HomeMy Public PortalAbout1592_001.pdfPost Office Box 2749
Tybee Island, Georgia 313i
FAK41
SAVANNAH DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
F'O'DOX 04*
SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 31,402,41111111
A
This letter is to inform you that the US Army Corps of Engineers has performed an
exhaustive review of our ► records with regard to your concerns about the possible
additional removal of the old Fort Screven metal seawall and groins. To date we have found
only limited information as to the extent of the remaining seawall and groin fields at old Fort
Screven. As you recall, the US Army Corps of Engineers did a partial removal project under
the Defense Environmental Restoration Program -Formerly Used Defense Sites (DERP-FUDS)
program in 1986. During this project, our records show that the City of Tybee Island made the
decision to not expand the scope of the project to include the structures that currently pose a
hazard.
Since 1986 there have been a series of policy implementations and changes in the DERP-
FUDS program. We have reviewed the project files and current guidance and have
determined, with the concurrence of our headquarters office, that additional work at old Fort
Screven is not eligible under the prograrn. Therefore, Tybee Island should seek an alternate
osalAott f,
steel groin field. If Tybee Island would like a meeting with Savannah District to discuss the
speccs concerning the city's ineligibility under the DERP-FUDS program, then please
contact Mr. Mike Sydow, Chief of Environmental, Interagency and International Services and
Center of Standardization Management Branch at 912-652-5625.
Another alternative possibly available to Tybee Island would be the Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Section 206 authority under the Water Resource Development Act of 1996,
Under this program the Federal Government cost shares 65 percent Federal and 35 percent
non -Federal with a local sponsor in ecosystem and protection projects if the project will
improve the environmental quality, is in the public interest and is cost effective. If you have
IN
any questions concerning this altemative or would like to set up a mecting to discuss further,
please contact me at 912-652-5226.
U=
Mark S. Held
Colonel, US Arm
m9all lin till 114117
W
Erik J. Olsen
From: Bubba Hughes [bhughes@CBRHLAW.COM]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 8:53 AM
To: eolsen@olsen-associates.com
Subject: RE: Economic Stimulus Program Ideml al of Derelict Structures
Thanks Erik & good point.
-----Original Message -----
From: Erik J. Olsen [mailto:eolsen@olsen-associates.com]
Sent; Monday, February 02, 2009 8:43 AM
To: Bubba Hughes
Subject: RE: Economic Stimulus Program - Removal of Derelict Structures
Bubba Yes it turns out they sent it to the
City and not me.I still need to go through it in detail.but if I recollect... the first
funding DOD funding methodology cited by Dan as being inappropriate,is what they used for
the first phase of removal which was then halted.The 64,000 dollar question here is why
they terminated the effort.As you know they allege the Mayor said not interested.Thats
the part of the file which needs close interpretation.
I would urge Dan Parrot to sit down and read his files before he puts out letters like
that.E
Erik J. Olsen, P.E.
eolsen@olsen-associates.com
olsen associates, inc.
4438 Herschel St.
Jacksonville, FL 32210
(904) 387-6114
(FAX) 384-7368
-----Original Message -----
From: Bubba Hughes [mailto:bhughes@CBRHLAW.COM]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 1:03 PM
To: eolsen@olsen-associates.com
Subject: RE: Economic Stimulus Program - Removal of Derelict Structures
Thanks Erik. Well said. Please let me know if you get a response.
Also, did they ever produce their file after the FOIA request?
Thanks
Bubba
-----Original Message -----
From: Erik J. Olsen
[mailto:eolsen@olsen-associates.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 5:01 PM
To: 'Parrott, Daniel L SAS'; 'Diane Schleicher'
Cc: 'LSOFFI; 'Mayor Hotmail'; 'Oddi, Peter A SAS';
Subject: RE: Economic Stimulus Program - Removal of
WW
'Myers, Merritt'; •• •
Derelict Structures
I'm not sure I understand the application of the two conditions noted in your
transmittal below --as they would apply to Tybee Island --for the potential noneligibility
of the Bldg.
Demolition/Debris Removal program.
