Loading...
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Correspondence Copyright 2014 City of Dubuque Consent Items # 13. ITEM TITLE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Correspondence SUMMARY: The City Manager transmitting the City of Dubuque's comments to Rock Island District's letter inviting comments regarding possible future changes to Public Law 84-99 Rule Making. SUGGESTED DISPOSITION: Suggested Disposition: Receive and File ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 0 Dubuque Comments Supporting Documentation Dubuque THE C DUUB_�QFEAfl-fteficaM 11111.1 Masterpiece on the Mississippi 2007.2012.2013 April 6, 2015 HQ 33CFR203@usace.army.mil U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rodney.L.Delp@usace.army.mil ATTN: 33CFR203/CECW-HS/3D64 441 G Street NW Washington, DC 20314-1000 Dear Sir or Madam: The purpose of this letter is to provide the City of Dubuque, Iowa's response to the Rock Island District's February 26th letter inviting comments regarding possible future changes to Public Law 84-99 rule making. A. Preparedness Question 1: What (if any) additional types of Advanced Measures assistance should be considered? Comment: Currently, Advance Measures consist of those activities performed prior to a flood event or potential flood event to protect against loss of life and/or significant damage to improved property. Emergency work under this authority is considered when requested by the Governor of a State confronted with an imminent threat of unusual flooding. Corps assistance will complement the maximum efforts of tribal, State, and local authorities. Projects will be designed for the specific threat, normally of expedient- type construction, and typically temporary in nature. Advanced Measures assistance should also include technical assistance with planning or design of flood protection measures regardless of imminent flood threat, when requested by the local sponsor, on projects designed and constructed by the Corps of Engineers. Advance planning or design of flood protection measures prior to flooding threats is a more pro-active way to prevent or reduce flooding impacts and flood fighting costs. Question 2: What (if any) additional eligibility or performance requirements should be considered generally for Advanced Measures assistance? Comment. No additional eligibility or performance requirements should be considered generally for Advanced Measures assistance which would put additional burden on the local sponsor. Question 3: Would changing the cost share serve as an effective incentive for promotion of the standard USACE planning process? If not, what other incentives or requirements for using the standard USACE planning process for permanent, construction should be considered? Comment. No additional cost share change should be considered which would put additional burden on the local sponsor. Other incentives or requirements for using the standard USACE planning process for permanent construction that should be considered: a. Whether the project is designed to mitigate future flooding of property that has sustained significant flood damage and is likely to sustain significant flood damage in the future. b. Whether the project plan addresses the impact of flooding both upstream and downstream from the area where the project is to be undertaken and whether the project conforms to any applicable floodplain ordinance. c. Whether the area that would benefit from the project's flood mitigation efforts is sufficiently valuable to the economic viability of the local sponsor or is of sufficient historic value to the local sponsor to justify the cost of the project. d. Whether the project is designed in coordination with other watershed management measures adopted by the local sponsor or adopted by the participating jurisdictions of the local sponsor, as applicable. e. Whether the project plan is consistent with the applicable comprehensive emergency plan in effect and other applicable local hazard mitigation plans. B. Rehabilitation Question 4: What should USACE evaluate to determine if a non-federal sponsor is adequately operating and maintaining its flood control project? What should be considered adequate operations and management for eligibility purposes? Comment: Currently, federal flood control works are inspected in accordance with 33 CFR 208.10 and Engineer Regulation (ER) 1130-2-530, Flood Control Operations and Maintenance Policies. These periodic inspections of federal flood control works are also, for the sake of simplicity, known as CEI's. If a federal project is found to be inadequately maintained on a CEI, then it will be placed in an Inactive status. 2 The Dubuque levee and floodwall system has protected the city of Dubuque, Iowa from Mississippi River flood waters for over forty (40) years, including the historical river crests of 25.4 feet on April 21, 2001 and 23.84 feet on July 1, 1993. The operation and maintenance of the levee and floodwall system is the responsibility of the City's Public Works Department. The USACE and the City's Public Works staff conduct an annual inspection of the levee and floodwall system. The City, as local sponsor, has always received the highest available rating for maintenance of this system. In addition to annual inspections with the USACE, semi-annual inspections are performed and a written summary is provided to the USACE which identifies current maintenance work on the floodwall, levee and pump stations along the flood control system. Also, the levee and floodwall system is inspected after every flooding event to ensure that any damage is identified and appropriate repairs are completed in a timely fashion. If a local sponsor has a history of ongoing maintenance projects and improvements to the flood control system, the system should remain in the active status. The