Edited by author 06-05-2006 03:08 PM
Dear readers,

This section is a place for people to make their comments about the proposed sand dredging.

I myself is opposed to this project and I feel that this will be another wasted tax money coming out of our pocket. We, the tax payers, paid the Mineral Management Services to do the study (a 332pp. and now the Army corps,well known for their environmental mistakes,and not listening to opinions of environmental scientists/ecologists are going to do another study -- on what? -- to contradict the findings, exclude themselves and make reasons that it is a must to dredge these shoals that protect St. Lucie county's shoreline from further erosion and degradation!

According to them, Miami-Dade's continental shelf is narrow and deep and all the sand that has been used to renourish the beach have all since been gone - where?- deep down into the shelf , and cannot be recovered. So why should St. Lucie county and Martin County be the sacrificial lambs for this unending battle with nature?

Please do not forget to check the maps I posted.

http://www.norock.org/nosand/pictures_and_maps.htm

part of the conclusion:

On p.76 of report:

The morphology of the continental shelf varies considerably from north to south adjacent to Cape Canaveral, topography is highly irregular with large shoals extending southeast from False Cape and Cape Canaveral. Large shoals, ridges, and channels exist along the shelf surface adjacent to the Cape from the shoreface about 12 km offshore. The alignment of ridges paralleling the Cape shoreline and extending southeast from the foreland is indicative of littoral processes controlling the formation of these features. Sediment eroded from the northern beaches is transported southeast into the ridge-shoal complex, creating linear features that migrate in a step-wise fashion to the south and east, creating a highly irregular innershelf.

p.297 of MMS final report:

8.1. Wave Transformation modeling
Excavation of an offshore borrow site can alter incoming wave heights and the direction of wave propagation. Offshore topographic relief causes waves to refract toward the shallow edges of borrow sites. Changes in the wave field caused by borrow site geometry may change local sediment transport rates…..

Effects of dredging on soft bottom fishes would include turbidity and disruption of benthic prey base utilized by many demersal species. Fishes are likely to avoid highly turbid areas and would respond in species-specific fashion to changes in the benthic invertebrate assemblages.


Another thing, I don't like is the fact that MMS is doing a dredging workshop in Melbourne and not in St. Lucie County, and Ms. Jordan's response "we asked them" is not enough answer to this question!

Mr. Brian Hughes
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
Jacksonville, FL
 
May 10, 2005
 
Brian,
                                         
I enjoyed speaking with you last night regarding the benefits of utilizing an upland source of compatible sand for the Miami Beach re-nourishment project.
 
As I asserted in the meeting, despite the fact that Miami would be robbing the citizens of Martin and St. Lucie counties of a vital protective and economic resource, the bottom line is that shoal dredging projects simply don't work. Any alteration to a naturally-formed sand berm will permanently alter wave action and effect shoreline erosion. Attached are PDFs of the two studies published in 2004 in the Journal of Coastal Research, citing examples and scientific data to support this fact.
 
Unless another compatible sand source can be found that does not carry huge environmental and economic costs, the only feasible alternative is to utilize an upland source of sand. Attached you will find a press release the Treasure Coast Surfrider Foundation generated in response to St. Lucie County's failed dune remediation effort. It cites the example of Brevard County's successful 20-mile beach re-nourishment in the wake of Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne, utilizing four upland sources of compatible sand. (The Surfrider Foundation played a large role in holding all parties accountable in the St. Lucie County dune remediation project, resulting in the complete removal of 3.7 miles of incompatible sand and its replacement with compatible sand from a local source.)
 
Understandably, the logistics would be difficult to truck sand through an urban area and onto a congested beachfront, but with proper permits, ramps and temporary staging areas created at key access points, the task would not be impossible. (This may also effect street parking and require temporary removal of access area amenities and vegetation.) The other alternative discussed would be to deliver the sand by rail / truck to a temporary staging area at one of the ports, and deliver the sand to beaches by barge. You stated that due to port usage fees, taxes and limited availability of vessels, that this scenario would be cost prohibitive. It would seem that if this was the most environmentally feasible option, and in the best public interest, that local state and federal governments would band together to force the port to relax these restrictions.
 
To account for the additional transportation costs involved with using an upland source, we suggest levying a special assesement against Miami Beach property owners, along with a tourist bed tax.
 
