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











                     FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
                                       in the
                              UNITED STATES:
                       AN ASSESSMENT REPORT

                              VoLumE 2: FuLL RFPoRT













              PWAREb VOR
              THE FEDERAL INTERAQENCY
              FLOQDPLAIN' MANAGEMEW






                                       1"2


                                            CE 6P "a,
                                                                     "k
                                          RAN









                   The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force was
                   established in 1975 to carry out the responsibility of the President
                   to prepare for the Congress a Unified National Program for
                   Floodplain Management. Since 1982 the Task Force has been
                   chaired by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
                   Membership of the Task Force consists of the Departments of
                   Agriculture, Army, Commerce, Energy, Housing and Urban
                   Development, Interior, and Transportation; the Environmental
                   Protection Agency; Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
                   the Tennessee Valley Authority.












          FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT IN THE
          UNITED STATES:
          AN ASSESSMENT REPORT


          VOLUME 2: FULL REPORT







          Prepared For.

          The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force


          Prepared By:

          L.R. Johnston Associates
          (Contract No. TV-72105A)












          1992













                                                            FOREWORD

                 Twenty-rive years ago a report by the Bureau of the Budget to the President of the United StAtes
                 called for a "Unified National Program to Reduce Flood Losses." Much has happened since that
                 recommendation was put forth in 1966. In 1991, Floodplain Management in the United States: An
                 Assessment Report (the Assessment Report) measures the pulse of national efforts at floodplain
                 management. The purpose of theAssessment Report is to document the progress that has been made
                 and to identify new directions that may be pursued to reduce flood losses and protect floodplain
                 natural values.


                 The term "floodplain management" has been a source of some confusion. Ile term has evolved
                 over the years along with our experience and ideas for addressing the problems related to use and
                 development of the Nation's riverine and coastal floodplains. During the 1930s to 1950s, floodplain
                 management was typically defined in terms of flood control projects. This definition was tempered
                 by recognition and acceptance of nonstructural approaches to flood problems during the 1960s.
                 Then, in 1968, the National Flood Insurance Act directed the President to report to Congress on
                 progress toward achieving a "Unified National Program for Floodplain Management" and suggested
                 a much broader definition of floodplain management, a definition concerned with wise use of the
                 Nation's floodplains. In more recent years, the importance of the natural resources and ecological
                 functions associated with floodplains has become widely recognized, and the definition of floodplain
                 management has been further expanded.

                 This evolution of thinking is today reflected in A Unified National Program for Floodplain
                 Management (1986) prepared by the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force.
                 Briefly stated, floodplain management is a decision-making process driven by the goal of achieving
                 wise use of lands subject to flooding., "Wise use" is use compatible with: 1) the risk to human life
                 and property posed by flooding; and 2) floodplain natural resource functions such as water quality
                 functions and biological resource functions. Compatibility of floodplain use with risks to life and
                 property is achieved through the three strategies of modifying susceptibility to flooding, modifying
                 flood waters, and modifying the impact of flooding. Com@a6ibility with natural resource functions
                 is achieved through the two strategies of floodplain preservation and restoration. A variety of "tools"
                 are used to accomplish each of these strategies.

                 This assessment o  *f floodplain management in the United States has been prepared in response to
                 recommendations contained in A Unifw"d National Program for Floodplain Management (1986) which
                 was transmitted by the Interagency Task Force to the President and the Congress. The Assessment
                 Report provides a compilation of information concerning the nature of floodplains and experience
                 with the various strategies and tools for managing floodplains. The report also provides an
                 evaluation of the current status of floodplain management as seen by floodplain management
                 experts.

                 Task Force member agencies have concurred with the content of this document, and believe that the
                 assessment will serve as a benchmark against which future progress may be measured and as a
                 platform on which to develop recommendations for improving the Nation's floodplain management
                 efforts. These recommendations will be incorporated in the Task Force's 1992 update of A Unifwid
                 National Program for Floodplain Management.












              The Task Force recognizes that any assessment of a subject as complex and constantly evolving as
              floodplain management will never be truly complete and that some inaccuracies will occur in spite
              of diligent efforts to avoid them. We therefore welcome and encourage any comments, suggestions,
              and corrections pertaining to the information and conclusions contained in the Assessment Repoil.

              Thanks are due to all who contributed information and ideas to the assessment. In particular, the
              Task Force wishes to acknowledge the principal contractor - the late Larry R. Johnston who passed
              away when the assessment was more than 95% completed. His driving commitment to "making a
              difference" in floodplain management and his unswerving dedication to the highest standards of
              professional quality are evident throughout the report.


              Frank H. Thomas, Chair
              Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force
              Federal Emergency Management Agency









                                                                   iv




                                                             PREFACE


                In 1987, the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force commissioned an assessment
                of floodplain management in the United States. At that time, it was envisioned that the assessment
                could be completed in approximately two years. Hindsight now shows our originally proposed
                schedule to have been overly ambitious and unrealistic. Riverine and coastal floodplains are a large,
                diverse and dynamic part of our Nation. We did not, at the outset of our efforts, perceive the extent
                of difficulty that would be associated with obtaining, compiling and evaluating data from numerous
                sources in order to describe the various programs and activities that affect the Nation's floodplains.
                In addition, more time than originally anticipated was needed to actively seek and reflect the views
                of those having important knowledge of the effectiveness of floodplain management. The project
                was also beset by a personal tragedy, further delaying completion.

                Now that the Assessment Report is finished, we can more fully appreciate the scale and complexity
                of any attempt to comprehensively assess floodplain management on the National level. Because
                of the evolving nature of floodplain management and the physical and other changes constantly being
                experienced in the Nation's floodplains, we can also appreciate the fact that no such effort at
                assessment can ever be considered as truly complete.

                In carrying out the assessment, a preliminary report -A Status Report on the Nation's Floodplain
                ManagementActivity:An Interim Report - was first prepared to include a description of the Nation's
                floodplains and the measures being applied to reduce losses caused by flooding. An evaluation of
                the effectiveness of those measures was then carried out and the results of the two efforts were
                combined to provide the basis for the Assessment Report. An important goal of the overall
                assessment was to provide a balanced view of the implementation of all floodplain management
                measures and the activities of all governmental levels and the private sector.

                The efforts of the many individuals, agencies and organizations that contributed to the assessment
                and to completion of the Assessment Report were exemplary. L.R. Johnston Associates (the
                contractor) was selected by the Task Force to conduct the assessment. The contractor's project team
                included Leslie A- Bond Associates, J.A. Kusler Associates, and the Association of State Floodplain
                Managers, Inc. A National Review Committee, consisting of recognized floodplain management
                experts, was established by the Task Force to assist in carrying out the assessment.

                Larry R. Johnston, principal author of the Assessment Report, died in November of 1990 when his
                work was nearly complete. The Task Force contracted with his estate and with the Natural Hazards
                Research and Applications Information Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder, to assist in
                finishing the Assessment Report. Geoffrey Steadman and Jacquelyn Monday were employed,
                respectively, under those contracts. Gilbert White graciously consented to provide an invited
                comment. The Natural Hazards Center also prepared an Executive Summary.

                Readers of the Assessment Report may identify several limitations of content and organization that
                are to be expected in any effort of such broad scope. There is, for example, some concern that on-
                going contributions to floodplain management by the nonfederal sector are not fully documented in
                the report. It is difficult to determine and describe all of the nonfederal efforts, particularly those
                that are independent of federal programs and policies. In some instances, information and
                aggregated data on the nonfederal contributions have not been previously compiled or readily
                available. Also, data pertaining to the effectiveness of floodplain management measures are typically
                incomplete and hence the difficulty in assessing, with certainty, the effectiveness of some measures.












                                                               v



              The repetition of material between chapters may also be of concern to some readers. The report
              is designed to be a reference document and each chapter was written to stand by itself. We assume
              that readers will study and use the information in selected chapters according to interest and need.

              The significance of the Assessment Report is apparent when one considers that prior to its issuance
              there had been no single comprehensive statement on the Nation's floodplain management activity
              since House Document 465, A Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses, was issued in
              1966. Thus, there was no comparative basis for evaluating over time the effectiveness of various
              tools, policies, and program planning efforts for floodplain management, and no comparative basis
              for justifying program budgets.

              Funding for the assessment was provided by the following member agencies of the Federal
              Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force: Department of Agriculture; Department of the
              Army-, Environmental Protection Agency-, Federal Emergency Management Agency; Department of
              the Interior; and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Because of the TVA!s long history of floodplain
              management experience, expertise and leadership, the Task Forcerequested that the TVA take the
              lead role in managing the interagency effort, including the contracting of professional services.

              The Assessment Report could not have been completed were it not for the many efforts of an
              Advisory Committee of the Interagency Task Force. The members of the Advisory Committee
              secured agency support and funding, assisted in the collection of data from federal agencies, met on
              numerous occasions with the contractor (and later with others) to review progress and provide
              requested advice and direction, reviewed and commented on various draft documents, and provided.
              for the review and input of others. Members of the Advisory Committee are:

                 Bruce Brown, Bureau of Reclamation
                 Billy Colson, U.S. Geological Survey
                 Wayne Graham, Bureau of Reclamation
                 Ross MacKay, Federal Emergency Management Agency
                 John Meagher, Environ    *mental Protection Agency
                 Jeanne Melanson, Environmental Protection Agency
                 Jerry Peterson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                 Larry Roberts, Bureau of Reclamation
                 Frank Thomas, Federal Emergency Management Agency
                 Don von Wolffradt, Soil Conservation Service
                 Jim Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority

              This Assessment Report can be largely attributed to Larry R. Johnston, whose talents, energy and
              enthusiasm were well-suited for the required effort and who was instrumental in the
              conceptualization, preparation and completion of the work. We hope that the information and
              findings contained in the report will improve understanding of the current status of floodplain
              management and be of benefit to future efforts to advance the wise use and conservation of our
              Nation's floodplains. Comments are welcomed, particularly -@iews on the completeness and accuracy
              of the assessment. Additional, more periodic reporting on progress toward implementation of a
              Unified National Program for Floodplain Management should be expected in the future.


              James M. Wright
              Project Manager
              Tennessee Valley Authority













                                                                 vi




                                                   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


                Many individuals, agencies and organizations contributed to the preparation of this Assessment
                Report.

                Ile Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force provided funding for the work and the
                Advisory Group of the Task Force provided important guidance throughout the work effort. The
                Advisory Group assisted with organizing and conducting special conference workshops to gather
                information and sought input from a number of knowledgeable agencies and organizations. In
                addition, the Advisory Group established a National Review Committee to assist in preparing the
                Assessment Report. James M. Wright of the Tennessee Valley Authority served as Project Manager
                to coordinate the work efforts and provide overall direction and supervision of the assessment.

                Thanks should be given to the members of the National Review Committee who reviewed A Status
                Report on the Nation's Floodplain Management Activity: An Interim Report (the Status Report - a
                preliminary report released in the course of work on the Assessment Report), and offered detailed
                comments on the data and analysis contained in the Status Report. On their own time the Committee
                met for several days to prepare an "Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains." This
                Action Agenda is included as Appendix F of the Assessment Report. Members of the Review
                Committee are: Raymond J. Burby, Gerald E. Galloway, James E. Goddard, James G. Gosselink,
                H. James Owen, Rutherford H. Platt, William E. Riebsame (Vice Chair), John R. Sheaffer, French
                Wetmore, Gilbert F. White (Chair), and Stanley M. Williams.

                Gilbert White, one of the pioneers of floodplain management whose 1942 dissertation first proposed
                a broad, integrated approach to solving the Nation's flood problems, prepared an "invited comment"
                and deserves special thanks for sharing his 50 years of experience and observations of floodplain
                activities.


                Appreciation should also be extended to all of the other individuals, including those representing
                governmental agencies and professional and nonprofit organizations, who contributed to the report.
                Some of these individuals participated in the several conference workshops held to obtain
                information for the assessment, completed the questionnaires distributed at those workshops, and
                thereby provided important input for preparation of the Assessment Report. In this regard, thanks
                must be extended to the Association of State Floodplain Managers and -the Association of Wetland
                Managers for arranging for special workshops to be held during their national conferences. All of
                the agencies, organizations and individuals who reviewed the Status Report and responded to requests
                for comments on the Status Report also provided important input. Those agencies, organizations and
                individuals are listed in Appendix E.

                The primary contractor for preparation of the Assessment Report was L.R. Johnston Associates of
                Westport, Connecticut. Larry R. Johnston was the principal author of the report and, as L.R.
                Johnston Associates' Project Manager, coordinated the work of several subcontractors and assisted
                the National Review Committee. Fronr L.R. Johnston Associates, Geoffrey Steadman, Julie Troy
                and Richard Backer also contributed to preparation of the report. Following Mr. Johnston's
                untimely passing in November of 1990, Mr. Steadman completed the work by editing the text and
                preparing the final report document.









                                                                  vii




               Subcontractors to LR. Johnston Associates were Leslie A- Bond Associates, J.A. Kusler Associates,
               and the Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. Les Bond contributed to those sections of
               the Assessment Report that address data collection for floodplain management, regional approaches
               to floodplain management, floodplain mapping, warning and preparedness measures, and structural
               flood protection efforts. Jon Kusler provided important advice and guidance, particularly with
               respect to court decisions and legal interpretations affecting floodplain management.                The
               Association of State Floodplain Managers provided data on state and community floodplain
               management efforts.

               The Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center at the University of Colorado,
               Boulder, under a separate contract with the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task
               Force, assisted in completing the final two chapters of the Assessment Report and prepared the
               Summary Report. The Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center subcontracted
               with Jacquelyn Monday to undertake this work. Ms. Monday was the principal author of chapters
               15 and 16 of the Assessment Report and prepared the text of the Summary Report. The Executive
               Summary was prepared by David Butler of the Natural Hazards Center.







                                                              Dedication


               This report is dedicated to the memory of Lany R. Johnston - ftiend, professional, and proponent of
               the wise use and conservation of our Nation's floodplains. From 1987 until his death in November of
               1990, Lany worked closely with the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force to prepare
               the first national assessment of the status offloodplain management in the United States. His work was
               characterized by dedication to two guiding principles: he wanted his efforts "to make a difference" by
               having a beneficial effect on the lives of others; and his work was consistently marked by an unswerving
               pursuit of the highest quality.

               Because of this dedication, the Assessment Report will be a bench mark document with respect tofuture
               floodplain management decisions in the United States. Through his depth of knowledge and broad
               understanding, Lany Johnston proved himself to be one of the few true floodplain management experts
               of our time. More importantly, he was able to achieve his goal of "making a difference" in the lives of
               others. His passing leaves us at great loss.









                                                                                    viii




                                                                            CONTENTS


                                                                                                                                                  Page

                    FOREWORD             ....................................................................                                           ii
                    PREFACE         .......................................................................                                             iv
                    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS                     ...........................................................                                     A
                    CONTENTS           ....................................................................                                             viii
                    LIST OF TABLES           ................................................................                                           xx
                    LIST OF FIGURES            ..............................................................                                           xxii


                    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                    .........................................................                                      1


                    INTRODUCTION             ................................................................                                           I-1


                                                        PART 1: THE NATION'S FLOODPLAINS


                    CHAPTER 1: FLOODS AND FLOODPLAINS                                     .................................                             1-1


                    AREA SUBJECT TO FLOODING IN THE UNITED STATES                             .....................................                     1-2
                    RIVERINE, FLOODING             ..................................................................                                   1-6
                         Flash Flood Areas      ....................................................................                                    1-7
                         Alluvial Fans    ........................................................................                                      1-7
                         Unstable and Meandering Channels          .......................................................                              1-8
                         lee Jam Flooding     ....................................................................                                      1-10
                    FLOODING FROM SURFACE RUNOFF, URBAN DRAINAGE AND HIGH GROUND-
                         WATER LEVELS           ...................................................................                                     1-11
                    COASTAL FLOODING AND EROSION                      ....................................................                              1-12
                         Tropical Storms and Hurricanes      ..........................................................                                 1-13
                         Other Coastal Storms      .................................................................                                    1-15
                         Tsunamis   ...................................................................                                                 1-19
                         Areas Influenced by Structural Protective Measures          ...........................................                        1-20
                         Relative Sea Level Rise and Shoreline Retreat         ..............................................                           1-20
                    GROUND FAILURE AREAS                .............................................................                                   1-22
                         Mudflows and Mudfloods         ..............................................................                                  1-22
                         Subsidence     ........................................................................                                        1-24
                         Liquefaction     .......................................................................                                       1-26
                    FLUCTUATING LAKE LEVELS                  ..........................................................                                 1-26
                         Types and Causes of Lake Level Fluctuations         ...............................................                            1-27
                         Water Level Fluctuations in the Great Lakes System           .........................................                         1-28
                         Lake Level Fluctuations in Other Areas        ...................................................                              1-30
                              Great Salt Lake, Utah      ............................................................                                   1-30
                              Lake Pulaski, Minnesota       ...........................................................                                 1-31
                    SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                    .........................................................                                1-31



                    CHAPTER 2: FLOODPLAIN RESOURCES AND VALUES                                             .......................                      2-1


                    WATER RESOURCES              ...................................................................                                    2-4
                         Natural Flood and Erosion Control         .......................................................                              2-5
                         Water Quality Maintenance       .............................................................                                  2-7
                         Ground-Water Supply and Balance           .......................................................                              2-9









                                                                               ix





                   L,IVING RESOURCES AND HABITAT'S                .....................................................                    2-9
                        Wetlands   ...........................................................................                             2-9
                             Wetland Types    ..................................................................                           2-12
                        Riparian Ecosystems    .................................................................                           2-14
                        Fish and Wildlife Habitat   ..............................................................                         2-15
                   CULTURAL RESOURCES             ...............................................................                          2-17
                        Harvest of Natural and Agricultural Products    ..............................................                     2-17
                        Recreational and Other Resource Functions       ................................................                   2-18
                   COMMON THREATS TO RESOURCES                    ....................................................                     2-19
                   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                .........................................................                        2-20



                   CHAPTER 3: FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT AND LOSSES                                         .....................              3-1


                   FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT                 ...........................................................                      3-2
                        Extent of Floodplain Development in the United States       ........................................               3-2
                        Floodplain Development and Awareness of the Flood Hazard         ....................................              34
                        Development in Coastal Regions       .........................................................                     34
                             Population in Coastal Areas     .........................................................                     3-5
                             Coastal Barriers  ..................................................................                          3-5
                        Development in Arid Regions       ...........................................................                      3-8
                   IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT ON FLOODPLAIN NATURAL VALUES                                ...........................          3-8
                        Impacts on Wetlands ... o     ..............................................................                       3-8
                        Impacts on Riparian Habitat    ...........................................................                         3-12
                   HISTORICAL LOSSES FROM FLOODS                  ....................................................                     3-15
                        Estimates of Property Damages and Deaths from Flooding         .....................................               3-15
                        Losses in Coastal Areas   .......................................               ; .......................          3-U
                             Hurricanes and Coastal Storms     .......................................................                     3-24
                             Shoreline Erosion   ................................................................                          3-25
                             Tsunamis    ......................................................................                            3-26
                        Losses Due to Failures of Flood Control Structures    ............................................                 3-26
                             Losses Due to Levee Failure     ........................................................                      3-26
                             Losses Due to Dam Failures      ........................................................                      3-27
                        Losses Due to Flash Floods     ............................................................                        3-27
                        Losses Due to Streambank Erosion       ......................................................                      3-30
                        Losses Due to Ground Failure      ..........................................................                       3-30
                        Losses from Fluctuating Lake Levels      .....................................................                     3-31
                        Losses in Urbanizing Areas     ............................................................                        3-32
                        Losses Due to Volcanic-Induced Flooding       .................................................                    3-32
                        Losses to Infrastructure  ...............................................................                          3-32
                        Losses to Agriculture  .................................................................                           3-33
                   RELATIVE FLOOD LOSSES OVER TIME                   ..................................................                    3-34
                        Loss of Life from Floods    ..............................................................                         3-34
                        Property Damages from Floods      .........................................................                        3-34
                        Flood Losses and the National Economy        ..................................................                    3-35
                   ESTIMATES OF FUTURE FLOOD LOSSES                   .................................................                    3-37
                   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                .........................................................                        3-38



                           PART 11: THE NATION'S PROGRAM FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT


                   CHAPTER 4: HISTORY OF FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT                                          .....................              4-1


                   1900-1960: THE STRUCTTJRAL ERA             ............                                                                 4-1
                        Early Involvement through Navigation and Conservation Programs         ................................            4-2
                        Direct Federal Involvement in Flood Control      ................................................                  4-2
                        Flood "Control" vs. Flood "Management     .. ..................................................                    44












                                                                                X





                   THE 1960s: A TIME OF CHANGE            ..........................................................                     4-5
                       House Document 465 and Executive Order 11296          ............................................                4-6
                       The National Flood Insurance Program and the National Environmental Policy Act         ....................       4-7
                   THE 1970s: THE ENVIRONMENTAL DECADE                   ...............................................                 4-7
                       Land and Water Use Planning Tools        ......................................................                   4-8
                       Expanding Framework for Floodplain Management           ...........................................               4-8
                       Increasing State and Local Involvement in Floodplain Management         ..............................            4-10
                   THE 1980s: CONTINUING EVOLUTION OF FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT                               ......................         4-11
                   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                .........................................................                      4-13



                   CHAPTER 5: A UNIFIED NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR
                                       FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT                       .................................                     5-1


                   HOUSE DOCUMENT 465: A UNIFIED NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR MANAGING FLOOD LOSSES                                        ..... 5-1
                       Governmental Responsibilities    ...........................................................                      5-2
                       Floodplain Management Recommendations          .................................................                  5-3
                   A UNIFIED NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT, 1976                                ....................       54
                       Refinement and Expansion of House Document 465          ...........................................               5-6
                       Conceptual Framework, Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management          ...........................         5-7
                            General Principles   ................................................................                        5-7
                            Working Principles   ................................................................                        5-8
                            Strategies and Tools   ...............................................................                       5-8
                       New Floodplain Management Recommendations            .............................................                5-8
                   1979 REVISIONS TO A UNIFIED NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT                                      .......   5-10
                       Strategies and Tools for Managing Floodplain Natural Resources       ................................             5-11
                   1986 REVISIONS TO A UNIFIED NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT                                      .......   5-11
                   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                .........................................................                      5-12



                          PART III: CHANGES IN FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT SINCE THE 1960s


                   CHAPTER 6: THE KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION BASE                                         ...................             6-1


                   CLIMATE CHANGE AND WEATHER FORECASTING                       ........................         I  ................     6-2
                       Climate and Climate Change      ............................................................                      6-2
                            Accelerated Sea Level Rise Due to Climate Changes       .......................................              6-5
                            Long-Term Precipitation Data     ........................................................                    6-6
                       Weather Forecasting     ..................................................................                        6-7
                   STREAMFLOW DATA            ...................................................................                        6-7
                   HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS                  ........................................................                    6-9
                            Hydrology   .......................................................................                          6-9
                            Hydraulics    .....................................................................                          6-11
                   FLOOD FORECASTING, WARNING AND RESPONSE                      ........................................                 6-12
                       Flood Forecasting, Warning and Response for Riverine Flooding        ................................             6-12
                       Flood Forecasting, Warning and Response for Coastal Flooding        .................................             6-14
                            Technical Advances for Observing Tropical Cyclones      ......................................               6-14
                            Technical Advances for Observing Tsunamis       ............................................                 6-15
                       Private Weather Forecasting     ...........................................................                       6-16
                   TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING             ..............................................................                        6-16
                   SOILS IDENTIFICATION AND MAPPING                 ..................................................                   6-18
                   MAPPING OF FLOOD HAZARDS                ........................................................                      6-19
                       Early Mapping     .....................................................................                           6-19
                            Tennessee Valley Authority Mapping       .................................................                   6-19
                            Soil Conservation Service Mapping     ...................................................                    6-20
                            U.S. Geological Survey Mapping      .....................................................                    6-20









                                                                               Xi




                            U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mapping         ...............................................                   6-21
                       Mapping for the National Flood Insurance Program        ..........................................                  6-22
                            Federal Insurance Administration Mapping       .............................................                   6-22
                            Corps of Engineers Mapping      .........................................................                      6-25
                            Soil Conservation Service Mapping      ...................................................                     6-25
                            Tennessee Valley Authority Mapping        ..................................................                   6-26
                            U.S. Geological Survey Mapping       .....................................................                     6-27
                       State and Community Floodplain Mapping         .................................................                    6-28
                  UNDERSTANDING AND MAPPING OF WETLANDS                          ..........................................                6-29
                       National Wetlands Inventory Project       .....................................................                     6-29
                            Functional Values of Wetlands      ......................................................                      6-30
                            Wetland Restoration and Creation       ...................................................                     6-31
                  UNDERSTANDING OF OTHER NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES                                     ......................         6-32
                  REMOTE SENSING TECHNIQUES                 ........................................................                       6-34
                  GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS                    ..................................................                     6-35
                  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                 .........................................................                        6-38



                  CHAPTER 7: THE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK                                     ..............................                   7-1


                  THE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR FLOOD LOSS REDUCTION                                   ...........................           7-2
                       The Federal Framework for Flood Loss Reduction        ............                                                   7-2
                            The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 and the U       .S. Water Resources Council      ................      7-2
                            River Basin Commissions      ...........................................................                        74
                            Executive Orders and Guidelines for Floodplain Management          ................................             7-5
                            Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency       .........................................                 7-7
                            Discount Rate for Water Projects     .....................................................                      7-7
                            National Flood Insurance Program       ....................................................                     7-7
                            Actions to Improve Dam Safety        .....................................................                     7-10
                            Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources         ............................            7-11
                            Consideration of Nonstructural Approaches      .............................................                   7-12
                            Disaster Assistance   ...............................................................                          7-12
                            Pre- and Postdisaster Planning   .......................................................                       7-13
                            Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force         ...................................               7-13
                            A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management          ..................................               7-14
                            Federal Emergency Management Agency          ..............................................                    7-15
                            Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1980      ..................................................                     7-15
                            Bureau of Reclamation Reorganization, 1987       ...........................................                   7-15
                       State and Community Framework for Flood Loss Reduction          ....................................                7-16
                            Flood Loss Reduction at the State Level      ...............................................                   7-16
                            Flood Loss Reduction at the Community Level        ..........................................                  7-17
                            Intergovernmental and Regional Government Management            .................................              7-17
                       Private Sector Activities  ........................................                  ......................         7-20
                            Academic Institutions    .............................................................                         7-20
                            Nonprofit and Professional Organizations     ..............................................                    7-20
                            Individuals and Corporations    ........................................................                       7-23
                  THE FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING FLOODPLAIN NATURAL RESOURCES                                       ...................        7-23
                       The  Federal Framework for Managing Floodplain Natural Resources           .............................            7-25
                            House Document 465       .............................................................                         7-26
                            National Environmental Policy Act      ...................................................                     7-26
                            Executive Orders on Floodplains and Wetlands       ..........................................                  7-26
                            A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management          ............................           I ......  7-27
                            Principles and Guidelines    ..........................................................                        7-27
                            Water Quality/Pollution Control      .....................................................                     7-27
                            Watershed Management and Erosion Control         ...........................................                   7-28
                            Coastal Management       .............................................................                         7-29
                            ,Wetland Protection   ................................................................                         7-30









                                                                                Xii


                             Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers      ..................................................                   7-31
                             Fish and Wildlife Protection    ........................................................                       7.31
                             Historic and Cultural Resources Preservation and Restoration       ...............................             7.32
                         State and Community Framework for Managing Floodplain Natural Resources            ......................          7-33
                             Environmental Policy     .............................................................                         7-33
                             Wetland Protection    ...............................................................                          7-33
                             Coastal and Shoreline Management       ...................................................                     7-34
                             Other Resource Protection Programs      ..................................................                     7-34
                         Private Sector Activities for Managing Floodplain Natural Resources      .............................             7.36
                         The United Nations International Decade for Disaster Reduction       ................................              7-36
                    SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                 .........................................................                       7-36



                    CHAPTER 8: REGUIATORY AND DESIGN STANDARDS                                       .......................                8-1


                    FLOOD LOSS REDUCTION STANDARDS                   ...................................................                    8-2
                         One Percent Annual Chance ("100-Year") Flood and Floodplain          .................................             8-2
                         Other Flood Frequency Standards       ........................................................                     8-3
                             "Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines      .. ...................................              8-3
                             Two-tenths Percent Annual Chance ("500-Year") Flood and Floodplain          .........................          84
                             Standard Project Flood and Probable Maximum Flood         ......................................               84
                             Least-Cost Design Flood     ............................................................                       8-4
                         Regulatory Floodway     ..................................................................                         8-5
                             Encroachments within the Regulatory Floodway      .......................................                      8-5
                         Regulating an Allowable Rise in Flood Levels      ...............................................                  8-6
                         Coastal Flood Standards     ...............................................................                        8-6
                             Coastal Velocity Zone    ..............................................................                        8-6
                             One Percent Annual Chance Flood Elevation in Coastal Areas          ...............................            8-6
                         Standards for the Elevation of Structures   ...................................................                    8-6
                         Defining "Substantial Damage" and "Substantial Improvement      .. ..................................              8-7
                         Performance Standards for Activities in Flood Hazard Areas       ....................................              8-8
                             Floodproofing in Riverine Areas     ......................................................                     8-8
                             Floodproofing in Coastal Zones    .......................................................                      8-9
                             Floodproofing for Utilities  ...........................................................                       8-9
                         Shoreline Setback Standards     ............................................................                       8-9
                         Protection of Natural Resources    .........................................................                       8.11
                         Standards for Flood Protection Structures   ..................................................                     8-11
                             Dam and Reservoir Standards      .......................................................                       8-11
                             Levee Standards     .................................................................                          8.11
                    NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION STANDARDS                         ........................................                 8-12
                         Water Quality Standards     ..............................................................                         8-12
                         Wetland Classification and Delineation   ....................................................                      8-13
                         Habitat Evaluation Methods    .............................................................                        8.13
                             Wetland Evaluation Technique      ......................................................                       8-13
                             Wetland Evaluation Technique for Bottomland Hardwood Functions           ..........................            8-14
                             Habitat Evaluation Procedures     ......................................................                       8-14
                         Acceptable Rates of Soil Erosion    ........................................................                       8-15
                    SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                 .........................................................                       8.15



                    CHAPTER 9: PERCEPTION, AWARENESS AND RESPONSE                                         ....................              9-1


                    RECOGNITION OF FLOOD RISK AND RESPONSE TO FLOOD WARNINGS                                .......................         9-2
                         Perception of Flood Hazard    .............................................................                        9-2
                         Government Roles for Increasing Awareness       ................................................                   9-4
                         Increased Awareness through Information and Education        .......................................               9-5.









                                                                              Xiii




                       Forced Awareness Through Regulatory Measures          .............................................                 9-6
                       Terminology as an Obstacle to Risk Perception      ..............................................                   9-7
                            "100-Year Flood    ...................................................................                         9-7
                            "Floodproofing  .. ..................................................................                          9-8
                            "Nonstructural Measures    .............................................................                       9-8
                            "Risk and Vulnerability"    ............................................................                       9-9
                            "Mitigation  .......................................................................                           9-9
                            "Tidal Wave   ......................................................................                           9-9
                   AWARENESS OF FLOODPLAIN NATURAL RESOURCES                           ......................................              9-9
                   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                ........................................................                        9-11



                   CHAPTER 10: LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS BY THE COURTS                                       ...................              10-1


                   TRENDS OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES                    ................................................                   10-2
                       Prior to 1968  .......................................................................                             10-2
                       1968-1978    .........................................................................                             10-3
                       1978-1988    .........................................................................                             10-3
                   CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES                ... ...................................................                       10-3
                       The Three U.S. Supreme Court Decisions and their Impact on Floodplain Management              ...............      10-3
                       Constitutional Challenges: the Broader Context     .............................................                   10-5
                            Inadequacy of Statutory Powers     ......................................................                     10-5
                            Invalid Objectives  ................................................................                          10-6
                            Failure to Comply with Statutory Procedures      ............................................                 10-6
                            Discrimination    ..................................................................                          10-7
                            Unreasonableness    ................................................................                          10-7
                            Mapping Inadequacy      ..............................................................                        10-7
                            Prohibiting Particular Types of Activities in Floodways or Flood Fringe Areas       ...................       10-7
                            Taking of Private Property Without Payment of Just Compensation         ...........................           10-7
                       Court Findings on Floodplain Management Measures          .........................................                10-9
                            Setbacks  ........................................................................                            10-9
                            Moratoria    ......................................................................                           10-9
                            Regulations Preventing All Development in Floodways and/or Flood Fringe Areas           ................      10-9
                            Subdivision Regulations    ...........................................................                        10-10
                            Regulation of Nonconforming Uses      ..................................................                      10-10
                            Sand Dune Protection Regulations      ..................................................                      10-10
                            Wetland Regulations     .............................................................                         10-10
                   LIABILITY FOR FLOOD DAMAGES                 .....................................................                      10-11
                       Reasons for Increased Litigation     .......................................................                       10-11
                       Factors Affecting Liability   .............................................................                        10-12
                            Government Liability When No Action is Taken         ........................................                 10-12
                            Strict Liability Versus Reasonableness    ................................................                    10-13
                            Policy or Discretionary Decisions Versus Nondiscretionary, Ministerial Actions      ..................        10-13
                            Liability of Government Employees     ..................................................                      10-13
                       liability and Hazard Reduction Activities    .................................................                     10-14
                            Flood Control Measures      ..........................................................                        10-14
                            Mapping   .......................................................................                             10-14
                            Warning Systems     ...............................................................                           10-14
                            Flood Insurance    ................................................................                           10-15
                            Disaster Assistance   ..............................................................                          10-15
                            Evacuation Planning                                                                                           10-15
                            Vertical Evacuation (Refuge)     ......................................................                       10-16
                   AVOIDING LEGAL PROBLEMS               .........................................................                        10-16
                       Avoiding Constitutional Problems     .......................................................                       10-16
                       Avoiding Liability Due to Increased Flood Damages      .........................................                   10-17
                   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                ........................................................                        10-18
                   CITATIONS       .........................................................................                              10-19









                                                                               Xiv




                                   PART IV: APPLICATION OF THE STRATEGIES AND TOOLS
                                                       FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT


                   CHAPTER 11: MODIFYING SUSCEPTIBILITY TO FLOOD DAMAGE
                                        AND DISRUPTION              ..........................................                          11-1


                   FLOODPIAIN REGULATIONS              ...........................................................                       11-2
                        Limitations of Floodplain Regulations     ....................................................                   11-2
                        Federal Role in Floodplain Regulation     ....................................................                   11-4
                             National Flood Insurance Program      ...................................................                   11-4
                             Limitations of the NFIP   ..........................................................                       11-12
                        State and Local Regulations    ...........................................................                      11-13
                             State Approaches for Floodplain Regulation     ...........................................                 11-14
                             Local Approaches for Floodplain Regulation     ...........................................                 11-14
                             Status of State and Local Floodplain Management Regulations        .............................           11-15
                             Regulations Exceeding NFIP Minimum Requirements          ....................................              11-21
                             Assistance to Local Regulatory Programs     ..............................................                 11-24
                             Exemptions from Local Regulatory Authority       ..........................................                11-29
                        Private Role in Floodplain Regulation     ...................................................                   11-29
                        Effectiveness of Regulations   ...........................................................                      11-30
                             Improved Enforcement      ...........................................................                      11-31
                   DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES                         .......................................               11-32
                        Design and Location of Services and Utilities    ..............................................                 11-32
                             Federal Policies  .........................................................                        ......  11-32
                             State and Local Policies  ..........................................................                       11-37
                        Land Rights, Acquisition and Open Space Use       ..............................................                1142
                        Redevelopment     ....................................................................                          11-43
                             Federal Programs for Redevelopment       ................................................                  11-43
                             State and Local Activities   .........................................................                     1143
                        Permanent Evacuation     ...............................................................                        11-44
                             Federal Activities  ...............................................................                        11-44
                             State and Local Activities  .........................................................                      11-48
                        Effectiveness of Development and Redevelopment Policies       ....................................              11-49
                   DISASTER PREPAREDNESS               ...........................................................                      11-50
                        Federal Activities for Disaster Preparedness   ...............................................                  11-50
                             Disaster Preparedness Improvement      .................................................                   11-50
                             Interagency Flood Hazard Mitigation Teams      ...........................................                 11-51
                             Section 409 Hazard Mitigation Plans    .................................................                   11-52
                             Hurricane Preparedness Program       ...................................................                   11-52
                             Other Federal Programs and Activities     ...............................................                  11-53
                        State and Local Activities     ............................................................                     11-56
                        Effectiveness of Disaster Preparedness Activities   ...........................................                 11-57
                   FLOOD FORECASTING/WARNING/EMERGENCY PLANS                            ...................................             11-58
                        Federal Activities   ..................................................................                         11-60
                             National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration        ......................................              11-60
                             Other Federal Agencies    ...........................................................                      11-65
                        State and Local Activities     ............................................................                     11-65
                        Private Sector Activities  ..............................................................                       11-69
                        Effectiveness of Warning and Response Systems      ............................................                 11-70
                   FLOODPROOFING AND ELEVATION                  ....................................................                    11-71
                        Limitations of Floodproofing   ..........................................................                       11-,72
                        Federal Activities in Floodproofing ...   ...................................................                   11-73
                        State and Local Involvement in Floodproofing      .............................................                 11-75
                             State Activities  .................................................................                        11-75
                             Local Government Activities    .......................................................                     11-79
                        Private Sector   .....................................................................                          11-79











                                                                                    xv




                        Current Status of Floodproofing and Elevation         .............................................                       11-80
                   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                   .....................          !t-   .................................               11-82


                   CHAPTER 12: MODIFYING FLOODING                                 .....................................                           12-1

