of Florida's West Coast commencing from Pensacola Bay Entrance to Caxambas Pass at the south end of Marco Island. Compared to those on the East Coast, most West Coast inlets have not had the deleterious effects on the adjacent beaches, yet all modified inlets without proper management have the potential of impacting unfavorably on the adjacent shorelines. Moreover, at present there is interest in opening three West Coast entrances which either have been open in the past (Midnight Pass) or which have opened occasionally (Navarre Pass and Entrance to Phillips Lake). A review of inlets in their natural condition demonstrates the presence of a shallow broad outer bar across which the longshore transport Occurs. These shallow and shifting bar features were unsuitable for navigation which in many cases has led to the deepening of the channels and fixing with one or two jetty structures. Inlets in this modified state along with inappropriate maintenance practices have the potential of placing great ero$ional stress along the adjacent beaches. Moreover. channel dredging can reduce wave sheltering of the shoreline by ebb tidal shoals and alter the equilibrium of the affected shoreline segments. The ultimate in poor sand management practice is the placement of good quality beach sand in water depths too great for the sand to reenter the longshore system under natural forces; depths of 12 ft. or less are considered appropriate for Florida in order to maintain the sand in the system. With the interference of the nearshore sediment transport processes by inlets modified for navigation, if the adjacent beaches are to be stabilized there must be an active monitoring program with commitment to placement of dredged material of beach quality on shoreline segments of documented need. Several East Coast inlets have such transfer facilities; however. the quantities of sand transferred should be increased. Although an evolution and improvement in the technical capability to manage sand resources in the vicinity of inlets is expected, an adequate capability exists today and a concerted program should be made to commence a scheduled implementation of this capability at those entrances causing greatest erosional stress on the adjacent shorelines. A brief summary review for each of the 37 West Coast inlets is presented including: a scaled aerial photograph, brief historical information, several items related to sediment losses at each inlet and special characteristics relevant to State responsibilities. For each inlet, where appropriate, the above infor~tion is utilized to develop a recommenced action. (PDF has 101 pages.)

Sea-level rise in Hawaii: Implications for future shoreline locations and Hawaii coastal management

Management of coastal development in Hawaii is based on the location of the certified shoreline, which is representative of the upper limit of marine inundation within the last several years. Though the certified shoreline location is significantly more variable than long-term erosion indicators, its migration will still follow the coastline's general trend. The long-term migration of Hawaii’s coasts will be significantly controlled by rising sea level. However, land use decisions adjacent to the shoreline and the shape and nature of the nearshore environment are also important controls to coastal migration. Though each of the islands has experienced local sea-level rise over the course of the last century, there are still locations across the islands of Kauai, Oahu, and Maui, which show long- term accretion or anomalously high erosion rates relative to their regions. As a result, engineering rules of thumb such as the Brunn rule do not always predict coastal migration and beach profile equilibrium in Hawaii. With coastlines facing all points of the compass rose, anthropogenic alteration of the coasts, complex coastal environments such as coral reefs, and the limited capacity to predict coastal change, Hawaii will require a more robust suite of proactive coastal management policies to weather future changes to its coastline. Continuing to use the current certified shoreline, adopting more stringent coastal setback rules similar to Kauai County, adding realistic sea-level rise components for all types of coastal planning, and developing regional beach management plans are some of the recommended adaptation strategies for Hawaii. (PDF contains 4 pages)

Policy analysis of shoreline restoration options on private shorelines of Puget Sound

