State of Maine's Beaches in 2011

Ferry Beach, Saco

A total of four beach profiles (FE01 to FE04, Figure 35) were available for comparison. It is important to note that for the 2009 assessment, the profile starting points were mislabeled. FE01 should be northernmost profile starting location, with FE04 being the southernmost. All profiles start in a natural dune. The front stake at FE04 was lost during the 2007 Patriots' Day storm, and profiling was re-established at a back stake in August 2007. New back stakes were placed for profiles FE01 and FE02, and new starting front and back stakes were placed for FE03 and FE04, in May 2010. The profiles extend north to south in chronological order.

Winter Profile Changes

FE01 = D (65)

Figure 36

Profile FE01 (Figure 36) received a D in the previous assessment. In response to the 2007 storm, the profile was flattened substantially, and lost about 1m in dune elevation, though there was a gain in elevation in the low tide area. By 2008, the profile maintained the post-storm shape out to about 20 m, where it appears to have lost sand in comparison with the post-storm shape. In 2009, the profile appears to have lost more elevation in its berm and along its length. The 2010 profile showed additional landward retreat and elevation loss along the entire profile. The 2011 profile migrated farther landward and lost a bit of elevation in the first few meters, then appears to have gained sand back (in comparison with the 2010 shape) along the lower berm and low tide portion of the profile. However, for the most part, the profile is below the 2008 shape, especially in regards to sand on the upper portion of the berm. The dune looks to be continually eroding landward.

FE02 = C (75)

Figure 37

Profile FE02 (Figure 37) received a D in the previous assessment. A year after the storm, the profile showed further erosion, and transgressed farther landward along its entire length. In 2009, the profile (at the dune crest) gained in elevation and expanded seaward, while the berm and lower portion of the profile also accreted. This was due to dune reconstruction efforts undertaken by the Ferry Beach Park Association in the late winter and early spring of 2009. By 2010, the dune crest and entire beach eroded landward in response to storms. In 2011, the dune crest appeared have receded slightly, but the berm and lower portion of the profile recovered to a shape better than the 2008 post-storm shape, and almost the same as the post-construction 2009 shape. Although the profile recovered well in 2009, this was due to dune restoration; recovery in 2011 from the 2010 erosive profile shape shows that this site has likely benefited from the dune restoration project, with sediment eroded from the dune crest feeding the rest of the beach profile. We give the profile a C due to this recovery, but remain cautious regarding the long-term stability of the beach and dune at this site.

FE03 = D (65)

Figure 38

Profile FE03 (Figure 38) received an F in the previous assessment. The 2008 profile showed continued erosion and landward movement in comparison with the 2007 profile shape, with the 2009 profile showing little change, but some stability. The 2010 profile exhibited much deeper erosion, with removal of the dune and berm, and does not reflect dune restoration that occurred. This profile showed consistent erosion from 2007 through 2010. The 2011 profile, which was recorded at a new starting pin (set in May, 2010 and first profiled in July 2010), shows a well defined dune, and a much more sediment rich profile. It is difficult to compare the 2011 shape with previous shapes since the starting pin from April 2010 was lost, and changed. However, if we compare the July 2010 profile shape with available profile data from June 2011 (see next section on Summer Profiles), we note that the profile has remained stable to slightly accretive - this an extremely positive sign, and allows us to score this profile a D instead of an F. However, we remain extremely cautious due to the past history of this profile.

FE04 = C (75)

Figure 39

Profile FE04 (Figure 39) received an A in the previous assessment. Because the starting pin was lost in the storm and a new starting point was not used until August 2007, it is not included in this analysis. In 2008, the profile was very flat and steep, with few discernable features. Unlike the other profiles, FE04 does not seem to have much of a berm, and maintains an erosive, concave shape (although much more stable). Little change appears to have occurred in 2009, but the profile did shift slightly landward, indicating erosion. 2010 saw some erosion and deepening of the profile, especially from about 20 m seaward. Overall, the profile appeared slightly erosional from 2008 to 2010, although it is clearly benefiting from the dune restoration project and likely the sand placed by the City adjacent to the geotubes along Surf Street.

Winter Beach Grade = C- (70)

The winter profiles at Ferry Beach are clearly not remaining stable in the longer term period. However, there is significant impact from the dune restoration project and sand placement by the City along Surf Street. It is clear that these efforts have helped these profiles respond, with the addition of more available sediment to the profile.