                   INVESTMENT IN FLOOD CONTROL                      ......................................................                         12-2
                        Federal Investments     ..................................................................                                 12-2
                        State and Local Investments      ............................................................                              12-6
                   DAMS AND RESERVOIRS                ..............................................................                               12-9
                        Flood Control Capacity        .................................................................                            12-9
                             Federal Dams and Reservoirs         .......................................................                           12-9
                             Nonfederal Dams and Reservoirs           ...................................................                         12-13
                        Damage Reduction Attributable to Flood Control Structures            ...................................                  12-14
                        Dam Safety      .......................................................................                                   12-19
                             Hazard Classification       .............................................................                            12-19
                             Federal Activities for Dam Safety       .................        I ..................................                12-19
                             State and Local Activities in Dam Safety        ...............................................                      12-24
                             Private Sector Activities     ..........................................................                             12-25
                   DIKES/LEVEES/FLOODWALLS                  ...................................                 : .....................           12-27
                        Federal Activities     ..................................................................                                 12-28
                             Corps of Engineers       ..............................................................                              12-28
                             Federal Emergency Management Agency             .......    s .....................................                   12-29
                             Tennessee Valley Authority      .........................................................                            12-29
                        State and Local Activities       ............................................................                             12-29
                   CHANNEL ALTERATIONS                ..............................................................                              12-29
                        Federal Activities     ..................................................................                                 12-30
                        State and Local Activities       ............................................................                             12-30
                   HIGH FLOW DIVERSIONS               ..............................................................                              12-31
                   STORMWATER MANAGEMENT                     ........................................................                             12-31
                        Federal Activities     ..................................................................                                 12-33
                        State and Local Activities       ............................................................                             12-33
                   SHORELINE PROTF-C`IION                ............................................................                             12-34
                        Shoreline Protection Methods        .........................................................                             12-35
                             Nonstructural Measures        ..........................................................                             12-35
                             Structural Measures      .............................................................                               12-36
                        Federal Activities     ..................................................................                                 12-36
                        State and Local Activities       ............................................................                             12-37
                        Private Sector Activities     ..............................................................                              12-39
                   LAND TREATMENT MEASURES                   ........................................................                             12-39
                        Structural Measures     .................................................................                                 12-39
                             Terraces    ......................................................................                                   12-39
                             Diversion Channels       ..............................................................                              12-40
                             Control Basins     .................................................................                                 12-40
                             Grassed Waterways        ..............................................................                              12-40
                        Nonstructural Measures        ..............................................................                              1240
                             Tillage Practices        ................................................................                            12-40
                             Cropping Patterns        ................................................................                            1241
                             Filter Strips    ...................................................................                                 12-41
                   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                   ........................................................                             12-41


                   CHAPTER 13: MODIFYING THE IMPACTS OF FLOODING                                            ......................                13-1

                   INFORMATION AND EDUCATION                     .......................................................                           13-1
                        Federal Activities     ...................................................................                                 13-2









                                                                                xvi





                        State and Local Activities     .............................................................                        13-4
                        Private Sector Activities   ...............................................................                         13-7
                        Effectiveness of Information and Education Activities     .........................................                 13-7
                    FLOOD INSURANCE           ...................................................................                           13-7
                        National Flood Insurance Program      .......................................................                       13-8
                             Eligibility for Flood Insurance  .......................................................                       13-8
                             Mandatory Purchase Requirements        ...................................................                     13-9
                             Rates and limits of Coverage     ......................................................                       13-10
                             Number of Policies and Claims      .....................................................                      13-10
                             Subsidized vs. Actuarial Rates   ......................................................                       13-20
                             Repetitive I osses     ...............................................................                        13-20
                             Community Rating System        ........................................................                       13-25
                             Sale of Flood Insurance     ...........................................................                       13-25
                        Private Sector Flood Insurance    .........................................................                        13-27
                        Crop Insurance     ....................................................................                            13-27
                        Effectiveness of Flood Insurance      .......................................................                      13-27
                    TAX ADJUSTMENTS           ..................................................................                           13-28
                        Federal Tax Adjustments     .............................................................                          13-28
                             Casualty Losses  .................................................................                            13-29
                             Development Incentives      ..........................................................                        13-29
                        State and Local Activities     ............................................................                        13-30
                             Casualty Losses  .................................................................                            13-31
                             Development Incentives      ..........................................................                        13-31
                        Effectiveness of Tax Adjustments      .......................................................                      13-31
                    FLOOD EMERGENCY MEASURES                  ......................................................                       13-32
                        Federal Activities    ..................................................................                           13-32
                        State and Local Activities     ............................................................                        13-34
                        Private Sector Activities   ..............................................................                         13-35
                        Effectiveness of Flood Emergency Measures       ...............................................                    13-35
                    DISASTER ASSISTANCE             ...............................................................                        13-35
                        Federal Disaster Assistance    ...........................................................                         13-35
                             Disaster Declaration Request Process      ................................................                    13-36
                             Major Disaster vs. Emergency     .......................................................                      13-36
                             Federal Emergency Management Agency           .............................................                   13-38
                             Other Federal Agencies      ..........................................................                        13-38
                             Significant Changes in Federal Disaster Assistance     .......................................                13-40
                             Disaster Assistance Payments     ......................................................                       1341
                        State and Local Activities     ............................................................                        1342
                        Private Sector Activities   ...............................................................                        13-42
                             American National Red Cross      ......................................................                       1345
                             Salvation Army   .................................................................                            13-45
                             Mennonite Disaster Service     ........................................................                       13-46
                             Other Organizations    ..............................................................                         13-46
                        Effectiveness of Disaster Assistance    .....................................................                      13-47
                    POSTFLOOD RECOVERY              .............................................................                          13-48
                        Federal Activities    ..................................................................                           13-48
                        State and Local Activities     ............................................................                        13-48
                        Effectiveness of Postflood Recovery     .....................................................                      13-51
                    SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                 ........................................................                       13-52



                    CHAPTER 14: MANAGING NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES                                               ............         14-1


                    PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION STRATEGIES                        .........................................                14-2
                    REGULATIONS TO PROTECT' FLOODPLAIN NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES                                       ...........     14-7
                        Federal Regulations   ..................................................................                            14-7
                             71be National Environmental Policy Act     ................................................                    14-7









                                                                               Xvii




                            The Clean Water Act and the Section 404 Wetlands Regulatory Program             .......................         14-7
                            The Endangered, Species Act       .......................................................                       14-8
                            The Coastal Zone Management Act          ...................................................                    14-9
                            Swampbuster Provisions of the Farm Bill      ...............................................                    14-9
                            Legislation and Regulations to Protect Cultural Resources       ..................................              14-9
                            Other Federal Regulatory Programs        .................................................                     14-10
                       State and Local Regulations     .............................................................                       14-10
                            State Regulations    ................................................................                          14-11
                            Local Regulations    ...............................................................                           14-13
                       Difficulties in Using Regulatory Measures to Protect Natural and Cultural Resources          ................       14-14
                  DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS                                    ........................          14-15
                       Influencing the Design and Location of Services and Utilities       ..................................              14-15
                            Federal Policies and Programs       ......................................................                     14-15
                            State and Local Policies and Programs      .............................           ; ...................       14-17
                       Land Rights and Acquisition; Open Space Programs and Legislation           .............................            14-17
                            Federal Programs     ...............................................................                           14-17
                            State and Local Programs     ...........................................................                       14-23
                            Private Sector Activities    ..........................................................                        14-29
                       .Concern over Lack of Innovative Policies and Programs        ......................................                14-29
                  INFORMATION AND EDUCATION                   .......................................................                      14-30
                            Federal Level Activities     ..........................................................                        14-30
                            State and Local Activities ..  ........................................................                        14-30
                            Private Sector Activities    .....................       I .....................................               14-31
                       Lack of Information and Understanding Regarding the Value of Floodplain Natural and Beneficial
                       Resources     ........................................................................                              14-31
                  TAX ADJUSTMENT'S           ..................................................................                            14-32
                       Federal Tax Adjustments      .............................................................                          14-32
                            Tax Exempt Organizations       ........................................................                        14-32
                            Donations to Tax Exempt Organizations        ..............................................                    14-33
                       State and Local Tax Adjustments      ......................................                                         14-33
                  ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES                ...........................................................                       14-34
                     1 Administrative Concerns      .............................................................                          14-37
                  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                  ........................................................                        14-37



                                             PART V         APPROACHING THE NEXT CENTURY


                  CHAPTER 15: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT IN THE
                                        UNITED STATES             ...........................................                              15-1


                  OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS                ............................................................                         15-1
                       Achievements to Date      .................................................................                          15-2
                       Difficulties in Evaluation   ..............................................................                          15-3
                            The Need for Specified Goals      .......................................................                       15-3
                            The Need for a Comprehensive Data Base          .............................................                   15-3
                  EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK                              ....................................               15-4
                       The Management Framework's Progress          ...................................................                     15-4
                       Shortcomings in the Framework       .........................................................                        15-5
                            Definition of Floodplain Management        .................................................                    15-5
                            Goals of Floodplain Management        ....................................................                      15-5
                            The. Structure of the Management Framework         ...........................................                  15-5
                            Integration of Flood Loss Reduction and Natural Resources Protection          ........................          15-6
                            Coordination Among Government Agencies          .............................................                   15-7
                  THE EFFECnVENESS OF FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND TOOLS                                        ..............      15-8
                       Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption        ......................................                15-9
                            Floodplain Regulations     ............................................................                         15-9
                            Development and Redevelopment Policies         .............................................                   15-11
                            Disaster Preparedness    ................       : ...........................................                  15-12









                                                                               xviii




                            Disaster Assistance  ..................           .......  .....................................             15-12
                            Floodproofing    ..................................................................                          15-12
                            Flood Forecasting and Warning Systems and Emergency Plans          ..............................            15-1.3
                            Modifying Flooding   ..............................          :...........................           .......  15-13
                            Dams and Reservoirs      ............................................................                        15-14
                            Dikes, Levees and Floodwalls     ......................................................                      15-14
                            Channel Alterations     .................                       .................................            15-15
                            High Flow Diversions     ............................................................                        15-15
                            Land Treatment Measures       ......................................................                         15-15
                            On-site Detention Measures      ...........   .....................        I.........................        15-15'
                            Shoreline Protection Measure@                                                                                  -15
                                                                               ...........     ....................... .....             15
                        Modifying the Impact of Flooding on Individuals and the Community        ........ @. ... .1i @ ................  15-15
                            Information and Education      ........................................................                      15-16
                            Flood Insurance    .............    :............    ........................     ...................        15-17
                            Tax Adjustments    .................................................................                         15-18
                            Flood Emergency Measures        .......................................................                      15-18
                            Postflood Recovery   ........... ....................................................                        15-18
                        Restoring and Preserving the Natural Resources of Floodplains      .................................             15-18
                            Regulations    ...........................                                           ...................     15-18
                            Development and Redevelopment Policies       .............................................                   15-19
                            Information and Education.     ............     I................................................            15-19
                            Tax Adjustments    ....................................      ..............                    ..........    15-@O
                            Administrative Measures     .........................    ..........                                   .....  15-20
                                                                                                                                           -20
                   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                ........................................................                       15


                   CHAPTER 16: OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREASING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
                                        FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT                      ................................                      16-1


                   SETTING MEASURABLE AND ACHIEVABLE GOALS                        ........................................                16-1
                   IMPROVING THE DATA BASE               ..........................................................                       16-3
                        New Research     ......................................................................                           164
                   IMPROVING THE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK                          ..........................................                 164
                        Integrate Strategies for Flood Loss Reduction and for Restoring and Preserving Natural     Resources     .......  16-5
                        Improve Coordination and Integration      ....................................................                    16-5
                        Improve Cooperation    .................................................................                          16-6
                        Allow Different Approaches      ...........................................................                       16-7
                            Management of High Risk Flood Hazard Areas         ..........................................                 16-7
                            Broader Management Approaches          ...................................................                    16-8
                            Considering Local Conditions      .......................................................                     16-9
                            Helping Rural and Economically Disadvantaged Areas          ....................................              16-9
                            Encouraging the "Best Mix" of Floodplain Measures        .....................................               16-10
                   IMPROVING THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND TOOLS                                   ...................        16-11
                        Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damages and Disruption       ....................................              16-11
                            Regulations     ...................................................................                          16-11
                            Development and Redevelopment Policies       .............................................                   16-11
                        Modifying Flooding    .................................................................                          16-12
                        Modifying the Impact of Flooding on Individuals and Communities        ..............................            16-12
                        Public Awareness and Education      .......................................................                      16-12
                            Training and Education for Government Officials        ........................................              16-14
                            Flood Insurance    ................................................................                          16-14
                            Postflood Recovery    ............... ..............................................                         16-14
                        Restoring and Preserving the Natural and Cultural Resources of Floodplains       .......................         16-15
                   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                 ........................................................                      16-15











                                                     Mx




                                           PART VI: EPIWGUE


            RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT (An brvited comment by GUbert F. nite) ..............   vi-l


                                         PART VII: APPENDICES


            APPENDIX A: CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS
                          INFLUENCING DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATION'S PROGRAM FOR
                          FLOODPL4,IN MANAGEMENT        .................................    A-1


            APPENDIX B:   LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS          .....................  B-1


            APPENDIX C:   GLOSSARY     ..................................................    G1

            APPENDIX D:   SELECTED REFERENCES       ......................................   D-1


            APPENDIX I.-  AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS INVITED TO COMMENT ON THE
                          STATUS REPORT AND ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FLOODPLAIN
                          MANAGEMENT       .............................................     E-1


            APPENDIX F:. ACTION AGENDA FOR MANAGING THE NATION'S FLOODPL41NS                 F-I



                                                  INDEX












                                                                          xx




                                                              LIST OF TABLES


                                                                                                                              Page

                  Table 1-1.    Soil Conservation Service Estimate of Nonfederal, Rural Floodprone Areas (in Acres),
                                by State, 1982    ........................................................                      1-4
                  Table 1-2.    FEMA Estimate of Floodplain Area in Identified Floodprone Communities,
                                by State, 1991    ........................................................                      1-5
                  Table 1-3.    Number of Hurricanes (Direct Hits) Affecting the United States and Individual States,
                                1899-1989, Categorized According to Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale         ...............     1-18
                  Table 1-4.    Trends and Variability in Relative Sea Level Rise in the United States, 1940-1986        ..... 1-21
                  Table 1-5.    Changes in Water Levels in the Great Lakes, 1900-1986        .........................         1-30

                  Table 2-1.    Estimated Wetland Values per Acre, from Recent Studies          .......................         2-3

                  Table 3-1.    FEMA Estimate of Property at Risk From Flooding          ............................           3-3
                  Table 3-2.    Regional Population Densities in Coastal Counties with Coastal Barriers, 1960-1980              3-6
                  Table 3-3.    Regional Population Changes in 156 Local Jurisdictions Containing Coastal Barriers,
                                1960-1980     ............................................................                      3-6
                  Table 3-4.    Major Causes of Wetland Loss and Degradation         ...............................           3-10
                  Table 3-5.'   Wetland Losses in Various States     ..........................................                3-11
                  Table 3-6.    Examples of Wetland Loss Rates        ..........................................               3-12
                  Table 3-7.    National Weather Service Estimates of Flood-Related Deaths in the United States,
                                1916-1989     ...........................................................                      3-17
                  Table 3-8.    National Weather Service Estimates of Flood-Related Damages in the United States,
                                1916-1989                                                                                      3-18
                  Table 3-9.    Hurricanes: Deaths, Injuries, and Damage to Dwellings, 1965-1985        .................      3-21
                  Table 3-10.   Storms: Deaths, Injuries, and Damage to Dwellings, 1965-1985        ....................       3-21
                  Table 3-11.   Floods: Deaths, Injuries, and Damage to Dwellings, 1965-1985        ....................       3-22
                  Table 3-12.   Deaths Due to Floods and Storms, 1965-1985        ..................................           3-22
                  Table 3-13.   Disaster Assistance Payments for Presidential Disaster Declarations, 1965-1989       ........  3-23
                  Table 3-14.   Status of Coastal Erosion in the United States, 1971     ............................          3-25
                  Table 3-15.   Loss of Life and Property Damage from Notable U.S. Dam Failures, 1963-1990           .......   3-28
                  Table 3-16.   Examples of Recent Flash Floods Causing Serious Loss of Life        ....................       3-30
                  Table 3-17.   National Assessment of Streambank Erosion         .................................            3-31
                  Table 3-18.   WRC Projections of Future Flood Losses        ....................................             3-37

                  Table 6-1.    Estimated Completion of Primary Topographic Mapping for the United States            ........  6-17
                  Table 6-2.    Community Flood Hazard Reports Prepared by the TVA, 1954-1988              ...............     6-21
                  Table 6-3.    National Flood Insurance Program: Flood Studies and Surveys, Historical Statistics
                                as of September 30, 1990     ................................................                  &n
                  Table 6-4.    Breakdown of Flood Insurance Studies and Restudies for Fiscal Years 1984-1990           ...... 6-25
                  Table 6-5.    Floodplain Mapping Studies by the Corps of Engineers, 1969-1988         .................      6-26
                  Table 6-6.    Floodplain Mapping Studies by the Soil Conservation Service       .....................        6-27
                  Table 6-7.    Studies for Flood Insurance Purposes by the U.S. Geological Survey Since 1985        .......   6-28

                  Table 7-1.    Academic Institutions Engaged in Natural Hazards and Emergency Management
                                Research and Education      .................................................                  7-21
                  Table 7-2.    Selected Professional and Nonprofit Organizations Active in Flood Loss Reduction
                                Efforts   ..............................................................                       7-22
                  Table 7-3.    Selected Private Conservation and Watershed Organizations Concerned with Flood
                                Loss Reduction and Natural Resources Protection         .............................          7-24












                Table 11-1.   Rate Zones Used in Flood Mapping Studies       ..................................           11-6
                Table 11-2.   State Regulatory Program Components in Place, 1983       .........................         11-18
                Table 11-3.   State Regulatory Standards that Exceed Minimum NFIP Requirements for
                              Riverine Floodplains    ..................................................                 11-22
                Table 11-4.   State Regulations for Coastal and Lakeshore Floodplains     .......................        11-25
                Table 11-5.   State Regulations for Special Hazard Areas     .................................           11-26
                Table 11-6.   State Assistance to Local Regulatory Programs   ....................      *...........     11-28
                Table 11-7.   Summary of Department of Interior Recommendations for Changes in the CBRS            ..... 11-38
                Table 11-8.   States with Road and Bridge Standards that Exceed NFIP Requirements        ...........     1141
                Table 11-9.   Section 1362 Appropriated Funds    .........................................               1146
                Table 11-10.  Status of Hurricane Evacuation Studies   .....................................             11-54
                Table 11-11.  State Flood Warning Activities   ...........................................               11-66
                Table 11-12.  State and Local Activities Related to Floodproofing    ............................        11-78

                Table 12-1.   State Activities to Modify Flooding  .........................................              12-8
                Table 12-2.   Number of Nonfederal Dams Constructed by Major Purposes and Decade            ..........   12-13
                Table 12-3.   Storage Capacity of Nonfederal Dams Constructed by Decade and Cumulative          .......  12-13
                Table 12-4.   Construction of Nonfederal Flood Control Dams, 1961-1981      .....................        12-14
                Table 12-5.   Damages Prevented by Corps of Engineers Flood Control Structures       ...............     12-15
                Table 12-6.   Benefits from Tennessee Valley Authority Flood Reduction at Chattanooga,
                              Tennessee Since 1936    ..................................................                 12-17
                Table 12-7.   Stage Reduction at Cairo, Illinois, and Prevented Flood Damages Along the Ohio and
                              Mississippi Rivers Resulting from Tennessee Valley Authority Dams and Reservoirs       ... 12-18
                Table 12-8.   Hazard Potential Classification for Dams    ...................................            12-20
                Table 12-9.   Federal Responsibilities for Existing Dams   ..................................            12-21
                Table 12-10.  Summary of 1989 State Dam Safety Statutory or Regulatory Activities     ..............     12-26
                Table 12-11.  Status of Federal Expenditures on Authorized Beach Erosion Control Projects       .......  12-38
                Table 12-12.  Total Federal and Nonfederal Investment in Beach Erosion Control Projects
                              Completed or Under Construction      ........................................              12-38

                Table 13-1.   NHRAIC Annotated Bibliographies of Hazards Publications, 1975-1987         .............    13-3
                Table 13-2.   State Activities in Floodplain Management Information and Education       ..............    13-5
                Table 13-3.   National Flood Insurance Program Rate Revisions Since January 1, 1974      ............    13-11
                Table 13-4.   Maximum Amounts of Flood Insurance Available        .............................          13-12
                Table 13-5.   Number of Flood Insurance Policies and Amount of Insurance by State, 1987        ........  13-13
                Table 13-6.   Number and Amount of Flood Claims Paid by State, 1978-1987         ..................      13-14
                Table 13-7.   National Flood Insurance Program: Underwriting Experience by Calendar Year/Accident
                              Year, 1978-1987   ......................................................                   13-15
                Table 13-8.   National Flood Insurance Program: Loss and Expense Experience, 1978-1987         ........  13-18
                Table 13-9.   National Flood Insurance Program: Annual Premium Loss Experience (1979-1987)
                              vs. Projected Written Premium on 1989 Cost Level     ............................          13-19
                Table 13-10.  Basic Data for Repetitive Losses and Total NFIP Losses for the 10-Year Period 1980
                              through 1989    ........................................................                   13-21
                Table 13-11.  Distribution of Pre-FIRM Repetitive Loss Structures by Zone     ....................       13-22
                Table 13-12.  Distribution of Repetitive Building Coverage Claims by Building Damage as a
                              Percentage of Building Value    ............................................
                Table 13-13.  Distribution of Repetitive Losses by the Dollar Amount of Total Damages
                              (Building and Contents Combined)     ........................................              13-23
                Table 13-14.  Distribution of Repetitive Losses by States (Top Ten States)  .....................        13-23
                Table 13-15. Top @O Repetitive Loss Communities by Number of Losses         .....................        13-24
                Table 13-16.  Disaster Assistance Provided by States   .....................................             13-43
                Table 13-17.  Private Organizations Providing Disaster Assistance    ...........................         13-44












                  Table 14-1. Strategies and Tools for Natural Resource Loss Reduction         .......................        14-4
                  Table 14-2. Examples of Tools for Protecting and Managing Natural Floodplain Resources           ........   14-5
                  Table 14-3. State Regulatory Activities for Protection of Natural Resources     ...................        14-12




                                                            LIST OF FIGURES


                                                                                                                             Page

                  Figure 1-1.     Surface Area of the United States and Floodprone Nonfederal Land, 1982         ..........    1-3
                  Figure 1-2.     Factors Affecting Flood Hazards on Alluvial Fans      ............................           1-9
                  Figure 1-3.     Hydraulic Zones on a Typical Alluvial Fan      .................................             1-9
                  Figure 1-4.     Areas of Likely Ice Jam Formation      .......................................              1-11
                  Figure 1-5.     Schematic Diagram of Storm Wave, Attack on Beach and Dune           ..................      1-14
                  Figure 1-6.     Annual Distribution of Atlantic Tropical Storms that have Crossed or Passed
                                  Adjacent to the United States, 1899-1989    ...................................             1-15
                  Figure 1-7.     Smoothed Frequency of Landfalling Tropical Storms and Hurricanes for the Gulf
                                  and East Coasts of the United States, 1871-1984    ..............................           1-16
                  Figure 1-8.     The Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale     .......................................              1-17
                  Figure 1-9.     Relative Speed of Seismic Sea Waves in Deep Water and Near Shore           .............    1-19
                  Figure 1-10.    Mudflow Areas     .......................................................                   1-24
                  Figure 1-11.    Damage Due to Differential Compaction of Soils     .............................            1-25
                  Figure 1-12.    Storm Effects on Lake Levels     ...........................................                1-27
                  Figure 1-13.    The Great Lakes System Showing Lake Profiles and Average Monthly Water-Level
                                  Elevations, 1900-84   ...................................................                   1-29

                  Figure 2-1.     Summary of Floodplain Natural and Cultural Resources         .......................         2-3
                  Figure 2-2.     Basic Types of Coastal Barriers   ..........................................                 2-7
                  Figure 2-3.     Representative Coastal Barriers     .........................................                2-8
                  Figure 2-4.     Inland Wetlands    .....................................................                    2-11
                  Figure 2-5.     Coastal Wetlands     ....................................................                   2-12
                  Figure 2-6.     Major Wetland and Deepwater Habitat Systems        .............................            2-13

                  Figure 3-1.     Migration of a Barrier Island in Response to Sea Level Rise      ....................        3-7
                  Figure 3-2.     Net Losses and Gains in Wetlands of the Conterminous U.S., Mid-1950s to
                                  Mid-1970s   ..........................................................                       3-9
                  Figure 3-3.     Causes of Recent Wetland Losses      ........................................               3-10
                  Figure 3-4.     NWS Estimate of Annual Flood-Related Deaths in the United States, 1916-1985           ..... 3-19
                  Figure 3-5.     NWS Estimate of Annual Flood Damages in the United States, 1916-1985           ..........   3-19
                  Figure 3-6.     Age of Dams at Time of Failure      .........................................               3-29
                  Figure 3-7.     Causes of Dam Failure     ................................................                  3-29
                  Figure 3-8.     Loss of Life from Selected Natural Disasters, 1900-1977      .......................        3-35
                  Figure 3-9.     Property Damages from Selected Natural Disasters, 1900-1977         ..................      3-36
                  Figure 3-10.    Projections of Future Flood Losses     .......................................              3-38

                  Figure 5-1.     Evolution of a Unified National Program for Floodplain Management          .............     5-2
                  Figure 5-2.     House Document 465 Recommendations for Federal Agency Action             ..............      5-5
                  Figure 5-3.     Strategies and Tools for Flood Loss Reduction      ..............................            5-9
                  Figure 5-4.     Recommendations for Recognition, Acceptance and Implementation of the
                                  Conceptual Framework of the Unified National Program for Floodplain
                                  Management     ........................................................                     5-13









                                                                    xxiii




               Figure 6-1.     National Flood Insurance Program: Study Initiation by Fiscal Year     ................     6-24

               Figure 7-1.     Federal Flood Loss Reduction and Related Programs by Agency         .................        7-3

               Figure 11-1.    Relationship Between Floodplain, Floodway, and Flood Fringe Areas         .............    11-7
               Figure 11-2.    Eight-Step Decision-Making Process for Executive Order 11988      .................       11-34
               Figure 11-3.    Location of National Weather Service River Forecast Centers       ..................      11-61
               Figure 11-4.    National Weather Service Hydrologic Forecast System      ........................         11-62
               Figure 11-5.    SLOSH Basins Along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Coastlines       ................      11-64

               Figure 12-1.    Federal Agency Shares of Water Resources Spending        .........................         12-4
               Figure 12-2.    Total 1986 Project Outlays by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers      .................      12-5
               Figure 12-3.    Outlays for Corps of Engineers and SCS Flood Control Programs, 1960-1985         ........  12-5
               Figure 124.     Construction and Operations & Maintenance Costs for the Corps of Engineers
                               Flood Control Program     ................................................                 12-6
               Figure 12-5.    Number of Flood Control Reservoirs Put in Service by the Corps of Engineers       ......  12-10
               Figure 12-6.    Number of Corps of Engineers Flood Control Structures in Service       ..............     12-10
               Figure 12-7.    Cumulative Storage in Corps of Engineers Flood Control Reservoirs       .............     12-11
               Figure 12-8.    Number of Flood Control Reservoirs Put in Service by the Soil Conservation Service      . 12-12
               Figure 12-9.    Number of Soil Conservation Service Flood Control Reservoirs in Service       .........   12-12
               Figure 12-10.   Annual Damages Prevented as a Percent of Total Possible Damages         .............     12-16

               Figure 13-1.    Organizational Structure of the National Flood Insurance Program      ...............     13-26

               Figure 14-1.    LWCF Appropriations: 1965-1987        ......................................              14-18
               Figure 14-2.    LWCF State Grants: Spending and Acreage Acquired by State and Local
                               Governments, 1977-1980 and 1981-1984      ...................................             14-19
               Figure 14-3.    LWCF State Grants: Division of Funds Between State and Local Governments,
                               1977-1980   .........................................................                     14-19












                                 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES:
                                                        AN ASSESSMENT REPORT


                                                            EXECUTIVE SUMMARY




                      This assessment of floodpkin management in the United States was commissioned by the Federal Interagency
                      Floodplain Management Task Forre - representatives of the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency; Departments
                      of Agriculture, Army, Commerce, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Transportation; the
                      Environmental Protection Agency; and the Tennessee Valley Authority - in order to report to the pubUc and to th.e
                      Congress on progress toward implementation of 'A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management " [Section
                      1302(c) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 19681.




                                   THE NATION'S FLOODPLAINS, THEIR VALUE, AND THEIR FLOODS

                                                                      FwODPLAINS
                 Estimates of the extent of the Nation's floodplains vary according to the areas measured. The U.S. Water
                 Resources Council estimated in 1977 that they comprise about 7%, or 178.8 million acres, of the total area of
                 the United States and its territories. A 1991 study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that
                 examined all mapped floodprone communities estimated there are about 93.8 million acres. This land includes
                 areas next to rivers and streams, and the shores of oceans, lakes, and other bodies of water. Floodplains
                 include many of the Nation's most beautiful landscapes, productive wetlands, fertile soils, and valuable natural
                 habitat, as well as significant archaeologic and historic sites. Portions of almost all major cities and many
                 smaller communities are located on or near floodplains.


                                                             THE VALUE OF FLOODPLAINS
                 In their natural state, floodplains have enormous value. They typically provide natural flood and erosion
                 control, help maintain good water quality, and contribute to sustaining groundwater supplies for the Nation's
                 water resources. Their wetlands and other unique riparian ecosystems provide a wide variety of fish and
                 wildlife habitats and frequently support large and diverse populations of flora and fauna which are living, or
                 biologic, resources. Additionally, they include many economic and cultural resources. They yield a harvest of
                 natural and cultivated products; provide space for recreation, scientific study, and outdoor education; and
                 encompass many sites of historic and archaeologic interest.


                                                                         FLOODS
                 Riverine and coastal floodplains are, by definition, lands shaped by and continually subject to inundation.
                 Riverine flooding - the most common type of flooding in the United States - can result not only from heavy
                 rainfall and rapid snowmelt but also from dam or levee failure, ice jams, and channel migration. The resultant
                 inundation can be relatively slow, or, in the case of flash flooding, devastatingly sudden. Coastal flooding and
                 erosion can be caused by hurricanes, severe storms, tsunamis, or rising sea or lake levels. In addition, natural
                 erosion can be accelerated by human development and poorly planned beach protection measures. Other
                 floodprone areas include alluvial fans, urban areas where flooding is exacerbated by surface runoff and locally
                 inadequate drainage, and areas affected by land subsidence and various forms of ground failure, such as mud
                 floods, debris flows, and liquefaction.













                                                                 FLoODPI-AJN LOSSES
                    Today, the Nation includes nearly 22,000 floodprone communities. In recent years the annual growth rate in
                    these areas, especially in coastal regions, has greatly exceeded that of the country as a whole. This large-scale
                    development and modification of riverine and coastal floodplains has exacted a high price in damages due to
                    floods.


                    The two main kinds of floodplain losses are loss of life and property and loss of natural and cultural resources.
                    The actual and relative amounts of these losses are not well quantified, and the gathering of reliable, consistent
                    data on injuries, deaths, damages, and the provision of aid remains a significant need in floodplain manage-
                    ment. However, it is known that between 1916 and 1985 there were, on average, 101.4 flood-related deaths
                    annually and that there is no indication that deaths are increasing or decreasing on a per capita basis. On the
                    other hand, there definitely has been an increase in property damages over that 70-year period. Per capita
                    flood damages were almost 2.5 times as great from 1951 to 1985 as from 1916 through 1950, after adjusting
                    for inflation. Floods account for more losses than any other natural disaster in the United States (with the
                    exception of some drought periods) and flood damages constitute the bulk of federal financial aid for disasters.

                    Less well quantified, but perhaps equally significant, is the loss of floodplain resources due to human use of
                    the floodplain and subsequent degradation and flooding. All three types of floodplain resources - water,
                    living, and cultural - are threatened by human activity in the floodplain. For example, widespread clearing
                    and development can result in increased runoff, flooding, and erosion; waste disposal can degrade surface and
                    groundwater; and drainage, alteration, and development can destroy natural wildlife habitat and the aesthetic
                    and recreational attributes of floodplains and wetlands.



                                               MANAGING FLOODPLAINS TO REDUCE LOSSES

                                                   THE HiSTORY OF FLoODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
                    Before 1965, government acted to reduce floodplain losses primarily in response to major disasters, and most
                    of these efforts involved structural measures (channelization, the construction of dams, levees, etc.). During
                    the mid-1960s, federal policy began to broaden to include nonstructural means, and the last 25 years have
                    witnessed a major expansion in floodplain management practices that incorporates better ways for analyzing
                    and predicting flooding, recognizes the importance of the natural resources of floodplains, and adjusts the
                    responsibilities of federal, state, and local governments and the private sector. Zoning and other land use
                    regulation, flood forecasting, federal flood insurance, alternative stormwater management techniques, and
                    relocation of property have all become significant floodplain management tools.


                                                          THE MANAGEMENT FkAMEWORK

                    Floodplain management is carried out within a structure of legislative, administrative, economic, and judicial
                    opportunities, incentives, and constraints that is tempered by public interest and the availability of needed
                    information. The Unified National Program for Floodplain Management establishes as a basic national goal
                    the wise use of floodplains; sets forth the conceptual framework of a multi-objective approach to use of the
                    Nation's floodplains, including flood loss reduction and natural resource protection; identifies implementing
                    strategies and tools; and recognizes the respective roles of each level of government and the private sector.

                    There are four thain strategies for reducing floodplain losses, each of which is carried out by using one or more
                    specified "tools" - activities undertaken by governments, individuals, or the private sector that have an impact
                    on floodplain management:

                    1. Modifying susceptibility to flood damage and disruption -the floodplain management strategy of avoiding
                       dangerous, uneconomic, undesirable, or unwise use of the floodplain. The tools used to implement this
                       strategy are regulations; development and redevelopment policies; disaster preparedness; floodproofing


                                                                           2










                    and elevation; and flood forecasting, warning systems, and emergency plans. This strategy has enjoyed
                    widespread, fairly successful implementation.

                2.  Modifying flooding - the floodplain management strategy of using structural means to alter the flood itself.
                    Structural measures include dams, reservoirs, dikes, levees, floodwalls, channel alterations, high flow
                    diversions, spillways, land treatment measures, shoreline protection works, and stormwater management
                    facilities. Although flood control projects have prevented much damage and suffering, the number and
                    size of structural projects have been decreasing in recent years. High construction costs, increased
                    cost-sharing requirements, increased recognition of environmental consequences,and greater understanding
                    of the long-term costs and consequences of these measures have all deterred new construction of large
                    structures. However, local and private construction of smaller flood control projects is certain to continue
                    and may even increase.

                3.  Modiffing the impacts offlooding on individuals and the community - the floodplain management strategy
                    of helping individuals and communities prepare for and recover from floods. The tools used to implement
                    this strategy include information dissemination And education, spreading the costs of the loss over time and
                    among those at risk, and transferring some individual losses to the community. Although there has been
                    great improvement in recent yeirs in many aspects of the present combination of public education, flood
                    insurance, disaster assistance, tax adjustments, and postflood recovery practices, the overall effectiveness
                    and equity of these efforts are not clear.

                4.  Restoring and preserving the natural and cultural resources of floodplains - the floodplain management
                    strategy of protecting the water, living, and cultural resources of floodplains. The best way to guard these
                    resources is to avoid development within floodplains. Limited preservation and restoration can also be
                    accomplished indirectly through other flood loss reduction activities or natural resources management pro-
                    grams. The latter, however, typically do not focus on floodplains but instead address a particular resource
                    throughout its natural range. Because these approaches may have limited relevance to floodplain manage-
                    ment, some local jurisdictions have moved toward programs to combine       *other community objectives with
                    floodplain management. These multi-objective programs typically take two forms: greenway or river
                    corridor projects and community redevelopment projects.



                                        THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FLOODPIAIN MANAGEMENT

                                           PERCEPTION AND AWARENESS OF FLoODPL-AIN LOSSES

                Substantial progress has been made in increasing institutional awareness of the flood risk. However individual
                awareness is generally inadequate, resulting in unwise development of flood hazard areas and disregard for the
                value of natural floodplains. Local perception of flood hazards - by both governments and floodplain
                residents - is related to previous experience with flooding; the extent to which the floodplain is developed;
                the existence of structural control measures; the seriousness of flooding in relation to other community
                problems; and attitudes about land use, water resources management, and regulations. In general, the threat
                of damage from coastal flooding seems to be taken more seriously by communities than is damage from
                riverine flooding.

                The protection of the natural and cultural resources of floodplains is becoming a popularly expressed
                environmental objective and represents a potentially broad base of public support for floodplain management.
                Informing and educating the public about both flood risk and the importance of the natural and cultural
                resources of floodplains remains an ongoing effort requiring ingenuity and persistence.


                                                KNOWLEDGE, STANDARDS, AND TECHNOLOGY
                Effective floodplain management requires a sound understanding of the physical, biological, and chemical
                processes that affect flood hazards and the natural resources of floodplains, and an appreciation of the social


                                                                        3










                  processes involved in human interaction with them. Additionally, the institutions and individuals that deal with'
                  floodplain problems must have a broad base of information, a range of technologies to deal with emerging
                  problems, and standards to which they can refer for guidance. Research in both the public and private sectors
                  has enhanced our knowledge and provided new and better tools in all of these areas.


                                               JUDICIAL SUPPORT FOR FLoODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

                  Over the last few decades the types of lawsuits and the specific issues litigated in floodplain management have
                  changed, reflecting the predominant floodplain management techniques of the time and the general status of
                  the relevant law. Today, although courts continue to hold governments liable for actions that increase flood
                  damages, the number of constitutional challenges to regulations has diminished, due to continuing, widespread
                  judicial support for regulation. Clearly, performance-oriented floodplain regulations (building codes, subdivision
                  regulations, etc.) will continue to be upheld in the courts despite restrictions that may affect private property
                  owners in some instances. Likewise, carefully crafted flood loss reduction measures will reduce community and
                  state liability in the long run.


                                                          THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE

                  Regarding the effectiveness of floodplain management in the United States, there is general agreement on
                  three goals and the Nation's success in meeting them:

                       1.  Floodplain management should reduce the number offlood-related deaths in the Nation. This goal
                           has been partially achieved. Average annual loss of fife from flooding has been somewhat reduced
                           from the level that prevailed early in this century and has remained relatively constant for many
                           years.

