FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE MANUAL

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE MANUAL"

Transcription

1 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE MANUAL Created by the TEXAS COLORADO RIVER FLOODPLAIN COALITION 2 nd Edition June 2002 TCRFC H 300 P.O. Box 220 Austin, TX tcrfc-info@tcrfc.org

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As a result of the devastating floods occurring from 1991 through 1998, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) initiated a series of meetings to find ways to improve the effectiveness of floodplain management coordination and cooperation in the lower Colorado River basin. Representatives of cities and counties in the basin who attended these meetings concluded that significant improvement could be gained through increased coordination and cooperation among the local community programs. They also concluded that regional leverage was needed to attract needed funding, technical assistance and training. They therefore agreed to pursue the formation of a floodplain management coalition to achieve these goals and objectives. The LCRA provided staff and meeting resources to the Texas Colorado River Floodplain Coalition (TCRFC) during the formation process and during the drafting of the Guidance Manual and Interlocal Agreement. The first edition of the Floodplain Management Program Assessment Guidance Manual (the Guidance Manual) was the product of a series of meetings of the Technical and Executive Committees occurring over several months from October 2000 to February This second edition reflects minor changes to the Coalition s Interlocal Agreement. The purpose of the Guidance Manual is to assist communities in the assessment of the effectiveness and consistency of their floodplain programs. Many ideas described in this manual were derived from similar work crafted by the Trinity River Common Vision (TRCV) and published in the Corridor Development Certificate Manual (Second Edition, September 1998). The TRCV format was used as a building block for the Coalition due to the many similarities to the goals and objectives identified by the TCRFC. However, the Guidance Manual reflects the special needs and approaches developed by the TCRFC communities. 07/26/02 ii

3 MISSION STATEMENT The Executive Committee of the Texas Colorado River Floodplain Coalition has adopted the following mission statement: Encourage comprehensive consistent management of the floodplain along the Colorado River and its tributaries; provide a forum for data exchange; and facilitate a structured approach to managing the complex issues related to floodplain management. 07/26/02 iii

4 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The Executive Committee of the Texas Colorado River Floodplain Coalition has adopted the following goals and objectives. GOALS Cooperative arrangement for floodplain management Mechanism for sharing ideas and programs Assist local government with technology, emergency management, training A single entity partner with which to correspond with State and Federal agencies Current Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) - Countywide Public Education Stabilize the flood risk along the river corridor TECHNICAL OBJECTIVES Adopt uniform standards for development Create and maintain accurate and current base mapping Elevation Benchmarks or Reference Marks Corporate boundaries Roads Streams Review and comment on Letters of Map Change (LOMC) submitted to FEMA Facilitate access to approved LOMC Maintenance of current hydrologic and hydraulic computer models. Update Zone A to establish BFE and floodways Assist with Community Rating System (CRS), and with development of local floodplain management and hazard mitigation plans EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Facilitate local floodplain management and emergency management program coordination Coordinate federal, state, and local resource/programs, such as Project Impact, Storm Ready, HMGP, FMAP, Challenge 21, NPDES, and ICC) Help local communities meet state requirements for emergency response. Facilitate a flood preparedness plan annex 07/26/02 iv

5 Promote emergency communication/notification - NOAA, LCRA radios, local media, neighborhood telephone trees TRAINING OBJECTIVES Train new member communities prior to joining Coalition Internet training to use website Coordinate state and federal training programs Technical training for floodplain management and emergency managers, through coordination with TFMA, ASFPM and other professional organizations, in support of the Certified Floodplain Management Program Training for consistent hydrologic/hydraulic modeling Training for stakeholders (insurance, lenders, surveyors, and developers) Training for local officials (legal issues as well as floodplain management) Public Awareness Maintain a resource pool of Mutual Aid Trainers/Emergency Response Personnel LEGISLATIVE/LEGAL/FUNDING OBJECTIVES Work with Councils of Government (COG) Identify annual budget Administrative Identify funding resources - local, state, and federal Review legislative issues via lobbyists associated with other agencies and organizations for funding opportunities Assist with solicitation of federal funds for capital projects 07/26/02 v

6 [ This page intentionally left blank.] 07/26/02 vi

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii MISSION STATEMENT iii GOALS AND OBJECTIVES iv TABLE OF CONTENTS vii Section PURPOSE OF THE TCRFC FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ASESSMENT GUIDANCE MANUAL BENEFITS OF THE COALITION AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM INCENTIVE AND RECOGNITION PROGRAM NO ADVERSE IMPACT MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE MANAGEMENT 12 Section TCRFC RECOMMENDED PERMIT CRITERIA APPLICATION OF RECOMMENDED PERMITTING CRITERIA RELATIONSHIP OF LEVEL 2 AND 3 CRITERIA TO CRS SENATE BILL TCRFC ASSESSMENT RATINGS PROCEDURES FOR COMMUNITY PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS AND PROGRESS REVIEW 30 Section GOVERNING COMMITTEES ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW PEER REVIEW FUNDING TRAINING, EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 37 APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS 40 APPENDIX B - SAMPLE TCRFC FORMS 45 APPENDIX C - MAP OF COMMUNITIES 48 APPENDIX D - NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) SAMPLE ORDINANCE 49 07/26/02 vii

8 APPENDIX E - REQUIREMENTS FOR AN IMPACT ANALYSIS 74 APPENDIX F - NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) FEMA MINIMUM FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT CRITERIA 78 APPENDIX G - ASFPM WHITE PAPER ON NO ADVERSE IMPACT 86 APPENDIX H - SENATE BILL APPENDIX I - COMMON FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 92 APPENDIX J - REFERENCES 96 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY PUBLICATIONS CORPS OF ENGINEERS PUBLICATIONS STATE OF TEXAS PUBLICATIONS LOCAL AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT STATE & FEDERAL LAW REFERENCES SPECIAL INTEREST WEBSITES 07/26/02 viii

9 Section 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE TCRFC FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ASESSMENT GUIDANCE MANUAL The Floodplain Management Program Assessment Guidance Manual is a consensus product of the Texas Colorado River Floodplain Coalition (Coalition). The Coalition was formed in response to a series of devastating floods in 1991, 1997 and 1998 that destroyed lives and property in the lower Colorado River basin. The Coalition is a partnership of local communities in the basin who are interested in regional coordination and planning to reduce flood damage. Through a coordinated Floodplain Management Program, the Coalition affirms the local government authority for local floodplain management while establishing common regional goals, objectives, permit criteria and procedures for development within the lower Colorado River basin. Rapid development both in and out of the mapped floodplains is occurring in many parts of the lower Colorado River basin. Most communities do not coordinate floodplain management activities with other communities in the watershed and do not receive any information regarding upstream or downstream development activities that may be changing the floodplain in their area. Many elected officials and city/county staffs that must deal with floodplain issues in their community do not receive adequate training or have access to comprehensive technical resources. The Floodplain Management Program Assessment Guidance Manual builds upon National Flood Insurance Program minimum permitting criteria for development within the floodplain and identifies criteria, policies and procedures that will enable local communities to consider a development s future effect on the floodplain. Training opportunities are also provided by the Coalition, as well as access to technical assistance and an independent review process. The recommended permitting criteria adopted by the members of the Coalition are organized into a series of achievement levels with the local community determining which level to adopt for permitting decisions. The first level is based upon meeting NFIP minimum requirements and is mandatory for all members and sets minimum floodplain management activities required for participation in the Coalition. The upper levels are voluntary, with the criteria in the highest level extending to development activities beyond the regulatory floodplain. By encouraging local communities to recognize the potential impacts of new developments on the hydrology of the watershed, the Coalition seeks to raise community awareness of the potential changes to the existing floodplain from new development in the basin. This information is provided to the local permitting entity and the other members of the Coalition for their use in making floodplain management decisions. 07/26/02 1

10 Note: While cities and counties in the basin retain ultimate control over their own development and building permitting decisions, other communities in the Colorado River basin have the opportunity to receive timely notification of projects throughout the basin. By becoming a member of the Coalition, each community agrees to voluntarily provide information to other member communities upon their request. This voluntary peer review process facilitates better floodplain management decisions by facilitating the sharing of information. The Floodplain Management Program Assessment Guidance Manual is intended to aid local communities in the successful management of the floodplains in their jurisdiction. The TCRFC Assessment Program includes a periodic review process by which the Coalition will assess the success of consistent floodplain management in the region. Each member community will receive a rating of Excellent, Superior or Outstanding, depending upon the community s implementation of floodplain management criteria that exceed NFIP minimum standards. Local governments are encouraged to incorporate the criteria presented in the Guidance Manual into existing permitting strategies for floodplains associated with the Colorado River and its tributaries, as well as those associated with other watersheds within their community. 07/26/02 2

11 1.2 BENEFITS OF THE COALITION AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The establishment of the Texas Colorado River Floodplain Coalition and the subsequent adoption of the activities and policies described in the Floodplain Management Program Assessment Guidance Manual provide numerous benefits to its member communities and to the public at large. These benefits include: Improved, updated regional flood insurance maps Enhanced training programs for floodplain administrators, emergency management coordinators and elected officials Access to independent technical review of engineering analyses Information sharing and technical assistance Public awareness and education Stabilization of flood risk through documentation of hydrologic and hydraulic impacts of new development Opportunity for mutual peer review and comment on permit applications Regional leveraging on federal and state programs, funding and legislative issues Technical assistance and outreach Program assessment and enhancement Guarantee of local control of permitting decisions Each of these benefits is discussed below: Improved, updated regional flood insurance maps The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), in coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), began a series of projects in 1999 to develop data and other information that would eventually support the production of new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the lower Colorado River basin. Mapping needs have been assessed for all communities in the 11-counties within the LCRA s coverage area, and a pilot project to produce digital (computerized) FIRMs has been completed in the City of Lago Vista. A similar project has been initiated with the City of Meadowlakes. A Master Plan is under development that will identify estimated costs and schedules for the production of new maps for the remaining Colorado River communities. The Coalition will function as a partner to help establish the prioritization of the mapping for each community, and to help obtain local, state, and federal funding in order to continue the production of updated floodplain maps. Enhanced training programs for floodplain administrators, emergency management coordinators and elected officials The Coalition will facilitate a training, education and technical assistance program to provide resources to local floodplain managers and emergency management coordinators. The program will be developed in partnership with federal and state agencies, as well as professional organizations. The program will coordinate short courses, training seminars, workshops, conferences, on-call speakers, 07/26/02 3

12 videos, web sites and other educational resources directed at educating elected officials, the regulated community and the public about floodplain management and emergency management issues. The Coalition will work to support the Certified Floodplain Manager program administered by the Texas Floodplain Management Association (TFMA) and the Association of Floodplain Managers, Inc. (ASFPM), the Certified Emergency Manager (CEM) program administered by the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) and the Texas Emergency Manager (TEM) certification program administered by the Emergency Management Association of Texas. Similarly, an educational program for elected officials who ultimately make permitting decisions will be established, through which local officials will gain a clear understanding of the importance of having a strong, effective floodplain management program, including a basic understanding of the causes of flooding and appropriate permitting criteria and mitigation measures. They will also gain an understanding of the individual and cumulative consequences of granting variances. In addition, training will be provided to ensure that local elected and appointed officials are familiar with their roles and responsibilities during emergency events and with the methods of obtaining assistance from state and federal agencies. This may include training in: conducting damage assessments, organizing debris cleanup operations, participating in multi-agency operations organized under the Incident Command System (ICS), and receiving assistance from the various federal and state disaster relief programs. Access to independent technical review of engineering analyses The Coalition provides an opportunity for the local Floodplain Administrator to request a review of the technical analyses submitted by a developer by an independent contractor hired by the Coalition. This review will assist the 07/26/02 4

13 Floodplain Administrator when the local permitting authority does not have the personnel with time and/or technical expertise to review the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses. By having a highly qualified, independent technical review available to all Coalition members, both the local community and adjacent neighboring communities will have an avenue to receive additional data to make well-informed permitting decisions. Information sharing and technical assistance A major benefit of a floodplain management coalition is the sharing of information such as development permitting processes and decision-making. The focus of the community notice and comment process established by the Coalition members will emphasize the information-sharing aspect. In addition to a common permitting database, a library and clearinghouse of floodplain management information will be maintained by the Coalition. Staff will be available to assist with common questions regarding floodplain mapping information or common permitting requirements. The Coalition will also assist local communities when making floodplain determinations (including those in approximate A zones). A mentoring program will be established which will allow communities with strong or well-established floodplain management programs to assist other Coalition members. By participating in the Coalition, smaller cities and counties will gain the benefit of a larger pool of resources. Previously, only large cities could assemble the resources required to submit a successful grant application. Coalition members will be able to combine their resources to seek grant funding for projects to deal with common issues. As an example, the Coalition has applied for funding to enable its members to prepare the Hazard Mitigation Action Plans which are required by federal law. Additional opportunities for sharing resources will be sought. Public awareness and education 07/26/02 5

