OrtleyBeach35

Beach replineshment, the good, the bad, the ugly

88 posts in this topic

IMO.....sooner or later someone with some brains will put a halt to the $$$$ funding and do it right...Once....or maybe the south end will disappear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 mins ago, Mr. Bigdeal said:

IMO.....sooner or later someone with some brains will put a halt to the $$$$ funding and do it right...Once....or maybe the south end will disappear.

I disagree. We've had this same thought process for the past 25+ years and were still burried above are heads with silt and pumped sand. IMO we need to assess each party and specimen that is affected by the sand pumping. Off the top of my head: Fisherman, Surfers, people Driving on the beach, boaters (sandy hook), shell fish and therefor the food chain up to striped bass, dolphins, and whales.

 

The list could be 10 pages long with a desciption of how each is affected.

 

Then we need to exploit the economical impact of the pumping. Sure there are some benefits such as creating jobs, BUT we can supplement by adding jetties in the mean time.

 

Last but not least, the Squeaky wheel gets the oil. If we dont complain to the right people than we will not be heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it finally gets to a point where someone attention is drawn to this Fail either by an incident caused by weather or by man....now they are considering stone wave walls ...one built at the southern tip of LBI and another stretching from NY to NJ with a gate that will open and close.....IMO causing the back bay to become a cesspool....horrible....ACOE design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holgate was a whole other entity when I was growing up in the 70's into the 80's . More natural area- a lot less homes- late 80's- 90's housing boom where quite frankly, they should never have had the approval to build. Now you have a large (for the south end) population questioning what the government was going to do to keep their houses safe from storms. 

 

This is where we are now- Yep follow the money but note it starts from the owners with a home with a view. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dave S said:

 

 

This is where we are now- Yep follow the money but note it starts from the owners with a home with a view. 

It does not start with the homeowners with a view, it is all about tourism in NJ which brings in over $44 BILLION per year, that is where you should follow the money

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. 

 

Ownership and rentals go hand in hand. 

 

When a home on the island is asking $6K for  a week in June  you kind of have to sit back and question why doesnt the cost of the replenishment come out of that money instead of every tax payer's pocket. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dave S said:

True. 

 

Ownership and rentals go hand in hand. 

 

When a home on the island is asking $6K for  a week in June  you kind of have to sit back and question why doesnt the cost of the replenishment come out of that money instead of every tax payer's pocket. 

Exactly !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RU fishin' said:

It does not start with the homeowners with a view, it is all about tourism in NJ which brings in over $44 BILLION per year, that is where you should follow the money

 

Actually no it's not. 

Out of the mouth of an ACOE engineer to me in Frank Pallones parking lot after one of the meeting to save the jetties.

I asked why are they building ramps that send the water inland. If they wanted to protect infrastructure they would be putting in breakwaters and dunes.

His reply, and Jim Hill was standing next to me and can vouch.... "Replenishment has nothing to do with protecting infrastructure. It's about protecting land mass. You know, the global warming thing"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, RU fishin' said:

It does not start with the homeowners with a view, it is all about tourism in NJ which brings in over $44 BILLION per year, that is where you should follow the money

 

 Just how much tourism is in Spring Lake, Deal, MB and some of the more exclusive areas?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bunker86 said:

 Just how much tourism is in Spring Lake, Deal, MB and some of the more exclusive areas?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really, tourism involves actually letting people ON your beach. The three towns you mentioned really aren't too bad, with available free parking and easy access. Plenty of other places where it is a lot more difficult to get to the water without some kind of difficulty. Given that it's mostly Federal money buying the sand, shouldn't any American have access to walk on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update on the Holgate groin

 

 

This District has received an application for a Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments and recommendations from the public concerning issuance of a Department of the Army permit for the work described below.

 

APPLICANT: Long Beach Township 6805 Long Beach Boulevard Brant Beach, New Jersey 08008 AGENT: Owen, Little and Associates, Inc. 443 Atlantic City Boulevard Beachwood, New Jersey 08722 WATERWAY: Atlantic Ocean

 

LOCATION: Decimal Latitude: 39.531004° N; Longitude: -74.263130° W. The project site is located on the ocean-front beach at the southern terminus of Long Beach Boulevard, just south of Cleveland Avenue; Block 1.02, Lots 1 and 2; Block 1.03, Lot 1; and Block 1.05, Lot 1; in the Holgate section of Long Beach Township, Ocean County, New Jersey.

 

ACTIVITY: The applicant proposes to remove an existing terminal groin (made of wood and stone), and construct a new, larger terminal groin using steel sheeting, core stone and armor stone (including re-use of existing stone). The applicant has stated that the existing deteriorating terminal groin is insufficient to slow long-shore transport of nourished beach sand to the south.

The applicant is cost-sharing the project with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Division of Coastal Engineering. The new proposed terminal groin would measure 100 feet wide, extending approximately 605 feet from an existing wood bulkhead (near the southern end of the adjacent public parking lot). The groin would extend approximately 490 feet waterward of the mean high water line (MHWL), and 380 feet beyond the mean low water line (MLWL).