                       2.  Floodplain management should result in an actual decline in the Nation's overallflood losses. This
                           has not been achieved. In fact, there was a definite increase in flood damages from 1916 to 1985,
                           although there is evidence that these losses have remained fairly constant over the last two
                           decades when compared to broad economic indicators like the GNP.

                       3. Floodplain management should reduce the loss of the natural and cultural resources of the Nation's
                           floodplains. The programs designed to achieve this goal have not yet arrested that deterioration.

                  The difficulty in evaluating current floodplain management efforts underscores two critical needs for impr   oving
                  the Nation's floodplain management program. First, floodplain management would greatly benefit from a clear
                  definition of its function and a set of measurable goals meant to be achieved by a certain date. Second,
                  floodplain management would also benefit from a comprehensive data base of information on management
                  activities. There is considerable information available about floodplain management, but most of it is not
                  sufficiently precise to support judgments about the effectiveness of various floodplain management activities.
                  Some specific areas that merit analysis include the full benefits and costs - both public and private - of
                  floodplain occupancy, the monetary benefits of maintaining the natural uses of a floodplain, and the steps
                  needed to reduce potential losses in the areas of the Nation with the highest risk of catastrophic flooding.



                                                                  CONCLUSIONS

                  Although a truly unified national program to manage floodplains is not yet in place, great strides have been
                  made in that direction. For example, awareness of flood hazards - particularly among public officials - has
                  clearly increased, while loss of life and injury due to flooding has been curtailed. Nationwide mapping of
                  floodprone areas by the Federal Insurance Administration has resulted in the initial mapping of more than
                  12,000 communities and the restudy of over 1,700 communities since coordinated studies began in the 1960s.
                  Eighty-two percent of all floodprone communities in the United States have joined the National Flood


                                                                          4









               Insurance Program. On the technical side, computers are increasingly being incorporated into floodplain
               management and now facilitate such functions as hydrologic modeling, flood warning, and floodplain mapping.

               These achievements notwithstanding, additional accomplishments could be realized through better, more
               extensive, and more flexible use of the strategies and tools of floodplain management. Of the four strategies,
               modifying flooding has traditionally been the most popular because most of the planning, funding, construction,
               and implementation for structural measures is carried out by the state or federal government, and because local
               and individual adjustments or sacrifices are minimal. Although there is increased recognition of possible
               adverse effects of these approaches, they are clearly still needed, particularly to protect existing development.

               In comparison to structural approaches, many measures to modify susceptibility to flood damages or to modify
               the impacts of flooding are implemented on a property-by-property basis. With its increasing acceptance,
               modifying susceptibility to flooding may have the most potential for widespread future use, because its tools
               can be coordinated with other strategies and because it provides an ongoing, more enduring way of adjusting
               to the flood hazard - that is, altering human behavior usually before losses occur.

               In contrast, the strategy of restoring and preserving the natural and cultural resources of floodplains has had
               little exposure to date and needs to be better integrated both with other floodplain management tools and
               strategies and with efforts in other fields, such as river corridor management and pollution control.

               Looking ahead, further integration of these individual strategies and tools is inevitable, and, combined with
               technological advances that promise to improve their application, a more unified floodplain management
               program will certainly emerge, with fewer conflicts among goals and activities. Again, however, if we are to
               develop a truly Unified National Program for Floodplain Management, several actions must be pursued. Two
               appear particularly necessary: the concept of floodplain management must be well defitied with specific national
               goals and timetables; and the base of information on floodplain management must be compiled in a more
               usable form.







































                                                                       5








                INTRODUCTION




                    ... Rivers were here long before man, and for untold ages every stream has periodically exercised
                    its right to expand when carrying more than normal flow. Man's error has not been the neglect
                    of flood-control measures but his refusal to recognize the tight of the fivers to their flood-way..

                                                                                            Engineering News-Record, 1937



                                     ASSESSMENT OF THE NATION'S PROGRAM'
                                            FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT                         2


                In 1987, the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force (the Task Force) initiated an
                "Assessment of Floodplain Management in the United States." The Assessment was commissioned
                to advance an earlier recommendation of the Task Force to "provide evaluation of floodplain
                management activities with periodic reporting to the public and to the Congress on progress toward
                implementation of a'Unified National Program for Floodplain Management'. " This recommendation
                was presented in the Task Force's 1986 report entitled A Unified National Program for Floodplain
                Management. The Assessment is particularly significant given the lack of comprehensive statements,
                examination, or assessment of the Nation's floodplain and flood hazard management activities since
                the landmark report A Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses was published in 1976.
                The Assessment, which has provided an initial evaluation and report, establishes a basis for the Task
                Force to consider changes that may be needed to update and revise its 1986 report.

                The Assessment is presented in three separate documents:

                1   Floodplain Management in the United States:An Assessment Report (Volume 2: Full Report). This
                    full report (the Assessment Report) describes in detail the evolution of current floodplain
                    management activities and use of the several strategies and tools recognized as available for
                    managing the Nation's floodplains and reducing flood losses. This document also provides an
                    assessment of the effectiveness of the individual tools and of the Nation's overall program for
                    floodplain management.



                    Based on available data, information and program status as of the end of 1990.

                2   "Floodplain management" is a decision-making process whose goal is to achieve wise use of the Nation's
                    floodplains. "Wise use" is any activity or set of activities that is compatible with the risk to natural resources
                    (natural and beneficial functions of floodplains) and human resources (life and property). Compatibility
                    is achieved through the strategies and tools of the Unified National Program for Floodplain Management.








                  1-2                                  Floodplain Management in the United States: An Assessment Report



                  2) Floodplain Management in the United States:An Assessment Report (Volume 1: Summary Report).
                     This separate and shorter report summarizes the information presented in the Assessment Report.

                  3) An Executive Summary. (Also included in Volume 2.)


                                   DEVELOPMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT


                  In preparing this Assessment Report, the authors relied heavily on the professional judgments and
                  sometimes divergent views of many individuals and groups actively involved with or affected by
                  floodplain management activities. TheAssessment Report evolved fromA StatusReporton theNation's
                  Floodplain Management Acth*. An Interim Report (the Status Report), prepared by I-R. Johnston
                  Associates for the Task Force in April of 1989. The major sources of information used to prepare
                  the Assessment Report were:

                  ï¿½  Comments provided by numerous government agencies, private organizations, and individuals
                     who reviewed the Interim Status Report and responded to a questionnaire regarding the
                     effectiveness of floodplain management;

                  ï¿½  Comments by a committee (National Review Committee) of prominent floodplain and natural
                     resource management professionals assembled for the specific purpose of assisting the Task
                     Force in evaluating the effectiveness of floodplain management. (Appendix F contains the
                     Committee's final report entitled "Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains");

                  ï¿½  Responses to a 1987-88 survey by the Association of State Floodplain Managers of state
                     floodplain management activities.

                  ï¿½  Responses from participants in a group of workshops held during the Association of State
                     Floodplain Managers' national conference in June 1988 and responses from questionnaires
                     distributed at this and two other national conferences during 1988;

                  ï¿½  Published literature; and

                  ï¿½  Comments from knowledgeable individuals concerned with floodplain management.


                  COMMENTS FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PROFESSIONAL
                  AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

                  In 1989, the Task Force sent a questionnaire to a number of government agencies and professional
                  and nonprofit organizations.3 These questionnaires were designed to obtain observations on the
                  effectiveness of present floodplain management activities and possible actions to improve future
                  activities, as well as comments on the Status Report. Many reviewers responded with valuable,
                  detailed comments; some also provided useful supplemental materials. All of the comments and
                  materials received were carefully evaluated and incorporated into the Assessment to the extent
                  feasible.




                  3  A list of the government agencies and professional and nonprofit organizations that were contacted, along
                     with a- copy of the letter and questionnaire sent to each, is included in Appendix E.









               Introduction                                                                                        1-3




               COMMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL REVIEW COMMITTEE


               A National Review Committee consisting of prominent floodplain and natural resource management
               professionals was formed by the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force in 1989.
               Chaired by Gilbert F. White, the Committee consisted of. Raymond J. Burby, Gerald E. Galloway,
               James E. Goddard, James G. Gosselink, H. James Owen, Rutherford H. Platt, William E. Riebsame
               (Vice Chair), John R. Sheaffer, French Wetmore, and Stanley M. Williams. The Review Committee
               reviewed the Status Report and provided detailed comments on the data and analysis contained in
               that report.   Members of the Committee also prepared preliminary papers addressing the
               effectiveness of floodplain management and conducted two day-long meetings to review those papers.
               James M. Wright and Frank Thomas from the Task Force and Larry Johnston of L.R. Johnston
               Associates were observers at those meetings which led to formulation of the Committee's "Action
               Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains" (the Action Agenda).

               The Action Agenda report, which is included in its entirety in Appendix F, contains the Review
               Committee's observations on the present floodplain management situation, the evolution of the
               national floodplain management goals, and some key factors that affect the ability of government
               agencies and the private sector to improve floodplain management capabilities. The report ends with
               the Committee's recommendations for further actions that should be carried out by federal agencies
               to improve the current status of floodplain management.

               The Action Agenda, along with the Committee's comments on the Status Report, has been
               incorporated into the Assessment Report. In formulating its Action Agenda, the Review Committee
               chose to make use of "professional judgments as to what has been happening and as to what accounts
               for conspicuous successes and failures" with regard to floodplain management.


               INPUT FROM WORKSHOPS AND THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON
               FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS

               Ten workshops designed to contribute to development of the Assessment Report were conducted at
               the Association of State Floodplain Managers' national conference in Nashville, Tennessee in May
               1988. These workshops focused on different aspects of floodplain management. Questionnaires were
               distributed to workshop participants and the proceedings recorded. In addition, a special workshop
               was held during the Association of State Wetlands Managers' Oakland, California conference in June
               1988. A questionnaire on the effectiveness of the Nation's floodplain management program was also
               distributed to participants at this workshop. Finally, a questionnaire was distributed to participants
               at the Natural Hazards Workshop held in Boulder, Colorado in July 1988.


               INFORMATION FROM REVIEW OF AVAILABLE LITERATURE

               Floodplain management literature of the past several years was reviewed. Most published reports
               in the field of floodplain management provide "how-to" information on some aspect of floodplain
               management, including documentation of successful programs and activities. There is a relatively
               small body of literature that actually evaluates the effectiveness of some aspect of floodplain
               management.








                  1-4                                   Floodplain Management in the United States: An Assessment Report



                  COMMENTS FROM INDMDUALS


                  During the course of work on the Assessment, discussions were held with scores of individuals
                  regarding the status and effectiveness of floodplain management. Selected comments from these
                  individuals provide useful insights supplemental to those from other sources and are included in the
                  Assessment Report.



                                        CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT


                  As noted previously, the National Review Committee made use of professional judgments in its
                  assessment of the effectiveness of floodplain management. A similar approach with regard to the
                  use of professional judgment has been followed throughout the Assessment Report. Verifiable,
                  nationwide data on floodplains; and floodplain management suitable for determining program
                  effectiveness is often lacking. As a result, the professional views, judgments and experience of many
                  knowledgeable individuals and groups are particularly important in evaluating the effectiveness of
                  the Nation's floodplain management activity and form the basis of much of the evaluation presented
                  in the Assessment Report. It must be noted, however, that in many instances professional views and
                  judgments vary considerably with regard to the effectiveness (or lack of effectiveness) of a particular
                  aspect of floodplain management. There are also diverging opinions with regard to how effectiveness
                  can be improved.

                  The Assessment Report presents available data in order to allow evaluation of the professional views
                  and judgments offered. In some instances, anecdotal evidence based on professional experience is
                  also included. Many of the opinions and judgments offered by those who have contributed to the
                  Assessment Report, as well as opinions and judgments found in current literature, appear to be based
                  on such evidence. Anecdotal examples are identified in the text by indented text in italics.

                  The Assessment Report is comprised of 16 chapters organized into five parts, plus the Part VI
                  Epilogue, and several appendices.

                  ï¿½   PART 1: THE NATION'S FLOODPIAINS. Part I describes the different types of floods and
                      floodplains in the United States and the many natural and cultural resources associated with
                      floodplains. Flooding associated with natural phenomena such as ice jams, fluctuating lake levels,
                      unstable channels, alluvial fans, ground failure, and surface runoff are covered, in addition to more
                      well known riverine and coastal flooding.

                  ï¿½   PART 11: THE NATION'S PROGRAM FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT. The two chapters
                      that comprise Part 11 describe the gradual evolution of early initiatives for flood control into a
                      national program for reducing flood losses and managing the natural and cultural resources of
                      floodplains. These chapters provide a brief historical overview, describing how management
                      efforts have shifted from the early emphasis on controlling floods with structural measures during
                      most of this century, to the current approach involving a mix of both structural and nonstructural
                      measures and including the protection and restoration of floodplain natural and cultural resources.









                Introduction                                                                                              1-5




                    Part 11 also describes two important documents that have largely established the framework for
                    floodplain management over the last 25 years:

                    ï¿½   House Document 465, A Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses, was prepared
                        by the Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy and submitted by President Johnson to
                        Congress in 1966. This document established the foundation of a coordinated national effort
                        to manage the Nation's floodplains.

                    ï¿½   A Uni        ational Program for Floodplain Management was initially prepared by the U.S.
                              fied N
                        Water Resources Council in 1976 in response to a directive in the 1968 National Flood
                        Insurance Act. The document was revised and updated by the Water Resources Council in
                        1979 and by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 1986. This document provides
                        the conceptual framework for a Unified National Program for Floodplain Management.

                    PART III: CHANGES IN FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT SINCE THE 1960s: Part III
                    describes many of the changes that have taken place with regard to floodplain management since
                    the mid-1960s when the concept of a Unified National Program was first established. These
                    changes include: technological developments; improved understanding of basic concepts and
                    development of new analytical procedures; changes in the institutional framework for floodplain
                    management, including an expanded legislative base and the creation of new agencies; court
                    decisions and interpretations; and increased institutional and individual perception and awareness
                    of flood hazards and floodplain resources. Particularly noteworthy are the greater and more
                    widespread recognition of the natural resources of floodplains that has developed over the last
                    25 years and the development of many new programs and initiatives at all levels of government
                    (even though many of these programs tend to be single purpose programs that are not always
                    well coordinated with one another). Also of significance is the shift away from federal dominance
                    toward a more equal partnership among federal, state and local governments.

                ï¿½   PART IV-. APPLICATION OF THE STRATEGIES AND TOOLS FOR FLOODPLAIN
                    MANAGEMENT: Part IV examines how and to what extent each of the strategies and tools
                    identified in A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management are cuff ently being applied.
                    The four basic strategies of floodplain management are:

                    ï¿½ Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damages and Disruption
                    ï¿½ Modifying Flooding
                    ï¿½ Modifying the Impacts of Flooding
                    ï¿½ Managing Natural and Cultural Resources

                ï¿½   PART V. APPROACHING THE NEXT CENTURY: Part V of the Assessment Report addresses
                    the extent to which the conceptual framework, the strategies and tools, and the specific
                    recommendations set forth in A Unifwd National Program for Floodplain Management have been
                    accomplished. It reviews the principal impediments to more effective floodplain management,
                    current initiatives to address those impediments, and opportunities that have been suggested for
                    increasing the effectiveness of floodplain management.

                ï¿½ PART VI: EPILOGUE: The Epilogue presents a closing comment by Gilbert F. White, one of
                    the pioneers of floodplain management.








                1-6                                   Floodplain Management in the United States: An Assessment Report



                The Assessment Report does not contain specific recommendations for changes in the Nation's
                floodplain management program. Instead, the report provides information on the effectiveness of
                the current program for floodplain management, and presents various options that may be available
                for improving program effectiveness. The findings contained in the Assessment Report will be used
                by the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force as a basis for updating and revising
                its 1986 report A Unifwd National Program for Floodplain Management, and by specific agencies
                considering needed changes in their floodplain management programs.













                                                                                             PART 1:

                               THE NATION'S FLOODPLAINS




             The first part of the Assessment Report describes the different types of floods and floodplains
             in the United States and the many natural and cultural resources associated with floodplains.
             Flooding caused by natural phenomena such as ice jams, fluctuating lake levels, unstable
             channels, alluvial fans, ground failure, and surface runoff are described, in addition to more
             well known riverine and coastal flooding.

             The three chapters in Part I provide an indication of what is known and not known about
             floods, floodplains, and their natural and cultural resources. Some of the limitations of
             present knowledge about floodplains include uncertainties over the total area of floodplain
             land in the United States, how much of this land is developed, the annual loss of life and
             property due to flooding, and the extent of historical or current losses of natural resources,
             particularly those values associated with wetlands and riparian habitat.

             Recognition and understanding of the different types of floods and floodplains and the
             pressures for their development are essential to understanding the nature and evolution of
             the Nation's program for floodplain management. That program is described in subsequent
             parts of the Assessment Report.









                CHAPTER 1:


                FLOODS AND FLOODPLAINS




                    Floods are as much a part of the phenomena of the landscape as are hills and valleys; they are
                    natural features to be lived with, features which require certain adjustments on our part.

                                                                                            Floods, Hoyt and Langbein, 1955



                Floods are natural events that have always been an integral part of the geologic history of the country,
                helping to shape the landscape, providing habitat for wildlife, and creating rich agricultural lands.
                The physical diversity of the United States, in terms of climatic zones and geomorphic, hydrometeoro-
                logic and other factors, gives rise to a broad range of riverine, coastal and lacustrine (lake) flood
                situations. Although flooding is common in all 50 states, the type and frequency of flooding vary
                considerably from state to state and geographically within each state.'

                Flooding occurs along major rivers and small streams, in coastal areas, and along the margins of some
                lakes. Other floodprone areas include alluvial fans and other types of unstable and meandering
                channels, ground failure areas, and areas influenced by structural measures. Riverine flood problems
                can develop from dam and levee failure, ice jams and channel migration as well as from heavy rainfall
                and rapid snowmelt. Coastal flooding can be caused by hurricanes, winter storms, tsunamis and rising
                sea levels. Individual storms and long-term climate variations are among the causes of lacustrine
                flooding. In addition, flooding due to surface runoff and locally inadequate drainage can be a major
                problem, particularly in rapidly urbanizing areas.

                Human settlements and activities tend to use floodplains, frequently interfering with the natural
                floodplain processes and suffering inconvenience or catastrophe as a consequence. As human
                activities encroach upon floodplains and affect the distribution and timing of drainage, flood problems
                typically increase. The built environment also creates localized flooding problems outside of natural
                floodplains. Development often requires that runoff be controlled and confined in open or enclosed
                channels. Particularly in rapidly urbanizing areas, these drainage systems often have proven inade-
                quate to control this runoff.





                    This Assessment Report primarily reflects conditions and data in the 50 states. In many instances, sources
                    of information used did not include data for Alaska or Hawaii. Where possible, data are also included for
                    the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories and possessions (U.S.
                    Virgin Islands, Guam and Northern Marianas). Information pertaining to conditions in Puerto Rico and
                    the Virgin Islands is commonly classified as Caribbean area data.








                 1-2                                                                             Ae Nation's Floodplains



                 Floodplains may be defined and identified in several ways. From a geological perspective, floodplains
                 may include large areas of the landscape identified by natural terraces and other geologic features
                 or by the presence of alluvial soils. A more restrictive definition of floodplains might include only
                 the area adjacent to a stream or river that is being actively shaped by the forces of water (i.e., being
                 eroded or built-up through sediment deposition). Another approach is to define the floodplain based
                 on areas that were flooded during recorded historical flood events. Finally, the floodplain may be
                 defined based on an estimate of the area required to carry the runoff resulting from precipitation
                 of a particular magnitude (in terms of intensity and duration) and frequency.

                 For most management purposes in the United States today, floodplains are defined as the low lands
                 adjoining the channel of a river, stream or watercourse, or adjoining the shore of an ocean, lake or
                 other body of standing water, which have been or may be inundated by flood water. Floodplains are
                 further categorized by the frequency of flooding, a general standard of which is the flood with a one
                 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year - commonly known as the "100-year"
                 flood or one percent flood. Floods, of course, are not confined to the area inundated by the one
                 percent flood. Larger floods may occur, but since the 1960s the one percent flood has been generally
                 accepted as a standard for most regulatory purposes    .2



                              AREA SUBJECT TO FLOODING IN THE UNITED STATES

                 Because of the different ways in which floodplains may be defined and identified, there is no "official"
                 estimate of the total United States land area that is subject to flooding. Several estimates of the
                 amount of floodprone or floodplain land have been made, but none of these estimates have been
                 truly comprehensive and they cannot be readily compared. A review of several of the best known
                 and most comprehensive estimates of floodprone area reveals the great uncertainty that exists in
                 attempting to determine the total area of the United States that is subject to flooding.

                 In the early 1940s at least 35 million acres of land in the United States (less than 2 percent of the
                 total land area of the 48 states) were reported to be subject to flooding, although no attempt had
                 then been made to inventory all vulnerable land (White, 1945). In 1976, it was estimated that 16
                 percent of the land in urban areas was within the one percent floodplain (Goddard, 1976). More
                 comprehensive estimates of land subject to a one percent flood have been made by the U.S. Water
                 Resources Council (WRC) in 1977, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) in 1977,1982 and 1987, and
                 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1991.

                     In 1977 the WRC estimated that about seven percent, or 178.8 million acres, of the area of the
                     United States (including Alaska, Hawaii and the Caribbean) was within the one percent
                     floodplain (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1977).






                 2   See Chapter 8 for a more detailed description of the one percent flood as a regulatory standard.








                           Floods and Floodplains                                                                                                                                                                1-3



                                   As part of the 1977 National Resources Inventory (NRI), the SCS estimated that approximately
                                   175 million acres of rural, nonfederal land (excluding Alaska) were floodprone, based on data
                                   compiled in the early 1970s (Soil Conservation Service, 1982).

                                   In 1982, the SCS updated the NRP and estimated that approximately 195 million acres (14%)
                                   of the nonfederal rural land of the country were floodprone. This represents 10% of the total
                                   surface area of the U.S. excluding Alaska, but including the Caribbean. Figure 1-1 illustrates
                                   how the nonfederal rural land relates to total surface area of the United States. Table 1 - 1 shows
                                   the breakdown of floodprone lands by state accoiding to the 1982 NRI. States having the largest
                                   acreage of floodprone areas are Texas (20 million acres), Florida (14 million acres) and Louisi-
                                   ana (11 million acres) (Soil Conservation Service, 1984). Since portions of the urban and built-up
                                   land are known to be in the floodplain, but have not been quantified, the best that can be said
                                   is that somewhat more than 14% of total nonfederal. land (excluding Alaska) is within the one
                                   percent floodplain.







                                                                                                   Surface area  of the United States
                                                                                                   1.94 bi III on acres






                                                                                                                                                                    C nsus
                                                                                                  Nonfederat land                                                   water
                                                                                                 1.50 billion acres                                                 38 million
                                                                                                                                                                    acres






                                                                                                                                               Urban and built-up land.
                                                                                        Nonlederal rural land                                  rural transportation land, and
                                                                                        1.41 billion acres                                     small water areas
                                                                                                                                               84 million acres

                                                                                                                        A



                                                                            Non-floodprone rural land                                     Floodprome rural land
                                                                            1.20 billion acres                                             195 million acres
                                                                            86%                                                             14%




                                          Source:       Soil Conservation Service, USDk Basic Statistics, 1982 National Resource Inventory. Iowa State University Statistical
                                                        Laboratory, Statistical Bulletin No. 756. 1987. Modified by LK Johnston Astiociates, 19%.

                           Figure 1-1.                  Surface Area of the United States and Floodprone Nonfederal Land, 1982.


                           0       In the refinement of a 1987 study, FEMA estimated a total of 93.8 million acres of floodplain
                                   land based on an examination of nearly 17,500 mapped floodprone communities in the 50 states
                                   and the District of Columbia (Donnelley, 1987). As shown in Table 1-2, Texas, Louisiana and
                                   Florida have the largest floodplain areas, although the numbers differ somewhat from the NRI,
                                   estimates.




                           3       The SCS is conducting the NRI every five years. A new survey was initiated in 1987, but data from this
                                   latest survey are not yet available.








                         1-4                                                                                                                      Yhe Nation's Floodplains



                         Table 1-1.                    Soil Conservation Service Estimate of Nonfederal, Rural Floodprone Areas (in Acres),
                                                       by State, 1982.


                                            STATE'@                      CROP-        PASTURE-         RANGE-            FOREST-        MINOR LAND TOTAL
                                                                         LAND          LAND             LAND             LAND            COVER/TJSES
                                               Does not include Alaska.
                                                                                                         thousands of acres

                                            Alabama                          7793            744.6             0.0       4,098.0              108.2      5,730.1
                                            Arizona                          88.7            26.0          2,437.0            10.3            249.1      2,811.1
                                            Arkansas                      3,027.1            818.1             4.9       2,948.8              89.2       6,888.1
                                            California                    3,386.6            599.6         1,872.2            224.5           970.1      7,053.0
                                            Colorado                         864.7           383.7         2,209.2            112.2           122.8      3,692.6

                                            Connecticut                      14.6            6.0               0.0            57.7            27.4         105.7
                                            Delaware                           0.0           1.2               0.0            31.9            96.2         129.3
                                            Florida                       1,?M.7        1,797.2            2,482.3       5,582-8           3,034.5     14,165.5
                                            Georgia                          298.2           379.0             0.0       6,558.9              445.7      7,680.8
                                            Hawaii                           50.3            23.7              0.0            60.5            30.2         164.7

                                            Idaho                            658.3           484.1          282.1             125.2           122.5      1,672.2
                                            Illinois                      3,129.0            591.2             0.0            842.7           70.7       4,633.6
                                            Indiana                       1,591.4            264.3             0.0            497.4           103.9      2,457.0
                                            Iowa                          3,450.3            895.8             0.0            394.2           145.6      4,885.9
                                            Kansas                        3,570.5            277-3         1,866.1            333.3           157.4      6,204.6

                                            Kentucky                      1,694.1            659A              0.0            5983            90.3       3,032-1
                                            Louisiana                     2,459.5            608.8          227.5        5,210.5           2,983.9     11,490.2
                                            Maine                            60.8            14.5              0.0            816.9           2753       1,167.5
                                            Maryland                         53.5            69.2              0.0            294.4           223.6        630.7
                                            Massachusetts                    21.0            15.6              0.0            108.5           107.3        252.4

                                            Michigan                         172.8           105.2             0.0            685.5           418.7      1,382.2
                                            Minnesota                     1,579.4            456.6             79.5           559.5           47&4       3,153A
                                            Mississippi                   4,390.6            836.4             0.0       4,232.2              106.1      9,565.3
                                            Missouri                      5,138.9       1,674.6                21.9      1,109.2              128.5      8,073.1
                                            Montana                          945.3           575-3         1,988.2            211.1           237.8      3,957.7

                                            Nebraska                      3,298.2            437.7         2,191.4            310.2           180-5      6,418.0
                                            Nevada                           417.7           222.7         1,114.2            3.8             104.9      1,863.3
                                            New Hampshire                    24.7            12.4              0.0            68.7            49.9         155.7
                                            New Jersey                       40.3            36.4              0.0            322.5           268.1        667.3
                                            New Mexico                       217.2           48.0          3,530.3            65.6            135.3      3,996.4

                                            New York                         381.8           363.2             0.0            941.0           276.7      1,962.7
                                            North Carolina                1,043.9            247.4             0.0       4,197.4              295.2      5,783.9
                                            North Dakota                  1,143.7            127.6          986.3             150.9           112.6      2,521.1
                                            Ohio                             907.1           275.2             0.0            504.7           158.5      1,845.5
                                            Oklahoma                      2,086.7       1,485.2            1,579.0            833.0           56.1       6,040.0

                                            Oregon                           855.7           710-5          596.9             182.6           205.3      2,611.0
                                            Pennsylvania                     295.5           285.8             0.0            707.9           133.2      1,422.4
                                            Rhode Island                       1.0           1.5               0.0            34.6            15.4         57 5
                                            South Carolina                   98.2            76.1              0.0       2,211.7              495.5      2,881.5
                                            South Dakota                  2,439.1            433.1         2,105.2            122.5           134.8      5,234.7

                                            Tennessee                     1,957.0            843.5             0.0       1,128.1              90.9       4,019-5
                                            Texas                         3,162.2       3,604.9          10,341.7        2,296.4              642.6    20,047.8
                                            Utah                             327.2           217.8          963.0             64.5            822.1      2,394.6
                                            Vermont                          70.2            44.8              0.0            79.2            26.7         220.9
                                            Virginia                         342.1           335.2             0.0       1,355.1              281-5      2,313.9

                                            Washington                       578.2           369.8          107.6             361.6           171.9      1,589.1
                                            West Virginia                    317.3           162.1             0.0            198.0           24.9         702.3
                                            Wisconsin                     1,555.6            741.3             0.0       2,144.7           1,502.9       5,944.5
                                            Wyoming                          405.2           185.8         2,125.5            39.5            70.5       2,826.5
                                            Caribbean                        115.4           124.4             0.0            6.8             39.3         285.9

                                            TOTAL                        60,764.8       23,758.8         39,112.0       54,025-5          17,118.7     194,779.8


                                   Source:     Soil Conservation Service, USDA Basic Statistic& 1982 National Resource Invento        Iowa, State University Statistical
                                               Laboratory, Statistical Bulletin No. 756. Table 43a. 1987.








                          Floods and Floodplains                                                                                                                                                         1-5



                          Table 1-2.                  FEMA Estimate of Floodplain Area in Identified Floodprone Communities, by State,
                                                       1991.


                                                                                           TOTAL AREA                                 FLOODPLAIN AREA
                                                         STATE                        (SO. \41.)             (ACRES)                  (SO. Mi.)      (ACRES)             % OF
                                                                                                                                                                      TOTAL


                                                         Alabama                      50,767                 3Z490,890                5,237          3,351,539           10.3
                                                         Alaska                       570,833                365,333,120              731            467,714             0.1
                                                         Arizona                      113,508                7Z645,120                Z618           1,675,759           Z3
                                                         Arkansas                     SZ078                  33,329,920               9,206          5,891,724           17.7
                                                         California                   156,299                100,031,360              6,831          4,37ZI07            4.4

                                                         Colorado                     103,595                66,300,800               1,587          1,015,610           1.5
                                                         Connecticut                  4,872                  3,118,080                285            18Z 143             5.8
                                                         Delaware                     1,932                  1,236,480                199            127,494             10.3
                                                         Dist.Columbia                     63                   40,320                1                   843            Z 1
                                                         Florida                      54,153                 34,657,920               10,034         6,421,910           1&5

                                                         Georgia                      58,056                 37,155,940               3,548          Z270,736            6.1
                                                         Hawaii                       6,425                  4,11Z000                 59             37,693              0.9
                                                         Idaho                        82,412                 5Z743,680                548            351,028             0.7
                                                         Illinois                     55,645                 35,61Z800                4,559          Z917,537            &2
                                                         Indiana'                     35,932                 2Z996,480                Z627           1,681,457           7.3

                                                         Iowa                         55,965                 35,817,600               Z298           1,464,373           4.1
                                                         Kansas                       81,778                 5Z337,920                3@790          Z425,872            4.6
                                                         Kentucky                     39,669                 25,388,160               Z120           1,356,658           5.3
                                                         Louisiana                    44,521                 A493,440                 12,180         7,795,336           27.4
                                                         Maine                        30,995                 19,836,800               906            579,620             Z9

                                                         Maryland                     9,837                  6,295,680                676            43Z781              6.9
                                                         Massachusetts                7,824                  5,007,360                547            350,203             7.0
                                                         Michigan                     56,954                 36,450,560               657            420,193             1.2
                                                         Minnesota                    79,548                 50,910,720               Z778           1,777,987           3.5
                                                         Mississippi                  47,233                 30,229,120               8,217          5,259,126           17.4

                                                         Missouri                     68,945                 44,124,800               5,143          3,291,379           7.5
                                                         Montana                      145,388                93,048,320               1,072          685,947             0.7
                                                         Nebraska                     76,644                 49,05ZI60                3@079          1,970,681           4.0
                                                         Nevada                       109,894                70,332,160               1,880          1,203,215           1.7
                                                         New Hamp.                    8,993                  5,755,520                239            153,043             Z7

                                                         New Jersey                   7,468                  4,779,520                958            613,196             IZ8
                                                         New Mexico                   121,335                77,6S4,400               1,869          1,195,755           1.5
                                                         New York                     47,377                 30,321,280               1,557          996,494             3.3
                                                         N. Carolina                  48,943                 31,259,520               5,265          3,369,309           10.8
                                                         N. Dakota                    69,300                 44,33ZOOO                1,432          916,527             Zi

                                                         Ohio                         41,004                 26,24Z560                1,907          1,220,231           4.7
                                                         Oklahoma                     68,655                 43,939,200               3@095          1,974,355           4.5
                                                         Oregon                       96,194                 61,557,760               1,459          933,921             1.5
                                                         Pennsylvania                 44,888                 28,728,320               1,021          653,280             2-3
                                                         Rliode Island                1,055                  675,200                  73             46,720              6.9

                                                         SouthCarolina                30,203                 19,329,920               3,935          Z518,550            13.0
                                                         South Dakota                 75,952                 48,609,280               Z057           1,316,412           2.7
                                                         Tennessee                    41,155                 26,339,200               Z336           1,494,898           5.7
                                                         Texas                        26ZO17             167,690,880                  16,837     10,775,553              6.4
                                                         Utah                         8ZO73                  5Z526,720                809            518,003             1.0

                                                         Vermont                      9,273                  5,934,720                226            144,950             14
                                                         Virginia                     39,704                 25,410,560               1,979          1,266,436           5.0
                                                         Washington                   66,511                 4Z567,040                1,668          1,067,478           Z5
                                                         West Virginia                24,119                 15,436,160               420            268,971             1.7
                                                         Wisconsin                    54,426                 34,83Z640                3,001          1,920,680           5.5
                                                         Wyoming                      96,989                 6ZO7Z960                 1,064          681,009             1.1

                                                         TOTAL                  3,539,289              Z265,144,960                   146,601    n824,412                4.1


                                      Source:       Donnelley Marketing Information Service. System Update                            Repor 1987. (Refinement of 1987 study based on
                                                    remeasurement of Special Flood- Hazard Areas in the top ZOOO communities having property at risk and a statistical
                                                    adjustment to the other floodprone properties.) FEMA, 1991.








                  1-6                                                                              The Nation's Floodplains



                  It should be emphasized that these various estimates of floodplain land in the United States are not
                  entirely comparable. Even the 1977 and 1982 estimates made by the SCS are not directly comparable
                  due to procedural and technological changes in data collection and statistical estimation (Soil
                  Conservation Service, 1987). In addition, the WRC, SCS and FEMA estimates are calculated
                  differently. The WRC estimates are based on the total amount of land in the United States. The
                  SCS's floodprone data for the NRI pertain only to the nonfederal rural lands of the Nation and
                  excludes most urban and built-up areas. FEMA data is based on floodplain area in communities iden-
                  tified by FEMA as floodprone, which in many cases excludes rural land, but in other cases includes
                  extensive rural areas.




                                                      RIVERINE FLOODING

                  Overbank flooding of rivers and streams - the increase in volume of water within a river channel
                  and the overflow of water from the channel onto the adjacent floodplain - represents the classic
                  flooding event that most people associate with the term "flood." In fact, this is also the most common
                  type of flood event. Hundreds of riverine floods, great and small, occur annually in the United States.
                  However, there is no readily available estimate of the actual number of floods of a particular mag-
                  nitude or return frequency that occur in any given year. Such estimates could perhaps be developed
                  by an examination of the peak flow records on streams gaged by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
                  but to date, no such analysis is known to have been carried out.

                  Riverine floodplains range from narrow, confined channels (as in steep river valleys in hilly and moun-
                  tainous areas) to wide, flat areas (as in much of the midwest and in many coastal areas). In the steep,
                  narrow valleys, flooding usually occurs quickly and is of short duration, but is likely to be rapid and
                  deep. In relatively flat floodplains, areas may remain inundated for days or even weeks,.but
                  floodwaters are typically slow-moving and shallow.

                  Along major rivers with very large drainage basins, the timing and elevations of flood peaks can be
                  predicted far in advance and with considerable accuracy. In very small basins, flooding may be more
                  difficult to predict with useful warning lead time. Generally, the smaller the drainage basin, the more
                  difficult it is to forecast the flooding.

                  Flooding in large rivers usually results from large-scale weather systems generating prolonged rainfall
                  over wide areas. These same weather systems may cause flooding in hundreds of smaller basins that
                  drain into the major river system. The small rivers and streams are also susceptible to flooding from
                  more localized weather systems that cause intense rainfall over only a small area. In some parts of
                  the northern and western United States, annual spring floods result from spring snowmelt; and the
                  extent of the flooding is dependent upon the winter snowpack and spring weather patterns.

                  Several high-risk or unusual types of riverine flooding are described on the following pages. There
                  is often no sharp distinction between flash floods, flooding due to structural failure or overtopping,'
                  flooding on alluvial fans, and the other types of high-risk flooding described. There is much overlap
                  among these types of flooding which tend to represent different characteristics of the entire range







               Floods and Floodplains                                                                               1-7



               of riverine flooding. Nevertheless, the categories that follow are widely recognized and helpful in
               considering not only the range of flood risk but also appropriate responses to the risk.


               FLASH FLOOD AREAS

               "Flash flood" is a term widely used by flood experts and the general population. There is, however,
               no single definition of the term and no clear means to separate flash floods from the rest of the
               spectrum of riverine floods. Flash floods are characterized by a rapid rise in water, high velocity,
               and large amounts of debris. They are capable of tearing out trees, undermining buildings and bridges
               and scouring out new channels. Major factors in flash flooding are' the intensity and duration of
               rainfall and the steepness of watershed and stream gradients. The amount of watershed vegetation,
               the natural or artificial flood storage areas, and the configuration of the streambed and floodplains
               are also important. In general, the more intense the rainfall and the longer it rains in a given area,
               -the greater the probability of flash flooding. While stationary or slow-moving thunderstorms produce
               the most serious flash floods because of the intensity and duration of these storms, a series of fast
               moving storms over a short time can also produce huge volumes of runoff.

