FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

TURKEY CREEK PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) COMMENTS/QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES Question 1. I have a question and my question is this: That when you build a levee around Floral Estates, I want to know if that levee will cause flooding downstream to Rolling Meadows, because I'm really concerned about that. I also want to know if the Corps of Engineers is going to stop all construction in this area until their final recommendations has been given to the Board of Supervisors so we will know if there is going to be anymore approval. I have another concern. The feasibility study for the levee around Floral Estates is economically justified. My concern is that when they put the levee around Floral Estates, we are going to force the water to flood another area and if in this feasibility study, I would like to know how much land use are they going to grant to those who want to develop more of the property around the Prime Outlet Mall, because more development there is going to cause more flooding to the rest of us living around that area. Response. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) has no authority to stop current and/or proposed construction activities in the watershed. Residential and commercial development is guided by units of local government. The recommended plan will not cause induced flooding in Rolling Meadows, the Turkey Creek floodplain, or along the Canals 1 and 2. A significant effort to ensure that no induced flooding would occur was performed during our analyses. The levee plans require selective clearing and snagging from Canal Road to the mouth of Turkey Creek. The levees alone would cause induced flooding. However, the selective clearing and snagging will be performed to prevent the induced flooding, and in fact, would reduce the water surface elevations along some reaches of Turkey Creek and the upper limits of the canals. Our engineering study used future land use mapping provided by Harrison County and the City of Gulfport. The future land use information was used to develop the precipitationrunoff model for the Future Without Project conditions and the Future With Project conditions models. The results of these two models, which contain the future land use conditions, are used for the evaluation of alternatives. Therefore, the recommended plan is designed to control the watershed discharges that otherwise would occur if the plan is not implemented. Question 2. "The plan might work, but only if all new and present efforts to cut trees and destroy vegetation and soils are stopped permanently. There must be more permeable areas with natural ant holes, worm holes, and other animal holes so water can soak into the ground. "All development must stop permanently. Such an idea is not acceptable in our culture; therefore, more floods and higher floods are inevitable." Response. Commercial and residential development in Harrison County is guided by the local units of government, and is not a mission of the Corps. 30 Question 3. Is it legal to spend federal dollars that impact wetlands adversely? Especially when they are talking about impacting four-and-a-half acres of wetland; oneand-a-half acres of upland. On the map on the left, they go to great detail to show the residential development, but they haven't told us yet what causes the flooding. They have left out all of the commercial or industrial businesses that are in the area, and I don't understand the reason. If they are impacting it just like the residences, they would also need some shapes of protection. Forrest Heights Baptist Church according to the levees that are on that map, I can't see any way that this church would not be inundated with water. They are just moving the water to a different place. Desnagging and whatever else they said -- taking trees out and desnagging in Turkey Creek will potentially cause more damage than it will good. Unfortunately, Corps projects look to do cost-to-benefit ratio. They don't always consider the benefits to the local communities in recreational areas as opposed to residential areas. Residents that are going to be impacted by maybe having to move need more information prior to public hearings and feasibility studies to know they may be on a list of people that need to move. Thank you. I'm referring to Page eight. "The next slide shows the plan view of the levee at Floral Estates." I assume that's what this is. If this is an area that is already flooding, I want to know what purpose a dike around it, how that would keep it from flooding when all it's going to do is hold the water in. If one of these is Butch Ward's ditch, I am opposed to that ditch being there. I'm also concerned that on the maps, they go to great detail to show the houses and where the levees will be. What they don't tell us is where the businesses, commercial and industry are, and are they contributed to the flooding by the massive volumes of concrete that is involved with those particular industries. It is ridiculous for the Corps of Engineers to destroy wetlands non-necessarily. Response. Provided all laws and regulations are followed, Federal dollars can be spent for activities that impact wetlands. The recommended plan is designed to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands to the extent practicable. Additionally, the Corps will be mitigating for the unavoidable wetland impacts by restoring approximately 13 acres of wetlands along Turkey Creek. The steady and rapid urbanization of the naturally low lying flood plain is the major cause of the flooding in the study area. The map displayed during the public meeting showed the recommended plan that included a levee around Forrest Heights, a levee around Floral Estates, and clearing and snagging of Turkey Creek. Our analysis evaluated all 1,848 structures in the 500-year Turkey Creek flood plain including residential, commercial or industrial structures. Only the structures that were cost effective for relocation were included in the recommended 31 plan. The levees that are included in the recommended plan will provide flood protection for the residential, commercial and industrial structures that are inside the levee. The clearing and snagging will also provide some protection for those structures located outside the levee. A breakout of the structure inventory and the structure content value is provided below. Of those 1,848 structures in the 500-year Turkey Creek flood plain, non-residential buildings comprise 249 structures. The non-residential buildings make up approximately 13% (249/1848) of the structure inventory, and 28% ($31,165,370 / $112,201,940) of the value of the structure inventory. A total of 119 of the non-residential buildings are located along the