APPLICATION FOR HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT

Transcription

1 Project Number South Dakota Office of Emergency Management 118 W. Capitol Ave Pierre, SD APPLICATION FOR HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT This application is for a Hazard Mitigation Grant under the provisions of the Stafford Act (Public Law , as amended). The following information is furnished in support of this application. Note to preparer: Any additional sheets required for responses and attachments should be placed with the part in which they are referenced. If subsequent references are made to the same material, a reference to that section is sufficient. Title: Tea Tributary Mitigation Project PROJECT INFORMATION Date of Submission: Type of Submission: HMGP Project Application FIPS Code: Declaration: FEMA-1887-DR-SD APPLICANT INFORMATION Name Type County Indian Tribe Private Non-Profit Special District Other Name: Jon Peters CONTACT PERSON Title: Lincoln County GIS Coordinator / Flood Plain Administrator Address: 104 N Main Street Suite 240 City: Canton ID: SD Zip: Phone: Fax:

2 APPLICANT INFORMATION ALTERNATE CONTACT PERSON Name: Tucker Halverson Title: Lincoln County GIS Technician Address: 104 N Main Street City: Canton ID: SD Zip: Phone: Fax: Name: Dennis Weeldreyer Title: Lincoln County Commission, Chairman Address: 908 W 2 nd Ave. APPLICANT'S AGENT City: Lennox ID: SD Zip: Phone: Fax: Attach a copy of the document appointing the Applicant's Agent as empowered to act on behalf of the applicant with regards to this grant application and project.

3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Type Acquisition Relocation Elevation Flood protection Storm Shelter Power Line Burial Other Project Description: Lincoln County is proposing to use Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds to make drainage improvements from the Tea Tributary to Beaver Creek just southeast of Tea, SD. Please see attached maps. The Tea tributary has its headwaters within the City of Tea and discharges into Beaver Creek 3.5 miles to the south. There are over 70 residences within the project area that are impacted by flooding events that occur within the Tea Tributary s 100-year flood plain. These flooding events have historically caused the overtopping of roads and have caused damages to homes. The project begins with an existing channel increase 40 feet wide for 500 feet west of Hwy 111. A minor drainage improvement swale will extend 200 feet northward from this channel within the proposed floodplain at 350 feet from Hwy 111. A precast 10 x4 double box culvert will be placed under Hwy 111, a block north of Blue Spruce Street, to direct the flow of water northeast under the road. There are two precast box culverts in this project; both are estimated to be 70 feet long at a cost of $122, each. From Hwy 111 a new 75 feet wide diversion channel will be constructed to divert water eastward for approximately 900 feet and then southward for approximately 400 feet making up the first 15 acre detention pond. This first detention pond then links with a second 15 acre foot detention pond. Each detention pond has a 48 RCP with a concrete spillway at a cost of $12, each. From the second detention pond, the existing channel will be increased in size to 40 feet wide for approximately 600 feet southward to link with the second precast 10 x4 double box culvert that will be placed under County Hwy 110. The existing ditch along the north side of County Hwy 110 will also be deepened with four additional 30 RCPs, two of the 30 RCPs will be placed under Redwood Avenue and two of the 30 RCPs will be placed under Sequoia Avenue. Each of the 30 RCPs are estimated at 75 feet each at a cost of $ each. From County Hwy 110 the channel will follow the existing channel for 800 feet southward to link with a third detention pond. This third tentative detention pond has a volume of 60 acre foot. From the detention pond, a new 65 feet wide diversion channel will be constructed and will extend approximately 1,100 feet where a new 35 feet wide minor collection channel constructed along Lewis Place will intersect it. Two 48 RCP will be placed here in order to ensure field access. Each of these 48 RCPs are estimated at a length of 50 feet and at a cost of $8, each. From this point the diversion channel will extend for a distance of 700 feet to connect with the original channel. In order to mitigate against the potential harmful affects of our project on downstream farming due to increased runoff efficiency, an 8 PVC perforated drainage pipe will be installed for approximately 10,000 feet southward along the existing Tea Tributary channel to an outlet along Hwy 111. This 8 PVC perforated drainage pipe will cost approximately $100, This outlet, near Hwy 111, is the end point of the project. Useful life of project (years): 50 Years Location: The project area is a group of subdivisions located 1/3 mile southeast of Tea, SD, near the intersection of Lincoln County Roads 111 and 110. The project area is located in the SE¼ of section 35 and the SW¼ of Section 36, T100N R51W of the 5 th PM; and in the NW¼ of Sec 1, T99N, R51W of the 5 th PM.

