- Beachbook
- Coastal Review Online
- Dare County
- Duck
- Island Free Press
- Kill Devil Hills
- Kitty Hawk
- Manteo
- Nags Head
- Nighthawk News
- Southern Shores
- The Sentinel
- Bill's OBX Beach Life
- Life Beneath the Waves
- N.E.S.T Online
- Natural Outer Banks
- Red Headed Beach Girl
- Rosie Hawthorne
- See more local blogs »
Old sand projects provide a false comparison
I am asked two questions regularly: “Why do I support some form of sand replenishment on our beaches?” and “Why do you never write about all of the failed projects that have come before?”
The “failed” projects are offered as evidence that the nourishment plan in Nags Head is doomed.
One was in 2002, when the state offered Nags Head 53,000 to 99,000 cubic yards of dredge spoil from the navigation channel under the Baum Bridge, which connects Nags Head to Roanoke Island.
Quick assessments of the spoil suggested the “sand” would be suitable. In all, 3,000 linear feet of beach would receive sand, roughly three-fifths of a mile. But Almost immediately it became apparent that the spoil was not even sand. It was a dark muck that offended beach-goers and thankfully, eroded quickly.
Of the original 3,000 feet slated to be re-sanded, only 1,600 received the material before the project was halted. Something less than 99,000 cubic yards of material was used — probably closer to 70,000 cubic yards.
As we shall see, for critics of beach nourishment to hold this project up as an example of why the Nags Head project is equally doomed is disingenuous.
The second project came after Hurricane Isabel and continued from 2003 until 2006. It was deemed an emergency berm project. As an “emergency” effort, it fell under the aegis of FEMA. And it was a “berm” project, not beach nourishment.
A berm is an area of beach where the slope is changed upward. It is not a dune in the sense that we think of one, and it does not place sand on the beach proper or widen the beach.
Proposed projects in Nags Head and Kill Devil Hills are said to be engineered projects. The FEMA berm was also said to be “engineered,” and that word was used when the berm was described at public meetings.
Critics now use the word as a method to one-up the failed DEHNR project, as in “the FEMA project was engineered and it failed also.” Engineering by FEMA centered on design, monitoring and verifying construction of the berm. It was not an engineered plan in the sense that a nourishment project is engineered. The berm project covered 8.4 miles of the former dune line, and brought in 353,000 cubic yards of sand.
Compare all of the above with the proposed Nags Head project. Nags Head’s project will require 4.6 million cubic yards of sand, and will nourish 10 miles of beach. The engineering of this project is of an entirely different order than either of the other two projects.
Engineers have measured the amount of beach lost over the past decade — a decade that includes every hurricane and winter storm — and proposed replacing that amount of sand. They measured the offshore transport of sand — how it moves up and down the beach — and what percentage in a storm remains in the near-shore swash zone, an area while not on the dry sand beach constitutes a source where sand can find its way back onto the beach.
Some storms remove sand permanently, some deposit sand immediately and others leave sand in the near-shore system, where it eventually finds its way back onto the beach.
Data indicate that for myriad reasons, replenished sand erodes at a faster rate than the “native” sand on the beach. However, with a true engineered plan — taking into account a set of long-term data of prior-years’ sand loss that includes all hurricanes and nor’easters over a decade — it’s hard to imagine the entire 4.6 million cubic yards of sand being lost in one fell swoop. Mathematically, it doesn’t make sense.
In addition, the Nags Head plan calls for widening the base of the dune line in some areas, widening the dry sand beach — not merely pumping sand onto the beach – and tapering the beach profile both north/south and east/west to better mimic the topography and natural sand transportation.
Comparing the current project to either of the prior Nags Head efforts — in terms of concept, engineering or amount of sand to be used — clouds honest debate on the issue and creates an undercurrent of untruths that become “facts” in the minds of citizens.
