DOCSLIB.ORG

Wellington International Airport Runway Extension Coastal Processes Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wellington International Airport Runway Extension Coastal Processes Assessment CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT Draft for the purposes of stakeholder consultation only. Wellington International Airport Runway Extension Coastal Processes Assessment PPreparedrepared for Wellington International Airport Ltd. DRAFTAugust 2015August 2015 1 September 2015 6.36 p.m. Prepared by: R.G. Bell For any information regarding this report please contact: Rob Bell Programme Leader: Hazards & Risk Coastal & Estuarine Processes +64-7-856 1742 [email protected] National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd PO Box 11115 Hamilton 3251 Phone +64 7 856 7026 NIWA CLIENT REPORT No: HAM2015-079 Report date: August 2015 NIWA Project: WIA15301 Quality Assurance Statement Reviewed by: Dr C. Stevens DRAFTFormatting checked by: Approved for release by: Image of Wellington International Airport in southerly swell on 25 June 2013. [Google Earth] This report should be referenced in the style of this example: Brown, R.A., Green, C.D., White, C. (2014). Monitoring benthic communities in the Kaipara Harbour. NIWA Client Report HAM2012-083: 135 prepared for Company X. © All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced or copied in any form without the permission of the copyright owner(s). Such permission is only to be given in accordance with the terms of the client’s contract with NIWA. This copyright extends to all forms of copying and any storage of material in any kind of information retrieval system. Whilst NIWA has used all reasonable endeavours to ensure that the information contained in this document is accurate, NIWA does not give any express or implied warranty as to the completeness of the information contained herein, or that it will be suitable for any purpose(s) other than those specifically contemplated during the Project or agreed by NIWA and the Client. 1 September 2015 6.36 p.m. Contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................. 7 1 Background ............................................................................................................. 15 2 Description of the Project ........................................................................................ 17 3 Assessment methodology ........................................................................................ 19 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 19 3.2 Desk-top analysis .................................................................................................... 20 3.3 Field surveys ........................................................................................................... 22 3.4 Modelling approach: coastal physical processes .................................................... 28 3.5 Assessment of effects criteria: policies/plans/statutes .......................................... 32 4 Existing environment ............................................................................................... 35 4.1 Coastal and geomorphic setting ............................................................................. 35 4.2 Coastal geology, sediment processes and characteristics ...................................... 38 4.3 Marine discharges and water/sediment quality ..................................................... 45 4.4 Winds ...................................................................................................................... 47 4.5 HydrodynamicDRAFT and wave processes for existing environment ............................... 49 5 Effects Assessment: Operation of Project ................................................................. 59 5.1 Description of operational effects .......................................................................... 59 5.2 Assessment of operational effects ......................................................................... 60 5.3 Relevant assessments against statutory plans/policies or guidelines .................... 82 6 Effects assessment: Construction activities ............................................................... 84 6.1 Description of construction effects ........................................................................ 84 6.2 Assessment of construction effects ........................................................................ 85 6.3 Assessment against statutory plans/policies or technical criteria and guidelines . 