Shore & Beach最新文献

{"title":"The economic value of beach nourishment in South Carolina","authors":"J. Houston","doi":"10.34237/1008931","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34237/1008931","url":null,"abstract":"Tourism has become increasingly important in South Carolina’s economy, particularly beach tourism that accounts for two-thirds of tourist spending. Maintaining beaches is a requirement for a successful beach tourism industry. In the past 30 years, about 1.7 million yd3 of sand has been placed annually on South Carolina beaches. The annual cost has been $20.2 million in 2019 dollars or $13.9 million (2019 dollars) if federal mitigation and emergency sand placements are not included because their purpose was not in support of tourism. Beach nourishment has been very successful in combating shoreline recession. From 1984-1987 through 2006, South Carolina shorelines that were not nourished receded 101 ft on average, and shorelines that were nourished advanced 110 ft on average — and tourism boomed. South Carolina beach tourists generate $16.6 billion annually in South Carolina economic development and about $1.8 billion in taxes. For each $1 spent on beach nourishment, South Carolina receives over $1,200 in economic development generated by beach tourists and federal, state, and local governments receive almost $130 in taxes. Beach tourists have options, and with the state government spending only $3.1 million annually on beach nourishment versus the Florida state government spending $50 million on Florida beaches, South Carolina must be careful to maintain its beaches to continue attracting tourists at record levels.","PeriodicalId":153020,"journal":{"name":"Shore & Beach","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126836374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"California harbor dredging: History and trends","authors":"Kiki Patsch, G. Griggs","doi":"10.34237/1008932","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34237/1008932","url":null,"abstract":"California is a major shipping point for exports and imports across the Pacific Basin, has large commercial and recreational fisheries, and an abundance of marine recreational boaters. Each of these industries or activities requires either a port or harbor. California has 26 individual coastal ports and harbors, ranging from the huge sprawling container ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to small fishing ports like Noyo Harbor and Bodega Bay. Almost all of California’s ports and harbors were constructed without any knowledge or consideration of littoral drift directions and rates and potential future dredging issues. Rather, they were built where a need existed, where there was a history of boat anchorage, or where there was a natural feature (e.g. bay, estuary, or lagoon) that could be the basis of an improved port or harbor. California’s littoral drift rates and directions are now well known and understood, however, and have led to the need to perform annual dredging at many of these harbors as a result of their locations (e.g. Santa Cruz, Oceanside, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Channel Islands harbors) while other harbors require little or no annual dredging (e.g. Half Moon Bay, Moss Landing, Monterey, Redondo-King and Alamitos Bay). California’s coastal harbors can be divided into three general groups based on their long-term annual dredging volumes, which range from three harbors that have never been dredged to the Channel Islands Harbor where nearly a million cubic yards is removed on average annually. There are coastal harbors where dredging rates have remained nearly constant over time, those where rates have gradually increased, and others where rates have decreased in recent years. While the causal factors for these changes are evident in a few cases, for most there are likely a combination of reasons including changes in sand supply by updrift rivers and streams related to dam construction as well as rainfall intensity and duration; lag times between when pulses of sand added to the shoreline from large discharge events actually reach downdrift harbors; variations in wave climate over time; shoreline topography and nearshore bathymetry that determine how much sand can be trapped upcoast of littoral barriers, such as jetties and breakwaters, before it enters a harbor; and timing of dredging. While there is virtually nothing that can be done to any of these harbors to significantly reduce annual dredging rates and costs, short of modifying either breakwater or jetty length and/or configuration to increase the volume of sand trapped upcoast, thereby altering dredging timing, they are clearly major economic engines, but come with associated costs.","PeriodicalId":153020,"journal":{"name":"Shore & Beach","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123690607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The failure of NSW coastal management reform","authors":"A. Gordon","doi":"10.34237/1008936","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34237/1008936","url":null,"abstract":"In New South Wales (NSW), Australia, awareness of coastal erosion and shoreline recession had its genesis in the late 1920s when storms damaged houses at Collaroy one of Sydney’s northern beaches (Figure 1). At about the same time the Coogee “Fun” Pier, located on a southern Sydney beach and built