Loading...
R98-73 12-14-98RESO.LUTION NO. R98-73 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS, RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CLEAR CREEK FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT AND ITS pOTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE CITY'S DRAINAGE AND FLOOD MITIGATION EFFORTS; AND URGING THE U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY. WHEREAS, the City of Pearland is committed to providing the necessary drainage and mitigation requirements and facilities to protect the citizens and their property; and WHEREAS, the City of Pearland has committed a significant amount of its resources including personnel and equipment to improve drainage within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the construction of Beltway 8 and other development has increased dependency on Clear Creek for both Harris County and Brazoria County; and WHEREAS, devastating structural flooding has occurred within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Pearland; and WHEREAS, this flood control project will address and alleviate significant flooding concerns in this region; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS: Section 1. The City of Pearland urges the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to expedite and complete without further delay, the Federal Flood Control Project on Clear Creek, in order to protect Pearland citizens, property, and investments from additional flooding. RESOLUTION NO. R98-73 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this A.D., 19~. TOM REID MAYOR day of ATTEST: /C~T~N%~RE~TARy APPROVED AS TO FORM: DARRIN M. COKER CITY ATTORNEY 2 sn•xipueizead•TD•niu tM . £969-58T7(LBZ) • LLf70-889LL SVXd.L'QNd'12Iddd • LIT'XOfl'ad ' /ws' ' /nD W�.9 Wails 7 P. 0 'noA dH1 .'S69 58ir/I9Z suraouoo JO suo%csanb anoy not)1//Do asoa/d /njd/ay.(ran aq p/noin A(o/ap.inoy.pM p✓oMroJ 4oa/bad siy.L 611/now Jo 4roddns u/6u/,caaw.Lxau ay.0 .,o uo%,cn/osa✓o ssod p/noi l/ouno,,,iI uo400 a/gissod puo uo/ssmsip roj opua6o paysda.4oM 77 aq4 uo s/s/44 aas///MI aa.C.Uwwoo s/y4 JO UDWJioyo Sy • :fo/ap Auo proiroJ.pal'ord say. arrow 0.1 uoo a/gissod am//o op o.4 .,iroddns pup uogoarip dno f asp/p/noi I 'as ,quiwo,, 6u/daa.4s pays da4 DM yaw,Joao a y4 uo an/,W,Wasardar s,puo/✓oad WO Sy :waif an/f aary.4 ray.4ou0 do)'/aad,Joa,7 uo auop wan Oil JO a/.I.qi/ aq///M aray.E paio//oJ ado suogopuawwooar asay.4 p uo/uido Ai uI 4.7al'odd/od4uq2 poo/d)/aar,row ay.' uo raau/6u3,io sdro,Away ay./Jo.10./4si0 uo.,csan/Dg alp word suo%,opuawwooad puo.Esanbad payoo4wo pug asoa/d 9661 'Z dagwaaa0 S3DIA2I3S Aatsmouginia rs d X 31 UNV'1>JV3d I 'ntln �e 64 O�y NOV-23-98 NON 02:32 PM PROJEAIli)MANAGEMENT FAX NO. 409 7 6372 P. 02 CLEAR CREEK, TEXAS FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT RESULTS OF REVIEW OF • SPONSOR-PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE NOVEMBER 1998 RELEASE STATEMENT This report contains recommendations from the Galveston District of the Army Corps of Engineers. This report is non-binding on the Corps of Engineers and is not an official policy statement or position. NOV-23-98 MON 02:32 PM PROJEGW NAGEMENT FAX NO. 409 76 372 P. 03 • CLEAR CREEK,TEXAS FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT RESULTS OF REVIEW OF SPONSOR-PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE NOVEMF ER 1998 I. Purpose:This presents results of the Galveston District review of the sponsor-proposed alternative to the Clear Creek, Texas, Flood Control Project. The review evaluated and compared the sponsor-proposed alternative and the congressionally authorized project to provide guidance for determination of the decision level of the Corps of Engineers higher headquarters required for approval of the sponsor-proposed alternative and how the alternative would be documented for approval. 2. Conclusion and Recommendation: The Galveston District has concluded that approval of the changes associated with the sponsor-proposed alternative is not within the discretionary authority of the Division Commander, Southwestern Division. This conclusion, from the District review of the alternative, is based on uncertainties in the economics and hydraulics of the alternative and changes in the alternative costs, real estate, and environmental impacts. • Therefore, the District recommends that a General Reevaluation Report (GRR) be prepared for the Clear Creek Flood Control Project. Rationale for this conclusion and recommendation is presented in subsequent paragraphs. 3.)escription of Geugral Reevaluation Report; The General Reevaluation Report will address any major changes in conditions since authorization that could affect the project formulation or scope. The GRR will reevaluate site conditions, environmental considerations, engineering design, economics,benefits and costs,public input, sponsors' preferred alternatives, changes in design criteria, etc. The GRR will consider reevaluation of the authorized project and formulation of the sponsor-proposed alternative, or any other alternatives (including buyout or other non-structural alternatives), that the sponsors and the Corps deem reasonable to pursue. 