WRDA Compliance
WRDA
Section 3104 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 which modified Section 401(e)(3) of WRDA 1986 authorizes the Secretary of the Army to construct the National Economic Development (NED) plan, or the Locally Preferred Plan (LPP), or some combination thereof, subject to certain determinations. If the Secretary determines under subsection (b) that the LPP provides a level of flood damage reduction that is equal to or greater than the level of flood damage reduction provided by the NED plan and that the LPP is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible, the Secretary may construct the project identified as the NED, or the LPP, or some combination thereof.
Section 3104 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 which modified Section 401(e)(3) of WRDA 1986 authorizes the Secretary of the Army to construct the National Economic Development (NED) plan, or the Locally Preferred Plan (LPP), or some combination thereof, subject to certain determinations. If the Secretary determines under subsection (b) that the LPP provides a level of flood damage reduction that is equal to or greater than the level of flood damage reduction provided by the NED plan and that the LPP is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible, the Secretary may construct the project identified as the NED, or the LPP, or some combination thereof.
"Implementation of a combination of the flood risk reduction features presented for consideration for the CTO alternative may be implemented under Section 3104, subject to the maximum project cost limit imposed by Section 902 of WRDA 1986, as amended. To implement multiple flood risk management features and a more comprehensive solution, additional authority is required either an increase in the total authorized project cost under Section 3104 or a programmatic authority to implement flood risk management features in the Pearl River Basin similar to CAP Section 205 projects. Additional analysis and design, feasibility level decision documents, and supplemental NEPA documentation would be required during the PED phase if such solutions are recommended."
(PDF p 256)
(PDF p 256)
**Is Alternative D the NED?
Alternative D is the LPP, but is it the NED? From the very start of the DEIS, PDF page 2 refers to Alternative D as the NED: "Alternatives considered and evaluated include a Non-Structural Plan (Alternative A1); the Locally Preferred Plan (Alternative C); the NED Plan (Combination of features with a weir (Alternative D)) and a Combination wo/weir Plan (Alternative E)." (typos belong to the USACE). Figure 1-3 on PDF p 30 is captioned "CTO w/weir Project Area-NED Plan".
On other pages, Alternative D is referred to in various ways including: "could be considered the likely NED", "it can be reasonably expected that one of the CTO plans, likely the CTO w/weir, would be the NED plan", "the plans likely to best meet the NED requirement would be one of the CTO structural plans, either without or with a weir", and "the Alternative CTO with weir could be considered the preliminary NED plan." (PDF p 288).
So, is Alt D the NED plan, the likely NED plan, or the preliminary NED plan?
Alternative D is the LPP, but is it the NED? From the very start of the DEIS, PDF page 2 refers to Alternative D as the NED: "Alternatives considered and evaluated include a Non-Structural Plan (Alternative A1); the Locally Preferred Plan (Alternative C); the NED Plan (Combination of features with a weir (Alternative D)) and a Combination wo/weir Plan (Alternative E)." (typos belong to the USACE). Figure 1-3 on PDF p 30 is captioned "CTO w/weir Project Area-NED Plan".
On other pages, Alternative D is referred to in various ways including: "could be considered the likely NED", "it can be reasonably expected that one of the CTO plans, likely the CTO w/weir, would be the NED plan", "the plans likely to best meet the NED requirement would be one of the CTO structural plans, either without or with a weir", and "the Alternative CTO with weir could be considered the preliminary NED plan." (PDF p 288).
So, is Alt D the NED plan, the likely NED plan, or the preliminary NED plan?
"The objective of National Economic Development (NED) is to maximize increases in the net value of goods and services. Within USACE, this is achieved by comparing the difference in the value (benefits) produced by the project to the value of the resources (costs) required to produce those goods and services or construct the project, or Net Benefits. In order to produce Net Benefits a particular plan must manifest a benefit to cost ratio (BCR) greater than 1.0. Table 3-8 below provides an economic analysis summary utilized to determine the likely the NED Plan." (PDF p 157)
Main Report, PDF p 157
The Main Report is undecided whether CTO w/weir or CTO w/out weir would be the NED: "Comparing the potential of the expected and variable outputs for all plans it appears that the plans likely to best meet the NED requirement would be one of the CTO structural plans, either without or with a weir. The possible difference in Net Benefits between the CTO w/weir and CTO plans could range between $0.63 and $1.4 million. However, the difference between the total benefits between the CTO w/weir and CTO plans is approximately $27.7 versus $22.4 million. An approximate difference of $5.3 million." (PDF p 163)
Since the FRM of Alt D and E is exactly the same, the difference of $5.3 million is obtained because the Alt D includes "recreational benefits", and the Alt E plan does not. It is unclear why Alt E or Alt A1 do not include "recreational benefits".
