Re: Crissy going going gone...

From: Kirk Lindstrom (KirkLindstrom@ix.netcom.com-DeleteThis.com)
Date: Wed Jan 10 2001 - 11:07:58 PST

Next message: Chilton, Owain (GEIO): "RE: Crissy going going gone..."
Previous message: Richard Zimmerman: "Crissy going going gone..."
In reply to: Richard Zimmerman: "Crissy going going gone..."
Next in thread: Chilton, Owain (GEIO): "RE: Crissy going going gone..."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Message-ID: <3A5CB30E.A53C6E36@ix.netcom.com-DeleteThis.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:07:58 -0800
From: Kirk Lindstrom <KirkLindstrom@ix.netcom.com-DeleteThis.com>
To: wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com
Subject: Re: Crissy going going gone...
References: <B681EEBD.4238%windrider@ProtectOurBay.com-DeleteThis.com>

Thanks Richard.

One sad thought comes to mind....

"and they think they can predict what will happen in the SF Bay if they fill it
in for a runway"....

I think a good PR campaign would include actual footage of the storm today and
get it on the news... We might show that "mitigation" from filling the Bay
could actually do more harm then expected...before you even look at what harm
comes from filling the bay.

Kirk out

Richard Zimmerman wrote:

> January 10, 2001 (SF Chronicle)
> Winter Currents Eroding Beach At Crissy Field/GGNRA showplace threatened by
> high tides, surging storm swells
> Paul McHugh
>
> At the Presidio's troubled East Beach, those seeking to return Crissy
> Field to a measure of natural health have been shoveling sand -- and
> concrete - - against the tide. And that tide's been rising.
> This week, four extreme high tides of winter -- 7 feet above the mean --
> coupled with high offshore swells surging through the Golden Gate, have
> sent water lapping near major elements of the $32 million Crissy Field
> restoration project.
> A major storm could compound the threat. The National Weather Service was
> predicting cloudy skies and rain this afternoon with the added attraction
> of brisk wind.
> At risk are Crissy Field's broad new promenade, the seat wall that both
> protects it and offers rest benches for pedestrians and stability of a
> tidal inlet that leads to the project's centerpiece: a 20-acre marsh and
> lagoon.
> Already severely eroded is East Beach, a famed windsurfing site that has
> hosted four national championships. Formerly, its broad, sandy expanse in
> full view of the Golden Gate Bridge formed an ideal launch zone for
> windsurfers.
> But after the new lagoon was created and tides began to ebb and flow
> through the inlet, shifts in shoreline current gnawed away at the beach,
> subtracting sand by the dump truck-load to expose sharp, dangerous rubble
> on which beachgoers can cut their feet.
> Despite efforts to replenish this sand artificially, it has further
> eroded. Impacts of winter tides and waves are accelerating this process,
> and the lovely East Beach now offers a mere bone of its former bulk.
> Bill Robberson, president of the 2,000-member San Francisco Boardsailors
> Association, walked the beach yesterday morning, and watched waves ride
> the extreme high tide. They nibbled within a dozen feet of the promenade,
> lapped the base of the footbridge over the inlet, and sucked sand away
> from the rocky riprap intended to armor the sides of the inlet channel.
> "This is what you'd expect from a winter tide cycle," said Robberson, who
> is also a civil engineer. "See how aggressively waves rip at the sand?
> Imagine if a big storm hit right now. Without the barrier of East Beach,
> any extra surge would threaten the seat wall, the promenade and even the
> parking lot.
> "We used to have about 1,100 linear feet of safe, usable beach to launch
> and retrieve our boards," Robberson added glumly. "Now, we're down to
> about 70 feet, and shrinking."
> National Park Service staff of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area
> (GGNRA) have been involved in planning and monitoring the Crissy Field
> restoration, while staff of the park service's cooperating nonprofit
> group, the Golden Gate National Park Association (GGNPA), have funded and
> directed the project.
> Park Service officials say they share windsurfer worries over East Beach,
> and promise it will be fixed in the future. For now, they counsel
> patience. They seek to carefully monitor changes as the beach shoreline
> adapts to the new lagoon and inlet, and achieves some sort of natural
> stability. Then, take the most logical steps to remedy damage.
> "The natural cycle is for sand on bay beaches to move offshore during
> winter, then come back over summer," said Nancy Hornor, chief of planning
> for the park. "Our consultant said sand seemed to be accreting at East
> Beach last fall. So we hope to see it resume doing that in spring.
> "Most likely, we'll do some artificial sand replenishment to speed things
> along at the start of the windsurfing season (in March), but during big
> tides of the storm season, that area is vulnerable," Hornor admitted.
> Practical measures taken by the GGNRA-GGNPA thus far include two sand
> replenishments, one last spring of about 800 cubic yards, and one last
> fall of 2,500 cubic yards. However, both these sand dumps were eventually
> nullified by the same erosive forces.
> Then, fearing winter's onslaught, project managers dug an 8-foot-deep
> trench alongside the promenade and laid in 220 feet of concrete "K-rail,"
> the movable barriers used on freeways, as an emergency barricade -- at a
> cost of $50,000.
> This last-ditch shield for the promenade has not yet been exposed by tide
> and wave action. But forecasters note a heavy surf advisory for 19-foot
> ocean swells predicted to arrive today, stormy weather through Saturday,
> and more tall tides into the weekend. That could put this barrier to the
> test.
> Robberson says the long-term test is this: Will the institutional will
> and
> funds be available to restore East Beach after the project gets
> transferred to control of the National Park Service in spring? Last
> summer, officials said that all $32 million raised for Crissy Field had
> been spent or assigned.
> "If we need to take other steps, we will," Hornor said. "The East Beach
> area is a prime site; it's where we have our main entrance and our
> parking. If a current budget gets used up, we'll make another request.
> Whether it's an ongoing need, or some big, specific remedial project, we
> can make requests through the NPS region, or all the way up to
> Washington."
> E-mail Paul McHugh at outdoors@sfchronicle.com.-DeleteThis.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Copyright 2001 SF Chronicle
>
> The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/01/10
> /MN148173.DTL
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
> receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. **
>
> --------
> Learn about SFIA's Plan to fill the Bay <http://www.ProtectOurBay.com> at my
> web site <windrider@ProtectOurBay.com-DeleteThis.com>
>
> Remember, It's not San Francisco's Bay!

--
best regards
Kirk Lindstrom
Editor: "Kirk's Investing & Personal Finance" @ Suite101.com
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/investing
and "Kirk's Online Newsletter"
http://www.suite101.com/files/topics/270/files/WhatLetter2Buy.html

Next message: Chilton, Owain (GEIO): "RE: Crissy going going gone..."
Previous message: Richard Zimmerman: "Crissy going going gone..."
In reply to: Richard Zimmerman: "Crissy going going gone..."
Next in thread: Chilton, Owain (GEIO): "RE: Crissy going going gone..."
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 02:10:04 PST