4. Schedule for General Reevaluation $eport: With concurrence from the Southwestern Division on the recommendation to proceed with the GRR, the Galveston District will formally present to the sponsors the results of its review of the sponsor-proposed alternative. The District will request input from the sponsors on any other alternatives to consider in the GRR. It is expected that the GRR will be initiated by January 1999. The preliminary estimate for completion is 3 years, including review for approval by the Corps higher headquarters. Depending on the scope of the GRR, a lesser amount of time may be NOV-23-98 MON 02:32 PM PROJECTAIONAGEMENT FAX NO. 409 766 6372 P. 04 required. On the other hand, depending on the results of the GRR, additional time may be required for any legislative changes to the congressional authorization, amendments to the Local Cooperation Agreement, or revisions to the sponsors' interlocal agreements. 5. Funding: Federal funding is currently programmed for construction of the authorized project. The funding schedule will be adjusted to accommodate development of the recommended General Reevaluation Report. The recommendation from the Harris County Commissioners Court on the sponsor-proposed alternative included the condition that "project continuation include enhancements and updates.....as possible without loss of Federal funding" (see paragraph 7.9). It is highly likely, however, that the current Federal funding level would change for any alternative Clear Creek flood control project resulting from the GRR. It is also possible that there could be a determination in the GRR of no continuing Federal participation in the project. The level of Federal funding requirements for any alternative flood control project would be determined during the GRR studies and, thus, is unknown at this time. The current Federal budget and outyear projections arc applicable only to resumption of design and construction of the authorized project. 6. Ration 1. Conclusion and Recommendation: The following paragraphs present the rationale for the conclusion that the approval of the sponsor-proposed alternative is not within the discretionary authority of the Division Commander and for recommending that a General Reevaluation Report be prepared. 6.1 Description Qf Sponsor-Proposed Alternative: The second outlet channel and gated structure between Clear Lake and Galveston Bay are in place and functional for the sponsor-proposed alternative (as they are, of course, for the authorized project). Upstream of Clear Lake, the sponsor-proposed alternative incorporates several flood damage reduction techniques: channel rectification, channel bypass, detention basins, buyout, floodplain regulations, and storm water management. The alternative uses these different methods of flood damage reduction in a two-part proposal, referred to by the sponsors as the"updated Federal project" and "local community upgrades". (It should be noted that, although referred to in part as the "updated Federal project", the plan has not been shown, within the scope of this review, to meet the requirements for a Federal project, thus leading to the recommendation for a GRR). A map is enclosed which shows both the sponsor-proposed alternative and the authorized project. (Also, it should he noted that the sponsors wanted the Corps to consider only the "updated Federal project"portion as the alternative to the authorized project and that they do not consider the "local community upgrades" portion as part of the sponsor-proposed alternative. However, based on this review, it is the opinion of the Galveston District (an opinion which has been supported by the Southwestern Division staff in coordination meetings) that the local community upgrades midst be included and considered in the evaluation of the sponsor-proposed alternative since the alternative depends on the local community upgrades to reduce or slow down flows to Clear Creek in order to justify a smaller flood control channel, This issue would be fully addressed and resolved in the studies for the GRR.) • NUV-23-98 lION 02:33 PM PROJEC104ANAGEMENT FAX NO. 409 766�6372 P. 05 The updated Federal project portion consists of reduced channel rectification and a channel bypass. The reduction in channel size would be accommodated primarily by two methods. First, future increases in flow would be limited to 70 to 80 percent of the authorized project design flows by recognizing and enforcing ongoing runoff controls on new land development and through modification and implementation of the Clear Creek Regional Flood Control Plan.. Floodplain regulations and storm water management are currently in place since jurisdictional communities in the watershed are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program. Second, maintenance of the rectified channel would be accomplished from the water rather than from land, thereby eliminating the need for maintenance access along the channel. The bypass channel is intended to abate environmental impacts to the most sensitive five miles of the natural channel, generally from Challenger 7 Park upstream to near FM 528, and to provide additional storm water storage. The local community upgrade portion consists of detention basins, buyout, floodplain regulations, and storm water management. The Clear Creek Regional Flood Control Plan would be modified to include additional upper watershed detention basins to more fully mitigate new development impacts. At least two online detention/sediment basins would be constructed adjacent to the crcck. The voluntary buyout program would be for the 40 or so houses that would still be in the residual 100-year floodplain with either the sponsor-proposed alternative or the authorized project. Runoff controls include the continued enforcement of floodplain development regulations and storm water management to help limit future flow increases to the design flows in the updated Federal project portion. Primarily the developers would fund runoff controls for new land development as the development occurs. 