project should be considered adequate operations and management for eligibility purposes based on the overall system rating, as in the past. Question 5: How should USACE evaluate a non-federal sponsor's emergency preparedness, notification, evacuation planning and exercise plan and activities to determine if they are adequate? What should USACE evaluate? What should be considered adequate? Comment. Emergency preparedness, notification, and evacuation planning are the responsibility of other federal agencies (Homeland Security/FEMA). Plans developed by local sponsors to meet the requirements of the other federal agencies should be considered adequate and recognized by the USACE. Whether the project plan is consistent with the applicable comprehensive emergency plan in effect and other applicable local hazard mitigation plans should be considered sufficient. No additional action should be required by USACE. What should USACE evaluate? What should be considered adequate? Here's a real-life suggestion: The June 2010 Engineering Technical Review Report prepared by the Rock Island District of the USACE for the Dubuque Levee System for the local sponsor, the City of Dubuque, Iowa. The USACE provided this evaluation at no cost to the City because the Corps was evaluating the Upper Mississippi River levee systems that provide or potentially provide protection from the 100 year flood. The goal of this project was to complete rigorous evaluations of all qualifying levee systems according to current USACE engineering technical standards. In accomplishing these evaluations, site visits were made, levee cross sections were studied, and seepage analysis computations and historic performance information were reviewed. Project results were documented in comprehensive assessment reports on the engineering adequacy of the evaluated levee systems to withstand the 100 year flood. The report also included an interior drainage analysis for areas behind the Dubuque levee system. 3 These levee system evaluations did not result in the certification of levees, nor constitute a warranty of performance; however, they were of significant value to City of Dubuque's Engineering staff for certification of Dubuque's levee and floodwall system. The USACE should periodically conduct this type of technical analysis and produce a comprehensive levee evaluation report for local sponsors. Question 6: How should USACE evaluate a non-federal sponsor's risk communications plan and activities for informing local officials, residents, and business owners about risks associated with the potential failure of the flood control project? Comment. A uniform draft plan should be developed by the Corps of Engineers as a template that then could be modified and adopted by the local sponsor, with the final document provided to the Corps of Engineers for its record. Acceptance of this plan by the USACE should not be related to any funding eligibility requirement. Question 7: Are there other criteria that USACE should consider using to determine eligibility for rehabilitation assistance that would assist and encourage non-federal sponsors and flood-prone communities to reduce their risks from flooding? Comment. Other criteria that should be considered: a. Whether the project is designed to mitigate future flooding of property that has sustained significant flood damage and is likely to sustain significant flood damage in the future. b. Whether the project plan addresses the impact of flooding both upstream and downstream from the area where the project is to be undertaken and whether the project conforms to any applicable floodplain ordinance. c. Whether the area that would benefit from the project's flood mitigation efforts is sufficiently valuable to the economic viability of the local sponsor or is of sufficient historic value to the local sponsor to justify the cost of the project. d. Whether the project is designed in coordination with other watershed management measures adopted by the local sponsor or adopted by the participating jurisdictions of the local sponsor, as applicable. e. Whether the project plan is consistent with the applicable comprehensive emergency plan in effect and other applicable local hazard mitigation plans. Question 8: What improvements to the existing SWIF policy should be made? Comment: No comment. 4 Question 9: Currently, the SWIF policy has only been used for levee projects. Should the SWIF concept be applied to other types of flood control projects like channels? If so, for what purposes and using what criteria? Comment: Other criteria that should be considered: a. Whether the project is designed to mitigate future flooding of property that has sustained significant flood damage and is likely to sustain significant flood damage in the future. b. Whether the project plan addresses the impact of flooding both upstream and downstream from the area where the project is to be undertaken and whether the project conforms to any applicable floodplain ordinance. c. Whether the area that would benefit from the project's flood mitigation efforts is sufficiently valuable to the economic viability of the local sponsor or is of sufficient historic value to the local sponsor to justify the cost of the project. d. Whether the project is designed in coordination with other watershed management measures adopted by the local sponsor or adopted by the participating jurisdictions of the local sponsor, as applicable. e. Whether the project plan is consistent with the applicable comprehensive emergency plan in effect and other applicable local hazard mitigation plans. Question 10: If the eligibility for rehabilitation assistance moves away from a standards- based inspection criteria and moves toward an activities- based approach (as is considered in Section B.1 above), what role should the SWIF policy play? Under