between 1924 and 1928, was so damaged by wave attack that the remains had to be removed in 1934. Again in 1945 a new seawall at Cronulla, another southern Sydney beach, was damaged beyond repair and at the same time more houses were lost at Collaroy. This was followed in 1967, 1974, and 1978 by major erosion events that threatened both houses and high-rise buildings at Collaroy, resulted in the loss of houses at Bilgola, a northern Sydney beach and in 1978 the loss of houses at Wamberal, 46 km north of Sydney Harbour (Table 1). Unlike the United States of America (USA) where coastal management comes under both federal and state jurisdictions, in Australia it is the province of the governments of each of the states. The federal government does provide some aspirational guidance, but not significant legislative or financial support. There is also no equivalent to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide project delivery services. In Australia, the states devolve delivery down to local councils through Acts of Parliament and formal policies that can also have legislative force. However, the failure of the State of NSW to provide all the legislative tools necessary to effectively manage coastal matters at a local council level results in coastal management being abdicated rather than delegated by the state, particularly in relation to private development.","PeriodicalId":153020,"journal":{"name":"Shore & Beach","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131279413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"U.S. beach water quality monitoring","authors":"Angelos Hannnides, N. Elko, T. Briggs, Sung-Chan Kim, Annie Mercer, Kyeong Park, B. Rosov, Ryan T. Searcy, M. Walther","doi":"10.34237/1008933","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34237/1008933","url":null,"abstract":"Coastal water quality is an important factor influencing public health and the quality of our nation’s beaches. In recent years, poor water quality has resulted in increased numbers of beach closures and corresponding negative impacts on tourism. This paper addresses some of the issues surrounding the management challenge of coastal water quality, in particular, beach water quality monitoring. For this effort, data on beach water quality monitoring activities conducted by states were assessed and synthesized. In total, 29 states were surveyed: 16 reported information for seawater; six reported for freshwater only; eight reported for both seawater and freshwater. Thresholds for advisories and closure vary nationally; however, all 29 states have established an online presence for their monitoring programs and display advisories and closures in real time, most often on spatial information (GIS) portals. Challenges in monitoring, prediction, and communication are assessed and discussed. Based on this assessment, the committee offers the following recommendations, as detailed in the text: \u0000• Standardization of water quality data and the distribution medium; \u0000• Enhanced public access to water quality monitoring data; \u0000• Consistent thresholds for swim advisories; \u0000• Water quality regulation reviews with stakeholder participation; • Enhanced predictive models incorporating rapid testing results; \u0000• Holistic water quality monitoring that includes indicators beyond fecal indicator bacteria; \u0000• Managing contaminants of emerging concern through identification, monitoring and control; and \u0000• Funding for water quality monitoring and reporting -- from federal, state, and local governments.","PeriodicalId":153020,"journal":{"name":"Shore & Beach","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130582845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rip current rescues on unguarded beaches","authors":"Aubrey Litzinger, Stephen B. Leatherman","doi":"10.34237/1008935","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34237/1008935","url":null,"abstract":"Rip currents are the greatest danger at surf beaches. Professional lifeguards rescue tens of thousands of people every year at U.S. beaches, but only a small percentage of the nation’s beaches are guarded. Oftentimes it is a young person who is caught in a rip current, and a bystander will attempt a rescue without a flotation device. The U.S. Lifesaving Association strongly suggests that this kind of rescue should not be undertaken because too often the rescuer will drown. Some coastal towns such as Cocoa Beach in Florida are now posting ring buoys on their unguarded beaches with the warning to throw, but not to go into the water. Ring buoys of two different weights were tested for efficiency when thrown in terms of distance and accuracy. The participants threw the ring buoys two different ways: one way of their choosing (un-instructed) and second by Red Cross recommendation (instructed). The buoyancy was also tested for each buoy. While these flotation devices have some merit, they clearly have limitations.","PeriodicalId":153020,"journal":{"name":"Shore & Beach","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133964791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Factors controlling longshore variations of beach changes induced by Tropical Storm Eta (2020) along Pinellas County beaches, west-central Florida","authors":"Jun Cheng, Francesca Toledo Cossu, Ping Wang","doi":"10.34237/1008929","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34237/1008929","url":null,"abstract":"Tropical Storm Eta impacted the coast of west-central Florida from 11 November to 12 November 2020 and generated high waves over elevated water levels for over 20 hours. A total of 148 beach and nearshore profiles, spaced about 300 m (984 ft) apart, were surveyed one to two weeks before and one to eight days after the storm to examine the beach changes along four barrier islands, including Sand Key, Treasure Island, Long Key, and Mullet Key. The high storm waves superimposed on elevated water level reached the toe of dunes or seawalls and caused dune erosion and overwash at various places. Throughout most of the coast, the dune, dry beach, and nearshore area was eroded and most of the sediment was deposited on the seaward slope of the nearshore bar, resulting in a roughly conserved sand volume above closure depth. The longshore variation of beach-profile volume loss demonstrates an overall southward decreasing trend, mainly due to a southward decreasing nearshore wave height as controlled by offshore bathymetry and shoreline configurations. The Storm Erosion Index (SEI) developed by Miller and Livermont (2008) captured the longshore variation of beach-profile volume loss reasonably well. The longshore variation of breaking wave height is the dominant factor controlling the longshore changes of SEI and beach erosion. Temporal variation of water level also played a significant role, while beach berm elevation was a minor factor. Although wider beaches tended to experience more volume loss from TS Eta due to the availability of sediment, they were effective in protecting the back beach and dune area from erosion. On the other hand, smaller profile-volume loss from narrow beach did not necessarily relate to less dune/ structure damage. The opposite is often true. Accurate evaluation of a storm’s severity in terms of erosion potential would benefit beach management especially under the circumstance of increasing storm activities due to climate change.","PeriodicalId":153020,"journal":{"name":"Shore & Beach","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127443198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A survey of storm-induced seaward-transport features observed during the 2019 and 2020 hurricane seasons","authors":"Jin‐Si R. Over, Jenna A. Brown, C. Sherwood, C. Hegermiller, P. Wernette, A. Ritchie, J. Warrick","doi":"10.34237/1008924","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34237/1008924","url":null,"abstract":"Hurricanes are known to play a critical role in reshaping coastlines, but often only impacts on the open ocean coast are considered, ignoring seaward-directed forces and responses. The identification of subaerial evidence for storm-induced seaward transport is a critical step towards understanding its impact on coastal resiliency. The visual features, found in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geodetic Survey Emergency Response Imagery (ERI) collected after recent hurricanes on the U.S. East Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, include scours and channelized erosion, but also deposition on the shoreface or in the nearshore as deltas and fans of various sizes. We catalog all available ERI and describe recently formed features found on the North Core Banks, North Carolina, after Hurricane Dorian (2019); the Carolina coasts after Hurricane Isaias (2020); the Isles Dernieres, Louisiana, after Hurricane Zeta (2020); and the southwest coast of Louisiana, after Hurricanes Laura and Delta (2020). Hundreds of features were identified over nearly 200 km of coastline with the density of features exceeding 20 per km in some areas. Individual features range in size from 5 m to 500 m in the alongshore, with similar dimensions in the cross-shore direction, including the formation or reactivation of outlets. The extensive occurrence of these storm-induced return-flow and seawardflow morphologic features demonstrates that their role in coastal evolution and resilience may be more prominent than previously thought. Based on these observations we propose clarifying terms for return- and seaward-flow features to distinguish them from more frequently documented landward-flow features and advocate for their inclusion in coastal change hazards classification schemes and coastal evolution morphodynamic models.","PeriodicalId":153020,"journal":{"name":"Shore & Beach","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115788943","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Remote bed-level change and overwash observation with low-cost ultrasonic distance sensors","authors":"Ian R. B. Reeves, E. Goldstein, K. Anarde, L. Moore","doi":"10.34237/1008923","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34237/1008923","url":null,"abstract":"Few datasets exist of high-frequency, in situ measurements of storm overwash, an essential mechanism for the subaerial maintenance of barrier islands and spits. Here we describe a new sensor platform for measuring bed-level change and estimating overwash inundation depths. Our MeOw (Measuring Overwash) stations consist of two ultrasonic distance sensors, a microprocessor board, and a camera and are capable of withstanding the impacts of large storm events, can be left unattended to collect data for months to years, and are relatively inexpensive. With the exception of the camera, the MeOw stations are