The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSubmittal-Colonel Patrick Kinsman-Back Bay Feasibility Study PresentationMIAMI-DADE BACK BAY COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECT UPDATE FOR: CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION COL Patrick Kinsman Commander, Norfolk District 11 February 2021 Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk MABMY US Army Corps of Engineers MIAMI-DA►DE 1 U.S.ARMY *1 KEY DISCUSSION POINTS Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk ■ Current Situation: ■ USACE conducting outreach ■ Study on track for "Chief's Report" milestone in SEPT 2021; and WRDA 2022 authorization ■ Commitment from Miami -Dade County — Non -Federal Project Sponsor — needed to "continue process." ■ USACE Agency Decision Milestone required for study completion, September 2021 ■ Authorization makes project immediately able to receive Supplemental Funding in future post -storm appropriations ■ Feedback - Thank you! Great input received from local Municipalities and the public ■ Natural and nature -based features vs. structural solutions ■ USACE Civil Works Process — ■ Significant flexibility/decision points — even after Congressional Authorization ■ Sponsor has opportunity to consider & add enhancements — e.g., walkways, bike paths, lighting ■ Opportunity to reduce long term coastal storm risk 2 * U.S.ARMY KEY DISCUSSION POINTS Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk ❑ The Recommend Plan - "concept" design only; goal is Congressional Authorization in WRDA ❑ Phased implementation for both design and construction. ❑ Strong agreement on 3 of 4 key plan components — ❑ Critical Infrastructure - concurrence ❑ Nonstructural - concurrence ❑ Natural & Nature Based Features (NNBF) - concurrence ❑ Structural — challenge ❑ Opportunity to collaborate on structural component of plan ❑ Need local input ❑ Provides protection to over 220,000 structures. ❑ Damages prevented - based on 200yr storm & projected SLR through 2084 = $2.8 B/yr ❑ Federal plan aimed at most economical/efficient expenditure of funds — greatest benefits at least cost — this sets federal funding limits ❑ Enhancements to any structural component can ABSOLUTELY be incorporated in the final design — i.e. Riverwalk Design Guide components - but local sponsor will have to fund difference between the current plan and final design 3 1 1 * U.S.ARMY FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk 4 Description / Concerns USACE Action Develop briefings for Sponsor and other Municipalities Planned engagements with the Miami DDA, City Commissioners Reyes and Russell, SFWMD, etc. J Develop additional outreach opportunities for community Future opportunities for community participation are included during Preconstruction, Engineering and Design (PED). We will conduct topic specific workshops. Develop visual concept art for structural features and show height of recommended walls Approximate wall heights throughout all alignments have been calculated and shown in maps. Further designs will be completed in PED. Details on integrating project into Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Flood Control Project Additional details will be included in study. SFWMD and Jacksonville District updating the C&SF project in the future. This study will be included in that update. SAJ Workshops Planned. Provide more details on NNBF and/or replace walls with NNBF Fact sheets have been drafted to show more details and limitations of NNBFs. NNBFs would not provide the level of risk reduction similar to a structural measure. L__ Flood structures in downtown Miami will The Sponsor has opportunity to add enhancements such as impede access. elevated walkways/bike paths. U.S.ARMY STUDY AUTHORIZATION AND COUNTY- WIDE RECOMMENDED PLAN Study Authorization: • Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, Public Law 115-123, Title IV, Division B • Authorizes the Study at full Federal expense • Part of a multi -phase county -wide resilient investigation • Miami -Dade CSRM (beach study), South Atlantic Coastal Study, Miami -Dade Back Bay • Due to complexities, additional studies are required to cover all of Miami -Dade County • Close collaboration with the County ongoing Recommended Plan: • 7 x high risk focus areas featuring structural, nonstructural and/or NNBFs. • Critical infrastructure - floodproofing approximately 200 x critical facilities • Structural measures: • Surge barriers, floodwalls, and pump stations at Biscayne Canal, Little River, Miami River, Coral Gables Way, and S22 (Snapper Creek Canal). • Potential storm surge risk reduction to 220,000 structures. • Nonstructural measures: • Elevating residential buildings: 5,800 • Floodproofing non-residential buildings: 4,600 • NNBFs were identified through coordination with local stakeholders, State agencies, and Federal agencies. submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk Total Project First Cost : $6,058,000,000 BCR: 10.9 Annual Net benefits: $2,798,000,000 W Legend Urban Development Boundary Miarn i-Dade County Boundary Crftica Infrastructure 0 Communication • County& Municipal Fire Station • County Municipal Police Station 0 EOC Command Center • Hospital. Refined Focus Areas Arch Creek Aventufa Cutler Bay Little River Miami River North Beach Sputh Beach l LJ U.S.ARMY RECOMMENDED PLAN STORM SURGE INUND �I r City of Miami Boundary Urban De%'4:lupmail ➢ounitary Q h9iami-Dade County Boundary USACE ?0354 U.5' 6 AEP =' Without Project Condition Inundation FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT Ci1y ut Miami 19uaailnr). Urban 'Dry rlapori au iioIalla L'f Q441nn l IYnd r Co —Ent,. Bow.] rr` 4 SAS'E 2U54 0.64i AEP %Vial Ftuj exi C.(ii3ua luaudalinu SLrnri n ra33Frnsa114 (S Lunn Surge narriars. MIoMI a'a k. vial Pump hrBUnar,} - niaraa:ar Cna1Al +—+ {-Arad Ciahlra Way - Lifrl? Rh?r - Mani L River — S22 FUTURE WITH PROJECT Note: The inundation layers are based on the USACE 0.5% annual exceedance probability mean value confidence level for the year 2084. The 2084 value is the total water level which includes astronomical tides, storm surge, and USACE high curve sea level change for a particular storm event. This inundation boundary does not include precipitation. Submitted into the uAlic 4TION BOUNDARIES ono?tlilz1 Historical Storms Peak Storm Surge Donna* (1960) 13' Andrew* (1992) 16.9' Irma* (2017) 6' Dorian** (2019) 23' Structural Area Range of Top of Wall Elevations (ft. NAVD88) Miami River 15.6 — 19.3 Little River 10.7 — 14.6 Biscayne Canal 11.6 - 13 Structural Area # of Structures with Potential Risk Reduction for City of Miami Miami River 28,000 Little River 4,000 Coral Gables Way 10,000 * Data from Miami -Dade ** Hurricane Dorian was Dade County, but took a away. Surge is reflective Local Mitigation Strategy (2018) headed directly toward Miami - strong northeast turn 100 miles of the Bahamas. U.S.ARMY EXAMPLE FLOODWALL DESIGNS Stanley Park, Vancouver, BC Seawall Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk 7 U.S.ARMY APPLICATION OF ENHANCEMENTS fit+ AWAIT IONE cAte,A,VOC" 7EDNF 0 4' 9' 18" ism SCALE: 118" = 1'-0" Laving shvrninn,e with up -rap Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk StepS tO• war - perpend9cular 8 Example of public access (Brickell Waterfront) * U.S.ARMY Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk APPLICATION OF ENHANCEMENTS Gentilly Resiliency District, New Orleans, Levee Wall Concept by Waggonner & Ball 9 U.S.ARMr 10 PROJECT DECISION POINTS / KEY MILESTONES Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021. City Clerk 1. USACE Actions 2. Miami -Dade County Commitments CY20 FY21 3. Public Interaction 4. Congress/ Budget/Funds ADM 19 Feb State & Agency Review 11 June Letter of Commitment (2 Apr) Staff and Public Workshops Key Leader Briefs FY 23 Budget Input mid March Chiefs Report 24 Sept FY22 Work Plan • WRDA 2022/ Project Auth. Available for Supplemental Initial PED Design Efforts Prioritize Critical Infrastructure Design Agreement PED Public Scoping PED Design Charrettes 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q Phased Design & Construction Focus on NFS Priorities: 1) Critical Infrastructure, 2) Nonstructural, 3) NNBF, 4) Structural Project Partnership Agreement i NEPA — EIS, Public Comment and Engagement for PED and Phased Construction FY 23 WP — PED Funds Prioritize Critical Infrastructure 1 Appropriation / Construction New Start M Decision Point 1 U.S.ARMY 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) Submitted into the public record for item(s) D nn n7-11-7n71 _ City Clark 09 Oct 2018 (A) 09 Jan 2019 (A) 07 May 2019 (A) 17 Jan 2020 (A) 5 June 2020 (A) 18 Nov 2020 (A) 2nd Agency Decision Milestone (Internal USACE Milestone) TBD Submit Final Report Package to MSC / 23 April 2021 (S) Policy and Legal Compliance Review Team (CW160) State and Agency Review 11 June 2021 (S) Signed Chief's Report (CW270) 24 Sep 2021 (S) 11 * U.S.ARMY IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN Measure Critical Infrastructure Nonstructural Measures FY Start 10 2026 NNBF - Cutler Bay 5 2026 Miami River Surge Barrier and associated features Little River Surge Barrier and associated features Biscayne Canal Surge Barrier and associated features Mitigation (prior to construction of respective feature) 10 5 11 2026 2028 2031 2025 2035 2030 2035 2035 2 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. 