6_2 Authority for Changes to Uncompleted Authorized Projects: The Division Commander may approve changes to authorized projects, or elements thereof, if such changes meet all of the criteria listed in Engineering Regulation (ER) 1105-2-100, Section III, paragraph 2-17.a. Only the two criteria pertinent to this review and evaluation of the sponsor-proposed alternative are listed below: Division Commanders may approve changes to authorized projects, or elements thereof, if such changes meet all of the criteria listed below. 1) For projects authorized prior to the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, an increase in total baseline project cost estimate no greater than increases in price level changes and the cost of modifications required by subsequent legislation. 3 • NOV-23-98 NON 02:33 PM ' PROJEfJ.,MANAGEMENT FAX NO. 409 766 6372 P. 06 • 2) Increase or decrease in scope no greater than 20 percent of the scope authorized by Congress. If the scope can be defined by several parameters, (for example, storage capacity, outputs, environmental impacts) and the change in any one parameter exceeds 20 percent, the change must he approved by the Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (Outputs are generally measured as benefits, but may include parameters such as level of protection). 6.3 Primary Chances: Based on the above criteria, the sponsor-proposed alternative cannot be approved at the Division commander level, as presented in the following paragraphs addressing the primary changes of the alternative. 6.3 (,a) Real rotate: The authorized project requires approximately 913 acres of real estate for rights-of-way, disposal areas, and environmental mitigation. The total acreage required for the updated Federal project portion of the alternative is 947 acres, which includes rights-of-way, disposal areas, and mitigation. Further investigation is needed to verify the acreage calculated by the sponsors and to determine which features, such as the local community upgrades, should be included in the sponsor- proposed alternative. While these changes do not exceed the maximum 20 percent change in scope allowed by the criterion given in paragraph 6.2, criterion 2, there arc uncertainties associated with the acreages of the other features, i.c., the local community upgrades. The potential exists that these changes will exceed the maximum 20 percent change in scope. 6.3 (b) Hydraulic: The channel size for the sponsor-proposed alternative is smaller than that of the authorized project. For example, the channel bottom width is reduced, generally, from approximately 130 feet for the authorized project to approximately 80 feet for the alternative between FM 2351 and Interstate 45. This reduction in channel width is intended to lessen environmental impacts of the project_ Flow rates for the authorized project are presented in the Clear Creek, Texas, Flood Control, Preconstruction Authorization Planning Report, May 1982, Appendix IV. Flow rates for the sponsor-proposed alternative are presented in the Clear Creek,Federal Flood Control Project Review, Prepared for Local Sponsors: Harris County Flood Control District and Galveston County, Prepared by Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation, December 1997. Project design for both studies was based on future condition runoff. Future condition flows reported for the sponsor-proposed alternative are less than those computed for the authorized project. For example, the 100-year flows at FM 2351 and Interstate 45 for the alternative are approximately 20,000 and 31,000 cubic feet per second, respectively, and for the authorized project are approximately 24,000 and 40,000 cubic feet per second, respectively. This flow reduction results from the assumption of a less severe future development condition than that used for the authorized project. The sponsors proposed recognizing 4 NOV-23-98 MON 02:34 PM PROJECNAGEMENT FAX NO. 409 76,Q4372 P. 07 thc ongoing and future runoff controls being incorporated in new land developments, and modifying the existing Clear Creek Regional Flood Control Plan to accommodate the lower design flows in the updated Federal project portion of the alternative. The local entities developed the Regional Flood Control Plan from 1987 to 1992 to use as a guide for managing stormwater runoff as the watershed developed so that future flows would not exceed the authorized project design. Future condition flood stages reported for the sponsor-proposed alternative are less than those computed for the authorized project. For example, thc 100-year stages at FM 2351 and Interstate 45 for the alternative are approximately 22.0 and 9.4 feet, respectively, and for the authorized project arc approximately 22.5 and 11.0 feet, respectively. The sponsors' goal was to match the authorized project stages. The sponsors recognized the channel size would be reduced or flows increased in the next analysis phase. However, the updated Federal project portion of the alternative actually has less absolute capacity since the channel is generally much smaller. Thus, the apparent improved performance does not stem from greater capacity, but rather from the assumption of a less severe future development condition. Establishing a revised future condition scenario for the sponsor-proposed alternative compromises the authorized project justification. If this same scenario was used, future condition flows will not be as severe as predicted in the authorized project studies. To avoid this inconsistency it would be necessary to compare both the alternative and the authorized project for the same hydrologic conditions. Therefore, it is not possible to readily assess the implication of hydraulic changes, which may affect the project economics. Given these changes in future conditions for the sponsor-proposed alternative and changes in channel size including the addition of a bypass channel, the potential exists that these changes will exceed the maximum 20 percent change in scope allowed by paragraph 6.2, criterion 2. 