GCCPRD Phase 3 Report - Recommended Actions

GCCPRD
The Gulf Coast Community

Protection and Recovery District
S TO R M SU RG E SU PPR E SSIO N S T U DY
PHASE 3 REPORT
RECOMMENDED
ACTIONS
June 21, 2016
Central Region
Harris
County
South
Region
Brazoria
County
North Region
Orange
County
Jefferson
Chambers County
County
Galveston
County
Storm Surge Suppression Study
Contents
1.
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................1

1.1.
1.1.1.
North Region: Jefferson and Orange Counties ............................................................................1
1.1.2.
Central Region: Chambers, Harris and Galveston Counties .........................................................2
1.1.3.
South Region: Brazoria County ....................................................................................................4
1.2.
2.
3.
Recommended Alternatives ................................................................................................................1
Study Area Summary............................................................................................................................5
Introduction .....................................................................................................................................7
2.1.
Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District (GCCPRD) ...................................................8
2.2.
Study Purpose ......................................................................................................................................8
2.3.
Phase 1 and Phase 2.............................................................................................................................9
2.4.
Phase 3 - Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................9
Identifying the Threat Now, in 2035, and 2085 ................................................................................10

3.1.
Storm Simulations ............................................................................................................................. 10
3.2.
Return Frequency Analysis................................................................................................................ 11
3.3.
Preliminary Design Elevations ........................................................................................................... 14
3.4.
Economic Evaluation: What needs to be protected? ....................................................................... 14
3.5. Technical and Environmental Evaluation: How do we protect while limiting environmental
impacts? ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
3.5.1.
Technical Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 16
3.5.2.
Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................. 17
3.6.
4.
Public Outreach................................................................................................................................. 18
Recommended Alternatives ............................................................................................................19

4.1.
North Region Alternatives - Jefferson and Orange Counties ............................................................ 19
4.1.1.
4.2.
Central Region - Chambers, Harris and Galveston Counties............................................................. 23
4.2.1.
4.3.
5.
Basis of Recommendation ........................................................................................................ 23
South Region - Brazoria County ........................................................................................................ 28
4.3.1.
4.4.
Study Area Summary......................................................................................................................... 31
The Way Ahead ..............................................................................................................................33
Phase 3 Report Recommended Actions
Page i
List of Figures
Figure 1: Recommended North Region Alternative (NR#2) - Levees Only ..........................................................2
Figure 2: Recommended Central Region Alternative (CR#1) - Coastal Spine ......................................................3
Figure 3: Recommended South Region Alternative (SR#2) .................................................................................4
Figure 4: FEMA map illustrating coastal areas within the study vulnerable to storm surge ...............................7
Figure 5: GCCPRD study area ...............................................................................................................................8
Figure 6: Storm tracks for the 254 ADCIRC storm simulations. Purple lines are Texas storm tracks, and green
lines are Louisiana storm tracks........................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 7: 100-year stillwater elevations for Current Conditions. Data referenced from FEMA 2008 FIS Map. 12
Figure 8: 100-year stillwater elevations for FWOA 2035 conditions. This model scenario includes 0.9 feet of
Relative Sea level Rise. ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 9: 100-year Stillwater elevations for FWOA 2085 conditions. This model scenario includes 2.4 feet of
Relative Sea level Rise. ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 10: Sample locations where stillwater elevations are extracted and compared in Table 5. ................. 14
Figure 11: Damage reaches established in HEC-FDA for the study area .......................................................... 15
Figure 12: North Region Alternatives Selected for Development .................................................................... 20
Figure 13: Surge reduction 100-year event in 2085 with NR#2 ........................................................................ 21
Figure 14: USACE Tentatively Selected Plan for Orange and Jefferson Counties ............................................. 22
Figure 15: Central Region Alternatives Selected for Development .................................................................. 24
Figure 16: Surge reduction 100-year event in 2085 with CR#1 ........................................................................ 25
Figure 17: SSPEED H-GAPS ................................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 18: Levee cross section for the potential alignment along Galveston Island Beach ............................. 27
Figure 19: South Region Alternatives Selected for Development .................................................................... 29
Figure 20: Surge reduction 100-year event in 2085 with SR#2 ........................................................................ 30
List of Tables
Table 1: NR#2 Technical Details ...........................................................................................................................2
Table 2: CR#1 Technical Details ...........................................................................................................................3
Table 3: SR#2 Technical Details............................................................................................................................5
Table 4: GCCPRD Study Area Summary ...............................................................................................................5
Table 5: 100-year stillwater elevations (feet, NAVD88) compared across the four model scenarios. ............. 13
Table 6: Comparison of Alternatives NR#1 and NR#2 ...................................................................................... 20
Table 7: Comparison of Alternatives CR#1 and CR#2 ....................................................................................... 24
Table 8: Comparison of Alternatives SR#1 and SR#2 ........................................................................................ 30
Table 9: Study Area Summary ........................................................................................................................... 31
Page ii
1. Executive Summary
The Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District (GCCPRD) finds a compelling need for a storm
surge protection system on the upper Texas coast.
This report presents (GCCPRD) Phase 3: Recommended Actions for the Storm Surge Suppression Study. The
results of the study clearly illustrate the need for a storm surge protection system in the six-county region to
mitigate current and future risks to the public, the economy, and the environment. The recommendations
put forward in this report establish a framework for a plan and serve as a call to action for local, state, and
federally elected officials to become advocates for coastal protection. The time has come to move beyond
concepts and feasibility studies and begin preliminary engineering design and construction of the system.
The solution is actionable provided there is the will at the local, state, and federal level to make the
necessary strategic investments. Until the full system is built, the entire region will remain at risk to surge
flooding from tropical events.
The GCCPRD has been executing this study for the past two and a half years. This effort involved extensive
storm surge and wave modeling focused on evaluating and mitigating the regions risks associated with
tropical events and future relative sea level rise. The technical analysis identified and defined structural
alternatives, evaluated the environmental impacts and economic benefits, and compared the benefits to the
overall cost associated with constructing, operating, and maintaining each alternative. The GCCPRD has
performed all operations in an open and transparent manner by engaging the public and local elected
officials directly through public meetings and publishing all our reports, associated appendices, and data
online for the public to review at www.gccprd.com. Appendix A includes the comments received from the
public meetings held in March and April 2016.
During Phase 3, the study team executed public meetings and conducted numerous engagements with
other stakeholders to gather comments on the alternatives that were presented in the Phase 2: Technical
Mitigation report. The team also coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the SSPEED
Center at Rice University, and Texas A&M - Galveston (TAMUG) to reconcile the alternatives recommended
in this plan.
This report is a summary report and does not restate in detail the technical information that was previously
published in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports. Those reports are included as Appendices B and C to this
report.
1.1. Recommended Alternatives

1.1.1. North Region: Jefferson and Orange Counties
The study team in coordination with local elected officials recommend Northern Region Alternative #2
(NR#2) - levees only, as the alternative that best supports surge protection in the Jefferson and Orange
County region of the study area.
Page 1
Figure 1: Recommended North Region Alternative (NR#2) - Levees Only