Main Stem of Turkey Creek, 80 non residential structures are located along Canal 1, and 50 non-residential structures are located along Canals 2 & 3. Commercial and industrial structures will be shown on all of our project maps. Non-residential structure content value makes up approximately 33% ($31,165,370/ $96,551,350) of the total content value of the Turkey Creek structure inventory. The content value of the non-residential structures located along the main stem total $19,615,900, the content value of the non-residential structures located along Canal 1 totals $8,931,920, and the content value of the non-residential structures located along Canals 2 and 3 totals $2,617,550. No significant drainage ditches are being created in association with the recommended plan. Only minor interior drainage within the levees may be constructed. It appears the large ditch you referenced (Butch Ward) will run parallel to the Forest Heights Levee for a short distance, but it is not part of the recommended plan. We will not conduct any improvements to the ditch. The Forest Heights Baptist Church presently incurs flood damage at the 10-year flood. With a project in place (Forrest Heights 250-year levee & Floral Estates 100-year levee with selective clearing & snagging) the church will not incur flooding damage until the 25year flood event. A levee around the Forest Heights Baptist Church was evaluated during the feasibility study. It was determined, because it was not a cost effective feature, that it could not be included in the recommended plan. The considered levee around Forrest Heights has a benefit-to-cost ratio of less than 1.0. The selective clearing and snagging will prevent any induced flooding due to the levees in the recommended plan. The selective clearing and snagging along approximately 5.2 miles of water bottom within Turkey Creek will be confined to the area within the banks of the existing channel alignment. Only trees and snags which are obstructing flow within the main channel will be removed. No trees outside of the top-of-bank of Turkey Creek will be removed unless that specific tree has fallen into the creek or is reasonably expected to fall into the creek in the near future. Minor excavation of shoals will be conducted as required, which will only impact small portions of the selective clearing and snagging area. 32 The purpose of the levees is to provide a level of protection from flooding. Structures along Turkey Creek are flooded when the water in the creek channel overflows the stream banks and flows into the floodplain. Different frequency storm events result in different water surface elevations. Therefore, a levee around a flooded area will prevent the overbank flows from flooding that area. Interior flooding on the landward side of the levee will be prevented by the use of stormwater detention areas. The detention areas will include a culvert with a gate/valve and/or pumps. The detention area will hold stormwater until the creek water level recedes and water can drain through the culvert. Gates/valves will prevent overbank flows from passing through the levee. Pumps will be required where there is insufficient area to hold the interior stormwater volume. Residents that are impacted by the proposed relocation portion of the recommended plan will be contacted prior to the next public meeting and the relocation benefits will be provided to them. Participation in the project will be voluntary for those persons impacted by the relocation portion of the recommended plan, and no resident will be forced to move. Question 4. As I review the maps that have been presented tonight, I notice that all the solutions that the Corps is proposing to do stops at 28th Street. The question keeps arising why won't they open the creek up from 28th Street to allow better flow of the water to move through? And there is nothing in that plan that has been presented tonight to address Canals one, two and three on 28th Street. So when are they going to show a plan that includes Long Beach? Response. A number of alternatives were considered and evaluated during the feasibility study. These alternatives included various channel modifications to widen Turkey Creek, a channel modification and bridge/culvert replacements along Canal 2, a diversion canal to divert flood flows from upper Turkey Creek to Wolf River, a regional detention basin, improvements to Canal 1 including culverts to convey Turkey Creek flood flows to the Mississippi Sound, a levee at 28th Street, a levee at Forest Heights, a levee at Floral Estates, a levee at Forest Heights Baptist Church and selective clearing and snagging. While all of the alternatives would reduce flood damages in the Turkey Creek basin, the recommended plan includes combinations of these alternatives that have the greatest net benefits. The National Economic Development (NED) plan developed in the feasibility study includes selective clearing and snagging for approximately 5.2 miles from Canal Road to the mouth of Turkey Creek. Selective clearing and snagging would remove obstructions such as debris dams and excessive sedimentation that hinders the flow through the Turkey Creek channel. While the selective clearing and snagging component of the NED plan does not eliminate flooding along Turkey Creek, the plan does reduce flood damages along the creek and at the upper end of the canals at 28th Street. The main purpose of the selective clearing and snagging is to make sure that induced damages do not occur due to the construction of the recommended levees. Question 5. The comment is that I have spoken with Howard Ladner, who was in the ecology spot, and I asked the following things and learned the following information. I just 33 want to put it on the record. First, I asked Howard whether the desnagging would involve any alterations like taking out hairpin turns in the creek and he indicated no, that was not part of the plan; that the original true path of the creek would remain unchanged. Next, I asked him if there would be dredging involved and he said there would be no wholesale, creek-wide dredging, but that at individual locations where there may be shoals or levees where maybe small tributaries come in, that there may be some remedial dredging there, but it would be a small portion of the overall work, and would not be completely up and down the creek. Then I asked what alteration would be occurring above the waterline to the creek banks and he indicated that the current plan was for the banks to remain pretty much in their natural condition, that they would not be engineered into a new shape. There may be places where holes have to be filled if trees are pulled out or other things of that nature, but in general, the original condition -- they would strive to maintain the original conditions there. And