4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Problem Description: There are over 100 structures within the project area that are impacted by flooding events that occur within the Tea Tributary s 100-year flood plain. Periodic flooding events in the project area have resulted in the overtopping of roads and damages to homes. Storm water runoff travels through multiple subdivisions along the Tea Tributary through culverts and channels of insufficient sizes and capacities. Low elevation changes in the area and little slope along the existing Tea Tributary channel makes it impossible for individuals to remedy their individual flooding issues, thus necessitating a regional solution. Structures and roads constrict the existing channel enough in some places to require newly constructed channel diversions to feasibly accomplish necessary capacity increases. Complications from inadequate culvert and channel flow capacity are increasing the number of incidences of storm water backup and flooding in the project area. Continual damages to homes, contents, and septic systems have been reported. Repeated saturation of the project area has resulted in one home s foundation requiring reinforcement in 2009 and last year s flooding event resulted in the collapse of one basement wall of another residence. Homes within the Tea Tributary project area have been impacted by past flood events over the last decade with increased damages in 2008 and 2010 due to above normal rainfall. This area lies within a large geographic area experiencing substantial growth and is affected in its headwaters by the City of Tea which has grown in population from 1742 to 3806 over the last 10 years. Public meetings have occurred with local homeowners and Lincoln County officials since 2007 regarding flooding along the Tea Tributary. FEMA mitigation and BCA workshops were attended by the county floodplain administrator and county engineer to develop a solution to the problem. Lack of historic flooding documentation and lack of base flood elevations made the benefit cost ratios for HMGP funding unobtainable. A study to develop a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) process for this area was approved in January of Informational meetings were held throughout 2010 coinciding with the LOMR process. LOMR findings widened the floodplain within the Tea Tributary and confirmed the long held presumptions of a high flood risk for the area. This determination provided the basis for an eligible benefit to cost ratio for a project and opened up the potential for funding. County commissioners approved additional time and expense in order to apply for the HMGP funding that is necessary to solve this flooding issue on October 1, Indicate maps attached USGS 1:100,000 USGS 1:24,000 FIRM County City Plat Other How project reduces hazard's effects and solves the problem: 1. Larger culverts will pass the 100 year event to reduce runoff buildup and ponding caused by roadway obstruction. 2. Channel capacity increases will contain the 100 year event to reduce surface water flooding and subsurface effects to homes, basements and septic systems. 3. Diversion channels offer less expensive and more efficient alternatives than the existing channel to pass flood events through the region, 4. Detention ponds detain extra flow levels caused by improved runoff efficiency of the project and meter the outlet discharges to pre-project amounts. 5. Drain pipe mitigates additional volume effects to downstream agricultural productivity. Number of people protected by project: 213 Value of property protected by project: $12,784,040

5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Describe any future or planned projects that may impact the proposed project area: City of Tea development will occur upstream of the Tea Tributary project area. Detention of city runoff is planned to minimize impact on the proposed project site. See attached City of Tea Master Drainage Plan for details. There are no other planned future projects or proposed projects within the project area or within the Tea Tributary s 100-year flood plain. DAMAGE OVERVIEW Describe damage caused by this disaster: Flash flooding events and residual flooding have caused the banks of the Tea Tributary to overflow in the Blue Spruce Addition, the New Earth Addition, the Sunrise Addition, and the Daggett s Addition. The homes within these subdivisions are located in a low lying area and storm water runoff from flash flood events is currently unable to flow southward through the Tea Tributary s existing channel and storm water infrastructure. The damages caused by the flood hazard include damages to homes and contents to homes located within the project area. Local roads have overtopped and other infrastructure has also been impacted by the flood hazard. Has the building of new structures or other development changed the potential for future damage? The project will reduce flooding within the project area and prevent future property and infrastructure damages. The placement of channels, the increase in culvert sizes, and the utilization of detention within the project area will reduce future damages and not impact future development. Did FEMA/State Public Assistance staff write a project worksheet (PW) for any portion of this project or project area? Yes No If yes, provide the PW number(s) Describe damage caused by previous events Hzd

