HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.D.3. Army Corps of Engineers Request for Riverbank Stabilization Feasibility Study-Res. No. 6198
IS: D. ~.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Director
Meeting Date: March 1, 2005
Subject: Army Corps of Engineers Request for Riverbank Stabilization
Feasibility Study, Resolution No. 6189
INTRODUCTION
City Council is asked to adopt Resolution No. 6198, A Resolution of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, Requesting the Army Corps of Engineers to Conduct a Feasibility
Study for Riverbank Stabilization.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
As part of the funding options for Huber Park, City Council recently discussed requesting
assistance from the Army Corps of Engineers for riverbank stabilization. The Army
Corps has several programs that might be appropriate. Each program focuses on
different initiatives, from emergency bank protection to flood co~trol. From speaking with
Army Corps staff, it appears that authorization under Section 14 of the 1946 Flood
Control Act is the most applicable for the work we are pursuing. The city received
funding from this program in 2001.
The process begins with submitting a request to have the Army Corps of Engineers
undertake a feasibility study for the project. If selected, the study is funded by the Corps
up to $40,000, and the remainder is cost shared. If the feasibility study determines that a
project is needed, funding for the work is typically 65% federal, and 35% non-federal.
Funding for both the feasibility study and the project is allocated by Congress. Usually,
Congress provides a funding allocation to the Corps, which is then allocated to specific
projects based on the project urgency. In some cases, funding is earmarked by
Congress for specific projects.
Councilor Lehman arranged a very effective meeting with Representative Kline. During
that meeting, Representative Kline indicated that he would submit a letter of support for
this project to the Army Corps, and work with the city to help move the project through
the Corps' review process.
Finally, since we are entirely certain what program the requested work would qualify for,
the resolution that we have prepared for you requests a feasibility study under Section
14, "or other sections that may be appropriate".
REQUESTED ACTION
City Council is asked to adopt Resolution No. 6198, A Resolution of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, Requesting the Army Corps of Engineers to Conduct a Feasibility
Study for Riverbank Stabilization.
RESOLUTION NO. 6198
A Resolution Of The City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Requesting the Army Corps of
Engineers to Conduct a Feasibility Study for Riverbank Stabilization
WHEREAS, the City of Shakopee is located along the Minnesota River and
benefits from the ecological and recreational resources that the river provides; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota River is a critical resource to the community, the
State of Minnesota, and the Region; and
WHEREAS, the riverbank continues to erode in critical areas that were not
stabilized previously and could potentially endanger City utilities, park land, and trails,;
and
WHEREAS, continued erosion of the riverbank along the reach of the river within
Shakopee also has deleterious effects for downstream communities; and
WHEREAS, the City completed a Section 14 Emergency Bank Protection project
on a portion of the riverbank in 2001 with assistance from the Army Corps of Engineers;
and
WHEREAS, it is desirable and advisable to continue efforts to protect the
riverbank within the City of Shakopee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the City Council requests the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct
studies to determine the feasibility of developing an emergency streambank
or shoreline protection project in downtown Shakopee under the authority
provided by Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended, or other
authority deemed appropriate by the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers.
2. The City Council acknowledges that it is aware of the Section 14 (and other
sections) local responsibilities and that the City has the ability to proceed
within 12 months if it is found feasible and advisable to develop a
streambank or shoreline protection project at downtown Shakopee. The City
Council further acknowledges that it would be required, before construction
commences, to enter into a contractual agreement to provide such local
cooperation as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army.
3. The City Clerk shall be, and is hereby, directed to transmit three copies of
this resolution to the District Engineer, S1. Paul District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 190 5th Street East, S1. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1638.
Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of
Shakopee, Minnesota, held this day of ,2005.
Mayor of the City of Shakopee
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Page 1 of3
Army Corps of Engineers Centre, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
iii Emergency Bank Protection
- Section 14
us Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District
What the Corps Can Do
Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended,
permits construction of bank protection works to protect
endangered highways, highway bridge approaches and other
essential, important public works, such as municipal water
supply systems and sewage disposal plants; churches,
hospitals, schools and other nonprofit public services; and
known cultural sites that are endangered by flood-caused
bank or shoreline erosion. Repair, restoration, and/or
modification of the eroding streambank is allowed.
Procedures followed for Section 14 projects are designed to expedite implementation. The time
required from initiation of a study to award of a construction contract should not exceed 12 months.
Section 14 covers only protection of important and essential public facilities which serve the general
public. In addition to major highway systems of national importance, eligible highways may also
include principal highways, streets and roads of special and significant importance to the local
community. Examples are arterial streets, important access routes to other communities and adjacent
settlements as well as roads designated as primary farm to market roads.