the last thing I asked was whether the creek work would involve any erosion prevention measures, and he said he didn't believe it was considered necessary to do those. That's really more on the engineers’ side though. I did ask a couple of questions about the levees, and they were as follows: What was the quality of the wetlands that would be displaced by the levees? And he described those and identified the various plant lives that are there, and essentially said overall they are pretty much low quality wetlands. He was talking about the ones that around Holly Circle. I didn't get to ask him about the wetlands beneath the yellow levee -- the one that's marked yellow on the map. I asked him what plans, if any, even preliminary ones, are there for relocating the mitigation in close proximity to the place where the levees would be put in so as to cure the loss of the wetlands as close as possible. And he said he can't really talk in detail about that. Instead, it's a matter that the Corps is working with the City of Gulfport on using CAIP money. And that it's intended that process will result in mitigation being done in the watershed as near as possible to the locations being affected. Response. Mr. Morse seemed to be inquiring about the quality of the wetlands at the Floral Estates Levee. Those wetlands are primarily classified as a degraded wet pine flatwood of low quality. The Floral Estate’s levee wetlands are dominated by large pines with typically a dense understory of various shrubs and vines. The Corps in cooperation with Harrison County, the City of Gulfport, and the relevant resource agencies will determine the acreage and location of the mitigation associated the recommended plan. The City of Gulfport currently has in place a program to acquire wetlands along Turkey Creek. The City has identified these properties using specific criteria approved by the relevant resource agencies. The Corps intends to utilize lands identified under this program in cooperation with the City of Gulfport to achieve as many contiguous large tracts as practicable. The location of the mitigation will be as near as possible to the wetlands impacted by the recommended plan. The local sponsor (Harrison County) will 34 be responsible for all land acquisition. A perpetual conservation easement will be placed on the property to protect the property from future impacts. Although dredging was discussed at the workshop, this does not accurately portray what is being proposed. The selective clearing and snagging aspect may require excavation of shoals within the creek bottom if they are determined to impede flow. This work would likely be accomplished with a backhoe or crane as required. No “pipeline dredge” would be used during this work. Also, no CIAP funds will be used in acquisition or enhancement of lands used as mitigation for the recommended plan. The Corps is simply coordinating our mitigation plan with the City’s acquisition plan (CIAP funded) to ensure efforts are not duplicated and the best outcome for environmental restoration is achieved. The NED plan does not include erosion prevention measures. Streambank erosion has not been identified as a problem. At this time, it is believed that the minor selective clearing and snagging of the creek channel will not induce streambank erosion. However, during the detailed engineering design phase of the project if it is determined that streambank or shoreline erosion would be induced at any location, then streambank or shoreline protective measures would be added at that time. Question 6. I spoke right after Councilwoman Holmes-Hines and I asked why they didn’t address her comments. Reporter: Yes, ma'am. I'll put in your name for you. Response. The meeting was designed with two phases. The initial phase was to provide the participants with information on the recommended plan. The second phase was arranged so that all questions from the participants could be answered by our technical staff. We asked that all questions be recorded by the court reporter and then we asked our technical staff to provide answers to the question. Other questions not captured by the court reporter are included in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) link on the Turkey Creek Web Page. Question 7. "The role of wetlands, because they function as a sponge, is not to accelerate run-off, but to allow water to soak in". Healthy wetlands have a high diversity of wildlife. To promote diversity, thousands of microhabitats provide protected sites for tiny plants and animals. Snags and fallen trees increase biodiversity. They enrich the ecosystem. Consequently, I oppose any desnagging. Let snags be. They slow water, a desirable force. "Instead of desnagging, please focus on the removal of exotic, invasive plants. Introduced, foreign plants displace native species. They are not controlled by native diseases and parasites. The Corps should please consider the removal of Chinese tallow trees (popcorn trees), privet, and other larger invasive plants." Response. These particular wetlands are of a low quality and typically lack the high diversity of wildlife found in higher quality wetland systems. While wetlands do serve to 35 slow or detain runoff from adjacent upland area, the wetlands impacted by this project will be replaced by a levee. The levee will serve a similar function, but will serve this function more effectively than the existing wetlands. The “snags” referenced by Ms. Waldorf do provide diverse habitat for various species of fish, other aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates. However, the Corps is not proposing to remove all snags from the 5.2 miles reach of Turkey Creek. Many of the less obtrusive snags will remain in place providing ample habitat of that nature. In this case, slowing of the water flow in Turkey Creek is not a desirable condition. From a flood damage reduction point of view, it is much better to move the water to Bayou Bernard more quickly. The Corps agrees with Ms. Waldorf that control of invasive/exotic species is very important. The Corps intends to implement an invasive species control program on the mitigation lands acquired in association with the recommend plan. Unfortunately, the Corps has no authority to control invasive species found on other property along Turkey Creek. Question 8. I am very concerned in the hydraulic area as to what the term clear and snag means. I am afraid that clear and snag is in the eye of the person pulling it up. I am very concerned about the sanctity of the stream banks. Issue Number One. I am also concerned in the hydraulic area that the levees are moving water from potentially one location into another location and the maps that are presented show blank areas when, in fact, the southwest quadrant of I-10 and Highway 49 is highly