6 DAMAGE OVERVIEW Year, Month Description Severity Damage ($) Frequency September 2004 Heavy rains resulted in flooding in Tea. Damages occurred to area homes. $4,000 Reported May 2007 Heavy rains resulted in flooding in Tea. Damages occurred to area homes. $4,400 Reported June 2008 Heavy rains resulted in flash flooding in and areas surrounding Tea. $4,000 Reported March 2010 Heavy rains caused flash flood in sections of Sioux Falls and Lincoln County. This flooding event impacted roadways area homes. $5,302 Reported June/July 2010 Heavy rain caused flooding of streets in Tea. This flooding event impacted roadways and area homes. $38,083 Reported

7 COST ESTIMATE Projected Expenditures Mobilization $ 150,000 Clearing $5,000 Channel excavation $195,000 Pond excavation $561,750 Salvage, stockpile, & place topsoil $51,000 Remove asphalt $7,000 6" asphalt concrete $7,225 6" aggregate base course $1,275 Remove pipe culvert $3,750 30" RCP w/ flared end $27,000 48" RCP w/ flared end $16,000 Outlet control structure & spillway $36,000 Twin 10'x4' precast box culvert $245,000 Traffic control $6,500 Riprap & drainage fabric $8,750 Seeding, fertilizing, & mulching $50,000 Miscellaneous erosion & sediment control $11,250 Erosion control fabric $80,000 8" PVC perforated drainage pipe Drainage pipe inlet / cleanout $100,000 $10,000

8 COST ESTIMATE Detention pond sediment trap - forebay $15,000 Utility relocation $250,000 Land rights acquisition $350,000 Professional services - construction design $177,250 Professional services construction administration Professional services preliminary design for BCA analysis Professional services grant administration Professional services environmental & cultural resources Professional services project closeout and mapping TOTAL $177,250 $18,625 $25,000 $55,000 $13,000 $2,653,625 Sources of Funds Federal sources FEMA $1,990, Other federal sources $ State sources Local sources City $ County $ 663, Special district $ Private sources (In-kind) $ Other $ TOTAL $2,653,625

9 POTENTIAL FUTURE LOSSES Describe potential disaster impacts if not mitigated Asset / Service Description Value Description of Loss ( i.e. critical function, displacement, emergency access) Damages to homes within Tea Tributary Project area $4,253,675 Loss of function of homes, damages to homes within the project area Describe estimated quantifiable benefits: COST EFFECTIVENESS The Tea Tributary drainage improvements area projected to reduce damages to area homes by $4,253,675 over the life of the project. This figure was calculated by conducting FEMA s benefit cost analysis utilizing elevation and hydraulic studies. What is the expected life of the project? 50 Years Project Benefits $4,253,675 Project Costs $2,791,632 Federal Grant Share (75%) Applicant Grant Share (25%) $2,093,724 $697,908 Benefit- Cost Ratio (Must be greater than 1:1) 1.52 Did you use FEMA s BCA Model? Yes No - Attach a copy of the completed BCA to the application.

