[[/QUOTE]QUOTE=stinkbug;196778]This is very good information and yes, the ACOE has been evaluating other sloping methods from what I have read.
Do you work for Surfrider? I am surprised they are not trying to influence ACOE and the stakeholders with this type of information. From what I have seen of other beach fill projects in NJ, there is little if any sloping occuring. Monmouth Beach is current a massive berm which drops straight down to the ocean, in deep water and plunging (unsurfable) waves. A slope technique would at least save some breaks from this fate.
Basically Surfrider Jersey Shore sent out a mass email basically saying sand pumping was coming, there's nothing we can do, and please document how bad it will mess up your beach. That's a pretty pathetic response for nationally recognized group in my opnion.
Also, the current beach fill plans for Monmouth County involved a borrow area which is uncomfortably close to the Historic Area Remediation Sites (HARS). I think it is literally within a mile of that area. As far as I know no testing for any HARS related contaminants has been done from the soil cores they completed in the borrow area.
So basically the public is at potential risk of contaminated HARS sediments being used as beach fill sands. The silence on this issue from Surfrider is deafening.
As far as grain size goes, I've never seen a beach project use anything less than coarse sands around here. In fact, Monmouth beach even has a high gravel content which further exacerbates erosion (and makes for a disgusting looking beach I might add).
Lastly, this is nothing like the original beach fill which they did in the late 90s and early 2000s. The budgets are much higher, and the quantity of sand is much more. I could literally see this shutting down every break in Monmouth County when it's all over.
Thanks for posting as worth sharing with others to gain perspective of possible involvement in these projects. The lost opportunity from last weeks Army Corp meeting to seek the "Bore" sample data of sand size that should have been previously taken of sand mining sites. Just an FYI for others, a Bore (rod) driven into the sand bottom and sent to Lab for Sieve testing of sand to determine grain size. The Corp and Contractor will have this data so would have been question # 1. If their answer is medium/course sand then leads into question # 2 why are you using course sand when finer sand has been well documented conducive to improving surf zone. I confident the Army Corp as well as Coastal Engineers for the State of NJ have mapped mining sites so they have a good idea of sand size for chosen sites. We share the blame for using courser sand as they have not been challenged to use finer material. I believe the contractors charge the Corp. for the distance from shore they dredge including amount of cubic yards. I've been told the rate of Off-Shore dredging can cost $21 - $25 cubic yard. If the finer sand sites are in the same general area then why are they choosing course sand with gravel?
You can seek the sand samplings data from the Army Corp. Project Manager as well as sampling data the contractor will perform throughout the scope of the project. The very least you'll have a good idea of how the project will perform from past practices.
I'm just a member of our Surfrider Chapter; they are actively involved in improving surfing recreation of our current Army Corp. replenishment project, just sharing some insight from my own experiences. These comments are my own and no hidden agenda. I hope in the future if any State in the Mid-Atlantic does find some success to maintain/restore surfability of replenishment projects that progress can shared through out the region.
As more people like yourself take on an active role to contribute we can only hope a more favorable outcome from these projects will follow.......................