developed. So, if water is going to be moved in a northward direction, what is the Corps of Engineers, what is the Federal Government going to do to insist that the city and county absolutely prohibit any further development into the new flood areas? Issue Number three. Regarding the economic cost/benefit analysis. I understand that the Corps of Engineers has had national difficulties up to and including court marshals for falsification of benefit/cost analysis numbers. So as a citizen, how can I be assured that the cost/benefit analysis is valid and not something put together merely to make a Corps of Engineer project. Response. The selective clearing and snagging is required to prevent induced flooding due to the placement of the levees in the floodplain. Only debris, snags and sediments that obstruct the flow will be removed. The selective clearing and snagging plan will follow guidelines established by the American Fisheries Society. The selective clearing and snagging along approximately 5.2 miles of water bottom within Turkey Creek will be confined to the area within the banks of the existing channel alignment. Only trees and snags which are obstructing flow within the main channel will be removed. No trees outside of the top-of-bank of Turkey creek will be removed unless that specific tree has fallen into the creek or is reasonably expected to fall into the creek in the near future. Minor excavation of shoals will be conducted as required, which will only impact small portions of the selective clearing and snagging area. The selective clearing and snagging will improve water flow thereby reducing flood damage within the watershed. For better clarity of the figure and to emphasize the plan features, the map showing the NED plan that was presented at the Public Meeting omitted some items. Land use mapping, which includes all developed areas, was used in the hydrologic analyses to 36 determine watershed runoff. The Corps has no authority over development in Harrison County. The Corps makes every effort to insure the accuracy and credibility of its work. While a few problems have been identified in recent years, it is important to note that these are extremely rare and represent only a very tiny fraction of the Corps total workload. Neverthe-less, Corps Headquarters has recently implemented additional safeguards. The most significant of these is the use of independent technical review, whereby a person who is not involved in the project reviews the work in an objective manner to insure the analysis and methodology are correctly applied. Independent technical review documentation is required with each study conducted by the Corps and is carefully reviewed by higher authority within the Corps. In addition the Corp’s work related to project recommendations is published and is available for review by members of the public, as well as other Federal, state and local agencies. It is also generally available under the Freedom of Information Act. These levels of scrutiny insure that any attempt to falsify information would be detected and exposed. Question 9. My question is what will the structures look like? I want to know what the levees will look like. Will they look attractive or something that is going to add to the value. And I asked over there and he couldn't tell me. He told me he to come over here. Response. The levee height at Forrest Heights would vary with a maximum height of 7.6 feet. It generally will be trapezoidal in shape with a 12-foot top width and one foot vertical to three foot vertical slopes on both sides (1H:3V). The total length of the levee will be approximately 6,450 feet. The levee height at Floral Estates would also vary with a maximum height of 7.6 feet, and generally be trapezoidal in shape with a 12-foot top width and 1H:3V. The total length of this levee will be approximately 4,650 feet. Both levees would be grassed. An operation and maintenance (O&M) manual for the levees will be developed for Harrison County, the non-Federal sponsor. The O&M manual will include guidelines for maintaining the integrity of the levee over the 50-year life of the project. Regular inspections and maintenance of the levees would be performed by Harrison County. Question 10. This levee that is around Forrest Heights, we would like to know how much water is this going to alleviate north and where is the water going? Will it be breaking East or West? Have they come up with the volume of water that will be coming from the North that causes Forrest Heights to be at risk. Floral Estates. Where will the water go after the levee is built? Is it going to break East or West? How much volume of water will be in either direction, especially when Turkey Creek is tidal -- in a tidal position? Will someone consider opening the Turkey Creek basin in Long Beach either in a detention pond, retention pond, or consideration to Wolf River or even the Mississippi Sound. It needs to go somewhere. 37 How much growth is mandated by both of these levees? Please give a definition in all itemization of desnagging. What will be the benefit of this study to the Long Beach area. I am concerned about this particular plan pitting Long Beach against Gulfport. Please give an example of a home valued at $55 to $80,000. What will the final benefits be from the Corps of Engineers for relocation. I would like to be provided with an environmental study on the four acres of wetlands that is impacted in Forrest Heights, the 2.5 acres in Floral Estates, and definitely the 5.2 acres in Turkey Creek desnagging. What impact will this desnagging have on the Thomas Benton Estates historical home in desnagging? What is the true flood reduction of this plan? Please provide a written text as soon as possible. And I am requesting a second public hearing due to the lack of information provided in this public hearing and the questions that came from the residents from the floor. Response. The levee around Forest Heights will not alleviate flows from the northern part of the watershed. The purpose of the levee is to protect the structures in Forest Heights from the flooding that occurs due to the overbank flows. All of the structures in the Forest Heights community, which is located north of Turkey Creek and west of Old Highway 49, will have a level of protection by the levee for the 250-year flood event. The levee at Floral Estates will provide the structures in the community with a level of protection for the 100-year flood event. Since the levees will prevent overbank flows in these areas, selective clearing and snagging will be performed to convey the flood flows downstream (east) through the existing Turkey Creek channel. The flow direction of the flood water will continue in the existing downstream direction. A flow of approximately 2,600 cfs causes flooding to begin occurring at