Get documents about "Memorandum of Understanding for Sand Supply - PDF
Description
Memorandum of Understanding for Sand Supply document sample
Document Sample
PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING PLLC
Memorandum of Project Understanding (MOU)
West Galveston Island Beaches—CEPRA II Project
1. Introduction
This memorandum is prepared with regard to the Scope of Work for the West
Galveston Island Beaches - CEPRA II Project and summarizes the results of the
work conducted under Task 1 “Review of Existing Nourishment Project and Site
Visit”. In addition, the MOU discusses the project goals and performance criteria
for analysis and design.
A draft of the memorandum is being coordinated with the project partners prior to
finalization. Public input on this draft document should be directed to the project
partners.
2. Project Goals
The project is characterized by complex physical circumstances at the various
subdivisions, weather conditions that are at times extreme, funding and
scheduling constraints, and unique stakeholder interests. Previous experience
from this and other nourishment projects shows that it is critical to define goals
and design criteria that are known and understood by all. Two main purposes
(goals) of the project have been identified and are presented below:
• Purpose 1: Maximize the ability of imported sand to provide
protection for private and public property and infrastructure during
extreme storm events.
• Purpose 2: Maximize sand longevity within the project boundaries
at a level above mean sea level.
These project goals integrate the results of discussions with the three project
partners: the Texas General Land Office (GLO), the City of Galveston (City) and
the County of Galveston (County), along with input from subdivision
representatives (see Appendix B). The goals also reflect the logistical constraints
of technical feasibility, schedule, and funding levels.
Memorandum of Project Understanding Page 1
West Galveston Island Beaches—CEPRA II Project December 16, 2002
3. Project Site Conditions
3.1 Background
Project site conditions are described based on a review and evaluation of
existing data. Site visits were conducted, but no new data was collected
for the preparation of this MOU. Site delineations or elements of site
conditions described below may be revised as new information becomes
available. The participating homeowner groups and an approximation of
available construction funds are listed in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Subdivisions, Beach Lengths, and Estimated Dollars Per Foot.
Estimated
Estimated available
Non-CEPRA construction budget Approx. beach
Subdivision construction
funds (5X non-CEPRA length (ft)
$ per foot
funds)
Sunny Beach $6,625 $33,125 660 $50
Sands of Kahala $17,175 $85,875 1,375 $62
Riviera I&II, WB Grand $30,750 $153,750 325 $473
Hershey Beach $9,000 $45,000 920 $49
Spanish Grant $10,000 $50,000 1,745 $29
Bermuda Beach $24,000 $120,000 3,100 $39
Pirates/Palm/Pirates
$100,000 $500,000 7,815 $64
West
Kahala Beach Estates
$15,000 $75,000 1,150 $65
Addition One
Sea Isle $15,000 $75,000 8,570 $9
Terramar $9,000 $45,000 2,760 $16
5500 Association* $30,000 $150,000 5,610 $27
TOTAL $266,550 $1,332,750 34,030 $39
*Bay Harbor, Caribbean Village, Miramar, Half Moon Beach, San Luis Estates
3.2 Geographical and Geomorphologic Condition
• Galveston Island is a developed barrier island on the Texas Gulf
Coast.
• The project is located on the western end of Galveston Island,
Galveston County, and includes 13 local funding units
(subdivisions or similar groups of homeowners) with varying
shoreline lengths as listed in Table 3.1.
• The island’s gulf shoreline within the project boundary is
retreating landward at rates of 4 to 13+ ft/yr expressed as a long-
term average based on historical shoreline movement.
• Shoreline retreat may be related to several natural and manmade
factors:
Memorandum of Project Understanding Page 2
West Galveston Island Beaches—CEPRA II Project December 16, 2002
- Sediment movement offshore under wave processes
during extreme storms and loss of this sediment to
the littoral system
- Subsidence
- Sea level rise
- Sediment loss to the San Luis Pass tidal delta
- Sediment loss to the bay by washover events and
through Aeolian transport
- Reduced sediment supply through dredging
- Reduced sediment supply through man made
structures such as jetties, groins, seawall, and
bulkheads
• The geomorphic response of this barrier island shoreline can be
classified as retreat (McBride, R. A., et al., 1997).
