1 / 45

Stakeholder Meeting #6

Stakeholder Meeting #6. March 28, 2002. Today’s Agenda. Project Status Review of Project Alternatives for the Pajaro River Mainstem Overview of Army Corps of Engineers Process Detailed analysis of project alternatives. Continued public and stakeholder involvement.

amato
Télécharger la présentation

Stakeholder Meeting #6

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Stakeholder Meeting #6 March 28, 2002

  2. Today’s Agenda • Project Status • Review of Project Alternatives for the Pajaro River Mainstem • Overview of Army Corps of Engineers Process • Detailed analysis of project alternatives. • Continued public and stakeholder involvement. • Flood Protection Alternatives for Corralitos and Salsipuedes Creeks • Financial Overview March 28, 2002

  3. Project Status • Since June 2001 • Set out to achieve consensus on a single Flood Project Concept for Pajaro and tributaries. • Evaluated over 10 concepts to achieve 100-year flood protection. • Established agreement that final Project will involve a combination of flood project elements (“Hybrid” approach) including: • Some floodwalls/levee raising; • Bridge modification/replacements; • Some vegetation management; • Some dredging; • Some set-back onto agricultural land. March 28, 2002

  4. Project Status-Working Group Design Criteria • Design Criteria for Maximum Consensus • Urban Reach • No Set-back • Maximum Floodwall/Levee Raise 4 feet. • Agricultural Reaches • Maximum 100’ set-back on each side • Levee raise 5 feet. • Vegetation and Channel Roughness: • Need vegetation for stability, permitting, riparian habitat and maintainability • Levees need to be reconstructed • 100-Year Level of Protection-if possible March 28, 2002

  5. Alternative #1 Alternative #2 100-year Protection Hybrid Option Option with lower level of protection Alternative #1 a • 100 Year Protection • Reach 2: • 225’ Setback • 100 Year Protection upstream of RR Bridge • 30 Year Protection below RR Bridge Variation 100-year Protection Hybrid Option • 100 Year Protection • Reach 2: • 100’ Setback Alternatives Advanced by Working Group March 28, 2002

  6. Vegetation Roughness: • n=0.060 • Setback: • 100’ both sides • Floodwall/Levee: • 5.5’ above existing • Vegetation Roughness: • n=0.060 • Setback: • 225’ both sides • Floodwall/Levee: • 3’ above existing • Setback: • 0’ both sides • Floodwall/Levee: • 4’ above existing • Vegetation Roughness: • n=0.040 • Setback: • 100’ both sides • Floodwall/Levee: • 5’ above existing • Vegetation Roughness: • n=0.075 • Alternative 1 • May be supported by Regulatory Agencies • Not supported by Agriculture Stakeholders or Local Environmental Organizations Alternative 1: Hybrid with 100-year Protection Reach 1: Reach 2: Reach 3: Reach 4:

  7. Floodwall/Levee: • 5.5’ above existing • Setback: • 100’ both sides • Vegetation Roughness: • n=0.060 • Vegetation Roughness: • n=0.040 • Setback: • 100’ both sides • Floodwall/Levee: • 3’ above existing • Setback: • 0’ both sides • Floodwall/Levee: • 4’ above existing • Vegetation Roughness: • n=0.040 • Vegetation Roughness: • n=0.075 • Setback: • 100’ both sides • Floodwall/Levee: • 5’ above existing • Alternative 1a • May be supported by Agriculture Stakeholders • May not be permittable by Regulatory Agencies • Not supported by Local Environmental Organizations Alternative 1a: Variation Hybrid with 100-year Protection Reach 1: Reach 2: Reach 3: Reach 4:

  8. Alternative 2: Option with Lower Level of Protection Option for a Lower Level of Protection: • 30-year protection below urban area is a non starter • 50-year protection in all reaches has been modeled (preliminary): • 50-100 ft. setback on both sides in reaches1,2,4. • 4 ft. levee raise throughout all reaches. • Provides for 40,000 cfs protection (50 Year) with Alternative 1 roughness and three feet of freeboard. • Highest flow since 1940=30,000 CFS • FEMA insurance still required, but premiums reduced. • Other options from Army Corps of Engineers March 28, 2002

