EXACTLY!
Read both sides
Know what is going on first

so far only 42 people have signed the petition.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/m...ignatures.html

I signed the petition on behalf of the residents to allow it to be dumped here, but I maintain that it is worse than was expected.

I know some of the signatures on the current petition, looks like it was probably initiated by the surfing community. They share the same resources we do, event though we sometimes conflict.

I dont believe stopping the dumping of the dredge spoils entirely is the way to ge. We just need a proactive solution to dealing with the mess. The stuff that is there is accessible and can be removed. There is a lot, so it is not going to be "easy", but it still needs to be done.

toonoc if you dont believe that stopping the dredging is the way to go then why did you sign the petition??

The focus of this should be about the trash. beach cleanups, etc. IMO

how about a signup list for volunteers??

I rather pick up junk than to have oil,pcb's,acid or other kinds of chemicals there. it's not pretty but we can clean it up if we all put our minds to it for shure.:bgi: :bgi: :bgi:

PCP?? :smokin:

The sand is needed. Instead of camplaining about the dumping, wew need to go back to the root cause...LAZYNESS!!

People throwing things in the water because once they leave the surface they don't exist any more and they don't need to get hauled off a boat and disposed of properly.

Is it a shame the junk is washing up?? Yes it is, but if we plan to continue defying nature by building on the ever changing shoreline, we need to put the sand back..

Eben, I signed the petition a year or more ago to get the dredge project approved, as the replenshment is needed, NOT the one to stop it. I'll stick by that. Doesnt mean this still isnt a %$%$%$%$ed up situation that needs to be addressed.

Why does the goverment always spend money to save ocean front homes when their time is destine to run out. I do not know the hole story here but the sand might not be a bad idea. The beach is rather thin here.

JKSwim:
W/o knowing the story why comment?

The sand was put here at the behest of residents. They begged and pleaded and the Corps listened. The cheapest alternative would have been offshore, open water disposal. The cheapest 'beneficial' use was to put the sand nearshore and hope natural wave orbital motion would bring the sand to the beach. So that answers the why. They were going to do it anyways, this is a little more expensive. The BEST option was to pump it onto the beach directly but the $$ was way to high.

On June 26,1989, the tanker lsquoWorld Prodigyrsquo ran aground just outside the mouth of the West Passage of Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, USA. About 922 metric tons of No. 2 fuel oil were released into the water and drifted over a total area of about 120 sq miles. Three days after the spill only a small fraction of the oil remained.
The effects on macrobenthic crustaceans within the first five weeks after the spill were studied at five stations with a varying degree of oil exposure, including one control site never reached by oil from the spill. Significant differencies between these stations were noted for total amphipod abundance, the amphipod genus Ampelisca and ostracods (retained on a 0.3 mm mesh), but not for amphipods of the genus Corophium. At the most heavily impacted station (23 µg oil g–1 sediment dry weight), the total amphipod abundance, dominated by Ampelisca verrilli, decreased by 86% within the first two weeks after the spill. Decreases in total amphipod abundance significantly larger than at the control site were noted also at two other stations, one of which with only trace amounts of oil detected in the sediment. The amphipod populations at these sites were dominated by juvenile specimens.
These findings confirm the extreme sensitivity to oil pollution of amphipods and ostracods, noted in earlier field and experimental studies

On January 19, 1996 the tugboat Scandia and barge North Cape grounded and caught fire off a Rhode Island beach, resulting in the largest oil spill in Rhode Island’s history and devastating losses of marine life and migratory birds in the Rhode Island and Block Island Sounds. A lobsterman who traps lobster approximately seventeen miles north of the spill filed suit in 2002 against those responsible for what is called the North Cape oil spill. The lobsterman’s catch in 2000 was less than half of his catch in 1996. The district court dismissed the claims on summary judgment because it found no actual and proximate cause between the oil spill in 1996 and the lobsterman’s depleted catch.

The North Cape Oil Spill
The weather forecast on January 18, 1996 predicted severe winter storms and high winds over Rhode Island on the day of the North Cape oil spill. Despite the storm warnings, the captain and crew of the Scandia set out for Rhode Island from New Jersey with four million gallons of home heating oil in tow. Failing to heed weather conditions, however, was not the Scandia’s only mistake. The North Cape was being towed without its anchor windlass, which was essential for raising and lowering the barge’s 6,000-pound anchor. Because the windlass was broken, the crew left it behind and depended on a wire and rope rigging to hold the anchor. The crew was instructed to use the makeshift replacement only in an emergency because its use was very difficult.

Emergency ensued as the Scandia ventured into the North Atlantic winter storm and the crew was unable to lower the North Cape’s 6,000-pound anchor because of the storm’s severity. The Scandia’s voyage ended when it and the barge grounded off a Rhode Island beach and caught fire, releasing 828,000 gallons of oil into the water and covering nine miles of Rhode Island shoreline. The vast area of affected waters was closed to fishing for several months. The spill had devastating effects on both marine life and migratory birds in the affected areas: authorities reported removing almost three million dead lobsters from Rhode Island beaches. The oil spill killed approximately nine million lobsters in Rhode Island and Block Island Sounds. A joint task force of federal and state agencies implemented a restoration plan for the oil spill in September of 1996 leading to the placement of 1.5 million lobsters in 2000 as part of the restoration p



I take the beer cans over this any dam time we can clean this crap up

The processes of the past are exactly what is happening now, that is, no matter how much sand you put out there, the longshore drift currents that form barrier beaches on the east coast travel from Maine to Florida. this is a stop gap measure that will not save anyone's precious beach properties that the rest of the taxpayers have to underwrite the Flood Insurance on. In the summer, calm weather (winds) act to accrete (build up) sand along the shore, while rough winter weather tends to take that sand away, deposit some of it offshore, but most of it enters the longshore drift process and ends up in CT, Long Island, Jersey, NC, etc., etc. Go to the beach in August, its all built up, go in March and look what has happened. This process has been going on since time memorial. If we are foolhardy enough to believe we can buck these historic processes with short term measures that waste resources so that a few homeowners benefit to while the rest of us foot the bill, well.... ANyway, look back to the catastroiphic weather events that have changed Narragansett Beach and other south shore beaches, i.e., Hurriucanes, the "Bob"" Storm, etc., you'll get a better understanding of these processes. talk to Jon Boothroyd, URI Geology to get some more info, Jon is a preeminent sedimentologist who has studied this phenom for decades and as his student I learned how to be a better fisherman by understanding that what's under the water, writes the story of "reading the water".