3.3 Hydrodynamic Conditions
Hydrodynamic conditions affecting the Galveston Island shoreline include
wind waves, wave-induced currents, storm waves, tides, and tidal induced
currents in the vicinity of Bolivar Roads and San Luis Pass. During
tropical storms and hurricanes, the presence of storm surge increases the
impact of these hydrodynamic conditions. Other conditions related to
storm surge are the creation of washovers and the strong return flows from
the bays after the passage of hurricane events.
The wave climate in the area of West Galveston Island was characterized
with wave data from NDBC Buoy 42035 and wave hindcast data from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Wave Information Study (WIS).
WIS hindcast data are synthetically generated from numerical models
(WISWAVE and WAM) driven by climatological wind fields overlaid on
a bathymetric grid. The WIS numerical hindcasts supply long-term wave
climate information at nearshore locations (stations) of U.S. coastal
waters. The hindcast data used here covers a period from 1990 through
1999. The WIS data has been checked extensively and compared with
measurements at NDBC Buoy 42035, and is found to match well.
Therefore, only the WIS data is presented here, as is covers a longer
period of time.
Figure 3.1 shows a typical wave rose from 1990 through 1999 of the wave
data at the WIS Station 071 which is approximately 10 miles offshore of
the middle of Galveston Island, and located in 15m (about 50ft) of water.
This figure shows that the typical wave height is less that 1m (3ft) and
approaches the shore from approximately a shore-normal direction
(between about 125° and 170°).
Memorandum of Project Understanding Page 3
West Galveston Island Beaches—CEPRA II Project December 16, 2002
Figure 3.1: Wave Rose for WIS Station 071, approximately 10 miles offshore of the
center of the Galveston Island shoreline.
An analysis of the extreme storm events from the WIS data (1990 through
1999) and from the NDBC Buoy 42035 (~1980 – 2002, some data
missing) yields significant wave heights as a function of a statistical return
period. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 3.2, and show
that a 25-year event will have a significant wave height of about 4.7m to
5.3m (15ft to 17ft) at the station location.
Memorandum of Project Understanding Page 4
West Galveston Island Beaches—CEPRA II Project December 16, 2002
Table 3.2: Extremal analysis of storm waves - significant wave height of WIS Station 071, and
NDBC Buoy 42035 as a function of return period.
Return WIS Sta071 Hs NDBC 42035
Period [yrs] [m] Hs [m]
2 4.5 3.4
5 4.8 3.9
10 5.0 4.2
25 5.3 4.7
Note: Higher return periods may not be accurate due to the
length of record used in the analysis.
In the area of West Galveston Island, the tide is typically diurnal with a
range between 0.5 and 1.5ft. Tide-induced current magnitudes in and near
the Ship Channel at Bolivar Roads are of the order of 1kt (1.7ft/s), but can
reach up to about 3kts (5.1ft/s) on the ebb and 2.5kts (4.2ft/s) on the flood
tide. In San Luis Pass, tidal fluctuations drive currents that range from
0.6kts (1.0ft/s) to 1.8kts (3.0ft/s).
An extremal analysis of the water level associated with storm surge was
performed on the data obtained from the NOS Gage 8771450 at Pier 21 in
Galveston for a previous CEPRA project (PI Engineering, 2002). The
analysis was a basic return period analysis for water levels, as discussed in
the Shore Protection Manual (SPM) (USACE, 1984). Table 3.3 shows the
results of the analysis based on the measured water level data. The water
levels presented in this table are in feet above MLLW. The location of the
gage is on the bay side of the island, and may not accurately reflect the
storm surge on the gulf side. However, the Corps intends to produce a
storm surge analysis at approximately half-mile intervals along the coast
from San Luis Pass to Sabine Pass as part of its ongoing feasibility study.
This information may be made available in December 2002, and will be
used in place of the analysis shown here if the results are significantly
different.
Table 3.3: Statistical storm surge height as a function of return period, from NOS Gage 8771450
Galveston Pier 21 (MLLW datum).
