217217217

200200200

255255255

000

163163163

131132122

2396553

110135120

1129256

62102130

1025648

130120111

237237237

8011927

252174.59

“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.”

USACE San Francisco DistrictMarin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

November 13, 2018, 5:30 pm, BOS Chambers

CORTE MADERA CREEK FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROJECT DRAFT EIS/EIR

MARIN COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING

1

PRESENTATION AGENDA2

1. Welcome Lieutenant Colonel David Kaulfers, Acting Deputy Commander U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

2. Project ObjectivesTony Williams, Assistant Director Marin County Public Works Department

3. Ross Valley Flood Protection & Watershed Program, Project Schedule Tonya Redfield, Capital Planning & Project ManagerMarin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District

4. USACE Process, Project AlternativesBenjamin Reder, Project PlannerU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

5. NEPA/CEQA Process, Key FindingsNadia BurlesonBurleson Consulting

PEAK STORM DISCHARGES AT ROSS CREEK GAGE - 1952-2017

2017

HISTORICAL FLOODING IN ROSS VALLEY

EXISTING CONDITION

Ross Fish Ladder, Feb 2017

4

Ross Fish Ladder, ~June 2016

PROJECT OBJECTIVES5

• Address the abrupt transition between Units 3 and 4 created by the existing Denil fish ladder and the narrow channel condition;

• Ensure proposed Project is consistent with District’s Ross Valley Flood Protection and Watershed Program.

• Reduce the likelihood and consequences of flooding on human life and safety;

• Reduce the risk of flood damages, including critical infrastructure;

• Develop and implement environmentally sustainable flood risk management (FRM) features consistent with natural geomorphic processes and ecological functions of the study area;

• Improve fish habitat conditions for salmonids;

• Use environmentally sustainable designs and construction methodologies, which would minimize environmental impacts from future operation and maintenance actions in the study area;

Kentfield1966

EIS/EIR ROLES 6

USACEFlood Control District

/Marin CountyPublic/Agencies

Project LeadNEPA Lead Agency (Federal Funding)

Local Sponsor CEQA Lead Agency

(Local/State Grant Funding)

Review EIS/EIR

Respond to Public Comments

Support Response to Public Comments

Provide Public Comments

Certify EIS (Federal) Record of Decision

Certify EIR (State) Project Approval

Public Comment, Attend Public Hearing

Project ConstructionProject Approval

(District BOS)On-going Stakeholder

Engagement

Ross Valley Flood Control & Watershed Program, Project Schedule

Bolinas Ave, 1944

Nov, 2018

San Anselmo Flood Risk Reduction Project

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Corte Madera Creek Flood Risk Management Project - Ph. 1

Corte Madera Creek Flood Risk Management Project - Ph. 2

Lower Corte Madera Creek & Geomorphic Dredge Study

Morningside/Sleepy Hollow Creek Study

Azalea Ave. Bridge

Madrone Ave. & Nokomis Ave. Bridges

Winship Ave. Bridge

Bridge Ave & Sycamore Ave./Center Blvd. Bridges

Program Environmental Impact Report

Hillview Neighborhood Pump Station & Storm Drain Improvement Project

Annual Ross Valley Creek Maintenance

Flood Risk Reduction Project(Project Lead – Zone 9)

Flood Risk Reduction Project(Project Lead – Town/City)

Feasibility Evaluation/Study

Environmental Review Complete

Ross Valley Flood Protection & Watershed Program - 2018 – 2027 Work Plan

9

Foreseeable Future Projects;

• Have funding allocated in

Program 2018-19 Work Plan

& Budget

• Currently in or moving through

environmental review phase

• Are supported by Zone 9

Advisory Board, BOS,

representative Towns/City

Ross Valley Flood Control & Watershed Program

SCHEDULE & PUBLIC INPUT10

10/12/18 Public Draft EIR/EIS Release, 45-day Comment Period Begins

10/23/18Community Workshop #1, Town of Ross Residents 6:00 pm - 7:30 pm, Ross Town Hall

10/24/18Community Workshop #2, Ross Commercial Businesses 10:00 am – 11:30 am, Ross Town Hall

10/25/18Community Workshop #3, Kentfield & Unincorporated County 6:00 pm - 7:30 pm, Ross Town Hall

11/1/18Ross Valley Watershed Community Conversation w/ Congressman Huffman 5:00 – 6:30 pm at Ross School Gym

11/13/18Public Hearing on Draft EIS/EIR 5:30 pm, District Board of Supervisors, Marin County Civic Center, Rm 330

11/27/18 Draft EIS/EIR Comment Period Closes

Sept. 2019 Final Project EIR/EIS Released

Oct. 2019 Public Hearing on Final Project EIS/EIR

2019 - 2020 Project Approval and Final Design

2020 - 2025 Construction (Phase 1, Phase 2)

USACE Process & Project Alternatives

Ross Commons, Ross, 1982

Focus on alternatives identification and evaluation to identify a recommended plan for more detailed design

Focus on scaling the measures and features for the recommended plan

ScopingAlternative

Evaluation & AnalysisFeasibility Analysis of

Selected PlanWashington-level Review

Alternatives Milestone

Tentatively Selected Plan Milestone

Agency Decision Milestone

Chief’s Report Signed

Draft Report Released for

Concurrent Review

District Final Report Package

TransmittalDecision Milestone

Product Milestone

Key

USACE Feasibility Study Process 12

Jan 2016 Sept 2016 – Oct 2017 Nov 2018 – Feb 2019 2019

Feb 2019

Oct-Nov 2018We are

Here

Sept 2019

MHWA1A

500’