The first item you state is ineligibilty where "the hazard is a result of neglect by an
owner/grantee subsequent to DOD use".
Surely you can't be implying that the City was negligent in this regard since the
structures in question were totally non-functional with respect to their design intent at
the time of transfer to the City.That is to say the City inherited a derelict structural
condition.They did not create it or in any way indirectly cause it to become derelict due
to neglect.
The second cause of potential ineligibility you cite relates to "projects involving
structures or debris that were altered or beneficially used by owners subsequent to DOD
usage".
Again how could the City have benefited from a derelict groin field where the subject
structures have constituted significant hazards to beach use activities and not benefits?
These structures for decades have caused a major endangerment of the public.They are a
significant negative benefit in that they not only represent a liability but also preclude
public use of a significant segment of publicly accessible shoreline seaward of a public
Park.
I believe that if you review the COE files on this matter you will find that the SAV
District made these same basic findings and submitted them to Higher Authority in odred to
to justify their initial attempts to remove portions of the structures(wall and
groins) in
question.Presently,its unclear why the removal effort was ever terminated.Hence the City's
continuing request to the COE to review the nature of the federal work previously
initiated by the District with respect to derelict strux removal,the rationale for same
and the funding justification previously documented by the District as being applicable to
the effort.
Any clarification you can provide with respect to your explanation would be greatly
appreciated. Thank you. ERIK
----------------------
Erik J. Olsen, P.E.
eolsen@olsen-associates.com
olsen associates, inc.
4438 Herschel St.
Jacksonville, FL 32210
(904) 387-6114
(FAX) 384-7368
-----Original Message -----
From: Parrott, Daniel L SAS
[mailto:Daniel.L.Parrott@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 3:06 PM
To: Diane Schleicher
Cc: LSOFF; Mayor Hotmail;
eolsen@olsen-associates.com; Oddi, Peter A SAS; Myers, Merritt
Subject: RE: Economic Stimulus Program - Removal of Derelict Structures
Dear Diane; we received a copy of your email request to Jack Kingston's office regarding
the removal of the old Ft.
Screven Groins and we would like
to clarify some of the points that you raised.
The issue with the use Federal funds has to do with the proper Authority to expend the
funds as well as the availability of Federal funds. The work that was performed in the
1980's was funded by the Formerly Used Defense Sites
(FURS) program. Since that time, there have been several policy implementations and
changes that make additional groin work at old Ft Screven ineligible under the program.
The following activities under the Building Demolition/Debris Removal program category are
ineligible at FUDS:
* Projects where the hazard is a result of neglect by an owner/grantee subsequent to
DoD use, regardless of whether the deed or disposal document required the owner/grantee to
maintain the property improvements.
* Projects involving structures or
PA
debris that were altered of
beneficially used by owners subsequent to DoD usage.
Also, the message regarding the idea of adding to the renourish-ment needs some
explaination. We are tasked to perform the work as it is described in the approved Tybee
Island Limited Reevaluation Report.
Deviation from the approved report to add in the
Plan would have required up to revise the report
from our Division Headquarters.
In addition, instead of relying on the existing
would have had to generate a new PCA amendement
to execute.
It was these factors,
*ld groin removal as a Locally Preferred
and gain approval of the revised document
ffroject Cooperation Agreement (PCA), we
that would have required ASA(CW) approval
as well as the fact that the City of Tybee Island would have been responsible for 100% of
the old groin costs anyway, supported the decision to not include the old groing removal
as a part of the Federal Shore Protection Project.
We have throughly researched other Civil Works authorites that could be utilized, absent
specific Congressional language, for the removal of the old groins. Section 103 (small
shore protection
project) does not fit because
the old groins to provide some degree of erosion control. It is possible, as was stated
in the June 2007 letter from Col.
Mark Held (attached), that we
could proceed with a Section 206 (small
environmental restoration project)
if we can determine that the removal of the old groins would provide some level of
environmental restoration.
However, funds for these small
projects, which have been delegated to the Corps of Engineers for approval, are very
limited.