Table 1: NR#2 Technical Details
North Region Alternative Summary and Comparison
Total length of the system (miles)
Right of way required
Pump stations required / total capacity (CFS)
Environmental mitigation required
Construction cost
Annual Operations and maintenance cost
Total Annual Costs (TAC)
Total Annual Benefits (TAB)
Benefit - Cost Ratio (TAB/TAC) (3.125% Interest Rate)
NR#2 - The Jefferson/Orange Protection System

without the Neches River Navigation Gate
92.2 miles
1,401 acres
14 / 31,626 CFS
559.6 acres
$3,228,580,000
$16,143,000
176,910,000
$140,877,000
0.80
NR#2 is a technically feasible alternative that lacks complexity and will greatly enhance protection
throughout the region. Economically and environmentally, NR#2 is sustainable and with future optimization
the alternative is expected to meet all federal funding requirements.
NR#2 is very similar to the USACE Sabine Pass to Galveston studys Tentatively Selected Plan. By staying
aligned with USACE, future discussions associated with reconciling competing plans are avoided, which will
keep the project on track for authorization and funding by Congress.
1.1.2. Central Region: Chambers, Harris and Galveston Counties

The study team, in coordination with local elected officials, recommends Central Region Alternative #1
(CR#1) - The High Island to San Luis Pass Coastal Spine including the following elements from Central Region
Page 2
Alternative # 2 (CR#2): the navigation gate at Clear Lake and a modified Galveston ring levee, as the
alternative that best supports surge protection in the Chambers, Galveston, and Harris counties region of
the study area. (Figure 2)
The CR#1/CR#2 combination provides a region-wide reduction in storm surge that extends from the Gulf of
Mexico to Houston, providing enhanced protection for communities located along the shoreline of
Galveston Bay and industry located along the Houston Ship Channel.
Figure 2: Recommended Central Region Alternative (CR#1) - Coastal Spine

Table 2: CR#1 Technical Details
Central Region Alternative Summary and Comparison
Construction cost
Annual operations and maintenance cost
CR#1 - High Island to San Luis Pass Coastal Spine

55.6 miles
1,220 acres
0 / 0 CFS
303.35 acres
$5,832,095,000*
$29,160,000
319,569,000
$1,029,399,000
3.22
* Construction costs and benefits to be updated in the future to include the addition of the Galveston ring levee and navigation gate at Clear Lake
While CR#1 alone provides a dramatic reduction in overall surge, there are still heavily populated areas
within the region that can expect to experience four to 12 feet of surge-related flooding. The addition of the
Galveston ring levee and a navigation gate at Clear Lake, evaluated under alternative CR#2, to the coastal
Page 3
spine will enhance protection for the City of Galveston, Seabrook, Taylor Lake Village, El Lago, Clear Lake
Shores and Kemah. With the coastal spine in place, the structure design elevation for the modified
Galveston ring levee is expected to be in the 12 to 15 feet range which is much lower than the 23 feet
originally proposed in CR#2. Due to resource and time constraints, the construction cost, the benefits, and
the BCR for the addition of these two features will need to be updated in the future.
Additional protective measures as proposed by the SSPEED Center at Rice University should also be further
evaluated. The SSPEED Center at Rice University has proposed a layered defense for Galveston Bay. Its HGAPS approach supports a coastal spine alignment, a ring levee for the City of Galveston, and an additional
gate structure located along the Houston Ship Channel with an ancillary levee structure through the bay that
ties the system northward into Baytown and southward to Texas City. (Figure 17) Conceptually, these
additional elements appear to be effective for reducing the residual surge along the west side of Galveston
Bay and the Houston Ship Channel. In the future, the study team will coordinate closely with SSPEED as it
continues research on the H-GAPS initiative.
1.1.3. South Region: Brazoria County

The study team, in coordination with local elected officials, recommends South Region Alternative #2 (SR#2)
- Freeport Hurricane Flood Protection System Modernization with Extension North toward Angleton, Jones
Creek Levee, Jones Creek Terminal Ring Levee, and Chocolate Bayou Ring Levee as the alternative that best
supports surge protection in the Brazoria County region of the study area.
Figure 3: Recommended South Region Alternative (SR#2)
Page 4
Table 3: SR#2 Technical Details

South Region Alternative Summary and Comparison

Construction cost
SR#2- Freeport Hurricane Flood Protection System

Modernization and Extension North toward Angleton- Jones
Creek Levee, Jones Creek Terminal Ring Levee, and
Chocolate Bayou Ring Levee
74.2 miles
383 acres
5 / 11,460 CFS
129.89 acres
$2,571,551,000
$12,858,000
140,907,000
$206,654,000
1.47
SR#2 is technically, environmentally, and economically feasible and has a very good BCR of 1.47. SR#2
provides a region-wide reduction in storm surge that extends from the coast at Freeport to Angleton and
provides enhanced protection for the community of Jones Creek and the industrial complexes located along
Jones Creek and Chocolate Bayou. The alternative includes the modernization of the Freeport Hurricane
Protection System and the extension of the system to protect of the region from the 100-year event in 2085.
1.2. Study Area Summary

The combination of all the recommended alternatives into one comprehensive plan clearly illustrates that
there are technically and economically feasible and environmentally sustainable alternatives that are
supported by the public which will provide storm surge reduction in the six-county area. (Table 4)
These alternatives should not be viewed as being mutually exclusive. Implementing a single regional
alternative only buys down risk in that area leaving the other regions vulnerable. Any storm-related loss will
have a lasting effect on the local, regional, state, and national economies.
Table 4: GCCPRD Study Area Summary

Right of way required (acres)
Environmental mitigation required ($ thousands)
Construction cost ($ thousands)
($ thousands)
North
Region
NR#2
92
1,401
14/31,600
0
3,228,579
16,143
Central Region
CR#1 + Clear Lake +
Galveston Ring Levee
114
1,278
0/0
72,075
5,832,095*
29,160
176,910
140,872
0.80
319,569
1,029,399
3.22
South
Study Area Plan
Region
(NR#2+CR#1+
SR#2
SR#2)
71
277
383
3,062
5/15,100
19/46,700
0
72,075
2,571,551
11,632,225
12,857
58,160
140,907
206,654
1.47
637,386
1,296,056
2.03
Page 5
The total cost for implementing the GCCPRD Study Area Plan is $11.6 billion with a BCR of 2.03. The federal
government invested $14.5 billion dollars for hurricane protection for New Orleans following Hurricane
Katrina protecting a population of 900,000 people. The upper Texas Coast has a population of more than six
million people, generates over 31 percent of the states $1.4 trillion GDP, and has a significant role in our
nations energy and national security.
The GCCPRD Storm Surge Protection Study identifies the threat, the assets that need to be protected, and
provides solutions on how to protect the region from storm surge flooding. The plan is ready to move
forward to implementation.
Page 6
2. Introduction
The upper Texas coast, stretching from Orange to Brazoria County, is blessed with over 120 miles of pristine
coastline that has historically attracted people and industry to the region to take advantage of a multitude
of economic opportunities and quality of life amenities. This six-county region is home to over six million
people, the largest concentration of petrochemical complexes in North America, six of the top fifty ports in
the United States, NASAs Johnson Space Center, and a highly productive coastal estuary system of national
significance. Additionally, this region is vitally important to the security of the national economy and the
nations energy sector.
The study area is comprised of more than 4,300 square miles of land vulnerable to storm surge flooding
associated with hurricanes and other tropical storm events. History has proven that Texas remains most
vulnerable to large storms from June to October. The frequency of hurricanes along any 50-mile segment of
the coast is about one storm event every nine years. Annual probabilities of a storm event range from
31 percent in the Sabine Pass Region to 41 percent in the Matagorda Region.
Figure 4: FEMA map illustrating coastal areas within the study vulnerable to storm surge
In 2008, Hurricane Ike made landfall on the Texas coast in the vicinity of Galveston Island, causing 84 deaths
and over $30 billion in damages. To date, Hurricane Ike has been the most expensive storm in Texas history.
Page 7
2.1. Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District (GCCPRD)

