Dr Shaw Mead: On artificial reefs, the problems at Boscombe, and sea level rise
Not all surfers would have heard of Dr Shaw Mead though most would be aware of his creations. As Technical Director of ASR he worked on the artificial reefs at Narrowneck in Queensland, Mount Maunaganui in New Zealand, and Boscombe Reef in England. Shaw recently left ASR to start up his own company, eCoast, with former colleagues and associates. I spoke to him at his home at Raglan about past problems and the future of engineering the coastal interface.
Swellnet: When did you leave ASR? Shaw Mead: Last year – I resigned as a Director early 2011.
SN:Why did you leave? SM: I left ASR because I did not agree with the direction the company was moving in, or in the way the company was being run, and so even though I was a Director on the new Board, I wasn't marching to the same tune. It was difficult to make the decisions to resign from both the Board and the company that I had spent 15 years helping to build. However, I'm very happy with the decision, I've got a lot of energy to put into the coastal environment, and it's great to be working with a very good team of like-minded people.
SN: How does eCoast differ from ASR? SM: eCoast differs from ASR in a number of areas of business. Although the technical skill sets and expertise are similar we have additions in the areas of marine ecology and catchment management; the additional ecological expertise is definitely a benefit for environmental enhancement projects – natural reefs continue to be degraded and lost world-wide, so marine protected areas and artificial habitat creation continues to be a very active area of coastal consulting and research. So while artificial reefs are still an area of work that we're still very much involved with, we have actually broadened our capacity rather than focussing it.
SN: Any projects in the pipeline that surfers would be interested in? SM: The most recent of our designs was completed several months ago at Borth in Wales. It is primarily to widen and protect the city beach while ensuring that there are no structures on the beach, which it looks to be doing well. The secondary aspect is surfing, which on this structure was quite a challenge given the 5 metre tidal range, so the window of opportunity is restricted. The only feedback so far on the surfing aspect is that the take-off area is a steep A-frame. Those photos are the UK in summer! (See images 1 & 2)
There are several other projects that have surfing aspects to them. In some respects we are going back to our roots with the surfing enhancement aspects, that is the original research we undertook in the mid-1990's which was directed at the enhancement of coastal structures rather than designing surfing reefs primarily for surfing. Our first commercial design back in 1998, the Narrowneck Reef on the Gold Coast which won the State Environment award, is a good example of this, and several of the projects we're working on are very similar.
SN: What can be learnt from the experiences at Mt Maunganui and Boscombe? SM: A huge amount has been learnt from Mount Maunganui reef, which was designed and built as a research project on multi-purpose reefs (MPR's) with only a 5-year permit, which has recently expired. More than 30 PhD and MSc theses and peer-reviewed scientific investigations have been carried out focussing on the Mount Reef. Investigations have ranged from surfing aspects to the impacts on sediment transport and biological communities, as well as limitations of construction using sand-filled containers. The Trust behind the project was looking to reinstate the right-hander on the Mount Reef, however times are tight with funding, so it doesn't look like this will happen.
At Boscombe, I believe that the main lessons have been political and project management lessons. As your earlier article on Boz Reef discussed, Boz worked as designed, taking the dominant short-period wind-swell and focussing up an A-frame take-off into a righthander. However, the majority of the local media coverage has been aimed at the Council and Councillors, while the Council seems to have taken a hands off approach both to addressing media misconceptions and ownership of the structure. The vessel that hit the Boz Reef early last year leading to the loss of a large container and damage to others likely had something to do with the fact that there were only 2 of the 12 buoys marking its position in place; it was not being managed as a Council asset.
My personal view is that the wrangling over funds, political in-fighting and bad project management decisions prevented even the most basic management and maintenance being adhered to – whether repairs will go ahead on Boz is anyone's guess.
(Boscombe Reef was damaged by a boat propellor in April 2011 and subsequently closed to the public. It is still awaiting repair. I contacted ASR about this yet have received no reply)
SN: What is the future of artificial reefs? SM: The future for Multi Purpose Reefs is very bright. One of the biggest drivers for increasing application of MPR's is the need to adapt to sea level rise. Whether you believe that climate change is human induced or not, there is no doubt it is happening and that the sea level is rising and will continue to rise for centuries to come.
