1 / 38

Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association Conference August 13, 2009

Protecting the Texas Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from Encroachment: Identifying current development practices as well as current and future areas of shoreline development. Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association Conference August 13, 2009. Overview. Review of Purpose of Project What we have done

Pat_Xavi
Download Presentation

Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association Conference August 13, 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Protecting the Texas Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from Encroachment: Identifying current development practices as well as current and future areas of shoreline development Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association Conference August 13, 2009

  2. Overview • Review of Purpose of Project • What we have done • What are the preliminary findings and recommendations

  3. Review of Purpose of the Project • Preserve the waterway corridor • Commercial importance to trade and commerce • Least expensive, environmentally safe • Review of hazards to navigation in the GIWW • Focus on Texas portion • How the waterway is used (lanes vs. shoulder) • Guidebook of recommendations and considerations on review of shoreline development

  4. What we have donePhase 1 • Identification of Stakeholders • TXDOT • Army Corps of Engineers • U.S. Coast Guard • Vessel Operators/Industry Associations • County and Municipal Officials and Port Authorities • Developers and Economic Development Organizations • Shippers • Magnitude of Issues • Where of development • Incident data collected • Development of survey instrument

  5. Incident Data • U.S. Coast Guard incident data under 46 C.F.R 4.05-1: • Unintended grounding, or strike of (allison with) a bridge • Intended grounding or allison that creates a hazard to navigation • Loss of main propulsion, steering, or anything else that reduces the maneuverability of vessel • Reducing seaworthiness of vessel through fire, flooding, or damage to fire suppression system, bilge equipment, life-saving systems, or power generating equipment • Loss of life • Injury that requires medical attention beyond first aid or otherwise renders the individual unfit to perform duties • Occurrence causing $25, 000 property damage • Occurrence causing significant harm to the environment

  6. Incident Data • Based off of incident data and stakeholder reports, areas of high concern included: • Galveston County • Jefferson County • Matagorda County • Calhoun County • All counties were looked at for development practices and prospective shoreline development

  7. Survey Questions • List the problems your company, organization, municipality sees with navigation through the Texas GIWW, other than maintenance dredging or current alignment. What problems have been brought to your organization’s attention? How? (E.g. Capacity, congestion, development and construction in water, other man-made obstacles) • List the areas along the Texas GIWW which provide your organization, county, company, concern for navigation. Why? • In order of magnitude, what navigation hazards, navigation challenges, bridge approaches, etc. exist along the Texas GIWW? Where are they located? How do they impact you economically (e.g. Speed, type of cargo, etc.)? • What kinds of incidents has your organization/ company seen or has been involved which cause concern for safe navigation in the Texas GIWW? What kind of economic impact resulted from the incident/s? • Do your answers change on questions 1-4 based upon certain events or time of the year? • Is your organization, firm, county, etc. aware of a permitted or projected development which may impact the Texas GIWW? How? What impact does your organization foresee on navigation? Why? What impact does the project have on your firm/organization/county economically? • What can be done to the Texas GIWW to alleviate your organization’s safety concerns? How can TxDOT assist?

  8. What we have donePhase 2 • Interviews with vessel navigators • Navigation concerns – physical obstructions, traffic, markings • Physical inspection of the waterway • Channel width and dredging • Problem areas identified from physical structures • Galveston causeway • Brazos Floodgates • Port O’Connor/Caney Creek • Aransas County

  9. What we have donePhase 2 (cont.) • Economic costs identified • Speed of freight – self imposed limits cause inefficiencies • Inefficiencies from more non commercial traffic Recommendations by vessel operators • Do not encourage any construction that exceeds encroachment of existing structures/piers. • Let sufficient areas around bridges and structures be underdeveloped to allow for grounding in inclement weather (i.e., wind and tides) • Require lighting structures to be pointed downward as to not interfere with navigation. • Where areas of high concern already exist, please limit or forbid future construction on both sides of the waterway.

  10. Physical Inspection of Bad Structures

  11. Physical Inspection of Bad Structures

  12. Physical Inspection of Good Structures

  13. Physical Inspection of OK structures

  14. Bridges Problems Victoria Rockport, Aransas/San Patricio Counties

  15. Bridge Problems - Rockport

  16. Lighting Issues

  17. Lighting Issues The GIWW is marked by the dayboards seen in these pictures…

  18. “Parking Problems” - Debris on Shoreline

  19. What we have donePhase 3 • Determined procedures, standards, etc. of permitting process of Army Corps • Evaluation is based on five basic areas. • Public interest review • Impact of a project on historic, cultural, scenic or recreational value to the general public • Private property rights • Activities that affect the coastal zones such as the Texas shoreline • Navigation

  20. What we have donePhase 3 (cont.) Determined procedures, standards, etc. of permitting process of Army Corps • Each case is reviewed separately according to the procedures and criteria discussed above. The Corps understands that no two projects are the same. • An internal review of the project is done at the local Corps office such as Galveston. • The Corps then sends the project plan to the Corps Environmental Department for review. • Next, the Corps has the project plan reviewed by the navigation/operations division to determine whether any navigation hazards exist. The impact of the project is reviewed in light of known navigation hazards such as bridges, areas of strong current, bends in the channel, etc. • The Corps meets with the Gulf Intra coastal Association to update it on projects. • Each Corps permitting decision is an independent decision. • There are certain criteria that are considered essential to permit approval. • Structures are to be at least 50 feet from the top cut of the channel. • Lights on the structures are to be directed downward • Loose rip-rap is not allowed • There are no wake zones in and around neighborhood developments.

  21. What we have donePhase 3 (cont.) • Determined procedures, standards, and coordination of the General Land Office Application form Statement of Compliance with the Texas Coastal Management Plan (Consistency with the Texas Coastal Management Program) Texas State Water Quality Certification of Section 404 Permit Water Quality Certification Checklist for Tier I (Small Projects) Water Quality Certification Questionnaire for Tier II Projects Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Railroad Commission Texas Parks and Wildlife Department requires a sand and gravel permit

  22. What we have donePhase 3 (cont.) • Determined counties’ roles in permitting processes • Flood plane • Local zoning

  23. What we have donePhase 4 • Determined proposed development in high growth areas • By area by county • Matagorda Bay area, Galveston/Galveston Bay area, and Orange/Jefferson counties • Discussion of each county development • Addressed potential traffic issues as well • Additional recreational boats of 21000

  24. Current Vessel Registration by County:

  25. Overlay of incidents and development

  26. What we need further • Review and address all comments made on task reports • Follow-up on developers, county officials clarifications

  27. What is the plan for the completion of the project • Draft on guidebook and final report due August 31st • Comments on sections of the report as completed before August 31st • Editing of final report due October 31st

  28. What are the preliminary findings and recommendations Coordination of Agency Efforts • Public use • Discussion of permitting and interactions with Army Corps • TX DOT Role • GLO proactive involvement • County official education and setback discussions

  29. What are the preliminary findings and recommendations • Structures • Strategic mooring places • Types of structures • Bulkheads and piers • Impact resistance • Location • Debris generation • Bridges • Location • Maintenance/cleanup based on usage vs. need • Lighting

  30. What are the preliminary findings and recommendations Landowner Disclosure Risks of no setback Risks of piers and lighting Risks of traffic and inexperienced recreational boaters Developer guidebook

  31. We welcome comments! • Feedback on preliminary findings

More Related