87 7 Mitigation and monitoring ....................................................................................... 89 7.1 Overview of effects on coastal physical processes ................................................. 89 7.2 Mitigation or avoidance measures ......................................................................... 90 7.3 Suggested coastal monitoring conditions ............................................................... 90 8 Summary and conclusions ........................................................................................ 92 Wellington International Airport Runway Extension: Coastal Processes 1 September 2015 6.36 p.m. 9 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. 93 10 Glossary of abbreviations and terms ........................................................................ 94 11 References ............................................................................................................... 96 Tables Table 3-1: Locations (WGS-84) and 2014 deployment information for the Lyall Bay instruments. 26 Table 5-1: Change in predicted wave heights locally at site P1 near The Corner as a result of the runway extension. 67 Table 5-2: Change in predicted wave heights locally at site P4 in the centre of inner Lyall Bay as a result of the runway extension. 68 Figures Figure 2-1: General layout for the south runway extension into Lyall Bay to develop a 2300 m Take Off Runway Available (TORA). 17 Figure 3-1: Sea-bed sediment sampling sites in Lyall Bay, Wellington. Contaminant sampling sites were 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12. 24 Figure 3-2: Extent of Lyall Bay infill bathymetry survey (black dashed line) shown against grey area collected from previous surveys. 25 Figure 3-3: Site map showing oceanographic instrument locations overlying the seabed bathymetry to WVD-53. 27 Figure 3-4: Delft3D-WAVE model grid (red) of south Wellington coast superimposed on DRAFTtop of the Delft3D-FLOW model grid (black) that also includes Wellington Harbour. 29 Figure 3-5: ARTEMIS finite-element model grid resolution in the area around the runway extension (left) existing runway; (right) proposed runway reclamation. 31 Figure 3-6: ARTEMIS model predicted surface water level as a result of a 1.5 m wave at the Cook Strait boundary with a wave period of 12 seconds (LEFT). Google Earth image of Lyall Bay taken on 24 July 2014 for a wave height of 1–1.5 m and a period ~10 seconds (RIGHT). 32 Figure 3-7: Areas of Conservation Value in Lyall Bay area (Tarakena Bay and Tauputeranga Island) in the Regional Coastal Plan. 33 Figure 4-1: Aerial photograph looking north on completion of the airport construction (21 Jan 1959). 36 Figure 4-2: Geomorphic features in Lyall Bay incl. the 1941 shoreline. 37 Figure 4-3: Multi-beam bathymetric data at 0.5 m resolution off the existing runway in Lyall Bay obtained by NIWA (Mackay and Mitchell, 2014). 38 Figure 4-4: Surface sea-bed sediments of Lyall Bay and Wellington south coast (from Arron & Lewis 1993). 39 Figure 4-5: Sand cover (cm) and the edge of bedrock estimated from an early geophysical survey of eastern Lyall Bay in 1971. 40 Figure 4-6: Historic bathymetric changes in Lyall Bay. 41 Wellington International Airport Runway Extension: Coastal Processes 1 September 2015 6.36 p.m. Figure 4-7: Aerial photograph of the beach at Moa Point showing the beach slope profile locations (transects #1-12). 43 Figure 4-8: (Right): Western end of Moa Point beach with coastal cliffs at top right; (Left): Central area of exposed rock dividing the beach into two shallow-indented coves, looking along the cuspated beach from the southern/eastern cove. 44 Figure 4-9: Wind roses for the Wellington area. 48 Figure 4-10: Wind rose derived from hourly records of wind speed and direction at Wellington Airport from 1962–2004. 48 Figure 4-11: Present-day tide marks at Wellington relative to WVD-53. 49 Figure 4-12: Alignment of the as-built Lyall Bay outfall (white line) and sites for the Baring Head NIWA wave buoy and a recording current meter (RCM) in Lyall Bay in September 1989. 51 Figure 4-13: Lyall Bay and Moa Point circulation zones during an ebb tide (top) and a flood tide (bottom). 52 Figure 4-14: Wave refraction and diffraction patterns during a southerly-swell event on 29 April 2015. 53 Figure 4-15: Surfing waves at The Corner viewed from the stormwater outlet adjacent to the eastern carpark (30 June 2015). 54 Figure 4-16: Significant wave height (Hs) vs mean zero-crossing wave period (Tz) distribution as a % of the entire 15-year Waverider buoy record off Baring Head. 55 Figure 4-17: Hs distributions (top) full distribution (in total days per year, i.e. number of 30 minute estimates in each 0.25 m Hs bins divided by 48, with a semi-log10 scale) and (bottom) partial cumulative distribution (proportion) showing that e.g. 99% of the time waves have a Hs<4.0 m. 56 Figure 4-18: Wave conditions averaged over the 55-day SWAN simulation, in Lyall Bay. 58 Figure 4-19: Distribution of Hs from 55-day simulation (top panel) and wave roses (joint