Some descriptions from David Stick — no fan of engineered beaches — in his famous historical tome, “The Outer Banks of North Carolina,” might provide some context:
“(On the eve of the Great Depression) from Currituck to Beaufort Inlet, erosion had become such a problem that much of the Banks was swept clean by storm-driven waters when a hurricane passed over. Diamond City had disappeared, Portsmouth was fast becoming a ghost town. Little Kinakeet existed in name only. In the other communities, the older folks stayed on, but many of the young men and women were leaving the Banks . . .”
After Wash Baum took the county into debt to build a bridge connecting Dare’s northern beaches to Roanoke Island, another group of investors from Elizabeth City built a toll bridge to connect Currituck’s mainland to the northern beaches. The state saw the value of Dare as a resort, and soon, roads were built such than one could drive from Kitty Hawk to Manteo.
In 1933, two back-to-back late summer hurricanes destroyed the new roads, hundreds of homes were lost and New Inlet cut through Hatteras Island again. The last of the oceanfront dunes were gone — meaning even a small storm would create overwash from sea to sound.
.
By 1940, as Stick quotes two National Park Service officials directly involved, “Southward from the Virginia State Line extending to Hatteras Inlet a great barrier dune has been built for the protection of the Banks from the ocean. In some places, it is as much as twenty-five feet high with a base of nearly 300 feet (emphasis added). In all, 115 miles of barrier dune has been constructed. Over 600 miles of fencing was used, a total of 141,841,821 square feet of grassing has been planted, and 2,552,359 seedlings and shrubs were set out.”
If you live almost anywhere on the northern beaches today, the economy we enjoy exists because of this massive engineering project. The dunes we see are not natural, yet they have lasted from 1940 until this time.
A dune with a base of 300 feet is the length of a football field, and that doesn’t include the beach to the east. In short, we don’t live and work on a natural barrier island; we exist on a previously engineered beach, just as the coastal residents of Holland exist as a result of numerous dikes and tons of fill brought in to those areas.
There is nothing wrong with opposition to beach nourishment. One can construct plenty of valid concerns and arguments.
But if we compare “failed” projects to proposed plans that are far more sophisticated, and when we insist engineered beaches are destroying a so-called natural dune system that was actually re-created by a massive, almost incomprehensible public works project, we aren’t creating an atmosphere for honest debate.
And this answers the first question — why I support at least an attempt to engineer our beaches, especially if the taxes have been collected and designated for that purpose.
See what people are saying:
Join the discussion:
- MOST READ
- MOST DISCUSSED
Amy says:
A clear and concise article. Your inclusion of the history was most appreciated. Thank you.
Jay Riemenschneider says:
While it is true that the previous two efforts at beach stabilization described in this article are not comparable to what’s being proposed, a few points need to be made:
1) Coastal engineers are not infallible. They have been wrong before…sometimes a lot!
2) The entire project probably won’t disappear in one storm; but it could. A few others have.
3) Creation of the artificial dune in the 1940′s has had a permanent impact on the environment of the Outer Banks. On a human scale, we often fail to fully appreciate the magnitude of this change (and what it means for us today).
4) The potential benefits of the proposed project have been GREATLY inflated (read ALL the documentation and think about what is really being protected)!
GB says:
There are other examples of beach nourishment failures besides those mentioned above that are relevant. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4217981
Emerald Isle and Pine Knoll Shores have had serious problems and both used Kana’s firm.
Russ Lay says:
GB–And that is where the discussion should lie. Ditto for Jay. This has too often become an issue of “class”–rich homeowners benefiting, an idea first floated by Pilkey, and less on the science, the fallibility of the science, and comparisons to similar scaled projects that failed, and then a discussion of whether anything was learned from those failures (think of the two Space Shuttle disasters. Failure doesn’t mean future projects can’t be altered). I would love discussions to focus there, as well as the REAL numbers of what the economic outcomes for either “do nothing” or “nourish” would do instead of the debates about who pays. I suspect if President Obama landed in a chopper at the Wright Memorial and dropped a $100 million in our laps for nourishment, 90% of the opposition would disappear!