It is unclear why the "Benefits" of "Alternative A1-NS Only" only increase by $818,160 when considering that A1 w/Canton Club Levee increases the number of structures protected from 143 structures to 310 structures.
Since the FRM of Alt D and E is exactly the same, the difference of $5.3 million is obtained because the Alt D includes "recreational benefits", and the Alt E plan does not. It is unclear why Alt E or Alt A1 do not include "recreational benefits".
It is unclear why the "Benefits" of "Alternative A1-NS Only" only increase by $818,160 when considering that A1 w/Canton Club Levee increases the number of structures protected from 143 structures to 310 structures.
Alternative B
According to the Main Report, "Alternative B, the levee plan, was determined not to be the NED Plan or the LPP in the NFI Section 211 Report. USACE conducted a qualitative assessment and concluded that even with a significant design and cost reduction, the Alternative would not be Federally justified. Based on this determination, no further evaluation of Alternative B, was conducted." (PDF p 114)
It is possible that some smaller version of Alternative B could be the NED.
According to the Main Report, "Alternative B, the levee plan, was determined not to be the NED Plan or the LPP in the NFI Section 211 Report. USACE conducted a qualitative assessment and concluded that even with a significant design and cost reduction, the Alternative would not be Federally justified. Based on this determination, no further evaluation of Alternative B, was conducted." (PDF p 114)
It is possible that some smaller version of Alternative B could be the NED.
Alternative A1
The 2024 DEIS, Main Report PDF page 157 notes: "Preliminary economic analysis identified Alternative A1 as the potential NED Plan. However, once controlling for the effects of the headwater flooding on the tributaries, the net benefits of the non-structural plan dropped to $2.15 million with a BCR of 2.2.
The 2024 version of Alternative A1 "controlled for the effects of headwater flooding on the tributaries" by removing the structures located along the tributaries. (The DEIS notes that tributary FRM will be achieved by local watershed planning initiatives). The 2024 version reduced the NS plan from 600 structures protected to 143.
Below is a map of the 2023 version of Alternative A1 proposed in the USACE internal presentation. 600 structures were included. BCR for the 2023 Alt A1 plan was 2.7. The 2024 Alternative A1 plan includes 143 structures with a BCR of 2.2.
Many structures located along the tributaries, particularly Hanging Moss, White Oak, Town, and Lynch Creeks, were removed from the plan when the USACE decided to concentrate only on main stem Pearl River flooding. It is unclear why the USACE removed the tributary structures from consideration, but did not replace them with main stem structures so that the plan could still include 600 structures.
The 2024 version of Alternative A1 "controlled for the effects of headwater flooding on the tributaries" by removing the structures located along the tributaries. (The DEIS notes that tributary FRM will be achieved by local watershed planning initiatives). The 2024 version reduced the NS plan from 600 structures protected to 143.
Below is a map of the 2023 version of Alternative A1 proposed in the USACE internal presentation. 600 structures were included. BCR for the 2023 Alt A1 plan was 2.7. The 2024 Alternative A1 plan includes 143 structures with a BCR of 2.2.
Many structures located along the tributaries, particularly Hanging Moss, White Oak, Town, and Lynch Creeks, were removed from the plan when the USACE decided to concentrate only on main stem Pearl River flooding. It is unclear why the USACE removed the tributary structures from consideration, but did not replace them with main stem structures so that the plan could still include 600 structures.
Alternative A1 map from the 2023 USACE Internal Presentation
Net Benefits
Main Report, PDF page 158
The NS Only plan provides for 143 structures "no longer flooding" in 100-year flood. The Canton Club Levee provides for 165 structures "no longer flooding". How does NS with Canton Club Levee (100% participation at High Cost) only provide $422,320 more Net Benefits than the NS Only? By adding Canton Club Levee to the NS Only, costs are increased by 20% ($10 million added to the $50 million NS Only cost), but the number of structures protected is more than doubled. Hopefully, our FOIA will produce a Cost Analysis.
