Coastal Texas Protection and Restoration Project Sharon Tirpak / Sheridan Willey / Janelle Stokes Project Management / Planning / Environmental USACE, Galveston District August 2014 Welcome

Discussion Topics Study Authorization Meeting Goals Coastal TX Project Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay - Related Study Corps Process Summary Submittal of Comments/Ideas

Coastal TX Study Authorization WRDA of 2007 Section 4091. Coastal Texas Ecosystem Protection and Restoration, Texas. “(a) In General.—The Secretary shall develop a comprehensive plan to determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration in the coastal areas of the State of Texas”

Meeting Goals Provide information on the Coastal Texas Study Provide an update on current on-going Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay Study Discuss the Corps process for Federally funded projects Receive input/comments from all stakeholders

Coastal Texas Study Area Reconnaissance study start in 2014 Look at entire Texas coastal area Public meetings: August 11th Palacios August 12th Corpus Christi August 13th South Padre Island August 27th Houston/Galveston

Coastal Texas Study Goals Develop long-term comprehensive coastal plan for Texas Identify all problems and opportunities for Coastal Storm Damage Risk Management and Ecosystem Restoration Projects Potential detailed focus on specific regions Identify potential projects that: Protect lives, homes, infrastructure and industry Protect the nation’s economy Protect and restore the environment and natural resources

Consider the Following Questions: How is your community (or agency/organization) most vulnerable to coastal storms? What strategy should be implemented to reduce the risk of coastal storms? What ecosystem restoration projects are most needed, or could be implemented to improve coastal resilience?

Project Phase Reconnaissance Study Feasibility Report (36 months) Determine Federal Interest Gather information from: General public Towns, communities and public officials Industry stakeholders Environmental Resource Agencies State and County Officials Universities & Research Institutions Identify non-Federal Sponsor Execute Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement Execute Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement Feasibility Report (36 months) Recommend projects Identify components of comprehensive surge risk reduction plan for future feasibility studies Complete Environmental Impact Statement covering projects recommended for construction Upon study completion, seek Congressional authorization for: Additional studies contributing to comprehensive plan

Texas Resources of National Importance Population Centers 18 coastal Counties with 6.1 million residents/over 24% of the State’s population Houston/Galveston (Houston - Nation’s 4th largest city) Beaumont/Port Arthur/Freeport Corpus Christi/Brownsville/Harlingen Area/South Padre Island Economic Resources Nationally ranked deep-draft Ports Houston: 2nd; Beaumont: 5th; Corpus Christi: 7th ; Texas City: 11th Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW): 150 miles of major shallow draft commercial corridor 40% of the Nation’s petrochemical industry 25% of national petroleum-refining capacity Environmental Resources 367miles of Gulf shoreline 21 State and Federal Wildlife Refuges Endangered Species Critical Habitats Port Arthur:25th Freeport: 27th Galveston: 41st

Problem: Coastal Storm Damage Risk Loss of life Destruction of infrastructure Homes, roads, businesses, industry Economic impact to region and Nation Closure of ship channels; small businesses & industries; job loss Environmental impact Erosion of shorelines Loss of wetlands Impacts to wildlife

Integrated “Lines of Protection” Multiple lines – combination of natural and structural features Increasing levels of protection from offshore to inshore

Examples of Integrated Lines of Protection Low surge protection Offshore breakwaters Reduce waves and coastal erosion

Examples of Integrated Lines of Protection Low/medium surge protection Marsh, beach and dune restoration Engineering with nature and natural and nature based features

Examples of Integrated Lines of Protection High surge protection Levees/flood walls Block storm surge from moving inland Freeport Hurricane Protection System Texas City Levee Hurricane Ike Aftermath

Examples of Integrated Lines of Protection High surge protection Seawalls/flood gates Protect developed areas from storm surges Prevent storm surge from entering coastal inlets and bays Galveston Seawall Dutch Floodgate

Examples of Ecosystem Restoration Oyster Reef Restoration – photo courtesy TNC Bird Island Creation – Galveston Bay Marsh Restoration – Neches River Beach Restoration – SPI Shoreline Protection – GIWW in Jefferson Co (courtesy TNC) Oyster reef habitat is perhaps one of the most important habitats in Texas bays, playing an essential role in maintaining the health and productivity of these estuarine ecosystem. One average-sized oyster can filter up to 50 gallons of water a day while feeding, reducing suspended solids from municipal wastewater and storm water runoff. Reefs that oysters build also provide a complex three-dimensional structure above the soft bay bottom sediments, creating habitat that may be colonized by other mollusks and invertebrates. Oyster reef may also attenuate wave energy and reduce erosion, providing protection for other nearby habitats such as SAV or salt marsh. Degraded marshes can be restored using material dredged from nearby ship channels or with material dredged or mined specifically for the restoration project. Coastal marshes provide both ecological and economic benefits, improve water quality, provide nursery habitat and nutrients for fisheries, and attenuate storm surge impacts Erosion along channel shorelines is a concern because it leads to destruction of coastal marsh and can create turbidity which inhibits seagrass growth. Rock breakwaters like the Nature Conservancy project shown here in the GIWW in Jefferson County can reduce erosion by dissipating wave energy, stabilizing shoreline, and supporting the reestablishment of emergent marsh, all of which will also serve to inhibit saltwater intrusion into fresher marsh complexes. Other methods of shoreline stabilization will also be considered – such as reef balls and other living shorelines techniques. Rookery islands are being lost to erosion at a rapid rate. Restoration of these islands can provide needed nesting sites for colonial waterbirds and important roosting and foraging sites for other waterfowl. Other restoration projects will also be considered, such as beach/dune and shoreline ridge restoration to protect coastal marsh and river systems near the Gulf shore, sediment by-passing projects to restore sand to the longshore drift and hydrologic restoration projects which restore tidal or freshwater circulation to coastal habitats. Of course, these are just a few examples of potential restoration projects. We hope to get many more specific ideas from all of you.