Privately owned riverfront and privately owned facilities are not eligible for protection under the
Section 14 authority. Erosion protection is not eligible under Section 14, if the problem is caused by
the design or operation of the facility itself or by inadequate drainage or lack of reasonable
maintenance. Repair of the facility itself is also excluded under Section 14.
A bank protection project must be designed to be an effective and successful operation. Each project
constructed must be economically justified and the maximum federal expenditure per project is
limited to $1,000,000. If the project cost exceeds the $1 million federal cost limit, the difference must
be provided by local cash contribution. Studies are accomplished at full federal expense up to
$40,000, and the remainder is cost shared. Projects are cost shared. Non-federal interests are required
to contribute a minimum of35 percent of the project costs, of which at least 5 percent of the total cost
must be contributed in cash.
Local Responsibilities
Local sponsorship for a Section 14 project must be provided by a state, local agency or Indian Tribe
empowered with sufficient legal and financial authority to comply fully with all required local
cooperation and participation. The local sponsoring agency must agree to:
1. Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements and rights-of-way necessary for
construction of the project.
http://www.mvp.usace.army .mil/print! default.asp?pageid=2&subpageid=0 2/24/2005
Page 2 of3
2. Accomplish without cost to the United States all required alterations and relocations in sewer,
water supply, drainage and other utility facilities.
3. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works, not
including damages during construction, operation and maintenance that are due to the fault or
negligence of the United States or its contractors.
4. Maintain the project after completion.
5. Assume full responsibility for all project costs in excess of the federal cost limit of$1 million
or to satisfy local cost sharing requirements.
6. Provide a cash contributions for project costs in proportion to any special benefits to non-public
property .
7. Contribute a minimum of35 percent up-front financing for construction. At least 5 percent of
the total cost must be a cash contribution.
Sample Resolution
Be it resolved that the (City Council, Tribal Council, County Board of Commissioners, etc.) requests
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct studies to determine the feasibility of developing an
emergency streambank or shoreline protection project at (location) under the authority provided by
Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended.
The (City Council, etc.) acknowledges that it is aware of the Section 14 local responsibilities and that
the (City, etc.) has the ability to proceed within 12 months if it is found feasible and advisable to
develop a streambank or shoreline protection project at (location). The (City Council, etc.) further
acknowledges that it would be required, before construction commences, to enter into a contractual
agreement to provide such local cooperation as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army.
The (Clerk, Secretary, etc.) of the (City Council, Tribal Council, etc.) shall be, and is hereby, directed
to transmit three copies of this resolution to the District Engineer, St. Paul District, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 190 5th Street East, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1638.
Signed (Mayor, Chairman, etc.)
Date (Date)
Point of Contact: (Name, Title, Address, Phone Number)
How to Request a Study
An investigation under Section 14 may be initiated after receipt of a formal request from the
prospective sponsoring agency. An example of an acceptable resolution is given above. This request
and any further inquiries concerning an emergency bank protection project should be made directly
to:
St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers
Project Management Branch
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1638
Contact Person:
Tom Crump
(651) 290-5284
http://www.mvp.usace.army .mil/print! default.asp?pageid=2&subpageid=0 2/24/2005
Page 1 of2
Army Corps of Engineers Centre, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
iii Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration - Section 206
us Army Corps of Engineers
S1. Paul District
What the Corps Can Do
Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 provides authority for the Corps of
Engineers to undertake restoration projects in aquatic ecosystems such as rivers, lakes and wetlands.
The Corps evaluates projects that benefit the environment through restoring, improving, or protecting
aquatic habitat for plants, fish and wildlife. A project is accepted for construction after a detailed
investigation shows it is technically feasible, environmentally acceptable, and provides cost effective
environmental benefits. Each project must be complete within itself, not a part of a larger project.
Costs for Section 206 projects are shared between the Federal Government (65 percent) and a non-
Federal sponsor (35 percent) in accordance with the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. The
maximum Federal expenditure per project is $5 million, which includes both planning and
construction costs. Costs oflands, easements, and project operation and maintenance are non- Federal
costs.
Section 206 allows the non-Federal sponsor credit for certain work-in-kind, including design work,
provision of materials, and construction activities. Work-in-kind must be accomplished by the non-
Federal sponsor. It can be accomplished by the staff of the non-Federal sponsor or by a contract
administered by the non-Federal sponsor.
After a State or local agency requests a potential project, the Corps conducts a preliminary study to
determine if there is a Federal interest in the problem. If the Corps headquarters office approves this
effort, a feasibility study begins at Federal expense. The feasibility study is conducted to define the
problem, identify potential solutions, analyze the costs, benefits, and environmental impacts of the
alternatives and select a plan.