-----Original Message -----
From: Diane Schleicher
[mailto:dschleicher@cityoftybee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:08 AM
To: Myers, Merritt
Cc: LSOFF; Mayor Hotmail; Parrott, Daniel L SAS; eolsen@olsen-associates.com
Subject: RE: Economic Stimulus Program - Removal of Derelict Structures
There is a disagreement between the COE and the City about this project on some levels.
The COE did a project in the 1980's and removed some derelict structures from the North
Beach area by the North Beach parking lot with federal funds.
The COE has a transmittal where they spoke with Mayor Hosti about expanding the project
and removing the structures from this section of the beach. The only evidence that they
have is a phone conversation. The phone conversation does not match up with the city's
minutes which are the official records of the city. This may also be possible evidence
that what they spoke to Mayor Hosti was not about expanding the area but digging deeper
when removing the derelict structures in the area where they already were because there is
evidence in the COE files about that issue.
Mayor Hosti has passed away, so
we can not question him about the conversation.
There are two schools of thought. The discussion with the COE at one point was the
possibility of more federal funding, and they could not find any, so they said no. Then
COE said that because the Mayor at that time told them no over the phone to the removal
with federal funds in the 1980's that Tybee Island lost their only chance to have the
3
federal government remove tae derelict structures with fedeiai funds. I have received the
two answers.
The City does not have the $800,000 plus to remove the structures. We asked to have the
project as part of the beach renourishment project but were told by the COE that this
would risk slowing the project slowing down with additional approvals by the COE, so we
held off.
Now, with the stimulus
opportunity, we are asking for some leadership out of our leaders and some support from
the COE.
Like I said in an earlier email, the project has all of the elements that the stimulus
project requires: It is shovel ready.
We have a COE permit for the
project and already have done the environmental through the COE. It promotes public
safety. It promotes economic development.
It promotes jobs.
From: Myers, Merritt
[mailto:merritt.myers@mail.house.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:35 AM
To: Diane Schleicher
Subject: Re: Economic Stimulus Program - Removal of Derelict Structures
If the project is not authorized, or the authorization has expired then I don't think it
will be eligible for stimulus funds from the COE. Is this work that has to be done thru
the COE?
Merritt Myers
Legislative Director
Congressman Jack Kingston (GA01)
From: Diane Schleicher
To: Myers, Merritt
Sent: Tue Jan 27 08:57:56 2009
Subject: FW: Economic Stimulus Program - Removal of Derelict Structures
I am at a road block at the state level. If this was a road project, it would be in the
GDOT package. Dan Parrott at the COE doesn't want to handle it. Do you have any advice?
It is shovel ready. We have a COE permit for the project and already have done the
environmental through the COE. It promotes safety. It promotes economic development. It
promotes jobs.
4
From: Stockwell, Melanie
[mailto:melanie.Stockwell@senate.ga.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 3:15 PM
To: Diane Schleicher
Cc: Eric Johnson
Subject: RE: Economic Stimulus Program - Removal of Derelict Structures
I'm trying to get verification from the
Governor's office. Last we heard
there is no "Governor's List" to send to Washington. But I've got a call in to get more
information.
From: Diane Schleicher
[mailto:dschleicher@cityoftybee.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:34 PM
To: Stockwell, Melanie
Subject: FW: Economic Stimulus Program - Removal of Derelict Structures
I was checking to see if the Senator and his staff had received this request.
I will be at the Capital next Monday and Thursday. If it is possible, I would like to set
up an appointment to discuss the issue on either of those days in the morning.
F8672"s
From: Diane Schleicher
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 3:38 PM
To: Johnson, Eric; EJohnson@northpoint-re.com
Cc: 'Stockwell, Melanie'; Mayor Hotmail; Lou Off
Subject: Economic Stimulus Program - Removal of Derelict Structures
The City of Tybee Island needs your assistance in getting the "Removal of Derelict
Structures on the Tybee Island Beach"
on the Governor's List to send
to Washington for the New Federal Economic Stimulus Program. We have all of the permits in
place and even a potential contractor, but the cost exceeds our ability to do the project.