10 PROJECT SCHEDULE Milestones Activity / Action Preliminary Design (Completed) Environmental & Cultural Resources Construction Design (Phase 1) Land Rights Acquisition (Phase 1) Utility Relocation (Phase 1) Materials Acquisition Environmental & Cultural Resources Construction Design (Phase 2) Land Rights Acquisition (Phase 2) Utility Relocation (Phase 2) Construction Administration (Phase 1) Project Construction (Phase 1) Environmental and Cultural Resources (Phase 2) Construction Administration (Phase 2) Project Construction (Phase 2) Project Closeout Time (months, weeks, days) 0 Days 90 Days 181 Days 182 Days 182 Days 60 Days 89 Days 180 Days 182 Days 182 Days 182 Days 182 Days 89 Days 182 Days 182 Days 91 Days How were starting and completion dates determined? The project time lines were determined by task and season. Please see the attached Gantt Chart. Maintenance Type Provider Date or Interval Cost Mowing and Sediment Removal Lincoln County Twice per year $5,000

11 MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES Alternative Consequences 1. Option One Do Nothing Repetitive and cumulative damages to homes, buildings, contents, personal property, septic systems, roads, and infrastructure within the project area. Cumulative effects of repetitive water saturation to basement foundations 2. Option Two Remove drain tile from proposed alternative Impact to agricultural production and stream stability 3. Proposed Project The project begins with an existing channel increase 40 feet wide for 500 feet west of Hwy 111. A minor drainage improvement swale will extend 200 feet northward from this channel within the proposed floodplain at 350 feet from Hwy 111. A double box culvert will be placed under HWY 111 a block north of Blue Spruce Street directing the flow of water northeast under the road. From Hwy 111 a new 75 feet wide diversion/detention channel will be constructed to divert water eastward for approximately 900 feet and then southward for approximately 400 feet linking with a second water detention area. The existing channel will be increased in size from there to 40 feet wide for approximately 600 feet southward to link with a double box culvert that will be placed under County HWY 110. The existing ditch along the north side of County HWY 110 will also be deepened with two additional steel culverts to be placed under Redwood Ave and Sequoia Ave. From County HWY 110 the channel will follow the existing channel for 800 feet southward to a third detention area. From this outlet a new 65 feet wide diversion channel will be constructed and extend approximately 1,100 feet where a 35 feet wide minor collection channel constructed along Lewis Place will empty and two steel box culverts will be placed to ensure field access. From the main project outlet a drain tile will be installed for approximately 10,000 feet southward along and following the existing Tea Tributary channel to an outlet along Hwy 111 to mitigate any constant nuisance flows of water runoff. This outlet is the end point of the project. The 100 year flood plain will be contained within the proposed main and diversion channels 70 residences, buildings and personal property within the project area will not be impacted by the 100 year flood Septic systems will no longer be impacted Overtopping of roads and damages to infrastructure will no longer occur Sustained agricultural production and stream stability Note: Alternative 2 should be a solution that would be acceptable if the proposed project could not be realized.

12 MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES Why does the proposed project seem to be the best solution? The best project was derived from hydrologic modeling and cost estimates for three channel options: 1. Follow the existing channel, 2. Divert the channel around the north infrastructure 3. Divert the channel around the south infrastructure ( See attached series of maps used to consider options) Criteria considered in evaluating these options included: 1. Ability to pass the 100 year event efficiently 2. Reduction of large cost items 3. Efficiency of construction 4. Construction related property restorations 5. Probable utility relocations 6. Detention requirements 7. Environmental concerns 8. Downstream impacts 9. Maintenance The Blue Spruce Street existing channel option was eliminated due to the following: 1. High costs associated with seven single box culverts and additional concrete channeling 2. Practicality and safety concerns with channel severity and road proximity 3. Additional residential frontage, road and driveway restoration costs along Blue Spruce Street 4. Severely constricted and difficult construction area along both sides of Blue Spruce Street 5. Benefit to cost ratio prohibitive The Daggett Place existing channel option was eliminated due to the following: 1. Limited feasibility and additional costs of installing a double box culvert at Daggett Place 2. Constricted and difficult construction area costs 3. Increased costs associated with multiple utility relocations The proposed project was selected due to the following: 1. The North diversion eliminates the severe costs and concerns associated with following the Blue Spruce Street existing channel. Additional savings are gained with this option by removing Blue Spruce Street where it crosses and not installing a double box culvert 2. The South diversion eliminates costs associated with the installation of the double box culvert at Daggett Place and substantially reduces expected utility relocation costs 3. Both diversions reduce excavation costs through increased efficiency 4. Wetlands affected within the project can be mitigated by the area added by the diversions allowing it to be considered a self-mitigating project 5. Downstream impacts to stream stability are mitigated by the installation of the perforated pipe 6. This is the least costly option In Summary: The proposed project will contain the 100-year flood event within the channel and detention areas and provides protection for downstream adverse impacts. It is the least costly of options by eliminating costly culverts and diverting water away from areas that are constrictive. It removes all structures impacted by past flood events.