In addition to the study, a draft Project Cooperation Agreement is drawn up by which the federal
Government and the sponsor agree to share project costs. No more than two years should pass
between the start of the study and the time the project is ready for construction. Projects with an
estimated Federal cost of $300,000 or less may be expedited, allowing for a project to be completed
in 18 months or less.
Local Responsibilities
A non-federal sponsor provides 35 percent of the costs for a Section 206 project. Sponsors must be
public agencies with the legal and financial capability to fulfill the requirements of cost sharing and
local cooperation. The sponsor generally must agree to the following:
. Provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged material disposal areas.
. Provide any additional cash contributions needed to make the sponsor's share ofthe cost 35
percent.
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/print!default.asp?pageid= 113 &subpageid=O 2/24/2005
Page 2 of2
. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and maintenance of
the project, except damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its
contractors.
. Provide all access routes and relocations of utilities necessary for project construction and for
operation and maintenance.
. Comply with the provisions of pertinent Federal acts in carrying out the specified non-Federal
responsibilities of the project.
. Contribute in cash the local share of project planning and construction cost.
. Maintain and operate the non-Federal works after completion in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of the Army.
How to Request a Study
An investigation under Section 206 may be initiated after receipt of a formal request from the
prospective sponsoring agency. An example of an acceptable resolution follows.
Dear Sir:
This letter is to request the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a study under Section 206 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 to determine the feasibility of an aquatic ecosystem
restoration project at (location).
(Briefly describe the nature of the aquatic ecosystem restoration and any issues that might affect the
acceptability of any recommended solutions, from the perspective of local government and/or the
public.)
It is understood that, if it were found feasible and advisable to develop an aquatic ecosystem
restoration project at (location), the (non-Federal sponsor) would be required to provide the local
cooperation and cost sharing prescribed by the Secretary of the Army.
Sincerely, (name and title of the public official authorized to request the study)
For more information
Tom Crump
(651) 290-5284
thomas.l.crum.P.@1lsace.army.mil
~ublio Affftir~ (11;11 QQQ-i201(651) 2800ii;iil(fAX) CQmvrr~UG~~ltr~ I~'
, , .1 ~~.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~I ~H~~.~J
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/print! default.asp?pageid= 113&subpageid=0 2/24/2005
Page 1 of2
Army Corps of Engineers Centre, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
III Habitat Restoration - Section 1135
us Army Corps of Engineers
St. Paul District
What the Corps Can Do
The Corps of Engineers has the authority, provided by Section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986, as amended, to plan, design and construct fish and wildlife habitat
restoration measures.
To be eligible for consideration, restoration measures must involve modification of the structures or
operations of a project constructed by the Corps of Engineers, or modification of an off-project site
when it is found that the Corps project has contributed to the degradation of the environment.
To qualify under this program, projects must be justified -- that is, the benefits resulting from
constructing the project must exceed the cost incurred to design and construct the project. The project
also must be environmentally acceptable and complete within itself. In addition, each separate project
is limited to a total federal cost of not more than $5 million, including studies, plans and
specifications, and construction.
The study process consists of a feasibility investigation. The feasibility phase involves all planning
and engineering activities required to reach a conclusion on Federal participation in construction of a
project. The feasibility study is initially federally funded.
Once a project is approved for constniction, the non-federal sponsor is required to contribute 25
percent up-front financing for construction. At that time, the non-federal sponsor also reimburses the
federal Government for 25 percent of the feasibility study costs. The non-Federal sponsor can receive
credit for required local cooperation items spelled out below. The non-federal sponsor can receive
credit for work in-kind. The work in-kind cannot exceed 80 percent ofthe non-federal share.
Local Responsibilities
Before a project is implemented, formal assurances of local cooperation must be furnished by a State
or local agency, federally recognized tribe, or private entity empowered with sufficient legal and
financial authority to comply with all assurance items. Typically, the non-federal sponsor must agree
to the following:
1. Provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way, utility relocations and alterations, and highway or
bridge construction and alterations needed for project construction.
2. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works, not
including damages during construction, operation and maintenance that are due to the fault or
negligence of the United States or its contractors, and adjust all claims concerning water rights.
3. Maintain, operate, repair, replace and rehabilitate the project after. completion in accordance
with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army.
4. Contribute a minimum of 25 percent up-front financing for construction.
Sample Resolution
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/print! default.asp?pageid= 115&subpageid=0 2/24/2005
Page 2 of2
Be it resolved that the (City Council, Tribal Council, County Board, etc.) requests the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to conduct studies to determine the feasibility of developing a fish and wildlife
habitat restoration project at (location) under the authority provided by Section 1135 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended.
It is understood that, if it is found feasible and advisable to develop a fish and wildlife habitat
restoration project at (location), the (City Council, Tribal Council, etc,) would be required to enter
into contractual agreements that it will provide such local cooperation as may be prescribed by the
Secretary of the Army.