12 Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk * U.S.ARMY SUMMARY ■ Feedback - Thank you! Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk ■ Request community support and input on structural solutions ■ USACE Civil Works Process — ■ Significant flexibility/decision points — even after Congressional Authorization ■ Structural solution can be addressed through enhancements during design phase ■ Tremendous opportunity to reduce long term coastal storm risk to Miami 13 * U.S.ARMY QUESTIONS? Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk 14 * U.S.ARMY BACKUP SLIDES Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk 15 U.S.ARMY RECOMMENDED PLAN WITHIN CITY OF MIAMI ❑ Approximately 25 critical infrastructure recommended for floodproofing on priority asset categories such as fire stations, police stations, hospitals, pump stations, and treatment plants. ❑ Structural measures provide potential storm surge risk reduction to 42,000 structures ❑ Nonstructural measures: ❑ Elevating residential buildings: 600 ❑ Floodproofing non-residential buildings: 250 ❑ NNBFs were considered, but were screened out due to water velocities/surge in this area and water depth issues. ❑ NNBFs would not provide the level of risk reduction similar to a structural measure. Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk City of Miami Structural Measures (Storm Surge Barriers,r Pump Stations & Floodwalts)* - Biscayne Canal — Corral BahitN - Little River - r.1I.SM River 522 Risk Management Area C.2 (Biscayne Canal) Cara[ t3aLtr Miami Lue River r�irni River -H 522 Refined Nonstructural Focus Areas Arch CrCeis Aventine Cutler Bay A Little River Miami River Worth Beach N South Beach Fd9evrater *Estimates of kscaatlons and frotprints of the structural mneasures have been Initially determined at a mean confidence level based an the USACE delved 2084 0.5% annual exceedanee 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 curing the Precorrstructioe, Engineering, and Design Phase of the project when more detailed surveys and data are available. 16 U.S.ARMr DESIGN WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS AND ALIGNMENTS Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk Structural Area Range of Top of Wall Elevations for Floodwalls and Surge Barriers If+ AI AVIlQQ1 Miami River 15.6 — 19.3 Little River 10.7 — 14.6 Biscayne Canal 11.6 - 13 ❑ Feasibility level of design. Actual wall heights, alignments, and design will be determined during PED through the Sponsor and public input. ❑ Coastal walls utilized additional height to address wave overtopping rates. ❑ Betterments such as elevated walkways, plantings, bike paths can be accommodated at Sponsor expense : N" o rfh 1=loodwaII South Floodwall Surge Barrier 1,1 South Wall in Water Floodwall & Barrier Height Above Ground Elevation (ft.) • -2.0 <_So.n 518,n • • �6.11 <14.1) • 521.82 For the pulpaees of this Illustration, the visual height assumes wales !ere! elevation is et 0.0 ft. NAN[08 For surge harriers. dad 4.0 ft. NAVD88 for irrwatier portions of the Miami. (liver floodwell. Ground ale etm heigh4 used fcr cekulatorrs are derived from 2018 Dg1Gl Elev.tion Model (DEM) d.t . MIAMI RIVER 17 Miami Shores Coll Course T. •w . Biscayne"i Canal• City of Miami Boundary ends here jy errNorlhpB imedarmielm Floodwall & Barrier Height Above Ground Elevation (ft.) • <_2.0 <_:111 0 518 it • 21.11 • 56.1) 514.0 • <_2.1.82 48.0 c 16.11 Forte purposes of this illush,tim, the visual height assumes w.ter level elevation is .t 0.0 ft, NAV068 For surgelo.rrie4s rd 4.0 4. NAYDOS fur Irrweter portals of the Miami River Hwdwetl. Gmurd dereton heigh4 used for c.lculetions are derived from 2008 Cyit.l Elev.tion Model (DE1-11 Gat.. LITTLE RIVER AND BISCAYNE CANAL U.S.ARMY Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021. City Clerk MIAMI RIVER DESIGN WATER SURFACE ELEVATION AND ALIGNMENTS Miami River Structural Breakdown Top of Wall