HomeMy WebLinkAboutBack-Up DocumentsMIAMI-DADE BACK BAY COASTAL STORM RISK
MANAGEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
ENCY DECISION MI ESTO
Colonel Kinsman
Commander, Norfolk District
Faraz Ahmed
Planning Lead, Norfolk District
Date: 18 November 2020
"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."
US Army Corps
of Engineers R
MIAMI.L PE
MUMMY
111
US Army Carps.
of EngFriaars. *;
AGENDA
Meeting Introductions (NAD)
Purpose of Meeting and Opening Remarks (NAD)
Opening Remarks Miami -Dade Back Bay Coastal Storm Risk Management
Feasibility Study Presentation (COL Kinsman and Faraz Ahmed)
— Agency Decision Milestone Presentation
• Agency Decision Milestone Purpose
• Recommended Plan
• Overview: Authority, Problem/Opportunities, Objectives/Constraints
• Plan Formulation Overview
• Environmental Compliance
• Risk & Uncertainty
• ATR, PGM, and IEPR Reviews
• Schedule
Open Discussion
— Panel Discussion
— Miami -Dade County Discussion
— Request Endorsement of Recommended Plan (COL Kinsman)
2
1181
US Army Carps.
of EngFriaars.
BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT
TSP - Alternative 8
• Structural Measures (Surge Barriers with
associated Floodwalls and Pump
Stations) at Biscayne Canal, Little River,
and Miami River
• Nonstructural Measures for Residential
and Commercial Structures
• Critical Infrastructure throughout all of
Miami -Dade County
• Natural and Nature -Based Features at
Cutler Bay
Total Project Cost
(including contingency)
$4.6B FY20 Price Level
Average Annual Net Benefit: $1.8B
Average Annual Cost: $200M
BCR @ 2.75% Discount Rate: 9.4 BCR
;AVIV..1.11k4
Recommended Plan - Alternative 8
Total Project Cost
(including contingency)
$6.1 B FY21 Price Level
Contingency
Surge Barriers, Floodwalls, and Closures: 42%
Pumps: 88%
Lands and Damages: 50%
PED & CM: 30%
Cost Sharing Initial Construction:
65% Federal Funding of Project = $3.9B
35% non -Federal Funding of Project = $2.1 B
BCR @ 2.5% Discount Rate: 10.9 BCR
BCR @ 7% Discount Rate: 2.9 BCR
3
1181
US Army Carp.
of EngFnesrs .,
SCOPING &
PLANNING
STRATEGY
Execute Feasibility
Agreement with non -
Federal Sponsor:
9 Oct 2018
• Initiate Scoping
• Invite Agencies to
Participate
• Examine Existing and
Future Without
Project Conditions
• Identify Problems,
Opportunities,
Objectives and
Constraints
SMART Feasibility Study Process:
Miami -Dade Back Bay Coastal Storm Risk Management Stud -
ALTERNATIVE \
FORMULATION
& ANALYSIS
9 Jan 2019
• Receive Stakeholder
Input on Potential
Measures
• Develop Screening
Criteria
• Formulate Initial Array
of Alternatives
Draft Report Release:
5 June 2020
FEASIBLITY-
LEVEL
ANALYSIS TO
TSP
Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP)
Alternative Evaluation and
Comparison:
• Environmental Considerations
• Parametric Costs and
Determine Preliminary Benefits
(Future With Project Conditions)
• Final Array of Alternatives
• Detailed Benefit -to -Cost Ratio
• Stakeholder Input
• Determine the TSP
• Develop Draft Report
FEASIBILITY -
LEVEL
ANALYSIS TO
ADM
CHIEF'S
REPORT
District Engineer transmits
Final Report package
April 2021
Agency Decision Milestone
(ADM): 18 Nov 2020
• Release Draft Report
(Integrated
Environmental Impact
Statement) and Respond
to Comments
• Initiate Multiple Levels
of Quality Review
• Finalize Environmental
Mitigation Plans
• Agree upon path
forward to Final Report
--=
Sept 2021
Release Final
Report
Complete
National
Environmental
Policy Act
(NEPA)
Conclusions
1181
US Army Carps.
of EngFriaars
STUDY AREA AND AUTHORIZATIONS
Existing Authorization for Miami -Dade Back Bay
CSRM
Public Law 84-71
June 15, 1955
Water Resources
Development Act of
1986
Bipartisan Budget
Act of 2018
Public Law 115-123
Title IV, Division B
Authorized examination and
survey of the coastal and tidal
areas of the eastern and
southern United States, with
particular reference to areas
where severe damages have
occurred from hurricane winds
and tides.