The (Clerk, Secretary, etc.) of the (City Council, Tribal Council, etc.) shall be, and is hereby, directed
to transmit three copies of this resolution to the District Engineer, St. Paul District, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 190 5th Street East, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1638.
Signed (Mayor, Chairman, etc.)
Date (Date)
Point of Contact: (Name, Title, Address, Phone Number)
How to Request a Study
An investigation under Section 1135 may be initiated after receipt of a formal request from the
prospective sponsoring agency. An example of an acceptable resolution is given above. This request
and any further inquiries concerning a habitat restoration project should be made directly to:
St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers Project Managment Branch and Development Branch 190 5th
Street East St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1638
Contact Person: Tom Crump (651) 290-5284 thomas.l.crump@usace.army.mil
District internet page: www.mvp.usace.army.mil
Public Affairs (651) 290-5201 (651) 290-5752(fax) cemvp-pa@usace,army,mil
http://www,mvp,usace.army,mil Last Update: 04-AUG-04
http://www.mvp.usace.army .mil/print! default.asp?pageid= 115&subpageid=0 2/24/2005
Page 1 of3
Army Corps of Engineers Centre, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
III
...... ."J. Small Flood Control Projects - Section 205
us Army Corps of Engineers
St. Paul District
What the Corps Can Do
The Corps of Engineers has the authority, provided by
Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended, to
plan, design and construct certain small flood control projects
that have not already been specifically authorized by
Congress. There is no limitation as to the type of
improvement which may be used. Both structural (levees,
channels, or dams, for instance) and nonstructural
(floodproofing or evacuation, for example) solutions are
considered. A project may also include features for other
purposes such as water supply, provided local interests
. indicate a need and are willing to contribute the amount representing the added costs incurred as a
result of the addition.
There are several stipulations which must be met in order to qualify under this program. Studies are
required to evaluate potential projects. Each project selected must be economically justified -- that is,
the benefits resulting from constructing a project must exceed the cost incurred to construct the
project. It also must be environmentally acceptable and complete within itself. In addition, each
separate project is limited to a total federal cost of not more than $7 million, including studies, plans
and specifications, and construction.
A single planning (feasibility) phase leads to the preparation of plans and specifications. The
feasibility study comprises an initial federally-funded portion up to $100,000, and a cost-shared
portion in which feasibility costs in excess of $100,000 will be shared 50/50 with the non-federal
sponsor. Costs for plans and specifications are cost-shared at the same proportion as construction (35
percent non-Federal), but will initially be federally financed and later recovered from the sponsor
during project construction.
Once a project is approved and funded for construction, the non-federal sponsor is required to
contribute 35 percent up-front financing for construction. At least 5 percent of the total cost must be
contributed in cash. The remainder can include credit for those items spelled out below in the items of
local cooperation. Should those costs exceed 35 percent of the total cost, the sponsor would still be
required to pay for all of these items, in addition to the 5 percent cash contribution.
Local Responsibilities
Before a solution is implemented, formal assurances of local cooperation must be furnished by a
state, local agency or Indian Tribe empowered with sufficient legal and financial authority to comply
with all assurance items. Typically, the local sponsoring agency must agree to the following:
. Provide all lands, easements, rights-of-way, utility relocations and alterations, and highway or
http://www.mvp.usace.army . mil/print! default.asp?pageid=6&subpageid=0 2/24/2005
Page 2 of3
bridge construction and alterations needed for project construction.
. Hold and save ~he United States free from damages due to the construction works, not
including damages during construction, operation and maintenance that are due to the fault or
negligence of the United States or its contractors, and adjust all claims concerning water rights.
. Maintain and operate the project after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by
the Secretary of the Army.
. Assume full responsibility for all project costs in excess of the federal cost limitation.
. Prevent future encroachment which might interfere with proper functioning of the project for
flood control.
. Provide a contribution toward construction costs where special local benefits will accrue in
accordance with existing policies for regularly authorized projects.
. Provide a cash contribution for project costs assigned to project features other than flood
control or to satisfy local cost-sharing requirements.
. Contribute a minimum of 35 percent up-front financing for construction. At least 5 percent of
the total cost must be a cash contribution.
Sample Resolution
Be it resolved that the (City Council, Tribal Council, County Board of Commissioners, etc.) requests
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct studies to determine the feasibility of developing a
small flood control project at (location) underthe authority provided by Section 205 of the 1948
Flood Control Act, as amended.
It is understood that, if it is found feasible and advisable to develop a small flood control project at
(location), the (City Council, Tribal Council, etc.) would be required to enter into contractual
agreements that it will provide such local cooperation as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the
Army.