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Felixstowe Central and South
    Management Responsibilities SCDC: Fel 19.1 to Fel 19.3 SCDC Assets: Fel 19.1 Reinforced concrete block revetment with groynes, rock armour revetment in front of concrete wall, two fishtail breakwaters Fel 19.2 Concrete seawall with rock groynes, concrete splash wall, mass concrete seawall with promenade, timber groynes with concrete cladding Fel 19.3 Mass concrete sea wall with promenade, timber groynes with concrete cladding EA: Fel 19.4 to Fel 20.1 (with flood wall responsibility in SCDC frontages) EA Assets: Fel 19.2 / 19.3 Secondary flood wall Fel 19.4 Manor Terrace sea wall, concrete block-work revetment with toe piling, Landguard Common sea wall with concrete apron SMP Information Area vulnerable to flood risk: Approx. 7,017,000m² No. of properties vulnerable to flooding: 1071 Area vulnerable to erosion: Approx. 640,000m² (2105 prediction – no defences) No. of properties vulnerable to erosion: 111 Vulnerable infrastructure / assets: Felixstowe Leisure Centre, Bartlet Hospital, Felixstowe Docks, Martello Tower, Landguard caravan park, Harwich Harbour Ferry, Landguard Common, Landguard Fort, Orwell Estuary, Stour Estuary SMP Objectives To improve Felixstowe as a viable commercial centre and tourist destination in a sustainable manner; To protect the port of Felixstowe and provide opportunities for its development; To develop and maintain the Blue Flag beach; To maintain flood protection to residential properties; To maintain a high standard of ongoing defence to the area; To maintain existing facilities essential in supporting ongoing regeneration; To integrate maintenance of coastal defence, while promoting sustainable development of the hinterland; To maintain the historical heritage of the frontage; To maintain biological and geological features of Landguard Common SSSI in a favourable condition.
    [Show full text]
  • URBAN COASTAL FLOOD MITIGATION STRATEGIES for the CITY of HOBOKEN & JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY by Eleni Athanasopoulou
    ©[2017] Eleni Athanasopoulou ALL RIGHTS RESERVED URBAN COASTAL FLOOD MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR THE CITY OF HOBOKEN & JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY By Eleni Athanasopoulou A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School- New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Civil and Environmental Engineering Written under the direction of Dr. Qizhong Guo And approved by New Jersey, New Brunswick January 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION URBAN COASTAL FLOOD MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR THE CITY OF HOBOKEN & JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY by ELENI ATHANASOPOULOU Dissertation Director: Dr. Qizhong Guo Coastal cities are undeniably vulnerable to climate change. Coastal storms combining with sea level rise have increased the risk of flooding and storm surge damage in coastal communities. The communities of the City of Hoboken and Jersey City are low-lying areas along the Hudson River waterfront and the Newark Bay/Hackensack River with little or no relief. Flooding in these areas is a result of intense precipitation and runoff, tides and/or storm surges, or a combination of all of them. During Super-storm Sandy these communities experienced severe flooding and flood-related damage as a result of the storm surge. ii Following the damage that was created on these communities by flooding from Sandy, this research was initiated in order to develop comprehensive strategies to make Hoboken and Jersey City more resilient to flooding. Commonly used flood measures like storage, surge barrier, conveyance, diversion, pumping, rainfall interception, etc. are examined, and the research is focused on their different combination to address different levels of flood risk at different scales.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal and Ocean Engineering
