concrete lined channel on endangered species.  The plan recommended in the feasibility report is the NED plan based on comparison of net benefits for implementable alternatives.  This issue is resolved.

Comment (2):  How did non-NED constraints affect the formulation of new alternatives?  The report states that as the plan formulation evolved, it was evident that local concerns over sedimentation, environmental impact minimization and required real estate minimization were paramount issues in the development of alternative plans.  Consequently, all of the alternatives plans investigated were limited based on non-NED criteria.  The question then is, were any flood control alternatives formulated strictly to maximize net economic development (flood damage reduction) benefits, and if not, can the NED plan be identified with the formulation that was used for the AFB material? 

         RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS             RETURN TO GUIDANCE PAGE

District Response:  The formulation process was focused on two alternatives as directed in the RGM dated 9 May 1996; the 3210 and 5800 cfs designs, earlier thought to provide a 25 yr and 50 yr level of protection respectively.  The 5800 cfs design was eliminated based on the desires of the local sponsor that the maximum level of protection be set by the exiting capacity of several existing bridges due to economic and political reasons.  Upon analysis of the existing bridges, a maximum design capacity for the three bridges to remain was set at 3400 cfs, which would provide approximately a 20-year protection.  Another alternative was developed based on replacing only the most constricted bridges.  This alternative was analyzed to ensure that the locally preferred alternative is located on the rising limb of the net benefit curve.  This alternative was designed for 2500 cfs and 15-year level protection.  Based on the subsequent analysis there would be Federal interest only for the 3400 cfs alternatives.  The development of the least cost alternative, which will convey 3400 cfs, became the focus of further formulation.  This strategy is in line with the PGL 97-10, Shortening the Planning Process; which allows the non-Federal Sponsors to identify the design for maximum level of protection, in this case 20-year protection (3400 cfs design as expected discharge for a 20-year event).

Discussion:  The reconnaissance study investigated alternatives, including upstream areas, which led to constraints on plan location and scope.  The raising of the three major bridges was identified as a constraint by the City, which limited the flow capacity of any proposed project.  This is also a NED constraint because of the potential costs of the bridge modifications.  If these major bridges were raised, then the cost would increase significantly.  Because of the City’s constraints, plans larger than 3400 cfs were not investigated.  Plans up to 3400 cfs minimize real estate acquisition and the net benefits are increasing on the optimization curve going from 2500 to 3400 cfs.

Action:  The draft report will include more discussion of why the concrete-lined channels are not acceptable, when discussing NED formulation.  The use of environmental constraints on plan development will also be explained. 

Action Taken:  Discussion on environmental constraints including Endangered Species issue and the acceptability of concrete lined channel are included on page 16, Environmental, and on page 46, Feasibility Plan Formulation of the main report.

Page 16: “The Mission Creek estuary provides habitat for a wide variety of birds and animals.  Of most critical concern is the Tidewater Goby, a Federally Listed Endangered Species.  The creek itself may also provide a migratory corridor for Steelhead Trout.  East Beach, located near the estuary, provides habitat for the Western Snowy Plover, which is a Federally Listed Threatened Species.  By keeping the exiting natural condition of the creek bottom (pervious), the proposed flood control improvements would avoid or minimize biological and aesthetic impacts.”

Page 46:  [CECW-AR note:  this wording actually starts on page 49 of the draft report.] “Several different methods of bank protection are available for both alternatives.  The Hydraulic Appendix discusses the different methods studied.  Methods considered include natural bank protection, geotextile bank protection with natural channel bottom, riprap bank protection with natural channel bottom, grouted riprap bank protection with natural channel bottom, fully lined concrete channel, gabion-lined banks with natural channel bottom, and concrete-lined banks with natural channel bottom.  The only bank protection methods studied in detail were the riprap banked channel and the concrete-banked channel.  All other methods were either not feasible due to right-of-way constraints or they were environmentally unacceptable. The proposed alternatives are discussed in the following section.

The previously authorized plan proposed concrete lining of the channel.  This bank protection alternative was deemed technically and locally unacceptable.  In response to public concerns, the Corps conducted a computer stimulation and physical modeling at the Waterways Experiment Station (WES).  The modeling revealed a fatal flaw in the sediment transport performance of the concrete channel.  The flaw would render the channel unable to convey its design capacity.   In September of 1993, the Corps informed Santa Barbara that the lower Mission Creek Project was fatally flawed unless upstream sediment control could be provided.  Local opposition to the concrete channel project was strong due to project impacts on biological values and aesthetics, as well as safety concerns with high velocity flows.  In 1993, a resident fish found in the estuary and the lagoon near the mouth was afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act.  Also, resource agencies have identified Mission Creek as a prime migratory corridor for the Federally Endangered Species, the Southern California Steelhead.  Implementation of a concrete lined channel for the entire reach, like the previously authorized plan, would result in adverse impacts to the Endangered Species.”

Review Team Assessment:  We note the requested information is in the final report.  This issue is resolved.

Comment (3):  Were sufficient alternatives evaluated in order to bracket the NED plan?  Specifically, were flows above the 20-year flood flow level of protection evaluated quantitatively?  The report indicates that alternatives that achieved a higher conveyance capacity were not likely to be economically feasible due to the high cost of additional real estate and the need for additional bridge replacements.  Is any cost information available to support the assumption?

         RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS             RETURN TO GUIDANCE PAGE

District Response:  Part 1. As indicated in the preceding comment, no alternative higher than the locally established objective was developed.  The NED analysis was focused on providing the least-cost design for 3400 cfs alternative with all the project objectives met.

Part 2.  This assumption was based on using the expected channel width for a larger alternative (5800 cfs) as described in the Reconnaissance Report.  Assuming that the difference in width between the alternatives as described in the Reconnaissance is applied to the feasibility alternative (3400 cfs), the corresponding top width for a 5800 cfs channel would be 10 feet to 20 feet wider.  Considering the lack of buffer between the 3400 cfs footprint to the adjoining properties, any further widening of the creek for increased conveyance will result in at least doubling the number of properties to be taken and would require replacement of three additional bridges.  Such increase in cost is expected to be greater that the expected increase in benefits. 

Discussion:  There was a consensus that sufficient alternatives were identified to bracket the NED Plan.  The draft report will refer to Alternative 12 as the NED Plan.

