BOUNDARY MANAGEMENT AND ENCROACHMENTS 1 255 255 255 237 237 237 0 0 0 217 217 217 163 163 163 200 200 200 Open Forum Discussion on Challenges and Best Management Practices 131 132 122 239 65 53 80 119 27 110 135 120 252 174.59 112 92 56 62 102 130 102 56 48 130 120 111 The views, opinions and findings contained in this report are those of the authors(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation.
DEFINE THE PROBLEM: Facts: Unauthorized use of government lands or interests 12 Million Acres of fee title and flowage easement 36,800 miles of boundary 291,000 Real estate tracts 10,344 Encroachments Recorded 2 Challenges: Projects with minimal fee title and flowage easement are more challenging to manage boundary because private lands are closer to the water Flowage easements may not be readily identifiable Limited data available to determine the scale of the problems, such as missing monuments, miles not fully surveyed, etc. Validated geospatial data is not yet available enterprise-wide Suburban and commercial development is creating the potential for significant increases of encroachments at some projects (and is already occurring)
SO WHAT? 3 Risk to human health and safety including flooding habitable structures and sanitary systems Project purposes affected including reducing flood storage and impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. Many projects with significant numbers of encroachments Limited resources for resolution Potential for increasing numbers of encroachments Unresolved issues can lead to more problems and increasing cost and time to resolve. Negative impacts to agency credibility - lack of action
HOW DID WE GET HERE? 4 Original acquisition methods vary and present challenges (Eisenhower Projects) Problems have existed as long as the projects in many cases including errors or incomplete original surveys Title company searches are time limited and in many cases easements restrictions were not known by current landowners Inadequate manpower and funding to address the problem
RISK INFORMED FUNDING DECISIONS FOR ENCROACHMENT RESOLUTION 5 All encroachments and boundary issues are not created equally Resources do not exist to address all issues-projects must balance boundary work, including resolution of encroachments with other priority work Preventative actions must be also be maintained along with addressing encroachments Risk management consistent with FY 19 O&M 20/20 process Recommend a phased approach with interim test for FY19 budget development
Risk Informed Encroachment Resolution Decision Criteria Consequence I highest V Lowest Flooding - Risk to human life or health impacts and private property damages. Impacts to Project Operations of major mission areas such as Flood Risk Management, Hydropower or Navigation. Ecological/ Cultural Resources Impacts - Negative impacts to special status species, critical habitat or culturally important sites. Minor Public Safety Encroachments- Minor risks to public safety such as attractive nuisance or negative impacts to the project. I II III IV Condition Classification F Worst Condition A Best Condition F flooding of habitable permanent structures (main living space) D - flooding of habitable permanent structures (basement) C - flooding of habitable temporary structures (no evacuation route) B - flooding of habitable temporary structures (evacuation above flood pool) A - flooding of temporary structures (evacuation above flood pool) F significant reduction in flood storage capacity/other major mission D moderate reduction in flood storage capacity/other major mission C minor reduction to flood storage/other major mission B restricts project access interfering with project mission A temporarily restricts project access interfering with project mission F illegal ATV over ESA habitat or burial grounds (consistent or repeated offense) D timber trespass of high quality forest bottomland hardwoods or forested wetland C timber trespass of other forest for watershed view B illegal ATV/other impacts over watercourse A illegal ATV/other impacts over land and vegetation F illegal construction/installation stairs, docks, temporary structure with multiple known hazards D trash, debris disposed of on property creating potential hazards C illegal construction/installation stairs, docks, etc/ Potential minor hazard B illegal construction/installation stairs, docks, etc/ No immediate hazard A trash, debris disposed of on property. No immediate hazard. 6 Other Encroachments - Minor impacts to land access or resource damages. V F Removal of property signs, markers or monuments by adjacent landowners. D trespass - boat trailer/vehicle/camper parked on fee lands (land cleared) C trespass - boat trailer/vehicle/camper parked on fee lands (no land cleared) B trespass repeated camping on or across boundary line A trespass - camping equipment left on fee land.
*Preliminary analysis using best available data PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PROJECT LEVEL TOOL (PILOT) Lewisville Lake, TX 13 0-1 HH/Ac 1-2 HH/Ac 2+ HH/Ac
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP (ENS) FUNDING FY 14-18 8 Capability does not equal need. It only represents what the MSC s provided in their recommendations. FY 17 budget includes $14.6 million for work related to boundary inspection, surveying and monitoring, encroachments and trespasses. Includes direct maintenance on 2,100 miles of boundary, and addresses 3,551 encroachments and trespasses. File Name
AAA AUDIT RESULTS 9 9 new encroachments found with auditors Not enough resources available to sufficiently inspect, maintain, and monument boundaries Improve and standardize reporting and documentation of boundary work Improve usage of REMIS for recording keeping Resolve encroachments with current DA policy
10 DISCUSSION Best Management Practices Challenges Communication with public/realtors Working with Real Estate