    May 18, 2020 Coastal and Ocean Engineering John Fenton Institute of Hydraulic Engineering and Water Resources Management Vienna University of Technology, Karlsplatz 13/222, 1040 Vienna, Austria URL: http://johndfenton.com/ URL: mailto:[email protected] Abstract This course introduces maritime engineering, encompassing coastal and ocean engineering. It con- centrates on providing an understanding of the many processes at work when the tides, storms and waves interact with the natural and human environments. The course will be a mixture of descrip- tion and theory – it is hoped that by understanding the theory that the practicewillbemadeallthe easier. There is nothing quite so practical as a good theory. Table of Contents References ....................... 2 1. Introduction ..................... 6 1.1 Physical properties of seawater ............. 6 2. Introduction to Oceanography ............... 7 2.1 Ocean currents .................. 7 2.2 El Niño, La Niña, and the Southern Oscillation ........10 2.3 Indian Ocean Dipole ................12 2.4 Continental shelf flow ................13 3. Tides .......................15 3.1 Introduction ...................15 3.2 Tide generating forces and equilibrium theory ........15 3.3 Dynamic model of tides ...............17 3.4 Harmonic analysis and prediction of tides ..........19 4. Surface gravity waves ..................21 4.1 The equations of fluid mechanics ............21 4.2 Boundary conditions ................28 4.3 The general problem of wave motion ...........29 4.4 Linear wave theory .................30 4.5 Shoaling, refraction and breaking ............44 4.6 Diffraction ...................50 4.7 Nonlinear wave theories ...............51 1 Coastal and Ocean Engineering John Fenton 5. The calculation of forces on ocean structures ...........54 5.1 Structural element much smaller than wavelength – drag and inertia forces .....................54 5.2 Structural element comparable with wavelength – diffraction forces ..56 6.
    [Show full text]
  • COWI World-Wide
    COWI has over 7,000 employees COWI World-wide JANUARY 17, 2013 2 PANYNJ FLOOD BARRIER Ben C. Gerwick, Inc. › Internationally renowned engineering consulting firm HQ in Oakland, CA › History of creative solutions that minimize risk, cost, and time › Focused on constructability, serviceability, maintenance, and durability of structures in waterways and marine sites › Conceptual design, cost estimates planning, permitting, final design and construction support › Documentation & quality control › Decades of experience with government design criteria to streamline the approval and permitting process › Work is exemplified by New Orleans IHNC Floodgates, Braddock Dam, Olmsted Dam, and Chickamauga Lock. IHNC Swing Gate Tow 3 Select projects Experience › IHNC Lake Borgne Barrier (Design/ Constr. Supt.) › Montezuma Slough Salinity Barrier (Concept. Des./ Constr. Eng.) › Braddock Dam (Design/ Constr. Supt.) › Chickamauga Lock (Design/ Constr. Eng.) › Olmsted Lock and Dam (Design/ Constr. Eng.) › Venice Storm Surge Barrier (Conceptual Des.) › Yeong-Am Lift Gate (Conceptual Des.) 4 Venice Storm Surge Barrier Compressed air is used to raise gates during a storm. Gerwick performed detailed constructability review for this project. 5 Montezuma Slough Salinity Barrier Complex Radial gate structure for Salinity Barrier in the California Delta. Offsite prefabrication & float-in. 6 Chickamauga Lock Cofferdam, Chattanooga, TN 7 Olmsted Dam Construction Photos › Over 4,000-ton Elements have Been Placed with 1-Inch Accuracy in Six Degrees of Freedom JANUARY 17, 2013 8 PANYNJ FLOOD BARRIER Braddock Dam – Dam Segment Tow to Site Float-in of dam elements allows for minimal construction time, saving money and time 9 Braddock Dam, Pittsburgh, PA – Graving Site Two-Level Graving Dock for Float-in Shell 10 IHNC Hurricane Protection Project New Orleans, Louisiana Sector Gate (150') & • Gerwick is the Lead Designer Swing Gate (150') for the $1.3-billion design-build contract for the USACE Hurricane Protection Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Technology Fact Sheet Seawall and Revetment Technologyi
    Technology Fact Sheet Seawall and revetment technologyi 1) Introduction In every coastal area and beach in Indonesia, integrated coastal management will be applied. This is a process of coastal natural resource management and environmental services that integrate the activities of government, business and society covering horizontal and vertical planning, preserving land and marine ecosystems, application of science and management, so that this resource management will improve and be sustainable for the surrounding community welfare. Lack of understanding of coastal dynamics will lead the efforts to harness the economic potential even bring up new problems such as erosion and abrasion as well