Has anyone checked out the North End? I feel bad for the residents - shout out to CBSCREWBY - who have no beach whatsoever & broken beach accesses. I'm down for other methods, but nourishment has to continue in order to keep our beaches intact.
It's not just for the tourists & trust me, it's not the city intentionally messing with our breaks - it's for the economy & future of our small beach community.
Incidentally...
Pretty crazy about ASR's reef in Bournemouth, UK. $6million spent to build it and closed in two years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...he-public.html
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new..._3m_surf_reef/
Last edited by mitchell; Mar 18, 2013 at 03:51 PM.
Artificial reefs are always better than beach replenishment alone, when done correctly. The one in Bournemouth was not exactly done correctly.Originally Posted by mitchell
How was it done incorrectly? (Other than the fact that it didnt have the desired outcome)
How was Pratte's Reef (the one in California that failed) done incorrectly?
Just curious. I have a theory on why they didnt work...but its not based on any real first hand knowledge.
the one point I want to bring up about hurricane sandy is that the flooding was not due to waves breaking on the shoreline. the problem was the surge or the displacement of water brought on by the pressure the incredibly large storm that sandy was. Its best explained as a large head broom being pushed through a puddle.
the waves only acted to break the walls, but walls or not, the water was going to come up over the land.
so, an artificial reef would have done zero to prevent the surge.
According to the articles I have read, ASR never even met the initial requirements. I am also not a fan of the sand bag type structure. I have always thought concrete and rock was better for long term goals. The best way to do it, is through a coral seeding program. That allows you to build a starter reef, then promote natural coral growth on the artificial base. However, that method is like $100 million. I still think it is better than moving sand for $10 million every few years. Of course, the best solution would be to eliminate land development right on the water in areas prone to erosion. I have watched them try and fail to restore the beaches here in Charleston for years. Time to try something else, because your sand is gone before you have even paid for the project.
There is no way to stop erosion and flooding from severe storm surge, though reefs can reduce some of the power. You can't always stop nature. However, most of the islands down in the south here are severely effected by hurricane swell and currents. I am not saying that beach replenishment should never be performed. I just think artificial reefs should be used as the initial line of defense.
Yeah...I agree. My gut feeling is that placing a reef constructed of sandfilled bags on a sand bottom is asking for trouble in high energy settings. The scour effects around the bases of the bags during severe storms must be almost impossible to design for.
they've been thinking about a reef for New Jersey.... but awaiting for funding. lol
http://www.asrltd.com/projects/new-jersey.php
At least it is being discussed. I would be ecstatic to hear something like that in the works for our area. Instead, they are going to allow the Kiawah development assholes to place 50 homes on a patch of land that won't be there after the next decent storm. They will even build a road across a very thin strip of land, which will end up costing tax payers big bucks to repair after it washes out.
http://www.postandcourier.com/articl...m-x2019-s-spit
http://coastalconservationleague.org...head-proposal/
Reply With Quote