glennk1949 says:
Engineered or Replenished beaches as everyone agrees erode faster then “naturally formed beaches.” In fact they erode at 2X to 12X’s as fast a rate. Plus, simply building a berm or sand levee and placing sea grass or other vegetation on top also doesn’t slow these rates of erosion. So why are we wasting billions of scarce tax dollars on these kinds of projects? Other forms of property protection such as bulkheads or revetments are more costly but arguably more durable. But, the argument goes that they always destroy the beach in front of them due to the known “backwash effect.” Or do they always? In recent decades it’s been shown that if a sufficient amount of sand is in front of these structures, say several hundred feet, and that this amount can be maintained either naturally or artificially said structures do not in fact erode the beach and at the same time provide property owners much better protection then a sand berm. There are whole systems of Army Corp-created bulkheads many of them over 50 yrs. old and older on many beaches and barrier islands on the East Coast that have maintained beaches directly in front of them, without the need for sand berms ( artificial dunes or levees.) Personally, having lived through hundreds of major storms on the East Coast in my lifetime, I think it’s foolish for towns to simply rely on the word of the Army Corp. that Beach Replenishment Projects will be able to protect property in all circumstances. It’s simply not true. The problem is as it’s always been. As long as the authorities along the coast allow people to build to close to the ocean there will be a need for some kind of “hard structures” such as bulkheads and revetments to protect these areas, and thinking that beach replenishment is a suitable and rational substitute is a fool’s errand. Eventually, no matter what we do in some areas the homes and businesses impacted will have to be abandoned or moved as the seas rise in this century due to the escalating warming of the atmosphere and expansion and rise of the oceans in response. Dumping billions of dollars onto the beaches of also rapidly diminishing supplies of “beach quality” sand is nothing more then an extremely expensive and futile band-aid that allows a few politicians and their clients to brag in front of the media that they fixed the problem ( for the moment). We can’t afford these kinds of ruinous fixes anymore.
Ray says:
Russ, I would love to see you write a comparison of the Army Corps of Engineers study that was funded to the tune of $1 million by the visitors bureau (estimated to cost $72 million ten years ago) with the smaller plan now offered by Coastal Science & Engineering for Nags Head.
These two plans are akin to one doctor saying you’ll die tomorrow and one saying you’ll live a long life.
They alone, are enough for anyone to say “No” to beach nourishment.
Selena K says:
I would be one of the 10%-ers who would not care where the money came from. Even if it dropped from the sky I still would be against it. Barrier island are migrating land masses…period. We should not even BE building here, technically. But now that we are here I believe that proper, controlled retreat is what I would like to see done. We just should not be mucking around with Mother Nature. Sorry, but this is just one resident’s opinion.
barbara says:
mmmmmm…. Pilkey is the SCIENTIST, he has done nothing but provide scientific, researched backed facts on BN, not class warfare. You really do owe it to yourself to read his book “restless ribbons of sand” if you buy property here imo. It should be required reading. very informative.
Stewie says:
Beaches, natural or manmade, have a tendency to “wander”.
Some wander more quickly than others.
The simple fact is that once you start engaging Mother Nature in this game of trying to keep the beach where you would prefer it to be you can be sure that exercise of dumping sand is going to have to occur again, and again, and again.
I have no problem with communities that want to tax themselves to pay their own way in playing that Sisyphean game. Local control and all that.
I do have a problem with federal tax money being spent to try and address the saga of the shifting sands.
Fortunately, looming federal fiscal reality is likely to make Uncle Sugar absent from the game.
Russ Lay says:
@Ray–you have your own blog, so I’ll engage you once, then you can opine in your own space. No one assumes beach nourishment is a one time thing, not even proponents. Yet you seem to think that the dunes built in the 30′s, which FAR surpass anything proposed today, couldn’t accomplish another 60 years today? Slow death or quick death depends on the commitment. Va Beach is still there, last time I looked, and none of their oceanfront is falling into the Atlantic.