6�"
Removing these dangerous structures will make this section of the beach much safer and
will also improve property values on Tybee by making a larger part of the beach usable by
beach goers.
The structures should
VW I
"IMOH11
The project should qualify for the new economic stimulus program because it is a project
that creates jobs (the contractor and his workers), Tybee has the necessary permits (see
attached) and is ready to
accomplished the project within 6 months (see attached). We need to do the project before
May 1 or after October 31st due to the Loggerhead Turtle Nesting Season), so we are ready
to go if we were given the funds today.
The attached photos were taken at low tide before the structures were covered with sand
with the Beach Renourishment Project.
Now is a great opportunity
to remove them before they are exposed again and become a hazard to swimmers.
Please let me know what additional information you need. Thank you in advance for your
assistance.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named
addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail
from your system.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of The City of Tybee Island. The recipient
should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The City of Tybee
Island accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
City of Tybee Island P.O. Box 2749 Tybee Island, GA 31328
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for thz
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named
0
addressee you should not di-seminate, distribute or copy thiz, e-mail.
Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail
from your system.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of The City of Tybee Island. The recipient
should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The City of Tybee
Island accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
City of Tybee Island P.O. Box 2749 Tybee Island, CA 31328
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named
addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail
from your system.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of The City of Tybee Island. The recipient
should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The City of Tybee
Island accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
City of Tybee Island P.O. Box 2749 Tybee Island, GA 31328
7
I
TO: Mayor Jason Buelterman
Diane Schleicher, City Manager, Tybee Island
Bubba Hughes, Esq.; Lou Off, Tybee Island Task Force
FROM: Erik J. Olsen, P.E.
I have reviewed the FOIA materials recently provided by the Savannah District,
USACOE and have developed a chronology of major events, decisions and statements or
conclusions made by the Army over the years (copy attached). The files include several
recent conflicting conclusions when one considers the history of the project, the
authorization for the original DOD mitigation project and the District's present day
rationale for no further federal interest in completing the removal of an existing hazardous
condition constructed by the Army for the protection of Ft. Screven.
Most disturbing, is the District's continued allegation up to the present time that the
City overtly requested that the partial derelict structure project authorized in 1985 not be
expanded. There is no clear evidence to that fact in the files except for a copy of a
telephone conversation form authored by the Project Manager for the remediation project.
A major issue with this source of "evidence" of the City's alleged preference is that a.) it is
dated wrong, b.) cites a City Council action that according to the documented Council
Minutes never took place, and c.) conflicts with a number of reported requests by the City
to expand the project, including a written letter to the District Engineer from what appears
to be Mayor Hosti of Tybee Island. As a result, the allegation that a City Official stopped
the expanded project in 1985 has become an "urban myth" upon which the District has
formulated their position on this matter — up until the present time.
Hence, the Corps apparently closed ranks on this topic in about 2003 when Mayor
Parker again formally requested that the District remove the remaining portions of the
DOD structures at federal expense. At that time, the District staff formulated a Project
Summary Sheet which became their "script" for addressing the issue up until today. For
NAMEM
INA
1 10� ;�
example, it is the principal reference for "facts" represented in Dan Parrot's response to the
City dated 30 January 2009. Unfortunately, it continues to reflect upon the unsubstantiated
allegation that the City requested that the original derelict structure removal project not be
expanded As the attached chronology shows, the preponderance of evidence from the
USACOE files (although not as completely conclusive as one would necessarily like) is t*
the contrary.
Although, I have a hypothesis as to why one or more individuals in the Savannah
District may have made an internal decision in 1985 to "walk" from an expanded project, I
would first like to highlight a series of facts relevant to the history of this DOD remediation
r*=
In the mid -1980's the Savannah District and higher authority at SAD consistently found
and documented that exposed concrete wall sections and sheet metal groins where
exposed resulted in significant public hazards to swimmers and small boat operators.
All structures addressed, had been constructed seaward of Ft. Screven by the U.S.
Army, and were determined at the time to be solely a DOD responsibility.
