1 / 22

East Locust Creek Watershed Plan Revision

East Locust Creek Watershed Plan Revision. Lauren Cartwright Economist, Water Resources Staff Columbia, Missouri June 2005. Location. Background. Original East Locust Creek Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment signed in 1987 120 small FWRD and 1 large FWRD planned

garret
Download Presentation

East Locust Creek Watershed Plan Revision

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. East Locust Creek Watershed Plan Revision Lauren Cartwright Economist, Water Resources Staff Columbia, Missouri June 2005

  2. Location

  3. Background • Original East Locust Creek Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment signed in 1987 • 120 small FWRD and 1 large FWRD planned • Original Sponsors: • SWCD Putnam and Sullivan Co. • Locust Creek Watershed Subdistrict • Putnam and Sullivan Co. Commissions

  4. Revision • 2002 North Central Missouri Regional Water Commission formed to develop reliable supply of water for north central Missouri • Feasibility study completed in Aug 2003 by Burns and Mc Donnell Engineering, which estimated water need and identified potential water sources • Recommended alternative is a reservoir located in the East Fork of Locust Creek

  5. Revision • Original East Locust Creek Watershed Plan needs to be revised to incorporate additional project purposes: rural water supply and recreation • Proposed reservoir size: 65,000 ac. ft.-auxiliary spillway elevation (~45,000 ac. ft. of rural water supply storage) • Area: 2,200 ac (principal spillway elevation), 2,600 ac (auxiliary spillway elevation) • Estimated installation costs: $40 million (includes construction, land rights, project administration, and infrastructure relocation) • As of FY2004; from original plan • 72 dams constructed or under contract

  6. Considerations Impact on original plan • Inundation of structures • 7 constructed dams will be totally inundated, 8 partially • 8 planned dams totally inundated • Re-analyze the need for remaining planned structures for flood damage reduction purpose • Take into account land use changes and impacts of existing structures on flood damage reduction

  7. Why Revision vs. Supplement? • In general the National Watershed Manual (Part 506.02) requires a revised plan if… • New problems have been identified • There are complex changes in the planned measures • Changes to the plan require approval by committees of Congress (structures with total capacity of greater than 4,000 acre-feet must have congressional committee approval) • NWM Part 506.01: A revised plan replaces the existing plan, as supplemented. It should include all information needed to install a project without reference to the original plan or previous supplemental plans.

  8. Analysis/Re-analysis

  9. Map of Re-analysis Area

  10. Flood Damage Reduction • Incremental approach • 22 small structures on Little East Locust • 17 small structures on mainstem East Locust • Multipurpose structure with TR60 flood storage design • Multipurpose structure with minimum storage design

  11. Flood Damage Reduction • Econ2 used to analyze crop and pasture, fence and debris damages • Urb1 used to analyze urban damages in Milan • Road and Bridge damages were indexed and adjusted for existing structure influence

  12. Rural Water Supply • P&G 2.2.12 • …the benefit may be considered equal to the cost of the separable M&I facilities plus an appropriate share of the remaining joint cost of the project. • Separable Cost Remaining Benefits analysis to determine separable cost of the rural water supply • Cost to re-design 5 sites and modify 7 sites included in the rural water supply portion of the analysis

  13. Recreation • P&G unit day value method combined with Forest Service meta analysis

  14. Livestock Watering • Livestock watering pipes were installed in some of the built structures • Landowners attested to benefits of having pipes, especially during the most recent drought • Developed methodology to capture livestock watering benefits in small structures planned in the revision

  15. Four Alternatives Developed and Analyzed in the Revision • Alternative 1: TR60 designed reservoir 22 structures on Little East Locust Creek • Alternative 2: Minimum storage designed reservoir 22 structures on Little East Locust Creek 17 structures on mainstem East Locust Creek • Alternative 3: Minimum storage designed reservoir 22 structures on Little East Locust Creek • Alternative 4: Future without revised plan Finish building 52 structures from original plan

  16. Results

  17. Net Benefits • Alternative 1: $1,711,500 • Alternative 2: $1,762,500 • Alternative 3: $1,790,900 NEDPlan

  18. NED Plan

  19. RED Analysis • Coordinated effort with Missouri Department of Natural Resources • IMPLAN • Report will be developed to provide to local sponsors • Results are pending

  20. Questions?

More Related