@Glenn–excellent point. Tell Sen. Basnight!!!
@Barbara–let’s have some fun. Pilkey is a geologist. He is NOT an engineer or an economist. I would contend he is no better at science than an engineer, apart from the fact that certain engineers may have a mercantile interest in placing sand on a beach. I would suggest you also study engineering opinions (pro and con).
As to reading Pilkey, I have seven of his books. Here are some examples of him trying to be an economist:
“And retreat we must. Relocation is likely to be the most economically feasible response to sea-level rise in the long term…Supporters of this kind of coastal development often assert coastal economies are too important to walk away from”. (The Rising Sea, page 164)
“Another grand myth is that these oceanfront communities somehow benefit us all….The unwise infusion of tax money to “save” beaches is really an infusion of money to save buildings” (ibid, page 164)
“Just as important as who benefits from beach nourishment is the question of who pays, or who should pay? The answer to the former is we all do. Considering the enormous benefits that accrue to oceanfront property owners, the answer to the latter is clearly they should. ” Pilkey in “Beach Nourishment: A Guide for Local Government Officials” http://www.csc.noaa.gov/beachnourishment/html/human/dialog/series1a.htm
And my personal favorite example of “Pilkey as Economist Who Had Never Owned A Business Nor Collected Insurance Nor Had To Relocate A Business…
“So why does the public pay for beach nourishment to protect and enhance the value of property owned by the very people who caused the beach degradation problem to begin with? Nourishment proponents, when faced with this question, usually respond that the public wants a hot dog stand, motels, miniature gulf courses etc. and therefore to protect them is to protect the public interest. This is nonsense. The hot dog stand and other interests on the first row will quickly reappear in the second row if eroded away; the American free-enterprise system assures that. ”
At least I know where one local blogger get’s his hot dog stand fetish. But don’t pretend that Mr. Pilkey is all science, or that he sticks to his geologist expertise.
He is an advocacy scientist of the type that jaundices science and makes all of us suspect “facts” when folks with Ph.D.’s offer them up.
Jack Sandberg says:
“If you live almost anywhere on the northern beaches today, the economy we enjoy exists because of this massive engineering project. The dunes we see are not natural, yet they have lasted from 1940 until this time.”
I find this difficult to believe. The Ash Wednesday Storm in 1962 flattened most of them and subsequent storms have left little or nothing remaining of the CCC-built dunes. The old houses in the “historic district” of Nags Head have been moved back several times and the 1940′s dune line is somewhere out in the ocean. What remains of a dune system in South Nags Head is a result of constant sand-fencing and bulldozing in recent years. The dune line built by the CCC disappeared decades ago. Unfortunately the CCC dunes did create a false sense of security that led to too much development too close to the ocean. That’s what we’re living with today.
Barbara says:
Thanks Russ, I think by posting Pilkey’s quotes you’ve even further weakened YOUR argument.
to quote you:
GB–And that is where the discussion should lie. Ditto for Jay. This has too often become an issue of “class”–rich homeowners benefiting, an idea first floated by Pilkey, and less on the science, the fallibility of the science, and comparisons to similar scaled projects that failed, and then a discussion of whether anything was learned from those failures (think of the two Space Shuttle disasters.
Pilkey is indeed a scientist, geologist. He is an EXPERT on these type of things and he and Stan Riggs (another geologist) studies / thoughts/opinions should be taken into consideration. Good engineering is based on science. You cannot ignore the connection. When $30 million + is attached to the Coastal engineering co., science miraculously gets easier to ignore.
Maybe an economist could present a flip side, do a study on the costs of retreat over 5 years vs 30+ million bn project. That would be an EXCELLENT article, come on Russ, you’re a banker, surely you know an economist who could present a study on retreat.
Brenda says:
The money has been collected for this use. Use it. For those who say we shouldn’t be here, leave. Most of us are here because of tourism, one way or the other. No beach, no tourism!!!
