MINUTES Beach Erosion Committee Meeting, April 29, 1999

  1. Impacts Included:
    1. Beach Erosion (Primary Impact)
    2. Beneficial Use Of Dredged Materials
    3. Cumulative Impacts From Previous Dredgings
    4. Additional Benefits In The Community
  2. Attendees at 4-29-99 Meeting:
    1. William Bailey C.O.E.
    2. Susan Brinson C.O.E.
    3. Chris Schuberth Chatham Environmental Forum
    4. Larry Keegan Lockwood Green Engineering
    5. Bo Ellis ATM
    6. Bill Farmer City of Tybee Island
  3. Decisions Made:
    1. Provide to the Stakeholders Evaluation Group (SEG) two proposals received by the committee (from Erik Olsen and from Chuck Watson) for scientific studies, for the following purposes:
      1. Status report of committee activities.
      2. Provide a basis for suggestions from SEG members and others regarding possible scientific studies.
      3. Provide background to SEG members in preparation for considering final committee recommendations for scientific study effort, planned for the June SEG meeting.
    2. Schedule a meeting in mid-May 1999 at the offices of Lockwood Green, at which the technical aspects of the two proposed studies can be reviewed and discussed in detail by all interested individuals, especially technical/scientific individuals, to determine if the technical community has any insights for consideration by the committee regarding its final recommendations to the SEG. The time and date for the meeting will be determined at the May 4th SEG meeting.
  4. Committee Discussions:
    1. The two forces that cause sand movement are wave effects and current effects, which in turn are influenced by other factors.
    2. It is commonly agreed that the Savannah Harbor Channel captures littoral drifting sand, which adversely impacts Tybee Island beach erosion. The mechanisms involved are multiple, including sand flow interruptions to the shoreline and to the offshore shoal formation which has increased the slope of the shoreline and ocean bottom at the northern portions of the island.
    3. The two proposed studies (from Erik Olsen and from Chuck Watson) use different approaches, addressing some same issues and some unique issues.
    4. The ultimate purposes for either or both studies is to influence decision makers regarding how channel deepening and maintenance projects will occur, and if they can be linked to beach erosion control projects, through implementation of the beneficial use of sand concept, and from economic analysis of benefits and costs; and secondly, to add to the inventory of scientific knowledge on what occurs in the Savannah River inlet.
    5. Regulations influencing decision-makers need to be reviewed to determine what information is needed to make decisions, and to then compare these data needs to the proposed study efforts.
    6. Prior arguments made for beneficial use of dredged materials apparently were not sufficiently convincing to effect change on a continuing basis.
    7. In addition to scientific considerations, a variety of other concerns are applicable prior to any implementation of scientific recommendations, such as rules, regulations, laws, appropriation restrictions, legalities, timing of efforts, policies, etc. The usual Benefit/Cost analysis is expected to be the primary support for any changes.
    8. Implementation of scientific recommendations will be facilitated if ultimately recommended by the SEG.
    9. Due to concerns regarding confidence levels, risks, justifications, supporting data, etc., scientific study of the IMPACTS being considered by the committee, will most likely be necessary.
    10. The Section 111 study being conducted by the Corps of Engineers will supplement any scientific studies that might be conducted by the Georgia Ports Authority resulting from SEG recommendations.