They can do replenishment without destroying surf breaks and creating dangerous shore pounds. Depends on the sand grain used and not taking sand from a sand bar obviously! Everyone knows that. The army corps sole purpose is property protection for home owners of ocean front properties(from things as simple as tides during a normal nor'easter). Built way to close to shore. They don't care about anything else unfortunately. It wouldn't be hard to preserve the surf breaks and still do the replenishing. Shore pound also means when there's a storm....waves break close to shore causing more damage rather than a proper sand bar causing waves to break farther out! DUH!)
That being said, we shouldn't even need to do replenishment. Let nature do what it does naturally. Unfortunately, as has been discussed, we've built way too close too the shore. Also, people start *****ing if their beach is low on sand not realizing that it will come back and that's the natural cycle assuming we hadn't built so close to shore and built all these hard structures that rob away sand from other area's.
Beach retention is probably on everyone's short list, when they don't have homes to go back to. But there is some logic to fixing this issue, before rebuilding those homes. How can they defend putting back infrastructure in places that have been compromised, even places where the ocean has broken through (like in BayHead)!
It seems like it is a point where, if they are going to do the work, we might have a voice in convincing them to do it right!
Monmouth Beach club absolutely fared better than some locations due to beach replenishment. They were recently filled in again with sand pumping.
Bradley Beach dunes (which were built by ACOE and huge) saved much of their boardwalk. When you compare the damage in Bradley to Belmar (which had ridiculous dunes for show) the difference is amazing.
I've cursed ACOE since the first sand pumping..but it appeared it saved some areas during Sandy.
I think the worst thing these towns can do though is push all the sand up from the water to create those dinky little sand berms before a storm. They are making a slope for the water to come even higher up the beach by flattening the beach.
However, in some places there was nothing short of the great wall of China that could have stopped the surge from Sandy....just asked Sea Bright. That rock wall did next to nothing for them.
Not to get off topic, but I believe that the need for beach replenishment, in the manner that it's conducted currently, would be much less of a concern if we created artificial reefs made of rock off our coastlines. The reef would cause big waves to break further away from shore, thus limiting the damage of all that power erupting right on the beach and washing sand away. The following is from an article I found online:
Natural reefs reduce coastal erosion by slowing down waves as they head towards the shore. Artificial reefs can perform the same function, whether built to replace damaged natural formations or as completely new structures. Artificial reefs built primarily of rock play a key role in combating sand dune erosion.
it's not too extensive but helps to convey the point of my post-->http://www.ehow.com/list_7601486_pos...ial-reefs.html
Granted, there will be costs associated with moving boulders and dumping them offshore, and it will probably never happen, but it would be great if the powers that be could start talking about sound ideas before contemplating on sea walls, which would do more harm than good.
there's not much we can do. these are ever evolving landscapes. anything we do causes an adverse affect down the beach. when untouched these places have there own way of fixing themselves but when we need to keep inlets open and dredged it screws everything up. there really are no solutions. we can try and try but its a losing battle. i say we cut our losses but we are probably already in too deep :/. So far ive heard that beach nourishment and dune rehabilitation are the best ways to keep a healthy coastline any permanent structure cause erosion down the way.
On NPR last night, they were talking about using oyster reefs to prevent beach erosion and minimize wave energy during storms. Oysters can actually create reefs in cold water the same way that coral does in warmer climates. In areas like the Chesapeake Bay they say that they can actually reach the surface given the correct conditions. New York City harbor actually held one of the world's greatest concentrations of oyster beds until we built Manhattan on them. What they were saying last night is that we could provide man-made structures (such as a bed of rocks or nets) for the oysters to grow on (because they have trouble growing in shifting silty conditions). Unlike twenty years ago, the water is clean enough for them to grow in places like NYC. I guess NJ had some going on (I forget where) but Christie was concerned about people eating them (the water's not that clean) so he had them removed. Anyways, my point is that we have to start thinking out of the box and looking for long-term solutions.
I can’t agree with you more. We let the civil engineers have there shot and they fell on there face. If we are going to battle with Mother Nature we have to play by her rules. Nature uses reefs to protect sand covered coastline all over the world. The placement of reefs or sunken sea wall would create habitat for marine wildlife, provide calm waters for beach goers to cool themselves off in, protect from sand movement, also if they collaborated with surfer in there creation make world class surf breaks with channels and promote tourism. The only draw back that i can see is the increase in wildlife will bring in more of the larger predators.