14 The most effective floodplain management programs are based on public education and understanding of the causes of flooding and the resulting program requirements. In order to provide this resource, the Coalition will host educational programs and workshops for the building/development, insurance, real estate, and lending communities. Speakers will be available for trade conventions or continuing education and certification training. A Coalition video may be produced as part of this effort. The Coalition will also assist local communities by providing news releases and articles to local newspapers about floodplain management issues and initiatives. Some of these organized public awareness efforts may count for CRS credits for Coalition Communities. An annual awards ceremony will be held by the Coalition to publicly recognize those communities who have made significant improvements to their floodplain management programs. Affected stakeholders, state and federal agencies, lending institution associations, real estate agents, and the general public will be invited to attend. The Coalition may also take the lead in enhancing public awareness of personal safety and disaster preparedness activities. By cooperating with state, federal and private disaster response agencies, the Coalition can help provide the information and organization necessary to ensure that citizens are better prepared to protect themselves and their property from disasters, especially floods. Stabilization of the floodplain through documentation of impacts of new development The potential for many types of development to dramatically affect the rate and volume of runoff from any given rainfall has been well publicized. The reduction of porous surfaces and ponding areas by grading and paving building sites, streets, drives, parking lots, arenas, and sidewalks by constructing buildings and other facilities will reduce a watershed s storage capacity and surface infiltration. The result is a gradual increase in river and tributary flows and a corresponding increase in the base flood elevations and width of the floodplain over time. Although the impacts from sparse development in some rural counties in the basin may seem insignificant, the rapid unanticipated development in other parts of the Colorado River watershed have left floodplain management officials unable to predict the impacts on the floodplains. By adopting the criteria outlined in Level 3 above, some communities in the Coalition may choose to regulate and reduce these impacts. Opportunity for mutual review and comment on permit applications Along with the recommended permit criteria, a process was adopted which gives cities and counties in the lower Colorado River watershed the opportunity to review and comment on projects in their neighbors jurisdiction. Any Coalition community may request, in writing, to be notified of permit applications which meet certain thresholds (specified by the requesting community). This notification may be in the form of letter, , or notice through a pre-established public notice mailing list. However, this process is not intended to affect established application process and permitting timeframes or the ultimate permitting authority of a community. 07/26/02 6

15 Communities will also provide permit information to a database that is posted on the Coalition web site. The Coalition Administrator maintains the database, including reviewing the incoming information for formatting purposes. A Summary List of permit activity is also provided on the Coalition s web site ( which is also maintained by the Coalition Administrator. While each individual city and county still makes final development decisions, the Coalition sharing of information reinforces peer review by creating a common technical currency of engineering and permit processing. Regional leveraging on federal and state programs, funding and legislative issues Federal and state grant programs and funding opportunities continually change over time. The Coalition may aid its members in applying for local matching programs, or partner with regional entities such as the LCRA and various Council of Government organizations to have a stronger voice in applying for regional funds. The Coalition has formed a subcommittee to review funding and legislative issues in order to determine how to best leverage the Coalition s resources and strengths in obtaining more benefits for the region. Technical Assistance and Outreach The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides federally supported flood insurance to communities that regulate development in their floodplains. In order to participate in the NFIP, a community must adopt a floodplain ordinance or floodplain regulations that require new construction or substantially improved properties in a special flood hazard area (i.e., 100-year floodplain) to meet certain minimum criteria in order to receive a development or building permit (see Appendix F for minimum criteria). Members of the Coalition have agreed to share information or provide technical assistance so that every member may continue to meet these minimum program requirements. In doing so, the Coalition seeks to publicly endorse the goals of the NFIP and achieve regional management goals of reducing flood losses, promoting the awareness of flood insurance and increasing participation in FEMA s Community Rating System (CRS). Program Assessment and Enhancement Counties and cities that are members of the Coalition agree to implementing their floodplain management programs using one of the three following levels when permitting new development: Level 1: Mandatory minimum criteria under State law and NFIP for developments in the regulatory floodplain (Excellent Rating) 1. All FEMA minimum requirements/criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (see Appendix F). Level 2: Additional criteria above NFIP minimum standards for developments in the regulatory floodplain (Superior Rating) 1. All of the criteria in Level 1 are effective. 2. No rise in the 100-year base flood elevation (BFE). 07/26/02 7

16 3. The lowest floor of any new construction must be at least one foot above the BFE in Zone AE and at least two feet above the BFE in Zone A. 4. Placement of fill material in the 100-year floodplain must be offset by compensating storage in the floodplain (no net loss of valley storage). 5. No construction of habitable structures in the 100-year floodway. Construction of non-habitable structures (such as roads, bridges, park facilities, and recreation facilities) may not increase 100-year flows or water surface elevations of the 100-year floodplain. 6. No increase in erosive water velocity on-site or off-site. Level 3: Additional criteria for developments outside of the regulatory floodplain (Outstanding Rating) 1. All of the criteria in Levels 1 and 2 are effective. 2. No increase in 100-year discharges in the outfall channel or downstream tributaries or rivers. 3. No increase in off-site runoff. 4. Runoff flowing onto the property from adjacent areas must be conveyed through the property and discharged into a public street or drainage system. 5. Proposed subdivisions must have at least one vehicular access above the regulatory floodplain of an existing dedicated street or roadway. 6. Natural waterways must be maintained in a natural state. These criteria are discussed in more detail in Section 2.0. Participating communities may use more stringent criteria as either an addition to the Level 2 and/or 3 criteria or as a proposed alternative to specific Level 2 or Level 3 criteria. As a general guide, members of the Coalition discourage development within the 100-year floodplain of major and minor tributaries and the Colorado River. When the local floodplain regulations or ordinance allows development in the floodplain, the development is subject to the minimum criteria described in Level 1, or the criteria described in Level 2, if adopted by the local community. For Levels 2 and 3, the developer must submit hydrologic and hydraulic data in the form of an impact analysis sealed by a licensed Professional Engineer showing that the permit criteria have been satisfied. The analysis enables the community permitting authorities to make a more informed decision and ensure that the existing regulatory 100-year BFE and floodplain is not adversely impacted. Guarantee of local control of permitting decisions The Coalition provides a mechanism by which local floodplain administrators may obtain an independent technical review of selected projects. The manual also defines a procedure by which neighboring Coalition communities may request notification of permit applications in a particular community. However, permitting timeframes and decision-making remains at the discretion of the local permitting authority (city or county government). Cities and Counties, via their elected officials and permitting ordinances (or regulations or policies), retain ultimate 07/26/02 8

17 authority over what development occurs in the floodway, floodplain, and watershed, subject to compliance with state and federal regulations. Increased coordination of flood preparedness and response activities By incorporating both floodplain management and emergency management into Coalition activities, the groundwork is laid for enhanced cooperation between floodplain and emergency managers during flood events. This cooperation should ensure that the community is more effective in responding to the issues that arise during the aftermath of a disaster, especially a flood. In addition, the Coalition can foster stronger relationships and common planning approaches which will, in turn, ensure that emergency response and recovery activities are coordinated among neighboring jurisdictions. This cooperation has the potential of saving lives, reducing property damage and lowering response costs, all to the benefit of the citizens. 07/26/02 9

18 1.3 INCENTIVE AND RECOGNITION PROGRAM The Coalition has developed a recognition program to encourage those communities to significantly improve their programs through the assessment process. The Coalition also publicly recognizes the achievements of member communities at an annual awards ceremony. Affected stakeholders, state and federal agencies, trade organizations, lending institution associations, real estate agents, and the general public are invited to attend. The results of the annual TCRFC Assessment Program are presented at the ceremony as well as posted on the Coalition website (see assessment program details in Section 2.0). The Assessment Program provides a rating for each community as follows: Excellent Rating: Community with a floodplain management program that is fully compliant with NFIP minimum requirements. Superior Rating: Community with a floodplain management program that exceeds the minimum NFIP requirements by enforcing more stringent mitigation measures for developments in the floodplain. Outstanding Rating: Community with a floodplain management program that exceeds the minimum NFIP requirements by enforcing more stringent mitigation measures for developments both in and out of the floodplain. In addition, the Coalition has established an award recognition for local floodplain administrators and emergency management coordinators to recognize their individual achievements. The Coalition will annually select from among its members a Floodplain Manager of the Year and Emergency Management Coordinator of the Year for efforts above and beyond the minimum required by the NFIP. These awards will be presented at the Coalition s annual awards ceremony. The Coalition has also established a series of certifications to recognize builders and developers that fully comply with the recommendations set forth in this Manual and meet or exceed the permitting criteria established by a local community. The certified recognition may be used on promotional materials by the recipient and the Coalition, and will be posted on the Coalition s website. Blue Ribbon Award: Builders who construct structures or facilities in compliance with the Level 3 policies and criteria may receive a TCRFC Blue Ribbon Award. Plans and plats may be annotated with this recognition with the approval of the local floodplain administrator. Gold Star Award: Developers who construct subdivisions, commercial structures, or other developments in compliance with the Level 3 policies and criteria may be designated a TCRFC Gold Star Development. Plans and plats may be annotated with this recognition with the approval of the local floodplain administrator. 07/26/02 10

19 1.4 No Adverse Impact The TCRFC goals and objectives support the new initiative from the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) known as No Adverse Impact. As Coalition member communities enforce level 2 and 3 permitting criteria (see section 2), they are moving closer to the goal of no adverse impact. According to the ASFPM white paper on No Adverse Impact (NAI) of February 2002; no adverse impact floodplain management is where the action of one property owner does not adversely impact the rights of other property owners, as measured by increased flood peaks, flood stage, flood velocity, and erosion and sedimentation. A main point of the NAI initiative is that minimum NFIP standards do not stabilize the flood risk but in many cases allow circumstances that increase the flood risk to continue. Current floodplain management standards allow for: floodwater to be diverted onto others; channel and overbank conveyance areas to be reduced; essential valley storage to be filled; or velocities changed with little or no regard as to how these changes impact others in the floodplain and watershed. The net result is that through our actions we are intensifying damage potentials in the nation s floodplains. most local governments have simply assumed that the federal standards are an acceptable standard of care, perhaps not realizing that these very standards could induce additional flooding and damage within their community. As communities adopt policies and regulations that support the NAI philosophy, The flood risk in a community begins to stabilize. See appendix G for the ASFPM white paper on No Adverse Impact in its entirety. 07/26/02 11

20 1.5 MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE MANAGEMENT Traditionally, efforts to reduce flood losses have often relied on trying to control floodwaters rather than encouraging people to avoid flood hazard areas. However, this structural approach has frequently had adverse impacts on the natural resources and ecological integrity of rivers and floodplains. In recent years, many communities have come to recognize that the floodplain environment is an important community asset and have taken the initiative to create greenways, riverside parks, and other popular amenities. Significantly, protecting the natural resources and functions of floodplains has proven to be effective in reducing flood losses as well. Floodplains are now also recognized as having intrinsic value of their own as a part of the interconnected ecosystem and an influential role in increasing a community s quality of life. For example, the recognized benefits of a naturally functioning floodplain include the storage and conveyance of floodwaters, the recharging of groundwater, the maintenance of surface water quality, and the provision of habitats for fish and wildlife. These areas also provide diverse recreational opportunities, scenic value, and a source of community identity and pride. Clearly the potential gains of transforming stream and river floodplains from problem areas into value-added community assets are substantial. Accordingly, the Coalition encourages the consideration and use, where appropriate, of cost-effective alternatives to structural controls that may also provide recreational and environmental benefits including, but not limited to the acquisition of open area and significant wetlands through voluntary agreements with landowners, the acquisition of structures in the floodplain and their relocation, and the use of tax incentives and recognition programs. The Coalition also encourages communities to coordinate other related programs such as their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permitting program, on-site sewage system program, greenway and parks acquisition program, and wetland preservation programs with their floodplain management program in order to achieve multi-objective floodplain management goals. Additional information on this may be obtained by referring to: Using Multi- Objective Management to Reduce Flood Losses in Your Watershed, prepared by the Association of State Floodplain Management, Inc. for the U.S. Environmental Agency 1996; Protecting Floodplain Resources A Guidebook for Communities, prepared by the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, 2 nd Edition June 1996; and Texas Community Official s Primer on Floodplain Planning Strategies and Tools, prepared by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC R6-85 June 1994). 07/26/02 12