Return Period Water Level
[yrs] [ft]
1 1.8
2 3.0
10 5.0
25 5.7
Note: Calculated water levels do not reflect storm
surge expected on the Gulf side of Galveston Island.
Memorandum of Project Understanding Page 5
West Galveston Island Beaches—CEPRA II Project December 16, 2002
3.4 Littoral Drift
A number of investigators have studied the Galveston Island littoral
system including the Corps, the Galveston County Erosion Task Force,
universities, and private entities. The findings from these studies can be
summarized as follows:
• Littoral drift along Galveston Island is controlled by wave energy
flux and combined longshore tidal and wave generated currents.
• The long-term average direction of net sediment transport is from
the east to the west. The transport direction may reverse to the east
on a seasonal basis, specifically during summer time.
• The average gross sediment transport is estimated in the range of
150,000-300,000 cubic yards (cy) per year. The net westward
sediment drift is estimated in the range 30,000-150,000 cy per
year. It should be noted that these estimates have never been
validated by field data and are the results of theoretical and/or
empirical approximations.
3.5 Previous Beach Nourishment Projects on Galveston Island
Several beach nourishment projects at Galveston Island have been
initiated in the last decade, including the following:
• Sand fill imported from East Beach accretions or other sources and
placed at isolated locations along the Seawall Beach and West
Beach (various times and places)
• Seawall beach nourishment between 10th and 61st Streets (1995)
• Post-storm dune restoration following storms in 1996, 1998 and
2001 (various places)
• West Beach sand fill, CEPRA Cycle 1, (2001).
Data and experience from previous similar beach nourishment projects are
important design tools and have been collected and analyzed in detail. The
CEPRA Cycle 1 project is probably the closest prototype to the current
project. All available technical information from this project, including the
alternatives analysis (October 2000), design drawings, bid documents,
post-construction surveys, and available monitoring data have been
compiled. Placement of borrow site material was mostly conducted in a
cross sectional shape of blanket fill, that is, a thin layer of approximately 2
ft thickness placed across 25-50 ft of the beach width. Site visits and
discussions with local residents indicate that practically no beach fill
remains where this type of placement occurred. The lessons learned from
the Cycle 1 project are incorporated into the proposed approach for the
current Cycle 2 project design.
Memorandum of Project Understanding Page 6
West Galveston Island Beaches—CEPRA II Project December 16, 2002
3.6 Summary
A steadily increasing amount of information is being developed about the
coastal processes influencing the beaches of West Galveston Island. The
above analysis is based on already-existing data and ongoing technical
interaction with scientists and engineers at PI Engineering and others
presently studying the island and the region.
At present, it appears that cross-shore, event-driven processes have the
most profound effect on the upper beaches of the island. As a result of the
project partners’ desired emphasis on the upper beach, the project team
intends to focus its efforts on the analysis of cross-shore processes to
achieving the project goals.
4. Proposed Project Approach
The project approach should be developed and selected to address the project
goals, integrate the lessons learned from the CEPRA Cycle 1 project, and
optimize the use of available imported sand resources and funds.
To achieve storm protection effects of the placed sand (See Section 2, Purpose 1)
one may suggest placement of available sand at the upper, landward boundary of
the beach. This approach was generally used in the CEPRA Cycle 1 project and
is described in the Cycle 1 Alternatives Analysis (SMA, 2000) in two alternatives:
Alternative 3 – Dune Restoration, and Alternative 4 – Dune Restoration and
Blanket Fill. The constructed project is successful in achieving the storm
protection goal if the volume and placement of sand is adequate to withstand the
“design storm”. The engineer should be specific in determining the design storm
event and the corresponding amount of sand required. Obviously, a more extreme
design storm requires a larger dune and therefore a larger volume of sand than a
less extreme design storm. Since the volume of sand is limited, there are at least
three possible scenarios that may occur after the project is constructed (assuming
that all sand is used for the dune):
1) An actual storm event that occurs after construction exceeds the design
storm event. The dune deteriorates rapidly during early stages of the
storm. The protective value of the dune is exhausted before the storm
ends. Sand washes away from the upper beach area and no direct
protection is available for a subsequent storm, although the sand likely
remains in the littoral system.
