Jessica Respondek Suncoast Chapter Surfrider Foundation Brief - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jessica Respondek Suncoast Chapter Surfrider Foundation

Brief History Overview Where County Started Chapter History Public Record SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Communication to DEP Coming Together What’s In Store Questions/Comments

Goals:

• 100% sand bypassing
• Maintain Upham Beach
• Maintain Navigation (recreational)

County goal: # 2 Install groins and dredge inlet / nourish Upham every 6 years

Upham Beach – founding chapter campaign

June 2007

Big Wide Safe Beach!

Let Inlet Close Nourishment/Fill Sand By-Pass Dedicated Dredge Natural Dune Enhancement w/Fill

In general, Pinellas County claims of Project “success” are flawed:

Project has not addressed the 100% sand by-pass Financial calculations inaccurate Project has not proven storm protection Impact of downdrift beaches not proven Impact of newly developed shoal collapsing Continued risk to public safety and recreation Early conclusions of experimental sand savings

success with unsubstantiated evidence

Nourishment cycle frequency has increased

Concluding no adverse downdrift affects

is not substantiated by the County’s monitoring data

With the known breakwater deaths on

record, why would DEP and Pinellas County, continue to place rock structure to armor a beach which would place a “take” on recreational usage

Result of experiment’s myriad design, monitoring,

and analytical flaws including:

No control established Comparison data time periods (weather/profiles) Monitoring site altered during course of study

(profile lines, sand placement, etc.)

Pre-experiment design changes (jetty enclosure,

shoal build up, etc.)

Monitoring time frames inconsistent Depth of closure not established

The second main erosion “hot-spot” has yet to be evaluated

for project performance.

Over the 2000-2004 period, no cofferdam existed to protect

the beach from oncoming waves thus beach did not experience placement loss due to structure being implemented.

The original project permitting promised

a lengthened 6 year nourishment cycle

• est. 51% sand retention

millions in cost savings.

Upham groin field has received sand in 2004, 2006, 2008, and now 2010.

Year Length (ft) Volume(cy) Sand Source 1975 2,500 75,000 Blind Pass 1980 2,640 253,760 Blind Pass 1986 2,400 96,712 Pass-A-Grille 1991 2,400 229,950 Blind Pass 1996 2,400 225,000 Egmont Shoal 2000 2,700 281,000 Blind Pass 2004 (experiment) 3,600 385,000 Pass-a-Grille 2006 1,960 124,000 Egmont 2008

• Est. 1,000

Undisclosed Down drift Beach 2010 4,000* 410,000* Blind Pass

Unable to truly estimate project shoreline performance

impact of T3 and south. According to Alyssa St. John’s paper procured by Pinellas County:

"This seawall induced substantial erosion of the beach

immediately downdrift, which is represented by LK 3 by blocking the longshore sediment transport to the south." (Page 45)

"...greatest retreat LK 3..." (page 46) "The volume gain in the central and southern portions of

the island accounts for 85% of the volume loss at Upham

• Beach. This is an indication that most transport at Long

Key is longshore sediment transport." (page 74)

Subarna Malakar, Coastal Engineering Section "It is reported that due to an active winter, the seawall and the riprap north of Groin T2 have been fully, exposed to the waves causing further damage to T1 & T2." "So far, there is no clear evidence that the project performance expectation is being met or that it will."

Presentation on Feb. 2010, to ASBPA, on the Upham T-groin project concludes:

“Structures can and do effect wave quality

and recreation”

“There are safety concerns.” “Science and monitoring should be the

basis for design”

Destroy or Degrade Public Trust Resources Benefit a very small group of people Create a nautical hazard Adversely impact hatchling success Diminish the natural beauty of beaches Danger to public safety due to exposed rocks Not a long-term solution to the real problem of

coastal erosion

Result in “Significant Adverse Impacts” Has Failed to meet Experimental Design

Qualifications

Agency response to our independent review. Proof of Reasonable Assurances Request forward copies of all future

correspondence and permit meetings

Revising the outdated Inlet Management

Plan for Blind Pass.

Support from Collins Law Firm Chapter Moto: Big Wide Safe Beach Condos (35% City, 43% County) = 120 units Project is Funded: 50% State & 50% County Sand: 60% Fed, 20% State, 20% County

Financial Expert assistance Engineering Consultant assistance

Overcoming Public Misinformation This means YOU

▪ Main goal: Community & Local Government Awareness

Bring the Surfing Community together A New Petition – will this help? Campaign Assistance: Experts – what are we missing? Volunteers – how to get them to step up?

$17.5 million has been earmarked

Questions? Concerns?