UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN (USRB), NEW ......1. Identify flood risk management strategies and management measures using an array of alternatives, to reduce flood risk as well as
35
217 217 217 200 200 200 255 255 255 0 0 0 163 163 163 131 132 122 239 65 53 110 135 120 112 92 56 62 102 130 102 56 48 130 120 111 237 237 237 80 119 27 252 174 .59 “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.” Presenter: Baltimore District Luis Santiago Anastasiya Hernandez Christopher Spaur 20 July 2017 UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN (USRB), NEW YORK STATE COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION FEASIBILITY STUDY 1
“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.”
Presenter: Baltimore District Luis SantiagoAnastasiya HernandezChristopher Spaur 20 July 2017
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN (USRB), NEW YORK STATE COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
1
STUDY AREA & PURPOSE 2
STUDY PURPOSE1. Identify flood risk
management strategies and management measures using an array of alternatives, to reduce flood risk as well as residual risk in areas with existing flood risk management infrastructure.
s
STUDY AREA
STUDY AUTHORITY PROBLEMSResolved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives, That the Secretary of the Army review the report of the Chief of Engineers on the Susquehanna River, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, published as House Document 702, 77th Congress, and other pertinent reports, to determine whether any modifications of the recommendations contained therein are advisable at the present t ime in the interest of f lood damage reduction, including an evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing flood control system in l ight of current and projected future conditions, and in the interest of comprehensive watershed management, including environmental restoration, structural and non-structural f lood damage reduction, and related purposes for the Upper Susquehanna River Basin, within Tioga, Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Otsego, Delaware, Schoharie, Herkimer, Oneida, Madison, Onondaga, Tompkins, Schuyler, and Chemung Counties, New York.
3
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Pending updates on Opportunities and Objectives from Dave based on discussion and feedback from NAD call on 7/14/2017 Problem: The Upper Susquehanna River Watershed has experienced severe flooding events since records began in the early 1900s and continues to experience an increase in extreme events in recent history in tributaries and the mainstem that have caused loss of life, significant property damages and ecological impacts. Opportunities: Identify FRM structural & non-structural measures to reduce future flooding related damages, and residual risk in flood prone areas with and without existing FRM projects. Improve our understanding of flood risk in the watershed based on the watershed assessment. Identify areas for stream enhancement, restoration, planting or expanding forested buffers that reduce velocities during floods, design projects that incorporate natural stream design techniques and structural techniques to reduce flood risks, protect water quality, and provide fish and wildlife habitat throughout the basin. Goal: Identify flood risk management strategies and management measures using an array of alternatives, to reduce flood risk as well as residual risk in areas with existing flood risk management infrastructure. Objectives: Identify flood risk reduction opportunities for residential, commercial and industrial properties to reduce damages in areas within the Upper Susquehanna River Basin Watershed. Identify loss of life reduction opportunities from flood conditions within the Upper Susquehanna River Basin Watershed. Identify areas to increase resiliency through natural infrastructure features.
HISTORIC CONDITIONS
4