Why are recreation benefits only included for Alternative D (CTO w/weir)? ATR reviewer, Sara Schultz writes that a Lake: "could provide recreation benefits however these benefits could also be provided without the impoundment of water by improving access to the river. The new widened and taller levees would seem to be an impediment to recreational access and the trapezoidal channel would lose aesthetic quality compared to the current riparian corridor."
If you add the $5 million in CTO w/weir "recreation benefits" to the NS Only and NS with Canton Club Levee plans, then their Net Benefits increase. If additional structures are added to Alternative A1, Net Benefits could be increased even more.
Why are recreation benefits only included for Alternative D (CTO w/weir)? ATR reviewer, Sara Schultz writes that a Lake: "could provide recreation benefits however these benefits could also be provided without the impoundment of water by improving access to the river. The new widened and taller levees would seem to be an impediment to recreational access and the trapezoidal channel would lose aesthetic quality compared to the current riparian corridor."
If you add the $5 million in CTO w/weir "recreation benefits" to the NS Only and NS with Canton Club Levee plans, then their Net Benefits increase. If additional structures are added to Alternative A1, Net Benefits could be increased even more.
Main Report, PDF page 136
The Main Report discusses how participation rates will affect NED contention for Alternative A1: "A comparison was made between the potential Net benefit performance of Non-structural plan options relative to the High Cost CTO plan options. With a participation rate of 70% or less, the stand-alone non-structural plan would fall out of contention for selection as the NED plan. With a participation rate of 50% or less, the non-structural plan in conjunction with the Canton Club levee would fall out of contention for selection as the NED plan." (PDF pages 158-159).
Conveniently, the DEIS states "pilot programs across a thirty-year period in the Cumberland Basin in Tennessee have stayed at a consistent 50%.", while also noting "The ongoing structure elevation program associated with the Southwest Coastal study in southwest Louisiana is currently tracking at approximately 80%." (PDF page 158). And later in the report: "While total potential benefits based on 100 percent participation are used to assess potential non-structural plan viability, the actual average participation in non-structural flood risk reduction plans varies. A reasonable expectation for homeowner participation in a non- structural plan is 50 percent." (PDF p 162).
Conveniently, the DEIS states "pilot programs across a thirty-year period in the Cumberland Basin in Tennessee have stayed at a consistent 50%.", while also noting "The ongoing structure elevation program associated with the Southwest Coastal study in southwest Louisiana is currently tracking at approximately 80%." (PDF page 158). And later in the report: "While total potential benefits based on 100 percent participation are used to assess potential non-structural plan viability, the actual average participation in non-structural flood risk reduction plans varies. A reasonable expectation for homeowner participation in a non- structural plan is 50 percent." (PDF p 162).
**Does Alt D provide a level of flood damage reduction that is equal to or greater than the level of flood damage reduction provided by the NED plan? Possibly depending on the NED plan chosen.
Assuming Alt D is the LPP and not the NED plan, let's compare the level of flood damage reduction.
Assuming Alt D is the LPP and not the NED plan, let's compare the level of flood damage reduction.
Alt D and E protect the same number of structures. "Channel Improvements" yields 316 structures "no longer flooding". The Canton Club Levee yields 165 structures "no longer flooding".
(The NS portion of Alt D/E provides net 0 "structures no longer flooding" because the "Channel Improvements" caused their flooding to begin with. Less than 100% participation would mean a net negative number of homes protected by the NS portion of Alt D/E. )
(The NS portion of Alt D/E provides net 0 "structures no longer flooding" because the "Channel Improvements" caused their flooding to begin with. Less than 100% participation would mean a net negative number of homes protected by the NS portion of Alt D/E. )
Main Report, PDF p 245
A1 yields 143 structures "no longer flooding".
CTO w/Canton Club Levee yields 528 "no longer flooding". 528 structures is calculated by combining 316 structures (protected by "Channel Improvements"), plus 165 structures (protected by "Canton Club Levee"), plus 60 structures (NS plan to mitigate for CTO-induced flooding structures). Removing the 60 structures from "Structures Benefitting" (because the CTO caused their flooding) yields 481 structures "no longer flooding" for CTO w/Canton Club Levee. CTO w/Canton Club Levee also provides a "lower flood risk" to 232 structures (these will continue to flood but at a lower flood stage).
A1 w/Canton Club Levee yields 308 structures "no longer flooding" (based on 100% participation)(143 from A1 plus 165 from Canton Club Levee).