Until recently, we have mostly seen some pretty basic planning strategies for the impacts of sea level rise around the world: build bigger walls, adapt by building on stilts, or managed retreat, the latter quite often the preferred option because it was considered the least costly. More and more we are finding that the value of the infrastructure and properties on the coast are several orders of magnitude more valuable than the cost to protect them, and that the preference for managed retreat does not make economic or social sense. This has led to the development of adaptation strategies that provide stepwise management of coastal assets – managed retreat will likely be required in many situations, however, even the worst case scientific predictions indicate 2 metres at the most in the next 100 years, with most looking at 0.7-1.0 m in the next hundred years.
SN: So how do Multi Purpose Reefs fit in? SM: By allowing for managed advance – putting a structure offshore of the coast results in a widening of the coast in the lee of it. Combining MPR's with other soft-engineering approaches such as dune stabilisation through planting of appropriate species, sand bypassing, etc, etc, time can be bought to maintain coastal infrastructure and properties. When the socio-economic value of beaches is also put into the equation, managed advance is becoming a preferred option for sea level rise adaptation.
SN: Do you have any thoughts on offshore focussing structures such as the Sand Slug? SM: The offshore focussing structure is getting more and more attention, which is very similar to the great work that Andy Pitt has been doing at Cronulla. There has been some success with preferential dumping of clean dredge spoil in California and the Netherlands more recently, with the win-win outcomes of surfers getting a good break while the material remains offshore and the sand being moved inshore and renourishing the beach. We have been looking at natural examples worldwide and undertaking modelling investigations through a research grant to consider more permanent features.
The positives to offshore structures is that they do not have to be built with tight tolerances because they are focussing the waves to enhance the surfing on the beach in their lee, they still result in a widened beach, and they create new marine habitat.
On the down side is that the volumes are larger than inshore structures – the areas of interest that we have been investigating with models are the optimum size, shape and distance offshore to create the best focussing, although each will differ depending on the site. One positive tradeoff is that if construction tolerances are relaxed, more cost-effective construction techniques and materials can be used.
SN: Are there any other aspects to coastal engineering you think we're likely to see in the future? SM: More consideration of incorporation of surfing amenity into larger traditional coastal engineering projects is likely to be start happening. Scale is a factor of surfing reefs, which is closely linked to cost. For example, if you are looking at developing a multi-billion port, if applicable to the environment, incorporating surfing amenity becomes considerably more affordable, especially if it is primarily functioning as a protection structure.
There is also a lot of scope for developing 'almost' surfing breaks into actual breaks. Adding, removing and shifting material to get such breaks working better can be a very cost effective solution. Bargara Reef in Queensland is a great example, while Kovalam Reef in India, although primarily to widen the beach, created a left-hand point break where there was 'almost' a break previously. Some areas of the coast have a large number of such opportunities.
Artificial Intelligence: The problems at Boscombe Reef - Surfpolitik, 19/04/2011 Artificial reef blows out - Dispatch, 25/02/2009
Comments
Hi Shaw, hopefully you'll check in on the comments.
Firstly, I think you are moving in the right direction in terms of managing expectations of reefs that are primarily designed for shoreline protection.
I also think that the move towards offshore focusing structures is a logical one.
I do, however, take issue with a couple of points raised in the interview.
You state:
"More and more we are finding that the value of the infrastructure and properties on the coast are several orders of magnitude more valuable than the cost to protect them, and that the preference for managed retreat does not make economic or social sense."
Speaking as an economist who specialises in valuing coastal assets, this is a fairly broad statement that might need some justification.
The argument for or against any coastal adaptation or management option will depend on a wide range of factors from geomorphology, economics of the area, assumptions about erosion, project timeframes,discount rates etc.
Despite political moves to the contrary, retreat is not 'dead in the water'.
I also do not think that 'managed advance' is a term that should be thrown around lightly. To suggest that seaward expansion of threatened properties is a potential outcome of MPRs raises a number of legal issues around accretion and shoreline boundaries, among many others.