               Flash flooding occurs in all 50 states and is a problem in several types of areas: on alluvial fans; in
               narrow and steep valleys; on overgrazed, burnt over or otherwise denuded areas; along drainage
               courses in urban settings; below unsafe dams; and behind unsafe or inadequate levees. Flash flooding
               is also a problem upon release of ice jam flooding. Flash flooding occurs most commonly in steeply
               sloping valleys in mountainous areas, but can also occur along small waterways in urban environments.
               Flash flooding in urban areas is an increasingly serious problem due to removal of vegetation, place-
               ment of debris in channels, and construction of culverts and bridges that obstruct flood flows. Also
               adding to the problem are paving and other replacement of ground cover by impermeable surfaces
               that increase runoff, and construction of drainage systems that increase the speed of runoff.

               The damages caused by flash floods can be more severe than ordinary riverine floods because of the
               speed with which flooding occurs (this speed may hinder evacuation or protection of property), the
               high velocity of water, and the debris load. In addition, more than one flood crest may occur when
               a flash flood resultsfrom a series of fast moving storms. Sudden destruction of structures and
               washout of access routes may result in loss of life. A high percentage of flood-related deaths results
               from motorists underestimating the depth and velocity of flood waters and attempting to cross swollen
               streams (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987).



               ALLUVIALYANS


               Alluvial fans, which occur mainly in dry mountainous regions, are deposits of rock and soil that have
               eroded from mountainsides and accumulated on valley floors in a fan-shaped pattern. The deposits
               are narrow- and steep at the head of the fan, broadening as they spread out onto the valley floor.
               As rain runs off steep valley walls, it gains velocity, carrying large boulders and other debris. When
               the debris fills the runoff channels on the fan, flood waters spill out and cut new channels, The
               process is then repeated, resulting in shifting channels and combined erosion and flooding problems








                 1-8                                                                              The Nation's Floodplains



                 over a laree area. Fieure 1-2 illustrates the major factors affecting flood hazards on alluvial fans and
                 Figure 1-3 identifies the several different hydraulic zones on a typical fan.

                 Alluvial fans are common in several states, including Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
                 New Mexico, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Some fans are also found in Alaska, Kentucky,
                 Tennessee and West Virginia. A study by the U.S. Aimy Natick Lab identified over 3,800 alluvial
                 fans within a 19,500 square mile area of the southwest United States and estimated that over 30
                 percent of American southwest deserts are occupied by alluvial fans (Roberts, 1984). These include
                 many urban areas such as Los Angeles and Clark County (Las Vegas). Often the entire area of the
                 fan is at high risk because of the high velocity of the water and because the erosion and drainage
                 channels meander over the fan (Bond, 1988).

                 Like flash floods, flooding on alluvial fans can cause greater damage than typical riverine flooding
                 due to the high velocity of water flow, the amount of debris carried, and the broad area affected by
                 floodwaters. Floodwaters move at high velocities (15 to 30 feet per second are common) due to steep
                 slopes and lack of vegetation. At these velocities, water has tremendous erosive force and damage
                 potential. In addition, floodwaters in alluvial fans contain large amounts of sediment and debris,
                 including boulders and trees. Since floodwaters are not confined to a single channel, but travel
                 through numerous meandering channels, development over a broad area can be threatened.

                 Human activities often exacerbate flood and erosion problems on alluvial fans. Roads act as drainage
                 channels, carrying high velocity flows to lower portions of the fan, while fill, leveling, grading and
                 structures built in the fan can divert waters and alter expected patterns of flooding and erosion
                 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987).


                 UNSTABLE AND MEANDERING CHANNELS

                 The geomorphology of many stream channels has been changed in relatively recent times by a variety
                 of human activities. This is particularly true in the and and semiarid regions of the western United
                 States. Prior to the arrival of the first Europeans, and in many areas perhaps up until the middle
                 of this century, runoff occurred mostly as sheetflow or within very minor braided sandy channels.
                 Floodplains were wide grassy swales with riparian and deep-rooted plants. Floodwaters moved slowly
                 in the floodplains with a great deal of infiltration and floodplain storage.

                 This pattern has been significantly modified. Overgrazing by cattle and other animals has altered
                 the vegetative cover on the slopes and in the floodplains, generally increasing runoff and erosion.
                 Mining, forestry practices and urbanization have altered the supply of sediment to the channels, as
                ,have water supply and flood control dams. The extraction of materials from the streambeds
                 themselves has also disrupted sediment equilibrium. Surface water patterns and the movement of
                 sediment have been altered by the construction of railroads, highways and irrigation facilities.
                 Floodplain vegetation has been changed by diversions of surface water and the lowering of water
                 tables.







                     Floods and Floodplains                                                                                                                        1-9





                                                              Watershed Slope
                                                               and Vegetation                   Fan Entrenchment, Bias

                                                   Rainfall                  Entrance Angle
                                                   Intensity




                                                                                                  Forest
                                                                                                          Fire
                                                                                                             Frequenc





                                                                                                     iment
                                                                                                   Size




                                                  Development
                                                     Location     T -
                                                                                L
                                                  :andDensity






                               Source:    Federal Emergency Management Agency.    Reducing Losses in Hiph Risk Flood Hazard Areas: A Guidebook for Local
                                          Officials FEMA 116. Washington, D.C: FEMA, 1997.
                      Figure 1-2.           Factors Affecting Flood Hazards on Alluvial Fans.



                                                        FAN
                                                       APEX              CHANNELIZED               BRAIDED          SHEET FLOW
                                                                              ZONE                  ZONE                ZONE



                                                                           Range of Flow
                                                                          Path Location$






                                                                                           Flo. Path





















                                                                                          FAN TOE



                               Source:    Federal Emergency Management Agency. Reducing Losses in Hiph Risk Flood Hazard Areas: A Guidebook for Local
                                          Officials FEMA 116. Washington, D.C: FEMA, 1987.
                      Figure 1-3.           Hydraulic Zones on a Typical Alluvial Fan.








                  1-10                                                                                    ne Nation's Floodplains



                  The cumulative result of these changes can cause rapid and often unpredictable responses in the
                  relatively unstable stream channels during floods, including more rapid aggradation and degradation
                  of stream channels. Degradation (deepening) of a channel may migrate upstream and into tributaries.
                  Degradation may also lead to channel meander when the stream attempts to reach a new equilibrium
                  between slope and sediment load.

                                       In a channel estimated to have a capacity of about 40,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) at
                                       Tucson, Arizona, scour during a flood of 52,700 cfs lowered the channel bottom enough
                                       that overbank flooding did not occur. A 1980 flood in the Gila River downstream from
                                       Phoenb@ Arizona deposited over ten feet of sediment in the main channel, causing the
                                       discharge from a one percent annual chance flood to inundate the 0.2 percent annual
                                       chance ("500-year") floodplain, as it was calculated using an assumption of a stable bed
                                       (Bond, 1988).



                  ICE JAM FLOODING

                  Flooding caused by ice jams is similar to flash flooding - the formation of a jam results in a rapid
                  rise of water both at the point of the jam and upstream; failure of the jam results in sudden flooding
                  downstream. Ice jam flooding is a problem in 35 states. States particularly prone to such flooding
                  are Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon,
                  Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

                  The formation of ice jams depends on both the weather and the physical conditions in the river
                  channel. Flooding due to ice jams (or other ice conditions) can occur at different times and in
                  different ways. Figure 1-4 illustrates areas where ice jams are most likely to develop.

                  Flooding during fall freeze-up can result from the formation of frazil ice, which forms when tempera-
                  tures drop but a swift current prevents the formation of a solid ice cover. The frazil ice floats down-
                  stream until it reaches a slower moving, frozen area and attaches itself to the underside of the ice
                  cover (at times accumulating to form a hanging dam) or to the stream bed, forming anchor ice.

                  Ice-related flooding also occurs during mid-winter periods of very low temperature when water in
                  the stream channel freezes completely solid, forming anchor ice. Additional water coming down the
                  stream freezes on top of the solid ice until the channel is blocked and the stream flows overland,
                  flooding and freezing on adjacent lands. Solid ice formed in this way frequently blocks culverts.

                  The classic ice jam occurs at spring breakup due to a combination of ice conditions. Generally, rising
                  water levels in the river or stream resulting from snowmelt or rainfall break the existing ice cover
                  into large, floating ice masses that lodge at bridges or other constrictions and create ice dams. Rapid
                  flooding may occur, first upstream, then downstream as the mass of ice and water finally breaks free.
                  Huge ice masses moving downstream can shear off trees and destroy buildings above the level of the
                  flood waters. Floating ice masses and their associated damages also occur in lakes.








                     Floods and Floodplains







                                                                                      1. Where river slope
                                                                                         natu ally decreases


                                                                                                            2. Culverts thal
                                                                                                               can freeze s@licl
                                                                           3. Headwaters
                                                                             of reservoir







                                                      4. Natural                                    DAM
                                                         channel
                                                      constriction,                               5- Channel constriction.
                                                     such as bends                                  such as a bridge









                                                                                  6. Shallows where
                                                                                    channels can
                                                                                    freeze solid



                              Source:    Federal Emergency Management Agency. Reducing Losses in Hiph Risk Flood Hazard Areas: A Guidebook for Local
                                         Officials FEMA 116. Washington, D.C: FEMA, 1987.
                     I
                     Figure 1-4.           Areas of Likely Ice Jam Formation.


                     As with other types of unique flood situations, damages from ice jam flooding usually exceed those
                     of clear water flooding. Flood elevations are usually higher than predicted for free flow conditions,
                     and water levels upstream and downstream increase rapidly. Additional physical damage is caused
                     by the force of the ice floes (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987).



                                    FLOODING FROM SURFACE RUNOFF, URBAN DRAINAGE
                                                        AND HIGH GROUND-WATER LEVELS

                     Locally heavy precipitation may produce flooding in areas other than delineated floodplains. If local
                     drainage conditions are inadequate to accommodate the precipitation through a combination of
                     infiltration and surface runoff, water may accumulate in areas that may cause flooding problems.
                     During winter and spring, frozen ground and accumulations of snow may contribute to inadequate
                     drainage and localized ponding of runoff generated by precipitation and snowmelt. Flooding problems
                     of this nature generally increase as areas become more urbanized.

                     Quantitative relationships have been established between land use and runoff. One study found that
                     as population density increased from 100 to 13,000 persons per square mile, the peak rate of surface
                     runoff became about 10 times greater (Delleur, 1982). While the specific correlations may vary from
                     area to area and are dependent on the measure of development used, population density generally
                     increases the amount of impervious area, resulting in an increase in the amount of surface runoff








                  1-12                                                                             The Nation's Floodplains



                  generated. Uncontrolled, this runoff may be channelled to areas that cause flooding of structures
                  and roadways. This may be especially true-where the predevelopment land surface had a gently
                  sloping surface with no defined channels. Such areas are subject to shallow sheet flooding during
                  storms, but urbanization and other development speeds the accumulation of flood waters.

                  A second major change that occurs as a result of urbanization is the development of a drainage
                  network to control the increased runoff. The straightening and lining of channels, construction of
                  sewers, culverts and other means of controlling runoff result in improved hydraulic efficiency of the
                  local drainage network. In other words, the time required for surface runoff to reach a channel is
                  reduced. Unless the drainage network is specifically designed to counteract this increase in rate of
                  runoff from the watershed, the result is likely to be an increase in flood peaks (Delleur, 1982).

                  High ground-water levels may also be of concern and can cause flooding problems in areas and at
                  times where there is no surface flooding. Basements are most susceptible to flooding from high
                  ground-water levels. Seasonally high ground water is common in many areas, while in other areas
                  high ground-water is a problem only after long periods of above average precipitation.



                                            COASTAL FLOODING AND EROSION


                  Coastal flooding and erosion are serious problems along much of the Nation's coasts, although the
                  frequency and magnitude of the flooding and the severity of the erosion vary considerably. Great
                  Lakes flooding - often considered as coastal flooding - is discussed separately toward the end of
                  this chapter.

                  Coastal flooding and erosion result from storm surge and wave action. Storm surge is the         increase
                  in water surface elevation above normal tide levels due primarily to low barometric pressure and the
                  piling up of waters in coastal areas as a result of wind action over a long stretch of open water.
                  Depending upon local topography, a storm surge may inundate only a small area (such as along
                  sections of the Northeast and Northwest coasts) or may inundate coastal lands for a mile or more
                  inland from the shoreline (as in many areas of the south Atlantic and Gulf coasts).

                  In addition to storm surge, wave action is an important aspect of coastal storms. Breaking waves
                  at the shoreline become very destructive, causing damages to natural and manmade structures by
                  hydrodynamic pressure, battering solid objects and scouring sand from around foundations. Compo-
                  nents of wave action include wave set-up and wave run-up. Wave set-up is the super-elevation of
                  the water surface over normal surge elevation and is caused by onshore mass transport of the water
                  by wave action alone. Wave run-up is the action of a wave after it breaks and the water "runs up"
                  the shoreline or other obstacle, flooding areas not reached by the storm surge itself. Where vertical
                  obstructions such as seawalls are present, wave run-up is translated into upward movement of the
                  water.


                  As waves move toward the shore, they encounter several obstacles. The first obstacle is the sloping
                  bottom near the shoreline. When waves reach a water depth equal to about 1.3 times the wave
                  height, the wave breaks. Breaking waves dissipate their energy by generating turbulence in the water








               Floods and Floodplains                                                                                1-13



               and by transporting sediment lifted off the bottom and tossed around by the turbulent water. As the
               turbulent water travels forward, it expends most of its remaining energy as it rushes up the beach
               slope. The beach adjusts to changes in wave energy by changing its profile. Beach material is moved
               either seaward, creating an offshore berm, or landward, building up the beach. The beach is
               constantly adjusting to both wave energy and water level.

               Offshore berms built up by the natural action of waves serve to protect the beach from most storm
               waves. When major storms generate larger waves, the berm may be eroded and berm material
               carried offshore. With the protective value of the berm removed, large waves can overtop the beach.
               In severe storms such as hurricanes, 60- to 100-foot wide dunes may disappear in only a few hours.
               Although the dunes and beach may eventually recover to their previous conditions, the process may
               require many years (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984). Figure 1-5 provides a schematic diagram
               of storm wave attack on a beach and dune system.


               TROPICAL STORMS AND HURRICANES

               Tropical cycloneS4  of various intensities form over warm tropical and subtropical waters, sometimes
               developing into mature hurricanes, and eventually dissipate over the colder waters of the North
               Atlantic or when the storms move over land. Tropical cyclones generally range in size from 100 to
               600 nautical miles in diameter at maturity, with sustained wind speeds often exceeding 100 knots near
               the center. Occasionally, sustained winds exceeding 150 knots occur in well-developed systems.
               Damages from tropical cyclones result from the high winds (including associated tornadoes), torrential
               rains over large areas, and coastal storm surge of 10 to 25 feet above normal in extreme cases.
               Historically, coastal storm surge has been the major cause of deaths and damages from these storms
               in the United States.

               A total of 785 tropical cyclones was recorded over the Atlantic tropical cyclone basin from 1899 to
               1989. Of these, 159 hurricanes and 138 tropical storms (a total of 297 or about 39%) crossed or
               passed adjacent to the United States mainland (Texas to Maine), for an annual average of 1.5 tropical
               storms and 1.8 hurricanes (Neumann, 1987; Jarvinen, 1990). Figure 1-6 shows the annual distribution
               of these tropical storms and hurricanes. Figure 1-7 shows the incidence of landfalling tropical storms
               and hurricanes along the United States coastline from Texas to Maine for the period 1871-1984.

               Meteorological and geographical factors influence hurricane or storm damage relative to any given
               storm track. For example, the pattern of wind, rainfall, storm surge, and associated damage is rarely
               symmetrical about the storm track. Also, wind gusts, which may be greater than sustained wind
               speeds, must be considered in assessing damage potential.




               4   Several categories of tropical cyclones are recognized according to their intensity and degree of organization:
                   (1) tropical disturbance (little or no rotary circulation at the surface and no strong winds);
                   (2) tropical depression (winds equal to or less than 38 mph);
                   (3) tropical storm (winds of 39 mph or more); and
                   (4) hurricane (winds of 74 mph or more).








                      1-14                                                                                                   7he Nation's Floodplains






                                                           Dune Crest







                                                                                 Berm



                                                                                                                             M.H.W.
                                                 Profile   A   Normal wave action


                                                                                                                                    -M.L.W.











                                                                                                                             M.H.W.


                                                 Profile B  - Initial alto ck of
                                                               storm waves                                                          M.L.W.

                                                                                              ACCRETION
                                                                                                                             Z


                                                                                                                        Profile A





                                                                                                       Storm Surge           M.H.W.
                                                                      R o S    0 IV

                                       Crest
                                     Lowering    Profile   C   Storm wave
                                                                                                                  :z                M.L.W.
                                         Crest                 of foredune
                                     I -Recession
                                                                                                     ACCRETION            rofile A


                                                               0
                                                                    0 N
                                                                                                                             M.H.W.




                                                                                                                                    M.L.W.
                                                                                                                                    M
                                                 Profile   D - After storm wove attack,
                                                               normal wove action
                                                                                                       ACCRETION
                                                                                                       S, 0 @-r---g








                                                                                                                        Profile A




                                Source:   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Shore Protection Manual Volume L Vicksburg,
                                          Mississippi: U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, 1984.
                      Figure 1-5.         Schematic Diagram of Storm Wave Attack on Beach and Dune.







                      Floods and Floodplains                                                                                                                      1-15




                                                                                                                                                               03
                                                                                 0 HURRICANES                                                                      15

                                                                                 0 TROPICAL STORMS
                                                                                                                                                                   10
                             '0"                        n
                             5                                                                                           n                                         5
                         M                                                                                                                                     W
                         W


                         z   0                                                                                                                                     0

                                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


                                Annual distribution of the 138 Atlantic tropical storms (open bars) and the 159 hurricanes (solid bars) that have
                                crossed or passed immediately adjacent to the United States coastline (Texas to Maine), 1899 through 1989. The
                                average annual number of such storms is 1.5 and 1.8 respectively. Graph displays one crossing per storm even though
                                multiple crossings may have occurred.


                                Source:   Neumann, Charles J., B. R. Jarvinen and A C. Pike. Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1971-1986.
                                          Asheville, North Carolina: National Climatic Data Center, 1987. Updated through 1989 by B.R. Jarvinen, National
                                          Hurricane Center, National Weather service.
                      Figure 1-6.           Annual Distribution of Atlantic Tropical Storms that have Crossed or Passed Adjacent
                                            to the United States, 1899-1989.


                      The National Hurricane Center (NHC) has adopted the Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale, which relates
                      hurricane intensity to damage potential. Figure 1-8 shows that this scale divides hurricanes into five
                      intensity categories, with category 5 being the most intense. Table 1-3 shows that the NHC has deter-
                      mined that a total of 148 category I through 5 hurricanes crossed the United States coastline at one
                      or more points (an average of 5 hurricanes every 3 years) between 1899 and 1986, including 59 major
                      hurricanes (category 3 or higher). Thus, major hurricanes capable of causing damage in the billions
                      of dollars and killing hundreds of people have crossed the United States coastline about twice every
                      3 years (Neumann, 1987).

                      Hurricanes are not exclusively a problem of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. Pacific hurricanes (called
                      typhoons) develop in the regions off Mexico and Central America and move up the Pacific coast.
                      While much less frequent and generally less severe than Atlantic hurricanes, these typhoons can cause
                      much damage. Typhoons also affect Hawaii in the central Pacific and Guam and the Northern
                      Mariana Islands in the western Pacific.



                      OTHER COASTAL STORMS

                      While hurricanes are the most violent type of storm and receive the most attention, serious flooding
                      and erosion problems are also caused by other coastal storms. On the Pacific coast, storm patterns
                      roll in from the Pacific ocean, sometimes in a series.
                              @,f4                                                                                                         r@l














                      In the Atlantic, extratropical storms that develop in mid-latitudes in the fall, winter and spring (most
                      commonly November through April) occur much more frequently than tropical cyclones, and may
                      be more than 1,000 miles in diameter, much larger than a tropical cyclone. Although maximum winds
                      are of lower velocity than tropical cyclone winds, some wind gusts of hurricane velocity may occur
                      with extratropical storms.









                         1-16    						The Nation's Floodplains                                                                                                         











                                   
                                   Note:      Certain factors should be considered before making inferences from Figure 1-7. First, the chart includes
                                              all storms, ranging from weak tropical storms to the most intense hurricanes. Second, the frequencies
                                              represent long-term averages. For shorter (10- or 20-year) periods, considerable deviation has occurred
                                              and will continue to occur in the future. For example, from 1951 through 1960, many more major
                                              hurricanes struck the East Coast of the United States than affected the Gulf of Mexico Coast. Figure 1-7
                                              does not address these short-period variations.

                                              Another factor to be considered pertains to the proper interpretation of the term "per 10 nautical miles
                                              of coastline." In the Miami area, about 2 storms per 100 years per 10 nautical miles of coast are indicated.
                                              This should not be interpreted to mean that Miami area expects 2 storms per century. Storms that strike
                                              along the coast in other 10 nautical mile segments, both south and north of Miami, would also affect the
                                              area. Indeed, the damage swath from a major hurricane can cover more than 100 miles of coastline.



                                   Source:    Neumann, Charles J., B. R. Jarvinen and A. C. Pike. Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1996.
                                              Asheville, North Carolina: National Climatic Data Center, 1987.
                         Figure 1-7.            Smoothed Frequency of Landfalling Tropical Storms and Hurricanes for the Gulf and
                                                                                                                                        
                                                                     




















                                                East Coasts of the United States, 1871-1984.
 







                Floods and Floodplains                                                                                        1-17




                                               THE SAFFIR/SIMPSON HURRICANE SCALE

                          Scale No. I - Winds of 74 to 95 miles per hour. Damage primarily to shrubbery, trees,
                          foliage, and unanchored mobile homes. No real damage to other structures. Some damage
                          to poorly constructed signs. And/or: storm surge 4 to 5 feet above normal. Low-lying
                          coastal roads inundated, minor pier damage, some small craft exposed, anchorage torn from
                          moorings.

                          Scale No. 2 - Winds of 96 to 110 miles per hour. Considerable damage to shrubbery and
                          tree foliage: some trees blown down. Major damage to exposed mobile homes. Extensive
                          damage to poorly constructed signs. Some damage to roofing materials of buildings.
                          And/or: storm surge 6 to 8 feet above normal. Coastal road and low-lying escape routes
                          inland cut by rising water 2 to 4 hours prior to arrival of hurricane center. Considerable
                          damage to piers. Marinas flooded. Evacuation of some shoreline and low-lying inland areas
                          required. ,

                          Scale No. 3 - Winds of 111 to 130 miles per hour. Foliage torn from trees: large trees
                          blown down. Practically all poorly constructed signs blown down. Some damage to roofing
                          materials of buildings: some window and door damage. Some structural damage to small
                          buildings. Mobile homes destroyed. And/or: storm surge 9 to 12 feet above normal.
                          Serious flooding at coast and many smaller structures near coast destroyed:              larger
                          structures near coast damaged by battering waves and floating debris. Low-lying escape
                          routes inland cut by rising water 3 to 5 hours before hurricane center arrives. Major
                          erosion of beaches. Massive evacuation of all residences within 500 yards of shore possibly
                          required, and of single-story residences on low ground within 2 miles of shore.

                          Scale No. 4 - Winds of 131 to 155 miles per hour. Shrubs and trees blown down; all signs
                          down. Extensive damage to roofing materials, windows and doors. Complete failure of
                          roofs on many small residences. Complete destruction of mobile homes. And/or: storm
                          surge 13 to 18 feet above normal. Flat terrain 10 feet or less above sea level flooded inland
                          as far as 6 miles. Major damage to lower floors of structures near shore due to flooding
                          and battering by waves and floating debris. Low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising
                          water 3 to 5 hours before hurricane center arrives. Major erosion of beaches. Massive
                          evacuation of all residences within 500 yards of shore possibly required and of single-story
                          residences on low ground within 2 miles of shore.

                          Scale No. 5 - Winds greater than 155 miles per hour. Shrubs and trees blown down;
                          considerable damage to roofs of buildings; all signs down. Very severe and extensive
                          damage to windows and doors. Complete failure of roofs on many residences and industrial
                          buildings. Extensive shattering of glass in windows and doors. Some complete building
                          failures. Small buildings overturned or blown away. Complete destruction of mobile homes..
                          And/or: storm surge greater than 18 feet above normal. Major damage to lower floors of
                          all structures less than 15 feet above sea level within 500 yards of shore. Low-lying escape
                          routes inland cut by rising water 3 to 5 hours before hurricane center arrives. Massive
                          evacuation of residential areas on low ground within 5 to 10 miles of shore possibly
                          required.


                       Source:  Neumann, Charles J., B. R. Jarvinen and A. C. Pike. Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 18714986.
                                Asheville, North Carolina: National Climatic Data Center, 1987.
                Figure 1-8.      The Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale.








                        1-18                                                                                                            Ae Nation's Floodplains



                        Table 1-3.             Number of Hurricanes (Direct Hits) Affecting the United States and Individual States,
                                               1899-1989, Categorized According to Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale.


                                                                                                                                      MAJOR
                                                                                          CATEGORY                                    HURRICANES
                                      AREA                                            1    2      3     4      5          ALL         (.L CATEGORY 3)


                                      U.S. (Texas to Maine)                        55     34    44      13     2            148       59
                                      Texas                                        10      9      9     6      0            34        15
                                        (North)                                       7    3      3     4      0            17          7
                                        (Central)                                     2    2      1     1      0              6         2
                                        (South)                                       3    4      5     1      0            13          6
                                      Louisiana                                       8    5      7     3      1            24        11
                                      Mississippi                                     1    1      5     0      1              8         6
                                      Alabama                                         4    1      5     0      0            10          5
                                      Florida                                      16     15    16      5      1            53        22
                                        (Northwest)                                   9    7      6     0      0            22          6
                                        (Northeast)                                   1    7      0     0      0              8         0
                                        (Southwest)                                   5    3      5     2      1            16          8
                                        (Southeast)                                   5   10      7     3      0            25        10
                                      Georgia                                         1    4      0     0      0              5         0
                                      South Carolina                                  7    4      2     *2     0            15          4
                                      North Carolina                               11      4      8     *1     0            24          9
                                      Virginia                                        1    1    *1      0      0              3         1
                                      Maryland                                        0   *1      0     0      0              1         0
                                      New Jersey                                   *1      0      0     0      0              1         0
                                      New York                                        3    0    *5      0      0              8         5
                                      Connecticut                                  *2      2    *3      0      0              7         3
                                      Rhode Island                                    0   *1    *3      0      0              4         3
                                      Massachusetts                                   2   *1    *2      0      0              5         2
                                      New Hampshire                                *1     *1      0     0      0              2         0
                                      Maine                                        *5      0      0     0      0              5         0


                                      Note:        Asterisk        indicates that all hurricanes in this category were moving in excess of
                                                   25 miles per hour.



                                source:    Neumann, Charles J., B. R_ Jarvinen and A C. Pike. Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean. 1871-1996.
                                           Asheville, North Carolina: National Climatic Data Center, 1987. Updated through 1989 by BR Jarvinen, National
                                           Hurricane Center, National Weather Service



                        Extratropical storms that occur along the northern part of the east coast of the United States, accom-
                        panied by strong winds blowing from the northeast quadrant, are called northeasters. Northeasters
                        may stall off the coast of the North Atlantic states and produce high tides that persist for several days.

                        A study of northeasters affecting the Atlantic coastal margin of the United States during the period
                        1921-1962 (Mather, 1965) found that during the 42-year period of record, 34 extratropical storm
                        events occurred that resulted in water-related damage (i.e., damage due to wave action and tidal
                        flooding). The recurrence interval of such storm events is 1.24 years. Stated in another way, a storm








              Floods and Floodplains                                                                              1-19



              of this nature has an 81 % chance of occurrence in a given year, based on the observed data (Long
              Island Regional Planning Board, 1984).


              TSUNAMIS

              The term "tsunami" is used to describe sea waves of seismic origin. tectonic earthquakes (earth-
              quakes that cause a deformation of the seabed) appear to be the principal seismic mechanism
              responsible for the generation of tsunamis, although coastal and submarine landslides and volcanic
              eruptions have also triggered tsunamis.

              Tsunamis, which are principally generated by undersea earthquakes of magnitudes greater than 6.5
              on the Richter scale, are very long-period waves (5 minutes to several hours) of low height (a few
              feet or less) when traversing water of oceanic depth. Consequently, they are not discernible in the
              deep ocean and go unnoticed by ships. Tsunamis can travel at speeds in excess of 500 mph in the
              deep ocean (see Figure 1-9).






                       Sea Level           SpeedjKmjhj_ 835     481                   /---,,49
                                           Depth (m)
                                                     5486      1828      900     180
                                                                                   o;.
                                                                                oo o o o@occ
                                                                       co oooovao
                               ---------                               o*_oo*.
                                                                      o
                                                                        o.
                                                              o oo. o oo
                                                        5. 0
                     o                             o-                         basement'Ro




                     Source: Jervis, MichaeL "Isunami Warning!" EmerpencyPreparedness Diges Emergency PreparednessC&nada.(January-March
                             19%):17.
              Figure 1-9.     Relative Speed of Seismic Sea Waves in Deep Water and Near Shore.


              When tsunamis approach a coastal region where the water depth decreases rapidly, wave refraction,
              shoaling, and bay or harbor resonance cause the amplitude of the tsunami to increase significantly.
              The great periods and wavelengths of tsunamis preclude the dissipation of their energy as a breaking
              surf; instead, they are apt to appear as rapidly rising water levels and only occasionally as bores
              (Houston, 1980).

              A tsunami may consist of only a single wave, but more often consists of a series of waves separated
              by a few minutes up to about an hour. The largest and most destructive waves may occur near the
              end of the series. The first water movement at the shore associated with a tsunami may be a rapid
              draw down or retreat of coastal water, exposing wide expanses of beach, floundering fish and
              shipwrecks. Unaware coastal residents may rush onto the exposed beach, only to be caught by the
              following wave (Forrester, 1987).








                  1-20                                                                             The Nation's Floodplains



                  The rate of travel of a tsunami varies with the square root of water depth. Therefore, the arrival
                  time of a tsunami at any particular point on shore may be predicted with considerable accuracy
                  following detection of seismic activity. However, the size of tsunami waves cannot yet be accurately
                  predicted. About 5 percent of recorded tsunamis produce waves of 15 feet or higher at the coast
                  (Forrester, 1987).

                  Over 500 tsunamis have been reported within recorded history, virtually all of them in the Pacific
                  Basin. Most tsunamis are associated with earthquakes, and most seismic activity beneath the oceans
                  is concentrated in the narrow fault zones adjacent to the great oceanic trench systems that are found
                  predominantly in the Pacific Ocean. Consequently, the entire Pacific coast of the continental United
                  States and the Alaskan and Hawaiian coasts are subject to tsunamis (Houston, 1980).


                  AREAS INFLUENCED BY STRUCTURAL PROTECTIVE MEASURES

                  When the natural protective system (e.g., beaches and sand dunes) fails to provide adequate
                  protection during storms, some type of artificial protection is often sought. Artificial shoreline
                  protection may range from nonstructural measures such as beach nourishment and artificial sand dune
                  building, to structural measures. Structural measures designed to stabilize the shore generally fall
                  into two categories: 1) structures such as breakwaters, seawalls, bulkheads and revetments to prevent
                  waves from reaching a harbor area; and 2) groins, jetties and similar structures used to retard
                  longshore transport of littoral drift. Groins and jetties may be used in conjunction with seawalls and
                  beach fill.

                  Protection of short reaches of an eroding shoreline, including measures to protect individual homes,
                  may prove unsuccessful and create additional problems on adjacent properties. These small shore
                  protection structures often fail at their flanks and the adjacent unprotected shoreline continues to
                  erode. Erosion of adjacent shoreline may even be accelerated by partial or inadequate protective
                  measures. Even if constructed to cover the entire reach of eroding shoreline, onshore structures such
                  as bulkheads, seawalls, and revetments often provide only short-term erosion and flood protection
                  because of foreshore erosion and flanking. Offshore structures such as breakwaters may provide
                  longer term protection, but can have detrimental as well as beneficial effects on the shore. The
                  reduction of wave action by the structure also reduces the longshore transport of sediment, which
                  may lead to sand accretion and formation of a sandbar, as well as associated down-drift beach erosion
                  (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984).


                  RELATIVE SEA LEVEL RISE AND SHORELINE RETREAT

                  On the average, worldwide sea level has been rising relative to land masses over the past 15,000 years
                  as the earth's climate has warmed and as the earth has undergone tectonic activity. The change in
                  sea level relative to land results from the combined effects of an actual rise in sea level and the
                  upward or downward movement of land at different locations. The greenhouse effect (caused by
                  excess production of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and other human actions),
                  combined with natural phenomena, warms the atmosphere and ocean waters and is primarily
                  responsible for the rising ocean levels. Land masses are emerging in some regions due to ongoing








               Floods and Floodplains                                                                                   1-21



               geologic processes such as glacial rebound and movement of tectonic plates. In other areas, land
               is subsiding due to the extraction of oil, gas or water, as well as longer term geologic adjustments.
               Therefore, any discussion of sea level rise must be in the context of sea level relative to the adjacent
               land mass, i.e. the relative rise (or drop) of sea level.

               Relative sea level rise along the northeast coast of the United States is due not only to global increas-
               es in sea level believed to be associated with the greenhouse effect, but also to a large extent from
               isostatic adjustment. As the North American glaciers melted over the past 10-15 thousand years, land
               previously covered by glaciers has adjusted to removal of the weight of the glacial mass. Land which
               was formerly depressed below the glaciers is now rebounding and, as a result, the relative sea level
               has been falling. Along the edges of the glacial mass, land was elevated somewhat and has been
               falling, so relative sea level has been rising (L.R. Johnston Associates, 1986).

               Relative sea level rise is an underlying cause of shoreline retreat along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts
               and to a lesser extent along the Pacific coast. Rising sea levels have caused increased coastal flooding
               and erosion, and the projected accelerated rise in relative sea level over the next century is likely to
               cause significant increases  'in these problems. An increase in relative sea level of only a few inches
               may inundate land hundreds of feet inland from the shoreline, accelerate erosion, affect wetlands,
               and cause other types of changes.

               The present worldwide rate of relative sea level rise is approximately one foot per century. From
               tide measurements, the National Ocean Service (NOS) has developed. trends in the relative rise of
               yearly mean sea level along the United States coast for the period 1940 through 1986. The average
               for the entire United States coast is about 0.0066 feet per year (2 mm/yr). As shown in Table 1-4,
               for the Gulf coast the rate is considerably higher at 0.0095 feet per year, while for the northern west
               coast it is only 0.0004 feet per year (Hicks and Hickman, 1988).


               Table 1-4.      Trends and Variability in Relative Sea Level Rise in the United States, 1940-1986.



                                                     TREND             STANDARD ERROR                VARIABILITY*
                                                        ft/yr                     ft/yr                      ft/yr


                   Northern East Coast                .0088                    .00091                    .0842

                   Southern East Coast                .0075                    .00114                    .1040

                   Gulf Coast                         .0095                    .00117                    .1086

                   Southern West Coast                .0051                    .00115                    .1071

                   Northern West Coast                .0004                    .00117                    .1085



                      Standard Error of Estimate



                   Source: Hicks, Stacey D., and Leonard R Hickman, Jr. "United States Sea Level Variations 71rough 1986." Shore and Beach. July 1989.









                   1-22                                                                                71he Nation's Floodplains



                   Although hardly noticeable, this slow rise has still had an effect on coastal flooding and erosion. In
                   addition, the global warming that is largely responsible for projections of accelerated rates of sea level
                   rise may also cause major climate changes, such as shifts in rainfall patterns, an increase in the
                   number and intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes and other unknown effects (Barth, 1984).

                   Task forces assembled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National
                   Academy of Sciences (NAS) during the early 1980s estimated that the rate of relative sea level rise
                   will accelerate in the future. The EPA predicted that by the year 2100, sea level will probably rise
                   about four feet above present levels (Hoffman, 1983). Following release of the EPA and NAS
                   reports, the issues of global warming and relative sea level rise have received much attention and
                   have been the subject of much additional research. Although not all researchers agree, the predomi-
                   nant view is that global warming is occurring and the rate of relative sea level rise will increase
                   markedly. There appears to be, however, little agreement on predictions of the actual timing, rate
                   and amount of relative sea level rise.'




                                                      GROUND FAILURE AREAS


                   Flooding and flood-related erosion can result from several types of ground failure. Subsidence and
                   liquefaction of soil may cause flooding of areas in the, immediate vicinity of the ground failure, while
                   mudflows and mudfloods may cause damages downstream or downslope of the location where the
                   initial ground failure occurred.



                   MUDFLOWS AND MUDFLOODS


                   Mudflow and mudfloods (also referred to as debris flow) are considered a subset of landslides and
                   affect many of the nation's floodplains. Areas that have experienced the greatest landslide damage
                   are the Appalachian region, the Rocky Mountain region, and the Pacific coast region (National
                   Research Council, 1985). The distinction between mudflows, mudfloods and landslides is not clear
                   since all usually occur under wet conditions and consist of a mixture of water and solids.

                   Landslides, an extreme form of erosion, are a natural process of the earth's surface, and occur when
                   external forces exceed internal forces within the soil and rock of a hillside. The word "landslide"
                   encompasses a range of processes: slumps to flows, slow to rapid movements, and small to large earth
                   displacement. The width of landslides can range from a few feet to greater than a mile. Although
                   earthquakes cause a great number of landslides, water from intense rainfall or human-introduced
                   sources is the most common triggering mechanism. And while large, rapid slides are spectacular
                   media attractions, persistently creeping slides and the cumulative effect of many small landslides cause
                   a significant amount of damage in the United States (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987).





                   5   See Chapter 6 for additional description of relative sea level rise.








              Floods and Floodplains
                                                                                                                   1-23




              The National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council, 1985) has defined mudflood and
              mudflow as follows:


              ï¿½  Mudflood: Refers to a flood in which the water carries heavy loads of sediment (as much
                 as 50% by volume) including coarse debris. Mudfloods typicany occur. in drainage channels
                 and on afluvial fans adjacent to mountainous areas, although they may occur on floodplains
                 as well.

              ï¿½  Mudflow: Refers to a specific subset of landslides where the dominant transporting mecha-
                 nism is that of a flow having sufficient viscosity to support large boulders within a matrix of
                 smaffer sized particles. Mudflows may be confined to drainage channels or may occur
                 unconfined on hiU slopes.