as accretion. Besides, the incidence of sea level rise and tropical storms will also lead to coastal erosion. Various efforts to solve the problems through the development of Seawall and revetment have been and some are being done by government, business and the society. Because the incidence of abrasion and erosion of beaches are scattered throughout Indonesia, the location that has a significant impact will be followed up in advance. Development of Seawall and revetment is one of the appropriate adapt technology in dealing with further damage of coastal and beaches. A) Feasibility of technology and operational necessities Seawall and revetment are structures that were built on coastline as a barrier of the mainland on one side and waters on the other. The function of this structure is to protect and keep the coastline from waves and to hold the soil behind the seawall. The seawall is expected to cease erosion process. On the north coast of Java, many cities are experiencing abrasion and erosion resulting from a decrease of land and sea-level rise.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix G. Flood Hazard Management Risk Areas
    APPENDIX G. FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT RISK AREAS This appendix contains a complete listing of the flooding and erosion related risk areas identified by the River and Floodplain Management Program staff during the preparation of the 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan. The approach to identifying and characterizing these risk areas varied from river to river and was influenced by both the characteristics of each river, and by the professional judgment of the team compiling this information. This risk identification was the first step in the development of project and program proposals contained in Appendices E and F of this Plan. These project and program recommendation are cross referenced in the last columns of this table. In many cases the magnitude of these risks described is not well understood but will be further evaluated through future technical studies and risk assessments. South Fork Skykomish River, Miller River, Maloney Creek, Tye River and Anthracite Creek (WRIA 7) In DS US Bank Flood or Channel Migration Risk Action Proposed Project RM RM Plan? 6.4 19.9 L, R South Fork Skykomish River Channel Migration Zone Y South Fork Skykomish Channel Migration Zone: Study and Map: Channel migration is a type of flood Conduct South Fork Skykomish River Channel Migration hazard. King County maps channel migration zones to Zone Study and Mapping. (Skykomish River, identify the extent of this flood hazard and regulate land use Unincorporated) in the affected areas. Historical and recent evidence indicates that this part of the South Fork Skykomish River is subject to channel migration. A South Fork Skykomish River channel migration zone study and map will be completed under this project for use by the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services in land use regulation within King County.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 7 Adaptation Strategies and Techniques for Coastal Properties
    Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council Shoreline Change SAMP Volume 1 CHAPTER 7 Adaptation Strategies and Techniques for Coastal Properties Table of Contents 7.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 2 7.1.1 Chapter Objectives .............................................................................................. 2 7.1.2 Defining Adaptation and Associated Concepts .................................................. 3 7.1.3 Choosing to Adapt: Choices and Challenges ....................................................... 5 7.1.4 Adaptation: A Rapidly Developing Field ............................................................. 7 7.2 Adaptation Tools and Strategies for Coastal Properties ....................................... 8 7.2.1 CRMC Guidance on Coastal Property Adaptation Tools and Strategies ............. 8 7.2.2 Site Selection ..................................................................................................... 10 7.2.3 Distance Inland ................................................................................................. 12 7.2.4 Elevation ........................................................................................................... 12 7.2.5 Terrain Management ........................................................................................ 13 7.2.6 Natural and Nature-Based Adaptation Measures ............................................ 16 7.2.7 Flood Barriers ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Flood Resilience Design Guidelines