Action:  No further action required.

Review Team Assessment:  None required.  This issue was resolved at the AFB.

Comment (4):  We have questions that efficient flood control alternatives were not evaluated based on concerns for several constraints, including environmental sensitivity, such that the NED flood control plan was not identified.  Perhaps more efficient alternatives were considered in previous studies so that the NED flood control plan is identifiable without significant additional effort.  Once the NED plan is identified, if a different plan is recommended, the basis for that recommendation can be explained.

District Response:  Concur.  The general features of the alternatives considered in the feasibility study were based on alternatives as mentioned in the RGM.  Unfortunately, the more efficient flood control design (concrete channel) developed as the authorized plan failed.  Again, Local Sponsor inputs on what the community will support were taken into great consideration during the formulation process IAW PGL 97-10.

Discussion:  See previous discussions.

Action:  Refer to the action for Comment 3.A. (1).

Review Team Assessment:  See assessment under comment 1.A.(1).  This issue is resolved.

B.  Formulation.

         RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS             RETURN TO GUIDANCE PAGE

Comment (1):  Environmental Restoration Project Purpose.  The district should be prepared to discuss the proposed environmental restoration features of the recommended plan and evaluate whether they could as easily be characterized as landscaping for the flood control project purpose, thus eliminating the recommendation for environmental restoration authorization.  The district is proposing to install about 100 trees within 36-inch RCPs and about 200 shrubs within 12-inch RCPs that are placed within the slide slope protective riprap.  Additionally, 7 areas that are remnants from real estate acquisitions with a total of 0.95 acres would be planted.  There is no indication that these planting would qualitatively or quantitatively provide any significant habitat.  Rather than presenting these plantings as restoration, it seems more appropriate to incorporate the proposed planting as part of the flood control project through the landscaping provisions of EM 1110-2-301.

District Response:  Species of trees which would be planted into the riprap-stabilized banks, the margins of the proposed wetlands site, and those to planted into the overbank habitat expansion zones (“pocket parks”) are all principle elements of the riparian ecological community which historically lined all the coastal plain streams in southern California.  When mature, the crowns of the various species grow together (and even intermingle some) to create a leafy canopy.  This canopy can shaded the stream channel and its banks.  Shrubby vegetation usually grew beneath these trees.  This lower layer (an understory) was often quite thick and tangled with branches.  Together, the two layers created a significant microclimate along the course of the stream, promoted each other’s perpetuation and replacement after natural calamities (floods and fires), were a major group of nodes in the trophic structure and ecological energetics of the riparian community, and limited sedimentation into the creek.  Various ecological functions arose from the two-layer structural arrangement of these plants.

The native trees to be planted along the banks would be spaced about the diameter of a typical canopy apart.  At maturity, these canopies should be contiguous on each bank of Mission Creek.  The canopy which should form will resemble the upper, leafy gallery of the riparian community which existed before Europeans altered the landscape, although it cannot be as broad because constraints of real estate limit the plantable area. Some understory plant species would be established in 12" RCPs, but a more solid planting of native willows would be accomplished by setting out viable branches beneath the riprap layer and throughout the banks.

In total about 1100 yards of both banks can be treated in this manner, nearly all located upstream of US 101.  The corridor that should form within 30 years will have both the functional layers of riparian vegetation.  It cannot offset all the historic losses of this community of course, but should restore a corridor of intact riparian function to a region that now has almost none.  By arranging planted connections between the bank vegetation and the overbank habitat expansion zones, those more upland trees and shrubs will be connected directly to the creek.  Qualitatively, these efforts would yield important habitat for wildlife within Santa Barbara.

The wetland site proposed in the document would provide additional and diverse aquatic habitat within the context of a riparian corridor.  Although not large in Arial extent, this embayment off the creek channel at the oxbow would provide feeding locations for wading birds, nesting habitat for amphibians and benthic invertebrates, and a direct link between the stream and the riparian corridor along it.  This element of the project would create a small but potentially important wetland site in this coastal region that has lost nearly all the wet sites which existed historically.

Discussion:  Restoration features were explained, including the development of remnant parcels, establishment of ripple pools and the creation of a riparian corridor.  Table 24 presents the costs and economic analysis.  The HQUSACE representatives indicated that all of the proposed ecosystem restoration features should be included in a single purpose flood control project, since they are features that reflect good environmental design.  As there would be no separable costs for ecosystem restoration, ecosystem restoration would not be a separate project purpose, even though restoration benefits would be incidental to the plan.  It was made clear to the sponsor that the project would provide restoration benefits.  It was also noted that a shifting of costs from restoration to flood control would increase the local share of project costs since the flood control cost sharing is at the 50-percent limit for non-Federal costs.  The option of pursuing the project under the existing authority was also discussed.  The desire to deauthorize the existing (WRDA 88) project provides a basis for seeking a new authority.  Since new authority will be sought to authorize the proposed project and deauthorize the WRDA 88 project, prior PED cost expended to implement the WRDA 88 project would not be recouped as part of this proposed project.

Action:  The report will be revised to eliminate the identification of specific features for ecosystem restoration and include the features as integral to the flood control plan as good environmental design.  The values will be used for mitigation and any excess will be considered incidental ecosystem restoration benefits.  A summary of the alternative cost-sharing scenarios will be provided to the sponsor. 

Action Taken:  As reflected in the report and the environmental documents, all the features described as restoration components are included and made an integral part of the project design.

Review Team Assessment.  The actions taken resolve our concern.  This issue is resolved.

Comment (2):  Benefit Cost Ratios for Environmental Restoration.  ER 1105-2-100, paragraph 5-11.b.,  “Benefit-cost ratios are not relevant for environmental projects, and environmental specific costs are not included in the benefit-cost ratio for a multipurpose project.” The AFB report displays a slightly reduced BCR for the recommended plan.  This is not appropriate.  The draft report should comply with the cited guidance in presenting the BCRs for the NED and recommended plans.

         RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS             RETURN TO GUIDANCE PAGE

District Response:  Concur.  The environmental restoration costs have been separated from flood control costs and has been included in the updated report.  Table 27- System of Accounts in the Main Report reflects the appropriate BCR for the recommended plan of 1.21 and net benefits of $275K as opposed to 1.19 and $258K respectively.

Discussion:  See the discussion of Comment 1.B. (1).

Action:  The ecosystem restoration features will be included as a part of the flood control plan, and not allocated to a separable purpose.

Action Taken:  As reflected in the report and the environmental documents, all the features described as restoration components are included and made an integral part of the project design.

Review Team Assessment.  The actions taken resolve our concern.  This issue is resolved.

Comment (3):  Without-Project Condition.  ER 1105-2-100, Table 2-1, states that “key assumptions underlying the predicted with and without project conditions over time will be documented and justified… .”  Attachment 1 of Appendix O also requires key assumptions to be addressed in pre-AFB documentation.  Little information is presented on assumptions concerning future conditions, therefore, these assumptions cannot be reviewed.  For the draft feasibility report, the without-project condition forecasts and assumptions may need to be adjusted to recognize that, in the absence of a Federal project, non-Federal actions will still occur that could impact future flood damages.  Information on scheduled highway bridge modifications, if any, should be incorporated into the without-project condition forecast.  Bridge replacement work incorporated into the without-project condition could both reduce the cost of the flood control plan and also reduce benefits if existing bottlenecks are removed.  Also, it is likely that actions by individuals to stabilize eroding slopes will continue in the without-project condition, which could cause additional ecological impacts.  A well-thought-out without-project future condition is essential to the evaluation process.

District Response:  Concur.  Discussion on future without project conditions is found on Section E, page 41 of the main report.  This section will be expanded to include information regarding, among other things: future bridge modifications as planned by the City of Santa Barbara; continuing slope revetment by the property owners, the City, and the County Flood Control District; and the future impacts of the continuing creek bank armoring and regular creek maintenance.  Most of this information can be found in the EIS/EIR, however for clarity it will be described in more detail in the main report. 

Discussion:  The information in the response will be included in the draft report.

Action:  The discussion on future without project conditions will be expanded to include modifications to the creek resulting from such actions as planned bridge modifications, continuing slope revetment and regular maintenance.

Action Taken: Additional discussion of forecast conditions found on page 41-42, Future Without Project Condition, Main Report.  [CECW-AR note:  the following text begins on page 43 of the draft report.]

“Future without project conditions will be affected by bridge replacements, continued creek revetment and maintenance of the creek.   It is expected that individual property owners will continue to build several types of bank stabilization measures to protect or reclaim property damage property after any future damaging flood events.  Also, routine maintenance for the channel and the bridges is expected to continue at its current rate in the future.  A significant impact on future without project conditions is the scheduled replacement of the De La Vina- Haley Bridge prior to project implementation.

Although significant potential for redevelopment and infill exists, no change in the future without project floodplain inventory was projected in this analysis.  New construction in the floodplain was not factored in to the without project damage analysis as existing City Floodplain Management Ordinances require first floor elevations of new construction to be above the base flood elevation.  The potential exists for an event severe enough to fill in portions of the existing channel.  It is assumed that, following such an event, the existing channel would be reestablished since development in the area precludes allowing the creek to establish a new channel.  No other significant changes from the current without project condition are anticipated.”

Review Team Assessment:  The actions taken address our concern.  This issue is resolved.

C.  Costs.

         RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS             RETURN TO GUIDANCE PAGE

Comment (1):  Project Purpose and Federal/non-Federal.  The MCACES cost estimate(s) in the draft report, needs to separately detail the construction, PED and S&A, LERRD, and any other costs specifically associated with the ecosystem restoration component (if any) of the plan to be implemented.  Items of Federal and non-Federal costs need to be readily identifiable.  A special area of concern will be bridge related costs; identify which costs are relocations (non-Federal responsibility exclusively) and which are construction items (apportioned between Federal and non-Federal).  See ER 1105-2-100, para. 4-13.c. for the special cost sharing relating to bridges.

District Response:  Concur.  The cost estimates will be revised to separately display the aforementioned cost elements and included in the draft report.  Table 24 - With Project Costs found on page 86 of the main report, which displays the specific costs for these separate elements will be revised to clearly indicate their apportionment, whether construction costs or non-Federal responsibility.  All the bridges proposed to be replaced are necessary to allow for creek widening and are considered part of LERRD.  The culvert crossing under the railroad tracks is considered as part of construction costs IAW ER 1105-2-100, para 4-13c.

Discussion:  As indicated in 1B (1) above, there will be no separable costs for ecosystem restoration.  The report will be revised per the response.

Action:  The draft report will clearly indicate the cost apportionment.

Action Taken:   The cost apportionment table shown below has been included in the main report.

Review Team Assessment:  We agree the cost apportionment (cost sharing) shown above is correctly computed.  We have a concern with the cost of cultural resources mitigation that will be addressed in a separate comment on the draft report.  This issue is resolved.

Comment: (2) Engineering Appendix.  The final cost estimate cannot be compared with the costs in the engineering appendix because, it appears, changes were made after the appendix was completed.  The basis for the project cost estimate in the draft report should be readily understandable and the details in the engineering appendix should be reflected in the MCACES cost estimate or differences explained in the appendix.

District Response:  Concur. The cost estimate found in the engineering appendix assumed contingency factors of 25% in several line items and 20% in others.  As suggested by the ITR member IAW ER 1110-2-1302 dated 31 March 1994, 20% contingency was applied for all the construction costs.  The cost estimates in the engineering appendix will be revised to show final construction costs with 20% contingencies.  These changes will be reflected in the draft report. 

Discussion:  The report will be revised as indicated in the response.

Action:  The project cost estimates in the draft report will reflect the MCACES cost estimate and a revised engineering appendix.

Action Taken:  The main report costs and the Engineering Appendix are reconciled.

Review Team Assessment:  The total project cost shown in both the MCACES estimate and table are $17,017,800 plus $170,180 for cultural resources mitigation.  This issue is resolved.

