USACE - Upper Trinity Basin Program Project Overview

Transcription

1 USACE - Upper Trinity Basin Program Project Overview Col. Richard J. Muraski, Jr. Commander, Fort Worth District May 19, 2011 US Army Corps of Engineers

2 Today s Presentation Overview Upper Trinity River Feasibility Study Trinity River Corridor Project (Dallas Floodway & DFE) Trinity River Vision (Central City) Section 214 Program Status Section 408 Process Initiatives

3 Upper Trinity River Feasibility Study Senate Resolution- April 1988 Reconnaissance Study completed 1990, ($910,000) Feasibility Study - Initiated 1990, Initial Cost $7.5 million Current cost $40 million

4 Sponsor: NCTOG Sub Sponsors: 9 Cities, 3 Counties, 2 Districts 50/50 Cost Shared Feasibility Study

5 Upper Trinity River Feasibility Study Major Project Deliverables Basin Wide Hydraulic Model Corridor Development Certificate Process (CDC) State of the Art Basin Wide Geographic Information System (GIS) database Trinity Trails System Updated FEMA Maps and Model Dallas Floodway Project Central City / Riverside Oxbow Project

6 Upper Trinity River Feasibility Study (Corridor Development Certificate Process) Adopted by Participating Cities/Counties/local agencies CDC Permits processed to date Fort Worth District serves as the technical reviewer of all applications Stabilize Flood Risks Currently on 4 th Edition of CDC Manual

7 Trinity River Corridor Project (City of Dallas Initiative) The project addresses a number of regional concerns, though flood risk management remains the essential linchpin of the multi-faceted effort. From city s perspective, the five inter-related components of the project are: Flood Risk Management Ecosystem Restoration / Environmental Management Recreation Transportation Community / Economic Development

8 8

9 Dallas Floodway Project Authorization: WRDA 2007 (Section 5141) Modified the 1945 and 1950 Project Authorizations Authorized Construction of City Plans Balanced Vision Plan (BVP) Interior Drainage Plan (IDP) Required Determination of Technical Soundness & Environmental Acceptability Study Required Authorized Total Project Cost $459 million Federal $298 million / Non-Federal $161 million Allows Comprehensive Analysis of All Proposed Actions Within the Dallas Floodway

10 Dallas Floodway Balanced Feasibility Vision StudyPlan

11 Dallas Floodway Project (Periodic Inspection Report #9) March Dallas Floodway Levees rated Unacceptable Impacts: Potential removal from Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (Public Law 84-99) De-accreditation of levees by FEMA Following Corps withdrawal of support for letter used in previous certification Subsequent Actions: Deficiencies Categorized for Future Actions Strictly O&M-related issues to be addressed immediately by City System-wide issues to be addressed as part of Dallas Floodway Feasibility Study O&M deficiencies addressed by City of Dallas City has corrected 193 of 198 deficiencies to date Eligibility for PL84-99 Program extended through May 2012 City pursuing recertification and accreditation of levees by FEMA Plan includes approximately 3-1/2 miles of seepage cutoff walls BUILDING STRONG 11

12 Authorization: Dallas Floodway Extension Authorized for flood control - Section 301, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 Modified to include non-federal levees - Section 351, WRDA 1996 Modified to add environmental restoration and recreation Section 356, WRDA 1999 BUILDING STRONG 12

13 Dallas Floodway Extension Project Description Chain of Wetlands 3.7 miles in length Average width of 600 feet Provide overbank flowage capacity for flood waters along the west side of the Trinity River from the Dallas Floodway to Loop 12. Levees (SPF Level of Protection) Lamar (east side of river) 2.9 miles in length Cadillac Heights (west side of river) miles Rochester Park and Central Wastewater Treatment Plant (previously constructed by city) Recreation trails - 31 miles Environmental Mitigation 1,179 acres Estimated current cost of the Dallas Floodway Extension project - $443, BUILDING STRONG 13

14 Lower Chain of Wetlands Cell D After Construction Cell G During Construction Cells D, E, F & G are complete, and doing their job! Cell G After Construction 14

15 Trinity River Corridor Project Summary Comprehensive Civil Works Project Planning, Design, Construction, O&M Flood Damage Reduction, Ecosystem Restoration, Recreation Proposed Modifications to Federal Project by Others Complex Project Multiple Agencies Involved Multiple Project Components Interdependent Schedules Challenging Project Multiple New Business Processes Aggressive Schedules with Significant Impacts for Delays High Consequences of Failure USACE / City Committed to Primary Mission of Public Safety 15

16 Trinity River Vision Project (Central City) Creating a community to live, work, play and learn

17 Trinity River Vision Project (Tarrant Regional Water District Initiative) Tarrant Regional Water District s Initiative with the following goals: Flood Risk Management Ecosystem Restoration Recreation Urban Revitalization

