LOGIN | REGISTER

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Point
    Posts
    267
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by DrBill View Post
    Bottom line- regular renourishment is NOT a sustainable coastal management strategy. It is intended to protect property, very expensive property I might add. I dare say most folks cannot afford to buy in Monmouth Beach.
    Ironically there are still many NO Trespassing signs on stairways over the seawall. What is the benefit for the
    99% I wonder? Retreat is also a reasonable coastal management tool. Seema that in NJ we never even consider that one.
    Retreat? Do you really think that is reasonable or even remotely possible in New Jersey? Where do you suggest they all go? We are too densely populated for this to even be feasible. Unfortunately, poor decisions were made with the placement of developments and infrastructure in the early and mid 1900's but there was no foresight and very little regulations back then and we have to live with these decisions, esp since many bear the source of revenue for municipalities in the form of taxes and profit from businesses, etc for private owners which results in tax revenue as well. Remove the few towns that get the fed funding and 'restrict' access from the equation for a moment and look at towns like AC, Ocean City, Avalon, Stone Harbor, Cape May to name a few, and the money spent to place sand to provide a buffer that protects the boardwalks and businesses on and adjacent to the boards and to provide blanket space and it is easily justified. Access is promoted and available, and parking is abundant (for the most part) justifying the dollars spent a little more. I completely understand that the lack unrestricted 365 day a year public access in certain areas is frustrating; very frustrating. I can't and won't defend that one; I have no way to. But there are plenty of municipalities that comply with or exceed the requirements; by a lot in many cases. And I will tell you, IMO, that if we are going to continue to allow shore protection, placement of sand is the most natural and sustainable way to do it. Erosion is a result of the disruption or elimination of sediment in the littoral system. Yes, this disruption is caused in many cases by the hardened structures (seawalls, jetties, groins, homes, other buildings, etc) that were intended to protect development, but replacing or recycling (as in the case of Cape May backpassing) the sediment in the system is the most natural way to do it. Could it be done where there are less impacts on recreational value...sure, but as I stated in my earlier post thinking outside the box is becoming more and more common and attempts are being made. Thanks for your thoughts..

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    3 hrs. from sand
    Posts
    52
    As much as I dislike the whole notion of the beach replenishment and the unnatural state in which it leaves the beaches, I have to admit that the points I just heard defending it are pretty strong. I think the main problem I have with the concept is what I've seen as a result of it down here in maryland. In oc in particular, in the fresh cubic yards of sand may temporarily protect real estate and infrastructure, but the unnatural slope of the beach beneath the waterline has become downright dangerous to everyone, probably the least to us surfers. We are at least fairly cognizant of the tides and potential shallow areas or sudden drop-offs, crazy currents, and amount of power in the water in the form or period, but 99% of those tourists have no idea what they are walking into. I have seen countless folks swilling bud lite limes at 10 am while their toddlers are getting drilled into the sand by 4-foot shore break, and cringed. And though I get mad seeing it, I also have a bit of understanding of where they're often coming from. They haven't been off for a week in a year (bliss) they are from Ohio and the beach is a complete novelty to them (more bliss) and they are half drunk (more bliss yet...so am I when I'm on vacation!!). We've even had some pretty serious surfer incidents that I would attribute to the shape of the beach...and we *sort of* know what's out there. Now consider all those naive masses of inlanders who are not familiar with the beach, and worse yet, their innocent little kids. My point is, the beach replenishment's main caveat is that it creates unsafe beaches. This is completely aside from the fact probably most relevant to us... it ruins breaks.

    So...I think what might be a focus in the future is to create more dialogue to local governments pushing this practice about how it can possibly be engineered in a manner that makes a more naturally-sloped bottom contour under the water. That is a worthy goal that accomplishes three things at once: 1) Real estate is saved (even though it's ridiculousy expensive, and I have to wonder just how cost-effective) 2) Tourists, swimmers, and surfers are safer in the water due to less shore pound, and 3) we don't lose surf breaks (like what happened to Harvey Cedars recently). Win-win-win.
    Last edited by tubesock; Nov 17, 2011 at 03:13 AM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Point
    Posts
    267
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by LBCrew View Post
    Lumpy... so all the newspapers and bloggers have got it wrong about the Cape May project? Everything I've heard reported in the media has the price higher and volume lower than you state. And if it's "more efficient," why does it cost more per cubic yard? Can you clarify?

