    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                          Coastal Zone
                          Intormation
                             Center
                                  Managing High Risk Flood Areas
                                                       1985 and Beyond

                                                                Y       0',

                                                                         v

                                                                        iY"
                                                       01

                                     Proceedings    of the  Eighth  Annual Conference of the
                                            Association of State Floodplain Managers
                                                           Portland, Maine
                                                         June I 1- 14, 1984

                                                    Association of State Floodplain Managers

                           el                       Natural Hazards Research and Applications
                                                    Information Center Special Publication  I I

                                                                    COASTAL ZONE

                                                               INFORMATION CENTER

                                                       MANAGING HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS:

                                                               1985 and Beyond

                                                 Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference
                                                                    of the
                                                   Association of State Floodplain managers

                                                               June 11-14, 1984
                                                               Portland, Maine

                                                                   Editors

                                                               Jacquelyn Monday
                                                               David L. Butler

                                                    Property of CSC Library

                                                         U.S. DEPARTMENT  OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                                       COASTAL SERVICES CENTER

                                                  2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                                   CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

                                The opinions contained herein  are those of the authors and do not necessarily
                                represent those of the funding or sponsoring agencies or organizations or the
                                Association of State Floodplain Managers.

                                Cover photo: Scituate, Massachusettg--January, 1979
                                              by John Goldie III

                                Available from The Natural Hazards Research and Applications information Center
                                               Institute of Behavioral Science #6
                                               Campus Box 482
                                               University of Colorado
                                               Boulder, Colorado 80309
                                                          and
                                               The Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc.
                                               P.O. Box 2051
                                               Madison, Wisconsin 53701

                                                                    PREFACE

                                     The Association of State Floodplain managers is pleased to be'able to host

                                technical conferences and develop proceedings volumes such as this one. The

                                sharing and transfer of information among states, locals, and federal agencies

                                and the private sector is extremely important. Today, development, disasters,

                                and redevelopment occur too rapidly to allow each of us to develop our flood

                                hazard management techniques by trial and error.

                                     we must build off one another's experiences, whether they be successes or

                                failures. This conference, as well as most Association activities, is directed

                                toward facilitating this information transfer.
                                     A theme running through these proceedings is the need to provide adequate
                                technical assistance to local communities in order to map and manage flood

                                hazard areas. States must take an active role in this effort. Decentraliza-

                                tion of governmental responsibilities by the federal government places the

                                states in a pivotal role in their relations with local governments. Those

                                local governments need technical experts who are close enough to respond quick-
                                ly, maintain contact, and monitor progress.

                                     Many innovative actions to manage flood hazard areas--especially high risk

                                areas--are undertaken at the local level. Assistance from both the state and

                                federal level--for mapping, drafting ordinances, conducting analyses, and

                                providing legal advice--are important to successful local efforts.

                                     The Association will continue to sponsor technical conferences such as

                                the one held in Portland, Maine. We extend our appreciation to the many

                                presenters and participants who are responsible for making these workshops and

                                proceedings successful and useful.

                                                                 A. Jean Brown, Chair
                                                                 Association of State Floodplain Managers

                                                                ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

                                     These proceedings are being published with funding from the U.S. Army
                                Corps of Engineers. The help of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in

                                sponsoring the workshop session is also gratefully acknowledged. Many members
                                of the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force made valuable

                                suggestions for speakers and topics, and particular thanks are due Mr. Frank

                                Thomas, Task Force Chair, Mr. Ross MacKay, Federal Emergency Management Agency,

                                and Mr. William Donovan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

                                     A large share of credit for the workshop's success is due the State of
                                Maine Planning office, Departments of Conservation, Environmental Protection,
                                and Geologic Survey, and the Land and Water Research Center, University of

                                Maine-Orono. Lori Day and Susan MacPherson of the State Planning office were
                                responsible for the excellent conference organization. Mr. Richard Dutremble,
                                Director of the Maine Bureau of Civil Emergency Preparedness, enabled his staff
                                to provide a wide range of services to the workshop. The Maine offices of the

                                U.S. Geological Survey and the Soil Conservation Service also gave important
                                support. Special thanks go to the High Risk Areas Committee of the Association

                                of State Floodplain Managers for their advice and assistance and to the Natural
                                Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, in particular Jacquelyn
                                Monday (now with FEMA) and David Butler, for editing and publishing these

                                proceedings.

                                     In turn, the editors extend thanks to Bill Richardson for his research
                                work in Boston, to Maureen Hobbs for her help in untangling the mysteries of

                                word processing hardware and software, and to Barbara Schneider for her dili-

                                gent and remarkably accurate typing.

                                     Finally, the success of the workshop ultimately depended upon those who
                                contributed their ideas, expertise, and experience: our speakers, panelists,

                                and participants.

                                     Once again, thank you all.

                                                                           Fred Michaud
                                                                           Conference Director

                                                                           Jon Kusler
                                                                           Workshop Advisor

                                                                    POREWORD

                                      Much of the floodplain development taking place today in the rapidly
                                 growing areas of the United States is at high risk of damage or destruction due
                                 to the velocity, rapidity, duration, or debris content of flood waters. These
                                 and other complications create a "protection gap" in current floodplain manage-
                                 ment guidelines which usually address the depth of flooding but not other

                                 factors.

                                      This symposium focused upon techniques for identifying and managing such
                                 high risk areas. At all levels of government progress in effectively reducing
                                 flood losses in high risk areas has been slow due to the lack of detailed flood

                                 data and the lack of development guidelines reflecting the full range of risk

                                 factors. Yet real progress has been made in a few community and state programs

                                 and in federal agency research.
                                      The papers presented in this symposium define high risk area problems and

                                 document problem-solving approaches. We hope you will find them useful.

                                                              RESOLUTION 1984-1
                                                               HIGH RISK AREAS

                                     WHEREAS, the Association of State Floodplain Managers has completed pre-
                                liminary work to identify high risk areas and analyze the status of floodplain

                                management for these areas; and

                                     WHEREAS, simplifying assumptions for floodplain management made by Federal

                                agencies, states, and local governments in the late 1960s have resulted in

                                serious understatement of hazards in 20-30% of the nation's floodplains; and

                                     WHEREAS, these simplifying assumptions include: 1) flood stage is the only

                                damage factor; 2) only clear water flooding occurs; and 3) the channel (or
                                shore line) configuration is stable; and

                                     WHEREAS, these simplifying assumptions, while necessary at the time,
                                failed to consider. 1) velocity, 2) debris in the water (ice, rocks, trees,
                                etc.), 3) rapidity and duration of flooding, and 4) erosion and other changes

                                in the flood channel; and

                                     WHEREAS, as a result of these assumptions, flood mapping, regulatory
                                standards, and insurance rating are inadequate for a significant portion of the
                                nation's floodplains; and

                                     WHEREAS, failure to correctly map and regulate high risk areas, without

                                consideration of additional risk and loss potential, is causing and will cause

                                an escalation of insurance claims and disaster losses; and

                                     WHEREAS, growth potential is substantial in high risk areas including:
                                barrier islands (e.g., much of the developed Gulf and Atlantic coastline);
                                areas subject to subsidence (e.g., New Orleans and Houston-Galveston); alluvial

                                fans (30% of the arid southwest and Colorado); and areas prone to mudfloods

                                (California coast and Wasatch front); and

                                     WHEREAS, increased market penetration for flood insurance in high risk

                                areas will likely lead to massive increases in losses (out of proportion to

                                premiums) in high growth areas such as Los Angeles County, Clark County, New

                                Orleans, Houston-Galveston, Denver, and Salt Lake City, unless insurance
                                premiums and land management standards are adjusted to reflect the special

                                risk; and

                                     WHEREAS, the state of knowledge with regard to mapping and management of
                                high risk areas has progressed sufficiently in the last 15 years to permit a

                                    variety of low-cost actions to reduce losses including mapping as part of the

                                    remaining map studies and remapping effort, upgraded land management, and

                                    increased insurance rates; and

                                         WHEREAS, there are continued methodological problems which need research

                                    and field testing,

                                         NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that this Association recommends:

                                     1)  That FEMA, in cooperation with other Federal agencies and states, develop
                                         a national policy for addressing areas where special risk factors
                                         (velocity, debris, unstable channels) pose significant threats to life and
                                         property.

                                     2)  That such a policy supplement rather than replace existing policies
                                         pertaining to flood stage.

                                     3)  That an interagency task force be established to develop this policy with
                                         Association assistance.

                                     4)  That such a policy not only recognize the importance of such areas but set
                                         forth a process to develop improved maps, land management standards,
                                         actuarially sound insurance policies, and postdisaster mitigation plans
                                         and guidelines.

                                     5)  That such a policy be based upon further research and investigation that
                                         will:

                                         a.   Examine, in depth, disaster payments and insurance claims for high
                                              risk areas to determine the magnitude of existing losses.

                                         b.,  Determine growth potential in these areas (using the Donnelly Study
                                              and other approaches) and future damage potential, including
                                              potential losses due to increased flood insurance penetration.

                                         C.   Determine the effectiveness of land management techniques in such
                                              areas (e.g., elevation on pilings vs. elevation on fill) and needed
                                              improvement through postdisaster surveys and laboratory modeling.

                                         d.   Through demonstration projects, determine for individual types of
                                              areas cost-effective combined approaches including mapping, land
                                              management standards, insurance, etc. These might best be initiated
                                              in communities and states in need of immediate assistance and willing
                                              to assist in these efforts.

                                         Adopted in draft form this 15th day of June, 1984, at the annual meeting

                                    of Association of State Floodplain Managers in Portland, Maine.

                                                                                      Robert Hendrix, Chair, ASFPM

                                                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                          Page

                                   List of Speakers and Panelists  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      xv

                                                          PART ONE: OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE

                                        Improving the Effectiveness of Floodplain
                                        Management in High Risk Areas
                                              John A. Kusler and Patricia Bloomgren   . . . . . . . . .       3

                                        Simple Truth in Public Policy
                                              James E. Tierney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      19

                                        A Note on Integrated Emergency Management:
                                        Fact or Fantasy
                                              William J. Petak . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .     25

                                        Federal insurance Administration Initiatives
                                        to Resolve Inconsistencies in Floodplain
                                        Management Regulations
                                              William L. Trakimas  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      27

                                                       PART TWO: SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                   I.   Ice Jams

                                        The Cold Facts of Ice Jams:
                                        Characteristics and Incidence
                                              R. Gerard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       31

                                        The Cold Facts of Ice Jams:
                                        Case Studies of Mitigation Methods
                                              Darryl J. Calkins  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      39

                                   II.  Dams

                                        Managing Risk Below Unsafe Dams
                                              Robert Roden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      51

                                        Dam Safety and Land Use--An Iowa
                                        Case
                                              Jack D. Riessen  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      57

                                        National Dam Safety
                                              Jay B. Scruggs, Jr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      63

                                 xii                                                                     Contents

                                 III. Coastal High Hazards

                                      Sea Level Rise, Coastal Erosion and
                                      Wetland Loss in Louisiana: The Need
                                      for a Comprehensive Policy Study
                                           James G. Titus, James B. Edmonson,
                                           David Campbell, Johannes L. van Beek,
                                           and Carroll L. Cordes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      69

                                      The Coastal Barrier Resources Act:
                                      Present Studies
                                           Albert G. Greene, Jr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     89

                                      Long-Range Management Plans for
                                      Barrier Islands
                                           Rutherford H. Platt  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     93

                                      Coastal High Hazard Area  Problems
                                      in Massachusetts
                                           Gary Clayton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   101

                                      Predisaster Planning for  Postdisaster
                                      Reconstruction
                                           Clark Gilman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   109

                                      Predisaster Planning for Postdisaster
                                      Reconstruction
                                           Ruth Ehinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   113

                                      Assessing Community Flood Management
                                      Capability
                                           Cynthia J. Rummel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    119

                                      Problems and Approaches in Mapping
                                      Velocity Zones Along the U.S. Coastline
                                           Christopher D. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    125

                                      Erosion Rates and Hazard mapping in
                                      Coastal Resource Management
                                           David Owens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    137

                                      Making Maps Useful for Local Governments
                                           Donna Mack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   149

                                 Contents

                                             PART THREE: STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 I.   Mapping

                                      The Future of FEMA's Floodplain
                                      Mapping Program
                                           John M. Gibson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    155

                                      Application of Innovations in
                                      Mapping Technology to Flood
                                      Insurance Studies
                                           Brian R. Mrazik  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    167

                                      FEMA Use of Aerial Imagery
                                           Timothy E. Maywalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    179

                                      Innovations in Land Data Systems
                                           David A. Tyler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    183

                                      Computer-Generated Maps; Use of
                                      Automated Digitizing Technology in
                                      Resource Management
                                           Michael G. Pavlides  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    191

                                 II.  Mitigation Planning

                                      A Framework for Thinking About
                                      Mitigation
                                           James Morentz  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    197

                                      Section 406 of P.L. 93-288:
                                      An Opportunity If You Knock-
                                           Allan Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    207

                                      Hazard Mitigation in Brownwood
                                      Subdivision
                                           Robert C. Freitag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    213

                                      The Baytown, Texas Experience
                                           Randall B. Strong  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    219

                                 III. Protecting Existing Buildings

                                      A Proposal to Reduce Federal
                                      Subsidies
                                           Neil R. Fulton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    227

                                  xiv                                                                       Contents

                                       Fort Wayne/Allen County Flood
                                       Protection Plan
                                            Norman A. Abbott  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    239

                                  IV.  Evacuation

                                       Critical Hurricane Evacuation
                                       Problems: The Need for Innovative
                                       Evacuation Planning
                                            David A. Griffith  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     247

                                  V.   Natural Values

                                       The Leachate of Poor Flood Control
                                            Allan N. Williams  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     259

                                       wetlands and Floodplain Management:
                                       A Summary
                                            Alexandra-D. Dawson  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     265

                                  VI.  Training and Education

                                       Training and Education Needs for the
                                       Practitioner
                                            William L. Trakimas  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     273

                                       NFIP Training and Education in
                                       Region III
                                            Martin J. Frengs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    277

                                       Training: What Works, What Doesn't
                                            Janie Douglass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     283

                                  VII. Emergency Management

                                       The Rapid Growth of Community
                                       Flood Warning Systems
                                            Curtis B. Barrett  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     291

                                       Flood Fighting in the Chicago
                                       Metropolitan Area
                                            James M. Considine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     295

                                       Utah Floods--1983-84
                                            James D. Harvey   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    301

                                                          LIST OF SPEAKERS AND PANELISTS

                                  Norman Abbott                                     Richard Casanova
                                  Community Development and                         National Coordinating Council
                                     Planning                                          on Emergency Management
                                  1 Main Street, Room 800                           131 West Congress
                                  Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802                         Tucson, Arizona 85701

                                  John Banta                                        Gary Clayton
                                  Director of Planning                              Executive office of
                                  Adirondack Park Agency                               Environmental Affairs
                                  P.O. Box 99                                       100 Cambridge Street
                                  Ray Brook, New York 12977                         Boston, Massachusetts 02202

                                  Curtis Barrett                                    Jim Considine
                                  National Weather Service/NOAA                     Northeast Illinois Planning
                                  8060 13th Street                                     Commission
                                  Silver Spring, Maryland 20910                     400 West Madison
                                                                                    Chicago, Illinois 60606
                                  Patricia A. Bloomgren
                                  4250 Odegard Court                                Joe Coughlin
                                  Stillwater, Minnesota 55082                       Federal Insurance
                                                                                       Administration
                                  Johnathan Boyer                                   Federal Emergency Management
                                  Sheaffer & Roland, Inc.                              Agency
                                  130 North Franklin                                500 C Street, S.W.
                                  Chicago, Illinois 60602                           Washington, D.C. 20472

                                  David Brower                                      Robert R. COX
                                  108 Battle Lane                                   Department of Urban &
                                  Chapel Hill, North Carolina                          community Affairs
                                     27514                                          P.O. Box 44455
                                                                                    Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
                                  John P. Byrne
                                  Colorado Division of Disaster                     Malcolm P. Crooks
                                     Emergency Services                             National Association of
                                  EOC, Camp George West                                Conservation Districts
                                  Golden, Colorado 80401                            Route 263 - P.O. Box 297
                                                                                    Solebury, Pennsylvania 18963
                                  Darryl Calkins
                                  Ice Engineering Branch                            Alexandra Dawson
                                  Cold Regions Research &                           2 West Street
                                     Engineering Laboratory                         Hadley, Massachusetts 01035
                                  Hanover, New Hampshire 03755

                                     xvi                                                          Speakers and Panelists

                                     Richard Domas                                      Neil Fulton
                                     20 Bow Street                                      Bureau of Resource Management
                                     Arlington, Massachusetts 02174                     Room 1010
                                                                                        300 North State Street
                                     Janie Douglass                                     Chicago, Illinois 60610
                                     Harlan County Flood Control
                                     Drawer 839                                         R. Larry Gerard
                                     Harlan, Kentucky 40831                             Ice Engineering Branch
                                                                                        Cold Regions Research &
                                     Ruth Ehinger                                           Engineering Laboratory
                                     Division of Coastal Resources                      Hanover, New Hampshire 03755
                                     P.O. Box CN401
                                     Trenton, New Jersey 08624                          John Gibson
                                                                                        FEKA/FIA
                                     Lee Emmons                                         500 C Street, S.W.
                                     Department of Natural                              Washington, D.C. 20472
                                        Resources & Environmental
                                        Control                                         Clark Gilman
                                     89 Kings Highway                                   New Jersey Division of Water
                                     P.O. Box 1401                                          Resources
                                     Dover, Delaware 19903                              P.O. Box CN029
                                                                                        Trenton, New Jersey 08625
                                     Robert Fletcher
                                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers                       Al Greene
                                     20 Massachusetts Avenue                            Special Science Project
                                     Washington, D.C. 20314                             National Park Service
                                                                                        1100 L Street, N.W.
                                     Neil Frank                                         Washington, D.C. 20240
                                     National Hurricane Center
                                     Gables one Tower                                   John Greenman
                                     1320 South Dixie Highway                           Maine Public Broadcasting
                                     Coral Gables, Florida 33146                            Network
                                                                                        Alumni Hall
                                     Martin Frengs                                      University of Maine
                                     FE14A Region III                                   Orono, Maine 04469
                                     Curtis Building
                                     6th & Walnut Streets                               David Griffith
                                     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania                         Tampa Bay Regional Planning
                                        0106                                                Council
                                                                                        9455 Koger Boulevard
                                     Robert Freitag                                     St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
                                     FEMA Region X
                                     130 228th Street, S.W.                             Richard Hamann
                                     Bothell, Washington 98001                          University of Florida Law
                                                                                            School
                                     William Fry                                        Holland Law Center
                                     Dewberry & Davis                                   Gainesville, Florida 32611
                                     8401 Arlington Boulevard
                                     Fairfax, Virginia 22031

                                   Speakers and Panelists                                                       xvii

                                   James H@rvey                                      Timothy Maywalt
                                   office of Comprehensive                           FEMA Region VIII
                                      Emergency Management                           Building 710
                                   1543 Sunnyside Avenue                             Denver Federal Center
                                   Salt Lake City, Utah 84108                        Denver, Colorado 80225

                                   Robert Hendrix                                    Ann McManamon
                                   FEMA/FIA                                          Floodplain Management
                                   500 C Street, S.W.                                Tennessee Valley Authority
                                   Washington, D.C. 20472                            ZB 28 Old City Hall
                                                                                     Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
                                   Jon Kusler
                                   P.O. Box 528                                      Fred Michaud
                                   Chester, Vermont 05143                            State Planning Office
                                                                                     State House Station 72
                                   Larry Lang                                        Augusta, Maine 04333
                                   Colorado Water Conservation
                                      Board                                          Christopher Miller
                                   1313 Sherman Street, Room 823                     Bernard Johnson, Inc.
                                   Denver, Colorado 80202                            6500 Rock Spring Drive
                                                                                     Bethesda, Maryland 20817
                                   Lorin Larsen
                                   office of Comprehensive                           Jacquelyn Monday
                                      Emergency Management                           FEMA/FIA
                                   1543 Sunnyside Avenue                             500 C Street, S.W.
                                   Salt Lake City, Utah 84108                        Washington, D.C. 20472

                                   Doug Lash                                         James Morentz
                                   FEMA/FIA                                          Research Alternatives, Inc.
                                   500 C Street, S.W.                                705 New Mark Esplanade
                                   Washington, D.C. 20472                            Rockville, Maryland 20850

                                   Michael Luzier                                    Brian Krazik
                                   National Association of                           FEMA/FIA
                                      Homebuilders                                   500 C Street, S.W.
                                   15th & M Streets, N.W.                            Washington, D.C. 20472
                                   Washington, D.C. 20005
                                                                                     David Owens
                                   Donna Mack                                        Department of Natural
                                   Department of Natural                                Resources & Community
                                      Resources                                         Development
                                   18 Martin Luther King  Jr.                        Box 27687
                                      Drive                                          Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
                                   Atlanta, Georgia 30334
                                                                                     Michael Pavlides
                                   Fred Madsen                                       Greenhorne & O'Mara
                                   USAA                                              9001 Edmonston Road
                                   USSA Building                                     Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
                                   San Antonio, Texas 87288

                                 Xviii                                                       Speakers and Panelists

                                 William Petak                                     Jay Scruggs
                                 Institute of Safety and                           FEMA
                                    Systems Management                             500 C Street, S.W.
                                 University Park 1 SSM 201                         Washington, D.C. 20472
                                 Los Angeles, California 90391
                                                                                   Mary Lou Soscia
                                 Rutherford Platt                                  Disaster Division
                                 Department of Geography                           P.O. Box 1709
                                 University of Massachusetts                       Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003
                                 Amherst, Massachusetts 01003
                                                                                   Randall Strong
                                 Frank Reilly                                      P.O. Box 424
                                 FEKA/FIA                                          Baytown, Texas 77522
                                 500 C Street, S.W.
                                 Washington, D.C. 20472                            Ed Thomas
                                                                                   FEMA Region II
                                 Jack Reissen                                      442 J. W. McCormack POCH
                                 Department of Water, Air and                      Boston, Massachusetts 02109
                                    Waste Management
                                 Wallace State office Building                     James Tierney
                                 Des Moines, Iowa 50319                            office of the Attorney General
                                                                                   State House
                                 William Richardson                                Augusta, Maine 04333
                                 Anderson-Nichols
                                 150 Causeway Street                               James Titus
                                 Boston, Massachusetts 02114                       Sea Level Rise Project
                                                                                   U.S. Environmental Protection
                                 Mark Riebau                                          Agency
                                .Department of Natural                             Mail Stop PM 220
                                    Resources                                      Washington, D.C. 20460
                                 P.O. Box 7921
                                 Madison, Wisconsin 53707                          William Trakimas
                                                                                   Department of Natural
                                 Robert Roden                                         Resources
                                 Department of Natural                             605 State Office Building
                                    Resources                                      Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
                                 P.O. Box 7921
                                 Madison, Wisconsin 53707                          David Tyler
                                                                                   103 Boardman Hall
                                 Cynthia Rummell                                   University of Maine
                                 Natural Resources Center                          Orono, Maine 04469
                                 Connecticut Department of
                                    Environmental Protection                       French Wetmore
                                 165 Capitol Avenue                                Illinois Division of Resources
                                 Hartford, Connecticut 06106                       300 North State Street
                                                                                   Chicago, Illinois 60610

                                  Speakers and Panelists                                                     xix

                                  Marguerite Whilden
                                  Maryland Department of Water
                                     Resources
                                  Tawes State office Building
                                  Annapolis, Maryland 21401

                                  Allan Williams
                                  Connecticut Department of
                                     Environmental Resources
                                  165 Capitol Avenue, Room 553
                                  Hartford, Connecticut 06115

                                  Robert Williams
                                  Building Inspections
                                  2314 Pacific Avenue
                                  Atlantic City, New Jersey
                                  08401

                                  Larry Zensinger
                                  FEMA
                                  500 C Street, S.W.
                                  Washington, D.C. 20472

                                                                    PART ONE

                                                            OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE

                                                   IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FLOODPLAIN
                                                         MANAGEMENT IN HIGH RISK AREAS

                                                        Jon A. Kusler and Pat Bloomgren

                                                                  Introduction

                                      On the average, 200 lives are lost each year due to flooding. The U.S.

                                 Water Resources Council has estimated that property losses will exceed $4.3
                                 billion per year by 2000, despite the mapping and regulation of floodplains in

                                 17,000 communities during the last 15 years.

                                      Inadequate maps, regulations, and other management approaches for high
                                 risk flood hazard areas and substantial new development in these areas are one

                                 reason for increased rather than decreased losses. High risk areas collective-

                                 ly constitute only 20-25% of the nation's floodplains, but account for much of
                                 the loss of life. When flooding occurs, structures are severely damaged or

                                 destroyed. Such high risk areas include barrier islands, bluffs and beaches

                                 subject to waves and erosion; alluvial fans; areas behind unsafe levees and

                                 below unsafe dams; and areas subject to mudfloods, inland and coastal subsi-
                                 dence, inland flash floods, ice jams, and fluctuating lake and ground water

                                 levels.

                                      High risk areas occur in a broad range of geologic, topographic and hydro-

                                 logic conditions:

                                      Coastal Erosion/flooding

                                      At least 2,700 miles of Great Lake, Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf shoreline

                                 are subject to critical erosion with thousands of miles of other shores subject
                                 to lesser beach, dune, and bluff erosion. Tens and perhaps hundreds of
                                 thousands of structures are at risk. Most erosion occurs in major hurricanes
                                 and winter storms. Sea level rise compounds the problem. most flood hazard

                                 mapping and regulation has not considered erosion. However, storm-related
                                 erosion is compensated by flood insurance despite a lack of mitigation stan-

                                 dards for this special flood hazard.

                                  4                                                         OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE

                                       Alluvial Fans

                                       It has been estimated that alluvial fans constitute 30% of the arid South-

                                  west land including even a greater percentage of the developable land. Fans

                                  have usually been mapped, regulated, and insured as shallow flooding areas

                                  despite severe flood hazards due to the velocity of the flooding, debris, and

                                  erosion.

                                       mudflows and Mudfloods

                                       Mudflows and mudfloods often occur when heavy rains follow forest fires in

                                  the Southwest. They have accounted for hundreds of millions of dollars in

                                  flood losses in the last decade not only because of the depth of inundation but

                                  also because of the velocity of the water and the debris. mudflows also occur

                                  in other areas of the nation.

                                       Areas Below Unsafe Dams

                                       At least 2,900 dams have been listed as "unsafe" by the Corps of

                                  Engineers. It has been estimated that more than 2,000 communities would be
                                  inundated to levels exceeding the 100-year flood by rupture of these dams.. The
                                  failure of a dam can cause major loss of life and property damage due not only

                                  to the depth of the water but also its velocity, debris, and the suddenness of

                                  onset.

                                       Areas Behind Unsafe Levees

                                       There are over 25,000 miles of levees in the nation. These levees range
                                  widely in terms of protection (e.g., 20-year, 30-year, 50-year, 100-year);

                                  construction materials; and adequacy of design and maintenance. Severe losses

                                  like the $500 million in flood damage in Jackson, Mississippi, in 1979 occur
                                  when levees are overtopped or fail due to the depth, velocity, and suddenness

                                  of the flood.

                                       Subsidence

                                       Flooding due to subsidence, which gradually lowers the land surface, is a
                                  serious problem in Louisiana, Texas, and California with lesser problems in

                                  other states. Subsidence is caused by extraction of ground or surface waters,
                                  compaction of organic soils, solution, or tectonic adjustments. Subsidence not

                                  only increases flood heights but also can cause permanent flooding as in

                                  Baytown, Texas.

                                 Kusler/Bloomgren                                                              5

                                      Liquefaction

                                      Liquefaction caused by earthquakes or other factors is a major potential

                                 cause of flooding in some areas of California and Alaska and along the

                                 Mississippi River. When earthquakes occur, unconsolidated sands and silts

                                 temporarily lose their strength and behave as viscous fluids. Levees fail and

                                 slumping and other ground failures occur.

                                      Ice Jams

                                      Flooding as a result of ice jams is a serious problem along rivers and
                                 streams in 35 of the northern and midwestern states. The jam can increase
                                 flood stage to heights far greater than the calculated 100-year flood eleva-

                                 tion. Ice and high velocity also add to the destructive force of the flood

                                 waters.

                                      Fluctuating Lake Levels

                                      Long-term fluctuations in lake levels is a problem for the Great Lakes,

                                 many of the glacially created smaller lakes in the northern tier of states, and

                                 the "playa" or drainage lakes in the West and Southwest with no or limited

                                 outlets. Flood wate rs may rise for years at a time, rendering structures

                                 elevated on pilings useless. Common additional special risk factors for lake

                                 flooding include ice (northern lakes) and erosion (the Great LakesY.
                                                       Inadequacy of Existing Approaches
                                      Existing maps, regulations, insurance and other management approaches
                                 adopted,for flood hazard areas by FEMA, states, and local communities during
                                 the late 1960s and 1970s often underestimate the hazards in high risk flood
                                 hazard areas. Mapping, regulations, and insurance were designed to address a
                                 "normal" flood hazard situation where clear water flooding and the depth of
                                 inundation was the primary factor causing damage. Flooding was assumed to be

                                 temporary and the configuration of the flood channel relatively stable,. Such

                                 areas include:

                                  �   Low velocity flow areas along major rivers and streams (e.g., the
                                      Mississippi and Missouri); and

                                  �   Relatively flat-lying and stable coastal areas inundated by the storm
                                      surge where waves and erosion are not major factors., These include large
                                      areas along the Atlantic and Gulf Coast.

                                     6                                                    OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE

                                        Such a focus upon the "typical" or "norm" with little attention to special
                                     situations and high risk areas was needed during early phases of federal,

                                     state, and local floodplain management due to limited budgets and personnel,
                                     the need for consistency in standards, and lack of satisfactory mapping methods

                                     and regulatory standards for high risk areas. National criteria based upon
                                     such a concept of the "norm" have proven satisfactory for much of the country
                                     (perhaps 70-80% including most urban areas adjacent to major rivers and streams
                                     and the Great Lakes).1

                                        The lack of attention to and the failure to consider other flood damage
                                     factors in special situations has resulted in serious deficiencies in flood-

                                     plain management for high risk areas:

                                     �  Guidelines for mapping the "norm" and the resulting maps have often under-
                                        stated hazards in areas with velocity, debris, or other high risk problems
                                        and failed to provide the basis for realistic planning, regulation, and
                                        flood warning systems. For example, flood maps for alluvial fans desig-
                                        nate them as shallow flooding areas, implying low risk. Risks are, in
                                        fact, serious--largely due to high velocities, debris, and erosion. Such
                                        maps give a false sense of security and may mislead landowners and local
                                        governments.

                                     �  Regulatory criteria designed for the "norm" underestimate the hazard in
                                        velocity, erosion, debris, and other high risk areas, often resulting in
                                        damage or destruction of structures built in compliance with regulatory
                                        criteria when a major flood occurs (e.g., during Hurricane Frederic,
                                        structures built in compliance with the 100-year storm surge elevation
                                        were destroyed by waves which had not been considered).

                                     �  Flood insurance for high risk areas has not reflected actual risk, result-
                                        ing in inordinately high losses for such areas and an unjustified incen-
                                        tive for development.

                                        In some instances, state and local opposition has developed to federal

                                     maps and regulations due to these deficiencies and the lack of credibility of

                                     approaches now being applied.

                                     Such approaches have not, without tailoring to local conditions,
                             been satisfactory for smaller rivers and streams and other drainage
                             areas, which are typically not mapped or regulated or which, if mapped
                             or regulated, do not consider the impacts of urbanization on flood
                             peaks.

                                 Kusler/Bloomgren                                                               7_

                                                Inadequate Attention to Risk and Damage Factors

                                      Depth of inundation is unquestionably the most important cause of flood

                                 damage in many situations, and an important factor even in high risk areas.

                                 But other factors become important or dominant in certain contexts:

                                      Velocity

                                      The damage potential of flood waters increases dramatically and in some

                                 instances exponentially with velocity. Velocity is determined by slope, rough-
                                 ness, waves (coastal), and several other factors. Unless velocities are con-

                                 sidered in building design, floodproofed structures often collapse from added
                                 pressures and stresses. Water moving at speeds of 10-15 or more feet per
                                 second viill undermine pilings and slab foundations. Water velocity is a major

                                 damage factor for

                                   �  Coastal wave action areas (velocity zones) and coastal inlets and overwash
                                      areas during the rise and fall of the storm surge;

                                   �  Inland high gradient flood areas (usually along smaller rivers and
                                      streams). These are also often "flash flood" areas with additional
                                      damage due to the rapid rise of the water. Such areas include alluvial
                                      fans; some riverine floodways; and areas subject to mudfloods, mudflow,
                                      and high gradient sheet flows.

                                   �  Areas behind levees or dams where the protective structure suddenly fails
                                      or the design capacity is suddenly exceeded.

                                      Rocks, Sediment, Ice, Other Debris

                                      The "work potential" and damage potential of flood waters may be increased

                                 hundreds of times over clear water flooding where rapidly flowing flood waters
                                 contain substantial amounts of rock, sediment, ice, or other natural or human-

                                 made materials. Clear water standards for floodproofing and elevation are

                                 inadequate in these contexts:

                                   � Alluvial fan flooding (rocks, mud);

                                   � Mudflow and mudflood (sediment, rocks, trees, etc.);

                                   � Meandering, unstable streams in the Southwest;

                                   � Ice jam flooding (ice);

                                                                                       OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE

                                   � High velocity flood areas along rivers and streams (rocks, mud trees,
                                     lumber, bridges, etc.);

                                   � Areas subject to dam or levee failure (trees, portions of houses, lumber,
                                     etc.);

                                   � Coastal wave action (rocks, gravel, portions of houses, etc.)

                                     Rapid Rise of Water
                                     Areas subject to rapid inundation by flood waters pose special threats to

                                property and life because there is insufficient time for evacuation, emergency

                                floodproofing, or other protection measures. Rapid inundation is a serious

                                problem for:

                                   � High gradient rivers and streams in mountainous or hilly areas subject to
                                     sudden rainfall (e.g., Big Thompson Canyon). Such "flash flood" areas are
                                     most common in the mountainous West but occur in the eastern mountains and
                                     elsewhere;

                                   � Areas behind dams or levees subject to failure;

                                   � Barrier islands and certain other coastal areas principally along the Gulf
                                     or Atlantic coasts, which may be subject to relatively rapid (2 to 4
                                     hours) hurricane storm surge;

                                   � Coastal areas (principally along the west coast) subject to tsunamis.

                                     Long-term or Permanent Inundation.

                                     Unlike the "typical" riverine or coastal flood situation where flood
                                waters rise and fall quickly, certain areas are subject to long-term or essen-
                                tially permanent flooding. Structures elevated on pilings or floodproofed in
                                such areas are often permanently unusable and must be abandoned unless special-

                                ly designed for long-term inundation with adequate access and services. Such

                                areas often include:

                                   � Barrier islands and beaches inundated by rising sea levels;

                                   � Areas around lakes subject to long-term fluctuation of ground water
                                     levels; playa lakes and internal drainage lakes such as the Great Salt
                                     Lake; and lakes with inadequate outlets such as the Great Lakes;

                                   � Erosion areas, such as bluffs, where the land itself is destroyed in a
                                     flood event;

                                 Kusler/Bloom ren                                                               9

                                   �  Subsidence areas such as Baytown, Texas, caused by ground water or oil
                                      withdrawals, isostatic adjustments, or gradual solution of the underlying
                                      strata (karst topography);

                                   �  Areas subject to high groundwater levels and those behind dikes and levees
                                      where high water levels may persist for,months or years (e.g., lands in
                                      Arizona adjacent to dikes along the Colorado River).

                                      Two or more of the special risk factors often occur in combination in high
                                 risk areas, exacerbating the problem. For example, high velocity, debris, and
                                 rapid rise of water cause severe damage in alluvial fan, mudflood, high veloci-

                                 ty mountain stream areas, and areas subject to flooding by the failure of dams

                                 or levees.

                                      Erosion of the flood channel or blockage of the channel by sediment or
                                 debris is also common in alluvial fan, mudflood, high velocity stream, and

                                 coastal velocity areas.

                                                    Progress in Addressing High Risk Areas

                                      Progress has been made in identifying high risk areas and formulating or
                                 adopting special management standards for them.

                                 1)   FEMA has identified coastal velocity zones and is adding.wave elevations
                                      to coastal flood hazard maps. FEMA now requires special engineering for
                                      structures in velocity zones although erosion is not considered. FEKA has
                                      also undertaken studies to develop mapping methods for areas below unsafe
                                      dams, mudslides, alluvial fans,. and ice jams. However, few maps have been
                                      actually prepared.

                                 2)   The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has identified coastal erosion areas
                                      including those subject to "critical* erosion. The Corps continues to
                                      plan and construct coastal erosion engineering works and to fund some
                                      private protection measures. Michigan, North Carolina, Washington,
                                      Massachusetts and several other coastal states have mapped coastal erosion
                                      areas and adopted setback lines and other regulatory standards.

                                 3)   The National weather Service has identified, on a preliminary basis,
                                      communities with flash flood problems and is assisting such communities to
                                      develop flood warning systems and evacuation plans.

                                 4)   The U.S. Geological Survey has identified mudflood and mudslide areas in
                                      Utah, the San Francisco Bay Area, and some other areas. The Survey has
                                      also mapped "sinks," liquefaction areas and certain other geologic hazards
                                      in a few locations. Colorado has mapped and established regulatory guide-
                                      lines for a wide range of special hazard areas. Los Angeles County and

                                 10                                                     OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE

                                      some other local governments have also mapped and regulated alluvial fans

                                      and mudflood and mudflow areas.

                                  5)  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and some states have established dam
                                      inspection programs to identify unsafe structures. Iowa regulates areas

                                      below unsafe dams.

                                  6) NONA, the Corps of Engineers, FE14A, SCS, and the USGS have developed flood

                                      warning systems and evacuation plans for selected high risk coastal and

                                      inland areas.

                                 Despite this progress:

                                  1)  Only a portion of the high risk areas have been mapped at federal, state,
                                      and local levels on even a preliminary basis. Maps for coastal velocity
                                      zones (the one type of area mapped) do not, in most instances, adequately
                                      consider erosion. There is no systematic high risk area mapping program
                                      in progress on a nationwide basis for even a single type of area.

                                  2)  FEMA, other federal agencies, and the states have, with a few exceptions,
                                      not adopted regulatory guidelines for high risk areas adequately reflect-
                                      ing the risk (except certain coastal velocity zones) or provided guidance
                                      to local governments with regard to high risk area management.

                                  3)  Federal and state programs for high risk areas are, in general, uncoordi-
                                      nated and fragmented. For example, many states are mapping coastal
                                      erosion areas, but such erosion information is not systematically con-
                                      sidered by FEMA in mapping.

                                  4)  Available information concerning mapping methodologies for high risk
                                      areas, building standards and warning systems and other mitigation
                                      measures has not been widely disseminated. There are few reports, model
                                      ordinances or guidebooks. This problem is particularly critical for
                                      alluvial fans, ice jams, and coastal erosion areas where considerable
                                      methodological and technical,information relevant to management of such
                                      areas has been developed but has not been supplied tcrpotential users.

                                                                 OpgRrtunities
                                      Having mapped and regulated most of the nation's low risk areas, is it not

                                 now time to turn federal, state and, local attention to special problems where
                                 the greatest present and future threats occur? Arguments that mapping and
                                 regulatory methodologies are not yet adequate and that more research is needed
                                 are not entirely honest or accurate. Enough is known to improve management
                                 appXoaches considerablyl Arguments that mapping and regulation should wait
                                 until methodologies are fully perfected or until a nationwide program is

                                   Kusler/Bloomgren                                                                    11

                                   possible (from budget and personnel perspectives) fail to consider the enormous
                                   present growth in high risk area   s, many of which will be developed in five to
                                   ten years (e.g., alluvial fans, coastal erosion areas, lakeshores).
                                        Available methods for mapping and managing high risk areas could produce

                                   maps and regulations with accuracies exceeding many of the flood-prone area
                                   maps and flood hazard boundary maps developed by the USGS and FIA study con-

                                   tractors for 17,000 communities during the late 1960s and early 1970s. These
                                   maps have served as the basis for flood insurance and state and local regula-
                                   tions despite their many limitations.
                                        High risk areas have been dismissed individually as regional or local
                                   problems not deserving national attention. But they are collectively important
                                   and should be collectively considered in national policy making.
                                        If more research is needed to perfect map methodologies and land manage-

                                   ment guidelines for such areas, it should,.be undertaken. Budgets, manpower,

                                   and expertise are limited at federal, state, and local levels, but much more

                                   could be done with existing budgets. For example, map contractors could map
                                   those areas as part of ongoing new flood mapping and restudy efforts already

                                   scheduled.

                                        Selective mapping and management of such areas is needed on a priority
                                   basis, beginning with the areas with the largest potential flood losses, and
                                   with communities or states most interested in improving management of.the

                                  .areas.

                                        If budgets and staff are insufficient to develop detailed maps and manage-
                                   ment standards for specific areas, a portion of the data gathering and design

                                   burden may be shifted to those seeking to develop such areas. Such an approach
                                   has been applied with considerable success by states and communities in dealing
                                   with more conventional flood hazards. Such an approach involves:

                                   1)   Preliminary mapping of areas through use of historical data on hazard
                                        events, soils, topographic maps, elementary modeling, etc.;

                                   2)   Adoption of regulations for mapped areas requiring that anyone wishing to
                                        subdivide land or construct buildings within such areas a) carry out a
                                        more detailed examination of hazards consistent with guidelines in the
                                        regulation and b) prepare subdivision and building designs sufficient to.
                                        provide protection for intended uses.

                                 12                                                      OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE

                                      While not perfect, such an approach would be a major improvement over

                                 existing mapping and regulatory approaches which ignore risk factors.
                                      Given limited budgets, a major opportunity for improved management of  high
                                 risk areas also lies in better training and education and improved coordination
                                 and utilization of existing federal, state, and local personnel. High risk
                                 areas are the logical focus of not only floodplain managers but civil defense
                                 and emergency managers in their disaster preparedness and response programs and
                                 coastal zone managers and land use planners in preparation of coastal zone
                                 management and floodplain management plans. Management of these areas is also
                                 of great interest to natural resource specialists because high risk areas

                                 encompass some of the most ecologically sensitive barrier islands, beaches, and

                                 wetlands in coastal settings and the shorelands of scenic and wild rivers,

                                 riverine wetlands, and riparian habitat areas (in the West) along inland

                                 waters.

                                      Better interagency coordination at federal, state and local levels for
                                 high risk areas concerning predisaster mitigation planning, regulation, flood

                                 warning systems, flood insurance, engineering works, training and education,
                                 and technical assistance efforts might be accomplished through interagency
                                 memoranda of understanding, executive orders, directives from Congress, or

                                 other approaches.
                                      other recommendations for improved management of high risk areas include:

                                   0  Improved technical assistance and training and education efforts are
                                      needed for communities. These should be undertaken by FEMA, the Corps of
                                      Engineers, SCS, NOAA, other federal agencies, the states, universities,
                                      and interest groups;

                                   0  Lists of communities with particular types of high risk areas should be
                                      prepared by states to help set priorities for mapping, technical assis-
                                      tance, flood warning systems, and other programs on an interagency basis;

                                   e  Predisaster plans, including master plans, should be prepared by states
                                      and localities for priority high risk areas (e.g., barrier islands,
                                      alluvial fans) to mitigate future damage and provide guidance for rebuild-
                                      ing after a disaster.

                                      Although these measures would reduce losses, the most pressing need is
                                 coordinated and upgraded mapping and regulations and revised flood insurance
                                 policies for these areas. Suggestions for each of these include:

                                  Kusler/Bloomgren                                                             13

                                  mapping

                                  1)  Efforts at the federal, state, or local level to better address high risk
                                      areas must begin with an identification of communities subject to such
                                      risks and the actual areas. Once identified, regulations and other
                                      management measures can be adopted. Maps are essential if high risk areas
                                      are to be zoned (state zoning statutes require maps). Maps are also
                                      needed to inform governmental officials and private landowners of the
                                      locations of high risk areas. In general, the issue is not whether maps
                                      are needed if regulations are to be adopted for high risk areas but which
                                      map scales, degrees of accuracy, and other features are needed.

                                  2)  Generalized high risk maps should be developed even if detailed tapping is
                                      not practical. These might take the form of overlays. If maps are to be
                                      developed for regulatory and management purposes, it is desirable, but
                                      perhaps not essential, to distinguish between moderate hazard areas and
                                      the truly high risk areas, since regulatory procedure can be used in some
                                      circumstances to make this determination during administrative phases of a
                                      program (as suggested above). such a procedure is incorporated in the
                                      single-district floodplain zoning ordinance proposed in Volumes 1 and 2 of
                                      Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas. With such an approach the map only
                                      serves to establish regulatory jurisdiction. The specific hazard at a
                                      site is determined through a case-by-case hazard analysis procedure as
                                      individual permit applications are submitted.

                                  3)  If maps are to be prepared for regulation of high risk areas, they must be
                                      prepared at relatively large scale (e.g., 1 inch = 1000 feet or larger).
                                      Large scales are particularly needed for urban areas, although smaller
                                      scales may suffice for rural settings. A quantified evaluation of hazard
                                      is desirable (e.g., the 100-year event) but not essential. mechanisms
                                      should be available for resolving boundary disputes and carrying out more
                                      specific hazard and project analysis on a case-by-case basis, perhaps in
                                      the manner suggested above.

                                  4)  Historical data and other sources of available information should be used
                                      for identification of high risk areas if other, more detail information is
                                      not available or cannot be developed. Although high risk factors have not
                                      been systematically mapped, such factors often occur within areas desig-
                                      nated as subject to flooding on more generalized floodplain maps prepared
                                      by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
                                      Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the U.S. Soil Conservation
                                      Service. Historical data (albeit unquantified) also exists for many
                                      areas that have suffered high risk flooding such as flash floods, mud-
                                      flows, and coastal erosion. This data could serve as the basis for pre-
                                      liminary overlay mapping to supplement existing maps showing flood stage.

                                  5)  Any effort to map such areas by FEMA, by another federal agency, states,
                                      or local governments should not'necessarily mean that these areas will be
                                      insured under the National Flood insurance Program. It may be that for

                                  14                                                    OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE

                                      some high risk areas, denial of all insurance or at least very high rates
                                      would be appropriate.

                                  6)  Without a massive new mapping effort, FEMA could begin to upgrade its
                                      ongoing mapping program by adopting clarified high risk area map guide-
                                      lines for use by study contractors and training these contractors in the
                                      application of such guidelines. Restudy mapping efforts and mapping after
                                      disasters could also reflect high risk factors.

                                  7)  If FEMA does not wish to map high risk areas due to budgetary and admini-
                                      strative limitations, it may nevertheless wish to encourage state and
                                      local mapping and regulation. Such efforts could serve FEMA's loss re-
                                      duction objectives, reduce disaster assistance, And reduce flood insurance
                                      payments. Such mapping and regulation could be encouraged not only
                                      through cost sharing and technical assistance but favorable community
                                      rating for flood insurance purposes. For example, a community that maps
                                      and regulates high hazard areas might be given lower overall flood insur-
                                      ance rates due to the overall lowered potential for loss.

                                  8)  Mapping of high risk areas could, perhaps, begin on a pilot basis. Such
                                      pilot studies could test mapping methodologies as well as meet management
                                      needs at particular sites.

                                  9)  High risk area mapping should be a multidisciplinary and, in some in-
                                      stances, a multiagency effort. mapping of high risk areas often requires
                                      more than hydrologic information, complicating the mapping process and
                                      requiring cooperative multidisciplinary mapping. For example, geologic,
                                      as well as hydrologic, data is needed for the mapping of coastal erosion/
                                      flood hazard areas, mud flow, subsidence, and certain high risk dam
                                      failure areas. The separation of hydrologic and geologic study functions
                                      in federal and state agencies has discouraged such mapping.

                                  10) Some combination of maps and technical studies on a site-specific basis is
                                      needed for project evaluation. Maps in themselves rarely, if ever, pro-
                                      vide-all of the data needed for design of protective works, floodproofing,
                                      and other adjustments in high risk areas since it is difficult to carto-
                                      graphically represent velocity, debris load, depth of inundation, and
                                      other relevant factors even if this information is available. There are
                                      also limits to map scale and accuracy (given limited budgets). Such site-
                                      specific data gathering could be undertaken by consultants, local govern-
                                      ments, states or federal agencies.

                                Regulation

                                  1)  Perhaps 60% to 70% of the high risk floodplain areas are subject to at
                                      least minimal floodplain regulations consistent with the standards of the
                                      National Flood insurance Program. However, with the exception of some
                                      coastal velocity and erosion areas subject to state or local setback or
                                      high velocity zone ordinances, regulatory standards substantially under-
                                      estimate the true hazard and fail to prescribe adequate protection

                                Kusler/Bloomgren                                                              15

                                     measures. In some instances, such as ice jam flooding, protection eleva-
                                     tions are inadequate. In others, the management approaches are inappro-
                                     priate. For example, elevation of structures on pilings does not provide
                                     flood protection from long-term lake level fluctuation unless roads and
                                     utilities are also elevated and the pilings and structures are designed
                                     for permanent or semipermanent inundation.

                                     The lack of local regulatory guidelines specifically addressing high risk
                                     problems has been due to lack of maps; lack of model ordinance approaches,
                                     manuals or other information setting forth management approaches for high
                                     risk areas; lack of expertise at local or state levels; lack of incentives
                                     to encourage special regulation; and failure of state or national regula-
                                     tions to require or encourage special regulations.

                                 3)  Despite the relative lack of local regulations on a nationwide basis,
                                     several hundred communities have, on their own initiative or at the urging
                                     of states, adopted special hazard regulations for alluvial fan, mudflood,
                                     coastal erosion, and other types of areas. Regulations are usually part
                                     of broader zoning, subdivision control, building code, or other regula-
                                     tions. These regulations serve as valuable precedents for other
                                     programs.

                                 4) Strengthened regulatory approaches needed for high risk areas may
                                     include:

                                       e  Complete prohibition of development in certain areas with substantial
                                          risks to safety, where development will substantially increase flood
                                          heights or erosion.on other lands, or where engineering solutions are
                                          impractical (e.g., bluff erosion, mudslide below unsafe dams). Such
                                          prohibitions may be accomplished through setbacks or open space
                                          zoning.

                                       �  Added elevation requirements through freeboard or increased base load
                                          elevations to reflect the special risk (e.g. wave heights, ice
                                          jams).

                                       �  Strengthened performance standards to reflect not only water depth
                                          but velocity, debris, and other risk factors. Such performance stan-
                                          dards could require that anyone desiring a building permit or sub-
                                          division plot approval first undertake a hydrologic or combined
                                          hydrologic/geologic investigation to more specifically determine
                                          hazard at the site and then design the proposed structure to with-
                                          stand the identified hazard.

                                 5)  After flood disasters, upgraded regulations should be adopted for high
                                     risk areas to prevent rebuilding without consideration of special risks.
                                     State or local regulations could take the form of interim "freeze"
                                     ordinances and longer-term enhanced setback of elevations and performance
                                     standard guidelines. FERA could encourage such regulation by requiring
                                     that federal postdisaster teams address special hazards and by incorpora-

                                   16                                                   ---OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE

                                       ting special hazard provisions in the Section 406 guidelines for state and
                                       local postdisaster mitigation planning.

                                    6) States could strengthen regulations of high risk areas by mapping and
                                       directly regulating or requiring local regulation of such areas pursuant
                                       to existing broader floodplain management legislation now in effect in
                                       many states; or through new legislation authorizing state mapping and
                                       regulation or state-supervised local regulation of such areas.

                                   7)  FE14A and other federal agencies could encourage local and state regulation
                                       of high risk areas through manuals, ordinances, technical assistance
                                       grants-in-aid, training and education programs, and community rating sys-
                                       tems for flood insurance (described below). Existing FIA regulatory
                                       guidelines for mudslide and erosion areas could be implemented by actually
                                       mapping such areas. Broader mapping would also encourage state and local
                                       programs even if FEMA did not require regulation of such areas. Strong
                                       fiscal arguments can be made that over time FEMA should require special
                                       state or local regulations of all high risk areas if subsidized insurance
                                       is to be continued for such areas.

                                 Insurance

                                   1)  Solid estimates are lacking of the total number of structures in high risk
                                       areas insured by National Flood Insurance Programs, claims to date, losses
                                       per claim, the adequacy of protection and management standards, and an-
                                       ticipated future trends. FEKA should begin to systematically gather and
                                       analyze insurance data (and perhaps disaster assistance data) to provide
                                       such information which is needed not only for future insurance rating but
                                       also for the establishment of mapping priorities, regulatory guidelines,
                                       and other management approaches.

                                   2)  It is likely that many existing structures in high risk areas are now
                                       insured under the National Flood Insurance Program because the areas are
                                       contained within broader areas subject to preliminary flood maps or flood
                                       ins.urance rate maps or because the occupants have applied for such insur-
                                       ance, despite their location outside of mapping risk zones.

                                       Although flood insurance rates have been made more nearly actuarial for
                                       coastal velocity areas, no special risk rating has been applied to other
                                       high risk areas, due in part to lack of maps for these areas or the
                                       identification of special risk factors on existing maps and the lack of
                                       special risk-rating procedures related to actual hazard. Such insurance
                                       has the potential for encouraging unsound development since rates in some
                                       instances (e.g., alluvial fans) grossly underestimate risk.

                                   3)  Any effort to increase flood insurance rates for unidentified high risk
                                       areas would require, as a starting point, the identification of such areas
                                       with a degree of accuracy considered satisfactory for insurance rating.
                                       Relatively poor initial data might be used if techniques are available to
                                       refine hazard data and insurance rates on a site-specific basis as has

                                Kusler/Bloomgren                                                            17

                                     been done with coastal velocity zones. Another approach might be to apply
                                     high insurance rates on a uniform basis for identified areas with the
                                     option of the community or developer applying for lower rates if they
                                     could provide information indicating lower risk or satisfactory master
                                     planning or engineering to address risk.

                                 4)  FEMA might encourage local or cooperative state/local mapping of high risk
                                     areas through an *incentive" insurance rating scheme. Lower overall
                                     insurance rates would be made available to a community willing to map and
                                     regulate high hazard areas with more specificity than now is required by
                                     FE14A regulations. Such an approach would encourage community and state
                                     initiatives in reducing losses and would make sound financial sense, since
                                     additional community mapping and regulation of these areas would reduce
                                     federal insurance claims and disaster assistance payments.

                                 5)  Congress could eliminate insurance for certain high risk areas through
                                     amendments to the flood insurance act or special legislation such as the
                                     Coastal Barrier Resources Acts of 1982 (which prohibits flood insurance
                                     and certain other federal subsidies for new development on certain un-
                                     developed barrier resources.) If present rating procedures are not re-
                                     vised to reflect actual risk, such an approach may be needed to prevent
                                     further encouragement of unsound development.

                                                         SIMPLE TRUTH IN PUBLIC POLICY

                                                                James E. Tierney
                                                        Attorney General, State of Maine

                                      The first elemental truth with which I would like to leave you this after-
                                 noon is that I am far from an expert in managing high risk flood areas. So the

                                 most I can do to keynote this conference is to help you place your tremendously
                                 important work in a broader context--a context within which public policy will

                                 be made for the rest of our lifetimes.

                                      Your work and responsibilities were an unknown governmental function
                                 during the early days of our country when we moved from an agrarian to an

                                 industrialized society. When our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents

                                 came as "huddled masses" to these shores, their everyday problems were so

                                 immense that few were concerned either about protecting the natural environment

                                 or protecting themselves from it.

                                      History books are filled with references to the human suffering which

                                 resulted from those early decisions. The growth of industrialism in the late

                                 19th and early 20th centuries was hard, bloody, and filled with pain. It was
                                 only as individuals began to claw a semisecure niche in our country that they
                                 began to feel comfortable enough to assert that, indeed, they did have a right

                                 to a government that provided basic health facilities, that provided an econom-
                                 ic and natural environment in which they could be happy while they raised their
                                 families, and that all had the right to live to a prosperous old age in peace
                                 and dignity.

                                      So it was that when Franklin Delano Roosevelt swept into office, it was

                                 with the belief that government itself could be a positive force in people's
                                 lives. Surely government could be designed to do more than provide for the

                                 common defense and deliver the mail.

                                      The first task was to correct the gross disregard previously shown for our
                                 human and physical environment as a result Of the rapid capital formation;
                                 government had to address the human suffering that prevailed in the land. The
                                 New Deal and all it meant for America, from social security to electricity in
                                 rural America--which, of course, also marked the beginning of 20th century
                                 flood control--was clearly only the beginning.

                                20                                                     OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE

                                     After World War II, as our society grew in strength and wealth, the

                                American public demanded and received an even higher standard of living.

                                Essential to that, and relevant to our discussions today, was the rise of
                                environmentalism. Many point to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, published    in

                                1962, which showed the destructive side effects of a number of "miracle"

                                pesticides, as the beginning of contemporary environmentalism. This nation
                                began to pay attention to a new grass roots movement called "ecology." Earth

                                Day, in 1970, provided a clear indication that environmentalism was strong,
                                politically powerful, and here to stay.

                                     Americans were demanding strong laws and were willing to put their dollars
                                behind solving some of our most apparent environmental problems. Americans

                                refused to allow their rivers to remain open sewers; Americans refused to allow
                                their air to be choked with smog; and Americans refused to see precious wild-
                                life brought to extinction.

                                     Public officials eagerly joined this movement. They did so because of the
                                voices of their constituents, and they did so because immediate action was long

                                overdue. They did so also, however, safe in the realization that they would

                                not have to make very difficult choices in defending the environment because

                                America during this period was sustaining a long and uninterrupted period of

                                economic growth.

                                     From 1950 to 1973, the gross national product doubled in real dollars,
                                national productivity increased on an average of 3% per year, and inflation was
                                virtually nonexistent. During this period, the price of oil actually fell in
                                real dollars. While the balance of foreign trade was generally positive, it

                                was not deemed essential to economic health because 93% of the gross national

                                product went into domestic sales.
                                     American technological ingenuity powered these increases in productivity
                                and the resulting economic growth. People all over the world used our steel,

                                drove our cars, and we stood as the world's economic colossus.
                                     Lest we forget, the outcry for increased environmental protection was only
                                part of what Americans were demanding from government. Increased--and I might
                                say unfunded--social security benefits were passed on an annual basis. Workers
                                were demanding a safer work place. Consumerism raced into vogue at least as
                                rapidly as environmentalism. Everyone demanded shorter hours and more pay and
                                no one seemed to really care about productivity, growth and competition.

                                  Tierney                                                                          21

                                       Politicians were happy to accommodate, and the nation's economic growth

                                  sustained these new demands. Great successes were made in all areas, but

                                  especially in the environment as Maine's own Ed Muskie championed the environ-

                                  mental cause with the result of dramatically improved air and water quality.
                                       Leisure, recreational opportunities and cleaner beaches caused a national

                                  rush in the 1970s towards the construction of second homes and cottages along

                                  our now clean rivers and beckoning oceans. The wealth of our nation generated

                                  the construction, and clearly good things were waiting for us all.
                                       What does all this mean for us today? where are we now? Why do my

                                  remarks seem to evoke a time which, although we all remember it, seems so far

                                  away?

                                       My friends, those times are indeed far away, and, I would state as a

                                  hypothesis, they will not return. There is no doubt that the United States

                                  will, for the rest of our lifetimes, have an economy of scarcity within which

                                  every dollar granted by the public sector will be closely scrutinized.

                                       I am sure we all wish it were different. I am sure we all wish that we

                                  were sustaining greater economic growth when we are not. I am sure we all wish
                                  that our federal government was not sustaining deficits of almost 200 billion
                                  dollars a year which threaten continually to send us into an inflation/
                                  unemployment spiral. I am sure we all wish that our nation's goods and
                                  services were more competitive in the international market. I am sure we all
                                  wish that Adam Smith's invisible hand would appear with enough money in it to
                                  provide for a dignified life for the elderly, the abolition of ignorance and

                                  child abuse, full employment, educational opportunities for our youth, and

                                  markets for goods that are made in America--that are worth what we pay for
                                  them, safe to use, and made to last a lifetime; and enough money to create
                                  easily not only a clean environment but also the opportunity to avoid environ-

                                  mental risks that are within our control and to mitigate those which are not.

                                       As mature leaders we must realize this is not to be. This is not because

                                  of some mysterious evil force or a political malaise; but rather because other

                                  nations in the world--both friends and enemies--have worked hard to ach-ieve the

                                  same goals we have--security, peace, and a clean and safe natural and physical

                                  environment. These nations, especially since the oil crisis in the early

                                  1970s, have become technologically sophisticated and diplomatically wise so as

                                  to create competition that means our nation will always face difficult

                                  choices.

                                 22                                                      OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE

                                      What then is my message to you as you step back from your hectic schedules

                                 to begin this conference? What is your message and how do you carry it out

                                 into a public that is so concerned and so worried about other things? Allow me

                                 to make a few suggestions.

                                      1) Regardless of your political preference, insist on a government that
                                 is clean, active, and strong. Against those people who do not believe that
                                 government must play an active force in the daily lives of us all, I urge you
                                 to stand up and be heard. When politicians and cynics from either the private
                                 or public sector berate the efforts of the millions of dedicated public offi-
                                 cials in this country, then it behooves you and me to stand up and tell them
                                 that they are wrong--tell them with our voices, with our feet, with our money,

                                 and with our votes.

                                      2) Clarify your message. The efforts that you take and the requests you
                                 make of public officials--elected and appointed--must be done with a basic
                                 understanding that their choices are difficult ones. You therefore have a

                                 special responsibility to make your points clear, concise, and based on a real-
                                 istic listing of priorities.

                                      The facts are clear enough. Hundreds of lives and four billion dollars a

                                 year are being lost to our nation because of inadequate planning and management

                                 of high-risk hazardous areas. much of this is avoidable if this society, which
                                 has the capacity to do so much, takes it seriously. Refine your message. Make

                                 it clear. Drive it home.

                                      3) Accept responsibilities for your failures. Be willing to admit your

                                 mistakes. If in the past you have recommended too much or too little say so

                                 now. I know I am joined in this by millions of Americans who are tired of
                                 people who are more willing to point to "the other guy" than they are to say

                                 that answers they thought were appropriate before are not appropriate now. The
                                 economics have changed, the culture has changed, and the technology has changed
                                 in a remarkably short period of time. Don't be afraid to stand up and say so.
                                      4) Don't be afraid to tell the public that they should not be foolish.
                                 Clearly there are areas in this country that are so environmentally sensitive
                                 and dangerous that development should not occur there. Be it the floodplain of
                                 a river; be it the base of a volcano; or be it atop a sand dune--you must be

                                 willing simply to say that you cannot build in or live in this place, in this
                                 time, in this way and, if you do, then the government will not be there to help

                                 Tierney                                                                      23

                                 you. These are tough words and tough medicine. If you do not say it, no one

                                 else will.

                                      In conclusion, my remarks roll down to a simple message: The times have

                                 changed and changed permanently. Our resources are scarce and our choices
                                 difficult. And finally, to borrow from Confucius, while all truthful people

                                 are not in government, all people in government must be truthful.
                                      I truly hope you enjoy your time with us here in Maine. I hope you learn
                                 from each other and from us, and that you leave more professional and profi-
                                 cient than when you came. Thank you for asking me to speak and thank you very

                                 much for being with us here this week in Maine.