63 (c) Economic: Review and reevaluation of the economic justification of the sponsor-proposed alternative compared to the authorized project must address two areas. The first is the current and future base condition within the watershed, both with and without the flood control projects. Economic justification is directly related to the current and future conditions used in the hydraulic evaluation and comparison of the authorized project and the alternative. The updated Federal project portion of the alternative reduces the channel size of the authorized project but is expected by the sponsors to produce project benefits nearly identical to those attributed to the authorized project by preserving its water surface profile. The fundamental premise of functional similarity of the two designs lies with the assumptions inherent in the different base condition used for the alternative_ The different base condition used for the alternative, discussed in the 5 • NOV-23-98 MON 02:35 PM PROJEF,iwOANAGEMENT FAX NO. 409 766 372 P. 08 hydraulic section above, basically attribute lower future flows to effective watershed management practices, use of detention basins,and limited tributary inflows. Given the different hydraulic and, hence, economic conditions, a significantly more detailed economic study is required to equitably compare the sponsor-proposed alternative with the authorized project. The second area that must be addressed is the continuing viability of the economic justification of the authorized project. The benefits that justified the authorized project in 1982 may not be reproducible given the constraints of project economic justification criteria today. Authorized project benefits incorporated several categories that arc de- emphasized today. Affluence benefits, location benefits, and restoration of land values constitute 23 percent of the benefits attributable to the authorized project but would most likely be excluded in an economic reevaluation. On the other hand, however, only one hydrologic condition, that being the ultimate design condition water surface profile, was used in the original economic analysis of the authorized project. This water surface profile was used in a static mode, applied in the base year and throughout the project's 100-year life. This application in the base year underestimated the damages prevented by the authorized project. Because of the time- value of money intrinsic to economic analysis, critical benefits potentially accrued early in the project life were not identified. Had an existing with-project water surface profile been developed and applied in the economic analysis, the performance of the authorized project would have initially exceeded its ultimate design to contain a 10-year frequency flood. Given the changed economic analysis criteria that would be used today for the authorized project, a significantly more detailed economic study is required to equitably compare the sponsor-proposed alternative with the authorized project. Given these two areas of consideration for economic justification, the probability exists that economic changes will exceed the maximum 20 percent change in scope allowed by paragraph 6.2, criterion 2. 6.3 (d,) _Cost. The sponsor-proposed alternative is estimated at $122 million compared to the authorized project estimated cost of$129 million. However, the Galveston District could not confirm or deny the cost estimate for the alternative in the scope of this review. There are two main areas of concern about the estimated cost of the alternative. First, in lieu of developing quantity calculations and a detailed cost estimate for the sponsor-proposed alternative, the sponsors used factors based, in general, on ratios of the reduced channel size for the alternative. The factors/ratios were applied to the estimate for the authorized project to arrive at a cost estimate for the alternative. The Galveston District, however, could not support the validity of the factors nor develop a more detailed estimate from the available information within the scope of this review. 6 NOV-23-98 MON 02:35 PM PROJEC IANAGEMENT FAX NO. 409 766 6372 P. 09 Second, and perhaps most important, costs for the sponsor-proposed alternative include the updated Federal project portion only, i.e., the channel rectification and the bypass. As discussed previously, further investigation is needed to determine if additional features, such as the local community upgrades, should be included in the sponsor-proposed alternative. Based on the cost information available, it is possible that changes in the project cost for the sponsor-proposed alternative will exceed criterion 1 in paragraph 6.2. This criterion is directly applicable to the Clear Creek Flood Control Project since it was authorized prier to the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. 