    Were you at the meeting Monday?

    What's your relationship to the project, and why hasn't the media been given accurate information? Your numbers would be "easier on the eyes" to those seeking the facts...

    http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/n...cc4c002e0.html

    http://www.dredgingtoday.com/2011/11...ts-this-month/

    ... and there are many other sources... some of them with conflicting information.

    To me, "pretty clean" raises an eyebrow... Not pointing a finger at you, but as a former journalist and newspaper editor with a Social Strategies for Environmental Protection certificate from Rutgers, but moreover, a responsible citizen, my brain is wired to ask questions, and question answers.

    The Long Branch "point" project was a failure on some levels but a success on others. I give credit to the surfers and activists who made that project what it was. But I am "incensed" (and if you are who I think you are, you know who I am now, too) that those same people berated me for being vocally critical about the implementation of the project when it was underway. And I said what I said then, and am saying what I say now, because the point I'm attempting to make is that it is up to US... meaning YOU and ME, and everyone else who pays taxes... to make sure we are getting what we are paying for.
    I will not say that they are lying or wrong about about their posts because I haven't seen them, but maybe they were misinformed or are using the misquotes as their guidance. I would like to see them. The article had it wrong slightly, and I believe that the $13 million value quoted was a mixed up with the government estimate that was used when preparing the project originally. The original estimate was $13 million but because the contractor is using the fixed hydraulic dredge instead of the hopper dredge, the bids came back much lower than the estimate ( https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=1eadc910 aabadf379f62735786023ee8&_cview=0 ) and the original quantity in the estimate was 440k cubic yards but the amount of erosion at the Coast Guard base increased due to continue erosion from storms since the project plans were developed, that additional options that were on the bid were awarded to compensate for the loss of sediment. And receiving the lower bid left more $$ on the table to make this possible (since the estimate was higher). Some of these numbers are on this link I provided..

    And yes, I was at the meeting Monday in CM and I know the people who were at the meeting last week in MB...that's how I know the numbers. These numbers are the numbers from the presentations, and were and are available to the press. In fact some of the press spoke to the presenters, just not Rich Degener. I am sure that they would confirm this and provide the info if asked. The Dredging Today link got its info from the Press of AC, hence a continuation of the conflicting info. As you should know, I am assuming, reporters can piecemeal a story together that doesn't always represent the facts or the story in its entirety either. This seems to be the case with Rich's article...

    I am pretty sure, that sediments possessing 90% or higher sand can not physically hold chemical contaminants, and the physical process of pumping sand washes out the fine grained material that remains pretty efficiently and on top of that, the quantity of water pumped in the slurry adds to dilute and further wash out the fines. This is why material under 90% percent sand is required to be tested for chemicals.

    The 'point' was a 50/50...they realized what could and couldn't be done give the amount money available, the methodology of the sand placement, the bathymetric conditions that existed, and the weather that existed while doing it. But eyes were opened, that under the right conditions, some success can be achieved without the use of significant hard structures (in the right conditions) to enhance the recreational value while maintaining and even enhancing shore protection for the project area and the downdrift areas (which was both north and south of the point, but mostly north of it). And also, utilizing existing hard structures to maintain the sand on proposed wave break feature could work as well (in the right conditions).

    I think I may know who this is now...I think...either way we should talk one day.....

    Cheers....

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    East Coaster
    Posts
    167
    This may be controversial as I am asking for "surf spots" or maybe just a general area. But with Monmouth Beach looking like its going to suck for god knows how long. What other areas around Monmouth County (close to MB)that arent getting trashed with sand replenishment will still be working???

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Monmouth Beach, NJ
    Posts
    2,430
    Lumpy... Thank you for taking the time to provide us with your insight.

    Yes, we're stuck, for now, in the vicious cycle of eternal sand replenishment. The damage has been done. But we don't have to keep pushing the same rock up the hill, over and over, into infinity. The time to think out of the box has passed... we need to get out of the box physically. If they're doing it in the Underdeveloped World, they can be doing it here...

    http://vimeo.com/11342814

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    long branch
    Posts
    224
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by LBCrew View Post
    Lumpy... Thank you for taking the time to provide us with your insight.

