U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Planning Process Meeting

U.S. Army Corps of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Planning Engineers Planning

Process MeetingProcess MeetingSeptember 12, 2002

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersS a n F r a n c i s c o D i s t r i c t

Today’s Agenda

I.I. Introduction & Agenda OverviewIntroduction & Agenda Overview• District Commander Mike McCormick,

US Army Corps of Engineers

II.II. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project BackgroundU.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project Background• Tom Kendall, US Army Corps of Engineers

III.III. Review of Project Alternatives for Mainstem & TributariesReview of Project Alternatives for Mainstem & Tributaries• Ada Squires, Walter Yep , Inc.

IV.IV. Project Schedule Project Schedule • David Patterson, US Army Corps of Engineers

V.V. Questions & AnswersQuestions & Answers• Dave Dickson, MIG, Inc.

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersProject Background


A long history of floods & planning efforts…A long history of floods & planning efforts…

Background Information

1966 Federal Flood Control Act authorizes new project

1974-5 Local community declines to support any identified project alternative

1982/6 Flooding occurs along Salsipuedes/Corralitos Creeks

1995 Major flood event breaches River levees; flows exceed capacity

1997 Flooding occurs along Corralitos Creek

1998 Flooding occurs on Pajaro River mainstem

1999 Pajaro River mainstem is combined with Salsipuedes/Corralitos Creek project

2001 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agree to Community Planning Process

2002 Corps evaluating a range of alternatives including those emerging from the

Community Planning Process

National Economic Development (NED) PlanNational Economic Development (NED) Plan

Plan developed in complete detail to:

• Optimize flood damage reduction benefits consistent with protecting environmental quality.

Background Information

Federal InvestmentFederal Investment

• Benefits must exceed costs.

• Federal participation is capped by NED Plan.

Status of Vegetation Maintenance Plan

• Outcome of Operations & Management settlement will be considered in the final NED Plan.

• Roughness coefficient will not be less than value established in Interim Plan.

• Operations & Management manual to be developed after project construction.

Planning AssumptionsPlanning Assumptions

Selection of a Preferred Alternative

• Develop a NED Plan based on economic feasibility.

• Counties asked to comment and concur on preferred alternative(s).

• If local sponsors prefer a different plan, it is recognized as the Locally Preferred Plan.

• A recommended plan supported by the Local Sponsors is presented to Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters.

October 2002 through January 2003October 2002 through January 2003

Pajaro River Mainstem:Pajaro River Mainstem:

1. Raising in place

2. 100-foot set back

3. 225/100-foot setback

4. Floodwall in lieu of levee

5. Environmental corridor

Corps of Engineers Alternative Evaluation

Corralitos and Salsipuedes Creeks:Corralitos and Salsipuedes Creeks:

T1. Raise in place

T2. Setback

T3. Hybrid

Corps of Engineers Alternative Evaluation

Review of Project Alternativesfor Mainstem


Alternative 1 Features: Floodwalls/Levee Raise in Place

Level of Protection: 30 years Land Impacted: 56 acres

Reach 1:•Floodwall/Levee Height: ft•Setback Distance: ft on both sides •Vegetation Roughness:

Reach 1: Reach 1:•Floodwall/Levee Height: ft•Setback Distance: ft on both sides

•Reach 2: Reach 1:•Floodwall/Levee Height: ft•Setback Distance: ft on both sides


Reach 4:•Levee•No setbacks•Height: +4’•Vegetation: moderate

•Levee•No setbacks•Height: +4’•Vegetation: moderate

•Levee/Floodwall•No setbacks•Height: +4’•Vegetation: moderate

•Levee•No setbacks•Height: +4’•Vegetation: moderate

Cross Section Diagram: Floodwalls/Levee Raisein Place

Economic/Financial Feasibility: Floodwalls/Levee Raise in Place

LERRD’s $ 7.4 Construction 119.4E&D, S&A (15%) 19.0

Total Project Cost* $145.8

Annual Cost $ 10.4OMRR&R (1%) 1.2

Total Annual Cost $11.6

Benefits $15.8

Net Benefits $4.2

Benefit:Cost Ratio 1.36:1

Non-Federal Cost (25%) $36.4

* Total annual cost does not include environmental mitigation or cultural resource costs.