2) An actual storm event that occurs after construction is equal to the
design storm event. The dune deteriorates over the duration of the
storm but provides protection throughout the entire length of storm.
Sand washes away from the upper beach no direct protection is
available for the next storm event, although the sand likely remains in
the littoral system.
Memorandum of Project Understanding Page 7
West Galveston Island Beaches—CEPRA II Project December 16, 2002
3) Several storm events that occur after construction do not exceed the
design storm event. The dune maintains its integrity, however, the toe
of the dune may be scoured away (depending on storm conditions).
The lower beach (seaward from the dune) erodes. After each storm,
the remaining dune is less stable than that of the original design.
Protection against subsequent events is diminished, and the dune is no
longer adequate to withstand the original design storm.
It is impossible to predict which scenario described above will occur following
construction. If the dune approach is selected for the project, the project partners
should account for the risk of occurrence of each of these scenarios.
Another potential approach may serve the same purpose but reduce the risk to the
project partners and may increase the longevity of the sand on the upper beach
area (See Section 2, Purpose 2). This approach considers building several (at
least two) terraces above MSL. The most landward terrace serves as a dune, and
the seaward terraces act as adaptive berms. If properly designed (thickness and
slope), the adaptive berms (lower terraces) may facilitate landward movement of
sand and feed the dune (upper terrace) with sand. This approach allows the
natural forces more flexibility in forming the protective dune. The result is a
protective beach that is less “locked in” to one specific design storm, and is more
flexible to account for unpredictable combinations of storm events.
Each terrace can be designed to different criteria and design conditions. The
selection of these events and conditions is critical to the success of the project and
the occurrence of any of the three scenarios described above is still possible. The
advantage is that possibly 2 of the 3 scenarios can be accounted for with this
approach.
5. Environmental Review and Permitting
Permits and approvals needed for the project may include a Section 10/404 permit
(Corps), water quality certification (TNRCC), and Coastal Zone Management
Program consistency review by the Coastal Coordination Council. A beach/dune
permit from the City and/or County may also be required. Because the timeline
for receipt of a Corps permits is typically on the order of six months in length, the
process will be engaged as soon as possible.
Conceptual drawings showing the project concept and limits will be developed
and presented to the Corps and to the Joint Evaluation Team in a pre-application
meeting. This meeting will help the engineer develop a better permit package that
will be submitted to the Corps in early January 2003. Once submitted, the permit
will be tracked and communication with the Corps maintained to assure
expeditious processing and to provide any documentation needed as a response to
review comments by the public and resource agencies. The permit process should
be complete within six months, allowing construction to begin in early July 2003.
Memorandum of Project Understanding Page 8
West Galveston Island Beaches—CEPRA II Project December 16, 2002
There is a possibility that the permit process may be as short as four months, and
everything will be done to assure that this takes place. If construction is phased,
portions of the project that are not within the jurisdiction of a Corps permit, or
that are covered by any existing Corps permits, could be constructed as early as
May 2003.
6. New Data Collection Requirements
An attempt will be made to obtain recently developed survey information from
the Corps feasibility study to feed the permitting and engineering analysis
process. If successful, collection of new survey data will be postponed until
necessary for the development of construction drawings, to avoid the possibility
of changed conditions and the need to re-survey. The survey data will cover the
length of the project site form the back of the dune, beach, or structure out to the
depth of closure. Minimal geotechnical data that characterizes the native beach
material will be collected and processed. Once borrow sites have been identified,
the borrow material will be tested and compared with the native material
characteristics to assure that any sediment that ends up on the beach is of similar
quality and that it serves the purpose and goals of the project.
7. Borrow Sites
The success of this project will be measured, in part, by the quality and quantity
of material placed on the project beaches. The funds available and location of
material will dictate the amount of sediment that can be placed on the beach. With
the project budget remaining constant, the identification of borrow sites becomes
critical in developing a worthwhile project that will deliver as many cubic yards
of beach quality material as possible.
