1 / 89

Stakeholder Meeting #1

Stakeholder Meeting #1 . June 14, 2001. March 11, 1995 . Opening Remarks and Agenda Overview. Congressman Sam Farr’s Office — Alec Arago County of Monterey — Bill Phillips, Deputy County Administrator County of Santa Cruz — Susan Mauriello, County Administrator Agenda Overview —

kinsey
Télécharger la présentation

Stakeholder Meeting #1

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 #1 June 14, 2001

  2. March 11, 1995

  3. Opening Remarks and Agenda Overview • Congressman Sam Farr’s Office — Alec Arago • County of Monterey — Bill Phillips, Deputy County Administrator • County of Santa Cruz — Susan Mauriello, County Administrator • Agenda Overview — Tim Gilbert, MIG, Inc. June 14, 2001

  4. Opening Remarks and Agenda Overview Today’s Meeting Purpose To provide stakeholders with an overview of the project and and planning process. Get input regarding project issues and opportunities. Today’s Agenda • Welcome • Project Background & Planning Process Structure • Discussion of Visions, Goals, and Expectations • Project Challenges and Opportunities • Discussion of Issues, Opportunities and Constraints • Summary and Next Steps June 14, 2001

  5. Project Background The Problem— Insufficient Flood Protection June 14, 2001

  6. Project Background The Problem - Long History of Floods and Planning Efforts June 14, 2001

  7. Project Background The Problem - Long History of Floods and Planning Efforts 1936 Federal Flood Control Act authorizes flood control . 1949 Levee System Construction is completed along Pajaro River and Salsipuedes Creek 1955 First major flood event to breach levees 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 Pajaro River levees; flows exceed design capacity 1997 Flooding occurs along Corralitos Creek 1999 Pajaro River mainstem is combined with Salsipuedes/ Corralitos Creek project 2000 Corps of Engineers agree to Community Planning Process June 14, 2001

  8. Project Goal Desired outcome of the Community Planning Process: • Achieve agreement on a community-based concept plan for Pajaro River flood protection. June 14, 2001

  9. 1974 & 1996 Corps Plans Community Concept Plan No Build Project Goal The Phase I Challenge… Develop a Community Concept Plan for Detailed Study June 14, 2001

  10. Planning Process and Structure Phase I Concept Plan — November 2001 Phase II Final Design & Environmental Certification — 2002 Phase III Federal Funding & Authorization — 2003 Phase IV Initiate Construction — 2004 Phase V Project Completion — 2008 June 14, 2001

  11. Planning Process and Structure Project Sponsors: • Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Stakeholders: • 31 Pajaro Valley organizations, constituency representatives, and regulatory agency stakeholders to work together to achieve a consensus Concept Plan, convened by Congressman Sam Farr June 14, 2001

  12. Planning Process and Structure Stakeholders: • City of Watsonville • Carlos Palacios-City Manager • Town of Pajaro • Dave Tavarez-Town of Pajaro • Joseph Rosa-Town of Pajaro • Vince Carrillo-Town of Pajaro • Farm Representatives in Floodplain • John Martinelli-Santa Cruz • Richard Uyematsu-Santa Cruz • Karen Miller-Monterey • Patricia Sakata-Monterey • Jim Rider-Farm Bureau • Regulatory Agencies • CA Coastal Commission-Tami Grove • CA Fish & Game-Patricia Anderson • CA Coastal Conservancy-Patsy Heasly • US Fish & Wildlife-Amelia Orton-Palmer • National Marine Fisheries –Joyce Ambrosius • Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary- Holly Price • Business Representatives • Bill Mancovich-Santa Cruz • Ed Kelly-Santa Cruz • Diane Young-Monterey • Karen Sambraillo-Pajaro • Local Environmental Organizations • Wetlands Watch-Chris Johnson-Lyons • Sierra Club-JoAnn Baumgartner • Elkhorn Slough -Mark Silberstein • Melanie Mayer Gideon • Residents in Floodplain • Vergie Neighbors-Santa Cruz • Dan Hernandez-Santa Cruz • Diane Cooley-Monterey • John Kasunich-Monterey • Community Organizations • Casa de la Cultura-Sister Rosa Delores • Action Pajaro Valley-Lisa Dobbins • Com. Alliance Family Farmers-Sam Earnshaw June 14, 2001

