APPROPRIATION TITLE: construction, General - channels and Harbors (NaVigation)
PROJECT: Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland, Brewerton Channel (New}
LOCATION: Baltimore Harbor is situated at the head of the navigable portion of the Patapsco River, approximately 172 miles from the entrance to chesapeake Bay at the Virginia Cape. The Brewerton Channel Eastern Extension (also known as the connecting Channel to the C&b canal) is located in the northern portion of the chesapeake Bay and extends from the main Ship channels of the mouth of the Patapsco -River in an easto..southeasterly direction across the Chesapeake Bay, MD.
DESCRIPTION: The River & Harbor Act of 1958 authorized a uniform main channel 42 feet deep, ~nd generally 800 (in Maryland, and Rappahanno6k shoal in Virginia) or 1,000 (Cape Henry and York Spit in Virginia) feet wide through the chesapeake Bay from the Virginia Capes to For·t McHenry in the Port of Baltimore, a distance of 172 miles; southern approach and connecting channels to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal 35 feet deep and 600 feet wide, branch channels r"anging from 22 to 42 feet deep and 200 to 600 feet wide in curtis creek, curtis Bay, Ferry Bar, and the Northwest Brandh, and anchorages 30 and 35 feet deep. The project modification is complete except for wider'ling the western five miles of the Brewerton Channel Eastern Extension from 450 to 600 feet:
AUTHORIZATION: River and Harbor Act ot 3 July 1958,
REMAINING BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 16,0 to 1 at 7 1/8 percent.
TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 11. 8. to 1 at 7 1/8 percent.
BASIS OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO: Benefi-ts are from the Limited Reevaluation Report and Environmental Asse:Ssment dated August 1997 approved 15 october 1997.
ACCUM. !>HYSICAL SUMMARIZED FI~CIAL, DATA PCT. OF ES·T. STATUS PERCENT COMPLETION FED COST (1 .:tan. 1999) .COMPLETE SCH.EDULE Estimated Total Appropriation Requirement 44,521,000 Future Non-Federal Reimbursement 39, 000 Entire P.rojec~ 0 Being determined Estimate~ Federal Cost' (Ultimate) 44,482,000
Estimated Non-Federal cost: 9,269,000 cash Contr"ibutions 3,505,000 other Costs 5, 725,, 000 Reimbursements: Conunl Navigation 39,000 Total Estimated Project Cost $53,751,000
Division: North Atlantic District: Baltimore Baltimore Harbor and Channels, MD, · BrewertOn Channel 1 February 1999 96
SUHMAR!ZED FINANCIAL DATA (continued)
Allocation to 30 september 1998 $34,943,000 Conference Allowance for FY 1999 0 Allocations for FY 1999 0 Allocations to Date 34,943, 000 78 Allocation Requested for FY 2000 9, 578,000 100 Scheduled Balance to ·Complete after FY 2000 Unscheduled Baiance to Complete after FY 2000 0
PHYSICAL DATA completed Work (under 1958 Mod) -
Channels: Main ~hip channels, Virginia - cape Henry and York spit section!3, 42 feet deep and 1, 000 feet Wide; Rappanhannock Shoal, 42 feet· deep and 800 feet wide, a total of 16.7 miles long. Main ship chanriel, Maryland "'- Crc\ighill Entrance to Ft. McHenry, 42 feet deep,. 800 ,feet wide anct 20.2 miles long. Branch Channels, Ma.i:yland- curtis Bay and Ferry Bar, 42 feet deep, 600 feet wide and 3.7 miles long. Approach Channel to C&D Canal Haryland- 35 feet deep, 600 feet wide. and 15.8 miles l'ong.
Separable Element - Connecting Channel to C&D canal, Maryland - 35 feet deep, 600 feet wide {currently 450 feet wide for western 5 miles) and 6.3 miles long.
JUSTIFICATION: Baltimore Harbor is one of the major seaports serving the North Atlantic ~oast of the United States. It is equipped with excellent cargo handling facilities artd is served by several railroads which connect the port with the Midwest States. The port is 50 to 200 miles nearer the Midwest States than other·North Atlantic pOrts. The port ihcludes, among its many irtdustries, the free world's largest steel plant. Waterborne conunerce through the port totaled 43,552,000 tons in 1996 and averaged 40,610,600 tons annually for the period 1987-1996. A large portion of the port's commerce moves in foreiqn trade, and a very high percentage consists of bulk commodities (grain, ores, petroie\lll\ and coal). These bulk conunodities are moved most efficiently in large carriers, and the trend toWards such car.tiers is clearly evident in the Port of Baltirrtore. The smaller vessels are being replaced by larger, more ef-ficient ships. The Connecting Channel provides a key link to the channel system leadin9' from the port through the C&D canal. The main channel and bratlch channels were deepened to 42 feet and Widened in accordance with the project authorization, and
estimated attendant average annual benefits of $6,050 1 000 are being realized. Additionally, the Approach Channels to the CliD Canal were deepened to 35 feet (authorized 'depth) and widened to 600 feet (authorized width), The Brewerton channel EaStern ExtensiOn was deepened to 35 feet and widened to 450 feet (western 5 mil~s) and 600 feet (easte.tn mile).
Division: North Atlantic District: Baltimore Baltimore Harbor and Channels, MD, Brewerton channel 'o 1 February l999 -97 JUSTIFICATION (continued) The work. remaining to be completed is widening the western 5 miles of the Brewerton Channel Eastern Extension (connect~ng Ch~nnel to the C&D Canal) from 4.50 fe~t .to 600 feet (authorized width). The approvect Limited Reev.;tluation Report and Env:ronmental Assessment recorrunends widehing the we~tern 5 miles from 450 to 600 feet to increase navi ation ~:~~i and to ~ncrease transportation savings _by avoiding delays for ships waiting to transit the channel or avoi~ing a t -th e lonige7' rout~ b~tween Baltimore ijarbor and the C&D cailal. The average ann\tal be~efit~, all navigation related 0 e rerna. n~~g work are $14, 106,000 at 1 octo~e.r 19,94 ·~rices.. · ' 1
FISCAL YEAR 2000: The reqUe~ted amount will be applied as follows: Initiate 'and complete wideniilg tlle Brewerton Channel . $9, 1'83, 000 Construction Managen\ent 395,000 Total $9; 578, o.oo
NON-FEDERAL COSTS: In accordance with the cost sh·aring and financing corice!'ts reflected in th~ water Resource~ _Development Act of 1986, the Non-Fedeial sponsor must comply with the: requirements' listed below:
Payments Annual ·During Operation, constrl.lction Maintenance and and Reimbursements' ReplMement Requirements of Local cooperation Costs $ 5,725,000 Provide la~~s, easements and r~ghts of way, Disposal areas
Pay 25 percent of the costs allocated to general navigation 3,505;000 facilities during construction G~.nd p~y 50 percent of the costs of .~ncremented niaintenance below 45 feet below mean low water
~eimbu~se an additional 10 percent of the costs of general 39,000 navigation featUres au,ocated to cotnmercial navigation within a pe:iod of 30 years following completion of construction, as ~art~ally red~ced by a credit allowed for the value of dredged ~~terial· disposal areas provided for conunercial na,vigation
Total Non-Federal Costs $9,269,000 $ 0
The non-Federal· sponsor has also agreed to repay its share of construction costs during construction and reimburse its share of construction costs over a period of 30 ·years following completion of construction,
Division: NOrth Atlantic District: Baltimore Baltimore Harbor and Channels, MD, Brewerton Channel
February 1999 98
STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: The state .of Maryland is furnishing the required local cooperation. Assurance of compliance with the requirements of local cooperation were accepted on 16 March 1961. The local cooperation agreement for .the Baltimore Harbor and Channels, 42-FOot .. Project · was executed with the State of Haryl~~d on 11 }\ugust 1,98i; B:y · letter dated 18 February 1993, the state requested that the Connecting Channel to the C&D canal be widened and that a suitable area·would be provided for disposal of the dredged material. The state has· designated the Hart-l>liller Island containment facility and has raised the containment dikes to ensure sufficient capacity is available to Contain the dr~dged material. A project Cooperation· Agreement for the separable e~ernent is scheduled to be executed with the state of• Maryland by October 1999
COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTIMA.TES: The current Federal {C of E) cost estimate of $44,521,000 is an increas~ of
$11 221, 000 over the latest eStimate ($43, 300, 000) submitted to Congress (FY 1987}. This change includ.es the fol~owing items: Item Amount
Price Escalation on Construction Features 3, 871,000 Other Estimating Adjustments -2,650,000 Total $ 1, 221, o·oo
ST~TUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATE11ENT: The Final Environmental Impact Statement - Proposed Plan for Completing the Navigation Improvements, Authorized by t:.he 1958 River and Harbor Act for the Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland and Virginia, filed witJ:t the Environmental Protection Agency on November 21, · 1979; the Supplem~nt to .the General J?esi_gn . , Memorandum and Supplemental In!ormation Report for the Baltimore Harbor and Channels Maryland and Virginia 42-Foot ~ Project, was filed with the Office of Federal Activities on June 23 1986, and a Final Envi:Corunental,ASsessment . r- 1 1 including Finding of No Significant Impact is included in the Limited Reevaluation· Report and EnvirOnmental Assessment approved o~ 15 October 1997.
OTHER INFORMATION: In~tial planning and initial coristruction funds were appropriated in FY 1961. The current Federal
cost estimate of $44,5~1, 000 includes $33,9911 000 for completed work and $10,530, 000 for widening the Bre~erton Channel~
The current non-Federal cost estimate of $9,269,000 includes $4,360, 000 for completed work and $4,909 1 000 for the Br~we.tton channel widening.
Division: No.rth Atlantic District: Baltimore Baltimore Harbor and Channel, ~, Brewerton Channel 1 February 1999 99 LEGEND
WORK COMPLETED AS OF :( jNoN~I 30 SEPTEMBER 1998 00 'f 1 ', ' II ~ ~"' ,, IN~NEI X(,~~~~~g~~ ~;~FUNDS II WORK PROPOSED WITH FUNDS .."' .1/"'"""'_, C>Woo& RECOMMENDED FOR FY 2000
,."' WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLETE " -I~ONEI THE PROJECT AFTER FY 2000
BALT[MORe HARBOR AND CHANNELS MARYLAND (BREWeRTON CHANNeL WIDeNING)
1 JANUARY 1999
-too BALTIMORE DISTRICT NORTH ATLmTJC,DIViSION
APPROPRIATION TITLE: Construction, General - Major Rehabilitation - Navigation
PROJECT: cape Cod canal Railroad Bridge, Massachusetts (Major Rehabilitation) (New)· ·
LOCATION: The Cape Cod Canal is located about 50 miles south of Boston, Massachusetts, and extends from Cape Cod Bay 7. 7 miles to Buzzards Bay. The railroad bridge is located close to the western end of the Canal near Buzzards Bay and provides rail access across the Canal.
DESCRIPTION: The bridge is 806 feet long and carries a single track on an open timber tie deck across the Cape cod canal. The bridge was constructed in 1935 and consists of a 550-foot moveable center span, flanked by a tower and 128- foot fixed span at each end. T}\e' bridge is norm.ally kept' in the raised. position, with a vertical clearance of about 136 feet above mean high water to allow passage of marine traffic. The plan for rehabilitation includes replacement of the counterweight cables, counterweight trunion bearings, electrical control system and main switchboard; repair or replacement of steel members; and cleaning and painting of the steel superstructure. All work is prograrruned.
AUTHORIZATION: The existing cape Cod canal project is authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1935. Authorization to construct three bridges, two vehicular and one railroad, was includE7d in the Public works Administration Program of 1933.
REMAINING BENEb~IT-REMAINING .COST· RATIO: The remaining benefit-remaining cost ratio is 4.7 to 1 at 7 1/8 percent. 00 TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: The total benefit-cost ratio is 4.6 to 1 at 7 1/8 percent. 00 .~ BASIS OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO: Benefit;s are based on a supplemental economic analysis to the Major Rehabilitation Report, Vertical Lift Railroad Bridge,. cape cod Canal, Massachusetts, dated Hay 1997 at April 1997 price levels.
ACCUMULATED PHYSICAL PCT. OF EST. STATUS PERCENT COMPLETION SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA FED COST (1 Jan 1999) COMPLETE SCHEDULE
Estimated Federal Cost $30,500,000 Entire Project Being determined Estimated Non-Federal Cost 0
Total Estimated Project Cost- $30,500,000 '!/
& !/ Excludes. $600 1 000 in design funded by Operations Maintenance Appropriation.
Cape cod canal Railroad, Bridge, MA Division: North Atlantic District: lfew England 1 February 1999 101 ACCUMULATED PCT. OF EST. ,SUM!4ARIZED FINANCIAL DATA (Continued) FED COST PHYSICAL DATA
Allocations to 30 September 1998 Replace counterweight cables and trunion Conference Allowance ~oi: FY 1999 0 bearings. Allocation for FY 1999 0 Allocations through FY 1999 Replace electrical control system and main switchboard. Allocation Requested for FY 2000 5,000,000 16 Pr~granuned aalance to Complete Repair or replace steel members. After FY 2000 25,500,000 tlnprogranuned Balance to Complete Clean and Paint steel sl,lperstructure. After FY 2000
JUST,IFICATION: The railroad bridge is a critical link connecting Cape Cod with the mainland of southeastern. Massachusetts. The bridge is used primarily for waste removal with an .avera.ge of four crossings per day, six days a week. Waste removal is extremely important as there are no refuse disposal facilities on Cape Cod and train service is the most economical method of transport. During the tourist season, the bridge is also used by passenger trains with service from New, York. An inspection and condition report perform~<;! in ~984 revealed the need fo.+ major rehabilitation of tpe bridge to' ensu~e reliable operat;ion of the structure.. An August 1995 inspection confirmed the critical ne~d for rehabilitation work to al:i:-est further deterioration and possible bridge replacement. Federal interest in the major 00 ~ehabi~itation.of the Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge is contained in Article 16 of the 1935 Agreement with the railroad 00 ~ which states 11 It is understood and agreed that the Government shall sustain the obligation of the operation, maintenance, renewals and repairs of said new railroad bridge ... 11 • Fail1.1re of the bridge in the down position would close the canal to marine traffic for up to a Year. Marine traffic would need to be rerouted around Cape Cod greatly increasing shipping costs and reducing navigational safety. Average annual benefits for the major rehabilitation project are $51,000,000 at April 1997 prices.
FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested amount will be applied as follows:
Initiate construction $4,120,000 Engineer~ng and Design 150,000 construction Management 730,000 Tofal $5, ooo, 000
NON-FEDERAL COSTS: None Required.
Pivis~on: North Atlantic District: NeY~ England Cape Cod Canal Railroad Bridge, MA 1 February 1999 102
STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION:. None Required.
COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTI11ATES: The current Federal cost estimate of $30,500,000 is the initial estimate.
s·rATUS OF ENVIRoNMENTAL IHPACT STATE11ENT: The Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact were completf7d in May 1997.
OTHER INFORMATION: )?reconstruction Engineering and' Design (PED} efforts are being conducted with Operation and z.taintenance Appropriation funds and will be completed in september 1999. Fiscal Year 2000 funds will be used to initiate rehabili~ation work in February 2000.
cape cod Canal Railroad Bridge, ~ Division: North Atlantic District: New Engl~nd 1 February 1999 103 LEGEND ltNone) I Work Completed as of 30 September 1998 !(None) I Work Underway with Funds Available for FY 1999 ~ Work Proposed with Funds Requested for FY 2000
~~:;:;ff;;:;~ Work Required to Complete the Project aiter FY 2000
CAPE COD CANAL RAILROAD BRIDGE1 MA GENERAL PLAN MAJOR REHABILIT ATiuN SCALE IN MILE Navigatipn . t/2 I January 1999 I New Eugland District, Corps of Engineers Waliham,/o{A 104
APPROPRIATION TITLE: Construction, General - Channels· and Harbors (NaVigation)
PROJECT: Boston Harbor, Massachusetts (Continuing)
LOCATION: Boston Harbor is located on the eastern coast of Massachusetts at the confluence of the Charles, chelsea and Mystic Rivers. The harbor comprises a water area of approximately 47 square miles.
DESCRIPTION: The project provides for the deepening of the Mystic and Reserved channels from 35 to 40 feet and the Chelsea River Channel from 35 to 38 feet; along With deepening to 40 feet the Inner COhflUenCe Area which provides . access to the Mystic and· Chelsea River channels; deepening a portion Of the 35-foot Main Ship Channel to 40 feet as it enters the Inner confluence Area; deepening a portion of the 35-foOt Main ShiP Channel to 40 feet oppo'site the entrance Of the Reserved Channel; alid widening and deepening to 40 :feet the R.eserved Channel at its aoitfluence with the Main Ship Channel. 'I'he proposed project also includeS deepening local berthing at'eas commensurate with project' depths. Total Volume of material to be dredcjed is approximately 4.2 million Cubic yardS inclUding bei:thing cireas and mai'ntenant:e Work. All work is' programmed.
AUTHORIZATION: Water Resources Development Act of 1990.
REMAINING·BENEFIT-REMAINING COST RATIO: 6. 4 to 1 at 7 3/4 percent.
TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 2.1 to 1 at 7 3/4 percent.
INITIAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 1.4 to 1 at 7 3/4 percent (FY 1997).
BASIS OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO: Benefits are from the last, detailed evaluation artd are at March 1995 price levels. Benefit-cOst ratios are based on the ~reject fun~ti~:ming independently.
ACCUMULATED PHYSICAL PCT. OF EST. STATUS PERCENT COMPLETION SliMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA FED COST (1 Jan 1999) COMPLETE SCHEDULE
Estimated Appropriation Requirement {COE) $12,150,000 Dredging 20 Being determined Estimated Appropriation Requirement (U.s.c.G.) 20,000 Entire Project 20 Being determined Estimate Total Appropriation Requirement 12, 170,000
Future Non-Federal Reimbursement 520, 000 Estimated Federal Cost (Ultimate) (COE) 11, 630,000
Division: North Atlantic District: New England Boston Harbor, MA 1 February 1999 105 ACCUMULATED PCT. OF EST. SUM!>!ARIZED FINANCIAL l)ATA (Continued)' . FED COST PHYSICAL DATA
Estimated Non-Federal Cost 8,670,000 Deepen Reserved Channel .trorn 35 to 40 cash contribution 4,050,000 feet .and deepen and widen entrance. Other Costs 4, 100,000 Reimbursements: Comml' Navigation 520,000 Deepen Mystic channel from 35 to 40 feet. Total Estimated Project cost 20,320,000 Deepen chelsea River Channel from 35 to Allocations to 30 september 1998 7,698,000 63 38 feet. conference Allowance for FY 1999 7' 500, 000 Allocation for FY 1999 3, 452, 000 !/ Deepen Inner Confl~ence Area from 35 to Allocations .through FY 1999 11,150, 000 92 40 feet. _
Allocation Requested for FY 2000 1,000,000 100 Deepen portions of the 35-foot Main ship Programmed B~lance to Complete After FY 2900 0 Channel to 40 feet oppos~te entrance to Unprogrammed Balance to complete After FY 2000 ·o Reserved Channel and as it enters the Inne'r Conflu~nce Area.
t:./ Reflects $5261 000 assigned savings aild slippage and $3 1 522 1 000 proposed reprogramminq from the project. oo' 00 00 JUSTIFICATION: Boston Harbor is New England's largest port and serves as the principal distribution ppint for the commerce of Massac;:husetts 1 New Hampshire and Vermont. The inn~r harbqr has been extensively developed for· water transportation and is ·comprised of tlie Main Ship, Reserved, Ch'elsea River and Mystic River Channels. In 1995, waterborne conunerce totaled 16.7 million tons, of which approximately 78 percent was liqui<;l petroleum products. . . The Massachus'etts Port Authority (Massport) has recently rehabilitat~d the two existing cranes at Berth 11 of the Conley Ter~nal, which is located along the southerly sicte of the Reserved Channel. Rehabilitation work included raj,sing the height of these cranes for oftloading of contairier ca·:rgo from l'arger vessels. In addition to this work, M'assport has invested about $40 million for repairs to Berth 11; construction of Berth 12, backland development and purchase of tWo new cranes. Massport continues to develop Conley Tel';rninal cis itS primary cont1ainer tenninal in Bost'on Harbor. In November 1993, Massport dredged the berth at it's''Mystic River Moran Tetminal in order to provide the authorized 40-foot depth for ~· Ipajor container line to begin direct s·ervice to and from Europe. Moran Tenninal has rail access to a new interrno?all tenninal located at Fort Devens about 35 miles inland, The proposed project would increase' 'the navigat;ional efficiency of harbor operations and reduce· tida·l delays foi: l·arger vessels. The average annual benefit;s, all for navigat.:J,.on, amount to $3,594, BOO at March 1995 prices.
Division: North Atlantic District: New England Boston Harbor, MA. 1 February 1999 106
FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested amount will be applied as follows:
Complete Construction 810,000 Planning, Engineering and Design 40,000 Construction Management 150,000
Total $1, ooo, 000
NON-FEDERAL COSTS: In accordance with the cost sharing and financing concepts reflected in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the non-Federal sponsor must comply with the requirements listed below.
Payments During Annual Operation, Construction Maintenance, Repair, and Rehabilitation and Reimbursements Replacement Costs Requirements of LoCal Cooperatio~
Hodify or relocate utilities, roads 1 bridges (except railroad bridges), and other facilities, Where necessarY for the construction of the project $1, 100,000
Pay 25 percent of the costs allocated to deep-draft, navigation during construction. 4, 050,000
Reimburse an additional 10 percent of the costs of general navigation features allocated to conunercial navigation within a period of 30 years
following completion of construction1 as partially reduced by a credit allowed for the value of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations and dredged or excavated materi~l disppsal areas provided for commercial · navigation. 520,000
Dredge berthing areas anC:l bear all costs of maintenance. 3,000,000 $41,000
Total Non-Federal Costs $8,670,000 $41,000
The non-Federal sponsor has also agreed to make all required payments concurrently with project const.t;uction and reimburse its share of construction cost-s within a period of 30 years following completion· of construction.
Boston Harbor,. M.A. Division: North Atlantic District: . New England 1 February 199.9 107 STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: The Massachusetts Port Authority is the non-Federal sponsor of the project. A project cooperation agreement (PCA) 1 consistent with the requirements of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, was executed on 13 February 1998. The current non-Federal cost estimate of $8,670,000, which includes a cash contribution of $4,050,000, is a decrease of $2,450,000 from the non-Federal cash estimate of $6,5001 000 noted in the PCA.
COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTIMATES: Th~ current Federal (Corps) cost estimate of $12,150,000 is a decrease of $7,350,000 from the latest estimate ($19, 500, 000) submitted to Congress (FY 1999). This change inc1udes the following items:
Item Amount
Price escalation on construction features -300,000 Post contract award and other estimating adjustments -7' 050, oo.o
Total -7,350,000
STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: The final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) wa.s filed· with EPA on 30 June 1995. The selected, disposal plan involves both in-channel and Qcean disposal. Approximately 1 million cubic yards of unsuitable silt material will be disposed in-channel. This work.consists of dredging about 50 disposal cells below the Federal na~igation channels in the Mystic River, Chelsea Creek and the Inner Confluence. All unsuitable silt material dredged from the project will be pl,.aced in these cells and capped with clean material. Approximately 3.2 million. cubic yards of clean material dreqged from the project will be available for beneficial uses or will be disp6sed at the 00 Massachusetts Bay Disposal site (MBDS). ~
OTHER INFORMATION; Funds to initiate preconstruction engineering and design were appropriated in FY 1990 and funds to initiate construction were. appropriated in FY 1997. An estimated $20,200,000 of maintenance dredging will be perfo~ed in· conjunction with the improvE;!ment project.
Division: North Atlantic District: New England Boston Harbor, MA 1 February 1999 108
LEGEND
- . Work Completed as of 30 September 1998
[]]]] Work Proposed with Funds available for FY 1999 E22J Work Proposed with Funds Requested for FY 2000 lrNone)l
SOUT.H BOSTON 2000' 4000'
1 FEBIWA!t'< 1~9~ APPROPRIATION TITLE: Construction, General - Navigation (Deep Draft}
PROJECT! Delaware River Main Channel Deepening, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware (continuing)
LOCATION: The project extends over 100 ndles from deep water in Delaware Bay to the tri-state Ports of the Delaware River including Philadelphia and Beckett street Terminal, camden, New Jersey. It involves the Conunonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the states of New Jersey and Delaware.
DESCRIPTION: The .recorrunended plan of improvement deepel)s the existing Federal naviga~ion Channel '(Philadelphia to the Sea project) from the 40 fbot project to 45 feet, widens bend~, deepens an anchorage along with relocation and addit,ion of navigat~on aids.
AUTHORIZATION: Water Resources Development Act of l992(Sec.101(6))
REI1AINING BENEFIT-REMAINING COST RATIO: 1. 4 to 1. 'at 7 3/8 percent
TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIOi i. 4 to 1 at 7 3/8 percent
INITIAL BENSFIT-COST RATIO: 1. 4 to 1 at 7 3/8 percent (FY 1999).
BASIS OF BENEFIT-COST RA'!'IO: Benefits are from the Design Memorandum dated May 1996 at October 1995 price leV:els.
PHYSICAL SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA: STATUS: PERCENT COMPLETION (1 Jan 1999) COMPLETE SCHEDULE Estimated Appropriation Requirement (CoE) 214' 000' 000 Channel Dredging: 0 Being determined Estimated Appropriation ~eciuirement (USCG) 1,100,000 Disposal Area (s): Being determined E$tirnated Total APpropriation Requirement 215,100,000 Navigation Aids Being dete:Onined Entire Project Being determined Future Non-Federal Reimbursement 28,530,POO Estimated Federal cost (Ultimate) (CoE) 185,470, 000
Estimated Non-Federal Cost 151,030,000 PHYSICAL DATA : Cash· Contributions 71,300,000 Channel: Channel deepening (dredging of about 85 Other Costs 51,200,000 miles widening and qeepening of b~nds; deepening Reimbursements: Comrnl Navfgation 28,530,000 of an anchorage. . Disposal 'construction: Four confi_fted upland ~isposal Total Estimated Project cost 33'i' 600, 000 areas and two beneficial use areas. Navigation aids: Relocation and additional navigation aids
Division: North Atlantic District: Philadelphia Delaware River Main Channel Deepen,ing, NJ, PA & DE 1 February 1999 1!0
sUMMl\RIZED FINANCIAL DATA: (Cont) ACCUM. PCT. OF EST. FED COST Allocations to 30 September 1998 10,025,000 conference Allowance for FY 19 99 1, 500,000 Allocation for FY 1999 1,500,000 Allocations through FY 1999 11,525, 000 4 Allocation Requested for FY 2000 16,500,000 10 Programmed Balance to Complete after FY 2000 $185,975,000 unprogrammed Balance to Complete after FY 2000 0
JUSTIFICATION: The ~xisting 40 foot Federal navigation project restricts eff~cient movement of ~anker~, dry bulk carriers, and container vessels. These conditions nol'T result in significant light .loading. an~ l~ghter~ng c~st~, and !easels delays. The 45-foot project results in transport~tion savings. to commodit~es c~ns~st~ng of crude o~~ l~rn~:rt~~t lron ore imports, container ship movements and scrap exports. The average annual quant~~y of tonn~ge. that- ru hne from the project are as follows: oil 57 million tons, dry bulk 7 million tons, and conta1ner 1.5 nu.ll1on tons. T e ~stimated average benefits are $40,143,000 (Oct 1995 Price Level) and at an average cost of$ $27,739,000: The D~laware ;iver Ports have made a strategic land side investment in intermodal facilities. Pennsylvania and the ra~lr~ad~ t ave 1 nade corrunensurate investments in double-stack capability for a growing container demand. A 45-foot channel s. ~n egra to the port's accomodation to current fleet/cargoes. several beneficial, land based and aquatic dredged mater~al disposal areas are available.
FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested amount will be applied as follows:
Initiate Construction $ 12,500,000 Planning, Engineering and Design $ 3,000,000 Construction Management $ 1,000,000
Total $ 16,500,000
Delaware River Main ChanneJ, Deepening, NJ, PA & DE Division: North Atlantic District: Philadelphia
Ill 1 February 1999 NON-FEDERAL COST: In accordance with th!=!: cost sharing and financing concepts reflected . in the Water Resources Deyelopment Act of 1986, as amended, the non-Federal sponsor must ~amply with the requirements listed below: Payments during Annual Operation, Construction and Maintenance, and Reimbursement Replac~rnent,Costs
Provide lands, easements, and rights of way $24, 121, 000
Modify·or relocate utilities, roads, bridges {except railroad bridges) 1 and other facilities, where necessary for the construction of the project. 27' 079, 000
Reimburse an additional 10 percent of the general navigation features allocated to cqnunercial navigation within a period of 30 years following completion of construction, as partially reduced by a credit allowed for the value of lands1 easements1 rights of way1 and relocation providec:;l for corranercial navigation~ 28,530,000
Pciy 25 percent of th~, .costs ~!located to general navigation features during construction 71,300, 000
Total Non-Federal Cost $151,030, 000 $0 00 ~- The non-Federal sponsor has also agreed to repay its share of construction costs during construction and reimburse its share of construction costs over a period of 30 years follo'wing completion of construction. , """'
STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: The Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) is scheduled for execution in Nove$er 1999. The DelaWal!'e River ..Port Authority is the non-Federal sponsor.
, COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST.ESTIMA.TES: The current Federal (Corps) cost estimate of $214 1 000 1 000 is a decrease o~. 1 $49,040, OOQ over the latest estimate ($263, 040, 000) submitted to Congress (FY 1997) ·• Tpis change includes the ,following items Item Amount Price Escalation on Construction Features $- 9,300,000 Other. Estimating Adjustments - 1,240,000 Design Changes -38' 500' 000
Total $-49, 040, 000
Division: North Atlantic District: Philadelphia Delaware River l>iain Channel Deepening, NJ1 PA & DE
1 February 1999 112
STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: As part of the Preconstruction, Engineering, and Design {PED) study a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement {SEIS} waS prepared in December 1996 and made.av~ilable to the publ~c and agencies. The Final suppl~rnen,tal Enviro~rnet:ltal Impact. statement w~s·, filed with1 the u.s.Enviranmental Protection Agency in July 1997. ·
OTHER INFORHATION: FUnds 'to initiate preconstrl,\ction engineering and de~ign were approp+iated in F''f 1,92 arid functs to initiate construction were appropriated in FY 199,9,
Division: North Atlantic District: Philadelphia Delaware River Main Ch~nnel Deepeli.ing1 NJ, PA & DE
1 February ~999 113 I ! 8 I I "' §if f B·~ ol! :1' I !1[ ii ~ 8~ I! ·&' ~ ~ il 1r I II ~~ ~~ IJ t i /
DELA'!A~E RIVER.l\1AIN CHANNEL DEEPENING PROJECT . · . ··•J;;· i Ft:eguAI2.'( 1~9') ~;~;;· .
APPROPRIATioN TITLE: Construction, General - Channels and Harbors {Nav;i.gation}
PROJECT: New York Harbqt; and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey Chann~l, New Jersey (Continuing)
LOCATION: The project is locat~d in New York Harbor fiv~ miles southwesterly of the Battery, New York City, and extends fJ:Oil\ tpe Anchorage Channel two miles north of Bayonne, New Jersey to form the access chann~i ju'st north of' f:.h~ Military pcean Terminal.
DESGR~PTION': Work consists of dredging the qccess channel to 41 feet t'rom the Federal Anchorage Channel to its head of navigation, p.t;oviding a t\lrning basin at the head of navigatiqn, ~n<;l bulkheading portions of the turning basin. All work is progr~mmed.
A\.ITI!ORIZATION: Water Resources Development Act of 1986.
REMAINING BENEFIT - REMAINING COST RATIO: 9. 0 to 1 at 8 percent.
TOTAL BENEFIT - COST RATIO; 9.0 to 1 at 8 percent.
INI"I'IAL BENEFIT - CQST RATIO: 9.0 to 1 at 8 percent (FY 1996).
B~IS OF B~NEFI"I' - CO$T RATIO: Benefits are from the General Design Memorandum approved in May 1993 at October 1991 prices. ACCUM. PHYSICAL PCT. OF EST. STATl/S PERCENT COMPLETION SUMMARIZED FINANC.AL DATA FED. COST (1 Jan 1999) COMPLETE SCHEDUi-E Estimated Total Appropriation Requirement 93,200,000 " Contract No. 1 0 Being determined Future Non-Federal Reimbur~~ment 11,100,000 Contract No. 2 Being determined Estimated Federal C~st ·(ultimate) 72,100,000 Entire Project Being. determined
Estimated Non-Federal Cost 39,600,000 cash Cont#bution 27,722,000 PHYSICAL DATA Other Costs 778,000 Deepening channel "to 41 feet mlw, Reimbursements : Cornml Navigation 11,100,000 providing a turning basin, and bulkheading portions of the turning Total Estimated Project Cost $111,700,000 basin.
Division: Nort}J Atlantic Division: New York New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, Port Jersey Channel, NJ
February 1999 115 ACCUM. PCT. OF EST. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA: ( co~tinued) FED. COST 'Allocations to"30 september 1998 2, 940,000 Conference ~lowance £or FY 1999 5, ooo, 000 Allocation for E'Y 1999 4,649,000 Allocation through FY 1999 .!1 7' 589,000 10 Allocation Requested ·for FY 2000 2, 000, 000 13 Progranuned Balarice' to COmPlete after FY 2000 62,511,000 Unprogrammed Balance to c~mplete after FY 2000 0
1/ Reflects· $351, 000 ·reduction ass' d f i ..... gne or sav ·ngs and slippa,~~-.
JUST7_FICAT~.?N: Cargo h~n?_le~ at Global Marine Tenninal was about mach1nery, electronic equipment . waste d 1 million tons in 1990, which included heavy 3·.5-tOot channels iri the Port Je~sey Cha~:p~r, anl ~ags. , The terminal serves 12 major shipping lines. The present fu'rther hamper future fleets. of lar'ger dr:ftpvreescsule proes.e~tthge~eration containerships from fully loading and will ' ' . . · e s. ver e last 12 years an v f 60 ·barges called Global Marine Terminal. The average annual henefits a erage o 263 deep draft ships and OCtober 1991 prices. ' all co~~rcial navigation, are $15,732,000 at
FISCAL YEAR 2000: The re~uested amount will ~e applied as follows: .co00 00 Initiate Contract 1 $ 1,600,000 Planning , gngineering, and Design Construction Management $ 200,000 ' ' $ 200, 000 Total 2, 000, 000
Division: North Atlahtic District: New York New York Harbor anfi' Adjacent Clia.nnels, P.o:rt Jersey channel, NJ
Februa'ry 1999 116
NON,... FEDERAL COSTS; In accordance. with th~ cost sharlng anQ financ;i.al concepts reflected in· ~he Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended, the non-Federal sponsor m4~t comply with the Requirements listed be1ow•
Payments Annu<>l During Operation, Coqstt;uction Na.i.ntenance and anc:l RepJ.aCement Reimbursement Cost,s RE;lUIREMENT~ OF LOCAL COOPEIU\TION:
Dredging berthing areas and relocate utilities where $ 778,000 $ 12,100 necessary in t~e construct~on of' the project. Pay 25 percent of the costs allocated to deep draft 27' 722, 000 navigation during construction,
Pay an additional 10 percent of the costs allocated to 11,100,000 deep draft navigation~ithin a period of 30 years following completion of construction which is pa;tially offset bY a credit allowed for the value of lands, e~sements, rights of way, reloqation, (except util~ty relocations}, and dredged material disposal are~s.
Total N~n ... rederal Co:?ts $ 39,600,000 $ 12,100
The non-Federal sp~nsor h~s also agre~d to repay its share of constructiQn costs during construction and rf?imburse its share of cohstruction costs over a period of 30 years fol:,lo"fing completion of constr4ctrion.
STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATIO~; The State of New Jersey by letter dated 27 February 1997 indicatea they would be the local sponsor.
Division: North Atlantic District: New York New Yorl< Harbor and Adja9ent: Channels, Port Jersey Channel, NJ
1 February 1999 117 COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTIMATES: The current Federal cost estimate of $83,200, 000 is an increase of $66,225,000 over the ~a test estimate ($16, 975, 000) submitted to Congress (FY 1999). This change includes the follm-1ing items
ITEM AMOUNT
Price Escalation on Construction Features 12, 420,000 other Estimating Adjustments 53,805,000
Total '66, 225,000
STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INPACT STATEHENT: The final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on 29 April 1988.
OTHER INFORMATION: Funds to initiate preconstruction engineering and design were appropriated in FY 1988 and funds to initiate construction were appropriated in FY 1994. Based on the preliminary findings of a Limited Reevaluation Report, the estimated project cost has increased to $111,700,000 and exceeds the maximum authorized project cost of the project, thus project reauthorization is required. The cost increase is due to the need to place contaminated material in non ocean sites and the increase in unit costs for the dredging and placement of clean non-rock materia,!.
Division: North Atlantic District: New York New York Harbor and Adja~ent Channels, Port Jers17y Chaimel, lfJ
1 February 1999 1!8
'ViaMlVMAP IC"--IIMMU& '!, ..f t5 et
ST~TEN ISLAND, NY BROOKLYN, NY
W.:...Conlo!eted/leof~ 19$l! I • V/0111 FrtP., 'loifl FundiiNaltabie br F'i tm WQk l'rq>:>
11~ APPROPRIATION TITLE: Construction, General - Channels and H~~bors {N~vi,gati,on)
PROJECT: Kill Van Kull & Newark Bay, New York and New Jersey (Continuing)
·LOCATION-: The project is, located in New,.' York Harbor five to' eight miles southwesterly Of the Battery; New York City. · b'i7~ween· staten• 'rsland, New York, and Bayonne, New Jersey~
DESCRIPTION: Progranuned· work consists of dredging of about five miles of the Kill Van Kull Channel to 40 feet with ~· wid~nings at Robins Reef, St o George and Bergen Point; dredging of about 3 miles of the Newark: Bay Chcinnels to 40 feet, with widenings at the site of the Cent;ral Railroad Bridge and the junction with the Port Newark Channel; dredging of a turning basin at Port Elizabeth; and' dredging of about 5 miles of pierhead channel at Port Newark and Port Elizabeth, also to 40 feet. Ph~se II work would d,.eepen channels to 45 feett except for unprogrammed pierhead/Port Newark cha~nelso
AUTHORIZATION: suppfernental Appropri~tions Act of 19~5, section 202 (a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, ·and section 3.01 (b) {12) of t~e Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
·REMAINING BENEFIT-RE11A.INING. COST RATIO:' Phase I is not applicable because project construction is completed. Phase II - The benefit-cost ratio is 4.o2 to 1 at 7 3/8 percent.
TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 4. 2 to 1 at :i/8 percent,
. INITIAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO; 7. 9 to 1 at 7 3/8 percent (FY 1996).
BASIS OF BEJIIEFIT-COST RATIO: Phase I Benefits are from the approved General Design Memorandum dated June 1986 at October 1985 price levels. Phase II Benefits' ~re from the Limited Reevaluation Report (LRR) dated April 1997 at November 1996 '. pri'C.e. levels o ACCUM. PHYSICAL PC'r, OF EST. STATUS PERCENT · · COMPLETION SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL Dlo\~J> ·:. FED. COST (1 Jar> 1999) COMPLETE SCHEDULJ;: 1 Esi;_imated Appropriation ·Requi"ed (COE) 823,300,000 Programmed W
Progranuned Construction 2, 3001 000 uriprogranlm~ci Constructi·on . 0
Divi•~ion: North Atlantic District: New York · Kill Val) Kull and Newark Bay, NY & NJ
1 Februa.tZy 1999 120
ACCUM. PHYSICAL PCT. OF EST. STATUS PERCENT COMPLETION SCHEDULE SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA (continued) FED. COST (1 Jan 1999) COMPLET~
Estimated Total Appropriation Requirement 825,600, 000 Unpro~J,J::amrned W.ork Indefinite P.togranuned Construction 753,861,000 Contract 9 0 Unprogrammed Con$truction 71,739,000 Ent.ire Project 27 Indefinite Future Non-Federal Reirohursement 110,000,000 Programmed Construction. 100,411, 000 Unprogrammed Construction 9, 589, 000 Estimated Federal Cost (U).timate) (COE) 713,300,000 Programmed Construction 651,150,000 Unprogrammed Construction 62,150, ooo
Estimated Non-Federa}J. Cost 863,000,000 Programmed construction 829,478, ooo cash Contribution $250,274,000 other Costs 478,793,000 Reimbursements 100,411,000
Unprogrammed Construction 33,522,000 Cash Contribution 231 933,000 Other Costs 0 Reimbursements 9, 589, 000
Total Estimated Programmed constructi9n Costs $1,482,928,000 Total Estimated Unprogrammed Construction Costs 95,672,000 Total Estimated Project Cost 1, 578,600,000
Allocations to 30 September 1998 199, 680,000 Conference Allowance for FY 1999 30, ooo, 000 Allocation for FY 1999 27' 896,000 y Allocation through FY 1999 227' 576,000 28 Allocation Requested for FY 2000· 60, ooo, 000 35 Progranuned Balance to Complete after FY 2000 463,985,000 Unprogrammed Balance to Complete after FY 2000 71,739,000
!/Reflects $2,104,000 r~duction assigned as savings and slippage.
Kill van Kul~ and Newark Bay, NY & NJ Division:,. North Atlantic Distri~t: New York. 1 February, 1999 IZI JUSTIFICATION: Cargo handled at Port Newark and Port Eliza et co,\1-tainer ports, was about 24.4 million tons in 1995 h b . h, ,.which together comprise one of the nations larger precluded present g'eneration contai h. f . T e 40-foot deep channels in the Kill Var'l Kull and Newark Bay average annual benefits all comm n~r~ ~psi ro~ fully loading and hampered future fleets of larger draft vesSels. The , erc~a nav gat~on, are $619,194,000 at 1 November 1996 price levels. FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested amount will be applied as follows: Complete Contract 1, Continue~ II Initiate Contracts III & IV $ 51, 607' 000 Planning, Engineerin.g, and Design Construction l.fanagement 4, 503, 000 3, 890, 000 Total 60, ooo, 000 NON-FEDERAL COST: In accordance with the Develo~ment Act of 1986, as amended, the ~o~~F s~a.ri~g and financing concepts reflected in the Water Resources 0 e era sponsor must comply with the requirements listed below:
Payments During Annual Operation, Requirements of Local Cooperation Construction and ·Maintenance, ahd Reimbursements Replacement Costs Dredge berthing areas and relocate utilities $478,793,000 whe~e necessary in the construction of the proJect.
Pay 25 percent of the costs allocated to deep 274,207,000 draft navigation during construction.
Pay an additional 10 percent of the costs 110,000,000 all~cated to deep· draft navigation within a per~od o~ 30 years following completion of construction which is partially offset by a credit allowed for the value of lands easements, rights-of-way, relocations' and 1 dredged material' disposal·. areas.
Total Non-Federal 'costs,. $ 863,000,000
Divisiori: North Atlantic District: New York Kill, Van Kull and Newark Bay, NY & NJ
1 February 1999 122
f?TATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: A Local Cooperation Agree\tlent {LCA} W~th the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the non,..Federal sponsol;, was e~ecuted for the Phase I deepening to 40 teet on 30 May 1986. A modificat~on of ~he ~CA was executed on 21 May 19~7 to ret;:lect the criteria of ~he Water Resources Development Act of 1986. A Project Cooperation Agreerqent was executed with the same sponsor f0;r the Ph.afiie II. deepening to 4:> feet c;m ~3 January 1999.
coi.JPARlSON OF FEDEAAL COST EST~M,I\TES: The current Federal coat estimate of $823,330,000 is a decrease oJ; $23,700,000 qver the ,latest; estil)\ate ($Q17, 000, 000) presented to Cop<;~ress (FY 1999), Thia change includes the following items:
Item Amount Price EsQala tion on Construction Features $-23,700,000
Total
STI\TUS OF ENVIRONl'fENTAL IMPACT. STATEMENT: The nn11l Environment;al Impact Statement (EIS) was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Qfl 31 July 1981. A Supplemental EIS was filed with EPA on 14 February 1986, The Final supplement .to the EIS was filed with EPA on 13 February 1987. The Record of Decision was executed on 1 April 1987. A Environmental Assess~ent and Finding of no Significant Impact was issued on 30 April 1997 as part of the LRR for the Phase Il cleepening'.
OTHER INFORHAT~ON: Funds to initiate preconstruction engineerin9 and design were appropriated in FY 1984 and funds to initiate construction Wefe appropriated in FY 1985.
Division: North Atlantic District: New York Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay, NY &. NJ
1 February 1999 123
. \ ~ Corps of Engineers
f Jersey City New Jersey (NJ)
10 I
Upper New York Bay
rzi1 WO APPROPRII\TION TITLE; Construction, General - Cl\annels and Harbors (Nav,l.qatipn) PROJECT: Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Br,l.dqe At Great Bridge, Virginia (Cc;>ntinuing) LOCATION: The.project is located in the community 9f Great Bridge, city of Chesapeake, in the southeastern portion of Virginia. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway bridge crosses the Albermarle and Chesapeake canal which is a part of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway that connects ti]e Southern J;lranch of the Elizabeth River and the North I,anding River. DESCRIPTION: The plan of improvement includes replacement of the existing Fed~r;>.l br,l.dg~ with a five-lane, double-1eaf, rolling-lift bascl!le also commonly known as a "Scherzer Rolling Lift B>;ic;l<;1e. 11 The replacement briclge provides five 12- · foot lanes, two 2-f~>ot sho.u1ders and pecjestrian walkw9ys. The roadway centerli11e on the proposed bridge will be · appro) ·1\UTHORIZI\TJ;ON: Section 339 of tpe National l!i R~Ml\INING JlENEFIT-REMl\INING COST RATJ;O: 2 .l to l. i!t 7 3/9 perpent ':\"OT~ BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 1.8 to ;>.t 7 3/9 percent INITIAL BENEF~T-GOST RATIO: 1.9 to 1 at 3/8 (F)' 19~8) J!ASIS OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO: Benefits are fJ;om the latest available evaluation approved in July 1994 at october 1992 price leveh. Division: North Atlantic DistJ::ict: Norfolk Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge At Great Bridge , VA ~ Feb~uary 1999 125 .. ACC!R1 PHYSICAL PCT. OF EST. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA: STATUS PERCENT COMPLETION FED COST (1 Jan 1999) COMPLETE SCHEDULE Estimated Federal Cost Bridge Replacement 23, 100, 000 0 Being determined '· Estimated Non-Federal Cost 3, sao, ooo Cash Contributions 2,500,000 Other Costs 1,300,000 PHYSICAL DATA Total Estimated Project Cost ' 26,900,000 BRIDGE: Allocations to 30 September 1998 3,394, 000 Conference Allowance for FY 1999 TYPE LENGTH 3, BOO, 000 DECK ELEVATioN Allocation for FY 1999 3, 534, 000 1/ Allocations through FY 1999 Dbl Leaf Rolling 304 ft. 13.0 ft NGVD .6,928,000 16 Allocation Requested for FY 2000 Lift Bascule 3, ooo, 000 Programmed Balance to Complete 28 after FY 2000 13,172,700 1/ ·Reflects 266,000 reduction assigned as savings and s:1-ippage. JU~TIFICATION: The present. bridge, whi~h was built by the Cor . 5 ~· br1dge is now functionally obsolete It i d . bl , . p of Englneers, was opened to traffic in August 1943. The 0 the Albermarle and Chesapeake Canal. At t~e at· ou 't~-s~i~g two-lane highway bridge carrying Virginia's Route 168 over 00 area: However, the bridge now conn~cts a mult~~~ane ehi r~::e was built, it ~ad adequate vehicle capacity for a rural commercial center. , The bridge ip seriously overloaded gear~ ~hrough a heav~ly t~aveled area serving a busy urban design capacity. Navigation is also adversely affect ~ d ~~ng ave~ 30,000 veh~cles per day, which is double its mechanical and electrical equipment is now needed s~ ~e o restr~ctions on bridge openings. Updating of the 15 to 13 tons. While maint~nance and repail:s are. a ~~c ur~~ pro}?lems have required the bridge to be down-posted from old, and it is likely th~t increased cost for repai~saore~:athve ~o replacing. the. bridge, the bridge is over 50 years . . r er ownposting ~s l~kely as the !J:ridge contin.ues to age. FISCAL YEAR 2000: amou~t of $31 000,000 will b~ used a~ Initiate constru,.c;:tion P;tap.ning, Eng.ineering, . '~nd 'Design, $2,779,300 Construction Management 27' 700 Total 193, 000 $31 oo~, ooo Division: North Atlantic Di·s~rict: · Norfolk Atl'antic IntracoaS~al waterway ..... Bridge At Great Bridge, VA 1 !ebruary 1999 126 NoN-FEDEAA~ COST:: In accordance with the cost-sharing and· fin~ncing concepts reflected in the Water Resources Develo~ment Act o+ l966, the non~feder&l sponsor must comply with the requirements listed below. Annual Operation, Ma;intenance Payments ·R'epai,r, . , During Rehapilitation, Copstruction and. '. and Replacement· 1 R~qu~rli'!me!'t.!? of Local coop~rat.ion Reimbursements c()st$ '{ " ~rov~de ~~nds, easemepts, rights of way, relocations, $3,800,000 and app·roaches . . Pay ·all c9sts of betterments to the pr~ject To~~l Non~Fede+al Costs $3,800,000 $312,000 'J,'he non.-Fed~r;;tl sponso;t; has ~lso agreed to make all reqt\ired p'ayments concurrently with project construction and will assume oWnership anq all 9peration, mai.ntenqnce, repair, replacement, and :rehabilitation responsibilities of the bridge. STATUS QF LOCAL COOPERATION: Th~ city of Chesapeake is the non-Federal project sPonsor. By City Council Resolution dated 23 september 19~7, and by letter dated 19 November 1997, the city indicated their support and willingness to enter into a J?:t;oject Cooperation Agreement (PCA) priqr to initiatiorl of construction.' In addition, the city agreed to ~sstime ownership and al~ operation, ll\aintenance1 repair, replacement, and rehabilitation responsibilities, and provide the incremental costs of any locally preferred optipns. The non-Federal sponsor is fully capable of providingoits share of funds for the briPge replacement through its porrowing authority. The PCA is currently scheduled for execution in May 1~99. ' COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTIMATE?: The current Federal cost estimate of $23,100,000 is the same as the latest ~s~imate ($23, 100, 000) presented to Congress (FY 19~9): STATUS Of ENVIRONl'!ENTAI, IMPACT STATEMENT: The Environrn~ntal Assessrnent/Finping of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) was signed·on 25 rebruary 1994. OTHER INFORMAT;tON: Funds to initiate preconstruction engineering and design WE;!re appropriated in FY 1995. Funds to initiate construction were appropriate Division: North Atlantic District: Norfolk Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge 1\.t Great Bridge, VA 1 Fe)>ruary·1999 127 SCALE IN MILES SOAlElNUILES; WORK STATUS WsRe~~.fa~~~s"soF WORKUHOERWA.Y wmt AmOS AVAUaLEF0RFY1H7 WORK PROPOSED Wlllt FUNDS REQUESTED FY Uta WORK REQUESTED TO COUPLETEO lliE PROJECT AFTERFVUU NORFOLK DISTRICT SCAlElNFEET NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION JANUARY i FEe>RUAR'( 199~ J.) I APPROPRIATION TITLE: Construction, General - Channels and Harbors {Navigation) PROJECT: Norfolk Harbor and Channels (Deepening), Virginia (continuing) LocATION: The project is located in Hampton RoadS, Virginia, a 25-square mile natural harbor ~e~ving the ports of Norfolk, Newport News, Portsmouth, chesapeake, and Hampton, Virginia. DESCRIPTION: Pro.grammed work encompasses: (1} deepening a 2. 5 mile section of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River from a depth of 35 feet to 40 feet, including an 800 foot turn basin; (2) the construction of a 1500 foot diameter anchorage area with a depth of 50 feet, and; {3) the construction of the 50-foot inbound element. Unprogrammed work encompasses, deepening the outbound lanes of existing main channels to a depth of 55 feet, constructing a new ocean channel to a depth of 60 feet, and deepening a 6. 3 mile section of the Southern Branch to a depth of 45 feet. Dredging the outbound channels to a depth of 50 feet was completed in 1988, and the Lower Bay Beneficial Uses study was completed in August 1994. AUTHORIZATION: supplemental Appropriations Act of 1985 and water Resources Development Act of 1986. REMAINING BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 1. 6 to 1 at 8 1/S percent. TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 1. 6 to 1 at 8 1/8 percent. INITIAL BENEFIT7 COST RATIO: 3. 7 to 1 at V8 percent (FY 1985). BASIS or- BENEFIT-cosT RATIO: Benefits are from the General Design Memorandum approved in July 1986 at October 1986 price level and the supple~enta,l Engineering Report approv~d in August 1989 at October 198~ price level. Benefits for the 50- Foot AJ::lchorage are from .the Limited Reevaluation Report dated May 1996 at October 1996 price level. District: Norfolk Norfolk Harbor and Channels (Deepening), VA Division: North Atlantic 129 1 February 1999 !'HYSICAL l'ERCENT COMl'LETION SI!MMI\RI~ED FlNANCIAL DATA 'STATUS COMPLETE SCHEDULE (1 Jan 1999) J;:stim;>teli Appropriation Requirement (CoE) 137' 400,000 PrograiM\ed \!onstruction 22, B26, 000 UnprograiM\ed Con~truction 114,574,000 50-Foot Outbound 100 December 1988 50-Foot Outbound (Anchorage) Being dete.r:mined 50-Foot Inbound 0 Indefinite 55-Foot outbound 0 Inc;lefinite t:stimated ·Appropriation Requirement (Coast Guard) B33, 000 55-Foot OutQound (Anchorage) 0 Indefinite PrQgt:amrned coo~truction · 306, ooo South~rn Branch 45-Foot Indefinite Unpro.~rammed Construction. 527, 000 Southern Branch 40-Foot 25 Indefinite Entire Project 14 Indefinite PHYSICAL DATA DEPTH WIDTH LENGTH E;stimatecl AppJ:oPr~ation Requirement (US Navy) 3,508,000 CHANNELS (feet m.l.w.) (feet) (miles) ProiJralJUI\ed c~nstr.uction 3, SOB, 000 Atlantip Ocean 60 650 9. 6 UnProgrammed co11s~ruction o Thimble Shoa! 55 650 13.4 . ' ' . Norfolk Harbor 55 650.:BOO B. 4 Estimated Total Appropriation Requirement 141,741,000 Newport News 55 BOO 6.2 c.o PrograiM\ed Const~:uctlon 26,640,Q00 Elizabetlt River and ~ t\0 UnpJ;Ogl:a.mmed Construction p5, 101, ooa Southern Branch 45 375-750 6.3 southern Branch 40 250-500 2.5 Future 1!9n-Federal Reimbursement 11,362,000 PrpgraiM\ed Construct~on 928, 000 DEPTH RADIUS Unprogrammed Construction 10,434,000 ANCHORAGES (feet m.l.w.) (feet) 55-Foot 55 1,500 gstimilted Federal cost (Ultimate) (CoE) 126, 03B' 000 Sewells Faint 45 1,500 PrograJM\ed construction 21,898,000 Unprogrammed construction 1051 190,000 t:stimated Non-Feder~l Cqst 132,321,000 Prpgramm~cj Cql)struct~on H, 441, 000 Ca~h Contril>l!tion ·9, 545, 000 Other Costs 3, 96B, OOQ Reimbursements 92B,OOO Divis~on: North Atlantic District: Norfolk Norfolk Har.bor and' Chann~ls (Deepening), VA 1 February 1999 130 ACCUM. PCT. OF EST. SUMMI\RIZED FINANCIAL DATA (Continued) FED COST UnprograJIUt.'led Con~truction 117,880, 000 Cash contribution 82,326,000 other ,costs 25 1 120,000 Reimbursements 10,434 1 000 ,, ' Total Estimated ~rograrnmed Construction Cost 40,153,000 Total· Estimated Unprogrammed Constructio,n ,qa:st 222,547' 000 Total Estimated Project Cos,t, , 262,700,000 Allocations to 30 Septembe'r 1.998 18,653,000 conference Allowance for FY 1999 420,000 Allocation for FY 1999 1, 265,,200 1/ Allocation's Through ~y 1999 19,044,200 14 Alloqation Reque~ted.for FY 2000 550,000 15 Programmed .Balance to Complete 2, 304, 800 Unprograrrmed Balanpe to Complete, after FY 2000 114,574,000 1/ Reflects $:16 1 800 reduction .assigned as s;;wings and slippage and $862,000 reprogranuned to the project, .. . JUSTIFICATION:- The ex.:j.s,ting channels in the Port of Hampton Roads are not deep enough to accommodate the increasing vessel sizes which transport principal conunodities such as coal and grain.. Hampton Roads coal terminals already receive coll,iers in excess of 100, 000 deadweight tons wpich cannot sail· fully loaded with the existing channels 50 feet deep, making unit transportation costs higher, When the project is completed, larger vessels will be able to load to capacity, provic,ling a,savings in the delivery .of cargo to final destinations. The project will assist in improving the United Stat,es competitive position as a major coal exporter. ,The p\lrpose of constructing_ the 50-Foot Inbound Channels is to prepare the port for the anticipated growth in the u.s. maritime container trade well·: into the next century and projected trend toward the utilization of increasingly larger container vessels. Average annual benefits are as follows: Annual Benefits Amount Transportation savings (50-Foot outbound) $26,400,000 Transportation savings (55-Foot outbound) 22,200,000 Transportation Savings (southern Bra~ch 45 foot) 3,499,000 Transportation Savings (Southern Branch 40 foot) 2;550,009 Total $54,649, oop Division: North Atlantic Distri~t: Norfolk Norfolk Harbor and channels (Deepening), VA 1 ·February 1999 131 FISCAL XEAR 2000: Th~ ~equested amount will b~ applied as follows: Planning, Engineering and Design: Elizabeth River southern ~ranch 25,000 ~avigation Management Plan 25,QOO 50~Foot Inbound Element 500,009 Total $550,000 NON-FEDERAL COST: In accordance with the cost-sharing and financing c;oncepts refl~c~ed in th~ Water Resources Development Act ~t 1986, a$ amended, th~ non-Federal sPonsor mUst comply with the ~equ~~e~ents li$G~d below. l\Jlnual <;lperati9n, Maintfii!.n~nc~, J;>ayrnents Repair, During Rehabilitation, Construction a tid and Mp1ac~ment Requi~ements ot Loc~l.Cooperation Rei~ursernent~ Costs 50-Foot O~tbo~nd El~m~nt and Long-term oisposal: Pa¥ cran~y Island dre~g~d material d~sposa1 area tolls 64~,000 Pciy the cof31;s of irnpJ:Q'{ements to aqcess cl)annelEJ and b~rthing areas ($2,987,000) and relocate a 30 inch diarn~ter water main ($339,000). 3, 326,000 P;>.y 50 percent of the costs allocated to det~p draft navigation greater than 45 feet durin'iJ construction and pay 25 percent of the costs of incremental maint~n?nce below 45 feet below mean· low. water. · 9,545,000 150,000 Pay an additional 10 percent of tht~ costs allocated to de~P draft navigation within a period of ~0 years following c0mpletion of construction (which is partially offset by relocation of the 30 inch diameter watp• main and a credit a1lowed £or the Craney Island dredged material area tolls). 928,000 Subtptal Non-Federal Costs (50-Foot Outbound Element) ~14. 441, 000 $150,000 Division: ~orth Atlantic District: Norfolk No~folk Harbor and Channels (Deepening), VA 132 Annual operation, Maintenance, Payments Repair, During Rehabilitation, Construction and and Replacement Reimbursements Costs . Requirements of Local Cooperation (cant' d) so-F~Ot Anchorage Element: . . Pay 50 percent of the costs allocated to deep ,·,· draft navig Pay; iin" additional 10 perceht of the costs" allocated to deep draft. navigation within a period of 30 434,700 years .following completion of construction. $31,000 subtota'l Non-Federal costs (5'0-Foot Anchorage El~ment) $2,608,200 Norfolk Harbor and Channels {Deepening}, VA District: Norfolk Division: North Atlantic 133 1 February 1999 llON-FEDEAAI, COST (Continued) Annual OpeJ:;ation, Mai,ntenance, Payments Repair, During Rehabilitation, Construction and and Replacement ~~quirernents of Local Cooperation {Cont'd} Reimbursements Costs RE:lmaining Elements: J;?rovide l~n9,s, e~sernents, rights of way, and borrow and excavated or dredged material disposal areas. 2, 620, 000 Modify or relocate utilities, +oads, bridges 22, soo, 000 (except raill:oad bridges) 1 and other facilities, where necessary in the construction of th~ projec\:. Pay 50 percent of the costs allocated to deep draft 80,002,000 navigation greater than 45 feet dUring construction and pay 25 percent of the costs of incremental main~enance Pelow 45 ~eet mean low wa~er. PaY an, additional 10 percent of the costs allocated 10, 434, 000 to deep draft navigation within a period of 30 years foll~wing completion of construction. Subtotal Non-Federal Costs (Remaining Elements) $115,556,000 Total Non-Federal Cpsts $132,321, 000 $181,000 "J.:he non-Federal sponsor has also agreed to make all required payments concurrently with project construction and rei~urs~ its share of construction cost~ over a period of 30 years following completion of construction. Division: Nortp Atlantic District: Norfolk Norfolk Harbor and Channels (Deepening), VA February 1999 134 STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: A Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA) for th~ 1 first phase (SO-foot outbound) was executed 15 Hay 1986 with the Corrunonwealth of Virginia, and LCA Modification No. 1 was executed 13 February 19.87 to reflect the criteria of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. supplements to the existing LCA will be executed to accommodate completion of future elements. COMPAR~SON oE' FEDERAL COST ESTIMATES: The current Federal (CoE) cost estimate Of $137, 400, 000 is. the .. same as the latest estimate ($137, 400, 000) p,resented to Congress (FY 1999). STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: The final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS} and AddendUm were filed on 3 April 1981. A final Supplement I to the FEIS was filed on 14 June 1985. An· Snviroiunental AssesSment for the 50-Foot Anchorage was completed in March 1996. OTHER INFORMATION: Funds to initiate construction were appropria'ted in FY 1,985. Funds to initiate the 50-foot anchorage area we;re appropriated in FY 1998. The first phase of the project provided an outbound channel 50 feet deep. The inbound 50 and 55 foot Channel phas~s have been deferred due to the absence of currently identified economic or operational need. The remainder of the project will be programmed in coordination with local interests. The Virginia Port Authority expressed support for ne':l starts of the 50-Foot Inbo~p.d Element in a letter dated 4 May 1998. A long-' term dredged material management study was initiated in FY 1985. This study concentrated on the needs of the imler harbor and was completed .in FY 1994. Divisioh: North Atlantic District: Norfolk Norfolk Harbor and Channels {Deepening}, VA 1 February 1999 135 SCAL£1HIIIl£S WORK STATUS ~ ~OS~~~~:i:::~ASOF ...... (0 ~ ~~A~~~~~F~~~~!WFUNDS 00 [I]] :~:u~~~~~~~~D~1~:UNDS SUFFOLK ~ WORKED REQUIRED TD ~~:RL~~::~e PROJECT CHESAPEAKE - SEcnoN 933SlTJ; ~ Scalelnldllu APPROPRIATION TITLE: Construction, General - Beach Erosion Control PROJECT: . Delaware Coast Pr.otection, Delaware (Continuing} LOCATION: The project is located in sussex County, Delaware, on the Atlantic Ocean at Indian River Inlet. DESCRIPTION: The plan of improvement consists of constructing a sand bypassing plant and periodic nourishment of a feeder beach at Indian River Inlet. All ·work is programmed. AUTHORIZATION: Flood Control Act of 1968 and the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. REI.fAINING BENEFIT - REMAINING COST RATIO: Not applicable because initial construction is complete. TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: Not applicable because initial construction is complete. J;NITIAL BENEFIT - COST RATIO: 2.0 to 1 at 6 1/8 percent (FY 1977). BASIS OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO: Atlantic Coast of·Delaware General Design Memorandum, approved January 1986 at October 1984 price levels and a Reevaluation Report approved February 1984 at October 1983 price levels. PHYSICAL PERCENT CoMPLETION SCHEDULE STATUS: (1 Jan 99) COMPLETE SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA $1~, 800 000 Initial Construction 100 1 Being determined Estimated Federal Cost Periodic Nourishment 28 Being determined Initial Construction 2, 266,000 Entire Project 55 Periodic Nourishment 9, 534, 000 14,600, 000 Estimated non-Federal Cost 441,000 PHYSICAL DATA: Initial construction Project Area tengt~: 3,500 feet sand bypass Cash Contribuf.ioris 441,000 plan~ designed to piovide the necessary other Costs 0 volume of sand to the feeder beach. Feeder 14,159,000 Periodic Nour1shment beach requires bypassing an average cash contributions of 100,000 cubic yards each year. · Other· cOst's 14,159,000 -~·· Delaware coast Protection, DE District: Philadelphia Division: North Atlantic 137 1 February 1~99 ACCUM. PCT. OF EST. FED, COST Total Estimated Project Cost 26,400,000 :(nitial construction 2,707,000 Periodic Nourish~ent 23,693,000 Allocations to 30 Septeri\ber 1998 4,904,000 COil/!ere~ce Allqwance for. FY l999 233,0QO Al1oc~tion for FY 199~ 217,000 1/ Allocations through F'l' i999 5,121,000 43 Al1pca~ion Requested for FY 2000 259,000 46 p):ogr~mrnecl !!alance to complete after FY · 2000 6,420,000 Unprogrammed B~lance to complete dter FY 2000 0 l./ Refl'i'ct~ r\l\iUction of $~6, 000 assignecl as savings ancl slippage. JUflTIFICA',r~ON; ';l'he ~~ach of shor~line immediately l)orth of +ndian Rive1; Inlet, commonly referred to as the feeder ·beach, is being cJarnaged by erosion, and state Highway Route 1 is threatened. The project;· area h<=~:s also experienced ~ consiqerable erosion from waves due to hurricanes and northeasters as a result of the lack of adequ~te protective ~ beaches. The critical length of ~}\oreline north of ~ndian River Inlet along which ero.$ion threatens Route 1 is ~xtremely im~ortant ~ecause it provides the only direct roadway between'Bethany Beach and the northern beaches. There would. be severe negat;i,ve Soqial and econonUc impacts if Route 1 were, to be cut by a wash,over. The authorizeq project would provide tarigible'benefits by providing beach· erosion control measures which ~n turn.reduce annua~ beach erosion ;ri~;i.ntenance cost.s and reduce wave damages from coastal storms, The average annual benefits, are $9,5491 20 based on 1 oc~ober 1984 pr~ce levels of which $9,121,100 are for prevention of erosion damages and $428,100 are for prevention of ,loss of ~ancl. Division: Nortt> Atlantic District: Phil&de1phi& Delaware Coast Protection, DE 1 February 1~99 138 FISCAL YEAR ZOOO: The requested funding will be used to provide periodic nourishment through the operation of a sand bypass plant. The funds will be applied as follows: Periodic Nourishment $ 224,000 $ 24, 000 Planning 1 Engineering 1 and Design Construction Hanagement $ 11, 000 Total 259,000 NON-FEDERAL COSTS: In accordance with the cost sharing and financing concepts reflected in the Water Resources Development Act. of 1986, the non-Federal spon~or must comply with the requirements listed below: Payments During Annual Operation, construction and Maintenance, and Replacement Costs Requirements of Local Cooperation Reimbursements $120,000 Bear 35 percent of the costs allocated to periodic $13,900, 000 nourishment, and bear all costs of operation, maintenance and replacement of shoreline protection features. Bear 100 percent of operation, maintenance, and replacement for mitigation of shore damages $203,000 attributable to navigation projects. · $323, 000 Total non-Federal· Costs $13,900, 000 STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: A Local cooperation Agreement was executed in October 1988. with the S~ate of Delaware. The current non-Federal estimated cash contribution of $131900, 000 for programmed work reflects an l.ncrease of $4 050 000 from the estimate of $9,850,000 included in the Local Cooperation Agreement. The non-Federal sponso~ ha~ the . ~i ~ d that it is financially capable and willing to contribute the increased non-Federal share. o.ur aJ?.alysl.s o ~:n-~:d:ral sponsor's financial capability to participate in the project affirms that the sponsor has a reasonable and implementable plan for meeting its financial commitment. Delaware Coast Protection; DE Division: North Atlantic District: Philadelphia 139 1 February 1999 COMP!\R~SO)l OF F£1'1:RAL COST E~!TIMATE: The cur~;~n1: Federal cost estimate of $11, ~00, 000 is an decrease of $300,000 from t)le la~est estimate ($12,100,000) presented to Congress (FY 1999). This change' includes the following items: Incr'i'mental Item Change pric~ Escalation on Construction Features $-300,00Q Total $-390,000 STI\TliS OF ENVIRONMENT~ IMPACT STI\TEMENT: The Final Environmental Impact Statell\ent (FEIS) was filed with the Council on Environmental Quality on 1 Jun'i' 1971. A draft supplement to the F£IS was filed on 18 1\pril 1975, An E;nvi~;onmental Assessment and a Finding q£ No Significant Impact were completed on 26 Nov~mber 1984. Listing of riping Plover (Charadrius Me!odus). as an emjangered bird species in January 1986 and recent determination by state ·wildlife officials· that the spec~es ne~ts in the project area hqs neces~it~t~d rev~ew proc~d~re$ in accordance with section 7 Qf the Endange~;ed species l\0t of 1973. A Ietter.£rom u.s. li'bh OTHER INFORMATION: Funds to initiate precon~t~;uction engineering and design were al'propriated in FY 1971, and funds to initiate construction were appropriated in F't 1977. Section 869 ot' the Water Resources Development /let of 1986 deauthorized the unp~;ogrammec;l portion of the project. The initial construction was cost shued 78.1 percent federal and CC 2l. 9 percent non-Federal. The Federal Government wU1 provide 40.7 pe~;cent of the annual cost of operation a11d f:g maintenance of the plant as its contribut~on to per~odic nourts~ent of the beach for the remaiping authorized periodic no11dshmont per~od. Division: North Atlantic Dis~rict: Philadelphia Qelawa.re Co<;lst P.t:Qtection, DE 1 Februarr. 1999 140 VICINITY MAP lCAU!IHidli..U '\ ' u 'f. R'\1·-.rlr-- ANNUAL PERIOi>IC NOURISHMENT . PUMP HOUSE AND EOUCTOR SYSTEM I HETLOMGSHOm!'J'RANSPORT RAlE UO,oto CYfi'R l'EGEND DELAWARE COAST PROTECTION [Z2JWORKCO~;umQ"A,OF.MSEP1JM PLAN EZ:)WDRKPROPOSEDwmtflN)SAVAILA'BlEFDRF'i19S9 1JAMiARY1tH JIIID WORKPROPOSEDWmtFIJNDS hEQUE$TEDFOR FV SCALE AS SHOWN U.S.ARWYE'ltGIHEfRDISmlcT,Pflt.A. ~ =tc ftEQUIREn'JO COO.PLETEnfEPROJECT AREd 'Ff ~!10 ~PPROPRIATION TJ;TLE: construction, General .... Beach Erosj.on control PROJEC'l': Atlantic Coa_st of Marylancl (coptinuing) LOCATION: Feriwick and ~ssateague Islands form the Atlantic Coast of Maryland and extend in a north-south direction from Delaware Bay. to Chincoteague In~et, Virginia. The project is located in Worcester county, Maryland. DESCRIPTION:: Th~ project includes a dune beginning at 27th Street extending north to the Delaware line, a steel sheet pile .bulkhead from 27th St~eet south to Fourth Street, a widened and raised beach from Third street to just beyond the Delaware line, an,d periodic nourishment over the 50-year ·projec,t l~fe. All work is progranuned. AUTHORIZATION: Water Resources Development Act of 1986 modified by the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1990. REMAINING BENEFIT - REMAINING COS'l' RATIO: Not apl'licable because initia~ construction is complete. TO'l'AL BEN~FIT - COST RA'l'IOi Not applicable because initial co,nst~uction is complete. INI'l'IAL B~NEii'!T - COST RA'l'IO: 1.3 to 1 at 8 5/8 percent (FY 1990). ~IS OF BENEii'I'l'-COS'l' RATIO: Benefits are from the General Design Memoranclum comp1etecl il) October 1989 at October 1989 J?rice levels. PHYSICAL ,. PC'l'. OF EST~ PERCEN'l' COMPLETE SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL'DA'l'A FED COS'l' STATUS (1 Jan 99) COMPLE'l'E SCHEDULE Estimat~d Federal Cost $270,300,00Q Initial Construction $ 29, 172,000 Initial Construction 100 Dec 1994 Perioclic Nourishme!lt 24i, 128,000 Perioclic Nourishment 2 Being determined Entire Project Being cletermi!lecl Divi~~on: North Atlantic District: Baltimore Atlantic Coast of 'Maryland 1 Ji'epruary 1S99 142 SUMMAR I ZED FINANCIAL DATA: ( CONT ' D) Estimated Non-Federal Cost 229,700,000 Initial Construction 15,709,000 PHYSICAL DATA Steel Bulkheacl - l. 5 miles cash Contributio~s $15,175,000 Other costs 534,000 sand Dune 6. 