              Mudflows and mudfloods are often the result of rain falling on terrain that has been denuded by
              forest fires and brush fires, and thus can not retain runoff. In areas where ground cover has been
              removed, even small rains can cause mudflows and mudfloods (see Figure 1-10). Steep lands with
              an identifiable subsoil layer of clay could break loose and start a mudflow when the clay layer
              becomes saturated. A vigorous forest cover produces roots capable of holding the soil in place. Tree
              cover also increases the evapotranspiration rate and assists in reducing the time that underlying clay
              layers are saturated. The most common mudflow resulting from slope failure in forested lands occurs
              about five to ten years after a major forest fire where established timber is killed. During the
              following years new growth is established. However, roots from the previous growth have deteriorated
              and the new roots are not strong enough to hold the soil from moving, thus starting a mudflow (von
              Wolffradt, 1988).

              Both mudflows and mudfloods start with moving water or a stationary mass of saturated soil. Mud-
              floods usually originate as sheet flow or as water flowing in drainage channels, rivers or streams, and
              pick up sediment and debris as they flow. Mudflows often originate as a mixture of stationary soil
              and water. When the mixture gets wet enough, it begins to move as a mass, either as a result of
              gravity or when triggered by an earthquake or a sudden flow of debris laden water. Mudflows may
              also begin as clear-water flows but incorporate sediments and other debris from the stream channel
              or banks and "bulk up" to flows much larger than the clear-water flow before eventually dropping
              the debris and attenuating (Haupt, 1988). Mudflows may travel many miles from their source.

              Mudflows and mudfloods may cause more severe damage than clear water flooding due to the force
              of the debris-filled water and the combination of debris and sediment. The force of the water often
              destroys pilings and other protective works, as well as structures in its path (or when structures remain
              intact, sediment must often be physically removed with shovels or hoses). Mud and debris may also
              fill drainage channels and sediment basins, causing floodwater to suddenly inundate areas outside
              of the'floodplain (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987).

              Although understanding of the causes of landslides and the development of improved methods for
              handling them has progressed, the problem continues to grow. In the last 20 years, the number of
              damaging landslides has increased, due largely to continuing urban expansion in areas of steeply
              sloping terrain and unstable slopes. This urban development alters hillslope configuration and upsets
              established equilibrium conditions, affecting the natural instability of many slopes and, in some cases,








                          1-24                                                                                                               The Nation's Floodplains



                          reactivating older landslides. It is estimated that in Los Angles County, California alone, there are
                          3,000 sites susceptible to hazards posed by mud and debris flows (Department of the Interior, 1989).








                                                                                                                   STEEP, LO
                                                                                                                   NO VIEGETATIO@
                                                                                                                   PARTLY-OE
                                                                                             CRACKS
                                                                                                                   LANDSLIDE


                                                                                                                       -FLOW SCA
                                                                                                                   0EBRIS



                                                                                      OEBRIS-FLOW PATH
                                                                                           /,X
                                                                       TRANSITION0           tj
                                                                        DEBRIS F,
                                                                       TO DESMS F 0






                                                          DEBRIS FLOOD
                                                                                      Debris may begin to flow as a mass when it becomes wet.
                                                                                      Gravity, earthquakes or a sudden flow of debris-laden water
                                                                                      could be the triggering mechanism.


                                  Source:     Federal Emergency Management Agency. Reducing Losses in High Risk Flood Hazard Areas: A Guidebook for Local
                                              Officials FEMA 116. Washington, D.C: FEMA1987.

                          Figure 1-10. Mudflow Areas.



                          SUBSIDENCE


                          Subsidence is a type of ground failure that can lower the ground surface, causing or increasing flood
                          damage in areas of high ground water, tides, storm surges or overbank stream flow. Subsidence
                          occurs in nearly all of the states (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987). (As previously
                          described, mudflows and landslides are also types of ground failures.) Ground failure due to sub-
                          sidence can result in increased flood damages for two main reasons. If the land surface is lowered
                          it may be more frequently or more deeply flooded. In addition, subsidence can block or otherwise
                          alter drainage patterns leading to deeper or unexpected flooding.

                          Subsidence is the result of both natural processes and human activities. Natural causes include
                          solution (karst topography), consolidation of subsurface materials (such as wetlands soils), and
                          movements in the earth's crust. Human activities, which frequently accelerate the natural processes
                          leading to subsidence, include mining, inadequate compaction of fill material during construction (see
                          Figure 1-11) and withdrawal of oil or water from subsurface deposits.








                  Floods and Floodplains                                                                                                            1-25













                                                       Load


                                                             14               ud wave
                                                        pa  I                                                       compact,

                                                                                                                        an
                                              Flow.-**"'           Flow

                                         Mud        Compaction          Mud                  Compaction




                                               Firm sediment or bedrock                             Firm sediment or bedrock



                                                          A                                                   B
                                                    Damage due to differential comp       .action of soils. In "A," soils have settled
                                                    homogeneously. In "B," the presence of the sand body results in
                                                    differential settling with subsequent structural damage to the house.

                          Source:    Federal Emergency Management Agency. Reducing Losses in High Risk Flood Hazard Areas: A Guidebook for Local
                                     Officials FEMA 116. Washington, D.C: FEMA, 1987.
                  Figure 1-11. Damage Due to Differential Compaction of Soils.



                  A report by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987) describes several causes of
                  subsidence:


                  ï¿½    The withdrawal of oil, gas and water from below the earth's surface results in the collapse of
                       the grain structure and compaction of subsurface materials causing the land surface to sink. The
                       harbor at Long Beach, California, for example, has subsided as much as 27 feet due to oil and
                       gas withdrawals.

                  ï¿½    Subsidence occurs in organic wetlan              ds as the soils are compacted by fills and development and
                       as ground water is withdrawn. The ground surface then settles, but not at an even rate.
                       Development on coastal wetlands or coastal areas is most Rely to experience subsidence.

                  ï¿½    Underground mining, both past and present, is the cause of subsidence in an estimated 220
                       counties in 42 states.

                  ï¿½    In areas of karst terrain, as ground water percolates through limestone, it dissolves the rock,
                       forming cavities or caverns that cannot always be detected. Fluctuating ground-water levels can
                       cause these caverns and overlying surface materials to collapse suddenly, forming sinkholes. The
                       land surface can also sink slowly and irregularly, resulting in flooding.








                   1-26                                                                               7he Nation's Floodplains



                   LIQUEFACTTON

                   Although less common than subsidence, liquefaction is another type of ground failure that contributes
                   to flood problems. I iquefaction can result in serious flooding of structures built on fill or saturated
                   soils, as in portions of San Francisco or Anchorage.

                   Liquefaction is triggered by earthquakes and occurs when seismic shock waves pass through uncon-
                   solidated and saturated soil, allowing the soil grains to move freely and pack more closely together.
                   A soil structure with water in the pore spaces is transformed to groups of grains in a fluid matrix,
                   and the load of the overlying soil and buildings is transferred from the soil grains to the pore water.
                   If the pressure on the water causes it to drain away, the overlying soils and structures will sink or tilt.
                   If the water cannot drain away, the water pressure rises. When the water pressure equals the
                   downward pressure of the overlying strata and structures, the saturated soil layer will become liquid
                   and flow. On steep slopes (greater than 3%) where the saturated layer is at or near the surface, soil,
                   vegetation and debris can flow rapidly downslope with the liquified material. These flow failures can
                   result in the movement of material for miles. On gentle slopes (0.3 to 3%) where the saturated layer
                   is below the surface, failures termed lateral spread occur, with huge blocks of soil moving 10 to 100
                   feet or more (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987).



                                                   FLUCTUATING LAKE LEVELS


                   Water levels in U.S. lakes can fluctuate on a short-term (e.g., seasonal) or long-term (e.g., yearly)
                   basis. Periods of heavy rainfall, for example, can cause high water levels for short periods of time
                   and annual snowmelt can result in higher water levels in the spring. Long-term lake level fluctuations
                   are a less-recognized phenomenon that can cause high water and subsequent flooding problems lasting
                   for years or even decades.

                   While all types of lakes may exhibit fluctuating water levels, water levels usually do not change
                   dramatically in lakes where outlet streams provide a f      airly regular balance of inflow and outflow.
                   Some lakes, however, are completely landlocked or have outlets that are "inadequate" for maintaining
                   a balance between inflow and outflow. These lakes, commonly referred to as "closed basin lakes,"
                   are particularly susceptible to dramatic fluctuations in water levels - five to fifteen feet in some
                   instances - over long periods of time. The Great Salt Lake in Utah and the Salton Sea in California
                   are examples of landlocked lakes, and the Great Lakes are examples of lakes with inadequate outlets
                   under extreme high water level conditions.

                   Long-term water level fluctuations are particularly pronounced on the Great Lakes and other lakes
                   that were formed by glacial action. The significance of this problem is underscored by the fact that
                   most of the lakes in the United States are glacial lakes. In the states of Alaska, Maine, Michigan,
                   Minnesota, New York, North Dakota and Wisconsin alone, there are more than 100,000 inland lakes
                   (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987).

                   The "playa" or drainage lakes in the West and Southwest have no outlets or only limited outlets and
                   are also subject to long-term fluctuations in water levels. Sinkhole lakes in Florida and throughout








                     Floods and Floodplains                                                                                                                             1-27



                     the Southeast also exhibit the characteristics of closed basin lakes. Flooding can be a problem on
                     the shorelines of oxbow lakes                 '6 which are common in the floodplains of the Mississippi River, its
                     tributaries and other southern rivers.

                     Flooding caused by fluctuating lake levels presents a different set of problems than riverine flooding.
                     Riverine flooding is typically of short duration, lasting for a period of hours or days. While relatively
                     short-duration flooding can also occur on lakes, flooding associated with closed-basin lakes or takes
                     with inadequate outlet channels may persist for years.


                     TYPES AND CAUSES OF LAKE LEVEL FLUCTUA11ONS

                     Lake level fluctuations can be caused by both natural and man-induced events. Natural factors
                     influencing lake levels include precipitation, evaporation, upland runoff, ground water conditions, ice,
                     aquatic growth, meteorological disturbances, and long term climatic trends. Man-induced factors
                     influencing lake levels include dredging activities, diversions, consumptive water use, and regulation
                     by structural works.

                     The most dramatic short-term changes in water levels are caused by strong winds and by sharp
                     differences in barometric pressure. These fluctuations usually last less than a day and do not cause
                     any changes in the total volume of lake water. The phenomena of surface tilt or wind set-up is
                     illustrated on Figure 1-12.



                                                            sla@:Wat Level                                            Wind
                                                                                 Wd S.-Up
                                                                                   f                                             are akers                       wo've
                                                    UmEsturbed Water Level
                                                                                                   Storm Water Level        Wind
                                                                                                                            Set-W

                                        PROFILE OFA LAKESHOWING WIND SET-UP                        414distur&ed Water Leve



                                                                                                                     PROPfLE OF LAKESHOWING WAVERUN-UP



                             Source:     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District. Great Lakes Water Levels Facts. Detroit Michigan: U.S. Amy Corps
                                         of Engineers, 1987.
                     Figure 1-12. Storm Effects on Lake Levels.







                     6    Oxbow lakes are closed-off channel segments left behind when the main channel of a meandering river cuts
                          through the land and creates a new channel.








                  1-28                                                                            7he Nation's Floodplains



                  Seasonal lake level fluctuations are associated with the hydrologic cycle. In the early spring, snowmelt,
                  heavier rains and reduced evaporation over a drainage basin typically cause lake water levels to rise
                  from winter lows. This trend continues until peak levels are reached in the summer. As the summer
                  progresses, runoff and ground water flows reach their lowest values and steadier winds and drier air
                  increase evaporation. As a result, water supplied to the lake becomes less than the outflow, and the
                  water level begins a downward trend, reaching the lowest levels during winter.

                  Long-term fluctuations in lake levels result when water supply conditions in a drainage basin become
                  persistently low or high. These conditions can be caused by such factors as long-term climatic
                  changes. The intervals between periods of high and low water and the lengths of such periods vary
                  widely and erratically, and extreme lake levels are likely to persist even after the factors that caused
                  them have changed. Long-term fluctuations in lake levels are particularly significant in the Great
                  Lakes Basin.



                  WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS IN THE GREAT ]LAKES SYSTEM

                  The five Great Lakes (Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario) and their connecting waterways
                  (see Figure 1-13), make up the largest fresh water lake system in the world, with a total water surface
                  area of 95,000 square miles (Great Lakes Commission, 1986). Despite the natural drainage through
                  the lake system, the Great Lakes are considered a closed-basin system because of the lakes' limited
                  outflow capacities relative to the size of the basin (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986).

                  Fluctuations in Great Lakes water levels have occurred continually since the modern Great Lakes
                  were formed some five to six thousand years ago and after the last ice age ended some 10,000 years
                  ago (Hough, 1968). Yearly fluctuations on the average account for changes of about 12 to 18 inches,
                  with lows normally occurring in January or February and highs in June through September (Great
                  Lakes Commission, 1986). Longer-term fluctuations in water levels have been measured at over six
                  feet from record lows to record highs. Since modern lake level measurements began in 1860, the
                  Great Lakes have experienced distinct periods of high and low water levels. High water periods have
                  occurred in the late 1920s, mid-1940s, early 1950s, early 1970s and mid-1980s (Federal Emergency
                  Management Agency, 1987). Table 1-5 shows surface elevation data for the Great Lakes in this
                  century (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987).

                  The water level in each of the Great Lakes is dependent on the hydrologic water balance - the
                  balance between the amount of water entering the lake (from precipitation, runoff, snowmelt, inflow
                  from connecting channels, diversions of water into the lake basin and ground-water inflow) and the
                  amount of water lost (through evaporation, ground-water outflow, consumptive uses, diversions out
                  of the lakes and flow through surface outlets)-

                  The large size of the Great Lakes and the limited discharge capacities of their outlets cause extremely
                  high or low lake levels to persist for a long period of time. Much of the shoreline of the lakes is
                  highly erodible, and shore erosion and flooding have caused significant damage, especially during high
                  water periods. Shoreline property damages have increased with each high water period because of
                  the increased development of unprotected shorelines, rising shorefront property values and record
                  high water levels.









                           Floods and Floodplains                                                            1-29                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                            












                                        Note:           Elevations are in feet and are referenced to International Great Lakes Datum 1955. Zero Great Lakes
                                                        Datum ranges from about 0.7 foot to about 2 feet below sea level.



                                       Source:         United States Geological Survey, National Water Summary 1985 - Hydrologic Events and Surface Water Resources.
                                                       Water Supply Paper 2300. Washington, D.C: U.S. Geological Survey Printing Office, 1986.
                           Figure 1-13. The Great Lakes System Showing Lake Profiles and Average Monthly Water-Level
                                                           Elevations, 1900-1984.



                           It is extremely difficult to forecast future water levels in the Great Lakes Basin. Any attempt to do
                           so requires accurate information on the various natural and human-induced factors affecting water
                           levels. Future long-term fluctuations will occur; likely generating both extreme high and low
                           conditions. It is also likely that serious flooding and erosion problems will occur again along the
                           shorelines of the Great Lakes in the future.

                           Recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has conducted research
                           into the impacts of the greenhouse effect on Great Lakes levels. NOAA predicted that higher air
                           temperatures from the greenhouse effect "would also lead to such events as a shortened snow season
                           in the Great Lakes basin with reduced snow melt runoff-, increased evaporation of lake waters..." and
                           other impacts. The result is that water levels in the Great Lakes over the next 75 to 100 years may
                           drop an average of 2 to 4.5 feet (Anonymous, 1988).
 







                 1-30                                                                             7he Nation's Floodplains



                 Table 1-5.      Changes in Water levels in the Great Lakes, 1900-1986.



                                                          LAKE SURFACE ELEVATION IN FEET*


                     LAKE                          MONTHLY MEAN                                      RANGE
                                                     1900-1986               (winter low to summer high monthly means)

                                           Average    Maximum       Minimum        Average Maximum Minimum

                     Superior              600.61     602.24        598.23            1.2        2.1           0.4
                     Michigan-Huron        578.33     581.62        575.35            1.2        2.1           .4
                     St. Clair             573.40     576.69        569.86            1.7        3.3           .4
                     Erie                  570.50     573.70        567.49            1.6        2.8           .9
                     Ontario               244.73     248.06        241.45            2.0        3.6           .7


                       Water levels are referenced to International Great Lakes Datum 1955.




                        Source:  Adapted from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit DistricL Great Lakes Water Levels Facts. Detroit, Nfichigan: U.S.
                                 Army Corps of Engineers, 1987 (rable Z p. 14).




                 LAKE. LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS IN OTHER AREAS

                 Other lakes that have exhibited dramatic fluctuations in water levels include the Great Salt Lake in
                 Utah, Lake Pulaski in Minnesota, Lake Elsinore, and the Salton Sea in California, Lake Malhuer in
                 Oregon, and Devils Lake in North Dakota. Flooding problems of the Great Salt Lake and Lake
                 Pulaski are illustrative of flooding problems on these other lakes.


                 Great Salt Lake, Utah

                 The Great Salt Lake can be described as a "terminal lake" because it receives inflow but has no
                 outlet. Historical accounts of lake levels have been well documented since the mid-1800s and
                 fluctuations between elevation 4,191.35 and elevation 4,211.85 feet above mean sea level (msl) have
                 been recorded. After 1963, when the lake fell to the record low, new development and infrastructure
                 facilities were established on the exposed lake bed. By 1975, however, the lake level had risen to
                 4,202 feet above msi, and in the fall of 1982 it began to rise even further in response to a series of
                 storms (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987).

                 Between September 1982 and June 1983, the lake rose 5.2 feet - the greatest seasonal rise ever
                 recorded - increasing the lake's surface area by 171,000 acres (267 square miles). In April 1983
                 a Presidential disaster was declared following severe storms, landslides and lake flooding. Damage
                 estimates for total losses at the end of 1983 were approaching $500 million (Federal Emergency
                 Management Agency, 1986).








              Floods and Floodplains                                                                                1-31



              Fed by unprecedented precipitation, the lake continued to rise steadily, reaching an all-time recorded
              high of 4,211.85 feet above sea level in June, 1986. It had risen 11 feet in 4 years, and the State of
              Utah was faced with the imminent loss of Interstate 80, railroads, wastewater treatment plants, and
              possibly the Salt Lake International Airport if the lake level continued to rise a few more feet
              (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986).

              As a result, a number of flood control options were thoroughly studied and evaluated, including:
              diversion of water from the Bear River into the Snake River Basin in Idaho; dredging, diking, and
              pumping water from the Bear River; and pumping water into the west desert. The West Desert
              Pumping Project evolved as the quickest action that could be taken to provide the greatest flood
              control benefit at the most reasonable cost.


              The pumping project was completed and the three giant pumps (3,300 cfs total capacity) began
              discharging water into the west desert in March 1987. Pumping, combined with two successive dry
              years, resulted in a lowering of the lake to an elevation of about 4,206.5 feet above msl by May of
              1989. In July of 1989 the project was halted and the pumps "mothballed" (U.S. Water News, 1989).


              Lake Pulaski, Minnesota

              Lake Pulaski, located approximately 45 miles northwest of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area,
              is landlocked with no outlet stream. Ground-water inflow feeds the lake but direct rainfall and runoff
              are the most significant contributors to elevated water levels and resulting flooding problems.

              Following prolonged drought during the 1930s, the lake level remained low for an extended period
              of time and extensive lakeshore development took place, including year-round homes and seasonal
              cottages. Since the late 1960s, however, the water level has continued to rise steadily, inundating
              many exposed structures. Today much of the existing development surrounding the lake is at risk
              (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986).



                                            SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


              Floodplains may be defined and identified in two basic ways - as natural geologic features or from
              a regulatory perspective. The one percent annual chance ("100-year") flood is the standard most
              commonly used for management and regulatory purposes in the United States. In part because of
              the different ways of defining and identifying floodplains, there is no definitive estimate of the total
              area of floodplains in the United States, or even of the area subject to a one percent annual chance
              flood. Existing estimates vary widely and cannot be readily compared because of differences in
              estimation techniques and definitions used.

              Flooding concerns are not limited to the traditional riverine and coastal flooding situations. Also of
              concern are more unusual floods associated with alluvial fans, unstable channels, ice jams, mudflows,
              and other types of ground failure, as well as fluctuating lake levels and areas "protected" by structural
              control works in both riverine and coastal areas. Flooding in areas outside delineated floodplains
              caused by inadequate surface drainage and high ground water levels is also of concern.









              CHAPTER 2:


              FLOODPLAIN RESOURCES AND
              VALUES




                      Floodplains are an integralpart of river systems. Floodplains in their natural state provide
                      for cleansing of pollutants and floodwater storage, as well as recreation. Alteration or
                      development of the floodplain eliminates or degrades these values.

                                                                  President's Commission on Americans Outdoors, 1987



              Many of the Nation's most prominent landscape characteristics, including many of our most valuable
              natural and cultural resources, are associated with floodplains. These resources include wetlands,
              fertile soils, rare and endangered plants and animals, and sites of archaeologic and historic sig-
              nificance. Floodplains have been shaped, and continue to be shaped, by dynamic physical and
              biological processes driven by climate, the hydrologic cycle, erosion and deposition, extreme natural
              events, and other forces. The movement of water through ground and surface waters, floodplains,
              wetlands and watersheds is perhaps the greatest indicator of the interaction of natural processes in
              the environment.


              These natural processes influence human activities and are, in turn, affected by our activities. They
              represent important natural functions and values and provide both opportunities and limitations for
              particular uses and activities. Traditionally, while much attention has been focused on the hazards
              associated with flooding and floodplains, less attention has been directed toward the natural and
              cultural values of floodplains or to evaluation of the full social and economic returns from floodplain
              use. In recent years, the natural values associated with floodplains - particularly wetlands - have
              been the subject of increased scientific study and management.

              Surface water, ground water, floodplains, wetlands and other features do not function as separate
              and isolated components of the watershed, but rather as a single, integrated natural system.
              Disruption of any one part of this system can have long-term and far reaching consequences on the
              functioning of the entire system. In the past, lack of understanding of the overall natural system and
              its component processes contributed to significant alteration of the natural functions of floodplains,
              and in many cases to the degradation and destruction of these resources.

              Floodplain resources, including wetlands and agricultural lands, are experiencing increasing pressure
              for use and development - for highways, for residential and commercial building sites, and for other
              urban uses. In response to these development pressures, knowledge and information regarding the
              natural resources, processes and values of floodplains can contribute to assessments of the ecological,
              economic and social impacts of further floodplain development. This knowledge and information








                 2-2                                                                               The Nation's Floodplains



                 can help to protect and better utilize the benefits and values these resources provide. Improved
                 knowledge and information about the natural values of floodplains can be used to differentiate
                 between lands that should remain in their natural condition, lands that can accommodate certain uses
                 but not others, and lands that are most suitable for development.

                 The natural and cultural values associated with floodplain resources can be categorized in a variety
                 of ways. Floodplain values can be thought of in terms of environmental quality values such as fish
                 and wildlife habitat and water quality. They can also be thought of in terms of socioeconomic values,
                 which are more easily understood by some because these values provide either dollar savings (related
                 to flood and storm damage protection, for example) or financial profit (related to increased produc-
                 tion from floodplain use).

                 A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management divides riverine and coastal floodplain
                 resources into: 1) water resources; 2) living resources (habitat); and 3) cultural resources (Federal
                 Emergency Management Agency, 1986). Figure 2-1 provides a listing of specific resources associated
                 with each category. The division between these three categories of resources - particularly between
                 water resources and living resources - is somewhat arbitrary. These resources are closely related
                 and interwoven, and are often of a synergistic nature. They are described on the pages that follow.

                 Not all floodplains contain the same natural resources, and efforts to protect the natural values of
                 floodplains have not always given equal weight and attention to A of the values. While categories
                 of values, like categories of resources, are useful to keep in mind for discussion purposes, the values
                 of floodplain resources are closely interrelated. Information relating to the extent of these values
                 seldom fits neatly into specific categories.

                 Much work in recent years has been directed toward assessing wetland functions, resources and
                 values, and has resulted in tabulations of wetland acreage and other statistics pertaining to the extent
                 and quality of the Nation's wetland resources. Because most wetlands are located within floodplains,
                 these wetland statistics can be usefully applied to floodplains. Although some attention has been
                 directed toward quantitative assessments of other resources and values associated with floodplains,
                 the floodplain component has seldom been separately quantified. As a result, statistical data
                 comparable to that available for wetlands has yet to be developed for other floodplain natural and
                 cultural resources.

                 Wetland research and other recognized sources of information have been used to compile data on
                 the Nation's wetlands and riparian systems. Historical data on the extent of wetlands and riparian
                 systems located within floodplains, however, do not exist. Surveys underway by the U.S. Fish and
                 Wildlife Service (FWS), Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and others will provide a better definition
                 of wetland location, history, and resource functions, including the proportion of wetlands and related
                 habitat values located in floodplains. Data from these surveys were not available at the time of
                 completion of the Assessment Report. Numerous small wetlands located in upland areas such as
                 agricultural fields or forests are included in wetland resource totals but are distinctly outside of
                 floodplain borders.

                 The economic value of various floodplain natural resources has not been well established, although
                 considerable research regarding the economic value of wetlands has been conducted for many years.
                 Table 2-1 presents an estimated dollar value per acre for several wetland functions (Heimlich, 1986).








                       Floodplain Resources and Values                                                                                                                           2-3





                                                                   NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES OF FLOODPLAINS


                                                                                            WATER RESOURCES


                                            Natural Flood and Erosion Control:                                Water Quality Maintenance:
                                            ï¿½   Reduce flood velocities                                       0  Reduce sediment loads
                                            ï¿½   Reduce flood peaks                                            *  Filter nutrients and impurities
                                            ï¿½   Reduce wind and wave impacts                                  &  Process organic and chemical wastes
                                            ï¿½   Stabilize soils                                               0  Moderate temperature of water
                                                                                                              0  Reduce sediment loads
                                            Maintain Groundwater Supply and Balance:
                                            ï¿½   Promote infiltration and aquifer recharge
                                            ï¿½   Reduce frequency and duration of low flows;
                                                i.e. increase/enhance base flow

                                                                                            LIVING RESOURCES

                                            Support Flora:                                                    Provide Fish and Wildlife Habitat:
                                            ï¿½   Maintain high biological productivity of                      0  Maintain breeding and feeding grounds
                                                floodplain and wetland vegetation                             0  Create and enhance waterfowl habitat
                                            ï¿½   Maintain productivity of natural forests                      0  Protect habitat for rare and endangered species
                                            ï¿½   Maintain natural crops
                                            ï¿½   Maintain natural genetic diversity

                                                                                          CULTURAL RESOURCES

                                            Maintain Harvest of Natural and Agricultu    ral                  Provide Recreation Opportunities:
                                            Products:                                                         a  Provide areas for active and consumptive uses
                                            ï¿½   Create and enhance agricultural lands                         0  Provide areas for passive activities
                                            ï¿½   Provide areas for cultivation of fish and shellfish           0  Provide open space values
                                            ï¿½   Protect silvaculture                                          0  Provide aesthetic values
                                            ï¿½   Provide harvest of fur resources

                                                                          Provide Scientific Study and Outdoor Education Areas:
                                                                          ï¿½    Provide opportunities for ecological studies
                                                                          ï¿½    Provide historical and archaeological sites


                                    Source:     Adapted from U.S. Water Resources Council. A Unified National Propram for Floodplain Manapement. Washington,
                                                D.C.: U.S. Water Resources Council, 1979.
                       Figure 2-1.              Summary of Floodplain Natural and Cultural Resources.


                       Table 2-1.               Estimated Wetland Values per Acre, from Recent Studies.


                                    FUNCTION                                                   SITE AND SOURCE                             VALUE PER ACRE
                                                                                                                                                     (1984 Dollars)

                                    Aquaculture                                                Virginia tidal marsh                                          872-2,241
                                    Fish Production                                            Virginia tidal marsh                                                 269
                                    Life-support                                               Virginia tidal marsh                                              10,333
                                    Waste assimilation                                         Virginia tidal marsh                                               6,225
                                    Sediment accretion                                         Alcovy River, GA                                                         3
                                    Timber production                                          Alcovy River, GA                                                   1,605
                                    Water quality enhancement                                  Alcovy River, GA                                                   1,108
                                    Ecological functions                                       Michigan coastal marshes                                           4,472
                                    Fish and wildlife                                          Michigan coastal marshes                                             843
                                    Flood control                                              Charles River, MA                                                    362
                                    Fish, wildlife and recreation                              Charles River, MA                                                       38


                                    Source:     Heimlich, Ralph E and Linda L Unger. Wetland Conversion and Farm Products. Agricultural Economic Report No.
                                                551. Natural Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1986.








                  2-4                                                                               The Nation's Floodplains



                                                        WATER RESOURCES


                  Rivers are the "life blood" of our Nation and great biological systems supporting diverse forms of
                  life. Throughout our history, they have been highways for exploration, migration, and commerce and
                  have been used both as sources of water supply and as disposal systems for the byproducts of
                  industrial society. There is hardly a major city not located on a river or at the mouth of a river. The
                  contiguous 48 states contain 3.2 million miles of rivers, and another 365,000 miles are found in Alaska
                  (U.S. Geological Survey, 1986). Most communities have at least one stream that helps to define local
                  character and is an important source of community identity. As a number of cities 'and towns have
                  demonstrated, our Nation's rivers and coastlines provide a common focus for urban growth and
                  development.

                  Uses of water are characterized as in-stream uses and off-stream or diversion uses. Principal off-
                  stream uses of surface water are for irrigation, industrial, municipal, and energy production purposes.
                  For all but irrigation diversions, most of the water, following iti use, is discharged to surface or ground
                  waters and eventually returns to the stream system, usually with some aspect of its quality changed.
                  The part of the diverted water that does not return to streams is consumedi mostly by vegetation,
                  or enters the atmosphere through transpiration and evaporation. Diverted water is sometimes used
                  in a drainage basin other than the one in which it originates, as water is typically transferred from
                  regions with large supplies to others with smaller supplies or larger water demands. About forty
                  percent of irrigation water withdrawn is ultimately returned to a stream or ground water (U.S. Depart-
                  ment of Agriculture, 1989).

                  In-stream uses of water include navigation, fish and wildlife propagation, waste         assimilation   and
                  transport, hydropower generation, agricultural and industrial uses, and recreational activities. These
                  uses usually require some minimum flow rate and are largely competitive with diversion uses, which
                  reduce the flow. For example, strearnflow must not fall below some minimum rate if navigation is
                  to continue, if fish habitat is to be preserved, or if waste loads are to be adequately assimilated.
                  Flows needed for hydropower generation may change hourly, daily and seasonally. Optimum flows
                  for recreational activities depend on the particular activity.

                  The surface water resources of the United States are        extensively developed and managed        for a
                  multitude of uses, and surface water represents 77% of the Nation's total freshwater withdrawals
                  (President's Commission of Americans Outdoors, 1987).

                  Total annual renewable water supply for the conterminous United States is about 1,380 billion gallons
                  per day. Of this total, only about 8% or 117 billion gallons per day is consumed or not available for
                  immediate reuse downstream. The spatial and temporal distribution of this water, however, is very
                  uneven. In the New England water resources region,           for example, less than 1 % of the annual
                  renewable water supply is consumed. In contrast, nearly the entire annual supply is consumed in the
                  Colorado River basin (U.S. Geological Survey, 1986).
                  Increasing water demands have led to competition@ and'conflicts between users in some areas.
                  Throughout this century our national consumption of water has increased.         The fastest growi a us   es,
                  have been for public water supplies (covering I most' residential and commercial uses) and for








                 Floodplain Resources and Values                                                                                   2-5



                 generating electricity. The largest single use is for irrigation, which currently accounts for 81% of
                 all water consumption in the United States. Even though the total off-stream withdrawals of surface
                 water more than doubled from 1950 to 1980, withdrawals still remained less than 21% of the
                 renewable supply in 1980 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1986).


                 NATURAL FLOOD AND EROSION CONTROL

                 Natural floodplain systems can serve to reduce or avoid the environmental and economic costs
                 associated with structural flood control works. The principal natural flood control values provided
                 by floodplains and wetlands are:

                 ï¿½ Reduction of flood velocities
                 ï¿½ Reduction of flood peaks
                 ï¿½ Reduction of wind and wave impacts

                 The physical characteristics of riverine and coastal floodplains affect flood flows and, except in steep
                 narrow valleys and in the presence of coastal bluffs and escarpments, typically provide space for the
                 dispersal and temporary storage of flood waters. This dispersal and storage function can serve to
                 reduce peak flood flows and velocities and the potential flood damage impacts to people, resources
                 and property. Flood storage is particularly important in urbanizing areas where even small floods
                 resulting from a 5- or 10-year storm can cause severe flood damage. The flood storage effectiveness
                 of a particular floodplain area depends on its size and hydrologic character, flooding characteristics,
                 the distribution of streams or rivers in the watershed, vegetation and ground cover, and the location
                 of development. One acre of a floodplain can hold 326,000 gallons of water if flooded to a depth
                 of one foot.

                 Wetlands provide particularly valuable flood control functions. In their natural condition, most
                 wetlands serve to temporarily store flood waters. This flood storage function helps to slow the velocity
                 of water and typically to lower wave heights, thereby reducing the water's erosive potential. Wetlands
                 slow the flow of water, store it for some time and slowly release stored waters downstream. In this
                 manner flood peaks of tributary streams tend to be desynchronized and flood waters may not all reach
                 the mainstream water course at the same time.


                                          In the early 1970s the Corps of Engineers (Corps), New England Division, considered
                                          various alternatives to providing flood protection in the lower Charles River watershed
                                          near Boston, Massachusetts, including structural measures and perpetual wetlands
                                          protection. The Corps considered that wetlands protection through a "natural valley
                                          storage plan" was the least cost solution to the flooding problem. In 1983 wedand
                                          acquisition for flood protection purposes was completed in the Charles River Basin
                                          (71ner, 1984).

                 Wetland vegetation can reduce shoreline erosion in several ways, including: 1) binding the soil with
                 its root systems; 2) dampening waves through friction; and 3) reducing current velocity through
                 friction. Trees help stabilize river banks as root systems bind the soil and trunks and branches slow
                 the flow of flooding waters. The banks of some rivers have not been eroded for 100 to 200 years
                 due to the presence of trees. While most wetland plants require calm or sheltered water for establish-








                 2-6                                                                               The Nation's Floodplains



                 ment, once established, this vegetation provides an important erosion control function. Wetland
                 vegetation has been successfully planted to reduce erosion along U.S. waters (Dunne, 1978). Isolated
                 wetlands such as the prairie potholes of the north-central United States also have important roles
                 in storing flood waters as well as providing essential habitat for wildlife.

                                       A study of the Devils Lake Basin in North Dakota revealed that natural, shallow depres-
                                       sions within the basin stored about 72 percent of the total runoff volume from a 2-year
                                       frequency storm and about 41 percent of the total runoff volume from a "100-year" (one
                                       percent) frequency storm (Ludden, 1983).

                 Coastal floodplains, in addition to flood storage and conveyance functions, can also serve to reduce
                 wave impacts that may cause severe damage for distances as far as thousands of feet inland, depend-
                 ing on topography, vegetation and manmade or natural barriers. Beaches, sand bars, dunes, and
                 wetlands act as natural barriers to dissipate waves and protect backlying areas from flooding and
                 erosion.


                 Coastal barriers - elongated, offshore formations of sand and other unconsolidated sediments lying
                 generally parallel to mainland coastlines - protect large portions of our mainland coastal area against
                 severe storms and the surge and wave impacts that can accompany these storms. The term "barrier"
                 reflects the protective aspect of these formations that serve to protect landward features such as bays,
                 wetlands, estuaries and the mainland shoreline from the direct effects of high water, waves and cur-
                 rents caused by both "normal" conditions and by hurricanes, northeasters and other severe coastal
                 storms.


                 The basic types of coastal barriers are depicted on Figure 2-2 and include bay barriers (connected
                 to headlands on both ends), barrier spits (connected on one end), and barrier islands (bounded on
                 each side by inlets without attachment to the mainland). In the United States, coastal barriers are
                 found along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as well as along the Gulf coast and Great Lakes shorelines.
                 These barriers are most extensive and well developed along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, where they
                 make up one of the longest and most well defined coastal barrier systems in the world. Eighteen
                 states along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are fronted by nearly 300 coastal barriers ranging from small
                 isolated shoals to long island chains (Leatherman, 1980). Figure 2-3 shows the distribution of these
                 barriers.


                 These natural coastal barriers form several lines of defense against waves and erosion. Offshore and
                 nearshore bars are the first line of defense, absorbing much of a wave's energy and causing it to break
                 and weaken even though it may travel some distance inland. Dunes lying behind the beach are the
                 second line of defense against storm waves, although a severe storm may destroy the dunes. In addi-
                 tion to acting as buffers to waves and erosion, dunes also partially protect against hurricane winds.

                 Vegetation on the barriers and coastal wetlands are a third line of defense, particularly in estuaries
                 and behind barrier islands. Mangrove swamps are especially effective in this regard. Vegetated
                 wetlands form in backlying areas that are subject only to infrequent storms, such as the one percent
                 annual chance event. When such events occur, wetland vegetation causes waves to dampen and
                 break, dissipating much of their energy. Other coastal wetlands and forested wetlands along lakes
                 and large rivers may function similarly.







               Floodplain Resou?res and Values                                                                      2-7







                                                        B.V



                                                                                    1, t W'_
                                                                 Lagpoomn               -Z
                                                                   a-y)



                                    -Z  AN



                           Bay Barriers                     Barrier Spits                      Barrier Islands




                        Source: Leatherman, Stephen. Barrier Island Handboo College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland, 1980.

               Figure 2-2.     Basic Types of Coastal Barriers,


               WATER QUALITY MAINTENANCE

               Natural floodplain systems can serve to reduce or avoid the environmental and economic costs
               associated with waste water treatment and water quality maintenance. Floodplains also provide
               important natural functions related to protecting the physical, biological and chemical integrity of
               water. These functions include:

               ï¿½ Reducing sediment loads
               ï¿½ Processing chemical and organic wastes
               ï¿½ Reducing nutrients

               F16odplains buffer rivers, streams, lakes and estuaries from upland sources of pollution. An undis-
               turbed, vegetated floodplain can filter surface runoff and capture sediment loads. Wetlands provide
               pa rticularly important filtering functions because of their location between land and water. Floodplain
               wetlands can thus intercept runoff from land before it reaches the water and help filter nutrients,
               wastes and.,sediment from flooding water.

