Title: Coast watch
Identifier: coastwatch00uncs_10 (find matches)
Year: 1979 (1970s)
Authors: UNC Sea Grant College Program
Subjects: Marine resources; Oceanography; Coastal zone management; Coastal ecology
Publisher: (Raleigh, N. C. : UNC Sea Grant College Program)
Contributing Library: State Library of North Carolina
Digitizing Sponsor: North Carolina Digital Heritage Center

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
quickly swept away the dunes and, in many cases, overwashed segments of the barrier islands from Bogue Banks to Kure Beach. In places, 20 to 30 feet of beachfront were washed away. Most of the sand sucked from the beaches was deposited offshore. But waves did push some sand land- ward, depositing it in low-lying areas behind the dunes. Now, the multibillion dollar question in terms of tourism and coastal development becomes, "How much of the sand will be restored naturally?" It depends on the type of beach, say Riggs, Cleary and Snyder. In some areas, the beach will recover entirely, but gradually, during the next 10 to 15 years. The impact may be very different for rock and mud/ peat-based beaches — a description that fits much of the shoreline from south Onslow to Kure beaches. Along these shores, some of the sand will return during the next decade. But Riggs, Cleary and Snyder ultimately anticipate a net loss of the gritty stuff and a beach face that lies 10 or more feet landward of its former location. Once the sand is drawn offshore, Riggs explains, it becomes trapped behind natural reefs called hardbottoms that often lie just feet beyond the surf zone. Some of these reefs, which resemble underwater mesas, rise 6 to 15 feet off the ocean floor. Sand falls in the valleys or canyons between the reefs, where waves can't move it shoreward. With less sand available, the shoreline recedes. Of those areas in Hurricane Fran's strike zone, Wrightsville and Carolina beaches fared best, say Cleary and Rogers. Both had been nourished with thousands of tons of sand, making the point that more is better when it comes to sand and storm protection. Wrightsville and Carolina beaches experienced far fewer breeches of the dunes, much less overwash and little structural building damage due to the storm surge, Rogers says. But beach nourishment doesn't come without heavy costs — $1 million to $10 million per mile of sand replen- ishment. These are dollars not all beach communities can afford, especially considering that their investment may wash away with the next big storm. Questions about who benefits and who pays for these costly expenditures also arise. And while shortcuts may seem cheaper, they don't pay off. Bulldozing sand already on the beach into a tall dune just beyond the high tidemark doesn't constitute a beach nourishment project, Rogers says. "Beach bulldozing doesn't do anything but help the property owners' sense of well-being," Rogers says. "They see more sand, but there's not more there, and beach communities are often wasting substantial dollars that could be spent on more effective efforts." Beach nourishment adds new sand to the system with dunes built as far landward as possible. Continued
Text Appearing After Image:
COASTWATCH 5

Note About Images