  9. Carried forward for in- depth analysis by Army Corps of Engineers Project Alternatives Alternative #1 and 1a Alternative #2 100-year Protection Hybrid Option Option with lower level of protection Floodwalls/Levee Raising Setbacks • No Set-backs • Levee/FW raise for 100-year flows • Raise heights of 7-10 ft • Velocities & Scour not likely to be permittable • 225’setback each side • Vegetation roughness to accommodate 300’ vegetated corridor • Requires 517 acres agricultural land. March 28, 2002

  10. Continued Stakeholder and Public Involvement Army Corps of Engineers To Evaluate Alternatives Selection of Recommended Plan Final Environmental Review and Analysis We are here! March 2002 - October 2002 January 2003 February 2003 – Summer 2003 Identify Alternatives For Further Study Corps of Engineers Process Overview • Counties asked to comment and concur on a recommended plan. • One recommended plan presented to Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters. • Final Draft EIR/EIS. • Public comment and response. • Certification under NEPA. • CEQA certification. • 3 alternatives from Stakeholder process will be carried forward. • Some alternatives will no longer be evaluated in depth. • Further hydraulic analysis • Cost estimating of alternatives • Benefit/Cost Analysis • Preliminary environmental analysis • Coordination Act consultation with USFWS and NMFS

  11. Continued Stakeholder and Public Involvement Army Corps of Engineers To Evaluate Alternatives Selection of Recommended Plan Final Environmental Review and Analysis We are here! March 2002 - October 2002 January 2003 February 2003 – Summer 2003 Identify Alternatives For Further Study Corps of Engineers Process Overview • Counties asked to comment and concur on a recommended plan. • One recommended plan presented to Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters. • Final Draft EIR/EIS. • Public comment and response. • Certification under NEPA. • CEQA certification. • 3 alternatives from Stakeholder process will be carried forward. • Some alternatives will no longer be evaluated in depth. • Further hydraulic analysis • Cost estimating of alternatives • Benefit/Cost Analysis • Preliminary environmental analysis • Coordination Act consultation with USFWS and NMFS

  12. Subject Focus Groups-June/Sept Stakeholder Meeting- October 2002 Stakeholder Meeting- June 2002 Further Evaluation of Project Alternatives Alternative #1 and 1a Alternative #2 Other Alternatives developed by the COE 100-year Protection Hybrid Option Option with lower level of protection Army Corps of Engineers is proceeding with detailed evaluation: Hydraulic Analysis Cost Estimates Benefit/Cost Analysis Preliminary Environmental Analysis Coordination Act

  13. Detailed Evaluation of Project Alternatives Hydraulic Analysis Cost Estimates Benefit/Cost Analysis Preliminary Environmental Analysis Coordination Act • Detailed alignments, heights, and effects of vegetation and roughness scenarios. • Risk and uncertainty. March 28, 2002

  14. Detailed Evaluation of Project Alternatives Hydraulic Analysis Cost Estimates Benefit/Cost Analysis Preliminary Environmental Analysis Coordination Act • Each alternative will be analyzed for a detailed cost estimate. March 28, 2002

  15. Detailed Evaluation of Project Alternatives Hydraulic Analysis Cost Estimates Benefit/Cost Analysis Preliminary Environmental Analysis Coordination Act • Determine which alternative provides the optimum flood damage avoidance, given the project cost. March 28, 2002

  16. Stakeholder Meeting- June 2002 Detailed Evaluation of Project Alternatives Hydraulic Analysis Cost Estimates Benefit/Cost Analysis Preliminary Environmental Analysis Coordination Act March 28, 2002

  17. Subject Focus Groups- June/Sept Stakeholder Meeting- October 2002 Detailed Evaluation of Project Alternatives Hydraulic Analysis Cost Estimates Benefit/Cost Analysis Preliminary Environmental Analysis Coordination Act March 28, 2002

  18. Further Evaluation of Project Alternatives • Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act • Conducted by USFWS under contract with COE: • Determines impacts of alternatives on fish & wildlife • Recommends types and amounts of mitigation for losses • Prepares Biological Assessment for NMFS for Steelhead • This process will start early (April 2002) to address permitting standards regarding vegetation. • Stakeholders will be involved through special subject focus group meetings and the October 2002 Stakeholder Meeting will focus on this subject. • In the absence of a local consensus on this subject, this process will determine the minimum requirements. March 28, 2002