                                                      A NOTE ON INTEGRATED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT:
                                                                    FACT OR FANTASY

                                                                  William J. Petak
                                                          University of Southern California

                                       Albert Einstein stated many years ago that "a perfection of means and a
                                  confusion of aims seems to be our main problem." If the.problems associated
                                  with the implementation of an integrated emergency management system (IEMS) are
                                  looked at in a broad context, one has to agree with Einstein. Although techni-
                                  cal, bureaucratic, and procedural methods of dealing with disaster management
                                  problems are being perfected, application of these methods in many cases lacks
                                  clear direction. However, even if the perception of aims were clear,.the wide
                                  choice of means makes accomplishment of the aims a very complex undertaking.
                                       IEMS is seen by many as "old wine in a new bottle," in that Comprehensive
                                  Emergency Management, promoted more than a decade ago, is the same thing.
                                  Others see IEMS as legitimizing preparation for nuclear war by diverting the
                                  focus to major catastrophic events such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods.

                                  Still others see IEMS as the application of a more rational systems approach to
                                  understanding and developing solutions to a complex set of problems.
                                       Whether IEMS is a fact or fantasy is highly dependent upon one's perspec-
                                  tive, which is generally based upon past experience (successes and failures);
                                  knowledge, skills and attributes; political support within the responsible
                                  jurisdiction; and the availability of data and information. There appears to

                                  be little question that, in a time of severely limited resources, economic
                                  growth as evidenced by increased land development is highly valued, and the
                                  governmental focus is on limited regulation and more freedom of choice, much
                                  effort will be required by state and local officials to achieve the aims of

                                  IEMS.

                                       There are many factors working against developing and implementing poli-
                                  cies that will make IEKS a workable system. Included in this list of factors
                                  mitigating against developing policy support are 1) the absence of sufficient
                                  supportive political constituencies; 2)    absence of effective inside advocates;
                                  3) significant problems of complexity and uncertainty; 4) confusion of issues

                                 26                                                     OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE

                                 of fact and value; 5) administrative inadequacies; and 6) failure to see the

                                 benefits of multihazard approaches and coordination.
                                      once policies have been adopted, implementation is handicapped by 1) slow
                                 progress in identifying and mapping hazard zones; 2) poor procedures and data

                                 bases supporting cost/loss reduction analysis; 3) significant turf difference
                                 across jurisdictions in building,code and development policies; 4) inadequate
                                 codes; 5) limited technical capacity on the part of many jurisdictions' person-
                                 nel; 6) emphasis largely on demands for financial assistance and area protec-
                                 tion works; and 7) past coordination inadequacies on the part of the federal

                                 government.
                                      Necessary critical actions on the part of those involved in the emergency
                                 management system are to 1) develop a positive and creative attitude toward
                                 IEKS; 2) integrate IEMS into the comprehensive (urban/regional) land use plan-
                                 ning process and engage in pre-event planning; 3) create a participatory system
                                 designed to help overcome the internal turf issues; 4) apply technical exper-
                                 tise early in the process; 5) develop multijurisdictional relationships and
                                 memorandums of understanding; and 6) develop and implement training and educa-
                                 tion programs for both jurisdictional staff and the citizenry.
                                      Only when we increase our level of professionalism will we begin to both
                                 see and understand the benefits of IEMS. It is important that we learn from

                                 our successes, share limited resources, overcome turf problems, and, finally,
                                 emphasize solutions. Agreement on aims and implementation of means is our main

                                 purpose.

                                                   FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION INITIATIVES
                                                          TO RESOLVE INCONSISTENCIES IN
                                                        FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS

                                                               William L. Trakimas
                                                     Indiana Department of Natural Resources

                                      Tke main issues that confront us today are the complexities and incon-

                                 sistencies that exist at the local level for administering an effective flood-

                                 plain management program. This issue is magnified when we start addressing
                                 high risk areas.
                                      Problems already exist with the basic terminology and management pro-
                                 cedures for dealing with the "normal" floodplain as shown in the Flood Insur-

                                 ance Studies. The introduction of terms like liquefaction, alluvial     fans, and
                                 fluctuating lake levels has the potential of confusing the part-time    local
                                 official who is the foundation of a successful floodplain management    program.
                                      This does not mean, however, that we should forget these issues    in the
                                 name of simplifying the program. Rather, we should strive harder to     work with
                                 each other to incorporate these ideas into implementation strategies    that
                                 simplify this program, into a framework that truly shows the federal/state/
                                 local partnership working together instead of in segmented efforts, each trying
                                 to protect its own turf. This will require sweat and compromise by everyone if
                                 we are serious about reaching our goals.

                                      An effective partnership is beginning to be realized. The FIA planning
                                 cycle is an excellent example whereby we now know when policy and program
                                 changes will occur and how we can plug into that cycle. This cycle allows us
                                 (the ASFPM) as a volunteer group to make wise use of our limited time and

                                 resources to achieve the biggest results.

                                      The Producers Services Review Committee is another avenue by which we can
                                 provide valuable input on insurance issues to local producers. This group has
                                 been successful in getting the FIA to revise definitions, develop better claims
                                 procedures, and make the insurance program operate more like the private

                                 industry.

                                      The goal or challenge for us is to begin to make better use of these

                                 avenues that already exist. Through our past efforts we have seen the NFIP

                                  28                                                    OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVE

                                  become a program better adapted to local administration. Change has been slow
                                  in some areas, but it has occurred. only through a concentrated effort by all

                                  those involved can we begin to resolve the remaining inconsistencies and make
                                  the NFIP a program that truly meets the needs of those who need it most--the

                                  local officials and their citizens who live in high risk areas.

                                                                      PART TWO

                                                          SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS:

                                                                      Ice Jams

                                                              THE COLD FACTS OF ICE JAMS:
                                                             CHARACTERISTICS AND INCIDENCE

                                                                        R. Gerard
                                                            Department of Civil Engineering
                                                                 University of Alberta

                                                                      The Problem

                                        In cold regions, floods are caused either by high discharge (an open water

                                   flood), or the effects of ice, of which ice jam floods are most common. In New

                                   England " ... ice jam flooding is a frequent occurrence....    Since 1970, 249

                                   communities in these states have suffered from ice jam flooding. of the 249

                                   communities documented, 49 were identified as having frequent ice jam floods
                                   which caused substantial damage", (McLoughlin, 1980). Oil City      ' Pennsylvania,

                                   provides another example. There, ice jam flood stages far exceed open water
                                   stages in both magnitude and frequency (Deck and Gooch, 1981).
                                        Such ice-related flooding should be anticipated anywhere north of the 00
                                   January isotherm, an area that includes some 80% of North America and 50% of
                                   the contiguous United States. It should be kept in mind that such a limit is
                                   just a guide: there have been ice jams on the Mississippi River at New

                                   Orleans.

                                        A breakup ice jam flood frequently resembles a flash flood, with extremely

                                   rapid water level increases with little or no warning. A description of events
                                   during the severe ice jam flood from the Delaware River at Port Jervis, New

                                   York, in 1875, illustrates this point.
                                        "...The volume of water in the river appeared to increase as if by magic,

                                   and within ten minutes a raise [sic] of eighteen feet occurred" (Port Jervis
                                   Daily Union, March 1, 1875). Later the same month, in a separate but related

                                   event:

                                        Just at this moment, the Erie dispatch engine, which had been sent to
                                        Delaware Bridge, four miles west of the village, came thundering down the
                                        track, the shrill whistle announcing the approach of the avalanche of
                                        water and ice ....  men, women and children were fleeing in every direction
                                        for safety...   (Port Jervis Daily Union, March 18, 1875).

                                    32                                                    SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                    Similar events have occurred at this location since, the most recent being in

                                    1981.

                                         In Alaska,

                                               An example of a flash flood from rapidly rising backwater occurred in
                                         the 1975 spring breakup, when a major ice jam formed at Holy Cross on the
                                         Yukon River. Record flooding occurred upstream at Anvik and Graylin as
                                         the Yukon River rose suddenly. The ice jam held for six days and the
                                         water dammed upstream from Holy Cross inundated the tributary Innoko,
                                         Bonasila, and Anvik Rivers creating a large lake. The lake was estimated
                                         to have an area of 1,000 square miles. This is comparable in size to Lake
                                         Iliamna, Alaska's largest lake, The description of this flood through the
                                         personal experiences of residents was "worst in the history of the
                                         villages." Multiple flash flooding by waters suddenly released by an ice
                                         jam occurred at Anik on the Kuskokwim River during the 1972 breakup. The
                                         town was flooded four different times as the ice jam, that had formed a
                                         lake extending 30 miles upstream, shifted, releasing sudden surges of the
                                         impounded waters.
                                               The art of river forecasting using the best meteorological and hydro-
                                         logic scientific technology has not yet mastered the prediction of times
                                         of formation and disintegration of moveable ice jams forming suddenly in
                                         random locations (Bowers, 1978).

                                    Freeze-up jams are considerably more placid and predictable but, once the
                                    situation is ripe, can be as inexorable.
                                         ice jams are a very site-specitic phenomenon. one location can be plagued
                                    with ice jam flooding while sites a short distance upstream or downstream can

                                    be completely free of the problem. This differs significantly from open water
                                    floods. A related feature is that ice jam formation can be very sensitive to
                                    river changes. After construction of even a small dam, ice jams may begin to
                                    form at the backwater in the channel upstream; after removal of the dam, ice
                                    jam flooding may begin at sites downstream that were previously untroubled.
                                    Gravel removal from the Allegheny River downstream of Oil City changed a signi-

                                    ficant ice jam problem into an extremely severe one, while the simple act of
                                    installing an inexpensive boom a short distance upstream of oil City will

                                    likely completely remove the problem.
                                         Another ice jam feature that follows from this sensitivity is that it is
                                    very difficult to anticipate ice jam frequency and magnitude, particularly for

                                    breakup.

                                Gerard                                                                         33

                                                               Causes of Ice jams
                                     Ice jam formation is an integral part of the freeze-up and breakup pro-
                                cesses and is therefore subject to all the vagaries of these phenomena. Never-
                                theless there are some features  commonly associated with sites subject to
                                repeated ice jam formation.
                                     Freeze-up jams are usually  associated with steep, shallow streams which
                                resist formation of a solid ice  cover and therefore produce large quantities of
                                frazil ice that eventually must  be stored somewhere in the stream channel for

                                the winter. It is this storage   that reduces, or even eliminates, the waterway
                                and hence causes flooding. Harkwick, Vermont, provides an example of this
                                (Calkins, 1984). In other cases, the slope may be steep but the velocities are
                                low enough that an ice cover forms a thick initial accumulation that increases

                                the stage sufficiently to cause flooding. The recent flooding from the Salmon
                                River at Salmon, Idaho, provides an example of this (Cunningham and Calkins,
                                1984).

                                     Most breakup ice jams are caused simply by stalling of the breakup front.
                                That is, either the front meets a portion of the solid ice cover that is more

                                resistant than elsewhere--is thicker or more shore- or bottom-fast--or the

                                channel geometry enlarges downstream so that the breakup surge loses its
                                impetus. Freeze-up or winter ice jam accumulations obviously result in much
                                more resistant ice covers and therefore pose a strong impediment to breakup.
                                Likewise, a thick ice cover locked into a sharp bend in the channel may resist
                                breakup sufficiently to initiate ice jam formation. on the other hand, a
                                breakup surge is attenuated as it moves into the headwater of a reservoir, a

                                lake or even a larger main channel, so that even the normal ice cover may be
                                sufficient to resist breakup and initiate an ice jam. A similar circumstance

                                applies to the sudden reduction in a channel slope, a change usually accom-
                                panied in an alluvial stream by enlargement of the channel. The Port Jervis,
                                New York, site seems to be an example of this. These various factors have
                                combined to produce the rule of thumb that the vicinity of a sudden reduction
                                in water surface slope is a likely ice jam location.
                                     An obvious cause of ice jams would seem to be ice floes jamming in a
                                =ontraction. While this is the usual reason for initial lodgement at freeze-
                                ap, and hence initiation of freeze-up, and possibly even of freeze-up jams, it
                                Ls not often the cause of major ice jams at breakup. Likewise, bridge piers of

                                 34                                                 SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 modern bridges over streams wide in relation to the ice thickness rarely
                                 seriously hinder passage of ice at breakup.

                                                         Characteristics of an Ice Jam

                                      When fully developed, an ice jam profile will appear as shown in Figure 1.
                                 Its components are the jam key, which in this case is the solid ice cover; the
                                 thickened toe region, a result of the steeper water surface slope in this
                                 gradually varied flow portion; the body of the jam which, if the accumulation
                                 is long enough, will contain a uniform "equilibrium" se&tion that gives the
                                 maximum depth that can be caused by such a jam and that plays an important role
                                 in the simple analysis of ice jam levels described below; a thinning of the

                                 accumulation to the head of the jam; and a classic backwater curve as the water
                                 depth decreases to the uniform flow depth some distance upstream. The increase
                                 in water level caused by an ice jam has two sources: the thickness of the ice

                                 accumulation, and the increased flow resistance of the much rougher accumula-
                                 tion "ice cover." A fragmented ice mass behaves much like a cohesionless

                                 accumulation (the ice fragments in a jam are simulated in hydraulic model

                                 studies by small plastic pellets). Thus the accumulation thickness depends on
                                 its "geotechnical" strength, and on the drag exerted on the accumulation by the
                                 flow and the downslope component of its own weight.
                                      The accumulation thickness, the waterway depth and, therefore, the water
                                 level, depend mostly on the discharge per unit width of channel, q, the energy
                                 slope, S (roughly the water surface slope), and the hydraulic roughness, k, of
                                 the waterway under the accumulation. For example, the maximum depth, h, that
                                 can be caused by a steady, floating ice jam is given very approximately by
                                                                 i   qk 1/6]3/5
                                                      or             1@9_s 3/5
                                                                 2 [ng      in SI
                                                                     @S_

                                 where g is gravitational acceleration and n is the Manning coefficient.
                                 (Indeed, it might be noted that the above relations provide the following
                                 useful rule of thumb: the maximum depth to the water level in a floating jam is
                                 given simply by calculating the flow depth under the accumulation using a
                                 regular uniform flow formula (e.g., mann's equation) and adding 50%.) As
                                 mentioned, this depth occurs in the equilibrium, or uniform flow, portion.

                                                         Figure 1(a) TYPICAL ICE JAM CONFIGURATION

                                            (b) MEASURED WATER LEVEL PROF    ILE THROUGH AN ICE JAM (Andres, 1980).

                                                              rronsitkft            7hmsft. +- Uniform --+ T--ifl- --@ thif-
                                                                                              *Equilibrium,
                                                                                                   section

                                                                                                 ke accumulation

                                                                                                                    Sotfd ke
                                                                                Maximum &Wh given ty
                                                                                equilibrium Section.

                                                                                                        -now

                                                 Shear lines

                                                                    Flow                        (a)

                                               no-

                                                                                013TAX" MW

                                 36                                                 SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                      Variations from the profile shown in Figure 1 can occur. If the volume of
                                 ice is limited, the jam may not be long enough to develop an equilibrium
                                 portion, and hence the maximum depth along the jam will be more shallow. On
                                 small, steep streams the required accumulation thickness in the toe region may
                                 be lar4er than the depth; the accumulation will then ground, over some length,

                                 across a good portion of the channel width. The flow resistance over this
                                 length will increase substantially which may cause a maximum depth along the
                                 jam greater than the equilibrium depth for a fully floating jam. However,
                                 analysis of jams in the field to date suggests that the equilibrium depth is

                                 not often exceeded by much for streams more than about 50 meters wide, even if

                                 there is a grounded portion near the toe.

                                                        Ice Jam Failure and Reformation

                                      Probably a greater limitation to using depths calculated assuming a fully
                                 developed floating jam under steady flow conditions is the possibility of a
                                 very unsteady flow as a result of ice jam formation and failure. Breakup, in
                                 particular, is by nature a very unsteady phenomenon. When an ice jam forms, it
                                 is literally like a dam in the river and, if it fails suddenly, a surge of fast
                                 moving water and ice will be released. Depending on the nature of the jam and
                                 the channel downstream, such surges can travel long distances, carrying with
                                 them, with little attenuation, the increase in water level caused by the jam.
                                 If the surge encounters another jam, or the jam reforms, the water level may
                                 rise even further, creating a surge that moves upstream. Such happenings
                                 explain the dramatic water level increases often associated with ice jam

                                 floods. For at least some sites--Port Jervis, New York, being one of them--

                                 there are strong indications that the maximum recorded ice-related water levels
                                 have been caused by such events, rather than by the increase in water level

                                 caused by a jam at or downstream of the site.

                                                            Ice Jam Flood Frequency
                                      Before planning ice jam flood mitigation measures, it is necessary to
                                 define the significance of the problem at a particular site. This will usually
                                 require es-timation of the ice-related flood frequency distribution. There are
                                 several problems with this, particularly for breakup jams. As mentioned above,
                                 the location and frequency of breakup jams are difficult to assess without
                                 historical data. As a result analytical techniques, analogous to rainfall
                                 runoff simulations for open water floods, are much less definitive for ice-
                                 related floods with regard to frequency. On the other hand, because ice jams

                                Gerard                                                                        37

                                are site-specific and historical records of ice jam floods cannot be trans-

                                posed, historical records must be available for the vicinity of the site at

                                issue. On balance, although analytical estimates of frequency distributions

                                may be tenuous, they may be more necessary because of the absence of reliable
                                historical data, particularly for shallower floods.

                                     One reasonable compromise between the limitations of analytically derived
                                ice jam flood-frequency distributions, and their necessity, is that outlined by
                                Gerard and Calkins (1984). In this approach, analytical techniques are used to

                                derive upper and lower bound frequency distributions, and what historical data
                                are available are used to assist in deciding on a compromise frequency curve.
                                Alternately, if a reasonable amount of historical data is available, such
                                analytical techniques can assist in the reasonable extrapolation of the
                                historical frequency curve, as is commonly done for open water floods.
                                     It should be noted that the tenuous nature of analytical frequency esti-
                                mates, and the general lack of gauge records, make historical ice jam data far
                                more valuable than for open water floods, and the luxury of discardinq all but
                                data for the most extreme events can rarely be afforded. This means that
                                historical data from sources of varying reliability and "record length"
                                usually must be utilized. The analysis of such data is discussed by Gerard and
                                Karpuk (1979). The general problem of flood frequency estimates for cold

                                region sites is discussed in more detail by Gerard and Calkins (1984).

                                                                 Conclusions

                                 �   Ice jam floods are much more common and widespread than generally appreci-
                                     ated, and their often substantial contribution to the flood population
                                     generally has been either overlooked entirely or poorly treated in past
                                     flood studies.

                                 �   The characteristics of ice jams are much better understood now than two
                                     decades ago.

                                 �   Ice jam floods can and should be incorporated quantitatively in future
                                     flood studies.

                                                                  References

                                Bowers, T. J.
                                     1978 "Alaska's Multifarious Flash Flood Events." Proceedings of
                                         Conference on Flash Floods, Hydrometeorological Aspect. Los Angeles:
                                         American Meteorological Society.

                                   38                                                  SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                   Calkins, D. J.
                                        1984 Personal communication from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold
                                             Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.

                                   Cunningham, L. and D. J. Calkins
                                        1984 "Salmon River ice Jams." Hydraulics Specialty Conference.
                                             Coeur d'Alene, Idaho: American Society of Civil Engineers.

                                   Deck, D. and G. Gooch
                                        1981 "Ice Jam Problems at oil City, Pennsylvania." Special Report 81-9.
                                             Hanover, New Hampshire, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions
                                             Research and Engineering Laboratory.

                                   Gerard, R. and E. w. Karpuk
                                        1979 "Probability Analysis of Historical Flood Data," ASCE, Journal of
                                             the Hydraulics Division, 105 (HY9): 1153-1165.

                                   Gerard, R. and D. J. Calkins
                                        1984 "Ice-related Flood Frequency Analysis: Application of Analytical
                                             Estimates." pp. 85-101 in Proceedings of the CSCE/ASCE Cold Regions
                                             Specialty Conference. Edmonton, Alberta. Montreal, Quebec. Canadian
                                             Society for Civil Engineering.

                                        1984 "Flood Frequency Analysis in Cold Regions." U.S. Army Corps of
                                             Engineers and Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Report
                                             (in preparation).

                                   McLoughhlin, J. E.
                                        1980 "Historical Ice Jam Flooding in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont."
                                             Waltham, Massachusetts: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. New England
                                             Division.

                                                            COLD FACTS OF ICE JAMS:
                                                       CASE STUDIES OF MITIGATION METHODS

                                                               Darryl J. Calkins
                                                           Research Hydraulic Engineer
                                                           U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                                                Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

                                                                  Introduction

                                      There are very few "classic" analyses of mitigation methods for ice jam

                                 problems. Unfortunately, the sole approach often has been to treat the symptom
                                 rather than to identify and remove or prevent the cause.
                                      it is fair to say that half the battle in mitigating ice jam floods is
                                 understanding the cause of the problem. Once that has been achieved, solutions

                                 should be evident. The recent ice control structure placed in the Allegheny
                                 River provides an excellent example. The problem was obvious: ice jam flooding
                                 at breakup. The cause was not known until winter field investigations revealed
                                 that too much ice in a pool in the mainstream prevented the tributary ice run

                                 from entering. once the cause was identified, the solution was simple: reduce
                                 the volume of ice in the pool by initiating the ice accumulation at freeze-up
                                 in the next upstream pool.

                                      Understanding the cause requires some knowledge of river/ice hydraulics,

                                 but equally important is keeping an open mind when reviewing the written

                                 accounts of ice jam floods. observations of river and meteorological condi-

                                 tions leading up to and including the event can be very informative. Newspaper

                                 accounts and diaries can be useful. Another source of information is the

                                 environmental evidence along the river banks. Moving ice or ice that has been
                                 pushed against the banks often leaves scars on the trees lining the banks.

                                 These scars can be dated, surveyed for elevation, and used in the frequency

                                 analysis of ice jam stages when direct observations are not available. It

                                 generally takes a lot of time and investigative work to get information on ice
                                 jam flooding.

                                                           Causes of Ice Jam Flooding
                                      It is often difficult to define the cause(s) of an ice jam. in almost
                                 every case, an ice jam forms as a result of an existing ice cover blocking the

                                  40                                                  SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                  ice run as it moves downriver. The channel geometry plays a role, but an ice
                                  run moving down an ice-free river will not suddenly stop and jam. A full-width
                                  or nearly full-width barrier is necessary to halt its movement.
                                        once the ice cover has been set in motion downriver, surges of water and
                                  ice accompany the breakup. As new ice is broken and set in motion, the ice run
                                  almost feeds itself. In some areas the ice cover breaks up and moves away,

                                  while other sites initiate ice jams that create water level differences of
                                  several feet before the jam breaks and the process is repeated.
                                        one classic location for ice jams is in the upper end of the backwater

                                  behind a dam. The bed slope and the water surface slopes are changed to a
                                  milder condition than existed in their natural state. Again, the ice cover in
                                  the pool often retards the movement of the ice jam.

                                        Even though bridge piers are often thought to cause ice.jams, a careful
                                  look usually reveals that the ice run actually passed the bridge piers, only to

                                  be stalled by the ice sheet downstream. That is, the toe of the jam was well

                                  below the bridge piers.

                                        An important cause of increased flood levels associated with ice jams is
                                  floodway encroachment. when a river channel is packed with ice (when 50% to
                                  70% of its depth is ice), the floodway becomes the major channel for conveying

                                  the water. Unfortunately the designs of many highways have created much higher
                                  ice jam water levels. In areas prone to ice jams, problems can be caused by an
                                  approach embankment that constricts or cuts off the floodway or by a highway
                                  that is elevated and runs parallel to the channel bank. Denial of the floodway
                                  causes higher ice jam stages. I have seen the "500-year" open-channel flood

                                  stages exceeded at three sites as a result of floodway encroachment by an ice
                                  jam stage whose flow might have a frequency of only a 10-year open-channel

                                  event.

                                        Once the ice cover has been broken up, ice jams typically are caused by:

                                    � Backwaters of reservoirs;

                                    � major changes in channel gradient, usually a decrease;

                                    � Low overbank floodways;

                                 Calkins                                                                        41

                                   �  Building of dams and regulation of the flow, especially in the winter;

                                   �  Removal of dams from the river;

                                   �  Peaking by hydropower dams;

                                   �  Water supply reservoirs altering the winter flow distribution;

                                   �  Major sediment deposition,

                                   �  Tributary junctions; and

                                   �  Excessive freeze-up ice cover thicknesses prohibiting channel storage of
                                      breakup ice.

                                 For any of these typical jams, an ice cover must exist downstream of the ice
                                 jam toe to key it in place.

                                                               Potential Solutions

                                      Once the cause (s) of the ice jam has been determined, solutions can be

                                 evaluated. Unless the cause is known with a reasonable degree of assurance,

                                 attempts to solve the problem can be inappropriate and wasteful.
                                      A modification in the ice conditions at freeze-up can have a significant

                                 effect on the breakup conditions and any resulting ice jams. A corollary of
                                 this is that one ice control measure for breakup jams might be the alteration

                                 of the ice regime during freeze-up.
                                      A structural solution is defined here as a permanent or temporary modifi-

                                 cation to the river channel and/or the floodplain, including structures that

                                 are meant to minimize or contain flood levels. Structural solutions include:

                                   �  Ice booms;

                                   �  High/low head structures; i.e., reservoirs, weirs, etc.;

                                   �  Levees, berms, etc.;

                                   �  Floodplain storage facilities for ice;

                                   �  High level diversion channels;

                                   �  In-stream channel improvements; and

                                   �  Thermal suppression.

                                    42                                                  SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                         Nonstructural solutions use existing structures or temporary measures to

                                   control the ice and flood conditions. Nonstructural solutions include:

                                     �   Flow control at existing reservoirs;

                                     �   Ice control at existing reservoirs;

                                     �   Dusting;

                                     �   mechanical removal;

                                     �   Vessel assistance;

                                     �   Removal of structures within the floodplain;

                                     �   Flood warning system;

                                     �   Blasting; and

                                     �   Thermal suppression.

                                                                      Case Studies

                                   Allegheny River

                                         Report:           Deck and Good (1981).

                                         Location:         Oil City, Pennsylvania

                                         Problem;          Ice jam flooding at the confluence of oil Creek and the
                                                           Allegheny River.

                                         Cause:            A river dredging project on the Allegheny created a long,
                                                           deep pool just downstream of the confluence with Oil
                                                           Creek, which caused a large accumulation of ice. The ice
                                                           run from the smaller tributary could not penetrate the
                                                           Allegheny River ice cover. The ice jam would remain in
                                                           the tributary channel and the floodplain (oil City
                                                           business district) would handle the flow.

                                         Solution:         winter field investigations revealed an excessive ice
                                                           buildup--15 feet at the confluence during freeze-up. A
                                                           relatively inexpensive ice boom just upstream of the
                                                           confluence was designed to start the freeze-up ice cover
                                                           at that location and minimize the ice volume at the
                                                           confluence area.

                                         Implemented:      1982

                                         Performance;      The volumes of ice have been dramatically reduced.
                                                           Although conditions have been favorable for ice jam
                                                           formation, no ice jam flooding has occurred, as the
                                                           tributary ice run can now move into the main river.

                                    Calkins                                                                                  43

                                    Salmon River

                                          Report:             Walla Walla District (1984). Cunningham and Calkins
                                                              (1984).

                                          Location:           Salmon, Idaho.

                                          Problem:            Ice jam flooding at freeze-up and breakup on both the
                                                              main river and a tributary.

                                          Background:         The river is designated as wild and scenic. Hydraulic
                                                              mining activities created the problem in the late 1800s
                                                              by altering the natural channel characteristics of the
                                                              Salmon River 26 miles downstream of Salmon, Idaho.
                                                              Winter river observations will be expanded to analyze the
                                                              environmental impact and assess the performance of the
                                                              possible alternatives with respect to the ice regime.

                                          Causes:             Thick ice cover results in stage increases of 8 to 12
                                                              feet; low temperatures must occur in the basin;

                                                              Floodplain encroachment; and

                                                              Breakup ice conditions -occur with a higher flow dis-
                                                              charge, which creates even higher stages; mild weather
                                                              must occur to create high flows.

                                          Solution:           Alternatives are being evaluated under the 205 program.

                                    Israel River

                                          Report:             Frankenstein and Assur (1972). Northeast District (no
                                                              date).

                                          Location'.          Lancaster, New Hampshire.

                                          Problem:            Breakup ice jam flooding in the business district and
                                                              some residential areas.

                                          Causes:             Removal of two old mill dams upstream;

                                                              The flooded area is located at a transition from steep to
                                                              mild slope; and

                                                              A thick accumulation of ice develops in the mild slope
                                                              reach during freeze up, reducing breakup ice storage.

                                          Storage:            Install submarine net one mile above the flooded area
                                                              where the river changed slope and floodplain relief for
                                                              water and ice was available.

                                    44                                                   SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                    Israel River cont'd

                                          Implemented:      1974.

                                          Performance:      The structure has held back ice each year, primarily
                                                            because floodplain relief for the water is available.
                                                            This was a good solution for holding back ice at this
                                                            location. However, the one mile of ice between the net
                                                            and the town was still sufficient to cause ice jams in
                                                            flooded area.

                                          Solution:         Construct a low head weir 0.5 mile upstream of the
                                                            flooded area near the site of the first old mill dam to
                                                            serve as a replacement.

                                          Implemented:      1982.

                                          Performance:      The structure does not hold back ice because the pool
                                                            length is too short. Ice jam flooding still exists.
                                                            Additional modifications may be necessary.

                                    Delaware River

                                          Report:           Philadelphia District (1984). Calkins (1984).

                                          Location:         Port Jervis, New York; and Matamorous, Pennsylvania.

                                          Problem:          Breakup ice jam flooding in two communities.

                                          Causes:           Not fully understood yet; only three major events have
                                                            occurred in the last 100 years, with the jam of record
                                                            occurring in 1981, causing $18 million in damage. A
                                                            midwinter jam at Port Jervis followed by the spring
                                                            breakup appear to cause this flood.

                                          Solution:         Several alternatives are being considered: Permanent
                                                            hydraulic structure;
                                                            Flow control, freeze-up and breakup;
                                                            Ice control at freeze-up with ice booms;
                                                            High level diversion channels; and
                                                            Levee protection.

                                    Peace River.

                                          Report:           Neill and Andres (1984).

                                          Location:         Pdace River, Alberta, Canada.

                                  Calkins                                                                           45

                                 .Peace River cont'd

                                       Problem:          Freeze-up ice cover flooding.

                                       Causes:           Construction of hydropower dam 100 miles upstream;
                                                         Release schedule of flow (surges); and

                                                         Increased winter flows versus the natural condition
                                                         (factor of two to three).

                                       solution:         modify release schedule during freeze up.

                                       Implemented:      Some modification of the releases.

                                       Performance:      Insufficient data have been collected.

                                  Chaudiere River

                                       Report:           Deslouriers (1965). Michel (1965).

                                       Location:         Quebec, Canada.

                                       Problem:          ice jam flooding at breakup.

                                       Causes:           Thick ice accumulations at freeze-up; and

                                                         No river channel storage for the ice at breakup due to
                                                         thickness of the ice at freeze-up.

                                       Solution:         Construct a 60-foot-high dam upstream of the flooded
                                                         area.

                                       Implemented:      1967.

                                       Performance:      Ice jam flooding occurs now in the pool behind the struc-
                                                         ture and not in the community. The dam is considered
                                                         very successful.

                                       Other case studies have been completed, and several are in the analysis/
                                  design phase. In each case study listed above, field observations by experi-

                                  enced personnel have played the major role in identifying the cause of the

                                  problem. Such personnel are few. Unfortunately the engineering and planning

                                  communities at large are unaware of the significance of ice problems, let alone

                                  the details of the ice processes. This situation should not be perpetuated,

                                  and the burden rests with those who can narrow the gap.

                                                                Emergency Operations

                                       Generally, once an ice jam has formed and flooding has occurred, remedial

                                  solutions for the ice in the river are not practical. There are times when

                                  46                                               SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                  mechanical removal, such as blasting, or vessel assistance may be used with

                                  good results. However, the implications of each method must be fully weighed
                                  before a method is chosen. one may refer to the Ice Engineering Manual pub-

                                  lished by the Corps of Engineers (EM 1110-2-1612) for more details.
                                       It is obvious that residents of areas subject to ice jam flooding should
                                  be aware of the potential for flooding and the conditions that cause ice jams.
                                  Stage increases caused by ice jams can occur very quickly, depending upon the
                                  river. Rates of water level rise of one foot per minute downstream of an ice
                                  jam failure are common. Stage increases of 10 to 20 feet within 10 to 30

                                  minutes due to a jam have been reported.

                                                                   Conclusions

                                       Ice jams are natural occurrences and the misconception that little can be

                                  done to minimize their impact is disappearing. The causes of ice jams are now
                                  better understood, and remedial measures are being designed and constructed to

                                  address them.

                                       The analytical techniques for ice jams are improving, but technology
                                  transfer is moving slowly. Alteration of the existing river ice regime by any
                                  external force will have an impact somewhere; fortunately the tools necessary
                                  to assess the impact are now being developed.
                                       The evidence presented in these case studies demonstrates to those re-

                                  sponsible for floodplain management that a change in the winter flow regime or
                                  modification of the existing river hydraulics will affect the ice regime. This
                                  impact has to be assessed to be certain that both the negative and positive
                                  effects are identified. Simple ice management schemes can nullify the initial-
                                  ly negative impacts. For example, by simply altering the hydropower releases
                                  below a dam, one can reduce the potential for ice jam flooding.

                                    �  The general lack of data, particularly high quality data, inhibits ice jam
                                       analysis and makes the causes more difficult to determine.

                                    �  Ice jam flood levels are just beginning to be incorporated into "stage
                                       frequency" analysis. several techniques for developing the data base may
                                       be necessary to ensure that what little data might be available are
                                       included.

                                    �  The stage damage curve for ice jam flooding has long been assumed to be
                                       similar to the "open water" damage curve. This may be false. The damage
                                       can be significantly greater because the high water velocities cause
                                       erosion and the moving ice floes can damage the structures on impact and
                                       move objects around like match sticks.

                                   Calkins                                                                            47

                                     �  The risk to life in ice jam floods is high because the water levels can
                                        rise quickly and residents can become trapped in their houses.

                                     �  There are many remedies for ice jam problems, and care must be exercised
                                        to ensure that the solution will address the cause. The projects will
                                        take longer to investigate because at least one and probably two years of
                                        winter observations are required to ensure that the problem is fully
                                        understood. These studies cost more than traditional "open water" flood
                                        investigations.

                                                                       References

                                   Calkins, D. J.
                                        1984 "Preliminary Ice Jam Study--Delaware River." Report submitted to
                                             U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District.

                                   Cunningham, L. and D. J. Calkins
                                        1984 "Salmon River Ice Jams." Paper presented at Hydraulics Specialty
                                             Conference. Cour d'Alene, Idaho: American Society of Civil
                                             Engineers.

                                   Deck, D. and G. Gooch
                                        1981 "Ice Jam Problems at Oil City, Pennsylvania." Special Report 81-9.
                                             Hanover, New Hampshire, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions
                                             Research and Engineering Laboratory.

                                   Deslauriers, C.
                                        1965 "Projects to Alleviate Ice Jams on the Chaudiere River."
                                             Proceedings of Eastern Snow Conference: 115-127.

                                   Frankenstein, R. and V. Assur
                                        1972 Israel River Ice Jam." Paper for the IAHR Symposium on Ice,
                                             Leningrad.

                                   Michel, J.
                                        1965 "Ice Control Structures for River Break-up." Proceedings, lith
                                             Congress of IAHR 5:37-48.

                                   Neill, J. and T. Andres
                                        1984 "Freeze-up Flood Stages Associated with Fluctuating Reservoir
                                             Releases." Paper for the 3rd specialty Conference on Cold Regions
                                             Engineering. Edmonton, Alberta.

                                   Northeast District
                                    no date Detailed Project Report--Israel River. Waltham, Massachusetts: U.S.
                                             Army Corps of Engineers.

                                   Philadelphia District
                                        1984 General Investigation Report on Delaware     River Ice Jam (in prepara-
                                             tion). Philadelphia: U.S. Army Corps of      Engineers.

                                   Walla Walla District
                                        1984 "Special Flood Hazard Information. Salmon River Ice Jams."
                                             Walla Walla, Washington: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

                                                                     PART TWO

                                                         SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS:

                                                                       Dams

                                                        MANAGING RISK BELOW UNSAFE DAMS

                                                                  Robert Roden
                                                     Bureau of Water Regulations and Zoning
                                                   Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

                                                                  Introduction

                                     one of the emerging "special hazards" issues of the 1980s is the regula-
                                 tion of areas subject to floods resulting from dam failures. of course neither
                                 floodplain management nor dam safety programs are new initiatives. It is the

                                 idea of linking them together in a coordinated approach to hazard management
                                 that is a recent development. Before exploring the specifics of what Wisconsin
                                 is now doing to address this problem, some of the basic concepts should be

                                 outlined.

                                                                 Basic Issues

                                 What is an "Unsafe Dam?"

                                     There are certainly a variety of ways to define an unsafe dam. For our

                                 purposes, an unsafe dam is one that poses an unacceptable level of risk to life

                                 or property through potential failure of the structure. No dam is 100% safe.

                                 In fact, in a very real sense, the term "unsafe dam" is redundant. Also, a dam
                                 might be safe now but unsafe in a few years.

                                 What Can Make a Dam "Unsafe?"

                                     There are three ways in which this can happen. First, the dam may not be
                                 designed to pass a large enough flood without "overtopping" (having water
                                 flowing over parts of the dam that are not designed for that purpose). Second,
                                 a dam may not be properly maintained. This can lead to failure at flows well
                                 below the design flood. And third, the dam may not be operated properly. An
                                 example of this would be failure to open gates or spillways quickly enough.
                                 This could undo assumptions made by the designer.
                                 Can We Predict the Likelihood of a Dam Failing?
                                     The only way to be absolutely sure of a dam's failure is to go out after
                                 the flood and see if the dam is still there. We can predict with reasonable
                                 certainty that the likelihood that a well-operated, well-maintained dam will
                                 fail is pretty close to the probability of its design flood being exceeded. At

                                    52                                                SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                    the other extreme, a dam which is obviously ready to collapse at any time can
                                    easily be called "unsafe." The problem lies with the ones in between that, we
                                    feel, could be a sizeable percentage of the dams in this county. For these, we
                                    may not know what condition the structure is in and thus have little idea how
                                    .unsafe" it is. Because of all the variables involved, using a frequency
                                    analysis based on the number of dam failures would probably be misleading. So
                                    each situation is unique, and there is no approach to assess the likelihood of
                                    failure. This is in sharp contrast to our usual approach (admittedly far from

                                    perfect) of predicting flood frequencies from statistical records.

                                    Do Dams Only Fail During Floods?
                                        of course not. While floods and other natural disasters (e.g., earth-

                                    quakes) have certainly caused their share of dam failures, many dams fail under
                                    much more "normal" conditions. In Wisconsin, out of 30 failures documented
                                    between 1973 and 1983, 19 were of the "sunny day" variety. Presumably many of
                                    these failed because they were improperly maintained.

                                    What Kind of Flooding Results from Dam Failures?

                                        While gradual failures can occur (these obviously attenuate the surge of
                                    water and lessen the amount and severity of flooding), a more sudden failure
                                    can lead to rapid increases in water levels, high velocities, and debris damage
                                    (including the possibility of debris jams). There may be little or no warning,
                                    and sudden failures can occur under conditions (e.g., at night) where their

                                    detection is almost impossible until it is too late.

                                    Can Flooding from Dams be Prevented?

                                        As you might guess, the answer is both "yes" and "no'. Proper operation
                                    and maintenance, along with adequate spillway capacity and storage, can go a
                                    long way towards minimizing the risk, but the plain fact is there are no

                                    guarantees. At the least, a "bigger and better" flood can always come along,

                                    yet people historically have put a lot of trust in the "protection" offered by

                                    dams.

                                        My sense is that what they really have done is to replace a more likely
                                    but less serious risk with a less likely but potentially much more serious
                                    hazard. So while the safety of most dams can be improved, we think it is also
                                    important to take steps to minimize loss of life and property damage in the
                                    event the dam fails anyway.

                                Roden                                                                          53

                                                            Extent of the Problem

                                     How large a problem are we dealing with? ignoring the small dams (in
                                Wisconsin these make up about 70% of the total), there are about 67,500 large
                                dams in the United States. Based on the potential for loss of life from fail-
                                ure, the Corps of Engineers identified 8,800 "high hazard" dams and found 2,900
                                (33%) of them to be unsafe (most of these because of inadequate spillway capa-
                                city). If the same percentage of the other large dams were also found to be

                                unsafe, there would be over 22,000 unsafe large dams (by Corps' standards) in
                                the country (well over 400 per state on the average). This is probably a high

                                estimate.

                                     To go one step further, if failure of each unsafe high hazard dam could
                                affect two downstream communities (Dewberry and Davis, 1982), there would be
                                around 6,000 communities facing a degree of risk to like and property from dam
                                failure that the Corps' standards say is excessive. It is also estimated that

                                2,000 communities could experience floods greater than the 100-year event due

                                to dam failures. All of these figures are "guesstimates".

                                                            Managing The Risk: Now
                                     What are we doing about this potential time bomb? We are still in the
                                process of developing our awareness. Most states have floodplain management
                                programs, and quite a few have dam safety programs. Fewer have both, and these

                                often are not housed together; my impression is that not that many states are
                                closely coordinating the two efforts. To add another factor, the emergency
                                management agency should play a role as well, and this probably is not happen-
                                ing very often. in Wisconsin, we are just starting to work on coordination

                                with our Division of Emergency Government.
                                     on the federal side, some things are starting to happen. One agency
                                (FEKA) has been given responsibility for dam safety. Since FEKA also houses
                                floodplain management and emergency preparedness, there is a potential for some
                                melding of these programs into an integrated approach. indeed, integrated
                                emergency management efforts could help us get there. Realistically, there is
                                much to be done to address the problem fully. one of our biggest difficulties
                                is identifying and mapping the hazard areas accurately so that regulations and

                                insurance ratings can be realistic and reasonable.

                                   54                                                 SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                                            Managing The Risk: The Future

                                        Here are some key steps to be taken:

                                    1)  Identify the potentially affected areas below dams.

                                        0    Assume any dam can fail and will eventually be removed.

                                        0    Perform a "dam break" analysis at a specified flood frequency.
                                             (Note: water surface elevations resulting from failure during a flood
                                             will almost always be higher than those caused by "sunny day"
                                             failures.)

                                        0    Do not neglect upstream areas. These should be regulated on the
                                             assumption of the dam not failing since this causes a higher upstream
                                             profile.

                                    2) Take  steps to limit the risk in the identified hazard areas.

                                             Hold regular inspections to encourage improved dam maintenance.

                                        0    Establish dam design standards to set an appropriate level of risk,
                                             assuming proper operation and maintenance.

                                        0    Develop emergency preparedness plans (required by FERC for licensed
                                             dams) and warning systems where appropriate.

                                        0    Require proper dam operation (set limits and criteria).

                                        0    Require proper design and Construction for new dams and for signi-
                                             ficant repairs or alterations to existing dams.

                                        0    Guide land use and development to reflect the hazard (zoning).
                                             Insurance "disincentives" would be helpful, but it is difficult to
                                             assess the risk to damage unless major simplifying assumptions (e.g.,
                                             all inadequately maintained dams will fail during the 100-year flood)
                                             are made.

                                                            Wisconsin's Current Initiative

                                        while we have not addressed all of the above program elements, the
                                   Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has recently proposed two administra-

                                   tive rules that deal with this issue.

                                     1) NR 116--Floodplain Management: Revisions to existing rule to require
                                        zoning of areas downstream from dams. If the dam can safely pass the 100-
                                        year flood, zoning will be based on the "no-dam" condition to ensure that
                                        future removal of the dam does not jeopardize downstream development. If
                                        the dam cannot safely pass the 100-year flood, zoning must be based on
                                        failure of the dam during that event.

                                     2) NR 333--Dam Design and Construction Standards: Requires identification of
                                        area affected by failure of the dam during the 100-year flood. Establish-
                                        es a hazard classification based on existing development in this area.

                                 Roden                                                                        55

                                      The higher the hazard classification, the larger the required spillway
                                      capacity. When someone wants to build a new dam or undertake "major
                                      reconstruction" of an existing dam, the rule provides the option of con-
                                      trolling downstream land use to maintain the present hazard classification
                                      or providing the greater hydraulic capacity required for a "high hazard"
                                      dam.

                                                       What Might Be Done Under the NFIP?

                                      Given the variability of dams and how well or poorly they are operated and
                                 maintained, having an actuarially-based rate structure for insurance in

                                 affected downstream areas seems out of reach. Instead, I suggest that FIA

                                 concentrate on:

                                   �  Mapping potential hazard areas during new studies or restudies using both
                                      dam break analysis and the "no dam" condition.

                                   �  Providing some kind of rate incentive for proper dam maintenance (e.g.,
                                      failure of a periodic certification by a public agency or qualified con-
                                      sultant that a dam meets acceptable standards might result in no insurance
                                      or increase the rate).

                                   �  Avoiding the creation of an incentive to build below dams by limiting
                                      recognition of the protection they offer. The approach Wisconsin is
                                      proposing may be a model.

                                   �  Alternatively, considering whether insurance for protection of downstream
                                      development might not be considered a responsibility of the dam owner (the
                                      problem here is separation of "natural flooding" damages from the added
                                      ones that may be caused by dam failure).

                                                             What Can the States Do?

                                   �  With local input, identify areas (or at least communities) at risk from
                                      dam failure and develop priorities for mapping and corrective/preventive
                                      measures.

                                   �  Ensure an adequate dam safety program that includes regular inspections
                                      plus other inspections as needed; engineering review of plans for con-
                                      struction, alteration, and major repair; the ability to prescribe methods
                                      of operation; and the ability to take necessary action to correct
                                      violations.

                                   �  Establish appropriate standards for land iise control in affected areas and
                                      assist locals to adopt and administer zoning based on them.

                                   �  Assist locals and dam owners to develop emergency action plans.

                                   �  Within capabilities and based on the level of federal assistance, conduct
                                      analyses of dams to delineate the hazard areas.

                                   �  Inform the public of the risks.

                                  56                                              SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                                              What Can Locals Do?

                                   �  Be aware of the problem. Help maintain citizen awareness.

                                   �  Plan community growth around (not in) the hazard area.

                                   �  Encourage proper dam operation and maintenance by the owners.

                                   �  Help the state identify hazard areas.

                                   �  Take the lead in hazard mitigation planning and implementation.

                                   �  Adopt and administer adequate zoning ordinances.

                                                                   References

                                 Dewberry and Davis, Inc.
                                      1982 Dam Safety Mapping Pilot Study. Prepared for the Federal Emergency
                                           Management Agency. Washington, D.C.: FEMA.

                                                           DAM SAFETY AND LAND USE
                                                                 AN IOWA CASE

                                                               Jack D. Riessen
                                              Iowa Department of Water, Air and Waste Management

                                     The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to present the facts of a
                                case in point about dam safety and downstream land regulations; and second, to
                                discuss the implications of that case on dam safety regulations not only in
                                Iowa but across the nation. This situation is somewhat unique in that it
                               .involves dam safety litigation resulting from restrictions placed on land use

                                downstream of a dam and not from actual damages sustained from-the failure of

                                the dam.

                                                              Facts of the Case

                                The Dam

                                     Yeader Creek is a small creek (10 square mile drainage area) with its
                                upper watershed located in a heavily urbanized part of Des Moines, the capital

                                city of Iowa. From the urbanized portion, Yeader Creek flows out of the city

                                limits into a relatively undeveloped part of Polk County, back into the city

                                limits briefly and into the Des Koines River a short distance thereafter.

                                     In 1965, the Polk County Conservation Board proposed the construction of a

                                dam across the lower portion of Yeader Creek to create a recreational impound-

                                ment as part of a county park. Plans called for the construction of a compact-
                                ed earth fill dam 1850 feet long and 39 feet high; a concrete chute spillway
                                with a 30-foot long sharp-crested weir; and an SAF-type stilling basin. Water
                                storage was estimated as 3,200 acre feet at normal pool and 6,200 acre feet at

                                the top of the dam. In essence, the dam proposal was for a well designed

                                structure typical of many dams in the Midwest.

                                     Since 1957, the State of Iowa has had legislation regulating dams and
                                other floodway construction. Administered by the Iowa Natural Resources
                                Council, the law required approval of the Council prior to construction. The

                                plans for the proposed dam were submitted to the Council for review in 1965.
                                In view of the low damage potential of downstream lands at the time of review,

                                the dam was assigned a low hazard potential.

                                 58                                                       SPECIAL HIGH RISK AREAS

                                      Design standards then in effect required that low hazard dams be able to
                                 safely pass a design flood resulting from a rainfall of 7.55 inches in six
                                 hours over the upstream watershed. The review showed the dam could safely pass
                                 a flood resulting from a rainfall of ten inches in six hours, thereby exceeding
                                 Council standards. All other design standards were met and the Council

                                 approved the construction of the dam. The dam was completed in 1967 and has
                                 since been well maintained and is considered structurally sound. As part of
                                 the County's Easter Lake Park, the dam became known as the Easter Lake Dam.

                                 Easter Lake Estates mobile Home Court

                                      In 1972, Ronald Woods purchased land along Yeader Creek a short distance
                                 downstream of the dam. Inquiring as to the feasibility of building a mobile
                                 home park on his land, Council staff informed Mr. Woods that approval of the
                                 Council would be necessary prior to construction. Notwithstanding, he con-

                                 structed a mobile home park in 1976 and 1977 as Easter Lake Estates, Inc. and
                                 began renting spaces for mobile homes. The mobile home court is located within
                                 the Des Moines city limits and was permitted by the city, which had no flood-
                                 plain regulations at the time.
                                 National Dam Safety Act
                                      Pursuant to the directives of the National Dam Safety Act of 1972, 33
                                 U.S.C., Sec 47 et seq. (1976), the Council, under contract with the Corps,
                                 began inventorying all nonfederal dams in Iowa. Initial investigations showed
                                 that the Easter Lake dam should be classified as a high hazard dam due to the

                                 presence of the mobile home court downstream.

                                      A more detailed investigation of all high hazard dams in 1979 showed that

                                 the Easter Lake dam would overtop during the probable maximum flood (PMF), the
                                 nearly universal design standard for high hazard dams. In fact, the dam would

                                 overtop during the occurrence of the 1/2 PMF. Floodwaters flowing over the dam
                                 would first cut off access to the mobile home court and progressively flood the

                                 mobile homes by as much as nine feet as the dam embankment eroded. Clearly,
                                 loss of life and substantial property damage could result. The dam safety

                                 report classified the dam as a "nonemergency high hazard dam" and recommended

                                 removal of the mobile home court.

                                 Agency Action Against Easter Lakes Estates
                                      Prompted by the dam safety report recommendation, the Iowa Natural
                                 Resources Council commenced proceedings against the mobile home court. Various

                                Riessen                                                                        59

                                alternatives to removal of the mobile home court were considered (e.g., modifi-
                                cation of the dam) by the Council but rejected as infeasible. The Council

                                found that the mobile home court constituted a nuisance and ordered it removed

                                within five years. Under Iowa law, the Council had specific powers to abate
                                nuisances related to floods and floodplain construction. A flood warning sys-
                                tem and other safety measures were also ordered by the Council for the interim

                                period.

                                Court Action

                                     Easter Lake Estates, Inc. appealed the Council's removal order to district
                                court, which affirmed the order, and to the Iowa Supreme Court which upheld the

                                district court's ruling Easter Lake Estates, Inc., vs. Iowa Natural Resources

                                Council, 328 N.W. 2d 906,909 (Iowa 1982).

                                     Although the removal apparently is proceeding as ordered, the mobile home
                                court has now filed suit for damages against the state, Polk County, the City

                                of Des Moines, and the assessor who determined the value of the property prior
                                to purchase. A court date has not been set at this time, but information
                                available indicates that a variety of allegations have been made, including an
                                unconstitutional "taking." The order approving the dam contained a condition

                                that the applicant, Polk County Conservation Board, obtain necessary easements
                                prior to construction, but downstream easements were not specifically required

                                by the Council.

                                     Apparently, the plaintiff feels downstream easements should have been ob-

                                tained as the presence of the dam encumbered downstream lands. Needless to
                                say, the suit raises some interesting questions and bears watching.

                                                 Implications of Easter Lake Estates vs. INRC
                                     The supreme court decision, while not addressing all relevant issues, did

                                endorse some issues that could have relevance in other states. Some of these

                                are discussed below.

                                Public Nuisance

                                     The court agreed that the danger to the mobile home occupants was suffi-

                                cient to constitute a nuisance which in turn justified the removal order even

                                though the dam was structurally sound. An earlier Iowa case, Iowa Natural
                                Resources council vs. Van Zee, 261 Iowa 1287, 158 N.W. 2d 111 (1968), estab-
                                lished that the lack of a permit in itself was not sufficient to compel removal
                                of an illegal levee. Therefore, removal was justified on the merits of the
                                nuisance finding alone. Based on this, other states may be able to take

                                  60                                                      SPECIAL HIGH RISK AREAS

                                  similar actions under a nuisance clause even if they have no state permit

                                  system.

                                  Stringent Design Standards for Dams
                                       The court substantiated the use of an extreme flood event (i.e. probable
                                  maximum flood) for dam design standards. In view of the catastrophic con-
                                  sequences inherent in a dam failure, the court found the stringent design

                                  standards to be reasonable. This, of course, contrasts to the usual 100-year

                                  flood standard used in typical floodplain delineation and regulation.
                                  Recognition of the Public Use Aspects of- -a Dam
                                       Accepting the stringent design standards as reasonable, the court then

                                  realized that either the dam and lake had to be removed or substantially modi-
                                  fied (which was not feasible) or the mobile home park had to go. Weighing the

                                  merits of both sides, the court recognized that removal of the dam would impair
                                  or affect a beneficial, public use. And the court found that the mobile home

                                  court had to go, although the illegal nature of the mobile home court was given
                                  considerable attention. The implication is that courts will recognize the

                                  public benefits provided by dams.
                                  other questions Raised by Ensuing Litigation
                                       The suit now filed against the state, Polk County, the City of Des Moines,

                                  and the assessor raises some interesting questions. Should easements auto-
                                  matically be required downstream of dams that could fail? in mapping flood-
                                  plains below dams and implementing appropriate land use restrictions, should
                                  state agencies accept conditions as they exist and ignore the broader liability
                                  questions that would result from implementing stringent land use restrictions?
                                  Are assessors responsible for recognizing the inherent safety dangers and land
                                  use restrictions below dams (or, for that matter, on any floodplain)?

                                       As this matter is in litigation and the state is a party, prudence pro-

                                  hibits a more weighty discussion of the merits of the case, but the implica-

                                  tions of a decision are evident.

                                                                     Summary

                                       In closing, let me remark that dam safety issues and programs must be an
                                  integral part of any floodplain management, flood insurance, or flood hazard
                                  mitigation program. Hardly a year goes by without a report of a dam failure.
                                  Many dams built in the 1920s and 30s or earlier are aging, were under-designed,

                                Riessen                                                                      61

                                and certainly will not last forever. We, as floodplain managers, cannot ignore
                                dam safety hoping it will go away, because, quite simply, it will continue to

                                haunt us unless we take positive steps to address it.

                                                              NATIONAL DAM SAFETY

                                                              Jay B. Scruggs, Jr.
                                                      Federal Emergency Management Agency

                                                                    Background

                                      The National Dam Inspection Act (P,.L. 92-367) was enacted in August, 1972,

                                 after a series of dam failures and near failures: the near failure of the Lower

                                 Van Normal Dam in San Fernando, California, on February 9, 1971; the failure of
                                 the Buffalo Creek, West Virginia, mine refuse embankment dam a year later; and
                                 the dam failure at Rapid City, South Dakota, in June, 1972. The law required
                                 the Corps of Engineers to compile an inventory of all'the dams in the United
                                 States and to perform safety inspections of them.

                                      Congress, however, did not fund the inspection program until late 1977
                                 after the failure of the Kelly Barnes Lake Dam in Toccoa, Georgia. The results
                                 of the program show that there are over 68,000 dams meeting the size criteria
                                 of 25 feet in height or impounding 50 acre-feet or more of water if six feet or
                                 more in height. over 95% of the dams inventoried, or about 64,000, are non-
                                 federal. of these, the Corps inspected some 8,800 high hazard dams. About
                                 one-third, or more than 2,900, were determined to be unsafe, and 131 were
                                 classified as emergency unsafe.
                                      In July, 1979, FEMA was assigned the responsibility of coordinating and
                                 promoting dam safety by Executive order 12148. FEMA's most challenging task   is

                                 to encourage the establishment and maintenance of effective nonfederal dam

                                 safety programs to reduce losses from a dam failure.

                                                                     Issues

                                      To reduce potential losses downstream of dams in the event of failures,
                                 certain tasks, similar to those undertaken by the National Flood insurance
                                 Program (NFIP), are being addressed by dam safety programs. These tasks in-
                                 clude but are not limited to the following:

                                 Hazard Identification

                                      As the NFIP produces flood hazard maps showing the affected areas of the
                                 base flo od, FEMA recommends the mapping of potential inundated areas downstream
                                 of dams to notify communities of the potential hazard and to designate areas

                                 64                                                      SPECIAL HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 requiring emergency action plans. To assist states, locals, and dam owners to
                                 perform such planning, we will be providing a method developed by Danny Fread
                                 of the National Weather Service for determining downstream flood areas as a

                                 result of a dam break. This effort will be carried out in addition to those

                                 undertaken by states that received awards from FEMA's Dam Safety Financial
                                 Assistance Program during fiscal years 183 and '84.

                                 Emergency Preparedness Planning
                                      If a dam should fail, it is important that anyone immediately downstream
                                 be notified as soon as possible so that measures can be taken to reduce the
                                 potential for loss of life resulting from the impact of the flood wave and
                                 extensive flooding. Downstream communities should have warning and notifica-

                                 tion procedures, along with plans to evacuate, available and ready to
                                 implement. Guidelines will be published this year to assist communities
                                 downstream of dams in the development of flood preparedness plans or to
                                 evaluate the effectiveness of existing plans. FEMA also will be providing,

                                 through the efforts of the Interagency Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS),
                                 guidelines for emergency action planning.
                                 Training
                                      One identified need in the nonfederal sector of dam safety is for training
                                 assistance since many states lack personnel competent to conduct inspections

                                 and other safety activities. FEKA encourages states to establish their own
                                 training program. For states with constraints on funds and staffing, a catalog
                                 of training courses available from federal agencies will be published this

                                 summer. Most agencies will allow nonfederal personnel to attend such courses
                                 on a space-available basis and, in some cases, without a fee.

                                 Public Awareness

                                      Increasing public awareness is one of FEMA's biggest efforts. Reduction
                                 of loss of life and property can be improved through such public awareness

                                 efforts as simply notifying communities of.upstream dams and the status or

                                 classification of the dams. Inundation maps and warning and evacuation plans

                                 are two means of increasing public awareness of the hazards associated with

                                 dams. Earlier this year FEMA funded the state of Colorado to develop an aware-

                                 ness program through the Dam Safety Financial Assistance Program. It is hoped
                                 that the results of this project will be transferable to other states. One of

                                 FEMA's most successful efforts has been a series of workshops conducted in

                                Scruggs                                                                      65

                                conjunction with the states to inform participants of not only the hazards but
                                also of the responsibilities and liabilities associated with dam ownership.

                                                               Risk Management

                                     The flood associated with a dam failure may well exceed the base flood
                                elevation immediately downstream of the dam and possibly farther downstream as

                                well. Yet the flood maps of communities in the NFIP do not take into account

                                dam failure. Randomly selecting 100 dams, a Dewberry and Davis study showed
                                that 219 communities in both the emergency and regular programs would be
                                affected by flooding above the 100-year flood level in the event of dam
                                failure.. The identification on flood hazard maps of the areas at risk from a
                                dam failure would be a means of reducing the potential losses of life and
                                damage to property, because such identification would facilitate sound local
                                land use management and emergency planning.

                                                                  Summary
                                    This focus on the common areas of the Dam Safety Program and the NFIP
                                demonstrates how the Integrated Emergency Management System can be beneficial.
                                Through IEMS, emergency management organizations, states, and local governments
                                can maximize their available resources to achieve overall protection of citi-
                                zens from interrelated multiple hazards.

                          i

                                                                    PART TWO

                                                         SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS:

                                                             Coastal High Hazards

                                        SEA LEVEL RISE, COASTAL EROSION, AND WETLAND LOSS IN LOUISIANA:
                                                   THE NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE POLICY STUDY

                                                                 James G. Titus
                                                        Environmental Protection Agency

                                                               James B. Edmonson
                                                 Council Staff, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana

                                                                David Campbell
                                                         National wildlife Federation

                                                             Johannes L. van Beek
                                                          Coastal Environments, Inc.

                                                              Carroll L. Cordes
                                                        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

                                                                Introductionl

                                     Since the beginning of recorded history, sea level has risen so slowly
                                that, for most practical purposes, it has been constant. This slow rate of

                                rise has allowed plants and animals to thrive along the coast, encouraging a
                                biological diversity that was not possible when sea level was rising three feet

                                per century after the last ice age. At the mouth of the Mississippi, for

                                example, it permitted the sediments delivered by the river to form a delta with

                                thousands of square miles of wetlands ranging from salt marshes to cypress

                                swamps, supporting alligators, eagles, fur-bearing animals, and one-quarter of
                                the nation's seafood harvest. Civilization has also prospered along the water.

                                Aside from temporary increases in water levels during major storms, we have had
                                little reason to be concerned about rising seas.

                                     Recently, however, the view that sea level changes are unimportant to

                                today's activities has been called into question. Tidal gauges have recorded a

                                relative rise in sea level of three feet per century along the coast of

                                Louisiana (Hicks et al., 1983), and the wetlands there are eroding at a rate of

                                40 square miles per year because society has thwarted the processes by which

                                  1The views expressed herein do not represent the official views
                                of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and wildlife
                                Service, or any other agency of the United States Government.

                                 70                                                SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 the Mississippi delta formerly kept pace with rising sea level (Gagliano et
                                 al., 1981; see also Jantzen, 1981; Baumann et al., 1984; Louisiana Coastal

                                 Commission, 1982; and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984). (Tidal gauges

                                 measure relative sea level rise, which includes land subsidence and global sea

                                 level rise.) The rate of relative sea level rise along the highly developed

                                 Atlantic Coast has been one foot per century (Hicks et al., 1983), enough to

                                 cause significant erosion along most recreational beaches (Pilkey et al., 1981;

                                 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1981; and State of

                                 Massachusetts, 1981).

                                      The expected greenhouse warming could accelerate these trends. Increasing

                                 concentrations of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous
                                 oxide are likely to raise the earth's average temperature 3-80F in the next
                                 century (Charney, 1979). Such a warming would cause ocean water to expand,
                                 mountain glaciers to melt, and, possibly, polar glaciers to disintegrate. Al-

                                 though global sea level rose only four to six inches in the last century

                                 (Gornitz et al., 1982), the National Academy of Sciences (Revelle, 1983) and
                                 the Environmental Protection Agency (Hoffman et al., 1983; Hoffman, 1984) have

                                 estimated that it will rise one and one-half to five feet in the next century.

                                      Local governments throughout the coastal zone of the United States are

                                 formulating strategies in response to erosion caused by current sea level
                                 trends.2 The decisions they make could involve controversial choices between

                                 individual and community rights. These officials view the prospect of an

                                 accelerated sea level rise as a sword that could cut either way. It may gener-

                                 ate the public awareness necessary to enact measures that would be required to
                                 address current problems; but it also could overwhelm their efforts or, if

                                 subsequently proven to be a false alarm, make their foresight look like folly.
                                 Coastal officials want to know more about sea level rise as soon as they can,

                                 but many fear that they will have to act before they know enough.

                                   2Almost every coastal state has a coastal management agency
                                 affiliated with the federal government's office of Coastal Zone
                                 Management. These agencies work with local governments such as
                                 Ocean City, Maryland; Atlantic City, New Jersey; and Terrbonne
                                 Parish, Louisiana to develop planning and engineering responses to
                                 erosion. Many of the participants are unaware of the extent to
                                 which erosion is caused by relative sea level rise, a factor that
                                 has often contributed to local decisions to use groins and other
                                 measures that are ineffective at addressing erosion caused by sea
                                 level rise.

