...of freakin' retards (edited for TexAgs).

Packery Channel is supposed to be dredged at 14-16 feet deep, which it's maintaining at the mouth, but where the waves are breaking, it's as shallow, in some parts, as 8 feet already.
Surf isn't supposed to break INSIDE the channel. And do you know WHY? That mean's it's getting SHALLOWER you morons!!!!

Packery Channel

Wouldn't that be the Army Corps of Engineers who are responsible? I know the city sponsored the project, but I thought the corps was responsible for dredging.

I think his point is that there were people who told them this was going to silt up from the start and that it would require 24/7 dredging into the next few millenium to keep it open.

Definitely right. Fish Pass and Yarborough Pass proved that. Mansfield is suppose to be dredged every 18 months or so. The packery jetties don't even extend beyond the breakers.

Guys...there is credible information out there which doesn't support what you are saying.

And no, it isn't put out by the guys in "black helicopters."

Salty, would you mind showing some of this?

Fish and Yarborough both silted-in in less than 6 months. Fish had jetties that were too short and Yarborough had no jetties. They showed that these passes are not producing a natural flow that would keep the channel open. They must be regularly dredged. Fish and Yarborough also showed that this channel would make no difference in the salinity of the laguna. That was one of the "selling points" of packery. That and increased tax revenue for the city. The proponents of packery continued to talk about it lowering the salinity despite not having a need to lower the salinity and the corps report showing that it would not affect it.

The opening of Packery accomplished its main objective, which was to drive up real estate prices.

http://texascoastgeology.com/passes/packery2007.html

Fish Pass, when it was open. Notice the similarities to Packery Channel.


Fish Pass, today.


[This message has been edited by Peter Gibbons (edited 2/19/2008 10:49a).]

Pro Sandy and Peter,

I'll try to get the latest hydrographic survey and updated report and will provide either the link...or the actual report. The data is on my computer at work.

I also have some info from a couple of other sources.

Thanks Salty.

I know the corps did plenty of research on what was needed to prevent another Fish Pass. But it is disheartening seeing pictures like this. It also seems hard for a 14 foot channel to compete for flow with the 50 foot Aransas Pass just 15 miles away, which is way Packery silted in in the first place.

I take my boat through the Packery about once every month or so. I love it. I only notice significant wave action in the jetties when the incoming tide hits the jetties at almost a 90 degree angle. This is to be expected, but has been happening since day one. I have not really monitored my depth finder, but have not really notice the depth to be less or the wave action to be changing too much since the beginning. Definately not like trying to get through Port Mansfield.

The big thing I have noticed is the erosion of the shoreline where the homes are past the bridge. If I was those people I would be pissed.
Also, some of the concrete "puzzle" pieces continue to deform.

It might be my imagination, but when I cross the JFK, there just seems to be more days where the water is really clear....so it is my amateur opinion that it seems to be helping a little. That, and the fact that there have been several grouper caught at the cuaseway pilings makes me think the bays will be much healthier as a result.

I really think it will help, and am very much looking forward to where they make the Park Rd 22 bridge which wil open Lake Padre to Padre Isles canals. That will help flush out both of those sewars.

Davis...

Your observations are probably correct. I think the water along the causeway has been clearer this year too. Don't know if it's directly related to Packery...but wouldn't doubt it.

The report that I have (bathymetry, long shore currents, etc.) say the channel has been "self flushing" and dredging will be much less than expected. I hope so.

I am sure the erosion along the shoreline after the bridge is occurring. The tide / currents haul arse under the bridge. Venturi affect is happening (smaller opening...faster currents). I hope someone is checking the embedment on those piling under the bridge.

Re: the shoreline revetment problems. I have an opinion as to why this is occurring. We design these systems (among other things) and I'm guessing the fabric behind the concrete revetment has either failed or is incorrectly sized (too large of openings) to keep the sand from flowing through with the water..and into the channel. If that happens...erosion occurs behind the revetment...and sinkholes form.



[This message has been edited by Salty Aggie 93 (edited 2/20/2008 11:09p).]

I will be taking the boat through the Packery on Sun and will monitor the depth from here on out. Should be interesting, but not exact as the tide will vary each time.

I'll keep you all posted.

Salty...I have heard the installing contractor blamed the problems with the "revetments" to the storm surge from Rita. Do you know if that is true? They say that these had not "settled" when the water surge screwed them up. Who knows.

You are correct about the current under the bridge....when the tide is changeing it hauls arse.

Davis...

I heard that same story but don't believe it. Just my opinion. Those types of "excuses" are often used to appease inspectors, directors, managers, etc.

Again, I'm very familiar with that type of construction and don't think the reasoning the contractor gave...and was able to make the City and Corps believe...was true. It is occurring more along the lenth of the channel so that alone should be evidence that the original reasoning is false.