Structures no longer flooding:
A1: 143 (Cost $50 million)
A1 plus Canton Club Levee: 308 (Cost $60 million)
CTO: 316 (Cost approximately $500 million)
CTO plus Canton Club Levee: 481 (Cost approximately $500 million)
A1 (2023 plan) plus Canton Club Levee: 765 (Cost $208 million, based on internal presentation cost for 2023 A1)
A1 (2023 plan) plus Canton Club Levee plus Parkway/McLeod Levee (if all homes are protected): 1,765
CTO w/Canton Club Levee yields 528 "no longer flooding". 528 structures is calculated by combining 316 structures (protected by "Channel Improvements"), plus 165 structures (protected by "Canton Club Levee"), plus 60 structures (NS plan to mitigate for CTO-induced flooding structures). Removing the 60 structures from "Structures Benefitting" (because the CTO caused their flooding) yields 481 structures "no longer flooding" for CTO w/Canton Club Levee. CTO w/Canton Club Levee also provides a "lower flood risk" to 232 structures (these will continue to flood but at a lower flood stage).
A1 w/Canton Club Levee yields 308 structures "no longer flooding" (based on 100% participation)(143 from A1 plus 165 from Canton Club Levee).
Structures no longer flooding:
A1: 143 (Cost $50 million)
A1 plus Canton Club Levee: 308 (Cost $60 million)
CTO: 316 (Cost approximately $500 million)
CTO plus Canton Club Levee: 481 (Cost approximately $500 million)
A1 (2023 plan) plus Canton Club Levee: 765 (Cost $208 million, based on internal presentation cost for 2023 A1)
A1 (2023 plan) plus Canton Club Levee plus Parkway/McLeod Levee (if all homes are protected): 1,765
**Is Alt D "environmentally acceptable"?
No, of course not but the USACE (CW) won't know this for sure until after the NEPA mitigation process so how can he make a decision before that?
"Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to reduce flood loss risk; minimize flood impacts on human safety, health, and welfare; and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Agencies must consider alternatives to avoid adverse and incompatible development in the flood plain." (PDF p 271)
No, of course not but the USACE (CW) won't know this for sure until after the NEPA mitigation process so how can he make a decision before that?
"Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to reduce flood loss risk; minimize flood impacts on human safety, health, and welfare; and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Agencies must consider alternatives to avoid adverse and incompatible development in the flood plain." (PDF p 271)
**Is Alt D "economically justified"?
Congressional Research Service, Process for USACE Projects (https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/R47946.pdf) notes that, "As part of its consideration of alternatives, USACE evaluates whether a plan is technically feasible, economically justified, and environmentally acceptable."
Alt D's projected first cost is above the maximum project cost limit. Some USACE guidance about cost limits below:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Proposals by Non-Federal Interests, for Feasibility Studies, Proposed Modifications to Authorized Water Resources Development Projects and Feasibility Studies, and Proposed Modifications for an Environmental Infrastructure Program for Inclusion in the Annual Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Notice. May 1, 2020 (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-05-01/pdf/2020-09338.pdf)
“All USACE water resources development projects must meet certain requirements before proceeding to construction. These requirements include: (1) That the project is authorized for construction by Congress; (2) that the Secretary, or other appropriate official, has approved a current decision document; and, (3) that the funds for project construction have been appropriated and are available."
"Section 902 of WRDA 1986, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 2280) establishes a maximum authorized cost for projects (902 limit). A Post Authorization Change Report (PACR) is required to be completed to support potential modifications, updates to project costs, and an increase to the 902 limit."
Proposals by Non-Federal Interests, for Feasibility Studies and for Modifications to an Authorized Water Resources Development Project or Feasibility Study, for Inclusion in the Annual Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development
A Notice by the Engineers Corps on 04/11/2017 (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/04/11/2017-07253/proposals-by-non-federal-interests-for-feasibility-studies-and-for-modifications-to-an-authorized)
"Section 7001 of Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) 2014 requires that the Secretary of the Army annually submit to the Congress a report (Annual Report) that identifies feasibility reports, proposed feasibility studies submitted by nonFederal interests, and proposed modifications to an authorized water resources development project or feasibility study that meet certain criteria. The Annual Report is to be based, in part, upon requests for proposals submitted by non-Federal interests.