    Coastal Flood Resilience Design Guidelines DRAFT — September 2019 Project Team Richard McGuinness, Deputy Director for Climate Change and Environmental Planning, BPDA Chris Busch, Assistant Deputy Director for Climate Change and Environmental Planning, BPDA Joe Christo, Senior Resilience and Waterfront Planner, BPDA Alison Brizius, Director of Climate and Environmental Planning, Boston Environment Department Alisha Pegan, Climate Ready Boston Coordinator, Boston Environment Department Consultant team Utile, Inc. Matthew Littell, Principal in Charge Nupoor Monani, Senior Urban Designer and Project Manager Jeff Geisinger, Director of Sustainability Drew Kane, Senior Planner Jessy Yang, Urban Designer Noble, Wickersham & Heart LLP Jay Wickersham Barbara Landau Kleinfelder Nathalie Beauvais, Principal Planner Nasser Brahim, Senior Planner Kyle Johnson, Staff Engineer HDR Pam Yonkin, Director of Sustainability & Resiliency for Transportation Jeremy Cook, Senior Economist Offshoots Kate Kennan Cover photo: Landslides Aerial Photography / Alex MacLean DRAFT — September 2019 Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the time and input from the following departments, staff, and community stakeholders. Boston Planning & City of Boston Development Agency Mayor Martin J. Walsh BPDA Board Disabilities Commission Timothy J. Burke, Chairman Kristen McCosh, Commissioner Carol Downs, Treasurer Sara Leung, Project Coordinator Michael P. Monahan Patricia Mendez, Architectural Access Specialist Theodore C. Landsmark Priscilla Rojas,
    [Show full text]
  • Concrete Armour Units for Rubble Mound
    ftt*attlsReserctt Mhlingrford CONCRETEARMOUR UNITS FOR RUBBLE MOUNDBREAKWATERS AND SEA WALLS: RECENTPROGRESS N I.f H Allsop BSc, C Eng, MICE Report SR 100 March 1988 Registered Office: Hydriulics Research Wallingford, Oxfordshire OXIO 8BA. Telephone: (X91 35381. Telex: 84.8552 This report describes work jointly funded by the Department of the Environment and the l,linistry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. The Department of the Environment contract number was PECD7 16152 for which the nominated officer rras Dr R P Thorogood. The Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food contribution was lrithin the Research Connission (Marine Flooding) CSA 557 for which the nominated officer was l{r A J ALlison. The work was carried out in the Maritime Engineering Department of Hydraulice Research, lfall-ingford under the rnanagementof Dr S I,l Huntington. The report is published on behalf of both DoE and I'|AFF, but any opinions expressed in this report are not necesearily those of the funding Departments. @ Crown copyright 1988 Publiehed by permission of the Controller of lter Majestyts Stationery Office. Goncrete,armour "unite.for' rubble mound breakwaters, sea val,ls and. revetuentsS recent :pfogf,eas, N lJ H Alleop Report SR 100, ilarch 1988 Eydraulics Reeearch, Wallingford Abetract ilany deep water breakrvatera constructed in,the laet 2O-50 years are of rubble sound construction, proteeted againat the effects of rave aetion by concrete armour nnite. Ttrese units are oftea of complex ehape; Ttrey are generally produced in unreinforced concrete ia eizee between around 2-50 tonnea depending apon the local water depth, the eeverity of the locel save eonditione, and on the efficiencl and: stsbiiity of the unit type selected.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 79 Systematic Study of Coastal Erosion Ahd
    CHAPTER 79 SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF COASTAL EROSION AHD DEFENCE WORKS ITS THE SOUTHWEST COAST Of IKDIA by U.S. MOM ** ABSTRACT* * The SouthWest eoast of India is subjected to severe erosion due to attack by waves and. tidal over- flow. Through the years the problem has intensified as beach front areas have become more extensively de- veloped and subject to greater damage from the foree of the sea. More than 300 kms of the eoast is subjec- ted to severe erosion due to constant attack by waves and tidal overflow, resulting in continuous recession, loss of valuable property and affecting many aspects of its economy* The paper presents the problem at the proper perspective. It deseribes the various physical factors of the Southwest eoast of India, namely the geomorphelogy, winds, waves, tides and currents, lit- toral drift, material characteristics, shore line and shore depth changes, effects of inlets and mudbanke. The study, evolution and development of different eeastal defense works and their behaviour and effecti- veness is also presented. IHTBODUCTIOH The Southwest coast of India rune north - south along the Arabian Sea and extends 560 kme. This ooast is characterised by a barrier strip of lowlying land between the Arabian Sea and a continuous chain of lagoons and backwaters. The eoast line has helped in establishing a number of minor ports, in addition to maintaining a flourishing fishing industry. It is in this coastal strip, that the industrial, agricultu- ral and other eoonomic activities of this region are concentrated (Fig.l). Deputy Director, Coastal Engineering Division, Kerala Engineering Eeseareh Institute, Peeehi, Kerala - IHDIA.