                                 Titus/Edmonson/Campbell/van Beek/Cordes                                       71

                                     Nowhere is the need to do something about the erosion caused by relative

                                 sea level rise better established or more urgent than in coastal Louisiana.

                                 For over 6,000 years, nature has allowed the Mississippi River Delta to keep up

                                 and even expand with a rising sea (see Gagliano et al., 1981; and Gagliano,
                                 1984). Even the additional sea level rise from the greenhouse effect would
                                 not, by itself, prevent more than about half the delta from continuing to
                                 thrive. Yet human activities are pr6venting the delta from keeping pace with
                                 current sea level trends to the point that 1% of the wetlands are destroyed

                                 every year, and that rate may be accelerating.

                                     In the last twenty years, scientists have established beyond any reason-

                                 able doubt the human causes of wetland loss in Louisiana: levees, dams and
                                 reservoirs, river control activities, and canals. No one denies that these

                                 activities have played an important role in the economic development of
                                 Louisiana and the nation. But it is now time to ask: is there no way to modify
                                 these activities so that we can avoid losing one of the most important aquatic

                                 "farms" in the United States?

                                     The scientists and local governments have done their job; there is a

                                 wealth of information and the public perceives that there is a problem. But

                                 the questions remain: how much more vulnerable will New Orleans be to a hurri-

                                 cane after the wetlands have vanished? Where will America get its seafood and
                                 how many fishermen will lose their jobs? How should building codes and flood

                                 insurance provisions be modified? How would these outcomes change if the
                                 Mississippi River was diverted or if ring levees replaced river levees? Would

                                 the public prefer minor variations of the status quo or a fundamental departure

                                 from current policies if it fully understood the consequences that await us and
                                 the options by which they might be avoided? How much would the projected rise

                                 in sea level accelerate the destruction of wetlands or change the best way to

                                 address the problem?
                                     We hope that our efforts will stimulate the awareness necessary to address

                                 these issues, because time is running out. This paper addresses human causes
                                 of wetland loss in Louisiana, and proposes a policy study of the possible

                                 solutions. Coastal erosion in Louisiana is no longer an issue of interest only
                                 to scientists, engineers, and analysts. Our goal is to ensure that the public
                                 and all levels of government have the information to determine and possibly

                                 alter the fate of coastal Louisiana while there is still time to do so.

                                 72                                                SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                                        Sediment Transport and the Delta

                                      The Mississippi River Delta formed over thousands of years as sediment was

                                 deposited along the lower portion of the river, and through accumulation of

                                 organic material in the associated wetlands. The river branched out into

                                 several distributaries, each of which carried fresh water and sediment to the
                                 Gulf. As ridges (natural levees) formed along these channels, the delta would
                                 gradually advance into the sea, with low-lying marshes occupying the areas

                                 between the channels. much of the water and natural levee-building concen-

                                 trated around a single main channel, which advanced farthest into the sea.

                                 Because this process lengthened the river's course, the river would eventually

                                 divert most of its flow to a shorter route to the sea, and the process of

                                 natural levee building would repeat itself. Previous main channels include
                                 Bayou Lafourche and a route extending east from New Orleans. Today, only the
                                 Old River Control Structure at Simmesport, Louisiana prevents the main flow of

                                 the Mississippi River from switching to the Atchafalaya River.

                                      Thus, coastal Louisiana today consists of numerous thin ridges along

                                 present and former distributaries of the river, on which most development has

                                 occurred. In between are thousands of square miles of highly productive wet-
                                 lands ranging from freshwater swamps to salt marshes, on which Louisiana's $400
                                 million seafood industry and many wildlife resources depend (Davis, 1974).

                                      Although the river has always carried life-sustaining sediment to the

                                 wetlands, natural destruction of marshes has taken place as well. when the

                                 main flow changes its course, most of the sediment is diverted to the new main

                                 channel and wetlands associated with the former main channel(s) receive less

                                 sediment. As the deltaic sediments subside and sea level rises, the outer

                                 wetlands along the former main distributary revert to open water. Furthermore,
                                 because salt water from the sea is no longer held back by the river flow, it
                                 diffuses upstream and kills cypress swamps and other wetlands that cannot
                                 tolerate salt. Until people interrupted the natural cycle, occasional river
                                 flooding provided sufficient sediment for most of the delta to keep up with
                                 subsidence and sea level rise. New growth fully offset the natural loss of

                                 older delta areas.

                                      Most of us learned in school that the Mississippi Delta is thereby growing
                                 into the Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. The
                                 natural processes that created and sustained the wetlands are being thwarted by

                                 human beings, and the wetlands are now disappearing at a rate of 40-50 square

                                Titus/Edmonson/Campbell/van Beek/Cordes                                       73

                                miles per year (Gould, 1970) (see Figure 1), implying that in the next 20-25

                                years, Louisiana will lose an area equal in size to the state of Rhode Island.

                                The projected rise in sea level from the greenhouse effect will further accel-

                                erate the rate of wetland loss.

                                                            The Disappearing Delta
                                     The forces of nature once supplied the Mississippi River Delta with sedi-

                                ment in a fashion that maximized the area of marsh creation, but we have modi-

                                fied the plumbing of the Mississippi in a way that comes close to maximizing

                                the rate of marsh destruction. As sea level rises three feet per century
                                relative to the land, the sediment that once allowed wetlands to keep pace with
                                this rise is deposited off the edge of the continental shelf, because of flood

                                and river flow regulation. Salt intrusion caused by a variety of activities is

                                killing cypress swamps and some types of marshes. (By "river flow regulation,"
                                we include 1) river control structures whose primary purpose is to divert

                                water; and 2) levees that seal off minor distributaries. The latter are de-

                                signed with flood control in mind, but water diversion also occurs, a fact that

                                is sometimes overlooked.)

                                     A quick glance at a map of Louisiana tells the story about sediment supply

                                (Gould, 1970) (Figures 2 and 3). Along the main channel of the Mississippi,

                                the delta has advanced far into the Gulf. To facilitate economic development
                                and provide flood protection, the Corps of Engineers has constructed river

                                control structures and levees which have sealed off minor distributaries.

                                These flow regulation activities now confine 70% of the river flow to the main

                                channel as far downstream as the Birdfoot Delta. These structural measures

                                maintain the flow down the main channel, and by decreasing sediment deposition,

                                help maintain a deep navigation channel to the Gulf of Mexico. Although the

                                artificially maintained river banks south of Venice do not protect property
                                from floods, they have more than paid for themselves in reduced dredging
                                costs,3 disregarding their impacts on wetlands.4

                                  JFor example, see, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1984). Page 2
                                states that a proposed levee system would reduce baseline dredging
                                requirements from 54.2 to 12.7 million cubic yards per year.
                                  4The ability to estimate wetland loss associated with levees is
                                fairly new. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project, for
                                example, does not estimate the wetland loss associated with
                                sediment starvation induced by the levee system. However, Steve
                                Mathies of the New Orleans District says that a planned levee
                                extension along the Atchafalaya River will incorporate such an
                                analysis.

                                                                                                                                                                                   SSISSIPPI
                                                                                                                                                                      COURSE 4ND
                                                                                                                            AISSIS IPPI                                       S                        co
                                                          -c                                                                                                          DISIRISUTA AV SYSTEMS
                                                          x              UPLANDS
                                                                                                                                                                      C.1.1@RS 1. C..S I Al            (A
                                                          LU                                                                 LOUISIANA                                 MARSHLANUS                      CO    -0.
                                                                                                              14.
                                                                                                              11.                                               oo* GULF SOT
                                                                 0                                                                                                            TOM GON70UR@
                                                                 0                                                                                                                                     V     3.

                                                                                                                                  ...     ....        ....

                                                                                  ...................
                                                                                       ......                                                                   ......
                                                                                              ..........
                                                                                  IE TERRAC                                                             NEW                                                     lcb-.4
                                                                         -IRIE                                          SIX
                                                                                                                                         i -,lob
                                                                                                                          1,                          RLEAN
                                                                       ..........
                                                                                        .............
                                                                                         ...........        X.
                                                                         41ER
                                                                                         L    I

                                                                 N
                                                    0
                                                                                                    MAR       H IS.                                                                                          2
                                                                                                                                                                                    0
                                                                 .LES
                                                                                                                                                                                                             60
                                                                    IT,

                                                                    CONTINENTAL SHELF

                                                                    120'

                                                                    @40.

                                                                                                                                           ......... ..........
                                                                                                                                                                                          0+
                                                                            60-0,                                               ......

                                                                                                                      ..2 00
                                                                                                                          4
                                                                                                                                    C6NTINEN`TAL

                                                                                                                            Figure 1

                                                                                                          The MiSSissippi River Delta

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ACTIVE DELTA 1956

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              -4
                                                                                                                                                                       , f             A

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 i.                                 j:,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .. ... .... ...

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        . . . . .. . . . . . .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          -IZX              7 .                                                             Z
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    2;1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            'Irv
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                M

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       /X

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Figure 2
                                                                                                                                                                                                            X.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Legend
                                                                                                                                                                                                   Scale                                                                                                                                         Symbol                                                                   Habitat Type
                                                                                                                                        2.5                                 0                    2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Marsh
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Forested Wetland
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              13                                                                                Upland
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Miles                                                                                                                                                   El                                                                                Dredge Deposit

                                                                                                                         ;OURCE: U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE                                                                                                                                                                                               NATIONAL COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS TEAM

                                                 ACTIVE DELTA 1978

                                                                             W

                                                   .2A

                                       TP,

                                                   A

                                                               Figure 3
                                                                         Legend
                                           Scale                   Symbol      Habitat Type
                                                                     El            Marsh
                                 2.5   0   2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0                        Forested Wetland
                                   LAEAEL-@                                        Upland
                                            Miles                                  Dredge Deposit

                            SOURCE: U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE NATIONAL COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS TEAM

                                 Titus/Edmonson/Campbell/van Beek/Cordes                                      77

                                      Without river flow regulation, the Atchafalaya River would capture an

                                 increasing volume of the flow of the Mississippi and cause more wetlands growth

                                 around its mouth. The many smaller bayous that have been sealed off by levees

                                 would also carry water and sediment; wetland losses from sediment deprivation

                                 and salt intrusion would be much less. it is easy to understand why marsh
                                 creation would have been greater. Along most of the coast where sediment would

                                 normally be deposited, the Gulf is less than 20 feet deep, while it is over 400

                                 feet deep outside the continental shelf where the sediment is now being de-

                                 posited. Because the water is over twenty times as deep at the end of Birdfoot
                                 Delta, additional marsh creation requires over 20 times as much sediment.

                                 Thus, flow regulation has caused the delta-building process to be less than
                                 one-twentieth as efficient at creating marshland as it used to be.5

                                      Besides sealing off minor distributaries, levees also contribute to wet-
                                 lands loss by preventing them from flooding. Much of the sediment that would

                                 normally allow marshes to keep pace with relative sea level rise was supplied
                                 by annual flooding of the river. By preventing the.river from overflowing its

                                 banks, the levees keep life-sustaining sediment, freshwater, and nutrients from

                                 reaching adjacent wetlands.

                                      A final cause of wetland destruction concerns saltwater intrusion. Both

                                 natural and artificial canals for navigation within the wetlands permit salt-

                                 water to reach brackish and freshwater environments. Cypress trees and other

                                 vegetation frequently die, and the wetlands convert to open water. Flow regu-

                                 lation increases freshwater for some areas and decreases it for others, allow-

                                 ing saltwater to intrude farther into such areas as distributaries that have

                                 been sealed off and the mouth of the Atchafalaya River. By slowing the flow

                                 rate, sea level rise allows salt water to intrude farther inland everywhere.
                                                    Implications 2f the Greenhouse Effect
                                      A rise in sea level from the greenhouse effect would accelerate the loss

                                 of wetlands that Louisiana is experiencing today. Marsh drowning and saltwater
                                 intrusion both would increase. The time required for Terrebonne Parish to

                                  @3This assertion is a result of elementary geometry. If the
                                 water is twenty times as deep, it takes twenty times as much
                                 sediment to reclaim land from the sea.

                                  78                                                SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                  convert to open water, for example, would be reduced.from 100 to 60-75 years,
                                  if no action is taken.6 The local government there has developed a 25-year
                                  construction plan to help restore natural processes and curtail wetland loss.

                                  Given the long lead time necessary for gaining a public consensus on the public

                                  works that may have to be built or modified, decisions that local officials

                                  might like to delay until 2020 will probably be necessary within the next ten

                                  years.

                                      one of the most important problems concerning the greenhouse effect is our
                                  inability to forecast future sea level rise accurately. Although much of the
                                  nation has the luxury of being able to wait 20 years until better forecasts are
                                  available, Louisiana does not. Thus it is very likely that we will have to
                                  develop a wetland protection strategy that addresses the possibility of a
                                  .greenhouse" rise in sea level before we know what its magnitude will actually

                                  be.

                                      Nevertheless, the sooner we have better forecasts of sea level rise, the

                                  sooner Louisiana will be able to develop strategies that address an accurate
                                  understanding of what lies ahead. Several federal agencies fund research
                                  concerning the greenhouse effect and sea level rise, including the Department
                                  of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of
                                  Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space
                                  Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
                                  Although the outcomes of decisions involving billions of dollars in Louisiana
                                  alone will depend on whether we can accurately anticipate future sea level
                                  rise, the federal government only spends about $100,000 per year developing
                                  better forecasts. Recognizing the need for better information, Terrebonne

                                  Parish recently became the first local government in the nation to call for

                                  increased federal efforts to forecast sea level rise (Terrebonne Parish

                                  Council, 1984).

                                    6This is a conservative estimate. Given current trends of
                                  relative sea level rise (3 feet per century), Terrebonne could
                                  completely erode in 100 years. EPA's "low" scenario implies that
                                  sea level will rise 0.8 feet by 2050, by which time subsidence
                                  should be 2.2 feet for a relative rise of 3 feet by 2050. EPA's
                                  "mid-range high" scenario implies a rise in relative sea level of
                                  3 feet by 2040. Thus, the greenhouse warming could accelerate the
                                  occurrence of a 3-foot rise from 2080 at current trends to between
                                  2040-2050. We further note that EPA's "high" scenario would imply
                                  a relative rise of 3 feet by 2025, but that scenario is extremely
                                  unlikely.

                                 Titus/Edmonson/Campbell/van Beek/Cordes                                        79

                                                                Saving the Land

                                      The most fundamental threat to any government is the possibility that its
                                 land will be taken away. in response to current trends, local governments and

                                 the state of Louisiana have initiated a level of effort unprecedented in the

                                 history of environmental protection. The Louisiana Legislature created a $35

                                 million Coastal Protection Trust Fund to research, develop, and demonstrate
                                 methods to slow coastal erosion. Local governments have also appropriated

                                 millions of dollars, and have been joined by private landowners such as Texaco
                                 and Tenneco LaTerre. Terrebonne Parish has initiated a public awareness cam-
                                 paign that includes billboards, pamphlets, slide slows, and its secondary
                                 school curriculum (Edmonson and Jones, 1984).

                                      The federal government, however, has played a much smaller role in trying
                                 to develop a solution to the problem of relative sea level rise and land loss

                                 in Louisiana. This is unfortunate because a wide variety of federal activities

                                 are inextricably intertwined with both the problem and any possible solution.

                                 The Corps of Engineers is involved with river control, levee construction,
                                 freshwater diversion, dredging, and coastal land loss studies. The Federal
                                 Emergency Management Agency operates the National Flood Insurance Program,

                                 which already pays more flood claims to two parishes in Louisiana than anywhere

                                 else. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and

                                 the National Park Service all have vital mandates to maintain the important

                                 ecosystems of coastal Louisiana, which has one-half the nation's coastal wet-

                                 lands and produces one-quarter of the nation's seafood harvest.

                                     The history of environmental protection in the United States suggests that

                                 although the state and local efforts are a start, they will not be sufficient

                                 without significant intergovernmental cooperation and a federal mandate to

                                 correct the problem. Solutions to environmental problems, even when economic-
                                 ally justified, are almost always too controversial and involve too many juris-

                                 dictions outside of local control for a state government to implement on its

                                 own. This is even more the case in Louisiana, where federal policies involving
                                 navigation and flood mitigation are largely the root of the problem. Only the

                                 federal government can undertake the basic research or the reevaluation of its
                                 own practices that will be necessary to adequately address coastal erosion and

                                 wetland loss in Louisiana.

                                     The major reason for optimism is that the river carries enough sediment to
                                 sustain a large portion of the wetlands. our challenge is to devise a strategy

                                 so                                                 SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 that can take advantage of the forces of nature, without sacrificing the tre-

                                 mendous economic infrastructure that was unfortunately developed without an

                                 understanding of the consequences of subsidence and rising seas. Terrebonne

                                 Parish has developed such a plan but requires more accurate forecasts of sea

                                 level rise and the actions of other government agencies before final budget

                                 estimates can be solidified.

                                      We cannot rule out the possibility that coastal Louisiana must eventually
                                 choose between becoming like Holland or like Venice. (Already people discuss
                                 the possibility of a large dike along the marsh to harness the productive
                                 estuary; the possibility of several island cities in the Gulf of Mexico would

                                 not be altogether inconceivable for a culture that relied on water transporta-

                                 tion for centuries.) If we allow events to overtake us, and merely respond to

                                 erosion as it occurs, these will be our only options. Only if we reexamine the

                                 activities that are causing land loss, only if we -plan today, is there even the

                                 most remote chance that coastal Louisiana will remain the growing delta that it

                                 has been since-the beginning of recorded history.

                                                   A Proposed Study of Solutions to Land Loss

                                      Many government activities would benefit from a comprehensive study of the
                                 impacts and responses to relative sea level rise in coastal Louisiana. Such a

                                 study'could provide a clearer understanding of the implications of what is
                                 known, and thereby suggest which coastal protection, wetland management, and

                                 hazard mitigation options warrant additional consideration. our objectives

                                 include the following:

                                  1)  Provide the state of Louisiana with an independent overview of the costs
                                      and benefits from each of the wide variety of policy options at its
                                      disposal.

                                  2)  Provide participating parishes with an assessment of the impacts of wet-
                                      land protection alternatives on their environment, and identify the inter-
                                      relationships between the actions of particular parishes.

                                  3)  Provide Terrebonne Parish with data, analysis, and recommendations on
                                      optimizing the trade-off between flood protection and the vitality of its
                                      wetlands.

                                  4)  Provide EPA's office of Policy Analysis with estimates of the environ-
                                      mental benefits of planning for sea level rise in Louisiana, and the value
                                      of better forecasts of sea level rise.

                               TERREBONNE P.4RISH H48IT4TS.1955

                     Orish Line

                                        Z.4

                                     j'j
                                    fro.
                                 iRKK
                                       g    R
                                       ME

                     %                                    ... ..

                      -Mile Lirni
                              t                            Parish
                                                                 in,

                                           ............................
                                    PIgure 4
                                   L EGElyo
                           00evelOPed
                          �r@f' A 9 r i c Ulture INForest
                          Oswamp          QlFresh Marsh
                                          ONOn-Fresh Marsh

                                             JERREBONNE PARISH HABITATS-1978

                                  Parish    Line

                                                                         N
                                                                            .0
                                                              --gg.M

                                                                                                                 ........   . . . . . . .

                                                                                            ............

                                                                                                                       Parish Line-

                                       3-Mile Limit

                                                                     %
                                                                        ................................................
                                                                             Figure 5

                                                                             LEGEND

                                                           IDDeveloped                    MFresh marsh
                                                           ElAgriculture                  0 Intermediate Marsh
                                                          E3Swamp                         OBrackish Marsh
                                                              Forest                          saiine marsh

                                   Titus/Edmonson/Campbell/van Beek/Cordes                                             83

                                   5)  Provide the Federal insurance Administration and other offices within the
                                       Federal Emergency Management Agency with estimates of future flood
                                       damages, insurance premiums and payments, and federal disaster assistance
                                       under alternative wetland protection policies. Determine how frequently
                                       the insurance rate maps must be redrawn. Develop data necessary to assess
                                       whether rates should reflect the average risk over the life of a property,
                                       or current risk only.

                                   6)  Provide the Army Corps of Engineers with estimates of wetland impacts of
                                       alternative strategies of flood control, river control, and channelization
                                       under various sea level rise scenarios, and the impact of wetland protec-
                                       tion strategies on the Corps' navigation, dredging, levee, and EIS activi-
                                       ties.

                                   7)  Provide EPA's Office of Federal Activities and Region VI with estimates of
                                       the wetland loss that will result under alternative policies for various
                                       sea level rise scenarios.

                                   8)  Provide EPA's Office of Drinking Water with estimates of water quality for
                                       alternative policies.

                                   9)  Provide the Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service and the
                                       National Park Service with useful information for management of wetlands
                                       under their control and for compliance with Coordination Act requirements.
                                       Provide the Mineral management Service with projections of the value to
                                       coastal parishes of making offshore sand more readily available.

                                   10) Provide legislators and people who allocate research budgets with esti-
                                       mates of the value of improving forecasts of future sea level rise and the
                                       resulting impacts.

                                   11) Provide the research community with a ranking of research priorities.

                                   12) Provide the citizens of Louisiana with an easily read document that ex-
                                       plains the choices facing the state.

                                       Research has been completed that sheds light on these issues, and this
                                   information could be used to project the impacts of additional sea level rise,
                                   from the greenhouse effect. A wide variety of solutions has also been pro-

                                   posed. But the various pieces of the puzzle must be put together in a form
                                   appropriate for de.ci.sion making.
                                       Table 1 outlines the proposed study. The study should begin by projecting
                                   shoreline change expected under current management practices for current trends
                                   and two global sea level rise scenarios. It would rely on existing mapping
                                   studies, estimates of sediment transport, wetland drowning, and salt intru-

                                   sion.

                                       Next, a panel of leading coastal hydrologists, geologists, and engineers
                                   would specify a wide variety of technically feasible methods to slow or halt

                                 84                                                SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 net wetland loss. The possibility of the virtual destruction of coastal

                                 Louisiana as we know it is so real and so severe that drastic measures should

                                 not be ruled out in a comprehensive policy study merely because they appear
                                 politically infeasible today. Thus, the proposed study should cast as wide a
                                 net as possible in considering options, including

                                   0  Do nothing to stop erosion immediately, but build a large levee past which
                                      it could not proceed;

                                   0  Alternative river diversion and rediversion;

                                   o  More dredging in lieu of levees and jetties at South Pass and Southwest
                                      Pass;

                                   9  Alternative flood protection/levee strategies, including supplementing
                                      river levees with ring levees in well developed areas;

                                   0  Stopgap measures such as barrier island restoration, dune building, marsh
                                      building, and minor water diversions that prevent saltwater intrusion.

                                      The costs and impacts of each of the proposed options would then be

                                 assessed. Flood damages would play an important part; river diversion, ring

                                 levee construction, and river levee destruction could all substantially change

                                 the flood damages in lightly developed areas. But the wetland destruction that
                                 would otherwise occur may leave New Orleans and other highly developed areas
                                 ripe for a hurricane disaster that would be much worse. Allowing the river to

                                 flow out of more distributaries would increase the Corps of Engineers' dredging
                                 requirements but might save costs for subsequent water diversion and hurricane

                                 protection projects.

                                      we have no illusions about the level and quality of resources that must be
                                 invested to solve the coastal erosion problem in Louisiana. A comprehensive
                                 policy study is a small but necessary step in addressing a problem that will be
                                 with us for decades. The impacts of relative sea level rise are so diverse
                                 that no one government agency can be reasonably expected to address the entire
                                 problem. But all of these impacts must be laid out and estimated in a single

                                 document. The importance of Louisiana's wetlands demands nothing less than a

                                 clear picture of where we intend to go and how we intend to get there.

                                   Titus/Edmonson/Campbell/van Beek/Cordes                                             85

                                                                          Table .1
                                                                       STUDY OUTLINE

                                   I.    Use existing data to project shoreline changes under current levee,
                                         dredging, and water regulation policies, assuming current sea level trends
                                         (3 feet by 2085), a 5-foot rise, and a 7-foot rise by 2085.

                                   II.   Panel Specifies Alternative Coastal Management Options

                                         A. Current policies
                                         B. Atchafalaya natural diversion
                                         C. Atchafalaya delta management
                                         D. Diversion into former or new distributaries
                                         E. Sediment supplementation via jet-spray or hydraulic dredging
                                         F. Supplement or replace river levees with ring levees around major
                                            population centers
                                         G. Barrier island restoration
                                         H. Large hurricane protection levee along the Gulf Coast and wetland
                                            management inland of that levee
                                         I. Combinations

                                   III.  Estimate the impact on shoreline location and wetland acreage by type, for
                                         each of the management alternatives, using available research.

                                         A. Impacts for alternative implementation dates
                                         B. Saltwater intrusion along main channel of the Mississippi River and
                                            elsewhere.
                                         C. Flood risks to life and property from river and hurricane protection.
                                         D. Impacts on seafood production, loss of land, pelt production, highway
                                            maintenance, unemployment, other.
                                         E. Calculate the value of better forecasts of sea level rise.

                                   IV. Design a study plan to provide better estimates or reference existing
                                         studies under the Louisiana Coastal Protection Trust Fund that would help
                                         secure better understanding of the impacts.

                                     86                                                         SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                                                             References

                                     Baumann, R. H., J. W. Day and C. A. Miller
                                           1984  "Mississippi Deltaic Wetland Survival: Sedimentation Versus Coastal
                                                 Submergence." Science 224: 1093-4.

                                     Boesch, D. F., ed.
                                           1982  Proceedings of the Conference on Coastal Erosion and Wetland
                                                 modification in Louisiana: Causes, Consequences and options.
                                                 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and wildlife Service. Biological
                                                 Services Program. Available from Information Transfer Specialist,
                                                 National Coastal Ecosystems Team, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
                                                 1010 Gause Blvd., Slidell, Louisiana 70458.

                                     Charney, J., Chair
                                           1979  Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. Report of the
                                                 Climate Research Board. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

                                     Davis, D.   W.
                                           1984  "Economic and Cultural Consequences of Land Loss in Terrebonne
                                                 Parish." Terrebonne Magazine. Houma: Houma-Terrebonne Chamber of
                                                 Commerce.

                                     Edmonson,   J. B. and R. S@ Jones
                                           1984  Terrebonne Parish Barrier Island and Marsh Management@ Program,
                                                 Executive Summary. Houma: Terrebonne Parish Government.

                                     Gagliano,   S. M., K. J. Meyer Arendt, and K. M. wicker
                                           1981  "Land Loss in the Mississippi Deltaic Plain." Transactions of the
                                                 31st Annual Meeting of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological
                                                 Societies: 293-300.

                                     Gagliano,   S. M.
                                           1984  "Comments." In M. C. Barth and J. G. Titus, eds., Greenhouse Effect
                                                 and Sea Level Rise: A Challenge for This Generation. New York: Van
                                                 Nostrand Reinhold.

                                     Gornitz, V., S. Lebedeff and J. Hansen
                                           1982  "Global Sea Level Trend in the Past Century." Science 215; 1611-
                                                 1614.

                                     Gould, H.   R.
                                           1970  "The Mississippi Delta Complex." In J. P. Morgan, ed., Deltaic
                                                 Sedimentation Modern and Ancient. Soc., Econ., Paleontol., Minerol.
                                                 Special Publication 15.

                                     Hicks, S.   D., H. A. Debaugh and L. E. Hickman
                                           1983  Sea Level Variations for the United States 1855-1980. Rockville,
                                                 Maryland: National Ocean Service, U.S. Department of Commerce.

                                     Hoffman, J. S.
                                           1984 "Estimates of Future Sea Level Rise." In M. C. Barth and J. G.
                                                 Titus, edB., Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: A Challenge for
                                                 This Generation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

                                Titus/Edmonson/Campbell/van Beek/Cordes                                       87

                                Hoffman, J. S., D. Keyes, and J. Titus
                                     1983 Projecting Future Sea Level Rise. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
                                           Printing office.

                                Jantzen, R. A.
                                     1981  "Statement Before the House Committee on Merchant Marine and
                                           Fisheries, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and
                                           the Environment Concerning Wetland Losses." November 20, 1981,
                                           Washington, D.C.

                                Louisiana Coastal Commission
                                     1982 Coastal Protection Task Force Report to Governor David C. Treen,
                                           @t al. Baton Rouge: Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.

                                State of Massachusetts
                                     1981 Barrier Beaches: A Few questions Answered. Concord: The State.

                                New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
                                     1981 New Jersey Shore Protection Plan. Trenton: Division of Coastal
                                           Resources.

                                Pilkey, 0., J. Howard, B. Brenninkmeyer, R. Frey, A. Hine, J. Kraft, R. Morton,
                                D. Nummendal and H. Wanless
                                     1981 Saving the American Beach: A Position Paper by Concerned Coastal
                                           Geologists. Savannah: Skidaway

                                Revelle, R.
                                     1983 "Probable Future Changes in Sea Level Resulting from Increased Carbon
                                           Dioxide." In Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, Changing Climate.
                                           Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

                                Terrebonne Parish Council
                                     1984 "Terrebonne Parish Council Becomes First Local Government to Address
                                           Greenhouse Effect, Rising Seas." Press release. Houma: The Council.

                                U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                                     1984 "Notice of Study Findings: @ouisiana Coastal Area, Louisiana, Land
                                           Loss and Marsh Creation," New Orleans: New Orleans District.

                                                      THE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT:
                                                               PRESENT STUDIES

                                                            Albert G. Greene, Jr.
                                                    Division of Special Service Projects
                                                            National Park Service
                                                         U.S. Department of Interior

                                    Coastal studies are presently being conducted by the U.S. Department of
                               the Interior to meet the requirements of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

                               which specifies the submission of a report to Congress in October 1985. The

                               first important legislation that formed the basis of our present approach was
                               the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (ORBA), passed in August 1981.
                               This Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study within one

                               year that would result in proposed designations of undeveloped coastal
                               barriers. As a result of this Act's passage, the Secretary established a
                               Coastal Barriers Task Force--an interdepartmental group of people who had
                               expertise in coastal matters. This group had representatives from the U.S.
                               Fish and wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological
                               Survey, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Solicitor's office of the
                               Department, the Congressional Liaison office, among others. on August 16,
                               1982, the Secretary submitted a report to Congress recommending designation of
                               188 units as undeveloped coastal barriers, which included approximately 750
                               miles of the 2,700 miles of the Atlantic ocean and Gulf of Mexico coasts. The
                               principal effect of such designation was that, effective October, 1983, new

                               development on these units was not eligible for federal flood insurance. In
                               addition, the Secretary recommended that the Act be amended to include barriers

                               that were designated as "otherwise protected."

                                    On October 18, 1982, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CRBA) was signed
                               into law as P.L. 97-348. This Act superseded the ORBA provisions concerning
                               coastal barriers; it established and identified a 186-unit undeveloped Coastal

                               Barrier Resources System along the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico coasts.
                               The units included were basically those recommended by the Task Force. Effec-
                               tive on October 18, 1982, the areas designated became ineligible for most kinds

                               of federal assistance for such things as building bridges to the barriers,

                                  90                                                SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                  sewage treatment plants, and roads; the federal flood insurance prohibitions

                                  were delayed until October 1983. In recognition of certain overriding national
                                  interests, the Act includes some areas excepted from ineligibility, such as
                                  defense, channel maintenance, highway maintenance, energy development, and

                                  research.

                                       Included in the requirements of CRBA is the preparation of a report to
                                  Congress with "recommendations for the conservation of the fish, wildlife, and

                                  other natural resources of the System based on an evaluation and comparison of
                                  all management alternatives and combinations thereof," and "recommendations for
                                  additions to, and deletions from," the System. This study provision reflects

                                  the concern that the removal of federal financial assistance alone may not be

                                  adequate, in and of itself, to protect the identified System units. This
                                  report is currently being prepared by the Coastal Barriers Study Group, a group
                                  similar to the Coastal Barriers Task Force, with major field work conducted by
                                  four NPS field representatives. Regarding recommendations for additions to or
                                  deletions from the System, three bureaus within the Department of the Interior
                                  --the National Park service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Geological

                                  Survey--are working together to identify potential sites at these locations:

                                   1)  On the Atlantic ocean and Gulf of Mexico coasts: protected areas, and
                                       areas that may be additions to or deletions from the Coastal Barrier
                                       Resources System; and

                                   2)  On the Great Lakes, the Pacific Ocean coasts, and the
                                       U.S. Trust Territorial areas: additional coastal barriers.

                                       We have almost completed the accumulation of data for identifying addi-
                                  tional undeveloped coastal barrier areas, and have tentatively identified on
                                  U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangles areas in California, Oregon,
                                  Washington, the Great Lakes, and the Caribbean. Aerial photography flights

                                  have been completed for most of the areas. The Trust Territories and Alaska

                                  remain to be studied, but only existing mapping and aerial photography will be
                                  considered as preliminary data indicate that an adequate job of identification
                                  can be done using this information.

                                       The other part of this task--that of identifying the "otherwise protected

                                  areas' (local, state, and federal parks; federal and state wildlife areas;
                                  private conservation organizations' lands)--has just about been completed for

                                  the Atlantic ocean and Gulf of Mexico coasts. The affected states have been

                                  Greene                                                                             91

                                  working with the Fish and wildlife Service and the National Park Service to

                                  identify all protected areas by providing maps and documentation of the levels
                                  of protection. This exercise may lead to a recommendation that CBRA be amended

                                  to include these areas. It is the Study Group's position that these areas
                                  should be included within CRBA's protection as the exemptions under Section 6
                                  of the Act allow continued federal assistance for protected areas as long as

                                  conservation and recreation are the management objectives. Inclusion of these

                                  areas within the System under the Act would prevent federal assistance only
                                  should the status of such areas change in the future to allow development.

                                  This amendment, if accepted by the Secretary, recommended to and passed by the
                                  Congress, would greatly enlarge the size of the present System and would in-

                                  crease the consistency of federal policy on coastal barriers. A similar study

                                  for the  other coasts will also be completed.

                                       we  are examining proposals from state governments and other interested

                                  parties  for additions to and deletions from the Coastal Barrier Resources

                                  System.  One option we are considering is recommending that the definition of a

                                  coastal  barrier in the Act be changed to include areas of consolidated sediment
                                  in high  energy areas like the Florida Keys, larger bays like the Chesapeake,
                                  and important biological habitats in intertidal zones that do not have a land-

                                  ward aquatic habitat. Other considerations involve the possibility of re-
                                  defining the "level of development," enlarging units based on state requests,

                                  and adding developed areas destroyed by storms or hurricanes. in line with the

                                  Act's mandate, we are cooperating with state and local governments and the
                                  private sector in defining criteria for any modifications to the existing

                                  criteria.

                                       In directing us to consider additional management alternatives that foster
                                  conservation of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, Congress has provided us

                                  with the very exciting possibility that a wise federal policy could lead to
                                  further protection without further federal involvement! In response to this

                                  challenge the Study Group has focused on two major categories of governmental
                                  actions, in addition to financial assistance, that affect the coast: tax policy
                                  and permits/zoning. These issues are being analyzed at the state and local as

                                  well as the federal level.

                                       .The study process itself has been broken down into a series of components.
                                  The majority of state and local alternatives are being reviewed by the four NPS
                                  field representatives appointed by the Director specifically for this purpose.

                                 92                                                 SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 They are responsible for assessing all state and local issues except the impact
                                 of tax policy as a possible management alternative. Federal alternatives are
                                 being considered by the Study Group in WASO, and include federal tax policy and

                                 the impact of federal permits on coastal barrier conservation.

                                      To be more specific, the four NpS field representatives are collecting

                                 data on the current use and management of coastal resources on the Atlantic and

                                 Gulf coasts in order to 1) identify and evaluate resource management issues; 2)

                                 compare and evaluate existing state and local laws, regulations, and/or other

                                 mechanisms that encourage, facilitate, or adversely affect protection of  the
                                 coastal barriers; and 3) review and assess the impacts and opportunities  for
                                 private sector conservation initiatives, such as private land trusts and  dona-

                                 tions. The assessment of the feasibility of new management alternatives   will
                                 be a part of the effort of both this group and the Study Group in WASO.   These

                                 alternatives will include surplus property land exchanges and mechanisms  for
                                 institutional cooperation (regional coastal commissions).

                                      The Secretary will submit a report to Congress in October 1985 with  the
                                 study's findings and recommendations. There are still many opportunities for
                                 the state and local governments, conservation groups, private citizens, scien-
                                 tific groups, and all others to submit their ideas and recommendations to the

                                 Department. We are trying to keep everyone informed through the Federal

                                 Register and other means. Remember, this is a cooperative effort.

                                               LONG RANGE MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR BARRIER ISLANDS

                                                             Rutherford H. Platt
                                                            Professor of Geography
                                                         University of Massachusetts

                                                                 introduction

                                     Like the Gaul of Julius Caesar, coastal barriers may be divided into three
                                parts. The total extent of U.S. coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf
                                shorelines is estimated to be approximately 1,685 miles in length with a land
                                area of about 1.6 million acres (Table 1). For present purposes we may class-

                                ify this total resource into subgroups according to the state of development
                                and legal status. The first subgroup includes coastal barriers protected

                                through public ownership or as holdings of the Nature Conservancy or other

                                conservation organizations. This subgroup accounts for about 36% of the total

                                barrier shoreline and slightly more than half of the total acreage. The second

                                subgroup includes barriers that are undeveloped but not owned by a public or

                                conservation organization. This subgroup is now synonymous with the "coastal
                                barrier resource system" (CBRS) as established under the Coastal Barrier

                                Resources Act of 1982. It comprises about 24% of the total barrier shorelines

                                and 29% of its acreage. These barriers are "protected" to the extent that

                                federal flood insurance and grants for such development infrastructure as

                                roads, bridges, and erosion protection are precluded under the 1982 Act.
                                     Barriers not included in the preceding subgroups are assigned to a third

                                category most crucial for management purposes, namely "developed and unpro-
                                tected." This subgroup accounts for about 40% of total shoreline length (1,058
                                miles) but only 17% of barrier acreage. This subgroup was the subject of the
                                Conference on Managing Developed Coastal Barriers held in Virginia Beach,

                                January 15-18, 1985. Since the other subgroups of barriers enjoy one or

                                another form of protection, the developed and unprotected barriers clearly pose

                                the most significant long-term management problems.

                                   94                                                    SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                                                         Table 1

                                          Geographical Extent of Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Barrier Features

                                                                   Shore Length (in miles)
                                                                                     148 Major
                                                                All Barriers      Barrier Islands
                                                                                                     Land Area (in acres)
                                                                Miles  Percent     Miles  Percent      Acres      Percent

                                    Total                       2,685              1,610              1,645,000

                                    Undeveloped                   644     24.0       334     20.7      480,000     29.0

                                    otherwise protected           954     36.0       624     38.7      885,000     53.7

                                    Developed/unprotected       1,050     40.0       549     34.0      280,000     17.0

                                                                                            (Ringold and Clark, 1980)

                                                                                            (Godschalk, 1984)

                                                Geographic Variation Among Developed Coastal Barriers
                                        Management options for developed coastal barriers must reflect extreme
                                   geographic diversity that exists among their features. A paper for the
                                   Virginia Beach Conference classified coastal barriers according to various

                                   parameters: e.g., population size and density, date of settlement, economic
                                   function, land values, and political structure. For present purposes we may

                                   simply note that developed barriers range from full-scale "cities on the beach"
                                   (e.g., Miami Beach, Florida; Galveston, Texasl Atlantic City, New Jersey) to

                                   resort communities experiencing rapid and high density growth (e.g., Ocean
                                   City, Maryland; Clearwater, Florida) to more isolated resort communities with
                                   carefully planned land use patterns (Hilton Head, South Carolina; Captiva
                                   island, Florida) to miscellaneous barriers having a mixture of developed and

                                   undeveloped areas (e.g., Topsail Beach, North Carolina; Amelia Island,

                                   Florida).

                                        Developed barriers may also be distinguished according to the status of

                                   planning control. Jekyll Island, Georgia, is owned and totally planned by the
                                   State of Georgia. some barriers are divided among multiple jurisdictions, both

                                Platt                                                                         95

                                municipal and county, while others are within a single political unit of local

                                government. Some are governed by municipalities that are limited to the

                                barriers such as Galveston, while others are part of much larger urban govern-
                                ments such as Rockaway Beach in New York City. Counties govern unincorporated

                                areas. These and other factors complicate the problem of recommending long-term

                                management policies for developed coastal barriers.

                                     Assembly of appropriate data would facilitate the preparation of long-term
                                management plans for barriers by states and their subunits of authority. Such

                                plans should embrace at least the following elements of public policy concern:

                                  �  Ultimate population/development levels;

                                  �  Infilling policy;

                                  �  Erosion;

                                  �  Emergency warning and evacuation;

                                  �  Water supply;

                                  �  Wastewater management;

                                  �  Public open space and beach access;

                                  �  Cultural and historic preservation; and

                                  �  Natural area preservation.

                                     Inevitably, federal policies and programs influence the realization of

                                planning goals set forth above. The "federal consistence" provision of the

                                Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 may be operative to the extent that long-
                                term barrier management plans are incorporated into overall state CZR plans.
                                But several specific areas of federal influence should be targeted for parti-

                                cular attention.

                                                     Federal Subsidies for Infrastructure

                                     Distinction between developed and undeveloped barriers in many places is
                                arbitrary. The Department of Interior had to make many judgment calls in
                                drawing boundaries around units designated for the Coastal Barrier Resource
                                System (CRBS). The areas omitted from the system for political or planning
                                reasons nevertheless are substantially undeveloped at this time but remain
                                eligible for federal infrastructure assistance on flood insurance. it makes
                                little sense to deny federal incentives for development in one part of a

                                   96                                                   SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                  .barrier while allowing other areas, nominally outside the CBRS, to develop even
                                   more intensely to meet the existing demand. Indeed, the arguments made on

                                   behalf of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act largely recited conditions of
                                   overcrowding, hurricane hazard, and other problems afflicting developed

                                   barriers. It would undermine the intent of Congress if federal aid to areas

                                   outside the CBRS induced additional development and intensified these

                                   problems.

                                        Accordingly, a distinction must be made for developed barriers, between
                                   federal aid that simply replaces and updates infrastructures serving existing

                                   development and aid that facilitates expansion of development into new areas or

                                   to a higher level of density. The latter would be inconsistent with the spirit

                                   if not the letter of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.

                                        I am suggesting that, for purposes of federal assistance, each developed
                                   coastal barrier should be viewed as subject to a "growth cap" at its present
                                   level of development. Minor infilling, of course, may occur, if it can be

                                   accommodated by existing infrastructure. But where federal assistance would

                                   significantly expand population and investment risk, it should be curtailed.
                                   This is presumably the intent of Executive Order No. 11988 regarding federal

                                   investment-in flood hazardareas. This does not mean that further development

                                   may not occur; it means that state, local, and private sources will have to

                                   foot the bill for expansion of necessary services.

                                   Flood Insurance

                                        In a study of six coastal and barrier communities, the General Accounting
                                   office (1982) found that new development was occurring in the Coastal High

                                   Hazard areas of each with the benefit of flood insurance. There has been

                                   considerable improvement of the administration of flood insurance for coastal V
                                   Zones through the consideration of wave height in hazard mapping studies and

                                   the requirement of engineer certification of first flood elevations. Neverthe-
                                   less, the very definition of "coastal high hazard areas" suggests the folly of

                                   providing any flood insurance in this zone. Furthermore, where beach recession

                                   is occurring due to sea level rise and other causes, the coastal hazard area

                                   may be entirely under water within a matter of a few years (Kaufman and Pilkey,

                                   1983).

                                        With regard to A Zones and other areas of coastal barriers landward of the

                                   V Zone, flood insurance for new development must be carefully monitored to
                                   ensure that true actuarial rates are charged. Frequent updating of rates and

                                 Platt                                                                        97

                                 maps are necessary as shoreline recession and other physical changes occur. In
                                 view of the dynamic nature of coastal barriers, the NFIP should consider estab-

                                 lishing a special zone for such features which would involve a surcharge above

                                 normal coastal A Zone rates.

                                                                Land Acquisition
                                     The optimal long-term management strategy for coastal barriers is to

                                 acquire them for public purposes. According to the Conservation Foundation
                                 (1982, p. 311), the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LAWCON) between

                                 1965 and 1978 allocated $51 million to state and local governments for open

                                 space acquisition on barriers. It allocated another $128 million to federal

                                 agencies, chiefly the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service,

                                 for this purpose. These amounts are surprisingly modest for a 13-year period
                                 which spanned the "era of environmental awareness." Certainly, the extremely
                                 high values of shorefront property preclude extensive acquisition. Yet un-

                                 developed parcels within "developed coastal barriers" are local targets for
                                 public acquisition. The National Park Service has lengthy experience in the

                                 use of easements and leasebacks to cut costs in a long-term acquisition
                                 program. Considering that LAWCON derives much of its funds from off-shore oil

                                 and gas revenues, it is appropriate that a portion of the fund be earmarked for

                                 coastal barrier acquisition.

                                     Furthermore, Congress should increase the federal share in LAWCON from 50%

                                 to 80% of project costs in the case of coastal barrier projects. This would be
                                 equivalent to the federal share in coastal zone management grants and would

                                 reflect the limited state and local resources available for barrier acquisition
                                 activities. A larger federal share for barriers than for other open space
                                 acquisition is justified by the greater national interest in preventing further

                                 development of barriers and avoiding increased disaster relief outlays.

                                                            Postdisaster Mitigation

                                     In 1980, ten federal agencies at the direction of the office of management
                                 and Budget signed an interagency agr;@@ement to cooperate in the identification

                                 of opportunities for mitigating future flood losses. The.agreement provides
                                 that an interagency and intergovernmental team will convene under the direction
                                 of the FEKA regional office immediately after a Presidential flood disaster
                                 declaration. An initial report recommending mitigation actions within 15 days
                                 after the disaster must be submitted to the appropriate federal, state, and

                                 local authorities.

                                98                                                 SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                     This procedure affords a unique tool for long-term coastal barrier manage-
                                ment. As hurricanes and northeasters occur, all levels of government should

                                strenuously seek to alleviate future hazards. Measures available include
                                acquisition and relocation, redesign or elimination of certain public infra-
                                structure (such as bridges or roads), the adoption of tighter building codes
                                and land use regulations, and floodproofing for remaining structures. Warning
                                and evacuation capabilities should be examined as well. Since adoption of the
                                agreement, only two major hurricanes, Frederic (1980) and Alicia (1983), have
                                significantly damaged coastal barriers. Mitigation procedures were novel in

                                1980; the aftermath of Alicia should be instructive as to whether postdisaster

                                recommendation are in fact followed.
                                     Essential to this process is advance planning and identification of "hot
                                spots" that require immediate attention in the event of a disaster. According
                                to Frank Petrone, Director, FEMA Region II, preparation of the 15-day mitiga-
                                tion report in his region strongly reflects ongoing contact between federal,
                                state, and local planners and emergency managers. To start from scratch in the

                                wake of a major disaster is most difficult.

                                                                  Conclusion

                                     This brief paper has indicated certain avenues for long-term management of
                                coastal barriers. The CBRS is only a first step to limiting federal incentives
                                to further barrier development. it addresses only the easiest case. The
                                harder cases are those where development now exists or is in progress. CBRS
                                will worsen settlement and hazard trends for such areas unless policies and

                                programs are promptly modified, as outlined above, to limit federal investment

                                in still developing areas.

                                                                  References

                                Conservation Foundation
                                     1982 The State of the Environment--1982. Washington: The Foundation.

                                Goldschalk, D. R.
                                     1984 Impacts of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act: A Pilot Study. Chapel
                                          Hill: Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North
                                          Carolina.

                                  Platt                                                                            99

                                  Kaufman, W. and 0. Pilkey
                                       1982 The Beaches are moving. Chapel Hill: Duke University Press.

                                  Ringold, P. L. and J. Clark
                                       1980 San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co.

                                  U.S. General Accounting office
                                       1982 National Flood Insurance--Marginal impact on Floodplain Development.
                                            Report No CED 82 105. Washington: GAO.

                                                       COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA PROBLEMS
                                                                IN MASSACHUSETTS

                                                                  Gary Clayton
                                            Massachusetts Executive office of Environmental Affairs
                                                        Coastal Zone Management Program

                                                                  Introduction

                                      High rates of erosion as well as rapid and/or long-term inundation are
                                 characteristic of coastal high hazard areas in Massachusetts. The risks

                                 associated with these natural hazards may be substantial in areas where de-

                                 velopment has occurred. In Massachusetts, these high hazard coastal areas are
                                 generally associated with barrier beaches and coastal banks. Such sedimentary
                                 landforms are found along all the Massachusetts coast and are continually being
                                 modified by physical processes including storms (northeasters and hurricanes)

                                 and rising sea level.

                                      The development now encroaching upon these coastal high hazard areas is a
                                 relatively recent phenomenon. An awareness of the land use history associated
                                 with barrier beaches and coastal banks offers an important perspective on the
                                 resource management problems that exist today.
                                                              Historic Background

                                      The earliest European settlers of the Massachusetts coast were sustained

                                 by the abundant resources of the land and sea. These settlers were also wary
                                 of situating their homes and structures too close to the coast. As early as
                                 1635 they had observed serious tidal flooding along the coast during storms.
                                      An important event promoting the subsequent development of the coastal
                                 region was the development of a railroad and, eventually, the highway network.
                                 By the late 1800s and early 1900s shorefront resort development increased, a
                                 trend accelerated by the rising popularity of the automobile. Unlike the early
                                 coast-wise residents, summer dwellers and vacationers unfamiliar with the

                                 natural processes of the coast built in areas that would have been considered

                                 unsuitable by the early settlers. By the 1950s the edges of cliffs and dunes

                                 had become valuable real estate and more and more of these areas had been

                                 developed. Today, the seasonal housing stock in these areas is being rapidly

                                 102                                              SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 converted to year-round use. The results are problems that previous genera-

                                 tions had not encountered.

                                      The response of these new shoreline dwellers to the loss or potential loss
                                 of property due to flooding and erosion was often the development of various

                                 coastal engineering structures. Each of these structures is designed to act

                                 either as a barrier to trap sediment being transported along shore, or as a
                                 wall to protect cliffs, dunes, or buildings from destructive wave action.

                                 Until the 1960s, engineering structures-were perceived as the optimum solution

                                 to coastal hazards. With increased recognition of the natural processes gov-
                                 erning coastal change came public pressure to preserve the features which

                                 provide the natural protection of the coast. In Massachusetts, various regula-
                                 tory, acquisition, and planning programs have been established to address land

                                 use management problems associated with coastal high hazard areas. Despite
                                 significant progress, important problems still remain. This paper identifies

                                 some of the problems that remain not only in Massachusetts but in many other

                                 states and recommends possible solutions.

                                                          Coastal High Hazard Problems

                                 Identification of Hazard Zones

                                      one serious difficulty associated with many mapping programs in coastal
                                 high hazard areas is a failure to account for the potential of relatively rapid

                                 changes in shoreline position. Barrier beaches and coastal banks are two

                                 examples where changes in the location, form, and elevation of the landforms

                                 can be catastrophic. In Massachusetts, some of these landforms in open coast

                                 areas are eroding at an annual average rate of one to three feet per year. In

                                 extreme cases, annual rates of retreat may exceed ten feet per year. obvious-
                                 ly, maps that portray high hazard boundaries such as velocity zones as static

                                 features are seriously flawed.

                                      Maps for coastal high hazard areas must reflect the dynamic nature of the
                                 coastline. For example, Massachusetts has initiated a comprehensive historic

                                 shoreline position mapping program to identify the direction and rates of
                                 shoreline change. These digitized data will describe three historic and one

                                 present-day shoreline for much of the state's 1,500 miles of tidal shoreline.
                                 only shorelines that have been heavily urbanized and stabilized and the upper
                                 reaches of estuaries and embayments that have existed for long periods of time

                                 have been.excluded.

                                Clayton                                                                       103

                                     The digitized shoreline change data provide an opportunity to utilize

                                rates and trends of shoreline erosion or accretion for more effective coastal

                                zone management. This information may be used for new or strengthened local
                                erosion setback bylaws, Executive orders regarding the use of state funds, and
                                modifications in existing regulatory programs. Finally, it will be an impor-
                                tant educational tool for increasing the public's general awareness of the

                                dynamic nature of the shoreline.

                                Use of Fill in a Flood Zone

                                     Filling in coastal floodplains can often exacerbate flooding problems by
                                increasing the velocity of floodwaters on adjacent properties. Filling can
                                also change the direction and depth of flow, thereby inducing or intensifying

                                erosion.

                                     Wave action in the A Zone is generally less severe. In the A Zone of
                                coastal high hazard areas like barrier beaches, however, wave action and high
                                velocity flow can eventually be a problem as the landform is modified by over-
                                wash, submergence, and new tidal inlet formation. These physical processes
                                make fill undesirable in A Zones even if proper slopes are provided for the
                                fill and protective measures such as riprap or vegetation are applied to sea-

                                ward slopes. Building codes should be modified to require all new or substan-
                                tially reconstructed buildings in A Zones in coastal high hazard areas to be
                                elevated and firmly anchored on pilings.

                                Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Systems
                                     Development in coastal high hazard areas may include the disposal of
                                residential wastewater in subsurface disposal systems. These septic systems
                                include subsurface concrete structures and pipes. In coastal high hazard areas
                                these facilities can present potentially serious public health problems if they
                                or their contents are exposed by erosion or flooding. In addition, the con-

                                crete subsurface structures that are exposed by erosion may also lead to addi-

                                tional scouring of adjacent areas if floodwaters are diverted. (A recent
                                regulatory decision in Massachusetts [DEQE Wetlands File 19-188) denied con-
                                struction of a single-family residence on a barrier beach based on the high

                                probability that the system would eventually be exposed by erosion.) Sub-
                                surface septic systems located in coastal banks also contribute to increased

                                erosion of these areas through accelerated bank slumping caused by groundwater
                                seepage. In coastal high hazard areas, board of health regulations should be

                                 104                                              SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 modified to prohibit the placement of new septic systems in the velocity zone
                                 or in rapidly eroding coastal banks.

                                 Flood Insurance

                                      The high risks of flooding and erosion on barrier beaches and coastal
                                 banks are directly reflected in the significant costs associated with repairing
                                 and rebuilding storm damaged structures in these areas. A study of developed
                                 barrier beaches in Massachusetts provides an example of the potential magnitude
                                 of these costs. There are approximately 2,100 structures on intensively de-

                                 veloped barrier beaches in 29 Massachusetts coastal communities. These commu-

                                 nities account for over half of the flood insurance policies written in the
                                 state and half of the $1.1 billion (1983) in flood insurance coverage for high

                                 hazard areas.

                                      The disproportionate flood insurance coverage clearly indicates the rela-

                                 tive risk associated with development on barrier beaches. it is imprudent to
                                 continue to subsidize insurance for new development on barrier beaches as the

                                 subsidies promote a costly cycle of destruction and rebuilding. Action is
                                 needed now to at least contain the costs associated with development in high
                                 hazard areas. This should include no new flood insurance coverage for 1) new
                                 structures; 2) substantial improvements to existing structures or; 3) struc-

                                 tures that have been destroyed or substantially damaged. In addition, a com-
                                 plete phaseout of the national program for direct federal flood insurance at
                                 subsidized rates must be accomplished. over the past five years, the national
                                 program has cost the federal taxpayer approximately $140 million per year.

                                 Enforcement of flood insurance program regulations and federal Executive orders
                                 on wetlands and floodplains needs to be vigorously pursued.
                                 Acquisition Program

                                      Public acquisition of coastal high hazard areas is one of the most effec-

                                 tive techniques to reduce future storm damage losses while providing increased
                                 open space, recreation, and public access opportunities. Unfortunately, local

                                 and state acquisition of these areas is sometimes precluded by lack of funds.
                                 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) offers two programs for acquir-
                                 ing flood-damaged structures. The 1362 program allows FEMA to purchase proper-
                                 ty from willing sellers when the insured buildings have been damaged more than
                                 50% in a single storm or at least 25% in three storms over a five-year period.
                                 The local or state government is then given the land to manage for open space
                                 purposes. The Constructive Total Loss (CTL) Program authorizes FEMA to pay up

                                Clayton                                                                       105

                                to the full face value of the flood insurance policy in force where local

                                regulations do not permit rebuilding and when the structure is in an extremely

                                hazardous location.

                                     Even when funds are limited, governments can acquire coastal high hazard

                                areas at less than fair market value by exercising foreclosures on tax delin-

                                quent properties. Communities can adopt a local subdivision bylaw that re-
                                quires developers of large parcels to place a restriction on a certain percen-

                                tage of that land for use only as recreation or open space. A landowner may
                                also be willing to sell land to the community at a price lower than the proper-

                                ty's fair market value in return for a tax deduction equivalent to the

                                difference.

                                Coastal Barrier Resources Act
                                     the Congress, through the Coastal Zone Management Act, has found that the

                                protection of high hazard areas serves the national interest and that states
                                should be "encouraged and assisted to exercise effectively their responsibili-

                                ties in the coastal zone through the protection of natural resources ... to

                                help minimize the loss of life And property caused by improper development in
                                flood-prone, storm surge, geological hazard and erosion-prone areas."
                                     The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CRBA) represents a step toward imple-
                                menting this policy by prohibiting and/or discouraging further growth and

                                development in coastal high hazard areas. The Act should be strengthened by
                                expanding the prohibition of federal expenditures already in CBRA to other high

                                hazard coastal resource areas. This would include floodplains, erosion-prone

                                areas and coastal barriers, whether developed or undeveloped, along all coast-

                                lines of the United States. Other forms of federal subsidies such as casualty
                                loss tax deduction for property loss in high hazard areas should also be elimi-
                                nated through CBRA.

                                Public Awareness and Opinion

                                     Effective management of high risk flood areas requires identification and
                                implementation techniques often based on scientific, engineering, and economic

                                analyses. These analyses can provide a compelling justification for insti-
                                tuting or modifying public policy. Yet implementation of such a policy may
                                falter or fail unless the perception and attitude of the affected population

                                are adequately considered. Consequently, improving land management standards

                                and@other flood loss reduction measures requires more than merely developing

                                  106                                              SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                  methods and guidelines. Sound floodplain management policy also addresses the
                                  concerns, expectations, and awareness of landowners in high risk flood areas.
                                       In Massachusetts public attitudes concerning coastal high hazard areas
                                  have been assessed in several opinion surveys. These surveys identified that a
                                  large percentage of landowners on developed coastal barriers are unaware of

                                  local evacuation plans; few of them have experienced a serious storm. Another

                                  survey indicated a majority of citizens across the state strongly support the

                                  acquisition of remaining undeveloped coastal hazard area lands for conservation
                                  and recreation use. The sampling results offer an opportunity to develop
                                  policies and target funding more effectively.

                                  Storm Preparedness
                                       Storm preparedness includes addressing the problem of evacuating large
                                  numbers of people from hazard-prone areas when a major storm approaches. Storm
                                  evacuation plans for affected communities are intended to accomplish this.
                                  These plans, however, may not be sufficiently comprehensive especially in

                                  coastal areas where population growth is rapidly increasing.
                                       Comprehensive storm evacuation plans should be fully integrated with
                                  similar plans of adjacent communities, counties and sometimes nearby states.
                                  This can be particularly important with respect to the transportation network
                                  and the provision of emergency supplies and shelter.
                                       A comprehensive plan should also incorporate the National Weather Service
                                  use of probabilities in hurricane forecasting. These probabilities are intend-
                                  ed primarily for decision makers in government and private industry who must
                                  begin protective actions prior to 24 hours before forecasted landfall. For
                                  example, residents in coastal areas with very long evacuation times will have
                                  to begin evacuation when probabilities of a hurricane landfall are as low as 12

                                  to 20%.

                                       Comprehensive plans must also recognize that the potential for damage and
                                  loss of life from a hurricane varies greatly depending on the intensity of the

                                  storm. On the Atlantic seaboard, for example, hurricanes can rapidly increase

                                  in size and speed, moving hundreds of miles in less than 24 hours. Unfortu-

                                  nately, even within 24 hours, forecasts of a hurricane landfall can be made

                                  only with a maximum probability of 50%.

                                                                   Conclusion

                                       Despite the significant risks to property and life, the pressure to de-
                                  velop coastal high hazard areas is unlikely to abate. Prudent public policy

                                 Clayton                                                                      107

                                 for these areas, however, should seek to ultimately minimize and avoid further
                                 loss and damage. otherwise, the potential for  extensive and recurrent storm
                                 damage will increase substantially.

                                      Immediate steps can be taken by public agencies to improve coastal hazard

                                 area management through planning, funding, legislative, and regulatory changes.
                                 These changes, some of which are suggested in this paper, do not necessarily
                                 require the investment of additional public funds. Effective measures can be

                                 implemented by redirecting or eliminating the use of public funds and resources

                                 for hazard-prone areas. Other techniques, such as land acquisition, will

                                 involve substantial public expenditures although these expenditures can be
                                 significantly less in the long term than if these hazard-prone areas are
                                 allowed to be developed. These and other measures can be part of a coastal
                                 hazard area management program to reduce or avoid storm damage and loss.

                                                                   References

                                 Coastal States organization
                                      1983-1984 Policy Positions adopted at the December 1983 Annual Meeting,
                                          San Francisco, and the Executive Committee's January, 1984 Meeting,
                                          Charleston, South Carolina.

                                 Coastal Zone Management Office
                                      1982 Statewide Public opinion survey. Unpublished. Boston:
                                          Massachusetts State CZm office.

                                      1983 A.Guide to Coastal Hazards. Vol 1: Manomet Point, Plymouth, to Sandy
                                          Neck, Barnstable. Boston: Massachusetts State CZK office.

                                 Flood Hazard Management Project
                                      1983 Massachusetts Developed Barrier Beaches: A Coastal Survey. Boston:
                                             sachusetts Division of Water Resources.

                                                            PREDISASTER PLANNING FOR
                                                          POSTDISASTER RECONSTRUCTION

                                                                  Clark Gilman
                                                     New Jersey Division of Water Resources

                                      Through its Bureau of Flood Plain Management, the_New Jersey Division of
                                 Water Resources acts as the state coordinating agency for the National Flood
                                 Insurance Program (NFIP). A primary goal of the Bureau's program is the reduc-
                                 tion of flood damage potential throughout New Jersey and not just within the
                                 coastal zone. The Bureau pursues a three-stage program aimed at reducing flood
                                 damage potential. The three steps or stages of this program are basically the

                                 same regardless of the source of the flooding, which in the coastal zone would

                                 be the result of storm surge combined with wave action.
                                      The first step is to identify hazard areas. This is accomplished by
                                 undertaking floodplain delineation or flood insurance studies, wave height and
                                 vulnerability analyses. The second step requires adoption or modification of
                                 municipal flood damage prevention ordinances and monitoring new construction

                                 and substantial improvements to existing structures to insure enforcement of

                                 these ordinances. The third and final step requires development of hazard

                                 mitigation plans to reduce the damage potential to existing structures to the
                                 maximum degree possible.
                                      Coastal storm or flood predisaster planning, or more properly flood hazard

                                 mitigation, of the type described as step three, has only recently been recog-

                                 nized as a separate work element in New Jersey. This recognition is primarily
                                 the result of New Jersey involvement in the Coastal Storm Planning and

                                 Preparedness Program through which F914A has funded vulnerability analyses of
                                 three of our barrier islands. The vulnerability analyses of the Atlantic
                                 County barrier islands, namely Absecon and Brigantine Islands and ocean City,

                                 Cape May County, has indicated that most of the damage from an intense storm
                                 generating a 100-year surge would not be a result of the hazards identified by

                                 either a Flood insurance Study or wave Height Analysis.

                                      Wave runup on seawalls and timber bulkheads and waves overtopping these
                                 structures together with the scour and erosion caused by overwashing waves

                                 110                                             SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 appear to be the primary source of potential damage. In areas where stillwater
                                 surge depth exceeds 3.5 feet, flotation of unanchored or inadequately anchored

                                 structures will be a primary cause of damage, and battering by floating debris

                                 will increase damage throughout the hazard areas.

                                      our vulnerability analyses have further indicated that advanced warning
                                 time could be quite short. The National Weather Service attempts to provide

                                 hurricane warnings that leave 12 hours of daylight before the arrival of
                                 hurricane force winds and peak storm surge. These 12 hours unfortunately
                                 cannot be fully utilized to evacuate residents, since time is required to
                                 mobilize citizens, and escape routes become impassible due to flooding two to
                                 three hours before the peak surge occurs. These analyses have indicated that
                                 the area studied is highly vulnerable to loss of human life and property damage
                                 and is relatively unprepared to withstan@ a major coastal storm or intense
                                 hurricane. Since the findings of these studies can be.generally applied to
                                 most of the coastal areas of New Jersey, hazard mitigation has been included
                                 this year as a task assigned to the State Assistance Program of the NFIP and
                                 has been included in the Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement for Emergency

                                 Management Services between FEMA and the State of New Jersey.
                                      During the current fiscal year, members of my staff will be required to

                                 meet with and investigate the feasibility of developing hazard mitigation work

                                 plans for twenty-five New Jersey municipalities. Though this work has been
                                 delayed by the storms and severe flooding experienced this spring, damage
                                 caused by these events still should stimulate interest in this program and
                                 provide motivation for its implementation.
                                      The specific methods of mitigation being considered under this program

                                 are:

                                  1)  An update of municipal Emergency operations Plans (EOPs) is needed. Our
                                      studies, furthermore, recommend rudimentary situation plans for individual
                                      structures--such as condominiums, retirement communities, and nursing
                                      homes--located in vulnerable areas.

                                  2)  Though our Community Assistance and Program Evaluation activities have
                                      indicated that NFIP floodplain management standards are generally being
                                      enforced in New Jersey, more specific standards are needed in some in-
                                      stances. A committee of construction officials has been established to
                                      review and develop required detailed standards. State and FEMA repre-
                                      sentatives are also members of this committee.

                                 Gilman

                                 3)  During the recent flooding advance warning failed to filter down to the
                                     citizens. It appears that a standard operating procedure must be de-
                                     veloped and adopted by local governments to alert residents of vulnerable
                                     areas.

                                 4)  Though preliminary investigation has indicated that only limited use of
                                     contents removal plans is feasible on barrier islands due to the limited
                                     amount of time available for evacuation, such plans appear to be feasible
                                     in other coastal municipalities and within inland municipalities that
                                     experience riverine flooding.

                                 5)  many of the older structures located within areas prone to flooding are
                                     either unanchored (gravity unanchored) or inadequately anchored.
                                     Anchorage surveys to determine which structures (particularly single-story
                                     timber-frame buildings) require retrofitting to properly anchor them can
                                     ultimately reduce damage related to flotation, lateral movement, and
                                     collision of floaters.

                                 6)  Field reconnaissance within areas recently studied has identified poorly
                                     maintained or deteriorated seawalls and timber bulkheads in both public
                                     and private ownership. While the total replacement of these structures
                                     may be undesirable and the cost excessive, repair or reinforcement of some
                                     of them is feasible. The false sense of security created by seawalls and
                                     timber bulkheads has resulted in many structures being constructed close
                                     behind these barriers, where they are vulnerable to damage from wave
                                     runup. Establishment of adequate setbacks by local governments before the
                                     next storm is being encouraged. The need for setbacks can be determined
                                     as part of local inspection programs which also identify structures re-
                                     quiring maintenance.

                                 7)  Traditional flood fighting techniques are under-utilized as a way of
                                     reducing damages in New Jersey, primarily due to short warning times and a
                                     lack of plans that employ them. Planning at the present time for their
                                     use and stockpiling of the material required to utilize them could expand
                                     their use.

                               8)    Finally, though the purchase of flood insurance is encouraged in New
                                     Jersey and is the primary way in which damages are recovered, it really
                                     should not be considered as a mitigation technique.

                                     Unfortunately, the success of our prestorm mitigation program cannot be
                               assessed at this time. We do feel that the techniques listed and discussed, if
                               seriously considered, thoroughly investigated, and fully implemented, can save
                               lives and considerably reduce storm damage, and thereby reduce the effort that
                               will have to be expended during the recovery phase.
                                     Significant damage is undoubtedly going to occur in certain areas where
                               vulnerability is the greatest. Total destruction, in fact, is almost inevi-
                               table should overwashing and breaching occur in some places. Long-term hazard

                                 112                                             SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 mitigation and recovery planning is, therefore, needed to develop strategies

                                 and ultimately to adopt policies that can be applied to these areas.

                                      The New Jersey Division of Coastal Resources, under the final phase of the
                                 Coastal Storm Planning and Preparedness program, is investigating mitigation
                                 strategies. They have recently established steering committees within each of

                                 the five municipalities being studied on the Atlantic County barrier islands
                                 and in Ocean City, New Jersey. They plan to meet with these committees during

                                 the summer and prepare a report containing recommendations by the end of

                                 September, 1984.

                                                            PREDISASTER PLANNING FOR
                                                          POSTDISASTER RECONSTRUCTION

                                                                 Ruth Ehinger
                                                        Division of Coastal Resources
                                              New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

                                                                   Background

                                     I will briefly describe the approach the Division of Coastal Resources is

                                presently taking in coastal storm planning and preparedness and then focus on
                                three municipalities, Brigantine in Atlantic County and Avalon and Upper

                                Township in Cape May County.

                                     The Division is working with municipalities individually to incorporate

                                coastal storm hazard mitigation into their master plans, zoning, and other

                                ordinances. In part, New Jersey has taken this approach due to a lack of

                                regulatory authority to guide most development in these areas. All of New

                                Jersey's barrier islands are densely developed, but many are redeveloping at an
                                ever greater density.                i
                                     A northeaster hit the New Jersey coast on March 28 and 29, 1984, and re-
                                mained through two successive high tides. Besides its occurrence on average

                                tides of the month, the factor that saved the New Jersey coast from a possible

                                new storm of record was the fact that after two destructive high tides, the
                                wind dropped and shifted to the NNW before a third high tide. The storm was
                                termed only a 10-year event, based on surge or tidal flood elevations of 8.4
                                feet MLW, but resulted in damages estimated by the state at $24 million for

                                sand and dune replacement and an additional $6-10 million for debris removal.

                                Damage surveys have not yet been finalized. Four coastal counties were de-

                                clared disaster areas by President Reagan. The storm has increased the aware-
                                ness of the public and municipal officials of the storm hazards they face and
                                increased their interest in and support of the Division's efforts.
                                                              Avalon, New Jersey
                                     The Division of Coastal Resources began working with the Borough of Avalon

                                in the late 1970B to build dunes in the community, providing technical advice,
                                and sand fencing. This was followed by a grant for prestorm planning. The

                                 114                                              SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 grant provided for a geologist, Stewart Farrell from Stockton State College,

                                 and a planner, John Sinton, to study the island's geological processes and

                                 storm vulnerability and devise short- and long-term hazard reduction

                                 strategies--including changes in building codes, dune nourishment, and zoning

                                 changes. Proposed changes included establishing setbacks from dunes and

                                 changing residential zones to conservation zones. The report is now being

                                 prepared for publication. It has not yet been implemented by Avalon, although

                                 they are agreeable to the recommended changes.

                                      Avalon's dune protection and restoration program has been quite success-

                                 ful. There was significant dune erosion in the March, 1984, storm, less than,

                                 or similar to that throughout the state, but no structural damage. Only a two

                                 to three block area with no dunes in the nodal zone of the island was

                                 overwashed. Estimates for damages to public facilities were $44,000 for dune
                                 repair, $14,000 for debris removal, and $18,000 for repairing a parking lot.
                                 Farrell and Sinton recommended that this parking lot be fronted with a
                                 protective dune due to its vulnerability, and it has been recommended by the

                                 Hazard Mitigation Team that disaster aid funds be so conditioned.

                                                             Brigantine, New Jersey
                                      At present, the Division is working with six municipalities, including
                                 Brigantine, Atlantic City, and Ocean City, under a FEMA funded program. The

                                 Division has reviewed a variety of hazard mitigation strategies in use through-

                                 out the country and presented them to municipal steering committees with the
                                 goal of incorporating such techniques at the municipal level. Evacuation

                                 concerns are being addressed separately. I will use Brigantine as an example.
                                      Brigantine is a developed barrier island in Atlantic County, which is
                                 accreting at the southern.end due to stabilization of Absecon inlet by a large
                                 jetty (3,730 feet long) built in the 1950s and incrementally extended in the

                                 early and mid-1960s. Wide dune fields have grown in one portion of the island.
                                 However, the northern end of the city is experiencing erosion and has narrower

                                 beaches, little dune protection, and therefore is bulkheaded. The erosion rate

                                 in this section is on the order of three to five feet per year. In the early

                                 1900s a now abandoned hotel was 1,000 feet from the beach. We are most

                                 concerned about the north end of town in the narrowing section of the island.
                                 Many areas were overwashed during the March, 1984, northeaster. The damage

                                 survey reports for public facilities eligible for federal disaster aid funds

                                 Ehinger                                                                        115

                                 were surveyed at approximately $1 million, about $800,000 of which was for dune

                                 fencing and restoration.
                                      The Brigantine hazard mitigation steering committee is composed of the
                                 mayor, two commissioners, the city administrator, enqineer and emergency

                                 manager, and the county planner.
                                      At our first meeting, the vulnerability analysis prepared by the Bureau of
                                 Floodplain Management was presented. The vulnerability map and report were
                                 used in conjunction with the shoreline change map, and photographs of New
                                 Jersey's last major destructive storm (March, 1962) in discussing and identify-
                                 ing hazards. The vulnerability map indicates the presence of high hazard
                                 areas, wave runup zones, flotation zones, and structures with evacuation

                                 problems.
                                      We superimposed the city zoning map on the vulnerability map for use by
                                 the committee in considering zoning problems and changes needed. This pointed

                                 out the high risk areas presently zoned for high density residential use.

                                      Zoning and master plan changes are a major focus of the effort. Among
                                 these changes are widening of the oceanfront conservation zones and establish-

                                 ment of setbacks. The present conservation zones consist of most beach and

                                 dune areas. Extension of this zone to allow dune migration or creation is

                                 essential to protect property. In addition, areas are being identified where
                                 dunes can be augmented and dune cuts eliminated or reoriented to the southeast.
                                 Trading of low density uses for high density is also being considered, as is
                                 establishment of seasonal recreational uses rather than year-round residential

                                 use.

                                      Specific consideration is being given to identifying target poststorm

                                 acquisition areas and areas where destroyed infrastructure should not be re-
                                 built. Anchoring of homes in flotation zones and elevation of low homes are

                                 also being pursued; the construction official will be recommending needed

                                 changes to the uniform construction code. The local steering committee will be

                                 reviewing the hazard mitigation techniques and vulnerability maps prior to our

                                 second meeting next month when specific applications will be discussed.

                                      one possible result of this effort would be the expansion of the conserva-
                                 tion zone, establishment of setbacks, abandonment of a segment of road, and

                                 rezoning. Several more workshops are planned throughout the summer to discuss

                                 and evaluate specific proposals. The Division will prepare a report containing

                                 recommendations this fall. Ultimately, the municipality will decide what

                                 116                                              SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 mitigation measures to adopt, allowing it to better face and recover from the
                                 next major storm.

                                                           Upper Township, New Jersey
                                      Another hazard mitigation planning effort is beginning in Upper Township,
                                 Cape May County. This municipality consists of mainland and a barrier island

                                 segment. The municipality and the Division of Coastal Resources are presently
                                 negotiating a contract for the township to study the use of Transfer of
                                 Development Rights (TDR) as a hazard mitigation technique. TDR involves the
                                 establishment of conservation zones with attendant development rights and the
                                 establishment of receiving or transfer zones where development rights can be
                                 purchased to exceed the zoned density. In the context of storm hazard mitiga-
                                 tion, high-hazard, high-erosion areas would be designated preservation zones

                                 and safer areas as receiving zones.
                                      The barrier island portion of Upper Township is heavily developed. The
                                 whale Beach area is about 200' wide and less than 10' (MSL) in elevation; most

                                 is in the V zone. The high water line has moved inland at the rate of
                                 approximately five feet per year since it was first mapped by the USCGS in
                                 1842. A more recent'erosion rate of 2.8m3/m/yr from 1963-1972 was established

                                 in 1978.

                                      The March, 1962, storm devastated.the island, requiring the building of
                                 6.5 miles of emergency dunes costing over $1 million. Six shore protection
                                 projects, both groins and beachfill, were undertaken at Whale Beach between

                                 1964 and 1983 at a cost of nearly $1.7 million. A $3 million beachfill project
                                 is proposed for 1985. Whale Beach was overwashed in the March, 1984, storm;
                                 Ocean Avenue covered by approximately four feet of sand; and the few dunes
                                 present lost. Damages were estimated at $400,000 to replace the dunes alone.

                                 There is presently very little to no beach at high tide.

                                      The excessive costs to protect Whale Beach, the relatively low number of

                                 structures located on that section of the island (about 80 single family homes

                                 and 20 condominium units), and the extreme high risk to people and property in
                                 the area have led the state and municipality to look for alternative solutions.

                                 The proposed study will evaluate the feasibility of TDR. The Whale Beach area
                                 and perhaps high hazard portions of strathmere could be designated
                                 conservation/recreation zones and mainland portions of Upper Township would
                                 become receiving zones.

                                Ehinger                                                                     117

                                     The study will explore TDR in terms of market considerations, equity for

                                landowners in the preservation district, evaluation of transfer zones and
                                availability of infrastructure, and economic benefits--cost savings and

                                avoidances. The approach is attractive as it would ideally eliminate develop-
                                ment in the high hazard area, greatly reduce federal, state, and local
                                spending, and monetarily compensate property owners for not developing or
                                redeveloping their property. This effort has been supported by the interagency

                                Hazard mitigation Team assembled in response to the Presidential Disaster

                                Declaration of Marchf 1984. The Team's 15-day report recommends that an
                                acquisition/relocation project be implemented for the area, changing the use
                                from single family residential to open-space/recreational. TDR is one

                                suggested means of financing this change.

                                                                   Summary
                                     The Division of Coastal Resources is pursuing predisaster planning on an
                                individual basis with municipalities and has found interest and support from
                                those towns, along with a desire to utilize the state's technical expertise.

                                                 ASSESSING COM14UNITY FLOOD MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY

                                                                 Cynthia J. Rummel
                                                           Senior Environmental Analyst
                                                Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

                                                                     Background

                                       The management of coastal high hazard areas generally brings to mind the
                                  Gulf states and southeastern coastal regions. The Connecticut shoreline has

                                  not experienced a multitude of hurricane events, but nonetheless has been and

                                  remains vulnerable to such occurrences. A long period has elapsed since the

                                  last major storm struck Connecticut's coast. Unfortunately, from a state flood
                                  management point of view, this has resulted in a general feeling of apathy and
                                  disinterest to hurricane preparedness among the shoreline municipal officials.

                                  in a local newspaper article about tile State's flood management program they

                                  claimed, "The sea is not furious here. Cottages nestled as close to the water
                                  line as possible in Old Lyme and Old Saybrook are testimony to owner's faith in

                                  the stability of Long Island Sound's waters."
                                       An interesting contrast is found in the following description of those

                                  same waters written on September 23, 1938.

                                       Millions of dollars in property damage and heavy loss of life, despite
                                       examples of heroism and fortitude wrote finis to the 1938 season at the
                                       various Connecticut shore resorts strung along Long Island Sound. Surf
                                       which did not wait for high tide to top sea walls, rushing waters which
                                       twisted and tore cottages from their foundations, floated furniture into
                                       ditches and boats onto highways caused monetary loss which chaotic highway
                                       and communication conditions Thursday made it impossible to estimate. A
                                       long list of persons unreported or known to be missing held an ominous
                                       threat for the expansion of a long casualty list.

                                       The shoreline has not suffered a major coastal storm in approximately
                                  thirty years but during that period has undergone intensivedevelopment. These

                                  factors led two years ago to an inventory of coastal flood damage potential

                                  along Connecticut's shoreline. The results showed that 40,000 structures are

                                  located in flood hazard areas, 4,000 of them in the coastal V Zone. A major

                                  coastal storm hitting Connecticut could potentially cause millions and millions

                                  of dollars in damages and could severely disrupt the state's economy. These

                                  120                                              SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                  findings led to the development of a municipal assistance program designed to
                                  document and upgrade local ability to deal with flood events.

                                       The municipal Assistance Program consisted of several elements. First,
                                  after completing the inventory Of flood-prone structures, "municipal profiles"
                                  were developed for each of Connecticut's 25 coastal towns. They included the
                                  names of local officials who would be key players in flood preparedness and
                                  response activities; a survey of the population and structures occurring within
                                  flood zones; the town's history of flooding; flood studies that had been com-
                                  pleted; a list of flood control structures and projects' flood warning systems;
                                  the status of Emergency operations Plans; an analysis of public ownership in
                                  flood zones; National Flood Insurance policy and claims data; and a survey of
                                  watercourses, impoundments, wetlands, dams, bridges, marinas, utilities, and
                                  water supply information.
                                       Second, local zoning regulations governing floodplains were reviewed.
                                       Next, existing emergency operations plans were reviewed and carefully
                                  evaluated, looking specifically for flood preparedness and flood mitigation

                                  measures.

                                       Finally, additional flood insurance needs were identified; local road,
                                  bridge, and culvert design standards and stormwater management plans were

                                  examined; and the feasibility of acquiring flood-prone areas was explored.

                                                                     Results

                                       Are Connecticut's communities prepared for a major coastal storm? In

                                  working with the coastal towns, we found a great diversity in levels of pre-

                                  paredness. Those communities that seem best prepared are either those that
                                  experience frequent "nuisance" flooding or those that have the highest proper-
                                  ty values, and even these towns have welcomed our assistance.
                                       The City of Milford has 600 buildings (including a number of apartments

                                  and condominiums) on the direct shoreline, many of which flood practically

                                  every time high tide rolls in. Milford heeded our suggestion that they write a
                                  flood annex to their emergency operations plan, and now has an extensive and
                                  very specific warning and evacuation plan.
                                       Westport, one of our "gold coast" towns, has an extremely well prepared
                                  and well-equipped emergency response team. Their police and fire departments
                                  have access to amphibious vehicles, maintain a list of every handicapped and
                                  elderly resident who may need assistance in evacuation, and stage regularly
                                  scheduled drills. While they appear to be very well prepared in emergency

                                Rummel                                                                       121

                                response, they are seriously considering some of our other suggestions. After
                                reviewing our assessment, the Public Works Director wrote to his First

                                Selectman:

                                     The recommendation that the Town develop a Comprehensive Drainage Plan is
                                     one that should be given much consideration. The Town has never developed
                                     a comprehensive plan for handling all storm drainage. This could be
                                     costly, but also could save the Town money by having developers provide
                                     drainage projects that fit a Town wide plan. out small drainage projects,
                                     are often a band-aid approach; a comprehensive plan would tie everything,
                                     together.

                                     Stamford, the home of many corporate world headquarters, became the first
                                municipality in the state to install an automated flood warning system. The

                                results of our inventory played a role in their securement of financing for

                                this effort. Stamford furthermore requires that an evacuation plan be sub-
                                mitted with any proposal for an office building or multifamily housing unit to
                                be constructed within a flood zone, and has used our recommendations as guide-

                                lines in reviewing such plans.

                                     At the other end of the spectrum are the town officials who rely on the
                                common sense and "gp-with-the-flow" approach to flood management. One town
                                selectman, when asked about his Emergency Operations Plan, was "quite" sure
                                that his Civil Defense Director had some sort of "plan" stashed somewhere.   He
                                then concluded that since his CD Director worked a long distance from town,  he

                                likely would be unavailable during an emergency anyway.

                                     Most towns fall somewhere in the middle of this range. They do maintain
                                local emergency operations plans which are updated every two years (as required
                                by the State office of Civil Preparedness), but these plans address nuclear

                                considerations and not natural disasters.

                                     Many local officials simply do not perceive coastal flooding as an issue
                                that demands much attention or planning and, therefore, do not address it.
                                Coastal flooding occurs infrequently in Connecticut. The federal and state
                                governments have historically done a good job of funding disaster assistance
                                and recovery, and the events are forgotten within a surprisingly short period

                                of time. while these towns have not developed planning that addresses coastal
                                flooding, there was not a single local official who was not extremely confident
                                that his or her town could prevent loss of life in most any situation. so, in
                                summary, while the towns are prepared to undertake life saving actions, with

                                  122                                              SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                  very few exceptions they are unprepared to implement any measures to reduce or

                                  minimize property losses.

                                                                   Deficiencies

                                       What are the most serious deficiencies? Inadequate coastal flood warning
                                  has to top the list. While most local officials are confident that, in hurri-

                                  cane situations, the National Weather Service would provide more than adequate
                                  warning, they feel strongly that the more frequently occurring "Northeasters"
                                  will never be predicted. Even minor coastal floods have proven that either the
                                  warning simply is not there, or if a warning is available, it will likely not
                                  reflect the extent of flooding which will ultimately occur.
                                       Last March, I visited the Mayor and Civil Preparedness Director of Milford

                                  after that city sustained over $1 million in private property damages from a

                                  "minor" coastal winter storm. When I asked what kind of warning time they
                                  received, they replied, " We're still waiting!" when the Mayor called a local
                                  radio station to encourage public cooperation with evacuations the station
                                  personnel doubted the validity of the information, as most of Connecticut was
                                  unaware that a serious storm was underway. While Connecticut is presently
                                  installing a statewide automated flood warning system, the system will not
                                  adequately address coastal flood warning, at least in the first few years.

                                       Another area of concern is that of floodplain zoning. while zoning regu-
                                  lations in all coastal towns were found to be adequate and consistent with

                                  National Flood insurance Program (NVIP) standards, enforcement was very often
                                  lacking. Some towns admitted they had problems requiring a new structure to be
                                  elevated to base flood elevation when surrounding existing buildings are much
                                  lower. other towns seem to do a fairly good job of either ignoring the regu-
                                  lations or misinterpreting them. one of the coastal towns indicated to us that
                                  the only way to correct this problem would be to have either the state or
                                  federal government provide better "watchdog" service, and require quarterly or
                                  even monthly reports (vs. annual reports) on building permits granted in flood
                                  zones. They expressed doubt that the annual reports they submit to FEMA are

                                  ever even reviewed.

                                       Public awareness, or rather lack thereof, of storm damage potential was a
                                  major problem, and this resulted in inadequate flood insurance coverage. The
                                  Municipal Assistance Program included a public awareness section, in which
                                  questionnaires regarding flood preparedness were distributed to a representa-

                                 Rummel                                                                           123

                                 tive sample of coastal homeowners. Fifty percent of the respondents had pur-
                                 chased their coastal property within the last ten years and had never witnessed
                                 a major coastal storm. It appears that many of these individuals believe that
                                 the "abnormally" high tides and routine street flooding they have experienced

                                 represent the extent of the effects of a coastal storm. Even the folks who had

                                 lived through the 1938 and 1950s storms appear not to have been in the major
                                 damage centers, and, surprisingly, from their responses, seem no better pre-

                                 pared than the newcomers.

                                      As a result, flood insurance coverage hit a low of 17% of the structures
                                 subject to the 100-year flood in one town, with the average coverage being 58%.
                                 When we distributed our questionnaires, we had homeowners write back who had
                                 not even heard of the National Flood Insurance Program; and our office was
                                 instrumental in the actual sale of approximately one hundred policies. Other

                                 property owners expressed disinterest in the NFIP because the maximum coverage
                                 limits only approached a fraction of the true value of their real estate.
                                 Thesi? people must be made to understand that the chances of a flood completely
                                 destroying their property are small, and that, in most cases, the flood insur-

                                 ance will cover the losses sustained.

                                      This problem must be addressed through a more aggressive and continuing
                                 public awareness program. While the Connecticut program involved questionnaire
                                 distribution and display exhibits, we were able to reach only a small percent-
                                 age of the population who may be affected. This year we plan to work directly
                                 with the beach associations along Connecticut's coast, arranging informational
                                 meetings and distributing information through them. in addition, we are con-
                                 sidering providing "flood audits" to interested homeowners. The flood audits
                                 would be similar to energy audits performed in New England; the home would be
                                 inspected and specific recommendations made to the property owner that would

                                 minimize future flood losses.

                                                                   Conclusion

                                     The Municipal Assistance Program has proved to be valuable in a number of

                                 ways. The towns are working with our recommendations and are taking steps to
                                 improve their local flood management programs. The communities, for the most
                                 part, seem eager to do the best job they can but have had neither the personnel

                                 nor the expertise to develop comprehensive programs. At the state level, we
                                 have taken care of much of the legwork and have spelled out specific measures
                                 for local governments to take--providing a good deal of initiative for local

                                 124                                              SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 action. In addition, this program has gone a long way in improving state/

                                 municipal liaison.
                                      Staffing and budget limitations will certainly preclude the implementation
                                 of some aspects of this program and will, therefore, force us to seek "creative

                                 financing." one possible source that we are optimistic about in Connecticut
                                 (and may be applicable in a number of states) is the integrated Emergency
                                 Management System. The preliminary analysis of hazards in Connecticut clearly
                                 identified flooding as the number one hazard. It is hoped that this finding

                                 will result in the channeling of additional resources towards flood prepared-

                                 ness planning.
                                      Finally, this program has been successful in convincing the towns that

                                 the state has documented and is well aware of the coastal flood hazard poten-

                                 tial. Even more importantly, by providing specific measures the locals can
                                 take to reduce flood losses, the state has assured that the towns cannot claim
                                 ignorance of flood management techniques when the flood occurs. This is a very
                                 important consideration given the shift of responsibility for flood prepared-
                                 ness and recovery from the federal to the state and local governments.

                                                  PROBLEMS AND APPROACHES IN MAPPING VELOCITY
                                                            ALONG THE U.S. COASTLINE

                                                             Christopher D. Miller
                                                         Bernard Johnson, Incorporated

                                                                  Introduction

                                      In the coastal zone, storm effects are varied and complex. Not only do
                                 the high velocity water associated with surge and waves challenge the structur-
                                 al integrity of buildings, but also the erodibility of the shore itself can be
                                 a cause of structural degradation or failure. The hazard potential of a site is

                                 further complicated when coastal protective devices are present (e.g., sea-
                                 walls, groins, and breakwaters.)

                                     To assess the absolute, or total, hazard requires that the interactions

                                 water4*sediment*->structure.(.>water be understood and quantified.

                                 Specification of the water motion (e.g., surge elevations and currents, wave
                                 heights and runup) on a nonerodible shoreline in the absence of human-made

                                 structures can be accomplished with a reasonable degree of accuracy. When the

                                 movement of the sediment and the modification of the flow by structures are

                                 included, such a specification becomes much more inexact. That is, the inter-

                                 actions can neither be described nor modeled in minute detail. Approximations

                                 are required.
                                     A few examples illustrate the nature of these interactions. When a shore-
                                 line is attacked by waves, waves running up the front face of the dunes exca-
                                 vate material and transport it offshore. The consequent shoaling and flatten-
                                 ing of the beach profile seaward of the dune reduce the height of the incoming
                                 waves and the rate of dune erosion. This type of feedback mechanism is common.
                                 A groin, whose purpose is to stabilize the shoreline (at least locally) can,

                                 because of its blocking action, induce a rip current. This narrow jet of water

                                 may transport sediment seaward and scour a channel parallel to the groin..
                                 Upland property could be destabilized and larger waves allowed to impact the
                                 groin. When coastal areas are filled in and bulkheaded for development (e.g.,

                                 backshore lagoons and marshes) surge waters can no longer disperse their energy
                                 at low velocity over a wide area. Rather, the channelization funnels and

                                 126                                               SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 intensifies the surge currents. Scour and possible undermining of structures

                                 result.

                                      How these and other interactions evolve over the course of a storm is only
                                 partly understood. The easiest study approach is to combine poststorm. obser-
                                 vations (beach profiles, location and degree of damage) with gross storm
                                 characteristics (peak surge level, significant wave height) to develop predic-
                                 tive relationships among the governing physical parameters. Even this "easy"
                                 approach has not realized its full potential.
                                      In conducting flood insurance studies, the Federal Emergency Management
                                 Agency (FEMA) has attempted to strike a balance between ease of implementation
                                 and level of technical sophistication. The goal has been to provide a reason-
                                 able description of the hazard and to do so in a uniform, evenhanded manner
                                 along the entire U.S. coastline. At the same time it has been recognized that
                                 science does not have all the tools necessary to accurately and economically
                                 predict the full range of storm hazards. of necessity, FEMA's technical
                                 procedures have evolved gradually over the past decade as the program has
                                 become more established and the scientific community has been stimulated to
                                 study coastal phenomena in greater detail. Limitations in the past have
                                 related to the practical implementation of such a broadly based program and to
                                 gaps in our knowledge of the physical processes governing the coastal zone.
                                      Although these two considerations still pertain today, technical pro-
                                 cedures have become more comprehensive and more defensible. The storm surge
                                 hydrodynamic model has advanced in sophistication; wave heights and wave runup
                                 have been incorporated in the "base flood elevation;" beach and dune erosion
                                 are being considered to some extent. The flood insurance program has also
                                 responded to local conditions. one example is the prediction of wave runup in
                                 the northeast U.S.; previously only the stillwater (surge) elevations were
                                 computed, and these levels consistently fell below the observed storm damage.
                                 Now with the inclusion of wave runup, the predicted upland penetration of high
                                 velocity water more closely mirrors historical observations. Erosion has
                                 always presented a problem for program implementation. This is because of its
                                 multifaceted nature and our scientific ignorance about how moving water and
                                 sediment interact. Recently some quantitative approaches have been introduced
                                 to partially address this deficiency (Tayfun et al., 1979; Balsillie, 1982;
                                 Vellinga, 1983).

                                   Miller                                                                           127

                                                        Erosion--Approaches and Constraints

                                       Not all aspects of surge and wave-induced erosion can realistically be

                                   accommodated in a flood insurance study. Erosion due to currents is to be

                                   differentiated from erosion due to direct wave action; scour at the base of a

                                   structure is different from scour at the base of a dune; the dramatic short-

                                   term erosion experienced during a single storm may contrast with a long-term
                                   trend of accretion for a particular segment of the shoreline. FEMA has taken

                                   some first tentative steps to account for the phenomenon. However, because

                                   FEMA's mandate is to establish flood elevations, all the nuances of the erosion
                                   phenomenon are beyond the scope of the flood insurance studies. An eroded
                                   ground profile is the starting point for the computation of wave crest eleva-
                                   tions; the direct impact of the erosion itself on a structure is not the focus

                                   of attention.

                                       Consideration of erosion at all represents a significant leap forward.
                                   Since FEMA's objective has been to establish minimum national criteria, it is

                                   incumbent on the individual states and communities to provide the detailed
                                   analyses and engineering criteria necessary for the siting and design of build-

                                   ings in their respective localities.

                                       Some of the kinds of erosion are described below:

                                   1)  wave-induced buildup of pore pressure internally in soils may lead to
                                       liquefaction, i.e. the soil behaving like a fluid.

                                   2)  Currents associated with the surge can cause scour around the foundation
                                       of buildings and breaching of low-lying sections of barrier islands. In
                                       backshore areas the storage of surge water during a storm can eventually
                                       lead to the formation of strong currents directed toward the backside of
                                       the barrier island when onshore winds cease and/or reverse direction
                                       (Leatherman, 1983; Miller, 1983; Miller and Bachman, 1984). Channels and
                                       other rigid human-made structures may exacerbate these flows.
                                            The primary objective of coastal flood studies is to predict water
                                       elevations, not currents, although the two are mutually dependent.
                                       Currents may be examined during the model calibration process (i.e. evalu-
                                       ation of the capability of a hydrodynamic surge model to reproduce
                                       observed elevations), but no hazard assessment is made based on the magni-
                                       tude of these currents. In addition, in areas inland from the open coast,
                                       the water motion is usually resolved at a scale of about one mile; the
                                       effect of physical features (either natural or human-made) with dimensions
                                       less than this may not be revealed by the modeling.

                                   3)  Scour at the base of a seawall (or other protective structure), or removal
                                       of supporting backfill by overtopping waves, can undermine the structure
                                       and allow higher waves and progressive erosion to threaten upland
                                       buildings.

                                 128                                              SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                  4) Deposition of sand or debris under an elevated building, as might occur
                                     because of overwash, would restrict water flow underneath the building and
                                     concentrate wave energy on the structure.

                                  5) An inlet prone to migration or erosion may be destablized during a storm.
                                     The large volume of high velocity water that is conveyed could erode the
                                     banks of the inlet. Additionally, accumulation of littoral drift on the
                                     updrift side of the inlet would favor erosion of the downdrift shore and  a
                                     net migration of the inlet. Erosion or inlet migration of modest propor-
                                     tions could endanger nearshore development.

                                  6) Shorelines are ephemeral. They are subject to change on short and long
                                     time scales. There are reversible seasonal changes; reversible and
                                     irreversible long-term trends (e.g. end points of a barrier island
                                     eroding, or retreating; the middle section of the island accreting, or
                                     prograding such as on Kiawah Island, South Carolina); and episodic changes
                                     due to individual storms. Summer beach profiles are obviously more appro-
                                     priate for a determination of velocity zones due to hurricanes; winter
                                     beach profiles are more appropriate for northeasters.
                                          Data on the long-term rate of change of U.S. shorelines, including
                                     the Great Lakes, have been assembled (May et al., 1982; Dolan et al.,
                                     1983). This data set, which draws upon various individual and organiza-
                                     tional sources for 1,689 coastal sites, is designed for presentation as a
                                     series of U.S. Geological Survey maps at a 1:2,000,000 scale. The origi-
                                     nal rate-of-change data on 3-minute grid cells, and statistical summaries,
                                     are provided in a Computerized Erosion Information System (CEIS) at the
                                     University of Virginia. (More detailed local information is available
                                     from other sources, e.g. Benton, 1983).
                                          The Atlantic and Gulf coasts are experiencing long-term shoreline re-
                                     cession rates of 0.8 and 1.8 meters/year. The Pacific Coast has a
                                     recession rate of only .005 meter/year. These are averages. Not all
                                     coasts are eroding; some are accreting (e.g. the rocky shores of Maine,
                                     and parts of South Carolina).
                                          Arguments have been made that risk assessment should acknowledge the
                                     fact that not all barrier islands are created equal (Hayes et al., 1981).
                                     Many of the barrier islands of South Carolina have been categorized as
                                     "regressive", i.e. developed through the seaward accretion of beach
                                     ridges/land-based sediments, which are deposited atop more seaward sedi-
                                     ments (Nummedal, 1983). in contrast, "transgressive' (landward moving)
                                     barriers have formed seaward of the mainland on the continental shelf
                                     during a period of lower water and have migrated shoreward as the water
                                     level rose (e.g. the Outer Banks of North Carolina).
                                          A stable or growing barrier island is one for which the vertical rate
                                     of sedimentation (material supplied by rivers, for instance) exceeds the
                                     rate of sea level rise. In the case of an eroding barrier the balance has
                                     swung the other way. In other words, a shoreline may actually build
                                     seaward even though sea level is rising. From this observation one can
                                     argue that a setback line for development must incorporate local dynamics.
                                     The shore adjacent to an inlet may be unstable, but toward the central
                                     portion of the island long-term stability could pertain.
                                          Long-term erosion or accretion is a response to storm surge and
                                     waves, aeolian (wind transport) processes, rising sea level, and littoral
                                     transport mechanisms (rivers, wave-induced longshore currents, inlet tidal
                                     flows). Delineation of these trends and fluctuation is important when

                                Miller                                                                      -1-29

                                     establishing setback lines for development. However, the task is often
                                     difficult because long-term trends can be masked by short-term fluctua-
                                     tions and patterns of erosion/accretion can migrate alongshore. In flood
                                     insurance studies analyses are performed with a topography that is con-
                                     temporary (as best as can be estimated with available maps) or is the
                                     expected shape of the landform immediately following the 100-year storm
                                     event. Realistically, long-term shoreline changes can only be accommo-
                                     dated by adjusting study results periodically.

                                 7)  The scour/undermining of dunes is a dramatic short-term event. Because it
                                     occurs coincident with the surge and waves generated by a storm, the
                                     inland propagation of the surge and the maximum attainable wave height are
                                     functions of the rate of erosion of the dune field. Therefore, specifica-
                                     tion of the "base flood elevation" must include this interaction. Various
                                     approaches have been adopted. The method most widely used at this time is
                                     historical reference--examining pre- and post-storm beach profiles to
                                     identify shoreline adjustments to severe storms. An example is the beach
                                     profile data gathered in Alabama after Hurricane Frederic. This method is
                                     obviously limited by the availability and quality of historical data. A
                                     variation on this technique is to assume that a reasonable erosion profile
                                     is obtained by drawing a line from the toe of the dune to the point on the
                                     leeside of the dune where the first slope break occurs. A more general
                                     approach, based on field observations and laboratory experiments, has been
                                     applied in North Carolina (Tayfun et al., 1979; Tetra Tech, 1983; Hodges
                                     et al., 1984) following the work of Edelman (1968, 1970). The method
                                     assumes that dune material is deposited directly offshore, and, con-
                                     sequently, the volume of sediment eroded from the dune equals the volume
                                     of deposition. Beach slopes are reduced (flattened) by a set factor.
                                     Recent work by Vellinga (1983, 1984) offers the prospect that the shape
                                     of the eroded profile (slopes) can be adjusted on a site-specific basis as
                                     a function of the sediment size.
                                         The drawback of these methodologies is that they are not explicitly
                                     designed for the case of surge overtopping, i.e. cases in which the storm
                                     surge level is above the crest of the dune. Practical modifications have
                                     been made to model this case (Hodges et al., 1984), although the results
                                     are only indicative of the erosion pattern to be expected.. The transition
                                     to onshore sand transport (washover) is not accounted for. Investigations
                                     parallel to those in North Carolina have been undertaken in Florida
                                     (Balsillie, 1982; 1983).
                                         Scour of the beach and dunes is a process that cannot be ignored in
                                     flood insurance studies. Scour was a major damage factor--second only to
                                     wind--during Hurricane Alicia, a moderate storm that struck the Galveston-
                                     Houston area in 1983 (Miller, 1983). once it was recognized that storm
                                     waves were capable of inflicting substantial damage, the establishment of
                                     V Zones was undertaken. There have been and continue to be problems in
                                     identifying and delineating this special hazard; however, as the work has
                                     proceeded the gap between problems and solutions has gradually narrowed.
                                     The incorporation of beach and dune erosion can be expected to follow a
                                     similar path. At the moment a uniform approach is not forthcoming. The
                                     effort should be made to sift through and synthesize the various data and
                                     methods. What is required is a comparison and consolidation of the
                                     several pieces of work that exist today--the scientific studies and the
                                     procedures that some states have already implemented. The increased

                                  130                                               SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                      interest in erosion mandates that more sophisticated thinking be brought
                                      to bear on the problem.

                                      All of the erosion categories described above are worthy of further atten-

                                  tion and study. However, the diversity and subtleties of the erosion phenomena
                                  defy complete analysis. of the seven (nonexclusive) categories identified,

                                  only category seven can be implemented with some degree of confidence. Never-
                                  theless, FEKA should work with and encourage coastal states in their efforts to
                                  quantify the erosion potential in all its aspects and to establish appropriate

                                  setback or land use criteria.

                                                  Coastal Structures--Protection versus Hazard

                                      When protective structures are placed in the coastal zones (e.g., sea-
                                  walls, groins, breakwaters, bulkheads, beach fill) some disturbance of the

                                  balance among waves, currents, and sediment is inevitable. The natural forces

                                  will tend to realign themselves to accommodate the presence of the structure.
                                  Although ambivalent feelings are often expressed about the benefits to be
                                  gained with the use of such structures, it can probably be stated that the
                                  adverse effects generally outweigh the benefits. However, there are several
                                  exceptions. When an absolute need, or some other justification (usually eco-
                                  nomic) exists, then a structure may be considered. A nuclear power plant, with
                                  its cooling requirements, has to be sited where large quantities of water are
                                  available; an established development may have to be "retrofitted" with a
                                  floodwall because current protection proves inadequate; a resort area that
                                  anchors a community economically may require periodic renourishment of its
                                  beaches or maintenance of its shorefront facilities; a port or harbor needs
                                  jetties to stabilize an inlet for navigation or a breakwater to intercept and

                                  reduce wave action.

                                      In assessing the protection afforded by coastal structures there are
                                  several considerations (and potential unknowns):

                                  1)  Was the structure designed for a 10-year storm? a 100-year storm?

                                  2)  is the design adequate for the specified design period? were construction
                                      procedures adequate?

                                  3)  is this a major structure or does it protect only a narrow stretch of the
                                      shoreline (e.g., one residence)? What is the diversity and density of
                                      structures along the shore?

                                  4)  To what degree does the structure destabilize the beach or ground around
                                      it?

                                Miller                                                                       131

                                     During Hurricane Alicia the failure of oceanfront bulkheads and grade
                                slabs on Galveston island was fairly common (Miller, 1983). These bulkheads

                                were obviously not designed for a severe storm. In contrast, on the same

                                island sits the Galveston seawall, a formidable structure built to withstand

                                severe stresses. Large, publicly funded projects, like the Galveston seawall,

                                have a built-in risk factor that is usually predictable. Small and/or private-

                                ly funded projects are less likely to have design and construction criteria
                                that can be easily accessed and evaluated. Therefore, it becomes problematic
                                how to assess the vulnerability of individual structures to a 100-year storm.
                                     The problem is compounded when the structure varies in design and type
                                from point to point along the shore. For example, one homeowner may elect to

                                protect his property with a stone revetment; his neighbor may rely upon a
                                timber bulkhead. Each protective device has different dimensions and surviva-
                                bility. In both cases, however, the 100-year storm will probably exceed the
                                structures' design thresholds. in fact, parts of the structures could become
                                projectiles during a storm, endangering the residences they were presumed to
                                protect. During design this presumption can promote a false sense of security

                                and lead to insufficient setback of the residence.

                                     Ideally, each protective structure along the shore should be individually
                                certified by an engineer. in practice this is not entirely feasible in flood
                                insurance mapping where a broader brush stroke is applied. If, for instance, a
                                group of protective structures is shown or assumed to remain intact during an

                                extreme storm and their top elevations do not vary appreciably one from the
                                other, then they may be treated as a single structure for the purposes of
                                computing wave heights.

                                     The creation or renourishment of a beach is a nonstructural protective
                                device. The elevation of the beach berm will control the maximum heights of
                                the wave that propagates inland. Losses and reworking of the placed fill mean
                                that the shoreline and the beach profile vary over time. Fill projects are
                                often characterized by relatively rapid loss or migration of material (both
                                offshore and alongshore), especially in the initial stages of the project. If
                                these losses have been accommodated in the design and/or periodic renourishment
                                is scheduled, then it may be possible to define a "stable" berm elevation.
                                However, the art of beach design and the prediction of maintenance requirements
                                is still rather primitive. More comprehensive measurement programs are needed
                                to be able to identify those conditions for which an efficient design is

                                  132                                               SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                  possible. If a beach has demonstrated stability over a number of years, then

                                  that beach configuration can be the starting point for the V Zone

                                  determination.
                                       The destabilizing influence of solid structures on contiguous sediments         V

                                  has been alluded to earlier. immobile, nonyielding structures can concentrate
                                  flows and intensify local scour. The beach profile tends to deepen at the base
                                  of a seawall. This in turn could precipitate structural failure during a
                                  storm. A seawall that is not properly tied back into the shore at its end

                                  points may be flanked by wave action and undermined. In California, winter
                                  storms require that periodic reconstruction of destroyed seawalls and bulkheads

                                  be undertaken. Along these same lines, it appears that in some cases a family

                                  of groins will induce a steepening of the offshore beach profile, permitting

                                  larger waves to approach the shore and promoting offshore transport of beach

                                  sediment. Because solid structures inhibit the natural transfer of material

                                  between the beach and the offshore area, a disequilibrium can occur whereby

                                  additional erosion of adjacent, unprotected shorelines is required to re-

                                  establish the sediment balance in the nearshore area. Thus, the presence of a

                                  seawall can enhance the local rates of erosion (Walton and Sensabaugh, 1976).

                                  In North Carolina there is a policy to disallow any shore hardening anda

                                  special setback to account for the immobility of structures.
                                      Are there situations in which coastal structures provide a level of pro-
                                  tection that would otherwise be absent? Certainly a well-engineered structure
                                  will protect the property behind it. Seawalls will break the incoming waves,

                                  as will an offshore breakwater or a shore-attached breakwater. FEKA's wave

                                  height method accounts for wave transmission over thin, human-made barriers
                                  (seawalls, floodwalls) but not over or around more massive structures such as
                                  breakwaters. Wave runup on sloping revetment structures may or may not be
                                  considered depending on the level of detail brought to the study. A groin,
                                  because it is oriented perpendicular to the shoreline, does not supply appre-
                                  ciable protection against waves arriving perpendicular to the shore. With
                                  respect to its sediment gathering capability, a groin has a differential effect

                                  on the shoreline, causing accretion in one area but erosion elsewhere. There

                                  are special cases in which groins can have a long-term beneficial effect.
                                  Sediment that is being lost from the tip of an island due to longshore dri ft

                                  may be retained by the placement of a single groin. Since the sediment was not

                                  feeding downdrift beaches, no detrimental effect ensues. Considerations like

                                   Miller                                                                             133

                                   this are somewhat academic, since it is a "snapshot" (not a history) of the

                                   beach and shoreline that is incorporated in the V Zone calculations.

                                                                         Summary

                                        The impacts of erosion and structures on the determination of V Zones have

                                   just begun to be explored and quantified. This is partly due to program con-
                                   straints (the inclusion of wave heights alone was, and is, a formidable under-
                                   taking) and partly due to the state of the science. variations on the water-

                                   structure-sediment interaction theme defy current analysis. Some have been

                                   discussed here, others may be important. It is imperative that there be in-
                                   ternal consistency in the methods to compute V Zones. With respect to erosion,
                                   in particular, the establishment of a uniform procedure(s) is needed. As the

                                   study guidelines are routinely updated, they should be made more explicit
                                   concerning the options available to the study contractor, conditions that
                                   require special attention, and procedures to be followed.

                                                                       References

                                   Balsillie, J. H.
                                        1982  "Horizontal Recession of the Coast: the Walton-Sensabaugh Method for
                                              Hurricane Eloise of September 1975." Beaches and Shore Technical
                                              Design Memorandum No. 82-2, Tallahassee: Florida Department of
                                              Natural Resources.

                                   Balsillie, J. H., D. E. Athos, H. N. Bean, R. R. Clark, and L. L. Ryder
                                        1983 "Florida's Program of Beach and Coast Preservation." In Preventing
                                              Coastal Flood Disasters, Proceedings of a National Symposium, ocean
                                              City, Maryland, May 23-25, 1983. Boulder: University of Colorado
                                              Institute of Behavioral Science.

                                   Benton, S. B.
                                        1983 Average Annual Long Term Erosion Rate Update - Methods Report.
                                              North Carolina DNR & CD Office of Coastal Management. Raleigh:
                                              North Carolina DNR.

                                   Dolan, R., B. Hayden, and S. May
                                        1983 nErosion of the U.S. Shorelines.n in CRC Handbook of Coastal
                                              Processes and Erosion. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

                                   Edelman, T.
                                        1968 "Dune Erosion during Storm Conditions." Proceedings, 11th Inter-
                                              national Conference on Coastal Engineering. New York: ASCE.

                                   Edelamn, T.
                                        1970 "Dune Erosion during Storm Conditions." Proceedings, 12th Inter-
                                              national Conference on Coastal Engineering. New York: ASCE.

                                    134                                                    SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                    Hayes, M. 0., T. W. Kana, and J. Michel
                                         1981,The Influence of Coastal Geomorphology and Erosion/Deposition Trends
                                               on the Assessment of Flood Risks in South Carolina. Columbia, South
                                               Carolina: Research Planning Institute, Inc.

                                    Hodges, P., C. Miller, and J. Walke
                                         1984 Prediction of Storm-Induced Dune and Beach Erosion in Brunswick
                                               County, North Carolina. Prepared by Bernard Johnson, Inc. for the
                                               Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, D.C.: FEKA.

                                    Leatherman, S. P.
                                         1983 "Coastal Hazards Mapping on Barrier Islands." In Preventing Coastal
                                               Flood Disasters, Proceedin5s of a National Symposium, ocean City,
                                               Maryland, May 23-25, 1983. Boulder: University of Colorado Institute
                                               of Behavioral Science.

                                    May, S. K., W. H. Kimball, N. Grandy and R. Dolan
                                         1982 "CEIS; The Coastal Erosion Information System." Shore and Beach 50:
                                               19-26.

                                    Miller, C. D.
                                         1983 n1dentification of Coastal High Hazard Areas." in Preventing Coastal
                                               Flood Disasters, Proceedings of a National Symposium, ocean City,
                                               Maryland, May 23-25, 1983. Boulder: University of Colorado Institute
                                               of Behavioral Science.

                                    Miller, C. D., and G. Bachman
                                         1984 "Planning for Hurricanes and other Coastal Disturbances." Urban Land
                                               (January): 18-23.

                                    Miller, H. C.
                                         1983  Hurricane Alicia: Learnipq from Galveston. A report to the office of
                                               6cean and Coastal Resources Management, National Oceanic &
                                               Atmospheric Administration. Washington, D.C.: Dept. of Commerce.

                                    Nummedal,  D.
                                         1983  nBarrier islands." In CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes and Erosion.
                                               Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

                                    Tayfun, M. A., S. M. Rogers, and J. Langfelder
                                         1979 A Methodology Report on Delineation of an Ocean Hazard Zone for North
                                               Carolina. Raleigh: North Carolina State University, Dept. of Marine
                                               Science and Engineering.

                                    Tetra Tech
                                         1983  Storm Induced Coastal Erosion in North Carolina. Washington, D.C.:
                                               Federal Emergency Management Agency.

                                    Vellinga,  P.
                                         1983  "Predictive Computational model for Beach and Dune Erosion during
                                               Storm Surges." Proceedings of Coastal Structures 83. New York:
                                               ASCE.

                                Miller                                                                       135

                                Vellinga, P.
                                     1984  "A Tentative Description of a Universal Erosion Profile for Sandy
                                          Beaches and Rock Beaches." Coastal Engineering 8: 177-188.

                                Walton, T. L., and W. m. Sensabaugh
                                     1976 Seawall Design on Sandy Beaches. To be published by the Florida
                                          State University Sea Grant Program.

                                                      EROSION RATES AND HAZARD MAPPING IN
                                                          COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

                                                                 David W. Owens
                                                    Director, office of Coastal Management
                                                North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
                                                           and Community Development

                                                                  Introduction

                                     Developing a clear delineation of natural hazards is an essential element
                                in coastal resource management. Knowing the magnitude, frequency, and impacts
                                of various natural hazards is a necessity in properly managing development
                                along the coast. It is therefore important that data gathdring and analysis on
                                hazards be an integral part of a management system to insure that the necessary
                                information is available and that it meets the legal and political needs of the

                                management program.
                                     In the North Carolina coastal management program, properly managing devel-
                                opment in natural hazard areas has long been a principal goal. The state's

                                Coastal Resources Commission, in adopting its standards for development along
                                North Carolina's 320 miles of ocean beaches, set three specific objectives for

                                its oceanfront development:

                                 1)  Minimizing the loss of life and property;

                                 2)  Reducing the encroachment of permanent structures onto the active beach
                                     system; and

                                 3)  Reducing the public costs of improper development, particularly the costs
                                     of disaster relief, infrastructure repair and replacement, flood insurance
                                     losses, and income tax losses through casualty loss deductions.

                                     operating primarily through the regulatory and planning provisions of the
                                Coastal Area Management Act, the state actively manages the location and design
                                of new coastal development to meet these three objectives.
                                     In order to successfully implement such a management program, accurate

                                information on natural hazards is necessary. in determining how large an
                                oceanfront setback to adopt and how stringent building design and construction

                                   138                                                 SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                   standards should be, the Commission had to secure accurate hazard delineation

                                   data.

                                        To be used in such a management program, hazards data have to meet three
                                   standards. First, they must be realistic. If they are not accurate, the

                                   management system that is based on them will be ineffective. it is critical to

                                   test hazards data not only against academic models, but also against past

                                   experience and other studies. Second, the data must be available for use. If
                                   they are too costly to secure or too time-consuming to generate or use, they
                                   cannot be used practically in a management scheme. Third, the data must be
                                   legally defensible. This standard does not require perfection, but it does
                                   require reasonable accuracy. The level of detail and accuracy required varies
                                   with the uses to which the data are put, but this factor must be carefully
                                   considered when selecting a method for hazard delineation. These three factors

                                   again emphasize the importance of developing hazards data and a management
                                   system concurrently and in close coordination. Knowledge of how the data will
                                   be used and what standard of accuracy and detail is required is essential in
                                   determining what information to collect and analyze. Similarly, knowledge of
                                   what data are or.can be made available and their limitations is critical in the

                                   design of management systems.

                                                 Hazard Delineation for the North Carolina Oceanfront

                                        In designing North Carolina's coastal management program, three natural
                                   hazards received particular attention--long-term erosion, inlet formation and
                                   migration, and flooding. such hazards as fire or high winds in coastal storms

                                   were deemed to be adequately addressed by other programs.

                                   Erosion Studies

                                        Erosion along North Carolina's oceanfront has two dimensions--the long-
                                   term fluctuation of the shoreline over many years and the dramatic short-term
                                   fluctuation of the shoreline in major storms. Attempts have been made to
                                   address both in the state's management program.

                                        Long-term Erosion. It has long been known intuitively that many segments
                                   of the state's ocean shoreline are receding. Structures first built along the
                                   ocean 50 years ago have been moved landward several times. Highways built in
                                   the 1940s have washed to sea, with segments being replaced in more landward

                                   locations. Subdivisions platted in the 1950s now have ocean front cottages on
                                   what were once second and third tier lots. While understanding of the impacts

                                 Owens                                                                          139

                                 of sea level rise is relatively recent, this experience has confirmed the fact

                                 that much of the state's coastline is indeed eroding over the long run.

                                      After reviewing over 93 studies delineating erosion rates for the state's

                                 beaches, it was concluded that none met the required standards of being

                                 adequately realistic, available, and defensible for use in the state's manage-

                                 ment program. Those that seemed reasonably accurate were only available for
                                 small segments of the coast. Those with statewide coverage were either too

                                 general for use with regulations or were early efforts with untested scientific

                                 reliability.

                                      Because of the critical need for accurate long-term erosion rate informa-
                                 tion and its central part in the emerging management program, the state decided

                                 to invest in a new study that would generate the needed data. This study,
                                 completed in 1980 and updated in 1981, is the most detailed, accurate, and
                                 comprehensive oceanfront erosion rate study conducted in the state and is now

                                 used as a key part of the management system.
                                      These erosion rates, which depict past erosion and do not purport to
                                 project future erosion perte, were produced using a method developed largely
                                 by Dr. Robert Dolan (Dolan, Hayden, and Heywood, 1978). Low altitude aerial

                                 photography, dating from 1935 to 1980, was compared to ascertain shoreline

                                 movement. This time period reflects both the period for which high quality,
                                 accurate photography suitable for analysis is available as well as being the
                                 40-50 year time frame that much of the state's management program is designed

                                 to address.

                                      In summary, the methodology involves: 1) enlarging 7-1/2 minute quad
                                 sheets to produce standard 1:5,000 base maps; 2) establishing a base line on
                                 this map parallel to the shoreline, with transects at 100-meter intervals for
                                 comparative shoreline measurements; 3) overlaying aerial photographs on the
                                 base map with a reflecting projector or zoom transfer scope; and 4) tracing and
                                 digitizing the projected shoreline to allow computerized analysis of the vege-

                                 tation and high water line movement.

                                      While the accuracy of this raw data is acceptable (Dolan, Hayden, May, and
                                 May, 1980), further data manipulation was undertaken to improve its usefulness
                                 for management purposes (Benton, 1983). In order to eliminate the impacts of
                                 possible operator error in individual measurements and to filter out short-term
                                 localized erosion phenomena, smoothing of the raw data via a running mean was
                                 undertaken. For each 100-meter transect, an average erosion rate was generated

                                 140                                              SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 using the 15 stations on either side of it. This produces, at 100-meter inter-
                                 vals, an erosion rate for the 3,100 meter segment of shoreline centered on that
                                 transect. This procedure provides increased statistical reliability for the

                                 data. where fewer than 31 stations were available, as near inlets, linear

                                 regression was used to smooth the raw data.

                                      In addition to smoothing via a running mean, blocking of areas with simi-

                                 lar erosion rates was done to make the data administratively useful. Segments

                                 with similar erosion rates, using a minimum length of one-half mile, was
                                 assigned a common erosion rate factor to be used in determining permit juris-

                                 diction and minimum oceanfront setbacks. The data was then displayed on

                                 1"=4001 aerial photographs for use by the permitting staff and on 1"-2 mi. maps
                                 for public information and general planning purposes.
                                      While constant updating of these data is required and developing methods
                                 must be evaluated constantly (Leatherman, 1983), the hazard data developed in
                                 this manner have proven to be realistic, available, and defensible. The re-

                                 sults produced are generally compatible with older studies, including data from
                                 lonqer-term analysis using 19th Century U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts.
                                 Also, since 1980, the state has expressed a willingness to modify the data for
                                 individual sites if more accurate and reliable localized data can be produced,
                                 and, to date, only one such request has been made, and the submitted data in
                                 that instance were found to be unreliable. The method has been challenged and
                                 upheld in administrative appeals, and none of these has continued to judicial

                                 review.

                                      Short-term Erosion. In contrast to this active and successful use of

                                 long-term erosion data, the state has been less successful in developing useful

                                 short-term erosion data. While it is certain that the shoreline is subject to

                                 dramatic short-term changes in storms, often measuring several hundred feet in
                                 major storms, there have been only a few studies documenting the change in

                                 North Carolina. The models predicting shoreline recession in storms are still
                                 evolving and to date have not successfully resolved the question of predicting
                                 the impact of dune overtopping on recession rates, a factor that likely will be

                                 common when a 100-year storm strikes North Carolina.

                                      Still, since short-term recession is such a critical factor for coastal

                                 management, efforts have been made to incorporate this aspect of coastal haz-
                                 ards into the state's management program. A study was conducted in 1979 to

                                 generate the best possible estimate of projected erosion in a 100-year storm

                                  Owens                                                                             141

                                  (Tayfun, Rogers, and Langfelder, 1979). The method used was a semiempirical
                                  model that balances areas of upland erosion and offshore deposition in a major

                                  storm. Three hundred and eighteen beach profiles were used to generate the

                                  recession estimates, which were then mapped on a 1"=4001 scale. While these
                                  data were not deemed precise enough for use in regulations establishing minimum

                                  ocean setbacks, the figures were used to delineate the hazard zones that set
                                  permit jurisdiction. Within these hazard zones minimum building standards are
                                  applied. For this more limited purpose--building standards rather than set-

                                  backs--the data were deemed sufficiently realistic and defensible, since more

                                  accurate data are not available.

                                  Inlet Studies

                                       The inlets connecting the Atlantic Ocean to North Carolina's extensive

                                  estuarine system of rivers and sounds appear to be stable and permanent. A
                                  number of the inlets have been bridged and development along their shores has

                                  increased, lending credence to this popular perception.
                                       However, analysis of the inlets' creation, closing, and migration show
                                  these to be among the state's most dynamic and hazardous areas. With the
                                  exception of the few with jetties or those that are naturally stable, the

                                  state's inlets are constantly shifting. Some move continuously in one direc-
                                  tion, while others fluctuate back and forth. All are subject to swift change

                                  that can destroy any improperly located development.
                                       Delineation of a hazard zone for existing inlets was carried out via
                                  statistical analysis of past inlet movement (Priddy and Carraway, 1978).

                                  Surveys and aerial photographs of past inlet location were mapped and analyzed
                                  to predict future inlet migration within varying confidence levels. This
                                  mapping also took into account such natural features as an unusually narrow
                                  barrier island or overwash area, and existing human alterations such as jetties

                                  and channels. The confidence intervals were then used to locate a minimum

                                  inlet setback and a broader hazard zone within which density and construction

                                  standards are applied. -These inlet hazard area delineations, first applied in
                                  1978 and updated in 1981, have been successfully used in the management pro-

                                  gram.

                                       Establishing hazard zones where there is a high potential for new inlets

                                  has not yet been accomplished. While new inlet formation occurs only rarely on

                                  the barrier islands that are large enough for substantial development, it is
                                  recognized to be a serious and real hazard. Formation of an inlet during a

                                 142                                              SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 major storm would obliterate development in its path and sever vital trans-
                                 portation and utility links. However, the state has not yet been able to
                                 generate data with sufficient reliability to justify use in the management

                                 program.

                                 Flood Studies

                                      To avoid unnecessary expense and duplication, the state generally uses

                                 flood insurance rate maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency

                                 (FEKA) to delineate flood hazard areas. Any area shown as a high hazard flood
                                 area (the open velocity zones) on such maps is automatically brought within
                                 state coastal permit jurisdiction. Use of the V Zones has the advantage of
                                 using a familiar map that is readily available and generally recognized to be

                                 accurate.

                                      However, FERA's recent remapping of the coastal flood areas to incorporate
                                 wave heights has caused several difficulties in North Carolina. While the
                                 state had requested and supported this move to produce maps that more real-
                                 istically portray flood hazards, the results depicted in the draft maps pre-
                                 pared under contract for FEMA were disappointing. The first draft maps sub-
                                 mitted to the state for review showed generally small V Zones when wave heights

                                 were added. In fact, in one case the V Zone depicted on the map was entirely

                                 seaward of the current mean high water line.
                                      Ensuing discussions with FEMA over the course of 1981-83 revealed that
                                 several disturbing assumptions were made in preparing the updated maps. First,
                                 the maps totally ignored long-term erosion, even though the state had detailed,
                                 reliable, and readily available dataL on past erosion rates. While this pre-
                                 sents few difficulties in stable areas with high elevations, it leads to a
                                 major understatement of risk in high erosion areas. Locating a 60-foot wide V

                                 Zone in an area with a 15-foot/year erosion rate without taking account of
                                 erosion is folly, unless new rate maps are going to be issued semiannually.

                                      Second, the models failed to take account of storm-induced eros-ion. As
                                 with long-term erosion, flooding and wave action in past storms clearly indi-
                                 cate that this is a seriously fallacious assumption.
                                      Third, the models assume that sand dunes are stable physical features in
                                 storms. Basing a V Zone on the seaward 15-foot elevation contour of a 16-foot

                                 oceanfront dune, and assuming this will be stable in a 100-year storm, ignores

                                  Owens                                                                              143

                                  reality and seriously understates risk.

                                        Fourth, there are some indications that storm surge levels were under-

                                  estimated. Finally, outdated base maps may have been used, further exacer-

                                  bating the above problems in high erosion areas.

                                        Fortunately, some of these concerns appear close to resolution after two
                                  years of discussion with FEKA. The models have been revised to take account of

                                  at least some estimation of storm-induced erosion. However, FERA has concluded
                                  that policy and legal constraints require them to ignore long-term erosion as a
                                  factor in mapping and that this can only be addressed through periodic map

                                  updates.
                                        In addition to these technical concerns, the lack of coordination with the

                                  state has been troublesome. As an example, FEMA has recently explained the
                                  two- to three-year delay in finalizing the maps to local governments (who in
                                  some cases are anxiously awaiting the maps in order to move from the emergency
                                  to the regular program) as being due to state requests to include erosion

                                  effects. Since this problem has been identified by numerous reviewers on a
                                  national level over the past years and since FEMA does have a responsibility to
                                  promulgate reasonably accurate maps, such intergovernmental complaints are
                                  misleading and contribute little to effective coordination.

                                                    Management System for Oceanfront Development

                                  Regulatory Provisions
                                        Using the studies described above, the state has established a program to

                                  manage development in the most hazardous areas along the oceanfront (Owens,

                                  1981).

                                        The regulatory program applies in three delineated high hazard areas that
                                  are officially designated in administrative rules adopted by the state Coastal

                                  Resources Commission. The "ocean erodible area" starts at mean low water and

                                  extends inland a distance equal to 60 times the long-term average annual
                                  erosion rate plus the projected 100-year storm recession (this distance being
                                  measured from the vegetation line). The "inlet hazard area" includes areas of
                                  potential inlet migration adjacent to existing inlets, and the "high hazard

                                  flood area" includes all numbered V Zones on published flood insurance rate

                                  maps.
                                        With these three areas, permits are required for any development or land-
                                  disturbing activity. The principal locational requirement in the permit stan-
                                  dards is the minimum oceanfront setback. The setback rule establishes four

                                 144                                              SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 tiers for development. First, no development may be located seaward of the
                                 vegetation line. Second, in the zone extending from the vegetation line land-

                                 ward, a distance 30 times the annual erosion rate (a 60-foot minimum), no
                                 permanent'substantial structures are allowed although parking lots, tennis

                                 courts and the like can be located there. Third, small structures (those with
                                 fewer than four units and/or less than 5,000 sq. ft. of floor area) can be

                                 located between 30 times and 60 times the annual erosion rate landward of the

                                 vegetation line. Larger structures must be at least 60 times the annual
                                 erosion rate behind the vegetation line.  Figure 1 illustrates these require-
                                 ments. Development must also be landward of the inlet setback, the landward

                                 toe of small frontal dunes, and the crest of larger primary dunes.
                                      Beyond this setback, any development in the delineated hazard areas must

                                 meet minimum construction standards. For  the most part these standards are
                                 based on those required by FEMA for floodplain zoning ordinances and the
                                 state's minimum building codes. Some standards, such as minimum piling size

                                 and penetration, have been increased. New moves by FEMA to establish graduated

                                 insurance rates based on the quality and survivability of structures will help
                                 reinforce these standards. Community risk rating would also contribute to the
                                 coordination of state and FEMA programs.
                                      Other state development standards include density limits in the inlet
                                 hazard area (only single family detached units are allowed), limits on any
                                 growth-inducing public investments in hazard areas, and limits on oceanfront
                                 erosion control structures. Significant new policy initiatives now being
                                 proposed in this last area would preclude any permanent shoreline stabilization
                                 and any projects that would block public use of the beach or increase erosion
                                 on neighboring properties (Outer Banks Erosion Task Force, 1984).

                                 Nonregulatory Provisions
                                      The state also actively employs nonregulatory techniques for managing

                                 oceanfront development. Coastal local governments are required to prepare
                                 comprehensive land use plans that are consistent with state standards. As of

                                 1983, the plans must include a poststorm planning element that addresses steps

                                 to be taken prior to coastal storms to minimize damage, specifies evacuation
                                 and recovery operations, and sets forth poststorm rebuilding policies. in
                                 addition, the state has actively used land acquisition to further its manage-
                                 ment objectives (Owens, 1983). This includes a beach access acquisition pro-
                                 gram with an explicit priority for acquiring lots unsuitable for development,

                                                                                                                                 Fiqure 1

                                                                           PERMITABLE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WITHIN OCEAN HAZARD AEC AREAS

                                                                                                       OCEAN HAZARD AEC

                                                                                            6OX AVERAGE ANNUAL EROSION RATE
                                                                                     OR ;OX + i05'wH!CHEVER IS LESS (120'MINIMUM)                                                                FIRST LINE OF
                                                                                                                  30X AVERAGE ANNUAL EROSION RATE                                  @---STABLE NATURAL
                                                                                                                                   (60' MINIMUM)                                                 VEGETATION

                                                                                                                                                         CREST OF
                                                                                                                                                         PRIMARYDUNF*
                      PRIMARY DUNE                                                                                                                                                       MEAN HIGH                                 @-MEAN LOW
                      ELEVATION GREATER                                                                                                                                                        WATER                                       WATER
                      THAN OR EQUAL TO
                                                                                                                                                                 FRONTAL
                      SURGE + 6'                                                                                                                         REAR TOE OF
                      100 YEAR STORM                                                                                                                                 DUNE

                                                                                                                                                         FRONTALDUNE
                                                                                                                  LONG TERM EffOSION
                                                                                                                  HAZARD/DUNE
                          > 60 YEAR EROSION AREA                       )30 YEAR EROSION AREA                      PROTECTION, AREA                       DUNE AREA                               BEACH AREA,

                          A. dune area development                       1. dune area development                 I. dune area development        1. dune walkover                    1. beach nourishment                             1. swimming
                          2. long term erosion hazard area                   activities                           activities                         structures                       2. beach bulldozing                              2. fishing
                             development                                 2. long term erosion hazard              2. permeable parking            2. gazebos less than or             3. emergency maintenance and                     3. surfing
                          3. greater then 30 year erosion                    or dune protection area              3. tennis courts                   equal to 200 square feel            repair                                        4. boating
                          I  area development                                activities                           4. swimming pools               3. campgrounds                      4. emergemy erosion and control
                          4. large condos                                3. traditional beach                     5. single family structure      4. elevated decks less than            structures for pre-Jvne 1,
                          5. motels                                          cottages                             exemptions:                        or equal to 500 square              1979 development
                          6. commercial structures                       4. muld-famity less than Or              9 lots too small to meet           feet
                                                                             equal to 4 units and                 setback and platted             5. storage sheds leis than
                                                                             5,000 square feet                    prior to June 1, 1979              or equal to 200 square
                                                                         5. commercial structures                 e structure's ground               feet
                                                                             less than or equal to                floor limited to 1000           6. temporary amusement
                                                                             5,000 square feet                    sq. It or less                     stands
                                                                                                                  * structure must be set         7. dune enhancement and
                                                                                                                  as far back as possible            repair
                                                                                                                                                  8. emergency main
                                                                                                                  in no case closer then                                tenence
                                                                                                                  60 feet                            and repair (provided
                                                                                                                  @ other special construc-          that no significant dune
                                                                                                                  tion standards                     alteration takes place)

                                 146                                               SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 tax credits for the donation of hazardous areas, estuarine sanctuaries and

                                 other programs.

                                      The state has strongly encouraged FEMA to more aggressively use relocation
                                 as a means of reducing certain future flood insurance losses, but to date this
                                 effort has been unsuccessful. The state is still pursuing adequate funding for
                                 Section 1362 acquisitions and coverage of prudent relocation under flood insur-

                                 ance policies.

                                                                   Conclusions

                                      The state of North Carolina has made substantial progress in the past five
                                 years in identifying hazard areas along its oceanfront and assessing the magni-

                                 tude of risks there. Accurate oceanfront erosion rates have been determined in

                                 a cost effective manner. Additional research is needed to quantify projected

                                 short-term erosion during major storms, and careful attention must be given to
                                 new flood insurance rate maps to assure that they do not significantly

                                 understate very real and serious hazards.
                                      Similarly, the state's management systems, at both the state and local
                                 level, have dramatically improved over the past five years. There remains a
                                 strong need for continued federal funding of these efforts to assure that these
                                 gains will not be lost and that progress in reasonable resource management will

                                 continue.

                                      Continued and improved coordination is badly needed. Academic efforts to
                                 study and delineate hazards must be closely related to management needs.
                                 Federal programs affecting development in hazardous areas--especially flood
                                 insurance, emergency management, land acquisition, public investment, and

                                 coastal management programs--must be coordinated to avoid counterproductive
                                 efforts. Through such renewed cooperation, better delineation of hazard areas
                                 and better management of inevitable coastal development is possible.

                                                                   References

                                 Benton, Stephen B.
                                      1983 Average Annual Long Term Erosion Rate Update: Methods Report. A
                                           report to the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. Raleigh,
                                           North Carolina: office of Coastal management.

                                 Dolan, R., B. Hayden, and J. Heywood
                                      1978 "A New Photogrammetric Method for Determining Shoreline Erosion."
                                           2 Coastal Engineering 21.

                                   Owens                                                                             147

                                   Dolan, R., B. Hayden, P. May, and S. May
                                        1980 "The Reliability of Shoreline Change Measurements from Aerial
                                             Photography." 48 Shore and Beach 22.

                                   Knowles, C., J. Langfelder, and R. McDonald
                                        1973 A Preliminary Study of Storm Induced Beach Erosion for North
                                             Farolina. Report 73-5. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina
                                             State University Center for Marine and Coastal Studies.

                                   Leatherman, S.
                                        1983 "Shoreline Mapping: A comparison of Techniques." 51 Shore and Beach
                                             28.

                                   Outer Banks Erosion Task Force
                                        1984 Report to the Coastal Resources Commission. Raleigh, North Carolina:
                                             Ff-fice of Coastal Management.

                                   Owens, D.
                                        1981 "The Management of Oceanfront Development in North Carolina." In
                                             Achievements of the 1970s and Prospects for the 1980s. Bethesda,
                                             Maryland: The Coastal Society, 1981.

                                        1983 "Land Acquisition and Coastal Resource Management." 24 William and
                                             Mary Law Rev. 625.

                                   Priddy, L., and R. Carraway
                                        1978 Inlet Hazard Areas. A Report to the Coastal Resources Commission.
                                             Raleigh, North Carolina: office of Coastal Management.

                                   Tayfun, M., S. Rogers, and J. Langfelder
                                        1979 A Methodology Report: Delineation of an Ocean Hazard Zone for North
                                             Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina; North Carolina State University,
                                             Dept. of Marine Science and Engineering.

                                                    MAKING MAPS USEFUL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

                                                                 Donna M. Mack
                                                           water Resources Management
                                                                State of Georgia

                                      The possible approaches to making maps more useful would be unlimited if

                                 one had unlimited funds. Since this is not the case, we, as state floodplain

                                 managers, must be innovative in helping local officials to use the maps. Many
                                 local officials are not aware of the true hazards associated with high risk

                                 areas such as coastal V Zones. Most have not been fortunate enough to have
                                 heard Neil Frank's message and perhaps do not understand the seriousness of the

                                 threat.

                                      Before I tackled this issue, the problem had to be clearly defined, which
                                 seems like an easy enough task. Yet, as I have discovered during my six months

                                 as Georgia's Floodplain Coordinator, when you are dealing with the NFIP,
                                 nothing is simple. So I distributed a questionnaire to 15 coastal communities
                                 in Georgia to gain insight into the day-to-day struggles facing the officials.

                                 The questionnaire covered topics such as: problems encountered with the maps;
                                 whether officials felt the maps were useful; and what suggestions officials
                                 could offer to improve the maps@ Ten of the 15 local governments responded to
                                 the questionnaire, and the others were contacted by phone.

                                      In response to the question concerning problems encountered with the maps,
                                 there was a broad range of responses. Some of the cited deficiencies were

                                 quite legitimate. They  ranged from a lack of benchmark locations for survey-

                                 ing, to inadequate base maps, to the generality and difficulty of referencing

                                 the maps. There seemed  to be a common feeling of frustration among the offi-
                                 cials having to enforce these maps.

                                      most of the officials I dealt with were generally knowledgeable about the
                                 maps. I discovered that if there was confusion, it was primarily with the
                                 insurance aspects of the program and not with actual flood mapping. Most
                                 officials were aware of what a V Zone defined and why the storm surge/wave
                                 height had recently been added to the maps. They did not agree with the wave
                                 height elevations or think that they were a necessary addition, but they did

                                 150                                               SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                 understand fairly well the concept behind wave height mapping. most officials
                                 thought that the maps were technically sound and reliable. Their concern was

                                 not that the data was correct, but rather that it was too general and therefore
                                 open to differing interpretations from homeowners, developers, or local

                                 officials.

                                      One of the most common complaints was that the base maps, which included
                                 roads, streets, legends, contour intervals, topography, and scale, were in-

                                 adequate. Many officials find it incredibly difficult to reference any speci-
                                 fic site on the maps and determine, without a doubt, what the site elevation is
                                 and in which zone it lies. This is further complicated in McIntosh County,

                                 because there are few benchmarks there to determine first floor elevations.

                                      Another dilemma is posed to some Georgia communities because of height
                                 restrictions on buildings located on barrier islands. For example, off the
                                 southern coast of Georgia, on St. Simon's island, which is currently experienc-
                                 ing a condo boom, the county had restrictions in effect limiting building

                                 heights to four stories before the adoption of the flood maps. The velocity
                                 zone elevations of those maps have resulted in requests for variances to build

                                 five-story buildings with parking below the first floor. Thus, the well in-
                                 tended flood program has left local officials with the problem of deciding

                                 between local and federal regulations.
                                      Regarding the insurance applications of the maps, many local officials,
                                 being planners and engineers, are ignorant of FIA requirements. When design
                                 standards are reviewed, many FIA requirements are not considered. A prime
                                 example of this occurred in Chatham County, where misunderstanding of the
                                 requirements for an elevation certificate caused chaos for several weeks.
                                 Engineers there refused to sign the elevation certificate for several struc-
                                 tures because they had not been built according to FIA standards. These
                                 particular structures were built with garages below the first floor level--
                                 which is allowed if the walls are breakaway or have openings every several feet
                                 to allow the free flow of water. Since these stipulations were ignored, the
                                 first floor elevation for these structures was determined to be garage level,
                                 even though that level might have been used for storage purposes only. Need-
                                 less to say, the Chatham County developers were more than slightly annoyed when
                                 they were told this. This problem was not a direct result of the flood maps
                                 but does reflect the confusion that can occur when not everyone is properly

                                 informed of the maps' use and the pertinent regulations.

                                 Mack                                                                             151

                                       The suggestions local governments offered for improving the flood maps
                                 centered on 1) improving the base maps; 2) providing training and education for
                                 those individuals who enforce V Zone regulations; and 3) conducting more de-
                                 tailed mapping.

                                       Inadequate base maps are usually a result of the map being out of date so

                                 that other maps  must be-used for reference.
                                       Training and education does seem to be widely needed. Improved interac-

                                 tion between state and local officials, federal and local officials, and FIA
                                 and local officials was specifically requested. Local officials also desper-
                                 ately need information on current construction standards and floodproofing
                                 techniques for commercial structures in A and V Zones. Increasing the aware-

                                 ness and understanding of officials as well as private citizens concerning the
                                 prediction of, forces involved with, and damages resulting from a hurricane
                                 should help discourage development in V Zones. If it does not discourage
                                 development, at least it will increase awareness for evacuation purposes.
                                       The third suggestion made by the officials was to make the flood maps more
                                 detailed, so that officials would have a scale they could work with and be
                                 confident with. The method used for mapping does not seem to be the problem.

                                 Instead it seems to be the unsatisfactory way in which the data is presented on
                                 the maps. A larger scale map would definitely help. Most officials are able
                                 to enforce the wave height regulations but not without resistance from locals.
                                       From my standpoint, the major difficulty for local officials in dealing
                                 with the maps results from the maps' representing a predicted or theoretical
                                 flood potential rather than a perceived flood potential. This makes it diffi-
                                 cult to impose wave height regulations on individuals who have lived in the '

                                 area for a number of years and have never experienced anything more than aver-
                                 age seasonal rainfall. This problem is, of course, not specific to the coast,

                                 but has been magnified there because of the recent imposition of increased wave
                                 height elevations. Because Georgia has not experienced a storm with hurricane
                                 force winds in several years, locals generally do not believe that a storm
                                 sufficient to produce the wave heights shown on the FEMA flood maps could, in

                                 fact, occur.

                                       In conclusion, there are several possible steps that could be taken to

                                 guide local officials:
                                       First, more training and education should be provided. workshops that
                                 review Federal Insurance Administration regulations are definitely needed. The

                                  152                                                SPECIAL HIGH RISK FLOOD AREAS

                                  flood maps have limited usefulness without some understanding of the corre-
                                  sponding regulations. The maps should not be presented to local officials

                                  without also providing a clear understanding of the objectives and goals to be

                                  met in using those maps. A coastal construction workshop to better acquaint
                                  local officials with construction designs and standards required by the FIA and

                                  NFIP would also be of tremendous assistance.

                                       Second, the relevant published research information--including handbooks,

                                  brochures, and manuals--should be distributed generously to officials. Again,

                                  the officials are able to benefit from the program only if they are knowledge-

                                  able about its maps and regulations.
                                       Third, hurricane awareness should be promoted and adequate evacuation

                                  measures taught.

                                       Fourth, local officials should be requested to record the type of con-

                                  struction, floodproofing methods, and standards used on various projects for
                                  reference, so that successful and not-so-successful techniques can be deter-

                                  mined.

                                       Fifth, and most importantly, local officials should be provided with
                                  realistic planning guidelines in areas of high risk. The maps should be used

                                  as a tool to identify and recognize the areas that are most vulnerable.

                                       Sixth, areas such as inlets, beach frontages, and hazardous erosion zones

                                  should be em asized to the officials as extreme high risk areas, so that

                                  management in these areas is more effective.

                                       I am certain there are many other possible ways to help local officials

                                  with the flood maps, but I think we can all agree that the number one priority
                                  is simply to educate them so that they can understand the maps and, perhaps
                                  more importantly, the NFIP. There will be little accomplished if we decide to
                                  improve the flood maps and ignore this basic lack of understanding.

                                                                   PART THREE

                                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS;

                                                                    Mapping

                                                       THE FUTURE OF FEKA'S FLOODPLAIN
                                                               MAPPING PROGRAM

                                                                John M. Gibson
                                                           Assistant Administrator
                                                          office of Risk Assessment
                                                       Federal insurance Administration
                                                     Federal Emergency Management Agency

                                                                 Introduction

                                     The future direction of FEMA's flood mapping program can be thought of as

                                being divided into three major areas: 1) the direction the program will take
                                between now and the end of FY 1987; 2) the direction the program will take in
                                FY 1988 and subsequent years; and 3) related goals we intend to accomplish
                                along the way, Before I begin, let me tell you of a telephone-call I received
                                Friday as I was leaving the office. Jim Holton, Director of Public Affairs,
                                called. "John," he said, " we would like to feature your office in our next
                                issue of the Emergency Management newsletter." "Great," I said, "I will look
                                forward to getting my copy." "OK," he said, "but that is not why I'm calling.
                                Just what is it you guys do up there?"
                                     Like Jim, many of you might not know what the Office of Risk Assessment
                                does. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the office's position within the Federal
                                Insurance Administration, and Figure 3 lists its goals and activities.

                                     The most important thing I can tell you of my office is that it, along
                                with the Office of Loss Reduction, was reintegrated as a unit of the Federal
                                insurance Administration on November 20, 1983. This was an important reorgani-
                                zation in that it now permits a more direct approach to resolving inconsis-
                                tencies in insurance, mapping, and regulations that might have come into being
                                during the past few years when units responsible for these functions operated

                                more or less autonomously.

                                                          Near Term Direction (NFIP)

                                                        Flood insurance study Program

                                                              FY 1984 to FY 1987

                                     The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 established a 1983 deadline for

                                the completion of all initial flood insurance rate studies. However, that Act

                                                156                                                       STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                                                        Federal Insurance Administration

                                                                                                        Office of
                                                                                                           the
                                                                                                      Administrator

                                                               Office of           Office of           Office of            Office of           Office of
                                                              Insurance               Risk             Insurance            Insurance             Loss
                                                             Operations          Assessment         Policy Analysis         Support            Reduction
                                                                                                    and Technical           Services
                                                                                                       Services

                                                                                                   Figure 1

                                                                              The Federal Insurance Administration

                                                                                                      Office of
                                                                                                 Risk Assessment

                                                                                                     John Gibson
                                                                                               Assistant Administrator

                                                                               Technical Operations               Risk Studies
                                                                                       Division                     Division

                                                                                      r- Undsey                        Mrazik
                                                                                         Chief                         Chief

                                                                                                   Figure 2

                                                                                   The office of Risk Assessment

                                 Gibson                                                                       157

                                           MISSION STATEMENT:
                                           THE OFFICE OF RISK ASSESSMENT DEVELOPS POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND
                                           METHODOLOGIES AND CONDUCTS FLOOD HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK
                                           ASSESSMENT STUDIES WHICH PROVIDE DATA NECESSARY FOR THE
                                           IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ACTUARIALLY SOUND NATIONWIDE FLOOD
                                           INSURANCE PROGRAM AND THE REDUCTION OF FLOOD LOSSES THROUGH
                                           LOCAL FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. THE FUNCTIONS OF ITS TWO
                                           MAJOR DIVISIONS ARE:

                                           TECHNICAL OPERATIONS DIVISION

                                           � INITIATE NEW STUDIES AND RESTUDIES
                                           � PROCESS REQUESTS FOR LETTERS OF MAP AMENDMENTIMAP REVISION
                                           � PRINT AND DISTRIBUTE MAPS AND REPORTS
                                             TRACK FLOOD STUDY FUNDS
                                             RESPONSIBLE FOR SPECIAL CONVERSIONS

                                           RISK STUDIES DIVISION
                                           � MANAGE FLOOD RISK STUDY AND MAPPING PROGRAM
                                           � DEVELOP TECHNICAL POLICIES, GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES
                                           � PROVIDE A NATIONAL FOCAL POINT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FLOOD HAZARD
                                             AND RISK DATA
                                           � PERFORM TECHNICAL REVIEW OF FLOOD INSURANCE STUDIES
                                           � RESOLVE TECHNICAL ISSUES OF APPEALS

                                                                    Figure 3

                                                     office of Risk Assessment Functions

                                 assumed that there were only about 5,000 flood-prone communities in the nation.
                                 Today, we know that there are almost 22,000 flood-prone communities in the

                                 United States. We have prepared Flood Hazard Boundary Maps for about 19,100 of
                                 these communities. As of-the start of FY 1984, about 17,500 of these communi-

                                 ties participated in the NFIP. The status of these communities is shown in

                                 Figure 4.

                                     The near term direction of the flood study proqram will focus on providing
                                 full program status--that is, conversion to the regular program--to the 7,826

                                 communities presently in the emergency program.
                                     Although well over the original estimate of 5,000 community studies have

                                 been completed, the question remains: how many emergency program communities

                                 warrant a flood risk study, and what level of effort should be expended to

                                 develop risk data for them?

                                     In 1983, the U.S. General Accounting office released a report, "The
                                 Federal Emergency management Agency can Reduce Mapping Costs," in response to

                                 the desire by Congress to consider options for expediting the conversion of

                                            158                                                  STRATEGUESFOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                                                 17,542

                                                                                     21,928 FLOODPRONE COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE

                                                                 4,384
                                                                              PARTICIPATE IN THE NFIP
                                                                              DO NOT PARTICIPATE

                                                                                    17,542 COMMUNITIES PARTICIPATE IN THE NFIP
                                                                 9,716
                                                         1,350., -'           REGULAR PROGRAM
                                                                 6,476        EMERGENCYPROGRAM

                                                                                    4,384 COMMUNITIES DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE NFIP

                                                                           MAPPED
                                                                           UNMAPPED

                                                                                           Figure 4

                                                                 Status of the NFIP as of the Start of FY 1984

                                            remaining unstudied communities to the Regular Program. The GAO recommended
                                            that FEMA undertake a systematic approach to determine the level of study
                                            needed, including the following actions:

                                               �  Rank communities on the basis of development potential;

                                               �  Incorporate other mapping approaches in the decision-making process; and

                                               �  Weigh the benefit of additional. detailed study against study costs in
                                                  making decisions.

                                                  In November, 1983, Congress passed P.L. 98-181, which amended Section
                                            1360(a)(2) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, to extend the flood

                                            insurance study program to September 30, 1985, and added a new subsection re-
                                            quiring the Director of FEMA to submit to Congress a plan for converting all

                                            communities to the Regular Program of the NFIP by September 30, 1987. Congress
                                            also extended the Emergency Program and the initial studies completion date to

                                            September 30, 1985.

                                Gibson                                                                         159

                                     FEMA has responded to this legislation and the GAO report by initiating a

                                number of actions which will determine the future directions of the flood

                                insurance study program. In FY 1983, FEMA initiated a study to evaluate the
                                floodplain development potential in the remaining unstudied communities. This
                                contract was awarded to Donnelley marketing Information Services, a company of
                                the Dunn and Bradstreet Corporation. Donnelley is a leading firm in small area
                                demography. The final results of this study were received in May 1984, and
                                include an assessment of existing floodplain property at risk and projected
                                future property at risk for the period 1984-1998. About $13.8 billion in new
                                development is expected to occur in the unstudied floodplains during this
                                period (Figure 5). The Donnelley study indicates that only'3,712 communities

                                would experience significant new development in their unstudied special flood
                                hazard areas--the 100-year floodplain--during this period. The rest of the
                                communities would experience steady or declining development in their 100-year
                                floodplains. The unstudied communities were then ranked based on the value of

                                property at risk in the 100-year floodplain.

                                     In FY 1984, FEMA entered into an Interagency Agreement with the U.S.

                                Geological Survey to review all remaining unstudied communities that had been

                                recommended for detailed study by the FEMA Regional offices. The purpose of
                                that review is to assess the applicability of less costly and less time con-
                                suming methods for assessing the hydrologic and hydraulic conditions within.
                                those communities and to recommend various types and levels of study based on
                                those findings. The location of the 2,400 communities being screened by the
                                U.S. Geological Survey is shown by state on the map of the United States in
                                Figure 6. The U.S. Geological Survey will complete most of its screening

                                efforts this summer.

                                     FEMA is currently in the process of preparing the report to Congress
                                required by the 1983 amendments to the National Flood Insurance Act. This
                                report will detail the number of communities to be converted to the Regular
                                Program by the various methods (i.e. full detail study, limited detail study,
                                existing data study, minimally flood-prone conversion or non-flood-prone con-
                                version), the funding required, and the time required. The decision whether a
                                community warrants a flood insurance study and, if so, what level study should
                                be performed, will be based on a benefit/cost analysis. This analysis con-
                                siders the costs associated with the various types of study in relation to the
                                future benefits of reduced flood losses that can be expected as a result of

                                    160                                       STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                                          PROPERTY                    FUTURE PROPERTY AT RISK
                                                           AT RISK
                                                                      - - - - - - - - - -
                                                                                    I EXISTING PROPERTY AT RISK
                                                                   1984   TIME    1998
                                                                   3,712 COMMUNITIES WITH
                                                                   INCREASING RISKS

                                     PROPERTY                                  PROPERTY
                                      AT RISK                                   AT RISK
                                         (S)

                                             1984    TIME                              1984     TIME   1998
                                               hO3 70 COMMUNITIES WITH                  1,41S COMMUNITIES WITH
                                                 NCHANGING RISKS                        DECREASING RISKS

                                                                         Figure 5

                                                Results of the Demographic Survey of 7,497 Communities

                                                                                                         102
                                                          14          42
                                                                           35
                                                    4        21       0          86     24          3     4  RI. 0
                                           0   0      12     24       2      5     S   0   126 86  617
                                                                               4                   25
                                                                                      92           98
                                                     0      -19         7     20               47

                                                                                   151 104  129
                                                                      27
                                                                               22

                                                 0                                             40

                                                                         Figure 6
                                                    Number of Study Areas to Be Evaluated by USGS

                                                             for Less Detailed Study Methods

                                Gibson                                                                        161

                                improved floodplain management based on the data provided by the study. We
                                have determined that the benefit of a flood insurance study, in these terms, is
                                about 2.5 cents per one dollar of future development that would have been

                                otherwise unwisely sited in the 100-year floodplain. By comparing this benefit
                                with the average study cost of the different types of flood insurance studies
                                and Donnelley's estimates of the value of future development, we have been able
                                to determine the most cost-effective means of converting the 6,476 unstudied
                                communities to the Regular Program.

                                    Results of our analysis show that some 820 full detail studies and 770
                                limited detail studies can be supported by future floodplain development. We
                                also find justification for studying about 190 additional communities using the
                                existing data study process. The remaining unstudied participating communi-
                                ties, approximately 4,700, will not receive a study and will be converted to

                                the Regular Program as either minimally flood-prone (with approximate flood
                                hazard mapping) or non-flood-prone (without a map). These study initiations

                                and special conversions will all occur between FY 1984 and FY 1987 (Figure 7).

                                      �  THE ACTUARIAL SOUNDNESS OF THE NFIP AND ITS LEGALITY REST ON THE
                                         ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF ACCURATE AND CURRENT FLOOD
                                         HAZARD DETERMINATIONS.

                                      �  A CONTINUING PROGRAM IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE TECHNICAL
                                         ACCURACY AND USEFULNESS OF EXISTING FLOOD RISK DATA WHICH
                                         FORMS THE BASIS FOR ACTUARIAL INSURANCE PREMIUM RATES AND
                                         LOCAL FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT.

                                      � PUBLISHED FLOOD INSURANCE MAPS MUST BE REVISED TO:
                                           �REFLECT CHANGES IN FLOOD PLAIN HYDROLOGIC OR HYDRAULIC
                                            CONDITIONS
                                           �REFLECT ADVANCES IN STATE-OF-THE-ART METHODOLOGIES
                                           �ACCOMMODATE THE EMERGENCE OF NEW OR REFINED DATA
                                           �CORRECT SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNICAL ERRORS IDENTIFIED IN THE
                                            ORIGINAL STUDY
                                           �EXTEND AREAS OF DETAIL STUDY TO OTHER PARTS OF THE
                                            COMMUNITY

                                                                  Figure 7

                                              NFIP Need for Flood Studies Maintenance Activity

                                     162                                        STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                              �  MORE THAN 19,000 FLOOD INSURANCE MAPS HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED SINCE
                                                 THE INCEPTION OF THE NFIP. HISTORICALLY, MORE THAN $100 MILLION OR
                                                 ABOUT 20% OF TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS HAVE BEEN SPENT TO KEEP THESE
                                                 MAPS ACCURATE AND UP TO DATE.

                                              �  PUBLISHED FLOOD INSURANCE MAPS AND STUDIES MAY BE UPDATED BY
                                                 FOUR MEANS:
                                                  � FLOOD INSURANCE RESTUDIES            PERFORMED WHEN
                                                                                         CHANGE IS EXTENSIVE

                                                  � FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY REVISIONS
                                                  � LETTERS OF MAP REVISION              PERFORMED WHEN AN
                                                                                         APPELLANT PROVIDES DATA
                                                  � LETTERS OF MAP AMENDMENT (

                                              �  WITH THE START OF FY 1988 THE STUDIES PROGRAM WILL BEGIN TO
                                                 OPERATE AT THE FULL MAINTENANCE LEVEL.

                                              �  ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS OF ABOUT $36 MILLION WILL BE REQUIRED TO
                                                 SUSTAIN THE ESTIMATED LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED
                                                 IN FY 1988 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THESE FUNDS WILL SUPPORT THE
                                                 FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES:
                                                  * 215 FLOOD INSURANCE RESTUDIES
                                                  * 400 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY REVISIONS
                                                  * 1,520 LOMRWLOMAs

                                                                           Figure 8
                                                    NFIP Projected Flood Studies maintenance Activity
                                                                      FY 1988 and Beyond

                                          Our plan to Congress will recommend that, after netting out studies

                                     started during FY 1984 and FY 1985, funding be provided to initiate the remain-

                                     ing cost-effective studies in FY 1986 and FY 1987 and authorization to conduct

                                     these new studies be extended to cover those two years. The new studies ini-
                                     tiated during FY 1984 will be those recommended to us by our regional offices.

                                     Most of the FY 1985 funding for new studies will be used to initiate those

                                     limited detail studies recommended by the U.S. Geological Survey.
                                          All minimally and non-flood-prone communities will be converted to the

                                     Regular Program during FY 1984-1987, with an average of about 1,200 communities

                                     scheduled for conversion each year during this period. Our plan to Congress

                                     will also recommend that the Emergency Program be extended to September 30,

                                     1990, to allow all communities that had studies initiated in FY 1986 and FY

                                     1987 to be converted with effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

                                Gibson                                                                      163

                                                       Long-Term Direction of the NFIP

                                                        Flood insurance Study Program

                                                              FY 1988 and After

                                     FEMA intends to begin a full maintenance-level program of flood insurance
                                restudies and map revisions beginning in FY 1988. The philosophy of applying

                                benefit cost relationships in study decision making will continue in there-

                                study program.

                                     In FY 1986, FEMA will establish a formal restudy decision-making process
                                that will take into consideration both insurance and floodplain management

                                benefits to be derived from restudies relative to their cost. FEMA will also

                                be encouraging cost sharing, either by direct contribution of funding or by
                                actual performance of various study elements by state or local governments, as
                                a means of increasing restudy priority. FEKA will also respond to appeals by
                                individuals or communities to revise maps when such appeals are supported with
                                technical data supplied by those groups.
                                     My best estimate of the level of activity that will occur as the flood
                                study program operates in the maintenance mode is that we will be revising

                                about 5% of all the effective flood insurance studies with base flood eleva-

                                tions each year (Figures 7 and 8). We project that one-third of these updates

                                will be accomplished by the restudy process and the other two-thirds through
                                the map revision/amendment process. This would translate into initiating about

                                215 restudies per year, performing about 400 map revisions, and issuing about
                                1,520 letters of map revision or amendment. Congress would have to provide

                                funding of about $36 million per year to support this level of activity. we

                                will have a more realistic picture of FY 1988 and beyond after we have com-
                                pleted the formal study we will be undertaking next year.
                                Actions Related to the Flood InBuranc-e Study Program
                                     In January we had ambitious plans for having the map initiatives program
                                far enough along by now that I could talk to you about likely alternative map

                                products and whether we would continue to print separate Flood insurance Rate

                                Map and Flood Boundary Floodway Map panels. Unfortunately, we underestimated
                                the time it would take to get input from agents, lenders, appraisers, others in

                                the insurance industries, and public officials. our original timetable was
                                premised on piggybacking the map ini.tiatives survey onto already scheduled
                                workshops. After conducting two insurance workshops in this manner in
                                February, we realized that the project was too important to squeeze it into an

                                  164                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                               �  Changes common to all now samples:

                                                  � Zones compressed - maximum of 5 IAE, VE, A, V, and 01
                                                     In coastal communities and 3 In riverine communities (AE, A. and 0)
                                                  � Differences between sample and current format In explanatory box.
                                                  � Map repository address and zone Identification dates eliminated.
                                               �  Changes in now FIRM Index Panels:

                                                  � Roodpmne street Index
                                                  � SFHA delineated shown
                                                  � Map Information shown beyond corporate limits
                                               �  Changes in now FIRM Panels:

                                                  � AJpha-numeric street locator grid
                                                  � Rectilinearized SFHA
                                                  � Small scale single panel RRM for entire community
                                               �  Now FIRM/FBFM Panels:

                                                  � Now initiative to show all information on one map
                                                  � Shows Insurance information (SFHA, Zones, BFEs) and floodplain
                                                     management Information (floodway, cross-sections, river miles)

                                                                     Figure 9

                                                              Map Initiatives Project

                                                            Final map Sample Selection

                                  already ambitious agenda. We want it to be given the attention it deserves.
                                  The last workshop was conducted on June 7, 1984, and the tabulation of the
                                  questionnaires is to be completed by June 30. The sample maps and question-
                                  naire relate to changes shown in Figure 9.

                                       We have received from the Association's Mapping and Standards Committee
                                  Chair about 220 completed questionnaires with a preliminary evaluation of the

                                  results. Likewise, we have received a preliminary analysis of the 180 re-

                                  sponses submitted during three agent/lender workshops and 14 completed ques-

                                  tionnaires from four of our regional offices. Preliminary findings based on
                                  these partial samples are shown in'Figure 10. 1 am pleased with the reaction

                                  received from all survey respondents. The response has been overwhelmingly

                                  enthusiastic, and it looks as though we will have more than 800 opinions from

                                  all sections of the country upon which to base our future decisions.

                                       I have given you the bad news--the survey was not completed as originally
                                  scheduled. The good news is that we can make up the slippage in the schedule.

                                  All cost-effective recommendations for alternate formats are scheduled to be

                                       Gibson                                                                                       165

                                                                                  AGENTS&ENDERS ASFPM        FEMA REGIONS
                                                NO. OF RESPONDENTS                        ISO          219   14 in 4 Regions
                                                PRELIMINARY FINDING
                                                ELIMINATE TWO MAPS
                                                  (FIRMIFBFM)                             80%          88%         100%
                                                PREFER RECTILINEAR FIRM                   86%            9%           0%
                                                PREFER CURVILINEAR FIRM                   14%          91%         100%
                                                PREFER LESS DETAIL ON FIRM                YES          NO          NO
                                                PREFER MORE DETAIL ON FIRM                NO           YES         YES
                                                PREFER SFHA ON FIRM INDEX                 YES                      YES
                                                PREFER STREET INDEX & GRID                YES                      NO
                                                PREFER CROSS HATCHED
                                                  FLOODWAY                                YES                      YES
                                                INCLUDE AREA BEYOND CORP.
                                                  LIMITS                                  YES          YES         YES
                                                PREFER MAP SAMPLE NO.                     F2           R3          R3

                                                MAP F2 =NEW FORMAT-SINGLE PANEL, SMALL SCALE FIRM WITH RECTILINEAR
                                                                        SFHA COMPRESSED ZONES, FLOODPRONE STREET
                                                                        GRID AND STREET LOCATOR GRID
                                                MAP R3= NEW FORMAT-MULTIPLE PANEL, LARGE SCALE COMBINED
                                                                        FIRMIFBFM WITH COMPRESSED ZONES, CONTOUR
                                                                        LINES, LANDMARK BUILDINGS, SPOT ELEVATIONS AND
                                                                        INFORMATION SHOWN BEYOND THE CORPORATE
                                                                        LIMITS

                                                                                Figure 10

                                                           Map Initiatives Project Preliminary Findings

                                       implemented at the start of FY 1985 as new maps are issued or as existing maps

                                       are revised.

                                            Some of the innovative mapping initiatives we are pursuing are a feasi-
                                       bility study of providing users with microimages of our maps rather than paper
                                       copies; a feasibility study of the LIDAR laser ranging system to produce topo-
                                       graphic maps; and the use of geographic information systems to produce digi-
                                       tized maps and to fully automate the production and distribution of flood

                                       insurance maps. A summary of the future directions of the NFIP Flood Studies
                                       Program is given in Figure 11.

                                     166                                       STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                                         NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

                                              � EMPHASIS FY 1984-1987

                                                COMPLETE THE INITIAL STUDIES PROGRAM
                                                   � INITIATE ALL COST-EFFECTIVE STUDIES BY SEPTEMBER 30,1987 AND
                                                    COMPLETE THEM BY SEPTEMBER 30,1990
                                                   � INITIATE AND COMPLETE ALL SPECIAL CONVERSIONS BY
                                                    SEPTEMBER 30, '1987

                                              � EMPHASIS FY 1988 AND BEYOND

                                                   � BEGIN FULL MAINTENANCE LEVEL ACTIVITY IN FY 1988 AND OPERATE
                                                    IN THIS MODE DURING SUBSEOUENT YEARS
                                                   � FY 1988-90 COMPLETE PIPELINE OF STUDIES STARTED IN FY 1986-87

                                              � RELATED ACTIVITIES
                                                   �IMPLEMENT MAP INITIATIVES PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
                                                   �ISSUE COMPREHENSIVE APPEALS PROCESS MANUAL
                                                   �COMPLETE COUNTY-WIDE MAPPING FEASIBILITY STUDY
                                                   �COMPLETE HURRICANE CLIMATOLOGY STUDY
                                                   �COMPLETE STORM SURGE MODEL REVISIONS
                                                   �COMPLETE ALLUVIAL FAN METHODOLOGY UPDATE
                                                   �COMPLETE LIDAR LASER RANGING SYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY
                                                   �COMPLETE ALASKA COAST TSUNAMI STUDY
                                                   �COMPLETE MICRO IMAGING FEASIBILITY STUDY

                                                                        Figure 11
                                                     Future Directions of the Flood Studies Program

                                                APPLICATION OF INNOVATIONS IN MAPPING TECHNOLOGY
                                                           TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDIES

                                                                Brian R. mrazik
                                                          Chief, Risk Studies Division
                                                        Federal Insurance Administration
                                                      Federal Emergency Management Agency

                                                                  Introduction

                                     Technology presently exists for fully automating nearly all of the flood
                                 insurance study and mapping process. Yet in present application, many flood-
                                 plain mapping processes for flood insurance studies and other purposes remain
                                 largely manual operations. This brief paper examines the elements of a fully
                                 automated floodplain mapping system, some of the reasons why greater automation
                                 is not yet applied, and a possible transition plan for phasing into a fully

                                 automated process.
                                                     Automated Floodplain Mapping System:
                                                             An Idealized Concept

                                 Topographic Data Collection

                                     Figure 1 illustrates the components of,an idealized floodplain mapping
                                 system which are summarized in Table 1 and can be compared to conventional
                                 flood insurance study approaches. Under the conventional approach, topographic

                                 data is collected by field surveys or a combination of field surveys and photo-
                                 grammetric methods. Additional topographic data may be obtained by manually
                                 taking data points off available contour maps. This data is then hand encoded
                                 and keypunched for input to hydraulic or hydrologic computer models.
                                     The development of profiling laser ranging systems such as the LIDAR
                                 (Light Detection and Ranging) system under study by the Corps of Engineers and
                                 the APTS system (Aerial Profiling of Terrain System) under development by the
                                 United States Geological Survey (USGS), provides opportunity for the rapid

                                 collection of ground elevation data, in digital map format, which can be
                                 directly input to computer based Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
                                 Scanning laser mapping systems have also been proposed that would allow for the
                                 generation of an entire topographic map in digital format.

                                                                    168                                                                                  STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                                                                                                                                            Digiti.e
                                                                                                      Aerial                                                existing
                                                                                                 Photography                                                cultural)
                                                                                                                                                         land cover
                                                                                                                                                             data                       Pu!xhase
                                                                                                                                                                                        --isting
                                                                                                                                                                                        c.It ... It
                                                                                                                                                                                        land cover
                                                                                                                                                                                        data
                                                                                                                                                                                        in digital
                                                                                                   Analytical                    Laser                                                  form
                                                                                              Photog-rnet'ic                    Scanner/                    Manuall
                                                                                                     Syste.                     Profile,                     canne,

                                                                                                     Digital                                                Digital
                                                                                                Topographic                                                cultural/
                                                                                                     DATA                                                land cover
                                                                                                                                                  I          DATA
                                                                                                                                                   zwop,, an!                  Hyd,olo i
                                                                                                                                                                                  ..    . !,c
                                                                                                                            Computer                                              (HEC-11                    Interactive
                                                                                                                           Geo ra hic                   U104t,                          Flwd                      CRT
                                                                                                                           Info      ation                                              Dtschatres             Terminal
                                                                                                                              S Ste
                                                                                                                                                                                Hyd'astfic
                                                                                                                                                                                  Model

                                                                                                                                                                                  (HEC-2)

                                                                                                                                Plotter                                                                       Printer

                                                                                                       Flood Plain Maps                    Flood Profiles                                                DATA Tables

                                                                                                                                               Figure 1

                                                                                                              Conceptual Diagram of Fully Automated
                                                                                                                         Flood Insurance Study System

                                Mrazik                                                                       169

                                                 1. Collection and utilization of topographic data In digital format
                                                   using laser profiling (e.g., LIDAR), laser mapping systems, or
                                                   Analytical Photogrammetric Systems (APS@

                                                 2. Collection and utilization of land cover and cultural data In
                                                   digital format by manual or scanning digitization of existing
                                                   mapping or by purchase of such data generated from satellite or
                                                   photographic imagery.

                                                 3. Utilization of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to develop
                                                   direct input of digital topographic and land cover data Into
                                                   hydrologic and hydraulic models.

                                                 4. Utilization of GIS to generate flood plain maps and profiles from
                                                   hydraulic model outputs and to store and revise maps and
                                                   profiles.

                                                                   Table 1

                                                        Elements of a Fully Automated

                                                         Flood Insurance Study System

                                     Analytical Photogrammetric Systems (APS) rely on conventional aerial
                                photography with human interpretation but provide for computer-assisted set up
                                and maintenance of the stereo model. In application,  APS records x, y and z
                                coordinate data in digital format. Attributes can be  assigned to digitized
                                point, line, and polygon features at the same time. The resulting digital data

                                base can also be used to create a GIS.

                                Planimetric and Land Cover Data

                                     In addition to topographic data, flood insurance studies utilize other
                                map-based information, including land cover and soils data required to deter-
                                mine runoff coefficients in some hydrologic models. Cultural data and other
                                planimetric information such as roads are usually obtained from existing map
                                sources to formulate a base for the floodplain mapping. A fully automated
                                floodplain mapping system would utilize land cover, soils, and cultural data in

                                digital format.
                                    Land cover data can be digitized manually from aerial photography using

                                the APS system. Landsat systems, including the Thematic Mapper and Multi-
                                Spectral Scanner can also be used to provide digital land cover data at a
                                somewhat lower resolution.. Another alternative is the manual digitization of
                                land cover data from existing maps such as USGS quadrangles.

                                 170                                     STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                      Planimetric data can be digitized from aerial photography utilizing APS,
                                 but more frequently it is digitized from existing mapping sources. Planimetric
                                 line data can also be digitized automatically through the use of various map

                                 scanning devices such as the SysScan system.
                                 Interfacing with Hydroloqic Models
                                      Under the conventional approach, topographic and land cover information
                                 are manually encoded, keypunched and utilized as input data to various hydro-

                                 logic and hydraulic models to generate flood discharge-frequency and elevation-
                                 frequency data. This is an iterative process whereby the engineer interprets
                                 the output, primarily in printout format, and then adjusts various input para-
                                 meters to correct, calibrate, or "fine tune" the model. This can be an expen-
                                 sive and time consuming process because adjustment to the input data, such as
                                 adding an additional cross section, or subdividing a watershed, requires addi-
                                 tional manual operations.
                                      Using state-of-the-art digital mapping technology, much of this process
                                 can be automated, including the interfacing between digital topographic and
                                 land cover data, and hydrologic and hydraulic models, as well as the computer
                                 generation of flood profiles and maps. At the heart of this process is the
                                 computer-based GIS. GIS technology permits the storage and manipulation of map
                                 data by geographic coordinates such as latitude and longitude. Many "overlays"

                                 of attributes such as elevation, land covers, and sails can be assigned to a

                                 particular point, line, or polygon defined by various coordinates.

                                      In application to floodplain mapping, digital topographic, cultural, and
                                 land cover data would be fed into the GIS as separate overlays and registered
                                 to the same coordinate system. Watershed and sub-basin boundaries would also
                                 be digitized if hydrologic modeling is to be utilized to obtain flood frequency

                                 estimates. The GIS can then be used to directly generate input data required
                                 for the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. For example, graphic display te'rmi-
                                 nals could permit engineers to select the location and alignment of stream
                                 cross sections, which the GIS would evaluate and encode for input to the
                                 hydraulic model. As a second example, GIS overlaying of watershed and sub-
                                 basin boundaries on land cover and soils map information could be used to

                                 automatically compute runoff curve numbers for sub-basins as input to the SCS

                                 TR-20 program.
                                      Real time interfacing of hydrologic and hydraulic models with a GIS in
                                 conjunction with graphic display terminals can permit the engineer to see

                                Mrazik                                                                      171

                                almost immediately the impact of a data input decision or calibration adjust-
                                ment on the final flood profile or floodplain or floodway boundary. Such a
                                system could greatly reduce the iterative processing time required to calibrate
                                and tune such models to achieve an acceptable result.
                                Generation, Storage and Revision of Flood Mapping
                                     Under the conventional mapping approach, when a satisfactory hydraulic
                                result is achieved, computed flood elevations are usually read manually from

                                the computer printout and plotted to form flood elevation profiles which are
                                incorporated into the flood insurance study text. Elevations from the flood
                                profiles are also used in conjunction with a topographic base map to plot the
                                floodplain limits in a fully manual process. Floodplain limits are then over-
                                laid on a planimetric base map to produce a Flood Insurance Rate Map using the
                                standard manual cartographic processes. Under a fully automated system, a GIS
                                can be used to drive plotters and generate hard copy floodplain maps and pro-

                                files using the digital topographic and planimetric data in conjunction with

                                digital output from the hydraulic model.

                                     Perhaps the greatest advantage of the GIS is the potential to readily

                                revise and update floodplain maps. Because all input data as well as the
                                floodplain maps themselves can be stored in digital map format, changes such as
                                in watershed land use or floodplain topography can be digitized to update the
                                various overlays and input for revised hydrologic and hydraulic analyses.
                                Output from the revised analyses is then used by the GIS to generate new flood-
                                plain maps and store the revised map in digital form.

                                                             Current Limitations

                                Topographic Data Collection Systems
                                     Although the state-of-the-art in computer mapping technology has advanced
                                to the point where fully automating the flood insurance study process is
                                possible, there are a number of constraints which preclude this being a cost-

                                effective alternative in the near term (Table 2).

                                     For topographic data collection, LIDAR is a representative example of
                                airborne laser profiling systems. LIDAR is the acronym for Light Detection and

                                Ranging and works on a principle similar to RADAR or SONAR. LIDAR systems
                                measure distances by measuring the time difference between laser pulse genera-
                                tion and return of the pulse after reflection by the target. Mounted on air-

                                craft, LIDAR can be used to collect elevation data by measuring the distance

                                  172                                   STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                                 1. Vertical elevation accuracy of current laser systems.
                                                 2. Field surveys required for hydraulic structures and underwater
                                                   sections.
                                                 3. Availability and cost of hardware within the private sector.
                                                 4. Existing digital data bases at a usable scale (eg., 1:24000) are
                                                   very limited.
                                                 5. Creation of digital data bases by manual digitization or even
                                                   scanning digilization with manual assignment of attributes Is
                                                   costly and time consuming.
                                                 6. Large study areas are required to achieve cost break-even.
                                                 7. Digital map data from different sources is not in a standardized
                                                   format.

                                                                    Table 2

                                                 Factors Currently Limiting Full Utilization of

                                                       Automated Insurance Study Systems

                                  between the aircraft and the land surface. This measurement is very accurate,

                                  within centimeters.over miles. However, the overall accuracy of airborne LIDAR
                                  data is a function of how accurately the aircraft position can be determined.
                                  This accuracy does not yet approach that of aerial photogrammetric or land-
                                  based surveys, although this limitation will probably disappear in the near
                                  future. Recent and future advances in satellite navigation systems such as the

                                  NAVSTAR Global Positioning System will provide a capability for precisely
                                  locating ground station control for airborne laser systems. Inertial naviga-

                                  tion systems aboard the aircraft will also maintain accurate aircraft position
                                  data to increase the overall accuracy of airborne laser systems.

                                      A second factor limiting the usefulness of airborne laser mapping systems
                                  is the continuing need to obtain field surveys of hydraulic structures such as

                                  bridges and underwater channel cross sections. Thus, the costs of field survey

                                  efforts are not completely eliminated by this approach, so that they add to the

                                  cost of the total survey effort.

                                Mrazik                                                                        173

                                     A third key limiting factor is that the availability of hardware and

                                software systems as well as operational experience is extremely limited within

                                the private sector. This is the result of the large investment which most

                                conventional surveying and mapping firms have been unwilling to make at this
                                time. As a consequence, although airborne laser systems offer the advantages
                                of speed and direct collection of data in digital format, they may only be cost
                                effective in situations where large mapping jobs are required in more remote
                                areas. These constraints do not presently conform to current flood insurance

                                study efforts in which the collection of topographic data is usually limited to

                                small reaches of floodplain in developed and developing areas.
                                     For the near future, the APS offers the greatest promise for reducing

                                surveying costs for floodplain mapping studies. Although the basic data ex-
                                traction techniques remain the same as for conventional aerial photogrammetry
                                (i.e., manual interpretation of a stereo image), stereo model development and
                                aerotriangulation procedures are performed by computer with the APS system.

                                These automated functions may offer up to a 40% time savings over the tradi-

                                tional photogrammetric methods. Another advantage of APS is that topography,
                                cultural line work, and land-use polygons can be digitized and stored to create
                                a spatial data base for later computer manipulation by GIS. The primary factor
                                limiting the use of APS in floodplain mapping is its limited availability in
                                the private sector. This will probably be a short-term limitation.

                                Geographic Information Systems

                                     Computer generation of floodplain maps from digital data likewise has a

                                number of limitations that currently preclude its cost-effective use as a

                                standard production method. The main advantages of GIS cartography are that
                                once spatial data have been entered into the data base in the form of a series
                                of overlays, computer cartographic software allows the overlays to be analyzed,
                                combined, revised, changed in scale, and manipulated in other ways that would

                                be extremely time-consuming by hand. The major drawback of GIS cartography at
                                present is the lack of available map data in digital format and, therefore, the

                                costs of establishing digital data bases.

                                     Existing digital map data at a usable scale (e.g., 1:24,000 or larger) is
                                still quite limited. The USGS has recently established a program to digitize

                                its quadrangle maps at the rate of 300 per year. Eventually this type of "off
                                the shelf" digital map data will greatly reduce the cost of creating a GIS for
                                floodplain mapping purposes. However, immediate implementation of computerized

                                 174                                     STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 mapping for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) would require an ex-
                                 tremely heavy investment in digitizing existing base map data.

                                      Although the encoding of map information through scanning can greatly
                                 reduce manual digitization efforts, computer analysis of scanned data beyond

                                 overlay and reproduction is extremely limited. More complex computer analysis

                                 generally requires manual digitization to assign attributes to particular

                                 points, lines, and polygons in the data base. This remains a costly and time

                                 consuming process.

                                      Another limiting factor in computer generated mapping is the availability

                                 of hardware and software systems within the engineering community. At present,

                                 the requirement for production of maps in digital form by study contractors
                                 would limit the number of contractors capable of performing such studies. One

                                 option would be to convert studies to digital format at the Technical
                                 Evaluation Contractor (TEC) stage, but this would be an expensive digitizing

                                 effort.

                                      Finally, the development of uniform digital cartographic standards and
                                 guidelines within the federal sector should probably precede any major effort

                                 by FEMA to produce floodplain mapping in digital format. In an effort to
                                 initiate such action, the office of Management and Budget has created a Federal

                                 Interagency Coordinating Committee on Digital Cartography, in which FE14A is
                                 represented. This group is headed by the USGS and is engaged in identifying
                                 the status of digital cartography in the federal sector. After this assessment
                                 is complete, the committee will move toward the establishment of uniform stan-
                                 dards, which is expected to take several years to complete.
                                                  Plans to Incorporate New Mapping Technology
                                      Table 3 provides a proposed schedule for phasing new mapping technology

                                 into flood insurance study production. Since essentially all initial flood

                                 insurance studies will be underway or completed by FY 1987, this technology

                                 will be applied primarily in the maintenance level restudy program. Because
                                 the National Flood Insurance Program will not be a major producer of new map-
                                 ping in the maintenance level program, FEMA's efforts will follow the trend set
                                 by the primary federal mapping agencies (USGS and the Defense mapping Agency)
                                 rather than attempt to operate on the fringes of new technology which could be
                                 considerably more expensive. Therefore, the actual incorporation of new tech-

                                 nology will occur only after a clear benefit-to-cost relationship has been

    Fiscal Year				Tasks

    84-87				Phase I:  Proof-of-Concept

    84				Lidar demo
    85				Lidar & APS demos, GIS feasibility
    86				Lidar & APS applications
    87				Conduct GIS Pilot & revise Technical Evaluation Contractor (TEC)

    88-90				Phase II:  Tec Operations

    88				Award high technology TEC contracta
    89				Begin TEC production of maps in GIS format.  Prepare study
    				contractor guidelines requiring stufy submittal in GIS format

    91-93				Phase III:  Study Contractor Operations

    91				Award high technology study contractor contracts
    92				Begin receiving restudies in GIS format
    93				Begin fully automated syster

    Table 3

    Proposed Timable for Phasing New Mapping Technology
    into Flood Insurance Studies

    estiblihed.  FEMA proposed a three phase transition plan:  Proof-of-Concept,
    Phase I--Proof-of-Concept
    	During the four-year Proof-of-Concept phase, demostrations will be used to prove the effectibeness of new
    technology for flood study purposes.  In particular, LIDAR and APS systems will be tested.  GIS's will also be
    created and used to pilto test the production of floodplain mapping.
    	Durning the first year (FY 84) one LIDAR demonstration will be performed.  FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers have entered into an agreement to test airborne LIDAR as part of an ongoing Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for
    Hays County, Texas.  The LIDAR data is expected to be collected during September 1984.  FEMA hopes to have thoroughtly
    examined the results of this demonstration and have developed conclusions and recommendations by late FY 85.  FEMA
    is also exploring the possibility of testing LIDAR in some other locations during FY 85.  Based on thise tests, guidelines
    for LIDAR use in FIS's will be prepared and operational applications may begin as early as FY 86.

                                 176                                    STRATBGIESFOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 Phase II--TEC Operations
                                      During the next three-year phase, TEC operations will be geared for the
                                 production of studies in GIS format. During FY 88, studies for which many
                                 revision requests are being received will be digitized and used to demonstrate
                                 efficiencies of computer-assisted revisions and to fully establish operational

                                 systems.

                                      During FY 89, full production of flood study mapping in digital form will

                                 begin for new studies being processed through the TEC contractors. Also in

                                 PY 89 a conversion priority for communities with older maps in hardcopy will be

                                 established. The priority a community receives will be based on the number of
                                 revision requests expected, demographic trends, and other data. Digitizing

                                 existing studies based on this listing will be initiated in FY 90.

                                      Preparation of study contractor guidelines requiring submittal of studies

                                 and mapping in GIS format will also be developed in FY 90.

                                      The first APS demonstration will be conducted during FY 85, to be followed

                                 by further applications in FY 86. Use of the APS will result in the creation

                                 of a data base for a GIS. Presently, flood maps are not tied to a horizontal

                                 coordinate system that would facilitate the creation and use of a GIS. As part
                                 of a GIS feasibility investigation, FEMA will examine the need and requirements

                                 for horizontal control in floodplain mapping in FY 85 and incorporate such

                                 requirements in study contractor guidelines in FY 86. Testing the use of the
                                 GIS to produce studies will occur during FY 87 and will include processing at

                                 least one complete pilot PIS in digital format by a TEC.

                                      During Phase I there will be a need to revise the TEC Guidelines and

                                 Specifications to require GIS techniques and provide guidance on procedures.

                                 This effort should be completed by FY 87. The TEC ME selection criteria for

                                 new FY 88 contracts would include a requirement for the ability to produce

                                 flood studies and maps in digital format. This will set the base for Phase

                                 III.        V

                                 Phase III--Study Contractor Operations

                                      During Phase III, lasting three years, study contractor operations will be

                                 shifted to increase automation. Beginning in FY 91, study contractors with

                                 high technology capabilities will receive preferential treatment during con-

                                 tractor selection and by FY 93 only firms with acceptable technology levels

                                 will receive contracts.

                                Mrazik                                                                      177

                                     The effort of digitizing older studies will continue through, and perhaps

                                beyond, Phase III. The time frame for accomplishing this task will depend on

                                resource commitment and advances in scanner technology that will minimize the
                                resources required.

                                                            Summary and Conclusion
                                     Technology currently exists to fully automate the flood insurance study
                                process. Great strides are being made in digital topographic data collection
                                and in the collection and processing of other map data in digital form.

                                Advances in computer hardware and software capable of processing map data in
                                digital form allow for the creation of Geographic Information Systems with the

                                potential to create, revise, store, and transmit map information in far less
                                time than conventional cartographic approaches.

                                     Such systems are not presently used in the standard production of flood-
                                plain mapping because of current limitations that inhibit their cost-
                                effectiveness. These limitations include vertical accuracy constraints of
                                airborne mapping and profiling systems; limited availability and cost of
                                hardware and software systems within the private sector; limited availability
                                of existing digital map data bases at usable levels of resolution; the high
                                cost of the digitization process required to create digital data bases; and the
                                lack of standardized digital mapping specifications among agencies producing
                                digital map data. All of these limitations will be reduced in the future with
                                the improvement and mass production of the hardware and software systems

                                involved.

                                     FEMA, as a second-level map producer, will follow the lead of the primary
                                mapping agencies in the conversion to fully automated cartographic processes.
                                It is estimated that this process will take approximately 10 years beginning
                                with feasibility studies and demonstration efforts followed by conversion of
                                TEC operations and finally by conversion of study contractor operations.
                                     Transitions will be made at points where benefit and cost considerations
                                justify doing so and in a prioritized fashion. The rate of total conversion of

                                all community maps to digital format will depend on funding levels designated
                                for this purpose.

                                                         FEMA USE OF AERIAL I14AGERY:
                                                               A LAYMAN'S VIEW

                                                              Timothy E. Maywalt
                                                               FEMA Region VIII

                                                                  Background

                                     Since October of 1983, 1 have been managing a project involving the analy-
                                sis of aerial imagery applications to FEMA programs. its purpose is to identi-
                                fy proven, affordable remote sensing tools that can improve FEMA programs.
                                Research and development was neither intended nor performed. The project's
                                scope includes only those applications that have been used successfully by
                                others. The activities to be reviewed included mapping for flood insurance
                                purposes; monitoring community implementation of the National Flood Insurance
                                Program (NFIP); activities associated with presidentially declared disasters;
                                and those associated with "other hazards"--unique hazards as defined for the
                                purposes of this conference--managing dam breaks, mudflows, lake-rise flooding,

                                liquefaction and others.
                                                                 The "Layman"
                                     FEMA did not choose a practitioner of remote sensing, e.g., a photogramme-
                                trist, to perform this analysis. There seemed to be some concern about the
                                objectivity of such practitioners based on previous experiences. FEMA wanted
                                reports that were credible (not products of an advocate), understandable (not
                                written in the jargon of a practitioner) and persuasive in their objectivity.
                                I was selected because of my extensive experience in the fields of floodplain
                                management and disaster mitigation, project management, policy analysis and
                                program evaluation. As a geographer, I had some familiarity with air photo
                                interpretation, but my experience in remote sensing was, in general, quite
                                limited. I was assisted throughout the project by a technical advisor, Mr.
                                Monte Mingus of the FEMA Region VIII staff, who has had several years' practice
                                in air photo interpretation. In studying mapping applications, we were
                                assisted by Mr. Daniel Cotter of FEMAIS Risk Studies Division, a highly compe-
                                tent engineer and experienced practitioner of remote sensing, to whom credit

                                for much of the success of our project belongs.

                                                                         STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                                                      method

                                       Our approach was straightforward. We reviewed the literature, interviewed

                                  the practitioners, visited their facilities, and evaluated what we read and

                                  heard. For many applications, our task was easy, since much of what FEMA does

                                  is also done by other government agencies, most of which are far advanced in
                                  their reliance on aerial imagery. Several of the applications we reviewed are

                                  tried and tested and have long since been well-established as routine proce-

                                  dure. As an example, in our literature search we found a document entitled
                                  "Fifty Years of Aerial Surveys of Floodplains," (Miles, 1979).

                                       In the case of floodplain mapping, we focused our interviews on Flood

                                  Insurance Study contractors and their aerial survey subcontractors. We asked

                                  what they were doing and how; the relative costs of air vs. ground Surveys;

                                  their comparative strengths and weaknesses; the effects of the Contractor
                                  Guidelines' constraints on reliance on air surveys; and what benefits might be
                                  derived by changing current FEMA procedures. For some applications we per-
                                  formed field tests, for others where we were not equipped for testing, we

                                  recommended that such tests be performed.

                                                           Findings and Recommendations

                                       The two applications of interest to participants in this workshop involve
                                  unique hazards and mapping. unfortunately, from the standpoint of making

                                  comments relevant to this conference's overall theme, unique hazardS have yet
                                  to be reviewed. Three recommendations have been made on mapping: 1) modify the

                                  Flood Insurance Study Contractor Guidelines to expand reliance on air vs.

                                  ground surveys as a cost-saving technique; 2) test LIDAR or other state-of-the-
                                  art remote sensing tools for elevation data gathering and test computerization
                                  of study-related data handling, again as cost-saving techniques; and 3) inven-
                                  tory air survey based techniques for performing "limited detail" studies to
                                  select workable, low-cost methods. Brian Mrazik and the Risk studies Division

                                  of FEKA are addressing our second recommendation. That division is also
                                  arranging to have the Corps of Engineers perform a comprehensive review of
                                  potential improvements to the FIS Contractor's Guidelines (recommendation 1)
                                  and to have the U.S. Geological Survey inventory limited-detail study tech-
                                  niques (recommendation 3).
                                       our findings on the use of air photos in priority setting are not as
                                  positive. There appear to be little measurement,data suitable for priority
                                  setting available through air photo interpretation that is superior to existing

                                Maywalt                                                                     181

                                sources in strength as an indicator of rank, reliability, or accessibility.
                                our findings on the use of air photos in monitoring efforts allowed for only a
                                subjective assessment to be made because of difficulties in establishing cost
                                effectiveness. We stated in the report that the benefits appear to offset the
                                costs, but continued evaluation since then has yet to result in an objective
                                assessment. We are continuing our review. We have not yet reviewed activities
                                associated with Presidentially-declared disasters.

                                                                  Conclusion

                                     As a nonpractitioner (I've graduated to slightly beyond the layman level
                                after nine months involvement in the project), I can provide an "objective"

                                viewpoint. There are practicable, understandable, and affordable ways to
                                improve floodplain management, especially mapping, by adding or increasing
                                one's current reliance on remote sensing tools. However, as with most tech-
                                nology, its use has limitations and needs to be pursued with an open, but

                                critical mind.

                                                                  References

                                Miles, R. D.
                                     1979 "Fifty Years of Aerial Surveys of Floodplains." In B. Moulton, ed.,
                                         Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science. Indianapolis: The
                                         Academy.

                                                        INNOVATIONS IN LAND DATA SYSTEMS

                                                                 David A. Tyler
                                                         Surveying Engineering Program
                                                              University of Maine

                                                                  Introduction

                                     Land information used in the regulation and management of high risk flood

                                hazard areas is inadequate. One cannot fail to reach this conclusion after

                                studying the material provided to participants in this conference and looking

                                at the recent history of flood zone administration. Existing mapping and land

                                information systems are often of low or unknown quality and accuracy, contain
                                inappropriate data, are not easily accessible, and are not in a form or loca-
                                tion that allows integration with other data sources.

                                     While this paper will deal primarily with the technical aspects of the
                                land information situation, it should be understood that a significant com-

                                ponent of the problem is political, economic, institutional in nature and has
                                little to do with technical innovations. our ability to organize institutions
                                to collect, integrate, and disseminate land data and information lags far
                                behind our development of technological devices.

                                     In the United States we still tend to think in terms of ad hoc data

                                collection and single-purpose mapping. we do not approach the land information

                                problem in a systematic manner. This condition is slowly changing and there is
                                reason to believe that progress will be made on the political and institutional

                                front. Recently, publications by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 1983,

                                1980) have indicated possible solutions. Innovative people and organizations
                                in places such as the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission are

                                showing us examples of what is possible.
                                     In spite of all this, serious technical problems remain to be solved.

                                Surveying and mapping has been and still is a time-consuming and costly
                                proposition. This paper will be devoted to recent and projected developments
                                and innovations that may reduce the time and cost of mapping operations and

                                 184                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 allow the presentation of geographic data in a meaningful and useful format.

                                      Any land data or information system must contain several essential com-

                                 ponents. The following discussion will be organized around the geodetic refer-

                                 ence framework, the base map, and data base management schemes--three of these

                                 components.

                                                              Reference Framework

                                      A geodetic reference framework or control system is an essential part of

                                 any land information or mapping system. In the past, the cost of establishing
                                 required control has often been a major portion of the total cost of a mapping

                                 project. In many cases, time and cost constraints have resulted in the genera-

                                 tion of local maps not tied to a geodetic control network. Such maps and
                                 information tend to be of minimal use beyond an original narrowly defined

                                 purpose. A number of recent developments promise to revolutionize the ways in
                                 which we establish geodetic control.

                                 Global Positioning System
                                      The NAVSTAR Global Positioning System (GPS), an array of 18 navigational
                                 satellites, is expected to be fully operational in the latter half of this

                                 decade. The system is designed to provide instantaneous three-dimensional,
                                 all-weather navigation to an accuracy of 200m to civilian users and 16m to U.S.
                                 government agencies and other authorized users (Heuerman and Senus, 1983).

                                 .Signals recorded over a period of one to three hours can be used by surveyors

                                 to compute much more accurate positions. Six satellites have been placed in

                                 orbital planes that provide a "window" of several hours each day when surveying

                                 observations can be made. Several receivers are in the development process,
                                 and one instrument, the Macrometer, is already in commercial production and
                                 use. A typical observation with the Macrometer requires occupation of two or
                                 more survey stations for two to three hours and produces a computed vector
                                 connecting the occupied stations accurate to 1:1,000,000 in all three com-
                                 ponents. Versions of the Macrometer now in the development process promise to
                                 be even more accurate than the current generation and more compact and easily
                                 carried in the field (Leick, 1984).

                                      The potential of GPS surveying is enormous. it is suddenly conceivable to

                                 measure relative positions over almost unlimited distance% to centimeter
                                 accuracy in a few hours with no requirement for intervisibility between
                                 stations. All one needs to see is the sky. With currently available receivers
                                 costing in excess of $100,000 each, it is already possible to reduce the cost

                                 Tyler                                                                         185

                                 of many control surveying projects. It is anticipated that equipment and
                                 project costs will be even lower in the near future.
                                 Airborne Laser Ranging System
                                      The NASA Goddard Space Flight center has done research and development on
                                 a multibeam Airborne Laser Ranging System (ALRS) which measures distances
                                 simultaneously to six ground-based passive reflectors with centimeter pre-
                                 cision. By flying over a grid of ground reflectors at two altitudes, the

                                 system can provide reflector positions in latitude, longitude, and elevation

                                 over an extended area. High altitude aircraft such as the U-2 and RB-57 can
                                 potentially survey areas of up to 60,000 square km in one six-hour flight with
                                 an error growth rate of one cm per 100 km (Degnan, 1982).

                                      ALRS represents another possible technique that could significantly reduce
                                 the cost and effort required to establish precise geodetic control. originally

                                 conceived as a device to monitor crustal deformation and tectonic plate motion,

                                 the system could have many land information applications. AIRS is at this time
                                 not heavily supported by NASA. It is not clear if the system will be developed

                                 to a working prototype in the near future.
                                 Photogrammetric Triangulation
                                      Photogrammetric triangulation is a mature and weii-aocumented approach to
                                 geodetic control establishment and densification. This technique involves
                                 photographing an area with a block of aerial photographs usually with more than
                                 the normal amount of forward and side overlap. A few previously established
                                 ground control points must be available around the perimeter of the area.

                                 These points, and all new points to be established, are marked with targets
                                 that will form clear, well-defined images on the photographs. Photo coordi-
                                 nates of the target images are measured with precise comparators or analytic
                                 plotters. The ground horizontal and vertical positions of the new stations can

                                 be computed in the same coordinate system as the original control.

                                      Many of these techniques have been used routinely to extend existing

                                 horizontal and vertical ground control used in topographic mapping. A recent
                                 series of four papers describes an application by the National Geodetic Survey
                                 (NGS) of photogrammetric triangulation to the densification of a county-wide

                                 geodetic control network to support large scale mapping (Henriksen, 1984;

                                 186                                     STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 Gergen, 1984; Perry, 1984; Lucas, 1984). A block of 750 photographs was taken
                                 at a height of 12,000 feet over a rectangle of 900 square km. Seventeen exist-
                                 ing geodetic control stations and 380 new stations were targeted. The triangu-
                                 lation yielded horizontal positions on the new stations accurate to approxi-

                                 mately 5 cm horizontally and 10 cm vertically. This was accomplished at a
                                .total cost of $132,000 (in 1979 dollars) or approximately $350 per new station.
                                 This is certainly a lower cost than one would expect had conventional survey
                                 techniques been employed. It is not clear if satellite or inertial techniques

                                 would have been able to compete with this cost.

                                 Inertial Surveying

                                      The inertial surveying system is based on an inertial navigation unit
                                 designed for use in aircraft. A precise inertial platform is oriented in space
                                 with gyroscopes on three orthogonal axes. The three axes are oriented to the

                                 local vertical, north, and east. A sensitive accelerometer is attached to each

                                 axis and defines acceleration in each of the three directions. The accelera-

                                 tions are integrated with respect to time--once to give velocity and again to
                                 yield distance traveled in each of the three orthogonal directions. The compu-

                                 tations are performed in an on-board computer.
                                      The inertial platforms employed in aircraft navigation systems have a

                                 drift rate that is often on the order of one km per hour of flight. This rate
                                 is, of course, totally unacceptable for most surveying applications, but the

                                 performance can be improved by a factor of several thousand by periodically
                                 bringing the inertial platform to a complete stop, i.e., stopping the truck or

                                 helicopter in which the instrument is mounted. During these stops, which are
                                 called zero-velocity updates, residual velocities attributable to drift are
                                 sensed and observations can be at least approximately corrected in real time
                                 with the on-board computer. Based on extensive field tests, accuracies on
                                 ground stations of 13 cm + 12cm/hour horizontally and 10cm + Scm/hour can be
                                 expected (mancini, 1977).
                                      The cost of inertial surveying instruments is quite high, with a unit cost
                                 Of several hundred thousand dollars, but these systems can establish control
                                 positions very quickly, and, when a dense control network is required, the cost
                                 per point may be quite competitive with other techniques.

                                                                   Base Maps
                                      A base map is the graphic representation at a specified scale of selected
                                 fundamental map information. It is used as a framework upon which additional

                                Tyler                                                                         187

                                data of a specialized nature may be compiled (American Society of Photo-
                                grammetry, 1980). In the context of floodplain mapping, the base map provides
                                the primary medium by which the floodplain data can be related to the geodetic

                                reference framework and all other land data sets. The base map may be drafted

                                on mylar or other drafting material or may be in digital form stored in a

                                computer.

                                     Progress has been made in the technology compilation of base maps in

                                recent years, but the progress has not been as dramatic as that described in
                                the field of geodetic control surveying. Topographic maps at the scales and
                                accuracies usually required for floodplain mapping are still compiled from

                                overlapping aerial photographs using stereo plotters with human operators. The

                                plotters are more efficient than those used a few years ago, and the computer
                                is often more intimately involved in the mapping process than it used to be.
                                The output may even be in digital form, but the mapping process is still labor
                                intensive and costly. A few promising areas of anticipated progress are

                                described below.

                                High Altitude Photography
                                     Since 1978, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been taking both black
                                and white panchromatic and color infrared 9-inch by 9-inch photographs from a
                                flight altitude of 40,000 feet above sea level. The panchromatic photography

                                is at a scale of 1:80,000 with a frame centered on each 7.5 minutes USGS

                                quadrangle map. The infrared photography is at a scale of 1:58,000.

                                     The NASA U-2 aircraft, based at the NASA Ames Research Center, has a

                                maximum operating altitude of 70,000 feet above sea level. These planes are
                                equipped with a variety of cameras ranging from 100 mm focal length multi-
                                spectral cameras used for remote sensing to 610 mm focal length panoramic
                                cameras. At a flying height of 65,000 feet above mean terrain, the panoramic

                                camera is capable of a ground resolution of 0.3 m (National Aeronautics and
                                Space Administration, 1978).

                                     Neither of these sources of high altitude imagery has been exploited
                                fully. Significant economies would be possible if, for example, panoramic

                                photography could be used to compile base maps and floodplain data. This would
                                require analytical stereo plotters and the software to handle panoramic
                                imagery, but it is reasonable to expect these capabilities to become more

                                commonly available in the civilian mapping community in the near future.

                                  188                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                  Satellite Systems

                                      The principle satellite images available for civilian resource mapping

                                  applications are those obtained by the NASA Landsat series. These images are

                                  useful if repeated coverage of an area is important, and they have been used to

                                  revise maps with as large a scale as 1:50,000, but they do not provide particu-
                                  larly high resolution and have very limited potential in floodplain mapping.

                                  Automation

                                      When first introduced to the photogrammetric map 'compilation process,
                                  people often ask why further automation has not been introduced. At first
                                  glance, the procedure appears to be a natural for automation, and research and

                                  development work has proceeded with some success for the last twenty years.
                                  When the compilation process is examined in detail, it is seen to be very
                                  complex, posing many difficult automation problems. Elevation data and plani-
                                  metric detail, two types of data almost always needed in floodplain mapping
                                  applications, are two of the types of data extraction least amenable to auto-

                                  mation.
                                      This is not meant to suggest that automation of the mapping process is
                                  impossible. A great deal of good research has been done over the last twenty
                                  years, and much has been learned. Indeed, many of the fundamental problems
                                  have been identified, and research is now progressing (Horn, 1983; Wood, 1983).
                                  However, the solutions to these fundamental problems are not around the corner,
                                  and, at least in the near future, floodplain maps will be compiled by manual

                                  methods.

                                                              Data Base Management

                                      Frank has identified three generations of interactive graphics systems

                                  used to prepare and edit maps (Frank, 1984). The first generation systems were
                                  graphics editors capable of storing maps that could be graphically edited and
                                  redrawn. A second generation of systems provided the same capability as the
                                  first but allowed the user to attach certain types of data to the graphic
                                  elements. For example, pipes could be labeled with pipe diameters and pipe
                                  functions. Such systems could also potentially answer questions such as how
                                  many feet of a particular diameter pipe of a particular age existed within a
                                  given region. The third generation of systems, which are still in the develop-

                                  ment stage, store internal models of reality. Drawings and reports are simply
                                  operations to make the internal model visible to the user.

                                 Tyler                                                                         189

                                      These third generation systems will incorporate the principles of database
                                 management systems in which the data storage is separated from application
                                 programs by a central database management program. Generalized database
                                 systems have been developed for a variety of commercial applications, but these
                                 are probably not fast enough to treat geometric data. The primary advantage in
                                 the database-oriented systems is their increased capability for structuring

                                 data. As the internal computer model approaches the external reality, addi-
                                 tional applications become possible. The data can be used not only to create

                                 maps but also to direct simulation programs such as power flow calculations in
                                 an electric utility net or flood routing in a drainage basin.

                                      Research in the third generation systems is relatively new, and many

                                 possibilities have yet to be explored. Floodplain mapping would seem to be a

                                 natural area of application for these ideas.

                                                                   Conclusion

                                      A number of technical ideas and developments in the areas of geodetic

                                 control, map compilation, and database management have been reviewed. It must
                                 be re-emphasized that in floodplain mapping and many other areas of land in-
                                 formation management, we already have a great deal of technology that is not

                                 always applied in the most efficient or logical manner. of course, the techni-

                                 cal developments discussed here will not necessarily lead to good floodplain
                                 management or even high quality floodplain information. There are, however,
                                 exci,ting possibilities in all of these developments that should lead to im-
                                 proved land management decisions.

                                                                  References

                                 American Society of Photogrammetry
                                      1980 Manual of Photogrammetry. 4th ed. Falls Church, Virginia: The
                                          Society.

                                 Degnan, John T.
                                      1982 "Airborne Laser Ranging System for Precise Geodetic Surveys and Land
                                          Control." In Proceedings of the international Symposium of Land
                                          Information at@ the Local Level. Orono: University of Maine.

                                 Frank, Andrew U.
                                      1984 "Computer Assisted Cartography--Are We Treating Graphics or
                                          Geometry?" Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian
                                          Institute of Surveying, Quebec.

                                   190                                       STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                   Gergen, John G.
                                         1984 "The Geodetic Base for Precise Photogrammetric Densification."
                                              Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote sensing L (5).

                                   Henriksen, Soren W.
                                         1984 "Photogrammetric Geodesy Over Large Regions." Photogrammetric
                                              Engineering and Remote Sensing L (5).

                                   Heuerman,  H. R. and W. J. Senus
                                         1983 "NAVSTAR Global Positioning System." Journal of Surveying
                                              Engineering 109 (2).

                                   Horn, Berthold, K..P.
                                         1983 "Non-Correlation Methods for Stereo matching." Photogrammetric
                                              Engineering and Remote Sensing XLIV (4).

                                   Leick, Alfred
                                         1984 "GPS Surveying and Data Management." Paper presented at the Urban
                                              and Regional Information Systems Association meeting. Seattle,
                                              Washington.

                                   Lucas, James R.
                                         1984 "Photogrammetric Densification of Control in Ada County, Idaho: Data
                                              Processing and Results." Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
                                              Sensing L (5).

                                   Mancini, H.
                                         1977 "Inertial Geodesy, A Total Solution to the Problem of Positioning,
                                              Gravity, and Deflections." Proceedings, Vol. 5, XV international
                                              Congress of Surveyors (FIG). Stockholm, Sweden.

                                   National Academy of Sciences
                                         1980 Need for a Multipurpose Cadastre. Washington, D.C.: The National
                                              Academy Press.
                                         1983 Procedure and Standards for a Multipurpose Cadastre. Washington,
                                              D.C.: The National Academy Press.

                                   National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                                         1978 High Altitude Perspective. NASA SP-427. Washington,
                                              D.C.: NASA.

                                   Perry, Leslie H.
                                         1984 "Photogrammetric Summary of the Ada County Project." Photogrammetric
                                              Engineering and Remote Sensing L (5).

                                   Wood, G. A.
                                         1983 "Realities of Automatic Correlation Problems.* Photogr..metric
                                              Engineering and Remote Sensing XLIV (4).

                                                           COMPUTER GENERATED MAPS:
                                                    USE OF AUTOMATED DIGITIZING TECHNOLOGY
                                                            IN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

                                                             Michael G. Pavlides
                                                          Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.

                                     Resource management requires the assimilation of a multitude of data, much
                                of which are derived from or appear on maps. overlaying maps and identifying

                                areas of intersecting or nonintersecting data is a common technique used to

                                develop information for proper resource management decision making. when

                                multiple overlays are involved, manual procedures become tedious, expensive,

                                and prone to a high rate of error. Due to advances in computer processing

                                speed and data handling, and to the refinement of the mathematical algorithms

                                for spatial analysis, computer mapping is becoming an economical alternative to

                                manual overlay analysis. However, the drawback now, particularly when enormous
                                quantities of data are involved, is the speed and accuracy of capturing the
                                necessary data into the intended computer system.

                                     Two commonly used terms in data capture are "vector" and "raster." A

                                vector-based data capture system encodes data digitally by capturing coordinate
                                pairs to describe line geometry. The,(x, y) value of each point is input to
                                the system--first keyed to a general reference grid such as digitizing table

                                (or CRT) units, and then converted in the computer to the real coordinate
                                values based on the true geographical position of the points. A third "z"
                                value can also be input. it is most often used to describe a third dimension
                                (such as elevation) or as a key to an attribute (such as soil type) assigned to
                                the digitized feature. A raster scan system captures data in a column/row
                                matrix with an intensity value (i.e., grey value) representing the artwork
                                assigned to each matrix element. The matrix elements are called "pixels,"

                                short for picture elements. The raster data is then "vectorized" and each line

                                feature "tagged" with an attribute.

                                 192                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANACING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                                    Types of Automated Data Capture Systems

                                 Vector Input and Processing Systems

                                      Typical data entry devices include manual digitizing tables with hand-held

                                 cursors; direct keyboard entry; or interactive CRTs. Our Autogis System uses
                                 this method of data capture.
                                 Raster input (with Conversion to Vector)
                                      Typical data entry devices include optical raster scanners, line
                                 followers, and electro-optical rectification aids with magnification capabili-
                                 ties to assist in manual digitizing. Examples of raster scanners include our

                                 KartoScanTM and the Scitex. The KartoScanTM1has a built-in video unit which

                                 allows the user to view the material through the scanner and select various
                                 line qualities for calibration. The system measures the grey value intensity
                                 of the line work being viewed and builds a histogram of the values. By setting

                                 the level of grey values desired off the histogram, the operator actually
                                 selects the line work to be scanned. once scanned, the data can be vectorized,

                                 edited in vector format, and transferred to other systems (generally in vector
                                 format). Several software enhancements are available: square corners, smooth

                                 curves, the removal of solid fills and the leaving of boundary polygons.
                                 Raster Input (without Conversion to Vector)
                                   .  The data capture devices here are the same except that data need not be
                                 vectorized. With data remaining in raster format, editing on a color raster

                                 CRT is much faster and more precise.

                                                               System Attributes

                                      The advantages and disadvantages of each system vary. Vector systems
                                 basically employ a redrafting process that is subject to human error, dimen-
                                 sional inaccuracies of the source document, and equipment accuracy tolerances
                                 (typically 3 and 5 mil). Data capture is slow. The principal advantage is

                                 that a skilled operator can make decisions about the data while digitizing.
                                 This "intelligence" and decision-making ability is only partially available in

                                 the newer automated systems and consequently remains an advantage of manual

                                 digitizing.

                                      Automatic raster scanning is highly accurate and extremely fast. Total
                                 throughput speed to end product (i.e., digital tape) is, however, a function
                                 of how much data must be tagged with attribute information, and this system

                                   IKartoScan is a registered trademark of SyScan,Inc.

                                Pavlides                                                                      193

                                can, in cases, be a slower overall process then manual digitizing. Since

                                scanning duplicates the original source document, the problem of positional

                                versus dimensional accuracy is also prevalent as with manual digitizing. That

                                'SF if the original document scanned is not dimensionally accurate, then when

                                true dimensions are inputted to the document, the output plot will be distorted
                                relative to the original. Another major problem with raster scanning is the

                                amount of data captured to replicate the original document. Too little data
                                (i.e., low resolution) will not reproduce the source document satisfactorily.
                                Too much data (i.e., high resolution) increases computer processing time
                                dramatically and also causes problems in data transfer between systems. Other
                                problems occur due to source document inconsistencies (e.g., feature over-
                                prints, crossing lines, varying line thickness, etc.). without software post-

                                processors, a considerable amount of human manipulation is needed. Quality of
                                vectorization is no longer a problem with most systems.

                                     To summarize, data capture by faster scanning becomes economical when the

                                maps or documents to be encoded contain large amounts of dense data or when

                                throughput is a factor. manual digitizing of data remains economical if the

                                input documents are primarily low in density or mostly straight lines.

                                     Resource management projects for which our systems have been used

                                include:

                                     State of Colorado, Digital Data 13ase--all attributes are callable either
                                     individually or by total topic.

                                     Fort Leonard Wood, Military Assessment--automated combination of soils,
                                     slopes, and vegetation overlays to identify helicopter landing zones.

                                     Thailand GIS--combination of seven overlay maps to determine land suitable
                                     for agricultural development.

                                                                  References

                                Sena, Michael
                                     1984 "Drawing Data Capture." F-M Automation Newsletter (April).

                          I

                                                                    PART THREE

                                                     STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS:

                                                               Mitigation Planning

                                                  A FRAMEWORK FOR THINKING ABOUT MITIGATION

                                                                James Morentz
                                                         Research Alternatives, Inc.

                                     Natural hazard mitigation is not a program carried out in isolation from

                                 other activities of government. Quite the contrary, its success will be found
                                 in an integration with ongoing efforts of governments at all levels. Because

                                 this study is about how state governments can best contribute to natural hazard

                                 mitigation, the focus of our framework for thinking about mitigation is on the
                                 state government. States play a pivotal role in natural hazard mitigation, and

                                 a strengthened program at the state level could improve the implementation of

                                 mitigation.

                                     In thinking about mitigation, we can begin by recognizing that mitigation

                                 can fit into ongoing efforts of society. These ongoing activities provide an
                                 opportunity for mitigation to take place within the context of existing pro-

                                 grams and processes. What we are suggesting is that the end product of effec-
                                 tive natural hazard mitigation can be achieved in some measure by finding the

                                 1. right" place and time to intervene in existing programs and processes in order
                                 to promote and conduct mitigation.

                                     Let us consider the programs or processes of society where mitigation
                                 might find a home. We suggest there are three, each of which represents an

                                 opportunity for mitigation at the state level. They are:

                                 �   During new development, which offers crucial points of review during which
                                     the mitigation opportunity can be seized;

                                 �   At any time there are existing risk conditions that are recognized as
                                     amenable to risk reduction through mitigation;

                                 �   During the immediate postdisaster period during which redevelopment takes
                                     place, while risk conditions are fresh in the minds of policy makers
                                     and/or outside programs act to encourage or enforce mitigation.

                                 These three circumstances offer an opportunity for intervention in the normal
                                 flow of a jurisdiction's life.

                                     What kind of risks can be mitigated through some form of.intervention in
                                 these processes? We suggest that there are two basic risks--those to people

                                 198                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 and those to property. In general, mitigating the risk to property implies a
                                 reduced risk to people. However, a rich body of mitigation experience can be

                                 found in programs or projects that reduce the risk to people alone. Therefore,
                                 as we look at the broad areas of 1) new development, 2) existing risk con-
                                 ditions, and 3) postdisaster recovery, we suggest that looking at people and
                                 property independently offers increased mitigation opportunities.

                                      Up to this point, we can illustrate the framework for thinking about

                                 mitigation in the following way:

                                                   PROGRAMS OR PROCESSES RIPE FOR MITIGATION

                                            NEW DEVELOPMENT       EXISTING RISK        POST-DISASTER

                                            people property      people property      people property

                                                    What Have We Observed About Mitigation
                                      one of the clearest observations about natural hazard mitigation is that

                                 it is implemented at the local level. while some huge programs have been

                                 initiated (that is, authorized and funded) at the federal and state levels, the

                                 actual implementation occurs at the local level. Indeed, we need only look at
                                 the reverse of the situation, in which a local jurisdiction blocks a state or
                                 federal mitigation program through nonparticipation, to see the leverage of the

                                 local government and its citizens.
                                      In our 1980 study of both natural and technological hazard mitigation, we

                                 observed this crucial local role in 81 sites across the country. In that
                                 study, and in FEM.A's current (draft) guidance on mitigation ("A mitigation
                                 Strategy for the Integrated Emergency Management System," February 1984), it is

                                 suggested that mitigation can be accomplished by producing changes in one or

                                 all of three parts of the hazardous condition. Specifically:

                                  0   Mitigation can act on the hazard to eliminate it or reduce the frequency
                                      and intensity of its occurrence;

                                 Morentz                                                                         199

                                  �    Mitigation can change the way a hazard interacts with human systems by
                                       protecting people and their support systems that come into contact with
                                       the hazard; and

                                  �    Mitigation can alter the way people live and the systems and societies
                                       they create in order to avoid or reduce the hazard.

                                 Numerous examples of these three classes of mitigation are available and will

                                 be included in our final publications. Now, as examples to make certain that

                                 all reviewers of this concept and guidelines paper are on the same track, let

                                 us suggest cloud seeding as a way to reduce hail and thunderstorm intensity;

                                 flood walls, dikes, and levees as people- and system-protecting structures; and

                                 relocation of people out of flood-prone areas as altering the way people live
                                 and thus avoiding hazardous impacts.
                                       Given that the range of mitigation activities is broad and actually can
                                 accomplish some reduction in risk of hazards and vulnerability of people, then
                                 the important question is: What is needed at the local level to implement

                                 mitigation? Here, our 1980 study and the recent FEMA guidance offer some
                                 concrete examples of the necessary components of a local mitigation program.

                                 Eleven types of activities were identified as clearly identifiable behavior

                                 undertaken by one  or more government or private sector mitigators. These

                                 eleven categories  of mitigation activities are:

                                                 �  Rules              *   Planning
                                                 �  Economics          *   Public Participation
                                                 �  Influence          e   Professional Training
                                                 �  Monitoring         0   Research
                                                 �  Management         e   Assessment
                                                           * Structural

                                       Contained in each of these categories are several subcategories that
                                 further define the actual tools and techniques employed by the local jurisdic-

                                 tion that has the capability to carry out mitigation activities.
                                       If we were to graphically depict the implementation of mitigation at the
                                 local level, it would look something like the following illustration. The
                                 eleven categories of mitigation activities are employed by a jurisdiction to
                                 implement mitigation which 1) reduces the hazard itself, 2) protects people, or
                                 3) alters the way people live to avoid the hazard.

                                  200                                      STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                                           LOCAL MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION

                                                          MITIGATION
                                                          ACTIVITIES

                                                          RULES                 ACT ON
                                                          ECONOMICS             HAZARD
                                                          INFLUENCE
                                                          MONITORING-
                                                          MANAGEMENT-           PROTECT
                                                          PLANNING-             PEOPLE &
                                                          PUBLIC                PROPERTY
                                                            PARTICIPATION_
                                                          PROFESSIONAL
                                                            TRAINING-           ALTER
                                                          RESEARCH-             HOW
                                                          ASSESSMENT            PEOPLE
                                                          STRUCTURAL::::@       LIVE

                                  This illustration suggestions that a local jurisdiction can select from among a
                                  variety of alternative mitigation activities to accomplish hazard reduction or

                                  avoidance. if we combine this idea with the earlier one that identified three

                                  social processes in which mitigation seemed most appropriate, we begin to see a

                                  growing framework for thinking about mitigation. Recall that mitigation seemed
                                  most promising when incorporated in the processes of a) new development, b)
                                  existing risk recognition, and c) postdisaster actions.
                                       Combining the local jurisdiction implement concept with the three
                                  processes ripe for mitigation, we get a scheme like the one illustrated on the

                                  following page.

                                   Morentz                                                                          201

                                                 OPPORTUNITIES FOR MITIGATION AND LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION

                                      PROGRAMS OR
                                      PROCESSES        NEW DEVELOPMENT         EXISTING RISK         POST-DISASTER
                                      RIPE FOR
                                      MITIGATION       people property        people property       people property

                                      MITIGATION
                                      ACTIVITIES

                                      RULES                 ACT ON                ACT ON                ACT ON
                                      ECONOMICS_            HAZARD                HAZARD                HAZARD
                                      INFLUENCE_
                                      MONITORING-
                                      MANAGEMENT---         PROTECT               PROTECT               PROTECT
                                      PLANNING_             PEOPLE &              PEOPLE                PEOPLE &
                                      PUBLIC                PROPERTY              PROPERTY              PROPERTY
                                        PARTICIPATION_
                                      PROFESSIONAL
                                        TRAINING-           ALTER                 ALTER                 ALTER
                                      RESEARCH_             HOW                   HOW                   HOW
                                      ASSESSMENT            PEOPLE                PEOPLE                PEOPLE
                                      STRUCTUR              LIVE                  LIVE                  LIVE

                                        This suggests that  the combination of mitigation activities, usually
                                   implemented at the local level, can effectively intervene in the processes of

                                   new development, existing risk conditions, and postdisaster recovery to produce

                                   an effect that results in reduced hazards, protected people, or avoided

                                   hazards.

                                        Now, it is possible that a state mitigation program could implement miti-
                                   gation by selecting from among the mitigation activities. This is the case,
                                   for example, on state-owned lands where the state agencies have the authorityp
                                   economic allocations, etc. to carry out state mitigation. Those instances,
                                   however, represent only a minority of the opportunities that a state has to

                                 202                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 influence natural hazard mitigation. The following section details how the

                                 state can contribute to mitigation.

                                                        What Does It Take for the State

                                                      to Seize the Mitigation Opportunity?
                                      In order to intervene with a mitigation activity in new development,
                                 existing risk conditions, or postdisaster recovery, there must be certain

                                 organizational capabilities resident at the state government level. These

                                 capabilities will combine to produce the state's contribution to mitigation.

                                 We say "state's contribution" because, generally, only a small part of a state
                                 mitigation effort is expended in actually carrying out mitigation projects.
                                 Actual project implementation usually occurs elsewhere.

                                      In order to be in a position to make contributions, the state must have in
                                 place a set of mitigation capabilities. There is tremendous variety in the way

                                 these capabilities are acquired and maintained. But, there is general agree-

                                 ment that, in some form or other, a successful state contribution to mitigation

                                 requires seven capabilities. These are briefly described below.

                                 Hazard Analysis

                                      This term is a general label for the capability to examine the environment
                                 in a systematic way and establish an estimate of the risk to people and proper-

                                 ty caused by natural hazards. The term includes any type of review of hazard-
                                 ous conditions and their potential impact on people or property, including a

                                 postdisaster assessment of the consequences of redevelopment on future risk.

                                 Legal Authority

                                      Every mitigation effort must have a basis in law. This capability is, at
                                 the state level, almost an "enabling" capability, without which little else
                                 can be achieved. Legal authority to mitigate, however, does not necessarily
                                 have to be explicitly stated. Many laws are available, for example, that speak
                                 indirectly about the safety of people or the protection of the environment and
                                 could be expanded in their interpretation to include the objectives of
                                 mitigation.

                                 Organization

                                      mitigation has an organizational component that must be consciously de-

                                 veloped to be most effective. The models for such organization range from the
                                 formal designation of a lead agency or a hazard mitigation program or a mitiqa-

                                 tion task force to the informal recognition of mitigation as a problem that is
                                 discussed as part of routine agency coordination.

                                   Morentz                                                                           203

                                   Economics

                                        The economic aspects of hazard mitigation are, indeed, another of the
                                   "enabling" conditions. As in the case of laws, however, separate budget line
                                   items for mitigation may be a bonus rather than a necessary element. The use

                                   of other program initiatives to reach the goals of mitigation is an effective
                                   way to minimize costs, although there is no getting around the fact that ob-

                                   taining funds will be essential at some point in every mitigation project.

                                   Intergovernmental Relations

                                        State governments must work with both federal governments and their own

                                   local governments to see mitigation objectives achieved. The state's capabili-

                                   ty to carry out intergovernmental relations in order to assure the smoothest

                                   possible implementation of mitigation is an important part of success. Enter-
                                   ing into this capability, as well, are intrastate regional organizations that
                                   have a legal role (usually established by the state) in multijurisdictional
                                   planning and operations.

                                   Interest Group Relations
                                        The public at large and various private sector business and industry
                                   groups have a keen interest in the three processes (new development, existing
                                   risks, and postdisaster redevelopment) described above. How the state deals
                                   with these interest groups can influence the success of mitigation implementa-

                                   tion.

                                   Mitigation Planning
                                        Finally, the state benefits from a capability to actually plan and prepare
                                   for its mitigation contribution. In some cases, this will be in the form of

                                   formal planning for a mitigation project (on state lands, for example). in
                                   other cases, this capability might be called upon in the development of techni-
                                   cal information or other products that are indirect contributors to mitigation

                                   implementation.

                                                           Where Do These State Mitigation

                                                         Capabilities Fit into the Framework?
                                        The state plays its role in mitigation as an intermediary between the
                                   .societal processes" of new development, existing risk conditions, and post-
                                   disaster recovery and the actual implementation of mitigation activities to

                                   carry out risk reduction. Thus, the framework for thinking about mitigation
                                   that we have been developing now looks like the illustration on the following
                                   page, with the addition of state mitigation capabilities.

                                   204                                   STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                                 A FRAMEWORK FOR THINKING ABOUT HAZARD MITIGATION

                                   PROGRAMS OR
                                   PROCESSES      NEW DEVELOPMENT       EXISTING RISK        POST-DISASTER
                                   RIPE FOR
                                   MITIGATION     people property      people property      people property

                                   STATE
                                   CAPABILITIES

                                   HAZARD
                                   ANALYSIS-
                                   LEGAL
                                   AUTHORITY-L-
                                   ORGANIZATION
                                   ECONOM I Cj-

                                   GOVERNMENT
                                   RELATIONS
                                   INTEREST GROUP
                                   RELATIONS-
                                   MITIGATION
                                   PLANNING.

                                   PRODUCTS OF
                                   STATE MITIG   N
                                   PROGRAMS

                                   MITIGATION
                                   IMPLEMENTAT ON

                                   RULES               ACT ON              ACT ON               ACT ON
                                   ECONOMICS_          HAZARD              HAZARD               HAZARD
                                   INFLUENCE
                                   MONITORING-
                                   MANAGEMENT-         PROTECT             PROTECT              PROTECT
                                   PLANNING-           PEOPLE &            PEOPLE &             PEOPLE &
                                   PUBLIC              PROPERTY            PROPERTY             PROPERTY
                                   PART I C I PAT I ON-
                                   PROFESSIONAL
                                   TRAINING-           ALTER               ALTER                ALTER
                                   RESEARCH-           HOW                 HOW                  HOW
                                   ASSESSMENT_         PEOPLE              PEOPLE               PEOPLE
                                   STRUCTURAL-         LIVE                LIVE                 LIVE

                                Morentz                                                                     205

                                     The state needs the seven kinds of mitigation capabilities to fully take
                                advantage of the opportunities to reduce hazards. These capabilities result in
                                what generally could be called the state natural hazard mitigation program.
                                This program will span agencies, ongoing programs, and authorities. It will
                                draw resources from many different areas. The result of this application of
                                mitigation capabilities are products of state mitigation.
                                     As we have discussed before, these products could be mitigation, itself.

                                More likely, from the state level, these products are contributions to mitiga-
                                tion implementation at the local level. Among the products you can think about

                                as examples are: needs assessments for mitigation; mitigation laws; monitoring
                                and enforcement programs; funding; technical assistance; planning assistance;
                                guidelines for local mitigation plans; public information and education
                                materials; information sharing; and coordination of mitigation efforts among
                                jurisdictions. while these are only a few general and broad products of state
                                mitigation, the reviewer can readily see the important contributory role that
                                the state can play in mitigation.

                                                         SECTION 406 OF P.L. 93-288:
                                                         AN OPPORTUNITY IF YOU KNOCK

                                                                Allan Williams
                                              Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

                                     When severe flooding hit Connecticut in June, 1982, 1 was in Wisconsin at

                                the annual Association of State Floodplain managers Conference. The term

                                "Section 406" had about as much meaning to me as marriage does among movie
                                stars; it was something you did in the future, you weren't quite sure why, and

                                it was over relatively quickly.
                                     Months later, when the 180-day hazard mitigation report required by P.L.
                                93-288 was due, I still had never seen a copy of 406, nor had I heard any

                                scuttlebut about a report due.

                                     January of 1983 came and I was approached by a fellow worker.
                                     "Allan," he said, "I'm really tied up in posthazard recovery processes,
                                and I need your help to write an administrative report."
                                     "Sure," I said naively, "as long as it can be done in a few weeks."

                                     He didn't respond, setting the wheels of doubt in motion. I did not know

                                it yet, but once a governor accepts disaster assistance, the state must prepare

                                a report delineating how it will reduce flood problems. Implied is the re-
                                quirement that if the plan is not implemented the state might not get disaster

                                assistance the next time around.

                                     "So when is it due?," I asked.

                                     "Two weeks ago," he said.
                                     "Well . . ." I prompted. "Don't worry," he said, "we've already asked for

                                an extension."

                                     "How come we are doing it?" I asked.

                                     "Well, the Governor's office asked the office of Policy and Management to

                                do it; and the Office of Policy and Management asked the office of Civil

                                Preparedness to do it; and the office of Civil Preparedness asked the Depart-

                                ment of Environmental Protection to do it; and the Director of Water Resources

                                asked me to do it."

                                   208                                       STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                         "And you're asking me to do it," I added, now realizing that this assign-
                                   ment required a bit more than copying two pages from an old report and adding a

                                   cover.

                                         I began to wonder if maybe I should pass the baton myself, but, alas, I
                                   realized that I was the last runner in this race. Besides, I'd feel guilty
                                   giving it back to my friend in the other unit; after all, he had put in so much
                                   overtime during the flood, while I had been at a meeting in Wisconsin.
                                         So, like Tevyeh in Fiddler on the Roof, I said to myself, "if on the other
                                   hand" writing this report could lead to some changes in our programs, "perhaps
                                   it's a good thing."

                                         As fortune would have it, in the very next month, February of 1983, the
                                   Federal Emergency Management Agency held a special session on 406 at its
                                   Emmitsburg training center. At that session, the following major points were

                                   made:

                                     �   FE14A personnel stressed the unfortunate consequences likely to befall a
                                         state not complying with Section 406..

                                     �   Collectively we all rewrote the outline for reporting 406 to make it more
                                         amenable to the states, while still reporting on the issues FERA wanted
                                         covered.

                                     �   The session was particularly useful to me because I left it with many
                                         ideas on what and what not to put in our report.

                                     �   FEKA personnel stressed how stringent would be their reviews and how
                                         seriously they considered the task of preparing and following through on
                                         Section 406. It had to be done and done right.

                                   In short, 406 got sized up, FEMA got huffed up, and we, the states, were

                                   charged up.

                                                                      Report Writing

                                         The report writing began in March, 1983, and the report was signed by the
                                   Governor in August, 1983, proving such a report could be done in 180 days,,even

                                   if it wasn't the correct 180 days.

                                         To me and many state agency staff, the process gave us:

                                    1) An opportunity to look at flooding versus other natural disasters and
                                         helped convince us of the importance of flood mitigation;

                                Williams                                                                      209

                                 2)  An opportunity to measure what we had already done;

                                 3)  An opportunity to get attention from other state agencies;

                                 4)  An opportunity to work together and directly with the Governor's office;
                                     and

                                 5)  The background and the rationale for supporting our programs with the
                                     Governor's Office, the state legislature, and with federal funding
                                     sources.

                                     i can state categ orically that the results of preparing the 406 plan have

                                been more successful than anyone would have thought possible. The Section 406
                                Hazard Mitigation Implementation Measures report has been the catalyst for
                                numerous positive changes.
                                     For example, during the writing phase, we were technically doing the job
                                for the Governor's office, and that office carries a lot more weight than any
                                individual agency. Raving the attention of the state's executive staff helped
                                us develop a closer relationship with them and helped them understand our
                                issues. This was not only helpful in getting cooperation from many state
                                agencies, but it was invaluable when we had to go before the legislature, the
                                bonding commission, and the Office of Policy and Management.

                                     Because we were doing the job for the Governor's office, I was able to

                                borrow good staff from other programs and able to get cooperation from the

                                highest levels.

                                     We queried every state agency, asking each for a listing of unaddressed

                                problems in flood mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. The

                                results produced literally hundreds of program suggestions from dozens of state
                                programs. Because we were taking the process seriously, they took the process
                                seriously. What we had at the end was a series of 18 first-priority actions
                                and 85 second-priority actions. Each action was directly tied to problems

                                brought up by one or more programs. Use of the input of others, instead of
                                just our own, would be useful in getting new legislation passed, for we had
                                made many converts to good flood management ideas.
                                                               Report Approved

                                     At the end, we had the Governor's signature committing the state to
                                attempt each recommendation. Equally important, the Governor's Office took
                                full responsibility to see that all 18 first-priority actions would be

                                addressed.

                                  210                                     STRATIDGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                       By the end of the process, we had gained many state agency and executive

                                  level supports. What we lost was FEMA's attention. FEMA didn't oppose any-
                                  thing we said; they just appeared to lose interest. We received no written

                                  comments or corrections from FEMA on any of the drafts or on the final edition.
                                  The only message we did get, repeatedly, was, "Is it done yet?" While I did
                                  enjoy and appreciate FEMA giving us a free hand, it did seem a bit unusual that
                                  the FEMA national office, which had shown so much interest at the February
                                  Emmitsburg meeting, had so little interest in the substance of the report.
                                       It became clear that flood hazard mitigation per se was not FEMA's issue.
                                  FEMA's "issue" was only the procedures for which they were directly re-
                                  sponsible, i.e., seeing to it that we report, not what we report. State prob-
                                  lems and needs were just not as relevant as their direct federal responsibili-
                                  ties. I've realized now, that, like parents who vow to be different from their

                                  own parents, we were, in a way, acting like FEMA when all was said and done. I

                                  realized that we had only been interested in solving problems for which the

                                  state could do something directly. The Section 406 report did not have much

                                  municipal input, and that is a shortcoming of our report.

                                       It must be noted that some comment had been received from FEKA on sections

                                  in which we had put in work elements for FEMA actions. They did let us know
                                  that some of the issues we brought up for them were being addressed, and I
                                  think FEMA was really requesting we remove any work items involving them.
                                       Nevertheless, by their silence after the document was signed, one must

                                  assume approval of all the action items. If FEMA doesn't do their work items,
                                  it would be unreasonable to expect the state to complete all of its items.

                                       A quick note on format. we followed the FEMA suggested format throughout
                                  the text and in the action items and found it to be a good outline. I appreci-
                                  ated, however, FEMA's flexibility in not requiring us to follow the format

                                  exactly, for this led to a more usable and implementable document. Whether

                                  that, too, was an act of omission rather than commission, it was nonetheless

                                  appreciated.

                                                                   Implementation

                                       The threat of loss of federal aid for future disasters is important,

                                  especially since we had three such disasters in six years (snow, tornado, and
                                  flood). This threat is implicit in the 406 requirements. It apparently is not

                                  well-supported though, because FEMA is reluctant to state, categorically and in
                                  writing, that such a loss of disaster assistance will occur if a state does not

                                Williams

                                comply with the writing and implementation of a 406 report. When going to a
                                major political figure, to the legislature, or to some important commission, it

                                would be useful for the sponsoring state agency to be able to say we must do

                                this because it is a federal requirement, not because it might be a federal

                                requirement. Mind you, I'm not asking for a sledge hammer, just a rubber
                                mallet to help prod others along. It would be useful if the only handprints on

                                your back are not your own.

                                     At one critical point during this legislative session, I asked a high
                                official in FERA and several of his staff if they would write some testimony to
                                support our position. The response: "Why don't you put something in writing

                                to us requesting our testimony?" That's all we needed, a letter from a state

                                agency asking a federal agency to intercede for us in the state legislature.

                                Hence, we asked for and received no help from FEMA in obtaining funds for 406
                                programs or in obtaining necessary program changes. Again, perhaps it worked
                                out best that way. In the absence of FE14A comments, I explained to key legis-

                                lators and state officials how I thought FEKA could cut off disaster assistance

                                if we didn't comply with 406.
                                     The writing and acceptance of the Section 406 Hazard Mitigation imple-
                                mentations Measures report cannot be credited with having accomplished all the
                                gains that have happened since the June, 1982, floods, but it surely did help.
                                     Action items in the report that have been accomplished include:

                                  �  Funding a new statewide flood warning system to be initiated this summer
                                     and fall;

                                  �  Passing new legislation regulating all state actions in the 100-, and in
                                     some cases, 500-year flood zone; requiring all state agency regulatory
                                     programs like the wetlands and encroachment line programs to require 100-
                                     year protection for any application (private or public); and requiring the
                                     state to build any flood control project to be at least at the 100-year
                                     protection level;

                                  �  Holding a commercial and industrial floodproofing conference;

                                  �  Holding a dam safety conference for owners of private dams;

                                  �  Implementing recommendations of a special dam safety report, including
                                     obtaining six new staff members for the dam safety program and obtaining
                                     money to repair 15 state-owned dams;

                                  �  Studying, designing, or completing about two dozen flood control
                                     projects;

                                 212                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                    � Obtaining approval for a small 1362 project; and

                                    � Revising the Emergency operations plans for several towns and state
                                      agencies.

                                 These items, and there are more, have all been done in about a year and a half,

                                 that is, since we began working on the 406 report.
                                                                making it Better
                                      I am, as you might have guessed, a believer in 406. There are a   few
                                 changes, however, which could benefit the process.

                                  1)  It is not the intent of the present 406 process to mitigate the concerns
                                      of municipal flood management issues. Perhaps the process could be re-
                                      formatted and the requirements changed so we bring the towns into the
                                      process and hence into the solutions.

                                  2)  We didn't start 406 until one year after the floods. I would encourage
                                      faster action, and this would result in an easier time with implementa-
                                      tion. when it rains, make gains; when it's dry, they only ask why.

                                  3)  FEKA is too sensitive about their own programs. Why not have FEMA pro-
                                      grams reviewed by and with the states and localities as part of the 406
                                      process? By agreeing to a few changes itself, FEKA can be seen as more of
                                      a cooperating agency and less of a distant partner. To that end, it would
                                      be useful if FEMA, as well as the governor of a particular state, signed
                                      the document.

                                  4)  1 think it would be more helpful to the states if FEKA had an active role
                                      in reviewing the drafts and giving encouragement and assurance to states
                                      trying to do a job well. A pat on the back and some positive publicity by
                                      FEMA would help.

                                  5)  It would be helpful if FEMA had some funds available after the 406 report
                                      was signed. Funds are needed for the staff assistance required to
                                      initiate and oversee implementation of recommendations.

                                                                some Last Words

                                      Approach the 406 process with a purpose and with seriousness. Be slightly
                                 evangelical--but not messianic--and willing to spend a lot of time and staff on

                                 the report. Don't be discouraged by setbacks. After all, as serious and

                                 difficult as we see the flooding issue, we must keep our perspective. We are

                                 fighting something easier than injustice, more controllable than the flu, and

                                 less pervasive than promises in a political year. Understand that 406 is a
                                 chance to change things and a golden opportunity to build a new foundation for

                                 state flood management programs for years to come.

                                                  HAZARD MITIGATION IN BROWNWOOD SUBDIVISION

                                                              Robert C. Freitag
                                                     Federal Emergency Management Agency
                                                           Seattle Regional Office

                                                                  Background

                                     On August 18, 1983, Hurricane Alicia made landfall over the western tip of

                                Galveston Island. The next day, the President declared a federal disaster.

                                Brownwood, a subdivision in the City of Baytown, Texas, was hit by a 13-foot

                                storm surge. Almost all of the 300 homes in Brownwood were either totally
                                destroyed or substantially damaged. Within ten days of the hurricane a buyout
                                program was presented to the residents of Brownwood and approved by the City of

                                Baytown.

                                     This paper is an account of the events that occurred in the 15 days
                                between the hurricane and the completion of the Interagency Hazard Mitigation

                                Team Report. These events culminated in a successful buyout program. The
                                paper suggests ways to quickly identify future postdisaster mitigation projects
                                and redirect our predisaster emphasis. This event has led me to believe that
                                after any flood, even one as devastating as this one, there is resistance to
                                change. This resistance can be overcome, but only when there is a realization

                                of the hazard, the damage is significant, a quick response is initiated, tools

                                are available, and the residents have discussed mitigation alternatives before

                                the disaster.

                                Realization of a Hazard

                                     In order to overcome the resistance to change, there needs to be an

                                acknowledgment of the hazard. Residents must believe that the event will occur
                                again. in the Brownwood subdivision, the residents knew and accepted the high
                                frequency of flooding. The site was only one to two feet above high tide.
                                When built, the subdivision was as much as 12 feet above high tide, but through
                                subsidence the land had become extremely flood-prone. some homes flooded
                                annually, an d all homes had flooded within the past five years.
                                     Burton, Michigan, offers a similar example of an area that has an extreme-
                                ly high frequency of flooding, but with only minimal damage. Until these 15

                                  214                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                  homes were purchased through the Section 1362 program, they experienced flood-

                                  ing two or three times a year but only to a depth of 16 inches. Little perma-

                                  nent damage occurred with any one event, but the aggregate damage was great

                                  For these property owners, frequency of the event wad the key factor in over-

                                  coming resistance to change.

                                       The importance of frequency was also demonstrated by the Kauai disaster.

                                  Hurricane Iwa hit Poipu Beach on the island of Kauai with a force that com-

                                  pletely destroyed at least 100 structures. The local city government was

                                  willing to undertake a wide range of mitigation efforts providing such a storm
                                  would occur with significant frequency. A board of scientists was assembled,

                                  and no member was willing to state that the storm was anything but a freak

                                  event--something greater in magnitude than a 500-year storm. Because of this,
                                  no one was willing to initiate any mitigation efforts.
                                  Significant Damage
                                       It is almost axiomatic that the greater the damage, the larger the number
                                  of mitigation opportunities. We all know of major planning and rebuilding that
                                  followed the Chicago fire, San Francisco earthquake, and needless to say,
                                  Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Extensive damage is not the only significant variable.

                                  In the Brownwood subdivision, many homes were totally destroyed, and all but a

                                  few had substantial damage. Even so, the residents began to rebuild immediate-

                                  ly, even when water covered much of the subdivision. Even though the struc-

                                  tures had been severely damaged, the infrastructure and land tenure pattern was

                                  intact.- This reinforced a conservative attitude toward relocation after the

                                  disaster. Reconstruction was only stopped when the city placed a moratorium on

                                  all rebuilding in the subdivision.

                                  Quick Response
                                       French Wetmore of the Illinois water Resources Department has repeatedly
                                  argued that unless real opportunities are presented before reconstruction
                                  begins to occur, the chances for mitigation will disappear. He has stated that
                                  this period lasts about five days. The Brownwood experience supports this

                                  conclusion.

                                       Reoccupation of the Brownwood subdivision began before the water had
                                  disappeared. I personally helped a mother and her six-year-old child leave

                                  their reoccupied home seven days after the disaster. Stagnant water was stand-
                                  ing in the building, there was no sewer, no power, and the residents of the
                                  area had been warned to watch out for snakes. She had reoccupied the home in

                                 Freitag                                                                        215

                                 order to begin repairing the second story. She left only after being evicted

                                 by the police.

                                 Available Tools

                                      Incentives are needed to overcome resistance to change. These tools may

                                 be in the form of money, legislation, or legal advice. The Brownwood sub-

                                 division package of tools included:

                                    � The availability of loans under the SBA Involuntary Relocation Package;

                                    � Assistance to the city to clear the damaged homes from the site;

                                    � Funds through the Section 1362 program that were dedicated and set aside
                                      to purchase all insured properties;

                                    � Flood insurance claim assistance;

                                    � Individual Family Grant funds to qualified applicants; and

                                    � The possibility of HUD CPD&G and jobs bill funds to purchase uninsured
                                      property.

                                      Concurrently with and in support of the city's effort to discourage re-
                                 occupation, the city residents were told that if the package was not accepted,
                                 the following would occur:

                                    � FEMA would deny all requests for permanent public assistance work targeted
                                      for the subdivision under an Executive order 11988 no-action alternative;

                                    � The city would inform all other federal funding sources of Executive order
                                      11988 and encourage a no-action alternative by other agencies;

                                    � FEMA would limit eligibility to debris removal only, and only to that
                                      which was absolutely necessary to ensure health and safety;

                                    � FEMA would ensure that the minimum NFIP requirements were adhered to for
                                      all substantially damaged structures; that is, structures would have to be
                                      elevated on site up to 16 feet above existing grade, and FEMA would use
                                      claim data as one index for substantial improvement;

                                    � Onsite demolition costs and debris removal, estimated to be about $5,000
                                      per property, would be the responsibility of the property owner, and no
                                      direct or indirect involvement by the federal government would be forth-
                                      coming; and

                                    � EPA and other agencies would demand that new and substantially improved
                                      water and sewer lines located in the saturated soil zone be built to the
                                      same specifications as water crossings; i.e., encasement water lines,
                                      special joints, special bedding, etc. would be required.

                                 216                                    STRATEGIES-FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                      The NFIP was key to the ultimate success of the program but should not be
                                 thought of as the only tool. The NPIP claims may total $20 million and will

                                 undoubtedly comprise the major source of funds used to purchase the homes.

                                 This is because all but a few of the homes were insured, and their replacement

                                 value was in excess of their fair market value. Also, the amount of money

                                 needed from the Section 1362 budget was minimal, approaching only $1,000 to

                                 $2,000 per property. However, without the other program, discussion of alter-
                                 native mitigation tools before the disaster, and the speed with which these

                                 tools were offered, it is doubtful that the subdivision would now be free from

                                 flood damage.

                                 Predisaster Planning

                                      The success of any mitigation effort--whether it results in elevation,
                                 abandonment, or relocation--depends upon the attention given to the problem

                                 before the disaster occurred. This does not have to be a formal plan of
                                 action, but having an acceptable strategy in advance surely helped counter

                                 resistance to change in Baytown. The postdisaster period is no time to present
                                 new ideas. Residents need to return  to normalcy after a disaster.

                                      The residents of the Brownwood subdivision organized themselves into the
                                 Brownwood Civic Association many years before Hurricane Alicia. The Associa-

                                 tion actively lobbied for a buyout program. Several years earlier, the Associ-
                                 ation and the city secured funds from the Corps of Engineers to purchase homes
                                 within the subdivision. The program failed only because the city was unwilling

                                 to provide its local share of the expense, not because of the lack of support

                                 within the subdivision.

                                      it is important to note that even though every resident had analyzed the
                                 possibility of relocation and already had come to a conclusion about it, imme-
                                 diately after the hurricane the subdivision residents wanted to move back to
                                 their homes. When the city tried to prevent this, local politicians and a

                                 -large vocal group of residents threatened the city with a lawsuit. This was at
                                 a time when the subdivision did not have water, sewer, or power; and only the
                                 shells of a majority of buildings were left standing. The residents were
                                 apparently striving for normalcy. Only because the Interagency Hazard Mitiga-
                                 tion Team could offer a realistic package quickly did the city capture the
                                 support needed to prevent the reoccupation of the subdivision.
                                      One of the most significant activities of the Brownwood Civic Association
                                 was to promote the sale of flood insurance. The almost total coverage of flood

                                 Freitag                                                                       217

                                 insurance provided the key tool used to purchase the homes and, indeed, to

                                 remove the hazard.

                                                                 Future Direction
                                      Mitigation should be thought of as change. Change is resisted unless a
                                 set of conditions are met that provides the force to overcome the inertia. If
                                 we think of these conditions as frequency, significant damage, response time,
                                 tools, and predisaster planning, we can come up with new directions in each of
                                 these five areas, and increase our chances of future successful mitigation

                                 efforts.

                                      The frequency of a hazard, like resulting damage, is largely out of our
                                 control. However, we could expand our effort to identify and publicize dangers
                                 in high risk areas. For example, under the NFIP the majority of 100-year
                                 floodplains in the country has been mapped. The enabling legislation also
                                 requires lenders to give notice. However, all action is directed to the 100-
                                 year floodplain, and this is a frequency many people are willing to live with.
                                 Since the program has also identified those developed areas failing within a
                                 ten or 20-year floodplain, ways to use this information and to explore and
                                 identify mitigation opportunities should be explored.
                                      Naturally, we cannot increase or decrease the amount of damage resulting
                                 from any event. On the other hand, we can make restoration easier. We could
                                 develop tools that would make it easier to minimize potential damage to exist-
                                 ing homes, elevate structures, reassemble land or build new infrastructures.
                                      The interagency teams have been increasing their ability to respond quick-
                                 ly after a disaster. Realis tic opportunities are being identified earlier, and
                                 we are starting to create a set of tools capable of supporting local mitigation
                                 efforts. Just a few years ago the use of debris clearance, temporary housing,
                                 IFG grant money for minimization, SBA loans, and temporary housing assistance
                                 would not have been so readily available as part of a complete mitigation
                                 package as used in Baytown. The set of tools used in Baytown should be ex-
                                 panded and research into other possibilities encouraged.

                                      As an agency, FEMA is beginning to devote attention to predisaster plan-
                                 ning. Much more could be done. Herein lies a real opportunity. The Inte-
                                 grated Emergency Management System could provide a key tool in helping states
                                 and communities identify mitigation opportunities before the disaster occurs.
                                 Like Burton, Michigan, many regions have targeted future Section 1362 possi-
                                 bilities. They have talked to the property owners, encouraged them to purchase

                                 218                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 flood insurance, and have begun the discussion of relocation within the com-
                                 munity. When a disaster occurs in these areas, the residents will not be so

                                 apt to want to return to the predisaster conditions. Similarly, through the
                                 SAP program, states like Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin have worked with

                                 communities to develop preparedness and predisaster mitigation plans, many
                                 elements of which will be activated or will become opportunities after

                                 disaster.

                                                                   Conclusion

                                      We can learn much from the Brownwood subdivision mitigation project. It
                                 is to be hoped that this will be only one of many analyses. often we devote
                                 our evaluation efforts to failed projects. The Brownwood project was clearly a
                                 success. Each of the five conditions presented in this paper contributed to

                                 that success. The sum of these created the force needed to counter the resi-

                                 dents' natural, spontaneous response to reoccupy their homes in the flood-

                                 plain.

                                      In analyzing the Brownwood experience in light of other mitigation
                                 efforts, I have concluded that each condition is needed if postdisaster miti-

                                 gation opportunities are to be achieved. The relative importance of each
                                 condition may vary but all five conditions must be addressed to some degree.

                                 Not only must each condition be present, but as the importance of one de-
                                 creases, others must increase. In the Burton, Michigan, example, the amount of

                                 damage for any single event was extremely small. Yet on balance, the high
                                 frequency of occurrence provided the force needed for mitigation. Understand-
                                 ing the issues involved in flood mitigation can help us identify realistic
                                 postdisaster mitigation opportunities early enough to take advantage of them.
                                 This understanding can also help us redirect our predisaster planning efforts.

                                                        THE BAYTOWN, TEXAS EXPERIENCE
                                               HAZARDS MITIGATION LESSONS FROM HURRICANE ALICIA

                                                              Randall B. Strong
                                                                City Attorney
                                                            City of Baytown, Texas

                                                 Baytown, Texas and the Brownwood Subdivision

                                     Baytown is located on the north end of Galveston Bay, adjacent to the

                                mouth of the San Jacinto River. The Brownwood Subdivision is located on the

                                west side of the city on a peninsula of land jutting into small bays off the

                                San Jacinto River. I ,t contained some 300 homes, all of which were built in the

                                1950s before a hazard was recognized. Recognition came with Hurricane Carla in
                                1981, during which rising water covered the entire peninsula and put at least

                                eight feet of water in every home.

                                     Since then, Brownwood and in fact the entire Baytown/East Harris County

                                area, have suffered from another hazard--subsidence. The Brownwood subdivision

                                has subsided approximately five feet since 1963, and an estimated nine feet

                                since 1915. Although the subsidence has been halted by the conversion to use

                                of surface water rather than groundwater, the effects are permanent, and have
                                resulted in the Brownwood area being just above sea level and subject to
                                periodic tidal flooding. In the last six years the city has had to deal with
                                numerous flood alerts in Brownwood due to high tides, and has supervised the
                                evaciiation of homes in the area numerous times. In 1979, for instance, there

                                were five flood alerts in Brownwood and four evacuations. The Brownwood resi-

                                dents formed an active civic association, the main function of which was to

                                maintain their high tide alert system. When high tides threatened, they noti-

                                fied all residents in order to speed evacuation. The residents of the worst

                                areas would evacuate; others would merely elevate their furniture, pull out
                                their carpets, and ride out the flooding. The city had installed several high

                                speed pumps to help drain the low interior bowl of Brownwood in an effort to

                                minimize flooding.

                                     Although most of the residents had experienced tidal flooding, 23 years

                                without a hurricane had encouraged most of them to view hurricanes as remote

                                 220                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 threats, although the city continually warned its residents that the average
                                 occurrence frequency for the area is one hurricane every ten years, and that
                                 they were therefore 13 years "overdue."
                                      A Corps of Engineers project to purchase the entire peninsula fell through
                                 in 1979 when the citizens of Baytown failed to approve a $7 million bond pro-
                                 gram to finance the city's share of the proposed $35 million buyout. This
                                 would have been, of course, the best possible predisaster mitigation strategy.
                                 This program was significant, however, in that the residents had been exposed

                                 to, and preconditioned to think in terms of relocation.

                                                                Hurricane Alicia

                                      With the arrival of Hurricane Alicia, Baytown was no longer overdue.

                                 Twelve to 13-foot tides and 125 mph winds caused city-wide damage. over 600
                                 housing units within the city were destroyed and many more than that damaged.

