Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inlet Dredging topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jupiter Inlet District director reports record sand volumes, explains limits on where sand can be placed
Summary
Joe Chase, executive director of the Jupiter Inlet District, told the Jupiter Inlet Colony commission the inlet sand trap measured about 126,000 cubic yards this season—well above the district's 81,000-yard bypass goal—and said state inlet‑management plans and the technical advisory process limit where the district can legally place dredged material.
Joe Chase, executive director of the Jupiter Inlet District, told the Jupiter Inlet Colony commission that crews are dredging the inlet sand trap this week and have measured unusually large volumes.
"This year, we measured a 126,000 cubic yards in our sand trap," Chase said, adding that the district's bypassing goal is 81,000 cubic yards and that contractors are working to remove shoals that reappear in the inlet. Chase identified Atlantic and Gulf Dredging as the contractor on the current project and said the contract was bid at $1,400,000 for an estimated 100,000 cubic yards, with actual final quantities likely to exceed the bid estimate.
The presentation explained why the district typically places dredged sand on the down‑drift beach (Jupiter Beach) and why moving sand northward would require a formal change to the district's state‑approved inlet management plan. Chase said inlet management is a mathematical, data‑driven process governed by a sediment budget and that any change to bypassing goals requires review by the state and the technical advisory committee representing adjacent municipalities and stakeholders.
Chase described related projects the district has worked on, including mangrove‑island restoration west of the railroad bridge, an oxbow restoration program upriver, and a living shoreline demonstration finished in 2021 along the south‑facing shoreline near the lighthouse. He said some vessel traffic relief has come from a railroad‑span clearance project that now allows a majority of local vessels to transit under the span.
During questions from the commission, Chase reiterated that while a municipality can pursue a revised management plan, the process requires sufficient data (he cited a five‑year data window for review) and state approval. Commissioners urged continued engagement on the technical advisory committee so local concerns about down‑drift impacts are considered.
The commission did not take any formal action on inlet management at the meeting; Chase invited commissioners and residents to follow up with the district and with the technical advisory process if they want the town to seek changes.
The commission moved on to other agenda items after the presentation.