Preliminary Estimates in Millions:Preliminary Estimates in Millions:

Alternative 2 Features: 100-foot Setback

Level of Protection: 50 yearsLand Impacted: 290 acres plus

7 homes





Reach 4:•Levee•100’ setbacks•Height: 12’ (+5’)•Vegetation: variable

•Levee•100’ setbacks•Height: 12’ (+5’)•Vegetation: variable


•Levee/Floodwall•No setbacks•Height: 7’/+4’•Vegetation: variable

Cross Section Diagram: 100-foot Setback

* Representative section; will actually vary by location.

Economic/Financial Feasibility: 100-foot Setback



Annual Cost $ 12.7OMRR&R (0.6%) 0.8


Benefits $16.1

Net Benefits $2.6





Alternative 3 Features: 225/100-foot Setback


7 homes





Reach 4:•Levee•100’ setbacks•Height: 12’ (+5’)•Vegetation: variable



•Levee/Floodwall•No setbacks•Height: 6’/+4’•Vegetation: variable

Cross Section Diagram: 225/100-foot Setback


Economic/Financial Feasibility: 225/100-foot Setback





Benefits $16.8

Net Benefits $3.2





Alternative 4 Features: Floodwall In-lieu of Levee

Level of Protection: 30 years Land Impacted: negligible


Reach 1:•Floodwall•No setbacks•Height:12’ (+24’ below)•Vegetation: moderate

Reach 1:•Floodwall/Levee Height: ft•Setback Distance: ft on both sides






Cross Section Diagram: Floodwall In-lieu of Levee

Economic/Financial Feasibility: Floodwall In-lieu of Levee





Benefits $15.8

Net Benefits -$10.0





Alternative 5 Features: Environmental Corridor


7 structures





Reach 4:•Levee•100’ setbacks •Height: 12’ (+5’)•Vegetation: high

•Levee•100’ setbacks •Height: 12’ (+5’)•Vegetation: high

•Levee•100’ setbacks •Height: 12’ (+5’)•Vegetation: high

•Levee/Floodwall•No setbacks •Height: 7’/+4’•Vegetation: moderate

Cross Section Diagram: Environmental Corridor


Economic/Financial Feasibility: Environmental Corridor





Benefits $12.0

Net Benefits -$1.3





Economic/Financial Feasibility Comparison(Preliminary Estimates in Millions): All Mainstem Alternatives

Alt 1Fwalls/Levee

Alt 2100’

Setback

Alt 3225/100’Setback

Alt 4Floodwall

Alt 5Env’l

Corridor

Total Project Cost

$145.8 $175.4 $177.3 $322.2 $175.4

Total Annual Cost

$11.6 $13.5 $13.6 $25.8 $13.3

Benefits $15.8 $16.1 $16.8 $15.8 $12.0

Net Benefits $4.2 $2.6 $3.2 -$10.0 -$1.3

Benefit:Cost Ratio

1.36:1 1.19:1 1.24:1 0.61:1 0.90:1

Non-Federal Cost (25%)

$36.4 $43.9 $44.3 $80.5 $43.9

LOP 30 yrs 50 yrs 65 yrs 30 yrs 25 yrs

Review of Project Alternativesfor Tributaries


Concepts evaluated for hydraulic proficiency:Concepts evaluated for hydraulic proficiency:

T1. Raise in place

T2. Setback

T3. Hybrid

Flood Protection Concepts for the Creeks

Cross Section Diagram: Salsipuedes Creek


Cross Section Diagram: Corralitos Creek


Alternative T1 Features: Raise in Place

Reach 1:•Floodwall/Levee Height: ft•Setback Distance: ft on both sides •Vegetation Roughness: n =

•Levee/Floodwall•No setbacks•Height: +3.5’/2’ (4’ below)•Vegetation: moderate to high•College Lake•LOP: 50 years•Land impacted: 12 acres

Highway 152 Bridge•Replaced

Green Valley Road Bridge•Replaced

Highway 129Bridge•Replaced

Economic/Financial Feasibility: Raise in Place





Benefits $28.8

Net Benefits $26.3

Benefit:Cost Ratio 11:1




Alternative T2 Features: SetbackHighway 152 Bridge•Replaced



Reach 1:•Floodwall/Levee Height: ft•Setback Distance: ft on both sides •Vegetation Roughness: n =

•Levee/Floodwall•100’ setbacks•Height: 5’/1’ (2’ below)•Vegetation: moderate to high•College Lake•LOP: 50 years•Land impacted: 65 acres & 17 structures

Economic/Financial Feasibility: Setback





Benefits $28.8

Net Benefits $26.2





Non-Federal Cost SharingNon-Federal Cost Sharing

• 25-50%

• Includes LERRD cost and 5% of project first cost

Economic/Financial Feasibility Information

September 12, 2002

Alternative T3 Features: HybridHighway 152 Bridge•Replaced




•Levee/Floodwall•150’ setbacks•Height: 8’/2’ (4’ below)•Vegetation: moderate •LOP: 100 years•Land impacted: 75 acres

