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

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

3. Coastal TX Study Authorization
WRDA of 2007 Section 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”

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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?

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

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

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

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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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.

17. Coastal Texas – Region 1

18. 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

19. 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?

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

21. 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.

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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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)

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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
Send s to:
Project website: