. . 1" xii - A Basin-Willa Problem Looking for more Questions? Within New York, the Upper Susquehanna River Basin Weft our website: Contact: approximately 4.520 square miles in the south central part Of the State. USAGE has mnSh-Ucted 20 ?and riSk New State Hood llamage Reduction Feasibility [OllII?Illic ?ll?lUSiS Following preliminary cost-benefit analysis and discussions with local sponsors, Binghamton, Johnson City, Endicott, and Vestal were identi?ed as areas for further detailed analysis to determine the feasibility of raising existing flood risk management (FRM) projects. Nonstructural solutions were investigated in Bainbridge, Binghamton, Chenango, Stud? Prnducts Conklin, EJV. Greene, Kirkwood, Norwich, Dnecnta, Dwego. Sidney, Town of Union, Unadilla, Waverly, and Whitney Point. - Basin-Wide Hydrologic The main U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood damage analysis software Hydraulic MDdel utilized, Hydrologic Engineering Center's Flood Damage Reduction Analysis incorporates the project reaches, the depreciated replacement costs and content values, and the use of appropriate stage-damage functions. runs a Monte Carlo National Levee Database Simulation that determines annual damages based on flood-frequencies and is used to Survey Updates estimate the flood damage reduction bene?ts of an alternative by comparing the future with and without project conditions. Topographic Surveys Field investigation Data . . . . . .. . . USFWS Coordination While, solutions were determined to not be economically justified, preliminary Act Report nonstructural solutions were evaluated to determine if there may be potential for Federal involvement through an existing authority or program. Areas with potential for non-structural Report: measures are identified and recommended for existing grant programs and technical - Study Process assistance - Engineering Appendix Modeling - .- tE t' a. Model .citat?t?i??era?ons The USRB MDGBI was built on the Economic Ana ?ts best available data from the USAGE and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This modeling can - Concept Design Drawings be used to update the FEMA Flood Insurance Study. The model can serve as a key component for the EMA levee accreditation package and can be used to investigate new flood risk reduction projects or other areas of interest as well as help estimate effectiveness of future flood risk management measures. 0.2% Chance excluding the Chemung River Watershed, drains management projects in the USRB dating back to 1933. CONKLIN AND KIRKWOOD, NEW YORK Upper Susquehanna River Basin Co The USRB study assessed flood risk managem potential construction projects. Preli Conklin, which experience(s) ?ooding properties near the riv based on the benefits characteristics, importan project in Conklin due For the focused array of alternatives, no structures in the floodplain in Conklin an this model: (1) an evaluation of elevating th non-residential structures up to the 1 percen examination of buyouts of these same prope removal. The preliminary analysis in structural measures in som to reduce the level of uncertainty an Bottom Line: USAGE recommends no action un negative ?nding in the various structural alternativ measures results in a possi and technical assistance programs. measures in Conkiin?Kirkwood. minary ana erfront. Several structure that could be realized by reducing impacts of a structural alternative in this area are expects twetiands, and prime farmlands in superfund site near the project location. The project team ru to the high potential fo Kirkwood and the Binghamton FRM project and lack of loca alternative. The existing strategy Conklin-Kirkwood channel improveme recurring ?ooding issue Conkiin and Kirkwood base for risk 5. The PDT be riverine reac ble avenue for Federa Non-structural analysis indicates favorable i dicates favorable ban has examined in this preliminary ana improve con?dence in these results. Iysis was completed during high frequency events alternatives demon flooding in Conkiin and environmental impac reduction in Conklin combines damage nt project with non?structural measures for lieves that this is the most appropriate risk on the rural nature of the community an the project area. Th led out a new Flood n-structural measures were evaluated in 4 Kirkwood. Two sets of preli ?rst ?oor elevation of rest annual exceedance probability rties using the market value and a unit cost for structure e?t?cost ratios (BCR) associated with non- iysis. Further work is needed minary analy mprehensive Flood Damage Reduction Feasibility Study ent alternatives using USAGE criteria for evaluating large for evaluating project alternatives in resulting in high annualized damages for strated potential for a Federal project Kirkwood. Environmental to be very high based on the natural floodplain are is also concern with a Risk Management (FRM) ts. possible induced flooding impacts to interest in the proposed structural reduction from the existing risk reduction in areas with reduction strategy for diffuse development in these towns. reaches and 723 see were conducted using dential structures and fioodproo?ng (AEP) plus 1 foot, and (2) an der the USRB General investigation study. Despite the es examined, the preliminary analysis of non?structural involvement through existing grant mitigation programs ocations for non-structural Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Build a new Preliminary Not feasible due to Very High Impacts $60 - $72 Does not meet all criteria levee system in Conklin Positive Finding impacts to Likely; Likely along all three damage Kirkwood and Unacceptable areas Binghamton System Alternative 2.1: Build new Preliminary Not feasible due to Very High impacts $23 - $34 Does not meet all criteria levee in Conklin along the Positive Finding impacts to Likely; Likely Northern damage area Kirkwood and Unacceptable Binghamton System Alternative 2.2: Build new Preliminary Not feasible due to Very High Impacts $23 - $28 Does not meet all criteria levee in Conklin along the Positive Finding impacts to Likely; Likely Central damage area Kirkwood and Unacceptable Binghamton System Alternative 2.3: Build new Negative Finding Not ferrsible due to Very High impacts $8 . $10 Does not meet all criteria levee in Conklin along the impacts to Likely: Likely Southern damage area Kirkwood and Unacceptable Binghamton System Alternative 3: Clearing, Preliminary Feasible Moderate impact $7 - $9 Existing project, no Snagging, 8: Shoal Removal of Susquehanna River along Conklin- Kirkwood Area Positive Finding Likely change USACE CONCEPT PLAN coats RECOMMENDATION (IN MILLIONS) $21 - $25 FOCUS ARRAY OF ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVES JUSTIFICATION JUDGMENT ACCEPTABILITY Alternative 4: Dredging of Preliminary Not Feasible Very High Impacts Susquehanna River along Positive Finding Likely; Likely Conklin?Kirkvvood Area Unacce ntabie ENVHROBHWEFTTAL Does not meet all criteria ALTERNATIVE 2.1: NEW FRI STRUCTURE Ill HORTI-IE RN OOHKLIN AREA I-i In 00 ALTERNATIVE 2: a NEW FRI STRUCTURE IN ALTERNATIVE 1: ?Emma OF EHAHNA RIVER PROPOSED INITIAL ARRAY 0F ALTERNATIVES IN AREA ALTERHAHVE 5: NON-STRUBTURAL HEASU RES: REPEAT FLODDIHI AREAS CONKUN I . 2.2: NEW FEM STRUETURE IN CENTRAL COHKUH AREA I FLOOD RISK AREA one: sum: UEHANNA RIVER smov TOWN OF COHKLIN-KIRKWOOD It 3: I: 3 unequal-Lanna HULTIPLE AREAS LEGEND ALTERNATIVE 2.3: FLU-OD RISK NEW IIMNAGEMENT STRUCTURE SOUTHERN CONKLIN AREA I) 0.Corp: a I A proposed alternative is considered economically justi?able if the bene?t cost ratio is above parity (greater than or equal to one} and net benefits are positive (the difference between bene?ts and costs results in a positive bene?t to the Nation). Initial economic analysis estimated preliminary BCRs using parametric costs (instead of concept costs) and bene?ts based on 50 and 67 percent damage reduction assumptions for proposed alternatives. OWEGO, NEW YORK Upper Susquehanna River Basin (USRB) Comprehensive Flood Damage Reduction Feasibility Study The USRB study assessed ?ood risk management alternatives using USAGE criteria for evaluating large potential construction projects. Detailed analysis was completed using the Hydrologic Engineering Center?s Flood Damage Reduction Analysis tool. which estimates annualized damages and is used to estimate damage reduction bene?ts by comparing future with and without project conditions. The detailed analysis primarily focused on evaluating two alternatives; berm modi?cation with new levees and ?oodwalls (Alternative 2) and non-structural measures for damage reduction (Alternative 3). The results are summarized in the table and described in this fact sheet. The project team developed conceptual designs for the raising of the existing berm along Owego Creek and a new levee and floodwall project to protect Downtown Owego up to the Brick Pond area. The conceptual level of design includes providing risk reduction to the 1 percent chance ?ood with two feet of freeboard for ?oodwalls and three feet of freeboard for levees using HES-FDA modeling. This structural levee alternative assumes that the Owego Creek berm is inadequate due to poor foundation and would likely need to be rebuilt as a levee. The total length of levee is estimated at 2.3 miles, 1 mile of floodwall to protect areas of downtown and the Brick pond area, three road closures, and two railroad closures. The top of levee alignment elevations vary between 3 feet to 10 in some areas. Only one closure would likely need to be greater than 2 feet, the 5th Avenue closure, thus the remaining closures may be addressed by temporary measures such as sandbags. Cost estimates are currently being developed for this proposed alternative. To evaluate non-structural measures (Alternative 3), two sets of preliminary analyses were conducted using the HEC-FDA model: (1) an evaluation of elevating the ?rst ?oor elevation of residential structures and ?oodproofing non-residential structures up to the 1 percent annual chance exceedance probability (AEP) plus 1 foot. and (2) an examination of buyouts of these same properties using the market value and a unit cost for structure removal. The Village of Owego non-structural analysis includes 1 reach and 4?4 structures. The BCR for non-structural measures is less than one and results in negative net bene?ts. Further work is needed to reduce the level of uncertainty and improve con?dence in these results. Bottom Line: USAGE recommends no action under the USRB General Investigation study. Pending the results of the cost estimate and the economic analysis, it is likely that a project in Owego would fall under the Continuing Authorities Program Section 205 investigation for a small ?ood risk management project to reduce risk in the Village of OwegoAlternative 1: No Action - - - - Alternative 2: Raising of the Not Yet Feasible Moderate Impacts Pending Pending analysis; Likely existing berm along Owego Determined Likely; High Estimates feasible under an existing Creek and a new levee and Culturalinstoric Continuing Authorities ?oodwall project in Downtown Impacts Program authority Owego Alternative 3: Non-structural Negative Finding Feasible Low impacts Moderate Does not meet all criteria. measures in the Village and Likely: Acceptable Town of Owego Legend Proposed Berm Raising Proposed Levee Proposed Floodwall FEMA Flood Hazard Layer - Zone AE. Headway -. Zone A, 1%Annual Chance Event Zone X. 0.2% Annual Chance Event . 5 CORPS VILLAGE OF oweeo DF ENGINEERS FLOOD RISK AREA OWEGO CONCEPT DESIGN US ?rm! BALTIHORE ween suseuenmm RIVER coms?euevs FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY of Engine-n i A proposed alternative is considered economically justi?able if the bene?t cost ratio is above parity (greater than or equal to one) and net bene?ts are positive (the difference between bene?ts and costs results in a positive bene?t to the Nation}. Initial economic analysis estimated preliminary BCRs using parametric costs (instead of concept costs} and bene?ts based on 5D and 67 percent damage reduction assumptions for proposed aiternatives. ENDICOTT-JOHNSON (EJV), NEW YORK Upper Susquehanna River Basin Comprehensive Flood Damage Reduction Feasibility Study The USRB study assessed ?ood risk management alternatives using USACE criteria for evaluating large potential construction projects. Following a preliminary analysis of initial alternatives, the PDT developed parametric cost estimates for the conceptual raising of levees and floodwalls in EJV. Cost estimates used unit cost assuming an average of 2 feet of raising is needed throughout the system, which is based on escalated unit costs from the Value Engineering Study for Lackawanna River Flood Risk Management Project dated September 2011. The total used includes 11,110 feet of levee and 2,200 feet of ?oodwall raising at Endicott, 21 feet of levee and 174 feet of ?oodwall in Vestal, and 9,950 of levee and 450 feet of floodwall at Johnson City. Preliminary cost estimates did not include estimated costs for raising or replacement of closure structures, nor do they include operation and maintenance costs, any needed mitigation costs, or real estate; therefore, these estimates likely underestimate the construction costs of the proposed alternative. The cost estimates were used for the purposes of screening since initial analysis indicated that levee raising is unlikely to be economically justifiable at the EJV project. HEC-FDA modeling was used to estimate damages at each of the levee systems and compare costs to benefits assuming two levels of damage reduction, 50 percent and 100 percent (although no FRIVI project is likely to reduce damages by 100 percent). No detailed engineering concept designs were completed because comparisons of parametric costs with the initial HEC-FDA damages were unlikely to result in a favorable bene?t cost ratio (BCR). LEGEND Existing Levee Pam Existing Closure Structures in EJV, including the Town of Union, were evaluated using HEC-FDA modeling to determine the feasibility of non?structural measures in this area. The EJV non-structural analysis includes 38 reaches that include of 3,518 structures in Endicott, Johnson City. Vestal, Union, and communities. Two sets of preliminary analyses were conducted using this model: (1) an evaluation of elevating the ?rst floor elevation of residential structures and floodproo?ng non-residential structures up to the 1 percent annual exceedance probability (AEP) plus 1 foot, and (2) an examination of buyouts of these same properties using the market value and a unit cost for structure removal. The preliminary analysis indicates favorable BCRs associated with non-structural measures in some riverine reaches examined in this preliminary analysis. Further work is needed to reduce the level of uncertainty and improve con?dence in these results. Bottom Line: USAGE recommends no action under the USRB General Investigation study. Despite the negative finding in the various structural alternatives examined, the preliminary analysis of non-structural measures results in a possible avenue for Federal involvement through existing grant mitigation programs and technical assistance programs. Non-structural analysis indicates favorable locations for non-structural measures in EJvr and the Town of Union. These areas are shown in Figure 2 with an overlay of ?ooding extent from Tropical Storm Lee in 201 t. FOCUS ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: levee and floodwall raising in Endicott, Johnson City. and Vestal US Army Corps ol Ennlnur: USACE ENGINEERING JUDGMENT ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY Feasible Low Impacts Likely; Acceptable Negative Finding TOW . mutt-:7: TOWN OF ctr?Miles 0.325 I155 1.3 1.95 2.3 ENDIOOTT-JOHNSON CIW-VESTAL FLOOD RISK AREA UPPER SUSOUEHANNA RIVER OOHREHEHSIUE FLOOD DAEIGE REDIJGTION ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERE BALTIMORE DISTRICT CONCEPT PLAN PARAMETRIC COSTS RECOMMENDATION Does not meet criteria for further consideration due to economic evaluation. JOH NSC-N Ci T?r? LEGEND LOCATION OF NON- MEASURES TOWN BOUNDARIES EXTENT OF FLOODING IN 2'311 EXISTING CLOSURE FLOODWALL EXISTING LEVEE PROPOSED INITIAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES IN STUDY AREA i A potential alternative is considered economically justi?able if the bene?t cost ratio is above parity (greater than or equal to one) and net benefits are positive (the difference between bene?ts and costs results In a positive benefit to the Nation). Initial economic analysis estimated preliminary BCRs using parametric costs (instead of concept costs) and bene?ts based on 50 and 6? percent damage reduction assumptions for proposed alternatives. ONEONTA, NEW YORK Upper Susquehanna River Basin (USRB) Comprehensive mod Damage Reduction Feasibility Study The USRB study assessed ?ood risk management alternatives using USAGE criteria for evaluating large potential construction projects. The preliminary analysis, presented at the previous watershed screening meeting, was used to rule out channel clearing and dredging as risk reduction alternatives in the City of Oneonta (NY). Detailed analysis was completed using the Hydrologic Engineering Center's Flood Damage Reduction Analysis (HEC-F DA) tool, which estimates annualized damages and is used to estimate damage reduction benefits by comparing future with and without project conditions. The detailed analysis primarily focused on evaluating two alternatives; raising the Mill Race levee (Alternative 2) and non-structural measures for damage reduction (Altemative 3). The results are summarized in the table and described in this fact sheet. Alternative 2 is a structural alternative for raising of the existing, non-federal Mill Race levee. An examination of existing documentation and levee elevations against modeled water surface elevations for the 1 percent annual chance flood with 3 feet of freeboard indicated that the levee already reduces risk to National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) levee accreditation standards. However, the interstate-88 highway embankment may not meet NFIP standards due its pervious foundation so a levee may be needed to tie-in to the Mill Race levee (shown in Figure 1). A closure is also needed on Main Street at the location of the Interstate-88 overpass. Economic evaluation of the levee raising alternative using HEC-FDA calculated damage reduction and concept parametric costs yields a bene?t cost ratio (BCR) below one and negative net bene?ts. To evaluate non-structural measures (Alternative 3), two sets of preliminary analyses were conducted using the HEC-FDA model: (1) an evaluation of elevating the ?rst ?oor elevation of residential structures and ?oodproo?ng non~residential structures up to the 1 percent annual exceedance probability (AEP) plus 1 foot, and (2) an examination of buyouts of these same properties using the market value and a unit cost for structure removal. The Oneonta non-structural analysis includes 1 reach and 18? structures in the City. Since these structures are currently receiving damage reduction bene?ts from the accredited levee, there would likely be limited remaining bene?ts to implement non-structural measures at this location. The BCR for non-structural measures is also less than one and results in negative net bene?ts. Bottom Line: USAGE recommends no action under the USRB General Investigation study. USACE is also recommending that the closure structure on Main Street be investigated under USAGE technical assistance programs to include (1) surveying Main Street, (2) comparing water surface elevations versus needed design elevations at Main Street, and (3) comparing design alternatives for a closure on Main Street. Once the technical analysis is completed, design and construction of the closure may be appropriate for USACE Continuing Authorities Programs or FEMA grant assistance. CONCEPT PLAN PARAMETRK: cosrsuu mwuoNS) USAGE ENGINEERING JUDGMENT ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVES ACCEPTABILITY Alternative 2: Raise existing Negative Finding, Feasible Low Impacts $1.3 - $2.2 Does not meet all criteria, non-federal Mill Race levee HEC-FDA Likely; Acceptable existing damage at Neahwa Place bene?ts re-run as reduction results in low protected, low bene?ts. Existing levee damage provides protection to 1% reduction bene?ts chance event with freeboard. Alternative 3: Non-Structural Negative Finding, Feasible Low Impacts Low Does not meet all criteria, Measures for Oneonta negative net Likely; Acceptable preliminary analysis bene?ts results in negative net bene?ts for ?codproo?ngielevation and buyouts. I . LIVES - 'u LEUEL Of ?Hum FOR 19. um um rm Era-tag Ill Recent? Proposed me WFW CITY OF ONEOHTA U5. CORPS or FLOOD max out-mun srumr AREA ?3 Army 00"? "ll-WE one: amusmum rim w?l?iEHS-l? mane: REDUGYIOH any proposed alternative is considered economically justi?able if the bene?t cost ratio is above parity (greater than or equal to one) and net bene?ts are positive (the difference between bene?ts and costs results in a positive bene?t to the Nation); Initial economic analysis estimated preliminary BCRs using parametric costs {instead of concept costs) and bene?ts based on 50 and 6? percent damage reduction assumptions for proposed alternatives. BINGHAMTON PORT DICKINSON, NEW YORK Upper Susquehanna River Basin (USRB) Comprehensive Flood Damage Reduction Feasibility Study The USRB study assessed ?ood risk management alternatives using USAGE criteria for evaluating large potential construction projects. Preliminary analysis and initial project scoping promoted one major alternative to move forward for detailed analysis, Alternative 2, raising all levees and floodwalls in the Binghamtcn Flood Risk Management (FRM) project. The proposed design included raising the Binghamton FRM project to the 1 percent annual chance exceedance flood event with 3 feet of freeboard. The study team developed conceptual designs for the proposed raising, calculated quantities of materials. and estimated costs for proposed raising. The concept design is shown in Figure 1. Alternatively, the study team examined raising the Binghamton FRM project with replacement of some floodwalls with levees in each of the systems. ms", FIGURE 1 NORTHEAST BINGHAMTON N0 NEEDED -evee i was LEUEE 5' TD 3 1' new wan. - NEW Ms: mu 15-7035miss WALL :l 5' 1.1 a ?HuoLe-vesueeneo imumezsms' mes wutrrm 1- muse .mm a; i NORTHWEST BINGHAMTUN . .. mass WALL I 5' .. SOUTH mes MLL s. 5' -. .. museum Rim? to 3- IUEGUEMHM RIVER 'f 5 - new mu. BEHIND Jx CROWLEY Bin??G ?l Mo Levee NEEDED 3 a . "muse Levee ?no? ?'55 ?Gm? 1' -, q/r" ?me mt ?-Rmse mu. ~'Lruuse mu. 2' Torr . up To is .4 Detailed analysis was completed using the Hydrologic Engineering Center?s Flood Damage Reduction Analysis tool, which estimates annualized damages and is used to estimate damage reduction bene?ts by comparing with and without project future conditions. The detailed analysis primarily focused on evaluating three different alternatives. Alternative 2-A, levee and ?oodwall raising. involves raising a majority of the FRM project in Binghamton 0.5 to 4 feet, excluding the Port Dickinson segment of the project. This would also entail a new levee and ?oodwall segments along Court Street in Northeast Binghamton, a new floodwall at the USAGE-maintained Pierce Creek segment in South Binghamton, extending the City maintained McDonald Avenue ?oodwall, and replacement of approximately 75% of all of the existing ?oodwalls in the FRM project. based on the needed level of raising to meet accreditation standards (1 percent design event with freeboard). A second alternative, 2-3, involves replacing ?oodwalls with levees at select locations, Results of the economic analysis are summarized in the table below. Neither structural alternative showed bene?t-cost ratios (BCR) greater than one. The Binghamton?Port Dickinson non-structural analysis includes 25 reaches with 4,829 structures in Binghamton, Port Dickinson, and the upstream communities of Chenango, Dickinson, Conklin, and Kirkwood. Two sets of preliminary analyses were conducted using this model: (1) an evaluation of elevating the first ?oor elevation of residential structures and floodproofing non-residential structures up to the 1 percent annual exceedance probability (AEP) plus 1 foot, and (2) an examination of buyouts of these same properties using the market value and a unit cost for structure removal. The preliminary analysis indicates favorable BCRs associated with non-structural measures in some riverine reaches examined in this preliminary analysis. Further work is needed to reduce the level of uncertainty and improve confidence in these results. Bottom Line: USACE recommends no action under the USRB General Investigation study. Despite the negative ?nding in the various structural alternatives examined. the preliminary analysis of non-structural measures results in a possible avenue for Federal involvement through existing grant mitigation programs and technical assistance programs. Non?structural analysis indicates favorable locations for non-structural measures in the City of Binghamton. These areas are shown in Figure 2 with an overlay of flooding extent from Tropical Storm Lee in 2011. USACE CONCEPT FOCUS ARRAY OF ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL . ENGINEERING PLAN COSTS RECOMMENDATION ALTERNATIVES JUSTIFICATION JUDGMENT ACCEPTABILITY (IN MILLIONS) Alternative 1: No Action - - . - Alternative 2A: Levee and Negative Finding Feasible Low Impacts $120.2 Does not meet criteria for floodwall raising in the Likely; Acceptable further consideration due Binghamton FRM Project to economic evaluation. Alternative 23: Levee and Negative Finding Not feasible at this Low Impacts $122.5 Does not meet criteria for flocdwall raising in the time, but may be Likely; Acceptable further consideration due Binghamton FRM Project. feasible in the to economic evaluation. with replacement of some future due to ?oodwalls with levees proposed road reali nments LEGEND LOCATION OF NON- ETQIJGTURALMEASLRES EVENT OF FLOODING IN EXISTING FLCODML EXISTING CLOSURE PROPOSED smtuae BHGHAHTON-PORT oicxmson gh??g?m FLOOD ms" mag moposso INITIAL ARRAY as US MW Com ?At-""035 nun summon men cownm ALTERNATIVES 5mm AREA r! Emu-um aw A proposed alternative is considered economicallyjustifiable if the benefit cost ratio is above parity {greater than or equal to one) and net bene?ts are positive (the difference between bene?ts and costs results in a positive benefit to the Nation). Initial economic analysis estimated preliminary BCRs using parametric costs (instead of concept costs] and benefits based on 50 and 6? percent damage reduction assumptions for proposed altarnatives.