The GCCPRD is a local government corporation that includes Brazoria, Chambers, Galveston, Harris,
Jefferson, and Orange counties, which are the six counties included in this study area. The GCCPRD is
governed by a board of directors comprised of the
county judge of each participating county and
three additional appointed members, each
serving three-year terms. Board members include:
Judge Ed Emmett Harris County
Judge Mark Henry Galveston County
Judge Matt Sebesta Brazoria County
Judge Jimmy Silva Chambers County
Judge Jeff Branick Jefferson County
Judge Stephen Carlton Orange County
Lisa LaBean At-large Member
Jim Sutherlin At-large Member
Victor Pierson At-large Member
Figure 5: GCCPRD study area
Robert Eckels serves as President of the District
and is appointed by the Board.
In September 2013, the GCCPRD received a $3.9 million grant funded by the Texas General Land
Office (GLO) through the Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program to conduct the Storm Surge Suppression Study.
2.2. Study Purpose

The purpose of the Storm Surge Suppression Study is to investigate the feasibility of reducing the
vulnerability of the upper Texas coast to storm surge and flood damages. The intent of this study is to
develop a plan to protect the life, health, and safety of the community and provide environmental and
economic resilience within the study region. These goals will be achieved through the study and analysis of
integrated flood damage reduction systems comprised of natural or nature-based features, as well as
structural and nonstructural alternatives.
The study initiated in fall 2014 examined the technical, environmental, social, and economic factors to
determine a cost-effective and efficient set of alternatives for flood damage reduction and surge
suppression to help protect the six-county region. The study outcomes are critical to informing the general
public of the potential risks associated with living and operating within this region and soliciting future
support to procure the necessary resources to implement an integrated protection system.
The goals of the study are to:
Determine appropriate actions that may be taken to protect the life, health, and safety of the
community and provide environmental and economic resilience within the study area.
Develop a viable region-wide program that, once implemented, would better protect the region
from future natural disasters associated with storm surge flooding events.
Page 8
The Storm Surge Suppression Study is a technical effort based on science to investigate opportunities to
mitigate the vulnerability of the upper Texas coast from storm surge and flooding. Since 2013, the GCCPRD
has been collecting, developing, and analyzing technical data and collaborating with other organizations and
universities conducting similar work.
2.3. Phase 1 and Phase 2

In February 2015, the team completed Phase 1: Data Collection. All data collected during Phase 1 was
consolidated into a data library and provided to the GLO to support future study efforts. As part of the Data
Collection effort, the study team conducted a series of three large-scale public scoping meetings (one in
Beaumont, Baytown, and League City, Texas) to encourage public participation and further define the need,
purpose, and scope of the study. As a result of the research conducted during Phase 1, the team
determined that the needs and types of protection varied across the six-county study area. Therefore, the
study area was divided into three distinct regions:
North Region: Orange and Jefferson Counties
Central Region: Galveston, Chambers, and Harris Counties
South Region: Brazoria County and Galveston County (vicinity of San Luis Pass)
Alternatives were then scoped for each region with the understanding that the benefits and impacts of
these alternatives would be confined to their respective regions.
In February 2016, the Phase 2: Technical Mitigation report was published, defining two potential surge
suppression alternatives within each region of the study area. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports and the data
library were made available to the public through the GCCPRDs official website, www.gccrpd.com. The
Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports are also included as appendices to this Phase 3 report. The Phase 3 report
represents the Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery Districts Storm Surge Suppression StudyFinal Recommendations.
2.4. Phase 3 - Scope of Work

During Phase 3, the study team conducted four additional public meetings and facilitated numerous
engagements with other stakeholders to gather comments on the alternatives that were presented in the
Phase 2: Technical Mitigation report. The study team also worked with the US Army Corps of Engineers,
Texas A&M University Galveston, and the SSPEED Center at Rice University to reconcile the recommended
alternatives presented in this report.
Additionally, the team executed an extended regional economic review to help define the economic losses
that are not directly related to the storm losses. These additional impacts will be published as an addendum
to this report in the future once this effort is complete.
Page 9
3. Identifying the Threat Now, in 2035, and 2085

One of the major threats associated with any tropical event is storm surge-induced flooding. Storm surge is
generated because low pressure and winds associated with a hurricane cause the water in the Gulf of
Mexico adjacent to the center of the storm to rise as the storm moves closer to the shore and inland. The
flood hazard at any given area along the coast can also be affected by waves, tides, and the storms
intensity, size, and angle of approach.
Present-day conditions were established using the latest FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) data. The team
made the assumption that if construction began in 2020, all alternatives could conceivably be in place by
2035. A fifty-year design life was assigned to each alternative, targeting a design life through the year 2085.
The goal was to identify the recommended structural elevations of all alternatives in 2085.
3.1. Storm Simulations

The study team executed extensive storm surge modeling for the years 2035 and 2085 to evaluate structural
design elevations for each proposed alternative and understand expected damages based on future sea
levels and storm conditions. These storm simulations are required because historical storm data does not
sufficiently cover the wide variety of storm conditions that may affect the project region in the future. The
storm surge modeling provides the required data by evaluating flood hazards throughout the project region
for hundreds of possible hurricanes and also accounting for potential future conditions by including sea level
rise in the model setup.
The study team used the coupled ADvanced CIRCulation (ADCIRC) and Unstructured Simulating WAves in
the Nearshore (UnSWAN) model system to simulate storm surge and waves throughout the project region.
Relative sea level rise was evaluated using the data from the existing NOAA gauges at Sabine Pass, Galveston
Pier 21, and Freeport. Mean sea level was increased by 0.9 feet and 2.4 feet in the model setups for the
2035 and 2085 timeframes respectively. Modeling scenarios were developed that analyzed the current
conditions, the future without action (FWOA) in 2035 and 2085, and the future conditions with the
alternatives (FWA) in place for 2035 and 2085.
The FWOA configurations implemented existing storm risk management alignments and were used as a
control to compare the effects of proposed alternatives during the FWA in place scenarios.
For each scenario, 254 synthetic storms were simulated to determine maximum water surface elevations,
maximum significant wave heights, and maximum wave periods in the study area. The suite of 254 storms
selected for this study was coordinated with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The storm suite
includes 152 high-intensity and 71 low-intensity storms from the Texas FEMA FIS storm suite, as well as 31
high-intensity storms from the Louisiana FEMA FIS storm suite (USACE 2008a, b) with landfall locations near
the Louisiana-Texas border. (Figure 6)
Page 10
Figure 6: Storm tracks for the 254 ADCIRC storm simulations. Purple lines are Texas storm tracks, and
green lines are Louisiana storm tracks.
3.2. Return Frequency Analysis