Puget Sound shorelines have historically provided a diversity of habitats that support a variety of aquatic resources throughout the region. These valued natural resources are iconic to the region and remain central to both the economic vitality and community appreciation of Puget Sound. Deterioration of upland and nearshore shoreline habitats, have placed severe stress on many aquatic resources within the region (PSAT, 2007). Since a majority of Washington State shorelines are privately owned, regulatory authority to legislate restoration on private property is limited in scope and frequency. Washington States’ Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) requires local jurisdictions to plan for appropriate future shoreline uses. Under the Act, future development can be regulated to protect existing ecological functions, but lost functions cannot be restored without purchase or compensation of restored areas. Therefore, questions remains as to the ecological resilience of the region when considering cumulative effect of existing/ongoing shoreline development constrained by limited shoreline restoration opportunities. In light of these questions, this analysis will explore opportunities to promote restoration on privately owned shorelines within Puget Sound. These efforts are intended to promote more efficient ecosystem management and improve ecosystem-wide ecological functions. From an economics perspective, results of past shoreline management can generally be characterized as both market and government failure in effectively protecting the publics’ interest in maintaining healthy shoreline resources. Therefore coastal development has proceeded in spite of negative externalities and market imbalances resulting in inefficient resource management driven by the individual ambitions of private shoreline property owners to develop their property to their highest and best use. Federally derived property rights will protect continuation of existing uses along privately owned shorelines; therefore, a fundamental challenge remains in sustainable management of existing shoreline resources while also restoring ecological functions lost to past mistakes in an effort to increase the ecologic resiliency within the region. (PDF contains 5 pages)

Applying hedonic property models in the planning and evaluation of shoreline management

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’s chapter “Coastal Systems” (Agardy and Alder 2005), 40% of the world population falls within 100 km of the coast. Agardy and Alder report that population densities in coastal regions are three times those of inland regions and demographic forecasts suggest a continued rise in coastal populations. These high population levels can be partially traced to the abundance of ecosystem services provided in the coastal zone. While populations benefit from an abundance of services, population pressure also degrades existing services and leads to increased susceptibility of property and human life to natural hazards. In the face of these challenges, environmental administrators on the coast must pursue agendas which reflect the difficult balance between private and public interests. These decisions include maintaining economic prosperity and personal freedoms, protecting or enhancing the existing flow of ecosystem services to society, and mitigating potential losses from natural hazards. (PDF contains 5 pages)

The island of Kauai, Hawaii's progressive shoreline setback and coastal protection ordinance

Approximately two-thirds of coastal and Great Lakes states have some type of shoreline construction setback or construction control line requiring development to be a certain distance from the shoreline or other coastal feature (OCRM, 2008). Nineteen of 30 coastal states currently use erosion rates for new construction close to the shoreline. Seven states established setback distances based on expected years from the shoreline: the remainder specify a fixed setback distance (Heinz Report, 2000). Following public hearings by the County of Kauai Planning Commission and Kauai County Council, the ‘Shoreline Setback and Coastal Protection Ordinance’ was signed by the Mayor of Kauai on January 25, 2008. After a year of experience implementing this progressive, balanced shoreline setback ordinance several amendments were recently incorporated into the Ordinance (#887; Bill #2319 Draft 3). The Kauai Planning Department is presently drafting several more amendments to improve the effectiveness of the Ordinance. The intent of shoreline setbacks is to establish a buffer zone to protect shorefront development from loss due to coastal erosion - for a period of time; to provide protection from storm waves; to allow the natural dynamic cycles of erosion and accretion of beaches and dunes to occur; to maintain beach and dune habitat; and, to maintain lateral beach access and open space for the enjoyment of the natural shoreline environment. In addition, a primary goal of the Kauai setback ordinance is to avoid armoring or hardening of the shore which along eroding coasts has been documented to ultimately eliminate the fronting beach. (PDF contains 4 pages)

Challenges in using science-based shoreline setbacks: Examples from South Carolina

