disturbing article in Press Journal

These people want to use public money to protect private homes while covering Vero's lovely nearshore reefs. :dollar: This is somethign the dive community needs to stand together on.
Rice :1poke:

Guest columnist: Beach renourishment and Frances' lessons

By Jonathan Gorham
September 25, 2004

On Sept. 4 and 5, the county's beaches were subjected to a storm surge of 7-8 feet and almost 10 hours of continuous hurricane force winds. On Sept. 10, I set out on a beach damage survey of the entire county to get a preliminary look at erosion damage.

The picture was grim. Every area of beach in the county experienced severe erosion from Hurricane Frances. The primary dune, the feature that protects the barrier island from storm surge, had been overwashed in many places, and the dune itself had eroded back from 10 to more than 40 feet.

Advertisement

There was one notable exception: the Ambersand neighborhood, where the Sectors 1&2 beach renourishment project was built in 2003. At Ambersand, there was no dune overwash. There was no wave damage to upland structures. No dune retreat at all, not even a single foot.

Before the beach renourishment project, the Ambersand area had a very high potential for catastrophic storm damage. For example, it was the only area in the county where a Category 3 hurricane storm surge was predicted to overwash the entire island.

It was for that reason the county chose to build its first beach renourishment project there. The Sectors 1&2 project added sand to 2 1/2 miles of shoreline, creating a beach that was 50-60 feet wider and 6 feet higher in elevation than what had existed before.

This widened and elevated beach is intended to blunt the erosive power of a major storm event. The Sectors 1&2 project performed exactly as it was intended to in Hurricane Frances, protecting the upland area from potentially many millions of dollars in storm damage.

Other areas in the county were not so lucky, as anyone who has been to the beach recently can attest. Erosion of the dune and damage to upland structures was severe in the city of Vero Beach, where the dune retreated up to 40 feet or more, destroyed the roadway and parking along Conn Beach and threatened large buildings with imminent collapse.

Damage was also severe in the area of the south county between the Sandpointe subdivision and The Moorings. Several homes were destroyed or heavily damaged by wave attack; others had their foundations undermined and are threatened with collapse. The dune system in this area was severely compromised, leaving the entire upland area terribly vulnerable to damage from a subsequent storm.

The real tragedy is that this didn't have to happen. Both the above areas are included in beach sectors the county has been trying to get renourished since 1999, and as the Sectors 1&2 project demonstrated so well, a properly designed beach renourishment project works. It protects the dune and upland property from damage.

The proposed projects in the city and the south county, called Sector 5 and Sector 7 in the County Beach Preservation Plan, have been mired in permitting bureaucracy for years. If those projects had been in place, I have no doubt that the substantial damage could have been prevented.

A particularly cruel irony is that the major issue holding up permitting was the potential these projects would have for covering up some of the nearshore limestone reef with sand. But Frances, in eroding millions of cubic yards of sand from Indian River County beaches, has undoubtedly just buried more acres of nearshore limestone reef than a hundred years of beach renourishment projects.

The lessons of Frances are clear: Beach renourishment works. And while we cannot prevent hurricanes, we do have the power to limit the coastal damage they can inflict. We need to push more vigorously than ever to fully implement these projects, and we need to demand that the responsible regulatory agencies act as partners, not barriers.

JONATHAN GORHAM is coastal resource manager for Indian River County. He holds a doctorate in marine biology from Florida Tech and previously managed the sea turtle conservation program at the St. Lucie nuclear power plant. :1poke:

Rice:

These people want to use public money to protect private homes while covering Vero's lovely nearshore reefs. :dollar: This is somethign(sic) the dive community needs to stand together on.
Rice :1poke:

Click to expand...

Hmmm... that's not the way I read it at all. The author's point is that the beach restoration project ultimately protects far more nearshore reef than it covers by preventing the far greater reef damage that occurs in a hurricane - so that objection becomes a red herring.
Let me guess... since the hurricane is a "natural" event it's ok for it to cover a bunch of reef, as opposed to a "human" event that covers less. (The covering and uncovering of nearshore limestone reef is natural and cyclical as barrier islands migrate inland, eventually becoming part of the mainland)
As for using public money to protect private homes, we do that all the time - there's the matter of the police, street lights, neighborhood paved streets, dams, levees... the list goes on and on. None of those projects benefit everyone equally - is that a reason to can them all? I suppose we can argue about it...
---
On the other hand, if you'd like to discuss the ultimate futility of trying to stabilize a moving barrier island then yes, on a geologic time scale, it's a waste of public funds. But for the typical life-span of any human endeavor it can be argued that it's worthwhile for the folks involved.
Bottom line? I don't think this is something divers need to oppose.
Rick

I agree with you, Rick, with the exception of the public service employess. The taxes that go toward police, fire, etc. protect all of the citizenry equally.
Public monies spent on the beach protection, if spent only for the protection of a certain sectioin of property, would be unequitable under the law.

Now, if these monies were spent for the protection of the reef and the community shoreline, that would be a different thing altogether.

Rick Murchison:

On the other hand, if you'd like to discuss the ultimate futility of trying to stabilize a moving barrier island then yes, on a geologic time scale, it's a waste of public funds. But for the typical life-span of any human endeavor it can be argued that it's worthwhile for the folks involved.
Bottom line? I don't think this is something divers need to oppose.

Click to expand...

Divers opposed, no, the community as a whole should evaluate where their monies are going and make that determination themselves. I'm living in an area where we've had some 7 feet of sand removed from out shores, and needless to say I'm smiling like fiend right now looking at all the buildings that have been approved for building on the beach side of the islands that I didn't think were supposed to be built. MANY of these structures are condemned now thanks to the high waves and tides which caused severe water and structural damage. The best part is, as a county, we are paying for their mess, clean up, and demolitions. Even for Sanibel's, the island that was supposed to be an ESTUARY but has more multimillion dollar homes on it than the rest of the county combined.

