Save Flagler's Beach

The Army Corps of Engineers [ACE] feasibility study actually says the following about Undercurrent Stabilizers:

Under National Economic Development:

Not likely to be justified. Has not been shown to work in a coastal environment similar to Flagler County.

This is very misleading. Undercurrent Stabilizers have never been implemented in a coastal environment similar to Flagler County, because the Corps has fought against it in every possible instance where people have attempted to have a system installed. Undercurrent Stabilizers HAVE been shown to work in EVERY environment where they have been implemented–many of which are far more challenging than the Flagler Beach coastline.

Could hold sand in place reducing damages for a specific area. May trap sand that would otherwise feed another area of the project depriving it of damage reduction benefit.

Not so. The whole point of Undercurrent Stabilizers is that they expand not only the treated beach, but beaches all around it.

Under “Environmental Quality”:

Periodic renourishments could be reduced.

Well, not only could renourishments be reduced, they would be eliminated.

Possible increase to sea turtle habitat.

Sea turtle habitat would be vastly increased.

Possible entrapment hazard for hatchling sea turtles.

There would be zero entrapment hazard because the stabilizers very quickly cover themselves with sand. All local wildlife, in the water and on and in the beach, would be restored.

Not aesthetically appealing.

Such short-term thinking, designed to elicit negative response. The fact is that after a short period of time the Undercurrent Stabilizers get covered with sand and are no longer visible. What’s not appealing about a beautiful dry beach and robust dune system?

Under “Other Social Effects”:

Because only select areas would benefit, undercurrent stabilizers may not receive support from the entire community.

Untrue. Positive effects have been shown to extend well beyond the treated areas. And once the treated areas and their surroundings develop into beautifully restored beach & dunes, the community will demand the project be extended to include surrounding areas.

Would add some protection to the evacuation route. In select areas the recreational beach berm may be maintained or possibly extended.

Would definitely protect A1A. And yes…  Undercurrent Stabilizers have been shown to maintain, extend, and increase the elevation of the berms and dunes wherever they have been used.

Nearshore recreation such as surfing and fishing may be positively or negatively affected.

Definitely positively, because Flagler’s beach would return to its historic natural beach.

May not be permittable by the state.

No Undercurrent Stabilizer project has ever failed to receive a permit.

Prohibited by Counties (sic) Comp Plan.

Untrue.

Under “Regional Economic Development”:

Could possibly have a minor positive impact on the regional economy.

How about a MAJOR impact? At Thursday’s meeting [6/9/2011], we heard the Bunnell City Manager state that Flagler’s beach is a major attraction to business and tourism, a statement echoed by Commissioner Jane Mealy. Undercurrent Stabilizers would restore the current underwater beach to its natural state, with a broad stretch of dry sand at low tide and a renewing dune system. Just what the Chamber of Commerce ordered.

The study’s conclusion is that an Undercurrent Stabilizer system “does not meet objective.” But if you read all the corrections to the study statements above, you have to wonder how this conclusion could have been reached… unless there’s some ulterior motive?

Think about it.

Join us in our fight to save Flagler’s beach, sand dunes, wildlife habitat, and scenic highway A1A