USA CA Marine Sanctuary; $100 bounty for tech tubes?
Reality is a point of view
There is a science project taking place 900 feet below the
surface along the CA coast, probably near Monterey. Some ocean
nerds stuffed some tubes with electronics and dropped them in
the water. The idea is that the tubes will drift in the
currents down there while the electronics record various data.
Eventually the tubes blast their ballast and surface, to be
picked up and data dumped back at the lab. So if you happen
across a tech tube in or around the water and turn it over to
the ocean nerds they might do you some dough.
The where and how much is unknown to me.
I've also heard rumors about Clinton and the Marine Sanctuary.
And heard about a funny story involving Newt, Earth Day, and his
visit to a zoo saying something like "I think conservation is
important."
Wild stuff.
--
Gary Johnson "There's no union called the AFL-CIA is there?"
gjoh...@season.com <a href="http://www.efm.org">Walk The Talk</a>
CAMPAIGN '96: Juck 'em if they can't fake a toke.
Leo Dagum
(Reality is a point of view) writes:
|> Organization: season.com [205.179.33.0]
|> Lines: 26
|> Message-ID: <slrn4nsq73....@dream.season.com>
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.179.33.42
|>
|> I've heard rumors that may be of interest to water wanderers.
|> There is a science project taking place 900 feet below the
|> surface along the CA coast, probably near Monterey. Some ocean
|> nerds stuffed some tubes with electronics and dropped them in
|> the water. The idea is that the tubes will drift in the
|> currents down there while the electronics record various data.
|>
This isn't really related, but runs along the same wacky line.
The paper yesterday carried an article about "artificial reef"
off the coast of Florida. Apparently it's legal (and encouraged)
to dump big items (like cars, refrigerators, space shuttles, etc.)
off the coast to create artificial reefs that would offer additional
marine habitat, thereby attracting fishermen and scuba divers.
The only requirement is that the object be sunk deep enough so a ship
can safely pass over it.
So here's a crazy thought, why don't they dump it in the surf zone
at spots that would otherwise be unsurfable? The article had a picture
of NASA dumping a space shuttle fuel tank. Seems all you'd need is two of
these laid out in a nice wedge arrangement and you might just get a
cool new reef break.
--
Leo Dagum
Supercomputer Applications Tel: 415-933-2179
Silicon Graphics, Inc. Fax: 415-933-3562
Mountain View, CA 94043 email: da...@sgi.com
Andrew Rothwell
>So here's a crazy thought, why don't they dump it in the surf zone
>at spots that would otherwise be unsurfable? The article had a picture
>of NASA dumping a space shuttle fuel tank. Seems all you'd need is two of
>these laid out in a nice wedge arrangement and you might just get a
>cool new reef break.
Oh sure. I can just imagine taking off on a wave that sucks dry
over rusting cars, shuttle debri, etc. Have you had your
tetanus shot today?
Still, that's probably as mad as any of us surfing coral reefs.
I just spent a week taking penicillin, fighting a staph infection
after being bounced on Newport Reef.
Andrew.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"The greatest gift we can give each other Andrew R. Rothwell.
is the purest quality of our attention." arot...@cisco.com
Metaplex Pty Ltd.
-Richard Moss. Lvl 13, 118 Alfred St,
Milsons Point. NSW. 2061.
AUSTRALIA.
Will Borgeson
Leo Dagum (da...@barrel.asd.sgi.com) wrote:
: This isn't really related, but runs along the same wacky line.
: The paper yesterday carried an article about "artificial reef"
: off the coast of Florida. Apparently it's legal (and encouraged)
: to dump big items (like cars, refrigerators, space shuttles, etc.)
: off the coast to create artificial reefs that would offer additional
: marine habitat, thereby attracting fishermen and scuba divers.
: The only requirement is that the object be sunk deep enough so a ship
: can safely pass over it.
: So here's a crazy thought, why don't they dump it in the surf zone
: at spots that would otherwise be unsurfable? The article had a picture
: of NASA dumping a space shuttle fuel tank. Seems all you'd need is two of
: these laid out in a nice wedge arrangement and you might just get a
: cool new reef break.
Interestingly Leo there is quite a number of artificial reefs in
Southern California, I have a little Cal Fish & Game guidebook to them,
but *none* in Northern. All but one of the SoCali reefs are set up for
fishery and diving enhancement, not surfing. The one exception, which so
far as I know is not yet complete, is an artificial surfing reef near El
Porto (just south of Santa Monica).
Someone active in Surfrider down there will know more of the
details, but it seems a mitigation for a Chevron coastal project nearby
was that if it hurts the surf, Chevron has to finance a "replacement"
reef, at great expense of course. The project *did* apparently screw up
sand flow to the downcoast beach break of concern, and Chevron is going to
make good on the deal. As far as I know this will be the first
*intentional* artificial surf spot on the planet, other than wave pools.
