Harvey Cedars still hasn't recovered from pumping last winter. I have a feeling it will take more than a couple storms, but I hope I'm wrong...
Insanity is repeating the same thing over on over and expecting different results. You you think the Army Core of Engineers would come up with an artificial reef design that would work, or is that too much for them?
They are about to pump the north half of Brant Beach, ending at 57th street. I'm sure the rest of Long Beach Township will follow shortly. These breaks weren't premier but they were certainly rideable and kept the crowds thinner elsewhere on the island. LBI is really starting to lose its appeal as a surf break with the loss of Cedars and now much of Long Beach Township. I'm curious to see if it affects local business.
But if they did that, they'd put themselves out of business. The insanity will continue as long as it is profitable...
Surfers do not add a whole lot to the local economy (that is why the govt just laughs at us when we complain about their projects destroying our breaks). Hope for an active NorEaster season...we are due, I really miss my old Cedar breaks.
$13 million 800,000 cubic yards of sand (vs. 4.6 million in 94) 9 feet high (same as 94) 100 feet wide (same) Weeks Marine of Cranford, NJ will do the work (same) "Borrow Area" (appropriately named, as the sand will surely make it's way back there) off Sandy Hook, where it will be sucked off the bottom and into a barge, then shipped down to MB, and pumped back onto the beach 45 pumping days; 4 months of work, total And if that sounds crazy to you, in Cape May, a different contractor is expected to get nearly the same amount of money ($12 million) for moving about half the amount of sand (440,000 cubic yards) next month in a replenishment project there. I guess they're getting ripped off.
I've always wondered what sense it makes to pump the sand just as we head into the winter. A good winter noreaster will remove more sand than most other storms I imagine. Wouldn't it make more sense to pump at the end of winter/early spring....
I always figured they did it so the locals would have the winter to find all the sh** they dredge up. But I think they do it cause the water is warmer in the fall.
Close... They do it during the winter for two reasons: There are no tourist dollars to be made, and the muck that's stirred up, along with any toxins released by the dredging/pumping process, "won't affect anybody." Yea... that's a verbatim quote. I guess that makes us 12-month surfers "nobodies." Just goes to prove, once again, they don't care about our health and safety. They only care about liability and MONEY (which are really the same thing in the end). That's the same mentality that keeps us out of the water during a hurricane swell when the beaches are red flagged and swimmers are not allowed, yet the other 9 months out of the year they don't give a lick who drowns.
Clarifing the 'Facts" Overall Monmouth Beach: $12,913,250.00 Cost to Monmouth Beach: $1,129,909.375 Monmouth Beach Volume: 800,000 cubic yards of sand from the offshore borrow area off of Sandy Hook. To be clear, while much of fill template is the same 9 feet by 100 feet, a section has been modified to extend further seaward and another section has been modified to allow for more exposure of a groin, both in an attempt to offset potential impacts to recreational value. And to clarify the "toxin" comments: sediment that is a 90% to 95% composed of sand, is physically unable to retain toxins. And while its possible that this 5% or 10% is 'muddier' or finer than sand, it is pretty clean. (One should worry more about what is spewing from the outfall pipes and the lakes, which we all so love to ride by. Overall Cape May project: $9,075,500.00 Cost to Cape May City: $30,887.50 Cape May Coast Guard Base volume: 620,000 cubic yards of sand from the offshore borrow area (3.40 miles off the inlet) Cape May City volume: 70,000 cubic yards being placed at Poverty and is being borrowed from the large beaches to the west that have accreted (To make larger or greater, as by increased growth) from the sand that has eroded over the years from the Coast Guard beaches, and is being backpassed up the beach to Poverty. This backpassing is being done to reuse the excess sand already in the system to add sand at Poverty, and to attempt to flatten the slope and lessen the potential dangers that a steep beach face can pose to swimmers/surfers on some of the beaches to the west. The price tags are different because they are using two different methodologies from obtaining the sand from the offshore borrow areas (Hopper Dredge with trailing suction arms in MB- less efficient but easier to use for the long distance borrow areas vs. the Fixed Hydraulic Cutterhead in Cape May- more efficient, esp over shorter distances) The reasons why it is done in the fall/winter: Environmental!! They are required by the regulatory agencies to minimize the impacts to piping plover, least terns, and black skimmers and their habitats. Believe me, the contractors and the Corps would prefer to renourish beaches in the summer: production is better thus the price tag would be better, and calm climatic conditions in the summer allow for better beach building/stabilizing giving the beaches an opportunity to 'dewater' and settle into place. Plus, now they are obligated to screen the intake and discharge pipes, lessening the chances of dealing with "finding all the sh** they dredge up". Believe me, you have surfers working for you now...Trust me on that The officials don't laugh at surfers anymore...especially rationale ones. Unfortunately, there is a federal process in most cases and it takes time to work these new ideas into effect, esp since the projects and their designs' have been authorized by congress; so proving them and changing them is not an easy thing. But they are changing...the attempt at a 'point' in Long Branch in '09, and these modifications in MB and the methodology in Cape May now are all examples. And while many breaks have changed do to nourishment/Corps involvement, some has been positive and some people are working to increase this positive.
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.
@Lumpy, thanks for the info. How do you know so much? We need more rational surfers. Check that, we need more of the current surfers to become rational.
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/...cle_2feb9f54-b5a9-11e0-aebb-001cc4c002e0.html http://www.dredgingtoday.com/2011/11/14/usa-cape-may-beach-replenishment-starts-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.