Chuck;
generally right,
BUT look at the beach in Charlestown etc. now.
IT is not a winter beach (erosional) summer beach (depositional)
That works on the west coast, here it is Storm beach (erosional) Fair-weather beach (depositional) whenever the storms happen.

The longshore current acts a bit more locally than that, and is generated by wave action and the angle of waves to the shoreline (i.e. sand from fire island doesn't end up on Misquamicut) The RI south Shore is basically a closed cell from watch hill to Pt J.

Jon is my adviser

pcb !!:whackin:

I don't believe any pettitions should be allowed to be posted here unless all the details of the person or organization posting the pettition are disclosed.

I don't want to cloud the issue of disclosure by commenting on the issue at hand.

The person or organization who is asking for signatures should disclose who they are or get the petition off this site.

I also think that nobody with only 4 posts should be posting petitions.

right on SaltHeart
 

you da man.... exactly my thoughts. (and then some) :btu:

They have been pumping sand on the beaches here in NJ for the last decade..
It is a stop gap measure that ruins the eccosystem for yrs.
Dredge sand is like putting ur finger in a dyke..

NIB:
Depends on the sand source.
They did it last year in Charlestown, taking sand from the pond and onto the beach. no ill effects.

It's no the source as much as the overall blanketing of the structure.
The structure that harbors the begining of life an food chain in the ocean..
Pumped sand will not stay put..The normal flow the the ocean will take it where u might not want it.there is a very nice bar right adjacent to that beach....A 1/2 inch of sand over it would basically ruin the life there...

NIB.
That aint gonna happen there.
Not enough sand being added. Trust the RIR on this one. Thats the work we did for the project.

We have rutgers here to do the leg work..
the army core of engineers is in charge of the work..
Seems they run like a buisness with only keepin the ball rollin as the only agenda..
Many key fishing spots like the great rip at sandy hook where destroyed from the byproduct of beach relenishment never mind all the jetty's directly affected by the dumping...
Of course in NJ our project was Huge in comparison..
My point is sand dumping is still a band aid on the real problem..
In 2 yrs the folks at Matunock will be back to the drawing board..
Alternatives need be explored for a real sollution..

I agree to that last part.
But the scale of this project is small on the grand scheme of things.

Look up in my posts I use the term band-aid on a bullet wound a lot

I guess you guys in NJ have "natural" jetties? :)

I am not as smart as u mako man.
Perhaps u can explain ur last comment to me.
No the jetty's are not natural.they where built long ago.Some extended for 40-50 yds in below the surface..These rock structures where pivitol to our S-B fishery.Well not only where they blanketed in sand but they also took the rocks at the base of the beach on the ones that still extended into the water,.This idea was to help the sand flow from one beach to the next..Now instead of nice deep beaches to swim an fish from. We have these shallow bar
beaches with a rip current that keeps the lifeguards busy all day..
U have to basically take ur life in ur hands to get out on the rockpiles.The current that sweeps through is strong an the sand under foot is shifty..

Just that the "ecosystems" you complain about geting covered over are just as artificial as the pumping sand onto the beaches.

From what I've read about the Jersey project,it was a lot bigger in scale,and not well thought out.Am I correct that they closed herring runs with sand?
The problem at Matunuck needs to be addressed,and as said by Nib,it needs to be permanently addressed.Just the same,they gotta put the sand somewhere.If you ask me(which you didn't,I know)they're doing the right thing,but more needs to be done.

So what is ur point..
Do u think what they did was good.
I wish I knew the dollar amounts that the FEDERAL Goverment kicked in.Off the top of my head in the high hundreds of millions an they are not done..for sand that washes back into the ocean..
So rich people can have their water front property..
Ya the jetty's where man made they existed long before I was born.
The life off these elevated structure's provided many hrs of enjoyment for many yrs for all that took advantage..
If it was to Ur enjoyment i'm sure u would see it differently..

wouldnt be surpized if they you could find any plugs..... that s*ucks its a nice spot dont trash it

As I see it, there are lot more people who enjoy the beach than those that enjoy the jetties, plus the jetties are still there. So if its a motter of who gets to enjoy what, I'd say that the money was well spent, since a lot more people enjoy the beach. Either way we are talking about man-made structure, not natural structure.

Wow, those are some tough pictures Bill. My family spends 90% of the weekends in the summer in MTK. Since those beaches are populated by tons of young kids, including my own, this is deeply disturbing. Never mind the garbage, I cannot imagine the amount of dangerous stuff that can harm beachwalkers and kids digging in the sand. Its one thing to clean the surface, but whats lying 1 foot under the sand? Can anyone point me to the article that’s been mentioned?
I know people that have been going there for over 30 years. The beach used to be pretty large in front of the Mist and towards SK beach. It has been gone for years. Many blame the retaining wall that the Carps built to the right of the Mist.
Its really sad that such a beautiful area looks like this.