Coastal Texas – Region 1

Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay Project Purpose: Identify CSDRM and ER projects Non-Federal Sponsor: TXGLO Scoped in 2012 250 potential CSDRM and ER measures identified and screened Detailed focus areas and future study areas identified Currently in Feasibility study phase Will be informed by related studies Estimated cost of study: $4.4M Estimated completion date: Sept 2016 Orange Jefferson Chambers Harris Galveston and Brazoria Re-scope to these counties because of the formation of the six-County surge district Study Area: Upper TX coast

Structural Alternatives – Region 1 If you are familiar with the Corps Planning process we need to identify a tentatively selected plan; develop more detailed engineering on that plan so that we have a relatively accurate cost estimate when the recommended plan is presented in a final feasibility report that would be reviewed by Congress for authorization We believe that we have enough information to make a call for the tsp in the sabine and brazoria regions. The Galveston Bay region is too complex to determine without more detailed information as to which of the alternatives would be best – the inland barriers with at gate at the Hartman bridge, a raised road barrier tieing into the TX City hurricane levee and ring levees at Galveston and Chocolate Bayou or the coastal barrier – better know as the Ike Dike. We believe we need more information on the feasibility of raising SH 146 and the alignment of the coastal barrier – does it need to go to the west end of galveston or could it come across the bay in the 8 mil rd area?

Ecosystem Restoration – Region 1 Sabine Region Galveston Bay Region Brazoria Region

Sabine & Brazoria Region Focus Coastal Storm Damage Risk Management Features Reevaluation of existing Freeport Hurricane Flood Protection Levee Evaluation of levees in Orange and Jefferson Counties & reevaluation of Port Arthur Hurricane Flood Protection Levee Preliminary screening to determine if a gate or no-gate scenario would be more cost effective. The levee was determined to be more cost effective.

Galveston Bay Region – Future Study Coastal Storm Damage Risk Management Focus Galveston Bay Coastal Barrier Galveston Bay Inland Barriers

Corps Process Identification of Problem Feasibility Phase* (3 yrs) Reconnaissance Phase ( ̴ 1 yr) $$$ Congressional Appropriation $$$ O&M Preconstruction, Engineering and Design (2-3 yrs) Congressional Authorization Construction $ Non-Fed Sponsor $ Must have Federal Interest and non-Federal Sponsor Must have Feasible Project and non-Federal Sponsor Reconnaissance Conduct workshops/meetings and gather information from: General public Towns, communities and public officials Industry stakeholders Environmental Resource Agencies EIS Local and County Officials Universities & Research Institutions Identify Non-Federal Sponsor Execute Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement Feasibility Report (36 months) Recommend projects Identify components of comprehensive surge risk reduction plan for future feasibility studies Complete Environmental Impact Statement covering projects recommended for construction Upon study completion, seek Congressional authorization for: Additional studies contributing to comprehensive plan *Feasibility Phase includes alternatives analysis and NEPA compliance to determine best plan to provide an environmentally sustainable solution which provides economic value to the nation

Corps Planning Modernization SMART Planning 2012 the Corps established new policies modernizing the Planning process to reduce costs and time 3x3x3 = complete studies in 3 years; cost $3M; 3 levels of review Studies that would not fit into this policy require an exemption from HQUSACE Water Resources Reform Development Act (WRRDA) 2014 HQUSACE developing implementation guidance

Feasibility Analyses Required Engineering Impacts to physical environment and processes Circulation/salinity/flooding/erosion Constructability/operability Engineering feasibility Real Estate requirements Economics Damages to property (personal and public) from flooding Project costs (study, design, construction and O&M) Benefit to cost ratio (NED Plan) Life/health (social impacts)

Feasibility Analyses Required Environmental National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance Impacts to natural environment (NER Plan) Fish and wildlife Habitat Hazardous material spills Cultural Resources

Non-Federal Sponsors All studies/projects need a non-Federal Sponsor to provide cost-share funds Cost-share funds required in all phases Amounts vary depending on phase or activity Sponsors need to be public entity with taxing authority Studies/Projects can have one or multiple sponsors

Summary Gathering ideas for addressing coastal storm risk management and ecosystem restoration Opportunity to: Identify specific problems within local areas Generate potential options to evaluate during feasibility Establish potential partnerships Address the Galveston Region Non-Federal Sponsor: ???? If no Sponsor is identified – the study does not progress to the feasibility phase

Submittal of Comments/Ideas Comments/ideas due by Sept 26, 2014 Send written comments to: District Engineer, Galveston District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attn: Coastal TX Protection and Restoration Study CESWF-PEC-TN P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, Texas 77553-1229 Send e-mails to: Janelle.S.Stokes@usace.army.mil Project website: http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/