D.  Flood Damage Analysis.

         RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS             RETURN TO GUIDANCE PAGE

Comment: (1)  Historical Flood Damages.  There is ample information in the report on the history of flooding in the study area but none of the information links floods (even fairly recent ones) to damages incurred during these floods.  The review assumption then is that almost no data regarding damages incurred is available, or where such data exists, it is unreliable.  Based on established economic evaluation procedures (see ER 1105-2-100, para 6-39) the fundamental basis for determining the potential for flood damages is to use losses actually sustained in historic floods, with derivative methods only used to update obsolete information and fill gaps since the last significant flood occurred.  If there is no useful historical flood damage information available, the feasibility study should state this and then proceed to more carefully explain how location-specific structural damage data was collected and how derivative (or “synthetic”) damage estimation methods were applied to this data.  In addition, please explain (in response to this comment) what source(s) provided the historical damage estimates in table 3?  Or is this table mislabeled because these are estimates from the FDA model of what damages might be from a recurrence of these storms?

District Response:  Concur.  A revised table will identify that the City of Santa Barbara was the source of the historical damages listed in the report.

Discussion:  The basis for the damages was explained.

Action:  The table of historical damages will be revised to indicate the City of Santa Barbara as

the source.

Action Taken:   The table of historical damages in the economic appendix was edited to indicate that the City of Santa Barbara was the source.

Review Team Assessment:  This issue is resolved.

Comment: (2) Depth-Damage Relationships.  The report does not present the assumptions used in developing depth damage curves for various structure types (or even the curves themselves without plotted confidence intervals), making it difficult to determine whether the assumptions are valid.  For instance, how were contents in multifamily residences treated?  Upper floors would likely receive little content damage.  How was this accounted for?  In order to be consistent with ER 1105-2-100, Table 2-1, para. 3.6, the feasibility report should include more complete information on the source of the depth-damage relationships used, along with the damage percentages applied per foot of inundation depth.

District Response:  Concur.  It was determined that the FEMA depth-damage curves were the most representative for the Lower Mission Creek study area.  Additionally, the information received in the damage survey did not prove a statistical deviation from the national FEMA curves.  Further, the structures in the study area are similar to those in previous Corps studies.  Further explanation will be provided in the report.

Discussion:  There is a lack of data and the structures are not unique.  The report needs to explain why the FEMA curves were adopted and the year of the database used.

Action:  The date of the FEMA curves will be incorporated into the Appendix for Residential single and multi-family curves.  The draft report will explain which curves were used and why they were adopted.  It will also describe the CH2M Hill study used for commercial damage

estimates.

Action Taken:   The economic appendix includes a table showing the FEMA curves that were used in calculating the damages for Lower Mission Creek.  An explanation in the report described how the curves were applied in the model.

Since the surveys that were sent to local residents in 1995 and 1998 provided insufficient           information to formulate representative depth/damage relationships, the study team       determined that the depth/damages relationships provided by FEMA are the best                        available information for the Lower Mission Creek Floodplain.  The FEMA                         depth/damage relationships were based on a report dated March 20, 1997.  Table E11             details the depth/damage relationships that were used in the HEC-FDA program.  Also,     the depth/damage relationships were applied only to the value of the structure and      contents that are located on the ground floor.

Review Team Assessment:  The above information about the depth-damage curve used for residential flood damage analysis was added to the report.  The draft report does not explain source of the depth-damage curves used for estimating structure and content damages for non-residential properties except to refer to "the CH2M Hill study."  Please document what the CH2M Hill study was and why using its results is appropriate for the analysis of flood damages in this feasibility study.  Rather than revising the report, just provide the information in response to this assessment.  This issue is not resolved.

Response:    The “CH2M Hill study” that was referred in the economic appendix did not include any information that supported the use of a particular depth damage curve for non-residential structures.  The information in “the CH2M Hill study” validated the expected value of contents that will be contained within residential and non-residential structures.   The depth/damage curves provided by FEMA were used to calculate the damages for non-residential structures.  Since the surveys from 1995 and 1998 did not provide enough information to formulate a regional depth/damage curve, the study team determined that the depth/damage curves from FEMA are the best available information for the Lower Mission Creek Floodplain.

Discussion:   The district clarified that local surveys were performed for local businesses in the Santa Barbara study area.  If  the  survey sample size received for a particular business type was greater than 19, the survey data was used for estimating contents damage.  If less than a sample size of 19 was received, the district used the CH2M Hill study results that set non-residential content value as 100% of structure value.  The district agreed to revise the economic appendix to provide dates, locations, and description of the CH2M Hill study and explain why using its results are appropriate for the analysis of flood damages in this feasibility study.

Required Action:   The district will revise the final report to better explain/document what the CH2M Hill study was and why using its results is appropriate for the analysis of flood damages in this feasibility study.   The ratios used will be stated.  The compliance memo will identify which section(s) of the report were revised to respond to this concern.

Comment: (3) Benefit Categories.  The economics appendix cites EM 1110-2-1619, but does not follow the display and comparison requirements contained therein.  The inundation reduction benefits need to be displayed by subcategories such as residential, commercial, and industrial.  In this case, displaying content benefits would also be appropriate.

         RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS             RETURN TO GUIDANCE PAGE

District Response:  Concur.  The revised report will show the benefit categories in the correct format.

Discussion:  The table will be revised per the response.

Action:  The report will include a table that shows the benefit categories in the correct format. 

Action Taken:   The economic appendix includes tables that display benefit information according to EM 1110-2-1619.  The following tables are included in the economic appendix.

Review Team Assessment:  The actions taken resolve our concern.  This issue is resolved.

Comment: (4) Value of Residential Contents.  The AFB material provides no information on the calculation of a residential contents ratio except a bottom line number.  This bottom line number was derived from a survey, which is not described at all, and from a statistical analysis that was not explained and in which few of the variables are identified.  The residential survey had a sample size of only 25.  Overall, the information presented is not sufficient to support the estimate of 64.3 percent content to structure value ratio.

District Response:  Concur.  The revised report will show the information for calculating the residential content ratio.

Discussion:  The results of the previous reconnaissance study were confirmed as a basis for the current feasibility phase efforts.

Action:  The results of the previous reconnaissance study will be shown.  Additional information to provide support to the statistical significance of the survey will be included in the draft report.

Action Taken:   The following paragraph has been included in the economic appendix to explain why the study team expected that the content-to-structure value ratio to be above .5.   Secondly, the survey’s results were validated by a statistical analysis that computed the t-statistic for the survey results.  The statistical analysis of the null hypothesis validated the survey results.