The (Clerk, Secretary, etc.) ofthe (City Council, Tribal Council, etc.) shall be, and is hereby, directed
to transmit three copies of the resolution to the District Engineer, St. Paul District, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 190 5th Street East, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1638.
Signed (Mayor, Chairman, etc.)
Date (Date)
Point of Contact: (Name, Title, Address, Phone Number)
How to Request a Study
An investigation under Section 205 may be initiated after receipt of a formal request from the
prospective sponsoring agency. An example of an acceptable resolution is given above. This request
and any further inquiries concerning a small flood control project should be made directly to:
St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers
Project Management and Development Branch
190 5th Street East
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1638
Contact Person: Tom Crump
(651) 290-5284
http://www.mvp.usace.army .mil/print! default.asp?pageid=6&subpageid=0 2/24/2005
Page 1 of 1
Army Corps of Engineers Centre, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
WI
' ....... ..l Minnesota River Streambank Protection,
us Army Corps of Shakopee, Minnesota
Engineers
S1. Paul District
Location/Description
The erosion site is located on the south bank of the Minnesota
River upstream of the old Highway 101 bridge in Shakopee,
Minnesota. Shakopee is approximately 16 miles southwest of
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Erosion along the Minnesota River
is threatening a sanitary sewer that is approximately 25 feet
from the riverbank. The bank has receded approximately 5
feet since February 1999. The recommended plan consists of
protecting approximately 400 feet of riverbank with riprap.
Status
The City of Shakopee requested a Section 14 Streambank Protection study from the Corps of
Engineers on January 11, 1999. The project was approved for implementation in January 2001.
Construction was completed in November 2001.
Authority
Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended.
Fiscal
The first $40,000 of Planning, Design and Analysis (PDA) at each site is conducted at full Federal
expense. The remainder of the project costs are cost shared at 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-
Federal if the project is approved and proceeds to construction. PDA consists of all activities up to
and including award of a construction contract.
Estimated Federal cost $183,000
Estimated non-Federal Cost $ 77,000
Estiated total project cost $260,000
For more information
Craig Evans, Project Manager
(651) 290-5594 (651) 290-5800 (fax)
E-mail: craig.o.evans@llsace.annY~JI1jl
Public Affairs (651) 290-5201 (651) 290-5752(fax) cemvp-pa@usace.army.mil
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil Last Update: 31-JAN-03
http://www.mvp. usace.army.mil/print/ default.asp?pageid=45&subpageid=0 2/24/2005
Page 1 of2
Army Corps of Engineers Centre, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
III Stillwater Flood and Retaining Wall Project, St.
;1
. . US Army Corps of Croix River, Stillwater, Minnesota
Engineers
S1. Paul District
Location/Description
Stillwater, Minnesota, is located on the St. Croix River
approximately 15 miles east of St. Paul, Minnesota. The St.
Croix River is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is
designated a Wild and Scenic River. The purpose of the
Stillwater project is to provide flood control and protection to
the city of Stillwater. The project is divided into three stages.
Stage 1 consists of repairing and reconstructing the existing
double retaining wall, which r:uns from Nelson Street on the
south end to the gazebo on the north end. Stage 2 involves
extending a new double retaining wall to the north around
Mulberry Point. Stage 3 includes constructing a low
floodwall along the western side of Lowell Park.
Status
A construction contract was awarded for Stage 1 A construction contract was awarded for Stage 1
(reinforce retaining wall near Lowell Park) in spring 1995 and completed in November 1997. A
construction contract was awarded for Stage 2s (surcharge soil at Mulberry Point) in October 1998
and completed in December 1998. The surcharging was completed in June 1999. A construction
. contract for Stage 2 (extend retaining wall to Mulberry Point) was awarded in June 1999 for slightly
more than $2.06 million and completed in November 2000. A study to examine the economic
feasibility of Stage 3 was completed in September 2000. With the resulting benefit-cost ratio of 0.30,
it was recommended that the study be terminated. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004
directed the Corps of Engineers to proceed with work to complete the Stillwater, Minnesota, project.
Additional
The Work Projects Administration built the originall,OOO-foot retaining wall system in 1937-38
when the Army Corps of Engineers constructed Lock and Dam No.3 on the Mississippi River at Red
Wing, Minnesota. The retaining wall system has deteriorated badly in recent years. The project
proposed will repair and reconstruct the double retaining wall system. In addition, a similar new
double retaining wall system will be extended between about 882 feet and 915 feet north of the
existing system. These repairs and extensions will provide a high degree of protection to the eroding
shoreline, beach, and slope.
Authority
Section 363 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1992 and Section 301 (b)(9) of the
WRDA of 1996. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004.