               Floodplain vegetation reduces the velocity of sediment-laden flood water and results in deposition
               on overbank areas rather than in lakes, reservoirs and streams. Without floodplain vegetation, runoff
               flows quickly over the surface of a barren floodplain, and is capable of carrying large amounts of
               sediment and debris as well as pathogens and toxic substances to the main water body.

               Wetlands play a valuable role in reducing the turbidity of flooding waters, an important function with
               regard to supporting aquatic life and reducing siltation of ports, harbors, rivers and reservoirs.
               Removal of sediment load is also valuable because sediments often transport absorbed and adsorbed
               nutrients, pesticides, heavy metals and other toxins that pollute water resources. Wetlands have been
               proven to be good filters of nutrients as well as heavy metal loads found in dredged material disposal
               effluent.








                           2-8                                                                                                                        Me Nation's Floodplains






                                STATE            NUMBEROF        TOTAL ACREAGE                                                                                      Mo.
                                                     BARRIER
                                                     ISLANDS                                                                                                 V1.
                                                                                                                                                                N,K
                                                                                                                                                      N.Y.
                                                                                                                                                         R.I.   M..
                                Alabama                      5               29,200                                                                            Ct
                                Connecticut                14                 Z362
                                Delaware                     2               10,100                                                              Pa. oeN.J.
                                Florida                    90               467,710                                                                   d.*
                                Georgia                    15               165,600
                                Louisiana                  18                41,120
                                Maine                        9                Z640                                                                va@
                                Maryland                     2               14,300
                                Massachusetts              27                37,600                                                                N.C..
                                Mississippi                  5                9,500
                                New Hampshire                2                1,100                                                        S.C.
                                New Jersey                 10                49,000                                                                O.b.d.. 1,
                                New York                   15                30,310                                       AL        Ga.
                                North Carolina             23               146,400
                                Rhode Island                 6                3,660
                                South Carolina             35               144,150        T..                                               IA------
                                Texas                      16               383,500
                                                                                                                   D..P%,. 1. C-
                                Virginia                   11                68,900                                                         Fi..

                                19 STATES                  295             1,605,152




                                           Source:    Leatherman, Stephen. Barrier Island Handbook College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland, 1980.

                           Figure 2-3.             Representative Coastal Barriers.


                           Wetlands have an excellent capacity for removing water pollutants, and certain types of wetlands are
                           specifically used to contribute to the processing of domestic waste waters. Wetlands remove nutrients
                           from flood waters, especially nitrogen and phosphorous needed for plant growth, thereby maintaining
                           wetland productivity and helping prevent eutrophication or over-enrichment of surface waters. Studies
                           of heavily polluted waters flowing through Tinicum. Marsh in Pennsylvania have revealed significant
                           reductions in biological oxygen demand, phosphorous and nitrogen within three to five hours (Kusler,
                           1982).

                           A variety of studies have addressed the use of wetlands and floodplains for tertiary treatme                                                           nt of
                           domestic and industrial wastes and stormwater runoff. Bottomland forested wetlands along the Alcovy
                           River in Georgia have been shown to filter impurities from flooding waters and the value of the 2,300
                           acre Alcovy River Swamp for water pollution control was estimated at $1 million a year (Horwitz,
                           1978).

                           Despite these known abilities to remove pollutants, the long term effects of pollutant loading to
                           wetlands are not well understood. Dramatic changes in species composition, however, have been
                           observed in wetlands receiving increasing pollutant levels and current research is directed to examin-
                           ing the effects of pollutant loadin on wetlands. It is thou ht that pollutant loadings stress and
                                                                                   9                                        9                                                             1
                           degrade wetlands, ultimately reducing the ability of wetlands to retain pollutants (Meagher, 1988).







               Floodplain Resources and Values                                                                       2-9



               Other water quality functions provided by floodplains include the trapping of nutrients, chemicals
               and other materials migrating through floodplain soils and the degradation of these materials by bac-
               teria (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986).


               GROUND-WATER SUPPLY AND BALANCE


               Subsurface conditions of undisturbed floodplains can facilitate the infiltration and storage of water.
               The slowing and dispersal of runoff and floodwater allows additional time for this water to infiltrate
               and recharge ground-water aquifers when there is available storage space. The slowing of runoff and
               floodwater can also provide water purification benefits as the water infiltrates into the aquifer. Water
               entering the ground-water system during periods of high flow can reduce, rather than contribute to,
               flood peaks. In addition, water can also flow from higher ground-water systems into lower surface
               waters during periods of low flow, so that the frequency and duration of extremely low flows may
               be reduced.


               Floodplains and wetlands can increase ground-water infiltration for human use. Municipal and private
               water supply wells are often located in floodplain alluvial deposits, and floodplains and wetlands can
               represent an important source of water supply for human consumption. Most wetlands are areas
               of ground-water discharge, and some wetlands store water that is important for wildlife and may b.e
               used for irrigation and livestock watering during periods of drought.

               The role of wetlands in ground-water recharge has been the subject of some debate and scientific
               study. The recharge potential of wetlands has been shown to vary according to numerous factors,
               including wetland type, geographic location, season, soil type, water table location and precipitation.
               Floodplain wetlands may contribute to ground-water recharge through overbank water storage.



                                          LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITATS

               Coastal and riverine floodplains provide habitat for many and diverse populations of plants and
               animals, as well as sources of energy and nutrients for organisms in adjacent and downstream
               ecosystems. The wetlands and riparian areas of our Nation's floodplains are among the mo-t
               productive of ecosystems. Wetland plants are particularly efficient converters of solar energy.
               Through photosynthesis, plants use sunlight to connect -inorganic substances into plant material
               (biomass) and produce oxygen as a by-product. This biomass serves as food for a multitude of fish
               and wildlife species, both aquatic and terrestrial. The major food value of wetland plants is achieved
               when the plants die and fragment to form detritus. About 50% of the endangered species in the
               United States require wetland habitat at some point in their life cycle (Meagher, 1988).


               WETLANDS


               Wetlands and floodplains are not synonymous, but wetlands are perhaps the most prominent and
               familiar of floodplain resources. Wetlands in the floodplain are readily identifiable by the presence








                 2-10                                                                                The Nation's Floodplains



                 of typical emergent vegetation - plants that are rooted in the soil but grow through the surface of
                 the water - or by varying amounts of submerged and floating plant life. The depth, duration of
                 flooding, chemistry and temperature of the water (and in coastal marshes, the reach of the tide)
                 determine the types of plant life found in a given wetland. These physical and chemical features
                 determine the types of vegetation and the wide array of other living resources such as fish, mollusks,
                 birds, crustaceans, insects, worms, and tiny organisms that find food and shelter in the substrate and
                 within the vegetation.

                 Due to the diversity of wetlands and the difficulty in delineating precise boundaries between dry and
                 wet environments, there is no single definition of wetlands. Wetland definitions have been formed
                 according to the specific needs of wetland regulators, waterfowl biologists, hydrologists, flood control
                 and water quality engineers, and others concerned with wetland management.

                 One definition of wetlands that has been widely accepted as a national and international standard
                 has been developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS):

                      Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is
                      usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this
                      classification wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: 1) at least
                      periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes (wedand vegetation); 2) the substrate
                      ispredominantly un-drained hy⁣ sod; and 3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water
                      or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year (Tiner, 1984).

                 Included within these broad limits is a wide variety of lands that are continuously submerged or
                 intermittently inundated by seasonal river flooding or normal tidal action. Figure 2-4 illustrates
                 different areas where inland wetlands typically form, and Figure 2-5 illustrates areas of coastal wetland
                 formation.

                 At least two other definitions of wetlands have been applied nationally. The U.S. Army Corps of
                 Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) use the following definition
                 of wetlands in administering the Section 404 permitting program:

                      The term 'Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
                      water at a frequency and duration sufficient to suppoM and under normal circumstances do
                      support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adaptedfor life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
                      generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (33 CFR, 328.3 (b)).

                 In 1985 Congress added a slightly different definition of wetlands as part of the "Swampbuster"
                 provision of the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L 99-198):

                      ... Land that has a predominance of hydric soil and that is inundated or saturated by surface or
                      ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circum-
                      stances does support, a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
                      soil conditions, exxept that this term does not include lands in Alaska identified as having a high
                      potential for agricultural development and a predominance of pennafrost soils.








                       Floodplain Resources and Values                                                                                                                                 2-11








                                                                                                                                             UPLAND          UPLAND
                                                                                                                                UPLAND
                                               -N,





                                                   UPLAND                       UPLAND
                                                                High Water                    Ir.                 ffigh Water
                                                                  ------                                          --------         . . ...........         Water table
                                                                  0. Water      ........................
                                                                                                                                             Stream   Grotindwater
                                              Water table                        Water table                  0. Water
                                                                                                                                                        Discharge
                                                                                                      6.6
                                                                                                               River






                                                                    V                               V           V                                   V
                                                           Depressions$ Welland                  Overtlo"   Dsep.aler overflo.           seepage Welland on S"t
                                                                                                 Weiland      Habitat   Welland




                                   Source:      Tiner, Jr., Ralph W. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends. Newton Comer, Massachusetts:
                                                U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Resources, 1984.

                       Figure 2-4.               Inland Wetlands.


                       In January 1989, the Corps, EPA, FWS, and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) signed an
                       interagency agreement to adopt a single consistent approach to determining which areas are wetlands
                       under the jurisdiction of federal programs. A manual (The Federal Manual for Identiffing and
                       DelineatingJurisdictional Wetlands) detailing the technical procedures for wetland identification went
                       into effect for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act on March 20, 1989. This new manual supersedes
                       earlier EPA and Corps wetland delineation manuals. It should help assure consistency and repeata-
                       bility in wetland jurisdiction decision-making, and, therefore, should result in less frequent interagency
                       disagreements overthe extent of wetlands at a site (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989).

                       Because of the different definitions of wetlands that have been used, determining the total amount
                       of wetlands in the United States and their regional distribution is difficult. Several attempts have
                       been made over the years to inventory wetlands. Mitsch reviewed several studies of wetland trends
                       and concluded that "(1) Estimates of the area of wetlands in the United States vary widely, and (2)
                       Most studies have indicated a rapid rate of wetland loss in the United States, at least prior to the
                       mid-1970s" (Mitsch, 1986). A National Wetland Trends Study conducted for the FWS in the early
                       1980s estimated total wetlands in the contiguous 48 states at 108 million acres in the mid-1950s and
                       at 99 million acres in the mid-1970s. Of the 99 million acres in the mid-1970s, only 5.2 million were
                       estuarine wetlands and the remaining were inland wetlands. Another frequently cited estimate is that
                       wetlands now cover a little more than 90 million acres or about 5% of the continental United States
                       and 200 million acres or about 60% of Alaska (Office of Technology Assessment, 1984). A recent
                       FWS study of wetlands status and trends estimated a total of 103 million acres of wetlands in the
                       contiguous 48 states. Of this total, 52 million acres are considered commercial forested wetlands.
                       (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991.)








                     2-12                                                                                             The Nation'sFloqdplains














                                                                                                       Spring or Storm Tide
                                                                  ----   ------------               -----------------------
                                         UPLAND
                                                                 sh    '_                                 Dolly High Tide
                                                    switchgrass   black gross                                     -------------
                                                    high-tide bush          salt hay cordgrass                      Dolly Low Tide
                                                                            spikegress                                ----------
                                                                            salt marsh @star  smooth cordgrass
                                                                            glasswort      (tall form)
                                                                            sfnooth cordgr853
                                                                            (short form)





                                                           IRREGULARLY FLOODED MARSH     REGULARLY     INTERTIDAL     ESTUARINE
                                                                                          FLOODED        FLAT        OPEN WATER
                                                                                           MARSH                         (BAY)




                              Source:   TinerJr., Ralph W. Wetlands of the United St4tes: Current Status and Recent Trends. Newton Comer, Massachusetts:
                                        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Resources, 1984.

                     Figure 2-5.         Coastal Wetlands.


                     State by state estimates vary widely among surveys, with estimates differing by more than 100 percent
                     for many states. Despite the variation among surveys, Florida and Louisiana consistently show the
                     greatest wetland acreage in the lower 48 states. Wetland estimates for Alaska have ranged from 130
                     to 300 million acres, most of it wet tundra (Mitsch, 1986).

                     Although wetlands represent only a portion of overall floodplain acreage, essentially all coastal
                     wetlands and most inland wetlands occur within floodplains. As a result, the values ascribed to
                     wetlands can be considered, for most practical purposes, as floodplain values as well. (Wetlands along
                     lakes and isolated wetlands, such as those in the Prairie Pothole region, are subject to periodic
                     increases in ground or surface water levels that cause flooding, although these wetlands may not lie
                     within traditionally defined floodplains.)


                     Wetland T@pes

                     Wetlands can be grouped according to ecologically similar characteristics. The Cowardin, et al.,
                     system developed for the FWS categorizes wetlands and deepwater habitats according to five
                     ecological systems: 1) marine; 2) riverine; 3) lacustrine; 4) estuarine and 5) palustrine (Tiner, 1984).
                     Figure 2-6 illustrates the relative location of these different types of wetlands.

                     Deepwater habitats are defined as permanently flooded areas having a depth of greater than two
                     meters (6.6 feet). These areas are not classified as wetlands under the Cowardin, et al., system. The
                     deepwater habitat of the marine system generally consists of the open ocean, with marine wetlands








                     Floodplain Resources and Values                                                                                                                 . 2-13



                     limited to intertidal areas like beaches, rocky shores and aquatic beds. The riverine system includes
                     the main channels of rivers and their tributaries as well as nonpersistent emergent wetlands. The
                     lacustrine system includes standing waterbodies like lakes, reservoirs and deep ponds, as well as
                     aquatic beds and nonpersistent emergents.






                                                      UPLAND




                                                                                                   UPLAND
                                                                                                                               MARINE SYSTEM
                                                                                                                                    (OCEAN)





                                                                                                                               LEGEND

                                                                                                                            System boundary

                                                                                                                            Estuarine System
                                                   Upstream limit
                                                    of saltwater                                                            Riverine System
                                                                                    ---- --              Barrier            Lacustrine System
                                                                                                         Island
                                                                                                                            Palustrine System

                                                                                                                            Rocky shore

                                                                                                                      U
                                                                                                                            Intertidal beach
                                                                                                                         -i
                                                                                                                            Tidal. flat
                                                                                                                            Aquatic bed

                                                                                                                            Emergent wetland
                                                                                      Reservoir
                                                                                          Dam                               Forested wetland




                                                                                      UPLAND








                                Source:     Tiner, Jr., Ralph W. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends. Newton Corner, Massachusetts:
                                            U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Resources, 1994.

                     Figure 2-6.            Major Wetland and Deepwater Habitat System.








                  2-14                                                                                 77te Nation's Floodplains



                  Estuarine and palustrine wetlands are the best known wetland types. The estuarine system includes
                  coastal wetlands such as salt and brackish tidal marshes, mangrove swamps, and intertidal flats as
                  well as the deepwater habitats associated with bays, sounds and coastal rivers. Estuarine wetlands
                  are divided into three major types: 1) emergent wetland; 2) intertidal flat;'and 3) scrub-shrub
                  wetland.


                  Palustrine wetlands, which account for roughly 90% of all wetlands in the United States, are inland
                  wetlands consisting primarily of freshwater wetlands such as marshes, bogs and swamps, although
                  inland salt and brackish marshes exist in and and semiarid areas. (Salt marshes are found as far
                  inland as Utah and the Dakotas, where soils with a high salt content predominate and evaporation
                  rates are high.) Palustrine wetlands can also be classified according to three major types: 1)
                  emergent; 2) scrub-shrub; and 3) forested wetland (Tiner, 1984).


                  RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS

                  Riparian floodplain ecosystems are distinct associations of soil, flora and fauna occurring along a river,
                  stream or other body of water and dependent for survival upon high water tables and occasional
                  flooding. Although riparian ecosystems have many of the same values as wetlands, several charac-
                  teristics distinguish them from other ecosystems, including a high water table and linear form as a
                  consequence of their proximity to rivers and streams. Riparian ecosystems are also marked by a high
                  species density and diversity, and a high rate of interaction with upstream and downstream ecosystems
                  (Mitsch, 1986). Riparian ecosystems encompass a broader range of moisture and soil conditions and
                  a greater diversity of flora and fauna than wetlands (i.e., riparian systems typically include wetlands
                  along with other types of habitat)-

                  Although the ecosystem functions of riparian areas are not fully understood, these areas are generally
                  more biologically diverse than surrounding uplands, with diversity most pronounced in and regions
                  and along the banks of large, perennial warmwater streams. The variety of flora within riparian
                  systems is largely attributable to biotic and nutrient exchanges with aquatic and upland areas. The
                  presence of water and periodic flooding, as well as an edge effect maximized by the long narrow
                  shape of riparian communities, account for their floral and faunal diversity.

                  Estimates of total riparian habitat in the United States are as elusive as are estimates for floodplain
                  area and wetlands. The 1982 National Resources Inventory (NRI) conducted by the Soil Conservation
                  Service, estimated 16 million acres of riparian land along natural or manmade streams, canals, lakes,
                  reservoirs and tidal shorelines of rural, nonfederal portions of the United States. (Soil Conservation
                  Service, 1987). Other sources indicate that bottomland hardwood forests are the major types of
                  riparian ecosystem found in the United States, covering large areas in the southeastern United States.
                  It has been estimated that there are approximately 58 million acres of bottomland hardwood forest
                  in the United States, of which slightly more than half is located in 12 southern states (Mitsch, 1986).
                  Major areas of bottomland hardwood forests, however, have been altered as a result of draining and
                  clearing for agricultural use and other purposes.








               Floodplain Resources and Values                                                                       2-15




               FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

               Due to the abundance of water and vegetation, floodplains provide wetland, riparian and other habitat
               (including shelter and food sources) for large and diverse populations of fish and wildlife species.
               Floodplain wetlands, for example, are major sources of food and breeding habitat for both saltwater
               and freshwater fisheries and for many types of wildlife. Floodplains are especially important and
               productive sources of energy and nutrients in large part because they contain the elements of both
               terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The fish and wildlife resources supported directly and indirectly
               by floodplains represent a renewable resource of great economic importance to the states and the
               Nation.


               The variety of floodplains and associated wetlands across the country create habitat for many forms
               of fish and wildlife. Some animals spend their entire lives in floodplain wetlands while others use
               the wetlands primarily for reproduction and nursery grounds. Numerous fish and wildlife species
               depend on marshes and swamps for feeding or feed on organisms produced in wetlands, and many
               animals visit wetlands for drinking water. Wetlands are also crucial for the survival of numerous
               endangered species such as the American crocodile, the manatee, the whooping crane, and the
               Mississippi sandhill crane, as well as numerous species of plants.

               Coastal barriers and associated wetlands and nearshore waters are especially important in maintaining
               the natural productivity of the coastal environment and provide invaluable habitat for fish and wildlife.
               The estuaries and bays protected by coastal barriers are among the most valuable and productive
               of all ecosystems.

               Both inland and coastal wetlands are essential to maintaining important fish populations. Approxi-
               mately two-thirds of the major commercial fish species in the United States depend on estuaries and
               salt marshes for nursery or spawning grounds (Horwitz, 1978). Coastal marshes along the Atlantic
               and Gulf coasts are most important in this regard. Coastal wetlands are also essential for the support
               of shellfish.


               Freshwater fishes also find wetlands important for survival. In fact, most freshwater fishes can be
               considered wetland-dependent because: 1) many species feed in wetlands or upon wetland-produced
               food; 2) many fishes use wetlands as nursery grounds; and 3) almost all important recreational fishes
               spawn in the aquatic portions of wetlands. Wetland vegetation along rivers is important to fishes in
               many ways, including providing cover, shade for water temperature regulation, and food for aquatic
               insects which are eaten by fishes.

               Floodplains and wetlands provide important habitat for waterfowl and other birds. Floodplain
               wetlands are crucial for the existence of many birds, ranging from waterfowl and shorebirds to
               songbirds. Some spend their entire lives in wetland environments, while others primarily use wetlands
               for nesting, feeding or resting. In addition to providing year-round habitats for resident birds, coastal
               and inland wetlands are especially important as breeding grounds, over-wintering areas and feeding
               grounds for migratory waterfowl and numerous other birds.

               Salt marshes along the Atlantic coast are important feeding and stopover areas. Northern salt
               marshes are primary wintering grounds for black ducks in the Atlantic Flyway. Intertidal mudflats








                  2-16                                                                                 77te Nation's Floodplains



                  along allcoasts are principal feedinggrounds for migratory shorebirds, and freshwater coastal marshes
                  also provide habitat for a variety of species. Wetlands along the Gulf coast provide nesting and
                  feeding grounds for many species of waterfowl.

                  Inland wetlands are most noted for waterfowl production, although they also serve as important
                  nesting, feeding and resting areas for other migrating birds. The prairie pothole region of the Dakotas
                  is the principal breeding area for waterfowl in the United States. Mississippi River floodplains are
                  major duck and geese resting and feeding grounds during fall and spring migrations.

                  Alaskan and other tundra wetlands are prime breeding grounds for most shorebirds. During droughts
                  in the Prairie Pothole region, Alaska's wetlands are heavily used by North American waterfowl for
                  nesting. Hawaii's wetlands are especially important to endangered birds.

                  Both coastal and inland wetlands also provide valuable habitat for furbearers, other small and large
                  mammals and other forms of wildlife such as turtles, reptiles and amphibians. Wetland utilizing
                  furbearers include muskrats, beavers, otter, mink and raccoon. Larger mammals such as black bears,
                  white-tailed deer and caribou also find refuge and food in wetland areas (Greeson, 1979 and Mitsch,
                  1986).

                  Bottomland forests of the South are primary wintering grounds for North American waterfowl as well
                  as important breeding areas for many species. Forested wetlands in the eastern half of the United
                  States also provide important avian habitat. In the West, riparian forests along rivers are valuable
                  bird nesting and migration stopover areas. Riparian habitat may be more important to migrating
                  birds in and regions than in more humid areas. The availability of food, water, cover and suitable
                  north-south routing strongly influence migrants (Greeson, 1979 and Mitsch, 1986).

                  Healthy riparian communities provide community structure for raptors, safe passage corridors to water
                  for mammals, habitat for amphibians, and cover and nutrients for fisheries. For example, riparian
                  habitat in the Southwest provides wildlife with food resources and community structure. At elevations
                  below 3,500 feet, this habitat provides lush strips of strearnside vegetation interrupting desert
                  landscapes. These linear communities provide habitat for up to 80% of western wildlife species, and
                  riparian corridors are considered to be essential for maintaining healthy fish and wildlife populations
                  in this region (Hunt, 1985). Cottonwood groves provide a high canopy and open understory essential
                  to certain birds of prey for hunting, while mesquite bosques provide lower, denser vegetation ideal
                  for colonial nesting by white-wing doves.

                  The multitude of wildlife species largely dependent upon the region's varied riparian habitats include
                  grey squirrels, river otters, muskrats, summer tanagers, canyon frogs, tree frogs and dove tailed hawks.
                  Arizona's native cottonwood-willow associations support higher densities and a greater diversity of
                  breeding bird species than any other desert habitat type; two New Mexican river valleys alone support
                  16-17% of North America's breeding avifauna (Hunt, 1985).

                  The floodplains of the West are of extreme importance to a wide variety of plants and animals.
                  Precisely because of the scarcity of water, the varied habitat in the narrow band between water and
                  desert supports some of the most diverse communities of birds and mammals in the world (Johnson,
                  1985).








                Floodplain Resources and Values                                                                                     2-17



                                       In southeastern Arizona, the San Pedro Piver and its adjoining riparian habitat have long
                                       been identified as being a nationally significant ecosystem. This river is the best remaining
                                       example of a major riparian ecosystem in the Southwest still largely unaffected by man.
                                       This nationally significant river and its adjoining vegetation provides nesting, migratory
                                       or wintering habitat for at least 20 raptor species and a total of approximately 210 species
                                       of birds. Additionally, a study recorded 78 species of mammals in the grasslands corridor
                                       between the riparian woodlands and the adjacent mountains. This represents the second-
                                       highest mammalian diversity recorded in the world (Spear, 1985).




                                                         CULTURAL RESOURCES


                Under today's definition, "cultural resources" are limited to prehistoric and historic sites, archaeologi-
                cal resources, buildings, districts, structures, landscapes, objects, and any other material remains of
                past human life. The cultural resources of floodplains, however, as adapted from the 1979 version
                ofA Unified National Program for Floodplain Management, are in any and include resources associated
                with scientific and recreation/open space uses and the harvest of natural and cultivated products
                (agricultural, aquacultural and forestry uses) as well as historical/archaeological sites.

                Cultural resources of floodplains are often in competition with floodplain natural resources and are
                frequently subject to flood hazards. Agricultural and recreational uses, for example, may result in
                loss of wetlands or riparian habitat.


                HARVEST OF NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

                Inland floodplains are great sources of commercial timber. In the 48 contiguous states, an estimated
                52 million acres of commercial forested wetlands exist, and much of the acreage is within floodplains.
                Most of these forests lie east of the Rockies. The standing value of southern wetland forests alone
                is $8 billion (Tiner, 1984). These southern forests have been harvested for over 200 years, and for
                the most part with relatively little degradation.

                Floodplains also produce a variety of natural crops such as blueberries, cranberries and wild rice that
                do not depend on fertilizer. Coastal wetlands have historically been harvested for salt marsh hay,
                and wetland grasses are hayed in many places for winter livestock feed. Livestock may also graze
                directly in wetlands across the country.

                Wetlands produce fish and wildlife for human use. Commercial fishermen and trappers make a living
                from these resources. From 1956 to 1975 about 60% of the United States commercial fisheries
                landings consisted of fish and shellfish that depend on wetlands. Two-thirds of the commercially
                important fish and shellfish harvested along the Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of Mexico depend on
                coastal estuaries and their wetlands for food sources, for spawning grounds, for nurseries for the
                young or for all these purposes. On the Pacific coast, almost half of the commercially important
                specie  .s are estuarine and wetland dependent. Freshwater wetlands provide a greater value of harvest








                  2-18                                                                                 77ze Nation's Floodplains



                  per acre than estuarine wetlands. Several billion dollars a year are generated from wetland-dependent
                  sport and commercial fisheries harvest (Tiner, 1984).

                  Floodplains along larger rivers are often prime agricultural lands because of their flat terrain,
                  abundant water supplies and rich alluvial soils that are periodically replenished by flooding. Prime
                  agricultural soils represent the highest level of agricultural productivity; they are uniquely suitable
                  for intensive cultivation. Until the last decade or two, conversion of wetlands to agricultural produc-
                  tion was considered a favorable practice, and cultivation of these areas was subject to few conserva-
                  tion-related constraints. Consequently, throughout most of United States history, floodplains have
                  been heavily used for agriculture and wetlands (in and out of floodplains) have been drained for
                  conversion to agricultural production. Agricultural lands, including those within floodplains and
                  created by draining wetlands, are subject to increasing pressures for nonagricultural uses, and the
                  short-term economic value of these lands for urban development is often higher than for agricultural
                  purposes. Market values of farmlands do not reflect the long-term value or the irreplaceable nature
                  of the floodplain soils.


                  RECREATIONAL AND OTHER RESOURCE FUNCTIONS


                  The recreational opportunities associated with floodplain resources range from water-oriented sports
                  to hiking and camping, hunting and fishing and passive enjoyment of scenic resources. For many types
                  of active recreational activities, such as fishing, hunting, boating and swimming, water is the focal
                  point. For other activities such as hiking, camping and bird-watching, water is an important backdrop.
                  Recreational use of rivers and streams is increasing rapidly as thousands of stretches of rivers, streams
                  and local creeks provide recreational benefits. Most communities have at least one stream that does,
                  or could, serve as a visual centerpiece for recreation opportunities (President's Commission on
                  Americans Outdoors, 1987).

                  In many areas of the country, states and localities have acquired floodplains to serve as major
                  recreation areas for fishing, hunting, bird watching, picnicking, hiking, jogging, swimming and boating.
                  Floodplains can provide community open space resources and green belt areas for recreational use
                  in urban environments. A 1978 study of 17 major cities by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation
                  Service and the National Park Service revealed that floodplains are often the prime remaining park
                  and recreation sites in major urban areas (Kusler, 1982). In addition, many communities have f6cused
                  urban renewal and historical preservation and restoration projects on waterfront areas located in or
                  adjacent to floodplains.

                  Waterfowl hunting is a major wetland activity and in 1980 5.3 million people spent $638 million
                  hunting waterfowl and other migratory birds. Saltwater recreational fishing has increased dramatically
                  over the past 20 years, with half of this catch represented by wetland-associated species (Tiner, 1984).
                  Nearly all freshwater fishing is dependent on wetlands.

                  Nonconsumptive recreational activities include hiking, nature observation and photography, swimming,
                  boating  and ice-skating. Increasing numbers of Americans are enjoying river recreation. Across the
                  Nation, free-flowing and scenic stretches of rivers are used for white water rafting. The coastal area








              Floodplain Resources and Values                                                                       2-19



              provides aesthetic and cultural resources as well as numerous recreational opportunities that
              contribute to making these environments desirable places to live and visit.

              Other cultural resources provided by floodplains include opportunities for scientific study and
              educational activities as well as less tangible aesthetic benefits. Many people simply enjoy the beauty
              and sounds of nature and spend their leisure time walking or boating in or near wetlands observing
              plant and animal life. Most of the Nation's earliest archaeological and historical sites are found in
              floodplain areas that can also provide unique opportunities for natural scientific study and research
              (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986).



                                        COMMON THREATS TO RESOURCES


              Each of the three categories of floodplain resources (water resources, living resources, and cultural
              resources) are threatened in various ways. The three basic types of floodplain water resources values
              are typically threatened by: 1) INCREASED RUNOFF associated with such activities as widespread
              clearing of vegetation, wetlands destruction, sand dune removal, paving, roofing, and other develop-
              ment actions; 2) BLOCKING OF RUNOFF AND INTERRUPT10N OF GROUND-WATER MOVEMENT by
              various development actions; and 3) INCREASED POLLUTION. Increased runoff may cause increases
              in flood peaks, stream erosion and the sediment loading of receiving waters. Blocked runoff or
              interrupted ground-water flow can raise flood profiles, increase pollution and interfere with ground-
              water balances and the distribution of sediment. Fertilizers, chemical and petroleum spills, leached
              materials from waste disposal areas and other pollutants can degrade the surface and ground-water
              resources found in some floodplains. Lowering the ground-water elevation can significantly change
              other floodplain characteristics by causing changes in vegetation and vegetation patterns. These
              changes can be particularly dramatic in and regions (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986).

              Development and modificatiow of the floodplain can affect living resources and habitat in many
              different ways. Increased sedimentation, for example, can bury food sources and spawning areas and
              pollution can poison living resources. Development activities can remove shelter and food sources
              and result in barriers to fish and wildlife movement. Erosion of coastal wetlands and wetland filling
              for development purposes can eliminate large areas of productive habitat.

              The cultural resources of floodplains, like the water and living resources, can be significantly affected
              by floodplain modifications, use and development practices. As a result, accelerated and blocked
              runoff, interrupted ground-water flow and increased pollution can result. Poor agricultural and
              forestry practices can be just as destructive of natural floodplain resources as poorly planned urban
              development (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986).









                  2-20                                                                            The Nation's Floodplains



                                                SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


                  Historically, floods and floodplains were thought of in terms of the accommodation of human
                  settlement and the consequences of such settlement. Only in recent years have the natural and
                  cultural resources of floodplains been recognized as valuable in their own right. During the last
                  twenty years or so, the combined effects of research and legislation have heightened awareness of
                  these natural and cultural resources, including: 1) water resource functions such as natural flood and
                  erosion control, water quality maintenance, and maintenance of ground-water supply and balance;
                  2) living resource functions such as support for a wide variety of flora, and provision of fish and
                  wildlife habitat; and 3) cultural resource functions such as maintaining a harvest of natural products,
                  providing recreation opportunities, and providing scientific study and outdoor education areas.

                  Most of these natural and cultural resources are not associated exclusively with floodplains - the
                  floodplain resources are a specialized and important component of a larger set of resources and
                  values. While the values of these resources are now well recognized and most processes reasonably
                  well understood, only limited information is available that quantifies the value of these natural and
                  cultural floodplain resources. Even wetlands, which in many areas are nearly conterminous with flood-
                  plains and which have been'studied extensively, are not well quantified. Estimates of the total amount
                  of wetlands in the United States and state by state estimates vary widely depending upon when the
                  estimate was made, what definition of wetlands was used, and the survey techniques that were
                  employed.

                  All of the natural and cultural resources and functions of floodplains are subject to many threats,
                  among the most significant of which are threats related to human use and development. Only a
                  limited type and amount of human uses are compatible with most floodplain resources and natural
                  functions.









               CHAPTER 3:


               FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT AND
               LOSSES




                      ... [A]spopulation has increased, men have not onlyfailed to devise meansforsuppressing
                      orfor escaping this evil [the flood], but have, with singular short-sightedness, rushed into
                      its chosen paths.

                                                            W J McGee, "The Flood Plains of Rivers," Forum, XI, 1891



               From the times of the earliest European settlement of this country, locations adjacent to water bodies
               have been popular, and often essential, for development. Many of these locations, of course, lie
               within the natural floodplain of rivers, streams, lakes and coastal areas. Archeological evidence
               indicates that native Americans also used floodplain locations. Typically, these early floodplain
               settlements were often temporary, could be quickly evacuated, and did not suffer great losses when
               the sites were flooded. In contrast, the permanent location of homes, businesses, infrastructure and
               agricultural activities within floodplains in contemporary times annually results in billions of dollars
               of damages when floodwaters reclaim these lands.

               Throughout this Nation's history, the prevailing view has been that man could (and should) modify
               the natural environment to meet human needs. Individuals and governments have enthusiastically
               engaged in the construction of dams and reservoirs, levees, floodwalls; and stream channelization
               projects in efforts to prevent or limit damages to development that was either knowingly or inadver-
               tently placed within the floodplain. Thousands of water supply projects - particularly in the and
               west, but occurring throughout the Nation - have dramatically changed natural functions of riparian
               areas. Millions of acres of inland and tidal wetlands have been filled or drained, causing loss of
               natural flood storage areas, lowered capacity for filtration of pollutants and ground-water recharge,
               and reduction or elimination of some wildlife species.

               This large-scale development and modification of floodplains has resulted in a major increase in the
               land area of the United States that may be economically developed and used, but at a high price
               extracted annually in loss of life, personal suffering and inconvenience, economic losses, and loss of
               natural and cultural resources.


               Even though floods annually cause greater economic losses than any other type of natural disaster
               (with the exception of drought losses during certain years or long-term periods), accurate figures on
               the actual extent of annual flood losses remain unavailable. In addition, as described in Chapter 1,
               the actual amount of United States land in floodplains has not been clearly determined, nor has the
               amount of property and other economic investments at risk to flooding been firmly established.








                  3-2                                                                             The Nation's Flo6dplains



                                                 FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT


                  Several studies have attempted to assess the extent of floodplain development in the United States.
                  When viewed collectively, the resulting estimates aid in understanding the magnitude of a significant
                  problem. There are, however, no definitive statistics pertaining to the amount of development at
                  risk to flooding in the United States.


                  EXTENT OF FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

                  The best available estimates of floodplain land in the United States have ranged from approximately
                  seven percent of the entire land area of the United States to 14 percent of the nonfederal, rural land
                  (excluding Alaska).' The largest floodplain areas are in the southern part of the country, but the
                  most populous are in the North Atlantic and Great Lakes regions and California. A 1977 U.S. Water
                  Resources Council (Y-IRC) assessment estimated that 3.5 to 5.5 million acres of floodplain land are
                  in urban use. The urban and built-up areas were judged to include more than 6,000 communities
                  with populations of 2,500 or more (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1977).

                  The central portions of many cities - both large and small - consist of floodplain lands. In a 1974
                  review of 26 cities ranging in size from 50,000 to 1 million, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found
                  that, on the average, 53% of the floodplains in those cities was developed (U.S. Geological Survey,
                  1974). Other surveys conducted during the 1970s suggested that urban growth within floodplain areas
                  was between 1.5% and 2.5% per year, roughly twice the rate of population growth for the country
                  as a whole at that time (White, 1975).

                  Other recent studies have attempted to more accurately assess the extent of floodplain development.
                  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified flood hazards in 20,493 com-
                  munities throughout the United States, including Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and the
                  Northern Marianas (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1989), but not all of these communities
                  have significant development within the floodplain or have strong potential for growth in the near
                  future. A 1978 report (Sheaffer, 1978) estimated that 7.9 percent (or 4.5 million housing units) of
                  the 57.3 million occupied housing units in the United States were in special flood hazard areas. In
                  addition, 325,000 nonresidential units were estimated to be in flood hazard areas.

                  A refinement of a 1987 study conducted for FEMA (Donnelley, 1987) examined 17,466 floodprone
                  communities to estimate the property at risk. This study found that the floodplain areas in these
                  communities occupied a total of about 146,600 square miles (93.8 million acres) and, as shown in
                  Table 3-1, included approximately 9.6 million households at risk and $390 billion in property at risk.
                  Based on a composite risk score developed for the study, Florida ranked as the state with highest
                  risk, followed by California, Texas, Louisiana and New Jersey.






                      See Chapter 1 for a more detailed description of floodplain area in the United States.








                       Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                                                                                        3-3



                       Table 3-1.                 FEMA Estimate of Property at Risk from Flooding.