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Annual Report
    Pierce County Flood Control Zone District PIERCE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 2016 ZONE DISTRICT Who We Are and What We Do The Pierce County Flood Control District is a special purpose district governed by a Board of Supervisors and an Executive Committee. The Board of Supervisors meets quarterly on the second Wednesday of January, April, July, and October and the Executive Committee meets the third Wednesday of each month. They authorize plans, budgets, project funding, and program and policy guidance. All meetings are held in the Pierce County Council Chambers at the Pierce County Courthouse and are open to the public. Agendas are posted at piercefloodcontrol.org. Members of the Pierce County Council serve as the Supervisors for the Flood Control Zone District. In 2016, the members included: Rick Talbert, Chair Joyce McDonald, Vice Chair Dan Roach, Third Member of Executive Committee Connie Ladenburg Jim McCune Doug Richardson Derek Young The Pierce County Flood District Advisory Committee makes recommendations to the Board on capital projects. Their meeting dates are posted on the Flood Control Zone District website: piercefloodcontrol.org. Their meetings are also open to the public. 2016 Advisory Committee Members: Ryan Mello—Chair Pat McCarthy Councilmember, Tacoma Pierce County Executive John Hopkins—Vice Chair Dave Morell Councilmember, Puyallup Unincorporated Pierce County Gary Brackett President, National Grouting Business Representative Systems Mike Brandstetter—WRIA 12 Clare Petrich Councilmember, Lakewood Commissioner, Port of Tacoma Mike Dahlem Steve Pruitt—WRIA 11 Public Works Director, Sumner James Rackley—WRIA 10 Russ Ladley Councilmember Natural Resources Director Bonney Lake Puyallup Tribe of Indians Charles West Jeff Langhelm—WRIA 15 Unincorporated Pierce County Public Works Director, Gig Harbor Battalion Chief, Key Peninsula Fire Dept Winston Marsh Mayor, Fife Ken Wolf Public Works Director, Orting Pierce County has had fifteen presidentially declared flooding disasters since 1962.
    [Show full text]
  • RCED-89-132 Water Resources: Corps of Engineers' Inspections Of
    : a United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable ‘GAO Robert C. Byrd, U.S. Senate I . ,_ a!&1;+-,:,; ; .m. .. : United States GAO General Accounting Office Cincinnati Regional Office Ciuciuuati Commerce Center 600 Vine Street, Suite 2100 Ciuciunati, OH 45202-2430 B-235390 August 7, 1989 The Honorable Robert C. Byrd United States Senate Dear Senator Byrd: This report responds to your request that we review the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ inspections of the work by Metric Constructors, Inc., a contractor for a flood protection project in West Williamson, West Vir- ginia. In your March 23, 1988, letter, you asked us to identify the types of inspection activities required by the Corps and to determine whether those activities were carried out in accordance with Corps procedures. During the course of our work, we briefed your office on our prelimi- nary results. Because we had not found anything at that time which would indicate that the Corps was lax in its inspection activities, your office agreed that additional work on this project was not necessary. Your office, however, requested that we prepare a written report describing the information we presented dt the briefing. The results of our review are summarized below and discussed in more detail in the appendixes. The Corps of Engineers’ contract with Metric Constructors, Inc., pro- Background vides for Metric to build a levee with a flood wall on the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River in West Williamson, West Virginia. This construction work, which will cost about $25 million, is part of a long-term flood pro- tection project that covers a large area in western West Virginia, south- western Virginia, and eastern Kentucky.
    [Show full text]