what circumstances would development of a SWIF be useful to non-federal sponsors? Comment: If the USACE would move away from standards-based inspection criteria to an activities-based approach, the development of a SWIF would become an even more important tool for the levee sponsors to maintain eligibility for federal rehabilitation assistance under PL 84-99 while deficiencies can be corrected. The local sponsor may need additional time to plan and secure funds to correct additional Corps requirements under the activities—based approach. Question 11: Are there other types of features and approaches that USACE should allow during rehabilitation efforts to minimize or address impacts on threatened and endangered species and tribal treaty rights while still providing the intended benefits of the flood control projects and reducing the risk of loss of life and significant economic damages? Comment: Yes, "green infrastructure" funded by the USEPA, like Dubuque, Iowa's Bee Branch Watershed Flood Mitigation Project. The Bee Branch watershed, where over 50% of Dubuque's residents either live or work, is continually hit hard with flash flooding 5 unrelated to Mississippi River water levels that inundates basements and rushes down streets from curb to curb. Six Presidential Disaster declarations were issued between 1999 and 2011 due to flash flooding in the area and an estimated $69.8 million in damages resulted. The Bee Branch Watershed Flood Mitigation Project is a multi-phased, green infrastructure investment by the City of Dubuque, the local sponsor of the Dubuque Mississippi River levee and floodwall system, to mitigate flooding, improve water quality, stimulate development, and enhance quality of life. The project catalyzes community economic, social and environmental capital to create resilient neighborhoods, foster economic opportunities, and balance resources. This 12-phase project will reduce the volume of stormwater, slow the flow rate of stormwater through the upper watershed, and increase the safe conveyance of stormwater through the flood-prone areas. When complete, it also will include "daylighting" a previously-piped creek, new community gardens and orchards, an outdoor amphitheater/classroom, bioswales, landscaped parkways, 1,000 trees, hike/bike trails, water recreation amenities, as well as necessary utilities and public infrastructure. Question 12: What advance planning activities could USACE undertake with non- federal interests to enable non-federal interests to consider NSAPs as viable alternatives to structural rehabilitation efforts if the project is damaged in a future flood event? Comment: In Dubuque, Iowa, the City has developed a flood mitigation project that blends green infrastructure and NSAPs; this project is a model for the USACE. The Bee Branch Watershed Flood Mitigation Project's single most important achievement is removal of silos at every project level -- design, funding, permitting and construction by applying the Sustainable Dubuque framework. By shifting from a traditional "outputs" approach to a "sustainability outcomes" approach evaluating qualitative and quantitative impacts, Dubuque has made the Bee Branch Watershed Flood Mitigation Project more resilient - and designed a more sustainable process for future projects. Design Traditional design is top down and output-focused. Cities hire consultants to assess a problem, design a solution, and then seek funding - which can jeopardize citizen support and sustainable funding. Sustainable design is bottom up and outcome- focused. In Dubuque, we engaged consultants, state and federal partners, citizen advisory committees, and the general public to help create, fund, and implement a sustainable, innovative watershed plan. Dubuque citizens embraced the challenge and supported the-Bee Branch Watershed Flood Mitigation Project (BBWFMP), which involves restoration of a buried creek and other green infrastructure; supports efficient, effective use of land and existing infrastructure; provides transportation choices; maintains sense of place; enhances natural and built environments; and benefits all citizens. 6 Funding and Permitting State and Federal funding and permitting is commonly conducted by separate agencies in isolation. However, because the BBWFMP was holistic in its approach, it did not fit under one funding or permit "silo". The BBWFMP broke down silos and helped State and Federal agencies see the interconnectedness of flooding, water quality, and community development through the Sustainable Dubuque model for funding and permitting green infrastructure projects. Construction Traditional flood mitigation involves buyouts and demolitions, sewers and levees. Dubuque could have constructed concrete ditches or massive storm sewers that cut swaths through vulnerable historic neighborhoods. Instead, Dubuque citizens and our partners embraced the Sustainable Dubuque framework of the BBWFMP to restore the Bee Branch Creek, install permeable pavement, and construct other green infrastructure improvements. Question 13: How can the current NSAP policy be improved? Comment: No comment. Any questions regarding the content of this letter should be directed to me at 50 West 13th Street, Dubuque, Iowa, 52001 or CtyMgr@cityofdubuque.org. Sincerely, Michael C. Van Milligen City Manager MCVM:dv CC: Mayor Roy D. Buol Dubuque City Council Senator Charles E. Grassley Senator Joni K. Ernst Representative Rodney. L. Blum Barry Lindahl, City Attorney Thomas Berger, Dubuque County EMA Coordinator Teri Goodmann, Assistant City Manager Laura Carstens, City Planner Gus Psihoyos, City Engineer Don Vogt, Public Works Director Bob Schiesl, Assistant City Engineer Deron Muehring, Civil Engineer Kyle Kritz, Associate Planner Steve Brown, Project Manager John Klostermann, Street and Sewer Maintenance Supervisor 7