Ray says:
Thank you, Jack Sandberg.
ekim says:
BLA BLA You can bring on all the sandoligist you want, You will never ever stop mean MAMA Atlantic EVER! SHE WILL DO WHAT SHE WANTS!! Having said that, lets say you get your sand TAX and it works for a short time, will they stop the TAX! YEA RIGHT. And if we lose all the ocean front houses do you think the tourons will stop coming, YEA RIGHT!!!! I never understood how you can own beach front. I can lay my fat butt in front of any of the houses on the beach an I’m not tresspassing unless I walk between the houses so how can you own it?
Sediment Control says:
I think what Stewie says makes a lot of sense:
“I have no problem with communities that want to tax themselves to pay their own way in playing that Sisyphean game. Local control and all that.
I do have a problem with federal tax money being spent to try and address the saga of the shifting sands.”
I just don’t think our government should even consider spending more money with all of the debt that has been accruing over the past few years.
-Jack
Bobby says:
GB, did you read the footnotes at the end of the article you linked to? And the short but precise summary of why each project failed. Hardly a comparison to the proposed Nags Head project.
Russ, you nailed it pal, good job and excellent quotes that prove your point.
Thanks for a well written and factual article. I would like to see a response to Uncle Jack’s comments.
Selena K says:
I was not surprised to hear the higher-assessed OF and O/side northern NH owners are markedly either tardy with returning their Town petitions or are not planning to participate, which seems as if the real money in the NH oceanfront is having no part of BN. Sort of kills the notion that it is being considered only by or for the “rich.” then again (for now) they are also the least-impacted by the worst erosion.
Side note–I am 99.9% against BN, but it peeves me off to see oceanfront owners (including commercial) do their own beach pushes, which usually appears to make erosion worse in those spots.
Selena K says:
@Brenda: Respectfully, there would BE MORE BEACH if the worst of the wash-ins and near wash-in were removed, along with their sandbags! They just make it worse, as do ground floor enclosures. We can belong here just fine and live with the shifting IF we’d take a cue from beach owners in the past and go back to developing on the OF properly.
Russ Lay says:
Bobby–I think Jack has some validity to his argument. My point is that the dunes were requested because the old ones failed, and as Jack says, the development that followed (which benefits us all today) came after the CCC project. I have no idea what the 1930′s leaders would think of development today, but it was apparent that wanted developed and engineered beaches were part of the plan.
@Barbara–I have this dream that one day we (the local media) can get ECU to do just those types of things. And not just nourishment vs retreat, but poverty studies, job diversity and others from the Econ side. I’d also like to see ECU work on political polling on issues from that area–again, not just beach nourishment, but other issues and elections.
I do believe an engineer with a PhD is equal to a geologist with a PhD, profit motive removed. The job of an engineer, whether spanning a bridge or building an earthquake proof building is all about offsetting nature. Just like Holland.
Now an economist, geologist, and engineer in a discussion would be awesome. But, I think the audience would be you, me, Ray and GB
Stewie says:
People that use the phrase “advocacy scientist” as a pejorative (as Russ has against Pilkey) are the same folks that use the phrase “activist judge” as a pejorative to mean “People Whose Opinions I Disagree With”.
If Pilkey’s advocacy based upon his knowledge of beach mechanics is harmful to the science of same what, one wonders, would Russ say about the advocacy of the scientists that are members/supporters of the “American Shore & Beach Preservation Association” (asbpa.org). Does their advocacy for the support of the never ending exercise of beach rebuilding jaundice science?
Russ also slams Pilkey as a sham economist:
“Pilkey as Economist Who Had Never Owned A Business Nor Collected Insurance Nor Had To Relocate A Business…”
I wonder how many “real” economists – pick a couple out of the air, say, Paul Krugman or Tyler Cowen – have ever owned a business, etc., etc.?