Forest Heights. A flow of approximately 1,000 cfs causes flooding to begin occurring at Floral Estates. A number of alternatives were considered and evaluated during the feasibility study that would divert the flow, or convey the flood flows more efficiently. These alternatives included various channel modifications to widen Turkey Creek, a channel modification and bridge/culvert replacements along Canals 2 and 3 in Long Beach, a diversion canal to divert flood flows from upper Turkey Creek to Wolf River, a regional detention basin, improvements to Canal 1 including culverts to convey Turkey Creek flood flows to the Mississippi Sound, a levee at 28th Street, a levee at Forest Heights, a levee at Floral Estates, a levee at Forest Heights Baptist Church, and selective clearing and snagging. Details of these alternatives will be discussed in the feasibility report. While all of the alternatives are feasible from an engineering basis and would reduce flood damages in the Turkey Creek basin including the Long Beach area, some of the alternatives have a benefit-to-cost ratio less than 1.0 and are not cost effective. Alternatives that are not cost effective cannot be recommended as part of the NED plan. Some alternatives may be cost effective yet do not have the greatest net benefits. Some alternatives would have too many negative environmental impacts to be feasible. The recommended (NED) plan includes the combination of the cost effective alternatives that have the greatest net benefits. 38 The levee plans were developed using future land use mapping for the entire Turkey Creek basin. The future land use mapping was taken from the City of Gulfport Comprehensive Plan and data provided by Harrison County. The City of Gulfport Comprehensive Plan uses land use projections through the year 2025. The Corps does not have authority to regulate growth. The selective clearing and snagging work will follow Stream Obstruction Removal Guidelines established by the American Fisheries Society. Only debris, snags and sediment that obstruct the flow will be removed. Material to be removed includes 1) fine sediment accumulations that obstruct flows and alter flow patterns; 2) Debris blockages that currently or in the near future cause obstructed flow and altered flow patterns; and 3) Rooted trees that obstruct flow or need to be cleared for equipment access. Access areas that are cleared will be reestablished at the conclusion of the selective clearing and snagging activities. Some access points, however, may remain for the non-federal sponsor to use for maintenance activity of the completed project. The existing bank alignment along the entire reach will remain in its existing condition, including the downstream reaches of Turkey Creek along the meander bends. Specific reaches to be cleared and snagged will be identified by an interdisciplinary team prior to construction. The selected plan will only have minimal effects for the areas flooded in Long Beach. Primarily, the minor benefits would result in a small reduction of average annual flood damages at the upper end of Canal 2 due to the effect of the selective clearing and snagging component more efficiently moving the flows downstream along Turkey Creek. Regarding your comment of an example of a home valued at $55 to $80,000, the relocation benefits provided by the Corps for those persons whose homes or buildings are included in the relocation plan are shown below: • • • • • • • • • • Fair market value for structures - plus Up to $22,500 for residents Up to $10,000 for businesses Moving expenses Relocation allowance (business) Replacement housing (homeowners) Replacement housing (tenants) Relocation advisory services Recording fees Transfer taxes An environmental assessment (EA) is being prepared for inclusion into the feasibility report. The EA will detail all aspects of the wetlands and mitigation involved in the project. 39 As part of the environmental review process, a public notice will be distributed requesting comments on the proposed action. Those comments will be considered in preparation of the final EA. The Corps is required to obtain Coastal Zone Consistency and Water Quality Certification from the State of Mississippi prior to construction of this project. Significant sections of the EA will be included in the Turkey Creek Project Informational Report as well as on the Turkey Creek Project Website. The recommended plan will not affect the Benton House. Only items indicated in the response above would be carefully removed. The recommended plan follows the existing channel alignment of Turkey Creek. No bend easing or similar “meander-loop cut-offs” are proposed in the recommended plan. The average annual flood damage reduced for the recommended plan is $4,324.60 for the 50-year life of the project. A copy of our Project Information Report, and responses to the questions asked at the last public meeting will be provided to all attendees of the May 5, 2005, public meeting. A third public meeting on this study will be conducted in July 2005. Question 11. I want to say that a total overview is essential for discussion of any particular observation in each workshop. A total overview is needed and a dialogue. In desnagging, no native plants should be removed. I might also say that we are presently embarking on a reforestation that would absorb some of the water – more trees would. It's obvious that to stop flooding in one section of the creek, will cause flooding in another section. I disagree with breaking up into workshops because it distracts one from the total picture. Response. The recommended plan was presented as the first part of the public meeting. The second part of the public meeting, the workshop, was designed so that persons who had questions or concerns but did not wish to get up and speak to a large group could be comfortable in asking their questions directly to our technical experts who could provide the answer to their questions. A logical assumption is that preventing one area from flooding could cause another area along the floodplain to flood. However, preventive measures can be taken to prevent induced flooding to other floodplain areas from occurring. The recommended plan includes selective clearing and snagging as a measure to prevent any induced flooding that would occur due the placement of the levees in the floodplain. Although best management practices for watersheds are not included in the recommended plan, it is agreed that cumulative efforts such as reforestation, and better stormwater management would help alleviate some of the flooding that occurs in the Turkey Creek Watershed. While it is true that trees “absorb” water from the soil through transpiration, it is a relatively slow process and would do little to reduce flooding from significant storm events. Only