The quality or characteristics of the borrow material are important in developing
expectations of project performance and estimating longevity of the beach fill
through coastal engineering analysis. Therefore, it is important to determine early
on in this project the characteristics of the borrow source material.
Due to budget limitations and a short timeline (construction by July) for this
project, offshore borrow areas will not be considered. PI Engineering will work
with the GLO to identify upland sources on the island or on the mainland that can
be used for this project.
Again, to underscore the importance of finding an adequate borrow source, this
project will not go into construction without a borrow site with beach quality
material being identified prior to the bidding phase.
8. Timeline
A timeline based on conservative assumptions is attached as Appendix C.
Memorandum of Project Understanding Page 9
West Galveston Island Beaches—CEPRA II Project December 16, 2002
Appendix A - Subdivision Site Locations on 2002 Aerial Photos (courtesy of GLO)
Appendix B - Project Objectives and Concerns submitted by Subdivision
Representatives
Appendix C - Project Timeline
Memorandum of Project Understanding Page 10
West Galveston Island Beaches—CEPRA II Project December 16, 2002
Appendix A
Subdivision Site Locations on 2002 Aerial Photos
(courtesy of GLO)
Appendix B
Project Objectives and Concerns
submitted by Subdivision Representatives
[DRAFT DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2002]
WEST GALVESTON ISLAND PROPERTY OWNER’S ASSOCIATION
CEPRA II – GOALS AND CONCERNS
November 13, 2002
PRELIMINARY
At the preliminary meeting held November 13, 2002, between representatives of
Pacific International (Bill Worsham and Hugo Bernudez), the GLO (Ray Newby and Jeff
Davis), City of Galveston (Wendy O’Donohoe and Andrea Madison), Galveston County
(John Lee), representatives of several participants in the CEPRA II program (including
Seascape, Sunny Beach, Sans of Kahala, Riviera I and II, West Grand, Spanish Grant
Beach, Bermuda Beach, Pirates Beach, Kahala Beach, Terramar, and 5500 Association),
and West Galveston Island POA (Jerry Mohn and Sidney McClendon), Pacific
International requested the participants to submit statements of their goals and concerns
relating to the CEPRA II project for its use in designing the project. The above meeting
was good and productive.
Immediately after the above meeting, the participants held a meeting during
which they developed the following goals and concerns.
GOALS
• Quantity and quality. The project should maximize the quantity of beach
quality sand placed on the beach. This is an issue of pricing and quality.
• Storm protection. Our primary goal of the nourishment is storm protection.
Sand should be placed to maximize its stability in place (i.e., sand should be
placed as far from the water as possible and the sand should be sloped toward
the Gulf).
This goal constitutes an election to use the sand for shore protection rather
than to widen the beach. Our rationale is that the CEPRA II projects, at the
current levels of funding, are ‘band aids’ to defend against erosion in areas of
greatest jeopardy.
Widening the beach is one of our major objectives; however, we do not
believe that the current CEPRA II program will produce sufficient sand to
widen the beach in a meaningful way. We are looking to the Feasibility Study
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a major beach nourishment project
under the federal Water Resources and Development Act to accomplish the
beach widening objective.
We realize that all the sand placed on the beach under the CEPRA II projects,
whether placed near or away from the water, will ultimately wash away and
will contribute to widening the beach. By placing the sand at the back of the
beach, we are merely opting to have the sand wash away later rather than
sooner.
• Financial contributions. Each participant will make a 15% financial
contribution to its project with the expectation that the project will directly
benefit the participant. Stated differently, the quantity of sand placed on the
beach of each participant should bear a direct relationship to the participant’s
monetary contribution If the participant contributes $X (15%) toward
purchase of Y cu yds of sand, approximately Y cu yds of sand should be
placed on the participant’s beach. This result is essential in order to provide
the incentive needed to induce people to make the voluntary contributions for
sand nourishment as the CEPRA act requires.
• Timing of construction. Sand should be placed on the beach at the earliest
date, preferably in advance of hurricane season, giving the sand more time to
stabilize and attain a vegetation cover before the advent of tropical storms. It
would be better to place the sand before the height of the summer season
(June and July). Sand should not be placed on the beach under the immediate
threat of local bad weather.
