The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLEASURE ISLAND - ROAD EROSIONDLLORIS "BOBBIE" PRINCE, MAYOR - MICHAEL "SHANE" SINEGAL, MAYOR PRO-TEN COUNCIL MEMBERS: JACK CHATMAN, JR. CALJONES THOMAS J. HENDERSON MARTIN FLOOD JOHN BEARD, JR. ROBERT E. WILLIAMSON WILLIE "BAE^.LEW1S April 28, 2008 Mr. Jimmy Dike, Director Pleasure Island Commission 520 Pleasure Pier Boulevard Port Arthur, Texas 77640 Ciry of C/ ort Qrthu ,1 G Texas RE: (1) Pleasure Island Erosion (2) Maintenance Of Levy roads (3) Marina Update Dear Mr. Dike: PLEASURE ISLAND EROSION STEPHEN FITZGiBBONS CITY bIANAGER TERRI HANKS ACTiNC CITY SECRETARY -b1ARK T. SOKOLOW CITY ATTOILNEY At the last Council meeting, Councilmember Beard requested a joint meeting with the City Council, Pleasure Island Commission, Jefferson County Commissioner's Court, Port of Port Arthur Commissioners and the Jefferson County Navigational District Board to discuss Pleasure Island erosion issues. Mayor Prince, Jeff Branick and I met on April 7th on Island erosion; at, I believe, the request of Mr. Branick. I am attaching a copy of a memo I sent to Councilmember Beard on Island erosion issues. Please let me know how the Island Commission would like to proceed. I would be happy to try to arrange a meeting with Mr. Branick to see what ideas or suggestions he might have on how best to address the issue. MAINTENANCE OF THE LEW ROADS John Comeaux has told me that he will have crews do maintenance on both the north and south levy road beginning in the next two or three weeks. It would be helpful if you could have the right-of-way cut prior to this work being started. Also, I have received calls regarding litter along the roads. One caller told me he called the Pleasure Island Commission office regarding litter and was directed to call me. I informed the caller that the City was not responsible for Esland litter control. MARYNA UPDATE On October 30, 2007, the Council. and Island Commission. met on Marina repair or reconstruction and a number of other issues. Any update you could provide on when you believe you will have cost estimates for marina repair and reconstruction would be helpful. Sincerely, SE~tz ibbonLJ~~s ~ City Manager cc: Mayor & Council Terri Hanks, Acting City Secretary - Mark Sokolow, City Attorney Jeff Branick, First Assistant to the Jefferson County Judge P.O.80X 1089 • POflT AflTHUfl, TEXAS 77 641-1 089 •409/983-8115 • FAX 409/983-8291 TO: Councilmember 7~ Beard FROM: Steve Fitzgibbons, ity Manager DATE: April 18, 2008 RE: Pleasure Island Erosion Issues I believe the County is receiving about $1;300,OD0 from Coastal Impact Assessment.Program,(CIAP) .funds as part of an allocation made by the State to the State's Coastal counties. My understanding is these are Federal funds that come from some of the revenues related to offshore. drilling that the Federal government provides to the affected states. 8 believe the County has used this CIAP allocation as match to receive $750,000 in General Land Office (GLO) funds for erosion control. I do not think the County has received the $1,300,000 in CIAP funds yet, but it has received the $750,000 in GL0 funds. I believe the Ce-unty is currently using some of the GLO funds for erosion control on the Island, particularly around the Cajun Cabins and Golf Course. Once the County receives the $1,300,000 in CIAP funds, I am not sure how they wil6 be-used. E believe the County is also doing erosion control at Keith Lake and McFadden Beach. I believe the State has about $27,000,000 a year in CLAP funds that are available for grant applications. In 200Y=02, in a grant application to the GLO for $1,800,000 for Island erosion.control, the 25% match was shared by the County, City, Pleasure Island Commission, Port of Port Arthur and the Navigation District. It may be desirable to put the coalition back together to obtain match for the CIAP grant. I do not believe match is required, but match would probably make the applieation more competitive. The County would be the most logical lead applicant because they are already adrciieiistering CIAP fonds, and they are already working with an engineering firm. A few weeks ago, Mayor Prince and I met with Jeff Branick on a number of issues related to Island erosion. We discussed with Mr. ,Branick the possibility of recreating a coalition to again provide matehing funds to be used fora CIAP grant application foe Island erosion control. •We also discussed the. need to involve the Pleasure Island Commission in the decision making since the Commission is charged with fully managing, controlling, maintaining,. operating, and developing Pleasure Island. Branick said he would look into the coalition and other issues and-get back to