Now our county idiots are talking about 8-10 million in beach renourishment! I can think of 8-10 million other users for that money than renourishing the beaches that will shift up and down the coast line naturally anyway. The best part is this renourishment wont be able to be started until next May, to be completed just in time for, you guessed it, next HURRICANE SEASON!

I assumed that the problems with this would be obvious. I should have been more clear about my objections.

The author's point is that the beach restoration project ultimately protects far more nearshore reef than it covers by preventing the far greater reef damage that occurs in a hurricane - so that objection becomes a red herring.

I don't think it does. While I don't know your'e experience with nearshore reefs and renourishment projects, I think it's faulty to rely on the text of an article shilling for renourishment for quality talking points.
I've seen many "renourishment" projects along florida's east coast, I've also dived Vero Beach's reefs in additon to other shore dives here. These projects dump huge amounts of sand on a beach, like in St. Augestine where the fishing pier tip was only in the water at high tide, where does this sand go when a major storm blows up? it flows out, evening out the unnatural mound on the shoreline. Some of the projects I've seen would outright cover the first line of reef (maybe the second too) had they been implemented in Vero. These projects alo silt up the water for many miles around suffocating sessile marine organisms like corals adn sponges.

Let me guess... since the hurricane is a "natural" event it's ok for it to cover a bunch of reef, as opposed to a "human" event that covers less.

It's hard to say if it's OK or not, it just is. There's not alot you or I can do about it but I do know that pumping billions of pounds of sand from offshore onto the beach isn't a cure. At most it's a very temporary, expensive band-aid for a few rich homeowners that destroys nearshore habitats enjoyed by fishermen, divers and naturalists..

Bottom line? I don't think this is something divers need to oppose.
Rick

I disagree, but I wonder if you are actually advocating this or not. You seem to agree this is a waste of money in the long term. Are there any reasons divers should be for this? You only need one reason to oppose an issue like this, it's being a waste of money is as good as any.

Rice

The Kracken:

I agree with you, Rick, with the exception of the public service employess. The taxes that go toward police, fire, etc. protect all of the citizenry equally.

Click to expand...

This is a nit, but public monies spent on police and firemen, etc, are distributed unequally and unequally applied. I'll use a specific example to illustrate the point - in Montgomery County, Alabama, everyone in the county pays county taxes, and those taxes are used to pay the Sheriff's department. But if you live in the city and need police action, the sheriff isn't who shows up - it's the city police who do (and city taxes pay for it) - county residents get the sheriff, even though the bulk of the money that pays for it comes from residents in the city (where most of the people in the county live). So, the county residents who don't live in the city get their police subsidized by the city residents.
And so it goes...
As I say, it's a nit, and not worth any argument beyond realizing that in reality there is no "equality" anywhere in the application of public expenditures - someone will always benefit more than someone else, depending on specific circumstances (if I live closer to the fire house than you, I'll get better protection, all other things being equal).
Rick

Rice:

>snip<
I disagree, but I wonder if you are actually advocating this or not. You seem to agree this is a waste of money in the long term. Are there any reasons divers should be for this? You only need one reason to oppose an issue like this, it's being a waste of money is as good as any.

Rice

Click to expand...

If y'all were to make me king, I'd raize every structure on every barrier island from Maine to Mexico, and cart every bridge to 'em out to be dive sites in 80' of water.
---
Given that I ain't king, and that humans are going to build monstrosities on barrier islands and that the general economy is tied into 'em, I'm for reasonable efforts to stabilize property.
The big question is, of course, "who decides what's reasonable?"
Rick

Rick Murchison:

If y'all were to make me king, I'd raize every structure on every barrier island from Maine to Mexico, and cart every bridge to 'em out to be dive sites in 80' of water.
---
Given that I ain't king, and that humans are going to build monstrosities on barrier islands and that the general economy is tied into 'em, I'm for reasonable efforts to stabilize property.
The big question is, of course, "who decides what's reasonable?"
Rick

Click to expand...

You'd have my support, but since Kinghship isnt feasable, you also have my concurrance 100%.

that the State of Florida is concerned about protecting its cultural and maritime history by preventing the exploration and removal of artifacts from wreaks along this very coast. The Rio Mar wreak (1715 Silver Plate Fleet) is directly in front of sector 1 & 2 and were buried by the beach replenishment under 6 feet of sand in 1999. As a treasure hunter and license holder by the State to work these wreaks I see the State taking my money for permits while dumping sand over the cultural heritage, denying access to the very place I am permitted to explore. The coastline is a living entity in constant flux. Buildings permitted to encroach on the shoreline in a less enlightened time are being removed by nature and should not be replaced. Shoreline replenishment is at best a stopgap measure, and at worst a waste of natural resources. I do oppose beach replenishment. Sand is a barren wasteland. The reef while only limestone has a vibrant aquatic community. A reef under sand has next to no aquatic community. As a former property holder in Vero Beach I have witness countless attempts over the past 20 years to “stabilize” the beach at the JC Park and walkway, and the Rio Mar area. None have worked for long in the past, and I venture to say, none will work in the long term.

Sand is a barren wasteland.

I used to agree with this. Then I started surf fishing. Turns out there's lots of life there: glowing sammon, coquina clams, sand fleas, crabs, starfish, sand dollars, baitfish, whiting, catfish, sharks, pompano, redfish and many others.
What's really stunning is the difference in life between a "replenished" beach and a natural one like Washington Oaks or Guana River.
Like any patch of reef we dive, There's alot to see if you take th time to look.

Rice