I think we can all agree that beaches tend to wander in ways that may not suit human self interest. I also think we can agree that if we continue to throw money at the problem that we can, with varying effect, dump sand in places we would like it to be.
Russ seems to believe that if we just try to go with an “engineered plan” that offers some best chance of building a beach that will minimize future nourishment efforts.
There are many areas where engineering can be utilized to pretty much guarantee a result. However, any time you try to engineer around a natural process there is one extremely relevant variable that we cannot control – the weather.
Nags Head could implement a well engineered beach building plan, one that is based upon recent decades of study and project forward based upon that history that there is a xx% chance that that sand will stay in place for the next xx years.
We all know, however, that all it takes is that one 500 year storm to erase those efforts overnight. Even the most ardent scientist & engineers that are supporters of beach building understand that. And after that storm some percentage of that sand may re-appear over subsequent months due to natural processes.
Yes, the odds of that 500 year or “Perfect Storm” happening are small but then many people go to Vegas thinking they can beat the house. Good luck with that!
Both sides of this debate have valid concerns and points of merit but what it ultimately boils down to is if you decide to fight Mother Nature who is going to pay for that?
If you want to go to Vegas all I ask is that you spend your money and not mine.
Russ Lay says:
Stewie: One of the first things we learned in debate was to set up your own definitions, which is what you do here. Your definition of an advocacy scientist fits your point of view, not mine. Ditto on activist judges. It has zero to do with his opinion differing with mine and you seem far too smart to fall into that logical trap. And my problem with economists is exactly that–read Nassim Taleb or any slew of writers who have demonstrated how bad economists are at what they do and how many were co=opted into the system as “employees”. It was economists who drove the derivative market and it was a famous economist polymath David Li who came up with those magical formulas.(http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant) Or the Nobel economists whose failed investment firm was among the first of Wall Street failures.
Moreover, you didn’t read what I responded to. One reader commented that Pilkey, quote “is a scientist who has done nothing but provide scientific fact on BN and not class warfare”.
I merely pointed out that Pilkey does not stick to science and indeed sets out to pit oceanfront owners against the “rest of us” and use language like declaring a hot dog stand easily collects a check and moves across the road “because that’s how the free enterprise system works”. She was incorrect in her assessment of Pilkey sticking to pure science, and I never called him a sham economist, merely a geologist who plays an economist when he is advocating a position.
Finally, I grew up in Va Beach, so I have lived my entire life with nourished beaches, so my experience with the subject is long-term. We can argue other points, like predicting the weather, but even if an entire project goes away in a big storm, I’d rather see the beach take the pounding than billions of dollars of infrastructure.
In the end though, try not to decide what I seem to think or what my motives are. I stick by both statements regarding Pilkey as they pertain to the comments posted here by others.
Russ Lay says:
@GB–Op ed, op ed op ed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stewie says:
Russ – I wasn’t trying to decide what you “seem” to think. When you make a statement as blunt as:
“He is an advocacy scientist of the type that jaundices science and makes all of us suspect “facts” when folks with Ph.D.’s offer them up.”
it is rather obvious what you actually think. I don’t believe there is much room for semantical ambiguity.
Apparently you feel that it is improper for some scientists to engage in advocacy in issues that impact public policy. In the scientific community there has been quite a bit of discussion in the past few years on exactly how far scientists should step beyond just merely presenting data.
This may be due to heated debates in recent years over climate change and whether the causes are anthropogenic, just a natural cycle, or whether it is actually even happening at all.
Given the astounding level of scientific illiteracy in the US I personally think it is really incumbent upon scientists to step into the fray. There are too many issues that are too important to just leave to the politicians and business interests.
I don’t blame Dr. Pilkey for stepping outside of merely collecting/analyzing/presenting data any more than I blame Dr. Carl Sagan for his advocacy efforts.
History is full of examples of “experts”- scientists, engineers, economists, quants, bankers, doctors, etc. etc. being not just wrong but often monumentally wrong.