In either case, whether trucking or shipping in the sand, heavy equipment will be needed on the beaches to spead the sand out, causing a temporary disruption to beach use.
 
To get more information regarding Brevard County's successful use of upland sand, you may want to contact Brevard county Environmental Services Manager Virginia Barker at 321-633-2016 x 52435, or Kevin Bodge at the coastal engineering firm of Olsen Associates at 904-387-6114 x 11.
 
Respectfully yours,
 
Chris Shultz,
Martin County Chair
The Treasure Coast Surfrider Foundation
772-834-5858



Surfrider Foundation
Treasure Coast Chapter
Jensen Beach, FL

Please help our Mother Ocean by becoming a Surfrider Foundation member!
Click here to join: http://www.surfrider.org/join

Dear Nelly,
It is surprising to what extent people go to
restore beaches, when efforts are doomed to fail, while neglecting them
when they can still be saved. I guess that intensive use and greed cause
both loss and the interest to save. And ignorance of course.

The sand in tropical coral beaches (calcium carbonate) is much lighter
than the silica (SiO2) of your beaches. Coral sand is very easily moved
by small waves, and is mopped towards the beach much more easily. But it
does not move readily in the wind, so no dunes are made.

The sand lost off Florida beaches has not gone anywhere distant, and
certainly not off the continental shelf. There is a kind of stupidity
going on here. Engineers prefer to replenish beaches with large grains
because these do not move around in the wind, and likewise, won't be
sucked away by fairweather waves. However, storm waves are sufficient to
move them as the beach lays itself flat to absorb the storm's energy.
Sand is thus moved away from the dry beach to the wet beach because the
waves are sufficient to move the larger grains. However, when natural
recovery is needed by fairweather waves, the waves' energy is
insufficient to move the coarse sand back up the beach. Gradually the
coarse sand sinks underneath the fine sand. It is a bad policy, inspired
by ignorance of the beach-dune system.

Beaches like those in Florida are indeed doomed, and replenishment is
just such a stupid idea. Please study the efforts of the Danes in
de-watering beaches. It involves an invisible pipe along the beach well
beneath high tide level, sloping towards a draining point. From there
the water is pumped up and discarded. See the Seafriends web site re
engineering solutions, for more detail. De-watering is cheap, invisible,
requires little energy, and WORKS. De-watering dries the beach where it
can dry, so that the natural forces of wind and sunshine can do their
restorative work. It won't cost much to give it a try.

Notice that this does not work for tropical beaches, because these have
no 'dunes' and are merely an 'overwash' situation.

You may also be interested in my recent discoveries explaining the
mysterious killer called 'eutrophication'. Read the DDA chapter.

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/beacheng.htm#drainage

Cheers,

--
Dr J Floor Anthoni; 55B Glenvar Rd; Torbay; Auckland 09 4735433
Director Seafriends Marine Conservation and Education Centre
7 Goat Island Rd; Leigh R.D.5; New Zealand
Ph +64 9422 6212 Fax: +64 9422 6245
Seafriends web site: http://www.seafriends.org.nz/

5-11-06

A Commentary on "Beach Nourishment: A Starvation Diet"


Last year Florida spent $180 million to "nourish" its beaches with most of the fill sand mined from the nearshore (as is most of all our beach nourishment fill). Earlier that year, Barry Drucker, the Minerals Management Service scientist responsible for studying the offshore sand mining process used for nourishment, wrote to me stating that, as dredging operations become more efficient, offshore sand mining was moving towards deep waters (which, in many areas of the US, means many miles offshore). More importantly, he continues, "Some of this shift is definitely due to the realization that exploiting too much of deposit in close proximity to the beach can actually have a devastating effect on the shoreline and subsequent increases in erosion."

This means the erosion caused by this is ongoing as those once protective shoals are now obliterated by this earlier mining. What he does not say, and what is becoming painfully evident in areas such as Florida and our Gulf coast, is that much of our easily exploitable nearshore shoals have already been mined so that the move to mine deep water deposits are now required. This means more expense, a spreading destruction of the seabed habitat and further harm to onshore and nearshore ecosystems. It also means that our nearshores are deepening and steepening allowing more destructive storm energy to reach the shoreline.