Study focuses on

completion of Unit 4

and ties into

completed project

with possible features

in Units 3 & 2

STUDY AREA13

Project Alternatives

A Top-of-bank Floodwall

BTop-of-bank Floodwall, Setback Floodwall, College of Marin Widening

FBypass, Allen Park Riparian Corridor, College of Marin Widening

GTop-of-bank Floodwall, Allen Park Riparian Corridor, College of Marin Widening

J Bypass, Allen Park Riparian Corridor, Top-of-bank Floodwall

No Action Existing Condition

Tentatively Selected Plan

14

BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS

15

ALTERNATIVE J Tentatively Selected Plan – Figure 3-5a

16

• Bypass, Allen Park Riparian Corridor, Top-of-bank Floodwall

ALTERNATIVE J – Figure 3-5b17

ALTERNATIVE J – Figure 3-5c18

ALTERNATIVE J – Figure 3-5d19

ALTERNATIVE J – Figure 3-5e20

ALTERNATIVE J – Figure 3-5f21

Structures removed from

floodplain

Flooding Changes at 4% AEP (25-Yr Flood)22

Structures removed from

floodplain

Flooding Changes at 2% AEP (50-Yr Flood)

Structures removed from

floodplain

23

Structures removed from

floodplain

Flooding Changes at 1% AEP (100-Yr Flood)

Structures removed from

floodplain

Structures removed from

floodplain

24

ALTERNATIVE A Figure 3-1a

• Top-of-bank Floodwalls

25

ALTERNATIVE B Figure 3-2a

• Top-of-bank Floodwall, Setback Floodwall,

College of Marin Widening

26

ALTERNATIVE F Environmentally Preferred Alternative, Figure 3-3a

• Bypass, Allen Park Riparian Corridor, College of Marin Widening

27

ALTERNATIVE G Figure 3-4a

• Top-of-bank Floodwall, Allen Park Riparian Corridor, College of Marin Widening

28

ALTERNATIVE J Tentatively Selected Plan – Figure 3-5a

29

• Bypass, Allen Park Riparian Corridor, Top-of-bank Floodwall

NEPA/CEQA Process & Key Findings

Kentfield, Granton Park, 1949

JOINT PROJECT EIS/EIR31

EIS addressed National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - FederalEIR addressed California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - State

What is a EIS/EIR?

• Common practice to combine EIS/EIR to evaluate a broad range of environmental topics to reduce duplication & maximize resources

• Combines planning processes, research/studies, public hearings and environmental assessments

What is the purpose of a EIS/EIR?

• Review environmental effects of a proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives (5 Alts + No Action Alt)

• Identify potential significant impacts and mitigation measures

TOPICS EVALUATED IN EIS/EIR32

RESOURCES EVALUATED IN DETAIL

Section Topics

4.1 Hydrology and Hydraulics4.2 Water Quality4.3 Geology and Soils4.4 Air Quality4.5 Climate Change4.6 Biology Resources4.7 Cultural Resources4.8 Aesthetics4.9 Recreation

4.10 Noise4.11 Land Use4.12 Human, Health, and Safety4.13 Traffic, Transportation and Circulation4.14 Environmental Justice4.15 Socioeconomics4.16 Utilities and Public Services

LEVELS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT33

• No Impact

• Beneficial Impact

• Less than Significant Impact

• Less than Significant with Mitigation

• Significant and Unavoidable Impacts

NO IMPACT, LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT, OR BENEFICIAL IMPACT

34

Resource topics found not to be significant:

• Hydrology

• Air Quality

• Climate Change

• Recreation

• Environmental Justice

• Public Services and Utilities

35

Draft EIS/EIR, Table 3-8

NO IMPACT, LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT, OR BENEFICIAL IMPACT

36

Draft EIS/EIR, Table 3-8

NO IMPACT, LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT, OR BENEFICIAL IMPACT

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION

37

Resource topics with significant impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant:

• Noise and vibration

• Transportation and circulation

• Health and safety

• Cultural resources

• Biological resources

• Geology

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION

38

Draft EIS/EIR, Table 3-8

SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS39

Resource topics with significant and unavoidable impacts for which there is no feasible mitigation:

• Water Quality

• Aesthetics

• Biological Resources

• Noise and Vibration

• Transportation and Circulation

• Land Use

• Socioeconomics

SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS40

Draft EIS/EIR, Table 3-8

SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS41

Resource topic with significant cumulative impacts due to construction occurring simultaneously with other projects in the area:

• Traffic & Circulation

Ross, 1982

Staff Recommendations & Public Hearing

RECOMMENDATIONS43

1. Open public hearing for public comment;

2. Close the public hearing on the Draft Joint EIS/EIR;

3. Discuss those issues regarding the Project’s impacts that are of primary concern to your Board and provide recommendations to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) staff, and the EIS/EIR consultant on any additional items which should be addressed in the Final Joint EIS/EIR; and

4. Recommend that the USACE prepare a Final Joint EIS/EIR based upon the written responses to all of the oral and written comments received at the Draft Joint EIS/EIR hearing, as well as all of the written comments received during the public review and comment period.

44