I feel the same way as most of you in regs to beach replenishment, beach badge fees... I hate beach replenishment and always question where, why, and how Why did Squan get murdered so bad......is it because ACOE built jetties then decided to push sand overtop of the jetties and create a horrible shorebreak. There is a huge drop off on most beaches in squan and the jetties were barely visible. I understand the amount of water the pushes thru the inlet is massive, but I cant help but think if there wasn't so much foreign sand would the water have some up so far carrying so much of the sand with it. Would the jetties have helped stop the flow of water. Could the piling on of sand where it wasn't suppose to be have caused the people on 1st AVE to have 6 feet of sand in the living room. How bout monmouth beach...they replenished last year and destroyed all the breaks around the beach club...rip slants. When i drove thru LB last week they took it hard but right at URsula plaza going into MB the sand completely covered everything......I find it hard to believe that wasn't all the sand they just replenished. Is there any proof replenishment works at all. What does it work to do? That money could have been put into an FEMA style account to be used to rebuild instead of being wasted (we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars). It makes the waves break hard on the sand and rush up the bank then dangerously back down the bank into the atlantic making swimming dangerous and pretty much off limits to children. I would assume it helped protected the beaches on the ocean, but it seems the replenished beaches actually did worse than other areas. Now those beach towns have to clean up the sand out of their streets and homes and the cost of ?????? There has to be a better way...look at Kirra...they involved surfers in the replenishment and basically have an on/off switch on the replenishment starting at the tip of the point....not building it up at the dunes and pushing it towards the water...
I honestly read the 14 pages of the "other post" and it seemed like a close discussion between 3 or 4 people. I'm been out of power, have 2 kids, and work for an insurance company talking directly to people who lost personal property and structure....I've had a lot on my mind and didnt want to be buried on page 14. I thought I made some good points....sorry if it sounds redundant.....I think it's a discussion worthy of many threads. I love Squan. I love the Hook. I love Holgate....I don't want these things to happen again....sorry for the poor forum etiquette. Superfish your wise words from the other post were not wasted on me. Keep it positive This thread is about sand ...not seawalls and drainage....simply sand did replenished beaches do worse or better than non replenished beaches? was there more sand washed inland due to the beach buildup from replenishment?
In the case of Slants in MB they went a little overboard with replenishment. It went from about 5 yards of sand to over 100 yards after replen. It's hard to say what would have happened if that sand would not have been there, the sea wall may have taken more damage. I agree, though, it's obvious where all the sand in the streets came from. So much time and money wasted moving sand around, Mother Nature will always come and move it back to where she wants it.
Was thinking about this same issue the other day... Maybe the next issue will be, "who's sand is it?" Does the sand belong to the people who paid for it? The town? The property owners? When they push all that sand back onto the beaches, where will it go? Who decides? I think these are important questions. The last replenishment went from in front of private homes about half way between Little Monmouth and the Pipe at the MB/LB line, up to an area in front of private homes north of the towers. That was the first phase of the project. The second phase, set to start soon, will extend that effort further north... from in front of the towers up into Sea Bright. Guys in SEA were working hard with the project planners to save the break at Big Monmouth, and were actually getting somewhere, for the first time. Where that project stands now... I don't know.
There is no direct answer to your question because of the variability in the coast line, and the variability of long shore and littoral drifts, and the amount of weathering experienced from town town. That said, I got to see first hand in Harvey Cedars where there was a replenishment done just two years ago. Now half of the dune that was built up has been washed/eroded away. However, the beaches are still of ample size and I think as a whole the town fared much better than the town directly to the south (where there has been no recent replenishment). Again, to answer the question is difficult because who is to say that the storm erosion wasn't just stronger in the town to the south then it was in Harvey Cedars? It very well could have been. However, as far as the jetties and groins go, it has been shown that they do work to increase erosional rates compared to no jetty at all. At any rate, I would be first to complain that the replenishment destroyed some great breaks two years ago. However, I am much more thankful for the fact that we still have a beach to go to and the ocean side block was not destroyed. So IMO, can sand stop mother nature....of course not, but can it slow erosion, protect property, and portend beaches of adequate size....I think in one town it did.
I'm no engineer, but common sense tells me that if sand is replenished without a way to retain it, then any type of storm/current is going to move it where it wants. If they want to put 100 yards of sand (like they did in Sandy Hook), then why not build a way to retain it? Extend the beach, then build new jetties at the end to keep the sand there. That would make everyone happy (building new surf breaks), and would probably work???
Gumbya55... that's EXACTLY what many are lobbying for right now. Current beach replenishment methods are outdated, inefficient, and very short term solutions to very long term problems. Current research and informed experts are saying that effective shoreline protection requires a combination of sand replenishment and hard structures. The damage is done... we've developed the coastline in areas where we shouldn't have. We can't go back. The challenge now is to engineer better methods of shoreline protection, and learn from our mistakes made in the past.
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.
Without that replenishment, Harvey Cedars would have had a very deep inlet formed during Sandy. Its amazing that some of the jetties near capemay ave are still covered by sand...damn!
It seems as though this is a great opportunity for "change" to occur in the engineering. These towns are hurting, throwing sand that's on the streets back on the beach in piles and pushing it around. This is fine for short term protection from moderate high tides, but everyone knows one more winter storm and that sand is gone. 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: "Reduced Erosion 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_positive-effects-artificial-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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster_Reef_Restoration
Koki Barrels, 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.