The removal of the historical derelict shore protection structures were found to be
eligible for federal funding under the Environmental Restoration Defense Account
(ERDA) program. The purpose of the program was to remediate damages or hazards
created at prior DOD installations.
The District, with the concurrence of the City of Tybee Island, initiated design and
permitting of the initial removal of concrete blocks along 720 -ft of the 4001 -ft. of
affected shorefront at North Beach. Initially, an exposed portion of one groin was
recommended for removal. The estimated cost of removal was $31,500. The first phase
of work was centered on the beach access for the public park developed by the City of
Tybee Island on the Ft. Screven property, which had been transferred by the DOD to
I•cal interests.
A 26 October 1984 Site Survey Report for the ERDA project concluded that the
partially submerged metal groins and concrete wall remnants posed a serious threat to
swimmers who heavily used the area. At the time, internal guidance from SAD
indicated that the District's Survey Report for Ft. Screven "should indicate that the
beach stabilization debris proposed for removal only include those scattered segments of
the existing structures which were found to provide no appreciable means of beach
uironology of `'
I1' •
r • _ •
protection". The District complied with the directive and added this phraseology to
their report.
There was some concern at the District (March 1985) that removing groins and wall
segments, "could lead to beach erosion". As a result, John (Jay) Lockhart, P.E. was
requested • render a coastalengineering i1 •
evidently,He stated for the record that "the old seawall and some old groins were left in place
for two reasons. It was cheaper to cover them up than to remove them and if the
beach was severely eroded by a storm their presence might (emphasis added) retard
to some degree the further loss of the beach".
In the end, Mr. Lockhart concluded in 1985 that "severe deflation of the beach and
r of any interest to renourish it havea a situation
the protection of public outweighserosion protection if any, provided
by the remnants of the old wall".
Internal correspondence of the COE indicates that in April 1985 Mayor Hosti requested
that the removal program be expanded to the large area, i.e., the entire 4000 -ft of
affected shoreline. There is a letter in the COE files from the Mayor requesting
96removing all of the remaining segment of • 1 seawall down to approximately
Second Avenue". The Mayor reflected upon the hazards created and the restrictions of
swimming due to the remains of the seawall being dangerous.
In May of 1985the District documented f the Record that the expanded project1 a
be possible "because it still involves formerly owned DOD property and presents a
hazard". Subsequently however, a telephone conversation documentation slip (dated 8
May 1985) indicated that on 7 May 1985 (i.e., the night before) the Mayor discussed the
removal project i and decided / to request the scope of
work be expanded".
• • MAY 1985
THERE WAS O 7 MAYAS ALLEGED. r r it
CERTIFIED MINUTES OF D• NOT REFLECT
DETERMINATION. RATHER THE MINUTES DOCUMENT THAT THE MAYOR
SIMPLY ANNOUNCED THAT "THE HAZARDSALONG THE BEACH,AFTER
MORE OF ii REMOVED".
��W I I K I I I I
I r l - I "
. . .