We liked Bill Worsham’s suggestion that it may be appropriate to place sand
on the beach in two phases, early placement and later placement.
• Access to and from the Gulf. Design of the nourishment field should take
access to and from the land to the beach into account. Placement should not
create swales and mosquito breeding water impoundments landward of the
nourishment field. In addition water should not be allowed to drain through
the nourishment field in channels that will hasten erosion of the nourishment
field. The resulting need for, placement and design of crossovers should be
considered.
CONCERNS
• Artificial constraints. We favor elimination of artificial restraints (both
landward and seaward constraints) relating to the placement of nourishment
sand. We understand the COE regulates placement of sand seaward of the
mean high tide line and that efforts are underway to remove any restraint that
may be imposed by the COE relating to such placement. Elimination of the
seaward restraint will allow placement of sand nearer to and in the water. We
do not favor this type of placement for the current CEPRA II project;
although, it will be appropriate and necessary for the WRDA project.
We understand that CEPRA does not allow placement of sand on private
property. We would like to explore the possibility of eliminating this
constraint in a case where the GLO determines that a proposed placement area
is on the public beach (seaward of the line of natural vegetation) and the
private landowner believes the area is not on the public beach (landward of
the line of natural vegetation.) We recognize that this issue is beyond the
scope of the project.
• Delay in permitting process. We understand the permitting process may
require 5 to 6 months after the plan is developed, and that 1 to 2 months may
be required to develop the plan. This timetable may place the construction
phase in hurricane season. Every effort should be made to encourage the COE
and GLO to accelerate the permitting process.
• Monitoring. We believe that monitoring is an important element of the
CEPRA II projects. We are more interested in monitoring after the project
(i.e., monitor the result of the project) and less interested in understanding in
advance what may happen to the nourishment sand. Each-participant
understands that most if not all of the sand placed at the location of one
participant will wash out to sea or to the location of others downdrift and that
the participant will probably receive sand placed on the location of another,
updrift. We do not want to delay the project developing such knowledge in
advance.
We request that you consider marking the sand to aid in the post construction
monitoring process.
• Current information. We understand that Pacific International will do its
utmost to encourage communication and to give notice of current
developments. Thank you.
• Adapt the overall plan to the needs of individual participants. We
understand that you will adopt the overall plan should be adapted to fit the
unique needs of particular participants.
• Debris and rebar removal. While not within the scope of the beach
nourishment project, consideration should be given to debris removal in
places where debris remains a problem using additional funding from other
sources..
#1041954v1 (Houston) PPOA GOALS 12/16/2002 4:34:35 PM
RIVIERA I, RIVIERA II, WEST BEACH GRAND CONDOMINIUMS
The Rivieras & WBG would like to list the following as their goals:
>
> 1. Nourish the beach in front of the geotubes
> 2. Protect the geotubes
> 3. Rebuild the dunes
> 4. Maximize the project materials to the greatest extent
> 5. Identify and develop a long range plan for continual beach
> replenishment
BERMUDA BEACH
November 20, 2002
CEPRA II – GOALS AND CONCERNS
GOALS
1. Quantity and quality. The project should maximize the quantity of beach quality
sand placed on the beach. This is an issue of pricing and quality. It should be
proportional to the money spent.
2. Storm protection. Our primary goal of the nourishment is storm protection.
Sand should be placed to maximize its stability in place (i.e., sand should be placed as far
from the water as possible and the sand should be sloped toward the Gulf).
We realize that all the sand placed on the beach under the CEPRA II projects, whether
placed near or away from the water, will ultimately wash away and will contribute to
widening the beach.
3. Financial contributions. Each participant will make a 15% financial contribution
to its project with the expectation that the project will directly benefit the participant.
4. Timing of construction. Sand should be placed on the beach at the earliest date,
preferably in advance of hurricane season, giving the sand more time to stabilize and
attain a vegetation cover before the advent of tropical storms. It would be better to place
the sand before the height of the summer season (June and July). Sand should not be
placed on the beach under the immediate threat of local bad weather.