7 miles Periodic Nouri,~hment 213,991,000 Beach 1. 5 miles X 165 fe~t wide - 6. 7 miles x 100 feet wide Cash Contributions 213,991, 000 - 0. 3 mil.e transition into other cOsts 0 Delaware Total Estimated Project Cost $500,000,000 y Initial Construction 44,881,000 Periodic Nourishment 455, 119; 000 ~locations to ~0 September 1998 34, 2'n; ooo Conference Allowance for FY 1999 100,000 Allocation f~r FY 1999 393; 000 ~I Allocations through FY 1999 34,624,000 13 Allocation Requested for FY 2000 200,000 13 Programmed Bc:llance' to. Complete after FY 2000 235,476,000 Unprogrammed Balance to Complete after FY 2000 1/ Includes nourishment costs throughout the 50-year project life. "i.l Reflects $7,000 reduction ClSsigned as savings and slippage and $300,000 reprogranuned to the project. JUSTIFICATION! Fenwick Island (Ocean City, MD) is highly develo~ed s~nce it is the primary ocean res~rt for the metropolitan centers of washington, DC and Baltimore, MD. The Ocean City portion of the shore with 7ts highly developed recreation facilities contributes greatly to the economy of the state and to a lesser extent the nat~on. Th~ current value of development in ocei3-n city is over $2 billion. Major portions of Ocean city's beaches ~ave. been subJected to erosion which has averaged about 2 feet per year over~ the past 130 years. T~is reach o~ shorel~ne ~s subject to. severe damage from high tides and wave attack during major storms such as occurred ~n the hurr~cane of August 1993 and ~n the northeast storm of March 1962, with estimated damages of $76.1 million. Since 1962, significant.devel~pment has in occurred in the damage prone area. oamage.s to the public and private property at Ocean City from Hurr~cane Gloria Atlantic Coast of Maryland Division: North Atlantic District: Baltimore 1 February 1999 143 JUSTIFICATION: (continued) September 1985 were estimated at $11.9 million. Severe beach erosion was also caused by the remnants of Hurrieane.Juan in November 1985 with daroages estimated at $944,000. On 30 and 31 October 1991, and 9 and 10 November 1991, Atlantic storms hit the northeast coast; however, only minor damage occurred at Ocean City as a result of the essentially completed project. Damages prevented by the project were estimate~,, at about $32 million. on 4 and 5 January 1992 a more devastating storm hit Ocean City causing about $300,000 in property damages. Damages prevented by the p'rojeCt during that storm were estimated at $61 million. The average annual benefits, essentially all storm damage reduction, are $13,712,000 based on 1 October 1989 price levels. FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested amount will be applied as follows: Planning, Engineering, and 'oesign ' $200,000 Total ' $?oo, ooo NON-FEDERAl,.. COSTS: In accordanc~ with the cost sharing and financing concepts refle~ted in the Water ReSources Development ~ct of .1986.' the non-Fed~ral ~ponsor mus't comply with the requireinents list~d helot-!· Pa:~ent~ DuJ:"ing Annual operation, Construction f'nd Maintenance, and Requirements of Local Cooperation Reimbursem~pts Replacement Costs Provide lands, easements, rights Of way, Modify or relocate buildings, utilitie.$ 1 roads, bridges {except 40,000 railro~Q bridges) and other facilities, where necessary in the constructiOrl. of the project. Pay 35 percent of the 'firSt costs and 47 percent of the cost of 229,166,000 $1,608,000 periodic nourishment bas~c;i on a formula that requires payment of 35 percent of the costs assigned to stoon damage reduction and 100 per~ent of the costs assigned to recreation; and bear all costs of operation, maintenance, replacement, and major rehabilitati~n 9f stoon damage reduction facilities. Total Non-Federal Costs 229,700,000 $1,608,000 The non-Fectera~ sponsor has ~lso agreed to make all required payments concurrently with project cons~ruction Divi~ion: North Atlantic District: Baltimore Atlantic Coast of Maryland .1 February 1999 144 ------·------ STATUS OF LOCAL COOP~RATION: The State of Maryland is the local sponsor for the project. By letter dated 29 Septefber l989 th~ state a~sur~d it ~s ab;te and. wi).ling to sp.onso~_ implementation of the project .unQer the .terms and conditions ' ~eflected in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The Local Cooperation Aq.t;eement was executed in March 19~0. To ~ate, the siate of Ma+yland has fully complied with ~ocal requirements on the project. COMPARISON OF FEDERAL c;OST ESTIMATES: The current Federal cost estimate of $270,300,000 is the same as the latest 1 · estimate ($270, 300, 0,00) ~ubmitted to Con9'ress (FY 1999). STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC'l' STATEMENT: Tpe Final Environmental Impact Statement was filed with the Environmental Protectiqn Agency i'n May 1981. .An envil;onmental assessment dated June 1989 is incluQeQ in the final ~eneral Design Memorandum. OTHER INFORMATION: Funds to initiate preconstruction engineering and design were appropriated in F'l 1986 · Funds to initiate constl:uct.j.on were appropriated. in FY );990. Divtsion: North Atlantic District: Baltimore Atlantic Coast of Maryland February 1999 145 VICINITY MAP $CALEOFIJ1lES LEGEND PERIODIC ~ ~o8~~\i~~:~~~~~ts oF NOURISHMENT {ENTIRE BEACH) llliilll ~1~~~r~~g~~?v.~~9~ FUNDS llll1ID ~~J16\f~~Jge~~Jrn~:~~gs ~ rHOER~R"o~~~r~~le~~~':\'Jol'oTE GENERAL PLAN SCALE OF MILES ATLANTIC COAST OF MARYLAND 1 JANUARY 1999 BALTIMORE DISTRICT NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION 1:'1~ F~----- APPROPRIATION TITLE: construction General - Beach Erosion Control PROJECT: Cape May Inlet to Lower Township, New Jer~ey '(continuing) LOCATION: The .si.te of the reconunended project is located on the Atlantic Goast of New Jersey, app~oxirnately 38 miles southwest ·of Atlannc City. It ~ncludes the co111mun~ties of cape May c~ty including t!,e United sta'tes Coast Guard Training Center and Lower Township in Cape May County. DESCRIPTION': The plan of irnpxovernent consists of construction of two groins and placing beachfill qnd periodic nou.rishrneht which are programmed and, the construction of a weir breakwate.t which is unprogrammed. AUTHORIZATION: water Resources Development Act·of 1986. RE~INING BEN~FIT-REMAINING COST RATIO: Not applicable because initial construction is complete. TOTAL BEN~fiT-COST RATIO: l. 8 to l at 8 5/8 percent. INITIAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: l. 4 to l at· 8 5/8 percent (FY 1986). BASIS OF BENEE"IT-CO~T RATIO: Cape May Inlet to Lower Township, New Jersey, Benefits ReeVfllUation Report approved March 1988 at June 1987 price levels. - PHY.SICAL SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA l;TATUS: PERCENT COMPLETION (1 Jan 1999) COMPLETE SCHEDULE Estim~te<;l Federal Cost (COE) 87' 700,000 Initial construction 100 June 1991 Programmed Construction 81,090,000 Breakwaters 0 Indefinite 1/ Initial Construction 5,926,000 Entire Project 13 Being determined Periodic Nqurishment 75,164,000 PHYSICAL DATA: unprogrammed construction 6, 610,000 Beachfill: Elev +8 Feet (NGVD), 25-180 foot width Initial Construction 6, 610,000 Groins: 7 existing and 2 new groins, 360-786 feet Per~ odic Nourishment 0 Weir Breakwater: 2,560 linear feet rubble mound Periodic Nourishment: 1801 000 c1;1bic yards per year 1/ Completion of the 'breakwater element is indefinite pending a decision to construct this fe~ture. DIVISION: NOrth Atlantic DISTRICT: Philadelphia Cape May Inlet to Lower Township, NJ 1 February ·1999 147 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA (Continued) Estimated Federal Cost (USCG) '$49, 400,000 Progranuned Construction 45,773,000 Initial construction 3,458,000 Periodic NoUrishment 42,315,000 Unprogrammed Construction 3,627,000 Initial Construction 3,627,000 PeriodiC Nourishment 0 Estimated Non-Federal coSt 9,'700, 000 Programmed construction a, 967, ooo Initial Construction 660,000 cash contributions 660,000 Other, Costs 0 Periodic Nourishment 8,307 1 000 ·Cash contributions 8 1 307,000 Other Costs · 0 Unprogrammed Construction 733,000 II'li tial Construction 733,000 Cash Contributions 733,000 other Costs o Total Estima~ed Programmed Construction 135,830,000 Initial Construction' 10, 044 1 000 Periodic Nourishment 125,786,000 ' ' Total Estimated Unprogrammed Construction Cost 101 970, 000 Initial Construction ' 10, 970,000 Periodic Nourishment 0 Total Estirnat€.d Project Cost $146,800, 000 Initial C<;mst~uction 21, 014 1 000 Pe.riod~c Nourishment 125,786, ooo DIVISION: Nbrth Atlantic . DISTRICT: Philadelphia Cape May Inlet to Lower Towrtship, NJ · 1 February 1999 148 ACCUM, PCT. OF EST. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA (continued) FEJ;l COST Allocations to 30 September 1998 13,762,000 Conference Allowance for FY 1999 1,000,000 Allocat,ion for FY' 1999 '930, 000 1/ Allocations through FY 1999 14,692,000 19 Allocations Requested for FY 2000 1, 700, 000 21 Programmed Balance to Complete after FY 2000 64,698, 000 Unprogrammed Balance to Complete after FY 2000 6, 610,000 1/ Reflects $70,000 requction assigned as savings and slippage. JUSTIFICATION: t The .pr9j'ec.t area has experienced sub~tantial erosion. caus~d in part by the construction of the Cape May Inlet jetties in 1911 by the F~der~l Government. The jetties interrupt the natural. movement of sand along the coast that serves to replenish· downdrift beach areas. The City of Cape May and state of New Je~sey have spent nearly $4 milliOn since 1945 to combat' the resulting erosion. 'rhis e,rosion has left Cape May with little or no protective beach, thus endangering many hotels, small businesses, ptorninent horqes, and a U~S. Coast Guard Training center. This project would partially restore the.beaches of Cape May.lo~t as the direct result of the Cape May Inlet jetties. The potential for. future storm damages and maintenance of the seawall would be greatly reduced. The c;ommercial tourism industry would also be enhanced by the provision of sufficient beach area for recreat-ional usage. The project prevented approximately $9 million worth of damages during the 3-5 January 1992 storm, and approximately $500,000 in damages during the 7-8 January 1996 storm. Federal facilities have existed at the pr~~ent site sine~ the establishf!le~t of a U.~S. Navy Section Base in 1918. The u.s. coast Guard became the sole occupant in 1948 when the Recruit Training Center.was transferred from Florida. In addition to being the sole site for Coast Guard recruit training for the entire nation, the site also includes a Group/Air S.tation• cornple~, a Search and Rescue statioQ-1 a :;;mall boat maintenance facility, and berths for foUr cutters ranging from 82 to· 210 feet in length. The Commandant of the u.s. Coast Guard (USCG) offered to seek funds to support a cost-shared pr9ject with the Corps of Engineers, because of the erosio~ at the T.rain~ng Genter and t~e need for a cooperative effort to solve·tbe problem. The ave~age annt1;al. benefits ~re $3,993,000 at June 19~7 pric~ level:;.. These include annual storm damage reduction benefits of $2 1 .977,0001 . reduced annual. maintenance costs of $1901 000, and annual recreation benefits of $856,000. DIVISION: North Atlantic DISTRICT: Philadelphia Cape May Inlet to Lower Township, .~a 1 February 1999 149 Fiscal Year 2000: The requested amount will be applied as follows: Periodic Nourishment $1,556,.000 Planning, Engineering and Design $ 126, 000 construction Management $ 18,000 Total $1,700,000 In accordance with section 101 o:f the water Resources Development Act of 19861 costs of constructing ~~::~~~=~r c:~lgation of erosion damages attributable to the Federal navigation project at Cape May !~let I s~a~l b~he shared in the same proportion as the cost sharing provisions applicable to the original project.~tf~ape fa~lO~ ~0~ The o~igi~al P~:j~~\~~~i~~n~~~~:t~=t~:e: !~=e~:~Gc:~~ ~~p:p~~;~~~~~e~~ ~!~~dO~~ ~~:\:t~~c:~ ~:::~~t~ ~~~r~ed by ~he ~eeder .:~=~~~:~~~een the two locations. Costs for the rema.i,.ning fe~tures of ~he rec~mmended project will be allocat:ed to C~pe May City. The non-:Federal sponsor must comply with the requ1rements l1sted beloW. Payme~ts During AnnUal Operation, . ,Construction and Maintenance, and Reimbursement Costs Requirements of Local cooperation Reimbursememts Make cash contr~butions equal to 10 perceht of the initial construction cost and 10 percent of future periodic, nourishment (minus the Coast Guard sPare). $9,700,000 Total Non"';" Federal costs $9,700,000 $0. STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: The non-Federal sponsor is the. state of. New Jersey. A Memorandum of Agreement with 1 the USCG was exequted on. 4 August 1988. A Local Cooperation Agreement with the state of New Jersey was executed on .. 3 october 196 8. Cape May Inlet to Lower Township, NJ DIVISION: North Atlantic DISTRICT: Philadelphia 150 1 February 1999 COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTI11AT~: The curr~nt Federal {Co.rps of Engineers) cost estimate of $87 1 700,000 is an increase of $3, ~00, 000 from the latest estimate {$~3t800, QOQ} presented to Congress {FY 199~}. This change includeS' the following i terns: ITEM AMOUNT Price Es9ala,tion on con:5truction Features $ 3, 900,000 Totai 3, 90Q, 000 STATU~ OF ENVIRONMENTAL Il1PACT STATEHENT: The Final Environmental Impac:;::t Statement was filed With th8 Council on Environmental 'Quality on 8 October 1976 an a Final supplement was filed with ·th~ Environmental Protection Agency on 14 August 1981. Listing of J;»iping Plover (Chara~r;i.us MelQd.us} as an endangered bird species in January 1986 and the , recent determination by state wildlife officialS' that the Species nests in the project area have necessitated informal) consultation in accordance with Section 7 of the Enda~9'e~ed Species Act of 1973, A letter from u.~. Fish and Wild.l.ife; servic~, dated 20 August 1987 determined that the propoSed proj6ct is not likely to adversely affect the Piping Plover, provided an operational window is observed. Coordination.wi~h the service i~ continuing. OTHER INFORMATION: Funds tO initiate preconstruction engin'eer.i,ng and design were app.t;opriated in FY 1978, Funds to initiate construc~ion weie 'appropriat~d ·in'.FY!.~~66. Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 i:s applicable to . this proposed project due. to those shoreliile eiosi~n damages caused along the Cape May City shoreline by the Federal navigation project at Cape ·May Inlet. j ' DIVISION: North Atla~tic DISTRICT: Ph~ladelphia Cape May Inlet. tq; L9wer Township, NV: FebruarY 1999 151 VICINITY MAP SCALEINW.I.ES 14 0 :IS 10 OCEAN PLAN ICALOIIIFB!Y : 2000 2.011 4.0. LEGEND CAPE MAY INLET TO IZZ;i WORKCOIIPLETEDASOf~SEPiltl LOWER TOWNSHIP, NEW JER!?EY ~ WORKI'IIOPOSEDI'IIlltFUIIOSAYAlU.BLI\FORFV1119 1 JMUARY 1999 Dim WORK PROPOSEOWint FUNDS REQuE$TED R>R FY 0000 SCALE AS SHOWN iS:s:!J wMKRE ..1!2. APPROPRIATION TIT1'E: Construction, G~neral - tocal Protection (Flood Control) PROJECT: Great Egg Harb~r Inlet and Peck Beach, New Jersey (Continuing) LOCATlON: The project is lqcated in Cape May and Atlantic counties, New Jersey. Great Egg Harbor Inlet,· an unimproved inlet, is about ]..1 miles w~d~ at its narrowest po'int and provides a tidal connection between the Atlantic Ocean and ~reat Egg Harbpr Bay, the New Jersey Intracoastal Wat~rway, and Great Egg Harbor River. Peck B~ach is occupied in its entirety_ by the ·City of Ocean City and extends from Great Egg Harbor Inlet southward to Corson l;nlet', The ocean frontage is about eight m.i.ll's in length. D~SCR!PTION: The ~ec;:oiNnended plan consists of providing initial beachfill, with $Ubsequent periodic nourishment, with a minimum berm width c;>f 100 feet at an elevation of 8 feet above mean low water: The beachf1.11 .exten~s from surf Road southwest to 34th Street with a 1000 foot taper ~outh of 34th Street. 1his plan required the initial placement of roughly 6.2 mi~l~on cubic yards of material and wi+i requir~_periodic nourishment of about 1.1 million cubic yards every three yeqrs. The material for the initial construction, and periodic nourishment will be taken from the ebb shoal area located apout 5, 000 feet offshore of the Great Egg Harbor Inlet. Adclitionally, the construction of the project required the extensi~n of 38. storm drain pipes. All work is prqgrarnmed. AUTHORIZATION: Committee Resolutions on 15 December 1970 under the provision of Section 201 of the River and Harbor and Flood Control. Act of 1965 ancl the Water Resourc~s Development Act of 1986. REMAINING BF,:NEFIT-REMAINING COST RATIO: Not applicable because initial copstruction is COli1Plete. TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 5.1 to 1 at 5/8 percent. INITIAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 2.0 to 1 at 8 5/8 percent (FY 1990). BASIS OF BENEFIT-COS~ ~TIO: The April 1989 General Design Memorandum approved on 2 May 199Q at September 1988 price levels. Division: North Atlantic District: Philade1phia Great Egg Harbo~ Inlet and Peck Beach, NJ 1 February 1999 l53 PHYSICAL STATUS: (1 Jan 1999) PERCENT COMPLETION COMPLETE SCHEDULE SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA : I) 100 oct 1992 Estimated Federal Cost 367,000,000 Initial aeachfill (Phase 100 l1ar 1993 Initial Construction 20,556,000 Initial Beachfill {Phase II) Being determined Feriodio Nourishment 346,444,000 Entire Project 13 Estimated non-Federal Cost 198, ooo, 000 PHYSICAL DATA: Beachfill: Elevation +8 feet (NGVD); 100-Foot Width Initial Construction 11,151,000 Periodic Nourishment: 1.1 million cy every three years Cash Contributions 8,595,000 Other Costs 2,556,000 Periodic Nourishment 186,849,000 cash Contributions 186,849,000 other Costs 0 Total Estimated Project Cqst 565,000,000 Initial Construction 31,707' 000 ACCUMULATED Periodic Nourishment 533,293, ooo PCT OF EST. FED. COST Allocations to 30 September 1998 31,832,000 conference Allowance for FY 1999 150,000 Allocation for FY 1999 139,000 1/ Allocations through FY 1999 31,971,000 Allocations Requested for FY 2000 419,000 Progran:uned Balance to Complete. after FY 2000 334, 610,000 ' unprogramrried Balance to Complete after FY 2000 1/ ·Reflects $11,000 reduction ass~gned as savingS and slippage. Great Egg Harbor Inlet and Peck Beach, NJ Division: North Atlantic nf.strict,: Philadelphia 1 February 1999 154 JUSTIFICATION: The in~tclbility of Great Egg Harbor Inlet and the shoreline along Peck Beach is a significant pr9blem. Peck Beach, a 9-mile-long barrier island along New Jersey's southern coastline coritains the entire City of Ocean City. The primary problem at Ocea,n City is the vu~nerability of the beach and the adjacent highly ur)>anized development to e.rmdon and direct wave attack during major stqrm.s. HistoricC\1 erosion rates fo+ the beaches have averaged five fee~ per. year with severe erosion rates up to 35 feet p~r year in some locations. In March 1962, a s~vere storm caused breaching and fai:ling of bulkheads and dunes, and resulted in about $15,000, 000 damages of which $4, 000,000 was. attributed ,to direc::t wave attack. It was n~t~d th~t the area ~rQnting the existing Federal shore protection fc;>r O?ean ci,ty sustaine.;i less damage than other locations. The storm of 28 to 30 March 1984 caused extensive damage t.o the beach, boardwalk, properties and buildings due to the vulnerable Condition of the beaches. More recently, the stor.ms of 30 and 31 c;>ctob~r 1991 'and 3 tp 5 J~nuary 199~ caused extensive damages to .the beach,. boaJ:;dwalk, properties .an.d buil.dings. sin~e initial const.ruct~on of tl\e proj~ct was completed it) MaJ:;ch ·1993, ·approxima\:,~ly $20,000,000 worth of. darnage,s to the. area w~re p~tj3:verited duriJ!g t.h~ 3-5 January 1992 storm, $4,000,000 in damages to tqe lioardwalk dl:J.ring Hurricane felix in August ~9,95, and $1,000,000 dt~ring the storm of 7-8 January 1996. ' ' ' Beach erosion and loss ot. prOtective dunes have left Ocean .city extremely vulnerable to inundations and .direct wave attaCk frot_n even minor. storm events. The instability and shoali~g of Great Egg -Harbor Inlet also ci:-eates. navigation di:(ficulties for comrnerciB.l and recreation craft, particularly those as~ociated with low tides and gi:ound sWells and , damages due to running ag.rol,!nd. Unsafe navigation ,cc;>nditions due to excessive shoals at Great Egg Harbor Inlet required the State of N~w .Jersey to commence emei;"genc;:y d.tedgi~g operatic;m~ ~n October 1~89 ~ Ave~age annua,l benefits follow: Annual Benefits Amqunt Shoreline Protection (Beach Erosion) $31, 634, 800 Navigation 232·, 500 Total $31, 867' 300 FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested amount will be applied as follows: P,eri~dic Nouri~hment 200,000 Planning, Engineering, and Design 200,000 Construction M~nagement 19,000 Total 419,000 Division: North Atlantic District: Philadelphia Great Egg Harbor Inlet and Peck Beach, NJ 1 .February 1999 ISS NON-FEDERAL COST: In accordance with the cost sharing and financing concepts reflected in the Watez: Resources Development Act of 1986, the non-Federal sponsor must comply with the requirements liSted below: Payments During Annual Operation, Construction Maintenance, and Requirements of Local Cooperation and Reimbursements Replacement costs Modify· or relocate buildings, utilities, 2,556,000 $ 36,000 roads, bridges (except railroad 'b~idges}, and other facilities, where necess'ary in the construction of the project. Pay 35 percent of the cos~s allocated to 195,444,000 0 hurricane and storm damage reduction ~nd all costs of operation and maintenance of shoreline protection structures and out falls. Total Non-Federal Costs $ 1981 5001 000 $ 36,000 STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: The state of New Jersey is the non-Federal sponsor for the project. In a letter dated 28 September 19901 the state identified a funding source for the non-Federal costs and indicated that it was prepared to proceed with the final negotiat,ions to sign the Local Cooperation Agreement. The state 1 s financing plan was provided by (COO~ letter dated 28 February ;J.991: Th.e local cooperation agreement was executed in September 1991. COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTIMATES: The cu;-rent Federal cost· estimate of $367l Q00 1 000 is the same as the·latest estima):e ($367,000, 000) presented to Congress (FY 1999) ... '. STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ·IMPACT STATEMENT: The final Environmental Impact Statement was filed with the Council on· Environmental Quality on 13 No;vember. 1970 and a Final supplemental Eilvirorunental Impac~ Statem~nt U'SEIS} was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in August 1990. The Piping Plover (Charadrius Melodus) was listed as an endangered bird species in January 1986 and a determinatio~ that the species nests in the project area necessitated informal consultation in accordance with Section 7 of the End.angered Species Act of 1973. A ,letter from the Uf3 Fish and Wildlife service, dated 9 Jan':lary 1989 directed the Corps to minimize impaci;s t6 the Piping Plover in the project a,rea. A detailed plan to protect the Piping Plover-was included in the FSEIS. On 31 August 19901 ; the Advisory council on Division: North Atlantid District: Philadelphia areat Egg Harbor Inlet and Peck Beach, NJ 1.Februal:y 1999 156 JUSTIFICATION (Continued): Historic Pre~ervati?n informed the Di~trict that it did not c?nc~r wi~h the Findin~ of No Effect issued by the New Jersey State Histor~c Preservation Office on 12 April 1989 ~· A ptocess Memorandum of Agreem~ni: to address cultural resources CT?n9el;',ns rel~ting to· project effec~s on the shipwreck Sindia was executed on 4 April 1991. OTHER I~Fd~T:i:~N: FUnds tO ini~i~te preconstruction engineering and design were appropriated in F'! 197~. Funds to initiatf' .~o~struction w~re apPr~p~ia:ted in FY 1990. Initial construction of the project was compltited i,n Ma.rch 1993. 1 Division: North Atlantic · District; PMladelph~a· Great Egg HarbOr' Inlet and Peck Beach, NJ ',. 1 February 1999 157 VICINITY MAP $0AWW-II!I 210ft to GREAT EGG HARBOR INLET LEGENt> · AND PECK BEACH . OCEAN CITY, NEW JERSEY PLAN 1 JANUARY 1999 IZZJ woilKCOMPU.TEDAIOPHSt:P.•tH 1 &CALEI»MilE8 SC~EAS SHOWN Dl!!J ""'"'PROPOCI!D\'IITH ....SAVI.li\lll!FORFY119t 1 • 010. wtlo(pAOfOSEDYmtFUHOS!itEQU~}EOFORF'f200t U.S •.ARIIYBIGillEER DJSllUC'r,PHitA. IS.'S,1 , W0RKRI!Q(IJREDtDCOW\£TI!THEPBOJ~ArnR.FV2001 158 APPROPRIATION TITLE: construction, G~neral - Beach Erosion Control PROJECT: Sandy HOok to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey {Continuing) L9CATION: · The overall project area lies along the Atlantiq Ocean shoreline of New Jersey in Monmouth and Ocean Counties between Sandy Hook to the North and Barnegat Inlet to the south. Section I ... The Sea Bright to ocean Township section lies solely within.Morunouth County. The Sea Bright to Oc~an Town~hip section is the northernmost 12 miles of the project, which includes the followirtg communities: SE;!a Bright, Long Branch, Deal, Allenh\gst, and Ocean Township. Section II - Asbury Park to Manasquan section comprises the southern portion of Monmouth Count~ and ~s approximately miles long. It includes the following conununities: Asbury Pa.t;k, Ocean Grove, Bradley aeach, Avon-by-the Sea, Beltnar, Spring Lake, Sea Girt-{· State Encampment, and' ManasqUan. DESCRIPTION": The recommended plan for Section I, Sea Bright to Ocean Township, includes qonstructi,on of a 100-foot-wide berm- at-: an elevation 'of .10 "feet above mean low water with an additional 2-foot-high-storm-berm caP along the entire 12 mileS of project shoreline extending from Sea Bright to Ocean Township. The recommenc:;ied plan for section J;I, Asbury Park to· Manasquan, includes construction of a berm 100 feet wide at an elevation of 8. 4 feet above mean low water. All work on Sections I and II is prol:Jranuned. Section III, Point Pleasant to Seaside Park, was deauthorized. AUTHORIZATION: The River and Harbor Act of 3 July 1958 · fo"r Sections I and II, the Water Resources Develop!l\ent Act of 1986,··a:Ji.d the Water Reso\lrces Developfllent Act of 1988. REMAINING BENEFITS-REMAINING COST RATIO: 1. 