There are of course many unintentional manmade surf spots, i.e. Santa
Barbara Sandspit, the 7 Jetties south of Ventura, and the Wedge for that
matter (Hi Rick), to name only a few.
It will be interesting to follow the progress of "Chevron Reef."
If it works out well, it will be a good precedent for other projects.
There are some spots around Bodega Bay that could be quite easily enhanced
for surfing by strategic dumpage of large objects. However, in California
it takes a stack of permits 6 feet hi to do anything in the coastal zone.
Also, an artificial surfing reef would have to be in shallow enough water
that it could possibly be seen as a hazard to navigation. Further, the
effects on sand flow, etc. might be brought up as reasons not to do it.
But I think some hot ocean bottom/wave specialists could design reefs that
would cause no trouble, create new habitat for fish and invertebrates, and
best of all put waves where there are none, or only mediocre ones, at this
point in time.
Will
Jeff Solomon
>Oh sure. I can just imagine taking off on a wave that sucks dry
>over rusting cars, shuttle debri, etc. Have you had your
>tetanus shot today?
>
>Still, that's probably as mad as any of us surfing coral reefs.
>I just spent a week taking penicillin, fighting a staph infection
>after being bounced on Newport Reef.
I know that feeling. I spent a miserable 3 weeks fighting a staph
infection when I lived on Maui. It's a good thing Hydrogen Peroxide
is cheap, 'cause after that, I used to practically shower in the
stuff after each session. Musta gone through a case a week.
Still, something about being able to stick my head under water and
see approaching auto headlights has a strange kind of appeal to
the southern Californian in me.
jeff
Will Borgeson
Andrew Rothwell (arot...@cisco.com) wrote:
: Oh sure. I can just imagine taking off on a wave that sucks dry
: over rusting cars, shuttle debri, etc. Have you had your
: tetanus shot today?
:
: Still, that's probably as mad as any of us surfing coral reefs.
: I just spent a week taking penicillin, fighting a staph infection
: after being bounced on Newport Reef.
At least as mad. WWhile it could be jagged, rusty metal is not
anywhere near as good a substrate for pathogens as coral. But, at least
in California, the gov't would never permit building a surfing reef that
sucked totally dry, it would expose the gov't to too much liability. If
it were to be built here at all, i.e. if all the politics and permits were
in place, the reef would have to be optimized to be safe. So it would
probably be mushy :-(.
I think a great way to build or improve a break would be to use
large pieces of concrete, such as the sections of Golden Gate Bridge that
were sitting by the side of 101 near San Rafael for a long time. Wonder
where they are now. While there might be a little rebar in there, if
these were laid out in a "vee" in just the right spot, it'd be a-frame
city.
Will
DAVID PRITCHARD
Will Borgeson (szbo...@dale.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: Andrew Rothwell (arot...@cisco.com) wrote:
: : Oh sure. I can just imagine taking off on a wave that sucks dry
: : over rusting cars, shuttle debri, etc. Have you had your
: : tetanus shot today?
: anywhere near as good a substrate for pathogens as coral. But, at least
: in California, the gov't would never permit building a surfing reef that
: sucked totally dry, it would expose the gov't to too much liability.
they often get at least partially covered by sand, so they are basically
sandbar/reef combos. Bits of rigging may still be exposed or shallow tho.
Boucau (France) and the Wreck at Byron Bay are good examples of this. I'm
sure many of you know plenty more.
Bear
Andrew Rothwell
> I think a great way to build or improve a break would be to use
>large pieces of concrete, such as the sections of Golden Gate Bridge that
>were sitting by the side of 101 near San Rafael for a long time. Wonder
>where they are now. While there might be a little rebar in there, if
>these were laid out in a "vee" in just the right spot, it'd be a-frame
>city.
Or how about a snaking vee, with fast and slow sections, for tube riding
and open walls for cutbacks, etc...Now we're talking! Imagine how the
sand might drain from outside the vee, and buildup on the inside, creating
a very hollow, powerful wave! Will, get to it mate; I'll be in SF on
Sunday night.
kdalle
> I think a great way to build or improve a break would be to use
> large pieces of concrete, such as the sections of Golden Gate Bridge that
> were sitting by the side of 101 near San Rafael for a long time. Wonder
> where they are now. While there might be a little rebar in there, if
> these were laid out in a "vee" in just the right spot, it'd be a-frame
> city.
