Upper Des Plaines River & Tributaries, IL & WI Feasibility Study

Transcription

1 Upper Des Plaines River & Tributaries, IL & WI Feasibility Study Jeffrey Zuercher Project Manager Chicago District February 19, 2014 Study Partnership: US Army Corps of Engineers

2 Agenda Background Study Process Recommendations Next Steps Questions 2

3 Study Authorized in Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Section 419 Study initiated 2002 Cost-shared 50/50 with non-federal Sponsors: Illinois Department of Natural Resources Cook County Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Lake County Stormwater Management Commission Kenosha County Additional study partners: Background Information Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Forest Preserve District of Cook County Lake County Forest Preserve District U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3

4 Study Purposes Flood Risk Management Reduce mainstem flood risk Reduce tributary flood risk Ecosystem Restoration Reestablish natural processes Increase biodiversity Increase connectivity Secondary Purposes Increase recreational opportunities Improve water quality 4

5 Identified Watershed Issues Overbank Flooding $52M Average annual flood damages across watershed 1986 & 1987 Record flooding 2004 & 2008 Major flooding in Lake & Cook respectively April 2013 Extensive damage with new record flood levels Degraded Aquatic Ecosystems Only 9% of watershed remains as natural open space Loss of native plant and animal communities Riverine system fragmented by dams and structures Recreation Inadequate available recreational opportunities Water Quality Impairments throughout watershed 5

6 Study Area 477 square miles WI: Racine & Kenosha Counties IL: Lake, Cook, & DuPage Counties 86 total communities Mainstem: From headwaters to Salt Creek 87 river miles Tributaries: 330 total miles of streams 15 modeled tributaries 6

7 Flood Risk Management Analysis Hydrology & Hydraulics Des Plaines River Mainstem Model (updated) 15 Tributary Models (new) Economics Flood Damage Assessment Model Structure Inventory >10,000 homes and businesses Road Transportation Network Model 108 potentially flooded road segments (parallel & crossings) 7

8 Flood Risk Management Planning Measures Reservoirs Floodwalls/Levees Road Raises/Bridge Modifications Modify Existing Infrastructure Non-Structural (Floodproofing) Evaluation Identify and Screen Sites (300) Evaluate Sites(29) Select Sites (20) 8

9 Ecosystem Restoration Analysis Community based habitat assessment Prairie Savanna Woodland Isolated Wetlands Floodplain Wetlands Riverine Planning Methodology Integrated multiple habitat models Evaluated Cost Effectiveness 9

10 Ecosystem Restoration Planning Measures Disable Drain Tiles & Unnatural Ditches Stream Re-meandering Dam Removal / Riparian Corridor Diverse Native Planting Invasive Species Control Evaluation Identify sites (713) Screen sites (131) Determine most effective alternative at each site Select most effective combination of sites (18) 10

11 Recreation Secondary Purposes Trails and interpretive signs where compatible Water Quality Restoration will naturalize hydrology Dam removals allow sediment to move naturally Reservoirs moderate flashy flows 11

12 Recommendations Purpose Ecosystem Restoration Flood Risk Management Plan Element NED/ Comp NER CAP Restoration 7 7 Dam Removals 5 5 Reservoirs 2 2 Floodwalls/Levees Road Raise/Bridge Mod 1 Infrastructure Mod 1 Non-structural 13 8 Benefits Flood Risk: 19% reduction in annual overbank flood damages Ecosystem: 32% increase in watershed habitat quality 12

13 Overall Study Comp. Plan NED/NER Plan CAP Plan First Cost $229,541,000 $192,088,000 $7,498,000 Flood Risk Management Net Benefits $7,195,000 $3,622,000 $166,000 Benefit to Cost Ratio Ecosystem Restoration First Cost $242,235,000 $237,172,000 $5,063,000 Habitat Quality Imp. 32% 31% 1% Total Project Total Cost $471,776,000 $429,260,000 $12,561,000 13

14 Recently Completed Work Site/Design comp storage for levees Update NER Plan Update Real Estate Estimates Update CSRA Finalize ATR Model Certifications Letters of Intent 14

15 Next Steps Submit Final Report to LRD February 24 DE s Letter Transmittal March 7 Go/No-Go CWRB March 13 Mock CWRB April 4 CWRB April 25 State and Agency Review - May 1 Chief s Report - July 15

16 Final Steps Transmit to OMB (Fall 2014) Transmit to Congress (Winter 2014/Spring2015) Congress authorization (WRDA??) 16

17 Upper Des Plaines River & Tributaries, IL & WI Feasibility Study For more information on this study: (under District Projects) Submit Comments: Comment form on project website 17

18 Cook County

19 Groveland Avenue Levee, Riverside Plan: CAP Site ID: DPLV01 Length: 3,000 feet Max Height: 7 Cost: $5-$10 million 19

20 First Avenue Bridge Modification, River Grove Plan: Full Site ID: DPBM04 Cost:$10-$12M Max Height:

21 Lake Mary Anne Pump Station, Des Plaines Plan: Full Site ID: FPCI01 Cost:$500k-$1M 21

22 Fullerton Woods Reservoir Plan: NED Site ID: DPRS04 Cost:$15-20M Storage: 150 ac-ft 22

23 Fullerton-Grand Levee, River Grove Plan: NED/NER Site ID: DPLV04 Length: ~6,200 levee/floodwall Cost: $25-30 million Max Height: 14.5 Mitigation for induced stages required 23