Dave, I definitely agree with your comments about economic values and managed/retreat advance - it's a huge and complex subject. What I was referring to was that it has only been recently that comprehensive adaptation solutions are being investigated; previously the focus has been on how fast the sea level will rise. As a result there have been a lot of broad assessments that have not considered the wide range of factors that need to be considered for a particular site; as you indicate, managed retreat is still definitely an adaptation method and is inevidable in some locations.
The term managed advance is now one of up to a dozen potential adaptation options, the majority of which are buying time, however, that is the important point - unless the IPCC and all it's experts are completely wrong, the sea level is not going to jump up several meters in the next few decades, or hundred years; infrastructure can be allowed to play out it's useful life, and plans can be made to relocate, etc.
In addition, MPR's are definitely not the be all and end all, one stop way of creating managed advance - renourishment, bypassing, dune management, detached breakwaters, etc, etc, and combinations of all of these measures can result in widening beaches. For example, the northern Germany climate change strategy is to be mostly managed advance, which will be achieved with renourishment and detached breakwaters - MPR's would likely be of little use in this area with large tidal ranges.
In all cases, erosion problems are 'human problems' - erosion is a natural process, humans not taking this into account is the reason it is seen as a problem. Also, many erosion problems are human-induced, caused by a variety of human activities - in some cases, considering what these activities are and looking at ways to mitigate the reasons they are causing erosion 'problems' is a relatively straight forward way to solving the problem. We now also have sea level rise to deal with - human-induced or not.
Hi Shaw, thanks for responding.
I still think that the concept and terminology of 'managed advance' fails to acknowledge that any measure to expand the beach or dune system is primarily an attempt to preserve or enhance a public asset. It has the additional benefit of protecting assets, which may be public or private. As you say, it buys time for planning, but also for users (and non-users) of the beach itself.
Erosion is definitely a human problem, though accretion can create human problems as well. If people assume that protection will always be provided, or that their land may actually expand landward, they make investments on that basis, and these investments can restrict the range of options available down the track.
This is probably straying from the point of the original discussion. If you'd like to carry on the conversation them I'm sure Stu can put us in contact.
Unless anyone else is interested?
I'm listening , thinking and wanting to contribute.
I have done my thinking , the value of assets must be defined by what our market economy says they are worth. That is what is it worth in exchange for dollars at any point in time? Unfortunately private property that appears by any means threatened may end up with a value that means depreciating it to zero in a certain amount of time. Lengthening that time may increase its value - much like a car wearing out -regular care particularly preventative care increases its working life. When a coast is "rusting away' its anyone guess of how much preventative care is needed. Sand is much like "dusk in the wind" as the song goes "just for a moment and the moments gone". The sea rise we have been led to believe that has happened over the past 150 years may not have had its full effect yet -that leads to more uncertainty and uncertainty devalues any asset. But regular pre-emptive care can prolong the use of any asset!
Lets talk about the possibilities for surfing though. I am not particularly interested in anything about artificial reefs beyond their potential to increase the number of surfable locations. No offense intended, that's just where i am coming from.
Take this last weekend's swell for example (mid north nsw), the wind and swell was great for some locations, unfortunately though, the beaches that were breaking in off shore conditions were either very fast rights/lefts or close outs. I can see potential for a myriad of man made banks/reefs providing that they would not adversely effect the natural way of the ocean. What is the realistic possibility of that ever happening?
I think it's all possible, rat race.
Just comes down to the age old question: "who's gonna pay for it?".
I think the global surf companies should pay for it.
They have contributed and certainly benefited from the exponential increase in the surfing population over the last 30 years.
Demand (surfers) has skyrocketed, and supply (waves) has remained the same.
Current economy troubles aside, those surfing companies that are seen to give back to the surfing community by constructing surfing reefs (ones that work!), would surely benefit. Think of the marketing opportunities, increased brand recognition, etc, etc.
Obviously they're a corporation, so must do what's best for the shareholders, hence its unlikely.
But one can only hope!
Who pays? Good issue. I congratulate Shaw (and Kerry Black also) on securing the funds to build reefs in NZ and UK, that was a huge task and Shaw did it.
But who should pay?
