HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018.05.21 Council Special Meeting HandoutSVeccat me6n9 s(zi Ile)
Corps of Engineers Pasco/Richland Reconveyance Workshop Presentation
Monday, May 21, 2018 @ 6 PM
City of Pasco Council Chambers
The Walla Walla District of the Corps of Engineers ("Corps") has been asked to provide information
regarding a potential land transfer from the Corps to the Tri-Cities and perhaps other local governments.
As the Corps has not seen the legislation, all answers are subject to change depending on its content.
The Corps acquired 39,808 acres of land and easements during the construction of McNary Project. The
acquired land allowed for inundation, flowage, the construction and maintenance of McNary Dam,
associated levees, drainage ponds and ditches, and all legally required relocations of highways, local and
county roads, railroads and utility systems. All parties, except those who chose to donate their property
received fair market value for their properties.
Municipalities within the Tri-Cities interested in land conveyance should consider some of the following
factors. Each will be discussed in detail through questions and answers raised by Pasco and Richland
Staff.
• Regulations and required Permits - Sec 10. Sec 404 and Clean Water Act
• Floodplain certification and/or FEMA oversight.
• Consultations with Tribes and other interested parties.
• Costs - including appraised fair market value of the Federal land, administrative cost, operation
and maintenance of the land, levee systems, ditches and pumping stations.
1) Big Picture
a. What is the Corps annual estimate of FTE staffing and fiscal impact to perform all work (capital,
operations, maintenance, land use, enforcement, power consumption) related to all Corps owned
lands and easements above ordinary high water on the Columbia River in the transfer area? Are
there significant capital expenditures on the horizon that are not included in the annual estimate?
The area under consideration as we understand, beginning on the west bank of the Columbia River,
is Hover Park north to the northern Richland Limits including some of the mouth of the Yakima River
and on the east bank Sacajawea State Park north to the Esquatzel canal.
• For operation of the levees, ditches (including inland drainage system), and pumps annual costs
are approximately $1 million and 5-6 FTEs.
• Expected capital expenditures on the pumps are approximately $20 million over the next
decade.
• Rangers/Real Estate/Annual Inspections is approximately 3-4 FTEs and affiliated boats and
vehicles, approximately $300,000 per year.
b. Corps oversight should reconveyance occur —does reconveyance remove the Corps from all
management?
• This will depend on what the legislation says.
• Generally, the Corps will still be a regulator (CWA, 404, Section 10), but not a land owner.
• However, the levees will remain federal works. Alterations would need Section 408 approval.
• If transferred, the levees would likely be entered into the Inspection of Completed Works
Program, requiring the new land owner to fund periodic inspections by a Professional Engineer.
2) Management of the levee system
a. What is the current status of local levee accreditation and will that responsibility transfer to local
government? Could you please describe the accreditation responsibilities and affiliation with
updated FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Mapping estimated to begin in the Tri Cities in 2021?
• Levees presently show as accredited on FEMA maps. Certification of the levees to support
Accreditation was never done.
• During a mapping update, when FEMA requests Levee Certification leading to Accreditation it is
the responsibility of the local government to provide that information.
• If the Corps owns and operates the levees, the Corps will generally fund 100% of the cost of the
engineering analysis and report generation to certify the levees.
• If the levees are transferred to the communities, the communities will probably have to fund
100% of any levee certification studies.
b. Vegetation maintenance cycle —costs and plans.
• Levee and ditch maintenance —removal of trees and shrubs, noxious weed management
• Costs roughly $200,000 per year
c. How will elimination of flowage easements and ownership of the levees impact operation of the
river pool?
• Unless the legislation directs otherwise, pool operations will continue with the same goals.
• Prior operation are not a guarantee of future operations.
• If flowage easements necessary to operation of the dam were surrendered, they would need to
be reacquired.
3) Levee drainage systems
a. Please provide an overview of Operations of the pumping systems —costs and plans —periodic
equipment replacement.
• Annual operating costs for pumping systems--$500,000 + $200,000 utilities.
• This includes vegetation clearing (cost identified above).
• Operating costs include:
0 Daily inspections of levees, drainage ditches and pump plants, checking for abnormal
conditions, flow restrictions, signs of leakage, erosion, or other damage to levees.
0 Repair and maintenance of gates/fences, levee walls (including rip -rap and erosion control)
and pump plants (including annual breakdown inspection and maintenance of motors,
pumps and impellers).
0 Responding to vandalism, improper disposal of trash and security alarms from the pump
plants.
b. Maintenance and certification —responsibilities transfer to the Cities?
• This will depend upon the language of the legislation.
c. Does the Corps hold NPDES permits for the current discharges? What is the status and
requirements?