6,3 Cc) Environmental; The environmental resource agencies provided input and support to the sponsors in their efforts to identify an alternative that reduced environmental impacts to Clear Creek. The sponsor-proposed alternative proposes a reduced-size flood control channel and a bypass channel to reduce environmental impacts as compared to the authorized project. To further reduce impacts, excavation would be from one side only and maintenance access would be from the water: however, these techniques are equally applicable to the authorized project as well and, therefore, a comparison is moot. The sponsor-proposed alternative suggests that a discrepancy exists between it and the authorized project concerning impact on wetlands. After coordination with the appropriate State and Federal environmental resource agencies for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the authorized project required mitigation of 11.6, acres of wetlands. The alternative is presented as having an impact on 50 acres of wetlands. However, the sponsors estimated the wetland impacts of the authorized project as 97 acres. When presented this way, the 50-acre impact of the alternative appears more environmentally favorable than the authorized project. During the public review of the sponsor-proposed alternative, most Federal and State environmental resource agencies expressed concern for the authorized project and generally supported the sponsor-proposed alternative. Although the impacts and mitigation requirements for the authorized project have been coordinated with the agencies, these renewed concerns have the potential to alter the previously agreed to mitigation. Similarly, the sponsor-proposed alternative received support for changes up to FM 528. However, the features above FM 528 did not have the same support. The sponsors recognized that coordination and verification from the environmental resource agencies would be needed. This includes verifying the impacts and mitigation' requirements associated with the bypass channel and the detention basins. When compared directly to the authorized project, the changes in impacts and mitigation requirements exceed the maximum 20 percent change in scope allowed by paragraph 6.2, criterion 2. However, it should be recognized that the mitigation requirements for the authorized project and the sponsor-proposed alternative could both change. Given these uncertainties, it cannot be stated that the changes would fall within the maximum 20 percent change in scope. 7 NOV-23-98 MON 02:36 PM PROJEMANAGEMENT FAX NO. 409 76„64.372 P. 10 7. Background; 7,1 Authorization and Funding: The Clear Creek Flood Control Project was authorized by Congress in the Flood Control Act of 1968, as described in House Document No. 351, 90th Congress, 2nd Session, including conditions of authorization stipulated by the Secretary of the Army. Construction funding was initially appropriated in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. 7.2 Description of Authorized Project: The authorized project is described in the Clear Creek, Texas, Flood Control, Preconstruction Authorization Planning Report, including the Final Environmental Impact Statement, May 1982. The initial proposed detailed design is included in four subsequent Design Memorandums completed from 1985 to 1991. The authorized project consists of approximately 15.3 miles of channel enlargement and bend-easing from the upper end of Clear Lake to the Brazoria County line. The channel is trapezoidal earth, turfed and seeded on the side slopes. Stone riprap protection is • provided at bridges, as required. Erosion protection is also required along a section of channel beginning downstream of Friendswood-Link Road and extending approximately 1.5 miles upstream. Design of the channel improvements was being reviewed for the incorporation of current technologies prior to the start of the current project reevaluation. Also included is a second outlet channel approximately 1 mile in length, with a gated structure consisting of six vertical-lift roller gates, between Clear Lake and Galveston Bay. Environmental mitigation, defined in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) filed with the Environmental Protection Agency in August 1982, includes replacement for riparian woodlands,brush, and wetlands. 2,3 Local ooperation Agreement: In June 1986, the local sponsors (Galveston County and Harris County acting through the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD)) signed a formal Local Cooperation Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for construction of the project. The local sponsors provide rights-of-way, relocation or modification of roadway bridges, utilities, pipelines, etc., a cash contribution, and serve as the point-of-contact for public involvement. The Corps, working in close coordination with the local sponsors, prepares the design and manages contracts for the construction work. While generally sharing the local sponsors' cost equally, the counties entered into an interlocal agreement in 1986 that specifies their cost- sharing responsibilities. The HCFCD has been the lead or managing sponsor for project administration of the sponsors' responsibilities. • Brazoria County Drainage District No. 4 was the original potential sponsor in that county. However, in 1986, Brazoria County Drainage District No. 4, while affirming support for the project, requested that its participation be terminated because of limited financial capability to participate in the project. Accordingly, the portion of the project upstream of the Brazoria County line (approximately Mile 19.1) was placed in the 8 NOV-23-98 MON 02:36 PM PROJECT IANAGEMENT FAX NO. 409 76 ,,, 372 P. 11 l' ,7 inactive category. This portion of the project could be re-activated with a local sponsor(s) able to meet the financial requirements of sponsorship. 