                                                              STATE                 FLOODPLAIN                  FLOODPLAJN                        VALUE OF
                                                                                        AREA IN               HOUSEHOLDS                          FLOODPLAIN
                                                                                SQUARE MILES                              1987                    HOUSEHOLDS
                                                                                                                                                           1987



                                                              Alabama                        5,237                        236,766                 7,576,674,944
                                                              Alaska                            731                       4,750                   291,785,955
                                                              Arizona                        Z618                         98,052                  3,267,311,956
                                                              Arkansas                       9,206                        22.&252                 5,981,276.727
                                                              California                     6,831                        681,438                 45,706,298,363


                                                              Colorado                       1,587                        77,442                  3,738,076,339
                                                              Connecticut                       285                       94,470                  5,601,143.436
                                                              Delaware                          199                       31,949                  1,291,132,454
                                                              Dist. Columbia                       1                      16,657                  90ZI83,269
                                                              Florida                        10,034                       971,323                 46,189,074,261

                                                              Georgia                        3,548                        207,293                 7,225,068,115
                                                              Hawaii                            59                        7,572                   67Z651,254
                                                              Idaho                             548                       15,060                  6OZ411,309
                                                              Illinois                       4,559                        337,642                 15,911,660,586
                                                              Indiana                        Z627                         238,576                 &785,544,502

                                                              Iowa                           Z298                         114,569                 4,384,581,121
                                                              Kansas                         3,790                        115,197                 3,94ZO79,035
                                                              Kentucky                       Z120                         lIZ743                  3,528,138,998
                                                              Louisiana                      lZI80                        661,839                 26,876,649,178
                                                              Maine                             906                       33,459                  1,071,604,991

                                                              Maryland                          676                       113,343                 5,383,860,985
                                                              Massachusetts                     547                       163,182                 7,440,748,038
                                                              Michigan                          657                       145,384                 6,673,390,073
                                                              Minnesota                      Z778                         98,493                  4,860,810,206
                                                              Mississippi                    8,217                        207,413                 5,176,305,887

                                                              Missouri                       5,143                        216,453                 7,991,205,800
                                                              Montana                        1,072                        13,392                  443,321,171
                                                              Nebraska                       3,079                        238,946                 9,316,174,544
                                                              Nevada                         1,880                        27,452                  1,579,815.755
                                                              New Hampshire                     239                       19,712                  829,920,022

                                                              New Jersey                        958                       45Z579                  20,961,050,445
                                                              New Mexico                     1,868                        74,518                  3,314,009,279
                                                              New York                       1,557                        @466,947                11,317,224,372
                                                              North Carolina                 5,265                        278,863                 8,694,853,746
                                                              North Dakota                   1,432                        84,780                  3,515,958,504


                                                              Ohio                           1,907                        277,989                 11,058,489,912
                                                              Oklahoma                       3,085                        210,713                 7,725,925,945
                                                              Oregon                         1,459                        56@360                  2,777,077,198
                                                              Pennsylvania                   1,021                        210,987                 7,397,603,394
                                                              Rhode Island                      .73                       26@602                  1,145,969,064

                                                              South Carolina                 3"5                          155,543                 5,237,343,635
                                                              South Dakota                   Z057                         53,596                  1,858,269,278
                                                              Tennessee                      Z336                         167,644                 5,640,679,477
                                                              Texas                          16,837                  1,069,378                    36,331,534,634
                                                              Utah                              809                       2S,027                  1,509,421,589


                                                              Vermont                           226                       13,598                  490,304,437
                                                              Virginia                       1,979                        147,015                 6,707,630,446
                                                              Washington                     1,668                        93,653                  3,624,944,099
                                                              West Virginia                     420                       31,136                  1,089,375,126
                                                              Wisconsin                      3,001                        139,467                 5,99Z923,093
                                                              Wyoming                        1,064                        8,773                   421,021,028

                                                              TOTAL                        146,601                   9,576,977                    390,05Z507,764


                                                   Note: Floodplain area comprises the one percent annual chance ("100-year") floodplain.

                                    Source:       Donnelley Marketing Information Service. System Update Report. 1997. (Refinement of 1987 study based on
                                                  remeasurement of Special Flood Hazard Areas in the top ZOOO communities having property at risk and a statistical
                                                  adjustment to the other floodprone properties.) FENIA, 1991.








                    34                                                                                        The Nation's Floodplains



                    FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT AND AWARENESS OF THE FLOOD HAZARD

                    Development of floodplains in any part of the country usually results in damages. Urbanization can
                    cause dramatic increases in runoff, both from reduction of impervious area in a watershed and from
                    decreased travel times for the accumulation of flood peaks. Land uses other than urbanization can
                    also lead to increased flood damages, particularly if the uses cause changes in the sediment load or
                    changes in the channels themselves. Upstream development, outside the floodplain can also increase
                    flood peaks.

                    Extreme events such as storms and floods are basically random occurrences, even though their long-
                    term average recurrence interval can be predicted. Random occurrence can sometimes result in
                    several years of severe flooding followed by a period with little or no flooding. Too often, it is during
                    these times of little or no flooding that much development at risk to floods occurs. Residents,
                    developers and officials may forget or even be unaware of past floods. An example of this type of
                    inappropriate development is provided by Davis County, Utah.

                                          Davis County, which lies between the Great Salt Lake and the Wasatch Mountains north
                                          of Salt Lake City, Utah, has experienced rapid growth during the past 20 or 30 years.
                                          Throughout the county, substantial encroachment on stream banks and foothill develop-
                                          ment has occurred. Over much of this period of growth, the climate was relatively dry,
                                          allowing officials to forget the tremendous precipitation events and accompanying flood
                                          devastation of earlier times. The early 1980s, however, were a series of wet years.

                        "In 1983, a cool spring kept a greater than average snow pack from melting until 90 degree + temperatures
                        brought the runoff down all at once. The peaceful little brooks turned into raging torrents, washing
                        everyone's yard accessories into the fences built across the channels, and forcing flood waters into nearby
                        homes and streets. Millions of dollars worth of damage was done in a short time by these innocent looking
                        little brooks. Residents were angry and wanted to know why they weren't protected or at least warned.
                        Weather patterns persisted, but by the next year some major channel improvements and flood control struc-
                        tures had been completed and residents were prepared with sand bags and changed perceptions of their
                        friendly little backyard stream. Major channel systems and debris basins have alleviated the widespread
                        flooding, but residents still put themselves and their neighbors injeopardy by insisting on stream encroach-
                        ment as part of their landscaping scheme."

                        Despite these improvements, the county again suffered extensive damage in the summer of 1986, when
                        an intense thunderstorm caused almost every type of urban flooding. "Extensive investigation found that
                        much of the damage could have been averted through better awareness of residents and officials as to the
                        flood dangers of hillside development, improper lot grading, and changes in natural drainage paths. Many
                        residents were surprised and angered to find themselves in unperceived jeopardy after living in their homes,
                        trouble free, for several years" (Williams, 1987).



                    DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL REGIONS

                    The coastlines of the United States have been attracting people in ever increasing numbers for several
                    decades. The value of property at risk to coastal storms has also increased tremendously in recent
                    decades. Initially, much of the development along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and parts of the
                    Pacific coast was primarily for second homes and seasonal tourism. While these uses still predominate








              F166dpid M* Development and Losses                                                                             3-5



              in many areas, seasonal cottages have increasingly been converted to year-round use and the
              traditional summer tourist season has gradually expanded to encompass the entire year in many
              locations. Two examples help to illustrate the phenomenon of coastal growth.

                                   In Rhode Island the number of houses in the salt pond region on the state's south coast
                                   tripled from 1950 to 1980. During this same period, but particularly in recent years,
                                   hundreds of summer cottages have been converted to year round use. The increase in
                                   population and development has caused major concerns about the potential for losses
                                   during a major hurricane and degradation of the coastal environment, including ground
                                   water supplies due to inadequate sewage disposal (Olsen, 1985).


                                       Ocean City, Maryland - located entirely on a coastal barrier - has shown dramatic
                                       growth since the last major flooding in 1962. By 1983 Ocean City had a permanent
                                       population of under 6,000, btiton peak summerweekends, the population was estimat-
                                       ed to exceed 250,000. The City has been extensively developed with individual homes,
                                       businesses, motels, mobile homes and high-rise motel and condominiums in order to
                                       accommodate this large number of visitors (IEP,' 1984).



              Population in Coastal Areas

              The 1980 United States census identified 611 counties and independent cities that are "entirely or
              substantially within 50 miles of U.S. coastal shorelines." Census units within 50 miles of the Atlantic
              and Gulf coastlines increased in Population from 34.1 million in 1940 to 63.3 million in 1980 - an
              increase of 85% as compared with 70% for the Nation as a whole. Gulf Coast counties increased
              by 200% (West, 1987). Tables 3-2 and 3-3 show regional population changes in coastal areas from
              1960 to 1980. It has been estimated that by the year 1990, 75 percent of the United States population
              will live within 50 miles of tidal wafers and the Great Ukes (Olsen, 1985).

              Development of adequate evacuation routes has not kept pace with development of                 'coastal barriers
              and other high risk coastal areas. Nearly 80% of the people now living in barrier communities have
              never experienced a hurricane. Even if the population at risk responds to an evacuation order, not
              all would be able to evacuate in time (Monday, 1983).


              Coastal Barriers


              Coastal barriers serve as important buffers against mainland flooding and erosion. Without the
              protection of coastal barriers, large population centers on the mainland coasts would be exposed to
              direct attack by hurricanes and other coastal storms. The barriers themselves are also extremely
              vulnerable to flooding and erosion due to their seaward exposure' and the inherent instability and
              relatively low-lying topography of these landforms. Over 90% of the barriers along the United States
              coastline have been judged to be subject to flooding from severestorms.








                          3-6                                                                                                                   Me Nation's Floodplains



                          Table 3-2.              Regional Population Densities in Coastal Counties With Coastal Barriers, 1960-1980.
                                                  (population per square mile)


                                                                                                                     PERCENT                              PERCENT
                                     REGION                                                                          CHANGE                               CHANGE
                                     (No. of Counties)                          1960                 1970            1960-70             1980             1970-80


                                     New England (11)                           490                  540             10.2                 571             5.7

                                     North Central                              736                  940             27.7                 1223            31.2
                                       Atlantic (9)

                                     South Central                              108                  144             33.3                 178             23.6
                                       Atlantic (11)

                                     South Atlantic (11)                        175                  263             50.3                 381             44.9

                                     Gulf (16)                                  146                  190             23.3                 255             34.2



                                     Source:   West, Niels. "Population Changes in Coastal Jurisdictions with Barrier Beaches: 1960-1980." In Cities on the Beach:
                                               Manapement Issues of Developed Coastal Barriers. University of Chicago Research Paper No. 224. University of
                                               Chicago, 1987.





                          Table 3-3.              Regional Population Changes in 156 Local Jurisdictions Containing Coastal Barriers,
                                                  1960-1980.



                                                                                                                     PERCENT                              PERCENT
                                                                                                                     CHANGE                               CHANGE
                                     REGION                                     1960                 1970            1960-70              1980            1970-80


                                     New England                            251,915              362,133             43.7             464,823             @8.0

                                     North Central                        1,993,414            2,243,803             12.6           2,218,247             -1.1
                                       Atlantic


                                     South Central                            35,506             206,320             484.3            330,761             60.3
                                       Atlantic


                                     South Atlantic                         359,872              653,294             81.5             831,587             27.1

                                     Gulf                                 1,043,177            1,292,571             23.9           1,631,137             26.2



                                     Source:   West, Niels. "Population Changes in Coastal Jurisdictions with Barriier Beaches: 1960-1980." In Cities on the Beach:
                                               Managnernent Issues of Developed Coastal Barriers. University of Chicago Research Paper No. 224. University of
                                               Chicago, 1987.








                      Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                                                                                 3-7



                      The natural erosion and migration rates of most coastal barriers are high. Lands now being consid-
                      ered for building sites may be highly eroded or have simply disappeared within several years as storm
                      waves breach and overwash barriers, inundating or eroding entire sections. Rising sea level is also
                      a factor in the long-term instability of coastal barriers. Without human interference, coastal barriers
                      can respond to slowly rising sea levels by continuously moving landward (migrating) or by being
                      submerged (drowning) as shown on Figure 3-1 (Leatherman, 1982).

                      In spite of the risks and the difficulties associated with maintaining stable development in an
                      environment subject to constant change, increased residential and other t3lrpes of development have
                      occurred on coastal barriers in recent decades, and pressures for continued development are intense.
                      Many of the major resorts on the Atlantic coast - including Atlantic City, Ocean City, Virginia Beach
                      and Miami - are located on coastal barriers. Current development pressures on coastal barriers
                      are consistent with the overall intense pressures for growth and development throughout the entire
                      coastal area of the United States. Populations in the coastal states are growing at a rate of three
                      to four times the national average, and coastal barriers are urbanizing at a rate twice that of the
                      nation as a whole. While only 3% of the mainland is now considered "urban land," 14% of the area
                      of coastal barriers is urbanized (Conservation Foundation, 1982).

                      Increased development on coastal barriers has resulted in large numbers of people and personal
                      property being at risk to severe storms. This added development also interferes with the natural
                      ability of the barriers to absorb storm energies, thereby reducing protection for mainland populations
                      and development.




                                                                      With sea level rise a barrier must retreat up the gradually sloping coastal plain over geologic
                                                                      time. Without migration, the barrier can be drowned.



                                                                                                                               Post                         Post Location
                                           Slope  of Coastal Plain and Cant-                                                   Sh  oreline                  of Barrier
                                                                                mental Shelf                                   of Mainland                  Island

                                                                                                                                              SAY                   OCEAN



                                            Pr esen?                  Present Location                                                   Post Location of
                                            Shoreline                 of Migrating                                                       Barrier Island at
                                            of Mainland               Barrier Island                                                     Post Sea Level
                                             SAY                                                                    OCEAN                                                       T2

                                                                                                                                                                         H
                                                                                                                                                                                T,

                                                                                                           D

                                                                                              (D - 00 to 1000 tims H I


                                                                             H = rise In sea level                  T, = post sea level
                                                                      and COnlnenlal Sheff                                     0@'@a,'nland

                                                                                                                                              1AY













                                                                             D = horizontal migration of            T,= present sea level
                                                                                    barrier island




                                      Source:      Leatherman, Stephen. Barrier Island Handbook- College Park, Maryland: University or Maryland, 1980.

                      Figure 3-1.               Migration of a Barrier Island in Response to Sea Level Rise.









                  3-8                                                                                7he Nation's Floodplains



                  Along with increased development of coastal barriers have come increased efforts to establish
                  structural works and other measures intended to protect this development and the investments
                  involved. Traditional protection and stabilization measures such as groins, jetties, bulkheads and
                  seawalls, however, interfere with the natural sand transport processes that contribute to the dynamic
                  equilibrium of coastal barriers. In the longer term, these structural measures, together with other
                  development impacts, such as alteration of primary dunes, maintenance of navigation channels and
                  ground water extraction and contamination, may seriously degrade or destroy the natural values of
                  coastal barriers and may even destroy the barrier itself.


                  DEVELOPMENT IN ARID REGIONS

                  The and and semi-arid southwest is another geographic region that has undergone rapid growth in
                  recent years, and that growth is projected to continue well into the next century (see Chapter 15).
                  Sparse but intense rainfall, combined with the presence of unstable channels and alluvial fans, create
                  particularly severe flood problems when these and regions undergo rapid development. Man's
                  activities have already profoundly affected floodplains and the nature of flooding throughout the
                  southwest. Many changes that began 450 years ago with the introduction of cattle are still affecting
                  the basic hydrologic cycle and geomorphology. Plant and animal associations that evolved over a
                  10,000 year period have been irreversibly altered, and the effects are still only vaguely understood
                  and generally unmanaged (Dobyns, 1981).



                    IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT ON FLOODPILAIN NATURAL RESOURCES

                  Of particular concern with regard to the impacts of development on the natural resources of
                  floodplains are actual and potential impacts on floodplain wetlands and riparian habitat.

                  IMPACTS ON WETLANDS


                  Not until the environmental movement of the late 1960s and 1970s did the natural resources of flood-
                  plains become widely recognized and appreciated. Prior to that time (and continuing to a great extent
                  today) swamps and other wetlands were viewed primarily as areas to be filled or drained and
                  converted to "productive" uses. Although information on original wetland acreage in the United
                  States is incomplete, it is estimated that approximately 54% of the 215 million wetland acres estimated
                  in existence at the time of European settlement of the country has since been lost (Tiner, 1984).

                  Wetland loss in the last 30 years has been particularly dramatic, despite gains in certain types of
                  wetlands (inland flats and ponds). Figure 3-2 shows estimates of net losses and gains in wetlands.

                      In the mid-1950s, there were an estimated 108.1 million acres of wetlands in the lower 48 states
                      (Frayer, et al. 1983). Just 20 years later, these wetlands were reduced to 99 million acres, despite
                      some gains in wetlands due to reservoir andpond construction, beaver activity, and inigation and
                      marsh creation projects. Although 11 million acres of wetlands were lost, this was offset by gains
                      of 2 million acres of new wetlands,.)ielding a net loss of 9 million acres. This loss of 9 million
                      acres equates to an area about three times the size of Connecticut or twice the size of New Jersey
                      (Tiner, 1984).








                 Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                                         3-9






                             +3     WETLANDS GAINS                                                        PALUSTRINE OPEN WATER

                             +2                                                                           PALUSTRINE FLAT

                                                                                                          ESTUARINE WETLAND
                             +1                                                                   EM      PALLISTFONE EMERGENT WETLAND

                                                                                                  19@ffl  PALUSTRINE SCRUE@SHRUB WETLAND

                      0      -0.5                                                                 EUE     PALUSTRINE FORESTED wETLAND
                      co
                      Z
                      0      .1
                      3

                             .2
                                              WETLANDS LOSSES                   Net losses and pins in wetlands of the conterminous U.S.
                             ,3                                                 between the mid-1950s and mid-1960s (from Frayer, et. al. 1983).


                             -4



                             -5





                        Source:   TinerJr., Ralph W. Wetlands of the United States- Current Status and Recent Trends. Newton Comer, Massachusetts:
                                  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Resources, 1984.

                 Figure 3-2.        Net Losses and Gains in Wetlands of the Conterminous U.S., Mid-1950S to Mid-1970S.


                 Annual losses of wetlands have been estimated at close to one-half million acres. "The average rate
                 of wetland loss from the mid-50s to mid-70s was 458,000 acres per year: 440,000 acres of palustrine
                 losses and 18,000 acres of estuarine wetland losses.2 This annual loss equals an area about half the
                 size of Rhode Island" (Tiner, 1984). It has been estimated that if losses continued at those current
                 rates, less than 40 percent of the original wetlands of the United States would remain by the year
                 2000 (Conservation Foundation, 1982). Current estimates of wetland loss vary from 300,000 to
                 450,000 acres annually (Melanson, 1989). In recent years, however, the advent of laws and regulatory
                 programs to protect wetlands (such as the Section 404 Program under the Clean Water Act) and the
                 termination of programs that provided technical and financial support for wetland drainage, have
                 helped to reduce wetiand losses.

                 Historically, the greatest portion of wetland loss has resulted from draining wetlands for conversion
                 to agricultural purposes. Other major losses have resulted from filling and/or draining for residen-
                 tial/commercial development, drainage for mosquito control, drainage and digging of canals for oil
                 development, lowering of water tables, and erosion. Table 3-4 lists the major causes of wetland loss
                 and degradation, and Figure 3-3 depicts the major causes of recent wetland losses. In some areas
                 of the country, notably in Louisiana, in the bottomiand hardwood regions of the Mississippi Valley,
                 in coastal areas of the Atlantic coast, and in the prairie pothole region, losses have been very
                 significant (Tiner, 1984). Table 3-5 shows some regional examples of wetland losses, and Table 3-6
                 provides examples of recent rates of wetland losses.



                 2   See Chapter 2 for a description of palustrine, estuarine and other categories of wetlands.








                       3-10                                                                                                     The Nation's Floodplains



                       Table 3-4.           Major Causes of Wetland Loss and Degradation.


                           1. HUMAN T@HREATs
                                A.   Direct
                                     1.   Drainage for crop production, timber production and mosquito control.
                                     2.   Dredging and stream channelization for navigation channels, flood protection, coastal housing developments,
                                          and reservoir maintenance.
                                     3.   Filling for dredged spoil and other solid waste disposal, roads and highways, and commercial, residential and
                                          industrial development.
                                     4.   Construction of dikes, dams, levees, and seawalls for flood control, water supply, irrigation and storm
                                          protection.
                                     5.   Discharges of materials (e.g., pesti'cides, herbicides, other pollutants, nutrient loading from domestic sewage
                                          and agricultural runoff, and sediments from dredging and filling, agricultural and other land development)
                                          into waters and wetlands.
                                     6.   Mining of wetland soils for peat, coal, sand, gravel, phosphate, and other materials.
                                B.   Indirect
                                     1.   Sediment diversion by dams, deep channels and other structures.
                                     2-   Hydrologic alterations by canals, spoil banks, roads, and other structures.
                                     3.   Subsidence due to extraction of groundwater, oil, gas, sulphur, and other minerals.
                           11. NATURAL 11iREATs
                                     1.   Subsidence (including natural rise of sea level)
                                     2.   Droughts
                                     3.   Hurricanes and other storms
                                     4.   Erosion
                                     5.   Biotic effects, e.g., muskrat, nutria and goose "eat-outs."

                               Source:  Tiner, Jr., Ralph W. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends. Newton Corner, Massachusetts:
                                         U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Resources, 1984.










                                                      8% Urban Development                             7--
                                                                   5% Other Development
                                                                                                       6--



                                                                                                  Im   5

                                                                                                  0
                                                                                                                                   z
                                                                                                       4--
                                                                                                  0
                                                                                                              z          z         LU
                                                                                                       3--
                                                                                                  0
                                                                                                              W          W
                                                                                                  0
                                                                                                       2--
                                                                                                                         z
                                                            Agricu1ture.@,Z-,\-,,,'-'-,-          C           W
                                                                                                  0                      W
                                                               -Z
                                                                                                              Cn
                                                                                                              W
                                                                                                                         W
                                                                                                              0
                                                                                                              IL         W         Cn


                                                                                                          PALUSTRINE WETLAND TYPES



                                  Source:  TinerJr., Ralph W. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends. Newton Comer, Massachusetts:
                                           U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Resources, 1984.

                       Figure 3-3.          Causes of Recent Wetland Losses.








                    Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                                                               3-11








                        Table 3-5.             Wetland Losses in Various States.



                                                                          ORIGINAL               TODAY'S                  % OF
                                                                        WETLANDS            WETLANDS WETLANDS
                           STATE OR REGION                                   (ACRES)             (ACRES)                  LOST     SOURCE

                           Iowa's Natural Marshes                            2,333,000                26,470              99       Bishop (1981, pers. comm.)

                           California                                        5,000,000              450,000               91       U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                                                                                                                                   Service (1977)

                           Nebraska's Rainwater Basin                            94,000                8,460              91       Farrar (1982)

                           Mississippi Alluvial Plain                      24,000,000            5,200,000                78       MacDonald, et aL(1979)

                           Michigan                                          11,200,00           3,200,000                71       Michigan DNR (1982)

                           North Dakota                                      5,000,000           2,000,000                60       Elliott, U.S. FWS (pers.
                                                                                                                                   comm.)

                           Minnesota                                       18,400,000            8,700,000                53       University of MN (1981)

                           Louisiana's Forested Wetlands                   11,300,000            5,635,000                50       Turner and Craig (1980)

                           Connecticut's Coastal Marshes'                        30,000               15,000              50       Niering (1982)

                           North Carolina's Pocosins                         2,500,000           1,503,000-               40       Richardson, et. al. (1981)

                           South Dakota                                      2,000,000           1,3W,000                 35       Elliott, U.S. FWS, (per.
                                                                                                                                   comm.)

                           Wisconsin                                       10,000,000            6,750,000                32       Wisconsin DNR (1976)


                                     Only 695,000 acres of pocosins remain undisturbed; the rest are partially drained, developed
                                     or planned for development.



                                Source:    Tiner, Jr., Ralph W. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends. Newton Comer, Massachusetts:
                                            U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Resources, 1994.








                   3-12                                                                                     77te Nation's Floodplains



                   Table 3-6.        Examples of Wetland Loss Rates.


                                                                       LOSS RATE
                                 STATE OR REGION                          (acres/year)    RATESOURCE

                                 Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain            165,000      MacDonald, et al. (1979)
                                 Louisiana's Forested Wetlands               87,200       Turner and Craig (1980)
                                 North Carolina's Pocosins                   43,500       Richardson, et al. (1981)
                                 Prairie Pothole Region                      33,000       Haddock and DeBates (1969)
                                 Louisiana's Coastal Marshes                 25,000       Fruge (1982)
                                 Great Lakes Basin                           20,000       Great Lakes River Basin Comm.
                                                                                          (1981)
                                 Wisconsin                                   20,000       Wisconsin DNR (1976)
                                 Michigan                                     6,500       Weller (1981)
                                 Kentucky                                     3,600       Kentucky Fish & Wildlife
                                                                                          Resources (1983)
                                 New Jersey's Coastal Marshes                 3,084       Ferrigno, et al. (1973)
                                                                                *50       JACA Corporation (1982)
                                 Palm Beach County, Florida                   3,055       U.S. FWS (1982)
                                 Maryland's Coastal Wetlands                  1,000       Redelfs (1983)
                                                                                $20
                                 New York's Estuarine Marshes                   740       O'Conner and Terry (1972)
                                 Delaware's Coastal Marshes                     *20       Hardisky and Klemas (1983)

                                         *    Loss rate after passage of state coastal wettand protection law.


                         Source:  Tiner, Jr., Ralph W. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends. Newton Comer, Massachusetts:
                                  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Resources, 1984.




                   Wetland losses due to agricultural drainage appear to be substantially less today than in the earlier
                   part of this century. Studies by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) indicate that there was a large
                   amount of drainage activity between 1900 and 1920, a relatively flat period in terms of activity
                   between 1920 and 1945, and then an increasing trend (although at a decreasing rate) from 1945 to
                   1980 (Heimlich, 1986). During the last half of the 1980s wetland drainage for agricultural purposes
                   is believed to have decreased significantly due to several factors. A major factor is the Swampbuster
                   section of the Food Security Act of 1985. Under this section, farmers who would drain additional
                   wetlands to produce commodities would stand to lose agricultural price subsidies on their entire farm
                   operation. Other factors contributing to the decrease of wetland drainage for agricultural purposes
                   include a reduction in the export of food commodities from the peak of former years, and a lowering
                   of the commodity prices received by farmers from the prices received during the 1970s and early
                   1980s (von Wolffraat, 1988; Soil Conservation Service, 1989).


                   IMPACTS ON RIPARIAN HABITAT

                   Riparian ecosystems are also being degraded and destroyed throughout the United States. The lower
                   48 states originally contained between 75 and 100 million acres of indigenous, woody riparian habitat.
                   Today, only 35 million acres remain in near natural condition. The rest have been inundated,








              Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                    3-13



              channelized, dammed, rip-rapped, converted to agricultural use, overgrazed, or altered by a combina-
              tion of factors that impede their ability to stabilize and maintain the biological diversity of their
              watersheds (Hunt, 1985).

              Channelization and other flood control projects can greatly reduce flood losses, but these measures
              can also destroy riparian habitat by clearing vegetation, preventing bank overflow with levees,
              eliminating sandbar habitat, islands and productive backwater areas, and accelerating bank erosion.
              As a result of these types of projects by federal, state and local governments, a large amount of
              riparian habitat has been lost in years past. For example, between 1940 and 1971 the Corps assisted
              in navigation improvement and flood control projects that altered 11,000 miles of streams. The SCS
              has installed 10,700 miles of channel modifications and an additional 10,500 miles of modifications
              have been authorized (von Wolffradt, 1988). Due to environmental considerations, only a fraction
              of the authorized channel work will be built (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1989).

              Dam construction can alter riparian habitat in many ways. The habitat can be drowned by reservoirs,
              desiccated by downstream de-watering, or rendered nonregenerative by natural flood cycle interrup-
              tions. A 1982 Corps of Engineers survey (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1982) found that the
              Nation's rivers support 68,153 nonfederal dams. These privately owned dams have altered or
              destroyed tens or hundreds of thousands of miles of riparian habitat. Construction of impoundments
              by the federal government has transformed major river systems - such as the Columbia, Colorado
              and Missouri - into a series of artificial lakes and severely decreased the diversity of habitats
              available to wildlife. More recently, Congress has authorized 934 additional major federal water
              projects and needs only to appropriate funds before actual construction can begin. Proposed riverine
              alterations greatly outnumber the stream segments currently protected under federal or state statutes.

              Today, however, channelization and other flood control projects are generally carried out with much
              greater sensitivity to natural resources. For example, all channel work installed by the SCS must have
              anerivironmental impact statement and be consistent with the Stream Channel Guidelines mutually
              agreed upon by the SCS and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Channel location is selected to
              avoid wetlands or channels are constructed to have minimal adverse impacts on both wetlands and
              riparian habitat. Improved construction'techniques include such practices as construction from one
              side only, use of winding channel work to follow natural channel locations, avoiding clearing of mature
              frees that are significant sources of cover and food for wildlife, and widespread use of wildlife-
              supporting natural wildlife plantihgs, to ensure that channel work will fit into natural stream systems
              and be shaded (von Wolffradt, 1988).

              Overgrazing has done great damage to watersheds and riparian zones, and inadequate livestock
              management has been responsible for the lack of riparian habitat regeneration on federal range lands
              in the west. The negative impacts of overgrazing include soil compaction, denudation of watershed
              areas, removal of riparian vegetation, and the mechanical breakdown of streambanks as caused by
              livestock. These impacts generally lead to increased soil erosion (and i  ncreased sediment loads and
              turbidity in streams), increased nutrient load in streams, bank erosion and lowering of water tables.
              Management practices suggested to alleviate these problems center on timing the grazing to avoid
              times of the year when the most damage is done (Bryandt, 1985).








                    3-14                                                                                      The Nation's Floodplains



                    Lowering of the water table in and and semi-arid regions causes a drastic and often permanent
                    degradation of natural floodplain resources. In many areas, a high water table is the only source of
                    water for riparian vegetation. Permanent pools and springs may be the only local sources of water
                    for native animals. The pumping of ground water, construction of agricultural drains, and channeliza-
                    tion, both intentional and incidental to these activities, may lower the water table and change entire
                    ecosystems.

                    Introduction of normative plant species can also contribute to degradation of riparian habitat and
                    wetlands. Invasion of riparian areas by salt cedar, imported to North America during the 19th
                    century, for example, has reduced the value of riparian areas for many native bird species. Salt cedar
                    has become the predominant riparian tree species in the Lower Colorado, the Lower Rio Grande
                    and the Pecos Rivers, covering some 500 square miles in those basins alone (Hunter, 1985). Purple
                    loosestrife is another normative species that can dominate wetlands. This species is particularly
                    harmful to wetlands because it spreads rapidly and has low food value for wildlife. It is spreading
                    from the northeast westward. Many other invader species also pose problems (Meagher, 1988). On
                    the other hand, some nonnative species can have beneficial impacts. A 45,000 acre irrigated pecan
                    grove on the Santa Cruz River in southern Arizona, for example, has created a pseudo-riparian
                    environment that is used by many native species of birds, mammals and other animals (Kingsley,
                    1985).

                    Riparian habitat has been lost in every region of the country. Southwestern riparian woodlands have
                    declined drastically since the late 19th century, and losses have been extensive in the midwest.
                    Northeastern states originally lost riparian habitat to agriculture, livestock grazing, and urbanization.
                    Much riparian habitat in the northeast has returned due to abandonment of farmland and subsequent
                    reforestation, but increasing demands for housing, recreation and hydropower constitute continuing
                    threats to riparian habitat. Southeastern riparian communities are gradually losing ground to intensive
                    forest practices, housing developments and agricultural conversions. In the Northwest, hydropower
                    development and associated activities - such as road construction or relocation, wetlands drainage,
                    stream channelization, and shoreline riprapping -have also adversely impacted the region's riparian
                    communities (Hunt, 1985).

                                           In 1848, California's Sacramento River supported about 775,000 acres of oak sycamore,
                                           ash, willow, walnut, alder, poplar, and wild grape on its banks. At the turn of the
                                           century, vast tracts had been cleared for agricultural development and by 1977 the Sacra-
                                           mento's banks had a mere 12,000 acres of native riparian vegetation. On the Colorado
                                           River's lower reaches in California and Arizona, vast tracts of riparian woodlands were
                                           cut in the late 1800s to fuel steamboats (Johnson, 1978).


                    Loss of riparian ecosystems has been documented throughout the Nation:

                    ï¿½   A 1981 study by the New England River Basins Commission (NERBC) estimated that only 5%
                        of the region's total river mileage remains free-flowing, with 30-40 new hydropower dams
                        proposed for those reaches (New England River Basins Commission, 1981).
                    ï¿½   The Missouri River was extensively developed in response to the dust bowl in the mid- 193 Os and
                        a series of floods in the 1940s. River channelization to stabilize the river, increase its navi-








              Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                     3-15



                  gability, and produce hydropower has eliminated all the oxbow lakes that were valuable for
                  overflow storage and ground-water recharge, as well as backwater and sand bar wildlife habitat.
                  The result has been a loss of 309,000 acres of terrestrial habitat and 100,300 acres of aquatic
                  habitat. In 1980, approximately 640 acres of riparian habitat existed for each mile of river, but
                  by 1985, the ratio had dropped to 140 acres per mile, with most of the remaining acreage
                  converted to farmland (Hunt, 1985).
                  The taming of the Columbia River began in the period just after the Civil War with nonfederal
                  dredging operations. The Corps of Engineers completed Cascades Lock in 1896. Activities
                  continued in 1933 with Congressional approval of the Bonneville and Grand Coulee Dams, and
                  by 1973, 28 dams had been built on the Columbia and its tributaries. The reservoirs behind the
                  dams inundated many additional miles of riparian habitat and water release fluctuations created
                  barren zones on the river's banks (Bureau of Reclamation, 1991).



                                        HISTORICAL LOSSES FROM FLOODS


              Flooding and flood related events such as hurricanes annually cause greater damages and result in
              more Presidentially declared disasters than all other forms of natural hazards combined. From 1965
              through 1989, there were 657 Presidential disaster declarations, of which 508 (77 percent) were flood
              related (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1985, 1989).

              Any discussion of flood losses is hindered by the lack of uniform and systematic application of
              definitions of "flood" and "flood loss" applied to the collection of data from natural disasters. For
              example, deaths due to a helicopter crash during an evacuation operation may or may not be
              attributed as "flood-related." There may be thousands of incidents each year where a few houses
              are damaged by local flooding or storm drainage problems, but there is no uniform accounting for
              these damages. Even the accounting for Presidential disaster declarations does not usually differenti-
              ate between flood-caused damages and damages caused by wind, for example.


              ESTIMATES OF PROPERTY DAMAGES AND DEATHS FROM FLOODING


              Although reasonably good information is available for the great floods that have caused serious loss
              of life or major damages to property, equivalent information is frequently not available for the
              multitude of smaller flood events, and there is no complete record of past flood damages in the
              United States. Due to differences in reporting flood losses (e.g., with reference to floods vs. storms,
              with regard to major flood disasters vs. smaller flood events) and in adjusting dollar amounts to reflect
              changes in monetary values, as well as other problems in coordinating data sources (e.g., federal vs.
              nonfederal outlays), interpretation of flood loss data is difficult and estimates are not necessarily
              comparable (Rubin, 1986). The two most comprehensive sources of annual flood loss data are those
              prepared by the National Weather Service (NWS) and the American National Red Cross.








                   3-16                                                                                 Ae Nation's Floodplains



                   Since 1902, the NWS has annually compiled estimates of damages caused by floods (excluding losses
                   to agriculture) and of the number of lives lost due to floods. Estimates are initially prepared by local
                   NWS offices using information obtained from a variety of sources, including government officials and
                   news media   .3  Data from local offices is compiled by NWS offices in Silver Spring, Maryland and
                   may be supplemented by additional information, such as that supplied by other federal agencies.
                   Until 1975, damage estimates were prepared for each state and national totals were also compiled.
                   Beginning in 1976, only the national totals were released by the NWS (Stallings, 1988).

                   In order to provide the data to Congress by January of each year, the NWS damage estimates are
                   produced immediately after the close of the federal fiscal year at the end of September and are never.
                   revised to reflect later damage figures that may be more accurate and/or complete. In the worst case,
                   damage estimates for a flood that occurs in August or September are very rough and probably still
                   incomplete by the October 1 deadline. Even though better figures may become available months
                   later, they are never reflected in the NWS reports or in any other published form. Despite many
                   deficiencies and other known problems with regard to the NWS data on flood-related deaths and
                   damages, these data provide the most complete and consistent information over the longest period
                   of record. Detailed analysis of these data could be misleading, but gross trends should be reasonably
                   evident.

                   Table 3-7 provides NWS estimates of loss of lives and loss of life per 200 million population in the
                   U.S. from 1916 to 1989. (The U.S. Census estimate of the Nation's 1985 population was 238.7 million.
                   It should be pointed out that there are inconsistencies between the annual deaths reported in Table
                   3-7 and the deaths that have been attributed by other sources to specific flood events as reported
                   in Appendix A of the Assessrhent Report.) Table 3-8 provides NWS estimates for property damages
                   for the same period, both in current dollars and dollars adjusted to 1985 values      .4  The flood damage
                   data in Table 3-8 are also shown per 200 million population. Data for flood-related deaths and
                   damages are displayed graphically on Figures 3-4 and 3-5.

                   Examination of the data in Table 3-7 and Figure 3-4 does not indicate a trend in the annual number
                   of flood-related deaths once the number is adjusted in accordance with population changes. The
                   adjusted average annual deaths (per 200 million population) for the entire 74-year'period shown in
                   Table 3-7 is 124.7. In the 25-year period from 1916 through 1940, there was an adjusted average of
                   153.7 deaths per year; in the period 1941 through 1965 the average was 86.1; and in the period 1966
                   through 1985 the average was 144.8. Given the impact of one or two catastrophic events such as a
                   dam failure or a major hurricane on flood-related deaths, there is no indication that flood-related
                   deaths are increasing or decreasing on a per capita basis.




                   3   Although a standardized form is used, no firm procedure or stringent requirements for completeness has
                       been established by the NWS. Hence, data submitted by local offices may vary widely in quality.

                   4   In an effort to provide consistent figures, all dollar figures in this chapter have been converted to 1985
                       values wherever possible. The Consumer Price Ind" was used for this conversion. In many sources, the
                       basis of the dollar values was not given, and no effort was made to convert these figures. Readers are
                       advised to obtain data from the original sources for purposes of additional analysis.








                     Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                                                                3-17



                     Table 3-7.              National Weather Service Estimates of Flood-Related Deaths in the United States,
                                              1916-1989.