24 Belmont Irving Park Levee, Franklin Park/Schiller Park Plan: NED/NER Site ID: DPLV05 Length: 8,500 levee/floodwall Cost: $20-25 million Max Height: 12 Mitigation for induced stages required 24

25 Harry Semrow Driving Range Reservoir Plan: NED Site ID: WLRS04 Cost:$20-25M Storage: 200 ac-ft 25

26 Plan: NED/NER Site ID: DPLV09 Length: ~11,000 levee/floodwall Cost: $35-40 million Max Height: 15.5 Mitigation for induced stages required Touhy-Miner Levee, Des Plaines 26

27 Cook County Non-structural Participation is voluntary Subject to verification of structure characteristics, first floor elevation, low water entry point Communities Range of Measures: Wheeling Des Plaines Rosemont River Grove Riverside Park Ridge (Full Plan) Wet Floodproofing Dry Floodproofing Elevation Buyouts Ring Levee 27

28 Non-Structural Measures Wet Floodproofing Dry Floodproofing Elevation Ring Levee 28

29 Plan: CAP Dam Removals Sites: Dam #1, Dam #2, Dempster Ave Dam, Touhy Ave Dam, and Dam #4 Cost: $500k - $1M Ecosystem Benefits 29

30 Beck Lake Meadow & Floodplain Forest Plan: NED/NER Site ID: C15 Acres: 1,007 Cost:$25-$30M Restore Hydrology Control Invasives Native Plantings 30

31 Northbrook Floodplain & Riparian Complex Plan: NED/NER Site ID:C09 Acres:811 Cost:$30-$35M Restore Hydrology Control Invasives Native Plantings Restore Geomorphology 31

32 Lake County 32

33 Lake County Non-structural Participation is voluntary Subject to verification of structure characteristics, first floor elevation, low water entry point NED/NER Plan Communities Range of Measures: Gurnee Buffalo Grove Riverwoods Libertville Wet Floodproofing Dry Floodproofing Elevation Buyouts Ring Levee 33

34 Non-Structural Measures Wet Floodproofing Dry Floodproofing Elevation Ring Levee 34

35 Gurnee Woods Riparian Wetland, Wadsworth Plan: NED/NER Site ID: L31 Acres: 698 Cost: $25-30M Restore Hydrology Control Invasives Native Plantings 35

36 Pollack Lake and Hasting Creek Riparian Wetlands, Antioch Plan: NED/NER Site ID: L39 Acres: 429 Cost: $10-15M Restore Hydrology Native Plantings Restore Riverine Habitat 36

37 Red Wing Slough and Deer Lake Wetland Complex, Antioch Plan: NED/NER Site ID: L43 Acres: 1,578 Cost: $40-45M Restore Hydrology Control Invasives Native Plantings 37

38 Kenosha County 38

39 Kenosha County Non-structural Participation is voluntary Subject to verification of structure characteristics, first floor elevation, low water entry point Full Plan Communities Range of Measures: Salem Bristol Somers Paddock Lake Wet Floodproofing Dry Floodproofing Elevation Buyouts Ring Levee 39

40 Non-Structural Measures Wet Floodproofing Dry Floodproofing Elevation Ring Levee 40

41 Dutch Gap Forested Floodplain, Plan: NED/NER Site ID: K41 Acres: 689 Cost: $25-30M Restore Hydrology Control Invasives Native Plantings Restore Riverine Habitat Pikesville 41

42 Plan: NED/NER Site ID:K47 Acres: 1,619 Cost: $60-70M Restore Hydrology Control Invasives Native Plantings Restore Riverine Habitat Bristol Marsh, Bristol 42

43 Previous USACE Study (Upper Des Plaines River, IL) Study Area: Mainstem in Illinois Single purpose: Flood Risk Management 6 projects authorized Project Levee 50 Levee 37 Big Bend Reservoir Buffalo Creek Reservoir North Fork Mill Creek Dam Status Complete Construction On Hold On Hold Eliminated Van Patten Woods Lateral Storage In Design 43

44 Flood Risk Management Strategy Major Sources of Flooding Overbank Within Study Authority Sewer Backup Outside Study Authority Groundwater Seepage Outside Study Authority Structural vs. Non-Structural Solutions Structural Protect multiple structures from flooding Levees / Floodwalls protect overbank flood prone areas Reservoirs alter frequency, stage, duration of floods Non-Structural Protect individual structures from flooding Wet & Dry Floodproofing Raise Structures Buyouts 44

45 Study Recommendations 45

46 Remaining Flood Risks Why are there remaining risks? Sources sewer backup, seepage Locations non-economically justified Flood events in excess of design level How can remaining risks be addressed? Flood Insurance Zoning and Building Codes Other local efforts Residual Risks always remain! 46

47 Identification Screening Evaluation Optimization Reservoirs 200 (70) Floodwalls/Levees Road Raises/Bridge Mods Modify Existing Non-Structural