us. Y am attaching a copy of an April 12, 2005 letter from Mr. Bill Worsham, P.E., concerning. Pleasure Island erosion needs and opportunities. iVieYn®randurn Date: -April 12, 2005 To: JimmyDike From: .Bill Worsham, P.E. , . Subject: Brief for Port Arthur city council about Pleasure Island erosion needs and opportunities This memo is intended to provide a brief overview of the needs and opportunities for protection of Pleasure Island against erosion. Although other location-specific needs may emerge as high priorities to the council; the current focus is on erosion along the ship channel shoreline. Objectives Define needs and opportunities, identify support, and pursue funding fof Pleasure Island shore protection. Backgrotand , • - The southeast side of Pleasure Island includes over i6 miles of shoreline facing ' the ship channels of the Sabine-Neches Waterway system. Of the total length; more than 4 miles are maintained by the federal government, mainly at the north end; nearly 7 miles are adjacent to state highways under TxDOT maintenance jurisdiction, mainly at the south end; and the remaining 5 miles in.the central ' -portion of the island aze leR to local interests to maintain. According to the Sabine Pilots, 2,113 ships transited the Sabine-Neches Waterway in 2004, an average of nearly six per day: Ship wakes are the primary cause of shore erosion for the entire length of the island. In past years the state erosion response program assisted the local community with shore protection of critically eroding locations on the island. Relatively short. segments of structural shore protection were constructed at Mesquife Point (Walter Umphrey Park), Cajun Cabins; a segment of T.B: Ellison Parkway, and a segment of The Palms Golf Course in 2000-2001. Approximately 75% of the ~ 1.8 million in project costs were paid by the state, with the remainder shared by a coalition of local agencies including the City of Port Arthur, Pleasure Island Commission, Port of Port Arthur, Jefferson County, and the Jefferson County Waterway & Navigation District. vnclFlc 1 N'I'HHNn'I'IONA1. r:NCINrrHwc~~~~--~ gp6 WEST 17TH STREET, SUITE 4, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701, PH 512-420-0604 Brief of Port Arthur City Council April 12, 2005 Page 2 of 2 • As originally envisioned, the state and local coalition would attempt to extend the original projects with funding obtained in subsequent cycles of the state erosion response program; however; a local cost share commitment has been lacking, and no construction occurred during the second or third biannual state funding cycles. • In 2004, Jefferson County reprogrammed over $400,000 of federal grant funds to extend the shore protection at The Palms Golf Course. In addition, JCWND contributed the cost.of engineering design services for the project. Needs and Opportunities ` • Slightly more than 1/10 of the 5 miles of island shoreline under local responsibility has been protected. However, the short segments built in 2001 are now being damaged at their ends because anticipated extensions have been postponed. • The most pressing needs azguably include the drydock access road, which is severely impacted and incurring damage at this time; Cajun Cabins, also severely impacted and incurring damage to the 2001 revetment as well as endangering at least one cabin; and the north end of the 2001 golf course bulkhead, suffering from flanking erosion of the adjacent (unprotected) shore. • Protection of the central part of the island from ship wakes is estimated to cost $4 million per mile, or $18 million for the remainder of the 5 miles. • A phased approach can be undertaken over the next several years, but several million dollars of work is needed now to avoid a backward step. • A state cost shaze partner will likely be available in the coming months to offset 60% to 75% of project costs if a local commitment of the remainder can be obtained. ~ ~ ' Possible Next Steps - ' Determine the council's interest in participating as a member of a local coalition to fund the local cost share. • Communicate with other coalition agencies regarding funding levels and executive responsibilities. Suggested coalition goal--$1 million of local funds to be leveraged into $2.5 to $4 million in total project funds. • Ensure that coalition priorities are established and give direction to executives to pursue matching funds-meet funding agency deadlines beginning in June 2005 for FY 2006 projects. ® Consider incorporating this and subsequent coalition projects in the annual budget process. vncl rlc IN'1'f ItNA'I'IONA i. - eNClNlaeawcr^'~ SOG WEST 17TH STREET, SUITE 4, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701, PH 512-420-0604