            The mean content-to-structure value ratio for the sample is 64.3% with a standard deviation of 53.8%.  Based on the results from the survey, the structures throughout the City of Santa Barbara are expected to have a 20% higher content-to-structure ratio than the national average.  The higher content-to-structure value ratio can be validated by the structure survey that was completed in the study area.  According to the structure inventory in Table E5, the majority of the residential buildings are being used for multi-family use.  It’s expected that content-to-structure ratio to be larger for multi-family structure, since the living space is smaller than a single family home.  In addition each unit is expected to have similar content values of a single family home.

Review Team Assessment:  The information provided and the report revisions resolve our concern.  This issue is resolved.

G.  Real Estate. 

Comment (1):  The District has stated that the sponsor will be preparing the Gross Appraisal.  That's not a problem so long as Chapter 4 (Appraisal) of ER 405-1-12 is complied with and the Gross Appraisal is approved in accordance with current delegations.   The Gross Appraisal is not to be included in the Real Estate Report (REP).  Instead, the approved value estimate amount, broken down by appropriate category (but not by tract), is what should be reported in the REP. 

District Response:  The Gross Appraisal prepared for the project will comply with chapter 4 of the ER 405-1-12.  A Real Estate Plan will be drafted with numbers supplied by the Gross Appraisal broken out in their appropriate categories.

Discussion:  As indicated in the response.

Action:  A draft real estate plan will be included in the draft report.

Review Team Assessment:  The draft Real Estate Appendix included as appendix G to the report is preliminary in nature and does not include all information required by ER 405-1-12.  It should be prepared to the feasibility level of detail for the recommended alternative (only) and include all categories of information (including conclusions reached after preparation of Preliminary or Final Attorney's Opinions of Compensability) required by paragraph 12-16 of ER 405-1-12.  The issue is not resolved.

Response:  The Real Estate Plan is being revised to a feasibility level of detail and will include all information required by ER 405-1-12.

Required Action:  The real estate plan provided with the final report will be to a feasibility level of detail and will include all information required by ER 405-1-12. 

Comment (2):  Overall, there are no RE issues that need to be addressed at the AFB.  However, for the draft feasibility report, elaboration is required on the following matters:

            Comment (a).  The sufficiency and availability (and creditability) of existing easements for the proposed work;

District Response:  This question will be addressed in the real estate plan.  There is not sufficient information at this time to make a determination.

Discussion:  A draft real estate plan will be included in the draft report.

Action:  The sufficiency and availability (and creditability) of existing easements for the proposed work will be included in the real estate plan.

Review Team Assessment:  See assessment under Real Estate Comment (1).

Response:  The Real Estate Plan is being revised to a feasibility level of detail and will include discussion regarding the sufficiency and availability (and creditability) of existing easements for the proposed work .

Required Action:   As stated by required action for G(1), the real estate plan provided with the final report will be to a feasibility level of detail and will include all information required by ER 405-1-12. 

            Comment (b).  The relevancy and proposed application of existing local "regulations affecting Mission Creek";

District Response:  This question will be answered in the planning report prepared by the sponsor and reviewed by the district.

Discussion:  A draft real estate plan will be included in the draft report.

Action:  The relevancy and proposed application of existing local regulations affecting Mission Creek will be included in the real estate plan.

Review Team Assessment:  See assessment under Real Estate Comment (1).

Response:   The Real Estate Plan is being revised to a feasibility level of detail and will include discussion regarding the relevancy and proposed application of existing local regulations affecting Mission Creek. 

Required Action:   As stated by required action for G(1), the real estate plan provided with the final report will be to a feasibility level of detail and will include all information required by ER 405-1-12. 

            Comment (c).  Sufficient resources should be devoted to preparation of Attorney's Opinions of Compensability for the numerous bridge relocations (and the RR bridge modification); and

District Response:  An Attorney’s Opinion of Compensability will be prepared on the bridges.

The plan feature involves constructing culverts through railroad and not impacting bridge.

Discussion:  The opinion of compensability will be reflected in the draft real estate plan.  The work effecting the railroad would not be a relocation.  Cost for utility relocations will not be in the estimate of financial costs but will be included in the economic analysis.

Action:  Compensability analysis, as required, will be reflected in the real estate plan.

Review Team Assessment:  See assessment under Real Estate Comment (1).  Also, the discussion regarding utility relocations appears misleading.  Attorney's opinions of compensibility will also be required for any utilities.  If the determination is made that removal of the utilities is the responsibility of the utility owners, those costs will be included in the economic analysis, but will not be included in the total project costs for cost-sharing purposes.  If the determination is made that alteration or replacement of an affected utility is a "relocation", those costs should be included in the total project cost as part of the non-Federal sponsor's LERRD responsibility.

Response:   The results of the Attorney’s Opinion of Compensability will be included in the REP and would dictate how the utility relocation costs would be considered and apportioned.  The economic analysis and the report would be revised accordingly.

Required Action:    The REP will include the results of the Attorney’s Opinion of Compensability and the economic analysis and the final report will be revised accordingly. The compliance memorandum will identify what part of the economic analysis and/or final report were effected.

            Comment (d).  The justification and authority for the physical relocation of several private residences as proposed on page 10 of the REP.

District Response:  The appropriate authority and justification will be detailed in the real estate plan for the relocation of the residences.

Discussion:  A draft real estate plan will be included in the draft report.

Action:  The justification and authority for the physical relocation of several private residences will be included in the real estate plan.

Review Team Assessment:  On pages 101 and 102, the report states that 2 residences would be "relocated" or "removed" to other locations on the same tracts so that creek widening can occur.  In its response to this comment, the District should explain whether the existing owners have agreed to this proposal instead of being paid fair market value for acquisition of their homes, who will be responsible for moving the structures (landowners, Corps, or Sponsor), and whether the attendant costs will be borne by the landowners after the homes are reserved as salvage or whether such costs are viewed as part of total project costs and allocated to construction or LER.  In the alternative, the District should delete these references from the report and the plan.  This issue is not resolved.

Response:   Additional refinements to the NED plan have avoided direct impacts to the subject structures.  Their removal or relocation would no longer be required.  The report will be revised accordingly.

Required Action:   The final report will be revised to describe the design refinements to the NED plan, including changes to the alignment requested by the sponsor.  The compliance memorandum will identify what parts of the report, including plates, were effected by the change.

