FitzGerald Duncan M.

No Thumbnail Available
Last Name
FitzGerald
First Name
Duncan M.
ORCID

Filters

2007 - 2009 1 2010 - 2019 2
2 1
3
Reset filters

Settings

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Preprint
    Coastal impacts due to sea-level rise
    ( 2007-06-28) FitzGerald, Duncan M. ; Fenster, Michael S. ; Argow, Britt A. ; Buynevich, Ilya V.
    Recent estimates by Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (2007) are that global sea level will rise from 0.18 to 0.59 m by the end of this century. Rising sea level not only inundates low-lying coastal regions, but it also contributes to the redistribution of sediment along sandy coasts. Over the long-term, sea-level rise (SLR) causes barrier islands to migrate landward while conserving mass through offshore and onshore sediment transport. Under these conditions, coastal systems adjust to SLR dynamically while maintaining a characteristic geometry that is unique to a particular coast. Coastal marshes are susceptible to accelerated SLR because their vertical accretion rates are limited and they may drown. As marshes convert to open water, tidal exchange through inlets increases, which leads to sand sequestration on tidal deltas and erosion of adjacent barrier shorelines.
  • Preprint
    Refining the model of barrier island formation along a paraglacial coast in the Gulf of Maine
    ( 2012-02-24) Hein, Christopher J. ; FitzGerald, Duncan M. ; Carruthers, Emily A. ; Stone, Byron D. ; Barnhardt, Walter A. ; Gontz, Allen M.
    Details of the internal architecture and local geochronology of Plum Island, the longest barrier in the Gulf of Maine, has refined our understanding of barrier island formation in paraglacial settings. Ground-penetrating radar and shallow-seismic profiles coupled with sediment cores and radiocarbon dates provide an 8000-year evolutionary history of this barrier system in response to changes in sediment sources and supply rates as well as variability in the rate of sea-level change. The barrier sequence overlies tills of Wisconsinan and Illinoian glaciations as well as late Pleistocene glaciomarine clay deposited during the post-glacial sea-level highstand at approximately 17 ka. Holocene sediment began accumulating at the site of Plum Island at 7–8 ka, in the form of coarse fluvial channel-lag deposits related to the 50-m wide erosional channel of the Parker River that carved into underlying glaciomarine deposits during a lower stand of sea level. Plum Island had first developed in its modern location by ca. 3.6 ka through onshore migration and vertical accretion of reworked regressive and lowstand deposits. The prevalence of southerly, seaward-dipping layers indicates that greater than 60% of the barrier lithosome developed in its modern location through southerly spit progradation, consistent with a dominantly longshore transport system driven by northeast storms. Thinner sequences of northerly, landward-dipping clinoforms represent the northern recurve of the prograding spit. A 5–6-m thick inlet-fill sequence was identified overlying the lower stand fluvial deposit; its stratigraphy captures events of channel migration, ebb-delta breaching, onshore bar migration, channel shoaling and inlet infilling associated with the migration and eventual closing of the inlet. This inlet had a maximum cross-sectional area of 2800 m2 and was active around 3.5–3.6 ka. Discovery of this inlet suggests that the tidal prism was once larger than at present. Bay infilling, driven by the import of sediment into the backbarrier environment through tidal inlets, as well as minor sediment contribution from local rivers, led to a vast reduction in the bay tidal prism. This study demonstrates that, prior to about 3 ka, Plum Island and its associated marshes, tidal flats, and inlets were in a paraglacial environment; that is, their main source of sediment was derived from the erosion and reworking of glaciogenic deposits. Since that time, Plum Island has been in a state of dynamic equilibrium with its non-glacial sediment sources and therefore can be largely considered to be in a stable, “post-paraglacial” state. This study is furthermore the first in the Gulf of Maine to show that spit accretion and inlet processes were the dominant mechanisms in barrier island formation and thus serves as a foundation for future investigations of barrier development in response to backbarrier infilling.
  • Article
    Shoreline dynamics along a developed river mouth barrier island: Multi-decadal cycles of erosion and event-driven mitigation
    (Frontiers Media, 2019-05-14) Hein, Christopher J. ; Fallon, Andrew R. ; Rosen, Peter ; Hoagland, Porter ; Georgiou, Ioannis Y. ; FitzGerald, Duncan M. ; Morris, Michael ; Baker, Sarah ; Marino, George B. ; Fitzsimons, Gregory
    Human modifications in response to erosion have altered the natural transport of sediment to and across the coastal zone, thereby potentially exacerbating the impacts of future erosive events. Using a combination of historical shoreline-change mapping, sediment sampling, three-dimensional beach surveys, and hydrodynamic modeling of nearshore and inlet processes, this study explored the feedbacks between periodic coastal erosion patterns and associated mitigation responses, focusing on the open-ocean and inner-inlet beaches of Plum Island and the Merrimack River Inlet, Massachusetts, United States. Installation of river-mouth jetties in the early 20th century stabilized the inlet, allowing residential development in northern Plum Island, but triggering successive, multi-decadal cycles of alternating beach erosion and accretion along the inner-inlet and oceanfront beaches. At a finer spatial scale, the formation and southerly migration of an erosion “hotspot” (a setback of the high-water line by ∼100 m) occurs regularly (every 25–40 years) in response to the refraction of northeast storm waves around the ebb-tidal delta. Growth of the delta progressively shifts the focus of storm wave energy further down-shore, replenishing updrift segments with sand through the detachment, landward migration, and shoreline-welding of swash bars. Monitoring recent hotspot migration (2008–2014) demonstrates erosion (>30,000 m3 of sand) along a 350-m section of beach in 6 months, followed by recovery, as the hotspot migrated further south. In response to these erosion cycles, local residents and governmental agencies attempted to protect shorefront properties with a variety of soft and hard structures. The latter have provided protection to some homes, but enhanced erosion elsewhere. Although the local community is in broad agreement about the need to plan for long-term coastal changes associated with sea-level rise and increased storminess, real-time responses have involved reactions mainly to short-term (<5 years) erosion threats. A collective consensus for sustainable management of this area is lacking and the development of a longer-term adaptive perspective needed for proper planning has been elusive. With a deepening understanding of multi-decadal coastal dynamics, including a characterization of the relative contributions of both nature and humans, we can be more optimistic that adaptations beyond mere reactions to shoreline change are achievable.