Whether following the USACE Chief's Report process or Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014, a proposal for a project or a project modification would need a current decision document to provide updated information on the scope of the potential project and demonstrate a clear Federal interest. This determination would include an assessment of whether the proposal is:
--Technically sound, economically viable and environmentally acceptable.
—Compliant with environmental and other laws including but not limited to National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.
—Compliant with statutes and regulations related to water resources development including various water resources provisions related to the authorized cost of projects, level of detail, separable elements, fish and wildlife mitigation, project justification, matters to be addressed in planning, and the 1958 Water Supply Act.
All water resources development projects must meet certain requirements before proceeding to construction. These requirements include: (1) That the project is authorized for construction by Congress; (2) that the Secretary, or other appropriate official, has approved a current decision document; and, (3) that the funds for project construction have been appropriated and are available."
MEMORANDUM FOR MAJOR SUBORDINATE COMMANDS SUBJECT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 902 Cost Limit Policy Clarification and Applicability March 2012
“All projects authorized in or after WRDA 1986 are subject to section 902, unless legally determined to be otherwise. For ALL authorized projects seeking Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) and/or Construction funds, it will be determined: a. Whether or not a Section 902 Cost Limit is applicable; b. What the appropriate Section 902 Cost Limit is using the most current cost estimate, in accordance with references l.b. and ref l.g.; c. Comparison of the Total Allocations to date to the current Total Project Cost Estimate (which includes inflation through the mid-point of construction), and d. Whether or not the Section 902 Cost Limit has undergone the proper quality control. 4. If, upon completion of the actions in paragraph 3 above, it is determined that the Total Project Cost Estimate has exceeded or will exceed the 902 Cost Limit, you should notify HQUSACE (CECW-I, CECW-P, CECW-ID, and CECW-IP) through the appropriate chain of command and provide the pertinent details. In addition, when the Total Allocations to Date of the project are within 20-percent of the Total Project Cost Estimate for the project, a risk based decision must be made by the District Commander, to either: a. Seek new authority through the standard execution process of a Post Authorization Change Report (PACR), which should be properly scoped in accordance with reference l.a., and necessary funding should be estimated and budgeted for in accordance with all appropriate guidance, or b. Continue without seeking new authority, determine whether the cost increase warrants a Benefit-to-Cost Ratio update per reference l.f., and certify, where appropriate, p~r the budget engineering circular management control checklist, reference l.h., as part of the MSC annual budget submittal. c. For all unbudgeted projects, notify HQUSACE and request guidance for proceeding through the appropriate chain of command. 5. It is the responsibility of the entire Corps vertical team to ensure compliance with Section 902 Cost Limit requirements.
Congressional Research Service, Process for USACE Projects (https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/R47946.pdf) notes that, "As part of its consideration of alternatives, USACE evaluates whether a plan is technically feasible, economically justified, and environmentally acceptable."
Alt D's projected first cost is above the maximum project cost limit. Some USACE guidance about cost limits below:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Proposals by Non-Federal Interests, for Feasibility Studies, Proposed Modifications to Authorized Water Resources Development Projects and Feasibility Studies, and Proposed Modifications for an Environmental Infrastructure Program for Inclusion in the Annual Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Notice. May 1, 2020 (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-05-01/pdf/2020-09338.pdf)
“All USACE water resources development projects must meet certain requirements before proceeding to construction. These requirements include: (1) That the project is authorized for construction by Congress; (2) that the Secretary, or other appropriate official, has approved a current decision document; and, (3) that the funds for project construction have been appropriated and are available."
"Section 902 of WRDA 1986, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 2280) establishes a maximum authorized cost for projects (902 limit). A Post Authorization Change Report (PACR) is required to be completed to support potential modifications, updates to project costs, and an increase to the 902 limit."
Proposals by Non-Federal Interests, for Feasibility Studies and for Modifications to an Authorized Water Resources Development Project or Feasibility Study, for Inclusion in the Annual Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development
A Notice by the Engineers Corps on 04/11/2017 (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/04/11/2017-07253/proposals-by-non-federal-interests-for-feasibility-studies-and-for-modifications-to-an-authorized)
"Section 7001 of Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) 2014 requires that the Secretary of the Army annually submit to the Congress a report (Annual Report) that identifies feasibility reports, proposed feasibility studies submitted by nonFederal interests, and proposed modifications to an authorized water resources development project or feasibility study that meet certain criteria. The Annual Report is to be based, in part, upon requests for proposals submitted by non-Federal interests.