trees and snags which are obstructing flow within the main channel will we removed. No 40 trees outside of the top-of-bank of Turkey creek will be removed unless that specific tree has fallen into the creek or is reasonably expected to fall into the creek in the near future. Minor excavation of shoals will be conducted as required, which will only impact small portions of the selective clearing and snagging area. The selective clearing and snagging will improve water flow thereby reducing flood damage within the watershed. Question 12. I would like to get the information on the beginning and ending dates, the plan's completion date. I believe it was May 6th. Is that the overall completion date for everything? And also give us the dimensions of the levees, both of the proposed levees. And also, is there still a remote possibility that Forrest Heights may have to move? And if not, once both of these levees are constructed, what possible time guarantees are there that area will not flood again? Like right now, it may flood every five years. Will these constructions guarantee absolutely no flooding for 10 or 15 years or 20 years, or something to that effect? Response. We are unsure of what is referenced by May 6th, however, another public meeting on this study is scheduled for July 2005, and the final feasibility report is scheduled for completion by August 31, 2005. The typical dimensions of the levees include a trapezoidal cross-section with a 12-foot top width and 1H:3V side slopes. All structures in the Forrest Heights community located landward of the levee alignment would have a level of protection for a 250-year flood event. Therefore, no structures in this area would be recommended for relocation. The levee alternative at Forest heights will protect the structures within the levee limits up to a 250-year flood event. There is no guarantee that flooding will not occur due to a greater flood event or when a greater flood event may occur. However, the probability that a greater event would occur can be determined. And the associated risk of a particular frequency storm event can be understood. There is an 18.2-percent chance that 1 or more 250-year floods would occur in any given year over 50 years. The chance of 1 or more 500-year floods occurring in any year over a 50 year period is 9.5-percent. Table 4 is provided below and shows for the risk of one or more floods in 50-years or all flood events. Again, the purpose of the feasibility study is to recommend the most cost effective plan that will reduce flood damages with minimal environmental impacts. The goal of the study is to reduce, in an economically efficient manner using risk analysis, damage due to floods. An assessment of the risk of flooding is a critical step in deciding how best to accomplish this goal. Randomness of nature makes the task of accomplishing the goal difficult. Hydrologic Risk estimates are used in the alternatives analyses to select the Recommended Plan. 41 TABLE 4 The Risk of 1 or More Floods in 50-Years Probability of Exceedance 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.004 0.002 Return Period (Year) 2 5 10 25 50 100 250 500 Number of Years 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 % Chance Flood Will Occur 100 100 99.5 87 63.6 39.5 18.2 9.5 Question 13. I would like for there to be a second public hearing, and that the residents also have some kind of booklet explaining more about the plan. I want to know if the Corps has considered planting Cypress trees to replace the loss of wetlands that have occurred over the last ten years that are causing – that may be the main cause of the flooding in Turkey Creek now. And I also want to know if they have considered some spot clearing around the creek of trees four inches or less around to maybe help dry out the land in that area. Could we be more clear on this next report of what snagging is and desnagging? Before, they used desnagging and now they use snagging. So if you could be more clear about that. Response. A third public meeting on this study is scheduled for July 2005. A copy of our Turkey Creek Project Information Report will be provided to all persons who attended the May 5, 2005 public meeting on this study. Appropriate handouts will also be provided at the next public meeting. Planting cypress trees has not been considered as an alternative for flood damage reduction in the Turkey Creek Basin. While it is true that trees “absorb” water from the soil through transpiration, it is a relatively slow process and would do little to reduce flooding from significant storm events. The Corps does not use the term “desnagging” in this study. Our use of the term selective clearing and snagging refers to the removal of trees and snags which are obstructing flow within the main channel. No trees outside of the top-of-bank of Turkey Creek will be removed unless that specific tree has fallen into the creek or is reasonably expected to fall into the creek in the near future. Only debris, snags and sediments that obstruct the flow will be removed. 42 Question 14. What are the advantages to the Turkey Creek Community or disadvantages? What is the stated purpose for the project? Will the flooding increase in the Turkey Creek basin? Response. The purpose of this study is to identify solutions to reduce flooding along Turkey Creek. The advantages of the recommended plan are that it will reduce the flooding in the Turkey Creek Basin. One disadvantage is that the plan does not relieve all of the flooding in the Turkey Creek Basin. The recommended plan will not increase flooding in the Turkey Creek Basin. Question 15. Although there are quite a few good and useful technical questions that I do have about these recommendations, I think that the Corps needs to clarify, as I discussed with the Colonel, to the County, to the City, to the residents, frankly even to the local media for everyone's purposes, that the Corps' study is what it is and is not what it's not. In other words, even though those of us who live here in this watershed know for certain, as do some of our elected officials, that flooding problems in the Turkey Creek Watershed, some of which are entirely new, have been either caused or exacerbated by bad land use decisions, whether it's zoning or permitting decisions particularly by the City of Gulfport, but also other local and federal entities, the State, too. But at the same time, the Corps study does not address local land use, which is a municipal matter. It's outside of the jurisdiction of the Corps study. The Corps study does not include the issue of internal drainage, which is also an issue locally that's either creating or exacerbating flooding in places where it should not exist. The Corps study is a very specific, narrowly tailored study that I feel is almost like a set-up