21 Section 2.0 RECOMMENDED PERMIT CRITERIA AND ASSESSMENT RATINGS 2.1 TCRFC RECOMMENDED PERMIT CRITERIA Common permitting criteria were the first objective formulated by the initial Steering Committee during the Coalition formation process. Common criteria are critical in stabilizing flood risk, addressing cumulative impacts of development in the basin, and ensuring that each community has an equal responsibility in achieving floodplain management goals. Having such criteria also make it more likely that such goals will be achieved. Common minimum permitting criteria already exist for the communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These criteria are contained in Title 44, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60. In addition, of the Texas Water Code requires each city and county to adopt ordinances or orders necessary to be eligible to participate in the NFIP not later than January 1, However, minimum NFIP standards may be insufficient to address local problems or achieve Coalition goals and objectives. Specifically, NFIP minimum standards still allow for floodwater to be diverted onto neighboring properties, channel and overbank conveyance areas to be reduced, essential valley storage to be filled, and velocities changed with little or no regard as to how those changes impact others in the floodplain and watershed. In addition, minimum NFIP criteria rely on the use of published FIRM maps to determine regulatory floodplain boundaries and Base Flood Elevations (BFEs). Since many of the FIRMs published for the communities in the lower Colorado River watershed are outdated, incomplete, or inaccurate, communities using minimum NFIP criteria may be resulting in permits issued to developments which are subject to greater flood risk than anticipated. If a flood occurs prior to the maps being updated, properties may be damaged that were documented outside of the regulatory floodplain and therefore may not be insured at all. For these reasons, minimum NFIP criteria are unable to stabilize the flood risk in the community. The Coalition recognizes that urban development has a significant effect on the rate and volume of runoff from a given rainfall. Over time, the cumulative impacts of development both in and out of the floodplain will increase stream discharges, flood water volumes and, consequently, flood water surface elevations. Placing flood related restrictions on new development throughout the watershed, as well as using permitting data to help update the hydraulic and hydrologic base models, would help achieve the TCRFC's goals of: stabilizing the flood risk along the river corridor and no rise in the 100-year base flood elevation as stated in the Interlocal Agreement. Watershed wide controls will also help to 07/26/02 13

22 produce more accurate floodplain maps. Without adequate controls to prevent or mitigate the spread of the floodplain boundaries, the models and FIRMs must be regularly revised, flood insurance premiums may increase for many structures, and many more structures may be included within the floodplain boundaries that were outside of the boundaries on previous maps. Therefore, the members of the Coalition have agreed that documentation of these hydrologic changes, as well as implementation of more adequate criteria, is the ultimate goal for managing the existing floodplain and reducing the potential for worsening future flood damages. Some Coalition communities have already adopted watershed-based runoff controls. Other communities have not had the regulatory authority to do so until recently as a result of Senate Bill 936 passed in (See discussion of Senate Bill 936 in Section 2.4). In response, the Coalition established a multi-level approach to implementing applicable and appropriate permitting criteria in the region. Minimum criteria are established to meet the requirements of the NFIP, and recommendations for more comprehensive criteria are given which would achieve the broader floodplain management goals of the Coalition. Communities are encouraged to adopt the more stringent criteria. Definition of Criteria: Counties and cities that are members of the Coalition agree to implement their floodplain management programs based upon one of three levels when permitting new development: Level 1: Mandatory NFIP minimum criteria for developments in the regulatory floodplain 1. All FEMA minimum requirements/criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (see Appendix G). Level 2: Additional criteria for developments in the regulatory floodplain 1. All of the criteria in Level 1 are effective. 2. No rise in the 100-year base flood elevation (BFE). 3. The lowest floor of any new construction must be at least one foot above the BFE in Zone AE and at least two feet above the BFE in Zone A. 4. Placement of fill material in the 100-year floodplain must be offset by compensating storage in the floodplain (no net loss of valley storage). 5. No construction of habitable structures in the 100-year floodway. Construction of non-habitable structures (such as roads, bridges, park facilities, and recreation facilities) may not increase 100-year flows or water surface elevations of the 100-year floodplain. 6. No increase in erosive water velocity on-site or off-site. Level 3: Additional criteria for developments in or out of the regulatory floodplain (watershed-based criteria) 1. All of the criteria in Levels 1 and 2 are effective. 07/26/02 14

23 2. No increase in 100-year discharges in the outfall channel or downstream tributaries or rivers. 3. No increase in off-site runoff. 4. Runoff flowing onto the property from adjacent areas must be conveyed through the property and discharged into a public street or drainage system. 5. Proposed subdivisions must have at least one vehicular access above the regulatory floodplain of an existing dedicated street or roadway. 6. Natural waterways must be maintained in a natural state. Note: Participating communities may implement more stringent criteria as either an addition to the Level 2 and/or 3 criteria or as a proposed alternative to specific Level 2 or Level 3 criteria. 07/26/02 15

24 2.2 APPLICATION OF RECOMMENDED PERMITTING CRITERIA As a general policy, members of the Coalition discourage development within the 100-year floodplain of major and minor tributaries and the Colorado River. When development in the floodplain is allowed by the local floodplain regulations or ordinance, the development is subject to the minimum criteria described in Level 1, or the criteria described in Level 2, if adopted by the local community. Level 1 Criteria: Adoption of Level 1 criteria (minimum National Flood Insurance Program standards), is mandatory under state law for all communities in Texas and necessary for the community to be eligible for federal flood insurance. Level 1 criteria are applicable to developments in the regulatory floodplain. Level 1 criteria help to minimize flood damages within the mapped floodplain, but do not stabilize flood risk in the community. 1. All FEMA minimum requirements/criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program. The developer should review the applicable NFIP documents (Title 44, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60) and the local community s floodplain ordinance or regulations. The minimum requirements of the NFIP generally require a developer to show that the structure(s) has been designed to minimize flood damage and have the lowest floor elevated to or above the base flood elevation. In addition, enclosed areas below the lowest floor (used for parking vehicles or storage) must be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Manufactured homes must also be designed to minimize flood damage. Levels 2 and 3 Criteria: Adoption of Level 2 criteria is voluntary for all communities in the Coalition. Level 2 criteria are applicable to developments in the regulatory floodplain. Level 2 criteria regulate the hydraulic impacts of developments on the receiving stream or channel system. For Levels 2 and 3, the developer must submit hydrologic and hydraulic data in the form of an impact analysis sealed by a licensed Professional Engineer showing that the permit criteria have been satisfied. The analysis enables the community permitting authorities to make a more informed decision and ensure that the existing regulatory 100-year BFE and floodplain is not adversely impacted. (Appendix F provides additional information regarding the submittal of impact analyses.) Specific information that may aid in the submittal of a permit request is described below: Level 2 recommends criteria applicable to developments within the regulatory floodplain and regulates the hydraulic impacts of those developments on the stream or channel system. The impacts of the proposed development on the hydraulic criteria listed below must be determined for the outfall channel receiving runoff from the development and/or the tributary and river system downstream. The applicant shall satisfy the following floodplain hydraulic 07/26/02 16

25 performance criteria, using best professional judgement based on the degree of accuracy of the evaluation, and using cross-sections and land elevations that represent the reaches under consideration: 1. All of the criteria in Level 1 are effective. 2. No rise in the 100-year base flood elevation (BFE). Also known as a "no-rise" rule, this criterion requires a comparison of the mapped floodwater surface elevations (BFE) to the floodwater surface elevations which are predicted to occur after the development is constructed. Communities may already have a rule or regulation which prohibits new developments in the regulatory floodway from increasing water surface elevations. This criterion extends that requirement to all development in the floodplain. Development activities such as the building of structures or the placement of fill material in a floodplain may alter the flow of runoff during flood events by changing flow patterns, redirecting flow from one outfall channel to another, or adding more flow to an existing channel. The impacts of the proposed development on the hydraulics of the outfall channel receiving runoff from the development and/or the tributary and river system downstream must be determined in order to prevent increases in the BFE over time. In areas where increasing the BFE may adversely impact existing homes, businesses or critical structures such as schools or hospitals, communities implementing the "no-rise" rule may require a detailed impact analysis sealed by a Professional Engineer to show that the criteria has been satisfied. In less developed areas, the community may choose lessen this requirement and use reasonable judgment based on the degree of accuracy of the evaluation. Examples of community regulations which require an impact analysis are as follows: a. "If the proposed development in the flood hazard area (including unrestricted uses as described in Section 4 and methods used for elevation of residences) can be shown to cause an adverse effect as defined below, the "B" permit will not be allowed. Adverse effects shall include the following items on occurrence of the regulatory flood: (1) Increase in water surface elevation on land not owned by the applicant and which is outside public drainage or ponding easements or private easements held by the applicant..." [Chapter 64. Regulations for Flood Plain Management and Guidelines and Procedures for Development Permits, Travis County (Travis County Regulations)] b. "No new construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including cut and/or fill) shall be permitted within zones A and A0-A30 on the community's flood insurance rate maps unless it is first demonstrated by engineering data submitted by the applicant's engineer in accordance with the various requirements and procedures set forth in this division that the 07/26/02 17

26 cumulative effect of the proposed development...will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood at any point within the community." [Chapter 35. City Code, City of San Antonio (San Antonio Regulations)] 3. The lowest floor of any new construction must be at least one foot above the BFE in Zone AE and at least two feet above the BFE in Zone A. This criterion is also known as a "freeboard" rule. A freeboard requirement adds height above the base flood elevation to provide an extra margin of protection to account for waves, debris, miscalculations, or lack of data. The NFIP rules require that the lowest floor of residential structures be elevated to or above the base flood elevation and that non-residential structures be elevated or floodproofed to or above the base flood elevation. Base flood and 500-year flood elevations can be found in the community's Flood Insurance Study (FIS) profiles. This Level 2 criterion requires the addition of one foot of freeboard to the NFIP requirement, although a community may want to require two or three feet if mapping data is of poor quality, or if significant development or other physical changes have occurred since publication of the FIS and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). There are various methods by which a community can require freeboard: a. Require lowest floor of residential structure built in the flood hazard area (also known as the 100-year or regulatory floodplain) to be elevated, or a nonresidential structure to be floodproofed, one foot or more above the BFE as defined in the FIS. b. Require residential and non-residential structures to be elevated one foot or more above the BFE as defined in the FIS. c. For structures built in Zone A, where the Community Floodplain Administrator produces a BFE based on best available information, require two feet of freeboard to account for the lack of a detailed study. d. In communities where floodway is defined in the FIS, use the BFE based on encroachment. Detailed riverine flood studies that produce a floodway provide a flood elevation based upon the floodway encroachment. In a flood insurance study, these elevations are listed in the "With Floodway" column in the Floodway Data Table. They are generally higher than the "Without Floodway" or "Regulatory" flood elevations. e. Require elevation of lowest floor to the "flood protection level" or some other term, and then define that term as one foot above BFE in the definitions. f. Require elevation or structures to or above the 500-year elevation instead of the 100-year elevation. 07/26/02 18

