SAVE SLOAT: Comment on Armoring at Ocean Beach

put an artificial reef out there to absorb wave energy. Preferably a nice point break with a channel out both ends.

It sounds to me like the DPW is actually attempting to *Save ######* by reinforcing it against further erosion. However, there is something (not explained) wrong with that plan and we are supposed to "comment" to prevent actual shit from being done.

I'm a simpleton, but even so I can see that ###### is clearly falling into the ocean. Inaction will further this. I get that Surfrider sees a problem with the DPW's plan... Okay, got it. So two questions (and please answer using small words)...

1) What is the problem with reinforcing ######?

2) What is the solution that you (or Surfrider) propose instead of what the DPW is offering and how/why is it a better plan?

I'm all for choosing the smart answer and doing things the right way. I'm just seeing a call to arms against doing something, but I'm totally in the dark as to why. I didn't study environmental engineering in college. I clearly don't fully understand the problem, or more to the point -- the flaw in the proposed solution.

It looks to me that Saving ###### is a goal that's being pursued by the DPW and Surfrider is being an obstructionist distraction. Having helped raise quite a bit of bread for Surfrider, I'm really hoping that there is more to the story and that someone can explain it to me in a way that I can understand....

What's the deal, yo?

Please replace all ##### in that last comment with Sl0at and it will make a hell of a lot more sense.

A very simple hippie viewpoint to be added in here, is let the ocean do what it wants, roads/civilization/showers/bathrooms be damned.
As flowerchild as that sounds, that's my position. If I had a house on the Great Highway (which could be the next target if the action was "inaction"), maybe I'd think differently, but I don't.
We as a society should think very carefully where we put our houses and construction. *cough* Espalanade *cough*

@tcannon: I'm gonna guess the current "solution" is being proposed because it's the least expensive. The "doing nothing" option isn't a real option because isn't there a sewer pipe there? Even if they don't put in anti-erosion reinforcement, they'd have to reroute the sewer pipe somewhere.

@piss: come on, you gotta support the artificial reef/point break! :)

There are several problems with armoring the shoreline with large r0cks. First of all, the physical problems from dumping all the r0ck on the beach not only covers up most of the beach, but it increases wave reflections, which in turn increases the scour in front of the new revetment. As the beach in front scours out and deepens (we lose the sandbars) a larger hole is formed and the revetment starts to slide down in elevation and toward the ocean. So, more r0ck will have to be added and the revetment will be under constant construction - this is called "chasing the toe," because the toe of the revetment keeps on getting deeper and moves further seaward. Now we are left with a situation where there is no beach and no sandbars, which allow for larger waves to possibly break directly on the revetment, which in my opinion threatens the 14 ft diameter wastewater tunnel even more! (The pipe is used to move a small amount of wastewater from some apartments by Lake Merced and is also used partially as storage during storms). Not to mention the surf quality probably decreases in front of the revetment.

In order to construct the revetment, DPW has to get a permit from the Coastal Commission. In the past they try to get the City to declare emergency which enables them to dump r0ck under an emergency permit. Eventually they are supposed to apply for a real permit, but it is unlikely that they ever follow up and close the books. Furthermore, DPW is trying to use fear tactics by claiming that the road will erode and the wastewater tunnel are going to be exposed and spill sewage on the beach. There is no real documentation or risk assessment that has been completed to show that the wastewater tunnel is actually threatened. By building the r0ck revetment they are probably putting the pipe more at risk by allowing larger waves to break right on it. And if it is exposed, will it rupture? I think that a 14 ft diameter pipe should be able to withstand earthquakes and exposure. DPW sees a chance to protect the road under the guise of an emergency and they are going to do as much r0ck placement as they can at one time, while they can.

Solutions and future adaptations are being (and have been) developed by the Ocean Beach Task Force, a group appointed by former mayor Willie Brown. One solution is "managed retreat" where the infrastructure is moved away from the shoreline and a natural buffer is created. This way the bluffs are allowed to erode naturally and we can keep our beach. The problem was created because the City built out onto the beach, and created the Great Highway Extension and the South Sl0at parking lot. There were actually dunes built in front of them but they eroded during the first winter, exposing all the rubble they placed on the beach below the dunes. That's why it looks like Tijuana now. By reducing the number of lanes and moving the road back (or getting rid of it) and rerouting the wastewater tunnel, there is plenty of room to make the Southern portion of Ocean Beach really nice. I can envision native dune plants and wide beach with great surf out front. Right now there is a big hole and the surf is super funky, but it used to be really good.

But most of all, we have so many roads and pipes here in San Francisco, but we only have one Ocean Beach! What do you want? I want the beach! Move the pipe and the road.

@lounar: I dig, completely, that you put the time and effort in to write a thoughtful and eloquent explanation. Sure, I had to look up "scour" and "revetment" but otherwise it all pretty much made sense as I read it. I've got some small arguments and I can't imagine the city moving the road and septic system to save one block of beach, but I admire your vision.

this thread all came around last winter. as i recall, dumping sand rather than boulders would mitigate the erosion without creating the wave reflection problem. more expensive than rock but less expensive than moving the road.

Actually the Corps of Engineers offered to do a sand replenishment program for that part of the beach as they have successfully done for other parts of the beach where we've had this problem in the past.. DPW resisted this plan when offered saying it would "take to long" (6 months or so as I understood it) they also rejected a number of "softer" options (citing cost) which would have allowed for short term protection while seeking a better viable long term program to deal with the issue.

Basically DPW moved ahead with the "emergency" program got the rocks and then added them thus "solving" the issue for themselves for about a year.. The last big swell you could clearly see the wave action scouring AND revetments redirect the wave action to either side which was also clearly visible and AS PREDICTED and actually increases erosion on either side of the revetment!

What should happen is a beach replenishment program which is actually on par cost wise and way more effective and would not have as many unintended consequences.. It would preserve (enhance?) the surf spot (as a beach break sorry fellas!), protect the infrastructure, and create new beach habitat while expanding the wave protection zone...

Really long term the pacific ocean is going to pound it's way back to lake Merced and it'd be nice if we went ahead and planned for that and moved the water treatment plant, pipes, and roads accordingly... But we don't like to think or spend $$ that way

As a side note I deleted all my true and unflattering thoughts about DPW because it just seemed mean and conduct unbecoming a Stokereporter.... Ok most of them...

peaceout

the turtle deleted r0cks

sand replenishment sounded like the best, long-term option last year during the discussions, but I recall the Army COE saying they needed to retrofit one of their boats to be able to bring the sand by boat and then pump it to the beach. Otherwise it has to be trucked in and that's A LOT of trucks and diesel exhaust/greenhouse gases. it didn't sound like the retrofit was that costly in the scheme of things, but I don't know if they ever moved forward with the plan. Would be a shame if they didn't and we've lost all that time.

Hey guys,

The SPUR Ocean Beach Master Plan process is charged with recommending a long term plan for ######. There are a series of workshops to take public input on the matter (as well as other Ocean Beach management issues). Surfrider and Save the Waves are backing a "Managed Retreat" strategy. Generally this means vulnerable infrastructure is relocated away from the ocean over time and a sand dune replaces the armored shoreline we currently have. By the way, we are under no illusions that the City is going to move the entire infrastructure out of the way tommorrow... We are seeking some sort of sensible compromise that restores as much beach area as possible for the ocean now, with a policy of openess toward additional relocation later if conditions warrant. The Master Plan's next public workshop will be June 4th. Location tba. For more info check sfsurfrider.org -###### Erosion Blog