7 4 Consttuctiott and Sponsor gctivities Completed to Date: Replacement of the two Galveston, Houston, and Henderson Railroad bridges just downstream of SH 3 at League City was completed in 1989. The second outlet gated structure and the marsh mitigation site in Seab000k Slough were completed in 1991. Dredging of the second outlet channel was completed in 1997. Prior to work at the second outlet, the sponsors completed new bridges at Todville Road, the East and West frontage road bridges for SH 146, and relocated the major petrochemical pipeline corridor for the outlet channel. Most roadway bridges from SH 3 upstream to FM 1959 have been replaced to accommodate the authorized project and several pipelines along the channel have been relocated by the sponsors. As a result of litigation in 1996, Galveston County acquired a significant portion of the channel right-of-way required for the first upstream reach (from the upper end of Clear Lake to just upstream of SH 3, Mile 3.8 to 7.6) of the authorized project. The right-of- way acquired is generally in the vicinity of FM 270. However, the sponsors have put additional right-of-way acquisitions and relocation work, including the proposed new bridge for FM 270, on-hold pending the results of the General Reevaluation Report. 7.5 Clear Creek Regional Flood Control Plan: Development of the Clear Creek Regional Flood Control Plan was jointly funded by the Texas Water Development Board and the Harris County Flood Control District. It was completed and adopted in 1992. The authorized project is an integral part of the Regional Flood Control Plan. In addition to the authorized project, the Regional Plan calls for channel conveyance improvements along the upper reaches of Clear Creek, channel improvements to the tributaries, and the construction of 21 detention sites covering approximately 2,200 acres. (It should be noted that, while the authorized project is an integral part of the Regional Flood Control Plan, the authorized project does not rely on the Regional Plan for its justification. The Regional Flood Control Plan did not exist when the authorized project design was approved in 1982. The Regional Plan does, however, enhance the flood damage reduction performance of the authorized project.) 7.6 Opposition to Authorized Project; In early 1997, significant organized opposition to the authorized project emerged. Environmental interest groups and agencies, private citizens, and some local communities located near or adjacent to Clear Lake expressed opposition to the authorized project as planned for the upstream reaches. In general, opposition focused on environmental concerns in the upstream reaches; any impacts from the Brio Superfund Site and/or other contaminant sources; and, on induced flooding concerns downstream in Clear Lake. Various groups, citizens, and communities requested new public input on the project, new or updated environmental studies, a review of the hydrological impacts of the project on Clear Lake (with the second outlet in place), and a study of the impacts of the Brio site and/or any other contaminants. 9 NOV-23-98 MON 02:37 PM PROJE C, IANAGEMENT FAX NO. 409 765•6y372 P. 12 ) 7,7 Public Input; The local sponsors initiated a review and reevaluation of the Clear Creek project to address credible, responsible, and qualified objections from concerned citizens. A review and reevaluation period was considered affordable and necessary to investigate alternatives to enhance the authorized project while addressing valid concerns. A Project Team led by HCFCD and composed of staff from Galveston County, HCFCD, the Galveston District, and an engineering consultant (Danncnbaum Engineering Corporation) was created to review and reevaluate the authorized project and investigate ways to improve it. A Clear Creek Citizen Advisory Committee, composed of interested citizens and representatives of various agencies and governmental entities, was established to provide input to the Project Team during the reevaluation process. Approximately 50 elements and alternatives were considered overall. Newsletters were used to communicate with the public and press releases and announcements of public meetings were published in area newspapers. A telephone hotline was set up by the HCFCD to provide information about the project status and meetings, as well as to allow citizens and organizations to make their points regarding issues and alternatives being considered. Three open-forum-type public meetings were held (on July 22, September 23, and November 11, 1997) to listen to public concerns, receive public input, present alternatives, answer questions, and present a recommended alternative. The recommended alternative is referred to as the "sponsor-proposed alternative". 7,8 Technical Report., The technical report from the review and reevaluation by the sponsors is the Clear Creek, Federal Flood Control Project Review, Prepared for Local Sponsors: Harris County Flood Control District and Galveston County, Prepared by Danncnbaumn Engineering Corporation,December 1997. 