>
IAfter the '89 freeway I contacted some people I knew in Cal Trans as well as Surfrider
to suggest the possibility of dumping the remains of the Embarcadero and Central
Freeway in the ocean at the southern border of S.F. At the time they were not sure where
they would be able to dump the refuse. No one ever returned my call. Imagine surfing the
Embarcadero or geting barrelled on the Centreal Freeway.
Jeff
kdalle
> I think a great way to build or improve a break would be to use
> large pieces of concrete, such as the sections of Golden Gate Bridge that
> were sitting by the side of 101 near San Rafael for a long time. Wonder
> where they are now. While there might be a little rebar in there, if
> these were laid out in a "vee" in just the right spot, it'd be a-frame
> city.
>
> Will
After the '89 freeway I contacted some people I knew in Cal Trans as well as Surfrider to
suggest the possibility of dumping the remains of the Embarcadero and Central Freeway
in the ocean at the southern border of S.F. At the time they were not sure where they
would be able to dump the refuse. No one ever returned my call. Imagine surfing the
Embarcadero or getting barrelled on the Centreal Freeway.
Jeff
kdalle
Embarcadero or getting barrelled on the Central Freeway.
Jeff
Helge Weissig
In article <4lo111$b...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Will Borgeson <szbo...@dale.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> Someone active in Surfrider down there will know more of the
>details, but it seems a mitigation for a Chevron coastal project nearby
>was that if it hurts the surf, Chevron has to finance a "replacement"
>reef, at great expense of course. The project *did* apparently screw up
>sand flow to the downcoast beach break of concern, and Chevron is going to
>make good on the deal. As far as I know this will be the first
>*intentional* artificial surf spot on the planet, other than wave pools.
> It will be interesting to follow the progress of "Chevron Reef."
>If it works out well, it will be a good precedent for other projects.
It's called Pratte's Reef (after Tom Pratte), it's being built near El Segundo,
CA, by Skelly Engineering, Encinitas and it is indeed the first of its kind.
Not only is it the first time someone gets to pay up for destroying a surf spot
(Chevron) it is also the first intentional artificial reef as Will mentioned.
Surfrider Foundation won the case against Chevron and we are proud that Dave
Skelly gets to build it (b/c he was the lowest bidder :)). Dave is a member
of the Environmental Issues Team of Surfrider Foundation. check out
http://www.sdsc.edu/~sdccsf/newsletter/0296/localfrm.html and
http://www.sdsc.edu/SDSC/Partners/Surfrider/more/eit/main.htm
for more information on the topic!
cheers,
h.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
/ Helge Weissig
/ Surfrider Foundation, San Diego County Chapter
/ http://www.sdsc.edu/~sdccsf
Robert Sullivan
Just to add to the artificial reef discussion. I recall seeing a program
on a cable station - Discovery or TLC? - on artificial reef research at
an Austrailian University. Also, it is my understanding that Ala Moana
is somewhat man-made or man shaped? Bob.
Timothy B. Maddux
>diving enhancement, not surfing. The one exception, which so
>far as I know is not yet complete, is an artificial surfing reef near El
>Porto (just south of Santa Monica).
It's being dubbed "Pratt's Reef", is still in the permitting
process, and is a fairly basic sandbag design in (ironically)
a chevron shape with the point oriented seaward.
>...it seems a mitigation for a Chevron coastal project nearby
>was that if it hurts the surf, Chevron has to finance a "replacement"
>reef, at great expense of course.
The project was a groin to protect some of Chevron's oil interests.
While I'm in general more enthusiastic about the idea of being able
to create reefs than the notion of creating waves w/ a machine, I
share the caution that the Surfrider Foundation position paper
presents w.r.t. this kind of project. We don't want companies to
shrug their shoulders at the destruction of a surf spot by saying
"hey, we can just make you a new one."
>But I think some hot ocean bottom/wave specialists could design reefs that
>would cause no trouble, create new habitat for fish and invertebrates, and
>best of all put waves where there are none, or only mediocre ones, at this
>point in time.
Our knowledge of the various side effects mentioned are so marginal
at this time that we could likely do a lot more harm than good by
trying to engineer our own bottom topographies.
The aforementioned position paper can be found at:
http://www.sdsc.edu/surfrider.html
in the Environmental Issues Team section.
--
Tim Maddux -- tbma...@engineering.ucsb.edu
Santa Barbara Surfing -- http://www.engineering.ucsb.edu/~tbmaddux/
Christopher G. Hill
A fair amount of Ala Moana is man-shaped. The break by Rocky
Point is formed by Magic Island, most of which is man-made. At
the other end is Kewalo Basin, also man-made. Come to think of
it, I think most of Ala Moana Beach Park is man-made as well. It
makes for some good surf though. Last weekend, there was a nice
four foot south swell that made for some great stand-up tube
rides all along Alamo.
