Planning for the Beneficial Use of Dredged Material: A Success Story in Mississippi and an Opportunity in Texas Elaine Darby, P.E.; Dan Opdyke, P.E., Ph.D.; and Leah Bray April 25, 2016 1
Beneficial Use Master Plans Demonstrated Success in Mississippi History and Purpose of the Beneficial Reuse (BU) Program Master Plan Collaborative Success Story Opportunity for Texas Texas Master Plan for Beneficial Use of Dredged Material A proposal for funding through the RESTORE Act 2
Beneficial Use in Mississippi 3
Mississippi BU Timeline 2001 2002 2003 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Department of Marine Resources (DMR) identify potential BU sites and need for a programmatic approach DMR develops the Long-Term Comprehensive Master Plan for Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material along Coastal Mississippi Beneficial Use Group Established Deer Island identified as a pilot project for future BU sites Beneficial Use Group (BUG) reinvigorated 2007 State and federal agencies, co-facilitated by USACE (Mobile) and DMR and including private stakeholders (e.g., local ports) 2010 2011 BUG recommends revised legislation Coastal Wetlands Protection Act 49-27-61, effective July 1, 2010 Master Plan Update in 2011 4
Programmatic Approach Master Plan (2003) Early recognition of needs and opportunities Commitment to BU State Law passed in 2010 Requires BU for materials from Mississippi bottoms Applicable if more than 2,500 cubic yards are removed Master Plan Updates (2011) Project Management Plan identified priority project areas 5
2011 Mississippi Master Plan Update Guided by DMR and BUG Identifies priority BU areas Outlines permitting regulations Provides sediment testing guidance BUG initiates permitting actions for BU sites 6
Deer Island Marsh Creation Project: 2002 to 2003 Pilot program identified in original Mississippi Master Plan Dredged material from Biloxi Lateral Channel Approximately 40 acres were filled with 365,000 cubic yards (cy) of sediment 7
Pre-Katrina 8
Post-Katrina 9
Deer Island BU Construction 2012 Success through Collaborative Efforts and Guidance from the Master Plan 10
Opportunity in Texas 11
Example of What We re Trying to Solve Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge in Jefferson County Mud Bayou 1970 Degrading marsh in close proximity to Placement Areas (PAs) Mud Bayou 2014 PA PA 12
A Proposed Solution Texas Master Plan focused on BU of Dredged Material Coordinate efforts Identify opportunities and efficiencies Build consensus Identify and prioritize sites Produce plans and guidelines to reduce costs and accelerate projects Programmatic implementation Types of projects USACE/TxDOT Ports, private entities, etc. Plan will be non-regulatory and non-binding Proposal is similar in concept to Mississippi program, but more complex because of longer coastline and larger ports 13
Project Details Coordination and Outreach Four Beneficial Use Groups (BUGs) Stakeholders Website 14
Project Details Decision Support Tool Custom GIS tool to combine BUG/stakeholder input with data to establish initial priority list Conceptually similar to Ducks Unlimited Breakwater Decision Support Tool for shoreline protection along the GIWW 15
Project Details Conceptual Level Design and Cost Estimates 10% design and cost estimates for 20 to 28 sites Containment concept Sediment amount and type Distance from sediment sources Dredging schedules Intended benefits Economic benefits Ecosystem services 16
Project Details Draft Designs and Permit Application Packages Eight additional sites Geotechnical analysis Bathymetric/site survey Ecological investigation 60% design and cost estimate Permit application package Sites to be selected early to allow completion within 3 years Members of the project team are not expected to be permit applicants, but will assist permit applicants 17
Project Details Master Plan and Implementation Guides Master Plan Document our data, methods, and conclusions Guide for programmatic implementation Implementation Guides One per region A practical resource for project proponents Maps of BU sites, priorities, and considerations Guidance on permitting and coordination Discussion of funding sources BU Site Ready for Material Vision 5 years 8 sites 5 to 10 years 20 to 28 sites 10 to 15 years Other sites on initial priority list 18
Master Plan Closing Thoughts Designed to reflect the will of BUGs and stakeholders All BU project types will be considered Regional priorities will be established by BUGs and stakeholders Complements other efforts More than 20 letters of support Texas GLO Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan We have spoken with GLO regarding our plan and received a letter of support USACE Coastal Texas Protection and Restoration Feasibility Study We have spoken with USACE regarding our plan USACE does not provide letters of support on individual proposals 19
Proposal Status On TCEQ Bucket 1 draft project list Draft list, no guarantee of project funding Tentative funding amount is about one-half of necessary budget Proposal application also submitted to NRDA Deepwater Horizon trustees and NFWF Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund (GEBF) www.restorethetexascoast.or g Awaiting feedback 20
Questions? 21