Save Flagler's Beach

All the known systems for attempting to control beach erosion are summarized below. Each has comments that briefly describe its advantages and disadvantages. Quotes are from the Army Corps of Engineers [ACE] reports unless otherwise stated.

Seawalls

On seawalls there is general agreement: “Adjacent properties could be made more vulnerable due to erosive effects…” “New seawall built where no seawall exists would likely have negative environmental impacts.” “Could have negative effect on surrounding beaches. Reflection of wave energy off the seawall will likely intensify erosion of the recreational beach berm.” “May negatively affect local tourism.”

And from the Florida Dept. of Transport: “…allowing erosion to continue until the seawall becomes the water line.”

There is already a seawall near south 13th street. Its negative effects have already been noted in increased loss of beach elevation and deterioration of the structure itself. In an attempt to preserve the beach in front of a seawall, the Corps would plan many repeated applications of dredged sand—until the money runs out.

Revetments

Similar conclusions to those regarding seawalls: increased erosion, vulnerability of adjacent properties, possible negative effect on local tourism.

Much of Flagler Beach is already reveted, with piles of rocks that have been unable to withstand the clawing force of storm waves. Many rocks have been hauled back under the water, where they have created hazards for bathers and surfers.

Sand-covered soft structures

This would entail “construction of a dune composed of geotextile sand-filled tubes or bags and covered with sand. When erosion causes the structure… to become exposed, the soft structure acts as armoring to prevent erosion from reaching further inland. Sand depth over the structure would be maintained.”

The ACE thinks these could be justified if they were kept covered with sand. “Would improve the aesthetics along A1A compared to the existing revetment.” “May not be permittable by the state.”

 

Groins

The Corps says, “The groins would be constructed of large rocks, designed to interlock together and with a foundation such to avoid subsidence…” and “A series of groins in the problem area would help hold a beach in front of existing development….The construction of groins would have to be supplemented with nourishment so that adjacent beaches would not be starved of sand.

Possible entrapment hazard for hatchling sea turtles, and not aesthetically pleasing.  Groins actually accelerate erosion. Note the typical erosion on the near the side of each groin in this picture.

 

Beach nourishment

This is the Army Corps of Engineers’ favorite option. No-one can explain why.

Dredging (what actually happens during “beach nourishment”), is a temporary fix at best, since all the new sand erodes even faster than the original beach. It is extremely expensive and its tendency to form scarps (cliffs) as it erodes has been shown to have a negative effect on sea-turtle nesting.

In Palm Beach, the one place were “beach renourishment” has lasted more than a few years, the dredged sand is so calcareous that it is said to be like walking on cement, and no sea turtle can dig through it.

The dredging operation has also been shown to have a devastating effect on fish, turtles, and other sea creatures unfortunate enough to live where the dredgers are working. In Flagler Beach, this would include the breeding grounds of our beloved Right Whales. All told, the practice of dredging sand for replacing eroded beaches has been a total and obvious failure. As for “not conflicting with any laws,” that’s because the ACE helped draft the laws!

Submerged artificial reefs and submerged artificial multi-purpose reefs

A submerged reef would be placed in shallow water and beach fill material would be “perched” behind it. This would “reduce renourishment requirements,” according to the ACE. A submerged multi-purpose reef is “designed to prevent shoreline erosion through wave energy dissipation. They coujld be constructed as either a stand-alone measure or in conjunction with other measures including beach nourishment.

The study also says “May create a safety hazard for swimmers…nearshore recreation such as surfing and fishing may be positively or negatively affected.”

Nearshore placement

Dredged material would be placed in the nearshore. “This…assumes that a portion of the sand placed in shallow water will move towards the beach under normal wave conditions.”

We say, “good luck with that.” The report also states: “Does not meet objective.”

 

Emergent breakwaters

The Corps says, “Such structures reduce the amount of wave energy reaching the shoreline. As a result, the rate of annual erosion would decrease.” However, the analysis goes on, “May block turtle nesting lanes. May not be aesthetically pleasing. Could be a navigational hazard for boaters and may pose a safety risk for swimmers. May have a negative effect on adjacent shorelines.”

Safety risk? People have been killed by breakwaters!

Negative effect? Everywhere breakwaters have been installed, adjacent shorelines have quickly disappeared. Even on shorelines where they are used, sand must be added at regular intervals. Breakwaters also trap flotsam and debris.

 

Pressure equalizing modules

This is how the company says they work: “With the tubes inserted into the foreshore, the various layers of groundwater are connected, which creates a reduction of groundwater pressure, which in turn reduces pore pressure and increases intergranual (sic) friction—a process that makes the sane grains less likely to be washed back into the sea.”

ACE report: “Does not meet objective.” In fact this is a relatively new technology with a very short track record.

Undercurrent Stabilizers

The ACE report says, “Undercurrent Stabilizers are modular geo-textile tubes filled with concrete composites, placed at right angles from the dune. The low profile design makes the structures permeable to long shore sediment transport. The undercurrent stabilizers reduce incoming wave energy as waves approach shore, forcing suspended sand to drop out. As the stabilizers become covered with sand the beach grows in width and elevation.”

Sounds perfect, right? But the analysis goes on: Undercurrent Stabilizers have not been shown to work in a coastal environment similar to Flagler County. Could hold sand in place reducing damages for a specific area. May trap sand that would otherwise feed another area of the project depriving of damage reduction benefits.” “Not aesthetically appealing.”

Actually, Undercurrent Stabilizers have shown to work in the coastal environments of Florida’s Gulf coast and in many installations along the very long north-south shoreline of Lake Michigan—and the only reason they haven’t worked on the Atlantic coast is that the Corps has blocked every attempt to use them.

Undercurrent Stabilizers do not “trap” sand; they increase natural accretion—and not in a specific area, but over an area much larger than the installation. They have shown to increase adjacent beaches, not deprive them. And since they cover themselves with sand naturally, no added dredged sand applications are needed.

They might not be beautiful at first, but the wide beach and elevated dunes they produce certainly are! Flagler’s beach-goers and surfers will love them; turtles will love them; and America’s taxpayers will love them because they are the least expensive, one-time-cost, method of restoring our beaches NATURALLY!