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Here we will provide background information on the past/historical flooding – we will tell a story behind the pictures. Historically floods in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin have caused damages to homes, businesses, infrastructure and natural features including streambanks, channels and associated habitat. Recently severe storms have caused flood disaster conditions in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin in August 2003, August 2004, September 2004, April 2005, June 2006, December 2006, September 2009 and Tropical Storm Lee in 2011. Two the most severe flooding occurred in June of 2006 along the Susquehanna and Chenango Rivers, devastating many communities including Binghamton, Conklin, Greene, Oneonta, Owego, Sidney, Unadilla, Union, Vestal, and Waverly as well as Tropical Storm Lee, 2011 causing overtopping at Binghamton & EJV. add to slide: Tropical Storm Lee, 13 Sep 2011 2 lives lost Initial estimated damages of $562.2 million across 8 counties in New York. Water levels topped levees along the river, inundating several cities 20,000 people evacuated Binghamton Over 7,000 properties damaged Summary of Storm Impacts: Hurricane Irene made landfall in New York on August 28, 2011. The National Weather Service located at the Broome County Airport recorded 2.71 inches of rain and a peak wind gust of 45 mph. There was some minor damage in the far eastern part of the County and scattered power outages, but no major impact. Despite its lack of high winds, Hurricane Irene’s rainfall did saturate the soil and cause a moderate rise in the Susquehanna River that contributed to the major flooding from Tropical Storm Lee. The next severe storm occurred only ten days later when Tropical Storm Lee arrived in New York on September 7, 2011. Up to 12 inches of rain from Tropical Storm Lee led to massive flooding on the Susquehanna River, larger tributaries, streams, and creeks. The river crested up to 4 feet higher than the previous record and for the first time, overtopped levees and floodwalls along the Susquehanna River in Binghamton, Vestal, and Union. BAE Systems’ 27-acre facility on Main Street in Union, which employed 1,400 people, was declared a total loss. Numerous roads were impassible or entirely washed out. Primary transportation routes 17, 81, and 88 were closed during the height of the flooding. Stormwater and sanitary sewer utility systems were overloaded, damaging pump systems or causing total failure. Thousands of people were displaced from their homes; approximately 2,000 people had to be housed in a temporary shelter at the Binghamton University Events Center for up to 15 days. The floods unleashed extensive damage throughout the river valley from Conklin west to Tioga County, including Johnson City’s commercial district, the Town of Vestal’s municipal offices, and the City of Binghamton’s downtown commercial area. In total, flooding from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee destroyed 229 homes, damaged over 9,000 homes, and caused approximately $502.8 million in property damage in Broome County. The NYS Office of Emergency Services used evacuation areas and Census data to estimated that 24,000 people were evacuated in Broome County. Flooding from Tropical Storm Lee is the worst flood of record for the Southern Tier.
255255255
000
163163163
131132122
2396553
8011927
252174.59
110135120
62102130
EXISTING FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECTS
5Channel
Improvement (4)
Bainbridge, Chenango County, NY
Conklin-Kirkwood, Broome County,
NY
Greene, Chenango County, NY
Norwich, Chenango County, NY
Levee/Floodwall (7)
Binghamton, Broome County,
NY
Endicott, Johnson City, & Vestal,
Broome Co, NY
Lisle, Broome County, NY
Nichols, Tioga County, NY
Oxford, Chenango County, NY
Unadilla, Otsego County, NY
Whitney Point Village, Broome
County, NY
Snagging/Clearing (7)
Binghamton, Broome County,
NY
Cincinnatus, Cortland County,
NY
Cortland, Cortland County, NY
Oneonta, Otsego County, NY
Owego, Tioga County, NY
Port Dickinson, Broome County,
NY
Sherburne, Chenango Co.,
NY
Reservoir (2)
East Sidney Lake, Delaware County,
NY
Whitney Point Lake,
Cortland/Broome Co., NY
Presenter
Presentation Notes
FEDERAL PROJECTS: USACE has constructed 20 flood risk management (FRM) projects in the USRB dating back to 1938. This includes 2 reservoirs (East Sidney & Whitney Point), 4 channel improvement projects, 7 snagging/clearing projects, and 7 levee/floodwall. NON-FEDERAL PROJECTS: There isn’t a comprehensive list of non-federal projects; however, we are aware of non-federally constructed levees within the Upper Susquehanna Basin. For example, there are 2 non-federally constructed levees in Town of Union, Broome County (Fairmont Park & West Corners). One is located in City of Oneonta, Delaware County. Additionally, the following have been called "levees" at times, but might more properly be considered "berms": Owego Creek (Village of Owego, Tioga County), East side of Finch Hollow Creek (Johnson City, Broome County). Additionally, some recent improvements were done (or are planned) at the original Amphenol Plant (Village of Sidney, Delaware County). Also federally maintained and non-federally maintained projects.