Fiscal
Funds in the amount of $2 million were added in Fiscal Year 2002 for construction of Stage 3. These
funds were reprogrammed from the projectbecause this work was not economically feasible. This
project (Stages 1, 2s, 2 and 3) is cost shared between the city of Stillwater (25 percent) and the
Federal Governmen((75 percent).
Federal cost $8,798,000
http://www.mvp.usace.army .mil/print/ default.asp?pageid=42&subpageid=0 2/24/2005
Page 2 of2
Non-Federal cost $2,932,000
Total estimated cost $11,730,000
Estimated Federal Cost to Complete $3,700,000
Construction, Stage 3
Public Affairs (651) 290-5201 (651) 290-5752(fax) cemvp-pa@usace.army.mil
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil Last Update: 18-0CT-04
http://www.mvp. usace.army.mil/print/default.asp?pageid=42&subpageid=0 2/24/2005
Page 1 of!
Army Corps of Engineers Centre, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
III Minnesota River:Chaska, Minn..
US Army Corps of Engineers
S1. Paul District
Location/Description
The cityofChaska is on the Minnesota.River in Carver
County in south central Minnesota. The project consists of
approximately 1.1 miles of upgraded levee and 15 miles of
new levee~ with appropriate landward drainage facilities and a
storm water pumping station. Creek diversion and bypass
channels are built on. Chaska Creek (1.1 miles) and East
Creek (one mile).. Nine bridges were removed or replaced or
both;. Approximately 2.9 miles of paved recreation trails on
top of the levee and around Courthouse Lake are part of the
project.
ltfe.~~~ifJJlflt:i(}(J~ti'O.I~t#~ti.ip
94~~"iMtPtI". ". .... .... ..... .. ........ ...............
Status
Funds were included in the.' 1988 appropriations.act to initiate construction..All construction is now
complete: A project dedication ceremony was held on July 28, 1998.
Authority
Section! 02 of theW aterResourcesDevelopment Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-587).
Fiscal
Summary of Financial Data
Federal Cost $31,139,000
Non-Federal Cost 12,558,000
Total Project Costs.$43,697,000
For more information
Dave Raasch, CEMVP-PM
(651) 290-5437, (651}290-5800 (fax)
cemvp-pp@usace.army.mil
Public Affairs (651) 290-5201 (651) 290-5752(fax) cemvp-pa@usace.army.mil
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil Last Update: 10-0CT-02
http://www.mvp; usace.army;miVprint/ d~fault.asp?pageid=50&subpageid;;=0 2/8/2005
Page 1 of 1
Army Corps of Engineers Centre, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
III
..'", St. Cloud, Minn. Emergency Streambank
us Army Corps of Protection,
Engineers
S1. Paul District
Location/Description
The project is located in the City of St. Cloud, Stearns
County, Minnesota, along the west bank of the Mississippi
River. Erosion from the Mississippi River threatened a 30-
inch interceptor sanitary sewer line, which is located 20 to 30
feet from the river and was only minimally buried in the
riverbank (bank failures had exposed the pipe at two
locations). Approximately 1,090 feet of sewer line was
vulnerable to continued erosion caused by high-water
velocities during spring snowmelt or summer storm events.
The sewer line carries 2.5 million gallons of untreated sewage a day. Failure of the pipe could have
threatened the safety of the public water supply in St. Cloud, as the river is the source for potable
water.
Status
A contract was awarded to Frontier Construction on August 30, 2002, for the bank stabilization work.
All construction activities have been completed and the project is currently in the closeout phase.
Authority
The authority for this project comes from Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended,
Emergency Streambank Protection.
Fiscal
Federal cost $1,000,000
Non-Federal cost $660,000
Total estimated cost $1,660,000
For more information
Roland Hamborg, Project Manager
(651) 290-5327 (651) 290-5258 (fax)
roland.o.hamborg @usace.army.mil
Public Affairs (651) 290-5201 (651) 290-5752(fax) cemvp-pa@usace.army.mil
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil Last Update: 14-0CT-04
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/print/default.asp?pageid= 1 05&subpageid=0 2/24/2005
Page 10f2
Army Corps of Engineers Centre, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
III Mississippi River Bank Stabilization Habitat
f ' us Army Corps of Project, Minn/Wis/lowa
Engineers
S1. Paul District
Location/Description
Part of the Corps of Engineers' Environmental Management
Program (EMP), the riverbank erosion sites are located in pools 5
through lOon the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa sides of the
Mississippi River. All of the sites lie within the Upper
Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The
primary resource problem is severe erosion occurring at many
locations along the Mississippi River. The loss of landmass and
the associated increases in flow and/or sedimentation result in
loss and shallowing of aquatic habitat in adjacent backwaters and adversely affect circulation patterns
and water quality in the backwaters.