--
Christopher Hill
Aiea (O`ahu), Hawai`i
robert brannan
Have been to webpage at
http://www.sdsc.edu/~sdccsf/newsletter/0296/localfrm.html
Summary of artifical reef at El Segundo:
no exact location has been picked yet.
will consist of high-strength plastic bags filled with sand and
placed by barge. Each filled bag will weigh 15 tons.
The bags will be arrayed in a chevron configuration or multiple 'V''s
pointing out to sea. I guess each row of V's will be at a higher
height, as it moves closer to shore, with the Chevron to be located
just beyond the normal area where waves break. I hope this implies
that it will be a big wave break! or-- that the Chevron will groom the
waves into beatiful peaks.
Presently, they expect construction to begin in Fall or Spring 97'
Additionally, the cost will be 300,000 dollars, and they will be
conducting research, photography(underwater), trained observers,etc.
to watch how the waves break here.
I hope this doesn't mean that surfing will be restricted or delayed
until research is completed.
Peter Amschel
>
>A fair amount of Ala Moana is man-shaped. The break by Rocky
>Point is formed by Magic Island, most of which is man-made. At
>the other end is Kewalo Basin, also man-made. Come to think of
>it, I think most of Ala Moana Beach Park is man-made as well. It
>makes for some good surf though. Last weekend, there was a nice
>four foot south swell that made for some great stand-up tube
>rides all along Alamo.
>
>
How did they make it? What did they use?
Will Borgeson
Timothy B. Maddux (tbma...@alumnae.caltech.edu) wrote:
: While I'm in general more enthusiastic about the idea of being able
: to create reefs than the notion of creating waves w/ a machine, I
: share the caution that the Surfrider Foundation position paper
: presents w.r.t. this kind of project. We don't want companies to
: shrug their shoulders at the destruction of a surf spot by saying
: "hey, we can just make you a new one."
I share your concerns, but would point out that a) Surfrider Fdn.
is not so cautious that they would have nothing to do with the Chevron
artificial reef concept, in fact it is largely Surfrider's concept; b) I
think it's a step forward that, in part thanks to Surfrider (and departed
lawyer Mark Massara, now with the Sierra Club), large firms are even
acknowledging the importance of surf spots, and c) that part of the Santa
Monica bay is already sooo disturbed, that some cautionary concepts may
not apply as much as they would in a more pristine situation. If the
"Pratte Reef" "fix" works, perhaps that could lead to fixing other
jetties, etc. to create surf spots.
: Our knowledge of the various side effects mentioned are so marginal
: at this time that we could likely do a lot more harm than good by
: trying to engineer our own bottom topographies.
Well, we've been engineering our own bottom topographies for
decades in California, for better or worse. "For better," wave-wise,
includes stuff like the SB Sandspit and the 7 Jetties in your area, and
spots further afield like the Wedge, the jetty at Eureka, Corona del Mar
jetty, the several Oceanside jetties, the "Lighthouse Jetties" in Santa
Monica, the Mission Beach jetties, other jetty breaks at Morro Bay and
Carlsbad, the Redondo breakwater, and many more. Also, world-class spots
like the beach breaks around Oxnard exist near, if not because of, large
amounts of human coastal engineering efforts "upstream" from the surf
spots in terms of predominant sand and water flow. I mentioned the large
number of artificial reefs already on-line in SoCali, and have not heard
of any negative effects. Doesn't mean they don't exist, just that they
need to be looked at.
I think I'm as natural and ecological as the next guy, but given
the crowding situation in the surf in SoCali, and the fact that many areas
are already extremely disturbed by human coastal activity, I think
artificial reefs is a good area for careful study. The only reason our
knowledge of the various side effects mentioned is so marginal, is that
not much attention has been focused on it. Numerous study sites already
exist...ones where surf has been improved by man-made structures, and ones
where it's been damaged. Great topic for a PhD dissertation! ;=>
California is a state where it just about takes an act of God to
get a permit to do *anything* in the coastal zone. I think it is to the
mega-bureaucracy's credit that it is permitting the patently experimental
Chevron/Surfrider project to go forward.
Will
Timothy B. Maddux
In article <4m8c20$o...@useneta1.news.prodigy.com>,
Robert Sullivan <WLP...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>... it is my understanding that Ala Moana
The wave shape at Ala Moana is an indirect result
of the construction done for the harbor there. It's
a man-influenced break in the spirit of the South
Jetty in Ventura, Sand Spit in Santa Barbara, and
the Wedge, but not a man-made reef.
Surfer Bob
Timothy B. Maddux wrote:
> While I'm in general more enthusiastic about the idea of being able
>> Will Borgeson said:
>>But I think some hot ocean bottom/wave specialists could design reefs >>that would cause no trouble, create new habitat for fish and >>invertebrates, and best of all put waves where there are none...