27 Note: In AO Zones, base flood depths are provided instead of base flood elevations in relation to mean sea level. Where depths are not provided, the NFIP regulations require new buildings to be elevated 2 feet above grade. Some communities misinterpret this requirement as 2 feet of freeboard. Elevating 2 feet above grade in an AO Zone where no base flood elevation is provided is a minimum requirement of the NFIP and does not count as freeboard. Communities must require elevation of structures an additional two feet in order to establish a freeboard condition. Note: in V zones the reference point on the structure is the lowest horizontal structural member, not the lowest habitable floor as in an A zone. The following are examples of ordinance language for freeboard: a. "New construction or substantial improvement of any residential or nonresidential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated no lower than 18 inches above the base flood elevation." b. "Subject to "B" permit requirements, the only residences which may be built in the flood hazard area are those whose lowest floor is raised to at least one foot above the regulatory flood elevation." (Travis County Regulations) c. "Within areas of shallow flooding (Zones AO1 and AO2 on the FIRM), new construction or substantial improvement of any structure shall have the lowest floor elevated no lower than 2 feet above the depth number." 4. Placement of fill material in the 100-year floodplain must be offset by compensating storage in the floodplain (no net loss of valley storage). During a flood event, floodwaters will inhabit the valley areas adjacent to rivers, streams and swales. Known as the system's floodplain, this area serves to store floodwaters until the channel system can convey the waters downstream. When development activities such as the construction of buildings, roads, bridges, golf courses or other manmade features bring fill material into the floodplain, volume is lost for the storage of floodwaters during future floods. Future floodwaters may be shifted onto other properties, pond deeper in the floodplain, or increase the velocity of runoff in the channel. This Level 2 criterion requires an equivalent volume of the floodplain storage displaced by the new development to be excavated on or adjacent to the development site. The net change in floodplain storage is computed with respect to the amount of storage originally available on the proposed project tract and must include fill material related to roads, structures, utilities, landscaping and other project features. Note: Communities should be aware that flooding might impact existing structures at less than a 100-year event. In order to maintain the natural characteristics of floodplain storage for all flood events up to and including the base flood (100-year flood), care should be given to create equivalent compensating excavation the same elevations as the fill material. Flood elevations for the higher frequency events (10-year and 50-year floods) may 07/26/02 19

28 be found on the community's flood profiles in the FIS. Any placement of fill in the floodplain should be documented by requesting and receiving a Letter of Map Change from FEMA. The community may require the developer to obtain the LOMC prior to approving the development. Communities may protect existing and future developments from the effects of lost valley storage in one of two ways: a. Provide regulations which prohibit fill within floodplains or flood fringes, including construction of buildings on fill; or b. Provide regulations require that new developments provide compensatory storage at hydraulically equivalent sites. Sample ordinance language for valley storage could read: "Whenever any portion of a floodplain is authorized for use, the space occupied by the authorized fill or structure below the base flood elevation shall be compensated for and balanced by a hydraulically equivalent volume of excavation taken from below the base flood elevation. All such excavations shall be constructed to drain freely to the watercourse". 5. No construction of habitable structures in the 100-year floodway. Construction of non-habitable structures (such as roads, bridges, park facilities, and recreation facilities) may not increase 100-year flows or water surface elevations of the 100-year floodplain. This criterion provides a simple mechanism for communities to reduce the risk of future flood damages by minimizing the construction of structures in floodway, which is the area of maximum conveyance during a flood event. The floodway is recognized as the most hazardous portion of the floodplain, and the location of residential or commercial structures in the floodway greatly increases the risks of loss of life and property during a flood. Minimum NFIP criteria require proof that proposed development in the floodway will not increase flood levels in the community during the base flood event. By not allowing any habitable structures at all in the floodway, communities are exceeding this requirement. Although no impact analysis is required for the first part of the criterion, the second part will require an engineering analysis to show that the proposed development in the floodway will not adversely impact other properties by increasing the BFE or downstream flow rates. The level of detail required for the analysis must be determined by the community. If the proposed project is isolated and if flood risk to existing downstream or adjacent structures is small, the Flood Plain Administrator (FPA) may require simple calculations to show the proposed project will not impede flows or alter existing drainage patterns. If the proposed development is complex, or adjacent/downstream structures will be adversely impacted by any change in the existing floodplain, the FPA may require a detailed engineering analysis of pre- and post-project flowrates and BFEs. 07/26/02 20

29 An example of ordinance language which restricts development in the floodway is: "Construction of habitable structures within the floodway is not allowed. No development or other encroachment is allowed in a floodway which will result in any increase in the base flood elevations within the floodplain during discharge of water of a base flood." 6. No increase in erosive water velocity on-site or off-site. Erosion of channels and overland runoff paths during high flow events is a common problem attributed to development in the floodplain. Flows are increased due to the new drainage collection systems and other factors inherent in development, and often result in higher water velocities downstream of the site. Higher velocities may cause new erosion or exacerbate existing erosion problems. Often, the local communities are responsible for addressing the erosion problems after the development is completed, and the erosion problems reoccur during every flood event. This criterion states that alterations of the floodplain by new developments may not increase water velocities either on-site or off-site such that erosion of the soils and channels is increased. If increased velocities of rainfall runoff are anticipated, an engineering analysis must be performed to determine if the erosion potential is aggravated by the new drainage patterns. Ordinance language which conveys this criterion could be: "New development or substantial redevelopment in the 100-year floodplain may not increase erosive water velocity on-site or off-site." Level 3 criteria are applicable to developments both in and out of the regulatory floodplain and primarily regulate the hydrologic impacts of those developments on the flows in the watershed. The impacts of the proposed development on the hydrologic criteria listed below must be determined by comparing predevelopment conditions to post-development conditions. The applicant shall satisfy the following hydrologic performance criteria, using reasonable judgement based on the degree of accuracy of the evaluation, and considering applicable land-use parameters such as changes to impervious cover (soil conditions), slope, travel time, and infiltration. 1. All of the criteria in Level 1 and at least two of the criteria in Level 2 are effective. 2. No increase in 100-year discharges in the outfall channel or downstream tributaries or rivers. Also known as the "zero tolerance" rule, this criterion requires a comparison of the pre-development flows (which may be equivalent to the discharges published in the FIS) in the outfall channel to those predicted to occur after the development is constructed. The comparison will require an engineering 07/26/02 21

30 analysis of the hydrologic impacts of the land-use features of the development on flows in the receiving channel. These features may include changes to the percent of impervious cover, storage capacity (overland slope and infiltration), travel time of site drainage system improvements, etc. The example of an impact analysis given in the Guidance Manual may be modified by each community to provide the level of detail consistent with the community's regulations. Similar to the Level 2 "no rise" criterion, this rule attempts to quantify changes to the flow of runoff caused by development in the watershed. While the hydraulic comparisons required in Level 2 are limited to developments within the floodplain, the hydrologic comparisons in Level 3 are applied throughout the watershed. The Coalition recognizes that urban development has a significant effect on the rate and volume of runoff from a given rainfall. Over time, the cumulative impacts of development both in and out of the floodplain will increase stream discharges, flood water volumes and, consequently, flood water surface elevations. Placing discharge related restrictions on new development throughout the watershed will help achieve the Coalition goal of no rise in the 100-year base flood elevation as well as maintaining more accurate floodplain maps. Without adequate controls to prevent or mitigate the increases in flood discharges and the subsequent spread of the floodplain boundaries, the models and FIRMs will become outdated, flood insurance premiums may rise, and structures mapped outside of the floodplain may actually be subject to higher flood risks. The impact analysis required to meet this criterion must consider the hydrology of the entire watershed. Discharges in the receiving stream (outfall channel) as well as those in the channels upstream and downstream from the development site must be evaluated. The analysis should consider changes to the stream hydrograph shape and the timing of the peak flow to interpret possible effects on the receiving stream peak discharge. In some communities, the "no increase" criterion may be placed on discharges for other frequency storm events, particularly if structural flooding occurs at frequencies greater than the 100-year event (i.e. 10-year or 50-year flood) or the receiving stream is small or under-sized for the watershed. In other communities, where the outfall from the new development is to a large river or bay, increases may be insignificant (or may not be measurable) and the criterion may be relaxed. 1. No increase in off-site runoff. As an extension of the previous criterion, this rule restricts the rainfall runoff leaving a site to the amount and rate existing prior to the development. By not allowing any increases in the off-site runoff, the criterion restricts the site drainage outfalls to predevelopment conditions regardless of the capacity or size of the receiving stream and simplifies the level of detail needed for an impact analysis. 07/26/02 22

31 As described above, one of the greatest problems of floodplain management in urbanizing areas is the increase in peak flow caused by watershed development. As natural and agricultural lands are covered by impermeable surfaces, such as streets, rooftops and parking lots, more rain runs off at a faster rate. When an undeveloped site is urbanized, the rate of runoff can increase five-fold or more. Stormwater runoff travels faster on streets and in storm drains than under pre-development conditions. As a result, flooding is more frequent, happens more quickly, and is more severe. By requiring the post-development site runoff to be the same or less than the pre-development site runoff, the community reduces the cumulative effects of development on the floodplain. This criterion may be especially useful to communities without detailed models of the receiving stream drainage system. By placing the criterion on the off-site runoff, a complicated analysis of upstream and downstream channel conditions may not be necessary. 2. Runoff flowing onto the property from adjacent areas must be conveyed through the property and discharged into a public street or drainage system. This criterion may be known as the "good neighbor" rule, since it addresses the management of rainfall runoff flowing onto a new development site from surrounding land. The rule requires that both sheet flow and channelized flow entering the proposed development site under pre-development conditions must be considered during the engineering design of the development's grading and drainage system, and must be discharged into a public system. Common drainage problems arise when new developments, such as subdivisions, roads, and even recreational areas, are constructed without regard to the drainage patterns of surrounding properties. Three problems may arise when inadequate consideration is given to pre-existing drainage patterns: 1) sheet flow or channel flow which flowed over or through the site in the past is blocked, causing flooding or drainage problems up-slope or on adjacent properties where none previously existed; 2) sheet flow from adjacent properties is not considered properly in the grading or drainage of the site, and ponding or overland flow causes unexpected flooding problems onsite; and, 3) sheet flow or channel flows are concentrated and/or redirected on the site and then discharged onto adjacent private property, causing neighboring properties drainage problems. This criterion requires the developer to address off-site runoff from adjacent properties in the site's grading plan and to accommodate these flows in the development's drainage system. The runoff must be captured, conveyed, and discharged without impacting adjacent or down-slope properties. The discharge must be directed into a public system, such as a street, storm sewer, channel, regional detention basin, water quality treatment facility, etc. The community FPA should consider the capacity of the public drainage system before granting approval of the site plan. 07/26/02 23

32 3. Proposed subdivisions must have at least one vehicular access lane above the regulatory floodplain of an existing dedicated street or roadway. This criterion attempts to take floodplain management one step further by promoting emergency preparedness during the development design phase. By requiring that every subdivision, which is constructed either wholly or partially in the floodplain, raise at least one lane on each roadway above that floodplain, the community is giving future residents the ability to have access in and out of their neighborhood during a flood event. Especially important in the flat coastal areas of the lower watershed, where roads are designed to convey water during rainfall events exceeding the fiveyear or even lesser events, proper vehicular access planning is vital to facilitating public safety. Reports are common of stranded families requiring emergency rescue from their homes during every flood event. New developments should take preventative measures so that vehicular access is unimpeded in residential subdivisions. Each community must determine how to implement this criterion to fit their own unique situation. Some communities may require a passable lane only on arterial and collector streets, while others may require a passable lane on every residential street. This criterion requires developers to consider the relationship of the 100-year floodplain to the health and safety of the residents in the subdivision. 4. Natural waterways must be maintained in a natural state. This Level 3 criterion does not allow alterations to the natural waterways on or adjacent to the site of the proposed development, unless changes are proposed that expand or restore floodplain capacity, channel conveyance, vegetation and habitat. In an attempt to maintain the natural floodplain and its associated beneficial characteristics, communities adopting this criterion are requiring that preservation of the channel and valley floodplain be incorporated into the overall development of each site. The appropriateness of changes proposed by a developer, including habitat or floodplain restoration projects, is subject to a determination by the local floodplain administrator. 07/26/02 24

33 Natural floodplains along rivers, streams and bayous provide storage for floodwaters and habitat for local and migrating wildlife. Several pollutants, such as sediment and nutrients, are removed as rainwater runoff passes through vegetation indigenous to floodplains. Some communities may choose to protect the natural storage capacity and water quality treatment properties of the existing floodplain by also requiring a public easement be granted which protects the mapped floodplain during and after adjacent development occurs. 2.3 Relationship of level 2 and 3 criteria to CRS Adoption of level 2 and 3 permitting criteria will help member communities as they apply for the Community Rating System (CRS). TCRFC permitting criteria and the various CRS activities both involve communities adopting standards that exceed the minimum NFIP standards. The Community Rating System was implemented in 1990 as a program for recognizing and encouraging community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP standards. The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 codified the Community Rating System in the NFIP. Under the CRS, flood insurance premium rates are adjusted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from community activities that meet the three goals of the CRS: (1) reduce flood losses; (2) facilitate accurate insurance rating; and (3) promote the awareness of flood insurance. There are ten CRS classes: class 1 requires the most credit points and gives the largest premium reduction; class 10 receives no premium reduction. The CRS recognizes 18creditable activities, organized under four categories numbered 300 through 600: Public Information, Mapping and Regulations, Flood Damage Reduction, and Flood Preparedness. As an NFIP community earns points in the CRS, insurance reductions are given to policyholders in that community. 07/26/02 25