H.  OMRR&R.  The average annual costs shown for OMRR&R ($15,000) appear to be low.  A description of an OMRR&R plan as required by ER 1110-2-1150, para 10.e, will need to be written and the costs estimated for the feasibility report so that the non-Federal sponsor is aware of its responsibilities in this area.   During the feasibility study, insure that the OMRR&R costs account for debris cleanup during large magnitude floods during the project life cycle.  Also, verify that OMRR&R costs resulting from potential seismic activity over the life cycle of the improvement have been evaluated.

         RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS             RETURN TO GUIDANCE PAGE

District Response:  The historical regular annual maintenance cost by the sponsor for the existing channel is  $10,000.   It is assumed that this cost should remain approximately the same with the proposed channel since similar maintenance activities would be needed.  During the larger magnitude “El nino” floods last year, the local sponsor also spent $95,000 to stabilize eroded banks and $50,000 for channel clean up and repair in addition to the annual maintenance cost.  The new channel should eliminate the cost for channel bank stabilization and repair after flooding.  It is assumed that three large magnitude floods of similar size will occur during the project life.  It can be assumed that channel clean up will remain at $50,000 after these events.  This gives an annualized cost of  $3,000.  Therefore, we believe that the $15,000 annual cost is a good estimate.  Note that the $15,000 annual cost refers to the flood control component of the project only.  The cost for O&M for the environmental restoration component is separate.

The cost of repair after seismic activity was not considered.  We will evaluate this item in the F5 feasibility report.

Discussion:  Appropriate replacement costs for the environmental features need to be recognized in the OMRR&R estimate.  This could include the replacement of topsoil and re-vegetation of areas that would be impacted (damaged) by large flood events.

Action:  The OMRR&R cost estimate will include costs for re-vegetation after major storms.  The risks will be explained in the report so that the local sponsor understands possible costs from

larger flood events.  The report will address sedimentation impacts on the harbor, per reconnaissance phase guidance.

Action Taken:   The expected  OMRR&R costs was recalculated to include maintenance of the planting zones and the potential need for revegetation after large events and with the expected channel maintenance requirements, the expected annual cost has been increased to $30K.  Additional discussion on potential sedimentation impacts to the harbor has been included on page 55, Sediment Budget Analysis of the main report:

“Based on the sediment budget analysis, approximately 21 tons (9.2 cubic yards) and 25 tons (10 cubic yards) of sediment are transported to the Santa Barbara Harbor on an average annual basis for the existing and with-project, respectively.  These numbers are negligible compared to the 25,000 cubic yards of material that are transported annually from East Beach to West Beach.  Based on these results, the with-project conditions for both capacities should have no significant effects on the sediment budget of the harbor.”

Review Team Assessment:  The actions taken are sufficient.  This issue is resolved.

I.  Risk and Uncertainty.  The AFB material displays a computed risk and uncertainty analysis, with some information about risk variables.  The level of uncertainty regarding the engineering and the economic performance of the recommended plan needs to be described in the final report in probabilistic terms.  ER 1105-2-100, para. 5-19. and EP 1165-2-1, para. 13-5 have guidance that can be used to describe the risk assessment results.  Tables A-3 and A-4 of ER 1105-2-101 are required in the draft report.  As many of the other tables in appendix A of the cited ER should be provided in the draft report as the reporting officers determine are applicable.

District Response:  Concur.  The revised report will include the correct tables for displaying the information for risk and uncertainty.

Discussion:  The revised report will include the correct tables.

Action:  The revised report will include additional tables to display the level of uncertainty of the recommended plan in probabilistic terms.

Action Taken:   The economic appendix includes tables that show the level of uncertainty regarding the engineering and the economic performance of the proposed alternatives. These tables are based on the recommended format listed in ER 1105-2-101.

Review Team Assessment:  The above tables appear as tables E63 and E64 in the draft report.  This issue is resolved.

J.  Permit Requirements.  The district should be able to discuss Clean Water Act issues (including 404(r)) at the briefing.  Paragraph 6.6.4, page 6-15 of the EIS states that Santa Barbara County will apply for a Section 404 Permit.  In accordance with Regulatory Guidance letter No. 88-09, the Corps does not issue itself a permit for a civil works project.  The need for a permit is only applicable in the event that the sponsor constructs the project.

         RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS             RETURN TO GUIDANCE PAGE

District Response:  Part 1. Section 404(r) regulation states that “The requirement to obtain Section 401 Water quality Certification for the project construction is waived if information on the effects of the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including the Section 404 analysis, is included in an EIS/EIR submitted to Congress before Congress authorizes the project or appropriates funds for construction”  

The proposed project with EIS/EIR will be submitted to Congress for re-authorization and appropriation of funds for construction, therefore, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be waived.  But for future maintenance, Santa Barbara County will be require to submit an application for a State 401 Water Quality Certification.  Future maintenance is a part of the project. For the life of the project, impacts related to the future maintenance will be included in the EIS/EIR.  The District will coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding 401Water Quality Certification.

Part 2.  District agrees that the Corps does not issue itself a permit for civil works projects.  Therefore, a Section 404 (b)(1) analysis will be prepared and included in the EIS/EIR Appendix F.  Section 404(b)(1) will address project related impacts to the waters of the United States.  A future maintenance plan is included in the EIS/EIR, and impacts related to the future maintenance are identified.  Mitigation measures for the future maintenance for the life of the project will be included in the Draft EIS/EIR.  Future maintenance will be performed by the Local Sponsor.  Therefore, Santa Barbara County is required to submit an application for a Section 404, Corps Regulatory permit.

Paragraphs on page 1-16 of the EIS/EIR (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch coordination) and on page 6.6.4 of the EIS/EIR (Compliance with Environmental Laws and Permit Requirements) will be updated to clarify permit-related issues.

Discussion:  District will include consideration of a 10-year permit or renewable 5-year permit. Representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requested close coordination of the OMRR&R requirements, especially of the environmental design features.  A reevaluation of the Section 401 permit is not needed after 5 years, unless there is a change in the proposed operation and maintenance.

Action:  Local sponsor will apply for a permit for operation and maintenance of the project referring to the EIS/EIR.  The type of permit that the City will apply for will be addressed in the draft report and draft EIS/EIR.  The district will continue to coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding 401 water quality certification.  The details of the OMRR&R will be specified in the draft report and draft EIS/EIR.  This information will also be provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for consideration in the CAR.