  13. Stakeholder Meeting #1 Stakeholder Meeting #4 Stakeholder Meeting #5 Stakeholder Meeting #3 Stakeholder Meeting #2 Working Group Working Group Working Group Working Group Working Group Working Group Working Group Planning Process and Structure How we are organized to accomplishPhase I … 2001 MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER Final Concept Project Primer Stakeholder Issues Draft Concept Design Options Urban Areas Design Options Rural Areas Community Focus Groups, Stakeholder Interviews, Bi-lingual Outreach June 14, 2001

  14. Planning Process and Structure The Stakeholder Process is supported by a Working Group: Working Group Role… • Listen to Stakeholders • Provide technical answers to Stakeholders • Hydraulics • Environmental • Finance • Initiate project design options for Stakeholder discussion and debate. June 14, 2001

  15. Planning Process and Structure Working Group…Resource to Stakeholders • Army Corps of Engineers • Arijis Rakstins — Project Management • Erich Bluhm —Project Manager • Jim Howells — Project Manager • Consultants • Dave Dickson—MIG, Inc. • Tim Gilbert—MIG, Inc. • Ed Wallace — NW Hydraulics Inc. • Ken Myers — HDR Engineering Inc. • Rick Swift-CH2M Hill Engineering Inc. • Project Oversight • Alec Arago—U.S. Congress Member Sam Farr • Observer • Patsy Heasly, CA Coastal Conservancy • City of Watsonville • David Koch—Public Works Director • Steve Palmisano—Environmental Proj. Manager • Santa Cruz County • Susan Mauriello—County Administrator • Tom Bolich — Public Works Director • Peter Cota-Robles — Zone 7 Project Manager • Ken Hart-Environmental Coordinator • Monterey County • Bill Phillips — Deputy CAO • Curtis Weeks — MCWRA General Manager • Joe Madruga — Zone 1 Project Manager • Scott Hennessey—Planning Director June 14, 2001

  16. Planning Process and Structure The role of consultant team in the process… • Facilitate consensus-based process • MIG, Inc. • Conduct outreach to diverse constituency groups; • 6 Focus Group Meetings-coordinated through the Stakeholders- MIG, Inc. • Provide the necessary technical data and research: • Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC) Inc. • CH2MHill Engineering Inc. June 14, 2001

  17. Final Community Concept Stakeholder Meeting #1 Stakeholder Meeting #2 Stakeholder Meeting #3 Stakeholder Meeting #4 Stakeholder Meeting #5 Planning Process and Structure Concurrent Army Corps of Engineers Milestones… 2001 JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER Select Alternatives for Detailed EIR/EIS Begin EIS/EIR Scoping June 21 Develop and Examine Environmental Baseline Conditions June 14, 2001

  18. Planning Process and Structure The role of general government elected officials in the process… • Congress Member Sam Farr, 17th District • Senator Bruce McPherson, 15th District • Assembly Member, Speaker Pro Tem Fred Keeley, 27th District • Assembly Member Simon Salinas, 28th District  • Supervisor Tony Campos - Santa Cruz County, 4th District • Supervisor Ellen Pirie - Santa Cruz County, 2nd District • Supervisor Lou Calcagno - Monterey County, 3rd District • Mayor Chuck Carter - City of Watsonville, 3rd District • Council Member Betty Bobeda - City of Watsonville, 7th District June 14, 2001