P r o j e c t f r o m F t . S c r e v e n
I n A u g u s t 1 9 8 5 , t h e D i s t r i c t a c k n o w l e d g e d t o h i g h e r a u t h o r i t y t h a t t h e y h a d
u n d e r e s t i m a t e d t h e d i f f i c u l t y a n d c o s t o f r e m o v i n g t h e s m a l l s c a l e p r o j e c t . T h e e s t i m a t i *
o f c o s t e s c a l a t e d f r o m $ 3 1 K t o o v e r $ 1 5 0 K , i . e . , a f a c t o r o f f i v e ( 5 ) . I n m y o b s e r v a t i o n ,
i t s a t t h i s j u n c t u r e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t a p p e a r s t o h a v e a d o p t e d t h e p h i l o s o p h y t h a t f u t u r e
b e a c h i m p r o v e m e n t s , i . e . , a n o r t h j e t t y r a i s i n g a n d r e - n o u r i s h m e n t w o u l d e v e n t u a l l y
k e e p t h e r e m a i n i n g w a l l s e g m e n t s b u r i e d a n d n o n - i m p a c t i v e ( s e e 1 6 A u g u s t 1 9 8 5
I n f o r m a t i o n P a p e r b y M . M c K e v i t t ) . I t a l s o w o u l d a p p e a r t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t c o n c l u d e d
t h a t r e m o v a l o f t h e c o n c r e t e b l o c k s w a s g o i n g t o b e m u c h m o r e d i f f i c u l t t h a n o r i g i n a l l y
a n t i c i p a t e d p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e r e t h e y w e r e p r e d o m i n a t e l y b u r i e d i n s a n d . H e n c e , t h e
e n t i r e p r o j e c t c o s t w o u l d b e s i g n i f i c a n t . I t w a s e v e n o p i n e d t h e r e i n t h a t i f N o r t h B e a c h
b e c a m e s e v e r e l y e r o d e d i n t h e f u t u r e s u c h t h a t t h e s e a w a l l / d e b r i s w e r e r e - e x p o s e d , t h e
C i t y o f T y b e e w o u l d b e f a c i n g " m o r e d i f f i c u l t a n d s e r i o u s p r o b l e m s t h a n t h e e x p o s u r e
o f t h e s e a w a l l " . T h e t o n e o f t h i s s t a t e m e n t b e l i e s t h e p e r s o n a l p h i l o s o p h y o f t h e
m a n a g e r f o r t h e p r o j e c t . T h e s a m e i n d i v i d u a l a l l e g e d t h a t t h e M a y o r h a d r e q u e s t e d t h a t
t h e p r o j e c t n o t b e e x p a n d e d .
I n A u g u s t 2 0 0 3 t h e C O E f o r m u l a t e d a P r o j e c t S u r v e y S h e e t f o r t h e f o r m e r F t . S c r e v e n
D E R P p r o j e c t f o r p u r p o s e s o f a d d r e s s i n g a c o n t i n u i n g r e q u e s t b y t h e C i t y f o r d e r e l i c t
s t r u c t u r e r e m o v a l . T h e P a p e r i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g i n a c c u r a t e s t a t e m e n t s o r
a l l e g a t i o n s .
a ) " O n l y a p o r t i o n o f t h e t o t a l h a z a r d s e l i g i b l e f o r r e m o v a l u n d e r D E R P - F U D S
w e r e r e m e d i a t e d b e c a u s e T y b e e I s l a n d c i t y o f f i c i a l s d e c i d e d t h a t t h i s p o r t i o n
o f t h e p r o j e c t d i d n o t p r o v i d e e r o s i o n p r o t e c t i o n . T y b e e o f f i c i a l s e l e c t e d t o
l e a v e t h e r e m a i n d e r o f f o r e r o s i o n c o n t r o l . " , a n d
b ) " A l l e v i d e n c e ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r e s h a v e b e e n
b e n e f i c i a l l y u s e d f o r e r o s i o n c o n t r o l s i n c e D O D t r a n s f e r , a n d t h e o w n e r
e l e c t e d n o t t o r e m o v e t h e m i n 1 9 8 5 b e c a u s e o f t h e i r e r o s i o n c o n t r o l
b e n e f i t . " N o t e t h e r e i s n o s u c h e v i d e n c e i n t h i s r e g a r d .
" F u r t h e r m o r e , U S A C E l e g a l r e v i e w o f t h e d e e d t r a n s f e r o f t h e p r o p e r t y t o t h e C i
o f T y b e e I s l a n d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e d e e d c o n t a i n e d n o p r o v i s i o n s f o r D O D
r e s t o r e t h e s i t e . "
Cnronology of A
RemovalDerelict Structure
Project from
NOTE - This was never a condition of the original project or any proposed
expansions of project in the 1980apparent strawproffered ,• .fr
"wei• to conclusions "•.+d • non -eligibility of i
remediate • hazard.
as
Having reviewed the COE and read all of the documents attached to this
memorandum a chronology including a number of emails dated 2003, 1 have the followinv
opinions regarding the issue at hand:
abundantly r' 981 shorefront derelic I
structure removal program well qualified for ERDA program funding. An
initial project was formulated based upon the removal of the most offensive
hazards which were centered on the public access location of the upland Park.