34 Premium Reduction Credit Points Rating (in floodplain) (out of floodplain) 4, % 5% 4,000 4, % 5% 3,500 3, % 5% 3,000 3, % 5% 2,500 2, % 5% 2,000 2, % 5% 1,500 1, % 5% 1,000 1, % 5% % 5% Many of the level 2 and 3 permitting criteria correlate to CRS activities as demonstrated in the chart on the following page. 07/26/02 26

35 Correlation of TCRFC Permitting Criteria to creditable CRS activities Criteria Level Criteria Corresponding CRS Activity Level 1 Minimum NFIP standards NA Level 2 Level 3 No rise in BFE 1 foot freeboard in AE 2 feet freeboard in A Compensatory storage No habitable structures allowed in floodway No increase in erosive velocity on or off site No increase in 100 year discharge No increase in off site runoff Runoff conveyance through property Subdivisions must have access above 100-year elevations 430i Other Higher Standards 430a Freeboard 430f Protection of Floodplain Storage Capacity 430i Other Higher Standards 430g Natural and Beneficial Functions (Section 2 of this activity credits regulations that are aimed at minimizing disruption to shorelines, stream channels, and banks.) 450d Stormwater Management (This credit is for erosion control throughout the watershed but could be adjusted to credit erosion control efforts in the floodplain.) 450 Stormwater Management 450 Stormwater Management 430i Other Higher Standards 430i Other Higher Standards 07/26/02 27

36 2.4 Senate Bill 936 The 77th Texas Legislature amended the Water Code, effective September 1, 2001, to authorize all political subdivisions to: (1) adopt more comprehensive floodplain management regulations which the political subdivision determines are necessary for planning, and appropriate to protect public health and safety; (2) participate in floodplain management and mitigation initiatives such as the National Flood Insurance Program s Community Rating System, Project Impact or other initiatives developed by the federal, state or local government; and, (3) collect reasonable fees to cover administrative costs incurred by the administration of a local floodplain management program. Additionally, SB936 provides for Criminal and Civil Penalties and injunctive relief. A sample Court Order/ Ordinance which contains some penalty language which a community attorney may want to consider when preparing a revision to the Community's Flood Hazard Prevention Court Order is available from the State Coordinator. See Appendix H for a complete copy of Senate Bill TCRFC ASSESSMENT RATINGS An annual assessment program has been established by the Coalition in order to assist communities in the evaluation of the effectiveness of their local floodplain management program. Each year, the individual member communities arrange to have a site visit from an independent review team. This team may include Coalition staff or FEMA or TNRCC representatives. This Assessment Team evaluates the community s compliance with the FEMA minimum NFIP criteria (TCRFC Level 1 criteria), as well as the community s overall floodplain management program and its permitting program for the entire watershed, if applicable. In order to encourage participation in the Coalition and recognize the achievements of the member communities, the Coalition developed a rating system to be used by the Assessment Team during its evaluation. Excellent Rating: Community with a floodplain management program that is fully compliant with NFIP minimum requirements. Superior Rating: Community with a floodplain management program that exceeds the minimum NFIP requirements by enforcing more stringent mitigation measures for developments in the floodplain. Outstanding Rating: Community with a floodplain management program that exceeds the minimum NFIP requirements by enforcing more stringent mitigation measures for developments both in and out of the floodplain. Using the criteria outlined in Levels 1, 2 and 3 of Guidance Manual, the Coalition Assessment Team gives the community a rating and prepares a report for the 07/26/02 28

37 Executive Committee. An Excellent rating indicates that the community has fully satisfied the requirement of the TCRFC Level 1 criteria. A rating of Superior indicates that the community has applied the criteria described in Level 2 to all of the developments constructed in the regulatory floodplain. The highest rating, Outstanding, indicates that the community has successfully applied watershedbased criteria to all new developments in the basin as described by the TCRFC Level 3 criteria. The Assessment Team may use discretion to determine the appropriate rating for each community (i.e. each community should adopt criteria applicable for the geographic, topographic and hydraulic conditions present in the community; for example, a community may be rated as Superior even though one or more of the Level 2 criteria are not technically appropriate for the community). The Executive Committee will review the ratings recommended by the Assessment Team and award each community a rating at its annual meeting. The Assessment Team also works with the community to clarify questions and gives the community an opportunity to respond to the findings in the report. The timeline of the assessment program is outlined in Section 2.4. The Administrative Agency, at the request of the Coalition Executive Committee, will arrange for the assessment and progress reviews described in Section 2.4 to be provided by and independent regional entity such as the Lower Colorado River Authority or consultant, unless the community requests the State NFIP Coordinator or FEMA to perform the review as part of a NFIP Community Assessment Visit (CAV). The Administrative Agency will post the findings of the assessments on the Coalition website and in additional mailings, as agreed upon by the Executive Committee. 07/26/02 29

38 2.6 PROCEDURES FOR COMMUNITY PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS AND PROGRESS REVIEW The Executive Committee has approved the following program assessment procedures: Every Coalition community will achieve or exceed full compliance with minimum NFIP requirements not later than 18 months from the effective date of the Interlocal Agreement. The Parties shall develop a Floodplain Management Program Assessment Guidance Manual (Guidance Manual) containing recommended floodplain development permitting criteria, flood damage mitigation measures, common assessment methodologies, common application forms that are consistent with NFIP requirements, model ordinances that meet NFIP requirements, a discussion of cost-effective alternatives to structural controls that may also provide recreational and environmental benefits, and any other relevant recommendations. The Manual shall also include recommendations for the reduction of flood potential of projects outside of the 100-year floodplain necessary to achieve the goal of no rise in the 100-year base flood elevation. Not later than six months after the effective date of the Interlocal Agreement, each Party shall have an independent review performed of that Party s ordinances or orders and floodplain management programs to assist the Party in meeting, at a minimum, NFIP program requirements. In addition, the review shall include an assessment using the Coalition s recommended permitting criteria and mitigation measures contained in Guidance Manual. A summary of the review as well as any follow-up comments and actions by the Party in response to the assessment review shall be provided by the Party to the Coalition Executive Committee not later than one year from the effective date of the Interlocal Agreement. Each Party shall have a review, every three years thereafter, and submit a summary of the review, responses, and follow-up actions to the Executive Committee not later than June 30 of each year. This section shall not impose any duty or liability on a Party to adopt changes to its ordinances, orders or programs. Rather, the purpose of this section is provide technical assistance to the Parties and to assist the Executive Committee is assessing whether the overall Coalition goals are being met, developing new and alternative incentives and strategies to meet these goals, and for the Coalition s recognition and awards program. 07/26/02 30

39 Section 3.0 ADMINISTRATION OF THE COALITION 3.1 GOVERNING COMMITTEES Executive Committee: An Executive Committee was established by the Coalition to provide policy guidance and to make recommendations to the governing bodies of the member communities. Each community must appoint an elected official from its governing body to serve on the Committee An alternate must also be designated. The Executive Committee appoints a Chair and Vice Chair from among its members at its annual meeting, and meets throughout the year as necessary to implement the Interlocal Agreement and address issues raised by the Technical Committees. The Executive Committee adopted bylaws for the conduct of its business and meetings, including the establishment of policies and procedures for timely and meaningful public notice and comment on Coalition activities to the Executive Committee and Technical Committees as described in the Interlocal Agreement. Technical Committees: A Technical Committee was established to study and provide technical recommendations for the Coalition as directed by the Executive Committee. Each community must appoint a member and alternate to serve on one of three regional technical committees corresponding to the location of that community. The three regional committees are composed as follows: Upper Basin Technical Committee: Blanco, Burnet, Llano, Lampasas and San Saba counties. Middle Basin Technical Committee: Travis, Bastrop and Fayette counties. Lower Basin Technical Committee: Colorado, Wharton and Matagorda counties. Communities who join the TCRFC but who are not located within one of these designated regions will be assigned by the Executive Committee to a region that shares the greatest number of common issues or concerns. Each regional committee appoints a Chair and Vice Chair from among its members and meets as necessary to address issues and projects as directed by the Executive Committee. The Chair and Vice Chair of the umbrella Technical Committee are rotated annually among the three regional committee chairs and vice chairs as specified in the Interlocal Agreement. 07/26/02 31

40 3.2 ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY The Administrative Agency for the Coalition is charged providing administrative services and functions as specified in the Interlocal Agreement. Such activities may include: Providing logistical support for the meetings of the Executive Committee and Technical Committees including the preparation of the agenda, arranging for meeting locations, taking minutes of the meetings, preparing and disseminating notices of the meetings, and drafting and mailing correspondence; Acting as a central clearinghouse for technical information, models, studies, training and educational opportunities; Identifying funding options and the preparation and submission of grant applications on behalf of the Coalition; Maintaining a web page and internet address for the Coalition; Maintaining a computer data base of floodplain application and permitting information; Arranging for the annual independent assessment review of each member s floodplain management program unless such a review is performed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; and Contracting with a qualified engineering consultant to perform a technical review of a development permit application upon the request of a coalition member. The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) currently functions as the Administrative Agency. This arrangement will be reviewed periodically subject to the approval of the Coalition Executive Committee and the LCRA Board of Directors. 07/26/02 32

41 3.3 INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW Early in the formation process, the participants from various smaller cities and rural counties expressed a need for technical assistance to review engineering analyses related to permitting activities. Second only to the need for new floodplain maps, technical assistance was identified as a major requirement for successful implementation of regional floodplain management. The Coalition has established a procedure by which a local Floodplain Administrator may request a review of the technical analyses submitted by a developer. The independent technical review is performed by a contractor hired by the Coalition through the Administrative Agency. The review may be requested anytime the Floodplain Administrator or local permitting authority does not have personnel with time and/or technical expertise to review the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, or when a second opinion is required due the complexities of a particular proposed development. Having a highly qualified, independent technical review of the potential impacts of these complex developments would help assure the local community, as well as neighboring communities, that a full, thorough, and objective review had been performed. Note: The requirement of an independent Technical Review and the determination of which projects should be subject to review is left to the discretion of the individual community. A cost recovery fee may be charged by the Coalition member to the developer in order to recoup costs associated with the review as described in Section /26/02 33

42 3.4 PEER REVIEW A common problem stated by many of the member communities during the formation of the Coalition was the lack of communication among neighboring counties and cities. Even cities within the same county rarely shared information regarding development activities or floodplain management successes and failures. The TCRFC recognizes that a major benefit of a regional floodplain coalition is the sharing of information between member communities. In addition, large development projects or those in hydraulically sensitive portions of the watershed have the potential to affect flood conditions in adjoining communities. Similarly, capital projects on streams and in floodplains upstream and downstream of a community may impact that community s floodplain management planning. Because of these potential impacts, the Coalition reviewed mechanisms by which member communities could share information such as development permitting processes and decision-making in a timely manner. The Coalition agreed that member communities should have the opportunity to receive timely notice and the opportunity to comment on permit applications before a permitting decision is made. However, the Coalition will not infringe upon an individual community s permitting decisions or lengthen a permitting timeframe adopted by a local community. The following process was established to facilitate the sharing of information between Coalition communities and ensure each community the opportunity to participate in peer review: Upon written request by another community, the permitting community will provide to the requesting community the same notice and opportunity to comment on a permit application as provided to the general public. This could be done by adding the community to an established mailing list of those who receive notice of a pending application. If no pre-established mailing list is available and general public notice is usually given by posting pending permit applications at a local government office, then written notice shall be provided to the requesting community by mail, , or facsimile. Written comments, if any, from the requesting community shall be returned to the permitting community within an agreed upon timeframe and may include a request to have an independent technical review performed for a large or complex project. Copies of all comments will be provided to the Administrative Agency for filing. Notice of permit applications and related decisions are provided to the Administrative Agency to be put in to a common database. The database is posted on the Coalition website and is accessible to all Coalition members and others who may be involved in updating the watershed hydrologic and hydraulic computer models. A library and clearinghouse of floodplain management information is maintained by the Administrative Agency for use by member communities. 07/26/02 34