7.9 County Commissioners' Courts Resolutions: Both the Harris and Galveston County Commissioners' Courts passed resolutions in early December 1997 which recommended the sponsor-proposed alternative to the Corps for its consideration. The Harris County Commissioners' Court, on December 2, 1997, passed the following: "It is ordered that the recommendation of the Executive Director, Harris County Flood Control District that the Commissioners' Court confirm support and sponsorship of the Federal flood control project on Clear Creek to the Corps of Engineers be approved; and, It is further ordered that it be requested that project continuation include enhancements and updates; to include equivalent flood control on the same schedule, immediate operation of the second outlet at Seabrook, reduced design flows so as to have no impact on Clear Lake, substitution of a different disposal site for Swan Lagoon, reduced channel cross-section near Highway 3 and through Fricndswood, upstream detention and a bypass around five miles of the natural 10 NOV-23-98 NON 02:38 PM PROJE*NANAGEMENT FAX NO. 409 76666372 P. 13 stream, a drastically reduced maintenance scenario, increased reliance on regional plan implementation, and locally sponsored buyouts and detention basins; as possible without loss of federal funding." The Galveston County Commissioners' Court, on December 4, 1997, passed the following: "It is ordered by the Court that a letter be sent to the Corps of Engineers to review the recommendations of the Clear Creek Project Review Team for the Clear Creek Federal (Flood) Control Project, including in the review to specifically address the concerns of the downstream lake community as relates to the proposal on (the) table and also specifically to include the review of the environmental impact from channelization activity and disturbing of contaminated sediment in the creek or near the Brio site." It is noted that Harris County included the conditions "equivalent flood control on the same schedule" and "as possible without loss of federal funding" and that Galveston County included the two conditions of reviewing impacts to Clear Lake and reviewing impacts of the Brio site or other contaminants. The schedule for the recommended General Reevaluation Report, discussed in paragraph 4, precludes maintaining the same project schedule. The Federal funding concern is discussed in paragraph 3. The current status of the lake impact study and of the contaminant impact study is presented in the following paragraphs. 7.10 Clear Lake Impact Study: The Galveston District has developed a comprehensive hydraulic model for the Clear Lake area to analyze the possibilities of flooding impacts around the lake area from the sponsor-proposed alternative. The model was run on UNET, a state-of-the-art numerical model that simulates one-dimensional unsteady flow through a full network of open channels. The lake impact study has been coordinated with the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), Corps of Engineers, in Davis, California. The District model was based on a preliminary model developed by Danncnbaum Engineering Corp., a consultant for the Harris County Flood Control District. The flood frequency data provided by Dannenbaum was used to simulate over four thousand comparisons with and without the sponsor-proposed alternative. Using these simulations of various frequency floods and hundreds of different tidal conditions, a prediction of the extent and probabilities of impacts can be determined. A risk and uncertainty analysis is being conducted on the UNET results. The data development and the risk and uncertainty analysis arc being reviewed by the HEC. The local sponsors addressed a concern about considering the effects of the gate operations on the second outlet in the risk analysis. A sensitivity analysis is being performed in conjunction with the risk analysis to consider the effects of the gate operations on Clear Lake. The lake impact study and report is scheduled for completion by December 1998. (The report will also present an indication of impacts on the lake from the authorized project.) Upon completion, the lake impact report will be available to the public. 11 ' NOV-23-98 HON 02:38 PM PROJE,11, MANAGEMENT FAX NO. 409 7616372 P. 14 7.11 Contaminant Impact Study; The study team for the Contaminant Impact Study consists of' the Galveston District, the Harris County Flood Control District, Galveston County, Espey-Huston and Associates (EH&A) (Corps' consultant), and Entrix (IICFCD's consultant). The team coordinated the study with a Citizens Advisory Panel, consisting of the interested public and representatives of agencies and governmental entities. A sampling plan was developed by the team and sampling was conducted June 1-5, 1998, by EH&A. Water and sediment samples were collected at 35 sites and core samples collected at five of these sites. Elutriate samples were made up for each of the 35 sites. The water, sediment, core, and elutriate samples were analyzed by Analytical and Consulting Laboratories (ANACON). Water, sediment, and core split samples were collected at select stations for Entrix and analyzed by Core Laboratories. All samples were analyzed for priority pollutants, including other contaminants of concern. EH&A has prepared a draft report which is being reviewed by the Corps, the sponsors, and the consultants. The contaminant impact study and report is scheduled for completion by December 1998. Upon completion, the Citizens Advisory Panel will be briefed on the final contaminant impact report and it will be available to the public. 8. Other Pertinent information: 8.1 SecondOutict Transfer to Sponsors;Pursuant to the Local Cooperation Agreement, the Galveston District transferred the completed portion of the authorized project to the local sponsors, effective March 13, 1998, for operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating. The second outlet channel and gated structure, including the marsh mitigation site in Seabrook Slough, were transferred to the Harris County Flood Control District. The 57-acre disposal area, located in Kemah, Texas, was transferred to Galveston County. 