After completing the 254 storm simulations for each modeling scenario, the USACE Joint Probability Analysis
(JPA) Model was used to combine the results of the storm simulations to calculate the 10-, 50-, 100-, and
500-year stillwater elevations for each modeling scenario (FWOA 2035, FWOA 2085, FWA1 2085, and FWA2
2085). Sensitivity tests, model optimization, and a thorough review of the results were completed to confirm
the quality of the output statistics. The 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year stillwater elevations were also
extrapolated to determine the 1-, 2-, 5-, and 10-year frequencies. By calculating the return stillwater
elevations, the JPA statistical model allows the effects of each modeling scenario configuration to be
compared and assessed. The following figures show the 100-year stillwater elevations throughout the region
for multiple-model scenarios.
Page 11
Figure 7: 100-year stillwater elevations for Current Conditions. Data referenced from FEMA 2008 FIS Map.
Figure 8: 100-year stillwater elevations for FWOA 2035 conditions. This model scenario includes 0.9 feet of
Relative Sea level Rise.
Page 12
Figure 9: 100-year Stillwater elevations for FWOA 2085 conditions. This model scenario includes 2.4 feet
of Relative Sea level Rise.
Stillwater return elevations at specific locations were also calculated. The following table compares 100-year
stillwater elevations across the model scenarios at three sample locations within the project region.
Table 5: 100-year stillwater elevations (feet, NAVD88) compared across the four model scenarios.
Jones Creek
Galveston Bay
Sabine Lake
FWOA 2035
13.2
13.7
12.5
FWOA 2085
15.0
15.7
14.8
FWA1 2085
15.0
9.8
14.9
FWA2 2085
14.9
15.8
15.1
Page 13
Figure 10: Sample locations where stillwater elevations are extracted and compared in Table 5.
Section 3 and Appendix A and B in the Phase 2: Technical Mitigation report provide additional details on the
storm surge modeling and return frequency methodology.
3.3. Preliminary Design Elevations

Results from the storm simulations and return frequency analysis were used to determine preliminary
design elevations for each reach location included in the two proposed alternative configurations. Results
from the 254 synthetic storm simulations were compared to the calculated 100-year return stillwater levels
to determine 100-year wave conditions. These 100-year stillwater and wave conditions were reviewed in
conjunction with overtopping criteria recommended by the USACE to determine the preliminary design
elevations for the proposed alternatives. The USACE overtopping criteria were applied to each reach
location separately to account for varying reach types such as floodwall, armored levee, or grass-covered
levee. Unique circumstances along the Coastal Spine and the Galveston Seawall were also accounted for
when determining the location-specific overtopping criteria. The 100-year wave and stillwater conditions
were then assessed relative to the appropriate overtopping criteria to determine the preliminary design
elevations for each reach location in the project area. In this manner, the stillwater and wave conditions
generated by the storm simulations were processed and evaluated to determine the preliminary design
elevations necessary for the subsequent economic evaluation.
3.4. Economic Evaluation: What needs to be protected?

The economic analysis in this report was prepared in general accordance with policies and practices of the
USACE. The analysis estimates the National Economic Development (NED) damages and benefits for existing
and future conditions and all costs required for implementation of project alternatives. The NED benefits
Page 14
analyzed represent the reduction of potential damages caused by inundation and the associated avoided
debris removal costs. Inundation damage categories included:
Physical damages to structures and contents (residential, commercial, and industrial)
Damages to privately owned vehicles associated with residential structures
The USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center-Flood Damage Analysis Model (HEC-FDA) version 1.2.5a was used
to compute damages. HEC-FDA is an interdisciplinary program used to formulate and evaluate flood damage
reduction plans. The primary inputs to HEC-FDA contain only the following information:
Damage reaches (the geographic boundaries of reported model output)
An inventory of structures (including depreciated structure replacement value and structure
elevation)
Damage functions describing the susceptibility of structures and contents to varying depths of
inundation
Stage-probability relationships (describing the annual probabilities associated with water surface
elevations)
Figure 11: Damage reaches established in HEC-FDA for the study area
Saltwater, short-duration (approximately one-day) depth-damage relationships were used in the economic
analysis. Model outputs were generated for the following damage categories: residential, commercial,
Page 15
industrial, and debris removal. The residential category includes damages to the structure, damages to
contents, and damages to the associated vehicles for residential properties. The commercial and industrial
damage categories include damages to the structure and contents. The debris removal damage category
includes the debris removal costs associated with all residential and commercial properties.
The economic model results were combined with project alternative cost information to perform benefitcost analysis. Benefit-cost analysis was used to verify that the value of the benefits exceeded the value of
the costs and ensured the resources would be allocated in the most efficient manner possible.
Benefit-cost analysis involves two mathematical comparisons:
Net benefits are calculated by subtracting the total economic costs from the total economic
benefits. Alternatives with positive net benefits contribute to economic efficiency. In an
unconstrained budget situation, an alternative with higher net benefits is preferred over an
alternative with lesser net benefits. This analysis can be used to help select and scale a
recommended alternative from an array of alternatives.
A benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is calculated by dividing the total economic benefits by the total economic
cost. A BCR of 1.0 indicates that the total benefits equal the total costs. In other words, for every
dollar spent, a dollar of benefits is produced. Because BCRs indicate which alternative produces the
most benefits for every dollar of cost, it is useful for comparing or ranking alternatives when
investment budgets are constrained.
Section 7 of the Phase 2: Technical Mitigation report provides additional details on their economic modeling
approach and the methodology used.
3.5. Technical and Environmental Evaluation: How do we protect while

limiting environmental impacts?
3.5.1. Technical Evaluation
The study team developed an initial array of potential alternatives based on public feedback, utilization of
prior USACE studies and reports, and through collaboration with other research teams concurrently studying
surge protection within the region. The team scoped and screened each potential alternative and selected
two distinct alternatives for each respective region of the study area for further analysis.
For simplicity, the team divided the study area into three distinct regions:
North Region: Orange and Jefferson Counties
Central Region: Galveston, Chambers, and Harris Counties
South Region: Brazoria County and Galveston County (vicinity of San Luis Pass)
Once the alternatives for each region were selected for analysis, the study team developed preliminary
alignments for each respective alternative. Structures were identified and sized for the proposed
alignments to provide protection from the 2085 one percent (100-year storm) annual exceedance
probability storm surge event. In heavily congested and urban areas, the team proposed the use of T-wall
structures to limit intrusions; whereas, in undeveloped rural areas, the team proposed levee systems, which
are less expensive. Ancillary structures were categorically separated into highway crossings, railroad
crossings, gravity drainage structures, navigation gates, and pumping stations.
Page 16
Final alignments were based on the following factors:

Input from the public meetings
Potential environmental impacts
Constructability of the alternative
Social intrusion of protection systems within communities
Impacts to existing infrastructure (right-of-way acquisition, road and railroad crossing, utility
corridors, etc.)
Long-term operations and maintenance expenses
Interior drainage requirements
Ancillary structures (drainage and navigation structures)
The team developed a large library of unit and lump-sum costs from recently constructed hurricane
protection projects in the Gulf Coast region. This data allowed the team to synchronize costs throughout
the study area and develop costs for each proposed alignment.
For all costs in this report, a 25 percent contingency was added to account for the vast array of uncertainties
and unforeseeable market changes which could occur in the near future and drive present-day costs beyond
the rate of inflation. Exceptions were made for the Houston Ship Channel and Neches River gates, where a
40 percent contingency was used due to the extreme complexity and uniqueness of such structures.
Sections 2 and 6 of the Phase 2: Technical Mitigation report provide additional details on the alternative
development process and the methodology for developing alternative costs.
3.5.2. Environmental Impacts

The environmental analysis conducted for this study consisted of a desktop review of the most current and
comprehensive data available to the team. These datasets included:
National Wetlands Inventory
Threatened and endangered species critical habitat
Historic sites
Coastal barriers
Floodplain
Essential fish habitat
Hazardous material sites
The potential environmental impacts associated with each proposed alternative were defined by evaluating
the length of the alternative and the ground area that the structure would occupy in relation to the specific
habitat that would be impacted. An additional buffer area of 150 feet was added to all alternatives to
account for future operations and maintenance activities.
Alternative alignments were continuously adjusted to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive areas. Where
impacts could not be avoided, the impacts were defined for each alternative by total acres impacted and by
habitat type. Mitigation costs based on acreage and habitat type were then calculated and added to the
overall cost of each alternative.
Potential historic and hazardous waste sites were also identified for each alternative. These sites would
require additional investigations once proposed projects enter the preliminary engineering and design phase
to assess fully their potential impacts to the project.
Page 17
A preliminary tidal amplitude and exchange analysis was conducted for of the hurricane barriers proposed at
Bolivar Roads and across the Neches River. The analysis indicated that the proposed hurricane barriers
would result in a change in tidal amplitude of 5 and 10 percent over a range of various tidal conditions when
sufficient vertical lift gates are added to the barriers. The analysis did not assess other potential impacts
created by the hurricane barriers associated with water quality, salinity, sediment transfer, and aquatic
species within the bay and estuary system. This analysis would need to occur to support the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements and documentation for the final project.
Section 2 of the Phase 1: Data Collection and Section 4 of the Phase 2: Technical Mitigation reports provide
more detailed information about the environmental review and analysis conducted throughout the study.
3.6. Public Outreach

The GGCPRD study teams efforts have remained open and transparent throughout the feasibility, scoping,
and analysis process. In December of 2013, the team hosted three public scoping meetings throughout the
region to inform the public of the studys intent and to solicit their input on potential alternatives. This
input provided some initial guidance to the team on what the public would be willing to accept regarding
project locations and alignments, and this information was used to help the team develop an array of
potential alternatives.
Following the release of the Phase 2 report, additional public meetings were held in March and April 2016 to
review the alternatives that were selected for further analysis and to seek public feedback on the future
recommended plan for each study region. More than 400 public comments were received, and these are
consolidated for review in Appendix A of this report.
In addition to the public meetings, numerous briefings were held with stakeholders throughout the region.
These stakeholders included, among others:
Commissioner Jack Morman, Harris County Precinct 2
Congressman Randy Weber
Commissioner George P. Bush, Texas General Land Office
State Senator Larry Taylor
Joint Interim- Coastal Barrier System Committee
Houston-Galveston Area Council
Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership
Galveston Bay Estuary Council
South East Texas Regional Planning Organization
City of Houston
City of Galveston
City and county officials throughout the region
Texas Chemical Council and EHCMA
Brazoria County Alliance
Brazoria County Master Naturalists
Rotary Club of Houston
Page 18
4. Recommended Alternatives
4.1. North Region Alternatives - Jefferson and Orange Counties
The study team, in coordination with input from the public, community leaders and elected officials,
recommends Northern Region Alternative #2 (NR#2) as the alternative that best supports surge protection in
the Jefferson and Orange County region of the study area. NR#2 is very similar to the USACE Sabine Pass to
Galveston studys Tentatively Selected Plan. By staying aligned with USACE, future discussions associated
with reconciling competing plans are avoided which will keep the project on track for potential authorization
and funding by Congress in 2018.
4.1.1. Basis of Recommendation

During the Phase 2, the study team developed and analyzed two distinct barrier systems that would provide
comprehensive protection to the entire North region. (Figure 12)
North Region Alternative #1 (NR#1) is a continuous regional hurricane protection system that includes a
large navigation gate on the Neches River.
North Region Alternative #2 (NR#2)-Levees Only- is composed of two hurricane protection systems which
individually protect Orange and Jefferson Counties without the Neches River gate.
Both NR#1 and NR#2 include the required modernization of the existing Port Arthur Hurricane Protection
System to meet the standards required to protect the region from the 100-year event in 2085.
Page 19
North Region Alternatives

Orange and Jefferson Counties
North Region Alternative #1 (NR#1) - The Jefferson/Orange Protection System with the Neches River
Navigation Gate
North Region Alternative #2 (NR#2) - The Jefferson/Orange Protection System Levees Only (without the
Neches River Navigation Gate)
Figure 12: North Region Alternatives Selected for Development

Table 6 provides a comparison of the two alternatives.
Table 6: Comparison of Alternatives NR#1 and NR#2
North Region Alternative Summary and
Comparison
Construction cost
Benefit - Cost Ratio (TAB/TAC)(3.125% Interest Rate)
NR#1 - The Jefferson/Orange

Protection System with the
Neches River Navigation Gate
55.2 miles
612 acres
7 / 25,711 CFS
232.89 acres
$2,502,650,000
$12,513,000
137,132,000
$140,877,000
1.03
NR#2 - The Jefferson/Orange

Protection System without the
Neches River Navigation Gate
92.2 miles
1,401 acres
14 / 31,626 CFS
559.6 acres
$3,228,580,000
$16,143,000
176,910,000
$140,877,000
0.80
Page 20
Alternatives NR#1 and NR#2 are both technically feasible, providing the same level of protection and the
same average annual benefits for the region. NR#1 is a much more complex system that is dependent upon
the proper functioning of the Neches River Navigation Gate and the Neches River bypass pump station.
NR#2, a fixed levee system, is much less complex and does not carry the risks associated with mechanical
failures, ensuring its overall performance. The increased cost of Alternative NR#2 without additional
benefits decreases the benefit to cost ratio (BCR) for this alternative. NR#2 will require additional future
analysis to optimize the alternative and develop better damage function curves for the petrochemical
industries within the region in order to capture additional benefits.
Figure 13 illustrates the reduction in surge throughout the North region with NR#2 in place for the 100-year
event in 2085.
Figure 13: Surge reduction 100-year event in 2085 with NR#2