  19. Project Approvals-Who Decides? • Environmental Impact Report • (NEPA) • Environmental Impact Statement • (CEQA) • 401 Water Quality Permit • Project Cooperation • Agreement • Congressional • Construction Start & Appropriation • Local Finance Plan APPROVAL • Santa Cruz & Monterey Zone Boards • County Boards of Supervisors • Landowners • Voters: (2/3 for special tax) • Corps of Engineers APPROVAL • Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board APPROVAL • Monterey & Santa Cruz Boards of Supervisors • Corps of Engineers APPROVAL • Local Congressional • Congress APPROVAL • Monterey & Santa Cruz Boards of Supervisors • City of Watsonville APPROVAL • Corps of Engineers-DC REG AUTHORITY • State Water Quality Control Board REG AUTHORITY • CA Coastal Commission • CA Fish & Game REG AUTHORITY • USFWS • NMFS • EPA June 14, 2001

  20. Planning Process and Structure 23 flood protection alternatives studied since 1966 June 14, 2001

  21. Planning Process and Structure 23 flood protection alternatives studied since 1966 June 14, 2001

  22. Community Concept Plan Consensus Process 23 flood protection alternatives studied since 1966 • No project • Bypass Channels • Set-back levees and increase in levee height • Rebuild/increase height of levees in place • Floodwalls built on top of existing levees • Retention to upper basin reservoirs June 14, 2001

  23. Planning Process and Structure Framework for evaluation of plan alternatives: • HYROLOGY & HYDRAULICS ENVIRONMENTAL & REGULATORY SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY • Level of Protection • Water Surface Elevations • Geomorphic Stability • Endangered and Threatened Species • Project Approvals • Water Quality Regulations • Future Environmental Regulations • Flood Protection • Agricultural Land Impacts • Business Impacts • Residential Impacts • Visual Impacts • Recreation • Economic Development • Federal Authorization • Federal/Local Cost Sharing • Local Share of Cost • State Funding • Who pays for local share of cost? • Financing Options June 14, 2001

  24. Consensus Process • Key Elements to Success • Emerging Mission - Crisis/ Mandate • Common knowledge Shared meaning • Relationships among traditional adversaries Creative problem solving • Community of place • No better deals elsewhere • Primary parties participate in good faith • Multiple issues for trade off Multiple Community Benefits • Constituencies open to a deal • Adequate resources June 14, 2001

  25. Ground Rules • All Stakeholder meetings will be open to the public. • All meetings will have agendas with meeting objectives clearly identified. • Meetings will be documented in summary reports. • Stakeholder Group members are expected to attend all meetings. Stakeholders will notify the Stakeholder Support Staff if they expect to be absent: Justine - 454-3484 • Stakeholder Group members will utilize active listening skills and refrain from interrupting others. June 14, 2001

  26. Ground Rules • Issues or concerns about process must be brought to the Stakeholder Group as a whole for discussion. • Stakeholder Group members will share relevant information and facts to facilitate progress. • An attempt will be made to reach all decisions and recommendations by consensus. • Stakeholder Group members and the Working Group will complete all assignments in a timely fashion. • Stakeholder Group members will show courtesy and respect for each other when giving or receiving positive or negative feedback and contrary opinions. June 14, 2001

  27. Flood Project Likely Complete Consensus All members of the Stakeholder group are in agreement with everything. Possible Outcome I Classic Consensus A. I agree with most of the recommendations and I am willing to support all of them. B. I agree with many of the recommendations and I will not oppose them. C. I do not agree with the recommendations but I will not actively oppose them. Flood Project is Possible Possible Outcome II High Risk of No Action Minority & Minority Reports A. Number of members who agree. B. Number of members who do not agree. C. Number of members who abstain. Possible Outcome III Consensus Process Three possible planning processes… RESULT OUTCOME June 14, 2001

  28. Project Goal Desired outcome of the Community Planning Process: • Achieve agreement on a community-based concept plan for Pajaro River flood protection. June 14, 2001

  29. Open Discussion: Vision, Issues, Expectations

  30. Flood Project Challenges and Opportunities • Hydrology and Hydraulics Primer— General Project Alternatives— Ed Wallace/ Loren Murray , NHC Inc. • Environmental and Regulatory Considerations— Ken Hart, Santa Cruz County Planning Dept. • Socio-Economic Considerations— David Koch, City of Watsonville Public Works Dept. • Financial Feasibility— David Dickson, MIG Inc. June 14, 2001

