Orestimba Creek Feasibility Study - Stanislaus County

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Economics Appendix – Draft Report - Orestimba Creek Feasibility Study, Stanislaus County, California – September 2012 Table 6-10: Project Performance – Rural EIA Alternative Annual Exceedance Probability Long-Term Risk Conditional Non-Exceedance Probability by Events Median Expected 10 Year Period 30 Year Period 50 Year Period 10% 2% 1% 0.20% 1. No Action 24.31% 24.22% 94% 99% 99% 6% 2% 1% 1% 2. Chevron Levee at 112.75ft 3. Chevron Levee at 114.8ft 24.31% 24.22% 94% 99% 99% 6% 2% 1% 1% 24.31% 24.22% 94% 99% 99% 6% 2% 1% 1% Table 6-11: Project Performance – Urban EIA Alternative Annual Exceedance Probability Long-Term Risk Conditional Non-Exceedance Probability by Events Median Expected 10 Year Period 30 Year Period 50 Year Period 10% 2% 1% 0.20% 1. No Action 14.43% 15.13% 81% 98% 99% 13% 0% 0% 0% 2. Chevron Levee at 112.75ft 3. Chevron Levee at 114.8ft 0.01% 0.04% 0% 1% 2% 99% 99% 99% 98% 0.00% 0.00% 0% 0% 0% 99% 99% 99% 99% 6.6 Other Benefits Recreation Benefits At this time, no recreation benefits have been computed as recreation has not been identified as a federal project purpose for Orestimba Creek. Environmental Benefits The alternatives could provide environmental outputs in addition to flood damage reduction. These benefits are non-monetary and were not part of the economic analysis. Details of the Environmental Quality (EQ) account outputs of the various alternatives can be found in the main report. 42
Economics Appendix – Draft Report - Orestimba Creek Feasibility Study, Stanislaus County, California – September 2012 Regional Economic Development (RED) The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) planning guidance notebook (ER 1105-2-100) states that while National Economic Development (NED) and Environmental Quality (EQ) accounts are required, display of Regional Economic Development (RED) is discretionary. The Corps 1991 NED Procedures Manual states there should be no doubt that RED benefits are real and legitimate benefits. The concern, from a federal perspective, is that they are often offset by RED activity in other regions. But for the local community, these benefits are important and can help them in making their preferred planning decisions. Existing guidance from USACE offers limited detail in describing either the definition or the procedures to determine RED. Principles and Guidelines (P&G 1983) states that the RED account registers changes in the distribution of regional economic activity that result from each alternative plan. Evaluations of regional effects are to be carried out using nationally consistent projections of income, employment, output and population. A detailed writeup of the RED analysis performed for Orestimba can be found in Attachment C. Other Social Effects (OSE) The OSE account describes the potential social effects of the project that are not covered by the National Economic Development (NED), Regional Economic Development (RED), and Environmental Quality (EQ) accounts. The four accounts comprise the Principles and Guidelines evaluation framework by which, according to ER 1105-2-100, any project’s effects, beneficial and adverse, can be evaluated and the alternative subsequently “selected and recommended for implementation if it has, on balance, net beneficial effects after considering all plan effects, beneficial and adverse.” A detailed writeup of the RED analysis performed for Orestimba can be found in Attachment D. Additional Flood Related Risks In addition to the monetary losses to categories listed above, flooding from Orestimba Creek could have other damage impacts and place many public services at risk, and if reduced would provide additional non-monetary benefit. Emergency costs (about 6% of total damages) evaluated in this appendix were limited to evacuation, relocation and temporary assistance based on examples of similar flood risks found on other flood damage studies in Northern California. Administrative costs and increased public services such as police and fire were not included in these emergency cost estimates primarily due to lack of available data regarding any comparable historical flooding within the area. Nationwide, where depth of flooding and duration of event were much greater, some studies have estimated total emergency costs (including temporary relocation, evacuation, public administration, additional emergency healthcare and increased labor) as high as 15% of the total without-project damages. While the emergency costs listed for 43
Page 1 and 2:
Economics Appendix - Draft Report -
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16: Economics Appendix - Draft Report -
Page 65: Economics Appendix - Draft Report -
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133:
show all

Orestimba Creek Feasibility Study - Stanislaus County

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?