Subject: CALLER TIMES PACKERY ARTICLE

The following forum article appeared in the Saturday, March 1, 1997 Corpus
Christi Caller Times.


PACKERY CHANNEL , Feasibility study is based on faulty science
Richard L. Watson
FORUM

On February 16, a Forum article titled Packery project is feasible and
reasonable by Nicholas Kraus and Daniel Heilman stated "We conducted the coastal
processes study and are confident of the science despite the attacks and
misrepresentations by those who have consistently opposed the Packery Channel
project." The authors close by stating that "We welcome professional discussion
of our work." This has not been the case.

In July I responded to a letter by Dr. Kraus with an 11 page letter of comments
in response to his questions. In October, after receiving a phone call from Dr.
Kraus, I responded with a second detailed letter describing serious deficiencies
in the draft feasibility study. The problems described in our responses were
ignored in the latest draft of the feasibility study and we have received no
responses. Some of the major discrepancies include:

LONGSHORE SAND TRANSPORT. The Kraus study estimates that the longshore
sand transport is 175,000 to 250,000 cubic yards per year. The Shiner, Moseley
and Assoc. Draft Environmental Assessment on Reopening Packery Channel (1987)
estimated 826,200 cubic yards per year. This is in agreement with most of the
scientific literature which estimates sand transport at from 600,000 to
1,200,000 cubic yards per year.

WIDTH OF THE SURF ZONE. Dr. Kraus states that "The outer-most bar is
formed by waves accompanying the larger storms, those which may strike the coast
only every several years." By contrast that bar was breaking 38 out of 49 days
this fall. This sand bar is located about 800 feet offshore, about 3/4 of the
way out Bob Hall Pier. It is common knowledge by surfers, pier fishermen and
others that this bar breaks very frequently, and that the surf often breaks way
beyond Bob Hall Pier, which is 1240 ft. long. If the surf was as small and as
narrow as Kraus^R models indicate, there would be no surfers in Texas.

WAVE DATA. The study rejects all published wave data including over 800
days of actual wave observations taken in conjunction with published studies of
the Fish Pass and wave data published by the Corps of Engineers. Instead, an
undocumented, privately computed data set is used which predicts wave heights
and width of surf which are far below what is commonly observed.

NAVIGATION SAFETY AND JETTY LENGTH. The Kraus report states a jetty
length of 1400 ft and depth of 11 ft is adequate for navigation safety and
reasonable maintenance dredging. In contrast, the shortest jetties on any Texas
inlet designed for navigation are 2300 ft long with a design depth of 16 ft.

The report is based on faulty wave data. Surf will frequently break beyond the
end of the Packery Channel jetties as designed. This will present an extreme
hazard to navigation. Furthermore, surf breaking at or beyond the entrance to
Packery Channel will rapidly build a bar in the entrance, which will allow even
smaller waves to break and increase the danger.

ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTS. The study estimates that annual dredging will
be only 100,000 cuyd per year. Mansfield Pass is about 170,000 cubic yards per
year. Mansfield Pass is ebb-dominated, while Packery Channel, like the Fish
Pass will be flood-dominated. This, in combination with surf breaking in and
beyond the entrance much more frequently than estimated, means that dredge
volumes and frequency will be much higher than figured. At the current rate of
$3 to $4 per cubic yard, it is likely that annual dredging costs will be
$600,000 to $1 million.

DECIMAL POINT ERROR. An error in division by the authors of the
feasibility study totally invalidates the report's conclusion that the inlet
will be stable. The feasibility study's test for stability required dividing 65
million by 5.4 million. The correct result is 12, not 120 as calculated by the
authors. This forces the conclusion that Packery Channel will be unstable and
unsafe for navigation. There will be formation of a wide and high bar, and
navigation becomes difficult to very difficult. The feasibility study^Rs test
for inlet success shows that the inlet will be a failure when the decimal point
error is corrected.

MAXIMUM FLOW VELOCITY. A second measure of stability, the maximum flow
speed of water in the inlet, is described in the Kraus report as rarely
exceeding 2.5 feet per second. However, the flow models in Part 2 of the study
show that it will rarely exceed 1 feet per second. It is generally understood
that a flow velocity of 3 feet per second is needed for an inlet to be
successful. This discrepancy shows that the inlet will have no natural ability
to flush sand.

PACKERY CHANNEL LOCATION. The Forum article states "The location of the
proposed channel - in the southeast corner of Corpus Christi Bay and upper
Laguna Madre complex - is favorable for promoting water movement to maintain
the channel...." Part 2 of the feasibility study shows that there will be
little or no flow between Corpus Christi Bay and Packery Channel.

The county must be prepared to spend unpredictable amounts of money to restore
the channel after a hurricane. This could amount to more than initial
construction. These costs cannot be estimated.

The professional discussion has been a one way street. There has been no public
or private response to these very serious technical criticisms. This
disagreement can only be resolved with a peer review conducted by a panel of
unbiased coastal scientists and engineers as recommended by Texas Land
Commissioner Garry Mauro and many other responsible scientists and agencies.

(Richard L. Watson, a geologist, was one of the investigators who studied the
closure of the Fish Pass under contract for the U.S. Corps of Engineers. He
wrote a Forum article - "Dredging Packery is a bad idea"- published on the March
2, 1996 Viewpoints Page.)


Richard L. Watson, Ph.D.
Consulting Geologist
P.O. Box 1040
Port Aransas, Tx 78373
(512) 749-4152
email 102403.3500@compuserve.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/richard_l_watson