Beachfront jurisdictional lines were established by the South Carolina Beachfront Management Act (SC Code §48- 39-250 et seq.) in 1988 to regulate the new construction, repair, or reconstruction of buildings and erosion control structures along the state’s ocean shorelines. Building within the state’s beachfront “setback area” is allowed, but is subject to special regulations. For “standard beaches” (those not influenced by tidal inlets or associated shoals), a baseline is established at the crest of the primary oceanfront sand dune; for “unstabilized inlet zones,” the baseline is drawn at the most landward point of erosion during the past forty years. The parallel setback line is then established landward of the baseline a distance of forty times the long-term average annual erosion rate (not less than twenty feet from the baseline in stable or accreting areas). The positions of the baseline and setback line are updated every 8-10 years using the best available scientific and historical data, including aerial imagery, LiDAR, historical shorelines, beach profiles, and long-term erosion rates. One advantage of science-based setbacks is that, by using actual historical and current shoreline positions and beach profile data, they reflect the general erosion threat to beachfront structures. However, recent experiences with revising the baseline and setback line indicate that significant challenges and management implications also exist. (PDF contains 3 pages)

Weighing your options: how to protect your property from shoreline erosion, a handbook for estuarine property owners in North Carolina

If you own property on one of North Carolina’s estuaries, you can use this guide as a tool to learn about the choices you have to control your shoreline erosion and help decide which approach may be right for you. In North Carolina, we make a distinction between waterfront property that is located on the estuary, referred to as estuarine, shoreline, soundfront or riverside property, and waterfront property located directly on the ocean, referred to as oceanfront. Why? State laws and regulations addressing estuarine and oceanfront property, and the available erosion control methods, are quite different. This guide focuses on estuarine property. We’ll introduce you to the six main erosion control options in use in North Carolina and give you information about the out-of-pocket costs and tangible benefits of each option. We’ll also give you information about “hidden” costs and benefits that you may want to factor into your decision-making. You are fortunate to have a piece of estuarine shoreline to call your own, whether it’s your year-round residence or a weekend getaway. And if you’ve noticed some shoreline erosion lately, you’re probably a little concerned. But there are ready solutions.

Developing alternative shoreline armoring strategies: the living shoreline approach in North Carolina

This paper reviews the scientific data on the ecosystem services provided by shoreline habitats, the evidence for adverse impacts from bulkheading on those habitats and services, and describes alternative approaches to shoreline stabilization, which minimize adverse impacts to the shoreline ecosystem. Alternative shoreline stabilization structures that incorporate natural habitats, also known as living shorelines, have been popularized by environmental groups and state regulatory agencies in the mid-Atlantic. Recent data on living shoreline projects in North Carolina that include a stone sill demonstrate that the sills increase sedimentation rates, that after 3 years marshes behind the sills have slightly reduced biomass, and that the living shoreline projects exhibit similar rates of fishery utilization as nearby natural fringing marshes. Although the current emphasis on shoreline armoring in Puget Sound is on steeper, higher-energy shorelines, armoring of lower-energy shorelines may become an issue in the future with expansion of residential development and projected rates of sea level rise. The implementation of regulatory policy on estuarine shoreline stabilization in North Carolina and elsewhere is presented. The regulatory and public education issues experienced in North Carolina, which have made changes in estuarine shoreline stabilization policy difficult, may inform efforts to adopt a sustainable shoreline armoring strategy in Puget Sound. A necessary foundation for regulatory change in shoreline armoring policy, and public support for that change, is rigorous scientific assessment of the variety of services that natural shoreline habitats provide both to the ecosystem and to coastal communities, and evidence demonstrating that shoreline armoring can adversely impact the provision of those services.

Effects of inlake application of glyphoste and 2, 4‐D to control shoreline water hyacinth on diversity and abundance of associated macrofauna

The purpose of inlake herbicide trials was to assess on the aquatic environment and resources, of in-lake of weeder 64 (2,4-0 amine) and Rodio (Glyphosate) water hyacinth the effects application to control water hyacinth. The experiments reported here specifically studied the effects of the herbicides on the diversity and abundance of aquatic macrofauna associated with the water weed. Results from this and similar experiments which assessed herbicide efficacy on water hyacinth; dissipation in water, impact on water quality, algal biomass and on diversity and abundance of zooplankton and macrofauna were all to be evaluated as input into the environmental impact assessment exercise required to facilitate decisions on the use of herbicides to control water hyacinth in Uganda.

Identifying a historic shoreline using fine-scale slope variation

Senior thesis written for Oceanography 445