Klein River Estuary. Another resignation.

Klein River Estuary artificial breaching resignation. 
This time Nicholas Clark


 Dear Rob

I hereby tender my resignation from KREF.

As I represent the Hermanus Yacht Club, I will attempt to find another member of HYC to be on KREF.

Prior to the breaching subcommittee meeting Sue told me telephonically that they(?) were concerned that the mouth would breach naturally and that the position of the breaching would not be in the desired location. They were thus going to breach the mouth at the eastern side to prevent a breaching in the west at the lowest point. With this in mind I naturally went and re-read the Mouth Management Plan and have read Notice of Breach and the report you sent out yesterday.

I may be wrong but my reading of the Management Plan is that a natural breaching is the ideal option. My reading of section 2.3.7 is that there are three independent criteria to determine the position of the breaching. I must assume that they are listed in order of importance.

I notice in the Post-Breaching Report on page 4 para 3, page 6 point 4.3, page 24 point 5.5 that these three criteria have been morphed into two. This makes the justification of the location of the opening easier to support.

I was surprised to see an extract of the survey I did included in the report. I have included a full copy of it with this mail. The back ground image is confusing. The small cup shape in the east is the small water line indentation that existed amongst the dunes. The start of the dunes is to the west of that position and not to the east as this old image indicates. (So the breaching was also not near the middle of the berm). The amount of estuary survey coverage on the bulk of the dune is not nearly sufficient to be used in any decision making for opening. I did have more coverage at the eastern end which were the two obviously low points. From this amount of coverage a contour plan can be generated and low points determined. The whole berm should have this amount of coverage. I am surprised as well as this survey that was done more than a month before the opening and was used in the report. I could have been asked to come and do a better survey once the a decision was made to breach. I must assume that my opinion raised, about the position of the breaching, in the discussion with Sue prevented this. As pointed out in the report the berm is very flat and the differences in height are small. This is true for a large section of the berm. I thus find it concerning that the method used by Sue and Ed  to determine the height is so rudimentary. Technology is available that can give far more accurate results. I must assume that the lowest point is not really one of the criteria that is taken seriously. All of the measurements that were taken are worth nothing because of the throw-away sentence on page 10 at 9:00. The berm had changed overnight and we had a new position to open it. What a pity a photo and measurements of the change is not included in the report. Strangely enough no such change had happened in the month preceding that with much higher winds and seas.

I am pleased to see that flooding of house was not a reason for breaching but distressed to see that part of the motivation of the position of the breach is to save the car park. With repeated opening of the mouth in one position the main channel must move. The eastern opening was chosen in the past to enlarge the recreation area at the mouth and so that sand mining could happen. Both of these activities can not occur with a western opening.

I wish you luck with your future endeavours with KREF.

Regards

Nicholas