Our recent little financial panic highlights just how badly otherwise smart people can engage in behavior that well…
But after such events how do we correct the egregious behaviors of the past?
Pilkey has been trying for years to get people to realize that if we continue to allow more and more properties to be developed along oceanfronts without regard to natural processes and barriers the price tag for protecting that development will certainly grow beyond the ability of even the most ardent supporters of beach nourishment to find dollars that they can convert into buckets of sand.
I’m a retired civil engineer and I am well aware of the increasingly dire straits of much of our public infrastructure. The simple fact is that absent tax increases in many arenas we will not be able to keep up with the problems we currently have. Realistically, logically, why would we continue to add to that future burden when if we listened more to the likes of the Pilkey’s we can take a little pain now to avoid a much bigger pain in the future.
I wouldn’t disagree that in some cases it may make good sense to spend big bucks to rebuild a beach to provide some enhanced measure of infrastructure protection.
Is that the case for the Outer Banks? I don’t think so.
However, I’m sure we can find experts who can present data (or arguments or advocacy) either way.
Then you have the question of who do you believe?
The real question though is how is it going to be paid for and by whom?
Sandy Bottoms says:
Great piece. I worked at the FRF in Duck for a couple summers conducting research and leading tours and most people were surprised to find out that before the CCC project, there were little to no dunes on the oceanfront of the OBX (apart from JR). Washover from storms would decimate farms and communities. One of the big drivers in setting up the dunes was to protect farmland which in turn allowed more people to live on the OBX year round.
One of the big things that gets missed in this discussion is tax revenue. For beach towns in NC like Nags Head, a huge portion of government income comes from property taxes on multi-million dollar beachfront homes. So there’s little incentive for the town to retreat and let homes fall into the ocean. Each house that is condemned means a loss in tax revenue for the town. When a town has to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for a project of this magnitude, they are always required to evaluate “alternatives” to the proposed project including a “no action” alternative (let the homes fall into the ocean). In almost all of these EIS’s, the no-action alternative is immediately thrown out due, predominantly, to the loss of tax revenue.
The same thing is happening with the expansion of Inlet Hazard Areas in NC. There’s huge opposition to expanding IHA’s by homeowners in those areas and by builders even though areas surrounding inlets are some of the most dynamic along the beach. We’re moving inlets to protect these multi-million dollar homes so we can, in turn, protect the towns tax revenue.
Success of a beach nourishment project hangs largely on the quality of sand used (coarser is better) and the amount of sand per linear foot you place on the beach. The bigger the better. No coastal engineer will tell you that these projects will last forever. But putting that much sand along the beach will go a long way towards providing a buffer to future storms and hurricanes as well as providing a wider beach for tourists. If you’re going to fight nourishment and advocate for retreat, you have to accept a much larger degree of damage to infrastructure further inland during storms. Every time a storm overwashes a dune and destroys roads, water, power and sewer lines, tax payers pay for it.
In the end, it’s not as black and white as it may seem.
John Sutherland says:
For your information concerning the 100,000 cubic yards of material that was placed on Nags Head Beach near Whale Bone Junction:
I was the engineer on this project. First, the project was never intended to be a “beach nourishment” project, but was rather a dredging project that used the beach as a disposal location. Second, the material was more than 90% sand. If it had not been, it would not have been permitted. We analyzed numerous samples from the navigation channel in Roanoke Sound. There was some mud in the channel that was dredged and most of that quickly disappeared into the ocean. Because all of the mud was located in the deepest part of the channel(west side), when the cutter head dredge was working in that area, what it pumped out was mostly mud. But over 90% of its effort was pumping out the very sandy material that had formed a shoal on the eastern side of the channel. Also, the sand that was placed within the section of beach actually lasted for more than a year. We placed the sand there because it was the closest disposal location.