The selection of the recommended plan for the North region was also heavily influenced by the on-going
USACE Sabine Pass to Galveston study for the Jefferson and Orange region. USACE has recommended an
alternative as their Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) that is very similar to NR#2. (Figure 14).
Page 21
Figure 14: USACE Tentatively Selected Plan for Orange and Jefferson Counties
The USACE TSP is based on the National Economic Development (NED) plan that examines each segment
within the system to ensure the overall benefits within a particular segment are greater than the cost of
construction for that segment. For Orange County, the USACE TSP truncates the alternative alignment west
of Bridge City, whereas NR#2 extends the alignment to the west and north of I-10.
During GCCPRDs Phase 3 public meetings, local elected officials and residents in the Rose City and Vidor
areas expressed their concern with being left out of the USACE plan. Rose City and portions of Vidor were
heavily damaged by surge during Hurricane Ike and will likely become more vulnerable in the future with sea
level rise.
USACE is willing to include the segment which extends their proposed alignment to Rose City as a Locally
Preferred Plan (LPP). All planning, design, and construction costs associated with an LPP will be the
responsibility of the projects local sponsors.
The USACE plan will include the required environmental documentation to meet all NEPA requirements and
keep the future project on track for authorization and appropriation of construction funding by Congress.
Future Actions:
Optimize NR#2 to reduce cost and increase benefits

Develop the segment for Bridge City to Vidor as an LPP in the USACE plan
Continue to collaborate with USACE on their proposed NED plan
Continue to work with industry and the Texas Chemical Council to update petrochemical damage
function curves to provide a more accurate assessment of benefits within the region
Page 22
4.2. Central Region - Chambers, Harris and Galveston Counties

recommends Central Region Alternative #1 (CR#1)- High Island to San Luis Pass Coastal Spine including the
following elements of CR#2: the navigation gate at Clear Lake and a modified Galveston ring levee, as the
approach that best supports surge protection in the Chambers, Galveston, and Harris counties region of the
study area. CR#1/CR#2 provides a region-wide reduction in storm surge that extends from the Gulf of
Mexico to Houston providing enhanced protection for communities in Chambers, Galveston and Harris
Counties located along the shoreline of the Bay and industry located along the Houston Ship Channel.

During Phase 2, the study team developed and analyzed two distinct barrier systems that would provide
enhanced storm surge protection for the central region. (Figure 15)
Central Region Alternative #1 (CR#1) is a continuous regional barrier system that follows an alignment along
the coast parallel to State Highways 87 and 3005 and includes a barrier system composed of a large
navigation gate with 25 vertical lift gates across Bolivar Roads.
Central Region Alternative #2 (CR#2) is a series of separate systems that provide protection to the City of
Galveston and the west side of Galveston Bay.
Alternative CR#2 was developed based on the assumption of potential consequences resulting from not
protecting the region if a gate could not be built along the Houston Ship Channel. This assumption was not
based on technical or constructability judgements/expertise, but is focused on potential environmental
impacts to the bay and estuary system.
Page 23
Central Region Alternatives

Galveston, Chambers, and Harris Counties
Central Region Alternative #1 (CR#1) - High Island to San Luis Pass Coastal Spine
Central Region Alternative #2 (CR#2) - Texas City Levee Modifications and Extensions North (SH-146) and
West--Galveston Ring Levee
Figure 15: Central Region Alternatives Selected for Development

Table 7 provides a comparison of the two alternatives.
Table 7: Comparison of Alternatives CR#1 and CR#2
Central Region Alternative Summary and
Comparison
CR#1 - High Island to San

Luis Pass Coastal Spine

Construction cost
Benefit - Cost Ratio (TAB/TAC)
(3.125% Interest Rate)
55.6 miles
1,220 acres
0 / 0 CFS
303.35 acres
$5,832,095,000
$29,160,000
319,569,000
$1,029,399,000
3.22
CR#2 - Texas City Levee Modifications

and Extensions North (SH-146) and
West--Galveston Ring Levee
62.6 miles
344.7 acres
13 / 61,611 CFS
122.00 acres
$3,534,442,000
$17,672,000
193,669,000
$1,230,928,000
6.36
Page 24
During the Phase 3 public meetings, numerous citizens, communities, and local elected officials voiced their
support of CR#1 and their dissatisfaction with CR#2. Many felt the proposed alternative alignment for CR#2
left too many citizens and too much public infrastructure forward of the barrier system and outside the line
of protection. The public was also concerned about their ability to procure flood insurance in the future.
The local elected officials were especially concerned about the lack of protection CR#2 provided for
industries located along the Houston Ship Channel. These industries are vital components to their local tax
base as well as providing well-paying jobs for citizens within their communities. Based on the lack of public
support for CR#2, the GCCPRD study team will abandon future efforts associated with this alternative
alignment.
CR#1 is a technically feasible and constructible alternative with a very good BCR of 3.22. Figure 16 illustrates
the reduction in surge across Galveston Bay with the proposed Coastal Spine in place for the 100-year event
in 2085.
Figure 16: Surge reduction 100-year event in 2085 with CR#1

While CR#1 alone provides a dramatic reduction in overall surge, there are still heavily populated areas
within the region that can expect to experience four to 12 feet of surge-related flooding with the spine in
place. The addition of the Galveston ring levee and a navigation gate at Clear Lake, evaluated under
alternative CR#2, to the coastal spine will enhance protection for the City of Galveston, Seabrook, Taylor
Lake Village, El Lago, Clear Lake Shores, and Kemah.
With the coastal spine in place, the design elevation for the Galveston ring levee is expected to be in the 12
to 15 feet range, which is much lower than the 23 feet originally proposed in CR#2. Due to resource and
time constraints, the construction cost and the benefits for the addition of these two features will need to
be updated in the future. Additional protective measures as proposed by the SSPEED Center at Rice
University should also be further evaluated.
Page 25
The SSPEED Center at Rice University has proposed a layered defense for Galveston Bay. Their H-GAPS
approach supports a coastal spine alignment, a ring levee for the City of Galveston, and an additional gate
structure located along the Houston Ship Channel with an ancillary levee structure through the bay that ties
the system northward into Baytown and Southward to Texas City. (Figure 17) Conceptually, these
additional elements appear to be effective for reducing the residual surge along the west side of Galveston
Bay and Houston Ship Channel.
Figure 17: SSPEED H-GAPS