where the county and the city in their quest to the playground of the south and the fastest growing city in the State of Mississippi has made a whole bunch of egregiously wrong development decisions, some of which has cost my community, the Turkey Creek Community dearly. Then once some of those decisions caused drainage issues to get to the point that they got to when the county asked for this study, they asked in such a way as if they assumed the Corps was the Wizard of Oz that was going to deliver a magic bullet, which of course it's not, because the county never really asked the Corps to do a total comprehensive assessment of the watershed and total drainage issues and land use issues, and maybe propose a watershed improvement plan. I have discussed that with Mr. Grandison and he has made it perfectly clear that would be beyond the purview of the Corps' jurisdiction. I understand that. So, thereafter, I recommended to the Colonel in our conversation that in addition to taking the next few weeks to get certain things into writing and to get those things into writing to include big picture issues, like the totality of the problem, the totality of the prescriptions, how these pieces or solutions here or there fit into a cohesive whole. 43 I think it is also important to indicate very clearly what the study is not going to solve; what the study does not address, because that clearly is the misunderstanding gap, one of them, at play and basically a whole lot of acrimony and a political stalemate. Response. The Harrison County Board of Supervisors requested that the Corps evaluate flood reduction measures for Forrest Heights and the 28th Street area of Long Beach. This study, therefore, is focused on identifying feasible and cost effective solutions to flooding in those areas. This study is being conducted under Section 205 the Flood Control Act of 1948, as amended, and the issues of land use and interior drainage are not authorized purposes of this authority. Interior drainage and land use planning, however, could be addressed under other Corps authorities such as our General Investigation Program, and our Section 22 Program. A request for assistance under these authorities would have to come from a prospective non-Federal sponsor that is willing and able to cost share in the studies. The problem statement is included in the Turkey Creek Project Information Report that is being provided along with responses to questions raised at the public meeting. We cannot attempt to identify all of the things that this study will not solve because the list would be infinite. We reiterate that this study is geared toward providing flood reduction measures for the Turkey Creek basin. Question 16. "Who determines which wetlands and uplands acreage will be protected and enhanced a part of recommended mitigation measures? "Do the thirteen acres of wetlands to be protected/enhanced have to be continuous? "What are criteria for selection? "Who will own and/or maintain the wetlands and uplands areas to be protected/enhanced -- the Corps, the county, who? "Will best management practices (temporary & permanent) be used for clearing, snagging and wetlands protection/enhancement? "Will the Corps incorporate or at least consider the recommendations of the Turkey Creek Watershed Greenway Coalition into its feasibility study and recommendations? Response. The Corps in cooperation with Harrison County, the City of Gulfport, and the relevant resource agencies will determine the acreage and location of the mitigation associated the recommended plan. The City of Gulfport currently has in place a program to acquire wetlands along Turkey Creek. The City has identified these properties using specific criteria approved by the relevant resource agencies. The Corps intends to utilize lands identified under this program in cooperation with the City of Gulfport to achieve as many contiguous large tracts as practicable. The location of the mitigation will be as near as possible to the wetlands impacted by the recommended plan. The local sponsor (Harrison County) will be responsible for all land acquisition. A perpetual conservation easement will be placed on the property to protect the property from future impacts. 44 Best Management Practices will be employed during construction of the project. See comment 8 for details on selective clearing and snagging. The Corps will review and consider all comments received during the public review of this project. Please feel free to provide your coalition’s comments. Question 17. Please place in a public site the information regarding desnagging as much site specific detail, on impacts to banks of creek. Please indicate locations of mitigation restoration and place them as close as possible to affected areas or areas where marshes are displaced. Please leave creek path and bed in as original condition as possible. Please do not do channelization of the bends. Response. A website is being developed to provide information to the public. The intent is to locate the mitigation properties as close as practicable to the impact sites. The City of Gulfport has identified wetland areas along Turkey Creek for acquisition under a wetland conservation program (CIAP) they are administering. The City does not have sufficient funding to acquire all lands they have identified. Therefore, the Corps and the local sponsor will look to utilize properties identified under that program as mitigation for this action. As previously stated, no CIAP funding will be used for mitigation for this action. The Corps is simply working with the City to ensure that the best available properties are utilized as mitigation within the Turkey Creek watershed. At this time, it is difficult to pinpoint which specific properties will be utilized for mitigation as the City is currently proceeding with their land acquisition program. If we were to identify a specific property at this time, it is quite possible that property would not be available when the Corps is ready to proceed with our mitigation. The EA will identify generally where these properties are located. The bends in Turkey Creek will not be canalized. Only debris, snags and sediments that obstruct the flow will be removed. The selective clearing and snagging along approximately 5.2 miles of water bottom within Turkey Creek will be confined to the area within the banks of the existing channel alignment. Only trees and snags which are obstructing flow within the main channel will be removed. No trees outside of the top-ofbank of Turkey creek will be removed unless that specific tree has fallen into the creek or is reasonably expected to fall into the creek in the near future. Minor excavation of shoals will be conducted as required, which will only impact small portions of the selective clearing and snagging area. Note: Four (4) additional participants at the public meeting made written requests for copies of the study report. 