Summer Profile Changes

FE01 = D+ (68)

Figure 40

By July 2007 (Figure 40), the profile had a defined dune crest with a scarp, and a wide, well defined berm near the 30 m mark. By June 2008, the summer berm increased in elevation and move landward, as did the dune crest. The lower portion of the profile, seaward of 20 m, lost elevation and steepened. In 2009, the entire profile appears to have flattened and lost around 0.5 m of elevation along its length. The dune appears to have been eroded landward. The June 2010 profile showed additional dune retreat and loss of elevation along the profile. The June 2011 profile showed some recovery from the 2010 shape, with a slight increase in dune elevation, the development of a noted berm at the 10 m mark, and recovery of the profile elevation to the 2009 shape. This is a positive trend, indicating influence of the dune restoration project and the availability of more sediment to the profile. However, overall, the profile has been migrating landward, with dune and berm loss since 2007. Since 2008, the profile has appears to have maintained the same slope, but has migrated landward approximately 6 meters.

FE02 = F (55)

Figure 41

In July 2007 (Figure 41), the profile actually had a large amount of sediment. A year after the storm, in summer 2008, the profile eroded dramatically, with the loss of near 1 m of elevation at the 20 m mark, and landward migration of the dune crest. In 2009, the profile appears to have recovered somewhat, with dune growth seaward (likely due to the restoration project), and berm development. This trend continued in the summer of 2010, with additional growth of the beach seaward of the 10 m mark; however, the dune appears to have eroded farther landward. In June 2011, the dune appears to have moved slightly landward, and the berm and beach eroded slightly landward. The elevation of the low tide area, however, grew since 2010. This profile is eroding continually.

FE03 = C (75)

Figure 42

After the 2007 storm (Figure 42), the summer profile had a large amount of sediment in its berm and lower portions. The 2008 profile showed extensive erosion of the lower portion of the profile, seaward of about 8 m, while the upper profile stayed stable. This profile shape was basically maintained in 2009, likely due to dune restoration activities which introduced new sand to the system. Note that a new starting pin was placed in May of 2010, with profiling reinitiated in July 2010. We will therefore include comparison with changes from July 2010 to June 2011. The profile shows a clear seaward movement of the dune crest by June 2011, and an increase in profile elevation along the entire profile. This is an extremely positive sign, and likely due to the dune restoration activities undertaken in conjunction with erosion of sand placed next to the geotubes at Surf Street. We are very pleased with dune recovery in 2010-2011, but remain highly concerned about the long-term history of this profile.

FE04 = C (75)

Figure 43

Unlike the other profiles, FE04 (Figure 43) shows little variation in its topography. From August of 2007 to 2008, the profile underwent large erosion; however, from August of 2008 to July of 2009, the profile underwent little change, with slight erosion of the beach and berm. Since the starting point was reset in May 2010, it is impossible to compare profiles from 2009 and 2010. Therefore we will compare July 2010 with June 2011. Over this time period, the profile has remained stable, with little change. This is likely due to the influence of the dune restoration project and artificial placement of sand at Surf Street, and is a very positive indication. It is clear that the dune restoration is positively influencing this profile, but based on its long term history, we are concerned about this profile.

Summer Beach Grade = D+ (68)

The summer profiles at Ferry Beach appear to be eroding. Most try to show a berm area, though it has clearly been eroding over the past few summers. Some recovery in comparison with 2011 to 2010 profiles is noted, which is encouraging. This is likely due to the dune restoration project.

Summary

Overall, consistent with the previous assessment, the beach and dunes along Ferry Beach continue to erode. Due to some changes in pin positioning at some of the profiles, it was difficult to compare 2010 and 2011 data with that from 2007-2009. Based on some of the most recent trends observed at the profiles over the past year (namely July 2010 to June 2011), we remain cautiously optimistic that the dune restoration project and artificial sand placed by the City of Saco at the geotubes at Surf Street has helped slow the rate of erosion that has been occurring at these profiles; however, we do expect erosion to continue. Continued monitoring at these profiles is essential to tracking the changing erosion rates.

Overall grade = D+ (69)

Contents Introduction Beach Responses Discussion Conclusions References Appendix

Last updated on July 14, 2011