Stakeholder Mtg8 May12 03

Slide1: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Stakeholder Meeting #8 May 12, 2003

Slide2: 

Today’s Agenda Introduction & Agenda Overview LTC Michael McCormick, District Commander, US Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project Background Tom Kendall, US Army Corps of Engineers Review of Project Alternatives for Mainstem & Tributaries Ada Squires, Walter Yep , Inc., Part 1

Slide3: 

Today’s Agenda Project Schedule Tom Kendall, US Army Corps of Engineers Selection of a Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) by Sponsors Bruce Laclergue, Santa Cruz County Curtis Weeks, Monterey County Questions & Answers Dave Dickson, MIG, Inc. Part 2

Slide4: 

Mission Statement U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Provide service to the Army and the Nation by designing, building, operating, maintaining and permitting civil works projects that build the nation’s long-term economic might in an environmentally sustainable way. On order execute Federal Response Plan requirements in support of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Slide5: 

Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address Fellow-Countrymen: At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came. One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.“ With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.11

Slide6: 

Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address “…On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came… …Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other… … The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. … … With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

Slide7: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Project Background

Slide8: 

Community Planning Process: Public Meetings & Focus Groups

Slide9: 

Community Planning Process : Public Meetings & Focus Groups (continued)

Slide10: 

National Economic Development (NED) Plan Plan developed in complete detail to: Optimize flood damage reduction benefits consistent with protecting environmental quality. Background Information Federal Investment Benefits must exceed costs. Federal participation is capped by NED Plan.

Slide11: 

Results of September 12 Stakeholder Meeting Selection of a Preferred Alternative Redesign conceptual plans to achieve 100-year level of protection (LOP) Modify Raise in Place alternative to include 100- year LOP & replacement of the Main St. Bridge Formulate plans that provide 100-year LOP & limit setbacks to 100 feet (mainstem Alt 2A & tributary Alt T4) Work together with resource agencies to develop a plan that would assist in the conservation of steelhead & red-legged frog under Section 7 of the ESA

Slide12: 

Selection of a Preferred Alternative: Non-Structural Alternatives Retained for Further Evaluation

Slide13: 

Selection of a Preferred Alternative: Structural Alternatives Retained for Further Evaluation

Slide14: 

Review of Project Alternatives for Mainstem

Slide15: 

Alternative Features Comparison

Slide16: 

Vegetation Concept: Example of n = 0.04 on Mainstem

Slide17: 

Vegetation Concept: Example of n = 0.06 on Mainstem

Slide18: 

Vegetation Concept: Example of n = 0.075 on Mainstem

Slide19: 

Vegetation Concept: Example of n = 0.1 on Mainstem

Slide20: 

Alternative 1A Features: 9’ Levee Raise in Place Level of Protection: 100 yrs 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 3: Reach 1: Floodwall/Levee Height: ft Setback Distance: ft on both sides Reach 4: Levee No setbacks Height: 15’ (+9) Veg: n = 0.03 - 0.1 Levee No setbacks Height: 16’ (+9) Veg: n = 0.04 Levee No setbacks Height: 15’ (+9) Veg: n = 0.04 Levee No setbacks Height: 16’ (+8) Veg: n = 0.04 Thurwachter: Bridge raised Thurwachter: Bridge raised Thurwachter: Bridge raised Thurwachter: Bridge raised Thurwachter: Bridge raised Main St. Bridge: Replaced & raised Railroad Bridges: Replaced & raised Highway 1: Culverts constructed & bridge raised

Slide21: 

Roughness Coefficients by Reach: Alt 1A–Levee Raise of 9’ in Place

Slide22: 

Vegetation Concept: Alt 1A–Levee Raise of 9’ in Place (n = 0.04 in Reach 2)

Slide23: 

Economic/Financial Feasibility: Alt 1A–Levee Raise of 9’ in Place LERRD’s $ 33.5 Construction 193.7 E&D, S&A (15%) 34.1 Total Project Cost * $261.3 Annual Cost $ 18.0 OMRR&R (1%) 1.9 Total Annual Cost $19.9 Benefits $14.8 Net Benefits – $5.1 Benefit:Cost Ratio 0.74 * Total project cost does not include environmental mitigation or some urban relocation. Preliminary Estimates in Millions:

Slide24: 

Alternative 2A Features: Alt 2A–100’ Setback Level of Protection: 100 yrs 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 3: Reach 1: Floodwall/Levee Height: ft Setback Distance: ft on both sides Reach 4: Levee 100’ setbacks Height: 11’ (+5) Veg: n = 0.03 - 0.1 Levee 100’ setbacks Height: 12’ (+5) Veg: n = 0.04 Levee No setbacks Height: 10’ (+4) Veg: n = 0.04 Levee 100’ setbacks Height: 13’ (+5) Veg: n = 0.04 - 0.075 Thurwachter: Bridge raised Thurwachter: Bridge raised & widened Thurwachter: Bridge raised Thurwachter: Bridge raised Thurwachter: Bridge raised Main St. Bridge: Bridge retained Railroad Bridges: Replaced & raised Highway 1: Culverts constructed & bridge widened

Slide25: 

Roughness Coefficients by Reach: Alt 2A–100’ Setback

Slide26: 

Vegetation Concept: Alt 2A–100’ Setback (n = 0.04 in Reach 2)

Slide27: 

