To Advance or Not to Advance

One cost of advancing the Longboat Key beach project to 2011 from the scheduled year 2012, on a $45 million bond at 3%, is $1.3 million in yearly interest on the bond a year early.

So far the town manager’s sole reason for advancing the project is the Port Dolphin sand and the possible loss of up to $5 million in payments from the pipeline company, if Port Dolphin decides to construct the pipeline.

The following considerations should be part of the cost/benefit analysis of advancing the project one year.

1. The taxpayers will receive one less year of value for the current $26 million bond or $660,000.

2. The taxpayers will have one fewer years when they are not paying for a beach bond.

3. The taxpayers will pay $1.35 million dollars interest on the new bond one year early

4. Exactly how many cu/yds of sand from the Port Dolphin borrow-sites will be used on the proposed beach project? We should know this.

5. Is there a sand transportation differential between the sand coming from the north end of Anna Maria Island and the sand coming from the more distant Port Dolphin borrow-sites?

6. How is the town reimbursed by Port Dolphin, by the yard or as a lump sum? The town manager has stated that the town may receive up to $5 million so I expect there is some sort of yard/dollar formula.

7. The beach consultants say 2 of 5 sections of the beach on Longboat Key will receive the darker courser Port Dolphin sand. If the total project is 1.8 million yards of sand, then perhaps approximately 2/5ths of that amount will be taken from the Port Dolphin sites or 720,000 yards of sand.

8. By advancing the project by 1 year, to receive possible compensation form Port Dolphin, each yard of the 720,000 yards from Port Dolphin will have an added cost of $1.80 to cover the added early interest on the $45 million bond.

9. I estimate that the town has already spent over $500,000 fighting the Port Dolphin pipeline, so there is another $1.40 added on to the cost of each yard of sand coming from the Port Dolphin sites. These are only approximations and are not represented as actual amounts. However, we should know the actual figures before we move forward.

If the Port Dolphin sand does have hidden costs in the range of $3.20 per yard, is it worth advancing the beach project one year, even if we do recive some money from the pipeline company? Remember we will be getting one less year of life from the current beach bond which makes that taxpayer transaction 14% more costly, while at the same advancing payments on the next beach bond by one year.

The Longboat Pass inlet management study may produce findings that preclude needing as much sand as projected in the currently proposed beach project. Why encumber the residents with additional taxes that may not be required after the completion of the inlet study.

The interim sand placement at the north end alleviates the necessity to act this year as all the other beaches are performing on schedule for the original 2012 beach project.

If Port Dolphin is the sole reason being advanced as the driving factor in advancing the beach project by a year, I say we should know a lot more about what we will actually receive from Port Dolphin and then run a cost/benefit analysis. Uninformed decision-making usually has its problems.

The town and the taxpayers might save a lot of money if an alternative beach maintenance technology is evaluated and found to be effective in acquiring sand, at no cost through accretion, and then retaining the sand for extended periods of time.

Managing our beaches intelligently

In this blog I will link to two beach maintenance technologies that might be explored to maintain sand on our beaches at minimum cost and maximum longevity, instead of hopper dredging that lasts only a few years.

In my previous post I stated that the town might serve the community well by researching what beach management alternatives are available, and how they might be applied to our particular beach challenges.

I believe it is essential to look at preserving sand along our entire 10 miles of beach, not just the beach adjacent to Longboat Pass.

For the past 20 years I have always tried to offer positive alternatives if I questioned a particular town policy of activity. The current beach conundrum is no different and here I am suggesting that we look at two specific beach maintenance technologies because they make sense to me. I have looked into both companies enough to believe that each has promise. Both systems can be economically applied to the entire island to provide a semi-permanent solution that does not require spending tens-of-millions of dollars every 8 years or so.

In the case of the Sand Saver company, they are willing to ship 20 of their units to Longboat, at no cost to the town, so we might conduct a small test lasting for a month or two as proof of concept. Since the Sand Saver units are highly portable and quickly and easily removed, the town can assure the Department of Environmental Resources that the test will cause no permanent damage to the coastline. I like companies that believe enough in their technology to fully underweight the pilot project.


As soon as ideas for a long term low maintenance beach solution are presented, I suspect there will be opposition from several quarters. I can see no reason why these technologies should not be explored to the point where a consensus of experts reject them. Ask yourselves if you believe all the communities that decided to use these various beach maintenance methods acted impulsively and without evaluating what they were doing. In the past the town manager has defended his continued use of hopper dredging by saying that all other technologies will not work on Longboat Key. My question is how do we know this without throughly exploring the promising technologies and how they apply to our particular beach conditions.

Are we the only ones who know what we are doing? Is there nothing to be learned from the efforts and collective experiences of other communities? Do you really want to reject all seemingly successful technologies out-of-hand? I don't when $50 million is on the line with a life expectancy of only seven or eight years, and even higher costs the next time we re-nourish our beaches.

The Movable Wall: The first technology I want to highlight is called "Sand Saver". This beach maintenance technology uses movable semi-porous retaining wall modules to build beach profile and then maintain the built-out beach on an ongoing basis. The semi-porous units can be repositioned up and down the island to both acquire sand and to maintain the beach. Please watch the entire video and note how quickly sand is acquired using the Sand Saver modules.

At this point I am not saying that the Sand Saver is the answer to all our dreams. I am saying we should, as a community, honestly evaluate this technology, and others, both in terms of cost and effectiveness. The Sand Saver has never been permitted since the 1970s. Many of the technologies being proposed for examination have to deal with a $3 billion a year dredging industry along with its attendant lobbyists. Sand Saver has recently obtained all required permits for a project on the Great Lakes in Michigan. When this technology was permitted it was successful in accretion 100 feet of beach in a few weeks.

Link: http://www.sandsaver.com/main.wmv

Link: http://www.sandsaver.com/

Sub-current Stabilizers: Holmberg Technology is a local company has been reclaiming beaches for decades around the world. They have hundreds of satisfied clients. Holmberg has hundreds of success stories of reclaimed beaches that have lasted decades without needing further work and money. I have spoken with Mr. Holmberg and for a few thousand dollars we can have Mr. Holmberg evaluate our beaches and make a preliminary proposal.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA7D8UERl6A&feature=related

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBTroxOvczc&feature=related

I have presented two differing beach maintenance technologies. Both have been successful in other communities. There are many more alternatives to the expensive temporary dredging solution being championed by both the town manager and the town's beach engineering consultants. Look at my LBK beaches web site to see several other shore maintenance technologies that are in use around the world.

Link: http://www.lbkbeaches.com/

I do not believe we should continue to support expensive dredging projects without first having a disinterested independent expert beach management company evaluate the major alternative beach management technologies that have been successful in other communities.