4 to 1 at 1/8 percent, TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 1. 6 to 1 at 8 1/8 percent. INIT;rAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 1. 5 to 1 at 8 1/8 percent (FY 1985). BASIS OF BENEFITS-COST RATIO: Benefits are from the analysis contained in the General oesign Memorandum revised Ma'fch 1990 ·at June 1988· price levels. For Section II, Asbury Park to Manasqu~n Inlet, benefits are ;.rom the General Desfgn MemorandUm, dated· May 1994, at June 1992 price levels. Division: North Atlantic Di~trict: New York ~Sandy Hook tb Barneqat Inlet~ NJ 1 February 1999 159 ACCUM. PHYSICAL PCT, OF EST. STATUS PERCENT COMPLETION COMPLETE SCHEDULE SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL bATA: FED. COST (1 Jan 1999) 9 Being determined Estimated Federal Cost $ 979, 000,000 Sea Bright to Initial ConstrUction 164,585,000 ocean Township Being detenidned Periodic Nourishment 814,415,000 AsbUry Park to Manasquan Indefinite Estirnatied Non-Federal Cost 527' 000,000 Ehtire Project Being determined Initial Construction 92, 626,000 Initial construction 60 cash contributions 64,926,000 Periodic: Nourishment Being determined other Costs 27,700,000 PHYSICAL DATA Periodic Nourishment 434,374,000 Sea Bright to Ocean Township; Beach Cash ·contributions 434,374,000 Placement oVer 12 miles; notching Other C6sts 0 existing grOin's • Total EStimated Project Cost $ 1, 506,000,000 Initial construction 257' 211,000 Asbury Park to Manasquah: Beach Periodic Nourishment 1,248,789,000 Placement over 9 miles, notching existing groins. Allocations to 30 September 1998 95,502,000 conference Allowance for FY ·1999 10, ooo, 000 Allocation for FY 1999 9,007,000 y Allocations through FY 1999 104,509,000 11 Allocation Requested for FY 2000 9, ooo, 000 12 Prdgrai\unetl Balance to Complete 865,491,000 after FY 2000 tinpl:ogrammed Balance to Complete after FY 2000 0 11 Reflects $701,000 reduction assigned as savings and slippage and $292,000 reprogrammed from the project. Sandy HoOK to Barnegat Xnlet, NJ Division: North Atlantic bistrict: New York 1 February 1999 160 JUSTIFICATION: Erosion has seriously reduced the width of most beaches in the study area with conseqUent exposure of shore to storm damage. Because of this erosion of the· shore, the· area does not provide sufficient recreational beaches fOr the proper accoiranodation of the present and prospective tributary population. The State of NeW Jersey and mayors of affected conununities are very concerned o\rer the increased potential for damages to sfructures due' t6 the eroded • cpnditi<>n of the existing beaches. The March 1962 storm caused $40,400,000 in damages (October 1993 price levels) along the twenty five mile stretch of shore from Sandy Hook to Manasquan Inlet. Subsequent emergency restoration works iil this reach cost $7,383,.000 (October 1988 price levels). In Section I, the restored beach has eroded while the area behind the· Seawall is more densely developed. section II' suffers from eroding beaches alsO. The storms of 30 ahd 31 Odt6ber 1991, and 3 to 5 January 1992, caused $61SOO,OOO in damages t6 shore structures and the small beach seaward of the recently rebuilt state seawall within the project area. The rebuilt seawall was overtopped by the significant ocean W~ves, ahd its seaward toe is seVerely threateried by uhdercutting and coliapse because Of the lack of beach. The ave.tage annUal behefits from erosion control measures are $53,151,000. For Section II, the average annual benefits from erosion c'onttol measures are· $11,878,000. FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested amount will b'e applied as follows: Section I I seabright-Ocean 'rownship Initiate Contract 3 $ 300,000 Initiate Periodic Nourishment contract 1, 000, 000 ~1anning, Engineering and DeSign 195,000 Post-ConstructiOn Monitoring 74,000 ConStruction Manage~ent 50,000 sectio~·II, Asbury Park to Manasquan continue Asbury North Contract 6, 595,000 Post-construction Monitoring 286,000 constructioh Management 4so, ooo E&D During Constructiort so, 000 Total 9, 000,000 DiviSion: North Atlantic District: New York sandy Hook to Barne~at Inlet, NJ 1 February 1999 161 NON-FEDERAL COSTS: Consistent with the Water Resources Development Act of 1988, the non-Federal share of the first $~0, 000, 000 of construction of the Sea Bright to Ocean Township reach consiSts of rnqnies expended by non-Fec:teral interest:;; for reconst.z:uction of the seawall at Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach, New Jersey. Cost sharing of the project, in excess Of the first $40,000,000 increment, is in accordance'with Title I of the Water Resources DeveloPment Act of 1986. Section I requirement:;; also include lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations. In Se<;:tion II, the non Federal share incluctes a cash. contributions plus lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations. The combined Section I and Section II requirements follow: Payments Dudng Annual Operation, Const1=uction and Maintepance and Requirements of Local Cooperation j\eimbu Provic\e all lands, easementS, and rights-of-way, and 15,500, OOQ $ 5,180,000 relocations for Sections I and II. Of the first $40,000,000 in costs tOr iriitial construction 36,424,000 11, 960, 000 of Section I, non-Federal intel:ests a1:e reqUired to pa~T for reconstruction of the seawall ai: Sea· Bright and Monmouth Beach, New Jersey. Thereafte.x:, the non-Fe'deral ·share 'iS to be 35 percent Qf. the initial project costs in excess of $40,000,000, excluding non-creditapie la'nctS, easements, arid rights-of way, and bear all cOsts of operation anc;l mainten ance and replacement of. storm. damage reduction faCilities. Pay 35 percent of the first costs of se'Cti'on II, 28,502,000 5, 410,000 excluding non-creditable lands, easementS,· and ,;, ( rights-of-way 1 and bear all Cost of operation ' and maintenance and replacement of storm damage reduction facilities. ·· Pay 35 percent of t~e cost 'of periodic nOurishment for Sections 1 and II. 434,374,000 R9:consti:u6t Seawall' at Sea Bright and Monmouth Beach 12,200,000 1,100,000 {Pro'ject· ref:t'~ii:ement). I ' Total 'NOn-Fecterar costs $527' 000,000 The nbn-Federal sponsor will also be· reqUired to make all required p~yments dorlcUrrentl:Y with projeCt construction. DiVisiOh: Nol:tti Atlantic District:· NeW York Sandy· Hook ·to Barriegat Ini'et~ NY 1 Feb STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: The LoCal Cooperation Agreement for Section I was signed on 30 July 1992 with the state of New Jersey Department of Envirorunental PX:otection (NJDEP). For Section II, the Project Cooperation Agreement was executed in August 1996. COMPARISON OF ·FEDERAL COST ESTIMATES: The current Federal cost estimate of $979,0001 000 is a decrease of $47,000,000 f.tom the latest estimate ($1, 026,000, 000) Presented to Congress (FY 1999). This change includes the following items: It'ern .Amount . ·Price Escalation on Construdtion Features $~47' 000,000 Total $-47' 000,000 STATUS OF ENV1RONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: A final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Section I (Seabright to Ocean Township) was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency {EPA) in June 1990. A Record of Decision Was signed on 26 November 1990. lfhe EIS f OTHER INFORMATION:' Funds to initiate const1:uction were appropriated in FY 1985. Project benefits, costs, and financial data reflect Section I and Section I :I; only, Division: North Atlantic District: New York Sahdy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, NJ 1 February 1999 163 Corps of Engineers Department of the Army \ \ \ \ Monmouth County ·- .: . ~ 2 0 2 4 T.... t T T -h- ·····Scoloa4111M ' .'. 1?21 Wod1Cornf)leleci,t,sol30~19!)6 . Sandy Hook to Barnegat Ink!!. NJ DJI Wo!k Proposed will FLI\ds IMiJ8.ble lor FY 1999 Nwt'll>ik ll!Aict IIID Work PYoposed wl1h ~ Reqommende APPROPRIATION TITLE: Construction, General - Be(:!.ch Erosion Control PROJECT: Atlantic Coast of New York City, Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point (Coney. Island Area) 1 New York (Continuing) LOCATION: The project rs located on the South shore of Long 'Island in Brooklyn (Kings· County), New York, approximately nine miles south of the Battery, New York city. DESCRIPTION: Programmed work consists of construction of a 100-foot-wide berm at an elevation of 13 feet above mean low water, a groin at the western end of the restored beach, and a fillet of beachfill extending westward from the groin at West 37th street. Unprogranuned work includes construction of comfort and lifeguard stations, construction of a groin at east end of project and extending beach seaward of historic shoreline. AUTHORIZATION: Wat·er Resources' nevelopment Act of 1986 as modified by the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act of 1991. REMAINING BENEFIT-REMAINING COST RATIO: 2.7 to 1' at 8 7/8 percent. TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 2. 7 to at 8 7/8 percent. INITIAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 2. 8 to 1 at 8 1/8 percent (FY 1992). BASIS OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO: Final General Design Memorandum entitled Atlantic Coast of New York City, Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point (Coney Island Area), New York, dated April 1992, at October 1990 price levels. PHYSICAL STATUS. PERCENT COMPLETION (1 Jan 1999) COMPLETE ' SCHEDVLE Programmed Work Initial Construction 95 ·Being detennined Periodic Nourishment Being det.ennined Entil:e Project 19 Being detennined 1/ Unprogrammed Work Comfort and Lifeguard Inde~inite Stations Groin and additional 0 Indefinite Beach Berm !/ For pro~rammed work only; remaining Work is indefinite pending a decision io construct these features. Division: North Atlantic District: New York Atlantic Coast of New York City, Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point (Coney Island Area), NY 1 Februai:y 1999 165 ACCUM, SUMMARIZED FINJ\NCIAL DATA: PCT. OF EST. FED COST Estimated Federal Cost !I 91,000,000 Pirogrammed C9nstruction 60,727' 000 Initial Construction 12,347,000 j?eriodic Nourishment 46;380,000 . PHYSicAL. DATA comfort and Lifeguard stations 2,000,000 Beim 100 feet wide at 13 feet NGvD Unprogrammed Construction 30,273,000 Extended berm 165 feet wide at Initial Construction 13,979,000 ' 8 feet NGVD. ·'' Periodic NO\ltishment 0 Groins ~t the eastern am~ western Comfort and Lifeguard stations 16,294,000 ends of the restored beach. Estimated Non-F~d~ral Cost 45,600,000 Fillet of beachfill extendibg Programmed Construction 31,621,000 westward fx;orn groin ·at We~t 37th st. Initial Con~truction 5,741,000 Relocation and/ or reconstruction cash Contributioh 5, 741,000 of e~isting comfo~t and lifeguard Other Costs 0 station's. ·Periodic Noul;ishmenl: 25,880,000 Cash contributions 25,880,000 Other Costs 0 . Unprogranuned construction i3, ~79, 000 Initia1 Construction 13,979, 000 Cash Contribution 13,979,000 Other.Costs 0 Peri~dic Nourishment s:;ash Contributions 0 Other Costs 0 - Cornfo~t' 'and Lifeguard StC\tions 0 Division: North Atlantic District: New York Atlaritic co·ast of New York CitY, Rocl-:'a:way Inlet to Norton Point (Coney Island Area), NY '• ., ' 1 February 1999 166 ACCUM. SUM!1ARIZED FINANCIAL DATA: (Continued) I>CT. OF EST. FED COST Total Estimated Programmed Construction Cost 92,3481 000 Initial ConstrUction 18,088, ooo" Periodic Nourishment 72,260,000 Comfort and Lifeguard stations 2 1 000 1 000 Total E:~tima,ted UnprQgrammed Cons~'ruction Cost 44,252,000 Initial Construction 27, 958,000 Periodic Nourishment 0 Comfort and tifegual:d Stations 16,294,000 Total Estimated Project Cost 136, 600,000 Ini~ial c~:>r~struq~.ion 46, 046,000 Pen.odic Nourishment 72,260,000 Comfort and Lifeguard :?tations 18,294,000 Allocation to 30 September 1998. 13,941,000 Conference Allowance for FY 1999 . 800,000 Allocation for FY 1999 744, ooo· J;/ Allocations through FY 1999 14,685,000 16 Allocation Requested for FY' 2000 300,000 17 Programmed Balance to Complete after FY 2000 43,742, 000 Unprogrammed Balance to Complete after FY 2000 32,273,000 !/ RefleCts $56, 000 reduction assigned as Savings and Slippage. JUSTIFICATION: Erosion had caused serious damage to the shoreline extending through the communities of Coney Island, Brighton Beach, and Sea Gate, New York. Due to this erosion, residential and corrunercial developments had become increasingly susceptible to storm damage from wave attack and inundation. In March 19621 a severe nOrtheast storm caused breaching and failure of the beach and shore protection structures with damages estimated at $18,000,000. A recurrence of the March 1962 storm would have caused damages of approximating $561 000, 000 {October 1989 price levels) without the project in place. A 100-year event would cause si:o"x:m damage by wave attack in excess of $156, 000, 000 at Division: North Atlantic District: New York Atlantic Coast of New York city; Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point (coney Island Area), NY 1 February 1999 167 JUSTIFICATION (continued) October l993 prices. Project implementation has eliminated tnese dama<;Jes. Average annua~ benefits are a~ follows: ' Benefits Amount Shoreline Protection $6,180,000 Recr~ation 1, 040,000 Total $7, S20, 000 fiscal Ye~r 2000;_ ')'he j:equested: amount will be appliec;l as follows: Plani.ing, · Engineer~!l9 and Oesign 300,000 (Post..:coqstruction Monitoring) · ' Total 300,000 ij'ON-FEDERAit COSTS: In accordanc~ ':'it~ the cost sl)aring ~nd ~inancial concept$ reflected in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the non-~ederal sponsor must comPly with the Requirements listed below: Payments Annual Op~ra tion, ouring Maintenance, construction and and R~pliu:;em~nt Reimbursement Costs Requir~~~~t of ~ocal Cooperation ~ Q Pay 35 percent of the costs allocated to storm ~amitge reduction, ~nd 5~ perc~1'1t of the co~ts allocate!=! to recreation, bear ~11 costs of ope~ation, .rnainten~nce, and replacement of s\7-o~ re,duction facllities. 45,600,000 $950,000 Provide lan~s, ea5;7rnetlt~, and right:;J-of-way. 0 Tc;tal Non-F The non~rederal sponsor has also agreed t~ ma~e all reqpired payments concurrently with project construction. STA~US QF .,LOW COOI'J;;RJ>,TION: The. non-federa~ sponsor for this project is t;.he New ":(ork state Oepartment o~ Environmental conservation. The Lo~al Cooperation Agl;eem~nt for this Project was executed in october 1993. niviston: Nor~h Atlantic Olstrict: New York Atlantic Coast of New York city, 1\<,>ckaway Inlet· to Norton Point (Coney Island Area), NY 1 February 1999 168 COM?ARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTIMATES: The current Federal cost estimate of $91,000,000 is a decrease ~f $ 1, 500,000 from the latest estimate ($92, 500, 000) presented to Congress.: (FY .199,9). This change includes the followihg items: !tern Amount Price Escalation On Construction Features $ -1, sao, ooo Total -1,500, 000 STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: A final supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was fi:t,ed with the' United states Environmental Protection Agency oh 5 June 1992. OTHER INFORMATION: Funds to initiate preconstruction engineering and desigp wef.e ·appropriated in FY 1988 and funds to initiate construction were appropriated in FY 1992. ,_.. Oivision: North Atlantic Dist.rict: New York Atlantic Coast of New York City, Rockaway Ib.let to Norton I'oint (Coney tsl.and Area), NY 1 February 1999 169 Corps of Engineers t CONEY ISLAND SCALE IN FEET 1000---- . 0 1000 2000 ATLANtiC OCEAN 'rzl Wo!I(CompleledAsoiOOSefllembet 1996 ' DB Worl< Pf9p0Sfldwllh Funds Available forFY 1999 IITII Wotk Proposed with Fmds Recommended lor FY 2000 ~ Wotk Required to. Cofwlele the Project aHer 00 Seplernber 2000 110 APPROPRIATION TITLE: Construction, General .... Beach \~rosion Control PROJECT! .~ast Rock?-Way Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay, New York (continuing) LOCATION: The project is lOcated on the south shore of Long Island between East Rockaway Inlet and Rockaway Inlet, approximately seven miles southeast of the Battery, New York City. .The coastal area is a peninsula located entirely within the Borough of Queens, New York city. The project also includes the lands within and surrounding Jam"aica Bay. The greater portion of Jamaica Bay lies in the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens, New York City, with a small,. section at the e~st'eriy end, known as He<:ld o~ Bay in Nassau County, New York. DESCRIPTION·: The authorized project work consif3tS of nourishing a 100 to 200 fOot wide beach at an elevation Of 10 feet above mean low water from Beach· 149th st.reet to Beach 19th street. AUTHORIZATION: Water .Resources Development Act of 1974 and Water Resources DEwelopment Act of 1986 (Section 934). REMAINING BENEFIT-REMAINING COST RA'f'IO: Not applic:;:able because initial construction has been completed. TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: Not applicable be?ause initial construction has been completed. INITIAL BENEFIT~COST RATIO: 1'.5· to 1 at 5 1/2 percent (FY 1974). BAsis OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO: Benefits are from ,the latest available evaluation approved in June 1993 at December 1992 P.+ices .• PHYSICAL ACCUM. PCT. OF EST. STATUS PERCENT COMPLETION FeD. COST (1 JAN 1999) COMPLETE SCHEDULE SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA 63,000,000 Estimated Federal Cost 8, 813,500 Initial Construction 100 Nov 1996 54,186,500 Contract No. 6 Periodic Nourishn\ent Contract No. 7 Being determined contracts 1-5 16,386,500 Contract No. 0 Being determined ·contracts 6-8 371800,000 Entire Project 52 Being determined Beach NQurishment 52 Being determined East Rockaway to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay, NY Division: North Atlantic Division: New York 171 1 February 1999 ACCUM. PHYSICAL DATA PCT, OF EST. Original Periodic Nouris~ent of the SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA: (continued) FED. COST beach between aeach 19th Street and Beach 149th street, a aistance of 4 2 Estimated N<;>n-Federal Cost 45,600,000 miles, to maintain the berm to a width Illi tial Construction 8,813,500 of 100-200 feet at elevation 10 feet Periodic Nourishment 36,786,500 above mean low water, Contracts 1-5 16,386,500 Cont;.racts 6-8 20,385,000 other Costs 15,000 Total Estimated ProJect Cost 108,-600,000 Initial.: conStruction 17,627,000 PeriOdic Nourishment 90,958,000 Other Costs 15,000 Allcication to 30 september 1998 39,028,000 conference ~lowanee ·for FY 1999 3,30.0, 000 Ailocation for fY 1999 3, 069; 000 !I Allocations through FY 1999 42, 097,000 67 Allocation Requested for FY 2000 3,320,000 72 Programin~c'i' Balclnce to complete ·' after FY 2000 17,583,000 Unprog~arillned :Balance to Complete ' 0 after FY ~000 :!J Reflects $ 231,000 reduction a~signed for savings and slippag..,. JUSTIFICA~ION: Th~ Rockaway peninsula is subject to frequent and severe damage from tidal inundation from the ocean and the bay: Alo'ng the ·oceanfront, a se.t;iOus erosion ·'problem has· resulted fiom storms which J;:educe beach widths, expose .W~terfron,t development from wave attack, and c.ause los;; of recreational beach area. The project are~ is approxitnately 4 miles· of urban shorefront, princ~pally ·used for recreati6'n purposes. Large sections of the hig}l water beach 1 periodically e>;odes. Unusually iievere storms occurred fn 'SeptembeJ; · 19211 September 1960, March ).962 1 and April 1967. · +he September 1~60 sto~ caused maximum stonm tide of record, flooded 3 1 500 acres of deve~oped land, and resulted ~n loss~s exceeding $l7,80o,ooo.' · . Division: No):th Atla.ntic District: New York East Rockaway to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay, NY 1 February 1999 172 JUSTIFICATION: (continued) About 6 1 000 residences and hundreds of commercial buildings were severely damaged. Boats and waterfront facilities were badly hit. Public utilities and transportation were s.eriously disrupted. The project area was included in de'clared disaster areas after the September 1960 and March 1962 storms. Ap'precic:tble damage resulted from the April 1967 storm, causing local agencies to place about 250,000 cubic yards of beach fill under emergency conditions at an estimated cost of $400,000. In,October 1991 and December 1992 1 the area experienced flooding and beach erosion. A.Presid~n~ial disaster was declared for the area following the December 1992 storm. The reevaluation conducted Under Secti~n 934 of WRDA 1986 recommended continued FE!deral participation in three additional periodic nourishment cycles for the storm damage reduction features of the project. The Section 934 reevaluation report also reconunended further analyses to determine whether modifications to the project are warranted to reduce the cost of future periodic nourishment. Based on, the reevaluation conducted under Section 934 of, WRDA of 198i?, the average annua:t. benefits are as follo~s: Storm Damage R~duction $ 3,400,000 Recreation 6, 370,.000 Total $ 9, 770,000 FISCAL YEAR 2000: The req4ested amount will be applied as follows: Periodic Nourishment Contract #7· $ 2,750,000 Planning, E~gineering aqd Design $ 309,000 Construction Mahagement $ 210,000 Total $ 3, 320,000 NON- FEDERAL COSTS: In accordance with the cost sharing and financial concepts reflected in the Water Resources Development Act of 198.6, the non-Federal sponsor must comply with the ReqUiJ:etnents listed below: ' ' · Payments Annual . During Operation, Construction Maintenance and and Replacement Reimbursement · costs REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: Pay 35 percent of the costs allocated to storm damage 25,200,000 1/ reduction, and 50 percent of the .coS.ts allocated to 20,385, 000 Y. recreation, bear all costs of operation, maintenance, and replacement of storm reduction facilities Divis.ion: North Atlantic District: New York East Rockaway to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay, NY 1 February 1999 173 NON~FEDERAL COSTS: (continued) Payments Annl.\al D\lring Operation, const.t:uction Maintenance and and Replacement Reimbursement Costs REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: Provide lands, easements, and rights of way 15,000 !I Total Non~ Federal Costs $ 45; 600,000 $0 . The non-Federal sponsOr has also a9reed to make all required payrn~nts concurrently with project construction. 1/ Initial construction and nouJ;i.shment operations 1 through 5 (50/50 cost sharing). ~/.Includes posts associated with continued no.urishment operations 6-8 (65(35 co~t sharing) ~TATUS OF ~OCAL COOPERATIONf The non-Federal sponsor for this project is the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The project cooperation agreement (PCA) for this project, to extend t;he beach .nourishment period was e&ecuted in May 1985. The New York state Department of Environmental Conservation was the spo-nsor ~or the initial project in 1975 and for the first five nourishment operations through 198.8, COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTIMATES: The current Federal cost estimate of $6?, 000,000 is a increase of $1,000,000 oyer the latest estima.te ~$62, 000, 000) presenteq to co~:~gress (FY 1999). Tliis change includes. the, following item: ·,,·, ITEM AMOUNT Price EScalation on Construction Features 1, 000,000 Total 1, 000,000 STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: The final E~:~vironmental Impact Stat~me~t was filed with. the Council on Environmental Quality on 13 May 1974 for the initia,l. project and nourishment,. ')>.n Environmental Assessment for the extension of beach ~:~ou,rishment· was filed with the United States Environmental Protection Agency in April 1994. OTHER INFORMATION: Funds for initial construction were appropriated in Fy 1974 •. F~nds for the original 5 cycles of periodic nourishment were appropriated through FY 1988. Funds to initiate t})e continuation of periodic nourishment were appropriated in FY 1994. The periodic no11rishment pe;iod has. been extended for .an additional 3 nourishment cycles under authority of S<~ctio~:~ 934 of the: Water Resources Development ~ct of 1986. Division: North A~lantic District: New York . East Rocka~ay to Rockaway Inlet an~ Jamai~a Bay, WI 174 Cor s of Engineers u N S lllJ Work Corrf>!eledAs of 30 September 1998 East Rodof,;ay lnlelloRod 11S APPROPJUATION TITI,E: Construction, General - BeC\ch Erofiion Control PROJECT: Fire IslaQd Inlet to Jones In1et, New Y6rk (Continuing) LOcATION: Fire'Island Inlet is located approximately 40 ~les East of the Battery in New York city. The.~ateri~l dredged from the inlet wili ~e placed in the vicinity of Gilgo Beach which lies along the Atlantic Ocean Sh9reline of New York state: in Suffolk County. The beach is located approximately 6 miles west of Fire Island and extends l4,,.ooo feet· to ~he westerly end of Gilgo Beach. DESCRIPTION: The project ~s a multi-purpQse beach erosion control and navigation project. The recommended plan of action is the continuation of construction of the authoriz~d comblned purpose project because of serious erosion problems threateninq the shoreline. Thi~ involves pla9ing approximately 1,000,000 cubic yardS of sanQ every two y~arS, from th~ i:qlet, along G~lgo Beach to serve as a feeder beach for the area, All work is progranuned. AUTHORIZATION: 1958 Rivers and Harbors Act and 1962 Rivers and Harbors Act, as amended by section 506 (b) (5) of the Water ResOurces Development Act of 1996. REMAI!'IING BENEFITS-REMAINING ,qosT RATIO; 2.2 to ~ at :j. 1/4 percent. TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO:· 2.2 to. 1 at 3 1/4 per~ent. ' ' INITIAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 1.4 to 1 at 3 U4 P~.rcent (FY 1970). BASIS OF BENEFITS-COST RATIO: Operati~ns and Maintenance Prop.o~al for Fire Island Inlet, dated Oc~ober 1991 at october 1991 price levels. ;.:, Q~ vision: North Atlantic District: New York · Fire Isla:n.