By allowing our coastlines to be controlled by the dredging industry, its coastal engineering consultants and lobbyists and often uninformed officials, we are losing these and the coastal habitats these sustain. We do have alternative proven to be sustainable and environmentally sound. Given the known hazards and escalating costs of nourishment programs, it would seem environmental organizations, governmental agencies and local citizens impacted by such counterproductive (though often officially sanctioned) programs would wish to research and promote such fiscally and physically sustainable alternatives.


Below is my earlier essay on this process:


"Beach Nourishment: A Starvation Diet"
(as sent in response to Dr. James Leutze's article in Raleigh's Metro Magazine, July 2004 and published in its September, 2004 issued)


While Dr. Luetze is correct on the economic importance of maintaining our shorelines, he seems to be uninformed of the true costs of constant dredging and renourishment projects.

The term beach "nourishment", carefully chosen to sound healthy, is really a starvation diet. The research and empirical data continues to demonstrate its environmental damage to coastal ecosystems as well as it leading to increased erosion. The dredging of inlets and offshore shoals for sand fill increases onshore erosion according to the EU's 2004 "Guide to Coastal Erosion Management". It further states this causes sediment starvation and hydraulic changes inducing even more erosion. Our own reports, including those of the Corps, bear this out. In 2000, a research abstract for the Minerals Management Service stated, "When a shoal is flattened (by dredging), the degree of wave energy concentration is likely to be reduced, resulting in greater wave energies hitting the coastal area. This may result in increased coastal erosion or unwanted, detrimental changes in longshore or nearshore current patterns. Significant coastal impacts could also be expected during storm events in that increased wave energies which might have been somewhat dissipated by the presence of the shoal would now impact the coastal area with greater forces." Research done by the NC Geological Society and the University of Arkansas off Pea Island in 2000 directly related offshore shoal topography to erosion hot spots. Up to three miles offshore (the farthest area studied), the shoal topography still effected onshore erosion. Shoals much nearer to shore are the major sand source for nourishment mining and, consequently, can have a more direct impact.

Manmade erosion is a fact. From dams, to the ever-deeper dredging of channels and inlets, to offshore strip-mining of shoals for sand fill, to sea level rise from global warming, we are the cause of much of this accelerating problem. While onshore overdevelopment is a problem, it does not directly cause more erosion. It is what we do in the water that causes the problems. Only when we apply traditionally engineered shore protection (groins, seawalls, jetties, etc.) to protect these does this development directly impact erosion trends --and these are upward.

Erosion rates have accelerated over the last 10 years in NC even as NC officially embraces Dr. Pilkey's irrational suppositions that erosion is natural and retreat is a viable environmental option. As in reality, much of this erosion is manmade, we must mitigate this as we would any other manmade environmental problem. Applying methods we know --especially by the so called experts in the Corps, coastal consultant and dredging industries-- to be counterproductive, only enriches these groups while impoverishing our coastal ecosystems and the taxpayer.

We are talking about habitat, not real estate. We are also losing habitat at an accelerating rates. Even our coastal fresh water supplies are now at risk. This can only lead to catastrophic collapse of our coastal systems as is happening in Louisiana, our coastal canary. More traditional coastal industries linked to sealife --fishing, shrimping, crabbing, etc.-- are likely to suffer as our coastal estuaries as the Pamlico Sound, continue to be overwashed by sea water destroying the fragile saline balance needed for such sealife nurseries. Thanks to the recent super-deep dredging for the Wilmington harbor and channel, salt water now projects almost twice as far --twenty miles-- inland than it did a few years ago. If we lose the Outer Banks, the Pamlico Sound becomes the high energy Pamilco Bay and we have lost the second largest estuary system in the US. The constant dredging of the Oregon Inlet, other inlets, ferry crossings, the Intracoastal Waterway, and previous nourishments induces further erosion both to the ocean and sound sides of barrier islands. This is not nature taking its course, this is murder by a thousand cuts. Yet, coastal real estate is a vital economic activity for our coastal communities. We have to acknowledge the great importance real estate and tourism are to our coastal economies and that this is based on having wide, safe beaches

The dredging lobbyist Howard Marlowe, his coastal consultant associates and such aligned dredging lobbying groups as his American Shore and Beach Preservation Association (and its many linked groups) prey on these desperate communities. These groups to seem control our coastal policies and practices even though dredging actually causes more erosion and other cumulative damage to our coastal environments. These groups' overly close relationship with the Corps has made it the chief agent of erosion on our shorelines.