> And Tim responded:
> Our knowledge of the various side effects mentioned are so marginal
> at this time that we could likely do a lot more harm than good by
> trying to engineer our own bottom topographies.
> The aforementioned position paper can be found at:
> http://www.sdsc.edu/surfrider.html
> in the Environmental Issues Team section
-------------------------------------------------------
Dear Tim and Will and everybody,
This got a bit long, but hear me out.
I'm trained as an ecologist and I have spent the last 10 years working
on ecological restoration projects, including 5 years doing wetland and
endangered species mitigation projects in the belly of the beast- San
Diego County. I've listened to this same argument play out in that
context for years now. People get very emotional and dogmatic about,
"Whether restoration works or not," as if it were simply a question of
technique. Restoring natural resources- surf spots or wetlands- involves
at least 4 issues I'd like to clearly separate: technical, political,
ecological, and moral issues. I think many people hide behind technical
and ecological issues for political reasons and beat up people on
their own side with weak moral arguments.
Human economic activity- mostly urban development- continues to destroy
wetlands and surfspots worldwide. Human development occasionally creates
wetlands and surfspots alike, but the net effect has certainly been a
huge cumulative loss for wetlands, and a somewhat smaller loss of
surfspots. Everyone wants to use science to support their position-
developers to win permits to build and preservationists to win planning
decisions to block projects. People who care about preserving natural
resources are very conscious of the political arena in which individual
development projects are approved or blocked and everyone scrutinizes
new research in light of its potential to support one side or the other.
It's very hard to do research that is perceived by the public as
objective, because all results are immediately exploited by interest
groups to support their causes. Some scientists have been driven to take
highly publicized stands on one side or the other that are not well
supported by scientific evidence. In this highly politicized atmosphere,
objective scientific opinion (which is a little like truth?) tends to
get trampled.
Wetland restoration has been around in the US for 10-60 years, depending
on how you define it. Surf spot restoration may be attempted at El
Segundo for the very first time soon. I know a lot about wetlands and a
fair amount about waves and beaches. My experience is that wetland
restoration definitely works, if you do it right. Doing it right can be
very expensive, mostly because getting the right real estate can be
very expensive and site selection is very important. With our current
political climate, regulatory agencies generally can't make developers
pay for very expensive mitigation, so a fair amount of cheap, half-assed
mitigation occurs and some projects fail pretty dismally. They don't
fail because no one knows how to restore a wetland but because our
current political climate cannot enforce the requirement that developers
do real, effective mitigation. There are technical challenges, but there
are some very good technicians out there. The main problem is the
political climate.
So here we go with surfspot creation and we get all the same arguments.
Although this has not yet been proven by practice, I believe that the
technical problems of building surf spots are real, but trivial.
If it were the Army Corps of Engineer's new mission to create good surf
spots and they got the money they get now to wreck our coastlines and
rivers, we could have good human-made surf spots by the dozens before
the turn of the century. If it were a national priority, we would have
good minds working with real budgets and we'd make it a high art. Sure
it's tricky to make the reef just right, but it's not that tricky. I
think a lot of people claim it is not technically possible because they
are afraid of the political implications of admitting the possibility.
That's a very real concern -developers might well propose to destroy
existing surf spots with the promise of mitigation- but as a scientist
it irks me to play hide and seek with the truth. The El Segundo effort
will surely be as cheap as Chevron can get away with and we'll see what
comes of it. We surfers should apply all possible political pressure to
force them to do it well and demonstrate with careful monitoring the
actual creation of quality surf where none formerly existed.
The main problem is that there is little money in making surf spots. No
government has seen fit to invest in surf enhancement (although huge
sums are spent to keep sand on beaches and good surf would definitely
enhance tourism), and no surf entrepreneurs have come forward to do it
privately. We all prefer to spend our money travelling to surf, instead
of making it at home. Magazines are filled with ads for surf camps and
travel caterers, but those are all natural surfspots. Private companies
make golf courses, and ski resorts and charge people good money to come
there, but this has yet to catch on for surfers. Because surfing has the
tradition of being a "free ride," the thought of paying for it at your
local beach seems anathema. But look how much people will happily pay
for a week on Tavarua.
So what can we do? I think the single most valuable thing the Surfrider
Foundation has done is introduce into land use planning arenas the idea
that surf spots are natural and recreational resources that have a
political constituency and therefore have value. I think surf spots are
even harder to protect than wetlands because they do not provide the
same level of ecological/economic functions and values as wetlands
(floodwater storage, groundwater recharge, wildlife habitat value, water
quality improvement, etc.).