The project included the stabilization of a total of about
12,000 feet of riverbank. Out of 55 potential stabilization
sites, 12 sites were selected on the basis of the cost for
habitat benefits gained, agency priorities, location, available
funds, and construction considerations. Rockfill was used to
stabilize the sites. Some limited dredging for access was
also performed. Sites selected for stabilization included two
sites in pool 6, one site in pool 7, one site in pool 8, three
sites in pool 9, and five sites in pool 10.
The project directly reduces erosion and created about 4
acres of rock habitat that is beneficial to fish such as
smallmouth bass. About 1,500 acres of aquatic habitat are benefited. The project also improves water
quality in some backwater areas by reducing or maintaining side channel flows.
Status
Stabilization of the sites was done in stages, beginning in pooll 0 in September 1995 and ending in
pool 6 in September 1999. Three of the 12 sites were completed with funds provided by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Authority
The Mississippi River Bank Stabilization Habitat Project was planned under the authority of the
Upper Mississippi River System - Environmental Management Program (EMP) and constructed in
accordance with a Definite Project Report dated August 1995. The EMP was authorized by Section
1103 ofthe Water Resources Development Act of 1986, and reauthorized by the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999.
The project was planned and designed as part ofa cooperative effort of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; the Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources; the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; and local interests.
Fiscal
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/print/default.asp?pageid=13 3 &subpageid=O 2/24/2005
Page 2of2
-
Project design and construction costs were 100 percent Federal because all of the sites in the project
were located on lands managed as a national wildlife refuge. Operation and maintenance costs are
100 percent Federal (a responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
Federal cost $1,697,000
Non-Federal cost $0
Total cost $1,697,000
Public Affairs (651) 290-5201 (651) 290-5752(fax) cemvp-pa@usace.army.mil
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil Last Update: 15-0CT-04
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/print!default.asp?pageid= 13 3&subpageid=0 2/24/2005
Page 1 of 1
Army Corps of Engineers Centre, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN55101-1638
ill
~
Benton County nearSt. Cloud, Minnes9ta
us Army Corps of Engineers
S1. Paul District
Location/Description
The project location is in central Minnesota. Because of the . large amount of development in St.
Cloud, areas that drained toward the Mississippi River in the past now drain toward the east, away
from the Mississippi River and toward the Elk River watershed. Benton County officials fear this
change will cause problems. for new commercial, industrial, and residential development as the cities
of St Cloud and Sauk Rapids continue to grow.
Status
The U.S.. House of Representatives included a request in the recommended FiscaL Year 2004 budget
for initiation of a feasibility study. The project study was initiated in Apri12004, and a Federal
Interest Report will be completed in Fiscal Year 2005. If the project is shown to have a favorable
Federal'interest, a feasibility study will be performed.
Authority
Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended.
Fiscal
The initial $17,000 of the Feasibility Study funds was. provided in Fiscal Year 2004 within Section
205 funding allocations for the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP). Following the initial
$100,000 at Federal expense~ the. remaining Feasibility Study'. costs would be cost shared using a
50%/50% cost sharing formula. The implementation phase, consisting of the preparation of plans and
specifications and the construction of the project, is. cost shared 65% Federal and 35% non-Federal.
Public Affairs (651) 290-5201 (651) 290-5752(fax) cemvp-pa@usace.army.mil
http://www.mvp.usace.army.milLast Update: 22-0CT-04
'" ~ .
http://www.mvp.usace;army;mil/print/ default.asp?pageid=911 &subpageid:::O 2/8/2005
Page 1 of 1
Army Corps of Engineers Centre, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
ifili... Crow RivElrat Delano, .Minnesota
us Army Corps of Engineers
Sf. PauL District ' ,', .',.0
Location/Description
,The City of Delano is located onthe Crow River in Wright
County, Minnesota,. approximately 40 miles ,west of
l\;1inneapolis-St. PauL,It has had five significant flood events
ii1 the past 10 years.
HlQmwI12~vieWedtom ~ 1Vrt1mt,
Delano, MII'IfleSObI '
Status, ,
The City of Delano, Minnesota, by resolution dated August 6, 2002, requested that the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers conduct studies to determine the feasibility of developing a small flood control
project for the city.
A Federal interest study was begun. in Apri12004 and will be. complete in early Fiscal. Year. 2005. If
the project is shownto have favorable Federal interest, the project would be considered for
contiimation in the feasibility phase.
Authority
Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended.