- 2 - The overall area to be filled is 1.214 acres in size. This area would be excavated in order to reach the proposed base elevation (-10 feet NAVD88), with approximately 10,239 cubic yards (CY) of material excavated, including stone and rubble from the old groin, as well as native sand. The excavated stone and rubble from the existing groin would be reused within the footprint of the new proposed groin (along with additional new quarry stone to be imported by truck). The new groin would include 300 linear feet of steel sheet piling extending perpendicular to the shoreline (from the existing wood bulkhead). The sheets would be driven by vibratory hammer to an elevation of -20 feet NAVD88. The area of fill below the high tide line (HTL, i.e. within the Corps’ jurisdiction) would be 1.077 acres. The area of sub-tidal fill (i.e. below the mean low water line or MLWL) would be 0.853 acre; with the remainder, 0.224 acre, consisting of inter-tidal fill between the HTL and the MLWL. The total volume of fill to be discharged is 17,710 cubic yards, with 14,300 cubic yards waterward of the HTL. The maximum height of the groin would be +10 feet (NAVD 88), or 8.42 feet above mean high water (MHW), with the outermost 200 feet at an elevation of +5 feet (NAVD88), or 3.42 feet above MHW. Prior to construction, safety barriers and erosion control measures would be installed. The plans designate on-land (beach) and in-water areas for staging and access, where additional temporary impacts would occur. The adjacent public parking lot would also be used for vehicle access and staging of equipment and materials. The staging areas would provide access for deliveries of rock by tri-axle trucks, with re-handling on site by front end loaders. Once staged, the rock would be placed by crane or tracked hoe, situation dependent.

Only land-based equipment would be used in the construction activities, with no vessels. Subsequent to removal of the existing groin, a temporary steel sheet pile coffer dam would be driven in order to provide a dewatered work area for placement of the 1-foot thick, stone-filled marine mattress with geotextile filter fabric, inner core stone and outer armor stone. Construction activities would be limited to between September 1 and February 28, inclusive, of any year. The project is scheduled to begin in September 2018, and would require approximately six months to stage and construct. The State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Division of Land Use Regulation, is currently reviewing an application for Individual CAFRA and Waterfront Development Permits (including Water Quality Certification) for the proposed work (NJDEP File Number 1517-18-0032.1).

Applicant's Statement Pursuant to Regulations at 33 CFR 325.1(d)(7) and 33 CFR 332.4(b)(1): The applicant has stated the following as their position with regard to (a) avoidance and minimization of impacts to aquatic resources, and (b) compensatory mitigation for such impacts: a. “Although the project cannot be avoided entirely because it is, by its nature, a water dependent activity, the applicant proposes to avoid/minimize impacts to the aquatic environment by incorporating engineering/construction procedures into the process to substantially reduce impacts to aquatic resources.” - 3 - b. “The majority of the impacts will be temporary in nature and any permanent impacts will be very minor, therefore compensatory mitigation should not be required.”

 

PURPOSE: The applicant's stated purpose is "to maintain the dune and beach profile associated with the Long Beach Island Beach Nourishment Project to protect public and private property North of the terminal groin;" and “Replace the existing groin with a modern engineered rock and steel structure to preserve the southern terminus of the Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet beach replenishment project.” A preliminary review of this application indicates that species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) may be present in the action area. There is no designated or proposed critical habitat for such species in the action area. The Philadelphia District will evaluate the potential effects of the proposed actions on ESA listed species and will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service as appropriate pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, as amended. ESA Section 7 consultation will be concluded prior to the final decision on this permit application. The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the activity's probable impact including its cumulative impacts on the public interest. The decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the work must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the work will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs and welfare of the people. A Department of the Army permit will be granted unless the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest. The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity. Comments on the proposed work should be submitted, in writing, within 30 days to the District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107-3390.

- 4 - Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, including consultation with the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, is ongoing as part of this Regulatory Branch permit application review. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires all federal agencies to consult with the NOAA Fisheries all actions, or proposed actions, permitted, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). A preliminary review of this application indicates that EFH is present within the project area. The Philadelphia District will evaluate the potential effects of the proposed actions on EFH and will consult with NOAA Fisheries as appropriate. Consultation will be concluded prior to the final decision on this permit application. In accordance with Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, applicants for Federal Licenses or Permits to conduct an activity affecting land or water uses in a State's coastal zone must provide certification that the activity complies with the State's Coastal Zone Management Program. The applicant has stated that the proposed activity complies with and will be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the approved State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program. No permit will be issued until the State has concurred with the applicant's certification or has waived its right to do so. Comments concerning the impact of the proposed and/or existing activity on the State's coastal zone should be sent to this office, with a copy to the State's Office of Coastal Zone Management.

In accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a Water Quality Certificate is necessary from the State government in which the work is located. Any comments concerning the work described above which relate to Water Quality considerations should be sent to this office with a copy to the State. The evaluation of the impact of the work described above on the public interest will include application of the guidelines promulgated by the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under authority of Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act.

Any person may request, in writing, to the District Engineer, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for a public hearing shall state in writing, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Additional information concerning this permit application may be obtained by calling James Boyer at (215) 656-5826, by electronic mail to James.N.Boyer@usace.army.mil, or by writing to this office at the above address.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a documentary called "Sand Wars". I highly recommend it, as it talks about the futility of the beach replenishment program. In addition, it also covers the crisis we face regarding the dwindling supply of Sand, our third most used natural resource. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2018 at 5:52 PM, reel em in said:

There goes Holgate

I was down there yesterday and the beach on the refuge looks very good. Hope they don’t start anything down there anytime soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.