  31. Flood Project Challenges and Opportunities Hydrology and Hydraulics Primer— Ed Wallace / Loren Murray Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC) Inc. June 14, 2001

  32. Hydrology and Hydraulics Framework for evaluating plan alternatives: • Level of Protection • Water Surface Elevations • Geomorphic Stability June 14, 2001

  33. Hydrology and Hydraulics Level of Flood Protection: Current Protection: • Pajaro River: 25 year storm protection (32,000 cfs) • Salsipuedes Creek: 7 year storm protection (5,000 cfs) 100 Year Storm Flows: • Pajaro River: 49,000 Cubic Feet Per Second (cfs) • Salsipuedes Creek (@ Pajaro River): 8,500 cfs • Corralitos Creek (@ Freedom): 7,400 cfs June 14, 2001

  34. Hydrology and Hydraulics Level of Flood Protection: 1995/1998 Flood 100 Year 50 Year Current Capacity Pajaro 28,500 cfs 49,000 cfs 39,600 cfs 28,000 cfs 25- Year 15- Year Salsipuedes 2,400 cfs 8,450 cfs 6,750 cfs 6- Year Corralitos 3,100 cfs 7,350 cfs 6,100 cfs 9- Year June 14, 2001

  35. Hydrology and Hydraulics June 14, 2001

  36. Hydrology and Hydraulics Insufficient Flood Protection: 1995 Floodplain June 14, 2001

  37. Llagas Creek Santa Clara County Santa Cruz County Pajaro River San Benito County Monterey County San Benito River Hydrology: A Primer Watershed Area Total Watershed Area: 1,310 sq. miles 1.5% Monterey Santa 7% Cruz Santa 25.5% Clara San Benito 66% June 14, 2001

  38. Hydraulics: A Primer Capacity Comparison: Existing protection vs 100 year flows

  39. Hydraulics: A Primer

  40. Hydraulics: A Primer Example Flow Velocity Conditions Vel. ~ 4-5 fps Vel. ~ 3 fps June 14, 2001

  41. Hydraulics: A Primer Example Flow Velocity Conditions (cont’d) Vel. ~ 5+ fps June 14, 2001

  42. Hydraulics: A Primer Example Flow Velocity Conditions (cont’d) Vel. ~ 10 fps Vel. ~ 15 fps June 14, 2001

  43. Hydraulics: A Primer Example Pajaro River Channel Conditions

  44. Flood Project Challenges and Opportunities Project Alternatives— Peter Cota-Robles County of Santa Cruz Dept. Public Works June 14, 2001

  45. Project Alternatives 23 flood protection alternatives studied since 1966 June 14, 2001

  46. Project Alternatives 23 flood protection alternatives studied since 1966 June 14, 2001

  47. Project Alternatives General Project Alternatives: (combinations of following elements) • Elevating Structures • Early Warning System • Dredging & Channel Excavation • Ring Levee for Watsonville & Pajaro • Bypass Channels • Diversion of flood flows to Elkhorn Slough • Retention to upper basin reservoirs • Rebuild/increase height of levees in place • Floodwalls built on top of existing levees • Set-back levees June 14, 2001

  48. Community Concept Plan Consensus Process 23 flood protection alternatives studied since 1966… • No project • Bypass Channels • Set-back levees and increase in levee height • Rebuild/increase height of levees in place • Floodwalls built on top of existing levees • Retention to upper basin reservoirs June 14, 2001

  49. Flood Project Challenges and Opportunities Environmental and Regulatory Considerations— Ken Hart County of Santa Cruz Planning Dept. June 14, 2001

  50. Environmental and Regulatory Goals: • Identify botanical and wildlife species that will need to be addressed under the final plan. • Identify potential project related impacts on protected species. • Create an opportunity to allow for a proactive approach to project design relative to biological concerns. June 14, 2001

More Related