Specifies the cost -sharing
requirements generally
applicable to feasibility studies.
Authorizes the government to
conduct the Study at full
Federal expense to the extent
that appropriations provided
under the Investigations
heading of the BBA 2018 are
available and used for such
purpose.
Dept. of Defense (DoD) - Major Roads
Site Boundaries
O Miami -Dade County
• Cities and Towns
Federal Lands
Florida Counties
maw see.
❑ Miami -Dade County contains 34
different municipalities
❑ Complex H&H modeling for water
quality and hydrodynamics limited
due to budget
Due to the limitations of the Corps'
3X3X3 policy, it is not possible to
complete environmental and
cultural surveys during the
Feasibility Phase. These will be
deferred to the Preconstruction
Engineering and Design (PED)
Phase when detailed mitigation
plans will be finalized.
5
1
BACKGROUND
US Army Corps
of Engineers
The non -Federal sponsor is Miami -Dade County
The study is 100% federally funded
Miami -Dade County has a population of -2.8 million people
(76% in high social vulnerability, 17% over 65) with over 500k
structures, of which 240k are in the effective FEMA 1% annual
chance flood, making it the most populous county in Florida and
the seventh most populous in the United States
The Miami -Dade Back Bay CSRM Study will investigate
solutions that will reduce damage and risks from impacts of
coastal storms while considering sea level rise. The study will
not address federally owned land (e.g. Everglades National
Park), but will focus primarily on the urban and coastal areas of
the county.
Approval Authority is delegated to the MSC (NAD)
Study will be completed in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is integrated with the feasibility report
and further NEPA and environmental compliance is expected in
Pre -construction Engineering and Design
CountyBounds
Flood Hazard
Flood Hazard Type
0.2 %Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Area of Minimal Flood Hazard
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard
1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard — — Urban_Development_Boundary
6
US Army Corps
of Engineers
PROBLEMS, OPPORTUNITIES, OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS
PROBLEMS
• The geographic location, low
elevation, and high
population of Miami -Dade
County make it vulnerable to
storm surge from hurricanes
and tropical storms.
• Increasing high tides and
king tides resulting from sea
level rise result in recurrent
flooding to roads and
properties.
• Increasing groundwater
elevations from sea level rise
result in flood risks to inland
areas.
• Increasing flooding from rain
events due to the higher
groundwater elevations and
higher tailwater elevations
from sea level rise threaten
properties and infrastructure
and exacerbate coastal storm
risk.
OPPORTUNITIES
• Reduce the risk to human life
and health due to coastal
flooding, high flooding events
or infrastructure failure.
• Reduce coastal storm -related
economic damage and
improve economic resiliency
of the local economy and
communities, particularly low-
income communities and
vulnerable populations.
• Increase resiliency, structural
integrity, and reliability of
critical infrastructure.
• Reduce transportation
impacts due to high flooding
events.
• Utilize available natural areas
and open spaces for
improving wave attenuation,
water retention, and/or water
storage.
OBJECTIVES
• Increase the resiliency of
Miami -Dade County to
function effectively before,
during, and after coastal
storm events by decreasing
the vulnerability of critical
infrastructure to flooding
damage from storm surge
with consideration for sea
level rise.
• Reduce economic damage to
structures in communities
vulnerable to severe flooding
damage from storm surge
with consideration for sea
level rise.
• Incorporate natural and
nature based features to
reduce flood damage and
complement the
recommended nonstructural
and structural measures.
U.S RMY
CONSTRAINTS
• Avoid creating or
exacerbating flooding within
the project area, to other
local municipalities, and to
local military installations.