  19. Further Evaluation of Project Alternatives • Federal Agency Coordination Requirements • Project that causes no further degradation of existing riparian/riverine habitat; or • Project that allows natural processes to improve habitat; or ideally, • Project that improves habitat while providing flood control. • Because the Project will need some vegetation control as part of future maintenance, the Corps of Engineers must consult under Section 7. • * Source: page 82 Status Report-COE Response to jurisdictional questions March 28, 2002

  20. Milestones and Opportunities for Public Input 2002 Milestones

  21. Continued Stakeholder and Public Involvement Army Corps of Engineers To Evaluate Alternatives Selection of Recommended Plan Final Environmental Review and Analysis We are here! March 2002 - October 2002 January 2003 February 2003 – Summer 2003 Identify Alternatives For Further Study Corps of Engineers Process Overview • Counties asked to comment and concur on a recommended plan. • One recommended plan presented to Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters. • Final Draft EIR/EIS. • Public comment and response. • Certification under NEPA. • CEQA certification. • 3 alternatives from Stakeholder process will be carried forward. • Some alternatives will no longer be evaluated in depth. • Further hydraulic analysis • Cost estimating of alternatives • Benefit/Cost Analysis • Preliminary environmental analysis • Coordination Act consultation with USFWS and NMFS

  22. Milestones and Opportunities for Public Input 2003 Milestones

  23. Flood Protection for Corralitos and Salsipuedes Creeks

  24. Level of Flood Protection on Creeks Capacity on Salsipuedes and Corralitos Creeks *With 0 Feet of Freeboard

  25. Level of Flood Protection on Creeks

  26. Flood Protection Concepts for the Creeks Concepts evaluated for hydraulic proficiency: • Levee raise and floodwall • Setback levee/floodwall • Increased/improved storage in College Lake • Flow bypass (Floodplain and Tunnel)

  27. Flood Protection Concepts-Existing Conditions

  28. Flood Protection Concepts for the Creeks Questions from previous Stakeholder Meeting: • Interior Drainage — • Threats of flooding from more than just the creeks. • Channel Maintenance — • It appeared that Salsipuedes is filling up with sediment, thus reducing the capacity and causing more flooding.

  29. Channel Maintenance CHANNEL INVERT PROFILES 110 110 100 100 90 90 80 80 HWY 152 HWY 152 GREEN VALLEY RD. 70 70 GREEN VALLEY RD. Invert Elevation (ft) 60 60 50 50 40 40 HWY 129 HWY 129 55.0' (1968 Bridge Plans) 55.0' (1968 Bridge Plans) 30 30 52.9' (1936 Bridge Plans) 52.9' (1936 Bridge Plans) 51.6' (College Lake Outlet Invert) 51.6' (College Lake Outlet Invert) 20 20 10 10 Pajaro River Pajaro River 0 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 8,000 8,000 12,000 12,000 16,000 16,000 20,000 20,000 24,000 24,000 28,000 28,000 River Station (ft) River Station (ft) 1949 1969 1995 March 28, 2002

  30. Flood Protection Concepts for the Creeks Key Hydraulic Observations: • Sediment removal from Salsipuedes Creek is not a stand-alone solution. • Although the existing system still handles design flow, we are attempting to manage 2-2 ½ times that amount. • College Lake storage must be part of the solution. • Corralitos Creek has the least capacity— spills out first. • Interior drainage problems exist— resolution must be a part of the solution. • Bridges at Highway 129 and 152 are constrictions and will likely need replacing.

  31. High walls; high water surface Land requirements; some developments impacted Affects development and infrastructure Requires land commitment; restricts development Flood Protection Concepts for the Creeks Hydraulic Constraints: • RAISE ONLY • SETBACK • BYPASS • STORAGE

  32. Flood Protection Concepts for the Creeks Illustration of Basic Dynamics • Creek Width vs. Creek Water Surface • Creek Width vs. College Lake Water Surface • College Lake Outfall Size vs. Salsipuedes Creek Flow • Increased College Lake Water Surface vs. Nearby Homes and Businesses

  33. Flood Protection Concepts for the Creeks Potential Elements of Solution • Include some setbacks and bench excavation to lower water surface. • Improve College Lake storage to limit downstream flows. • Include interior drainage improvements. • Include permittable maintenance activities. • Use a combination of levees, floodwalls, and setbacks on both creeks. • Address the need for bridge replacement.