~ to Joh~S Inlet, NY 176 ACCUM. PHYSICAir PCT, OF EST, STATUS PERCENT COMPLETION SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA: FED. COST (1 Jan 1999) COMPLETE SCHEDULE Estimated Federal Cost 532,000,000 Periodic Initial Construction 9,300,000 Nouri::~hrnent 16 Being determined Periodic Nourishment 522,700,000 PHYSICAL DATA Estimated Non-Federal Cost 112,000,000 The project consists of providing a Initial Construction 6, 1QO, 000 navigation channel and hyqrau1ical1y Ca;sh Contr~butions 6,100,000 placing t)le, dredged material which Other Costs 0 is 9Q Percent sand along the shoreline in the vicin~ty of Gilgo Beach, New ~ork .Periodic Nourishment 105,900,000 Cash Contributions 105,900,000 Other Costs 0 Total Estimated Project Cost 644,000, 000 Initial Construction 15,400,000 Periodic Nourishment 628,600, 000 Allocations to 30 ·september 1998· 30, 021., 000 Conference Allowance ·for FY 1999 2,500,000 Allocations for FY 1999 2,325,000 1/ Allocation through FY 1999 32,346,000- 6 Allocation Requested for FY 2000 3,000,000 7 Programmed Balance to Complete after FY 2000 496,654,000 Unprogrammed Balance to Complete after FY 2000 0 1/ Reflects $ 175,000 reduction assigned as savings and slippage. Division: North Atlantic District: New York Fire Island to Jones Inlet, . .NY February 1999 177 JUSTIFICATION: Construction of the authorized combined purpose project will alleviate serious erosion problems threatening the shoreline. Loss of sand due to lack of bypassing has resulted in a serious erosion problem at Gilgo Beach which is threatening the shoreline which protects .a state highway and the Suffolk Counts sewer outfall. The situation has already resulted in two critical areas, and is projec~ed to result in more critical areas in the foreseeable future if erosion is not arrested. Sand from the combined project will ensure adequate protection against continued shoreline erosion. Average annual benefits are as follows: Annual Benefits Amount Shoreline Protection 2, 500,000 Road Protection 3, 400,000 Protection to outfall 63,000 Total 5, 963,000- FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested amount will be applied as follows: Complete Contract 5 $ 2,387,000 Planning, Engineering, anr:l Design $ 145,000 Construction Management $ 468,000 Total 3, 000,000 NON-FEDERAL COSTS: In accordance with the cost sharing and financial concepts reflected in the authorizing legislation, the non-Federal sponsor must comply with the requirements listed below. Payments During Annual Operation, Construction and Maintenance and Requirements of Local Cooperation Reimbursements Replacement Costs Pay 17.4 percent of the periodic nou~ishment $112,000,000 cost and dredged material disposal Total Non-~ederal, Costs $112, ooo, 000 Division: North Atlantic District: New York Fire Island to Jones Inlet, NY 178 STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: The non-Federal sponsor for this project is the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. In accordance.with paragraph l.a (2) of the agreement between the United States of America and the State of New York, signed on 19 June 1973, for local cooperation at: Fire Island Inlet & Shore Westerly to Jones Inlet, New York, the non-Federal sponsor is responsible for 17,4' percent of the periodic nourishment cost of the 'basic project, presently estimated at $600,000 annually. The nourishment ·cycle iS anticip~ted to occur eve'l=Y tWo years. COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ES~IMA.TES: The current F9;dei:al cost e~timat.e o{ •$532 1 000,000 is an increase of $201, 'ooo, 000 ove.t; the late,s~ estim~te {$331, oo'o, o.Oo) submitted to Congress (FY 1999). Th~ inci:ease is due to the p,revious omission of the impac::t of inflation on project costs over time. The estimate now represents a fully funded estimate which includes the inflation cqsts. This chan'ge includes the following item: Item AlnOUJl..t. Price Escalation on construction Features $201, 000, ooo. Total $201,000,000 STATUS OF ENV~RONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: A final Environmental Impact Statement was filed with the U.S. Department of Environmental Prot~ctiOn on 1 April 1987. A finding of No Significant Impacts was completed on 4 August 1987. OTHER INFORMATION: Funds were appropriated to initiate construction in FY 1970. During the 1980's this project was undertaken utilizing offshore disposal for sand bypassing under oP,eration and maintenance authority and funding. In March 1988, a plan was reconunended for solving both the erosion and navigation needs of the area which is in conformance with the' multipurpose project as formulated in the authorizing document and subsequently developed in the General Design Memorandum. The proposed plan was engineered to substantially· reduce costs while. still Providing the required storm protection and the majority of navigation improvements benefits not currently accruing to the natural channel {single purpose project). The p..roposal, which is in accordance with the authorizing document, is to maintain a degree of safety to the vessels using the channel d1,1ring the periods of high waves. Approximately 1, 000 1 000 cubic yards of dredged sand will be hydraulically placed along the shoreline in the vicinity of Gilgo Beach, for shore p'rotection purpo~es. The· plan was approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Ci~il Works on 2 August 1988. Division: North Atlantic District: New York Fire Island to Jones Inlet, NY 1 February 1999 179 .. I Are Island State Park IZtl W01k Completed As ol September 1998 , Fie Island Inlet to Jones lnle4. NY IIID W01k !'roposed with Funds Avanable In 1999 WO!k Proposed with Funds Recommended for FY 2000 ScalefnFeet New Yolk Dlstrlc1 IIID NOIIhAllanlicllivision ~ W~rk Requ~ed to Complete lhe Project after 30 September 2000 1000 0 1000 2000 I January 1999 APPROPRIATION TITLE: Cons~ruction, General - Beach Erosion Control PROJECT: Fire Island to Montauk Point, New York (Continuing) LOqATION: The overall project area, extends frOm Fire Island Inlet, easterly to Montauk Point along the Atlantic Coast of Suffolk county. The project is about 83 miles l~ng a;nd comprises about 70 percent of the total ocean frontage of Long !~land. Fire Island In~~t.i~ located about 50 miles by water East of ~he ¥attery, New Yo~k City. DESCRIPTI9N: The project provides for beach erosion control and hurricane 'protection along fiye reaches of the Atlantic Coast of New York from Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point. Work includes widening the beaches along th~ developed areas to a minimum width of 100 feet at an elevation of 14 feet above mean sea level, raising dune~· ~o an eleVation of 20 feet above mean sea level at Fire Island Inlet to. Hither Hills state Park and at Montauk and oppo~ite Lake Montauk Harbor, supplemented by grass planting on the dunes, intel;'ior drainage structures, construction of Up 'to 50 groii-ts, and subsequent periodic beach nourishment. A reformulation study is unde'rway to evaluate storm damage protection measures. An interim project: at Westhampton Beach is being constructed prior to completion of an ongoi~g overall project reformulation effort. This interim project provides for a beach berm extending easterly from Moriches Iillet to Groin 15 at an elevation of 9.5 feet above mean sea level backed by a dune with a h~ight of +15 fe~t ab,ove rnsl. The Westhampton Beach Interim proj~pt also inciudes tapering of the existing westernmost twO groins, ponstruction of a new groin between groins 14 and 151 and b~achfi~l as necessary within the existing groinfield (1 through 15) to promote sand transport. A Breach Conting~ncy Plan has been develoPed which permits closing of breaches ~f the ba~rier island with use of a pre approved Projec~ Cooperation Agreement format, provided that estimated breach costs are no greater than $5 million. studies are also underway for potential interim projects along Fire ·Is~and and West of Shinnecock Inlet. ·~ ~ AUTHORIZATION: River and Harbor Act 14 July 19601 modified by 'the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, the Water Resources Development Ac~ of 1986, and the Wate~ Resources Devel9pment A9t of 1992. REMAINING BENEFIT-REMAINING COST RATIO: 2. 6 to 1 at 2 5/8 percent. TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 2.6 to 1 at 2 5/8 percent. INITIAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 2.6 to 1 at 2 5/8 percent (FY 1963). Division: North Atlantic District: New York Fire Island to Montauk Point, NY 1 February 1999 181 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA STATUS: PERCENT COMPLETION (1 Jan 1999) COMPLETE SCHEDULE Estimated Federal Cost 571,400,000 Reach 2 Progranuned construction 153,800,000 11 groins 100 Oct 1966 Initial Construction 60,525,000 4 groins 100 Nov 1970 Periodic Nourislunent 93,275,000 8 groins 1/ Westhampton Interim 40 Being d;termined Unprogrammed Construction 417,600,000 Initial Construction 100 Dec 1997 Initial Construction 105, soo, 000 Periodic Nourishment Being determined Periodic Nourishment 312,100,000 Balance of Reach 1/ Re~ch 4 2 groins 100 Beach Fill-18.4 mi. 1/ Estimated Non-Federal Cost 294,300, 000 Balance of Project Progranuned Construction 59,440,000 Dune/Beach Fill-39. 7 mi. 1/ Initial Construction 18,230,000 27 groins ll Cash Contributions 15, 630, 000 Other Costs 2, Goo, qoo Periodip Nou~ishment 41,210,000 Reformulation .study 40 Being detennined Cash Contribution 41,210,000 Other Costs 0 studies for Interim Projects FiJ;e Island 90 Being detennined Unprogrammed 9onstruction 234,860,000 West of Shinnecock 95 Jun 1998 · Initial Construction s~, 86o, ooo Beach Conting~~cy Plan 100 Jan 1996 Cash Contributions 46,480,000 other costs 10,380,000 _1/ Schedule is dependent on the outcome of ttle Per,iodic Nourislut).ent 178,000,000 Reforniu;tatiop effort. Cash Contribution 178,000,000 PHYSICAL Dl}TA other Costs Dunes and beach replenishment: 73 1 5 mi+eS Dun~s: raise to el~vation · 20 feet, above rnsl Beaches: widen to a. minimum of 100 ft. Total Estimated Programmed ConstrU:c~ion 213,240,000 Interiol: drainage structures: 3 gated cuf.verts Initial Construction 78,755,000 Groins: 52 · ' · Periodic Nourishment 134,485,000 Periodic nourishment: 480,000 cubic yards/yr Division: No.rth Atlantic District: New York F~r~ Is;I..and to Montauk Point, NY 1 February 1999 182 ACCUM. PCT. OF )':ST. SUMMARIZEP nNANC~AL DATA (Contd.) FED. COST 'l;'otal Est.i.ma~ed Unprogranuned Construction Cost 652,460,000 Initial 'construction 162,36Q, 000 ?eriodic NouJ;isp.ment 490,100,000 'J;'otal J;:stimat~d Project Cost 865,700,000 Initial Construction 241,115,000 J?eriodic Nourishment 624,585,000 Allocations to 30 Septembe:t' 1998 46, 188,000 confer~nce Allowance for FY 1999 4, 400,000 Allocation for FY 1999 4, 091,000 1/ Al~ocations Through FY 1999 so, 279,000 9 A).location Requested for FY. 2000 3,250,000 Pro9rammed Balance to Complete Jlfter FY 2000 100,271,000 Unprograrnmec;i Balance to complete After FY 2000 417' 600,000 !/ Re!J.ects $309,000 reduction assigned as savings and slippage JUSTIFICATION: Erosion has seriously reduced the width of the shoreline in the study area with consequent exposure of the shore and the ma~nland to wave attack and inundation damages. A recurrence of the hurricane tide of record (September 1938) when 45 lives were lost, would cause inundation and wave damage estirna~ed at $717,000,000 (April 1996 price levels). As a result of the 11 December 1992 storm, in the Westhampton area (Section lB of Reach 2), over 200 residential structures were destroyed and two breacnes of the barrier island occurred. Closure costs for these breaches in 1~92 was approximately $6,600,000. Division: North Atbntic District: New York Fire Island to Montauk Point, NY 1 .FebruarY 1999 )83 FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested amount will be applied as follows: Planning, Engineering 1 and Design: Reformulation study 1, 810', 000 Westhampton Interim (periodic nourishment) 1,050,000 Westhampton Interim (construction management) 140,000 Westhampton Interim {post construction monitoring} 250,000 Total 3, 250,000 NON-FEDERAL COSTS: Local interests are required to bear 30 percent of the total project cost including periodic nourishment, for the westhampton Interim project and 35 percent of the total project cost for the Reformulation project, which includes the value of lands, easements, and rights-of-way. Payments During Ant'lual Operation Construction and Maintenance and Requirements of Local Cooperation: Reimbursements Replacement Costs $ 12,980,000 Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way 1 and relocations. Pay 30 percent of the first costs for the Westhampton Interim 62,110,000 (,C) project and 35 percent of the first costs for the remainder of ~a:. the project including creditable' lands and easements and rights of way; and bear all costs of operation and ma~ntenance and replacement of storm damage reduction facilities, Pay 30 percent of the periodic nourishment cost for the 219,210,000 Westhampton· Iriterim Project up to November 2006 and.35% thereafter for the· overall authorized project. Total· Non-Federal Costs $294,300,000 $0 The non-Federal sponsor will also be required to make all required payments concurrently with project construction. Division: North ·Atlantic District: New York Fire Island to Montauk Point, NY 1 Febr\)ary 1999 184 STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: The agency responsibl~ for local cooperation is the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC} , Assurances of local cooperation wer~ executed by the NYSQEC on 14 August 1963 and accepted by the Federal Government on 20 August 1963, A project cooperation agreement for the Westhampton Int~rirn project was executed in February 1996, COMPARISON OF' FEDERAL COS';l' ESTIMATES: The current Federal cost estimate of $571,400,000 is a increase of $29,400,000 from the latest estimate ($542, 000, 000) presented to Congress (FY 19~9). This change includes the following items: Item .Amount Price Escalation on Construction Features $26, BOO, 000 Other Estimating Adjustments $ 2,600,000 Total $29,400,000 STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: The final Environmental Impact St~tement (EIS) was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on 28 January 1978. on 7 March 1978, the Department of .the Interior (POI), suppo.+ted by other agencies referred the EI.S to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as unacceptable. subsequent to the strong objections on the projectS fi1n8.1 environmental impact statemen~, rnee~ings were h~ld between September 1978 and January 1980 with DQI, USEPA, ·u.s. Department of commerce, and NYSDEC. Two public seeping meetings were held in october 1979. Subsequently, the Fed~ral agencies. agreed to a basis. ~or thia reformulation of the Fire Island to Montauk J?oint project, including a general agreement on the studies necessary to answer the outstanding concerns •..An · environmental analys,is was included in Supplement- No. 2 to GDM No': ., 1 to determine envl;~onmentally' acceptable measures of beach p:.;otection for the critically eroded areas at Westhampton Beach. Division: North Atlantic District: New York Fire rsland to Montauk Point, NY 1 February 1999 185 OTHER INFORMATION: Initial pl~nning and construction funds were appropriated in FY 1963. The work remaining to be done is completion of construction of Reach 2-Moriches Inlet to Shinnecock Inlet, Reach 4-Southhampton to Beach Hampton, initiation of construction of Reach 1-Fire Island Inlet to Moriches Inlet, Reach 3-Shinnecock to Southharnpton, and Reach 5-Beach Hampton to Montauk, as well as the completion of the reformulation effort.. The Corps of Engineers concurred with the request by the State of New York to initially construct 11 groins {Reach 2) 1 and 2 groins {Re.ach 4) with beach fill to be added as riecessary but not sooner than 3 years after groin compietion. In recognition of the critical condition of the beaches due to earlier storms, the corps recommended to the state in June 1967 that the 3 year observation period be waived and that construction of urgent hurricane protection be resumed. The state concurred and requested that work be undertaken on additional groins, replacement of beach fill and dunes in Reach 2, a:,; well as construction of groins, drainage structures and dune fill in Reach 4. suffolk county, however, did not endorse the placement of beach and dune fills. Continuing negotiations during FY 1969 resulted in agreement on a plan for construction for certain groins, drainage structures, beach fill, and dunes to an interim height of 16 feet in Reaches 2 . and 4. In December 19731 the state requested planning for Reach 2 (Sectiort lb}, (Westhampton Beach) and Reach 4 (Georgica Pond) 1 indicating that it would provide funds. Planning resumed and assurances were requested from the state in October 1974. However, strong opposition developed with Suffolk County and the 'county legislature refusing to provide support. Subsequently, erosion of the shoreline downdrift of the groin field at Westhampton Beach accelerated to the point where Dune Road, the only access to the homes in this area, was under water during normal high tide. In December 1992, two breaches occurred in the barrier island near t-Testhampton Beach, which were subsequently closed. An interim plan for the severely eroded Westhampton Beach area was prepared in June 1994, which provides for a lower level of protection than that provided in the original authorization. This interim plan has been designed such that it could be modified based on future reconUnendations in the to-be-completed Reformulation study.· The USEPA and DOI agreed in concept 'to the interim plan,· prov'ided that a full environmental asse'ssmet:J.t and/or environmental impact st~dy was completed, and the reformulat~on. of the ~verall prOject Was ~einstated. 'T~e. estimated cost of the reformulation effort is $17 million. The reformulatiob. study' is Scheduled for completi~b in June 2002'. In the interim, studies are underway to assess the feasibility of interim proj~cts along Fire Island and wes.t 'o'f Shinriecock x'~let. The cost of' these interim Studies is $4 million. Additionally, a Breach Contingency Plan was app.rove<;f in 'Janu,9-r¥ 19'9'6 to provide for rapid response to breaches along the islands .whil.~+ awaiting ~OmPletion of the reformulation s,tudy . . :•1, Division: North Atlantic District: New York Fire Island to~ Montauk Point, NY 1 February 1999 186 0 u ,. p s 1 I 0 tl A 1 L /1. IZlJ Wlllk Co!rPeted As <1130 Seplembe< 1998 Fi'e l 187 1 February 1999 APPROPRIATION TITLE: Construction, General - Local Protection Project (Flood control) PROJECT: Town Brook, Quincy and Braintree, Massachusetts (Continuing} LOCATION: The project is· located in the City of Quincy and the Town of Braintree on the south side of Ma~sac_husetts Bay, along the eastern shore of Massachusetts, 7 miles south of Boston in Norfolk county. . ' DESCRIPTION: The project involves modificatiotl of Old Quincy Dam to provide dependable flood storage capacity, construction of 4, 060 feet of 12-foot diam~ter relief tunnel and appurtenant intake and outlet structures, and construction of 1, 700 feet of channel improvements along Town River just downstream of the tunnel outlet. All work is progranuned. AUTHORIZATION: Water Resources Development Act of 1986. RE~INING BENEFIT-RE~INlNG ~OST RATIO: Not applicable because project construction is substantially complete. TOTAL BENEF!T-COST RATIO: t.i7' to 1 at 6 5/6 percent. INITIAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 1.11 to 1 at 6 'S/.6 'percent (FY 1967). BASis OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO: BenefitS are from the last detailed evaluation and are at October 1989 price levels. Benefit-cost ratios are baB.ed on the project ~un.ctioning i~qependently. ACCUMULATED PHYSICAL PCT. OF EST. STATUS PERCENT COMPLETION SU!1MARIZED FINANCIAL DATA FED COST I . (1 Jan 1999) COMPLETE SCHEDULE Estimated .Federal Cost $30,600,000 Dam/Reservoir Modification Being determined Estimated Non-Feideral Cost 10,200, 000 l/ Channel Improvements 100 Jun .1994 Cash Contribution' $3 210 .000 1 1 Relief Conduit 100 Jan 1~97 Other Costs 6 930, 000 1 Entire Project 95' Being determined Total Estimat~d Project Cost $40,600,000 ]:_/ Excludes $9,000,000 non-Federal cost for dam safety work. Division: North Atlantic District: New England Town Brook, Quinc;:y and Braintree, MA 1 February 1999 188 ACCUMULATED •• fGT 1 PF EST. SUMMARIZED !fiNANCIAL DATA (Continued) FED COST PHYSICAL DATA Allocations to 30. September 1996 $26,757,000 94 Relief conduit Confe~ence Allowance for· FY 1999 300,000 Type ••...... •. tunnel, coilCrete tunnel lining Allocat~on for FY 1999 243,000 1/ Size, inside diameter .•..•....••.•...•.....•.• 12 feet Allocations through FY 1999 29,000,000 95 Length •••••••••••••••.•••.••.•••.•••••.••.• 4, 060 feet Allocation Requested for FY 2000 1, 500,000 99 Channel Improvement Programmed Balance to Complete Length •.••••••••..•••••••••••••••••••.••••• 1, 400 feet After FY 2000 ~00,000 Southern Artery Culvert Unprogrammed Bala~ce ~o. Complete Type ...... • Triple rectangular box, precast concrete After FY 2000 Length ...... , ...... 300 feet She (each box) ••••••••.••••.•••••• 7 feet x 16 feet ],/ Reflects $21, 000 assigned savings and slippage and $36, 000 reprogrammed from the project. JUSTIFICATION: Town. Brook flows through the heavily developed urban area. of the City of Quincy, located on Massachusetts Bay j\lst squth of B;oston. T.own ijrook Cioes not have the capacity to carry floodflows from the highly developed watershed. Its small cha'nnel capacity has .r~sulted in· increasingly severe and frequent flooding in the downstream residential and commercial districts of Quincy. The a':Cook has b~en almost completely modified in its lower developed r~aches by a system of culverts, underground conduits, and walled channels. Hundreds of residential and commercial properties are subject to flood damage.. The two most recent major floo<;is occurred in August 1955, the greatest of record,· and March 1968. The 1955 flood was nearly a 100-year event, and a recurrence of that event would cause losses in exc~ss of $11,000,000. Recurring losses for the 100-year event would be more than $181 000,000. A recurrence of the 1968 flood, approximately a 10-year event, would.' cause nearly $2,00.0 1 000 in damages. The proposed project would prevent damages from all floods up to and including a flood event having an a'verage recurrence frequency of once in 100 years, as well as significantly reducing damages from larger, more infrequent floods. The average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $3,569,600 at 1 October 1969 prices •. Division: North Atlantic District: New England Town Brook, Quincy and Braintree, MA 1 February 1999 189 FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested amount will be applied as follows: Continue Construction $1,280, 000 Planning, Engineering and Design 100,000 Construction Management 120,000 Total $1,500,000 NON-FEDERAL COSTS: In accordance with the cost sharing and financing concepts reflected in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the non-Federal sponsor must comply with the requirements listed below. Payments During Annual Operation, construction Maintenance, Repair, and Rehabilitation and Requirements of Local Cooperation Reimbursements Replacement ~osts Pay all costs for approved compatible work associated with t;he project 6, 100,000 which will be credited toward t~e total non-Fe~eral share of proj~C~ costs. ~rovide lands, , easements and right~-of-way. 830,000 Pay 8. 015 percent of the c~sts allocated t.<;> flood' cont~ol :to brin !/ Excludes $9,000,000 non-Federal cost for dam safety work. Town Brook, Quincy and Braintree,· .MA. Division~ North Atlantic District: New ~ngland 190 Fe~;ruary 1999 ------ STATUS OF ;LOCAL COOPERATION: The Met.t;opolitan District Commission (MDC) 1 an agency of the Conunonwealth of Massachusetts, j,s ~he local sponsor for the project. A Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA) was executed on 7 July 1992. The current non-Federal cost estimate of $10,200, 000, which includes a cash contribution of $3,2101 000, is an increase of $220, 000 f~om the non-Federal cash estimate of $3,050,000 notec;:l in the LCA. The MDC,· by letter dated March 10, 1987, ·made ap)?l~c;>tion to ABI\(CW) for credit of $7,400,000 in compatible work done by them, in accordance with Sections .104 and 401 of the Water Resourc~s Development Act of 1986. The ABA(CW) approveq on 20 May 1988 a credit of $6,ioo,ooo for their WQrk. T)l~ MDC has ob1:~ined all state and local penni~s necessary for project construction. COMPAAISON OF FEDERAL COS'l' ESTIMATE~; The current'. Federal cost· estimate of $30,6001 000 is an increase of $690 1 0.00 from the latest ~stirnate· ($30, 000, 000). submitted t~ Congress (n 1999). This change includes the following items: Item Amount fest contract award and other estimating adjustments .$600,000 Total $600, 000 STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: An Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant IJ?P~ct was completed on 29 September 1980. OTHER INFORMATION: runds to initiate preconstruction engineering and design wet" appropriated in FY 1983 a~d funds to initiate construction were apprqpriated in FY 1987. l;li vision: No~:th Atlantic District: New England Town Brook, Quincy and Braintree, MA. 1 February 1999 191: LEGEND . - Work Completed as of 30 September 1998 [[[[]] Work UndeJWay with Funds available for FY 1999 ~ Work Proposed with Funds Requested for FY 2000 !;.;.;.;.;.;.~;.J Work Required to Complete the Project after FY 2000 - Approximate Limit of 1955 Flood TOWN BROOK LOCAL PROTECTION GENERALP~~ Quincy and Braintree, MA · ~CAlE IN FEET I January 1999 1000'. 1000' ""' N_ew England District, Corps .of Engineers North Atlantic DMsion 192. APPROPRIATION TITLE: Construction General - Local Protection (Flood Control) PROJECT: Passaic River Preservation of Natural Storage Areas, New Jersey {Continuing) LOCATION: The· projec.t. is located in l-forris 1 Essex and Passaic Count~es, New Jers.ey DESCRIPTION: This project element involves the acquisition of 5 1 350 acres of natural floodplain storage areas in the Central Passaic River Basin to preserve them from future development. This measure is a flood damage reduction element that wil·l prevent increases in flood flows that would be caused by the loss of these areas to new development. This acq~isitiqn, in conjunction i-lith nearly 16, 000 acres already protected under existing Federal and State programs, will prese'rve 'tpe flood storage and environmental characteristics of the Passaic River Cent~al Basin wetlands. AUTHoRIZ~T;roN: Water Resources Deve~opment Act of 1990, Section 10i (a) {18) a~ modified by seCtion 102 (p) of W~DA 1992. REt1AINING BENEFIT-REMAINING COST RATIO: 1".2 to 1 at 7 3/8 percent. TOTAL BENE.FIT-COST RATIO: 1.2 to 1 at_ 7 3/8 percent. INI7'IAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 1.2 to 1 at 3/8 percent (FY 1998), BASIS OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO: Benefits and costs are from the Final General Design Memorandum dated July 1996 at October 1994 price levels, approved 30 october 1996 and updated in FY. 1998. ~ Division: North Atlantic District: New York PaSsaic River Preservation of Natural storage Areas, NJ 1 February 1999 193 ACCUM. PHYSICAL PCT. OF EST; STATUS PERCENT COMPLETION l>UMMJ\R~ZED FINANCIAL DATA FED. COST (1 Jan 1999) COMPLETE SCHEDULE Entire Project 0 Being determined Estimated Federal cost 18,300,000 Estimated Non-Federal cost 1,600,000 PHYSICAL DATA · c11sh Contributions 0 Nonstructural Flood Control: Acquisition of 5,350 acres of natural floodplain storage. areas in the Other 1,600,000 Passaic River Basin Total Estimated Project Cost 19,900,000 Allocations to 30 september 1998 550,000 Conference Allowance for FY 1999 l,ooo,ooo Allocation for FY 1999 930,000 y Allocatioll through FY 1999 1, 480, 000 10 Allocation Requested for FY 2000 1,800,000 22 Prog~anuned Baljance to Complete After FY 2000 15,020,000 Unprogrammeq Balance to Complete After FY 2000 !