    Yes, we're stuck, for now, in the vicious cycle of eternal sand replenishment. The damage has been done. But we don't have to keep pushing the same rock up the hill, over and over, into infinity. The time to think out of the box has passed... we need to get out of the box physically. If they're doing it in the Underdeveloped World, they can be doing it here...

    http://vimeo.com/11342814
    they won't build a reef because since the rich people won't see the beach physically getting bigger they're gonna think that they're out there just wasting money. and the other times they tried it got messed up, but that's because they did it wrong

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MonCo NJ
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
    Retreat? Do you really think that is reasonable or even remotely possible in New Jersey? Where do you suggest they all go? We are too densely populated for this to even be feasible.


    I completely understand that the lack unrestricted 365 day a year public access in certain areas is frustrating; very frustrating. I can't and won't defend that one; I have no way to.

    Retreat is very feasible in many areas. How many of those beach front house do you think have people living in them year round. How many are second houses. Our states real population density is not near the beach. People flock to the beach 3 months a year. As long as access to the beach is maintained for tourism, the loss of beach front houses will go mostly unnoticed. Erosion will occur slowly over time. It's not like suddenly thousands of people will be without homes. However, there definitely are some developed areas that can and should justifiably be protected.

    Zero tax dollars should be spent to pump sand onto beaches in front of beach clubs. It's sickening what those clubs get away with during the summer. Let them pay for it with their $20k cabana memberships or let the ocean tear them down. Or better yet, force the towns to allow access for all then pump all you want.

    I'm with LBCrew on this. They need to think out of the box. There are other potential options out there that are more permanent and don't create hazardous conditions in the shorebreak. A multi-million dollar tax payer funded band-aid for beach that doesn't have public access is just insane. In the very least they should be researching ways to pump a more gradual sloping grade.

    An example of smart sand pumping that works for the sun bather, the land owner, the boater, and the surfer:
    http://www.snapperrocks.com/history.htm

  8. #28
    I never put much thought into this subject, but after the posts and especially that video I'm interested.

    This year is lost, but maybe focusing energy towards next winters location for pumping and working during the late spring and summer to bring awereness of the artificial reef to the masses will have a positive outcome. There would be no better time to get peoples attention then when bathers are breaking their necks in the surf( and blaming it on sand pumping instead of bud limes and inlandness would prove benificial for the cause) . I haven't researched anything on the subject or am informed aside from this thread and that video, so I can't argue any points, but it looks like an artificial reef would( correct me if Im wrong):
    -Save money in the long term
    -Protect the beach from erosion and protect real estate
    -waves
    -Benefit marine wildlife
    -waves
    - Make the area where kids and wierd adults play safer(less broken necks)

    In addition, if recycled material was used that otherwise has no purpose(like metal and things that are just rotting away in junkyards) that would be another plus, and the operation would certainly create jobs( transportation of materials, labor, etc.) All it will take is one town to save millions or create something that works and benefits multiple people and others will have to follow suit.

  9. #29
    Is the difference between the overall costs and the cost to the towns because the the damage to the beaches occured during a storm and therefore the costs to the towns are offset by federal disaster relief funds? I know the breach at whale beach and strathmere's north point are being particially funded by fed $ and is to start sometime in the next week or 2.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Point
    Posts
    267
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Harhar View Post
    Is the difference between the overall costs and the cost to the towns because the the damage to the beaches occured during a storm and therefore the costs to the towns are offset by federal disaster relief funds? I know the breach at whale beach and strathmere's north point are being particially funded by fed $ and is to start sometime in the next week or 2.

    The federal disaster funds is a whole other ball of wax. FEMA is paying for 75% of the costs of the losses due to the Nor-Ida storm in '09 and the subsequent noreasters that followed thereafter; they and a few other communities only qualified for this because they spent the money previously to provide shore protection in the form of a beach nourishment project, and dedicated time and money to assure that shore protection procedures/methods were in place. Not just any beach was eligible but only the ones that made a concerted effort to protect property and infrastructure and made it part of their overall plan of action.
    But in general ( http://www.nj.gov/dep/shoreprotection/nourishment.htm ):
    "Depending on the purpose and location of the project, for federal beachfill projects, the federal government contributes 65% of the project cost while the remaining 35% is divided into a cost-share, with the state contributing 75% and the local governments contributing the remaining 25%. Non-federal beachfill projects are funded through a state/local cost-share, with the state contributing 75% and the local governments contributing 25%." But in the case of Cape May City, the fed/state share is 90%/10% and then that 10% is then split 75% state/25% local...that's why Cape May's share was so low, as I mentioned earlier.