Natural surf spots will only be protected to the extent that they have a
political constituency. Surfers are a small minority in any country on
earth, and are widely perceived to be mostly young, poorly financed,
apathetic, and disorganized- in short, not a credible political force.
We surfers have got to educate and organize ourselves and others, and
lobby effectively to apply political pressure in the land use planning
arena. We've got a long way to go and we're up against people with a lot
of money who don't surf, but we have to do it. We have no choice really.
If not us, then who?
What are the ecological effects of creating surf spots? Possibly
excepting coral reefs, I assert that living things in most nearshore and
littoral zones where there is swell are adapted to a regime of periodic
and intense disturbances every bit as destructive as the installation of
an artificial reef. Most of the organisms are r-selected, meaning they
have very high reproductive rates and are quick to recover from
disturbances and colonize new substrates. The sand at beachbreaks
naturally moves on and offshore with the seasons. Unless the footprint
of the reef was going right on top of some extremely rare and locally
endemic species (and we should look for those), the ecological impact on
living things would be small and very temporary. I'm much more concerned
about ongoing effects of sewage spills and nonpoint source water
pollution from on land.
As far as morality is concerned, I would gladly trade my local meager
beachbreak for a Kirra. I would love to see that gnarly, unsurfable
closeout of a reef down the way made to peel. People have often accused
restorationists of "Playing God," as if we shouldn't be so bold as to
change our world. But aboriginal peoples around the world burned
grasslands for millenia to make good forage for big game. What's wrong
with bringing out the unrealized surf potential of a coastline in an
ecologically sensitive manner for the benefit of the surfing community?
Some people assert that no human created wetland could possibly be as
valuable as a naturally occurring one, but endangered least Bell's
vireos like them OK. Is Kirra less valuable than J-Bay because it was
created? Is Ala Moana less valuable than Makaha? Does the Wedge help pay
Orange County back for the loss of Killer Dana Point? I say the more
great waves in this world, the better. Let's surf!
About political reality: I grew up in southern California and have
watched the bulldozers coming my whole life. At its worst, mitigation is
a lie and a cheat so the big boys can bulldoze even more of our
homeland. Absolutely. If there will be mitigation, we need to insist on
high quality (read: expensive) work and rigorous monitoring to stop this
kind of ripoff. But as a restorationist I believe that surf spot
creation could be a great thing. It would take more political will
translated into more money and more enforcement of permit conditions
than we have now, but I'm not afraid to dream that it is possible. I
feel like a liar hiding behind technical issues that I think are bogus,
even if they are politically expedient in the short term. I'd love to
work with good technicians with a real budget and make the Army Corps
pay for destroying Dana Point by using their damn bulldozers to build
four more excellent breaks. And then we could sock it to them for taking
Long Beach and San Pedro and....
Hmmm, this has turned into quite a rant, hasn't it?
Anyway, that's what I think. Thanks for reading this far.
Let a dozen threads bloom.
Aloha,
Surfer Bob
Timothy B. Maddux
Surfer Bob wrote (in part):
>Although this has not yet been proven by practice, I believe that the
>technical problems of building surf spots are real, but trivial.
It's hard to argue with a belief. Pratte's Reef is essentially
an experiment with a big pricetag, being paid for by Chevron.
Many of these arguments boil down to financial issues. The
Corps spends millions every year researching in the coastal
zone right now. It would be politically difficult to get more
in the current climate, let alone hold ground.
>Sure it's tricky to make the reef just right, but it's not that tricky. I
>think a lot of people claim it is not technically possible because they
>are afraid of the political implications of admitting the possibility.
[ which are... ]
>That's a very real concern -developers might well propose to destroy
>existing surf spots with the promise of mitigation- ...
If you read the aforementioned position paper, that's all it really
says. *First and foremost, do no harm*. It's simple, and cost-
effective, and keeps the beach in its current dynamic equilibrium
state.
>I think the single most valuable thing the Surfrider Foundation has
>done is introduce into land use planning arenas the idea
>that surf spots are natural and recreational resources that have a
>political constituency and therefore have value.
[ ... ]
>We surfers have got to educate and organize ourselves and others, and
>lobby effectively to apply political pressure in the land use planning
>arena.
I couldn't agree with you more, on both counts.
>... I assert that living things in most nearshore and
>littoral zones where there is swell are adapted to a regime
>of periodic and intense disturbances every bit as destructive
>as the installation of an artificial reef.
That's just one of many concerns.
* What will the reef do to the littoral transport of sediment,
and what sort of long-term effects will that have on adjoining
beaches? The Sand Spit may fire, but the bottom sediment it
uses has been lost to Hammonds, Miramar, and Summerland.
* Will the reef survive a winter storm swell, either by being
scoured-under, pushed on- or off- shore, or simply being pulverized?