EXISTING CONDITIONS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Trend of increasing forest cover: down to only 10% in late 19th century
Population concentrated in towns in valleys and floodplains
Highly flood prone towns: settled long ago prior to full appreciation of risk inherent to floodplain locations and because uplands otherwise less suited for settlement
Forest70%
Farmland27%
Urban3%
Forest Farmland Urban
6
Held scoping meetings with public and agencies Initiated tribal coordination Initiated coordination with USFWS on SOW for FWCA
Initiated informal consultation with USFWS on ESA
Gathering Data; Prime and unique farmlands NWI and State wetland mapping Cold water fisheries HTRW Cultural resources State rare and threatened species
Presenter
Presentation Notes
EXISTING CONDITIONS: Unlike what we’re used to here in the Baltimore/DC area, the upper Susquehanna River Basin is very rural. About 70% is forested and 27% farmland. Additionally, the USRB had a trend of increasing forest cover through the 20th century as logged and farmed lands reverted to forest cover. Forest cover is optimal vegetation for good watershed health – and FRM. So, the USRB is in good shape on that front. Urban areas of the USRB are primarily located in valleys in the floodplain and were settled long ago prior to modern awareness or concerns of risk inherent to those locations. Consequently, the Susquehanna River Basin has been considered one of the most flood-prone areas of the country from a human perspective for a long time. The rain from Lee’s remnants exacerbated the flood situation in the Mid-Atlantic and caused some of the most severe flooding in this region’s history. The worst flooding occurred along the Susquehanna River and its tributaries in western New York and Pennsylvania. In western New York, water levels topped levees along the river, which inundated several cities including Waverly, Owego, Vestal, Endicott, Johnson City, and downtown Binghamton. In some of these areas water levels broke previous record heights that were set in the Mid-Atlantic Floods of 2006. Numerous roads were closed in the area and 20,000 people were ordered to evacuate Binghamton. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Several meetings could be mentioned Sept 13, 2016: Living with Water, Resiliency Summit, Binghamton, NY. USACE representatives gave presentations introducing the Upper Susquehanna River Basin Study and reviewing Baltimore District levee safety program. Meeting included presentations and was attended by multiple federal, state, county, and municipal government agency representatives, academic institution representatives, and civic group representatives. Federal agencies participating/attending included FEMA Region II and NOAA National Weather Service. State agencies included NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of State, Department of Agricultural Markets, Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services. Numerous county and municipal governments in the area had representatives in attendance. Sept 13, 2016: Study kick off meeting, Kirkwood, NY. USACE, NYSDEC, Broome County, and a staffer from Senator Charles Schumer’s office met in Kirkwood, and additional USACE staff participated remotely. Introduced study to attendees and discussed study scope issues. October 14, 2016: Study stakeholder meeting. Conference Call. USACE and NYSDEC gave overview of the Upper Susquehanna River Basin Study. Discussed proposed H&H modeling associated with the study and applications and modifications to the base model. Federal agencies with representatives attending included SRBC, USGS, FEMA, and NOAA. November 21, 22, and 30, 2016: Study public scoping meetings. USACE and NYSDEC held meetings in Owego, Chenango, and Sidney to obtain input on flooding concerns, area-specific considerations important in formulating FRM plans, and associated impacts to the human environment. Summaries of those meetings are presented in separate public scoping meetings record. Meetings were attended by public, local officials, and representatives of county, state, and federal agencies. April 19, 2017: Webinar study progress meeting with government agencies. Provided updated information on FRM measures under consideration, hydrology/hydraulics investigations, watershed assessment to characterize flood risk areas, and economic analyses underway. Agencies with representatives participating included FEMA, NYSDEC, NYSHPO, SRBC, USFWS, and USACE. 2. Initiated tribal coordination Letters went out dated April 18th, 2017 3. SHPO Coordination Sent out study initiation notice December 2016. SHPO representative attended April 19, 2017 webinar (although I don't believe they said anything). Potential environmental concerns for FRM include floodplain wetlands, aquatic life in the rivers, old industrial sites (HTRW). Sensitive aquatic life is primarily located in areas of good water quality and minimal instream habitat problems. These conditions characterize many headwater streams, but also some areas of the mainstem rivers. There are several federally listed species in the study area, but preliminary coordination with USFWS indicates these are unlikely to be present in urban areas. Many mainstem river areas are also sources of drinking water, so that would require consideration in any in-water work. It’s possible there could be cultural/historic resources that could impact plan formulation, but we’ll coordinate with SHPO in detail on that possibility once we select areas for detailed study. If we undertake any FRM in rural areas, impacts to farmland could potentially be of concern.