5. Engineering Plan. No corridors for Bermuda Beach. We feel a project created
for us with corridors is a waste of everyone’s time and money and we do not want to
participate if corridors are constructed. The swale behind is fine, we will deal with
mosquitoes and drainage if necessary. The subdivision should have their input taken into
consideration.
The plan should be approved by each subdivision and they should have full disclosure of
all plans and changes that relate to them.
6. End of project report. How much received and what we paid for it.
Bermuda Beach
CONCERNS
1. Infrastructure Protection. Bermuda Beach Drive is starting to wash out and
will become a similar problem as seen in Spanish Grant. We feel that under 61.022 we
should be able to put our share of the sand next to the road on the city’s easement to help
protect the road and sewer.
2. Monitoring. We believe that monitoring is an important element of the CEPRA
II projects. However, it does not take a great deal of monitoring to see if the sand stays
put and is helping the area it was constructed for. We feel more sand and less money
spent on monitoring. In Bermuda Beach it is easy to see the result of the 2000 CEPRA
project. A tremendous amount of money is spent annually on various monitoring projects
that are just carried too far to be cost effective to the participant.
3. Current information. We understand that Pacific International will do its utmost
to encourage communication and to give notice of current developments. We would like
a detailed draft of what is proposed for Bermuda Beach and notification of any changes
in writing. The 2000 project resulted in numerous “misunderstandings”, where each party
thought they were right.
4. Adapt the overall plan to the needs of individual participants. We understand
that you will adopt a plan to fit the unique needs of particular participants.
5. Debris and rebar removal. While not within the scope of the beach nourishment
project, consideration should be given to debris removal in places where debris remains a
problem using additional funding from other sources.
PIRATES BEACH, PALM BEACH, PIRATES BEACH WEST
…the County has to operate under the guidelines that will put the
greatest amount of sand in front of Pirates, Palm Beach and Pirates West.
The project has to fall within the east and west boundaries from Pirates
East to Pirates West. It is very important from the County's perspective
this be included at the onset rather than later. A brief explaination may
be necessary. The County applied for CIAP funds ($100,000) from NOAA to
serve as the local match for the CEPRA project #1088 with funds totaling
$667,000.00. In the CIAP application the area of Pirates Beach East, Palm
Beach and Pirates Beach West were designated as the point of use for the
CIAP Grant funds. In order to meet the requirements for the CIAP funds, it
has to be used from Pirates to Pirates West.
KAHALA BEACH ESTATES, ADDITION ONE
Subject: CEPRA II-- Kahala Beach
>
> Wendy--Kahala Beach is especially interested to: 1) infill foredune areas
> not developed by earlier beach scrapping seaward from our main dune and 2)
> depositing new sand sloping seaward to mean high tide level. This will
> bury vegetation landward of the vegetation line. Are there any plans to aid new
> vegetation growth to help stabilize the sand?
Appendix C
Project Timeline
West Galveston Island Beach Nourishment Project
GLO NO. 1095-03-001, 0894A
Estimated Timeline
2003
Task Name Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
1. Review of Existing Data & Project 11/13 12/6
Project Kickoff Meeting 11/13
*DELIVERABLE: Draft MOU 12/6
Comments on MOU 12/6 12/20
MOU Presentation 12/21
2. Field Data Collection 1/6 2/3
*DELIVERABLE: Tech Memo & Surveys 2/3
3. Permitting 12/2 7/9
*DELIVERABLE: USACE Permit Application 1/10
4. Analysis, Design, Plans/Spec 2/3 4/4
GLO Work Order Execution Date: 11/04/02 \\Frontdesk\c\PI Engineering\0894A - West Galveston Island\0 - Project Administration\0894A PJTimeline HEBedits.mpp
Related docs
Other docs by ojn14826
List of Officers working under Customs Commissionerate Hqrs Ahmedabad as on 01 11 2010 October 2010 - Download as Excel
Views: 58 | Downloads: 0
ANR Administrative Handbook Section 401 Date 05 31 06 UCCE and COUNTY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Views: 43 | Downloads: 0