43 Included are copies of existing and model ordinances, maps, aerial photographs (paper and digital), and standard application forms. Access to a computer at the Administrative Agency s office is provided to allow Coalition members to view maps and download information from other member communities. Upon request, the Administrative Agency assists local floodplain administrators with technical questions related to floodplain determinations. If a community s staff needs to determine whether a property is in the floodplain or above the BFE, the Administrative Agency may have information which will assist that community. Access to the information is provided via a special telephone/facsimile line. The Coalition has established a mentoring program to enable communities with well-established floodplain management programs to assist others who need guidance. A database of communities and specific personnel who are willing to voluntarily assist other communities with questions relating to floodplain management is maintained by the Administrative Agency and made available to the Coalition members. The Coalition has established a standing Subcommittee of the Technical Committee which identifies common enforcement problems in member communities and shares effective enforcement actions and solutions. In addition, speakers are invited to update committee members on legal issues and legislative changes. FEMA and TNRCC representatives are invited to attend Subcommittee meetings and participate in the discussions. Opportunities to assist affected communities by providing educational programs for the development community and lending institutions are also identified by the Subcommittee. 07/26/02 35

44 3.5 FUNDING Each Coalition member shall pay a membership fee to go toward the administrative costs of the Coalition. The Executive Committee shall develop and approve a formula and payment schedule for the fair and equitable apportionment of costs of the Coalition among the Parties not covered by other funding sources. This formula and schedule shall be used, if necessary, to cover Coalition costs in subsequent budget years. The Executive Committee shall also designate an entity to establish and manage an account into which all Coalition fees and assessments are to be deposited and distribute such funds as authorized by the Executive Committee. The goal of the Coalition is to fund its activities and administration through the use of fees, grant monies and loans matched with existing in-kind services to the greatest extent possible. The TCRFC Administrative Agency is authorized by the Executive Committee to seek additional funding including grants for cooperative studies, projects, models, data, and any other information, activities or projects necessary for the functioning of the Coalition. 07/26/02 36

45 3.6 TRAINING, EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Prior to the formation of the Coalition, a series of meetings were held to educate the public, local floodplain administrators, and elected officials about the flooding problems inherent in the lower Colorado River basin and the benefits of regional floodplain management. These meetings were extremely successful and served to reinforce the concept that education and training are the keys to any successful coalition of governments. In order to continue with the successful implementation of the TCRFC goals of training and public education, the Coalition adopted the programs listed below. In support of these programs, the Coalition developed and maintains a calendar of training, education workshops, technical conferences, and certification exam opportunities within the lower Colorado River basin. This calendar is posted on the TCRFC and copies will be mailed to members of the Coalition as it is updated. Certification of Floodplain Administrators: The Coalition has established a training, education and technical assistance program to provide resources to the local floodplain managers and emergency management coordinators. The Texas Floodplain Management Association (TFMA) has established a Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) program which sets forth basic eligibility criteria and requires applicants to pass a nationally approved CFM exam. After successful completion of the exam, applicants will document their credentials with a completed application form. With the payment of the proper fees and maintenance of membership in TFMA, the applicant will be awarded a certificate, which recognizes the applicant as a nationally accredited Certified Floodplain Manager. All CFMs are recognized by the Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. (ASFPM), a national organization of which TFMA is a recognized State Chapter. The CFM program has also established minimum continuous training and education requirements for biannual recertification. A Coalition goal is full and continuous certification of every floodplain administrator in the region. Therefore, the TCRFC will partner with the TFMA to facilitate training, continuing education, testing and recertification of CFMs within the Coalition. Certification of Emergency Management Coordinators: A similar national certification program has been established for local emergency management coordinators by the International Association of Emergency Management (IAEM). Stringent eligibility requirements and rigid testing are also required before a local emergency management coordinator receives the designation of Certified Emergency Manager (CEM). The TCRFC will work with IAEM and other professional organizations to facilitate necessary training and continuing educational requirements for the CEM. 07/26/02 37

46 Education for Elected Officials: The Administrative Agency and Governing Committees coordinate short courses, training seminars, workshops, on-call speakers, videos, web sites and other educational resources directed at educating elected officials, the regulated community and the public about floodplain management issues. An educational program for elected officials who ultimately make permitting decisions will be established, through which local officials will gain a clear understanding of the importance of having a strong, effective floodplain management program, including a basic understanding of the causes of flooding and appropriate permitting criteria and mitigation measures. They will also gain an understanding of the individual and cumulative consequences of granting variances. Public and Stakeholder Education: The most effective floodplain management programs are based on public education and understanding of the causes of flooding and the resulting program requirements. In order to provide this resource, the Coalition hosts educational programs and workshops for the building/development, insurance, real estate, and lending communities. Speakers are available for trade conventions or continuing education and certification training. A Coalition video may be produced as part of this effort. The Coalition also is available to assist local communities by providing news releases and articles to local newspapers about floodplain management issues and initiatives. Annual Awards Program: An annual awards ceremony is held by the Coalition to publicly recognize those communities who have made significant improvements to their floodplain management programs. Affected stakeholders, state and federal agencies, lending institution associations, real estate agents, and the general public are invited to attend. The results of the annual TCRFC Assessment Program are presented at the ceremony as well as posted on the Coalition website (see assessment program details in Section 2.0). The Assessment Program provides a rating for each community as follows: Excellent Rating: Community with a floodplain management program that is fully compliant with NFIP minimum requirements. Superior Rating: Community with a floodplain management program that exceeds the minimum NFIP requirements by enforcing more stringent mitigation measures for developments in the floodplain. Outstanding Rating: Community with a floodplain management program that exceeds the minimum NFIP requirements by enforcing more stringent mitigation measures for developments both in and out of the floodplain. In addition, recognition is also given by presenting the Floodplain Manager of the Year and the Emergency Management Coordinator of the Year awards at the ceremony. The Administrative Agency hosts the awards program at a regional or central location. 07/26/02 38

47 07/26/02 39

Section 19: Basin-Wide Mitigation Action Plans

Section 19: Basin-Wide Mitigation Action Plans Section 19: Basin-Wide Mitigation Action Plans Contents Introduction...19-1 Texas Colorado River Floodplain Coalition Mitigation Actions...19-2 Mitigation Actions...19-9 Introduction This Mitigation Plan,

More information

Chapter 6 - Floodplains

Chapter 6 - Floodplains Chapter 6 - Floodplains 6.1 Overview The goal of floodplain management is to reduce the potential risks to both existing and future developments, and infrastructure, in the 100-year floodplain. Over the

More information

Article 23-6 FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT

Article 23-6 FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PITTSFIELD CHAPTER 23, ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION I That the Code of the City of Pittsfield, Chapter 23, Article 23-6 Floodplain District, shall be replaced with the following:

More information

Chapter 5 Floodplain Management

Chapter 5 Floodplain Management Chapter 5 Floodplain Management Contents 1.0 Introduction... 1 2.0 Floodplain Management and Regulation... 1 2.1 City Code... 1 2.2 Floodplain Management... 1 2.3 Level of Flood Protection... 2 2.3.1 Standard

More information

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION ABOUT FLOODPLAINS Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION ABOUT FLOODPLAINS Michigan Department of Environmental Quality FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION ABOUT FLOODPLAINS Michigan Department of Environmental Quality WHAT IS A FLOOD? The National Flood Insurance Program defines a flood as a general and temporary condition of partial

More information

Justification for Floodplain Regulatory Standards in Illinois

Justification for Floodplain Regulatory Standards in Illinois Justification for Floodplain Regulatory Standards in Illinois Office of Water Resources Issue Paper April, 2015 Proactive Illinois floodplain and floodway regulatory standards have prevented billions of

More information

Upper Joachim Creek Public Survey on Potential Flood Risk Reduction

Upper Joachim Creek Public Survey on Potential Flood Risk Reduction Upper Joachim Creek Public Survey on Potential Flood Risk Reduction This survey is intended to help the interagency planning committee to receive public feedback on specific flood risk reduction techniques,

More information

a) Ensure public safety through reducing the threats to life and personal injury.

a) Ensure public safety through reducing the threats to life and personal injury. SECTION VII: FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT 7-1 Statement Of Purpose The purposes of the Floodplain District are to: a) Ensure public safety through reducing the threats to life and personal injury. b) Eliminate

More information

Appendix D - Floodplain Documents

Appendix D - Floodplain Documents City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan Appendix D - Floodplain Documents 1. Floodplain Development Permit 2. Elevation Certificate and Instructions 3. Floodproofing Certificate for Non-Residential

More information

ASFPM Partnerships for Statewide Mitigation Actions. Alicia Williams GIS and HMP Section Manager, Amec Foster Wheeler June 2016

ASFPM Partnerships for Statewide Mitigation Actions. Alicia Williams GIS and HMP Section Manager, Amec Foster Wheeler June 2016 ASFPM Partnerships for Statewide Mitigation Actions Alicia Williams GIS and HMP Section Manager, Amec Foster Wheeler June 2016 Summary The Concept Leveraging Existing Data and Partnerships to reduce risk

More information

Appendix B. A Comparison of the Minimum NFIP Requirements and the CRS

Appendix B. A Comparison of the Minimum NFIP Requirements and the CRS A Comparison of the Minimum s and the CRS The Community Rating System provides credits for exceeding the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Many local officials are not

More information

Floodplain Development Permit Application

Floodplain Development Permit Application Floodplain Development Permit Application City of Jonesboro, AR This is an application packet for a Floodplain Development Permit. Certain sections are to be completed by the Applicant, and certain sections

More information

SECTION 9: MAPS AND DATA

SECTION 9: MAPS AND DATA SECTION 9: MAPS AND DATA Contents 9.1. NFIP Maps and Data... 9-2 9.1.1. Adopting and enforcing NFIP floodplain maps and data... 9-2 9.1.2. Adopting and enforcing more restrictive data... 9-2 9.1.3. Annexations...

More information

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for Real Estate Professionals

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for Real Estate Professionals National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for Real Estate Professionals 1 Joshua Oyer, CFM Outreach Specialist NFIP State Coordinator s Office at the Texas Water Development Board 2 Outline Introduction

More information

Floodplain Development Permit Application

Floodplain Development Permit Application Floodplain Development Permit Application **All construction will also require a building permit** This is an application packet for a Floodplain Development Permit. Certain sections are to be completed

More information

JAXGIS FEMA Flood Hazard Mapping -- Frequently Asked Questions

JAXGIS FEMA Flood Hazard Mapping -- Frequently Asked Questions Flood Hazard Zone Designations Summary Zones starting with the letter 'A' (for instance, Zone A, Zone AE, Zone AH, Zone AO) denote a Special Flood Hazard Area, which can also be thought of as the 100-year

More information

TOWN OF KENT, CT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

TOWN OF KENT, CT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TOWN OF KENT, CT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS Whereas, Congress has determined that a National Flood Insurance Program would alleviate personal hardships and economic

More information

SKOKOMISH RESERVATION FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS

SKOKOMISH RESERVATION FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT, PURPOSE, AND OBJECTIVES 6.04.001 Statutory Authorization 6.04.002 Findings of Fact 6.04.003 Statement of Purpose 6.04.004 Methods of Reducing

More information

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Emergency Management Agency Page 1 of 5 Issue Date: July 27, 2012 Effective Date: December 10, 2012 Case No.: 11-06-4512P Follows Conditional Case No.: 06-06-B789R LOMR-APP Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472

More information

Planning Process---Requirement 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan.