The government funds the construction of community recreational facilities, eg. skate parks, boat ramps, kiddies playgrounds etc etc. Each state in Australia has a whole Department (of Sport and Rec) to do just that, fund recreational facilities. For surfers, what's missing? A correct method of asking (the application process) via a community based entity - and a heap of persistence. The artifical reef at Cables in Perth was funded by the WA Dept of Sport and Rec.
What went wrong with narrowneck? could someone please break it down
dunno about Narrowneck, but the sausage groyne at Nth Kirra worked well for awhile, till it fell apart and got washed up to Billinga.
hey rat-rat. About as much chance as Billabong giving every surfer a free surfboard , set of clothes and a block of wax to surf there (for free) . That's after they have paid the $10m for each reef to be built and the extra $50k per year to look after it. All out of the generosity of their shareholders! Goddammit thats gonna happen fur sure!
Then its not like building a skate park which is a guaranteed design, construction and all hours usability. Look at each of those three points and put a %of risk on them and you have your answer for funding Andrew!
surf reef guarantee on design 0-x % (x is unknown but on present results a very small number)
skate park 100%
surf reef construction 0- x% (x is unknown but on present results id a very small number)
skatepark 100%
surf reef all hours perfect wave usability -check it out for yourself
skatepark 100% day nite rain shine.
serves young people everywhere
surf reef no
skate park - all ,over this great nation
so government funding for skate-parks - big chance
government funding for surf reefs - work it out for yourself.
But its a nice feeling thinking about the possibilities?
Dreaming of possibilities...
Definitely one thing that unites all surfers.
"If only it were *INSERT*"
*bigger, smaller, windier, less windy, sunnier, daytime, offshore, low tide, mid tide, high tide, the ocean, less polluted, less crowded, less populated by grey suited men, Indo, Fiji, Bells, (Etc...) hollower, longer, the year 1925, the year 2093, summer, winter, spring, autumn, not a reef break, not a beach break, warmer, made of beer, yesterday, tomorrow, not on swell net, on swell net, not closing out, and the list goes on...
I know , its almost intoxicationg , in fact I feel that my beer has been spiked with eccy so someone can get into my wallet . (hey can we get an insider into parliament?) You forgot - another box to tick - increases your size, durability and longer times in the cot. Girls will que at your door. How can anyone not say -just do it? AMI would go out of business, all little unsatisfied men would give up the family farm for the cause -hey!
Rat-race , seriously I think we could be very good reef salesmen?
I already am a good salesman. I just don't sell reef's.
yet...
ok lets scope our "marks" oops I mean potential customers.
how about these for starters?
1. must have shitloads of dough.
2. must be easy to convince
3. must be leading "unfulfilled lives"
4. must easily part with their money.
any other pre-qualifications that fit the bill of a perfect surf reef customer?
Andrew and Shaw want to contribute to this?
Also someone to be a drink waiter in parliament is also needed.
Sheep station owners without wives are also welcome.
Ha! The WA State and Local Government ticks all of the above boxes what-would-i-know. Build 150 of them all the way from the Swanbourne Nudist Beach to Trigg Point. Quick before the iron-ore prices bottom-out! I think of this every time i surf at the good ol dog beach which is often the longest wave in Australia (a single wave close-out all the way from Trigg to south City Beach - thats a 10km wave!!)
@monk, ok we need to get an "insider" at each of the organisations. Preferably a drink waiter but anyone who is capable of winning over crucial individuals by"any means". If she has a good "head" for things that's even better? So get your minions trained up and briefed. we can do this with the right strategy. Its all for a good cause . He He
You are barfing up the wrong tree if you think local government would prefer a "she" to help them "head" in the right direction...
We could get Abbot on board though! Just tell him that artificial reefs would deter *Boat People* by causing them to smash their boats up on em'. Bloody Q jumpers... We'll show them with a few strategically placed bags o sand!
Imagine all the sick banks that would form off the shipwrecked boaties!
*Boat people can otherwise be referred to as; those from a shit country wanting to come to a less shit country*
hey that's a great idea - got to pitch it to the surf reef designers -they will jump at the chance for funding of studies?now how do we turn a dollar on it? Surf - that's just a keyword that is a hook for the punters to pay!