13 Describe how the proposed project was selected? MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives for channel placement were studied for hydrology. Costs were developed to determine feasibility. County staff and commissioners reviewed the alternatives to study and develop. Options were derived from the study findings and cost estimates. The proposed base project was selected after reviewing the study of the hydrology, associated costs and environmental requirements and prioritizing options by costs and benefits. Meetings were held throughout the project development process with local property owners in order to obtain feedback in regards to the proposed base project. Periodic county staff review included Planning and Zoning, Geographic Information Services, Highway Department, Emergency Management, the States Attorney, and the Lincoln County Commission. It is the general opinion of the property owners within the project area that something needs to be to done in order to address long-term flooding impacts. Public meetings were held on August 3, 2010, March 29, 2011, and June 2, 2011 to identify potential projects and find solutions to the flood hazard. The Lincoln County Commission discussed the Tea Tributary project at meetings on December 21, 2011, March 22, 2011, and May 24, 2011.

14 PROJECT COMPLIANCE ASSURANCES Building Code Does the government jurisdiction where the project will be located currently enforce the 1991 (or later) edition of the Uniform Building Code, including seismic chapters? Yes No If NO, give date when the current edition (1997) will be adopted and attach evidence of intent to adopt and enforce it. Land Use and Zoning Will the project meet all land-use and zoning codes and standards for the local jurisdiction? Yes No National Flood Insurance Program Is the government jurisdiction where the project will be located participating in the NFIP? Yes No - If NO, give date when the program will be adopted and attach evidence of intent to adopt and enforce an appropriate floodplain ordinance. If YES, are they in good standing? Yes No - If not in good standing, attach an explanation Is this project located in a floodplain or floodway designated on a FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)? Yes No If YES, provide FIRM Panel Number 46083C0137C FIRM Zone Designation Zone AE NFIP Community ID Number Public Notification Have there been any public notices or public meetings about this project and the problems it seeks to solve? Yes No Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Does the local government where the project will be located have a FEMA approved all-hazards mitigation plan that identifies natural hazards and lists specific plans that reduce the impact of the hazards on life and property? Yes No The hazard mitigation plan is in the process of being updated for Lincoln County. Is the proposed project identified in your plan? Yes No The proposed project is listed in the hazard mitigation plan update.

15 SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED AGENT: The undersigned does hereby submit this application for financial assistance in accordance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the State Hazard Mitigation Administrative Plan and certifies that the applicant (i.e., organization, city, or county) will fulfill all requirements of the program as contained in the program guidelines and that all information contained herein is true and correct to the best of our knowledge. Signature: Date: Title: WHEN COMPLETED, THIS APPLICATION ALONG WITH A DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK AND BENEFIT COST ANAYLSIS SHOULD BE RETURNED TO: South Dakota Office of Emergency Management State Hazard Mitigation Officer 118 W. Capitol Ave Pierre, SD

16 RESOLUTION APPOINTMENT OF APPLICANT AGENT FOR THE HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM (HMGP) WHEREAS, is submitting a Hazard Mitigation Grant project to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the State of South Dakota; and WHEREAS, is required to appoint an Applicant Agent for the purpose of signing documents and assuring the completion of all application documents; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that appoints as the authorized Applicant Agent. Dated this day of, 200. Appointing Authority Name: Title: Signed Date Appointed Agent Name: Title: Signed Date