  34. Financial Framework

  35. Financial Analysis of Flood Protection Alternatives Financial Analysis Framework will : • Overview of Project Costs • Local Share vs Federal Share • Unfunded Local Share • Tax/Benefit Assessment Options March 28, 2002

  36. Total Project Cost Estimates: Available in April • $130 levee reconstruction • Land Acquisition, bridge modifications, utility relocations, are currently being estimated by COE • Local Share of Approximately 50%: • Less: • Land already owned • Bridge and relocations $ from other sources • State Flood Control Subventions • Other (e.g., grants, etc.) 50-60% Total Unfunded Local Share: Available in April Total Project Costs (for discussion only):

  37. Tax Exempt Financing: Revenue/Gen Obligation Bonds • Assume 30-year financing • 4.75% Interest Rate Local Financing Alternatives for Unfunded Local Share Benefit Assessment • Requires direct benefit or impact “nexus.” • 50% Property owner approval. • Weighted vote based on amount of assessment. • Protest hearing. Total Project Costs (for discussion only):

  38. Local Financing Alternatives for Unfunded Local Share Parcel Tax • Based on benefit received or impact. • Special purpose tax requires 2/3 voter approval. Total Project Costs (for discussion only):

  39. Local Financing Alternatives for Unfunded Local Share Property Tax G.O. Bond • Based on property value. • Similar to school bond. • Special purpose tax requires 2/3 voter approval. Total Project Costs (for discussion only):

  40. Local Financing Alternatives for Unfunded Local Share • County-wide, increments of 1/8 cent. • Possible to levee in smaller and/or inter-county area. • Special purpose tax requires 2/3 voter approval. • ½ cent increase in Watsonville area would raise approximately: ____________ per year. Sales Tax Increase Total Project Costs (for discussion only):

  41. Property in the Floodplain Land Use Types Totals Monterey County Santa Cruz County Amount Amount Amount AGRICULTURE Acres 3401.43 5096.85 8498.28 COMMERCIAL Acres 48.86 316.73 365.59 Parcels 65 265 330 INDUSTRIAL Acres 60.33 0 60.33 Parcels 27 27 INSTITUTIONAL Acres 24.81 549.2 574.01 Parcels 25 206 231 RESIDENTIAL Parcels 202 2066 2268 Acres 74.68 719.42 794.1 TOTALS Acres 3610.11 6682.2 10292.31 Parcels 319 2537 2856 Percent of Total 35% 65% 100%

  42. Stakeholder Meeting #6 March 28, 2002

  43. Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3 Variation 100-year Protection Hybrid Option 100-year Protection Hybrid Option Option with lower level of protection • 100 Year Protection • Reach 2: • 225’ Setback • n=0.060 Roughness • 100 Year Protection • Reach 2: • 100’ Setback • n=0.040 Roughness • 100 Year Protection upstream of RR Bridge • 30 Year Protection below RR Bridge Maximum Opportunity for Consensus Alternatives Advanced by Working Group March 28, 2002

  44. Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3 Variation 100-year Protection Hybrid Option 100-year Protection Hybrid Option Option with lower level of protection Floodwalls/Levee Raising Setbacks Carried forward for in- depth analysis by Army Corps of Engineers Project Alternatives • No Set-backs • Levee/FW raise for 100-year flows • Raise heights of 7-10 ft • Velocities & Scour not permittable • 225’setback each side • Vegetation roughness to accommodate 300’ vegetated corridor • Requires 517 acres agricultural land. March 28, 2002

  45. Subject Focus Groups-June/Sept Stakeholder Meeting- October 2002 Stakeholder Meeting- June 2002 Further Evaluation of Project Alternatives Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Alternative #3 Variation 100-year Protection Hybrid Option Other Alternatives developed by the COE 100-year Protection Hybrid Option Option with lower level of protection Army Corps of Engineers is proceeding with detailed evaluation: Hydraulic Analysis Cost Estimates Benefit/Cost Analysis Preliminary Environmental Analysis Coordination Act

More Related