US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Miles City, Montana Section 205 Gwyn M. Jarrett - Project Manager Omaha District April 27, 2016

BUILDING STRONG ®  Corps studies in Miles City  Section 205 study process  Section 205 study status Agenda 2

BUILDING STRONG ® Miles City Most Reported Ice Jams 3 Source: National Weather Service, 2007

BUILDING STRONG ® 60% of 36 floods “ice affected” 20 major ice jams in March 4

BUILDING STRONG ® Miles City, MT  City most prone to ice flooding in Montana  Participates in National Flood Insurance Program  Federal Declarations for Flooding between 1974 and 2009 (1996, 1997)  FEMA Published Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRMS); Revised Preliminary in 2009  City adopted Floodplain Ordinance and Effective DFIRMS in 2010  Over 80% of city limits are inside 100-year floodplain  Over 3,000 structures in floodplain under new DFIRM 5 Source: 2010 Update State of Montana Multi-Hazard Plan and Statewide Hazard Assessment

BUILDING STRONG ® Existing Levee WPA Project (1930s) Augmented Through Time Crest varies – yr Flood City Does Not Own All ROW Erosion & Maintenance Issues Ineligible for P.L in

BUILDING STRONG ®  Evaluation of Tongue River  Preliminary hydraulic modeling ► Ice cover calibrated to historic flood data ► Tongue River levee provides estimated 10- to 25-year protection under ice conditions ► Floodwaters that overtop or fail the Tongue River levee flow across the floodplain through the city  Preliminary economic work ► Estimated 3,100 structures from aerial photos ► Analysis assumed structure values and approximate flood depths from hydraulic model Section 205 Initial Assessment

BUILDING STRONG ® 2005 Section 205 Initial Assessment (cont.)  Preliminary geotechnical analysis ► Assumed existing levee would not meet certification criteria ► Initial design of new levee using existing levee as borrow and raising to provide 100-yr protection  Preliminary benefits versus costs ► Estimated construction cost - $4.2 Million Possible induced damage or environmental mitigation costs not included ► Estimated benefits - $29.3 Million Residual flooding from Yellowstone River not included ► Estimated benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio – 6.97 / 1 8

BUILDING STRONG ® 2009 FEMA DFRIM Adopted in

BUILDING STRONG ® Economics Source: Montana Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan and Statewide Hazard Assessment, 2013 Structure TypeNumberValue Residential 2,936$220,229,762 Commercial/Industrial/ Municipal 493$91,710,390 Total 3,429$311,940,152 10

BUILDING STRONG ® Letter of Request Received  Miles City, MT Letter of Request – March 6, 2013  Objective: Reduce flooding risk 11

BUILDING STRONG ® Section 205 Authority  Authorized by Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended  Flood control projects of limited scope and complexity  Costs are shared between the Corps and a non-Federal sponsor ► Total Federal share limited to $10 million  Benefits of Section 205 vs General Investigation (GI) ► Delegated approval at division level ► Preauthorized for construction ► Funded as a program 12

BUILDING STRONG ®  Intended for construction of a Flood Risk Reduction Project  There is a project sponsor who meets the following criteria: ► Public entity with financial capability for project cost sharing ► Capability to acquire and provide the necessary real estate interests ► Capability to operate and maintain project at completion  Project justification meet a series of criteria ► Benefits exceed costs (B/C>1) ► Federally preferred plan is the NED = National Economic Development. The plan that maximizes the net project benefits. May not be plan with highest B/C Locally preferred plan can be implemented instead of NED with sponsor funding and B/C>1 Section 205 Criteria 13

BUILDING STRONG ® Level of Detail Feasibility Study Plans and Specs Initial Assessment Phase Cost-Shared Phase Level of Uncertainty LOW HIGH WE ARE HERE Section 205 Process 14

BUILDING STRONG ® Sponsor Letter of Request Cost-Shared Feasibility Study Identification of existing conditions and alternatives Public scoping Environmental compliance Alternative Formulation Briefing (AFB) Final product is a completed feasibility report with recommended alternative Major Subordinate Command (MSC) approval Design and Implementation Plans and specs Construction Operation and maintenance manual provided to sponsor Initial Assessment Federal Interest Determination (FID) Scope and cost estimating Feasibility Cost Share Agreement (FCSA) 100% Federal - $100k 50% Federal 50% Local any combination of cash and in-kind services 65% Federal 35% Local including Land, Easements Right-of-Way WE ARE HERE Section 205 Process 15

BUILDING STRONG ® What is the Federal Interest Determination (FID)?  It is one of the main documents in the study process ► Identifies objectives, problem, constraints, opportunities, array of alternatives, environmental considerations ► Identifies potential mitigation in line with the authority ► Identifies if the magnitude of the problem and mitigation are likely to be economically feasible and technically viable ► Identifies a willing sponsor who is capable of study and implementation 16

BUILDING STRONG ® Environmental Considerations  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process ► Weighing environmental factors in the decision-making process ► Discussion of publicly significant natural resources ► Help define public values  Environmental Compliance ► Clean Water Act ► National Environmental Policy Act ► Endangered Species Act ► Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act  Opportunities for secondary benefits to flood risk management ► Recreation ► Enhancement of natural features 17

BUILDING STRONG ®  Alter the flood characteristics Example of Flood Risk Structural Measures 18 Bridge improvement Levee Channel improvement

BUILDING STRONG ®  Alter the at-risk properties ► Residential and commercial Flood Risk Adaptive Measures (Example of Nonstructural) 19 ElevationWet floodproofing Dry floodproofing

BUILDING STRONG ® Section 205 Study Area 20

BUILDING STRONG ®  It’s important for local and state organizations and the public to provide input throughout the study process.  When reviewing the study information, it is important for sponsor and community to provide input on: ► Flooding problems, impacts or damages you’ve experienced in the study area Property damage, road closures, detours, etc. ► Opportunities for secondary benefits to flood risk management Enhancement of natural features Recreation opportunities ► Potential outcomes of the study you’d like to see avoided Public Involvement in the Study 21

BUILDING STRONG ® Road Ahead for 2016  FID submitted to NWD  Project Delivery Team site visit  Scope project tasks and costs estimate with sponsor  Develop Project Management Plan  Sign Federal Cost Share Agreement 22

BUILDING STRONG ® Questions Gwyn Jarrett 23