• Avoid flooding solutions for
the study area that would
induce increased flooding
issues in locations outside of
the study area.
• Avoid and/or minimize
impacts to existing
environmental and
cultural/historic resources in
the study area and nearby
(e.g. Biscayne Bay National
Park, Miami Circle National
Historic Landmark).
• Cannot exacerbate saltwater
intrusion which will negatively
impact fresh water for
drinking and agriculture.
7
USArmy Corps HAZUS OUTPUTS FOR FEMA
of Engineers ;
100 YEAR STORM + 3' SLR
EXISTING CONDITIONS
CAT 5 SLOSH MOM
STORM SURGE INUNDATION
Q Urban Development
Boundary
n Watershed Boundaries
Damage (Total Loss)
(S1000s)
▪ 0 - S2,500
▪ S2,501 - S5,000
$5,001 - S10.000
S10,001 - $25,000
S25,001 - $50,000
▪ S50,001 - $75,000
▪ S75,001 - $400,000
6
12
Miles
0 Urban Development Boundary
Less than 3 feet above ground
Greater than 3 feet above ground
Greater than 6 feet above ground
Greater than 9 feet above ground
8
US Army Corps.
of Engineers
EXISTING CONDITIONS - STRUCTURES IN FLOOD ZONES
Legend
Urban Development Boundary
QMiami -Dade County Boundary
Flood Hazard Type
A Zone
AE Zone
AH Zone
VE Zone
X, 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
X, Area of Minimal Flood Hazard
Effective FEMA Flood Zone
# of structures
1 %annual
chance flood
A
1,391
AE
113,262
AH
129,036
VE
610
0.2% annual
chance flood
X
34,108
1181
US Army Carps.
of EngFriaars.
FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT (FWOP)
❑ Miami -Dade County SLR impacts for up
to a 3 foot increase in sea levels
❑ Documented Sea Level Rise
❑ Approximately 1 in 6 annual chance of a
hurricane strike
Value of structures in the county is
approximately $311 billion within the
urban development boundary - $5.66 in
construction in the last year
❑ Federal government has an opportunity to
reduce economic and life safety risks
from storm surge through a variety of
measures
❑ Miami -Dade County intervention would
occur
6-1 it - 23 ft
10
1181
US Army Carps.
of EngFriaars.
❑ SE Florida region recognizes the
USACE intermediate and high
curves, but not the low in their
SLR guidance
❑ USACE sea level change curve
calculator — NOAA gage
8723970, at Vaca Key, FL, is the
nearest compliant gage
❑ Local preference is to formulate
using the NOAA high curve.
District formulated to USACE
high curve with approval from
Climate Community of Practice.
Sea level tracker shows Mean
Sea Level (MSL) trending above
intermediate curve for 20 years.
The PDT will also look at project
performance at USACE low and
intermediate curves.
SEA LEVEL CHANGE
Estimated Relative Se
14
,2
2020
vel Change Projections - Gauge: 8723970, Vaca Key, FL
Potential 50 Year Economic
Period of Analysis
2040
2050
co
co
N
2080
Year
— NOAA High Rate
— USACE High Rate
— NOAA Int High Rate
— USACE Int, NOAA Int Low
— USACE1NOAA Low Rate
2100
Sea Level Rise with USACE SLC Scenarios for vacs Key. FL (8723970)
ubre arai
2120
IIW lw — PIMA I. -.. ,.
2140
Projected SLR Increase (ft) to
2084 using 2019 sea level
trend of 0.01263 ft/yr
USACE Low
0.83
USACE
Intermediate
1.52
USACE High
3.72
NOAA High
4.82
— High SLC
— Intermediate SLC
— Low SLC
— Linear Trend Value for MSL (entire period of record)
- Linear Trend of MSL November, 1979 - November. 2019
- S-Year MSL Moving Average
— MSL
MSL Moving Average
1181
US Army Carps.
of EngFriaars.