The successful promotion of beach nourishment in Florida means many of its areas are now literally out of sand. Broward County is now experimenting with ground glass as beach fill having exhausted his available offshore sand sources. It beach manager, by the way, is Steve Higgins, a board member of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA), the major beach nourishment lobbying group. This should make us all wary of promises by the Corps of 50-year nourishment programs.

There are also health risks in dumping dredged sediments onto beaches. In 2001, the Office of Naval Research warned of dredging tainted sediments because, "In harbors, waterfronts and shorelines around the world, sediments that have been contaminated by even small amounts of oil, chemicals or other pollutants may pose a risk to humans and to natural ecosystems." Even so, these are often promoted as beach fill by the Corps through its desperate attempts to insure the success of its "beneficial use" disposal methods. In 2000, the Corps sought to dump dredgings tainted with asbestos and other industrial wastes from the Waukegan Harbor onto Illinois Beach State Park as "renourishment" to dispose of these while fulfilling its requirement to mitigate erosion its caused by its other channel dredging.

The grinding of the sand itself as it moves through the dredger and piping produces silt, a pollutant in itself. These finds smother reefs and other seabed and nearshore habitats. This also helps deplete the very resource being mined.

Another characteristic often found on recently renourished beaches: rip currents. These potentially deadly (several people drowned near Pensacola, FL this past year) currents form as the steep profile of the unnatural beach is moved into toughs along the nearshore. One lifeguard in Savannah says they know after each nourishment to expect this.

We are losing our shorelines and the coastal resources these protect. Almost all of this lost is directly attributable to man. We can help mitigate this damage with methods proven to be sustainable and environmentally sound. Unfortunately for our coastlines and our taxpayers, beach nourishment is not one of these.

Jerry Berne
Sustainable Shorelines, Inc. (www.sustainableshorelines.org)

Sustainable Shorelines is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to documenting current environmental events on our shorelines, identifying and seeking to change those coastal policies and practices which are harmful and advocating protecting our coastal habitats and the ecosystems these support with methods proven to be environmentally sound and sustainable.

 http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/sou...sfla-home-headlines
Bird and alligator sightings rise as water levels continue to fall

By Sallie James
South Florida Sun-Sentinel

April 28, 2007

Two weeks ago, Charles Peiffer could steer his rumbling airboat down most any Everglades water trail at the Sawgrass Recreation Park without a worry.

No more.

One of the worst droughts in South Florida history has dropped some airboat trails so low that navigation is tricky. Other trails already are reduced to wet muck.

"Every day, I can see a difference," said Peiffer, who has been conducting airboat tours for more than 10 years. "I can still go out, but I have to be very careful where I stop. This boat will go in 1 to 2 inches of water, but I can't stop or I will get stuck in the muck."

Water levels during a recent trip ranged from just inches to about a foot deep in many places, down from the usual 31/2 feet, Peiffer said.

Clusters of dry, brown sawgrass and brittle cattails stretched into the distance.

"If we don't get rain soon, we are not going to be able to go up into the low-lying areas," said Steve Melnick, who conducts airboat tours at Everglades Holiday Park near Southwest Ranches. "We are limited a little bit."

For those who appreciate Everglades wildlife, the low water levels provide some visual rewards.

One recent morning, the drone of an airboat engine startled great egrets, wood storks and stately herons that were feeding on a bounty of fish trapped in drought-depleted waters. Almost in unison, the birds rose into the sky and circled overhead.

"This is unreal," said Peiffer. "This is awesome. I never see this unless there is a drought."

The birds flew over the Everglades in lazy circles, disturbed by the engine noise but determined to return to their meal.

"The water is so shallow and there are fish all over the place," Peiffer said. "All these birds are not usually out here because they can't walk out here. The fish are trapped. It's a feast for the birds."

Alligator-viewing conditions are good, too, Melnick said. The gators seem to be moving west, and their increasing numbers are becoming apparent, Melnick said. The shallow waters make them easier to spot.

And the water levels could get lower. In an effort to prevent saltwater intrusion into urban well fields that supply drinking water, the South Florida Water Management District is seeking federal approval to pump Everglades water eastward to canals throughout the county.