8.2 Impleni ptation of Regi .1 F ••4 . 1 P1 • The updated Federal project portion of the sponsor-proposed alternative is dependent on the local community upgrades portion of the alternative, as specified in the Clear Creek Regional Flood Control Plan and including additional detention requirements. The alternative depends on the Regional Flood Control Plan to reduce or slow down flows to Clear Creek in order to justify the smaller flood control channel. Although adopted unanimously by local entities in 1992, and although some runoff controls are being implemented now, it is the opinion of the Galveston District that there arc significant uncertainties associated with modification and implementation of the full Regional Flood Control Plan. Contributing to the uncertainties was the overwhelming defeat (by a 4 to 1 margin)by the electorate in May 1998 of the proposed Clear Creek Regional Flood Control District. One more opportunity exists for the electorate to vote to create the regional district in one year. The Regional Flood Control District would bring together the large number of governmental entities involved, i.e., the four counties, five drainage districts, and sixteen incorporated cities in the watershed. Without a unifying regional district, watershed-wide flood control activities continue under the Regional Flood Control Plan and its existing Steering Committee. 12 NOV-23-98 MON 02:39 PM PROJEfiik MANAGEMENT FAX-NO. 409 761,6372 P. 15 • 8,3 Galveston County Buyout Request; There is a significant effort underway by a portion of the public to support a buyout plan. Galveston County, by letter from County Judge James Yarbrough, dated July 2, 1998, has requested "review of the recommended alternative to include information as to the feasibility of an expanded use of buyout within the final confirmed project." A subsequent letter of support was also received from Commissioner Wayne Johnson, dated July 8, 1998. Study of such an alternative would require a General Reevaluation Report. Previous experience with buyout plans in the Galveston District has indicated the feasibility of Federal financial participation at approximately a 5- to 10-year level-of-protection, which is usually a small number of houses. 8 4 Harris County Flood Control District, Section 575 mendment The HCFCD proposed that Congress amend Section 575 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996 to include non-structural (buyout) actions and to include the Clear Creek Flood Control Project in the list of projects for which Section 575 applies. The proposed legislation was included in WRDA 1998,which was not enacted by Congress. Thus, the following is provided for background information only on this subject. Section 575 of WRDA 96 currently states that: ".....the Secretary (of the Army) shall not consider flood control works constructed by non-Federal interests within the drainage area of such projects prior to the date of such evaluation in the determination of conditions existing prior to construction of the project." The HCFCD proposed to specifically include the term "buyouts" in the definition of flood control works constructed by non-Federal interests. Also, Section 575 of WRDA 96 does not include the Clear Creek Flood Control Project in the list for which the section applies. The inclusion of buyout actions and the Clear Creek project in Section 575 would have enabled the sponsors to begin buyouts in advance of a determination of Federal interest in proceeding with an alternative to the authorized project. 13 • CURRENT FEDERAL PROJECT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE o C DECEMBER 1997 ram, CO 7 ' - - C.ON D. 'C! O ••••••;_: -.....".:-.',.....';•!,`........::::' :';'...--...',:f..-.:;-:',4.'-';" ./-1. •.'-''.....-....------15: , P ./ .'(_"- /•. �,.:'REt TE - .. •.,-: ; — ;k 'L_ .. ,. <;` PROPOSED ,'r' 4,•• _..•...-...i4. • ••4, '•.. ..• .. r ;y, ::. . SWAN LAGOON ill.ilil ,: ry 3 . /., - --- :' :t. ,='._ DISPOSAL Silt `:� ��DD • ter' :`�: ,' ::. ;; ; ` c L ►�/' ci.) .. .0 \ ,\ „\ c) .• \� it �• ' M1 • I''. O tir�� �.. 1 � � _ „) 2094 1)qN - • m / ' .. IA% •,11fi 518 . *•._. i -,.. :___.- • - ..t. /ems- �_ _ . -gin G� 1.8 • _-...._. -n f L: �i: `7 v,�`_. vr�:: - LEGEND X �,a FOR °` ".:y`. i _..•, o ` rJ -. f• �. ; `� :( •i - �' .`'.�> \. • -_ • .. CURRENT FEDERAL PROJECT ,' �' L, ^. � r 1 ® CHANNEL RECTIFICATION ® -.� •� / �•y•• UPDATED FEDERAL PROJECT co • _. _ . '� I • — REDUCED CHANNEL RECTIFICATION w 1 , i_ =i rl ,�frfih ==._= B2 BYPASS CHANNEL N —I LOCAL COMMUNffY/REGIONAL UPGRADES co 45 , �1 RUNOFF CONTROLS FOR NEW CNI CLEAR CREEK FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT REVIEW No. D DEVELOPMENT inHARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT U.S.ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,GALVESTON DISTRICT El SCHEMATIC LOCATION OF GALVESTON COUNTY E2 '" ONLINE DETENTION BASINS ,o El; �`rt+ . I ! N'':: PURCHASE OF HOUSES IN co I'd.g �-.1;- ! :1" RESIDUAL 100-YR.FLOOD PLAIN CIT OF PEARLA . p OFFICE OF THE.CITY SECRETARY 3519 LIBERTY DR.,PBARLAND,TX 773514116 (isl)AI5.2111,EXT.741. FAX(231)I10-1106 FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET TO: i7€c-c ���n na n FROM: ,d4 o t.t-uta Le)rc-( Yl DATE: / " I NO, OF PAGES: . 3 INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE. ID JAN 07 '99 14 :53 TRANSMIT CONFIRMATION REPORT NO . 004 RECEIVER 281 485 0065 TRANSMITTER DATE JAN 07 '99 14 .53 DURATION 01 '39 MODE • STD PAGES 03 RESULT OK