PLAN FORMULATION STRATEGY
❑ Refine focus areas due to the large size of Miami -Dade County which includes 34
municipalities by using overlay of social vulnerability index and Hazus (FEMA
model) outputs
❑ Identify applicable risk management measures in refined focus areas for structural,
nonstructural, and natural and nature -based features
❑ Identify and prioritize critical infrastructure to increase resiliency by ensuring they
are functional before, during, and after a coastal storm event
❑ Critical infrastructure inventory: Fire stations, police stations, evacuation centers,
emergency operation centers, hospitals, pump stations, treatment plants, etc.
❑ Criticality and vulnerability ranking from Miami -Dade County's Rapid Action Plan which
identifies vulnerable critical infrastructure
❑ Develop alternatives
❑ Evaluate and compare alternatives using refined areas, screening measures, and
G2CRM economics model
❑ Select Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP)
❑ Optimize TSP and select the Recommended Plan
MIR
12
US Army Carps.
of EngFrre$rs..,
SCREENING TO
REFINED ARRAY
❑ Hazus model outputs of potential damage was multiplied by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
social vulnerability index (SVI) to obtain a composite risk map
which showed seven socially vulnerable economic damage
centers.
❑ Structural measures were screened based on seven focus
areas identified, preliminary real estate and engineering
concerns, and non -Federal sponsor (NFS) input.
❑ Nonstructural areas were narrowed down to the seven refined
focus areas based on analysis how did it.
❑ Vulnerable critical infrastructure asset categories were
determined through scoping meetings
❑ Natural and nature -based features (NNBF) were identified
through coordination with local stakeholders.
AN E.
Legend
Urban Development Boundary
Miami -Dade County Boundary
Refined Focus Areas
n Arch Creek
Aventura
Cutler Bay
I —I Little River
n Miami River
n North Beach
n South Beach
0 2 4
8
Miles
13
FOCUSED ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Number Alternative Name
Description
ICI
1
No Action
No Action
2
Critical Infrastructure Only
Analyzing critical infrastructure throughout all of Miami -Dade County on
priority asset categories. This includes wet and dry floodproofing
structures.
3
4
5
Miami River Basin +
Alternative 2
Nonstructural + Alternative 2
Inland Storm Surge Reduction
(Structural) + Alternative 2
Surge barrier at Miami River (with associated floodwalls and pump
stations) + Floodwall at Edgewater + Nonstructural outside of surge barrier.
Acquiring, elevating, and wet and dry floodproofing of structures in seven
socially vulnerable, economic damage centers defined by Hazus and the
CDC SVI which include Miami River, Little River, Arch Creek River,
Aventura, North Beach, South Beach, and Cutler Bay areas.
Surge barriers (with associated floodwalls and pump stations) at the most
socially vulnerable, economic damage centers which include Miami River,
Little River, and Biscayne Canal.
6
Alternative 3 + 4
Miami River Basin + Nonstructural + Critical Infrastructure
7
Alternative 4 + 5
Nonstructural + Structural + Critical Infrastructure including Floodwall at
, Edgewater
8 Alternative 4 + 5
Nonstructural + Structural + Critical Infrastructure including Nonstructural
at Edgewater instead of Floodwall at Edgewater
14
STRUCTURAL DESIGN WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
US Army car
Structural
Area
Structural
Breakdown
Top of Wall Elevation (ft. NAVD88)
Average ground elevation for floodwalls range from 5 to 8' NAVD88
2% AEP + USACE
High Curve SLC
1 % AEP + USACE
High Curve SLC
0.5% AEP + USACE
High Curve SLC
Miami River
South Floodwall
12.1
13.6
15.6
South Wall in Water
15.8
17.8
19.3
—
Surge Barrier
15.5
17.5
19
North Floodwall
11.9
14
16.1
Little River
South Floodwall
9.1
9.7
10.7
Surge Barrier
11.1
12.6
14.6
North Floodwall
11.4
12.9
14.4
Biscayne
Canal
South Floodwall
10.1
8.6
11.6
Surge Barrier
10.5
11.5
13
North Floodwall
10
11.5
13
Note: Top of wall elevations were adjusted and determined based on wave overtopping rates.
Stillwater levels were based on the 50% confidence levels which included storm surge, tides, and
wave setup.