Planning Process---Requirement 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. Section 3 Capability Identification Requirements Planning Process---Requirement 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. Documentation of the Planning

More information

CHAPTER 15: FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT "FP"

CHAPTER 15: FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT FP CHAPTER 15: FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT "FP" SECTION 15.1 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION The legislature of the State of Minnesota in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103F and Chapter 394 has delegated the responsibility

More information

FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION RULES

FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION RULES 60.3(d) FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION RULES ARTICLE 1 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT, PURPOSE AND METHODS SECTION A. STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION The Legislature of the State of Texas adopted the Flood

More information

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Emergency Management Agency Page 1 of 4 Issue Date: August 1, 2012 Effective Date: December 13, 2012 Case No.: 12-06-0595P LOMR-APP Washington, D.C. 20472 LETTER OF MAP REVISION DETERMINATION DOCUMENT COMMUNITY AND REVISION INFORMATION

More information

Pre-Development Floodplain Application

Pre-Development Floodplain Application Pre-Development Floodplain Application The Department of Planning, at the recommendation of FEMA, is now requiring completion of a Pre- Development Floodplain Application for all properties in the regulated

More information

REGION X FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE WASHINGTON MODEL (REVISED 5/13/2004)

REGION X FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE WASHINGTON MODEL (REVISED 5/13/2004) REGION X FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE WASHINGTON MODEL (REVISED 5/13/2004) Close to 300 towns, cities, counties, and tribes within the State of Washington participate in the National Flood Insurance

More information

Maryland Model Floodplain Management Ordinance (May, 2014) MODEL NOTES

Maryland Model Floodplain Management Ordinance (May, 2014) MODEL NOTES Maryland Model Floodplain Management Ordinance (May, 2014) MODEL NOTES The model floodplain management ordinance that most Maryland communities have used as the basis for their regulations since the early

More information

Community Rating System. National Flood Insurance Program

Community Rating System. National Flood Insurance Program National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System A Local Official s Guide to Saving Lives Preventing Property Damage Reducing the Cost of Flood Insurance FEMA B-573 / May 2015 How the Community

More information

City of St. Augustine. Floodplain Management Higher Standards Information

City of St. Augustine. Floodplain Management Higher Standards Information City of St. Augustine Floodplain Management Higher Standards Information There are different regulations that communities can use to help protect existing and future development and natural floodplain

More information

California Building Code and the NFIP. John Ingargiola, Senior Engineer FEMA Building Science Branch

California Building Code and the NFIP. John Ingargiola, Senior Engineer FEMA Building Science Branch California Building Code and the NFIP John Ingargiola, Senior Engineer FEMA Building Science Branch CA Major Disaster Declarations and Federal Assistance $21 $21 $76 $78 7 declarations, 2004-2016, total

More information

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Emergency Management Agency Page 1 of 4 Issue Date: September 7, 2012 Effective Date: January 22, 2013 DETERMINATION DOCUMENT COMMUNITY COMMUNITY AND REVISION INFORMATION City of Lubbock Lubbock County Texas PROJECT DESCRIPTION CHANNELIZATION

More information

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Emergency Management Agency Page 1 of 5 Issue Date: June 21, 2013 Follows Conditional Case No.: 04-06-A148R DETERMINATION DOCUMENT COMMUNITY COMMUNITY AND REVISION INFORMATION City of Irving Dallas County Texas FILL PROJECT DESCRIPTION

More information

CHAPTER 4. REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

CHAPTER 4. REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CHAPTER 4. REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Regulations and development standards, which can be used by communities to reduce damage from natural hazards, work best when using an effective planning

More information

Planning Process---Requirement 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan.

Planning Process---Requirement 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. Section 3 Capability Identification Requirements Planning Process---Requirement 201.6(b): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. Documentation of the Planning

More information

Floodplain Management 101. Mississippi Emergency Management Agency Floodplain Management Bureau

Floodplain Management 101. Mississippi Emergency Management Agency Floodplain Management Bureau Floodplain Management 101 Mississippi Emergency Management Agency Floodplain Management Bureau Stafford Act The Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) (Public Law 100-707)

More information

Floodplain Development Permits A Technical Guidance Document

Floodplain Development Permits A Technical Guidance Document Floodplain Development Permits A Technical Guidance Document To Prevent Loss of Life, Reduce Property Damage and to Protect and Enhance the Natural and Beneficial Functions of Floodplains Iredell County

More information

CHAPTER THREE Natural Hazard Mitigation Strategy

CHAPTER THREE Natural Hazard Mitigation Strategy CHAPTER THREE Natural Hazard Mitigation Strategy Chapter 3 Section All Sections Updates to Section Revised Natural Hazards Introduction and all Sections to change Natural Hazards Subcommittee to Committee.

More information

HENRY COUNTY, OHIO SPECIAL PURPOSE FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION REGULATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS

HENRY COUNTY, OHIO SPECIAL PURPOSE FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION REGULATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS HENRY COUNTY, OHIO SPECIAL PURPOSE FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION REGULATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... i-ii SECTION 1.0 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 1.1 STATUTORY

More information

North Carolina Department of Public Safety Emergency Management Risk Management

North Carolina Department of Public Safety Emergency Management Risk Management North Carolina Department of Public Safety Emergency Management Risk Management Roy Cooper, Governor Erik A. Hooks, Secretary Michael A. Sprayberry, Director INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE NORTH CAROLINA

More information

COLLIER COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

COLLIER COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT COLLIER COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS The following information is based on common questions from the public. If you have a specific question or need further information, please

More information

1. STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND PURPOSES... 2

1. STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND PURPOSES... 2 ORDINANCE NO. 15-03 CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE ARTICLE # PAGE # 1. STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND PURPOSES... 2 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS... 3 3. ADMINISTRATION...

More information

Chapter 415 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

Chapter 415 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Chapter 415 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Editor's Note Ordinance no. A-7015 1, adopted December 27, 2000, enacted written administrative procedures for the floodplain management herein. Those written administrative

More information

BACKGROUND ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT DEVELOPMENT ADOPTION OF THE H-GAC HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN/UPDATES MISSION STATEMENT

BACKGROUND ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT DEVELOPMENT ADOPTION OF THE H-GAC HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN/UPDATES MISSION STATEMENT BACKGROUND CITY OF CONROE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ANNUAL PROGRESS Activity 510 of the National Flood Insurance Program s (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) requires the development of a Floodplain Management

More information

ATTACHMENT 1. Amendments to Chapter 18.20, Definitions Area of shallow flooding Area of special flood hazard

ATTACHMENT 1. Amendments to Chapter 18.20, Definitions Area of shallow flooding Area of special flood hazard Amendments to Chapter 18.20, Definitions 18.20.206 Area of shallow flooding Area of shallow flooding means a designated AO, or AH, AR/AO, AR/AH, or VO Zone on the a community's flood insurance rate map

More information

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Emergency Management Agency Page 1 of 4 Issue Date: April 26, 2013 DETERMINATION DOCUMENT COMMUNITY AND REVISION INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION BASIS OF REQUEST City of Coppell Dallas County Texas FILL HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS NEW TOPOGRAPHIC

More information

HOW PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE CREATES FLOOD INSURANCE REDUCTIONS: THE GEORGIA CONTEXT. Hunter Jones 1 I. INTRODUCTION

HOW PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE CREATES FLOOD INSURANCE REDUCTIONS: THE GEORGIA CONTEXT. Hunter Jones 1 I. INTRODUCTION HOW PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE CREATES FLOOD INSURANCE REDUCTIONS: THE GEORGIA CONTEXT Hunter Jones 1 I. INTRODUCTION Flood insurance rates are rising for homeowners. One way local governments can create

More information

CHAPTER 8 FLOOD PREVENTION AND PROTECTION*

CHAPTER 8 FLOOD PREVENTION AND PROTECTION* CHAPTER 8 FLOOD PREVENTION AND PROTECTION* ---------- *Cross reference(s)--drainage commission, 2-111 et seq.; drainage districts created, 2-114; site drainage requirements for manufactured or mobile home

More information

Floodplain Management Plan

Floodplain Management Plan Floodplain Management Plan CITY OF FORT WORTH TFMA 2016 Spring Conference March 10, 2016 Agenda 1. Fort Worth Higher Standards (NFIP & CRS) 2. Floodplain Management Plan Overview and Results 3. Project

More information

FLOOD PLAIN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE

FLOOD PLAIN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE FLOOD PLAIN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE DES MOINES COUNTY, IOWA ORDINANCE NO. 25 Adopted July 19, 1993 Amended July 26, 1993 Amended January 3, 1995 Amended August 7, 2011 Amended October 16, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

Best Practices. for Incorporating Building Science Guidance into Community Risk MAP Implementation November 2012

Best Practices. for Incorporating Building Science Guidance into Community Risk MAP Implementation November 2012 Best Practices for Incorporating Building Science Guidance into Community Risk MAP Implementation November 2012 Federal Emergency Management Agency Department of Homeland Security 500 C Street, SW Washington,

More information

DES MOINES CITY OF TWO RIVERS. Flooding Risk & Impact to Development

DES MOINES CITY OF TWO RIVERS. Flooding Risk & Impact to Development DES MOINES CITY OF TWO RIVERS Flooding Risk & Impact to Development River System Des Moines Flood Protection Des Moines Flood Protection cont. Infrastructure Over 24 miles of levees 21stormwater pump stations

More information

Wetzel County Floodplain Ordinance

Wetzel County Floodplain Ordinance Wetzel County Floodplain Ordinance AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE: THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE HAVE BEEN PREPARED WITH THE INTENTION OF MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 60.3 (D) OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE

More information

Door County Floodplain Program Informational Meeting

Door County Floodplain Program Informational Meeting Door County Floodplain Program Informational Meeting Door County Land Use Services Department Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources January 15, 2018 Floodplain = Land affected by flood event with a

More information

THE FLOOD HAZARD AREA Valda Opara New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection June 8, 2012

THE FLOOD HAZARD AREA Valda Opara New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection June 8, 2012 THE FLOOD HAZARD AREA Valda Opara New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection June 8, 2012 Individual Permits Building Requirements 0% Net-fill Standards JET SKIING DURING A FLOOD ESCAPING THE FLOOD

More information

Skagit County Flood Insurance Study Update. Ryan Ike, CFM FEMA Region 10

Skagit County Flood Insurance Study Update. Ryan Ike, CFM FEMA Region 10 Skagit County Flood Insurance Study Update Ryan Ike, CFM FEMA Region 10 Skagit County Flood Insurance Study Process Overview Process, Schedule, & Deliverables Base Flood Elevations, Modeling, & Levees

More information

ADVISORY BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS (ABFEs)

ADVISORY BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS (ABFEs) The Department of Homeland Security s Federal Emergency Management Agency is committed to helping communities that were impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita rebuild safer and stronger. Following catastrophic

More information

Dealing With Unnumbered A Zones in Maine Floodplain Management

Dealing With Unnumbered A Zones in Maine Floodplain Management Dealing With Unnumbered A Zones in Maine Floodplain Management The following is a list of acceptable methods that the State Floodplain Management Coordinator and the Federal Emergency Management Agency

More information

Bucks County, PA Flood Risk Review Meeting. November 2014

Bucks County, PA Flood Risk Review Meeting. November 2014 Bucks County, PA Flood Risk Review Meeting November 2014 Agenda for Today Risk MAP Program overview Overview of non-regulatory Flood Risk Products and datasets Discuss mitigation action Technical overview

More information

CHAPTER 160 FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS

CHAPTER 160 FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS CHAPTER 160 FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS 160.01 Statutory Authority 160.13 Special Shallow Flooding Areas Standards 160.02 Findings of Fact 160.14 Administration 160.03 Purpose 160.15 Flood Plain Development

More information

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Five-Year Floodplain Management Work Plan

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Five-Year Floodplain Management Work Plan New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Five-Year Floodplain Management Work Plan September 30, 2004 I. State Authority New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Five-Year Floodplain

More information

Changes in Criteria and Scoring for CRS Outreach Projects

Changes in Criteria and Scoring for CRS Outreach Projects Changes in Criteria and Scoring for CRS Outreach Projects A Handout for the National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System Many communities want to keep disseminating and obtaining CRS credit

More information

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT # FLOOD HAZARDS

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT # FLOOD HAZARDS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #2011-03 FLOOD HAZARDS The following text that appears on pages HS 3-4 of the Health and Safety Element in the Yolo 2030 Countywide General Plan has been amended. New language is

More information

Enough about me! Topics Covered

Enough about me! Topics Covered About Me Worked in land surveying since 1997 Employed by the City of Orlando since 2006 City of Orlando City Surveyor since February 2015 Certified Floodplain Manager since 2015 Florida Licensed Surveyor,

More information

CRS UNIFORM MINIMUM CREDIT NEW JERSEY

CRS UNIFORM MINIMUM CREDIT NEW JERSEY CRS UNIFORM MINIMUM CREDIT NEW JERSEY SUMMARY The Community Rating System (CRS) provides Uniform Minimum Credit (UMC) for certain state laws, regulations, and standards that support floodplain management