The Army Corps of Engineers is expected to decide by next week, said Jesus Rodriguez, spokesman for the water management district.

Officer Chuck Erismann, with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, said people should be aware alligators might head to deeper canals and lakes near populated areas because their own habitat is getting too dry.

He said parents of small children shouldn't leave them unattended near lakes and canals because of the potential risk.

"It presents safety issues that require people to be more vigilant with their kids and be more aware of their surroundings," Erismann said.

Sallie James can be reached at Sjames@sun-sentinel.com or 954-572-2019

Copyright © 2007, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/local_news/artic...736_5506849,00.html

Lake O water may go south

By GEORGE ANDREASSI
george.andreassi@scripps.com
April 27, 2007

A proposal to build a 25-mile long, 10-mile wide "flow-way" from Lake Okeechobee south to the Everglades — which would provide an alternative to releasing lake water into the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee rivers — is gaining political traction.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers relieves high water levels in Lake Okeechobee by releasing billions of gallons of water into the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee rivers, damaging the water quality of the estuaries as well as local fishing, boating, tourism and real estate industries.

The lake water contains fertilizer, pesticides and sediment that run off farms and lawns into the waterways leading to the lake. Also, too much fresh water in the St. Lucie River has been linked to fish lesions and toxic algae blooms in 2005.

The flow-way would send the lake water south to replenish the Everglades and underground drinking water supply, the environmental activists said. Plants and soil would filter nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen from the water.

"The Corps has been urged to re-evaluate this concept of a flow-way, and the momentum on both the east coast and the west coast has been building," said Paul Millar, Martin County's water resource manager.

The Corps and the Martin County Office of Water Quality are set to make a presentation about the flow-way proposal to the Martin County Commission on Tuesday. The Rivers Coalition, a group of local advocates for the St. Lucie River, is also expected to get an update on the proposal Friday.

Supporters of the flow-way said they were encouraged that U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Tallahassee, mentioned the proposal during his visit to the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution in Fort Pierce on April 3.

"I can't say that we put a rubber stamp of support on it," said Bryan Gulley, Nelson's spokesman. "But being a strong supporter of the Everglades, as Nelson is, he's interested in looking into any proposals that might further restore the Everglades, including this one.

"That's why he asked the Army Corps for a cost-benefit analysis to see if the plan makes economic sense. We're looking into this because it seems that more and more individuals are starting to bring up the concept of the southern flow-way."

Constructing a southern flow-way from Lake Okeechobee to release lake water could be an alternative to an expensive rehabilitation of the Herbert Hoover Dike surrounding the lake, said Alan Bugg, the corps' chief of construction and operations.

Government reports show that if the lake's water level exceeds 18 feet, water can seep under the 35-foot earthen dike and compromise it. That could cause flooding in western Palm Beach County, according to the Army Corps.

"If this option were selected, then water would just be able to flow out the spill way and it would never rise up on the dike," Bugg said.

There is no cost estimate for the flow-way proposal, but the dike rehabilitation is expected to cost $846 million, Bugg said.

In addition to calculating the price tag of the flow-way, the Corps must determine whether it fits with the projects in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Bugg said. The plan was formulated by the state and federal governments in an attempt to restore the environment and natural flow of water into the Everglades.

A decision on the dike options is expected in late summer or early fall. Congress has the final say, Bugg said.

The recent drought shows the wastefulness of flushing billions of gallons of lake water into the rivers to the east and west during rainy times, several Treasure Coast environmental activists said.

"We waste about ... 1.7 Billion gallons a day of fresh water that normally would flow from Kissimmee to the lake and south into the Everglades," said Mark Perry, executive director of the Florida Oceanographic Society.

"So especially during a drought time here, we wondered, well why are we wasting 1.7 Billion gallons a day?" Perry said. "Why can't we allow that water to flow south and slowly percolate down into the ground water to recharge wells?"LAKE OKEECHOBEE SOUTHERN

FLOW-WAY PROPOSAL

Length: 25 miles

Width: 10 miles

Depth: 1-4 feet

Land needed: 50,000-60,000 acres

Maximum water flow: 4 billion gallons per day

Mark Perry, Florida Oceanographic Society