Fiscal
TheHollse of Representatives included a request intherecomniended Fiscal Year 2004 budget for
initiation of a feasibility study. The first $37,000 ofthe Feasibility Study funds was provided in Fiscal
Year 2004 within the. Section 205 funding allocations fro:tl1 the Continuing Authorities Program
. (CAP). The first $100,000 of feasibility studycostsis at full Federal expense and is usedto prepare a
FederallnterestReportandFeasibility Cost Sharing Agreement. Following the initial $100.000 at
FederaLexp~nse, the remaining Feasibility Study costs would be provided using a 50%/50% cost
sharingformul~. The impleOlentation phase, consisting of the preparation of plans and specifications
. and the construction ofthe project; is cost shared 65% Federal and 35% non'" FederaL '
Public Affairs (651) 290-5201 (651) 290~5752(fax) cemvp-pa@usace.army.mil
.. http://www,mvp.usace.army.miILast Update: 25-0CT-04
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/print/default.asp?pageid=915&subpageid=0 2/8/2005
Page 1 of 1
Army Corps of Engineers Centre, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
81
~. '. Red River of the North Stream Bank Protection
US'Army Corps of' at Fargo, North Dakota
Engineers
St. PaulDistrict
Location/Description
Fargo is ill Cass County, North Dakota, on the west bank of
the Red River of the North. The city,islocatedin southeast
North Dakota, approximately 250 miles northwest of
Minneapolis, Minnesot~.
Erosion from the Red River of the North occurred at three '
separate project locatio~s:
At Reach A, erosion threatened a levee near 37th Avenue. I~RearihA"iockfllariernel1t'~as. cornpletedlh'
This ,erosion siteis a 1,250-footreach located on the outside March'20U.1>
me~der' of the riyer.. Tl}e plan consisted of protecting
approxiInately 4,1 00 feet of riverbank with rock fill.
At Reach B, erosion threatened Kandi Lane and North Broadway, another major arterial, and utilities
located beneath them. This erosion site is a 950..footreach located on the outsiOe meander of the
nver;
At Reach C, erosion threatened Elm Street, a major arterial, and the utilities located beneath it. The
erosion area is a 1,900?footreach located on the, outside of a river meander; The erosion progressed
to within 50 feet of the roadway.
Status
The city of Fargo requested a stream-bank protection study from theU$. Army Corps of Engineers
on October 20,1997. A construction contra9t was awarded for Reach A in September 2000 with
options to construct Reaches B and C. Rock.placement at Reach A was completed in March 200 1.
Rock placement at ReachesB and Cwascompleted in February 2002; Construction was completed in
June 2003 with tree planting onReachB. . '
Authority
, Section 14 oftheJ 946 Flood Control Act, as amended.
Fiscal. ,'i '.... ".. ",..
The first $40,000'of plantling, design, and analysis (PDA)isconducted at fullFederal expense; The
remainder of the project costs are cost shared at 65 percent' Federal and 35 percent non-Federal if the
project is approvedi and proceeds to construction. Planning; design, and analysis consists of all
activities up to and including award ofa construction contract.
Federal cost $1,300,000
N on- F ederalcost $700,000
Total estimated cost $2~000,000
. Public Affairs (651) 290-5201 (651) 290-5752(fax) cemvp-pa@usace.army.mil
http://www.mvp.usace.army.miLLast Update: 17-MAR-04
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/print/default.asp?pageid=17&subpageid=O 2/8/2005
Page 1 of 1
Army Corps of Engineers Centre, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
III Chippewa River at Big Bend, Minnesota -
us Army Corps of Stream Bank Protection
Engineers
Sf: Paul District
Location/Description
The Big Bend cemetery is in Chippewa County,. Minnesota,
onthe south bank of the ,Chippewa River. The project is
located approximately 15 miles north of Montevideo;
Minnesota, and 150 miles west of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Erosion, from the Chippewa River is threatening a cemetery
located on top of a 55-foot-high eroding bluff. At the site,. 134
graves are immediately threatened.
The proposed project would protect approximately 900 linear Eroding. blutfb elrrw~h~~ig8 ~ndC e meteryJ
iny~nu~I'y':~002;: ,
feelof stream bank with riprap and stone toe protection.. Topsoil and seeding over the riprap would
help to establish vegetative protection on the eroded slope.
Status
Chippewa County requested a stream-bank protection study from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
onJune 19, 200LThestudy began in January 2002. The project was approved for construction on
May 24, 2004. Arequest for Federal construction funding is pending.
Authority
Section 14. of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended.
Fiscal
The first $40,000 of planning, design, and analysis (PDA) is cond1.lctedat full Federal expense; The
remainder of the project costs will be cost shared at 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal if
the project is approved and proceeds to construction. Planning, design, and analysis consists of all
activities up to and including award of a construction contract.
Federal cost $318,500
Non-Federal cost $171,500
"Totalestimated cost $490,000
Public Affairs (651) 290-5201 (651) 290-5752(fax) cemvp-pa@usace.army.mil
http://www.mvp.usace.army.milLast Update: 14-0CT-04
http://www.mvp;usace;army .mil/print/default.asp?pageid=752&subpageid=0 2/8/2005