During Phase 3, the GCCPRD study team met with the SSPEED Center to discuss the H-GAPS as a potential
solution to reduce the residual surge along the western shoreline and the Houston Ship Channel. The
GCCPRD study team was concerned that adding the additional gate structure and levee system within the
bay would significantly increase environmental impacts associated with water quality, salinity, sediment
transfer, and aquatic resources. The study team was also concerned with the constructability and the
construction and long-term operations and maintenance costs associated with the additional in-bay
features. Adding a second line of defense will potentially increase benefits, but it remains to be seen if
those benefits will be enough to enhance the overall BCR within the Central Region when compared to the
construction cost. The SSPEED Center acknowledged our concerns and is continuing to fully develop their HGAPS initiative which will address the environmental and cost concerns in the future.
To optimize the recommended alignment, additional modeling and technical analysis would need to occur
to validate the required elevation of in-bay features, access potential environmental impacts, determine
construction and operations and maintenance costs, and economic benefits.
Page 26
SSPEED is also developing a probabilistic model that will help determine direct damages associated with
surge-induced failures of large petrochemical tanks and their associated clean-up costs. The development of
depth-damage curves associated with tank failures will enable the GCCPRD study team to potentially
capture additional direct damage reduction benefits that were not adequately defined for this asset in our
current model.
There were numerous public comments associated with the GGCPRD study teams proposed alignment of
the CR#1 surge barrier parallel to SH-87 and 3005. In its studies, the SSPEED Center proposed placing the
barrier in the roadway right of way and raising the highways. The public on the west end of Galveston Island
preferred the alignment to run along the existing dune line as proposed by Texas A&M - Galveston
(TAMUG). The study team reviewed the dune line alignment during alternatives development. The team
had concerns about the environmental impacts the alignment would have on the existing dune system as
well as the overall construction and long-term operations and maintenance cost.
The Gulf of Mexico side of the dune/levee would have to be constructed with an elongated slope to protect
the toe of the dune/levee system from surge induced wave erosion. (Figure 18) This construction would
increase the overall quantity of material that would be required to build the system and drive up the cost.
Normal wave action will continue to erode the forward slope of the dune and require more frequent
maintenance than a system along the roadways thereby driving up the long-term operations and
maintenance costs. The Districts limited funding and schedule constrained our ability to fully evaluate the
potential beach alignment alternative for the coastal spine.
Figure 18: Example of a levee cross section with elongated slopes

During Phase 3, the study team met with TAMUG to discuss their work on the coastal spine. TAMUG has
been working closely with Delft University to develop a version of the coastal spine that follows a dune
alignment. TAMUG is expected to publish their technical report with estimated construction and long-term
operation and maintenance costs in the future. The study team will then be able to develop and compare
BCRs for the respective dune and roadway alignments.
Whether the final alignment remains in or along the roadway or is moved to the beach will not have any
effect on the overall performance of the system and regional benefits are expected to remain largely the
same. We look forward to the completion of the work of TAMUG on the dune alignment option and
exploring additional aesthetic and recreational benefits that option may provide. The concerns of the local
community, the social and environmental issues, and the construction and long-term operations and
Page 27
maintenance costs of each alignment will have to be evaluated to determine the overall impact on the BCR
and the potential need to develop a locally preferred plan.
The study team did not have the resources to conduct a full environmental analysis of the potential impacts
that the gate system at Bolivar Roads would have on water quality, salinity, sediment transport, and aquatic
resources within the Galveston Bay estuary system. A preliminary tidal amplitude and exchange analysis
was conducted for the hurricane barriers at Bolivar Roads, and the analysis indicated that the proposed
hurricane barriers would result in a change in tidal amplitude of 5 and 10 percent over a range of various
tidal conditions when twenty-five vertical lift gates were added to the barriers. This impact is expected to
have a minimal effect on the overall health of the Galveston Bay but will still need to be verified to ensure
the project complies with all NEPA requirements.
4.3. South Region - Brazoria County

recommends South Region Alternative #2 (SR#2) - Freeport Hurricane Flood Protection System
Modernization with Extension North toward Angleton, Jones Creek Levee, Jones Creek Terminal Ring Levee,
and Chocolate Bayou Ring Levee as the alternative that best supports surge protection in the Brazoria
County region of the study area. SR#2 provides a region-wide reduction in storm surge that extends from
the coast at Freeport to Angleton and provides enhanced protection for the community of Jones Creek and
the industrial complexes located along Jones Creek and Chocolate Bayou.

The study team developed two alternatives that evaluated the current Freeport Hurricane Protection
System (HPS) as well as areas outside of the system that will require protection within 2085. (Figure 19)
Alternative SR#1 consisted of evaluating the existing Freeport HPS and the development of extensions to the
system to keep surge from running around the ends in 2085.
Alternative SR#2 included the evaluation of the Freeport HPS and other areas within the region outside the
HPS that will become vulnerable in 2085.
Page 28
South Region Alternatives

Brazoria County and Galveston County (vicinity of San Luis Pass)
South Region Alternative #1 (SR#1) - Freeport Hurricane Flood Protection System Modernization and
Extension North toward Angleton
South Region Alternative #2 (SR#2) - Freeport Hurricane Flood Protection System Modernization and
Extension North toward Angleton- Jones Creek Levee, Jones Creek Terminal Ring Levee, and Chocolate
Bayou Ring Levee
Figure 19: South Region Alternatives Selected for Development
Page 29
Table 8 provides a summary and a side-by-side comparison for each alternative.

Table 8: Comparison of Alternatives SR#1 and SR#2
South Region Alternative
Summary and Comparison
SR#1 - Freeport Hurricane

Flood Protection System
Modernization and Extension
North toward Angleton

Pump stations required / total
capacity (CFS)
Construction cost
Annual operations and
maintenance cost
Benefit - Cost Ratio (TAB/TAC)
(3.125% Interest Rate)
49.1 miles
73 acres
2 / 2,500 CFS
SR#2- Freeport Hurricane Flood Protection

System Modernization and Extension North
toward Angleton- Jones Creek Levee, Jones
Creek Terminal Ring Levee, and Chocolate
Bayou Ring Levee
74.2 miles
383 acres
5 / 11,460 CFS
49 acres
$1,897,635,000
$9,488,000
129.89 acres
$2,571,551,000
$12,858,000
103,981,000
$186,583,000
1.79
140,907,000
$206,654,000
1.47
SR#1 and SR#2 are both technically feasible and constructible alternatives with good BCRs. SR#2 includes
three additional segments and provides more benefits overall to the south region. However, the additional
cost of constructing these segments is greater than the additional benefits which has reduced the BCR when
compared to SR#1
Figure 20: Surge reduction 100-year event in 2085 with SR#2
Page 30
During the Phase 3 public meetings, local elected officials and the public were very supportive of SR#2. SR#2
greatly expands surge protection to residential and industrial areas that currently do not have protection.
The proposed extension of the Freeport HPS across Oyster Creek northward to Angleton and the ring levee
around the petrochemical complex at Chocolate Bayou were both viewed very favorably. The Chocolate
Bayou Complex is a major employer in the region and contributes significantly to the overall tax base.
The current line of protection for the Freeport HPS runs along the front face of Port Freeports docks. The
port is concerned that the proposed modifications to the HPS will further impact their ability to conduct
operations efficiently. The Port would like to move the alignment away from their docks in the future. The
requested move is an issue that will have to be evaluated during preliminary engineering and design and
closely coordinated with USACE and FEMA.
USACE is currently evaluating the Freeport HPS under their Sabine Pass to Galveston study. For Freeport,
USACE has recommended the modernization of the Freeport HPS to meet the required standards for surge
protection in 2080. These modifications include levee raises in vulnerable sections and the construction of a
navigation gate at the Dow barge canal. The installation of the gate is more cost effective than raising the
levees along the canal. USACE did not look at extending the system and their scope of work for this study
did not include areas outside the HPS. They will be evaluating the Chocolate Bayou region as part of their
Texas Coastal Study program.
4.4. Study Area Summary