18 TRV Central City : TRV - Central City Flood control improvement project (channel and related bridges) TRV Trinity Uptown : TRV - Trinity Uptown Central City Trinity Uptown Future private component. TM 800 acre mixed-use development connecting downtown, Cultural District & near northside. TRV Gateway Park Improvement Plan: Massive ecosystem and recreation project creating one of the largest programmed parks in the nation and economic growth for East and Southeast Fort Worth. Trinity River Vision Master Plan: Covers entire 88 miles of river & tributaries. Provides greater river access and recreation for neighborhoods throughout Fort Worth. TM Public Infrastructure Project: for Flood Protection & Access Potential Private Development: as a Result

19 Central City Project Project Authorization: Public Law , Section 116 (8 Dec 2004) Project Cost: $220 Million $110 million Federal cost and $110 non-federal cost Project Description: Bypass Channel 1.2 miles with average width of 300 feet Various hydraulic valley storage mitigation sites Contain three gate closure structures & 1 dam structure Ecosystem Improvement development, creation, and improvement of 418 acres of riparian woodlands, 52 acres of wetlands, & 131 acres of native grass lands BUILDING STRONG 19

20 Valley Storage Construction

21 Trinity River Vision Project Summary Comprehensive Civil Works Project Modifications to the Existing Fort Worth Floodway while Maintaining Flood Risk Management Function Ecosystem Restoration Features Recreational Amenities Provides Connectivity with the River Another Complex Project Multiple Agencies Involved Multiple Project Components Interconnected Schedules Multiple Private Interests 21

22 WRDA Section 214 Authority Legislation allows the Corps to accept funds from Non-Federal Public Entities to expedite Permits Program Must: Serve Public Interest with Accountability & Transparency Ensure Impartial Decision Making Expedite Permits NCTCOG & USACE Entered into a MOA October 2008 COG is applicant & sets priorities for projects COG and USACE jointly approve Project List Completed 30 Permit Actions to Date; 31 Pending Projects Program information available on District website DA_Section214.asp

23 Section 214 Successes Santa Fe Trestle Trail Early coordination reduced impacts, saved mitigation $$ and 3 months time SH 114 DFW Connector Unknown impacts discovered, permit issued in 8 days, prevented project delay Trinity bank failure below Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge Discovered by TXDOT, permit was authorized in 7 days Elm Fork Athletic Complex Project analysis eliminated the need for 9.6 acres of mitigation

24 Comparison of Section 214 Projects VS Regulatory Branch Performance in 2010 Section % of Individual Permits issued in 120 days Branch % of Individual Permits issued in 120 days Section 214 General Permit verification averaged 7.6 days Branch General Permit verification averaged 25.7 days

25 Section 214 Benefits Offers improved Communications Dedicated Regulatory PM readily available to attend meetings, site visits, and evaluate permit actions PM works with applicant to reduce impacts to aquatic environment Helps to reduce mitigation requirements Typically results in reduced time for permit decisions

26 Approving Modifications to Federally Constructed Projects Authority under 33 USC 408 (Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899) (Section 408) Unlawful for any person or persons to build upon, alter, deface work built by US to prevent floods unless Sec Army grants permission based on determination proposed project mod Requires a NEPA document to validated that the action will not cause a significant adverse environmental impact Applicant must demonstrate that the modification does not result in an adverse impact to the function and safety of the Federal project

27 Improving Section 408 Process The Ft Worth District is in the process of standardizing the business process to increase efficiency and reliability by: Clarifying roles and responsibilities of sponsor/applicant and USACE Increasing clarity for all stakeholders Sharing risk between stakeholders/usace Initiating early coordination of applicant with sponsors to minimize USACE review time Integrating engineering design and environmental considerations early in the process to meet the spirit and intent of NEPA, CWA (404), and RHA (Sec.10)

28 Current Section 408 Actions Major Modifications No Major Section 408 s have been processed by the Ft Worth District for final approval by HQ Cities of Irving and Dallas have Section year levee remediation projects in process May become minor Section 408 s if the modifications are determined to be insignificant Anticipate several upcoming bridge/roadway levee crossings will be major actions Estimated review & approval costs in the $150,000 range Minor Modifications Receiving numerous requests to modify DFW area projects Goal to process and approve actions within 30 days of final submittal package Review costs dependent on complexity but usually less than $10,000/ action

29 Section 408 Challenges Due to the stringent review process, major Section 408 s typically require 9 months or longer for vertical approval There are inadequate Federal funds for District level review, which is currently delaying the timely processing of Section 408 actions Minor Section 408 s are approved by District Commander and typically require considerably less review time Not all Section 408 requests are approvable due to potential Irreparable harm

30 Questions?