Jump to content

Talk:Beach nourishment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beach Replenishment

[edit]

This entire article is more or less a puff piece for a vested industry (often represented by the ASBPA) that profits from the practice of 'beach nourishment'. It assumes, a priori, the need to place sand on a beach for it to exist, which is untrue. The practice of beach fill (whether called 'nourishment' or 'replenishment') only exists to protect infrastructure, not the beach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.255.24.5 (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could the article mention the term "beach replenishment" as an alternative to "beach nourishment"? Both terms seem to be used to describe the same type of project. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think so. The terminology for putting sand on the beach tends to reinvent itself constantly. Terms come in and out of fashion on a regular basis. New projects want to avoid being tarnished by the perception of old projects so tend to rename themselves in new ways, keeping one step ahead of critics. Beach Nourishment tends to happen in areas where real estate is also cyclical and is caught up in the general frenzy of speculation and confidence of places on the move.121.222.57.47 (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As no further comment apart from the above concurring opinion has been made I shall include a sentence to this effect in the article. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Nourishment Revamp

[edit]

{{edit}} COI: I am a representative of the American Shore & Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA). We are dedicated to preserving, protecting and enhancing the beaches, shores and other coastal resources of America.

I'd like to revamp this page. Currently, the post is not very neutral and does not delve fully into the environmental benefits of beach nourishment. I would like to create a completely new page with a different format. Despite my COI, if you read the post and look at the sources you will see that this is a neutral post. Let me know what you think.

Extended content

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

[edit]

[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

[edit]

[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

Offshore Source The most difficult operational conditions because of exposure to open sea. Increasingly difficult to obtain permits because of concern for impacts on hard bottom and migratory species. Must consider the effects of altering depth on wave energy at the shoreline. May be combined with a navigation project.
Inlet Source Sand between jetties in a stabilized inlet. Often associated with dredging of navigational channels and the ebb- or flood-tide deltas of both natural and jettied inlets.
Accreational Beach Source Generally not suitable to mine sand – (1) from most of the stable shorelines or from any eroding shoreline, (2) where there are insufficient surveys to define volumes, or (3) where the sediment size and type vary markedly in the cross-shore direction.
Upland Source Generally the easiest to obtain permits and assess impacts. Offers opportunities for mitigation. Quantity and quality of economical deposits are often limited. Adverse secondary impacts from mining and overland transport.
Riverine Source Has the potential for large quantities. Generally high quality. Transport distance a possible limiting factor. May interrupt a natural supply of sand to the coast.
Lagoon Source Typically difficult to obtain permits unless in conjunction with lagoon restoration or navigation projects because of regulations against wetland loss. Often low quality because of deposition of fine material. Convenient to barrier beaches and in protected waters for ease of construction. Flood-tide deltas the principle sources.
Artificial or nonindigenuos material source Seldom tested in the U.S. because of high transport and redistribution costs. Some laboratory experiments done on recycling broken glass. Aragonite from Bahamas a possible source.
Emergency Source Includes deposits near inlets and local sinks and sand from stable beaches with a sufficiently wide buffer. Generally used only in emergencies following storms, where a change in the shoreline planform is desired, or where, in the short term, is the only affordable option. May be combined with a navigation project.

Measuring Success

[edit]

[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.

Example alt text
Performance Predicability Beach Nourishment
Merging now. Lfstevens (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Farley, P.P. 1923. Coney Island public beach and boardwalk improvements. Paper 136. The Municipal Engineers Journal 9(4).
  2. ^ http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/1/2004_1_42_print.shtml
  3. ^ http://www.csc.noaa.gov/beachnourishment/html/geo/scitech.htm
  4. ^ National Research Council, 1995. Beach Nourishment and Protection. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 334 p. pg.
  5. ^ National Research Council, 1995. Beach Nourishment and Protection. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pg. 97-99, Table 4-2.
  6. ^ National Research Council, 1995. Beach Nourishment and Protection. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 334 p. pg. 4, 94., Figure 4-6.

Weissmax25 (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, this looks very good - but I'm not sure on how to fit it into the current article. If it is designed as a complete replacement, then it lacks a lede section; also, it would be good to try and integrate the better parts of the existing article. For example, whilst I'd be quite happy to remove the existing bullet-pointed "Primary functions" and "Environmental issues", the information on specific projects (in the current article) does seem encyclopaedic; unfortunately, because there are no inline references, it is a bit hard to verify.
So - could you please try to make a complete suggestion, incorporating some of the existing, and perhaps make a user-space draft, and then re-request this edit? (I've cancelled out the template, just for now).
If you need help with it, or have any questions, please ask. Either leave a message on my own talk page, use a {{helpme}}in a new section at the end of your own talk page, or - perhaps best - talk to us live, with this or this.
Thank you for your consideration of the COI policies. Chzz  ►  08:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Merging "revamp" Lfstevens (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beach nourishment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beach nourishment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beach nourishment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Beach replemishment" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Beach replemishment has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 15 § Beach replemishment until a consensus is reached. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beach_nourishment&oldid=1207739771"