There are three commonly accepted methods for protecting shorelines. They are structural, managed retreat, and beach nourishment. All three of these approaches have advantages and disadvantages. However, no one solution can be applied in all situations. This article concentrates on beach nourishment and its applicability in protecting and enhancing beaches and shorelines.

Beach nourishment is the practice of placing sediment from sources outside of the eroding system on a beach to mitigate shoreline erosion. The first nourishment project in the U.S. was constructed at Coney Island, New York in 1922-23 and is now a common shore protection measure utilized by public and private entities. ^{[1] [2]}

Response Alternatives On An Eroding Beach

^[3]

1. Structural - The structural approach is used where nourishment is no longer economical and can be in the form of: revetments, seawalls, breakwaters, or groins. If well designed, armoring in the form of seawalls or revetments, emplaced on an eroding shoreline, will prevent erosion of the upland; however, with continuing erosion, the beach will narrow and eventually the beach will be lost. Groins and breakwaters are designed to protect beaches as well as the upland. If not pre-filled with sand they will trap sand from the littoral stream and may impact adjacent shorelines. There is a growing body of evidence that nearshore breakwaters, if filled with sand, will not have a negative impacts on the littoral drift system.

2. Managed Retreat - A second option is retreat as the shoreline erodes. This option has been exercised very infrequently along the United States shoreline; however, a number of examples exist. Retreat would appear to be the most appropriate option in areas of high erosion and in the presence of small economic revenue base. Many, but not all areas of high erosion are due to human activities. These activities interfere with the natural sediment flows either through dam construction (thereby reducing riverine sediment sources) or construction of littoral barriers such as jetties, or by deepening of inlets; thus preventing longshore transport of sediment across these channels.

3. Beach nourishment - A third option for responding to an eroding shoreline is beach nourishment. This process usually consists of the placement of large quantities of good quality sediment along the water’s edge to advance the shoreline seaward. Beach nourishment, in addition to breakwaters pre-filled with sand is an alternative that addresses the sand deficit directly through the placement of additional sediment. Beach nourishment is utilized in urbanized and natural settings experiencing chronic erosion or that are particularly vulnerable to significant storm damage.

The structural only approach is less often used today because of problems related to restricted beach access, enhanced erosion, and cost of maintenance. Consequently the method of choice for mitigating beach erosion has evolved toward initial beach nourishment (construction) and periodic re-nourishment. The nourishment approach has gained popularity because it preserves beach resources and occasionally serves as a response to criticism (or mitigation) regarding the negative effects of hard structures. Beach nourishment creates a “soft” (i.e., non permanent) structure by adding sand to make a larger sand reservoir, which pushes the shoreline seaward. A wide beach is effective in dissipating wave energy as a result of its increased interaction with waves, its larger surface areas, and volumetric mass. The destructive force of storm waves thus falls on the beach rather than on upland structures, although extreme elevations of water level produced by strong winds and low pressure systems (which produce storm surge) and high astronomical tides may cause direct wave impact on structures lacking frontal dunes.

A nourished beach has a finite life depending upon the destructive forces of nature and occasionally human activity, and generally requires renourishment over time to maintain its design function. Beach nourishment does not remove the physical forces that cause erosion, wave damage, and flooding; it simply mitigates their effects. If the environment is benign, the intervals between renourishment will be long, with obvious cost reduction benefits. If background erosion rates are “high” or the intensity and/or frequency of storms become great enough, it may not be possible to justify the continued costs of nourishment. In this case, the alternatives range from constructing hard protective structures to retreating and abandoning shore development. ^[4]

Sand or “Borrow” Sources

^[5]

The selection of a source of suitable material for a particular project depends upon the design needs but also on environmental factors and the cost of transporting material from the borrow area to the placement site (see accompanying table). These factors and their long-term implications need to be considered with respect to beach nourishment programs and conveyed to all participants and parties of interest. The actual construction of a beach nourishment project normally involves; (1) the search for a sediment source that meets the criteria specified in the design documents, (2) the removal and transfer of the material to the nourishment site, and (3) its placement on the beach as prescribed by the design. These three components of a beach nourishment project are fundamental to it performance and often determine the cost and feasibility of the project.

The most important borrow material characteristic is the sediment grain size. Borrow material grain size matching the native material is often considered synonymous with quality. A candidate borrow area may be considered unacceptable if the silt and clay fraction (mud) exceeds a certain percentage. This percentage needs to be related to the natural turbidity in the nourishment area. Fine material also adversely affects project performance. Early projects constructed without regard for grain size performed relatively poorly, and recent developments indicate nourishment sand that is only slightly smaller than native sand can result in significantly narrower equilibrated dry beach widths compared to sand the same size as (or larger than) native sand. To identify potential borrow sources and to evaluate the material quality, a sand survey must be carried out that usually includes collecting geophysical profiles, surface samples, and cores.

Potential Sources of Beach Nourishment Sediment

Measuring Success

^[6]

As with any project, establishing a clear set of project goals is critical to defining if a beach nourishment project has been successful. There is no single measure of success for beach nourishment projects because projects usually involve several objectives. Hence, a project may be successful in meeting some but not necessarily all objectives that led to its implementation. Project sponsors should establish specific performance criteria that will be used and how performance will be measured and assessed as an essential element of the design process for each project. Immediate success measures that should be quantified and reported are dry beach width, volume of sand remaining after storms, post storm damage avoidance assessments, and flood protection capability. Subaqueous sand volume should also be measured because they contribute to protection from storm waves and to recreational value. Realization of projected economic benefits and reduction of shoreline retreat should also be measured, although the effects are more likely to occur over a longer term than the other performance measures. Effective project performance from an engineering perspective may or may not result in the changes in economic conditions desired by local sponsors because socioeconomic conditions change over the life of a beach nourishment program.

The ability to predict the performance of a beach nourishment project is best for the most simple situation, that is, for a project constructed on a long, straight shoreline without the complications of inlets or engineered structures. In addition, predictability is better for the overall performance of the project, such as an average shoreline change as contrasted to the detailed performance of the shoreline change at a discreet location. The accompanying graph depicts the gross estimate of performance under various degrees of complexity.

The use of beach nourishment has encountered sometimes strong local, regional, and national opposition. Opponents often view the sacrificial aspect of beach nourishment as little more than building sand castles to protect against an advancing sea. The controversy over the technical merits of beach nourishment has been exacerbated by concerns regarding the economic effects of beach nourishment, biological impacts, the appropriate way in which to account for flood protection benefits derived from a beach nourishment project or program in the National Flood Insurance Program, and the role of beach nourishment in federal disaster assistance.

Merging now. Lfstevens ( talk) 22:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply