CRONIC BEACH EROSION INDUCED BY COASTAL STRUCTURES IN CHELEM, MXICO.

Alejandra Lira, Instituto de Ingeniera, UNAM, Mxico, MLiraP@ii.unam.mx Diana Fernndez, Instituto de Ingeniera, UNAM, Mxico, DFernandezR@ii.unam.mx Alec Torres-Freyermuth, Instituto de Ingeniera, UNAM, Mxico, ATorresF@ii.unam.mx Christian M. Appendini, Instituto de Ingeniera, UNAM, Mxico, CAppendiniA@ii.unam.mx Paulo Salles, Instituto de Ingeniera, UNAM, Mxico, PSallesA@ii.unam.mx E. Tonatiuh Mendoza, Instituto de Ingeniera, UNAM, Mxico, EMendozaP@ii.unam.mx Jos Lpez, Instituto de Ingeniera, UNAM, Mxico, JLpezG@ii.unam.mx Adrin Pedrozo-Acua, Instituto de Ingeniera, UNAM, Mxico, APedrozoA@ii.unam.mx INTRODUCTION Shoreline evolution oscillates naturally or can present an erosive/accretive trend induced by human interventions. The rate of these changes can vary in space and time and has important social, environmental, and economical implications in the affected area particularly in the case of beach loss, therefore, it is important to establish monitoring programs along the coast in order to diagnose the causes of beach erosion and be able to provide mitigation strategies. The Yucatan coastline has experienced severe erosion during the past few decades with rates of 0.9 m/yr during the 1948-1978 period (MeyerArendt, 1993), and a similar trend in recent years, especially in the Chelem beach which is located near the Progreso Pier and the Yucalpetn harbour. The purpose of this work is to diagnose the effects of the coastal structures in the chronic beach erosion affecting this area by analyzing the field data and applying numerical modelling. decades (Lopez Gutierrez, personal communication). The study area is located west from the Yucalpetn Port, which has a 550 m groin for stabilization of the entrance channel. Five kilometres east from Chelem is located the 6km long Progreso Pier (See Figure 2), consisting of: (a) a 2.17km long pier built from 1937 to 1945 and formed by 146 concrete arches that allow the longshore sediment transport through the structure, and (b) an impermeable 4 km long extension to it, with the port at the end that was built in 1985. In addition to these two major structures, a series of medium (40 m) to small permeable groins (15 m long) and shore-parallel geotubes have been installed/removed in the Chelem zone, altering the shoreline evolution locally. Moreover, a small beach nourishment project took place during the monitoring period of this study and was documented as well.

Progreso Pier

Yucalpetn Chelem Figure 2: The Progreso Pier and Yucalpetn Harbour located east of Chelem beach. DATA COLLECTION In order to evaluate the effects of the coastal structures on the sediment budget of the study area, beach surveys were conducted in a monthly basis. The field data collected in these surveys confirmed the erosion trend that has deteriorated the beach to a point that the homes along the shoreline have suffered important damages and are highly vulnerable to extreme events. Additionally, an ADCP was installed at 8 m water depth during the same time period. The significant

Figure 1: Some parts of the study area have reached critical conditions STUDY AREA Chelem beach has experienced a beach width reduction of approximately 20 m since the last four

wave height and mean wave direction were Hs=0.6m and =40.

Chelem Beach

structure is not designed for beach protection, during winter storms when the direction of the waves is eastward, offshore losses occur. Furthermore, during mean wave conditions (westward direction, Figure 5) the capacity of the waves to recover the beach naturally is diminished considerably due to the shelter effect of the pier. At a smaller scale, the Yucalpetn harbor interrupts the longshore sediment transport to Chelem. An assessment of the effects of small-permeable groins and the relative importance of different structural scales will be presented in the conference paper.

Figure 3: Air view of the study area. The beach profiles employed for the assessment of the beach response to the nourishment and the dynamical processes involved were analysed in terms of longshore currents and gradients. The net sediment transport, estimated from volume impoundment at a groin located near the study 3 area, is of 30,000m /year in westward direction. NUMERICAL MODELLING A 30-year deep-water wave hindcast is employed to determine mean wave conditions in Chelem due to the lack of long-term monitoring programs in Yucatan. A third-generation wave model (Mike 21) was employed to obtain wave parameters in front of the study area. A longshore sediment transport model (LITDRIFT) is employed concurrently using wave conditions at the different nodes within the shadowed area in order to estimate longshore transport and gradients and evaluate the effect of the pier. b)

a)

Figure 5: Predominant wave directions during (a) summer and (b) winter ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial support was provided by FOMIX Yucatn (Project 106400) and UNAM (Instituto de Ingeniera Proyecto Interno A1 and PAPIIT IA102511). REFERENCES Moreno, E. I., A. Torres-Acosta, & P. CastroBorges (2004) Construction of the Progreso Pier. Ingeniera 8-1 61-66

Figure 4: Wave sheltering effect cause by the Progreso Pier. CONCLUSIONS Chronic beach erosion in Chelem beach is induced by coastal structures at different scales. Observations and model predictions suggest that the Progreso Pier is a large scale wave-sheltering structure that induces important longshore transport gradients (See Figure 4). Since the

Meyer-Arendt, K.J., 1993. Shoreline Changes Along the North Yucatn Coast. In: S. Laska and A. Puffer (Editors), Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management (Coastal Zone 93). Coastlines of the World. ASCE, New Orleans, pp. 103-117.