@what-would-i-know I think Bourkie is our man as he is out of a job and may be wanting to make amends with the surfers he has pissed off at Smiths. We all know how low he is willing to go. Don't reckon he'd look too good in a waitress' skirt though. If we can convince Tony that this is a good idea (boat people deterrent is good suggestion) and can convince Colin that 'it is for the good of WAs progressive state development' I reckon we are onto a winner. Only require about 100k up front for Brian and the rest should be apples!!
there are some people that we can count on "to do anything" or whatever it takes", some are self evident so they are the ones that we can assume will 'drive" the " process" and "hijack it"by doing anything to achieve self gratification. Money is always the prime motivation -follow the money and you will have the culprits. easy to find a scientist to get paid to say what it takes to get the money nowadays ( climate change lying and thieving) so we have them as our servants and lakys to do our bidding. Sooner they go back to their test tubes and slabs in the lab the better! kept on a tight leash they can be useful.
, dont believe these artificail reef wankers , they are fuckin conmen, the reef at Mount maunganui is a joke, the reef in taranaki NZ has never been finished after fleecing a few million dollars off the locals, bullshit fuckin wanker conmen, nothin less than rank amatuer lying fuckwits, dont ever give these pricks money thay are full of shit.
Hey Inzider -they are very inflammatory comments -do you have anything to backup the assertions you make on the reefs you mention? Where are the reports that say that?
ok inzider , I gave you the benefit of the doubt and googled "taranaki reef" -turns out its a place called Opanake and stuff.co.nz have got the entire sad story documented from start to finish. If Stu wants to do a story on "even more artificial inteligence bordering on cretinism " he should look at that almost unbelievable sequence of events that fairfax have recorded . It makes the bournemouth reef seem good value for money - talk about Inziders Insight? Seems he has a PHD in correct summation of how things are? Go to stuff and search for opanake reef to see the entire circus of idiocy, incompentancy and stupidity unfold. Then decide who are the most stupid -the sellers or the buyers? Someone ought to make a movie on it as its about as bizare as one can get - people should hand their accrediations back in as they are not relevent to being able to achieve. "Now I KNOW" U SHOULD TOO!
Who built the Perth reef? That is one reef they got right.
Pity it is in Perth and only breaks during the 50 year storm.
oh yeah these artificial reef guys are real good NOT.
In the case of the opunake reef in NZ. Local bisiness men wanted it, local surfers didnt. Why build an artificial one when you have plenty in the area any way? secondly, the spot the builder chose is borderline retadred, any local with half a clue predicted it wouldnt work where they chose to build it, thirdly, if they needed calm weather to build it why start in the begining of the window for our best swells, fourthly they kooked it so bad and then pryed more money off the community blaming all sorts of things bar their own incompetance, then before its finished Mead pisses off and starts another company, hmmm, oh and its still not finished and is a pile of decaying sandbags on the sea floor, so how is the artificial reef at mt maunganui going? further north I would love to see a photo of it pumping, oh thats right its a hoax also.
It appears the Mount Maunganui artificial reef, built by ASR with Dr Shaw Mead at the helm, is to be removed just a decade after construction:Â
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11239213
Between this and the failure at Boscombe you've gotta wonder where it leaves artificial reefs in 2014. Will they ever again be seriously proposed?
One of the simplest, low cost and permanent wave enhancing coastal modification projects is to create rebound type waves off rock walls, cliffs or groynes. - those great A-frame peaks we all love. All you need is a shallow enough point to create a strong surge up the rock wall and then an angled refraction point to redirect the wave energy sideways. It does not suit everywhere but there are hundred of spots where just a few well placed blasts could carve out the required shape. Many groynes just need some extra boulders added in key spots. Approval might be a hassle but some of these options would be in the tens of thousands of dollars in costs - affordable for a local council or surf club fund raising effort.
Rebound waves have twice the power of normal swells and can create a 4ft peak on a 2 ft day.
Low cost and permanent. Technically not that hard to design or make.
Make a new D-bar or wedge at you local headland which usually closes out or close to it.