Whether following the USACE Chief's Report process or Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014, a proposal for a project or a project modification would need a current decision document to provide updated information on the scope of the potential project and demonstrate a clear Federal interest. This determination would include an assessment of whether the proposal is:
--Technically sound, economically viable and environmentally acceptable.
—Compliant with environmental and other laws including but not limited to National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.
—Compliant with statutes and regulations related to water resources development including various water resources provisions related to the authorized cost of projects, level of detail, separable elements, fish and wildlife mitigation, project justification, matters to be addressed in planning, and the 1958 Water Supply Act.
All water resources development projects must meet certain requirements before proceeding to construction. These requirements include: (1) That the project is authorized for construction by Congress; (2) that the Secretary, or other appropriate official, has approved a current decision document; and, (3) that the funds for project construction have been appropriated and are available."
MEMORANDUM FOR MAJOR SUBORDINATE COMMANDS SUBJECT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 902 Cost Limit Policy Clarification and Applicability March 2012
“All projects authorized in or after WRDA 1986 are subject to section 902, unless legally determined to be otherwise. For ALL authorized projects seeking Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) and/or Construction funds, it will be determined: a. Whether or not a Section 902 Cost Limit is applicable; b. What the appropriate Section 902 Cost Limit is using the most current cost estimate, in accordance with references l.b. and ref l.g.; c. Comparison of the Total Allocations to date to the current Total Project Cost Estimate (which includes inflation through the mid-point of construction), and d. Whether or not the Section 902 Cost Limit has undergone the proper quality control. 4. If, upon completion of the actions in paragraph 3 above, it is determined that the Total Project Cost Estimate has exceeded or will exceed the 902 Cost Limit, you should notify HQUSACE (CECW-I, CECW-P, CECW-ID, and CECW-IP) through the appropriate chain of command and provide the pertinent details. In addition, when the Total Allocations to Date of the project are within 20-percent of the Total Project Cost Estimate for the project, a risk based decision must be made by the District Commander, to either: a. Seek new authority through the standard execution process of a Post Authorization Change Report (PACR), which should be properly scoped in accordance with reference l.a., and necessary funding should be estimated and budgeted for in accordance with all appropriate guidance, or b. Continue without seeking new authority, determine whether the cost increase warrants a Benefit-to-Cost Ratio update per reference l.f., and certify, where appropriate, p~r the budget engineering circular management control checklist, reference l.h., as part of the MSC annual budget submittal. c. For all unbudgeted projects, notify HQUSACE and request guidance for proceeding through the appropriate chain of command. 5. It is the responsibility of the entire Corps vertical team to ensure compliance with Section 902 Cost Limit requirements.
Alt D (CTO w/dam) |
Alt E (CTO no dam) |
A1 (NS) |
A1 w/Canton Club Levee |
Canton Club Levee |
|
Project First Cost |
$487-$655 million |
$399-$508 million |
$50 million |
$60 million |
$10 million |
Structures no longer flooding |
316 ("Channel Improvements") |
316 ("Channel Improvements") |
143 |
308 |
165 |
Structures w/ induced flooding |
at least 52 |
at least 52 |
Valu0e |
||
Local cost share (35% of total) |
$170-$229 million |
$140-$178 million |
$17.5 million |
$21 million |
$3.5 million |
Appendix E - Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis, PDF pages 98-99
Table E5-11. Elevation Results for Selected Routing
Table E5-11. Elevation Results for Selected Routing
Reservoir Outflow (RM 301) W.S.(feet) |
Hwy 25 (Lakeland Dr) W.S.(feet) |
Hwy 80 W.S.(feet) |
Proposed Alt C dam location W.S (feet) |
Downstream extent of model W.S. (feet) |
||
February 2020 Flood |
280.8 |
276.8 |
270.1 |
267.9 |
256.5 |
|
100 yr existing |
283.0 |
279.3 |
272.2 |
269.9 |
258.1 |
|
100 yr w/Alt C |
281.3 |
275.0 |
271.5 |
270.4 |
258.8 |
|
100 yr w/CTO |
281.4 |
275.5 |
271.9 |
270.6 |
258.8 |
|
Change from 100 yr existing w/CTO |
-1.6 |
-3.8 |
-0.3 |
+0.7 |
+0.7 |
|
2018 Alt C predicted |
Value |