Elevation (ft. NAVD88) Average ground elevation for floodwalls range from 5 to 8' NAVD88 South Floodwall 15.6 South Wall in Water 19.3 Surge Barrier North Floodwall 19 16.1 Note: Stillwater levels were based on the 50% confidence levels which included storm surge, tides, USACE high curve sea level change and wave setup. ❑ Feasibility level of design. Actual wall heights, alignments, and design will be determined during PED through the Sponsor and public input. ❑ Coastal walls utilized additional height to address wave overtopping rates. ❑ Betterments such as elevated walkways, plantings, bike paths can be accommodated at Sponsor expense ems. South Floodwall °Hialeah wmid-tester South Alami Kendall Surge Barrier South Wall in Water Key Eimm Floodwall & Barrier Height Above Ground Elevation (ft.) • <2.0 S1o.0 <18.4i • 4. 512.O s2[l.41 SFn.❑ <14.0 i 521.82 SSA 516.0 For the pupa.. of this ilkrshution, the visual height aswmes weber level eievation k at 0.0 ft. NAVD&B For surge barriers and 4.0 ft. NAVD88 fa in -water portions of the Miami. River fladwall. Ground eleuetim heights used fa calculations are derived fiom 2018. DigitaI Elevation Model (DEM) dote. U.S.ARMY LITTLE RIVER DESIGN WATER SURFACE ELEVATION AND ALIGNMENTS Structural Area Structural Breakdown Top of Wall Elevation (ft. NAVD88) Avg. ground elevation for floodwalls range from 5' to 8' NAVD88 Biscayne Canal South Floodwall 11.6 Surge Barrier 13 North Floodwall 13 Little River South Floodwall 10.7 Surge Barrier 14.6 North Floodwall 14.4 Note: Stillwater levels were based on the 50% confidence levels which included storm surge, tides, USACE high curve sea level change and wave setup. ❑ Feasibility level of design. Actual wall heights, alignments, and design will be determined during PED through the Sponsor and public input. ❑ Walls further inland utilized natural high ground to reduce the wall height Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk Miami Shores Golf Course City of Miami Boundary ends here Floodwall & Barrier Height Above Grounr Elevation (ft.) • 52.11 [1{).0 518.0 • K4.i} .12.0 • i6,0 i14.1) • 521.82 58.1} C1(,II For the purpxes of this i[lustraten the visuel height assumes war level efevetion is ut 0.0 ft. NAVD88 for surge barriers era 4.0 ft. NAVD&B For in-weter patrons of the Miami Riser Huodwel I. Ground elevation heights used for cekuletions die derived from zota Dgikel Elevetim Morel (DEM) date. +C, 2f1,f1 a U.S ARMY DESIGN WATER SURFACE ELEVATION AND ALIGNMENTS Structural Area Miami River Little River Biscayne Canal Structural Breakdown South Floodwall Top of Wall Elevation (ft. NAVD88) 15.6 South Wall in Water Surge Barrier 19.3 19 North Floodwall South Floodwall Surge Barrier North Floodwall 16.1 10.7 14.6 14.4 South Floodwall 11.6 Surge Barrier 13 North Floodwall 13 ❑ Feasibility level of design. Actual wall heights, alignments, and design will be determined during PED through the Sponsor and public input. ❑ Coastal walls utilized additional height to address wave overtopping rates. ❑ Betterments such as elevated walkways/bike paths, plantings, etc. can be accommodated at Sponsor expense South Floodwall h North Floodwall Surge Barrier Floodwall B. Barrier Height Above Ground Elevation (ft.) • 020 510.0 518.0 • 54.0 512.0 • 520.0 56.0 014.0 • 021.82 58.0 516.0 For the purps.E. of this illustration, tic visual height asames water level ele.e.kon et 0.0 ft. NAVD66 for singe barriers and 4.0 ft. NAW®R for In -water portions of he Nlami River flosdwall. Ground elevation hagkts used for cakulations are derived finm 201f1 Digdal E4vatirn Model (GEM) date. MIAMI RIVER Submitted into the public precord for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk 20 I Il.l1 Miami Shores Golf Course • irg!. Little River Biscayne' 'Canal•.:': 4or[h _ villag. Fleodwall & Barrier Height Above Ground Elevation (ft.) • 52.0 • 54.0 • 56.0 58.0 510.0 512.0 514.0 516.0 518.0 • 520.0 • 521.82 For the purpose of this iNrstration, the visual height assumes water level elevation a at 0.0 ft. NHVD00e for alga harmers and 4.0 ft. MNYO136 foe in-wat r portions of the Miami River floodwdl. Ground elevation heights used for cdevldions are derived from 2018 oegital Elevation Model (DEN) data. LITTLE RIVER AND BISCAYNE CANAL * U.S.ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION Submitted into the public record for item(s) DI.3, on 02-11-2021, City Clerk ❑ 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 21 22