Alternative T3 Features: Hybrid (continued)


Orchard Park:•Levee/Floodwall•No setbacks•Height: 7.5’/3’ (6’ below)•LOP: 100 years

Highway 152 Bridge•Replaced




College Lake:•Concrete channel•No setbacks•Height: 4’•LOP: 100 years

Economic/Financial Feasibility: Hybrid





Benefits $29.7

Net Benefits $26.4





Economic/Financial Feasibility Comparison(Preliminary Estimates in Millions): All Tributary Alternatives

Alt T1Raise in Place

Alt T2Setback

Alt T3Hybrid

Total Project Cost $35.1 $38.8 $34.7

Total Annual Cost $2.5 $2.6 $3.3

Benefits $28.8 $28.8 $29.7

Net Benefits $26.3 $26.2 $26.4

Benefit:Cost Ratio 11:1 11:1 9:1

Non-Federal Cost $8.8 (25%) $19.4 (50%) $12.7 (37%)

LOP 50 yrs 50 yrs 100 yrs

Alternatives with Best Potential (Preliminary Estimates): Comparing Range of Costs & Non-federal Dollars

Combination Alt 1 & T1 Alt 3 & T3

Total Project Cost $181 million $212 million

Non-Federal Cost $45 million $57 million

Level of Protection 30 & 50 yrs 65 & 100 yrs

Land Impacted 68 acres 405 acres + 7 homes

Project Schedule


Project Schedule

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

2003 2004 2005

1st 2nd 3rd 4th4th

2006‘02

Develop Selected Plan(s)

USFWS Prepare HEP & dCAR

Prepare dEIS/R & dGRR

Public Review of dEIS/R

Prepare fEIS/R & fGRR

1st Construction Phase

Prepare Plans & Specs

1st Construction Period

2nd Construction Phase

Prepare Plans & Specs

2nd Construction Period

NED Plan Development Process

Task Date

• COE & local sponsors identifythe NED Plan February 2003

• Preferred plan(s) potentaillymodified by USFWS HEP/CAR July 2003

• COE & local sponsors distribute draft EIR/EIS for public review September 2003

• Public review period of draft EIR/EIS ends December 2003

• COE & local sponsors distributefinal EIS/EIR for public review June 2004

NED Plan Development Process (continued)

Task Date

• COE & local sponsors submit final EIR/EIS & GRR for approval July 2004

• Division Engineer’s Notice/ROD August 2004

• 1st Phase Construction begins July 2005

• 2nd Phase Construction begins May 2006

• Financial close-out & turn-overto local sponsors June 2007

Questions & Answers


U.S. Army Corps of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Planning Engineers Planning

Process MeetingProcess MeetingSeptember 12, 2002


Reserve Slides

Project Alternatives – Mainstem

100-foot Setback

Alternative 2

Floodwalls/Levee-Raise In

Place

Alternative 1 Alternative 3

225/100 foot Setback

• Level of Protection: 30 yrs• Levee• No setbacks• Height: +4’• Vegetation: moderate

• Level of Protection: 50 yrs• Levee• 100’ setbacks• Height: 12’• Vegetation: variable

• Level of Protection: 65 yrs• Levee• 225/100’ setbacks• Height: 12’• Vegetation: variable

Project Alternatives – Mainstem

Environmental Corridor

Alternative 5

FloodwallIn-lieu of

Levee

Alternative 4

• Level of Protection: 30 yrs• Floodwall • No setbacks• Height: 12’ (+24’ below)• Vegetation: moderate

• Level of Protection: 25 yrs• Levee• 100’ setbacks• Height: 12’• Vegetation: high

Project Alternatives – Tributaries

Setback

Alternative T2

Raise in Place

Alternative T1 Alternative T3

Hybrid

• Level of Protection: 50 yrs• Levee/Floodwall• No setbacks• Height: +3.5’/2’ (4’ below)• Vegetation: moderate to high

• Level of Protection: 50 yrs• Levee/Floodwall• 100’ setbacks• Height: 5’/1’ (2’ below)• Vegetation: moderate to high

• Level of Protection: 100 yrs Levee/Floodwall

• 250’ setbacks• Height: 8’/2’ (4’ below)• Vegetation: moderate • College Lake & Orchard Park

included

Documents

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Planning Process Meeting