built with all open-source hardware and software. Herein we provide complete instructions for manufacturing the MeOw stations and present observations from a single MeOw station for a three-month (2019) deployment on a frequently overwashed section of Smith Island, VA. The MeOw stations captured three large storm events over the course of the deployment (Hurricane Dorian, Tropical Storm Melissa, and a November nor’easter), as well as several high-tide events. Based on our interpretation of the raw data, bed-level changes occurred throughout the deployment from both storm and non-storm overwash, but were particularly large during Tropical Storm Melissa where initial accretion of approximately 0.15 m was followed by 0.77 m of erosion over three days. The maximum overwash inundation depth occurred during the nor’easter and measured approximately 0.83 m. The variability in bed level over the course of our experiment highlights the importance of in situ high frequency bed-level measurements for constraining overwash inundation depths. MeOw stations are ideally suited for measuring storm overwash — or any process that necessitates tracking bed and water level elevations at high frequency during harsh conditions.","PeriodicalId":153020,"journal":{"name":"Shore & Beach","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121122284","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"CDIP observations of recent extreme wave conditions on U.S. coasts","authors":"J. Behrens, R. Timmerman, E. Terrill, S. Merrifield, R. Jensen","doi":"10.34237/1008925","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34237/1008925","url":null,"abstract":"The Coastal Data Information Program (CDIP) maintains wave gauge stations for continuous coverage, with precision instruments and dedicated telemetry and dissemination infrastructure. Decades of this persistent, quality-controlled wave monitoring effort has provided the data required to generate metrics for wave climate at coastal locations across the United States and identify and characterize extreme wave events. During the extremely active 2020 North Atlantic hurricane season, the CDIP East Coast array recorded significantly elevated wave conditions generated by no fewer than 15 named storms. In California, meanwhile, long-term monitoring stations have measured new all-time maximum wave heights during recent storm events. Complete quality-controlled directional spectra and displacement data sets, as well as sea surface temperature and surface current data from the wave buoys, are publicly available at http://cdip.ucsd.edu.","PeriodicalId":153020,"journal":{"name":"Shore & Beach","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115473215","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Adapting to shoreline retreat: Finding a path forward","authors":"Ryan B. Anderson, Kiki Patsch, Charles Lester, G. Griggs","doi":"10.34237/1008842","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.34237/1008842","url":null,"abstract":"Global sea level is rising at an increasing rate and communities and cities around the planet are in the way. While we know the historic and recent rates of sea level rise, projections for the future are difficult due to political, economic, and social unknowns, as well as uncertainties in how the vast ice sheets and glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland will respond to continued warming of the atmosphere and the oceans. It is clear, however, that sea level will continue to rise for centuries due to the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere as well as those we continue to produce. A rising ocean leads to a retreating coastline, whether gradual inundation of low-lying shoreline areas or increased erosion of cliffs, bluffs, and dunes. Coastal armoring and beach nourishment have been the historical approaches to address coastal or shoreline erosion, but these are laden with economic and environmental costs, often short-lived, and have significant impacts on beaches; their approval by permitting agencies is also becoming more difficult, at least in California (Griggs and Patsch 2019) but also in a number of other states. Coastal communities and cities are already experiencing the impacts of rising seas and more will experience these impacts in the decades ahead. Many cities in California are beginning to discuss, consider, and plan for how they will adapt to higher sea levels, but not without controversy, especially concerning managed retreat. However, over the long run, they all will respond through relocation or retreat of some sort, whether managed or unmanaged. Sea level rise will not stop at 2050 or 2100. Effective adaptation will require a collaborative process involving many stakeholders, including coastal home and business owners, local governments, and state permitting agencies in order to develop and implement policies, plans and pathways for deliberate adaptation to the inevitable future. For many reasons, this is a complex problem with no easy or inexpensive solutions, but the sooner the science is understood and all parties are engaged, the sooner plans can be developed with clear trigger points for adaptive action, ultimately relocation or retreat.","PeriodicalId":153020,"journal":{"name":"Shore & Beach","volume":"205 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129363443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}