The cause-and-effect of coastal projects of all kinds, not just
reefs, demands more research. That's essentially what Chevron
is paying for. I'm excited at the possibilities, but scared
at the same time.
The Army Corps of Engineers for years has been doing things
the short-sighted way, which also has served to be self-perpetuating
in that they keep mitigating their mitigations of their original
projects. We need to be cautious when approaching projects of
this kind, so that we don't wind up regretting it 10-20 years
down the line.
>I'd love to work with good technicians with a real budget and
>make the Army Corps pay for destroying Dana Point...
Unfortunately, that cannot happen. Pratte's Reef came about due
to language that was lobbied for by surfers (Tom Pratte?) at the
time of the jetty's construction. Stanleys, Killer Dana's, are
gone... forever.
Peter Amschel
I'm with you on all that Surfer Bob; but I say let's order the Corps of
Engineers to build 4 surf spots, as you say, to your specifications, to make
up for them ruining Doheny and Killer Dana for the last 30 years; but let's
also make them put Doheny and Killer Dana back the way it was.
Is that unrealistic, Surfer Bob, to make them put Doheny and Killer Dana back
the way it was? Would that displace too many boaters who now disembark into
the ocean at Dana Point? What about the boaters? (I say: "Fuck the boaters"
because the surf was there first, but I wanted to hear your more
informed opinion as to what to do with the boaters if we order the Army to put
Doheny and Dana Cove back the way they were.)
Rick Ciaccio
I'm all for your pipe dream Amschel, but I also enjoy going out on my
buddies Cal 36 occasionally (if I'm not hungover after a Sat. nite
party which seems to always be the case when we get together).
We leave out of Dana Point Harbor, I have had many good times at the
Marina eating oysters and drinking Mexican beer on the way home from
Trestles, T Street, etc. so I say leave it alone. On the other hand
lets restore Doheny and build reefs in spaced relation up the coast.
That should keep the flamage down in alt.surfing.
Of course, there would always be the candyasses in rubber suits
frequenting these new breaks right? ;-)
Rick
David Hazard
One of the best surf spots in California was artificially and
(unfortunately) temporarily created about 3 or 4 years ago in Newport
Beach. Anybody who surfed the "Dredge" peak at RJ's knows what I'm
talking about.
robert brannan
In <4mk4ne$l...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> dha...@ix.netcom.com(David
Yep, perfect example of how a well formed sandbar (or reef) can groom
about 2 ft. of swell into 6-8 ft. faces with good shape. Of course, it
worked as well at higher swell heights.
Will Borgeson
Timothy B. Maddux (tbma...@abalone.ucsb.edu) wrote:
: * What will the reef do to the littoral transport of sediment,
: beaches? The Sand Spit may fire, but the bottom sediment it
: uses has been lost to Hammonds, Miramar, and Summerland.
I don't know that the Sandspit harbors all that much sand. I try
to think of the sand flow as a river, with feeder streams adding more.
Sand comes to the Sandspit from the north and from streams feeding into
the harbor, and exits to the south. There are also plenty of arroyos
adding more sediment between the Sandspit and the spots you mentioned.
Hammonds, Rincon and Miramar have continued to have plenty of sand flow,
and good waves, over the years that the Sandspit has existed. Not much
surf of interest in Summerland, main stuff to do there is eat burgers (the
Nugget) or hang (heh) at the nude beach.
Jetties and breakwaters that stick out more or less perpendicular
from the coast have much more significant effects on longshore sand flow
than do features like the Sandspit, which after all is within Santa
Barbara Harbor (and is a well-known thorn in the side of the
Harbormaster, because it won't go away and requires dredging).
: * Will the reef survive a winter storm swell, either by being
: scoured-under, pushed on- or off- shore, or simply being pulverized?
This is a legitimate concern. Such structures need to be big
and/or well attached to the substrate. I'd vote for big.
Another concern that will come up, and is also fairly legitimate,
is the navigational hazard thing. While artificial reefs would most often
be in water too shallow for ships or large boats, stuff happens, and if I
were skipper of a vessel in a hazardous situation of being too close to
shore, the last thing I'd want would be unexpected submerged debris.
Will
George Edmond Eddy
dha...@ix.netcom.com(David Hazard) writes:
>One of the best surf spots in California was artificially and
>(unfortunately) temporarily created about 3 or 4 years ago in Newport
>Beach. Anybody who surfed the "Dredge" peak at RJ's knows what I'm
>talking about.
Thank's if ya don't get sick surfing there 8-/. I remember last fathers
day, it was 3-6 ft (backs) and unbelievable!!! unfortunantly the water
was solid brown like a dirt field with perfect waves 8-(. and lots of
sewer trash spewed all over the beach. ARRRGHH!