PLANNING PROCESS 7
ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION: STRATEGY8
Risk Areas
Develop Management
Measures
Combinations of Measures into Array of
Alternatives
H&H
Economics
Existing Infrastructure
Watershed Screening
AMM
ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION: WATERSHED SCREENING9
Risk Areas
Develop Management
Measures
Combinations of Measures into Array of
Alternatives
H&H
Economics
Existing Infrastructure
Watershed Screening
AMM
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Upper Susquehanna River Basin (USRB) Comprehensive Flood Damage Reduction Feasibility Study watershed assessment is a geospatial analysis of existing data sets for the identification of critical infrastructure concentrated in flood hazard areas and exposed to the consequences of flooding. This analysis is intended broadly examine flood hazard vulnerabilities and risk to critical infrastructure within the USRB for the purpose of screening areas of the entire watershed for further evaluation as part of the feasibility study. Primary Purpose: Identify opportunities for flood risk management in areas of the watershed with higher risk of flooding and high consequences to critical infrastructure
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY METHODOLOGY
Risk Assessment for Critical Infrastructure Helps us investigate areas
within the watershed with important critical infrastructure at high and moderate risk of flooding.
Further analysis within these areas can then help us refine the measures and recommendations for flood risk management.
10
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Note: Risk Assessment is a calculation of probability and consequences. In this study, we are using a stand in for the consequences and aggregating probability based on planned flood events (high hazard = 0.1% flood event). There are several limitations to calculating risk at a watershed scale. A possibility is to generate a critical infrastructure property inventory for flood risk properties and researching the value of each structure within the provided parcel data.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE DATABASE
Over 120 layers of inventoried critical infrastructure
Database with ~112 critical infrastructure (CI) layers
Approximately 9,300 data points representing critical infrastructure within the USRB.
11
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The critical infrastructure database was created by processing over 120 layers of inventoried critical infrastructure data points within the Homeland Security’s Infrastructure Program 2015 data. Many of these datasets are FOUO and should not be shared with the general public. The resulting product is a database with ~112 critical infrastructure (CI) layers and approximately 9,300 data points representing critical infrastructure within the USRB. The point data has been attributed and categorized based on CI sector functions and descriptions.
ASSET VALUE DESIGNATION
RISK COMMUNICATION ASSET VALUE DESCRIPTION
VERY HIGH 10
Loss or damage of key asset would have exceptionally grave consequences, such as extensive loss of life, widespread severe injuries, or total loss of primary services and core functions and processes
HIGH 8-9
Loss or damage of key asset would have grave consequences, such as loss of life, severe injuries, loss of primary services, or major loss of core functions and processes for an extended period of time
MEDIUM HIGH 7Loss or damage of key asset would have moderate to serious consequences, such as serious injuries, or impairment of core functions and processes for an extended period of time
MEDIUM 5-6Loss or damage of the key asset would have moderate to serious consequences, such as injuries, or impairment of core functions and processes
MEDIUM LOW 4Loss or damage of the key asset would have moderate consequences, such as minor injuries, or minor impairment of core functions and processes
LOW 2-3Loss or damage of the key asset would have minor consequences or impact, such as slight impact on core functions and processes for a short period of time
VERY LOW 1Loss or damage of the key assets would have negligible consequences or impact
12
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The asset value descriptions and categorization was created in part from a FEMA risk assessment methodology for critical infrastructure with terrorism as the hazard. Source is FEMA 428, Primer for Design Safe Schools Projects in Case of Terrorist Attacks (2003). The asset value characterization as exposure has been used in the NACCS study by USACE staff previously and conceptualized exposure in practically a similar manner minus the descriptive support provided here.
255255255
000
163163163
131132122
2396553
8011927
252174.59
110135120
62102130
FLOOD HAZARD AREAS IN THE UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN
13
CWMS Model (H&H)+
FEMA’s Flood Hazard Areas (NYSDEC)
255255255
000
163163163
131132122
2396553
8011927
252174.59
110135120
62102130
RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS TO FLOOD HAZARD AREA FACTORS
14
High FHA = 5Moderate FHA = 1Low FHA = 0
ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION: RISK AREAS15
Risk Areas
Develop Management
Measures
Combinations of Measures into Array of
Alternatives
H&H
Economics
Existing Infrastructure
Watershed Screening
AMM
255255255
000
163163163
131132122
2396553
8011927
252174.59
110135120
62102130
16
255255255
000
163163163
131132122
2396553
8011927
252174.59
110135120
62102130
RISK AREAS AND THEIR ATTRIBUTES 17
Risk Area Population
Binghamton 45,672
Owego 3,791
Sidney 3,702
Norwich 6,855
Vestal 28,082
Cortland 18,795
Oneonta 13,955
Conklin 5,246
Port Dickinson 1,582
Chenango 10,876
Greene 1,530
Bainbridge 3,308
Waverly 4,300
Unadilla 4,392
Union (Endicott) 56,346
Johnson City 14,673
Endicott 12,992
Presenter
Presentation Notes
17 areas in total between PMP scope plus what actually population during the risk assessment. These are in sequential order from highest to lowest annualized damages. Greene, CMWS doesn’t extend there. Updated depth-damage curves became available. As a result, economics have been updated since this table was put together. Will update the values once available, prior to the AMM. have been updating the economics tables last week and this week as I got most of the report from Philly with the. We can update the values before AMM.