15
US Army Carps
of EngFoams
NONSTRUCTURAL DESIGN WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
Feet NAVD88, SLC USACE High curve to 2084, 50% confidence level
Modeled Areas
2%AEP
Water Levels*
1 % AEP
Water Levels*
0.5% AEP
Water Levels*
Average Ground
Elevation (ft. NAVD88)
Arch Creek East
8.21 - 9.23
9.00 - 10.15
9.81 - 11.08
4.5
Arch Creek West
7.98
8.89
10.25
6.2
Aventura East
7.79 - 9.24
8.48 - 10.07
9.29 - 11.0
4.1
Aventura Center
7.91 - 9.19
8.61 - 10.03
9.44 - 11.0
5.0
Aventura West
7.55
8.33
9.28
6.5
Cutler Bay
10.57 - 15.08
11.86 - 16.75
13.22 - 18.49
7.3
Edgewater
8.05 - 8.81
8.91 - 9.76
10.01 - 10.94
5.8
Little River
7.96 - 8.61
8.74 - 9.52
9.53 - 10.46
6.7
Miami River
8.86 - 10.12
9.9 - 11.26
11.05 - 12.5
8.2
North Beach
7.69 - 7.74
8.36 - 8.45
9.07 - 9.26
3.4
South Beach
8.22
9.03
9.74
3.3
*Includes astronomical tides, storm surge, wave setup and significant wave height (SWH) where
data was available and applicable. These levels were used as the Design Water Surface Elevation.
16
TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN
US Army Carps.
of EngFriaars
Alternative Number & Name
1 — No Action
2 — Critical Infrastructure Only
Total Average
Annual Benefits
Total Average
Annualized Cost
$o $o
$9,000,000 $4,000,000
3 — Miami River Basin + Alternative 2
4 — Nonstructural + Alternative 2
5 — Inland Storm Surge Reduction (Structural)
+ Alternative 2
6 — Alternative 3 + 4
7 — Alternative 4 + 5 (includes Floodwall at
Edgewater)
8 — Alternative 4 + 5 (includes Nonstructural at
Edgewater instead of Floodwall at Edgewater)
Project First Cost
So
$95,000,000
$1,345,000,000 $91,000,000
$422,000,000 $123,000,000
$1,589,000,000
$1,614,000,000
$1,836,000,000
$1,836,000,000
$144,000,000
$187,000,000
$229,000,000
$196,000,000
$1,944,000,000
$3,140,000,000
$3,067,000,000
$4,390,000,000
$5,214,000,000
$4,586,000,000
BCR
11.0
8.6
8.0
9.4
Net Remaining
Benefits
0
$6,000,000
$1,255,000,000
$299,000,000
$1,444,000,000
$1,428,000,000
$1,607,000,000
$1,640,000,000
US Army Carps.
of EngFriaars. *;
NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (NED) PLAN
Optimization
Total Average Total Average
Annual Benefits Annualized Cost
Alternative 8 — TSP (1% AEP) $1,836,000,000 $196,000,000
Alternative 8 — 2% AEP $1,721,000,000 $246,000,000
Alternative 8 — 1% AEP $2,313,000,000 $265,000,000
Project First Cost BCR
Net NED
Benefits
$4,586,000,000 9.4 $1,640,000,000
$5,163,000,000
$5,792,000,000
7.0
8.7
$1,474,000,000
$2,048,000,000
Alternative 8 — 0.5% AEP $3,079,000,000
$282,000,000
$6,058,000,000
10.9
$2,798,000,000
1181
US Army Carps
of EngFne$rs.
RECOMMENDED PLAN
❑ Critical infrastructure risk management on
priority asset categories outside of structural
measures such as fire stations, police
stations, hospitals, evacuation centers,
emergency operation centers, pump
stations, etc. (not shown on map).
❑ Surge barriers at Biscayne Canal, Little
River, and Miami River all of which include
associated pump stations, floodwalls, and
tide gates.
❑ Nonstructural risk management at refined
focus areas outside of structural measures
❑ Elevations: 5,800
❑ Floodproofing: 4,600
❑ Natural and nature -based features are being
considered at the Cutler Bay site.