The main reasons it did not last longer were these: it was slightly finer than the sand on the beach, and thus easier to erode; the length of the section of beach was very short compared the length of beach and thus it protruded out into the ocean and was more susceptible to erosion; and thirdly, the amount of material placed on every foot of beach was very small, only about 45 yards per foot of beach. The new beach nourishment project, however, will overcome all three of these drawbacks: first, it will use sand that is very compatible to the existing beach sand; second, it will nourish a very long section of beach (over 10 miles); and thirdly, it will provide a much larger amount of sand per foot of beach. That should make the project much more durable and beneficial.
For a look at one success story in beach management in North Carolina, one can review what has been accomplished along the Bogue Banks in Carteret County. (There are also several others in New Hanover and Brunswick Counties) Under the leadership of a shore protection officer who is also a geologist, all the beaches along Bogue Banks have been nourished to the point that they provide both protection to beach front homes and businesses as well as wide beaches that are open for recreational use by the public. See http://www.protectthebeach.com/
One thing that you learn from working on beaches (and navigation projects) is that each one is different, so that what works on one beach may not work on another. That is why each beach must be closely studied and monitored yearly as the folks in Carteret County have done and are doing.
Mabel Choate says:
Instead of arguing, you all need to take a moment to reflect on what Pilkey has meant – and done – for our (yes, our) beaches. Just image what the NC coast would look like today if Tim Kana or, God forbid, Bob Dean had half the impact Pilkey has.
SaneOutlook says:
The simple fact is that whomever you all choose to read or study whom may also agree with your predetermined ideals (backed up with a PhD) is whom you will support. There are arguments on both sides and there is no answer. Consider this: Pilkey rarely (if ever) leaves his bully pulpit office to actually collect data or study the beach first hand but unfortunately has the media in his back pocket. He makes a living off of the media and pulling the publics heart strings. CSE bases it’s past projects (myrtle beach, Isle of Palms etc) and this proposal on constant data collection and years of hands on experience. It’s a no brainer. Something has to be done.
Russ Lay says:
@Stewiw–yep, I was blunt, but I didn’t say he was a sham economist. Scientists have always seemed to involve themselves in advocacy, but with Pilkey its different. I don’t care if he uses science to advocate keeping a beach un-nourished or explaining the harm it might do–based upon his research.
On the other hand, he is unqualified in my opinion to add economic opinion to his “science”–he is now more of a social advocate than someone advocating a scientific opinion. The differences are more than semantics.
For example, the “free enterprise” system guarantees nothing. His entire example of the hot dog stand moving across the road is a prime example. First, the lot itself can’t be insured, so the owner will need a new lot. The zoning may be different. The location may be different. And, quite frankly, if in our local example the Beach Road goes in Nags Head, the hot dog stand can’t move across the road. In fact, the entire west side of the Beach Road would be in danger if we lose infrastructure on the left side.
Second, his books are woefully lacking in data. He shows erosion rates, but more often, just history and most of his writing is narrative, and anecdotal (such and such project failed in three years, etc). This is less science than journalism.
Finally, his writing is peppered with other straight forward statements about economics. I don’t think a geologist is in any way qualified to determine “who should pay” for nourishment or “who benefits” unless he or she also presents economic data to prove the point. Also, using phrases like “grand myth” when referring to saving infrastructure is not science, its not even advocating a scientific position. Its a comment on cost/benefit analysis without the analysis.
You mentioned the American Beach Preservation Association and “wondered” what I think of those Ph.D.’s. If you review any of my writings, here or in my old blog, I never cite them as experts nor quote their science. They are an interest group…advocacy science. I don’t mind their lobbying, but I am suspect of their use of “science” also. Indeed, in every single article I have written about Nags Head and the engineering firm, I have mentioned the commercial/profit interest.
So, I am consistent in my distrust of advocacy science, I don’t cite it even when it supports my position, and therefore, you aren’t correct in your assessment of why I disagree with Pilkey. I agree with “Sane Outlook” above–Pilkey is a media maven, the Jim Cantore of natural beaches.