Review Team Assessment:  The district did not provide an "Action Taken" item for this comment.  We find a discussion of existing and future maintenance in the main report (pages 105-106) and EIS/EIR section 3.  However, we failed to find anything that addressed the type of permit that the City will apply for.  Our comment related to the Section 404(b)(1) analysis, therefore our concern has been addressed.  If the reporting officers wish to follow up on the actions identified above, they should do so.  This issue is resolved.

K.  Non-Federal Sponsor Letter.  The transmittal memorandum with the AFB material describes the sponsors’ commitment to the project and intent to attend the AFB, in compliance with Appendix O of ER 1105-2-100 that requires the status of sponsor support to be addressed in pre-AFB documentation.  In addition, the draft report needs to contain a letter from the city or county sponsor affirming its support of the recommended plan and its understanding of the non-Federal requirements for project cooperation.

District Response:  The Santa Barbara County Flood Control District will be providing a letter of support the pending concurrence from the County Board of Supervisors.  The letter is expected to be available after a presentation by the Flood Control District to the Board of Supervisors sometime in late September.  A separate letter indicating their understanding of the cost-sharing requirements and their general support for the project could be provided ahead of the letter that will indicate support for a specific or recommended plan. 

The City Public Works Department received positive indications from the City Council that the tentative recommended plan (Alternative 12) includes the features, which would most likely gain local acceptability.  

Discussion:  Alternative 12 is the NED Plan, which is supported by the local sponsor.  This plan should be referred to as the NED Plan, rather than a locally preferred plan.  The draft report should indicate that the sponsor supports the NED Plan.  The sponsor’s representative will go the Board in September with a letter for their consideration that indicates support for a project of the identified scope.  The sponsor’s letter of intent is subject to public review of the draft report.

Action:  A letter of intent will be transmitted with the final report.  The draft report may indicate that the sponsor supports the tentatively selected plan, subject to public review.

Review Team Assessment:  The district provided no "Actions Taken" information.  We understand that the sponsor cannot take a final position until after public comments on the draft report are considered.  We note that page 97 of the draft report still uses the terminology "locally preferred plan."  If the sponsor supports the NED plan, then there is no locally preferred plan and the final report should state that the sponsor supports the recommended plan.  If the sponsor supports a plan that is not the NED plan then the report will have to be revised to provide for an exception to the requirement to recommend the NED plan.  The exception request will have to be coordinated with ASA(CW) prior to completion of the final report.  Further, the final report must contain a letter from the sponsor.  This issue is not resolved.

Response:    The sponsor and the City of Santa Barbara support and prefer the NED plan.  As the case, the report will be revised to indicate such and eliminate reference to a “locally preferred plan”.  The Sponsor has indicated that their letter of intent would be provided in time for inclusion into the final report. 

Required Action:   As indicated in the response, the district will revise the report to indicate that the non-Federal sponsor supports and prefers the NED plan and will eliminate reference to a “locally preferred plan”.  The non-Federal sponsor letter of intent will be included in the final report.  The compliance memorandum will note how and where the report was revised to reflect this change.

L.  Cost Sharing.  The AFB material does not show estimated cost sharing, but given the significant real estate and bridge modification cost associated with this project, it appears to us that the eventual non-Federal share of flood control costs is likely to equal the maximum 50 percent currently permitted by law.  The draft report cannot be released to the public without presenting the apportionment of costs.

District Response:  The cost-sharing breakdown will be included in the draft report.  As mentioned, the non-Federal share will likely equal the maximum 50%.  The breakdown will be included in the planner’s presentation at the AFB meeting.

Discussion:  The cost apportionment was included in the presentation at the AFB.  This apportionment will be modified to reflect a single purpose flood control project as indicated in the previous discussions.

Action:  The cost apportionment will be revised to reflect a single purpose flood control project.

Review Team Assessment:  The district provided no "Actions Taken" information.  We note that the cost apportionment appeared in the main report in table 28.  This issue is resolved.

M.  Items of Local Cooperation.  Contact me at CECW-AR-M just prior to publication of the draft report to obtain an up-to-date list of items of cooperation to be included in the report.

District Response:  Concur. 

Discussion:  The items of local cooperation are under constant revision.  The most recent list will be provided by Ms. Jo Ann Duman, CECW-AR, via e-mail and a more current list will be requested before the report goes to the public.

Action:  HQUSACE will provide items of local cooperation for coordination with local sponsor and incorporation into the draft report.

Review Team Assessment:  We note the district provided no "Actions Taken" information.  The list of local cooperation items beginning on page 107 are satisfactory.  This issue is resolved.

( CECW-AR-M note:  Ms. Duman confirmed with CECC-G June 2000 that the list of items has not changed since December 1999.)

2.  NEW COMMENTS.  These items were noted during review of the draft report.

         RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS             RETURN TO GUIDANCE PAGE

A.  NON-FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.  In describing plan implementation requirements, the introductory statement of paragraph B on page 107 states that the two sponsor agencies "in accordance with their intergovernmental agreement" would provide the required items of local cooperation.  In its response to this comment, the District should explain how the intergovernmental agreement affects provision of such items by either or both of such agencies.  In the alternative, if the referenced agreement has no bearing on the joint responsibility of the agencies to provide such items, the parenthetical statement should be deleted from the report.

Response:  Santa Barbara County Flood Control District is the official signatory sponsor for the project and is aware of the required items of local cooperation.  The Flood Control District, the responsible agency is capable of fulfilling these requirements.  Their separate agreement with the City would not have any bearing on such items and should instead aid in fulfilling the local requirements.  The report will be revised to reflect that the Flood Control District is responsible for the items of local cooperation and would make no reference to the local intergovernmental agreement.     

Required Action:   As indicated in the response the report will be revised to reflect that the Flood Control District is responsible for the items of local cooperation and will make no reference to the local intergovernmental agreement. The compliance memorandum will note how and where the report was revised to reflect this change.    

B.  RAILROAD WORK COST SHARING.  Table 28 on page 109 includes a $174,000 Federal cost entry described as a "Railroad Detour."  In its response to this comment, the District should explain why such work and cost is not classified as a part of a relocation responsibility assigned to the Sponsor.  In the alternative, the table should be revised to include this item, and its attendant costs, as part of the Sponsor's LERRD responsibility.