Total Project First Cost :
$6,058,000,000
BCR: 10.9
Annual Net benefits:
$2,798,000,000
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles
l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1
0
Coral Springs
0Mia
mi
Everglades
ational Park
Structural Measures
(Storm Surge Barriers,
Pump Stations &
Floodwalls)*
— Biscayne Canal
— Coral Gables
— Little River
— Miami River
i 522
Risk Management Areas
F' l C-8 (Biscayne Canal)
Coral Gables
Little River
Miami River
�-, S22
Refined Nonstructural
Focus Areas
Arch Creek
Aventura
Cutler Bay
Little River
Miami River
North Beach
South Beach
Edgewater
A
*Estimates of locations and footprints of the structural measures have been initially determined
at a mean confidence level based on the USACE derived 2084 0.5% annual exceedance
probability stillwater elevation level from the FEMA South Florida Storm Surge Study (includes
astronomical tide, storm surge, wave overtopping, and USACE high curve sea level rise) and will
be finalized during the Preconstruction, Engineering, and Design Phase of the project when more
detailed surveys and data are available.
19
1181
US Army Carps
of Engineers *;
RECOMMENDED PLAN INUNDATION BOUNDARIES
Legend
Urban Development
Boundary
Q Miami -Dade County Boundary
USACE 2084 0.5% AEP
Without Project Condition
FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT
Legend
Urban
Development
Boundary
Miami -Dade
Q County
Boundary
USAGE 2084
0.5% AEP With
Project
Condition
Structural Measures
(Storm Surge
Barriers, Floodwalls,
and Pump Stations)
— Biscayne Canal
Coral Gables
Way
- Little River
— Miami River
S22
FUTURE WITH PROJECT
Note: The inundation layers are
based on the USACE 0.5%
AEP mean value confidence
level for the year 2084. The
2084 value is the total water
level which includes
astronomical tides, storm
surge, and USAGE high curve
SLR for a particular storm
event.
20
US Army Carps
of EngFrresrs .,
IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN
Measure
Approximate
Duration
(Years)
FY
Start
FY
End
Critical Infrastructure
10
2026
2035
Nonstructural Measures
10
2026
2035
NNBF - Cutler Bay
5
2026
2030
Miami River Surge Barrier and associated features
10
2026
2035
Little River Surge Barrier and associated features
3
2028
2030
Biscayne Canal Surge Barrier and associated features
5
2031
2035
Mitigation (prior to construction of respective feature)
11
2025
2035
Priority
1
2
3
4
5
5
❑ Implementation strategy discussed and agreed upon with Miami -Dade County
❑ Critical infrastructure and nonstructural measures are first due to less design and
construction time
❑ Larger structural measures could still be in PED, obtaining permits, etc.
i
21
US Army Carps
of EngFnears. *,
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION
❑ Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
published 18 July 2019; Notice of Availability of draft Integrated Feasibility
Report and Programmatic EIS published 5 June 2020
❑ Interagency meetings held approximately bi-monthly
❑ Participating/Cooperating Agencies:
❑ Florida Department of Environmental Protection
❑ Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve
❑ Florida Department of Transportation*
❑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
❑ National Park Service
❑ Federal Emergency Management Agency
❑ National Marine Fisheries Service *
❑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*
❑ U.S. Coast Guard
❑ South Florida Water Management District
* = Cooperating Agencies
i
22
US Army Carps
of EngFrresrs
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Feasibility Study/Planning Phase
Notes
Coastal Zone Management Act
Conditional Federal Consistency Concurrence provided by Florida
DEP on 08/04/20
Clean Water Act, Section 404
National Historic Preservation Act
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
Clean Water Act, Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)
404B1 Guidelines analysis included in Environmental Appendix of
draft report
Regional Coastal Programmatic Agreement, coordination ongoing
by SAJ; anticipated completion date of 1/31/2021
Memorandum of Agreement between USACE and USFWS signed
2/26/20. The USFWS will use ESA consultation process to complete
coordination responsibilities under FWCA. Policy Waiver Request
Package in Development
Policy Waiver Request Package in Development
Policy Waiver Request Package in Development; Formal
Consultations anticipated
Policy Waiver Request Package in Development; Formal
Consultation anticipated
Policy Waiver Request Package in Development
23
1181
US Army Carps
of EngFnears .,
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND NEPA IMPLEMENTATION
❑ The final design and siting of project features would not occur until the PED Phase at which time resource
surveys, including environmental surveys and a wetland jurisdictional determination, would be conducted.