                                 Approximately 300 of the destroyed housing units were in Brownwood. Although
                                 the high tide from Alicia was lower than than that from Carla, the subsidence

                                 during the intervening years resulted in a much higher water level in

                                 Brownwood. Most homes had 10 feet of water or more in them. More damaging was

                                 the wave action, which had not been a factor in Carla. Many homes were com-
                                 pletely swept away by waves, leaving only a concrete slab. This was an aspect
                                 of hurricanes for which most people were unprepared. Residents who had been
                                 through Carla, or had stayed in their homes during numerous tidal floodings,
                                 thought they could ride out Alicia only to find their homes being battered and
                                 destroyed around them. Rescue crews picked numerous people out of trees or
                                 from the roofs of remaining structures.
                                      one failure of past flood hazard regulations has been their failure to

                                 address wave action and other storm results besides those from rising water.
                                 Simply providing for flood protection to the 100-year flood@level is not

                                 enough. I doubt that structures elevated to heights above the floodplain in
                                 Brownwood would have survived the wave action. Any flood hazard planning

                                 should take wave action into account.

                                                             Lessons from Brownwood

                                 Predisaster Thinking

                                      Some predisaster thinking or planning aids any mitigation effort. Many of
                                 the residents of Brownwood were already predisposed towards a buyout, and
                                 welcomed the Section 1362 program FEMA offered. in retrospect, some additional

                                 Strong                                                                           221

                                 predisaster planning by the city might have been useful. The city had not con-

                                 sidered the Section 1362 program as a vehicle for a large-scale buyout, and we

                                 had not familiarized ourselves with the program. Other communities want to

                                 look at their flood hazard problems to see if Section 1362 can aid them in the

                                 event of a disaster. Some thought should be given to problems that may arise.

                                 Advance planning could assist in dealing with some of the problems Baytown en-

                                 countered:

                                      Opportunists--Some people saw the disaster in Brownwood as an opportunity
                                      to make a few dollars. Numerous rumors were started concerning what FE14A
                                      would or would not do under Section 1362 and what the city was going to do
                                      with the area. These rumors were of course untrue and used to encourage
                                      property owners to sell to the opportunists rather than to FEMA. Some
                                      people were convinced the city was going to take the lots we received and
                                      sell them to Exxon for a.huge profit. No one could tell me, however, what
                                      Exxon planned to do with the flood-prone property that would be restricted
                                      to open space use. A clear understanding of the Section 1362 program and
                                      publicity concerning the program aided in dealing with opportunists, but
                                      new rumors still surfaced occasionally.

                                      Die-hards--A few Brownwood residents wished to return and rebuild regard-
                                      less of the risk or cost, stating that the area was their home and they
                                      did not want to give it up for any reason. While some of the die-hards
                                      had other motives, and some spoke from emotion created by their forced
                                      removal, a small minority sincerely wanted to move back. While Baytown
                                      has not found a method to convince these people that the best thing to do
                                      is relocate, other mitigation planners should recognize that there will
                                      always be people who want to remain in a hazard area, regardless of the
                                      risk.

                                      Profiteers--Some Brownwood property owners resisted mitigation efforts
                                      because they had learned to make a profit from flood insurance. These
                                      property owners recovered flood insurance numerous times, made minor
                                      repairs and pocketed the insurance benefits.   Some of these owners no
                                      longer lived in the homes, but rented them to  unfortunates who suffered
                                      through the various floods while receiving no  aid. one property owner
                                      reportedly stated that he counted on at least  one good flood a year in
                                      order to improve his cash flow (through flood  insurance claims).

                                      Another aspect of predisaster thinking is the  publicizing of hazard areas.
                                 Despite Brownwood's long history of flooding, some  residents stated after
                                 Alicia that they had bought their houses only within the last year or two and

                                 had not realized it was in a flood-prone area. Although a common sense look at
                                 the subdivision height in relation to the surrounding bays should have fore-

                                 warned anyone, a few residents were genuinely shocked that they got flooded.
                                 Many of these surprised residents were newcomers to the community and may have

                                 222                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 been unaware of Brownwood's problems. I would advise communities with similar
                                 known hazard areas to continue to publicize the hazards and not to assume that

                                 "everyone knows about Brownwood."

                                 Quick Response
                                      A quick response to disaster is necessary for effective mitigation. The

                                 residents of Brownwood lost everything they owned in Alicia, and had no place

                                 to stay except for emergency shelters. Their immediate concern was "what are
                                 you going to do to help me?" The quicker answers can be given to victims to
                                 allay their fears about the future, the more likely they will agree to mitiga-
                                 tion efforts. Although FEMA was at the disaster immediately afterwards and

                                 presented its plans within a matter of days, the victims' primary concern was

                                 when implementation would begin. Many owners were prepared to sell their
                                 property the minute the program was announced. The several months it took to

                                 get the Section 1362 program to the purchase stage allowed some to change their
                                 minds. The delay also allowed the spread of rumors and misconceptions about

                                 the program. It is obvious that it takes time to implement any program, parti-
                                 cularly for a large area such as that involved in Baytown, but anything that

                                 can shorten the implementation time will aid the mitigation effort.
                                      After FEMA decided to implement a Section 1362 program for Brownwood, the

                                 city convinced FEMA to open a local office in Baytown, since FEMA's main office
                                 was in Houston, some 25 miles away. It was difficult for victims to travel

                                 into Houston; they also had trouble telephoning, due to the large volume of
                                 calls the Houston office received. By opening an office in Baytown, FEMA was

                                 able to deal more quickly with disaster victims. I believe the opening of the
                                 local office helped facilitate the mitigation efforts more than any other
                                 single act. Victims were able to go to that office and have their questions
                                 answered--questions about the program which, if not answered, might have caused

                                 them not to participate. The local office also made it easier for city offi-

                                 cials to work with FEMA on the buyout.

                                     Judging by the questions asked at the public sessions, any mitigation
                                 effort should include a means to clearly describe how the mitigation program

                                 works, with examples of how it will affect individual situations. A general-
                                 ized description of a program will not suffice. The victims need to have a

                                 clear enough understanding of the mitigation program to determine how it will
                                 affect them. While the mitigation workers cannot address every variable, an

                                Strong                                                                          223

                                attempt should be made to provide several examples of how the mitigation pro-
                                gram will operate. The victims are anxious for definite answers to their

                                problems, not vague possibilities.
                                City Regulation of Brownw-ood
                                     As part of the mitigation effort, the City of Baytown took special action
                                after the hurricane. Alicia destroyed the numerous lift stations in the sub-
                                division, making it impossible to pump sewage from the area. Raw sewage was

                                evident in the water left in the subdivision. Power lines were down throughout

                                the area. The water system was out, making it impossible to provide fire
                                protection. Debris and fallen trees were everywhere. The fact that the sub-
                                division was obviously unsafe and a health hazard prompted the City Council to
                                pass an ordinance banning the occupancy or repair of any structure within the
                                Brownwood Subdivision. Property owners with proper identification were allowed
                                in-the area only during daylight hours in order to retrieve what few valuables
                                might remain. This ordinance was intended to preventanyone from being injured
                                and to prevent the possible spread of disease, and had the added benefit of

                                keeping homeowners from going back and secretly doing repair work that might be

                                prohibited by the floodplain building provisions.

                                     This action carried some risk, however. A few property owners filed suit
                                against the city alleging a taking of their property without just compensation.

                                The city asserted that such action was within its police powers to protect the
                                health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and that it is simply a limitation
                                in the use of the property, not a taking of it. As of this date, the lawsuit
                                is still pending, the court having rejected plaintiff's request for a temporary

                                injunction to stop enforcement of the ordinance. While the final outcome of

                                this lawsuit cannot be predicted, even if the city loses, the loss will not be
                                catastrophic. The city can simply rescind the ordinance and pay damages, which
                                should be limited to the rental value of the properties during the period the
                                ordinance was in effect. As the rental value of the property is minimal, the
                                exposure in dollars is small. meanwhile, FEMA will have completed its Section

                                1362 program, allowing those who wish to leave to do so. City Council was made
                                aware of the risk at the time the ordinance was passed, but considered it

                                acceptable in view of the need to protect and help the citizens of Baytown.

                                 224                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 Frequency of Events
                                      While I agree that the frequency of the event is a key factor in overcom-
                                 ing resistance to change, I believe this issue should be refocused by flood-
                                 plain managers. Brownwood's major disaster was a slow moving one--subsidence.

                                 It was Brownwood's elevation and location that were hazardous, and these were

                                 the issues that needed to be addressed by mitigation. Residents of such an
                                 area should be shown and reminded that the hazard lies with the property they

                                 own, not the hurricane that may come. Stressing this may help overcome resist-

                                 ance to change.

                                                                   Conclusion

                                      Some of the problems encountered in Baytown may be instructive to those
                                 involved in mitigation planning. Quick response is essential to an effective
                                 mitigation plan. In known hazard areas, mitigation efforts should actually
                                 start before the disaster with attempts to predispose the residents towards a
                                 mitigation plan. Alicia demonstrated that planning based on simple flood

                                 levels, without recognizing wave action, will not anticipate total possible
                                 damage. Finally, communities should be imaginative in developing plans for
                                 assisting mitigation efforts. Baytown's declaration of Brownwood as a hazard
                                 area carried with it some risk, but so far the benefits have outweighed the
                                 risks. While a city's powers are hot without limit, the law does recognize a

                                 governmental entity's right to take action that may be detrimental to the few,
                                 if such action benefits the public as a whole. Although our mitigation efforts
                                 have been opposed by a few, the majority support our efforts. on that basis we
                                 stand by our actions and would repeat them in a similar situation.

                                                                   PART THREE

                                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS:

                                                         Protecting Existing Buildings

                                                 A PROPOSAL TO REDUCE FEDERAL FLOOD DISASTERS

                                                                Neil R. Fulton
                                                    Illinois Department of Transportation
                                                         Division of water Resources

                                                                  Background

                                     In the United States there are 6.8 million buildings subject to flooding
                                with average annual damages of $1-1/2 to $2 billion. In Illinois, which can be
                                considered to have a representative sample of the nation's riverine flood

                                problems, there are approximately 140,000 buildings currently exposed to
                                flooding in the 100-year floodplain. of these, approximately 21,500, or only
                                15%, will be protected over the next ten years by structural flood control

                                projects.

                                     We cannot expect structural flood control measures to take a substantial

                                bite out of the remaining 120,000 flood-prone buildings. Given the requirement
                                that structural projects be cost effective, such projects can only be justified
                                where large numbers of flood-prone buildings are concentrated. In addition to

                                the environmental problems and the tremendous costs for structural projects,

                                the areas left to be protected are dispersed in rural areas or in long, narrow
                                floodplains. Therefore, it will be increasingly difficult to justify struc-
                                tural projects to protect the remaining flood-prone buildings.

                                     Nor can we expect the floodplain management requirements of the National
                                Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to effectively reduce the number of flood-prone
                                buildings. The NFIP's regulations say that if a building is damaged to 50% of
                                its value, it must be rebuilt protected from the 100-year flood. This 50%
                                threshold is based on an examination of court experience with similar zoning

                                requirements. It is likely that a tougher national standard would be over-

                                turned as a "taking" of property without adequate justification.

                                     In Illinois, slow moving and shallow riverine flooding does not create

                                substantial damage to a building. The average flood insurance claim in

                                Illinois has been less than $4,000. This confirms our field experience that

                                the vast majority of flood damages will never be enough to result in mandatory
                                flood protection measures being taken.

                                 228                                     STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                      Therefore, we must realize that the vast majority of the 120,000 flood-
                                 prone buildings in Illinois will continue to be exposed to flood damage.
                                 Assuming that there are 6 to 8 million flood-prone buildings in the nation and
                                 that only 15% of them will be protected by structural projects, there will be
                                 5.1 to 6.8 million buildings that will continue to be exposed to flood damage

                                 throughout the country.

                                                                  The Subsidy
                                      The federal government has assumed a role of assisting flood victims.
                                 Some of this assistance is in the form of repayable low interest loans and is
                                 therefore not counted as a "subsidy". Neither are structural flood control

                                 projects, because they are only built where they are shown to have a net eco-
                                 nomic benefit. Therefore the cost figures in this proposal actually estimate
                                 flooding's drain on the federal treasury.
                                      The federal government's subsidy comes in the form of two programs for
                                 flood victims--disaster assistance and flood insurance--both of which are

                                 administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). over the last
                                 10 years, disaster assistance payments for flood damages have averaged $225
                                 million annually.
                                      Over the last five years the National Flood Insurance Program has spent an

                                 average of $300 million annually for claims and administrative expenses. When
                                 insurance premiums are subtracted, the net cost to the Treasury has averaged
                                 $135 million. These figures add up to $525 million in average annual payments
                                 to flood victims, of which $360 million is a direct federal subsidy.

                                      Since 1979, Illinois has received over $85 million in disaster assistance
                                 and flood insurance claims from FEKA. In return for these payments, floodplain
                                 residents paid approximately $25 million in flood insurance premiums. In other
                                 words, for every dollar that is paid by Illinois floodplain residents, approxi-
                                 mately $3.40 is returned to pay for flood damages. The federal government is
                                 therefore subsidizing 70% of the cost of rebuilding after a flood. This per-
                                 centage holds true for the nation as a whole.

                                      This tremendous subsidy would make sense if there were reason to believe
                                 that the payments are used to reduce flood damages. This is not happening.
                                 Not only are there no strings attached to flood insurance claims payments or
                                 disaster assistance to require recipients to protect themselves from future
                                 floods, but also most of the disaster assistance programs prohibit use of the
                                 funds to improve or otherwise protect the property.

                                 Fulton                                                                           229

                                 One Solutionz Emergency Preparedness

                                      What can be done to protect existing buildings and thereby reduce this

                                 federal subsidy? There are two types of programs that will have an effect on
                                 these buildings: local emergency preparedness programs and protection of indi-
                                 vidual buildings. Local emergency preparedness programs have two facets to
                                 reduce property damage: flood warning and flood fighting. simply warning
                                 property owners in advance of a flood has been shown to reduce flood damages by
                                 10-30%. When a warning is coupled with a flood response such as sandbagging,
                                 emergency protective measures, and other flood fighting efforts, damages can be

                                 decreased even more.

                                 The Other Solution: Protecting Buildings

                                      There are two ways to protect individual buildings from flood damage:
                                 removing the building entirely and retrofitting; Removing the building through
                                 demolition or relocation to a flood-free site has been tried successfully by

                                 various local, state, and federal agencies. Its use by state and federal flood
                                 control agencies, however, has been limited to areas subject to very destruc-
                                 tive or very frequent flooding, where it is obviously cost effective to elimi-
                                 nate damages. The only federal program specifically authorized for acquisition

                                 of flood-prone properties, FEMA's Section 1362, now has requests for funding

                                 equal to three times the amount available. There are four ways to retrofit a

                                 building so that it stays on the flood-prone site but will not be damaged by

                                 floodwaters. These are listed in order of increasing cost:

                                   �  Wet floodproofinq the building by relocating utilities and other hard-to-
                                      move items permanently and moving damageable contents after a flood
                                      warning;

                                   �  Dry floodproofing the building by waterproofing the walls and floor and
                                      closing openings so that shallow floodwaters will not enter the building;

                                   �  Constructing a small levee or floodwall around one or more buildings; and

                                   �  Elevating the building on fill, stilts, or walls above the flood level.

                                      To the federal government, retrofitting is the newest and most untried

                                 solution. However, these measures have been used in many instances by property

                                 owners, and they have been proven to reduce or eliminate damages. Furthermore,

                                 FEMA and the Corps of Engineers are funding additional research to refine the

                                 technology so that it can be viewed with the same trust as flood control struc-

                                   230                                       STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                   tures. However, other than Section 1362, there is presently no federal program
                                   to assist property owners to protect their buildings.
                                   The Cost of Protecting Buildings
                                         According to FEMA's recent assessment of Section 1362, it costs approxi-
                                   mately $40,000 per building to remove a structure from the path of flooding.
                                   This number is consistent with the findings of recent research and work done by
                                   the Illinois Division of Water Resources reviewing actual retrofitting projects

                                   with local contractors. We calculated the approximate cost of each of the six
                                   nonstructural building protection methods and estimated how many could be

                                   protected by these methods:

                                                Technique                Average Cost           Number of Buij!j @ns

                                               Demolition                   $50,000                      7.4
                                               Relocation                   $25,000                   11.4
                                               Elevation                    $15,000                   17.0
                                               Levee or Wall                $10,000                   11.4
                                               Dry Floodproofing            $ 5,000                   52.8
                                               Wet Floodproofing            $ 2,000       (not considered)
                                                                                                     100%

                                         Based on the number of buildings to be protected, we calculated that the
                                   average cost of protecting the remaining flood-prone buildings with the first
                                   five nonstructural measures is $10,700 per building.
                                         If the cost of protecting individual buildings is so low, why hasn't it

                                   been done more? It has not been done by individual property owners to any
                                   great extent because people are people. They may not be aware of these protec-
                                   tion measures, but, more likely, they do not make their decisions baped on pure

                                   economic calculations of benefits versus costs. Many of them do not expect to

                                   be flooded, and those that have been flooded often cannot afford any more

                                   expenses.

                                         Probably the greatest reason is that for the last 50 years floodplain
                                   property owners have expected the federal government to protect them. Many
                                   residents hold out hope for a structural flood control project, and., because it
                                   takes many years to decide whether one will be built, they defer taking any
                                   mea!3ures on their own. More recently, floodplain residents have come to expect
                                   disaster assistance and federally subsidized flood insurance to bail them out.

                                 Fulton                                                                         231

                                 As a result, private individuals' actual out-of-pocket costs to protect them-

                                 selves are much larger than the cost of rebuilding after a flood.

                                      Flood insurance and disaster assistance neither eliminate the aggravation

                                 nor pay for all flood expenses. For example, Illinois River residents have
                                 been subjected to three severe floods within the last five years. As stated by
                                 one resident, "We were married to the river, but after it entered our living

                                 room three times, we decided it was time for a divorce."
                                                          im]21ementing These Solutions
                                      To effectively reduce the $360 million flood subsidy, the federal govern-

                                 ment must support flood emergency preparedness and building protection measures
                                 on a scale approaching its support for flood control, insurance, and disaster

                                 assistance. While this may sound like a tall order, we have four recommenda-
                                 tions that could be implemented relatively easily;

                                 1)   Change some of the existing rules for federal assistance programs to
                                      permit and promote building protection.

                                 2)   Change the NFIP insurance rating system to recognize and encourage local
                                      emergency preparedness and building protection programs.

                                 3)   Create a flood hazard mitigation fund to support state and local emergency
                                      preparedness and building protection programs.

                                 4)   Continue the research and public information programs on floodproofing and
                                      other protection measures.

                                 The first three recommendations deserve more discussion:

                                 Recommended Changes to the Federal Assistance Programs
                                      A detailed review of seven major federal assistance programs-was recently

                                 conducted for and is available from the Division of Water Resources. The

                                 report reviews three types of federal assistance programs: community develop-
                                 ment assistance, disaster assistance, and structural flood protection.
                                      Community development programs such as HUD's block grants do permit relo-
                                 cation and retrofitting of flood-prone buildings. The CDBG has had a signifi-
                                 cant impact on mitigation work in some hard hit communities. However, recent

                                 program changes mean that flood victims must compete with economic development
                                 and low-income housing criteria. Because of this, not many nonentitlement
                                 communities have been able to obtain funding.
                                      The disaster assistance programs of FERA, the Small Business Administra-
                                 tion and Farmers Home Administration have the advantages of moving quickly and

                                 232                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 being able to assist floodplain property owners when they are most open to
                                 thinking about reducing future damages. However these programs suffer from a

                                 common problem in that they do not allow funding of improvements to the proper-
                                 ties unless required by local law. Because most flood damages in Illinois are
                                 not severe enough to warrant mandated retrofitting, most flood victims are not

                                 eligible for extra funding. These programs should be amended to permit funding

                                 of mitigation activities.

                                      The beginnings of such an amendment have been proposed in Senate Bill

                                 2517, Amendments to the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. This bill proposes that

                                 an amount equal to 2.5% of the total disaster assistance for public facilities
                                 be made available at a 50/50 cost share for local mitigation projects. While

                                 we support this arrangement, the formula only provides a limited amount of

                                 funding, and the funds would only be available to areas after a disastrous

                                 flood.

                                      The flood control programs of the Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conser-
                                 vation Service suffer from a different common ailment. Each project must be

                                 justified with a favorable benefit/cost ratio. This is difficult to do for
                                 relocation because there is little benefit gained by vacating land. It is
                                 difficult to do for retrofitting buildings, because the techniques have not
                                 been generally accepted by the funding agencies and because calculating bene-
                                 fits and costs on individual buildings is time consuming and problematic.
                                      We therefore recommend that FEMA or the Corps of Engineers continue their
                                 floodproofing research to identify where individual retrofitting techniques are
                                 shown to be generally cost effective on certain categories of buildings. For
                                 example, research has shown that most masonry buildings on slabs can be econom-
                                 ically dry floodproofed if flood depths are less than two feet. As part of the
                                 project planning, the Corps and the SCS should review nonstructural alterna-

                                 tives by checking these building categories and flood hazard parameters rather
                                 than conducting house-by-house detail benefit/cost analyses.

                                 Recommended Changes in the NFIP Rating System
                                      The NFIP can encourage flood protection measures by recognizing them in

                                 its rating system. This is a common practice in the private insurance industry

                                 as shown by these examples:

                                   0 Fire insurance rates are lower in communities with better fire departments
                                      and water systems and in buildings with smoke alarms;

                                 Fulton                                                                        233

                                   �  Jewelry stores have reduced rates for a variety of strategies such as
                                      alarms, extra locks, and removing valuable items from show windows; and

                                   �  safe drivers and nondrinkers can receive reduced automobile insurance cost
                                      premiums.

                                      A community rating system has been proposed by FEMA. This system would
                                 provide lower rates for all policies in those communities that implement flood
                                 damage reduction activities such as a flood warning system. We strongly
                                 support creation of such a community rating system.

                                      The NFIP rating system should also provide reduced rates for individual

                                 buildings that are protected from flood damage. Currently, the system does

                                 recognize relocation and elevation by providing lower rates. However, it
                                 discourages small levees, floodwalls, and floodproofing of residences by not
                                 recognizing these techniques. We therefore recommend that the NFIP follow the

                                 lead of the private insurance industry and offer reduced rates for these other
                                 loss reduction measures. A detailed report on this recommendation is available

                                 from the Divison of Water Resources.

                                 A Flood Hazard Mitigation Fund

                                      The Illinois Division of Water Resources proposes that a new program be

                                 created to establish a flood hazard mitigation fund. The program would be a
                                 joint federal, state, local, and private effort similar to.and built on the
                                 NFIP. The federal government would provide the basic funding, the states would
                                 provide guidance and technical assistance, and local governments would work

                                 with private property owners and lending institutions to protect buildings.

                                      In return for mitigation funds a state would establish a new mitigation
                                 assistance program, seek statutory authority if needed, conduct training, and
                                 provide technical assistance to local programs. The state's program would set
                                 minimum standards for building protection measures, identify where they should

                                 or should not be used, and train building officials and engineers in these
                                 techniques. The state would also promote mitigation and the sale of flood

                                 insurance.

                                      The state would pass the funds through to local governments willing to

                                 initiate flood hazard mitigation programs that would include the following

                                 elements:

                                 234                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                   0  Participation in the National Flood Insurance Program

                                   0  Development of a flood warning and flood fighting program meeting minimum
                                      criteria set by the state emergency management agency

                                   0  Development of a floodplain redevelopment plan that identifies the most
                                      appropriate protection measures for existing buildings and plans for reuse
                                      of any vacated sites

                                   0  Administration of the mitigation fund for low interest loans or other cost
                                      sharing to property owners willing to retrofit or relocate their
                                      properties.

                                      The staff needed for planning and financial management is already avail-
                                 able in many community development departments. Small communities without such
                                 staffing could obtain help through intergovernmental cooperative agreements, or

                                 the program could be run at the county or multicounty level.

                                      Property owners could be required to protect their property to higher than

                                 the base flood elevation where feasible. For example, if a building is appro-

                                 priate for elevation and the 500-year flood is only one or two feet above the

                                 100-year flood (a common occurrence in Illinois), then the building could be
                                 elevated above the 500-year flood. The property owner would also be required
                                 to buy a flood insurance policy to cover the property for damages higher than

                                 the protection level.
                                 Operation of the Hazard Mitigation Fund
                                      The most appropriate source of the federal share of the fund would be a
                                 percentage of the NFIP premiums paid from a state. This arrangement automati-

                                 cally allocates the money where the federal subsidy is greatest. It also
                                 provides an incentive for states to promote the sale of insurance, one of

                                 FEKA's goals.

                                      We recommend that 20% of the flood insurance premiums be returned to each
                                 state for a flood hazard mitigation fund. While 20% of the premiums may sound
                                 like a large contribution, in fact it represents only 5% of FEMA's flood relief
                                 expenses. This percentage is also below similar percentages used by the pri-

                                 vate insurance industry. Specialty companies such as Factory Mutual or Factory
                                 Insurance Association spend 7% to 8% on engineering services. Boiler and
                                 machinery specialty writers allocate a substantially higher percentage of their

                                 premiums to safety inspections.

                                      In comparison with this effort in private industry, the Federal Emergency
                                 Management Agency spends an average of $525 million for flood insurance and

                                 Fulton                                                                      235

                                 disaster assistance. In addition to these payments, FERA spends 10% of this

                                 amount for technical studies and assistance to prevent future development from

                                 increasing the loss potential. However it spends only 1% for loss reduction to

                                 existing buildings (the $5 million for Section 1362). Given the predictable

                                 nature of flooding and the technology available to prevent and reduce damages,

                                 this percentage is surprisingly low.

                                      FEMA is also the logical agency to implement a flood hazard mitigation
                                 fund for other reasons. First, the flood subsidy is being paid by its National
                                 Flood Insurance and disaster assistance programs. Second, FEMA has the organi-
                                 zation and the experienced staff to administer a program that would pay for

                                 flood protection in those communities that adopt a mitigation program.

                                      Finally, the fund would complement one of FEMA's major efforts: to reduce
                                 the NFIP's subsidy by making the program self-sufficient. The current
                                 approach, to raise rates and cut coverage, has reached the point of no return.
                                 As a result of this approach, Congress has told FEMA to temporarily stop rate
                                 increases, and many policy holders have dropped their policies.
                                      The real problem with FEMA's approach to date is that it does little to
                                 eliminate the cause of the subsidy--raising rates and cutting coverage do not
                                 protect existing buildings that are and will continue to be flooded and

                                 damaged. The proposal for a mitigation fund and local mitigation programs will

                                 do that.

                                      The exact mix of loans and grants from the fund would depend on criteria
                                 such as owner's income and cost of the project. The low interest loan is the
                                 preferred approach for two reasons: the mitigation fund would be reimbursed by
                                 the borrowers, and fund money can be augmented with local funds. For example,
                                 with an assumed average project cost of $10,700 and 5% as the low interest
                                 rate, total interest payments over a 10-year loan would be $3,300. At an
                                 assumed local mortgage revenue bond interest rate of 11%, $3,300 would be the
                                 interest accrued by a 10-year loan of $4,300.
                                      The fund could provide $6,400, and the community could loan the $4,300

                                 balance needed for a $10,700 loan. Both the fund and the community would be
                                 paid their share of the principal, but the community would receive all the
                                 interest payments to retire its bonds. This arrangement results in $150 in
                                 financial assistance for every,$100 from the mitigation fund.
                                      Illinois residents are currently paying $5 million in annual flood insur-
                                 ance premiums. If 20% of this amount, $1 million, were put into a low interest

                                236                                     STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                loan program according to the above-described federal 2/3 local 1/3 cost share,
                                $1,500,000 would be available for mitigation projects. At an average cost of

                                $10,700 per project, this fund would be able to assist 156 properties in the

                                first year.

                                     The amount of money available would increase each year as borrowers from
                                the previous years repay the principal and as flood insurance coverage in-
                                creases. If the number of policies doubles in five years (FEKA's target),
                                after ten years a total of 4,300 projects would be funded for a total federal
                                cost of $19 million. This arrangement compares very favorably with Section
                                1362. At its current funding level, 1362 will cost $46 million over the next

                                ten years and will protect 1,150 properties at $40,000 each.

                                     Such an expense is appropriate because Section 1362 will assist the worst

                                flood problems, and it has been shown to have an early impact on the flood
                                insurance fund. on the other hand, the federal funds under this proposal can

                                help nine families for every one protected by Section 1362. If the federal
                                government is willing to fund 1362 to the tune of $40,000 per property, it

                                should be willing to complement its current financial assistance arrangement,
                                help more property owners, and reduce the drain on the flood insurance fund.

                                                                   Summary
                                     We must recognize that the federal government's $360 million flood subsidy
                                will not be substantially reduced by current approaches. The existing federal
                                programs to reduce flood damages, structural flood control projects, disaster
                                assistance and subsidized insurance, and local regulations, cannot be expected

                                to remove more than 15-20% of the buildings exposed to flood damage.
                                     What is needed are new federal incentives for local emergency preparedness

                                programs and nonstructural building protection. We have recommended four ways

                                to do this:

                                 1)  Change some of the existing rules for federal assistance programs to
                                     permit and promote building protection. without such changes federal
                                     funds will continue to be poured into existing buildings--to repair them
                                     in order to be flooded again--and continue to drain the National Flood
                                     Insurance Fund.

                                 2)  Change the NFIP insurance rating system to recognize and encourage local
                                     emergency preparedness and building protection programs. A rating system
                                     that reflects flood protection measures taken by the community and by each
                                     property owner will make the NFIP more consistent with private industry.

                                   Fulton                                                                             237

                                    3)  Create a flood hazard mitigation fund to support state and local emergency
                                        preparedness and building protection programs. By using the fund for low
                                        interest loans, federal dollars can be matched and the fund can be re-
                                        plenished, bringing much greater returns than Section 1362.

                                    4)  Continue the research and public information programs on floodproofing and
                                        other protection measures.

                                        In its enabling statutes, the NPIP was designed to be re-examined as ex-

                                   perience was gained in this new federal initiative. At first, the NFIP focused
                                   on obtaining data on flood hazards and having local governments enact minimum
                                   regulations to ensure that future development would not be subject to flood
                                   damages. By having the majority of the flood-prone communities studied and
                                   converted to the regular program, FERA has successfully accomplished this first

                                   step.
                                        The second effort of the NFIP was to ensure effective local floodplain
                                   management programs. This, too, has been successfully addressed through the
                                   CAPE process and the State Assistance Program.
                                        FEMA's current effort is to make the program self-sufficient by 1988. Its
                                   approach to this has gone about as far as it can, and it still does little to
                                   address the cause of the federal subsidy or the concerns of most flood victims:
                                   damages to existing flood-prone buildings. This proposal will do that, and it
                                   can be implemented with the existing organization at only a slight cost to the
                                   insurance fund. The benefits gained will be well worth the cost.

                                                 FORT WAYNE/ALLEN COUNTY FLOOD PROTECTION PLAN

                                                                Norman A. Abbott
                                                       Community Development and Planning
                                                              Fort Wayne, Indiana

                                                                  Introduction

                                      The purpose of this paper is to present and explain the local perspective
                                 of what happens after a presidentially declared flood disaster. I will try to
                                 provide the local perspective through 1) a brief description of the flood; 2)
                                 a discussion of the Fort Wayne/Allen County Flood Protection Plan--its content,
                                 citizen and agency input, and implementation; and 3) lessons learned.
                                      What I hope to leave you with is an understanding of 1) the importance of
                                 the development of a local plan; 2) the idea that the plan should be completed
                                 rapidly; 3) the need for much citizen and agency input; 4) the need (when
                                 complete) to carve off a first-phase implementation work program; 5) the need

                                 to tap multiple funding sources; and 6) the need to have an undying commitment
                                 to the plan and to the cause of flood protection. (The work takes an in-

                                 credible amount of time and tenacity).

                                                                   The Flood

                                      Fort Wayne, Indiana, experienced a severe flood in March, 1982, and was

                                 declared a Presidential Disaster Area. The flood crested near the 100-year
                                 elevation and remained over flood stage for approximately one week. Although
                                 the city initiated a flood fight with 35,000 volunteers, filled a million
                                 sandbags, and saved 1,860 properties, the flood water damaged 1,760 residential

                                 structures and approximately 260 businesses. The total cost of the 1982 flood

                                 was over $53 million. The cost would have been over $80 million if the areas

                                 saved had been lost.

                                      After the crest, Fort Wayne established three task forces to deal with the

                                 flood and to plan for the future. The task forces reported to a policy
                                 committee so that they could be directed along a similar path. one task force

                                 dealt with evaluating the flood fighting effort and the Emergency operation

                                 Center. The second dealt with recovery from the disaster. This involved

                                 examining all aspects of getting people back into their homes after the flood--
                                 including cleanup, temporary housing, assistance programs, housing inspections,

                                240                                     STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                and security against looting. The third task force was given the responsibili-
                                ty of developing a flood protection plan. The plan, put together after 30 days
                                of city/county effort, is published in its entirety in a document called the
                                Fort Wayne/Allen County Flood Protection Plan, and is also published in

                                abstract form.
                                                Fort Wayne/Allen Couaty Flood Protection Plan
                                Documentation of Flooding History and Cost

                                     The plan spends considerable time documenting the history of flooding and
                                the cost of flooding in Fort Wayne. This is important in order to establish

                                the record and thereby insure that people do not forget the events of the past.

                                It was found that Fort Wayne is often flooded. In fact, one damaging flood has

                                occurred, on the average, every five years throughout the 1800s and 1900s. In
                                addition, it was found that Fort Wayne was declared a Presidential Flood

                                Disaster Area in 1959, 1978, and 1982. The plan documented that there had been
                                a series of studies drafted after the major floods--in 1913, 1943, 1959, and

                                1976. It was determined that very little comprehensive implementation of those
                                studies had taken place, although incremental dike improvement and other
                                miscellaneous flood protection activities had been carried out. The plan also
                                documented the extent of flooding in 1982. This was done with slides as well

                                as graphics, and identified the residential, institutional, industrial, and

                                commercial areas that were inundated by flood waters in 1982.
                                     Finally, the plan documented the cost of the flood of 1982. It is very
                                important that this cost data be based upon a sound methodology because it must

                                stand the scrutiny of FEMA, which is also putting together cost data. It also
                                has to stand the ongoing test of the Corps of Engineers, because they use cost

                                data in their cost/benefit analysis.
                                     The plan based the cost data upon private, as well as, public costs in
                                terms of the emergency itself, the primary impact area, the secondary impact
                                area (not flooded but affected by truck traffic and other associated problems),
                                and the costs for the potential impact area (that area saved). It is important
                                to have "worst case" data to explain what could have happened. (It was close

                                to a miracle that Fort Wayne was able to get the volunteers, sandbags, and
                                weather conditions necessary to avoid suffering additional damages).

                                Alternative Solutions

                                     The plan studied nine solutions to the flooding problem in Fort
                                Wayne/Allen County based upon six alternative concepts. The concepts included

                                 Abbott                                                                           241

                                 diversion channels, evacuation of the floodplain, floodproofing, dams and

                                 reservoirs, river channel improvements, and massive dike building. The cost

                                 for these alternatives ranged from $108 million to $232 million. The alterna-

                                 tives were evaluated on social, economic, and natural environment character-
                                 istics as well as effectiveness, reliability, and public acceptance. A solu-

                                 tion containing both short-range and long-range plans was selected. The short-
                                 range plan consisted of many improvements including diking, channel improve-
                                 ments, tide gates, acquisition, pumping stations, etc., that could be started
                                 immediately. The long-range project called for 6 major diversion channel to be
                                 constructed that would not be possible to implement without Corps of Engineers

                                 involvement.

                                 Citizen and Agency Input

                                      During the development of the plan (as well as after it was draft  ed) our

                                 staff worked hand in hand with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources,

                                 Corps of Engineers, and FEMA to assure that our plans. and efforts were well

                                 coordinated. We traveled to Washington, D.C., twice, once immediately after

                                 the flood, and once after the plan was completed. In these sessions we dis-

                                 cussed with our senators, representatives, and the Corps of Engineers the

                                 aspects of the flood in Fort Wayne. At home we conducted some 45 public meet-

                                 ings and involved over 3,000 people. In addition, the staff testified in front
                                 of the State Natural Resources Commission and provided testimony to the State

                                 legislature. In the final analysis, the plan was adopted by the Fort Wayne

                                 Common Council.

                                                             Implementing the Plan

                                 The 18-Month Work Program

                                      The entire plan outlined in the document would cost somewhere in the
                                 neighborhood of $120 million to implement. Therefore, it was essential to
                                 divide that plan into some manageable increments that could be funded. This

                                 was accomplished through the development of an 18-Month Work Program. I am
                                 pleased to report that the 18-Month Work Program, which included $11 million
                                 worth of work, is nearly completely accomplished. The work Program involved
                                 eight different funding sources. They were the U.S. Geological Survey, the
                                 State Department of Natural Resources, Community Development Block Grant funds,
                                 FEMA, the City budget, the Corps of Engineers (Public Law 84-99), a Park Bond,
                                 and finally the Fort Wayne City Utilities. I would also like to point out that

                                242                                     STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                it is important to make maximum use of the funds available through the Damage

                                Survey Reports.

                                     A diversity of projects were undertaken in the 18-Month work Program.
                                River gauges, a flood hazard early warning system, and a floodproofing program
                                were funded. Minor repairs were made to dikes, major dike repair using Public
                                Law 84-99 was accomplished, the height of certain dikes was increased, and new
                                dikes were installed to protect certain public improvements. In addition,
                                backwater gates have been installed, certain channel improvements were imple-

                                mented, and the City has acquired 24 houses and removed them from the flood-
                                plain. Finally, the Work Program calls for the restoration of two major pump-

                                ing stations.

                                     It should be pointed out that-local government is required to come up with
                                25% of the costs associated with projects covered by the Damage Survey Reports.

                                In Fort Wayne's case that was nearly $1.7 million. All DSR work was included

                                in the 18-Month Work Program.

                                Other Implementation Measures
                                     Four additional elements outside the Work Program are important to imple-
                                mentation. One is the development of an Emergency Action Plan. The Emergency

                                Action Plan is designed to clearly identify the items that need to be done
                                before and during the flood. It identifies a time frame to be repeated each
                                year to prepare neighborhoods that are subject to flooding and to prepare the
                                city through internal meetings. It addresses sandbag storage and various other
                                items associated with being prepared for the possibility of a flood. The
                                Emergency Action Plan outlines all of the processes that are necessary for
                                managing a flood, including dike building, dike patrol, media involvement,
                                solicitation and maximum use of volunteers, and the management of food and

                                transportation problems.

                                     Secondly, it is absolutely essential that some entity be established
                                outside local government to implement flood protection. This entity needs to
                                have the following characteristics: the power to work across jurisdictional
                                boundaries, the primary responsibility for flood control, the ability to be
                                isolated from political change, and the ability to raise funds. In Fort Wayne
                                we are still working to accomplish this objective. we are pursuing a law that

                                is on the Indiana books that allows for the creation of a Conservancy District.
                                The process is very long and frustrating, but we are pursuing it with vigor.

                                 Abbott                                                                       243

                                     In addition, implementation is assisted by making necessary revisions in
                                 the floodplain zoning ordinance. We are making improvements to the zoning

                                 ordinance to bring it in compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program.

                                 Among other changes, we are taking steps necessary to insure that floodway

                                 development is prohibited in the future.

                                     Finally, the success of any major flood protection program is dependent
                                 upon the involvement of the Corps of Engineers. Fort Wayne recognized that

                                 fact from the start and worked closely with the Corps of Engineers in the
                                 development of the Fort Wayne/Allen County Flood Protection Plan. The Corps is
                                 currently finishing a reconnaissance study that may lead to the next step--a
                                 feasibility study of Fort Wayne/Allen County watershed--and ultimately to the
                                 involvement of the Corps of Engineers in constructing the improvements that are
                                 necessary in Fort Wayne.

                                                                  Conclusion

                                 There are several lessons to be learned by floodplain managers from Fort

                                 Wayne's experience:

                                 1)  Target planning efforts before the flood occurs. Promote flood insurance,
                                     floodproofing, and wise land use planning through floodplain zoning. In
                                     extremely hazardous areas, consider relocation as early as possible.

                                 2)  Create a mitigation planning team immediately. Because of the pressing
                                     recovery work that needs attention, there is a temptation to defer plan-
                                     ning until later and thereby miss opportunities.

                                 3)  Develop a local plan quickly. In order to be in control of your own
                                     destiny, it is necessary to develop a local plan. The local planning
                                     process must spawn an understanding of the problem, a thorough examination
                                     of alternative solutions, and a commitment to implementation. The plan
                                     must be used to communicate locally, to the state, as well as to the
                                     federal government.

                                 4)  Coordinate state and federal plans. The Federal Emergency Management
                                     Agency and the state natural resources department are mandated to develop
                                     hazard mitigation plans. These plans must be coordinated with local
                                     planners.

                                 5)  Seek assistance. You are not alone in dealing with the disaster. A,
                                     number of organizations, reading materials, and private consultants can
                                     help--including, of course, the Association of State Floodplain Managers.

                                 6)  Coordinate and organize. The need for coordination and organization
                                     cannot be overemphasized. Support from local citizens, FEMA, the state,
                                     the Corps, your senators and representatives, and leadership from your
                                     local executive branch are absolutely necessary to success of a plan.

                                 244                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                   7) Develop an undying commitment to the cause. In Fort Wayne, the 1982 flood
                                      is still a large consumer of staff resources. within the past three
                                      months the staff has participated in two conservancy district hearings--
                                      one convened by a district court judge and one conducted by the Department
                                      of Natural Resources. In both of those cases, the staff had to come fully
                                      prepared to discuss the flood and all the associated data that had been
                                      gathered as part of the Flood Protection Plan. In addition, the Corps of
                                      Engineers has just left Fort Wayne with the cost data that they needed for
                                      the reconnaissance study. Finally, the ongoing request for funding, the
                                      ongoing public presentations, and in some cases lawsuits, require a con-
                                      tinued commitment. It can be somewhat frustrating to present (again and
                                      again) information that was developed some time ago, but it is necessary
                                      to have the fortitude and the professionalism to keep the project moving.

                          I

                                                                   PART THREE

                                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS:

                                                                  Evacuation

                                                   CRITICAL HURRICANE EVACUATION PROBLEMS:
                                                 THE NEED FOR INNOVATIVE EVACUATION PLANNING

                                                              David A. Griffith
                                                     Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council

                                                                 Introduction

                                     In the last five years, the availability of new quantitative hurricane

                                hazard analysis tools and a planning method linking transportation, demo-
                                graphic, and behavioral evacuation analysis has allowed comprehensive studies

                                to answer critical questions on a given area's hurricane vulnerability. The
                                two major, previously unanswered, questions were 1) what specific geographic

                                areas must be evacuated in advance of the approaching hurricane? and 2) how
                                long would such a prestorm relocation of vulnerable residents take (evacuation

                                time)?

                                     In 1978, a hurricane evacuation planning effort for Lee County, Florida,

                                yielded an analytical method, combining all quantifiable factors of local

                                hurricane vulnerability, to calculate county evacuation times. The limited
                                geographical scope of the study (it only addressed Lee County) did not allow

                                the examination of how concurrent adjacent county evacuation would affect Lee
                                County's evacuation time. Since a hurricane will demand the evacuation of

                                several contiguous counties, merging evacuees from neighboring counties will
                                increase a given county's evacuation time. Hence, a conclusion of the Lee
                                County effort was that quantitative evacuation planning must be multicounty or
                                regional in scope, yet the resulting plan must be able to be implemented at the

                                local level.

                                     In 1980, the Lee County Evacuation Plan methodology was utilized to formu-

                                late a four-county evacuation plan for the Tampa Bay region. The Tampa Bay
                                Plan not only was the nation's first regional comprehensive hurricane evacua-
                                tion study, but also was the first effort to utilize the newly-developed SLOSH

                                numerical storm surge model as its primary hazard analysis tool. For the first
                                time, the computerized SLOSH (sea, lake, and overland surges from hurricanes)

                                model made it possible for planners to identify land areas predicted to be
                                inundated by overland hurricane storm surge based on several factors beyond
                                simple land elevation (offshore bathymetry, track of storm, hydrologic

                                 248                                     STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 friction, etc.) The use of the SLOSH model resulted in answers to the ques-
                                 tions of which specific geographic areas would have to be evacuated due to

                                 various intensities of hurricanes. In addition, the SLOSH results were com-
                                 bined with population/vehicle data, a behavioral survey, and computerized
                                 transportation modeling to calculate the time necessary to evacuate those areas

                                 before the hurricane made landfall (evacuation time). Indeed, the findings of

                                 the Tampa Bay Region Hurricane Evacuation Plan Technical Data Report quanti-

                                 tatively answered the two major questions of local hurricane vulnerability.
                                 The report was also adopted by the four counties of the region as the basis for

                                 their individual hurricane evacuation operations plans. However, the answers
                                 to those two questions presented a sobering picture of potential loss of life
                                 given the traditional response to an approaching hurricane. 1) The geographic
                                 areas of the region that would have to be evacuated from the direct strike of a
                                 hurricane would mean the relocation of between 200,000 and 800,000 coastal
                                 residents from the four counties,-depending upon the intensity and track of the

                                 hurricane. 2) The amount of time necessary to evacuate those residents to safe
                                 shelter before hurricane landfall ranged between 12 and 18 hours, again depend-
                                 ing upon the intensity and track of the hurricane.
                                      The magnitude of these population figures and  evacuation times now makes

                                 one thing evident: the traditional response to an   approaching hurricane will
                                 not prevent large-scale loss of life. The reasons   for this are evidenced by

                                 the critical hurricane evacuation problems defined  and discussed below.

                                                        Evacuation Time vs. Warning  Time
                                      The paramount problem in hurricane evacuation  recently confirmed by the
                                 above quantitative studies is that there are indeed some coastal regions of

                                 Florida that need more evacuation time than the National Hurricane Center can

                                 currently provide in the form of confident warning time. For example, as noted

                                 above, the Tampa Bay Region requires from 12 to 18 hours prior to hurricane
                                 landfall to successfully evacuate all vulnerable residents; the National Hurri-

                                 cane Center currently strives to provide confident predictions that a hurricane
                                 can actually be expected to strike a particular area 12 hours in advance. The
                                 problem is quite clear, especially when other regions (Southwest Florida and
                                 the Florida Keys) have been found to have even higher evacuation times.

                                      Does this mean that it is impossible to conduct successful evacuations
                                 from these areas? Does it mean that evacuation plans that have quantified

                                 evacuation times longer than 12 hours are unworkable? The answer to both of

                                Griffith                                                                        249

                                these questions is no. To explain this answer, one must first go back and
                                examine why we are "all of a sudden" confronted with this problem and who is
                                responsible for preventing loss of life from hurricanes.
                                     First, although we have, just in the past couple of years, confirmed the
                                problem through quantification of evacuation times, the evacuation time/warning
                                time differential has probably existed for over a decade in some urban coastal
                                areas. Its evolution is simple: coastal residential,development has gradually
                                increased to such density that the roadway systems can no longer accommodate an
                                emergency mass exodus inland in under 12 hours. Fortunately, a major hurricane
                                has not struck one of these areas in Florida since the coastal population
                                explosion. If one had, a disaster more catastrophic than the 6,000 deaths in
                                the 1900 Galveston hurricane would probably have occurred. If state-of-the-art
                                hurricane forecasting cou ld keep pace with the increase in coastal population,
                                the problem could be mitigated. Unfortunately, that is not the case. A major
                                breakthrough in hurricane forecasting and prediction, based on a new techno-
                                logical advance, is not expected in the near future, yet the coastal population.
                                continues to grow, pushing evacuation times even higher.

                                     Legally, the responsibility for protecting people from an approaching
                                hurricane rests with the state and local elected officials of the jurisdiction
                                in which they reside. The responsibility to advise those officials of such an
                                impending meteorological threat ultimately rests with NOWS National Hurricane
                                Center. This distinction in responsibility is a key to the immediate remedy of
                                the evacuation time vs. warning time problem. So what is the immediate remedy?
                                First, some ancillary problems uncovered by the quantitative evacuation studies

                                are examined below.

                                                               Shelter Capacity
                                     Another alarming problem identified by analyzing the amount of population

                                shown by the SLOSH model to be hurricane-vulnerable is that most coastal areas

                                are greatly lacking in the amount of public shelter capacity they can provide
                                for an evacuation. Traditionally, in various parts of the U.S., only a small
                                percentage (10-20%) of hurricane evacuees have sought public (usually Red Cross
                                managed) shelters as their evacuation destination before a hurricane. However,
                                recent behavioral surveys of the Tampa Bay study and other studies in Florida
                                indicate that as many as 40% could seek such public shelter in a future hurri-
                                cane. Florida's high percentage may be explained by the large elderly popula-
                                tion often detached from northern relatives (homes of relatives are a local

                                  250                                      STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                  alternative to a public shelter) and thus more dependent on public facilities
                                  Comparative analyses of public shelter demand vs. actual existing capacity have

                                  revealed substantial shortfalls for evacuation planning.     Such analyses have
                                  spurred increased efforts for new public shelter searches, designation, and

                                  staffing. However, these efforts may not be taking place     fast enough.
                                                        Maintaining Florida's Comprehensive

                                                        Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plans

                                        identifying and taking the first step in solving the "evacuation time vs.

                                  warning time" problem occurred when a pilot regional evacuation plan for the

                                  Tampa Bay region quantified the evacuation time for those four urban coastal

                                  counties. For how can a local emergency official successfully order a hurri-
                                  cane evacuation when he/she does not know how long it will take? Comprehensive
                                  and quantitative hurricane evacuation studies have been conducted for the Tampa
                                  Bay Region and the Southwest Florida Region. A similar effort is currently
                                  underway along the Southeast coast. It is hoped that funding will also be made

                                  available to develop a comprehensive evacuation plan for Florida's hurricane-
                                  vulnerable panhandle coastline. Fortunately, the SLOSH model, almost a pre-
                                  requisite for conducting a comprehensive/quantitative evacuation study, is
                                  being developed for the remainder of the urban coastal regions of    the state.

                                       Although Florida has taken a giant step forward in hurricane    preparedness

                                  as a result of the comprehensive/quantitative regional evacuation    plans, the
                                  fact that those efforts were "pilot" studies has left us with the    huge problem

                                  of how to keep those plans up-to-date and accurate enough to save    lives.
                                  Because so many elements of the plans are quantitative, Florida's    rapid coastal

                                  population growth renders critical factors, such as evacuation time, inaccurate
                                  in one to two years. No one can question the cost-effectiveness of these
                                  efforts given the constant threat to Florida from hurricanes. But the question
                                  becomes, "Who will provide the resources necessary to maintain comprehensive
                                  regional plans all along Florida's vulnerable coast?"

                                                              Alternative Solutions to

                                                      Florida's Hurricane Evacuation Problems

                                       The evacuation time vs. warning time problem has two basic alternative

                                  solutions. Unfortunately, neither is attainable without substantial costs in
                                  the form of money, inconvenience, and/or political credibility.

                                 Griffith                                                                      251

                                 Early Evacuation Orders

                                      The first solution, probably better defined as an immediate remedy, is the
                                 issuing of early evacuation orders by local and/or state elected officials.

                                 Rather than wait for a confident warning from hurricane forecasters with as

                                 little as 12 hours lead time, local officials must be guided by the pre-
                                 quantified evacuation times of their comprehensive evacuation plans. Such

                                 times might demand that the local officials order evacuation as early as 24

                                 hours in advance of potential landfall--a point at which the state-of-the-art

                                 of hurricane forecasting cannot provide a confident prediction that the storm
                                 will actually strike that locality. In fact, such early evacuation orders
                                 will, in most instances, evacuate thousands of coastal residents unnecessarily,
                                 as the hurricane eventually does not strike that local area.
                                      What has been created by this situation is what can be called a "cry wolf"
                                 dilemma. it is a dilemma of emergency decision making caused by the potential
                                 for causing inconvenience, financial losses, and loss of governmental/political
                                 credibility by issuing an early but ultimately unnecessary evacuation order.
                                 But the cost of not issuing such an early evacuation order upon the approach of
                                 a large hurricane are much, much higher: the loss of thousands of lives.
                                      The immediate remedy to the evacuation time/warning time differential
                                 problem through early evacuation orders described above requires three major
                                 elements. The first is a very close and mutually understanding relationship
                                 between hurricane forecasters and local/state emergency officials. This rela-

                                 tionship must itself be based on a constantly accessible communication system
                                 between both entities. Each entity must realize that all evacuation concerns
                                 are not necessarily meteorological concerns, and vice versa. Again, the local
                                 coastal areas must be able to secure all the emergency meteorological informa-
                                 tion they need to implement their quantitative evacuation plans.
                                      The second element is a clear integration of the evacuation-ordering
                                 authority that is delegated to both county and municipal senior elected offi-
                                 cials by state law. This is critical to the coordination necessary between
                                 counties and municipalities as they implement regional hurricane evacuation
                                 plans. For example, a municipal evacuation order, if not coordinated with the

                                 county or surrounding cities, could compound an already congested emergency
                                 situation. Similarly, any county should order evacuation only in coordination
                                 with its constituent cities. Unfortunately, the current state statute is very
                                 vague on county vs. municipal evacuation ordering authority.

                                 252                                    STRATEGIES FOR KANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                      The third needed element is an understanding by the public that there is a
                                 high probability of an ultimately unnecessary evacuation based on an early
                                 evacuation order. The "cry wolf" situation must be viewed by the public not as

                                 a mistake in judgment by emergency officials, but as the safest way that

                                 officials can guard against large-scale loss of life from a relatively unpre-
                                 dictable natural phenomenon. Hurricane-vulnerable coastal residents must begin
                                 to accept the fact that for every three, four, or even five times they might be
                                 ordered to evacuate their home due to a hurricane over the next 20 years, that

                                 only one of those trips may ultimately be necessary. But the price of not
                                 evacuating every one of those times could be much, much higher than the cost of

                                 a trip inland to a public shelter or the home of a friend or relative on high

                                 ground.

                                      So the immediate remedy to the evacuation time vs. warning time problem in
                                 a given area is the acceptance by state/local officials of the responsibility
                                 for issuing an early evacuation order without a confident warning from the
                                 national Hurricane Center that the hurricane will actually strike their area.
                                 For this immediate remedy to be effective, the hurricane forecaster must recog-
                                 nize and be sensitive to the prequantified evacuation times of a local area's
                                 comprehensive evacuation plan. In addition, evacuation orders must be careful-
                                 ly and completely coordinated between county and municipal decision makers.
                                 And finally, the vulnerable resident must respond and evacuate immediately,

                                 even with full knowledge that the trip may ultimately be unnecessary.

                                 Lowering Evacuation Times: Vertical Evacuation
                                      The second alternative solution to the evacuation time vs. warning time
                                 problem is to lower evacuation times by planning and implementing the vertical

                                 evacuation of vulnerable coastal residents. Vertical evacuation is the reloca-

                                 tion of residents into the higher floors of multistory structures--either their

                                 structure of residence or a nearby structure. The ultimate advantage of this
                                 type of evacuation movement is that it should take less time for such reloca-
                                 tion to be carried out since those "upward" evacuation trips would be much
                                 shorter in distance than a horizontal trip inland. In addition, many vertical

                                 evacuation trips might not require the use of an automobile, somewhat miti-
                                 gating time-consuming traffic congestion and backups and thus lowering evacua-

                                 tion time. This type of evacuation could also substantially aid in solving the
                                 problem of limited public shelter capacity.

                                 Griffith                                                                     253

                                      The concept of vertical evacuation appears to be a local solution to the
                                 evacuation time vs. warning time problem if it indeed can lower evacuation

                                 times. However, the reality of implementing this type of evacuation is bur-
                                 dened with many unknown factors, many of which could be life threatening in

                                 themselves. For example, how can an existing coastal high-rise structure be
                                 determined to be suitably constructed to withstand hurricane conditions? Even

                                 if building design specifications point toward such structural worthiness,
                                 poststorm examinations of structures after Hurricane Eloise on the Florida

                                 panhandle have shown that design specifications are not always incorporated
                                 into the actual construction of a building. An even bigger question is who

                                 will "certify" a structure as hurricane-resistant, to be used as a vertical
                                 evacuation shelter? Who will accept the potential liability accompanying such

                                 certification? Who should accept such liability? Another unknown factor is
                                 which geographic areas are appropriate for vertical evacuation. is it prudent

                                 to direct residents of barrier islands (even the inland sides of barrier

                                 islands) to vertically evacuate from an approaching Category 4 or 5 hurricane?

                                 Is it prudent to direct thousands of residents upward on a barrier island that,
                                 even if it survived the hurricane, would be isolated from life sustaining

                                 resources such as food, water, and electricity? Neither a consensus of the

                                 structural/hydrologic engineering community nor the actual experience of that

                                 situation exists to answer these questions.

                                      The key to any hurricane evacuation plan is a sound and understandable

                                 system of public information. Incorporating vertical evacuation into local
                                 plans will raise a whole new set of questions in the minds of coastal resi-
                                 dents: Should I evacuate vertically or inland? How high must I go in the
                                 building? If I escape from the surge, will I also be safe from the high

                                 winds?

                                      Although the concept of vertical evacuation is rapidly becoming one of the
                                 only alternatives to high evacuation times, it is becoming quite evident that
                                 the incorporation of a vertical element into local evacuation plans cannot
                                 safely be done unless local preparedness authorities obtain answers to the
                                 above questions. Many of these questions are so complex that they would
                                 require legislation to address potential liability and structural certification
                                 issues. Vertical evacuation is a concept whose time has come as a potential
                                 solution to the evacuation time vs. warning time problem. Unfortunately, the
                                 local emergency management community is neither equipped nor ready to implement

                                 it.

                                254                                     STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                                             Long-Range Solutions

                                     There will probably come a time when even an early evacuation order of 30

                                hours before hurricane landfall will not be sufficient to permit the success-

                                ful horizontal evacuation of the dense coastal population. Also, there will

                                probably come a time when there will not even be enough multistory structures

                                to serve as vertical evacuation shelters for the dense coastal populations of
                                the future. Unfortunately, there will probably never come a time when hurri-

                                canes will cease to threaten the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of the U.S. In the

                                future, the pressure to develop our coastline residentially will continue for

                                the same aesthetic, recreational, and economic reasons that it now exists. The
                                only real long-range solution to ever-increasing evacuation times is hurricane-

                                conscious land use decisions in our remaining undeveloped hurricane-prone
                                coastal areas. How high will the evacuation times rise? That question can

                                only be answered by the same entity that is faced with issuing an early evacu-
                                ation order, directing vertical evacuation, and making the day-to-day land use

                                decisions that make the former two decisions so difficult--the local government

                                official.

                                                                  Conclusion

                                     It is possible to evacuate people of any U.S. coastal area from an
                                approaching hurricane. Any number of people can be successfully evacuated--if
                                the process is initiated early enough. The basic problem is that "early
                                enough" in many coastal areas is too early for a confident warning from the
                                hurricane forecaster, too early for a doubt-free evacuation order from a local
                                elected official, and too early for every evacuation trip by the public to be

                                an ultimately necessary one. The problem demands that each of these three
                                entities--the hurricane forecaster, the local elected official, and the
                                public--do their part to avoid loss of life.

                                     The hurricane forecaster must recognize and be sensitive to the fact that

                                local areas with evacuation times higher than 12 hours need a "somewhat less
                                than confident" warning of actual hurricane landfall. Evacuation times over 12

                                hours do not render an evacuation plan unworkable. But a workable plan demands
                                work from the hurricane forecaster as well as the local emergency officials and

                                general public. Until vertical evacuation can be safely implemented, we must
                                deal with the reality of high evacuation times.

                                     The local (or state) elected officials must be willing to accept a poten-
                                tial loss of credibility if they "cry wolf" by issuing an unneeded early evacu-

                                  Griffith                                                                      255

                                  ation order. They must recognize that the first and foremost responsibility of

                                  their position is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of

                                  their jurisdiction.

                                       Finally, the general public must realize and understand that the evacua-

                                  tion order they receive is based on the best possible information and judgment
                                  by meteorologists and emergency management experts. The public must also
                                  recognize that, when dealing with a force of nature such as a hurricane, its

                                  relative unpredictability will cause evacuation "false alarms" in areas of

                                  dense coastal population. It must be realized that the best way of surviving a
                                  hurricane is to listen to and follow the instructions of local emergency

                                  authorities. However, unless those local emergency authorities are assisted in
                                  solving the evacuation problems described in this paper--through both the
                                  provision of resources and the establishment of a firm legislative base--the
                                  potential for large-scale loss of life will continue to increase.

                                                                    PART THREE

                                                    STRATEGIES FOR KANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS:

                                                                  Natural Values

                                                       THE LEACHATE OF POOR FLOOD CONTROL

                                                               Allan N. Williams
                                                        Principal Environmental Analyst
                                               Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

                                                                Filling in banks
                                                              So perceptively slow
                                                                 Paving Forests
                                                               Flood Heights grow
                                                             Cartons, cars, scraps
                                                                   of us all
                                                                Bonded by bricks
                                                                 In back of the
                                                                      mall
                                                                 Nobody's happy
                                                                   An eyesore
                                                                   It's Fate
                                                              The Seasonal Floods
                                                               The object of hate
                                                                 Come boxed and
                                                                walled channels
                                                                Those Coffins of
                                                                    Streams
                                                                   All sit by
                                                               The discarding  of
                                                                     dreams
                                                               The sidewalls will
                                                                   stabilize
                                                                And conduit will
                                                                      Rule
                                                            While abutments replace
                                                              The meandering pool
                                                           This floodplain is broken
                                                              How sad is the soul
                                                             Witness this leachate
                                                             of Poor Flood Control.

                                     As I travel throughout this nation by air, train, raft, foot, and horse-
                                back, I see large, undeveloped floodplains like those of the Missouri and
                                Mississippi, Columbia and Colorado whose need for protection is not only obvi-
                                ous but imperative. I also notice a constituency of professionals and private

                                citizens who seek to protect such areas.

                                     In sharp contrast, I see thousands of small streams badly bruised by the
                                construction of boxed or walled channels. For these streams, the needs of

                                   260                                       STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                   individual property owners, the ambivalence of government, and the pressing

                                   political demands for flood control seem to set floodplain protection into the

                                   unenviable position of being a minority without representation in the decision-

                                   making process.
                                        I focus this presentation on the issue of incremental loss of stream

                                   habitat due to the construction of boxed or walled channels for flood control.

                                   As flood control or drainage projects, these are the smaller, less noticed
                                   projects that generally involve only a few thousand feet of stream at a time.
                                   The channel work occurs in areas often considered high hazard--not in terms of
                                   floods over large areas, but in terms of concentrated damage potential in very

                                   small areas. it is often the case that, over time, many such small projects

                                   spell the demise of larger areas of streams. Mind you, I am not talking about
                                   the larger federal projects but those done by state and local governments.
                                        In the case of one watershed near my home, I see the results of such
                                   incremental damage. The 79-square mile Park River drainage basin is replete

                                   with sterile trapezoidal channels, 900 walled channels with flat bottoms,
                                   dozens of small tributaries that do not appear above ground, and finally a main
                                   stem, itself enclosed in twin pressure conduits. Why did this happen and who

                                   was responsible?

                                        Was it the famous Samuel Colt, who in 1851 constructed the first dikes on

                                   the river's banks to protect his munitions factory? Was it the farmers of the

                                   1880s who dumped slaughterhouse wastes into it? Was it the 1910 tenement owner
                                   who literally built to the water's edge? Was it the tripling of population in
                                   the basin from 1868 to 1978? Was it the first government flood control project

                                   in 1940 that cut off this stream from its natural outlet to the Connecticut

                                   River? Was it the trapezoidal, flat-bottomed, shadeless channels constructed
                                   in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s to minimize channel width during highway construc-

                                   tion?

                                        The fact is that there never was any particular development, any one

                                   factor, any single road crossing about which one could say, "This destroyed our

                                   river."

                                        What role did the flood managers have in the process? Were they just
                                   doing their job when they designed and built the various conduits and channels?
                                   Or were they, in fact, making some societal assumptions that their job was more

                                   than flood control; that it also included helping property owners to develop

                                  Williams                                                                    261

                                  these "useless swamps and debris laden streams," and to put the land to some

                                  "productive use?"

