CORTE MADERA CREEK FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "CORTE MADERA CREEK FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECT"

Transcription

1 1 CORTE MADERA CREEK FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECT DRAFT EIS/EIR MARIN COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING USACE San Francisco District Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District November 13, 2018, 5:30 pm, BOS Chambers The views, opinions and findings contained in this report are those of the authors(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation.

2 PRESENTATION AGENDA 2 1. Welcome Lieutenant Colonel David Kaulfers, Acting Deputy Commander U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 2. Project Objectives Tony Williams, Assistant Director Marin County Public Works Department 3. Ross Valley Flood Protection & Watershed Program, Project Schedule Tonya Redfield, Capital Planning & Project Manager Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 4. USACE Process, Project Alternatives Benjamin Reder, Project Planner U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 5. NEPA/CEQA Process, Key Findings Nadia Burleson Burleson Consulting

3 2017 HISTORICAL FLOODING IN ROSS VALLEY PEAK STORM DISCHARGES AT ROSS CREEK GAGE

4 EXISTING CONDITION Ross Fish Ladder, ~June 2016 Ross Fish Ladder, Feb

5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES 5 Reduce the likelihood and consequences of flooding on human life and safety; Reduce the risk of flood damages, including critical infrastructure; Develop and implement environmentally sustainable flood risk management (FRM) features consistent with natural geomorphic processes and ecological functions of the study area; Improve fish habitat conditions for salmonids; Use environmentally sustainable designs and construction methodologies, which would minimize environmental impacts from future operation and maintenance actions in the study area; Address the abrupt transition between Units 3 and 4 created by the existing Denil fish ladder and the narrow channel condition; Ensure proposed Project is consistent with District s Ross Valley Flood Protection and Watershed Program. Kentfield 1966

6 EIS/EIR ROLES 6 USACE Project Lead NEPA Lead Agency (Federal Funding) Respond to Public Comments Flood Control District /Marin County Local Sponsor CEQA Lead Agency (Local/State Grant Funding) Support Response to Public Comments Public/Agencies Review EIS/EIR Provide Public Comments Certify EIS (Federal) Record of Decision Certify EIR (State) Project Approval Public Comment, Attend Public Hearing Project Construction Project Approval (District BOS) On-going Stakeholder Engagement

7 Bolinas Ave, 1944 Ross Valley Flood Control & Watershed Program, Project Schedule

8 Ross Valley Flood Protection & Watershed Program Work Plan Nov, 2018 Corte Madera Creek Flood Risk Management Project - Ph. 1 Corte Madera Creek Flood Risk Management Project - Ph. 2 San Anselmo Flood Risk Reduction Project Annual Ross Valley Creek Maintenance Hillview Neighborhood Pump Station & Storm Drain Improvement Project Azalea Ave. Bridge Madrone Ave. & Nokomis Ave. Bridges Bridge Ave & Sycamore Ave./Center Blvd. Bridges Winship Ave. Bridge Flood Risk Reduction Project (Project Lead Zone 9) Flood Risk Reduction Project (Project Lead Town/City) Feasibility Evaluation/Study Environmental Review Complete Lower Corte Madera Creek & Geomorphic Dredge Study Morningside/Sleepy Hollow Creek Study Program Environmental Impact Report

9 9 Ross Valley Flood Control & Watershed Program Foreseeable Future Projects; Have funding allocated in Program Work Plan & Budget Currently in or moving through environmental review phase Are supported by Zone 9 Advisory Board, BOS, representative Towns/City

10 SCHEDULE & PUBLIC INPUT 10 10/12/18 Public Draft EIR/EIS Release, 45-day Comment Period Begins 10/23/18 10/24/18 10/25/18 11/1/18 11/13/18 Community Workshop #1, Town of Ross Residents 6:00 pm - 7:30 pm, Ross Town Hall Community Workshop #2, Ross Commercial Businesses 10:00 am 11:30 am, Ross Town Hall Community Workshop #3, Kentfield & Unincorporated County 6:00 pm - 7:30 pm, Ross Town Hall Ross Valley Watershed Community Conversation w/ Congressman Huffman 5:00 6:30 pm at Ross School Gym Public Hearing on Draft EIS/EIR 5:30 pm, District Board of Supervisors, Marin County Civic Center, Rm /27/18 Draft EIS/EIR Comment Period Closes Sept Final Project EIR/EIS Released Oct Public Hearing on Final Project EIS/EIR Project Approval and Final Design Construction (Phase 1, Phase 2)

11 Ross Commons, Ross, 1982 USACE Process & Project Alternatives

12 USACE Feasibility Study Process 12 Jan 2016 Sept 2016 Oct 2017 Nov 2018 Feb Scoping Alternative Evaluation & Analysis Feasibility Analysis of Selected Plan Washingtonlevel Review Key Alternatives Milestone Decision Milestone Product Milestone We are Here Tentatively Selected Plan Milestone Draft Report Released for Concurrent Review Oct-Nov 2018 Agency Decision Milestone Feb 2019 District Final Report Package Transmittal Chief s Report Signed Sept 2019 Focus on alternatives identification and evaluation to identify a recommended plan for more detailed design Focus on scaling the measures and features for the recommended plan