/ Ref~ects $ 70, 000 lteduction assign~d as savings and slippage. JUSTJFICATION: The Passaic River aasiq ~uffers average annual damages of $116,016,000 (Oct. 199~ price levels}. P.topertie·s experiencing damage include re$idential, commercial, iridustrial, public and municipal facilities. There are approximately 191 500 structures ,in the 100-year floodplain. The most severe recent flood occurred in .APril 1984, 9lairning 3 lives, with damages estimated at $4931 000,000. The entire basin, or portion thereof, was declared a disaster a,rea in 1968 1 1971, 1972, 19731 twice in 1975 1984, and 1992. Th~ recurrence of the October 1903 flood of record would ca\Jse damages of $2,492,000,000. The project does not support development of the floodplain directly or indirectly. Of the s,aso. acres ~o be acquired, .5,200 are wetlands. The ~cquisition of t~e patural storag~ areas,· in conjunction w~th maintenance o~ the ex~sting floodways in acquisition areas, would maintain the environmental characteristics of the basin Py p~eserving wetlands, open space and fish and wildlife habitats. Average annual benefits (Inundation Reduction) are $1,826,300. · · Divis~on: North Atlantic Pistrict: New York Passaic Ri,ver Preservation of Natural storage Areas, NJ February 1999 FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested amount will be applied as follows: continue A'cquisitions $1,490,000 Planning, Engineering and Design 60,000 construction Management 250,000 Total $1,800,000 NON-FEDERAL ·coST: In accordance with the c'ost sharing and fina~cing concep~s ref~ec~~=t;~ ~:~o~~ter Resources Development Act of 1986, the non-Federal sponsor must comply w~th the requ remen s Annual Operation, Maintenance, Payments Repair, During Rehabilitation, Construction and and Replacement Reimbursements C_osts Requirements of Local Cooperation: 1, 600,000 $ 212,000 Lands already acquired by sponsor f.or project and to be maintened with project cooperation agreement. 0 Pay 25 percent of the costs allocated, to flood control to bring the total non-Federal share of flood control costs to 25 percent, as dete:nnined under section 103 (mf of the water Resources Development Act of 1986 to reflect the non-Federal sponsors ability to pay, and bear all costs of operation, maintenance, repair· rehabilitation and replacement of flood c~ntro~ facilities. credits as per WRDA 1990/92 will reduce Non-Federal share by $3,360, 000 from $3,360, 000 to $0. $ 1·, 600,000 $ 212,000 Total non-Federal Costs Passaic River Preservation of Natural Storage Areas, NJ Division: North Atlantic District: New York 195 1 February 1999 STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: The State of New Jersey, through its Department of Environmental Protection (NJOEP), is the non-Federal sponsor. By letter dated 8 December 1995, N~w Jersey G9vernor Whitman expressed support for this project element, The PCA is scheduled to be executed in June 1999. COMPARISON OF FEDER,AL COST ESTIMATES: The curreJlt Federal cost estimate of $18,300 000 is an increase of $3,500,000 over 1 the latest estimate ($14, 800, 000) presented to Congress (FY 1999). The change includes the following item: Item Amount Price Escalation on Construction Features 100,000 Other Estimating Adjustments $3,400,000 Total ' $3,500, OOo STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: The FEIS was filed with EPA on 17 January 1989 and the SEIS with EPA on 20 October 1995 (Note: The SEIS addresses changes to other project elements. No changes have occurred to the Pr~sel:vation element) . OTHER INFORMATION: Funds to initiate preconstruction engineering and design were appropriated in FY 1988 and funds to initiate cotlstruction were appropriated in FY 1998. The Preservation of Natural Floodplain St9rage has been determined to be a separable element of the overall Passaic River Flood Damage Reduction Project which can be ·implemented ·without adverse impact anywhere in the basin. · Division: North Atlantic District: New York Passaic River Preservation at' Natural Storage Areas, NJ 1 February 1999 196 ------~------ Corps of Engineers LOCATIOHWAP ' SC.\lJ!e HMLU ' .. 1H4 HN $C1L!I~ f£EJ APPROPRIATION TITLE: Constz;uction General - Local Protection (Flood Control) PROJECT: 'Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey (Continufng) LOCATION: The project. is located on the Ramapo River in the B h th B h f oroug of Oakland in Bergen County, and Wayne Township and e oroug o Pompton Lakes in Passaic County New Jersey. Th j West ~akland Ave~ue in Oakland. 1 e pro ect extends from the Pompton Lake Dam upstream to 0 ~=~~:~=T~~~~s T:: i~:n e:~s!~~~o;::;~:n h~:k:w~a:aj ~h features • The fi7st involves the installation of flood control and deepening 5,800 feet of th~ Ramapo River .Mitie ~~con~ featu~e ~nvolves.channel modification consist~n9' of '-f'idening wetland creation. All work is progranuned. . ga on or env rorunental ~mpacts is also included in the form .of AUTHORIZATION: Water Resources Devel~pme~t Act f 1986 d · 1996 o an sect~on 301!(a} (9) of the Water Resources Development Act of R~MAINING BENEFIT-REMAINING COST RATIO: 1. 4 to 1 at 7 3/8 percent. TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 1. 4 to.1 at 7 3/8 percent. INITIAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 1. 3 to 1 at 3/8 percent (FY 1995). BASIS OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO: Benefits and costs are from the General · 1993 price levels and updated in FY 1998. Des~gn Memorandum approved July 1994 at October Division: North Atlantic District: New York Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jeisey 1 February 1999 • 198 ACCUM. PHYSICAL PCT. OF EST. STATUS PERCENT COMPLETION SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA FED. COST (1 Jan 1999) COMPLETE SCHEDULE Estimated Federal Cost $11,240,000 Channels & Canals 0 Being determined Estimated Non-Federal Cost 1,3601000 Flood Diversion Cash C~ntributions 625,000 Structure Being determined Other Costs 735,000 Entire Project Being determined Total Estimated Project Cost 12,600,000 PHYSICAL DATA ~locations to 30 September 1998 2, 693, 000 conferenc~ Allowance for FY 1999 3, 000, 000 Channels & Canals: 5800 feet of channel Allocation for FY 1999 · 2,790,000 .!/ modification along the Ramapo River Allocation through FY 1999 5,483,000 49 Flood Diversion structure: Installation of taintor Allocation Reql!ested for FY 2000 1,300,000 60 gates at the Pompton Lake Dam. Progranun~d Balance to Complete After FY 2000 4, 457,000 Unprogrammed Balance to· Complete After FY 2000 1:_1 Reflects $210,000 reduction for sqvings and slippage. JUSTIFICATION: The project area suffers annual flood damages of $1,100,000 {oct 1995 price level) without the project. Damages .. 9f $200,000 would occur with the project in place. The level of protection is the 40-year flood. The project would also provide protection against larger flood events. The maximum flood of record was the April 1984 flood; an approximate 40-year event, which resulted in residential damages of $3 1 500~ 000, in 1984. This flood would cause damages estimated at $5,200,000 if it occurred today (Oct 1995 price level}. Approximately 300 families were evacuated during the 1984 flood and 20 people were trapped and had to be rescued. Flooding also 'caused traffic disruption causing many businesses to close, Damaging floods have occurred 11 times in the past 20 years with the most recent floods in 1983, 1984, 1987 1 and 1993. The project does not support the development of the floodplain directly or indirectly. The project does avoid, where possible, both long and short term environmental impacts. Mit.igcilion includes the construction of 5. 0 acres of wetlands in the project area. Average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $1,148,000 at October 1998 price levels. Division: North Atlantic District: New York Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey 1 February 199.9 199 FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested amount will be applied as follows: Continue Channels and Canals $ 1,175,000 Planning, Engineering and Design $ 5o,'ooo Construction Management $ 75,000 Tot~l $ 1,300,000 NON-FEDERAL COST: In accordance with the cost sh~ring and financ.\ng concepts Development Act of 1986, the non-Federa~ sponsor must comply W'th t!>e reflected in the Water Resources .... requirements listed below~ Operation, 1\nl)ual Maintenance, Paymerlts Repair, During 1\ehabilitation, ConstruCtion an<~ . Requirements of Local Cooperation: and Repl.acemen't Reimbur.sernents cOsts Provide lands, easements, rights-of-Way and borrow and excavated or · ' ' p5,ooo dredged material disposal areas. Pay 25.p~rcent of t~e costs allocated to flood control to bring the total 625,000 $ 50,000 non-Federal share of flood control costs to 25 percent, as determined under section 103 (m) of the Wat7'~ Resources Development Act of 1986 to reflect the non-Federal sponsors ability to pay 1 and bear all co~ts of operatiqn, maintenance repair, rehabilitation and rePlacement of fl~od control faci~ities, Credits as per WRDA 1990/92 will reduce Non-Federal cash share by $1,765, ooo from $2 390 ooo to,$625,000. ' ' Total non-Federal Costs $ 1,360,000 $50,000 Division: North Atlantic District: New York Ral'!Klpo River at Oakland, New Jersey 1 February 1999 200 REQUIREHENTS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: Provide lands, easements, right of way, and borrow any excavated or dredged material disposal area; Pay 25 percent of the costs allocated to flood control to bring the total non-Federal share of flood control costs to 25 percent, as detennined unde'r Section!' 103 WRDA (m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to refl,ect the non-Federal sponsors ability to pay, anc;l bear all costs of· operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and replacement of flood control facilities. STATUS OF LOCAL .COOPERATION: The State of New Jersey, through its Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), is the non-Fedei:al· sponsor. By letter dated 22 October 1993, NJDEP indicated its commitment to the project. ·Funds .to cover the entii:e nOn-Federal share ·of the project cost have been programmed into the New Jersey State Capital Budget for FY 1995 and~ FY 1996. · Thet~'funds will be held in escrow and expended eayh year as required. NJDEP understan~s their responsibilities in carrying out the provisions of the PCA and is prepared to enter into such an agreement as documented in their letter of 4 January 1994. The project is also suppOrted by the Borough of Oakland. Oakland has purchased portions! of the real estate necessary for the project. The real estate will be turned over to the State of New Jersey, the non-Federal sponsor, as a share in the project cost. The PCA is scheduled to be executed in April 1999. COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTIMATES: The current Federal cost estimate of $11,240,000 is a increase of $1,940,000 over the latest estirnite ($91 3001 000) presented to Congress (FY 1999). This change includes the following items: ITEM AMOUNT Price Escalation on Construction Features $ 175,000 Other Estimating Adjustments (sponsor credits) $1,765, 000 Total $1,940,000 STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: The final EIS was filed with the EPA ON 21 June 1985. OTHER INFORMATION: Funds to initiate preconstruction engineering and design. were appropriated in FY 1988 and funds to initiate construction were appropriated in FY 1995. The project cost includes $210,000 for fis~ and wildlife mitigation and $10Q.~ 000 for cultural resources preservation. Division': North Atlantic District: New York Ramapo River at Oakland, New Jersey 1. February 1999 201 CQrps of Engineers """""OQ ...... 00. ~OCAI'IOHMAP ' SCALewt•u•. ' ' I ~· t<,_N_.__,.....__._. __...... :.;"" er:Al.fEB ~ w..tc C APPROPRIATION TITLE: Construction, General - Flood Control PROJECT: Raritan, River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey (Continuing) LOCATION: The Green Brook sub-Basin project area is located within the Raritan River Basin in north-central New Jersey in Middlesex, Somerset anq Union Counties. It drains approximately 65 square miles of primarily urban and industrialized .area. It includes the following conununities: Dunellen,· Middlesex Borough, Piscataway, South Plainfield, Bound Brook, Bridgewater, Green Brook, North Plainfield, Warre;n, .wcit;chung, Berkeley .~~ight~, Plainfield, and Scotch Plains. The project area is divided into three sub-areas: ~pe lower, upper and stony Brook portions of the sub-basin~ DESCRIPTION: The NED plan consists of a system' of leVees and floodwalls in the lower portion of the basin, channel modifications and dry detention basins in the upper portion of the basin, and channel modifications in the stony Brook portion of the sub-basin. The recommended plan consists of levees and floodwalls in the lower portion of the basin and channel modifications in the stony Brook portion of the sub-basin. The upper portion of the sub-basin has been deferred. AUTHORIZATION: Water Resources Development Act of 1966. REMAINING BENEFITS-REMAINING COST RATIO: 1. 3 to 1 at 7 5/8 J;>e,rcent. TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 1.3 to 1 at 7 5/8 percent. INITIAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 1. 3 to 1 at 5/8 percent (FY 1998). BASIS OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO! Benefits are from the analysis colltained in the Final General Reevaluation Report dated May 1997 at April 1996 price levels. District: New York, Raritan River Basin, Green Brook ·sub-Basin, NJ Division: North Atlantic 203 1 February 1999 ACCUM. PHYSICAL PCT. OF EST. STATUS PERCENT COMPLETION S!JM!1ARIZED FINANCIAL DATA: . FED. COST (1 Jan 1~99) COMPLETE SCHEDULE Estimated Federal Cost 286,000,000 Element 1 0 Being determined Programmed constructipn 249, ooo, 000 Element 2,5 Indefinite Unprogrammed Constrl,lction 37,000,000 Elements 3, 4. 6 1 1 0 Being determined Entire Project 0 Indefinite Estimated Non-Federal Cost 100,000,000 Programmed construction 82, ooo, 000 cash Contributions 23,300,000 PHYSICAL DATA Other Costs 58,700,000 Element 1 is located in Bound Brook Borough Unprograntned Construction 18,000,000 and western Middlesea Borough. It consists of levees, floodwalls, closure structures, interior drainage facilities, a bridge re construction and non-structural measures including flood proofing and buyouts. Total Estimated Prograrraned Construction Cost 331,000,000 Element 2, 5 (Unprogranuned) consists of chcmnel T~tal Estimated Unprogranuned Construction Cost 55,000,000 modifications and two dry detention basins. Total Estimated Project Cost 386,000,000 Elements 3 1 4 1 6 1 7 will consiSt of levees, Allocations to 30 September 1998 26,911,000 floodwalls, closure structures, bridge recon conference Allowance for FY 1999 9, 900,.000 struction and non-structu.t:'al measures Allocation for FY 1999 9, 206, 000 J/ including floodproofing and buyouts. Allocations through FY 1999 36,117,000 13 Allocation Requested for 2000 1, 000,000 13 Programmed Balance to complete after FY 2000 211,883,000 Unprogrammed Balance to complete after FY 2000 37, ooo, 000 11 Reflects $694, 000 reduction for savings and slippage JUST~FICATION: The project area suffers annual flood damages of $41,000,000 {Apr 96 P.L.) without the project. On August 28 1 1971 Hurricane Doria caused $85 1 200 1 000 in darnag~s (Oct 95 P.~.). Another majo_r storm occured on August 2, 1973 which caused· $89,300,000 in damages (pet 95 P.L.). Flooding was ~o extensive tAat the area was designated a Major Disaster Area •' six deaths were attributed to this storm, thirty four people were injured and there were more than 1, 000 people evacuated from their residences. . . ' '·' Division: North Atlantic District: New York Raritan River Basin, Green Brook .Sub-Basin, NJ 1 February 1999 404 FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested amount will be applied as follows: $ 200,000 Planning, Engineering, and Design · 750,000 continue construction of 1st Construction Element 50,000 construction Management $1, ooo, oo·o Total h · d f' nancing concepts reflected in the Water Resources NON-FEDERAL COSTS: In accordance with the cost s arJ.~g an lyl. with the requirements listed below: Development Act of 1986, the non-Federal sponsor mus comp Annual Operation, Payments During Maintenance, Repair Construction and Rehabilitation, and Reimbursements Replacement Costs Requirements of Local Cooperation $ 58,700, ooo Provide lands, easements, rights of way1 relocations and borrow excavated or dredged mat.erial disposal areas· (progranuned work) 15,000,000 Pay 25 percent of cost associated with non-structural flood (unprogrammed work) 3, 800 1 000 protection. 19,500, ooo $1,157, 000 ercent of the costs allocated to flood control, to bring (progr.anuned) d) 6 3, 000, 000 ~~~ toial non-Federal share of flood control costs to 25 percent, (unp~oir~mme d t rrnined under section 103 (m) of the Water Resources oevelopmen c :~. 1 ~ 8 :,and bear all costs of operat~on,maintenance,repair,rehabilitation and replacente'nt of flood control facilitJ.es. $100, ooo, ooo $1,157,000 Total Non-Federal Costs so agreed to make all required payments concurrently with project construction. The non-Federal sponsor has al Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, NJ District: New York Division t North Atlantic 205 1 February 1999 STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: The state of New Jersey Department of Envlrorunenta1 Protection, provided a letter dated 17 April 1997 stating their support and endorsement of the project. Governor Whitman also provided a letter of support on 26 February 1998. The Green B.r;ook Flood Control Commission has stated their strong support for the project in a letter dated 4 October 1995. Also, several counties and municipalities have adopted resolutions endorsing and supporting the project. The Project Cooperation Agreement is scheduled to be executed in June 1999. COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTIMATES: The current Federal cost: estimate of $2861 000,000 is an increase of $3, 000,000 from the latest estimate ($283, 000, 000) presented to Congress (FY 1997}. This change includes the following items: Price Escala.tion on Construction Features $3,000,000 Total $3, ooo, 000 STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: The final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was filecl in August 1980. A supplemental Environmental Impact Statement with the Final General Reevaluation Report was released in May 1997 and the Record of Decision was issued in July 1998. OTHER INFORMATION: Funds to initiate preconstruction engineering and design were appropriated in FY 1986 and funds to initiate construction were appropriate<;! in FY 1998. Division: North Atlantic District: New York Raritan River Basin, Green Brook' Sub-Basin-, NJ 1 February 1999 206 ineers De artment of the Arm 901/ERSEf CO. TWP. OF GREEN !'!lOOK I ~ 8 Work CompletedAs of30 Sq>ielllber 1008 Greeo S.XkSoi>Ba3n a::1i:S LEVI:ES'MTI- UMCfEDFlOODWAUEEOTK>US R>rla1 8 WorkPr 2.o1 APPROPRIATION TITLE: Construction, General - Local Protection (Flood Control) PROJECT: Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania (Levee Raising) {Continuing) LOCATION: Wyoming Valley is located in'·northeastern Pennsylvania and extends ~rom Duryea on the Lackawanna River southwestward to Nanticoke on tlie1 susquehanna River. The Wyoming Valley flood control projects are 'loc~ted on 1;:-he susquehanna' River in Luzerne county and are the four contigq.ous existing Federal flood control pr9jects at Plymouth, Kingston-Edwardsville, swoyersville-Forty Fort, and Wilkes-Barre and Hanover Township, which togethe.J' function as a flood control system within the Valley. DESCRIPTION: The four existing Federal flood control projects in the Wyoming Valley were designed to protect against a flood equal to the March 1936 event which had a peak flow of 232,000 cubic feet per second. Modifications to the existing project would protect against flood flows of 318,500 cubic feet per second that would be caused by a recurrence of Storm Agn'es. The proposed modifications include raising existing lev,ees and floodwalls between 3 and 5 feet, modifying dlosure structures, relocating utilities, and providing som~ n~w. floodwalls and levees ~o.maintain the integrity of the flood control system. The proposed project also includes a plan to reduce project-related adVerse impacts. All work , is progranuned. AUTHORIZATION: Water Resources Development Act of 1,86 .and the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. REMAINING BENEFIT - REMAINING COST RATIO: 3.9. to 1 at S-1/4 percent. TOTAL BENEFIT - COST RATIO: 2.3 to 1 at 8-1/4 percent. INITIAL BENEFIT- COST RATIO: 2.8 to.1 at S-1/4 percent (FY 1995). BASis OF BENEFIT - 'cosT RATIO: Benefits are from the final Phase II General Design Memorandum approved Feb,uar)' 1996 at; J~nuary 1993 price levels. ACCUM. PHYSICAL PCT. OF EST. PERCENT COMP~ETION SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA !fED COST STATUS COMPLETE SCHEDULE (1 Jan 1999) Estimated Federal Cost $108,300,000 Estimated Non-Federal Cost: 36,700,000 Entire Project 20 Being determined cash .Contributions $26,238,000 other.costs 101 462,000 Total EStimated Project Cost $145,000,000 Division: North Atlantic . District: Bal tirnore Wyoming Vailey, PA (Levee Raising) 1 February 1999 208 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA: (CONT'D) Allocations to 30 September 1998 34,019,000 Conference Allowance for FY 1999 4,000,000 Allocation for FY 1999 6,319,000 ll Allocatio'ris th•ougll· FY 1999 40,338,000 37 Allocation Requested for FY 2000 20,000,000 56 Prograrnrn~d Balance to Complete after FY 2000 47,962,000 Unprogrammed J;3alance to Complete after FY 2000 !/ Reflects reduction of $281,000 assigned for savings a~d slippage and $2,600,000 proposed l;eprogranun4.ng to the project. PHYSICAL DATA swoyersville-Forty Fort Pl outh Completed Work Raising Work Completed Work Raising Work Levees - Earthfill: Levees - Earthfill: Levees- Earthfill: 8,700 !t. Levees - 6 1 600 ft. x 2-4 ft. ~70ft. ~00 ft. X 3-5 ft. Channel - 2, 670 ft, ~all ... Concrete: Floodwall - steel Floodwall - Steel sheetpile: p;;;;;pst"ations - 2 200 ft. X 2-4 ft. steel sheetpile: sheetpile: 2 1 490 ft. 4, ooo· ft. x 3-5 ft. Channel - ·3, 900 ft. 200 ft, X 2-4 ft. Earth: 500 ft. x 2-4 ft. Pump Station Modification- 2 Kingston--Edwardsville Wilkes-Barre and Hanover Township Completed Work Raising Work Completed Work Raising Work Levees - Earthfill: Levees - Earthfill: Levees- Earthfill: 27 1 860 ft. ~- Eart)lfill: 201 600 ft. ~30ft. ~00 ft. X 3-5 ft. ·~all - concrete: 160 ft, X 3-5 ft. conduit - 16.5 ft. x Floodwall - Concrete: 500 ft. Pump Stations - 5 storrnwater Floodwall - concrete: 500 ft. 6, 660 ft. x 3-5 ft. Earth: a sanitary x 3-5. ft. Sheetpile 4 1 300 ft. Channel - 3,640 ft. 500 ft. X 3-5 ft. ~ -1,000 ft. x ·3-5 ft. Earth: 600 ft. Pump StatiOns - 3 Closures - 3 new X 3-5 ft. ~tion Modifications - 3 Closures - 3 new & 1 modified P~ion Modification - 13 Division: North Atlantic District: Baltimore Wyoming Valley, ~A (Levee Raising) 1 February 1999 209 JUSTIFICATION: The four existing local protection projects which comprise the Wyoming Valley system were constructed betwee.n 1935 ahd 1976 and provide protection for an area of 5,160 acres and a populatioh of 225,000. over the past 200 years at least 32 floods haVe been tecorded which exceeded a stage of 25 feet at Wilkes-'B.!i.tre compared to the flood stage of 22 feet. The diScharge of 345,000 cubic feet per second during June 1972 (Storm Agnes) without the now completed c·owail.esque ahd Tioga-Hanunond Lakes projects in operation overtopped the protection and resulted in ·the greatest flood of record with damages of $730,0001 000. A recurrence of Storm Agnes would result in damages to abbut 25,000 structures with an estimated value of about $4 billion (Octobel:' 1997 price level). In January 1996, a combination of rainfall and snowmelt resulted in a flood stage of about 34 feet at Wilkes-Barre, PA. Although the existing system prevented flood damages of nearly $500 million, .residual damages were estimated at about $6 million in 'the Wyoming Valley area. The aVerage annual benefits amount to ·$27, 143t 000 essentially all for flood control, based on the final Phase II General Design Memorandum approved February ~996 at January 1993 price levels. FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested amount will be applied as follows: Complete construction of Kingston-Edwardsvilfe LeVee 3, 030,000 complete construction of Swoyersville-Fot~y Fort Levee· 170,000 Cont'inue constructioh of Wilkes-Barre & Hclhover ·ToWnship 4, 000,000 Levee l:nitiate construction of stormwater Pump stations 1, 100,000 Continue Non-Structural Measures 10,700,000 Planning, Engineerihg, and Design 200,000 construction f1anagement 800,000 Total $26, ooo, 000 Division: North Atlantic District: Baltimore Wyoming Valley, PA (Levee Raising) 1 February 1999 21Q NON-FEDERAL COSTS: In accordance with the cost sharing and financing concepts reflected in the Water Resources Development Act of 198?, the non-Federcil sponsor must comply with the requirements listed below: .Annual Payments Operation, During Maintenance, Construction and and Replacement Requirements of Local Cooperation Reimbursements Costs Provide lands, easements, and right's of way. 4, 272, 000' Modify or relocate, utilities, road$, bridges (except 6, 190,000 railroad bridges) and other facilities where necessary in the construction of the project. T?ay 18 percent of the costs allocated to flood control to bring 24, 828,000 157,000 the totC\1 non-Federal share of floo9, control costs to Z5 Pe~cent and bear all costs of operation, maintenance and replacement of flood control facilities. Pay one-half of the separable costs allocated to recreation (except 1,410,000 35,000 recreational navigation) and bear all costs of operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and rep~acement of recreation facilities. Total Non-Federal Costs $36,700,000 $192, 000 STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: The non-Federal sponsor is the Luzerne county Flood Protection Authority. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has committed to provide 45 percen~ of the non-Federal share of reject costs. Letters of intent to provide the required local cooperation requirements were furnished by Luzerne ~<>tlnty 119 January 1995) and the commonwealth of Pennsylvania (30 December 1994), A Project Cooperation Agreement was executed in october 1996, To date, the county has ful,l.y complied with the local requirements on the project. COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTIMATEs: The current Federal cost estimate of $108,300,000 is the same as the latest estimate ($108, 300, 000) submitted to Congress (FY 1999) • Division: North Atlantic District: Baltimore Wyoming Valley, PA (Lev~e Raising) 1 February 1999 211 STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is included in the final General Design Memorandum approved February 1996. The Record of Decision was signed 24 June 1996. OTHER INFORMATION: Funds to initiate preconstrUction engineering and design were appropriated in FY 19841 and funds c.o initiate construction were appropriated in FY 1995. Division: North Atlantic District: Baltimore Wyoming Valley, PA (Levee Raising) '1 February 1999 212 LEGENQ FLOOD LINE FOR FLOOD OF RECORD JUNE 1972 ~ fo'1~~~~~:~~~~~:s OF lillilll X(,~~..'J.~~~g~~?/(~9~ FUNDS IITlil1 :;'~cR6\r,~WJti>{J?d'fiT!{.;~~s ~ r.?eR~~~g~,£Pr1~ ¥.~~:~TE VICINITY MAP $CA.lEOFU!t~S GENERAL PLAN WYOMING VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA SCALE OF FEET.., 1 JANUARY 1Q99 BALTIMORE DISTRICT NORTH An ANTIC DIVISION APPROPRIATION TITLE: Construction, General - Environmental Restoration PROJ~CT: Anacostia River and Tributaries, MD & DC (continuing} LOCATION: The Anacostia River has a total drainage ar'ea of 170 square miles, of which 136 Squar·e miles are. in Ma·rylahct and 34 square miles are in the District of Columbia. The Northeast and Northwest Branches originate in Maryland and flow through several highly urbanized areas before fanning the Anacostia River about 9 miles upstream from its junction 1 with the Potomac F:iVei:-. The Project is located in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland, and the District · of Columbia. DESCRIPTION: The project is compri-sed of 13 environmental measures to restore 80 acres of wetlands, restore 5 miles of Stream, and c.reate. 33 acres of bot~oniland habitat within the Anacostia Basin. The 13 measures are comprised of 2 wetl~nd r·estorati~_n~, d,evelopment of 5 storrnwat7r ·management wetlancls, and restoration of 6 stream reaches. AUTHORIZATION: Secti'on 101 (B) of the Water Resources DevelOPment Act of. 199~. REMAINING BENEFIT - REMAINING COST RATIO: Not applicable, TOTAL BENEFIT - COST RATIO: Not applicable .. INITIJ.\L BENEFIT - COST RATIO: Not app~ii::able·,. BASIS OF BENEFIT-COST RATIO: Not applicable. ACCUM. PHYSICAL PCT. OF EST.' PERCENT COMPLETION SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA FED COST STATUS COMPLETE SCHEDULE (1 Jan 1999) Estimated Federal Cost $12, QOO, 000, Estimated Non-Federal Cost: 4, 000,000 Entire Project 5 Being determined cash contributions $3 1 450 1 000 Other Costs $ 550,000 Totcil Estimated l?roj ect Cost $16,000,000 Division: North Atlantic Dist;-ict: Baltimore Anacosti.a River & Tribs., MD & DC 1 February 1999 214 SUMMARIZED nNANCIAL DATA (CONT'D) Allocations to 30 Septembe> 1998 3, 91 '7 ,100~ PHYSICAL DATA Col)ft;!rence Allowance for FY 1999 2, 400,000 Allocat~on for FY 1999 1,932, 000 y Wetlqnds - Restore 80 acres Al].ocations through FY 1999 5, 849,000 49 stream - Restore 5 miles Allocation Requested for FY 2000 4,031,000 82 Bottom Land Habitat - Create 33 acres Programmed Balance to Co~p1ete after FY 2000 2,120,000 Unprogl;anunecl Balance to complete after Fy 2000 0 !f, Reflects $168.~ 000 reduction assigned as savin_qs qnd slippage and $300 1 000 reprogrammed fJ;orn 'the P-Fojecit. JUSTJ;FlCATIDN; Corps of Engineers invol:vem~nt in the Anacostia River basin dates back more than 115 years, and includes projects and p~ograrns for navigation, flood contr~l, debris r'emo'(al, ~n~ aquatic v~getation cont17ol. Most of these aotion,s predated the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and contributed to the degradation of w.;tlands and fisl\ and wildlife habitat with~n the basin. From 1902 through 1940, the District of Columbia portion of t!le .t;'iver was channelized, seFtwalls we~e built, and Kingman Lake and East Lake were constructed, and more than 1, 000 acres of mudflat.$ and wet;.lands were filled with dredged matel!ial.., The primary purpose of this work was to reduce the mosquito POJ?Ulation in the. area and ·thereby reduce the .incidence of ma.laria experiences by Army tropp's stationed in the Pistrict of Colul1\bia, as '"fell as to provide a park ~or the eastern portio,n Q.f the city. From 1952 to 1959, ·a floOd contiol ' project was constructed in Prince George 1,$ county, Maryland; alOrig the Northeast and Northwest Branches and the · Anacostia River. A ~otal of 281 000 feet of levee a·nd 14,000 feet oi channel Were constructed to solve critical flo FISCAL YEJ\1\ 2000: The. requested amount will be applied as follows: Fish and Wildlife Facilities $3,500,000 Const~uction Management 531,000 Total $4,031,000 Division: North Al;:lantic District: Baltimore · AnacostiC! River & Tribs. , MD & DC 1 February 1999 215 NON--FEDERAL COSTS: In accordance with the cost sharing and financing concepts .reflected in the Water ~esourceis Development Act of 1986, the non-Federal sponsor must comply with the .requirements listed below: Payments . Annual During operation, Construction Mailttenance, and and· Requirements of Local Cooperation Reimbursements Replacement costs Provide lands, easements and rights of way, relocations and dredged material disposal areas 550,000 Pay 25 percent of the cost assign~d to environmental restoration and bear all costs of operation and ·maintenance $3,450,000 41, 000 Total Non-Federal Costs $4, 000,000 STATUS OF .LOCAL COOPERAT;r:oN: The Project :will featUre thre'e separ~te Project Cooperation Agreements (PCAD-13}, as the 'environmental restoration actions fall w;ithin three distinct poli~ical jurisdictio.ns .. Letters of intent to comply with requirements of local cooperation have.beeil received from the thre~ sponsors; The District of Columbia (30 June 1994}, Montgomery County (30 June 1994) and Prince George's County {22 .January 1994). The Montgomery Cou.nty PCA was executed in October 1998. Execution of the PCA's for the District of Columbia and Prince George's County are anticipated in ' J"anuary 1999 ·and May 1999, respec.tively. Letters of support have also. been received from the National Park Sel::vice (10 January 1994) and the Maryland National Capital Park. and. Planning Commission (~1 May 1994). COMPARISON OF FEDERAL COST ESTIMATES: The current Federal cqst estimate of $1~, 000,000 is 'the same as the lat~st estimate ($12,000,000) submitted to Congress (FY 1999). STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAl, IMPACT STATEMENT: An Envirorunentai Impact St~ternent wa~ included in the final Feasibility report' dated VulY 1994. Due to changes since the EIS was pr.epared~ a· Finding of No Significant Impact for the Lockridge Driv:e· Site Was completed in January 1998. OTHER INFORMATION: Funds to; initiate preconstructiOn engineering and design· were appropriated in FY 1995, and funds to initiate construction were appropriated in FY 1998. r, Division:• North Atlantic ~istrict: Baltimore J\nacostia .River & Tribs., MD & bC 1 February 1999 216 Mont Prince 'George•s Co. ENVIRONME~·~::·:·:·~~l~ VICINITY MAP RESTORATION F NOTTOSCA.l.E ·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:~~~ LEGEND 'L ' N • WETLAND CREATION .• STREAM RESTORAT!ON • STORMWATER WETLAND t ~ roore~~g~:m~g8AS OF ffiilll ~V~~L~~r~~8~~?v:1'ls~ FUNDS WORK PROPOSED WITH FUNDS m RECOMMENDED FOR F.Y. 2000 ~ WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLETE ~ THE RROJECT AFTER F.Y. 2000 Virginia .ANACOSTIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES GENERAL PLAN SCAl.EOFt.GlES MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, D.C. 0 2 1 JANUARY 1999 BALTIMORE DISTRICT NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION APPROPRtATIDN TITLE: Construction, General - EnvironmentalrRestoratiOn. PROJECT: Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, Maryland (Continuihg) LOCATION: 1'he Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. . ·, ! ~ • ! DESCRIPTION: The prOject will contribute to multi--agency and private efforts., to restore. oyster populations irt the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay. Project elements include: construct' Or rehabilitat:e oyst·e"r ·reefs t'o create disease-free oyster habitat; construct hatchery and seed bar facilities for productiort and collection of disease-free oyster seed or "spat"; plant disease-free spat in locations which best foster oyster lieproduction and health; and monito!i the pe.J;;forma:hce of the proje~t to increase oyster populations. AUTHORIZATION: Water Resources D9Velo~ment ~ct of 1986. REMA.INING BENEFIT-REMA.INING COST RATIO: Not· applicable, TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: Not applicable, INITIAL BENEFIT-COST' RATIO: Not applicable. BASIS OF BENEFIT~cOST RATIO: Not applicable. ACCUM PHYSICAL PCT. OF EST. l?ERCENT COMPLETION SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA FED COS'r STATUS COMPLETE SCHEDULE (l Jah 1999) Estimated Federal Cost 2,500,000 Estimated Non-Federal cost: 834,000 Entire Project 50 . Being determined Cash Contributions 0 other Cc;>sts ' 834,000 Total Estimated Project Cost $3,334,000 Division: NOrth Atlantic District: Baltimore Chesapeake Bay OySter Recovery, MD 1•', February 1999 218 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA: (CONT'D) PHYSICAL DATA Ai'locations to 30 September 1998 1,43~,000 New oyster bars constructed 118 acres Conference Allowance for F'i 1999 543,000 Existing oyst<>r bar~ rehabilitated 135 acres l\llocation for FY 1999 505,000 11 l\lll)cations through FY 1999 l, 941,000 78 oyster seed production Allocation Requested for FY 2000 559,000 100 Hatchery Spat transplanted - 41 million Prog.t;ammec! Ba].ance to Complete Seed bars created - 27 million after FY 2000 0 Natural Spat transplanted - 58,000 Bushels Unprogrammed Balance to Complete after f'{ 2000 0 !/ Reflects $38 1 000 reduction assigned for savings and slippage JUSTIFICATION: The Maryland oyster population has <;leclined dramatically since the turn of the century( largely due to the paraSitic disease.s, MSX and Derrno. These diseases kill oyste,rs before they reach maturity and marketable size. As a result, there has been a collapse in the M:aryland oyster industry, with the 1995 harvest equating to less than one percen~ of the harvest 100 years aljo. More significantly, the reduced oy$ter population has adversely impacted water quality in the Bay,:. due to the smaller size and numbers of oyster beds to filte.n and cl~an the water. Activities to restore physical oyster habitat and maintain water quality are oritical to the economic and environmental survival of the Chesapeake Bay. Restoration of oyster populations in the bay is a high priority of the State of Maryland and the 1-' Chesapeake Bay Program and both have 5-year action ·plans for oyster resto>;ation. The project will help implement g recommendations in the Maryland Oyster Roundtable Ac;tion Plan which fall within the Co~ps' envirQnmental restoration ~ mission. FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested amount will pe applied as follows: Fish and Wildlife Facilities $388,000 Planninq, Enqineering, and Design 57' 000 Construction Management 114,000 Total $559,000 Division: North Atlantic District: Baltimore chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery, MD l February 1999 219 NON-FEDERAL COSTS: In accordance with the cost sharing and financing concepts reflected in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the non-Federal sponso_r must comply with the requirements listed below: Annual Payments Operation During Maintenance Construction and and Replacement Requirements of Local Cooperation Reimbursements Costs Pay 25 percent of the cost allocated to fish & wildlife restoration {by $834, 000 $0 work-in-kind credits) and bear all costs of operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and replacement of fish and wildlife facilities. Total Non-Federal Cosfs $834,000 STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: The State of Maryland is the non-Federal project spo"nsor. The Project Cooperation Agreement between the Corps of Engineers and the State of Maryland was executed in February 1997. To date, the state has fully complied with the requirements of local cooperation. COMPARISON oF FEDERAL COST ESTIMATES: The current Federal estimate of $2,500,000 is the same as the ·latest estimate ($2, 500, 000) submitted to Congress (FY 1999): STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: An enVironmental asseSsment and finding of no Significant impact waS completed in January 1996. OTHER INFORMATION: E"unds to initiate construction were appropriated in FY 1995. Division: North Atlantic District: Baltimore Chesapeake Bay oyster Recovery, MD 1 February 1999 220 N t RESTORE/SEED NOTTOSC.llE OYSTER BEDS· LEGEND - ~~~f~CJ~l!ilgJ AR~AS ~ ~Ofe~f~~:€~~~:s OF lilli] ~v~rL~~r~~g~i?/(~9~ FUNDS UIIIIlJ );l~ttJ'JI~J~{J~dr/}~~~~s ~ ~H CHESAPEAKE BAY· GENERAL PLAN OYSTER RECOVERY, MARYLAND SCAI.EOFI.Il.ES 1 JANUARY 1999 BALTIMORE OISTRICT NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION APPROPRIATION TITLg: Construction, General - Environmental Restor~tioll' PROJECT: Poplar Island, l1aryland {Continuing) LOCATION: Poplar Island is a group of islands located in the upper middle Chesapeake Bay approximately 34-nautical miles southeast of the Port of Baltimore. DESCRIPTION: The project consists of reconstructing·. Poplar Isl~nd to its approximate size in 1847 (1,110 acres) 1 using an estimated 38 million cubic yards of uncontaminated dredged material from maintenance dredging of the southern approach channels of the Baltimore Harbor and Ch~nnels navigation. project. This will be accomplished through the construction of approximately 351 000 feet of dikes to contain the dredged material necessary to form the low and high marsh wetlands and upland habitat and to protect the 1 1 110-acre dredged material placement area from the severe wave activity in this region of the chesapeake Bay. AUTHORIZATION: Water Resourc~S' Development Act of 1996. REMAINING BENEFIT-REMAINING COST RATIO: Not applicable. TOTAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: Not applicable. INITIAL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: Not applicable. BASIS OF BENEFIT-COST. RATIO: Not applicable. ACCUM PHYSICAL PCT. OF EST. PERCENT COMPLETION S~IZED FINANCIAL DATA FED COST STATUS COMPLETE SCHEDULE (1 Jan 1999) Estimated :FedercU Cost· 320,000,000 Estimated Non-Federal Cost: 107' 000,000 Entire Project 5 Being determined Casl;l contributions 106,917, 000 Other Costs 8.3; 000 Total Estimated Project Cost 427 1 000, 000 Division: North Atlantic District: Baltimore Poplar Island, Maryland· 1 February 1999 222 SUJo!HARI~E~ FrNI\NCIAL DATA: (CONT'D) PHYSICAL DATA Al~Qcat~ons to 30 September 1998 16,094,000 Earth dikes 35 1 000 feet conference Allowance: for FY 19,$ 8,300,000 Wetlands created 555 acres i\llocation f~r Ji'Y 1999 22,300,000 ~/ Uplands created 555 acres Allocations t~rou~h FY 1999 38,394,000 12 submerged aqua tic 11 000 acres A11ooation Requesteq for FY 2000 9,502,000 15 vegeta~ion Programmed !3a~ance to ,complete after F~· 2000 272,104,000 Unprogral\111\ed balance .to Co111plete after fY ~000 . 0 1/ Reflects reduction of $~82, 000 assj,.gne~ as s~vings. anc;i s_liP,page and $14,582,000 proposed reprogramming to the p,;ojec~. JU&TIFICATION:. Valuable island habitat at Poplar Island is being lost through erosion. Islands are preferentially selected by many fish and ~ildlife species a~ nest~~g/production ~reas. The lack of human disturbance and fewer p,redato~s make islands more productiv~. Poplar Island is currently erodirig at more than 13 feet per yecir and Will disap~ear by the- turn Qf the cen~ury. The plan to rest;ore ~he is~and u~ing unconta~nated dredged material from maintenance dred~ing Qf the Baltimo-t=e Harbor ~nd Channels navig~tion project ha.s been developed through the co.operative ~ eff9.rt;s of f!l8TI¥ state and Feder~l agencies, as well as privat~. org~nizatic;ms. The Port of Balti-ffio~e is ·rapidly re.aching 0 a point where available placeiJient area c;:ap'!city will b FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested a111ount will be applied as follows: Ini~iate Dredgin~ $5,851,000 ~nitiate Phase. 2 Dike .constrt~ction 2, 618,000 Planning 1 Engineering 1 and Design 204,000 Con$truction Management 829,000 Total $9,502,000 Division: North Atlantic Dist.i:ict: Baltimore Poplar Island, Haryland 1 February 1999 NON-FEDERAL COSTS: In accordance with the cost sharin~ and financing concepts reflected in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the non-Federal sponsor must comply with the requirements listed below: Annual Payments Operation During Maintenance Construction and and Replacement Requirements of Local Cooperation Reimbursements Costs Provide lands, easements, and rights-of-way $ 83,000 Pay 25 percent of the cost allocated to fish & wildlife restoratiOn 106,917' 000 400,000 and bear all costs o~ operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation ?nd replacement of fish and wildlife facilities. · Total Non-Federal Costs $107' ooo, 000 400,000 STATUS OF. LOCAL COOPERJ'TION: The State of Maryland is the non-Federal sponsor. By' letter c;lated 16 May 1996, the state of Maryland stated its intent to be the non-Federal ~ponsor and participate.in project cost' sharing in accordance with the Water Resource~ Development A'ct of 1986. · The Project Cooperation Agr~ement was e'xecuted in April''l997. To date, the State .has fully cdmplie~ with the local ;requireinen.~s on the. pr?ject. By letter dated 30 December 1998, the· State requested that the Corps proceed ,with Phas'e 2 constructio~ of the. project by January 2000. COMPARISON OF FEDERAL coST ESTIMATES: The current Federal co'st estimate of $320r 000, oOo' is the same as the 18.test estimate ($320, 000, 000) submitted to Congress (FY 1999). STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: The EIS was distributed for review and was finalized in February 1996 under the authority of Section 204 ?f the Water ~esource_s Devel?prne!lt Act of 1992. OTHER INFORMATION: Planning for this project was ~ccomplished under the a,uthority of Section 204 of the Water Resources Developrne_Z.:t 1;\.ct of 1992, The feasibility study was initiat~d in September 1994 1 completed in February 1996, and approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Ar:my for Civil Works in-September 1996. Funds to initiate construction were appropriated in FY 1997. D;i, visi;o.n: North Atlantic District: Baltimore Poplar Island, Maryland 1 February 1999 224 ,.....-"""', ...... \ I \ I ) I NORTH POINT I N I ISlAND.I / I 41 I ,..., I / I MIDDLE POPLAR I ~JEFFERSON t I ISlAND •; I . I II 1·souTH cENTRAL 1 I POPLAR ISLAND \ '"""" I I I LEGEND I \ '--. 1993LANOMASS I \ I soutH POPLAR • \ D AREA OF RESTORATION I ISLAND \ ~ rc?sRE~~,x:~~~~~lS OF. \ \ (Bill ~V~rt.'l~r~~g~~?v~~g~ \ COACHES FUNDS ISlAND \ [Ill]]]] ~f!JJ~f~~e5J~o~}~_F~~s \ \ ~ f~R~R~~gn~T1~~~~:~TE \. \ GENERAL PLAN ...... _ ) . POPLAR ISLAND SCALE OF FEET -..,...... _ ,...,. RESTORATION, MARYLAND 0 $CO 10CIO ..... __.... ''"' --...... _ / 1 JANUARY 1999 BALTIMORE DISTRICT NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION 1\PPROPRIATION TITL~: Construction, General - Major Rehabilitation'- Flood ContrOl PROJECT: Hoclges Village Dam, Massachusetts (Continuing) LOCAT;t:QN: Hodges Vil?-age Dam and Reservoir is located in tile town of oxford, in south-Central: Ma:i.Sachusett's in the French River Basin. The dam site is about 10 miles south of Worcestez: and 16.5 miles upstrea~ from the. mouth .of the Ft:en~h River at its confluence with the Quinebaug River. DESCRIPTION: Hodges Village Dam, a 2, 140-foot long and 54-foot high-eartllfill darn is a single purposEl flood control project cpmpleted in 1959, ·The project includes four ear'thfill .. d(kes ·totalling 2, 600 feet. storflge capacity is 1~, 250 acre:rfeet. The project hfis prevented $31.9 miilion in 'damages ·t'p date~ Tlle plan for rehabilitation includes constJ::Uqtion Qf a cOnc1;ete panel ·cut-off wall along the 2,14'0~~~(:t leQ~th 9-t the dam and along: th~ 1 1 205-foot length of Dike: 1. Additiona-1. work is required at Dike 4 and along an adji:iC¢ht natural ridge between. Dike .2' arid Dike 3. This work copsists pf a gravel aild stone drainage blanket on landside slopes and a semi-impervious spoil_ f~ll blanke~ on the rese't:voi,t: side Slopes. AUTHpRIZATION: Floocl Control Act of 1941. REMAINING BENEFIT-RllMAINIIlG COST RATIO: 11.4 to 1 at 7 3/4 percent. i T01'AL BENEFIT-COST RATIO: 1. 7 to 1 at 7 3/4 percent...... g INITIAL BllNEFIT-COST RATIO: 1. 8 to 1 at 7 3/4 percent (FY 1997). 00 \ BA$IS PF BENEFIT-COST RATIO: Benefits are based on the Major Rehabilitation Report, Hodges Village o·am, ~as~achusetts approvecl in August 1995, at May 1995 price levels, ACC!JMULA'\'ED PHYSICAL PCT. OF EST. STATUS PERCENT COHPLETION S~IZED FINANCIAL DATA FED COST (1 Jan 1999) COMP~ETE SCHEDULE Es.timatecl Fecleral Cost: 18,600,000 Entire 'Project'' 60 Being determined Estf.,;.tecl Non-Feclera;L Cost 0 'l'otal Estimatecl Proj~ct cost 18, 600,000 y ' !/ Eixclucles $500,000 ill design funclecl by Operations & Maintenance Appropriation. Division: North Atlantic ,.. District: New Englancl Hodges Village Dam, MA. 1 February 1999 226 ACCUMULATED PCT. OF EST. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA (Continued) FED COST PHYSICAL DATA, Allocations to 30 September 1998 9, 419,000 51 Concrete Cut-off Wall Conferende Allowance for FY 1999 5,443,000 ·2,140 feet along darn Allocation for FY 1999 5, 924,000 y 1,205 feet along Dike AlloCations through FY 1999 15,343, 000 82 Filter Blanket Allocation Requested for FY 2000 3,257, 000 100 1, 000-foot length, 100-foot width Programmed Balance to Complete After FY 2000 Unprogranuned Balance to complete After FY 2000 }:./ Reflects $382,000 assigned savings and slippage and $863,000 proposed reprogramming to the project. J!lSTIFICATION: Hodges Village Dam has experienced serious seepage problems with each one of the three significant pools stor'ect since it was placed in: operation in 1959. Temporary costly repairs' to prevent recurrence at experienced levels have b,een required after each event. These three "high 11 pools i:epresent only 43, 46 and 55 percent of the maximum d~sig~ ~tage. Po;~,~~~ble at this dam. The dam embankment is constructed of a homogeneous pervious sand and gravel fill with no impervious core or any seepage control features 'other than a 'partial downstream rockfill zone. The foundati6n materials consist of highly pervious stratified sands and gravel without any foundation cut-off features beneath the dam embankment. In fact, the only seepage control features at this site are from the three separate remedial repairs performed to date. Because of the past seepage hisi;:ory, highly pervious foundation materials, and the lack of any seepage control features in the dam and foundation, there is considerable concern that serious seepage problems s~ch as piping, boils, and internal erosion conditions will develop under high pool conditions. Safety of the dam and dike embankments cannot be insured under the project 1 s full design storage capacity. Reservoir pool levels at or near spillway crest elevati?n will create conditions for potential dam and dike failures due to the extensive uncontrolled seepage, erosion, Ci:nd piping collditions that will develop. Catastrophic failure of the structure will cause a 20-foot wall of w~ter to ihundate the dEmsely popuiated downstream communities. Average annual benefits fol! the major rehabil.:?--tation project a,re $2,567,200 at May 1995 prices. Division: N"orth Atlantic District: New England Hodges Village Darn, MA. 1 February 1999 227 FISCAL YEAR 2000: The requested amount will be applied as follows: Complete Construction $3,091,000 Enginee~;ing and De~ign 20,000 Construction Management 146,000 Total $3,257' 000 NON-FEDERAL COSTS: None Required. STATU~. OF LQCAL C:OOPERATION: None Required. COME>ARISON OF _FEDERAL COST ESTil.fATES: The' current Federal cost estimate of $181 600,000 is an increqse of $2001 000 from the latest estimate ($1~, 400, 00~} submitted to Congrt;!sS (FY 1999), 'rile change .includes the following items: Item Amount Price escalation on constr1,.1ction fecitures $200,000 Total $200,000 1--' 0 SifAt:US ~F ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: The Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact· were 1--' coltlPleted in Ju,ly ,1995. 0 OTHER INFORMA.'J;'ION: !?reconstruction Engineering and Design efforts were initiated in FY 1996 with Operation and Maintenance Appropriation fun'ds and completed with Construction, GeJleral funds in Jan~ary 1997. Division: North Atlantic District: New England Hodges Village Dam, Ml\ 1 February 1999 228 LEGEND - Worl< Completed as of 30 September 1998 IITITIJ Worl< Underway with Funds available for FY 1999 ~ Worl< Proposed with Funds Requested for FY 2000 I Location Map (NoltoSealo) I u'mllotGoverme~\__, o.medland -- - \ ' \ . ~____l U~JliU.I.,LJ VILLAGE DAM,MA MAJOR REHABILITATION RESERVOIR PLAN Flood Control I January 1999 New England District, Corps of Engineers North Altalllic Dil'ision