As the project• • progressed, . opinion of
work could be •. 1 `. to the entire 4,000-ftsegment of • •
f) There appears to have been underlying opinions within the District that certain
sheet metal • • 1: exposed) were providing • f • • benefit.
Actually, it's just - opposite. In reality where . groin is completelyburies,
stabilizationis deactivated and having no effect on littoral processes — positive or negative.
3) These likewise were an opinion by Jay Lockhart, a relatively well known COE
engineer with a coastal background that the remnant seawall sections served no
apparent purpose and that the benefits of removal far outweighed any potential
benefits during storm events He did not opine o - propriety of
4 As got closer1 the point of bidding project f• i •
they made several revelations. One, the monolithic concrete wall sections were
much larger than anticipated — and particularly the portion below grade.
Accordingly, their original estimates of level of effort and associated project
cost were very lowby • of
lengthrequired to go back to Higher Authority — explain the situation — and request a
greater budget — which they did. Secondly, they found by survey the 15 -ft.
of pile groin to be ,t -f increased to 1 due to continuing
exposure. .' portion of a second groin exposed was added to the
M
t-nronology of USACOE
Project from Ft. Screven
contract. It is therefore relevant that as groins became exposed; the Savannah
District at the time considered them to be hazardous and subject to removal.
5) The fundamental reason the original project scope was not expanded would
appear to not be what were requested by the Mayor of Tybee Island, but the
notes to file authorized by mark McKevitt, the apparent project manager at the
time. Its what Mr. McKevitt alleges the mayor said that stopped the expansion
of the limits of work. Both Mr. McKevitt's records of conversation (predating
the occurrence of the Council Meeting he discusses) as well as the Minutes of
the City Council meeting itself, tend to refute Mr. McKevitt's notes to file.
Moreover, Mr. McKevitt's personal observations documented in his writing is
his belief that the hazardous conditions at North Beach would be eliminated by
future sand placement and the raising of the north federal groin.
It is therefore possible, that Mr. McKevitt orchestrated a situation which would
be conducive to the second phase of work not being consummated. Although
personal motivation in this regard is difficult to assess, it was in all probability
clear to these individuals - the District involved with the project that the second
phase of work would be very difficult and expensive. Hence, a determination
was made that the effort was not worthwhile, particularly in the face of potential
sand placement which would cover it up again in the near future. The first
renourishment did occur 1986/87 with the placement of 1.2M cubic yards of
sand. Moreover, it did include a raising of the north groin as noted by Mr.
McKevitt.
The net effect of the Savannah District's continuing position of denial of the City's
request for federal assistance is two -fold:
a) The District has somewhat exacerbated historical hazardous condition seaward
of a public park by covering it up during renourishment projects only to have
the dangerous derelict structural elements (concrete and steel sheet pile) re-
emerge from the fill berm as it both equilibrates and erode back over time
during the renourishment interval. As a result, portions of the public unaware
of the condition are exposed to a hazard which can very in intensity both
spatially and temporarily. Moreover, this dangerous condition has been allowed
"0
(-nronology of USACOE
Derelict Structure Removal
Project from Ft. Screven
to exist with the limits of a federal shore protection project intended to providli
recreational benefAs one of only a very few public beaches within the Stat4
of Georgia, Tybee Island serves as a recreational amenity to City, County, Stat*
?nd tourist oriented user groups.
b) The City is faced with a county liability regarding public injury on the derelict
structures, of irrespective signage, beach closures, etc. Accordingly, the City
must restrict access and usage of a large portion of a publicly owned shorefront
Having reviewed these comments and the attach6 chronology, it may be well to
schedule a sit down with the District Engineer, his staff and representatives of your
Congressionals to discuss the past. In my simplest view, the city is the victim of an "urban
myth" which continues to manifest itself in the District's position as to why federal funds
cannot be obtained to finish the derelict structure removal project initiated in 1985.
M