Land Commissioner Mauro and others state the scientists reviewing the Naismith Engineering feasibility study of Packery Channel determined the Packery Channel plan is feasible.

Yes, the peer review said that Packery Channel is feasible, if a large enough budget is available for annual dredging maintenance; However, the reviewers disputed several conclusions drawn by the Naismith Study:

1. The Peer Review Panel (PRP) estimates sand available to fill the channel is at least TWICE that estimated by the feasibility study. This will seriously increase the maintenance dredging costs.

2. The PRP found Packery Channel will be unstable, not naturally stable as the feasibility study suggests, and will need to be maintained almost entirely by frequent mechanical dredging. This maintenance dredging will likely be more expensive than at other inlets, because the low and narrow bridge will prevent dredges from approaching from the Intracoastal Canal. Dredges will have to be large enough and seaworthy enough to travel and work on the open Gulf.

3. The panel found the feasibility study underestimated wave size, and breaking distance offshore and recommended new, accurate and indisputable wave data be collected by a video camera mounted on Bob Hall Pier. In fact, the PRP states "Ideally the jetties would extend well beyond the limits of most breaking waves and the jetties would protect the boater from the dominant direction of wave approach." Ordinary observations of the waves at Bob Hall Pier show that breaking waves will frequently extend far beyond the 1400 ft jetties. Even the Naismith Study found that relatively small (6 ft) waves can break in the entrance. Accurate wave data will show that the jetties will need to be considerably longer than 1400 ft. to protect boaters from dangerous breaking waves in the channel on our many windy afternoons. The city of Virginia Beach, VA is presently being sued for over $2 million for failing to adequately maintain its shallow and dangerous Rudee Inlet.

4. The PRP noted the recommended spurs on the jetties will deflect sand to a position where it will be very difficult to dredge for the prevention of beach erosion.

5. The reviewers politely suggest that the computer model used in the feasibility study was the wrong model to use, because it did include the presence of multiple offshore bars and did not calibrate well.

The peer reviewers areas of concern are major. They disagree with the Naismith study in the vital areas of wave height, width of the surf and sand available to fill in the channel. Errors of this magnitude have grave consequences for this project. The cost will escalate much higher than $26 million and annual maintenance will probably rise above the present $600,000 estimate. These shortcomings demand further examination before the final length of the jetties is determined.

Commissioner McComb's comment that boaters should not go out in bad weather is deceptive. Often the wind is low and the waves are small in the morning when boats leave. When they return they may well find an inlet full of deadly breaking waves. Only longer jetties will alleviate this safety hazard.

Only a year ago, Naismith engineering's estimates were $11 million for construction and $100,000 for annual maintenance . Today they estimate $26 million for construction and $600,000 for annual maintenance. The cost for both construction and annual maintenance is rapidly moving into the $30 to $50 million and $1/2 to $1.5 million range that I predicted over a year ago. The amazing thing is that the cost got this high without changing the design in any way. This is truly a high price to pay for an inlet crossed by a low bridge, which limits it to only small powerboats and no sailboats, unless of course, they are kept in the private Lake Padre subdivision on the Gulf side of the bridge (see photo below). Even then, the inlet will not be usable on a great many windy days when breaking waves will prevent safe passage for any boat.

Richard L. Watson, Ph.D.
Consulting Geologist