More information

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Emergency Management Agency Page 1 of 6 Issue Date: October 24, 2012 Effective Date: March 7, 2013 Case No.: LOMR-APP DETERMINATION DOCUMENT COMMUNITY AND REVISION INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION BASIS OF REQUEST City of Lubbock

More information

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE APPLICATION FORMS FOR CONDITIONAL LETTERS OF MAP REVISION AND LETTERS OF MAP REVISION

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE APPLICATION FORMS FOR CONDITIONAL LETTERS OF MAP REVISION AND LETTERS OF MAP REVISION INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE APPLICATION FORMS FOR CONDITIONAL LETTERS OF MAP REVISION AND LETTERS OF MAP REVISION GENERAL In 1968, the U.S. Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act, which created

More information

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Emergency Management Agency Page 1 of 6 Issue Date: September 27, 2010 Effective Date: February 14, 2011 Follows Conditional Case No.: 08-08-0873R DETERMINATION DOCUMENT COMMUNITY AND REVISION INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION BASIS

More information

Non Regulatory Risk MAP Products Flood Depth and Probability Grids

Non Regulatory Risk MAP Products Flood Depth and Probability Grids Non Regulatory Risk MAP Products Flood Depth and Probability Grids Virginia Floodplain Management Association 2015 Floodplain Management Workshop October 29th, 2015 Nabil Ghalayini, P.E., PMP, D.WRE, CFM

More information

NFIP Overview Elevation Certificate Flood Insurance Rate Maps. By: Maureen O Shea, AICP, CFM State NFIP Coordinator

NFIP Overview Elevation Certificate Flood Insurance Rate Maps. By: Maureen O Shea, AICP, CFM State NFIP Coordinator NFIP Overview Elevation Certificate Flood Insurance Rate Maps By: Maureen O Shea, AICP, CFM State NFIP Coordinator Example of a flood failure Example of a flood failure Purposes of the NFIP Identify &

More information

YOLO COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

YOLO COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM YOLO COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Answers to Commonly Asked Questions and A Guide for Residential Construction Within Special Flood Hazard Areas The automatic entry and exit of flood water); Or

More information

Floodplain Management Legal Issues. Making the Case for a No Adverse Impact Approach

Floodplain Management Legal Issues. Making the Case for a No Adverse Impact Approach Floodplain Management Legal Issues Making the Case for a No Adverse Impact Approach The Association of State Floodplain Managers 2 ASFPM began more than 45 years ago as a grassroots organization of floodplain

More information

Cameron County, TX. Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) Meeting. Please sign in (sheet at front of the room) Meeting will begin at 9:00

Cameron County, TX. Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) Meeting. Please sign in (sheet at front of the room) Meeting will begin at 9:00 Cameron County, TX Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) Meeting Please sign in (sheet at front of the room) Meeting will begin at 9:00 July 29, 2015 Lisa Jennings FEMA Region 6 Roles & Responsibilities

More information

UPDATE ON DALLAS FLOODWAY

UPDATE ON DALLAS FLOODWAY UPDATE ON DALLAS FLOODWAY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT [ EIS ] Transportation and Trinity River Project Committee Rob Newman Director, Trinity River Corridor Project, Fort Worth District 28 April 2014

More information

Delaware River Basin Commission s Role in Flood Loss Reduction Efforts

Delaware River Basin Commission s Role in Flood Loss Reduction Efforts Delaware River Basin Commission s Role in Flood Loss Reduction Efforts There is a strong need to reduce flood vulnerability and damages in the Delaware River Basin. This paper presents the ongoing role

More information

FLOODPLAIN FAQ s. Last Update: June 2017

FLOODPLAIN FAQ s. Last Update: June 2017 FLOODPLAIN FAQ s Last Update: June 2017 What does FEMA stand for? Federal Emergency Management Agency - the operation of FEMA is to lead America to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and recover from disasters.

More information

Requirements for Mapping Levees Complying with Section of the NFIP Regulations

Requirements for Mapping Levees Complying with Section of the NFIP Regulations FACT SHEET Requirements for Mapping Levees Complying with Section 65.10 of the NFIP Regulations As part of a mapping project, it is the levee owner s or community s responsibility to provide data and documentation

More information

FLOOD INSURANCE. Introduction

FLOOD INSURANCE. Introduction FLOOD INSURANCE Introduction The purpose of this course is to provide a comprehensive description of the NFIP for insurance producers who are seeking continuing education credits. It provides an overview

More information

2011 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE FOR LINCOLN COUNTY

2011 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE FOR LINCOLN COUNTY 2011 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE FOR LINCOLN COUNTY First Reading: September 13, 2011 Second Reading: September 27, 2011 Publication Date: October 6, 2011 and October 13, 2011 Effective Date: November

More information

Volusia County Floodplain Management Plan 2012

Volusia County Floodplain Management Plan 2012 Volusia County Floodplain Management Plan 2012 Introduction The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) provides federally supported flood insurance in communities that regulate development in floodplains.

More information

ORDINANCE NO A FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE

ORDINANCE NO A FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. 692-14 A FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE WHEREAS, for a community to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program NFIP, it must adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations

More information

Findings/Debrief Meeting September 9, CDOT R4 Headquarters Big Thompson Conference Room W 10 th St. Greeley, CO 80634

Findings/Debrief Meeting September 9, CDOT R4 Headquarters Big Thompson Conference Room W 10 th St. Greeley, CO 80634 Findings/Debrief Meeting September 9, 2016 CDOT R4 Headquarters Big Thompson Conference Room 10601 W 10 th St. Greeley, CO 80634 Discovery Review & Outcome May 25 Discovery Meeting Summary Summarize Data

More information

CRISP COUNTY, GEORGIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS

CRISP COUNTY, GEORGIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS CRISP COUNTY, GEORGIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS Community Name Community Number ARABI, CITY OF 130514 CORDELE, CITY OF 130214 CRISP COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 130504 Crisp County EFFECTIVE: SEPTEMBER 25,

More information

NFIP Program Basics. KAMM Regional Training

NFIP Program Basics. KAMM Regional Training NFIP Program Basics KAMM Regional Training Floodplain 101 Homeowners insurance does not cover flood damage Approximately 25,000 flood insurance policies in KY According to BW12 analysis, approximately

More information

FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION REGULATION ARTICLE I STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION REGULATION ARTICLE I STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES CHAPTER 12 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION REGULATION ARTICLE I STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES SECTION A. STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION The Legislature of the State of Colorado has,

More information

Thurston County, WA Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan Annual Progress Report CRS Activity 510

Thurston County, WA Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan Annual Progress Report CRS Activity 510 Thurston County, WA Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan Annual Progress Report CRS Activity 510 Reporting Period: ctober 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015 Background: Thurston County developed a flood hazard mitigation

More information

Role of Disaster Insurance in Improving Resilience: An Expert Meeting The Resilient America Roundtable

Role of Disaster Insurance in Improving Resilience: An Expert Meeting The Resilient America Roundtable Role of Disaster Insurance in Improving Resilience: An Expert Meeting The Resilient America Roundtable National Academy of Science Washington, DC July 9, 2015 Roseville Demographics Primary population

More information

NFIP Mapping Issues. Wendy Lathrop, PLS, CFM. Cadastral Consulting, LLC

NFIP Mapping Issues. Wendy Lathrop, PLS, CFM. Cadastral Consulting, LLC NFIP Mapping Issues Cadastral Consulting, LLC NFIP Basic Objectives: Reduce the exposure to flood damages through the use of minimum standards for the placement and design of structures located in flood

More information

This survey is expected to take approximately 20 minutes and must be completed in one session.

This survey is expected to take approximately 20 minutes and must be completed in one session. State Flood Assessment Survey 1 Introduction Thank you for your willingness to participate in this online survey as part of the State Flood Assessment effort. This first step toward developing comprehensive

More information

Use of FEMA Non regulatory Flood Risk Products in Planning

Use of FEMA Non regulatory Flood Risk Products in Planning Use of FEMA Non regulatory Flood Risk Products in Planning Georgia Association of Floodplain Managers Annual Conference March 24, 2016 What are the Non regulatory Flood Risk products? Go beyond the basic

More information

17.13 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE. Article I. Statutory Authorization, Findings of Fact, Purpose, and Methods

17.13 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE. Article I. Statutory Authorization, Findings of Fact, Purpose, and Methods 17.13 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE Article I Statutory Authorization, Findings of Fact, Purpose, and Methods 17.1301 Statutory Authorization. The Legislature of the State of South Dakota has in (statutes)

More information

Flooding Part One: BE Informed. Department of Planning & Development

Flooding Part One: BE Informed. Department of Planning & Development Flooding Part One: BE Informed Department of Planning & Development Introduction The residents of the City of Noblesville enjoy many benefits from being located on the banks of the White River. These benefits

More information

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Emergency Management Agency Page 1 of 4 Issue Date: October 2, 2017 Effective Date: October 2, 2017 Case No.: 17-09-2731P LOMR-APP Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 LETTER OF MAP REVISION DETERMINATION DOCUMENT

More information

10526 Bermuda Isle Dr. Tampa, FL 33647

10526 Bermuda Isle Dr. Tampa, FL 33647 Flood Analysis Memo Property Address 10526 Bermuda Isle Dr. In Partnership with: ** This property is NOT within a high-risk flood zone ** 10526 Bermuda Isle Dr. BFE = 35 ft This property is located in

More information

Action Items for Flood Risk Management on Wildcat Creek Interagency success with floodplain management plans and flood forecast inundation maps

Action Items for Flood Risk Management on Wildcat Creek Interagency success with floodplain management plans and flood forecast inundation maps Presentation to USACE 2012 Flood Risk Management and Silver Jackets Joint Workshop, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Action Items for Flood Risk Management on Wildcat Creek Interagency success with floodplain

More information

State of South Carolina Five-Year Floodplain Management Work Plan

State of South Carolina Five-Year Floodplain Management Work Plan Purpose The purpose of the Community Assistance Program State Support Services Element (CAP-SSSE) is to provide, through a State grant mechanism, a means to ensure that communities participating in the

More information

WOOD COUNTY, WV FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS

WOOD COUNTY, WV FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS WOOD COUNTY, WV FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I - GENERAL PROVISIONS 3 Section 1.1 Intent 3 Section 1.2 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions 3 Section 1.3 Applicability 3 Section 1.4 Matters

More information

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FUND Department of Environmental Services

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FUND Department of Environmental Services Department of Environmental Services Mission: To implement a comprehensive stormwater management program that balances the following goals: 1) to reduce the potential for stormwater threats to public health,

More information

DELTA COUNTY FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION REGULATIONS CERTIFIED BY THE. Delta County Planning Commission September 26, 2013 ADOPTED BY THE

DELTA COUNTY FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION REGULATIONS CERTIFIED BY THE. Delta County Planning Commission September 26, 2013 ADOPTED BY THE DELTA COUNTY FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION REGULATIONS CERTIFIED BY THE Delta County Planning Commission September 26, 2013 ADOPTED BY THE Board of Delta County Commissioners December 9, 2013 REVISED BY THE

More information

Repetitive Loss Area Revisit # 6 Walter Road Area Jefferson Parish

Repetitive Loss Area Revisit # 6 Walter Road Area Jefferson Parish Repetitive Loss Area Revisit # 6 Walter Road Area Jefferson Parish www.floodhelp.uno.edu Supported by FEMA Acknowledgement The compilation if this report was managed by Erin Patton, CFM, a UNO-CHART Research

More information

Technical Memorandum 3.4 E Avenue NW Watershed Drainage Study. Appendix E Floodplain Impacts and Implications Memo

Technical Memorandum 3.4 E Avenue NW Watershed Drainage Study. Appendix E Floodplain Impacts and Implications Memo Technical Memorandum 3.4 E Avenue NW Watershed Drainage Study Appendix E Floodplain Impacts and Implications Memo September 8, 2017 City of Cedar Rapids E Avenue Watershed Drainage Study Memo Date: Tuesday,

More information

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Emergency Management Agency Page 1 of 5 Issue Date: October 16, 2014 Effective Date: March 2, 2015 Case No.: 14-09-2279P LOMR-APP Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 LETTER OF MAP REVISION DETERMINATION DOCUMENT

More information