Response:   IAW ER 1105-2-100 Appendix E, Section III - Flood Damages Reduction, Subsection E-21, Federal and Non-Federal Participation, the cost associated with railroad detour in order to install the box culvert across the R/R tracks shall be the responsibility of the non-federal sponsor and included in the cost of  LERRDS. The cost apportionment shown in the report will be revised accordingly. 

Required Action:  As indicated in the response, the cost apportionment shown in the report, including the M-CACES estimate, will be revised to reflect the box culvert across the R/R tracks to be the responsibility of the non-Federal sponsor and included in the cost of  LERRDS.  The compliance memorandum will note how and where the report was revised to reflect this change.

C.  COSTS FOR HTRW AND CULTURAL RESOURCES.  The draft feasibility report contains references to possible HTRW and cultural resources considerations.  It is not clear if the potential cost implications have been provided for in the project cost estimate.  Page 15-9 and following of the draft EIS allude to possible contamination of the soils and groundwater in the project excavation area.  Page 18-28 and following of the draft EIS presents a potentially costly historical mitigation plan.  It is not evident from the cost information presented in Tables 27 and 28 of the main report that the project cost estimate contains a sufficient contingency to address the additional costs related to contaminated soils or additional cost shared mitigation (beyond the 1 percent) for historic preservation.  Without sufficient cost contingencies, the risk of violating Section 902 of WRDA 1986 increases.  See EP 1165-2-1, para. 5-7.c.(2)(3), full Federal funding for cultural resources mitigation is limited to 1% of expected Federal appropriated project cost (1% of $8,508,000 equals $85,080).  Should the estimated cost of cultural resources mitigation measures exceed 1% of the total estimated Federal appropriations, a waiver request shall be submitted in accordance with Section 208 of the National Historic Preservation Act amendments of 1980 (see ER 1105-2-100, para. 7.-51.c. for guidance.)  The cost of cultural resources mitigation that exceeds the 1% limit needs to be shown as cost shared 65% Federal and 35% non-Federal.  Based on the information obtained during review of the draft report, the project cost and cost sharing in the final report should be revised if necessary to address HTRW and historical resources. 

Response:  HTRW.  The subject parcel is included in the project as an additional opportunity to expand the riparian corridor along the creek banks and thus create a habitat area adjoining the creek.  The project assumes that the site would be acquired “clean” by the sponsors as part of the LERRDS.  The appraised cost of this land as included in the Gross Appraisal assumes the highest and best use of the land after remediation.  In the event that the sponsors are unsuccessful in acquiring the land clean, this feature would not be constructed.  The absence of this feature does not affect the functionality, environmental commitments, and mitigation requirements of the project.  Again, its an opportunity to create a more environmentally sound design but if related issues are not resolved, removal of this feature would not affect sponsor’s support for the project.  

Cultural Resources.   Additional refinements to NED plan have resulted essentially in complete avoidance of impacts to significant cultural resources.  The estimated cost of the remaining cultural resources related considerations such as monitoring and like work, for the project would be $60,000 (<1% of Federal Cost). 

Required ACTION:  No further action is required.  District response resolves this concern.

D.  REPORT RECOMMENDATION.  Part I.A. on page 1of the report acknowledges that the existing authority for the subject project, Section 209 of the 1968 Flood Control Act, P.L. 87-874, is limited to an authorization for “survey,” rather than construction, of the subject project.  However, part VII on page 113 of the report recommends “implementation” of the recommended plan, without making clear whether further authorization for project construction by the Congress will be required. This ambiguity should be clarified in the report.  Unless the district wishes to provide a legal analysis that shows the recommended plan can be implemented under the Chief's discretionary authority, we ask that the District Engineer specifically recommend that Congress de-authorize the previous project and provide a new authorization for the plan recommended in the report.

Response:  The report will be revised to indicate that the DE’s recommendation will de-authorize the previous project and provide a new authorization for the plan recommended.

Required Action:  As indicated in the response the report will be revised to indicate that the DE’s recommendation will include deauthorization of the previous project and provide a new authorization for the plan recommended.  The compliance memorandum will indicate where the report was revised to reflect this change.

E.  FINANCING PLAN.  A letter of intent from the sponsor and the District’s assessment of the sponsor’s financial capability should be added to the report, as required by Section 905 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (“[The report] shall demonstrate that States, other non-federal interests, and Federal agencies have been consulted in the development of the recommended plan . . .”) and ER 1105-2-100 paras. 6-169 and 6-170.

Response:   The letter of intent from the sponsor and the District’s assessment of the sponsor’s financial capability will be added to the final report.   The sponsor has indicated that the LOI is currently being pursued and expected to be ready in time for the final report.

Required Action:   As indicated in the response the letter of intent from the sponsor and the District’s assessment of the sponsor’s financial capability will be added to the final report. The compliance memorandum will indicate where the report was revised to reflect this change.

F.  ENVIRONMENTAL.  The draft report acknowledges that the project currently lacks compliance with a number of environmental laws and regulations.  Compliance will be required prior to approval of the final report.

Response:   Coordination with resource agencies to fully comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations is continuing.  The Final Coordination Act Report has been provided by F&WS.  Completion of Section 7 consultation with both NMFS and F&WS is expected to be completed with the Biological Opinion provided in time for the final report.  Extensive prior coordination and exchange of ideas and information with these agencies lead us to believe that the agencies opinion would be favorable.  Upon receipt of the BO, the California Coastal Commission would review the project and make their decision on the Coastal Consistency Determination for this project.  We expect the Commission to vote on this project during their August 2000 hearing.  

Discussion:  Although the legal requirement for coastal consistency determination does not have to be met until the project is ready for the PCA execution, the Corps does not want to receive objections from the Coastal Commission in response to the DE’s Notice or Chief of Engineers Report.  In this regard preference for an interim letter from the Coastal Commission, for this and other project was discussed.  The district will request such a letter and provide it in the final report if available.

Required Action:   The final report will document compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations.  The compliance memorandum will note where in the report compliance with these laws is documented.

         RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS             RETURN TO GUIDANCE PAGE