Table 9 clearly illustrates that there are technically and economically feasible and environmentally
sustainable alternatives that are supported by the public which will provide storm surge reduction in the sixcounty area. These alternatives should not be viewed as being mutually exclusive. Implementing a single
region alternative only buys down risk in that area leaving the other regions vulnerable. Any storm-related
loss has a lasting effect on the local, regional, state, and national economies.
Table 9: Study Area Summary

Right of way required (acres)
Pump stations required / total
capacity (CFS)
($ thousands)
Construction cost ($thousands)
Annual Operations and maintenance
cost ($thousands)
Benefit - Cost Ratio
(TAB/TAC) (3.125% Interest Rate)
North
Region
NR#2
92
1,401
14/31,600
Central Region
CR#1 + Clear Lake +
Galveston Ring Levee
114
1,278
0/0
South
Region
SR#2
71
383
5/15,100
Study Area Plan

(NR#2 + CR#1 +
SR#2)
277
3,062
19/46,700
72,075
72,075
3,228,579
16,143
5,832,095*
29,160
2,571,551
12,857
11,632,225
58,160
176,910
140,872
0.80
319,569
1,029,399
3.22
140,907
206,654
1.47
637,386
1,296,056
2.03
Page 31
The total cost for implementing the GCCPRD Study Area Plan is $11.6 billion with a BCR of 2.03. The federal
government invested $14.5 billion dollars for hurricane protection for New Orleans following Hurricane
Katrina protecting a population of 900,000 people. The upper Texas Coast has a population of more than six
million people, generates over 31 percent of the states $1.4 trillion GDP, and has a significant role in our
nations energy and national security.
The results of the GCCPRD Storm Surge Protection Study clearly illustrate the compelling need for a storm
surge protection system in the six-county region. The recommendations put forward in this report establish
a framework for an actionable plan.
The study is a call to action for local, state, and federally elected officials to become advocates for coastal
protection and to seek the required funding to advance these efforts beyond planning to the actual design
and construction of the system. The entire region will remain at risk until the full system is built.
Page 32
5. The Way Ahead

The technical information in this study was gathered through the teams diligent efforts to understand what
the threats and risks are to people, the economy, and the environment associated with tropical events and
identifies the measures that need to be taken to mitigate those risks. The six-county region is an extremely
large area for a planning study of this nature, and unfortunately, our resources were limited, which required
the team to make numerous assumptions throughout the process. Many of these assumptions will have to
be validated during preliminary engineering and design before construction can begin.
The recommended alternatives are all technically and economically feasible, environmentally sustainable
and actionable. To move the recommended plans forward to preliminary engineering design and
construction the following actions should be completed:
The evaluation of the environmental impacts that the proposed gate and barrier system at Bolivar
Roads will have on Galveston Bay and the estuary system. The evaluation should include the
following elements for analysis:
o Threatened and Endangered Species
o Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
o Environmental modeling to determine water quality, dissolved oxygen, water circulation,
sediment transport, and circulation impacts
Optimization of each recommended alternative to reduce cost and maximize benefits. Specific
optimization measures include:
o Continue to work with TAMUG to finalizing preliminary design concepts and the alignment
of the coastal spine
o Conduct geotechnical review and analysis to include selected soils borings and cone
penetrometer testing to validate the subsurface soil conditions, which will drive foundation
design and subsequent cost. Geotechnical review and analysis are especially important for
the barrier at Bolivar Roads.
o Develop a Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) to ensure the levee section between Rose City and
Bridge City is included in federal plans
o Analyze an alternate navigation gate system at the Bolivar Roads to reduce costs and
maintain benefits
o Continue to work with SSPEED to define the feasibility of a second line of defense in
Galveston Bay to enhance protection of the west side communities and Houston Ship
Channel industries
o Continue to work with Port Freeport and Velasco Drainage District on the alignment of the
recommended extension and upgrades to the Freeport Hurricane Protection System
Economics
o Continue to work with industry and the Texas Chemical Council to better understand
tropical storm-related surge risks to the regions petrochemical industries and to refine the
damage curves for these assets
o Conduct field investigations to verify actual residential slab elevations versus model derived
elevations
o Continue to work with SSPEED to develop depth-damage curves for industrial tanks and
capture these benefits in HEC-FDA
Page 33
Appendices
Appendix A Phase 3 Public Meeting Summary
Appendix B Phase 1 Report: Data Collection
Appendix C Phase 2 Report: Technical Mitigation

GCCPRD Phase 3 Report - Recommended Actions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GCCPRD Phase 3 Report - Recommended Actions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GCCPRD Phase 3 Report - Recommended Actions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GCCPRD

The Gulf Coast Community

June 21, 2016

Storm Surge Suppression Study

Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................1

North Region: Jefferson and Orange Counties ............................................................................1

Central Region: Chambers, Harris and Galveston Counties .........................................................2

South Region: Brazoria County ....................................................................................................4

Recommended Alternatives ................................................................................................................1

Study Area Summary............................................................................................................................5

Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District (GCCPRD) ...................................................8

Study Purpose ......................................................................................................................................8

Phase 1 and Phase 2.............................................................................................................................9

Phase 3 - Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................9

Identifying the Threat Now, in 2035, and 2085 ................................................................................10

Storm Simulations ............................................................................................................................. 10

Return Frequency Analysis................................................................................................................ 11

Preliminary Design Elevations ........................................................................................................... 14

Economic Evaluation: What needs to be protected? ....................................................................... 14

Technical Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 16

Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................. 17

Recommended Alternatives ............................................................................................................19

North Region Alternatives - Jefferson and Orange Counties ............................................................ 19

Central Region - Chambers, Harris and Galveston Counties............................................................. 23

Basis of Recommendation ........................................................................................................ 23

South Region - Brazoria County ........................................................................................................ 28

Basis of Recommendation ........................................................................................................ 19

Basis of Recommendation ........................................................................................................ 28

Study Area Summary......................................................................................................................... 31

The Way Ahead ..............................................................................................................................33

Phase 3 Report Recommended Actions

Storm Surge Suppression Study

Phase 3 Report Recommended Actions

Storm Surge Suppression Study

1.1. Recommended Alternatives

Phase 3 Report Recommended Actions

Storm Surge Suppression Study

Figure 1: Recommended North Region Alternative (NR#2) - Levees Only

NR#2 - The Jefferson/Orange Protection System

1.1.2. Central Region: Chambers, Harris and Galveston Counties

Phase 3 Report Recommended Actions

Storm Surge Suppression Study

Figure 2: Recommended Central Region Alternative (CR#1) - Coastal Spine

CR#1 - High Island to San Luis Pass Coastal Spine

Storm Surge Suppression Study

1.1.3. South Region: Brazoria County

Figure 3: Recommended South Region Alternative (SR#2)

Phase 3 Report Recommended Actions

Storm Surge Suppression Study

Table 3: SR#2 Technical Details

Total length of the system (miles)

SR#2- Freeport Hurricane Flood Protection System

1.2. Study Area Summary

Total length of the system (miles)

Phase 3 Report Recommended Actions

Storm Surge Suppression Study

Phase 3 Report Recommended Actions

Storm Surge Suppression Study

Phase 3 Report Recommended Actions

Storm Surge Suppression Study