13 STUDY AREA 13 Study focuses on completion of Unit 4 and ties into completed project with possible features in Units 3 & 2 A1A 500 MHW

14 Project Alternatives 14 A B F G Top-of-bank Floodwall Top-of-bank Floodwall, Setback Floodwall, College of Marin Widening Bypass, Allen Park Riparian Corridor, College of Marin Widening Top-of-bank Floodwall, Allen Park Riparian Corridor, College of Marin Widening J No Action Bypass, Allen Park Riparian Corridor, Top-of-bank Floodwall Tentatively Selected Plan Existing Condition

15 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 15

16 ALTERNATIVE J Tentatively Selected Plan Figure 3-5a Bypass, Allen Park Riparian Corridor, Top-ofbank Floodwall 16

17 ALTERNATIVE J Figure 3-5b 17

18 ALTERNATIVE J Figure 3-5c 18

19 ALTERNATIVE J Figure 3-5d 19

20 ALTERNATIVE J Figure 3-5e 20

21 ALTERNATIVE J Figure 3-5f 21

22 Flooding Changes at 4% AEP (25-Yr Flood) 22 Structures removed from floodplain

23 Flooding Changes at 2% AEP (50-Yr Flood) 23 Structures Structuresremoved removed from from floodplain floodplain

24 Flooding Changes at 1% AEP (100-Yr Flood) 24 Structuresremoved removedfrom from Structures Structures removed from floodplain floodplain floodplain

25 ALTERNATIVE A Figure 3-1a 25 Top-of-bank Floodwalls

26 ALTERNATIVE B Figure 3-2a 26 Top-of-bank Floodwall, Setback Floodwall, College of Marin Widening

27 ALTERNATIVE F Environmentally Preferred Alternative, Figure 3-3a 27 Bypass, Allen Park Riparian Corridor, College of Marin Widening

28 ALTERNATIVE G Figure 3-4a 28 Top-of-bank Floodwall, Allen Park Riparian Corridor, College of Marin Widening

29 ALTERNATIVE J Tentatively Selected Plan Figure 3-5a Bypass, Allen Park Riparian Corridor, Top-ofbank Floodwall 29

30 Kentfield, Granton Park, 1949 NEPA/CEQA Process & Key Findings

31 JOINT PROJECT EIS/EIR EIS addressed National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - Federal EIR addressed California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - State What is a EIS/EIR? Common practice to combine EIS/EIR to evaluate a broad range of environmental topics to reduce duplication & maximize resources Combines planning processes, research/studies, public hearings and environmental assessments What is the purpose of a EIS/EIR? Review environmental effects of a proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives (5 Alts + No Action Alt) Identify potential significant impacts and mitigation measures 31

32 TOPICS EVALUATED IN EIS/EIR Section RESOURCES EVALUATED IN DETAIL Topics 4.1 Hydrology and Hydraulics 4.2 Water Quality 4.3 Geology and Soils 4.4 Air Quality 4.5 Climate Change 4.6 Biology Resources 4.7 Cultural Resources 4.8 Aesthetics 4.9 Recreation 4.10 Noise 4.11 Land Use 4.12 Human, Health, and Safety 4.13 Traffic, Transportation and Circulation 4.14 Environmental Justice 4.15 Socioeconomics 4.16 Utilities and Public Services 32

33 LEVELS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 33 No Impact Beneficial Impact Less than Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant and Unavoidable Impacts

34 NO IMPACT, LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT, OR BENEFICIAL IMPACT 34 Resource topics found not to be significant: Hydrology Air Quality Climate Change Recreation Environmental Justice Public Services and Utilities

35 NO IMPACT, LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT, OR BENEFICIAL IMPACT 35 Draft EIS/EIR, Table 3-8

36 NO IMPACT, LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT, OR BENEFICIAL IMPACT 36 Draft EIS/EIR, Table 3-8

37 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION 37 Resource topics with significant impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant: Noise and vibration Transportation and circulation Health and safety Cultural resources Biological resources Geology

38 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION 38 Draft EIS/EIR, Table 3-8

39 SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS39 Resource topics with significant and unavoidable impacts for which there is no feasible mitigation: Water Quality Aesthetics Biological Resources Noise and Vibration Transportation and Circulation Land Use Socioeconomics

40 SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS40 Draft EIS/EIR, Table 3-8

41 SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 41 Resource topic with significant cumulative impacts due to construction occurring simultaneously with other projects in the area: Traffic & Circulation

42 Ross, 1982 Staff Recommendations & Public Hearing

43 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Open public hearing for public comment; 2. Close the public hearing on the Draft Joint EIS/EIR; 3. Discuss those issues regarding the Project s impacts that are of primary concern to your Board and provide recommendations to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) staff, and the EIS/EIR consultant on any additional items which should be addressed in the Final Joint EIS/EIR; and 4. Recommend that the USACE prepare a Final Joint EIS/EIR based upon the written responses to all of the oral and written comments received at the Draft Joint EIS/EIR hearing, as well as all of the written comments received during the public review and comment period. 43

44 44