The Corps does not hold NPDES permits for levee pump discharge. The Corps is simply pumping
stormwater from one location (a pond) to another (the river); the Corps has no jurisdiction to
regulate activities on up -drainage private lands.
• Cities are required to have stormwater Permits, which includes water going into our ponds.
4) Corps owned lands above the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)
a. Current lease/use agreements in place including private docks —please provide an overview
agreements that would cease and/or transfer to local government.
• There are a large number of easements, leases and licenses ("outgrants") within the Tri-Cities.
• What would happen with them would depend on the:
0 Language of the legislation
0 Language of the individual outgrants
0 Language of the transfer document
0 Identity and actions of the new property owner(s)
0 Identity and actions of the current outgrant holder(s)
• The Corps manages the McNary shoreline, under the McNary Shoreline Management Plan
("MSM P").
• Recreational docks are permitted under the plan and some appurtenant structures have real
estate licenses.
• How those permits/licenses would be handled would be a question answered by the legislation
or discussion amongst the parties.
• If the lands are transferred, docks may require Regulatory permits.
b. Current agreements with other agencies -- are there any and if so ramifications.
• The MSMP was consulted on with the Services under the ESA.
• Some lands in this area count towards mitigation under the Lower Snake River Compensation
Plan
• Transfer of Environmental Stewardship lands may impact the Plan and would need to be
discussed with the State and US Fish and Wildlife Service
c. Current agreements with Tribes — responsibilities of the Cities, including any religious/archeological
issues
• This will depend on the language of the legislation and the final transfer documents.
• However, for transfers under the WRDA 96 authority, consultation would occur with the tribes
to ensure the transfer of property was not an adverse effect to historic properties.
• That consultation might result in restrictions or (potentially expensive) mitigation requirements
on the Cities.
• All state and local cultural resource laws would remain in effect.
• The Corps has a programmatic agreement for effects of O&M of the projects which might have
some effects on the transfer, depending on timing and the results of that ongoing consultation.
d. Current enforcement and encroachment actions and applicable law regardless of Corps or local
government ownership?
• The Corps is engaged in numerous encroachment enforcement actions related to dock permits
issues under the McNary shoreline plan.
• The Corps constantly engages in encroachment prevention and informal encroachment
enforcement.
• If all lands are transferred to local governments, then the federal government would generally
not have jurisdiction and federal law would not generally apply, leaving this a local responsibility
(with the potential exception of 408, as discussed above).
5) Transition
a. Records related to land management —will these be made available to Cities?
• This will depend on the language of the legislation.
• Land records are voluminous.
• A large number of acquisition documents were provided in the report to Congress.
• In the absence of direction by Congress, if additional specific documents are needed, the Corps
may be able to provide them via FOIA, or other processes.
• Surveys do not always exist.
b. Regulations retained for Corps administration —outline of these.
• Generally, if lands are turned over, the Corps does not have further interest as a landowner.
• However, federal levees need to be maintained to Corps standards. So regulations which may be
relevant include but are not limited to:
0 ER 1110-2-1156 Safety of Dams — Policy and Procedures;
0 EM 1110-2-2902 Conduits, Culverts and Pipes;
0 EM 1110-2-1908 Instrumentation and Monitoring;
0 ER 500-1-1 Emergency Management Program — Rehab and Inspection program;
0 ER 1110-1-1807 Drilling in Earth Embankment Dams and Levees; and
0 ETL 1110-2-583 Guidelines for Landscape Planting and Vegetation Management at Levees,
Floodwalls, Embankment Dams, and Appurtenant Structures.
c. Timeline and process of reconveyance — what to expect.
• This will depend upon the language of the legislation. However, assuming the language is similar
to WRDA 96, the process would be:
• Local Governments provide administrative fees for cultural, environmental, survey, appraisal,
administrative and legal work.
• Corps engages in that work, including:
0 106 consultation with the tribes and other parties;
0 NEPA work (EA or EIS);
0 ESA compliance;
0 Compliance with all other treaties, laws and regulations.
For WRDA 96, this process proved long and expensive, as well as producing cultural resource
stipulations on land usage.
Once all that work is complete, assuming no party sues over the compliance work, the property
would be transferred from the Corps to the local governments, perhaps with stipulations
limiting usage, perhaps not. Whether or not the local governments would need to pay
consideration would depend on the legislation and the purpose to which the properties were to
be put after transfer.
6) McNary Pool
a. Resulting change in operations of the McNary Pool (ie; water level during Water Follies) —will
reconveyance disrupt the existing beneficial relationship between the Corps and the Cities?
• Barring legislative instruction to the contrary, McNary Pool will be operated the same manner
regardless of ownership of the levees. However, it should be noted that past operations are not
a guarantee of future reservoir operations.
4