Okaloosa County BOCC — July 19, 2016 — LGFR application — reading text

defines the sediment budget, quantifies the volumetric bypassing objective and contains specific management strategies, which awards 5 points for the “Existing Inlet Management Plan”  ranking criteria. Has the Department received and approved an update to an existing Inlet Management Plan in the form of a current inlet management study/sediment budget analysis within the previous 10 years or does the project propose to conduct an update to an existing inlet management plan? Yes Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(2)(f)(2), the Department has received and approved an update to an existing Inlet Management Plan in the form of a current inlet management study/sediment budget analysis within the previous 10 years or proposes to conduct an update to an existing inlet management plan, which awards 5 points for the “Updated Inlet Management Plan” ranking criteria. Does the project propose to develop a new inlet management study to be submitted to the Department for adoption of an Inlet Management Plan? No. However, the proposed project follows the final implementation strategy (Strategy #4) from the most recent IMP and will provide greater flexibility in the future management of East Pass and the high-quality sand source(s) within the inlet. Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(2)(f)(3), the project proposes to develop a new inlet management study to be submitted to the department for adoption of an Inlet Management Plan, which awards 15 points for the “New Inlet Management Plan” ranking criteria. Enhanced project performance: The increased nourishment interval shall be estimated by the annual bypassing volume divided by the annual beach nourishment volume needed by a beach project within the area of inlet influence multiplied by 5 for a total of 5 points. Does the proposed inlet project increase the nourishment interval of the adjacent beach nourishment project? How? Yes. However, the expected annual bypassing volume from the impoundment basin has not yet been determined. At a minimum, the basin is expected to meet the bypassing deficiency of approximately 20,000 cy/yr. Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(2)(g)(3), the increase in annual bypassing volume of XX,000 cy divided by the annual beach nourishment volume needed by a beach within the area of influence multiplied by 5, which awards X/5 points for the “Enhanced Project Performance” ranking criteria. Availability of Federal Funds: Is the project Federally authorized by WRDA? No, however, the applicant is currently seeking additional funding and partnership with the USACE’s Regional Sediment Management Program. Please provide date of authorization expiration. ______ Does this project phase have a Federal Project Cooperative Agreement, or similar for the current phase? Provide a copy of the document. See comment above.  Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(1)(d), the projects has United States Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Congressional authorization for the requested project phase, which awards 5 points for the “Congressional Authorization of Project Phase” ranking criteria. Federal cost share percentage available for this project: NA Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(1)(d), the projects has available federal funds and a current United States Army Corps of Engineers project agreement executed for the requested project phase or projects listed in a United States Army Corps of Engineers work plan or current federal budget document, which awards 5 points for the “USACE Project Agreement” ranking criteria. Is this project funded through FEMA for storm repairs? No Provide a copy of the signed Project Worksheet. Pursuant to Rule 62B-36.006(1)(d), the projects has available federal funds and is a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) nourishment project (Category G or equivalent subsequent program for designed, constructed and routinely maintained beaches) with approved Project Worksheets, which awards 5 points for the “Availability of FEMA Funding” ranking criteria.