--
- rusty
Timothy B. Maddux
In article <4modbn$9...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Will Borgeson <szbo...@chip.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> I don't know that the Sandspit harbors all that much sand. I try
>to think of the sand flow as a river, with feeder streams adding more.
>Sand comes to the Sandspit from the north and from streams feeding into
>the harbor, and exits to the south.
Sand comes to the Sandspit from the north. The only stream near the harbor
is Mission Creek, which comes out south of the Spit. All other harbor
water entrance is from hard storm drain runoff -- no sand entry. There
wouldn't be any current in the harbor to transport it.
Which comes to the second point. The harbor and its associated
jetties and breakwaters (at the end of which lies the Spit) do
constitute a break in the former equilibrium littoral transport
stream. Wave energy that reaches the spit is vastly diminished
by the time it reaches the end, requiring dredging to mitigate
the sand that is continuously left behind.
Nearly all of Leadbetter Beach is comprised of sand that has
been deposited there permanently as a result of the construction of harbor
jetties and breakwater extensions. Photos show the mean waterline before
the construction of the harbor jetties as being within twenty yards of
the cliffs near SBCC. While Leadbetter is stable as it is now,
it still represents a vast accumulation of sand at the expense of
the beaches downcoast.
>Hammonds, Rincon and Miramar have continued to have plenty of sand flow,
>and good waves, over the years that the Sandspit has existed.
Again, photos show that Miramar used to have a beach tens of yards wider
than the beach that is there now. The flow may have stayed about the
same, but the resuiltant equilibrium profiles have changed dramatically.
The harbor was put in place long before anyone started surfing along
this stretch of coastline, perhaps Miramar would have been better
or worse (?) with the beach it used to have. I don't know. Does
anyone? I know Rincon seems to break better after the first good winter swell
yanks all the sand offshore along Bates Beach and the Indicator.
As far as Pratte's Reef is concerned, Surfrider needs to be
aware of the possibility of worsening the situation downcoast in
exchange for the potential improvement from the reef.
> Jetties and breakwaters that stick out more or less perpendicular
>from the coast have much more significant effects on longshore sand flow
>than do features like the Sandspit...
The Sandspit exists *because* of the jetties and breakwaters that comprise
the northern section of the harbor. I should have been more clear and
pointed my finger more directly at the harbor instead of the resulting
break along the southern breakwater extension.
> Another concern that will come up, and is also fairly legitimate,
>is the navigational hazard thing. While artificial reefs would most often
>be in water too shallow for ships or large boats, stuff happens, and if I
>were skipper of a vessel in a hazardous situation of being too close to
>shore, the last thing I'd want would be unexpected submerged debris.
Agreed. I recall reading in one of the magazines that regulations
require the reef be submerged at least 4 feet underwater on the lowest
low tide of the year. That means that most of the time, the top of
the reef would have to be at least 6 feet underwater (on a 0-ft. tide)
and even as much as 10-12 feet underwater on a high tide. Sounds fickle
to me.
KITHILL
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> Another concern that will come up, and is also fairly legitimate,
>is the navigational hazard thing. While artificial reefs would most
often
>be in water too shallow for ships or large boats, stuff happens, and if I
>were skipper of a vessel in a hazardous situation of being too close to
>shore, the last thing I'd want would be unexpected submerged debris.
Agreed. I recall reading in one of the magazines that regulations
require the reef be submerged at least 4 feet underwater on the lowest
low tide of the year. That means that most of the time, the top of
the reef would have to be at least 6 feet underwater (on a 0-ft. tide)
and even as much as 10-12 feet underwater on a high tide. Sounds fickle
to me.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Tim, Will et al
All this discussion makes me wonder about Treasure Island in SF Bay.
Seeing that it is exposed to the Gate, that waves break at Fort Point and
that it will probably be open to the public....how about a man made reef
or beach there on the west end facing the channel?
Perhaps proper marking could keep big boats etc off of it. The thing I
don't know about is the depth and contour of the bottom from TI to the
Gate. I know it would be expensive etc. but it may be something that
windsurfers, beachgoers, fisherman and surfers could all get behind if it
was done with wisdom, respect for the enviroment and some good
engineering.
Kit
"Better is a friend that is near, than a brother that is far away" -
Solomon
Glenn
An artificial reef should be of no problem to coast wise navigators. It
would surley be put in updated charts and and prior to that be posted
in the "notice to mariners". There are lots of submerged rocks and
reefs that are unseen to navigators, which are only avoidable by
careful navigation, ie. using a chart and plotting a course to your
destination. For it to be said that a artificial surfing reef would be
a hazard to navigation, is a joke, unless it was put directly in front
of a harbor entrance!
Glenn