❑ The structural components would have the potential to result in adverse effects to federally protected
threatened and endangered species, critical habitats, and essential fish habitats. At this time, the
information required to complete consultation requirements, including detailed design information, an
operations and management plan, and survey data, is not available. The USFWS and NMFS have provided
support for completing consultations during the PED Phase in their comments received on the draft EIS.
❑ A policy waiver request will be submitted for approval for environmental compliance requirements that
cannot be achieved during the feasibility study/planning phase.
❑ Future, tiered NEPA documentation would also be prepared for site -specific project phases and
coordinated with resource agencies as designs advance and more detailed resource data becomes available
during the PED Phase.
24
US Army Carps.
of EngFriaars.
RISK AND UNCERTAINTY
Engineering/Geospatial
❑ Existing data quality and availability - Medium Risk
❑ Geotechnical Data known - substrate is limestone -
Low Risk
❑ Uncertainty in time for data analysis - Medium Risk
Economics
❑ Structure and content values - Low Risk
❑ First floor elevations - Medium risk
❑ Forecasted Stillwater elevation - Low Risk
❑ Using data from ERDC on updated ADCIRC
model
Environmental/Cultural Resources
❑ Methodology to assess any damage reduced by
using natural and nature -based features - Low Risk
❑ Completion of environmental and cultural resource
surveys during PED Phase - Medium Risk
❑ Water Quality Impacts/Modeling - Medium Risk
❑ Environmental permitting - Medium to High Risk
•
Or -
Real Estate
❑ Property owner cooperation during the
acquisition phase - Medium Risk
❑ Acquisition of property rights for in -
water structures - Low Risk
❑ Utility Relocations - Low Risk
Plan Formulation
❑ 3 x 3 budget and schedule goals will
reduce comprehensive nature of the
study and increase potential residual
risk - Medium Risk
❑ Potential project intersection with
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan (CERP) and Central & Southern
Florida (C&SF) Project may impact
other projects (coordinating with SAJ) -
Medium Risk
25
US Army Carps
of Ent
REVIEW FINDINGS
❑ Agency Technical Review (ATR)
❑ 198 comments All comments resolved and closed out.
❑ 1 critical H&H comment
❑ Legal and Policy Review The PDT and blended review team have agreed
on the path forward to reach resolution on all comments.
❑ 37 comments
❑ 11 high, 5 medium/high
ir❑ Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) All comments resolved and
closed out.
❑ 16 comments
❑ 3 medium/high comments
❑ Public and Agency Comments - In Progress Under Review.
r6, ❑ 539 comments (184 unique comments)
UMW
26
1181
US Army Carps
of EngEneers *,
AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS
H&H — 1 Critical Comment
• Comment: Using 90% Confidence Limit for economic analysis is non -compliant with ER 100
and ER 101
• Response: The team has adjusted the model to use mean values per guidance for economic
analysis.
• ,•I
I :•J i
US Army Corps
of Engineers:'
POLICY REVIEW COMMENTS FROM PGM
UrS.IIRNY
• Comment: Ensure all USACE SLC curves were used to determine NED Plan. Provide additional description of residual risk
and expected performance of the features.
• Response: Mean values were used to determine NED plan. USACE low and intermediate curves as well as 90% CL will be
looked at to determine project performance and determine residual risk.
• Comment: Provide additional details regarding concurrent studies and multiple lines of defense.
• Response: Additional details will be added to elaborate on the FWOP conditions and studies being conducted at SAJ
• Comment: Justify NNBF at Cutler Bay and why additional NNBF could not be paired with structural features.
• Response: Further investigation of NNBF is being conducted at Cutler Bay.
• Comment: It appears unlikely that the project will achieve full environmental compliance by the final report and a policy
waiver will be needed.
• Response: A discussion with the Vertical Team will be coordinated to discuss the waiver requirements. The draft waiver
request is currently in development.
