Kraus Assertions that critics misstate the facts is wrong.

Dr. Kraus, the designer of Packery Channel has stated that critics, including myself have incorrectly presented the facts. Lets look at that.

See Dr. Kraus article at: Packery Critics Misstate the Facts

Dr. Kraus states:
"It is unfortunate that some knowledgeable critics of the Packery Channel project attempt to argue both ways, alarming the public that the designed channel will require costly maintenance dredging and at the same time be highly dangerous to navigate because of a strong current"

Note that dangerous breaking surf will be present in the entrance on many days even without a strong ebb current. The jetties as designed at 1400 ft. are only 140 ft. longer than nearby Bob Hall Pier and the surf breaks WAY beyond the end of the pier on many days each year. It is a fact that the Galveston District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is investigating this very problem in their present study and that the Peer Review was concerned about the risk of breaking waves in the entrance.

Dr. Kraus continues:

"In producing an honest study with all facts and judgments documented, one inlet stability criterion of the four investigated indicated a potential problem, namely, that a bar would form at the inlet entrance. This criterion receives much attention by critics of the project, whereas they have ignored the other three criteria indicating acceptable inlet behavior."

This refers to their error in calculating inlet stability by the Bruun method. However, as you can see in the discussion of stability, Kraus also used too high a flow velocity in calculating the inlet’s ability to scour sand. Subsequent studies have indicated that the inlet will have little ability to scour sand and will need to be entirely maintained by dredges. For further information about the stability of Packery Channel see: CRITICAL ERRORS IN INLET STABILITY CALCULATIONS

Kraus states:

"Further, the apparent problematic criterion indicating formation of an entrance bar is valid only if sand is not bypassed mechanically. However, a strong recommendation of the report is that periodic mechanical bypassing - movement of sand from the updrift to downdrift beach by pumping or by dredging - be performed in a system approach connecting the inlet and beaches. Bypassing is an integral part of the project and will maintain channel depth while preserving the beach. "

Yes, the plans call for sand to be bypassed mechanically from the updrift jetty to the downdrift beach, but the COST of this is NOT included in the present plans. An entrance bar will also form regardless of whether sand bypassing is accomplished or not. There will be waves at the entrance during high surf conditions and the bar will form.

He continues:

"Our calculations indicated that Packery Channel would be flood dominated under the strong southeast wind, meaning that the tidal current would tend to bring sediment into the channel. The existing large basin located east of the SH361 bridge will serve as an economic deposition area for temporary storage of sand. The flood current will slow as it enters the wide and deep basin, causing the sand it carries to fall to the bottom. Dredging of the calm deposition basin and pumping to the beach will be more economical and reliable than dredging in the waves of the Gulf."

Yes, the Fish Pass was flood dominated as well. This increases the rate of shoaling as sand flows into the pass more than it flows out. The deep basin will help to reduce the amount of shoaling of the channel west of the bridge as much of the sediment that flows into the pass will be deposited in the basin. From there it will be dredged out and pumped onto the beach downdrift of the pass. What has not been stated, is the obvious. In order for the sand to get to the settling basin just east of the bridge, it has to be transported in through the jetty channel. As soon as it gets into the calmer water of the jetty channel, a lot of it will be deposited in a dangerous bar which will rapidly grow at the entrance. The settling basin cannot prevent that, because the settling basin is way inside, near the bridge. A bar will also form just outside of the jetties.

A final misleading statement about the Fish Pass:

"They state that the report underestimates this amount of infilling or transport rate of sand by a factor of two or more.
However, the critics do not mention that Fish Pass remained open for eight years without maintenance dredging and with much shorter jetties than those designed for Packery Channel. Their assertion of great infilling rate in light of the longevity of the Fish Pass is again contradictory. "

This again neglects to mention the obvious. Yes, the jetties of the Fish Pass were waaay too short at 800 ft.

The fish pass jetty channel filled from 11 ft to less than 4 feet in less than 5 months. Shortly after that, it filled so much that it was not even navigable for a small outboard. It is very misleading to state that it remained open for eight years. Yes, it was open but just barely. Can you really call it open when you can wade across it. We are talking about inlets for navigation. The fish pass was not safe for navigation within a few months of its construction. If the jetties at Packery Channel are not made much longer than 1400 ft., it too will rapidly become unsafe for navigation as a bar builds at the jetty entrance. The shortest jetties the Corps has built at ANY navigation pass on the Texas coast are the 2300 ft. jetties at Mansfield Pass . Mansfield Pass is ebb dominated (the current flows out most of the time) while Packery as stated by Dr. Kraus is flood dominated (the current flows in most of the time). This will accelerate the infilling of the channel and promote rapid formation of a shallow bar at then entrance.

Richard L. Watson, Ph.D.

4/1/01