45 Response. A copy of the Turkey Creek Project Information Report will be mailed to all participants at the May 5, 2005 Public Meeting at least two weeks prior to the next public meeting. Summary of Questions Asked Directly To Corps Technical Experts During The May 5, 2005, Turkey Creek Public Meeting Question. How can I be sure the economic analysis is valid and not something put together to make a Corps of Engineers project? Response. The Corps makes every effort to insure the accuracy and credibility of its work. While a few problems have been identified in recent years, it is important to note that these are extremely rare and represent only a very tiny fraction of the Corps total workload. Never-the-less, Corps Headquarters has recently implemented additional safeguards. The most significant of these is the use of independent technical review, whereby a person who is not involved in the project reviews the work in an objective manner to insure the analysis and methodology are correctly applied. Independent technical review documentation is required with each study conducted by the Corps and is carefully reviewed by higher authority within the Corps. In addition the Corp’s work related to project recommendations is published and is available for review by members of the public, as well as other Federal, state and local agencies. It is also generally available under the Freedom of Information Act. These levels of scrutiny insure that any attempt to falsify information would be detected and exposed. Question. Will we identify the structures eligible for relocation and to display street addresses so the public will know which structures we were talking about? Response. The structures eligible for relocation will be provided during the next public meeting. Question. What will the clearing and snagging look like? Will it destroy the trees along the bank of Turkey Creek? Response. The clearing and snagging is required to prevent induced flooding due to the placement of the levees in the floodplain. Only debris, snags and sediments that obstruct the flow will be removed. The selective clearing and snagging plan will follow guidelines established by the American Fisheries Society. The clearing and snagging along approximately 5.2 miles of water bottom within Turkey Creek will be confined to the area within the banks of the existing channel alignment. Only trees and snags which are obstructing flow within the main channel will be removed. No trees outside of the top-ofbank of Turkey creek will be removed unless that specific tree has fallen into the creek or is reasonably expected to fall into the creek in the near future. Minor excavation of shoals will be conducted as required, which will only impact small portions of the clearing and 46 snagging area. The clearing and snagging will improve water flow thereby reducing flood damage within the watershed. Question. What is the quality of the wetlands being impacted by the levees? Response. The wetlands impacted are primarily overgrown wet pine flatwoods generally of a low habitat value due to increase in mid-story vegetation resulting from invasive/exotic species, previous disturbances and a great reduction or elimination of a fire regime. These areas are dominated by Pinus spp. (pines) overstory with species such as Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle), Cyrilla racemiflora (titi), and Ilex vomitoria (yaupon) dominating the midstory. The herbaceous stratum is characterized by numerous and widely varying species of grasses such as Andropogon glomeratus (bushy broomsedge), sedges, rushes, spikerushes, picture plants, etc. The existing wetlands are serving limited function as wildlife habitat and for water quality enhancement. Question. Will the clearing and snagging impact adjacent wetlands? Response. The impacts to wetlands resulting from the clearing and snagging of 5.2 miles of Turkey Creek were evaluated. The proposed activity will not result in an overall increase in channel depth or width. Therefore, no wetland impacts are likely to occur. The clearing and snagging will reduce water surface elevations throughout the lower basin, but sufficient hydrology will remain to support existing wetlands. Question. Will the project impact threatened or endangered species? Response. The Corps is currently working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the development of a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report which will evaluate any potential project impacts upon federally listed species and their critical habitats. The Corp’s initial review of the recommended plan has not identified any listed species within the project area. The Corps does not anticipate impacts to listed species. Question. Will the levees increase flooding downstream? Response. The clearing and snagging plan is being engineered to insure no increase in flooding will occur as a result of the proposed levees. Question. Would planting trees help reduce flooding? Response. While it is true that trees “absorb” water from the soil through transpiration, it is a relatively slow process and would do little to reduce flooding from significant storm events. 47 Question. Where will the mitigation land be located? Will this be coordinated with the City? Response. The intent is to locate the mitigation properties as close as practicable to the impact sites. The City of Gulfport has identified wetland areas along Turkey Creek for acquisition under a wetland conservation program (CIAP) they are administering. The City does not have sufficient funding to acquire all lands they have identified. Therefore, the Corps and the local sponsor will look to utilize properties identified under that program as mitigation for this action. As previously stated, no CIAP funding will be used for mitigation for this action. The Corps is simply working with the City to ensure that the best available properties are utilized as mitigation within the Turkey Creek watershed. At this time, it is difficult to pinpoint which specific properties will be utilized for mitigation as the City is currently proceeding with their land acquisition program. If we were to identify a specific property at this time, it is quite possible that property would not be available when the Corps is ready to proceed with our mitigation. The EA will identify generally where these properties are located. Question. How much excavation will be required in the clearing and snagging? Response. The clearing and snagging may require removal of individual shoals within the creek bottom if they are determined to impede flow. This work would likely be done by a backhoe or crane as required at specific shoals along Turkey Creek. 48