Issue link: https://newsleader.uberflip.com/i/336863
shoal of Big Pass would pose an unacceptable risk to Siesta Key and the downdrift beaches. That study, done in 1994 by a senior scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and a professor at the University of Virginia, clearly showed that the ebb shoal in Big Pass was the lynchpin for the stability of sand formations to the south, including Siesta Key. Because of the study, the plan by the ACOE to mine Big Pass for Venice beach renourishment was abandoned. Yet, here is the ACOE again, proposing the same dredging plan and claiming it will have no impact on the surrounding islands. In its draft report, the ACOE acknowledges that the ebb shoal in Big Pass is virtually unchanged over the past 130 years. However, the ACOE conveniently ignores the 1994 study that refuted its assurances of little or no impact from dredging. Because of the unchanging nature of the Big Pass ebb shoal, that earlier study has lost none of its rele- vance in considering the current proposal. Simply put, the ACOE is attempting to force on Sarasota County a solution to normal beach erosion that could have devastat- ing and far reaching c o n s e q u e n c e s . I t s draft report is a poor a t t e m p t t o u s e i t s mostly discredited m e t h o d o l o g i e s t o support its danger- ous conclusions. Just as in 1994, the proposal of the ACOE must be subjected to a rigorous peer review by credible experts in coastal geology. Such a review would provide an impartial assess- ment of the ACOE's analytical methodologies and confirm or deny the accuracy of its pre- dictions for the impact of dredging the Big Pass ebb shoal. The City of Sarasota, within whose boundar- ies lie the eroding beaches on Lido Key, has a vested interest in a positive evaluation of the ACOE draft plan. As a result, it has hired Cliff Truitt of Coastal Technology Corp. to con- duct a "peer review" of the ACOE proposal. However, Truitt has long been an advocate of beach renourishment and has worked with local governments on renourishment propos- als in the past. There is little reason to believe that Truitt's evaluation of the ACOE plan will be the exhaustive analysis needed to ensure the plan's veracity. Sarasota County, on the other hand, has much to lose if the ACOE proposal is adopted and its modeling assumptions are incorrect. The damage to Siesta Key and its beaches, a major source of tourism tax revenue, could have a profound impact on the county's long-term finances. Accordingly, the county must com- mission its own review of the ACOE report and employ someone with impeccable cre- dentials to undertake the task. Simply put, the ACOE is attempting to force a solution to normal beach erosion on Sarasota County that could have d e v a s t a t i n g a n d f a r - r e a c h i n g consequences. Its draft report is a poor a t t e m p t t o u s e i t s m o s t l y discredited methodologies to support its dangerous conclusions. OPINION Sarasota News Leader June 27, 2014 Page 89