This Map shows the entire Upper Susquehanna river drainage area and existing Corps Water Management System (CWMS) model limits which was used to create the HEC-RAS modeling. This map shows the existing conditions for the 100-year/500-year storm events (or the 1% and 0.2% chance events) note that while part of Pennsylvania is shown, it is only for the contributing drainage area, no other analysis will be done for that portion of th model. Future Plans: Our plan is to expand the model by incorporating available FEMA HEC-RAS models to provide a more comprehensive watershed model. The first part that will be expanded will be up through Greene to Oxford along the Chenango and then additional areas will be added where HEC-RAS data is available. This is a key component in working towards our goal. Besides showing the limits of flooding, this information will be overlaid with critical infrastructure to identify areas with the highest potential for improvement and to inform us of the economic benefits.
ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION: ECONOMICS21
Risk Areas
Develop Management
Measures
Combinations of Measures into Array of
Alternatives
H&H
Economics
Existing Infrastructure
Watershed Screening
AMM
255255255
000
163163163
131132122
2396553
8011927
252174.59
110135120
62102130
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TO BE COMPLETED
Areas without Detailed H&H Data Areas with H&H Data (HEC-FDA) Elevations (First Floor & Start
of Damage) Structure Characteristics: -# of
Floors, Construction Type, Square Footage, Basement Construction Style
Structure Water Surface Profile Communities Social-Economic
Profile
Parcel data, building footprint (where available)
Approximate # of structures within damage areas
22
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Pending updates from Ed. This slide will speak to the economic HED-FDA analysis that is being conducted using the H&H data that was provided to NAE (existing CWMS/Watershed Assessment) as well as what type information will be collected and what type of economic assumptions will be made in the areas within the watershed where H&H data was not available. Referring back to earlier map (slide 14) we will point to the areas where economic analysis will be estimated based on the known number of structures. We will explain how we are making decisions with the data available to us. We will explain that we will document the risks associates with these decisions in the risk register and DMP. Depending on the results of the watershed assessment and economic assessment, we might determine that additional analysis is needed to evaluate the areas where existing technical data is currently not available (this will result in revision to the scope/budget as addition H&H modeling will be needed).
Dredging Channels Clearing/Snagging/Shoal Removal Channel Modifications Levee/Floodwalls (new structure) Levee/Floodwall Modifications Diversions Pump Stations Conduit for Interior Drainage Bridges & Culverts Revetment/Retaining wall Storm Water Management
Features/Retrofits Dams (new structure & modification) Debris Control Structures Ice Jam Structures
Relocation Buyout/Acquisition/Razing Strategic Acquisition Land Use Regulations Zoning Building/Housing Codes Flood Insurance Wet/Dry Flood Proofing Elevating Structures Elevating Major Roads for Evacuation Evacuation Plan Flood Emergency
Preparedness Plans Temporary Flood Barriers Flood Warning Systems Floodable Development Floodplain Regulations Modify/Remove Structures for Better Channel Function
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Discuss that these are a preliminary list of all possible management measures still on the table at this time. Once we gather all the necessary technical analyses, we will evaluate these based on the proposed criteria for screening measures listed on the slide 24. These measures will then be used to formulate for alternative plans which will be screened out based on a different criteria. Criteria for screening and evaluating alternative plans will be developed at a later time. At this point, this is a screened out list of potential alternatives (still on the table) this is what we are using to get to the alternatives
PLAN FORMULATION 25
Unlikely to move forward for evaluation
Non-Structural Candidates for further evaluation Relocation Buyout/Acquisition/Razing Strategic Acquisition Land Use Regulations Zoning Building/Housing Codes Flood Insurance Wet/Dry Flood Proofing Elevating Structures Elevating Major Roads for Evacuation Evacuation Plan Flood Emergency Preparedness Plans Temporary Flood Barriers Flood Warning Systems Floodable Development Floodplain Regulations Modify/Remove Structures for Better