Economic/Financial Feasibility: Alt 2A–100’ Setback LERRD’s $ 22.7 Construction 130.7 E&D, S&A (15%) 23.0 Total Project Cost * $176.4 Annual Cost $ 12.2 OMRR&R (0.75%) 1.0 Total Annual Cost $13.2 Benefits $14.9 Net Benefits $1.7 Benefit:Cost Ratio 1.13 Non-Federal Cost (25%) $44.1 * Total project cost does not include environmental mitigation. Preliminary Estimates in Millions:

Slide28: 

Alternative 3 Features: Alt 3–225/100’ Setback Level of Protection: 100 yrs 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 3: Reach 1: Floodwall/Levee Height: ft Setback Distance: ft on both sides Reach 4: Levee 100’ setbacks Height: 12’ (+6) Veg: n = 0.03 - 0.1 Levee 225’ setbacks Height: 12’ (+5) Veg: n = 0.04 - 0.06 Levee No setbacks Height: 10’ (+4) Veg: n = 0.04 - 0.06 Levee 100’ setbacks Height: 13’ (+5) Veg: n = 0.04 - 0.075 Thurwachter: Bridge raised Thurwachter: Bridge raised & widened Thurwachter: Bridge raised Thurwachter: Bridge raised Thurwachter: Bridge raised Main St. Bridge: Bridge retained Railroad Bridges: Replaced & raised Highway 1: Culverts constructed & bridge widened

Slide29: 

Roughness Coefficients by Reach: Alt 3–225/100’ Setback

Slide30: 

Vegetation Concept: Alt 3–225/100’ Setback (n = 0.06 in Reach 2) Roughness n=0.06 Roughness n=0.06 Roughness n=0.06 Roughness n=0.04 Roughness n=0.04 Roughness n=0.04 Roughness n=0.04

Slide31: 

Economic/Financial Feasibility: Alt 3–225/100’ Setback LERRD’s $ 24.3 Construction 131.7 E&D, S&A (15%) 23.4 Total Project Cost * $179.4 Annual Cost $ 12.4 OMRR&R (0.6%) 0.8 Total Annual Cost $13.2 Benefits $14.8 Net Benefits $1.6 Benefit:Cost Ratio 1.12 Non-Federal Cost (25%) $44.9 * Total project cost does not include environmental mitigation. Preliminary Estimates in Millions:

Slide32: 

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

Slide33: 

Review of Project Alternatives for Tributaries

Slide34: 

Concepts evaluated for hydraulic proficiency: T1. Raise in place (50 year level of protection) T2. Setback (removed from consideration as of Sept 12) T3. Hybrid with Maximum 225’ Setback (100 year level of protection) T4. Hybrid with Maximum 100’ Setback (100 year level of protection) Flood Protection Concepts for the Creeks

Slide35: 

Tributary Creeks: Features Common to All 3 Alternatives LEVEES FLOODWALLS LEVEE/FLOODWALL COMBINATIONS RING LEVEE/FLOODWALL U-WALL CHANNELS/CULVERTS INTERIOR DRAINAGE CULVERTS BRIDGE REPLACEMENT/REMOVAL: HWY 129 (RIVERSIDE DR.) HWY 152 (EAST LAKE AVE.) GREEN VALLEY RD. (POSSIBLY)

Slide36: 

100’ wide existing channel corridor and n = 0.04 Existing Vegetation: Salsipuedes Creek (Pajaro Confluence Area)

Slide37: 

Existing Vegetation: Corralitos Creek 75-100’ wide existing channel corridor and n = 0.06

Slide38: 

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

Slide39: 

5 8 6 Feature Comparison: Tributary Alternatives

Slide40: 

Feature Comparison: Tributary Alternatives

Slide41: 

Combinations with Best Potential: Preliminary Estimates (Dollar Amounts in Millions)

Slide42: 

Project Schedule

Slide43: 

Selection of a Preferred Alternative Formulate plans that provide 100-year LOP & limit setbacks to 100 feet (mainstem Alt 2A & tributary Alt T4) Work together with resource agencies to develop a plan that would assist in the conservation of steelhead & red-legged frog under Section 7 of the ESA

Slide44: 

Tentative Project Schedule 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 2003 2004 2005 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 2006 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 Calendar Year 1st ‘07

Slide45: 

Local Sponsors’ Review & Input Process Resource Agencies COE Headquarters Selected Plan Draft Plan

Slide46: 

Project Milestones Task Tentative Date COE & local sponsors identify the draft NED plan(s) May 2003 Selected plan(s) potentially modified by resource agencies’ recommendations June 2003 COE initiates EIR/EIS process & Section 7 Consultation July 2003 Counties submit plan(s) to Boards for approval following receipt of plan September 2003 COE & local sponsors distribute draft EIR/EIS for public review March 2004

Slide47: 

Project Milestones (continued) Task Tentative Date Public review period of draft EIR/EIS ends June 2004 COE & local sponsors distribute final EIS/EIR for public review October 2004 COE & local sponsors submit final EIR/EIS & GRR for approval November 2004 Division Engineer’s Notice/ROD December 2004 1st Phase Construction begins December 2005 2nd Phase Construction begins October 2006 Financial close-out & turn-over to local sponsors November 2007

Slide48: 

Selection of a Locally Preferred Plan by Sponsors

Slide49: 

Local Sponsors’ Review & Input Process Resource Agencies COE Headquarters Selected Plan Draft Plan

Slide50: 

Questions & Answers

Slide51: 

Visit the Project Website at: http://www.pajaroriver.com/

Slide52: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Stakeholder Meeting #8 May 12, 2003