• Comment: The REP needs additional data regarding real estate requirements and all estates that may be required,
potential costs and schedule impacts to the project if acquisition is part of nonstructural plan, and additional details on facility
or utility relocations.
• Response: Additional details have been refined since Draft Report release and will continue to be adjusted accordingly.
1181
IEPR COMMENTS
US Army Carps
of EngFrresrs .,
❑ 3 Medium/High Comments:
• Requesting confidence intervals on EAD and BCR estimates, exceedance
probability ratings, long-term risk and assurance tables as required by ER 1105-2-
101
• Interior flood analysis and rainfall analysis has not been completed. Use multiple
SLR curves to determine performance of TSP. Clarify potential effects of
subsidence. Describe H&H modeling activities that will occur in PED. Evaluate how
uncertainty from assumptions translate into confidence limits on EADs and BCRs
• Identify critical infrastructure inventory and their role in protecting or improving
resiliency of Miami -Dade County. Describe how critical infrastructure is expected to
perform under FWOP conditions.
29
i
1181
US Army Carps
of EngFrresr .,
PUBLIC COMMENTS
❑ Public preferred seeing more natural and nature -based solutions like living shorelines and
coral restoration and green infrastructure and less grey infrastructure
❑ Concerns that the solutions do not provide risk reduction to rainfall, nuisance/chronic
flooding, and/or sea level rise on its own; water quality impact concerns associated with
proposed structural measures
❑ Using property values to identify benefits rewards wealthy investors who continue to build
along the coast and can afford to elevate their homes on their own.
❑ High value properties would benefit more from protection features compared to historically
vulnerable communities
❑ Floodwalls will bisect communities and could lower property values of houses on the seaward
side of the floodwall
30
US Army Carps.
of EngFriaars.
NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR EXEMPTION REQUEST / PATH FORWARD
❑ Sponsor submitted a letter requesting that Norfolk District submit a 3x3
exemption for additional time
❑ NAO and Sponsor reviewing exemption request schedule and budget
❑ Team continues to move forward towards Chief's Report
❑ If exemption sought, it will be for additional details on the Recommended
Plan and not scope expansion
❑ Team to continue to work with Sponsor to address study comments
❑ Develop high level briefings for Sponsor and municipalities
❑ Develop additional outreach opportunities for the community
❑ Develop visual concept art for engineering features
❑ Provide details on integrating project into Central and Southern Florida Flood
Control Project
❑ Provide details on incorporation and limits of natural and nature -based
lamifeatures
31
US Army Carps
of EngFriaars. *;
CURRENT FEASIBILITY STUDY MILESTONE SCHEDULE
Signing of Feasibility Cost Share Agreement (CW130)
Alternatives Milestone (CW261)
In -Progress Review
Tentatively Selected Plan Milestone (CW262)
Release of Draft Study for Concurrent Reviews (CW250)
Agency Decision Milestone (CW263)
Submit Final Report Package to MSC /
Policy and Legal Compliance Review Team (CW160)
State and Agency Review 11 June 2021 (S)
Signed Chief's Report (CW270) 124 Sep 2021 (S)
09 Oct 2018 (A)
09 Jan 2019 (A)
07 May 2019 (A)
17 Jan 2020 (A)
5 June 2020 (A)
18 Nov 2020 (S)
23 April 2021 (S)
32
1181
US Army Carps
of EngFriaars
PANEL DISCUSSION
L -
,T1I1-111111 _ _ _ I I 1 Pi
•Et.-
.6.174V
1181
US Army Carps
of EngFriaars
SPONSOR'S COMMENTS
1181
US Army Carps
of EngFrresrs .,
WAIN
AGENCY DECISION REQUESTED
❑ The Recommended Plan
❑ Project First Cost: $ $6,058,000,000
❑ Average Annual Net Benefit: $3,079,000,000
❑ BCR at 2.5% Discount Rate: 10.9
❑ BCR at 7% Discount Rate: 2.9
❑ Life Risk is expected to be reduced compared to future without project condition
❑ Review findings did not result in comments that would change the Recommended Plan
❑ The team is still on track to complete the study within three years and for $3M
•
` C1