                                      It is ironic that many of the problems that so severely degraded the Park

                                  River--water pollution, aesthetic nuisances, etc-have now been corrected, but

                                  that the flood control projects pre-empt recovery of the stream habitat.

                                      We have come a long way these past ten years or so in integrating environ-

                                  mental concerns into our flood projects. But how many of our agencies and how

                                  many of our towns are still putting streams in boxed or walled channels or
                                  putting them underground altogether?

                                      one might say it is not our job to consider the environmental consequences

                                  of a flood project. Other people, other programs are supposed to do that.

                                  Despite having passed through the "environmental decade," we are still depend-
                                  ing on the regulatory or review process to make our projects "fit" environ-

                                  mentally.

                                      I believe we are attempting to protect stream habitat from the effects of
                                  a flood control project by using regulatory measures. I also believe this is a
                                  superficial and inadequate treatment of the problem.
                                      The problem with this process is similar to the problem of retrofitting a
                                  house for solar heating. You add insulation, upgrade heat transfer materials,
                                  and seal doors and windows; but in the end, if the house is in a shadowy ravine
                                  and its roof not facing south, then all the changes just cannot bring more of
                                  the sun's energy into the home. We cannot make an intrinsically environmental-
                                  ly unfit channel design acceptable just by addressing the peripherals: erosion

                                  control, a few plantings, or a stone wall here or there.

                                      Why are environmental concerns still peripheral and retrofitted to small

                                  projects instead of being designed into the projects from the beginning?

                                      What are some of the constraints making it difficult to integrate flood

                                  management and natural resource protection into small projects?
                                  1) In designing a flood control structure, it is almost always more costly to
                                  do it environmentally correctly. The tendency is always to try to keep finan-
                                  cial costs down and development opportunities up. Compounding the problem is

                                  the fact that environmental values are difficult to estimate in dollars, so

                                  they often are not considered at all. In some ways, environmental values are
                                  often measured in PFD--"People Flak Dollars," i.e., the more people watching
                                  and concerned, the more important the environmental values become.

                                  262                                       STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                   2) By the time a flood control project is needed, the outcry--usually made by

                                  a specific group lobbying for a solution to their immediate needs for water-

                                  free property--often overshadows other issues. There arises a political force
                                  ,lobbying for a flood control project, and it is only concerned with getting
                                  something done fast. From the beginning, then, the designers of a flood

                                  control project are under the gun to do something quickly, to solve a single-
                                  purpose problem with a single-purpose project. The project is designed and

                                  submitted for regulatory review, leaving the environmental concerns limited to

                                  output controls, instead of input controls.

                                       By this time in the process, there is considerable time, money, and staff
                                  interest involved. Add existing political and economic forces to this, along

                                  with the professional pride of the design engineers, and those involved in the

                                  regulatory process may feel that they have no constituency--that there is
                                  little they can do, or that it would be too costly to change anything. In this
                                  position, the regulators often see themselves as "roadblocks." By now, they
                                  are not willing to go out on a limb to protect stream habitat. Another reach

                                  of river is discarded.

                                       What can be done to prevent this, to prevent the constant loss of small

                                  stream habitat due to small flood control projects?

                                       Among the first choices for relief must be the development of basin-wide

                                  stormwater management standards and, in turn, stormwater management plans
                                  intended not merely to improve the efficiency of flows but also to guarantee
                                  the existence of viable stream corridors. It has taken so long to get flood-
                                  plain regulations adopted in this nation, to implement controls outside the
                                  floodplain may seem like too much for municipalities to bear, but it must be

                                  done.

                                       Second, those responsible for flood control projects must have written
                                  policy to promote interdisciplinary predesign studies of alternatives. Before
                                  the first calculations or the first lines on a blue print are made, it is
                                  critical that the ecological professionals visit the site with the design
                                  engineers, that they discuss and develop alternatives together.
                                       Third, there is a need to increase cross-professional training of engi-
                                  neers, ecologists, soil scientists, and others for the purpose of increasing

                                  their understanding about each other's duties and constraints.
                                       Fourth, there is a need to develop written guidelines for approval of
                                  state or local flood control projects. These guidelines should delineate a

                                 Williams                                                                  _263

                                 process that requires environmental concerns to be built into a project, not

                                 tacked on after design.

                                      I would like to close with the following words about the Park River.
                                      Mark Twain wrote most of his famous novels, including Tom -Sawyer and
                                 Huckleberry Finn at his Hartford home, called Nook Farm, which was on a hill
                                 overlooking the Park River. There is now no evidence that a river ever existed

                                 on the property, as in the past two years the last stage of a flood control
                                 project put the last pieces of the river underground.

                                      Perhaps we all owe an apology to Mark Twain, Samuel Clemens, and his

                                 daughter, Clara.

                                                            An Apology to Mark Twain

                                                       Her banks willow, maple, and grass
                                                      When Huck, Tom, and that Becky Lass
                                                        But that was then; now it's dark
                                                     Deep in the bowels of the River Park.

                                                      In soaking springs, most usual years
                                                       Water on yards, yet very few tears
                                                      Sediments and stone hardly perturbed
                                                     They alone, to be annually disturbed.

                                                       Public officials, lacking reproach
                                                        Did not comprehend, to encroach
                                                            Bank to bank, row by row
                                                      We slowly watch, the buildings grow.

                                                           Came 155, a flood of wrath
                                                      Sweeping over the now-occupied path
                                                      Voices rose that triggered the end--
                                                   "Eliminate it, eliminate every last bend!"

                                                      Twin pressure conduits soon replaced
                                                     The peaceful view Nook Farm had faced.
                                                     Where Clara and father skated to shore
                                                      Parking and steel mechanically roar.

                                                    So substitute for clam shells and trout
                                                    By counting the miles of masonry grout;
                                                       In greying water cast your concern
                                                    Lest from river to sewer all must learn.

                                                      WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT:
                                                                  A SUMMARY

                                                             Alexandra D. Dawson
                                          Director, Resources Management and Administration Program
                                                             Antioch New England

                                         Wetlands Protection and Floodplain Management: A Comparison

                                Land Use Controls

                                     Wetlands protection and floodplain management are aspects of land use
                                planning. This is still principally a legal power of the states, exercised at
                                the local level through zoning, subdivision, and health controls and at the
                                state level through state wetlands laws, scenic rivers programs, and coastal

                                zone management strategies.

                                General Legal Principles

                                     Courts have been supportive of the right of states and localities to ban
                                the use of high-hazard floodplains. The leading case is Turnpike Realty Co.
                                vs. Town of Dedham, 362 Mass. 221 (1972). The principle involved is that
                                prevention of public hazard outweighs the right of private landowners to de-

                                velop their land. The hazard can include danger to persons occupying the
                                floodplain, danger to upstream and downstream owners, and even (according to

                                two Massachusetts cases) the "hazard" of increased public expenditure due to

                                unwise choices in land development.
                                     Courts have been more conservative in upholding bans on the use of pri-
                                vately owned wetlands, probably because the hazards of their destruction are

                                more remote and speculative. In one Massachusetts case, however, a ban on
                                filling of wetlands was upheld because there was some evidence that the fill
                                might damage the quality of groundwater which was a potential (but not current)
                                drinking water supply (Loveguist vs. Conservation Commission of Dennis, 1979

                                Mass. Ad. Sh. 2210).

                                     Because of the "public trust" and special public interest in coastal
                                wetlands, a ban on destruction of productive saltmarshes may be upheld (see
                                Sibson vs. NH, 115 N.H. 124). Thus, on common law (decisional) grounds, it may

                                 266                                     STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 be legally feasible to ban development in a wetland or a floodplain, especially

                                 the latter.

                                      A contrary result may be reached by statutory regulation, however. In
                                 Massachusetts, under the new Wetland Protection Act regulations effective in
                                 1983 (310 Code of Mass. Regulation 10.00, interpreting Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 131,
                                 s. 40), floodplains may be given less protection than vegetated wetlands bor-
                                 dering surface waters. For these "BVWs", a special waiver from the Commission-

                                 er of DEQE is now required for more than minimal fill. These wetlands are

                                 presumed valuable for public or private water supply, groundwater supply, flood
                                 control, storm damage prevention, prevention of pollution, and protection of

                                 fisheries/shellfish; whereas floodplains are presumed valuable only to flood
                                 control, storm damage prevention, and, sometimes, groundwater and may often be
                                 filled if compensatory storage is provided.
                                      Engineering solutions of this sort for development of floodplains provide

                                 interesting legal questions. If state or local regulations provide that a
                                 developer may come forward with plans for compensatory storage, fill, pilings,

                                 breakaway fronts, or floodproofing, and the reviewing authority nevertheless
                                 rejects an application to develop, the burden of proof will shift to the regu-

                                 lating body to prove why it rejected these solutions. Nevertheless, the state
                                 of the art is not such that a court is likely to require a regulatory body to
                                 accept such solutions if the regulation is properly drafted. The regulations
                                 should thus begin with a presumption that development of high risk floodplains
                                 is undesirable because such development is presumed to result in serious public
                                 hazards. It may then allow the developer to submit technical solutions for
                                 such development with the understanding that the solution will be rejected
                                 unless the developer convinces the regulating body of the proven workability of
                                 the solution. This approach will help keep the burden of proof on the

                                 applicant.
                                      When regulating wetlands, on the other hand, the regulating body's
                                 language should emphasize the proven values of wetlands and any hazards con-
                                 current with their destruction. Mitigation efforts such as creation of sub-

                                 stitute new wetlands should be given low priority.
                                      Regulations for both kinds of development should emphasize the residual

                                 economic uses of the land which may benefit the landowner: farming, forestry,
                                 recreation, plus the accessory value of the land in making up lot sizes, pro-
                                 viding value to adjacent uplands, etc., which has been recognized in one

                                 Dawson                                                                      267

                                 Massachusetts appeal court case (S. Kemble Fischer Realty Trust vs. Board of
                                 A,ppeals of Concord, 1980 Mass. App. Adv. Sh. 637). Mere diminution of value
                                 will not generally invalidate a restriction on the use of land validly adopted
                                 under the state or local "police power," provided the landowner is left with
                                 some kind of economic use of the property. One should avoid references to uses
                                 that are really public uses of public lands (e.g., flood storage areas, water
                                 supply, public recreation), as this suggests to courts that, by regulation,
                                 public benefits are being sought which should be accomplished by purchase of
                                 the property.

                                 Coordinating Protective Efforts at the Local Level

                                     Municipalities and counties are still the main controllers of land use
                                 outside LURC areas of Maine. Many different local bodies can be made interest-
                                 ed in protecting floodplains and wetlands, e.g-,

                                  �  Birders, schools, and people who like outdoor recreation

                                  �  Farmers, foresters, hunters, and fisherpeople

                                  �  Fiscal conservatives who fear need of future public expenditures for
                                     sewers, schools, dikes, dams

                                  �  People who just think the community is growing too fast

                                     The coalition aim should be to review the present picture of local control
                                 of land use with a view towards removing the "magnet effect," and encouraging

                                 compatible uses of floodplains.

                                     The magnet effect is achieved when the community actually, although often
                                 unintentionally, points development into the floodplain by inappropriate zoning
                                 and/or development of public infrastructure. Many New England towns were built
                                 around mills in floodplains and have continued this pattern by industrial/
                                 commercial zoning and the building of roads, sewage treatment plants, parking
                                 areas, and airports, not to mention trailer parks. Sewage treatment plants are
                                 particularly problematic since engineering practice tends towards building them
                                 on the floodplain; it is then legally difficult to prevent access to the pipe.

                                 Road building has similar effects, although few think beyond the immediate
                                 impact of road building (the flood insurance program attempts no ban on road

                                 building in floodplains).
                                     Communities should therefore adopt public infrastructure policies, review

                                 zoning codes, and also review local health laws: both floodplains and wetlands

                                   268                                       STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                   are generally poor places for either individual septic systems or public sewer

                                   lines.

                                         The community should eschew the one-foot rise permitted, but not encour-
                                   aged, by FEMA regulations in setting the floodway; this will effectively make
                                   the 100-year floodplain the regulatory floodway, and the flood insurance prohi-
                                   bitions against fill will give force to local bans.
                                         Compatible uses for wetlands and floodplains include:

                                     �   Public ownership as parks.

                                     �   Public restrictions purchased from landowners preventing development and
                                         allowing at least educational access. Consequent reduction in real estate
                                         taxes on undeveloped land will generally be minimal.

                                     �   Farming and forestry--compatible in floodplains, but not always in
                                         wetlands.

                                     �   Modest recreational facilities. one should avoid a general "use as of
                                         right" for "water dependent activities" such as boating, but rather
                                         require a special permit for control of size and placement.

                                     �   Accessory uses such as the "toes" of large lots.

                                         In downzoning areas for protection one should emphasize good mapping,
                                   public hazards, residual uses and avoid the implication that regulation is
                                   being used as a cheap substitute for purchase by the public.
                                                  Coordinating Protective Efforts at the State Level

                                         Efforts that may be mounted by state officials with local support

                                   include:

                                     �   States should adopt executive orders similar to federal EO 11988 and EO
                                         11990 banning use of public funds for floodplain/wetland destruction
                                         unless specially justified. These executive orders should include all
                                         federal funds and all high risk floodplains, whether privately or
                                         publicly owned.

                                     �   CZM plans should be reviewed to make sure protection is maximized and
                                         impact funds are not available for counterproductive activity, and
                                         controls on roads, sewers, airports, and utilities should be checked.
                                         officials should emphasize use of CZm public access funds for access to
                                         beaches and rivers.

                                     �   States may give preference to floodplains/wetlands in grants for ground-
                                         water protection, agricultural preservation restriction purchase--depend-
                                         ing on the regulations.

                                Dawson                                                                      269

                                  o  State scenic rivers programs should be reviewed. Is the setback
                                     adequate?

                                  e  State health codes for septic systems, sewer construction and dumps should
                                     be reviewed for adequacy--many are outdated.

                                  o  States should resist delegation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                                     Section 404 wetlands program, as well as the Corps' "nationwide permits."

                                  o  States could do more in pushing for more funding of FEMA's Section 1362
                                     acquisition program for frequently flooded areas.

                                                                    PART THREE

                                                     STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS:

                                                             Training and Education

                                                  TRAINING AND EDUCATION NEEDS FOR THE PRACTITIONER

                                                                  William L. Trakimas
                                                       Indiana Department of Natural Resources

                                                              Training and Education Needs

                                        In Indiana, we have.found that training and education must provide local
                                   officials with information and data that is pertinent to their way of life.
                                   This requires data from other Indiana experiences, not data from events or

                                   situations from other states. If this is not possible, then the out-of-state
                                   experiences must be those from a similar type of community. It is very impor-
                                   tant that, if you go into a small rural community tucked away in the mountains,
                                   your data be those of a similar community in a similar locational setting.

                                   Credibility is very important. The story of the relocation of $100,000 homes
                                   in Minnesota will not enlighten those situated in $10,000 homes in a mining

                                   camp.

                                        For years we have provided training tools, seminars, etc., on federal
                                   regulations, state laws, and agency responsibility. However, in many cases the
                                   data have been overly complex (Federal Register, state laws) and not keyed to
                                   the local lifestyle. It is very hard to discuss the development of grandiose

                                   mitigation plans with a community with no budget for mitigation, particularly

                                   when you are offering no financial assistance yourself. Through the State
                                   Assistance Program (SAP), Indiana has finally begun to provide the necessary
                                   management tools to help local officials and floodplain managers.
                                        The development of handbooks written in language easy to understand,

                                   highlighting the major issues and regulations that a local official needs, has
                                   been a big plus for our agency. These handbooks have gone a long way in
                                   assisting the local community to understand the maze of federal and state
                                   regulations on floodplain management and disaster response. in addition, our
                                   agency has developed a floodproofing slide show illustrating examples of

                                   Indiana experiences in floodproofing. The cost of undertaking the floodproof-
                                   ing measures is also illustrated. The depiction of costs is a major element in

                                   achieving credibility with the local community.

                                 274                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                      As our agency becomes aware of more examples of Indiana floodproofing
                                 experiences, we are acquiring slides to update our slide show. This will make
                                 the presentation flexible, thereby allowing us to provide examples that closely
                                 resemble the types of communities where we are providing the training. In this

                                 way we hope to establish better credibility for our programs, thereby leading

                                 to increased activity at the local level.
                                                      Meeting Training and Education Needs
                                      At present, our agency provides funding for staff to attend public meet-
                                 inqs and provide technical assistance to meet local community needs. Through

                                 the SAP we now have an excellent information base (management tools) with which
                                 to assist local communities. our agency has no problem with setting up local

                                 workshops and/or seminars and providing staffing to conduct these training and
                                 education programs. The only problems we encounter are with the scheduling of

                                 our staff, since we do not have staff assigned solely for training and educa-
                                 tion, and with reproducing handbooks and manuals. Currently, our budget is not
                                 flexible enough to handle mass reproduction of large manuals. In the future,
                                 this may not be a problem, but until then, we must conserve our resources. We
                                 are able to conduct small workshops that require limited amounts of material
                                 reproduction. As a result, our training efforts have been in response to

                                 requests by local communities versus an organized effort initiated by our

                                 agency.
                                                         Funding Training and Education

                                      Additional funds, therefore, are needed for travel and material reproduc-

                                 tion. once in a while our in-state travel funds become depleted thereby re-

                                 ducing staff's ability to conduct normal business. Therefore, additional
                                 traveling associated with training exercises would be out of the question.
                                 However, if funds become available to cover these travel costs, it would be no

                                 problem to have our existing staff conduct meetings. It should be noted that

                                 our staff scheduling problem would not be a problem if normal travel funds were

                                 scarce, since more of our staff would be in the office.

                                      In the case of material reproductions, additional funds would be greatly

                                 appreciated. our current budget does not allow for large sums to be applied to
                                 manual/handbook production. This is one reason why the SAP has been such a
                                 tremendous plus to our program. (For example, the Handbook for Local Planners
                                 costs $1,600 for 500 copies. This only allows one copy for each community in
                                 Indiana. This is in no way sufficient for adequate training and education).

                                Trakimas                                                                       275

                                     In terms of cooperative arrangements, something could be worked out with

                                the FEMA Regional Office and the State Civil Defense through their training and
                                education contracts. The agreement might be for the FEMA Regional office to

                                supply a staff person to work with our agency and have a program like SAP
                                provide funds for travel and material reproductions. Another possibility might

                                be for our agency to use the Civil Defense training and education contract
                                (Public Officials conferences) to set up meetings and draw the local partici-
                                pants. With funding from FEKA for material reproduction, our agency could

                                conduct training seminars.

                                                                    Benefits

                                     Providing training and education on the NFIP, floodplain management and

                                disaster preparedness to local officials/communities, along with providing
                                mitigation, would go a long way towards the establishment of effective local
                                floodplain management programs in Indiana. Experience has shown that when
                                people understand a program, they are willing to abide by the rules. It is the
                                complexity and uncertainty of programs that causes confusion at the local level
                                thereby leading to poor administration. We hope that, through our efforts to
                                simplify floodplain management, we will begin to see better administration and

                                implementation.

                                     The Floodplain Management Handbook for Local Planners is a good example of
                                how we have tried to simplify floodplain management. This handbook is an
                                excellent reference tool that locals can use to answer questions as they arise.
                                Previously, communities were left with a pile of materials, a lot of which were
                                written in terms foreign to them. As a result, when questions arose, they had

                                no place to go to find the answers. The handbook, we hope, provides that
                                single source to meet their needs. In addition, the handbook contains a list
                                of places to contact for assistance, broken down by topic or issue.
                                     Unlike other parts of the country, Indiana does not usually suffer from
                                floods that cause total destruction. Due to the relatively flat terrain, most
                                of our flooding is the slow rising type . Therefore, our losses are not as
                                great as in some other parts of the country. Bad floodplain management de-
                                cisions therefore cause damages, but riot of monumental proportion. Thus, the
                                reduction in flood damages caused by sound land use decisions will not be as

                                noticeable in Indiana as other states, but nevertheless it would be

                                noticeable.

                                  276                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                       A real key to what will be accomplished will be the efforts our agency

                                  expends in two areas:

                                    1) Providing data/information to locals who already have a detailed FIS, but
                                       lack adequate training to understand the data; and

                                    2) Enforcing our laws against violators, many of whom undertake their actiVi-
                                       ties as a result of a lack of understanding or knowledge of the law.

                                       With better local floodplain managers, we feel we will see a reduction iri
                                  our agency's efforts to handle these latter activities. As a result, our

                                  agency can spend more time in providing data to communities where adequate data
                                  does not exist. It is in these areas that we can improve our efficiency to

                                  respond to local requests and thereby dramatically reduce future flood losses.

                                       we have found that with timely responses to local requests, we see more

                                  communities willing to seek advice for future construction in flood-prone

                                  areas. Once the response time drags out, especially in the building season,

                                  communities tend to develop according to their instincts, without regard for

                                  the regulations.

                                                     NFIP TRAINING AND EDUCATION IN REGION III

                                                                   Martin J. Prengs
                                                        Federal Emergency Management Agency

                                        The jurisdiction of FEMA Region III includes Delaware, Maryland,
                                  Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The
                                  training and education of local officials and building professionals in the
                                  National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within Region III has historically been
                                  in the form of final meetings, Community Assistance and Program Evaluation
                                  (CAPE) meetings, FEMA/State Coordinating Agency workshops and conferences, and
                                  presentations at meetings sponsored by professional organizations.

                                                                    Final Meetings

                                        In these meetings--usually the first FEMA contact with a community
                                  official--detailed floodplain data are presented and the NFIP "Regular Program"

                                  rules and regulations are discussed.

                                  Costs

                                        The costs of these meetings vary depending on the distance the FEMA staff
                                  person must travel. Minimum, maximum, and average estimates are presented

                                  below. Naturally these costs could be higher if they included the travel and
                                  salary for the state coordinator. salary estimates include overhead at 100% of
                                  the hourly rate and include the time it takes to set up, travel to, and conduct
                                  the meeting.

                                            Minimum
                                            Travel (rented auto plus gas) (one day)         $    35.00
                                            Salary (5 hours)                                   160.00
                                                                           say              $  200.00

                                            Maximum
                                            Fravel (2 days)
                                            Air Fare                                        $  300.00
                                            Auto Rental                                         80.00
                                            Per Diem                                           100.00
                                            Salary (20 hours)                                  640.00
                                                                                            $ 1120.00

                                                  Three meetings per trip, say              $  380.00

                                            Average
                                            3/5 x (380-200)     110 + 200   = $310 per community

                                  278                                      STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                  Advantages

                                    e Person to person, one on one contact where specific community problems and
                                       situations can be discussed.

                                  Disadvantages

                                    �  Relatively high cost per community.

                                    �  Many, if not most, community officials do not express an interest in the
                                       maps and the ordinance at this early stage of the conversion process.

                                    �  Many times the meeting does not include the best community officials,
                                       e.g., the mayor vs. the code enforcement officer.

                                    �  Many community officials, along with code enforcement officers, leave
                                       office between the final meeting and the effective date of the ordinance
                                       and maps.

                                                                    CAPE Meetings

                                       While viewed by Region III as primarily a community "audit" to determine

                                  if new development is compliant with the minimum NFIP regulations, experience

                                  shows that roughly 50% of the these visits result in a refresher course in the

                                  relationship between the maps, the Floodway Data Table, and the flood profiles.
                                  This does not include the (roughly) 5-10% of the cases in which no one knows
                                  where the Flood insurance Study (FIS) and ordinance are filed.

                                  Costs

                                       Again, a range and an average estimate are provided depending on the time
                                  of travel; the costs would be higher if the state coordinator was included.

                                  While mo6t CAPEs exceed final meetings in length, the minimum CAPE meeting
                                  would compare with a final meeting.

                                             -minimum
                                             Same as a final meeting                          200.00

                                             maximum
                                             Travel (3 days)
                                             Air Fare                                      $  300.00
                                             Auto Rental                                      110.00
                                             Per Diem                                         150.00
                                             Salary (28 hours)                                900.00
                                                                                           $  1460.00

                                                  Two meetings  per trip, say              $  730.00

                                             Average
                                             3/5 x (730 - 200)  = $320 + 200     $520 per  community

                                   Frengs                                                                           279

                                   Advantages

                                      � Person to person, one on one contact where specific community problems and
                                        permits are discussed and evaluated.

                                      � Meeting is usually held with the proper community official who is now
                                        interested because the maps and ordinance are now effective.

                                      � By reviewing individual permits, the code enforcement officer's ability
                                        can be evaluated. This is a big advantage over workshops for which
                                        attendance is voluntary and which this individual may therefore choose not
                                        to attend.

                                   Disadvantages

                                      * Very time consuming and expensive for the amount of training provided.

                                      * 1,711 communities in Region III (about 55%) are on the Regular Program.
                                        Five staff members doing 20 CAPEs a year would need 17 years to visit each
                                        community once. This is significantly short of FEMA's original goal of
                                        having at least one CAPE meeting per community every five years.

                                                                    DCA Workshops

                                        These are one-day floodplain management workshops for community code
                                   enforcement officers sponsored by the Pennsylvania Department of Community
                                   Affairs (DCA). A FEMA staff person participated in these workshops as one of

                                   the presenters.

                                   cost

                                        The cost estimates presented were provided by DCA and represent the
                                   average cost experienced for all their workshops.

                                             Travel (state employees)                       $  375.00
                                             Salaries (state employees)                       1,700.00
                                             FEMA (travel and salary)                          300.00
                                             Conference Room ($50 to $100)                       75.00
                                             Lunch ($10/person, 20-30 people)     say          250.00
                                             Flyer (printing and mailing)                      200.00
                                                                                            $ 2,900.00
                                             Subtract Fee ($20/person)            say          500.00
                                             Total Cost                                     $ 2,400.00

                                             Cost per Community (assuming 20 our of   25
                                             are from different communities)                $  120.00

                                   Advantages

                                        Twenty to thirty code enforcement officers, who may represent 20 to 25
                                        communities, can be trained at a relatively low cost.

                                  280                                     STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                     � Participants can benefit from problems and solutions experienced in other
                                       communities.

                                     � Usually the proper community official attends and is interested in
                                       learning.

                                  Disadvantages

                                     � Much state staff time is spent to set up and organize each workshop.

                                     � The Code Enforcement officer who cannot afford (in either time or money)
                                       to attend or is not interested in learning about the NFIP regulations is
                                       eliminated from this process.

                                     � During the last two years, ten of these workshops have been held averaging
                                       20 communities per workshop. Therefore, only about 200 communities out of
                                       the 2600 communities in Pennsylvania have felt the need to send a repre-
                                       sentative. Experience indicates that many community officials, other than
                                       those volunteering to attend these workshops, need training

                                                     Meetings with Professional organizations
                                       These meetings are arranged with local chapters of professional organiza-
                                  tions involved in the building profession (builders, architects, real estate

                                  agents, engineers, etc.) to discuss a specific NFIP topic. In this particular
                                  case, coastal construction presentations were held at the normal monthly meet-

                                  ings of local chapters of the national Association of Home Builders.

                                  Costs

                                       Because the time to prepare and conduct one of these presentations is
                                  similar to that of a final meeting, the average cost of one of these meetings
                                  is roughly $300. The cost per community benefited is difficult to determine.
                                  If the builders at the workshop account for 10% of the construction in the
                                  region, then 10% of the communities in the region are assumed to benefit.

                                  Advantages

                                     � Staff time and effort to organize the meeting is minimized. The local
                                       chapter reserves the space and provides the refreshments and invites the
                                       audience.

                                     � Dealing directly with the people who are most affected by the NFIP regula-
                                       tions eliminates the community officials as the go-between.

                                     � If the builders comply with the requirements in the design stage, the
                                       community review time is reduced and changes in design are minimized.

                                     � If the requirements are exceeded, flood insurance premiums decrease,
                                       increasing the structure's marketability.

                                  Frengs                                                                         281

                                  Disadvantages

                                    e  The meeting schedule is dictated by the sponsor; dates and times may
                                       conflict with other work.

                                    0  The length of the presentation and, therefore, possibly the content, is
                                       limited by the sponsor. Thirty to 45 minutes seems to be the maximum that
                                       most people care to pay attention.

                                                                     Conclusion

                                       Given the existing options within the present FEKA/State Coordinator
                                  structure for the training and education of local code enforcement officers, it
                                  is evident that changes must be made if FEMA's goal of reducing flood damage
                                  susceptibility to new development is to be met. While the DCA workshop is the
                                  most cost effective option presently underway for training local officials and
                                  should continue to operate, most communities are not voluntarily participating,
                                  and, therefore, most of the code enforcement officers who need this training
                                  are not receiving it. With the number of staff available to perform CAPE
                                  meetings in Region III being reduced by 50% during the last three years, CAPEs
                                  can no longer be considered a significant training and education option. Given
                                  the present CAPE return period per Regular Program community of one meeting
                                  every 17 years, and given the high turnover rate of local code enforcement
                                  officers and local elected officials, FEMA would be meeting with every third or
                                  fourth community permit officer at best. Along with Final Meetings, CAPE
                                  meetings are too expensive for the amount of training and education provided.
                                       This leaves us with the option which makes the most sense, given our
                                  limited resources. The whole spectrum of the building profession, from the
                                  real estate agent, through the designer, and up to the builder, most be
                                  educated to the benefits of not only complying with the minimum NFIP and state
                                  related requirements, but exceeding these requirements. This training and
                                  education option, along with complimentary actions such as requiring state
                                  certification of all code enforcement officers as in New Jersey and amending
                                  National Building Codes to include some of the basic NFIP regulations, should
                                  be a significant, if not the major job element of each FEMA and state employee
                                  involved in floodplain management. Naturally, the techniques and methods used
                                  to inform these professionals can and should be altered depending on need and
                                  individual preference.

                                                      TRAINING: WHAT WORKS, WHAT DOESN'T

                                                                Janie Douglass
                                                  Kentucky Flood Control Advisory Commission

                                              The Perspective From the Bottom of the Totem Pole

                                     One of the keys in determining the training and education needs of the
                                local practitioner is to take a closer look at exactly who this local practi-
                                tioner is. is he the mayor's brother-in-law who needs a job to keep him out of
                                trouble? Perhaps he or she is the underpaid city engineer who is disgruntled
                                at the additional work load foisted on the office by the National Flood
                                Insurance Program (NFIP). Maybe he or she's a highly motivated citizen dedi-
                                cated to community service. However, more than likely, you'll recognize the
                                local practitioners by the many different hats they wear as the city's building
                                code inspector, fire inspector, plumbing inspector, flood insurance coordinator

                                --maybe even the dog catcher.

                                     So the "local practitioners," as we are calling them, could be anyone from
                                those who "just barely made it through high school" to very specialized
                                professionals--hopefully in a field that meets the needs of the NFIP.
                                     With this in mind, the basic consideration is one of selling the flood

                                insurance program. These are some of the more frequently mentioned selling

                                points:

                                 1)  The community needs to maintain eligibility for flood insurance (which is
                                     often the only game in town) by enacting a flood damage prevention ordi-
                                     nance, implementing a floodplain management program, and enforcing the
                                     permitting requirements.

                                 2)  A community faces certain questions of*liability with regard to its
                                     enforcement or lack of enforcement of such an ordinance.

                                 3)  Current federal disaster policy requires a 75/25% split of recovery costs
                                     for public facilities, which would place additional strain on already
                                     drained local governments to meet the match requirements.

                                 4)  No matter what kind of state and federal assistance is available after a
                                     disaster, there are still other costs associated with flooding, which
                                     further drain the community's resources.

                                284                                     STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 5)   Most importantly and most frequently overlooked is the fact that in addi-
                                      tion to avoiding the costs of recovery, local governments can benefit from
                                      implementing floodplain management techniques by obtaining the optimal use
                                      of the floodplain. The most obvious reason behind the ordinance is the
                                      protection of life and property from the danger of floods.

                                      Once the local practitioners are sold on the NFIP and its requirements,
                                they will need some tools to do their own selling job to the people who are
                                going to be most affected--the floodplain residents. in Kentucky, the Soil
                                Conservation Service (SCS) provides field personnel with a Dale Carnegie-type

                                course on selling conservation programs. Besides the technical aspects of
                                floodplain management, sessions should be included to address the human/psycho-

                                logical aspects--salesmanship if you will. The local practitioners need to be
                                able to maintain an ongoing dialogue with the community and its residents to

                                promote an informed citizenry that will accept the program based on its merits,
                                not just because the "Feds say we have to do it this way" if we want flood

                                insurance and disaster recovery assistance.
                                      Federal agency personnel must be more easily accessible. Most important-
                                ly, they need to speak the vernacular and accept the local practitioner as a

                                valid partner in this venture.
                                                                Training Tools

                                      There are only a few tools that translate the technical information into
                                lay language, though more are becoming available. Still fewer provide all the
                                essentials needed under one cover. A good example of a working tool is the
                                recently completed manual developed by the Kentucky Flood Control Advisory
                                Commission designed to serve as a local practitioner's field guidebook. The
                                Kentucky Model Flood Damage Prevention ordinance takes the local practitioners

                                by the hand, explaining the need for the ordinance and the ordinance itself
                                with a running commentary which translates legal terms into everyday terms. It

                                provides a job description and a diagram showing the permitting process and
                                includes sample letters covering situations that could develop, public hearing

                                notices, and a step-by-step permit form.

                                                               Public Relations

                                      In turn, the local practitioner needs to have the necessary tools to pass

                                this information on to the pubic. Public relations campaign material for all

                                forms of media dissemination should be available in the vernacular. These

                                materials should include, but not be limited to, the regulations and the
                                reasons behind them, with emphasis on how individual actions impact on others

                                 Douglass                                                                      285

                                 and how the program benefits individuals.

                                      The public relations campaign should not be limited to the more tradi-

                                 tional media outlets such as radio, Tv, and newspaper public service announce@

                                 ments. Other avenues should be explored to broaden the basic communications

                                 network. For example, the free classified papers that are so popular now are a
                                 highly visible and easily accessible form for disseminating public service

                                 announcements.

                                      The use of already existing groups at all levels is essential to a perva-

                                 sive public relations campaign. Conservation districts, state extension agen-
                                 cies, and public libraries span the nation. Such groups often need information

                                 themselves and would be interested in disseminating useful information on
                                 floodplain management as well as other  integrated emergency management

                                 concepts.
                                      The District is currently working  with SCS to sponsor a floodplain tour to

                                 introduce people to flood hazards on a  local basis by showing flood-prone areas
                                 that are undeveloped, high water marks  on existing developments in the flood-
                                 plain, areas that are being considered  for development and their relationship
                                 to flood hazards. The occasion can be   a successful way to develop an awareness
                                 of flood-conscious development. Such a program should be geared to the
                                 audience and conducted for several different target audiences, i.e., realtors,

                                 developers, insurers, bankers, consumers, and local units of government.

                                      State extension agents often have daily talk shows and/or newsletters, and

                                 might be willing to develop a series on the basics of floodplain management,
                                 flood insurance, evacuation and warning, floodproofing and other related

                                 issues.

                                      Public libraries are a great place to build up a reference section on
                                 floodplain management as well as to disseminate brochures.

                                      Such professional associations as the home builders, real estate agents,

                                 and insurers may be willing to assist in providing and disseminating informa-
                                 tion. They routinely hold national, regional, and state conventions, and
                                 issues of community interest such as the NFIP would be a welcome addition to
                                 their agenda. Such groups also have a variety of publications that are
                                 valuable vehicles. A brochure published by a national appraisers' group was
                                 placed in the deed room of a local county clerk's office to highlight what to
                                 look for when buying property, but no mention was made about a determination of
                                 whether the property was hazard-prone. This was an opportunity lost.

                                  286                                        STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                        County fairs, folk festivals and other community events offer excellent
                                  opportunities to distribute information. Local service groups such as Jaycees,
                                  Kiwanis, and automobile clubs have established credibility within the community
                                  and serve as willing volunteers to help with public information programs.
                                        In Harlan, we worked with a small community group called the Fellowship
                                  Center to establish a landmark program. From the information gathered by
                                  volunteers at the Center, we not only made the residents aware of procedures to
                                  follow during an emergency situation, but also established high water marks in
                                  the area. We coordinated this information with the flood insurance study for
                                  the area and, with the aid of SCS, transferred the high water marks to all the
                                  telephone poles in the flood-prone area by simply spray painting the water mark
                                  at the correct height on the pole. Such activities need continuous maintenance
                                  and follow-up with bulletins showing how water marks coincide with weather

                                  warning announcements for evacuation purposes. As with any education program
                                  or public relations campaign, to be successful it has to be an ongoing

                                  process.

                                                                  Technical Assistance
                                        Some technical assistance programs are simple approaches requiring a
                                  minimum of financial expenditures. others require technical assistance from
                                  the various state and federal agencies. This can take any number of forms:

                                     0  Development of a do-it-yourself book on floodproofing. A specialty
                                        publishing house such as Sunset Books or Time-Life could do a popular
                                        rendition of principles and techniques of all of the IEMS concepts.

                                     e  Development of working scale models for a floodmobile (much like the
                                        various Smithsonian vans) to travel with models to show the impact of fill
                                        in a floodplain, the difference in uncontrolled and controlled development
                                        in a floodplain, how to build a shield for picture windows or sliding
                                        glass doors. The vehicle could also disseminate literature and present
                                        slide shows.

                                     o  Curriculum development for an adult continuing education course or
                                        vocational education courses that include full-semester courses covering a
                                        variety of concepts and techniques for hazard mitigation as well as a
                                        short one-day course on how to anchor a propane tank.

                                        These and other types of technical assistance could have far-reaching
                                  impacts in developing a self-help ethic among residents living in hazard7prone
                                  areas who have become too reliant on the federal dollar to solve their prob-
                                  lems.

                                 Douglass                                                                     287

                                                              Agency Coordination

                                      These kinds of approaches can and should be developed, but the various
                                 state and federal agencies need to talk to each other. For example, the USDA

                                 Forest Service has a series called Investigate Your Environment, which is
                                 designed to teach teachers how to teach environmental concerns. The course was

                                 really very good, but in one role-playing activity concerning land use planning
                                 there was no mention in the printed fact situation that the land was flood-
                                 prone--and no one thought it necessary to add this fact to future printings of

                                 the material.

                                      At the state level, there are frequent problems deciding who has what
                                 authority in dealing with disaster and emergency services groups and the
                                 natural resources groups. Agencies tend to shy away from cooperating with each
                                 other because of these "turf battles," and thus a valuable resource and frame

                                 of reference has been lost.

                                      Another problem is the failure of federal and state policy decisions to

                                 trickle down to the planners and implementers in the agency. Staff people are
                                 still following traditional authorities, while the policy makers and theorists
                                 are exploring new possibilities with new implications for old plans still on
                                 the drawing board. Perhaps miniregional conferences are needed for the middle
                                 levels of bureaucracy and the field personnel. Do state and federal agencies

                                 really take advantage of Emergency Management Institute courses and if not, why

                                 not?

                                      The final key to implementation is local involvement in the decision-
                                 making process. Why don't the states conduct conferences (like the annual NFIP

                                 coordinators' conference) for the local and regional planners to pass on the
                                 knowledge they have acquired? Why is there no representation from local

                                 government and regional planners at the annual coordinators' conference?

                                 Perhaps agencies could set up working advisory groups with a broad cross-

                                 section of individuals to include citizens (the eventual benefactors) and such

                                 professionals as architects, engineers, educators, and planners. Such an
                                 advisory group could also be set up to examine EMI course needs and content.
                                      The bottom line to training and educating the local practitioner is to
                                 nake sure the local practitioner is involved in the process.

                                                                   PART THREE

                                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS:

                                                             Emergency Management

                                              THE RAPID GROWTH OF COMMUNITY FLOOD WARNING SYSTEMS

                                                               Curtis B. Barrett
                                                         NOAA/National Weather Service

                                      The NWS is currently experiencing a substantial demand by communities for
                                 technical support for local flood warning systems. This demand is occurring

                                 because federal, state, county, and local governments are becoming more aware
                                 of the benefits of operating local flood warning systems. This trend will
                                 probably continue as flood damages continue to increase and as the NWS and
                                 other agencies assist communities to solve their flood problems. This paper
                                 deals with the present and future role of the NWS in working with communities

                                 in operating local flood warning systems.

                                                 Present Approaches to Identify High Risk Areas

                                      In 1975 the NWS contracted with the University of Texas to evaluate the
                                 flash flood potential of the entire nation. This study used a magnitude of
                                 flash flooding index, flash flood frequency index, and a flash flood warning
                                 time index to evaluate flash flood potential. However, it only provided the
                                 NWS with a partial solution in the definition of high risk flash flood areas.
                                      FEMA has identified 20,000 locations in the U.S. that are vulnerable to

                                 the occurrence of floods and flash floods. This "data base," which contains
                                 useful information for each community, is another source to help identify "high

                                 risk" areas subject to floods. other factors that need to be considered are
                                 the population located in the floodplain, present level of warning service,
                                 location of dams in the river basin, and the general level of awareness and
                                 enthusiasm of community officials regarding solving their flood problems.
                                      The NWS does not, in general, market local flood warning systems but
                                 rather responds to requests from communities for technical support. The NWS
                                 does not have the resources to provide a sustained marketing effort to communi-

                                 ties located in high risk areas.

                                 292                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                                  Classification of Communities for Assistance

                                      Communities are not classified for receiving assistance. instead, the NWS
                                 policy (Draft chapter E-08. WSOM) for supporting communities needs is that:

                                  1)  The NWS will provide technical assistance to requesting communities as
                                      resources permit.

                                  2)  Communities are responsible for the purchase, installation, maintenance,
                                      @and cooperation of local flood warning systems.

                                      Other federal agencies such as the Corps of Engineers, the Federal
                                 Emergency Management Agency, and the USDA Soil Conservation Service have pro-
                                 vided cost-sharing financial support to high-risk communities.

                                                                 New Approaches
                                      The design, development, and implementation of local flood warning systems
                                 is an evolutionary process. As technology advances, so will our capability to
                                 enhance flood warning services.
                                      In particular, the capabilities of automated local flood warning systems
                                 will continue to expand. In the present versions of ALERT and IFLOWSr the
                                 hydrometeorological analysis and modeling is limited. Development is now
                                 underway to 1) display and process multimeteorologic sensor data, 2) include
                                 hydrologic routing techniques, 3) model snow melt, and 4) develop a coastal
                                 surge/riverine interface model. Dam break procedures are planned. Automated
                                 flood warning systems will eventually evolve into a system of hydrometeorologi-
                                 cal models and techniques that will meet the many needs of communities.

                                                           Future Role of the Systems

                                      The human element will always be the critical one in the warning process.
                                 Local flood warning systems are simply tools to be used by those individuals

                                 responsible for preserving human life and property. Because of this fact, the
                                 NWS designs forecast and warning systems that are interactive. Since there are
                                 no perfect hydrologic models, and since data scarcity is the greatest source of

                                 error in river and flood forecasting, manual and automated system performance

                                 can only provide "guidance" to the forecaster. Of course, the more accurate

                                 and timely the objective guidance, the more warning time and accuracy we can

                                 provide communities to prepare for floods.
                                      In all cases, automated or manual, the key individual (flash flood coordi-
                                 nator) must assimilate data, guidance, and information; interpret the "system"
                                 results; and make decisions about the appropriate actions.

                                 Barrett                                                                       293

                                                   Warning Systems and Floodplain management
                                      Warning systems are one nonstructural approach to mitigating flood losses.
                                 Basically, a warning system provides lead time for response actions, flood

                                 magnitude, and location of flooding. in order for a local flood warning system
                                 to be effective, an emergency action plan must be available. Other structural
                                 and nonstructural methods can be linked with a flood warning system to further
                                 reduce flood losses. For example, floodproofing linked with a manual flood
                                 warning system in Lycoming County, pennsylvania, is credited with reducing

                                 flood losses by 90%.

                                      In order for warning systems to become more effective, forecasts generated
                                 for river gauges must be related to the area inundated by the flood. This
                                 translation from a point forecast to an area forecast would greatly enhance
                                 flood response actions. Also, it is desirable for automated flood warning

                                 systems to include the community emergency action plan as part of the forecast
                                 system. Thus, forecasts would automatically be translated to actions.

                                      In general, the important point to note here for floodplain managers is

                                 that flood warning systems are usually not the sole solution but rather one
                                 solution among many in an overall floodplain management effort.

                                                FLOOD FIGHTING IN THE CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AREA

                                                               James M. Considine
                                                   Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

                                                                   Background

                                      The Chicago metropolitan area or Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area is
                                 composed of six counties and 261 municipalities with a population of over seven
                                 million people. All six counties are in the regular phase of the National
                                 Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Two hundred twenty municipalities are in the

                                 regular phase and ten are in the emergency phase of the NFIP. Chicago is the
                                 largest municipality, with a population of over three and one half million.

                                 Overland flooding problems in Chicago are minimal, although sewer back-up
                                 problems are quite common. The heavily populated suburbs have severe overland

                                 as well as sewer back-up flooding problems.
                                      overland flooding in Northeastern Illinois is generally shallow, with low

                                 velocities, and is of a short duration. Floods at the same location are
                                 usually infrequent, although some areas do have annual flood problems. The
                                 Chicago SMSA is so large that heavy rainstorms can cause severe flooding in one
                                 area and only minimal problems several miles away.
                                      The damage from floods can be quite extensive because of the large number
                                 of structures located in the floodplains of northeast Illinois. In 1981, flood
                                 damage in the southern part of the metropolitan area amounted to $84 million,
                                 and in 1982 one northern suburb had over $8 million in damage. Average annual

                                 overland flood damages in the suburbs of the Chicago area have been estimated

                                 at $12.4 million.

                                      Flood fighting problems in the metropolitan area are compounded because

                                 the flood-prone areas are occupied by numeroussmall municipalities that lack

                                 the capability and expertise to adequately handle flooding.situations. These

                                 small municipalities lack the proper staff, have a shortage.of equipment and

                                 supplies, and have no lead time when it comes to flood warning.

                                      It is difficult to convince the municipalities that a flood response plan

                                 is needed. Though flooding can affect many structures and cause much damage,
                                 the percentage of structures that are flooded is very small.in relation to the

                                296                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                total number of structures in the metropolitan area. While many of the munici-

                                palities have witnessed a 50-year or greater flood within the last 20 years,

                                there are still many other municipalities that have not. There is a general
                                feeling that a severe flood will not occur again, that a structural project

                                will handle the problem, or that the problem is better left ignored. For these
                                reasons, flood fighting is a very low priority item for most municipalities.
                                     Planning for flood fighting is almost nonexistent. Flood fighting
                                decisions are normally made "on the spot" by administrators who often have
                                neither witnessed a flood nor had flood fighting training. Some municipalities
                                have Emergency Services and Disaster Agency emergency response plans, but these
                                .all-emergency" plans normally do not provide the necessary answers for flood
                                fighting. While most of the municipalities have capable staffs, the rapid
                                onset of the flooding, the last-minute decisions, the lack of trained
                                personnel, and the frantic search for equipment and supplies can cause severe
                                strains on the municipal staff and leave the public with many questions about
                                the capabilities of their municipal personnel.

                                                            Evaluating the Problem

                                     During December, 1982, floods inundated various locations throughout the
                                metropolitan area. Eyewitness accounts by several representatives from the
                                Illinois Division of Water Resources led to a general belief that the flood
                                fighting capabilities of the municipalities were lacking.

                                     Because of this, the Division of water Resources conducted a flood fight-
                                ing conference in March, 1983, attended by over 250 representatives of local
                                police departments, fire departments, public works departments, building and
                                zoning departments, ESDA coordinators, and elected officials. The purpose of
                                the conference was to explain to municipal officials what flood fighting and
                                floodplain management services were provided by the various state and federal

                                government agencies.

                                     At the end of the conference a feedback session was held to determine what
                                federal and state governments could do to improve local flood fighting capabil-
                                ities. Approximately seventy of the conference attendees participated in the
                                community feedback session. They were asked, "Based on your experience, what
                                assistance could be provided by the state and federal governments and neighbor-
                                ing communities to help you before, during, or after a flood?" Based upon

                                their decisions, a rank order of the assistance that state and federal govern-

                                 Considine                                                                     297

                                 ments could provide was developed. The following kinds of assistance were
                                 considered the most important (in order of decreasing importance):

                                  1)  Guidance and assistance in preparing flood response plans;

                                  2)  Aid in establishing local or watershed flood warning systems;

                                  3)  Better coordination and tougher enforcement of regulations on floodplain
                                      development, channel obstructions, and stormwater management;

                                  4)  More information on how to fight floods and what assistance and resources
                                      are available; and

                                  5)  Better coordination to provide mutual aid and share equipment among
                                      communities in the same area or watershed.

                                      After the conference a flood fighting coordination committee was formed to
                                 discuss the outcome of the community feedback session and how it should be
                                 addressed. The committee was composed of representatives from the U.S. Army
                                 Corps of Engineers Chicago District, the Illinois Division of Water Resources,
                                 the National Weather Service, the Illinois Emergency Services and Disaster
                                 Agency, the regional planning commission, and selected municipal and county
                                 representatives.

                                                             Flood Fighting Manual
                                      The main outcome of the flood fighting coordination meeting was to develop
                                 a flood fighting manual that could be used by local municipalities to prepare
                                 flood response plans. It was felt that such a manual could address many of the
                                 concerns raised by the local government officials at the feedback session. The
                                 manual was funded mainly by the State of Illinois but also partially by the
                                 State Assistance Program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The flood
                                 fighting manual is still in the draft stage, and some municipalities have
                                 already expressed an interest in working with the state to develop a flood
                                 response plan, using the manual as a guideline.
                                      The flood fighting manual is a "how-to" guide that provides instructions
                                 on systematically designing a flood fighting program through a planning
                                 process. The process is similar to the planning process in the Integrated
                                 Emergency Management System (IEMS) developed by the Federal Emergency Manage-
                                 ment Agency. The flood fighting chapters of the manual are:

                                 298                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                   �  Chapter 1, "Flood Hazard Analysis"--explains that different types of
                                      floods demand different responses. Flood data must be collected and
                                      analyzed. A flood stage forecast map is needed to determine the flood
                                      hazard impact and to set priorities for emergency response needs.

                                   �  Chapter 2, "Capability Assessment"--shows how a municipality should make
                                      an inventory and assessment of the three types of resources--personnel,
                                      equipment, and facilities--that would be needed to fight a flood, and how
                                      to obtain assistance from state and federal agencies.

                                   �  Chapter 3, "Flood Warninq"--explains different types of warning systems
                                      and how the warnings should be disseminated.

                                   �  Chapter 4, "Flood Fighting Plan"--provides an overview of everything that
                                      should be done immediately after a flood warning is issued.

                                                             Practical Application
                                      The manual would have been of little benefit unless it could be applied to
                                 a practical situation. About the same time that the flood fighting committee
                                 was formed, a drainage district questioned what they could do to control flood-
                                 ing. It was suggested that they consider developing a flood warning system.
                                 Flood warning systems on a watershed level have not been developed in the

                                 Chicago metropolitan area. With the encouragement of the State of Illinois'

                                 Division of water Resources, four communities within the watershed of the West

                                 Fork Branch of the Chicago River have almost completed the preparatory work for
                                 a manually operated flood warning system, with the necessary technical exper-

                                 tise being provided by the U.S. National Weather Service.
                                      The precipitation and streams gauges are read by police departments, fire

                                 departments, public works and volunteer ESDA officials from the four municipal-
                                 ities. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District, has.agreed to

                                 develop a flood stage forecast map. once the flood stage mapping is complete,
                                 the Illinois Division of Water Resources and the Emergency Services and

                                 Disaster Agency intend to assemble the municipalities to develop a flood fight-
                                 ing plan based upon the flood fighting manual.
                                      The process has been very slow. It was initiated almost one year ago and
                                 the flood stage mapping has yet to be prepared. It was expected that it would
                                 take time to develop a flood warning system and response plan, since this is
                                 the first time that it has been done on a watershed basis in the metropolitan

                                 area. However, a shortage of state and federal personnel who can devote time
                                 to the project has greatly hindered its completion. Those personnel assigned
                                 to work on the project have other responsibilities that take priority. Because

                                 Considine                                                                     299

                                 of this, the flood response plan for the North Branch of the Chicago River

                                 watershed remains undone, and many other watersheds need assistance on flood
                                 warning systems and response plans.

                                                                    Conclusion

                                      The capability and the willingness of municipalities to prepare flood
                                 warning systems and flood response plans is evident. Their desires are even
                                 more pronounced after flood events. Intergovernmental cooperation is a diffi-
                                 cult task that has to be worked out, but is not a major obstacle.- The big
                                 challenge lies in making the proper people available to the local municipali-
                                 ties, and this includes for planning as well as technical assistance.

                                      The lack of assistance is not a result of the capabilities of the people

                                 in the state and federal agencies, but rather of the lack of time that can be

                                 devoted to such efforts. More emphasis needs to be placed on assistance by
                                 those agencies with the staff to provide it to the local municipalities. This

                                 includes the U.S. National Weather Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
                                 the Illinois Department of Transportation Division of Water Resources, the

                                 Illinois Emergency Services and Disaster Agency, and the Illinois State Water

                                 Survey.
                                      The Division of Water Resources has made great strides in showing munici-
                                 palities how they can develop a flood response plan with the flood fighting
                                 manual. Many municipalities that had not thought about developing such pro-
                                 cedures now have something to help them visualize how it can be done. However,
                                 technical and planning assistance is still needed. None of the suburban

                                 municipalities or the counties have a hydrologist who can develop flood
                                 forecasting procedures. Of the municipalities with an engineering staff, many

                                 do not have the time, or for that matter, the expertise to properly prepare
                                 flood forecast maps. These are the kinds of things that can be done by the
                                 U.S. National Weather Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the State
                                 of Illinois. The expertise is there, but time must be allocated.

                                                              UTAH FLOODS--1983-84

                                                                James D. Harvey
                                              Utah Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management
                                                          Department of Public Safety

                                      The settlement of Utah and the West dates back to 1776 with the expedition
                                 of Father Escalante, followed by exploration by early mountaineers, fur
                                 trappers, and the John C. Freemont expedition. In 1847, the first of many
                                 Mormon pioneers entered the Salt Lake valley. These people were the first to

                                 maintain records of the fluctuations of the Great Salt Lake. The lake's fre-

                                 quent flooding of vast areas of land caused the early settlers many problems.
                                      According to historical records, the Great Salt Lake reached its highest
                                 elevation of 4,212 feet during the years 1872-1874. For a period of ten years
                                 (1868-1878) the lake was above the 4,209-foot level. In 1963, the lake

                                 declined to its lower elevation of 4,191.5 feet. During this time, the Utah
                                 Legislature passed a resolution that set forth the idea that the lake should be

                                 maintained at the 4,200-foot level. in spite of the efforts of the Utah
                                 Legislature, the lake today is at an elevation of 4,209 feet. Drawing from
                                 past as well as from present facts, we can reasonably expect more flooding from

                                 the lake.

                                      Today, industry, developers, engineers, and others have a difficult time

                                 trying to determine the fluctuations of the lake. This scenario holds true for

                                 much of the state as we attempt to deal with the lakes and rivers of Utah.

                                 This is because Utah is a land of contrasts. For example, the Great Salt Lake

                                 Basin receives an average of 5.3 inches of rain annually whereas the ski resort
                                 at Alta receives an average of 100 inches per year. (This year, Alta received
                                 197 inches of rain.) Normally, Utah is a desert state, with only Nevada being

                                 drier. However, past and present records indicate that flooding is a common
                                 problem.
                                     Utah experiences three types of flooding: two types of snow melt flood-
                                 ing, and short-lived summer torrential downpours associated with cloudbursts

                                 and thunderstorms. The first snow melt floods take place during the months of
                                 January and February while the ground is frozen. These floods are difficult to
                                 control because corrective measures are hampered by winter weather. The second

                                 302                                    STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 snow melt occurs during the last week of April and continues through May. The
                                 runoff is often increased by rain. The Salt Lake area was affected by such

                                 floods in 1922, 1952, and again in 1983-84. (It is of interest to note that

                                 the floods of 1922 and of 1952 did not have the highest volume of total runoff,

                                 but that the floods resulted because of above average spring temperatures.)
                                     The flooding of 1983-84 is, we believe, a repeat of the high water that
                                 was exl?erienced by the Mormon pioneers of 95 years ago. Could this be a true
                                 100-year event? We believe that it is. As a result of rising waters, the
                                 following events have occurred:

                                 1)  Interstate 80 from Salt Lake City west to Nevada was damaged and required
                                     reconstructive work.

                                 2)  The Great Salt Lake Mineral Company went out of business, resulting in the
                                     loss of 240 jobs.

                                 3)  Saltair Entertainment Park also went out of business, resulting in 20 to
                                     50 lost jobs.

                                 4)  Many agricultural operations were flooded, resulting in the loss of
                                     millions of agricultural dollars.

                                 5)  Additional diking of Rose Park (northwest of Salt Lake City) was
                                     required.

                                     It must be noted that the jobs lost because of the lake's flooding are to
                                 some extent offset by the new jobs generated in the fighting of the flood.
                                 Loss of income has also been experienced by all of the major hotels of the

                                 state as a direct result of the news coverage of the floods of 1983 and 1984.

                                     Based upon our experiences during the flood fight of 1983-84, our most
                                 serious problems were those dealing with unknown factors such as mud/landslides
                                 and dam failures, coupled with the fact that homeowners and small business

                                 people were unwilling to accept even minimal losses from flooding. As a result
                                 some dwellings were saved only at great public expense.
                                     Another thing that caused some confusion was the practice of county offi-
                                 cials contacting the Governor's and the U.S. Senators' offices directly instead
                                 of working through the proper channels. Because of this, some emergency equip-

                                 ment was misappropriated. We are taking measures to better inform local offi-

                                 cials on the procedures to follow in the case of an emergency.

                                   Harvey                                                                           303

                                         As a result of the extensive damages Utah experienced in the last few
                                   years, we are taking preventive measures. For example, many debris basins are
                                   being constructed. River banks are being riprapped to prevent excess bank

                                   erosion. To counter mudslides, landslides, and extensive hillside erosion, we
                                   are installing electronic instrumentation for early warnings. These stations
                                   provide up to 30 minutes of lead time. one worry that we do have concerning
                                   these stations is that too many false alerts may condition property owners not

                                   to heed the warnings. Also, a new area for lawsuits could arise if people seek

                                   recourse for disasters that may have been avoided if adequate warning had been

                                   given.

                                         Would predisaster plans be practical for a state such as Utah? Yes, we

                                   believe any planning to be practical. In many instances, county/city crews
                                   were able to predict the extent of a flood enabling them to fortify stream

                                   banks and reduce possible losses. However, it must be noted that all of the
                                   mud/landslides that have.occurred in Utah these past two years were in areas
                                   thought not to be subject to land movement. Areas of greatest concern did not

                                   move.

                                         Agencies that were a part of the flood fight of 1984 were:

                                         Federal Agencies

                                             Federal Emergency Management Agency
                                             Federal Highway Administration
                                             National Weather Service
                                             small Business Administration
                                             U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                                             USDA Soil Conservation Services
                                             USDA Agriculture Stabilization Services
                                             USDA Forest Service
                                             U.S. Geological Survey

                                         State Agencies

                                             Department  of Agriculture
                                             Department  of Community and Economic Development
                                             Department  of Health
                                             Department  of Insurance
                                             Department  of Natural Resources and Energy
                                             Department  of Transportation
                                             Utah National  Guard

                                         The following recommendations are offered for future flood mitigation:

                                   1) Have the Army Corps of Engineers combine mudflow and flood-zone data onto
                                         one FEMA map. This is being done for Davis County.

                                 304                                   STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING HIGH RISK AREAS

                                 2)  Propose legislation requiring that owners of dams have liability
                                     insurance.

                                 3)  where possible, swap lands between federal agencies and local communities
                                     in areas in which debris basins and flood control measures are to be
                                     constructed.

                                 4)  Further define the role of the state engineer to include regulating
                                     storage reservoirs.

                                 5)  During disasters, arrange fro property owners to receive their flood
                                     insurance payments from their individual insurance agents.

                                 6)  Provide for the payment of flood insurance for structures rendered un-
                                     usable as well as for those destroyed.

                                     Utah has and will continue to experience floods. We hope that our present
                                mitigation efforts (both regulatory and structural), coupled with past experi-
                                ence will reduce the severity of that flooding.

                                                                PUBLICATIONS OF INTEREST

                                                                           from

                                              Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
                                                           Institute of Behavioral Science #6
                                                                    Campus Box 482
                                                                 University of Colorado
                                                                Boulder, Colorado 80309

                                   SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS

                                        #2.   Regulation  of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses, Volume 3.
                                              Jon Kusler. 1982. 300 pp. $8.00

                                        #3.   Strengthening State Floodplain Management, Appendix A to Volume 3
                                              (SP #2). Patricia A. Bloomgren. 1982. 123 pp. $8.00.

                                        #4.   Innovation in Local Floodplain Management, Appendix B to Volume 3
                                              (SP #2). Jon Kusler. 1982. 262 pp. $8.00

                                        #5.   Floodplain Regulations and the Courts 1970-1981.
                                              Jon Kusler'. 1982. 51 pp. $5.00.

                                        V.    Preventing Coastal Flood Disasters: The Role of the States and
                                              Federal Response. Proceedings of a National Symposium, Ocean City,
                                              Maryland, May 23-25, 1983. 1983. 386 pp. $10.00.

                                        #9.   Improving the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in Western State
                                              iFigh-Risk Areas: Alluvial Pans, Mudflows, Mud Floods. Proceedings of
                                              a Workshop, Palm Springs, California, February 15-16, 1984. 1985.
                                              97 pp. $7.00

                                        #10.  Evaluating the Effectiveness of Floodplain management Techniques and
                                              Community Programs. Proceedings of a Seminar, Washington, DC,
                                              Tp-ril 30-May 1, 1984. 1985. 143 pp. $8.00.

                                    MONOGRAPHS

                                        #29. The Flood Breakers: Citizens Band Radio Use During the 1978 Flood in
                                              the Grand Forks Region. Thomas E. Drabek et al. 1979. 101 pp. $8.00.

                                    WORKING PAPERS
                                    Subscription Rate; $3.00/paper
                                    Regular Rate.- $4.50/paper

                                          #4.  A Selected Bibliography of Coastal Erosion, Protection and Related
                                               Human Activit in North America and the-British Isles.
                                               J.K. Mitchell. 1968. 70 pp.

                                          #12. Technical Services for the Urban Floodplain Property Manager:
                                               6r!j@jni@@atLoa__2f the Design Problem. Kenneth Cypra and
                                               George Peterson. 1969. 25 pp.

                                          #29. Flood insurance and Community Planning. N. Baumann, R, Emmer. 1976.
                                               83 pp.

                                          #31. Warning for Flash Floods in Boulder, Colorado. T.E. Downing. 1977.
                                                  pp.

                                          #32. What People Did During the Big Thompson Flood. E.C. Gruntfest. 1977.
                                                  pp.

                                          #35. Hazard Mitiqation Behavior of Urban F102!Lplain Residents.
                                               M. Waterstone. 1978. 60pp.

                                    ANNUAL BIBLIOGRAPHIES
                                               A-Selected, Partially Annotated BibliograEhy of Rtce@t (1982-1983)
                                               Watural Hazards Publications. David Morton. 1984. 124 pp. $5.00

                                    TOPICAL BIBLIOGRAPHIES

                                          #02. Bibliography   on Flood Proofing. Anita Cochran. 1977. 9 pp. $1.00

                                          #03. Flash Flood Warnings Bibliography. Kathleen Torres and
                                                 ita. Cochran. 1977. 22 pp. $1.00

                                                                                                 DATE DUE

                                                                                GAYLORE)iNo. 2333                           PRINTED IN U.S.A.

                                                                              @ 1111                            1111111 @
                                                                               @ 3 6668 141072712
                                                                               -I                                         r.