Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Task 4.5 Schedule <br />• Three months from delivery of draft data gaps. <br /> <br />Task 4.6 Feasibility Criteria for Shoreline Erosion Management <br />Consultant shall conduct an opportunities and constraints analysis, refine the project objectives, <br />and develop a set of feasibility parameters and criteria that will be used to develop and evaluate <br />the alternatives. Consultants shall identify the range in opportunities at the site relative to the <br />project's goal and objectives. The opportunities will represent high-level concepts that could <br />advance the restoration of the site toward the goal of improved habitat and resilience. The <br />consultant shall identify major constraints of the site to be used to further refine set of potential <br />restoration actions at the site. At this stage, consultant shall revisit and refine the project <br />objectives to provide realistic and practical guidance for identifying meaningful, feasible project <br />alternatives. Finally, consultant shall develop a set of feasibility parameters and criteria to guide <br />evaluation of conceptual alternatives. It is anticipate that the criteria will be based on the <br />refined objectives, and presented as a measurement of the project performance under a range <br />of considerations, including habitat, sea-level rise resilience, flooding, construction cost, <br />permitting feasibility, etc. <br /> <br />Task 4.6 Deliverables <br />Draft and Final Feasibility Criteria Memo in PDF format <br /> <br />Task 4.6 Schedule <br />• Seven months from NTP <br /> <br />Task 5 Design Development <br />Task 5 includes the development and evaluation of alternatives and progression of a preferred <br />alternative through conceptual design, as described in the following subtasks. <br /> <br />Task 5.1 Conceptual Design <br />Consultant shall develop design alternatives using the feasibility framework from Task 4.6. <br />Under this task the consultant shall: <br />• Develop up to three (3) alternatives to restore the site using a range of approaches: <br /> <br /> All-natural "soft" design-with-nature approaches, such as in-kind beach nourishment that <br />matches existing sand grain size <br /> <br /> Nature-based design that includes, but are not limited to, placement of coarse mixed <br />sand and gravel nourishment <br /> <br /> Other living shoreline strategies, including but not limited to, log drift-sills or similar groin- <br />like habitat structures, mixed large woody debris/vegetative stabilization structures, <br />offshore and/or nearshore reef structures, etc. <br /> <br />• Alternatives may include approaches that incorporate engineered elements if analyses <br />suggest they may be beneficial, provided that such engineered elements would be <br />compatible with the primary project goal and objectives related to enhancing long-term <br />resilience of important local beach and tidal salt marsh habitats <br />