Possible Artificail Reef?

Chevron Reef AKA Pratte's Reef

Don't know anything about that particular artificial reef, but this is definitely an interesting read for you.

http://www.theaesthetic.com/NewFiles/prattes.html

Lotsa history on this on the Left Coast, directly involving Surfrider Foundation and had an impact on surfers.

 

bump. anyone know if this is happening?

 

I always thought that the govt should build some type of reef whether it be for fishing and or surfing for every beach replenishment they propose. But I guess that would make govt officials creative and forward thinking

 

My initial reaction is that of economics - it costs a lot less to dump rocks right off the beach than float them out into the ocean. Most tax payers aren't surfers so they don't care about the wave-creating aspects of a reef vs. jetty. And there are not many examples, no precedent, to illustrate that artificial reefs are better at protecting the beach (what tax payers DO care about) than jetty's. So we are stuck in a situation where money matters more than progress unfortunately.

 

There's no funding for it and since its a private company (ASR) you need a grant from an organization such as the SEA. Don't think the government would fund it, probably too "risky". I dunno. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I am aware, through a contact, that there has been research by coastal managment in new jersey about the benefits of a reef in coastal erosion management. Not sure if it will come into fruition or not, but I know it has been discussed.

I did a senior research paper on coastal erosion management, and it is pretty interesting to know how much money is spent, but of course it is a beneficial cost based on tourism dollars. There are certainly better approaches then others, for instance, sea walls can actually create more erosion rather then prevent it.

 

Pratte's Reef was a complete joke. When they first dropped the sandbags I swam out to check it and couldn't believe how small and close to shore it was. I have a hard time believeing that anyone who ever surfed thought that it would work.

 

The damage is done. Coastal development only goes one way... natural ecosystems like our dynamic shoreline are developed, and once developed, they're gone for ever. It never goes the other way... tearing up developments and re-establishing natural ecosystems. Due to dramatic and permanent development along the coastline, we have limited our options, and at this point we need to cut our losses. The best options, including reefs, are expensive and unpopular. The investments required would be huge, and there's no way we can be sure they will be effective until we make the leap and do it full on. Mini reefs do not serve as models for large scale reef systems, because when you scale the whole project up, different forces and dynamics begin to come into play.

Read Orrin Pilkey's work... his first research was a real eye-opener, and he was totally blasted by other, more short-sighted scientists and politicians with their own agendas. We're learning now that he was right.

 

I understand the artificial reef argument for surfer reasons, but the argument should be about banning construction of homes and mansions on the beach. Like making it 200 yards from the high tide mark. That would solve alot of problems, and wouldn't cost a dime. If a home within the zone is washed away you can't rebuild. This should take care of the problem in about 100 years.

Brigantine's (NJ) south end follows a similar rule, and they have never needed beach replenishment. whilst other nearby towns have spent millions in dredging and dumping sand, brigantine's south beaches have eroded very little.

 

You said it, Mook... Long Branch had the perfect opportunity to do the right thing, and blew it. They took all those properties along the beachfront and redeveloped them. They should have restored it to a natural state, extended it all the way up to 7 Prez, and focused the re-development on the other side of Ocean Ave... like down the Broadway Corridor. Instead, the Jerzification continues... when we could have been the perfect MODEL of FORWARD THINKING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT... of what to do, and how to do it. But we bunked it...

 

well said. I think for a lot of east coast barrier island communities, artificial reefs dont make much sense as an erosion control strategy. The root problem is we have miles of oceanfront development that is now located right where the beach wants to be (given rates of sea level rise), and a shortage of sand as natural processes have been blocked that would have normally fed sand into the beach systems. The problem is not the wave action that an artificial reef would block, the problem is proximity of development to the ocean. And since the budget of sand in the system is finite, any accumulation of beach in one location that a reef would provide, would most likely come at the expense of an adjacent section of beach.

 

I believe an artificial reef can be beneficial, with the right amount of $$$$ and the proper engineering.

Narrowneck Reef in Queensland, Australia is a perfect example, and may actually be the only successful example in the world. But it proves that it can be done. And, the surf at this artificial reef consistently fires....it's usually pretty crowded.

Google "Narrowneck Reef" or "Australia Artificial Reef" and see for yourself, it's an excellent read.

 

Pumping sand doesn't have to be a negative. It's rather the way the gov is utilizing the sand/money. Prime example would be the superbank. They need to continue to pump sand to keep this manmade break alive. BTW it was created in 2003 I believe. Similarly, South Straddie island is the same way. The banks are created by man made sand pumps. I don't mean to burst your bubble but this reef is not happening anytime soon. This has been in development for over 5 years with no movement plus LB is BROKE!!! And I don't mean debt, I mean BROOOOKE!!! They are getting rid of numerous public employees; so needless to say... It ain't happening anytime soon. Many other public redevlopment plans have been side tracked. (Ocean place hotel property was suppose to be redeveloped into new condos and a new hotel extending broadway to the beach). On the other hand, I was there last time for the sand pumping and you could tell just by the calibar of person working that they didnt care about the surfing aspect. There was a good 2 week period when it actually was a mini point but they filled it in b/c they aren't surfers. I would vote to remove all the jetties from Brighton to 7 prez and 'make' a headland out of the jetties. Then, pump sand to create a sand point. Also, it would block south winds . Bottom line is in places like Australia surfing is a respected national sport. It shows by their respect for the ocean and how they use development projects.

 

anyone know someone who lives on the beach or maybe less than one block? Get some money together and have a couple hundred tons of grapefruit sized rocks dumped in their driveway.

Tell everyone who paddles out to bring one with them and drop it in the middle of two jetties if you have them. Over the course of about a year you got yourself a reef, cheap.

No one from the town would even know it was happening since it's not illegal to take a rock out in the ocean with you and leave it there.

Or if sea levels rise the way all of the global warming people say they will, we'll have hundreds of reefs up and down the coast. The jetties.

 

I watched that project daily... even talked to the guys on site. What was planned, and what was executed, were different things. I was never convinced that the so-called "sand point" would ever really be established, but yea... for a while, there was a point. And it did fire for a couple swells. One in particular that was pretty amazing.

But then it was gone. And eventually, so was all the sand. But at least they didn't bury ALL the local breaks, like they had in the past. Funny thing was all that sand ended up in Monmouth Beach, the next town north. There was nothing but shorepound for about a year.