Channel Function
Bridges and Culverts Cleaning/Snagging/Shoaling Floodwall/Levees (new structure) Floodwall/Levee modifications Pump Stations Conduits for Interior Drainage Bridges & Culverts
Channel Modifications Dam modifications Diversions Jam structures (for most risk areas) Revetment/Retaining Wall
Non-Structural Candidates for further evaluation
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Of all the measures for FRM, there may be some that don’t meet one or more of the criteria. i.e. doesn’t meet our objectives
PLAN FORMULATION
Does the measure meet the objective? Does the measure relate to the problems and
opportunities? Does the measure avoid study constraints? Does the measure consider the following:
Reduces flooding damages greater than existing and FWOP conditions at 500/100/50/20 Year Events
Impacts to floodway conveyance Impacts on socioeconomic resources Potential need for mitigation Residual risk remaining Measure Cost Potential to enhance community recreation opportunity Potential environmental impacts Potential regional benefits Locally applicable
26
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Of all the measures for FRM, there may be some that don’t meet one or more of the criteria. i.e. doesn’t meet our objectives
PLAN FORMULATION 27
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Of all the measures for FRM, there may be some that don’t meet one or more of the criteria. i.e. doesn’t meet our objectives
File Name
28MANAGEMENT MEASURES: BINGHAMTON
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Example Matrix showing how management measures were evaluated based on the criteria. Request from Dan Fuller of DEC to show an example of what we did when he came here in person for the meeting.
ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION: BINGHAMTON 29
Alternative Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Strategic Non-structural Alternative 3 All Retained "Avoid" Management Measures Alternative 4 All Retained "Accommodate" Management MeasuresAlternative 5 Modifications (i.e. raise all floodwalls/levees/floodwall relocation)Alternative 6 Upstream Dam/Detention Alternative 7 New FRM Structure (i.e.extend levee system/construct floodwall)Alternative 8 Clearing/Snagging/Shoal RemovalAlternative 9 Pump Stations (existing interior drainage system)Alternative 10 Dredging Channels Alternative 11 Bridges & Culverts
File Name
30MANAGEMENT MEASURES: CORTLAND
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Example Matrix showing how management measures were evaluated based on the criteria. Request from Dan Fuller of DEC to show an example of what we did when he came here in person for the meeting.
ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION: CORTLAND31
Alternative Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Strategic Non-structural Alternative 3 All Retained "Avoid" Management Measures Alternative 4 All Retained "Accommodate" Management MeasuresAlternative 5 Upstream Dam/Detention Alternative 6 New FRM Structure (i.e.extend levee system/construct floodwall)Alternative 7 Clearing/Snagging/Shoal RemovalAlternative 8 Pump Stations (existing interior drainage system)Alternative 9 Dredging Channels Alternative 10 Bridges & Culverts
File Name
32MANAGEMENT MEASURES: ENDICOTT
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Example Matrix showing how management measures were evaluated based on the criteria. Request from Dan Fuller of DEC to show an example of what we did when he came here in person for the meeting.
ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION: ENDICOTT33
Alternative Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Strategic Non-structural Alternative 3 All Retained "Avoid" Management Measures Alternative 4 All Retained "Accommodate" Management MeasuresAlternative 5 Modifications (i.e. raise all floodwalls/levees/floodwall relocation)Alternative 6 Upstream Dam/Detention Alternative 7 New FRM Structure (i.e.extend levee system/construct floodwall)Alternative 8 Clearing/Snagging/Shoal RemovalAlternative 9 Pump Stations (existing interior drainage system)Alternative 10 Dredging Channels and/or Improve Sediment Alternative 11 Bridges & Culverts Alternative 12 Debris Removal Structures
We plan to be able to share draft screening matrices soon for each of the flood prone areas we are looking at. We would welcome comments from groups involved in the USCA on how various alternatives might mesh with initiatives and priorities they have in the basin."