                                                                 FLOOD-REIATED DEATns IN THE UNITED STATES



                                                                      DEATHSPER                                                       DEATHSPER
                                          YEAR        DEATHS          200 MIL POP                          YEAR        DEATHS 200 MIL POP


                                          1916          118               235                              1953           40                50
                                          1917            80              159                              1954           55                67
                                          1918               0               0                             1955          302               366
                                          1919               2               4
                                          1920            42               79                              1956           42                50
                                                                                                           1957           82                96
                                          1921          143               269                              1958           47                54
                                          1922          215               404                              1959           25                28
                                          1923            42               79                              1960           32                36
                                          1924            27               51
                                          1925            36               62                              1961           52                59
                                                                                                           1962           19                20
                                          1926            16               28                              1963           39                41
                                          1927          423               731                              1964          100               105
                                          1928            15               26                              1965          119               122
                                          1929            89              154
                                          1930            14               23                              1966           31                32
                                                                                                           1967           34                34
                                          1931               0               0                             1968           31                31
                                          1932            11               18                              1969          297               295
                                          1933            33               54                              1970          135               132
                                          1934            88              143
                                          1935          236               371                              1971           74                72
                                                                                                           1972          554               529
                                          1936          142               223                              1973          148               140
                                          1937          142               223                              1974          121               113
                                          1938          180               283                              1975          107                99
                                          1939            83              130
                                          1940            60               91                              1976          193               177
                                                                                                           1977          210               191
                                          1941            47               70                              1978          143               129
                                          1942            68              101                              1979          121               108
                                          1943          107               158                              1980           82                72
                                          1944            33               49
                                          1945            91              136                              1981           84                73
                                                                                                           1982          155               133
                                          1946            28               40                              1983          204               174
                                          1947            55               76                              1984          126               107
                                          1948            82              112                              1995          304               255
                                          1949            48               64
                                          1950            93              122                              1986          206               172
                                                                                                           1987          130               109
                                          1951            51               66                              1988           37                31
                                          1952            54               65                              1989           32                27


                              NOTE.       Annual population figures not available for 1915-1939. Population figure used to calculate "Deaths/200
                                          Mil. Pop.." was the figure for the end of a five-year period. For example, the 1920 population figure was
                                          used for the years 1916-1920. 'Me 1985 population figure was used for the years 1986 to 1989. "Resident
                                          Population" was used for all years.


                             Sources:     Deaths - Schillin& Kyle, and others. Tlie Nation's Public Works: Report on Water Resources. National Council on
                                          Public Works Improvement Categories of Public Works Series, 1987. (Based on NWS data; updated to 1989.)
                                          Population - Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1989. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
                                          of Commerce, 1989.








                           3-18                                                                                                                       Yhe Nation's Floodplains



                               Table 3-8.               National Weather Service Estimates of Flood-Related Damages in the United
                                                        States, 1916-1989.


                                                                           FiA)OD-RELATED DAMAGES IN THE UNITED STATES
                                                                                                  (in millions of dollars)


                                                                                                DAMAGES                                                       DAMAGES
                                                                                                PER 200                                                       PER 200
                                                                                DAMAGES MIL POP                                              DAMAGES          MIL POP.
                                                    YEAR        DAMAGES         (1995 S)        (1985S)          YEAR        DAMAGES         (1985S)          (1985s)

                                                    1916           26             256             481            1953          122             491              618
                                                    1917           27             227             427            1954          107             428              529
                                                    1918             8             57             07             1955          995           3,997            4,942
                                                    1919             3             19               36
                                                    1920           25             134             252            1956            65            257              306
                                                                                                                 1957          360           1,376            1,607
                                                    1921           29             174             301            1958          218             811              931
                                                    1922           52             334             577            1959          141             520              597
                                                    1923           53             334             577            1960            93            338              376
                                                    1924           17             107             185
                                                    1925           10              61             105            1961          154             554              605
                                                                                                                 1962            75            267              297
                                                    1926           23             140             228            1963          118             414              439
                                                    1927           348          2,156           3,506            1964          652           2-261            2,366
                                                    1928           45             283             460            1965          788           2,687            2,777
                                                    1929           68             427             694
                                                    1930           16             103             167            1966          117             388              397
                                                                                                                 1967          375           1,209            1,224
                                                    1931             3             21               33           1968          339           1,049            1,052
                                                    1932           10              79             124            1969          901           2,645            2,627
                                                    1933           37             307             482            1970          1157            435              426
                                                    1934           10              80             126
                                                    1935           127            996           1,565            1971          287             762              737
                                                                                                                 1972        4,465           11,484           10,974
                                                    1936           283          2,197           3,316            1973        1,8%            4,586            4,339
                                                    1937           441          3,304           4,987            1974          566           1,235            1,158
                                                    1938           101            771           1,164            1975        1,248           2,495            Z316
                                                    1939           14             108             163
                                                    1940           40             307             463            1976        1,240           2,344            2,154
                                                                                                                 1977        1,482           Z631             2,394
                                                    1941           40             292             437            1978        3,150           5,195            4,678
                                                    1942           99             654             972            1979        5,279           7,825            6,968
                                                    1943           200          1,244           1,842            1980        1,774           2,316            2,038
                                                    1944           101            617             922
                                                    1945           166            992           1,487            1981          906           1,072              934
                                                                                                                 1982        1.377           1,535            1,323'
                                                    1946           71             391             556            1983        2.388           2.580            2,202
                                                    1947           272          1,310           1,818            1984        1.543           1,598            1,351
                                                    1948           230          1,028           1,401            1985        3.536           3,536            Z963
                                                    1949           94             424             568
                                                    1950           176            797           1.036            1986        6.007
                                                                                                                 1987        2,094
                                                    1951        1.029           4,261           5,534            1988          500
                                                    1952           254          5,534           1,316            1989        1,100


                                        NOTE:       Annual population figures not available for 1915-1939. Population figure used to calculate "Deathst"
                                                    Mil. Pop."was the figure for the end of a five-year period. For example, the 1920 population figure was
                                                    used for the years 1916-1920. The 1985 population figure was used for the years 1986 to 1989. "Resident
                                                    Population" was used for all years.

                                        Sources:    Damages - National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, updated to 1989.
                                                    Population - Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1989. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
                                                    of Commerce, 1989.

                                                    CPI - Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to_1970 Pa 1 (1916-1966@
                                                                                                                                                   various @@
                                                                                                                                                              t:
                                                    Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1976; Council of tconomic Advisors,                          ,   U.S. General
                                                    Services Administration. Economic Indicators. Washington, D.C: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
                                                    Printing Office, (I%7-I99rJ-__








                         Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                                                                                       3-19





                                                           250-
                                                                                           Deaffis                    Deaths("    ;1_1 @1_p


                                                           200-





                                                           150-
                                                      Cn
                                                      :2
                                                      ca


                                                           too-





                                                             5a-





                                                              0-
                                                                                                 T
                                                                         1920         1930         1940        1950         1960         1970        1980
                                                                                1925         1935        1W           1955        1965         1975        1985
                                                                                                 Last Year of 5-Year Period

                                                               NOTE: Date shown is the last year of the five-year period.

                                       Sources:       Deaths - Schilling, Kyle, and others. Tle NatiDN'S Public Works: Report on Water Resources. National Council on
                                                      Public Works Improvement, Categories of Public Works Series, 1987. (Based on NWS data.)
                                                      Population - Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1989. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
                                                      of Commerce, 1989.
                         Figure 3-4.                  NWS Estimate of Annual Flood-Related Deaths in the United States, 1916-1985.





                                                      4500-
                                                                    Damages
                                                      4000-
                                                                    Damages (1985 S)         MDamages/200milpop (1965s)
                                                      3500-
                                               12
                                               ca
                                               =      3000-
                                               0

                                               4-     2500-
                                               0
                                               (0
                                               _0     2000-
                                               C
                                               CU
                                               (D
                                               :3     1500-
                                               0


                                                      1000-


                                                      500--


                                                        0i
                                                                     1920          1930          1940          1950          1960          1970          1980
                                                                            1925          1935          1945          1955           1965         1975          1985
                                                                                               Last Year of 5-Year Period

                                                           NOTE: Date shown is the last year of the five-year period.

                                       Sources:       Damages - National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

                                                      Population -Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1989. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
                                                      of Commerce, 1989.
                        Figure 3-5.                   NWS Estimate of Annual Flood Damages in the United States, 1916-1985.








                   3-20                                                                                 Yhe Nation's Floodplains



                   On the other hand, there has definitely been an increase in flood damages over the 70 year period.
                   The average annual damages in the period from 1916 to 1960 are 268 percent greater in constant
                   1985 dollars than the period from 1951 to 1985 - an increase from $592 million to $2.18 billion.
                   With the adjustment for population, the average annual damages for the same periods are $902
                   million and $2.15 billion, an increase of 139 percent. In other words, per capita flood damages were
                   almost 2.5 times as great from 1951 through 1985 as they were from 1916 through 1950, after
                   adjusting for inflation. There were 22 years in the second half of the period with more than one
                   billion dollars damage, compared with ten during the first half.

                   Research based upon NWS survey reports (which cover events that claim 3 or more lives or cause
                   more than $100 million in property damages) gives an annual death rate of 91.5 for the thirteen years
                   from 1969 through 1981. During that period, the highest average number of deaths per event was
                   associated with dam failures. Ninety-three per cent of the deaths were due to drowning, and 42 per
                   cent of the drownings were car-related (French, 1983). It should be noted that neither of these
                   references include smaller flood events, which may account for many flash flood deaths.

                   The American National Red Cross also provides data on lives lost and dwellings damaged or
                   destroyed due to disasters. Tables 3-9 to 3-11 show estimates, based on data collected by the Red
                   Cross, from 1965 to 1985 for hurricanes, storms and floods (Rubin, 1986).5 A comparison of the lives
                   lost in the estimates developed by the NWS and the Red Cross show marked differences in many
                   instances. Differences are due in part to procedures for collecting data, including differences in the
                   flood events for which data are collected. In either case, it is not clear which figures are solely flood-
                   related and which include wind and other hazards. There are also inconsistencies between the annual
                   deaths reported in the Red Cross data and the deaths that have been attributed by other sources
                   to specific flood events as reported in Appendix A of the Assessment Report.

                   Table 3-12 shows the number of deaths attributed to floods and stormS6 annually from 1965 through
                   1985 based on Red Cross data. According to Table 3-12, the average annual deaths due to floods
                   and storms from 1965-66 through 1984-85 (based on fiscal year of July 1 - June 30) is 119.4 (Rubin,
                   1986). The NWS data from Table 3-7 indicate an annual average of 157.7 flood-related deaths for
                   the period 1966-1985 (based on fiscal year of October 1 - September 30). This difference of 32
                   percent is an indication of the problems in flood loss data.

                   Another measure of flood losses is the number of major (Presidential) disaster declarations and the
                   amount of federal disaster assistance provided to individuals and communities for these disaster
                   events. Table 3-13 shows a total of $6.767 billion in disaster assistance from 1965 through 1989, with
                   $5.206 billion, or 77 percent, for flood related (including hurricane-related) damages (Federal
                   Emergency Management Agency, 1985, 1990). Table 3-13 lists only disaster assistance payments
                   authorized through the President's Disaster Relief Fund. It is not an estimate of total damages, nor
                   does it include several other forms of financial protection and aid provided by other federal agencies,
                   state and local governments, and private organizations.


                   5   The differentiation between hurricanes, floods and storms is made by the American National Red Cross,
                       which is the source of the data used by Claire Rubin (George Washington University) to produce the tables.

                   6   Not all deaths attributed to floods and storms are due to drowning. Floods may cause behavior that directly
                       results in death by heart attack, electrocution, and various sorts of traumatic injuries.







                       Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                                                                 3-21



                       Table 3-9.             Hurricanes: Deaths, Injuries, and Damage to Dwellings, 1965-1985. (Based on Ameri-
                                              can National Red Cross Data.)


                                              FISCAL              NO. OF PERSONS PERSONS DWELLJNGS                 DWELLINGS      DWELLINGS DESTROYED
                                              YEAR                EVENTS KILLED INJURED DESTROYED                  DAMAGED _& DAMAGED

                                              1965-66             5           72             25.202  2,059         148,607        150,66
                                              1966-67             NA          0              13            6         316           3222
                                              1967-68             NA          19             11,396        388     29,405         29,793
                                              1968-69             NA          2              45            1         705           706
                                              1969-70             NA          272            9,062   6,046         48,734         54,780
                                              1970-71             5           9              4,498   1,887         34,442         36,329
                                              1971-72             4           2              235           36      24,258         24,294
                                              1972-73             0           0              0             0           0               0
                                              1973-74             0           0              0             0           0               0
                                              1974-75             2           3              8             45      2,514          2,559
                                              1975-76             3           32             4,409   4,642         31,670         36,312
                                              1976-77             1           2              23            15        498           513
                                              1977-78             3           0              8             6         142           148
                                              1978-79             1           0              0             1           3               4
                                              1979-80             6           20             6,765   6,897         65,033         71,930
                                              1980-81             2           NA             NA            NA        NA           14,865
                                              1981-82             1           0              0             NA        NA                3
                                              1982-83             2           2              961           NA        NA           7,454
                                              1983-84             4           16             3,094         NA        NA           18,663
                                              1994-85             0           0              0             0           0               0


                                              TOTAL               39          451            65,711  22,029        386,327        449,341

                                              Note that these     data are presented by fiscal year (July I - June 30).

                                  Source:     Rubin, Claire B., and others. Summary of Ma*or Natural Disaster Incidents in the U.S. - 1965-85. Natural
                                              Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special Publication 17. Boulder, Colorado: The
                                              University of Colorado at Boulder, 1986.



                       Table 3-10.            Storms: Deaths, Injuries, and Damage to Dwellings, 1965-1985. (Based on American
                                              National Red Cross Data.)


                                              FISCAL              NO. OF PERSONS PERSONS         DWELLINGS         DWELLINGS      DWELLINGS DESTROYED
                                              YEAR                EVENTS KILLED              INJURED DESTROYED DAMAGED             DAMAGED
                                              1965-66             20          42             54            9       1,226          1,234
                                              1966-67             NA          8              43            23      1,723          1,746
                                              1967-68             NA          12             78            298     1,214          1,512
                                              1968-69             NA          51             242           276     11,331         11,607
                                              1969-70             NA          3              22            21      3,950          3,971
                                              1970-71             27          2              71            117     1,207          1,324
                                              1971-72             31          14             1,165         424     9,287          9,711
                                              1972-73             19          1              72            104     4,687          4,791
                                              1973-74             26          8              106           113     1,589
                                              1974-75             37          7              336           238     7,600          7,838
                                              1975-76             39          44             387           610     28,080         28,690
                                              1976-77             24          54             187           106     2,662          2,768
                                              1977-78             78          164            5,096         476     17,105         17,581
                                              1978-79             80          6              127           144     1,892          2,036
                                              1979-80             56          22             Z995          668     16,285         16,953
                                              1980-81             60          NA             NA            NA        NA           21,985
                                              1981-82             97          24             2,805         NA        NA           10,746
                                              1982-83             55          19             421           NA        NA           61,725
                                              1993-84             71          19             188           NA        NA           5,774
                                              1994-85             11          2              25            NA        NA            438


                                              TOTAL               731         502            14,420  3,626         109,838        159,032

                                              Note that these data are presented by fiscal year (July I -June 30).

                                    Source:     Rubin, Claire B., and others. Summary of Maior Natural Disaster Incidents in the U.S. - 1965-85. Natural
                                                Hazards Research and Applications Infonnation Center Special Publication 17. Boulder, Colorado: The
                                                University of Colorado at Boulder, 1986.








                         3-22                                                                                                                   ne Nafion's Floodplains



                         Table 3-11.             Floods: Deaths, Injuries, and Damage to Dwellings, 1965-1985. (Based on American
                                                 National Red Cross Data.)


                                               FISCAL           NO. OF    PERSONS PERSONS          DWELLINGS       DWELLINGS        DWELLINGS DESTROYED
                                               YEAR             EVENT'S KILLED        INJURED DESTROYED            DAMAGED          & DAMAGED

                                               1965-66           67           22            102           91          9,131         9,222
                                               1966-67          NA            16            161           108       22.353          22,461
                                               1%7-68           NA            38            824           84        14,724          14,308
                                               1968-69          NA            24            294           71        17,674          17,745
                                               1%9-70           NA            51            783           83        33,769          33,852
                                               1970-71           49           22            58            105         6,993         7,098
                                               1971-72           77         519         16,587         7,346       133.805        141,151
                                               1972-73           78         105          1,559         3,229        81,467          84,696
                                               1973-74           83           71            366        1,417        31,309          32,726
                                               1974-75           90           48            500           803       25.008          25,811
                                               1975-76           70           55         2,071         1,377        26,179          27,556
                                               1976-77           58         165          1,469         3,581        35,942          39,523
                                               1977-78          106         196          3,712         1,489        48,508          49,997
                                               1978-79          148         143          3,842         2,659        56,646          59,305
                                               1979-80          122           79         1,121            887       37,439          38,326
                                               1980-81          115         NA              NA            NA           NA           19,578
                                               1981-82          133           76         2,561            NA           NA           46,256
                                               1982-83          149           69         1,988            NA           NA           48,874
                                               1983-84          121           65         1,478            NA           NA           41,578
                                               1984-85           48           9             29            NA           NA           2,308

                                               TOTAL            1,514      1,767        39,495        23,330       580,447        762,371

                                               Note that these data are presented by fiscal year (July I - June 30).

                                    Source:      Rubin, Claire B., and others. Summary of Ma*or Natural Disaster Incidents in the U.S. - 1965-85. Natural
                                                 Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special Publication 17. Boulder, Colorado: The
                                                 University of Colorado at Boulder, 1986.


                         Table 3-12.             Deaths Due to Floods and Storms, 1965-1985. (Based on American National Red
                                                 Cross Data.)


                                                                NO.OF         NO.OF         NO.OF         5-YEAR
                                               FISCAL           DEATIIS     DEATHS          DEATHS        MOVING
                                               YEAR             (FLOOD)     (STORM)         (TOTAL)    AVERAGE

                                               1965-66                 22           42          64           -64
                                               1966-67                 16           8           24           *44
                                               1%7-68                  38           12          50           '46
                                               1968-69                 24           51          75           *53
                                               1%9-70                  51           3           54               53
                                               1970-71                 22           2           24               45
                                               1971-72                 519          14          533          147
                                               1972-73                 105          1           106          158
                                               1973-74                 71           8           79           159
                                               1974-75                 48           7           55           159              Note that these data are for Presidentially
                                               1975-76                 55           44          99           174              declared disasters only.
                                               1976-77                 165          54          219              92
                                               1977-78                 1%         164           360          162                      Average of four or fewer years
                                               1978-79                 143          6           149          176                      through current year.
                                               1979-80                 79           22          101          186                      Totals for 19 years.
                                               1980-81                 NA        NA             NA           $207                     Averages for 19 years.
                                               1981-82                 70           24          94           *176
                                               1982-83                 69           19          88           *108
                                               1983-94                 65           19          83           *92
                                               1984-85                 9            2           11           *39

                                               TOTAL            -1,767        **502         '*2,269
                                               AVERAGE ***93.0                - *26.4    *--119.4

                                      Source:    Rubin, Claire B., and others. Summary of Maior Natural Disaster Incidents in the U.S. - 1965-85. Natural
                                                 Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special Publication 17. Boulder, Colorado: The
                                                 University of Colorado at Boulder, 1986.








             Floodplain Development and Losses                                                         3-23



             Table 3-13.   Disaster Assistance Payments for Presidential Disaster Declarations, 1965-1989.


                                              ALL                              DISASTERS
                              PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED DISASTERS     DUE TO FLOODS AND HURRICANES

                    DATE         NUMBER            COST                  NUMBER           COST


                    1965            25           88,378,200                 17          83,162,400
                    1966            11           10,765,300                   9           6,204,449
                    1967            11           29,826,100                   8         26,558,600
                    1968            19           14,158,000                 13            4,618,891
                    1969            29           211,839,000                28         211,746,000
                    1970            17           87,342,400                 15          71,561,200
                    1971            17           236,130,000                11          33,379,300
                    1972            48           579,304,000                37          81,997,600
                    1973            46           149,042,000                41         143,547,000
                    1974            46           135,658,000                33          80,655,700
                    1975            38           176,912,000                28         161,773,000
                    1976            29           185,148,000                23         128,675,000
                    1977            22           397,429,000                16         267,826,000
                    1978            25           249,048,000                21         244,516,000
                    1979            42          1,062,430,000               34         490,468,000
                    1980            23           258,028,000                14         206,235,000
                    1981            15           40,668,500                 11         240,047,000
                    1982            24           129,986,000                20         117,287,000
                    1983            21           273,054,000                19         267,759,000
                    1984            34           164,679,457                26         127,924,700
                    1985            27           435,336,089                21         406,419,123
                    1986            28           176,637,486                24         172,803,240
                    1987            23           154,035,433                17         140,265,115
                    1988            11           127,712,811                  5         24,458,312
                    1989            26          1,493,890,000               17        1,465,650,000

                    TOTAL           657         6,767,440,000              508        5,205,540,000


                    Sources: Federal Emergency Management Agency. "DMIS Reports for Major Disasters and Emergencies, 1953-1984." FEMA,
                           1985; Federal Emergency Management Agency. "DMIS Report 24: President's Fund: Actual and Projected Obligations;
                           Major Disasters; Period of Declarations: 83/10/01 - 90/07/31." July Im.



             Among the other forms of financial protection and aid administered by federal agencies are: flood
             insurance administered by the Federal Insurance Administration to partly indemnify public and private
             flood losses; aid provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to state and local govern-
             ments (and other federal agencies) to repair or replace roads and bridges that are part of the
             Federal-Aid Highway Program; loans to individuals and businesses from the Small Business Adminis-
             tration (SBA); and aid to farmers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). During the
             10-year period from 1978-1987, a total of $2.658 billion in flood insurance claims were paid out by
             the NFIP (Flood Insurance Producers National Committee, 1988). Information on financial aid
             provided by other agencies is not readily available in a form that separates flood-related damages
             from other types of natural and technological disasters. In most years, however, flood damages
             constitute th e- bulk of other federal financial aid for disasters. The FHWA provided a total of $442.3







                   3-24                                                                               Ae Nation's Floodplains



                   million in emergency relief during the four fiscal years 1986-1989 (Federal Highway Administration,
                   1990). In fiscal year 1989, the SBA issued $78.76 million in Economic Injury Disaster Loans and
                   $67.96 million in Physical Disaster Loans (U.S. General Services Administration, 1990).7


                   LOSSES IN COASTAL AREAS


                   Flood-caused losses in coastal areas can be attributed to hurricanes and coastal storms, shoreline
                   erosion, and tsunamis.



                   Hurricanes and Coastal Storms


                   Although wind is the element most commonly associated with hurricanes by the public, damages from
                   hurricanes are caused by inundation, storm surge, waves and erosion, as well as high winds. Despite
                   the public perception of winds as the major danger from hurricanes, most hurricane-related deaths
                   have been caused by storm surge.8

                   Average annual property losses due to hurricanes rose from $250 million during the decade between
                   1951 and 1960 to over 3400 million in the decade between 1961 and 1970. There has been at least
                   one landfalling hurricane in the United States each year since 1982. Hurricane Alicia in 1983 caused
                   over $750 million in damages to commercial, residential and public facilities in the Galveston, Texas
                   area. In 1985, six hurricanes tore through 10 states along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, leaving 30
                   dead and more than $4 billion in damages to homes, businesses and public facilities. Hurricanes
                   Danny, Elena, Gloria, Juan, and Kate resulted in an estimated $1 billion in federal assistance on the
                   Atlantic and Gulf coasts in 1985. Only two hurricanes, Bonnie and Charley, made landfall in 1986,
                   causing eight deaths and an estimated $16.4 million in damage. Only one hurricane affected the U.S.
                   in each of the years 1987 and 1988. In 1989, hurricanes Chantal, Hugo and Jerry made landfall
                   (Jarvinen, 1990). Hurricane Hugo, which crossed inland over Charleston, South Carolina, earned
                   the distinction of being the most costly hurricane in the Nation's history, with total damage estimates
                   as high as $10 billion (Duryee, 1990).

                   From 1981 to 1985, about 23% (16 of 67) of all Presidentially declared disasters involved coastal
                   flooding and about 49% ($265 of $539 million) of federal disaster aid obligations were attributable
                   to coastal damage. Of the total 2 million eligible properties and $150 billion of coverage provided
                   during that time through the National Flood Insurance Program, about 70% of the properties were
                   in coastal communities (cities, towns and counties having a portion of their areas on the coast). As
                   noted earlier, there is no means of separating flood damages from other hurricane damages. There
                   is also no direct means of separating coastal damages from inland (riverine) damages that result from
                   hurricanes.



                   7   Refer to Chapter 13 for further information on flood insurance claims and payments and the various types
                       of disaster assistance.


                       See Figure 1-8 for a description of the types of damages associated with winds of increasing intensity during
                       a hurricane.







               Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                   3-25



               Shoreline Erosion

               A national assessment of shore erosion was conducted by the Corps of Engineers in 1971, resulting
               in an 11-volume report, The National Shoreline Study (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971). The
               Corps found that of the total 84,240 miles of the Nation's shoreline, 20,500 miles or about 24 percent
               were significantly eroding. Table 3-14 details erosion estimates for the Great Lakes, Alaska and other
               ocean shoreline. The 2,700 miles of critically eroding shoreline were prioritized according to the need
               for addressing erosion problems:

               0   FiRsr PRioRrry: 200 miles where, if erosion continued, public safety would be endangered within
                   5 years.

               0   SECOND PRIOR=: 1,000 miles where property or scarce wildlife habitat or important natural
                   landmarks would be endangered within 5 years.

               0   THIRD PRioRm: the remaining 1,500 miles.


               Table 3-14.     Status of Coastal Erosion in the United States, 1971.


                                                                                     TOTAL
                                                    TOTAL     CRITICAL NON           MILES      PERCENT
                                                    SHORE     EROSION CRITICAL       SIGNIF.    ERODING
                                                    MILES     MILES       MILES      EROSION    SIGNIFICANTLY



                       Great Lakes                    3,680        220      1,040      1,260    34%
                       Oceanic, Except Alaska       33,260       2,380     11,760    14,140     43%
                       Alaska Only                  47,300         100      5,000      5,100    11%

                       TOTAL                        84,240       2,700     17,800    20,500     24%



                               Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Report on the National Shoreline Study, 1971(p.18).



               Estimates on ownership of the critically eroding shoreline indicated that 1,810 miles (67 percent) were
               in private ownership, 340 miles (13 percent) were in federal ownership, and 480 miles (20 percent)
               were nonfederal, publicly owned shoreline.

               No more recent comprehensive study of shoreline erosion has been performed. The Corps considers
               the results of the 1971 study to still be a good estimate of the extent of the shoreline erosion problem
               (Schilling, 1987).

               Erosion along the shores of the Great Lakes increases during periods of abnormally high lake levels,
               such as most recently occurred during the mid-1980s. During high water periods, erosion accelerates
               and may continue for several years after lake levels recede as the bluff slopes reach equilibrium with
               the new conditions (Horvath, 1989).








                  3-26                                                                             The Nation's Floodplains




                  Tsunamis


                  In recent times, three tsunamis have caused major destruction in areas of the United States. The
                  Great Aleutian tsunami of April 1, 1946 killed 173 persons in Hawaii,9 where heights as great as 55
                  feet were recorded. ne first waves arrived about five hours after the quake occurred in the Aleutian
                  Trench, about 2,240 miles north of Hawaii, indicating a speed of about 490 miles per hour for the
                  waves. Most affected areas in Hawaii experienced a series of waves ranging from 20 to 50 feet in
                  height, although in some areas damage resulted primarily from the initial violent draw-down of water
                  to the sea. This tsunami was particularly important because it spurred development of a tsunami
                  warning service.

                  A May 22, 1960 earthquake off the coast of Chile generated a tsunami which killed 61 people in
                  Hawaii,10 mostly in Hilo (in addition to 330 in Chile and 199 in Japan). A tsunami warning Was
                  issued at Honolulu 12 hours before the first waves arrived, but many people ignored the warning,
                  grew tired of waiting on high ground, or stayed behind to see the predicted wave.

                  The most recent major tsunami to affect the United States - generated by the "Good Friday"
                  earthquake of March 27, 1964 - killed 107 people in Alaska, 4 in Oregon, and I I in Crescent City,
                  California, and caused over 100 million dollars in damage on the west coast of North America."
                  Adequate warnings were not provided for this tsunami because the earthquake was centered in Prince
                  William Sound, only a short distance from where the tsunami hit in Alaska, and communications
                  systems were disrupted. This tsunami resulted in the establishment of regional tsunami Warning
                  systems for Alaska and for the Hawaiian Islands (Houston, 1980; Forrester, 1987).


                  LOSSES DUE TO FAILURES OF FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURES

                  Some of the most significant losses due to the failure of flood control structures can be attributed
                  to the failures of levees and dams.



                  Losses Due to Levee Failure


                  Levees are the most common type of flood control works, with an estimated 25,000 miles of levees
                  constructed nationwide. Many private or locally built levees provide only limited flood protection
                  or are poorly designed and maintained (including some private levees with no design standards at
                  all). Although many of the Nation's levees protect agricultural rather than urban development, levee
                  overtopping or failure reportedly is involved in approximately one-third of all flood disasters (Federal
                  Emergency Management Agency, 1987).





                  9   These deaths are not reflected in Table 3-7 because Hawaii was not a state at that time.


                  10 These deaths are not reflected in the data presented in Table 3-7 for unknown reasons.

                  11 These figures cannot be reconciled with the data presented in Table 3-7.








              Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                     3-27




              Losses Due to Dam Failures


              Although significant advances in design and construction techniques have been made, larger dams
              are being built and the impoundment of water is never without risk. The possibility of dam failure
              due to structural failure, earthquakes or sabotage, for example, remains, despite increased attention
              to safer design, construction and maintenance.

              Damage from dam failure is severe because of the unexpectedness and high velocity of flood water.
              Breaching often occurs within hours after the first visible signs of dam failure, leaving little time for
              warning and evacuation.

              Failure of a dam may subject more people and property to flooding than would occur due to flooding
              without the dam failure. For example, the flood at Rapid City, South Dakota in 1972 that killed 242
              people also caused a dam failure that added to the loss of life. The sudden surge of water resulting
              from a dam failure is likely to inundate a larger area than delineated by the one percent. annual
              chance ("100-year") floodplain. This sudden surge of water may also be powerful enough to destroy
              other downstream dams, as occurred during floods on the Falls River in Essex, Connecticut in June
              1982 (I-R. Johnston Associates, 1983). Table 3-15 lists loss of life and property damage from several
              notable dam failures from 1963 to 1990 (Colorado Division of Disaster Emergency Services, 1987,
              updated by Wayne Graham, Bureau of Reclamation, 1991).

              Dam failure may occur for many reasons, both structural and nonstructural. Many sources of dam
              failure can be traced to decisions made during design and construction and to inadequate maintenance
              or operational mismanagement. Failures may also result from other natural hazards such as
              earthquakes and flow volumes- exceeding design capacity (Colorado Division of Disaster Emergency
              Services, 1987). Figures 3-6 and 3-7 show causes of failure (based on studies by the International
              Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD)) of dams more than 15 feet high when failure resulted in
              downstream water releases.



              LOSSES DUE TO FLASH FLOODS

              A report prepared for FEMA in 1985 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987) estimated
              that damages caused by flash floods had doubled in the previous ten years. It found that over three-
              quarters of all Presidentially declared disasters involve flash flooding and that flash floods were the
              greatest cause of weather-related deaths in the United States until the 1980s. Examples of recent
              flash floods, accounting for 645 deaths from 1972 to 1977, are shown in Table 3-16.








                        3-28                                                                                                             77te Nation's Floodplains



                         Table 3-15.           Loss of Life and Property Damage From Notable U.S. Dam Failures, 1963-1990.




                            NAME & LOCATION                            DATE OF              NUMBER OF
                            OF DAM                                     FAILURE              LIVES LOST           DIRECT DAMAGES



                            Mohegan Park, CT                           March 1963                    6           $3 million
                            Little Deer Creek, UT                      June 1963                     1           Summer cabins damaged
                            Baldwin Hills, CA                          December 1963                 5           41 houses destroyed, 986 houses damaged,
                                                                                                                 100 apartment buildings damaged
                            Swift, MT                                  June 1964                  19             Unknown
                            Lower Two Medicine, MT                     June 1964                     9           Unknown
                            Lee Lake, MA                               March 1968                    2           6 houses destroyed, 20 houses damaged, I
                                                                                                                 manufacturing plant damaged or
                                                                                                                 destroyed
                            Buffalo Creek, VVV                         February 1972              125            546 houses destroyed, 538 houses damaged
                            Lake "0" Hills, AK                         April 1972                    1           Unknown
                            Canyon Lakes, SD                           June 1972                  33             Unable to assess damage because dam
                                                                                                                 failure accompanied damage caused by
                                                                                                                 natural flooding
                            Bear Wallow, NC                            February 1976                 4           1 house destroyed
                            Teton, ID                                  June 1976                  11             771 houses destroyed, 3,002 houses dam-
                                                                                                                 aged, 246 businesses damaged or
                                                                                                                 destroyed
                            Laurel Run, PA                             July 1977                  40             6 houses destroyed, 19 houses damaged
                            Sandy Run and 5 others, PA                 July 1977                     5           Unknown
                            Kelly Barnes, GA                           November 1977              39             9 houses, 18 house trailers and 2 college
                                                                                                                 buildings destroyed; 6 houses, 5 college
                                                                                                                 buildings damaged.
                            Swimming Pool, NY                          1979                          4           Unknown.
                            About 20 dams in CT                        June 1982                     0           Unknown.
                            Lawn Lake, CO                              July 1982                     3           18 bridges destroyed, 117 businesses and
                                                                                                                 108 houses damaged, campgrounds,
                                                                                                                 fisheries, power plant damaged.
                            DMAD, UT                                   June 1983                     1           Unknown.



                                  Source:   Colorado Division of Disaster Emergency Services. Dam Safety- An Owner's Guidance Manual FEMA 145. Washington,
                                            D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987. Updated by Wayne Graham, Bureau of Reclamation, 1991.







                  Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                                             3-29





                                                 Dam failures 1900-1975 (over 15 m height)

                                                100                                     Foundation
                                               W         Foundation
                                               0
                                                                                                   Piping -.-d--S.,pag,--
                                                               Overtopping


                                               @t 50                                                Overtopping
                                               0



                                                             CONCRETE                              FILL
                                               W

                                                 01
                                                  0          10       20.        30 0           10       20        30
                                                             AGE IN YEARS                       AGE IN YEARS
                                                (cxcl. failures during construction and acts of war)


                              Source:   Colorado Division of Disaster Emergency Services. Dam Safety: An Owner's Guidance Manual FEMA 145. Washington,
                                        D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987.
                  Figure 3-6.         Age of Dams at Time of Failure.







                                                         Dam failurcs 1900-1975 (over 15 rn height)

                                                         CONCRETE
                                                         OVERTOPPING                       129
                                                         FOUNDATION                                         53
                                                         PIPING AND
                                                           SEEPAGE
                                                         OTHERS



                                                         FILL
                                                         OVERTOPPING                            35

                                                         FOUNDATION                  21
                                                         PIPING AND                                38
                                                         SEEPAGE
                                                         OTHERS



                                                         ALL TYPES
                                                         OVERTOPPING                            34

                                                         FOUNDATION
                                                         PIPING AND
                                                         SEEPAGE                           28
                                                         OTHERS       M8


                                                                      0            11              1
                                                                             PERCENT OF FAILURES
                                                                   during construction and acts of war)



                          Source:   Colorado Division of Disaster Emergency Services. Dam Safety: An owner's Guidance Manual FEMA 145. Washington,
                                                                                                   Piping
                                                                                                           d Seepage




                                                                                                    Overtopping



                                                                                                    ILL
                                                                                                I rF


                                                                      @6
                                                                                  @
                                                                                           30

                                                                                           8
                                                                                           2









                                    D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987.

                  Figure 3-7.         Causes of Dam Failure.








                    3-30                                                                                      The Nation's Floodplains



                    Table 3-16.       Examples of Flash Floods Causing Serious Loss of Life.


                            FEBRUARY 1972, BUFFALO CREEK, WEST VIRGINIA: 125 killed and hundreds of homes washed away
                            as a dam made of coal mine waste material gave way after heavy rains.

                            JUNE 1972, RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA AND ADJACENT AREAS: 236 dead and S100 million in
                            property damage after a large, slow-moving thunderstorm unleashed torrents of rain on the slopes of
                            the Black Hills. Flood resulted in the failure of Canyon Lake Dam.

                            JULY, 1976, BIG THOMPSON CANYON, COLORADO: 139 killed and millions in property damage after
                            a thunderstorm deluged the western third of the canyon with 12 inches of rain in less than 6 hours.

                            JULY, 1977, JOHNSTOWN, PENNSYLvANiA: 77 dead and more than S200 million in property damage
                            when violent thunderstorms caused up to 11 inches of rain to fall in a 7-county area over 9 hours. This
                            contributed to the failure of several dams which compounded the stream flooding and accounted for
                            45 of the deaths.


                            SEPTEMBER, 1977, KANSAS CITY, MissouRi AND ADJACENT AREAS: 25 killed and $90 million in
                            property damage when thunderstorms turned several streams into raging torrents, such as the "gentle"
                            Brush Creek, which flows through the heart of Kansas City.


                            Source:  Federal Emergency Management Agency. Reducing Losses in Hiph Risk Flood Hazard Areas: A Guidebook for Local
                                     Officials FEMA 116. Washington, D.C: FEMA, 1987.



                    LOSSES DUE TO STREAMBANK EROSION

                    A nationwide study of streambank erosion (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1981)12 estimated $295
                    million (1985 dollars) in average annual damages due to            'streambank erosion. This study included
                    direct and indirect loss of income, increased costs and reduction of environmental quality as damages.
                    The Corps estimated that there are 7 million miles of streambank (3.5 million stream miles). Of this
                    7 million miles of streambank, 574,500 miles have erosion problems, but only 142,100 miles have
                    serious erosion problems. About 78 percent of all streambank erosion takes place west of the main
                    stem of the Mississippi River. Table 3-17 displays erosion estimates by regions.


                    LOSSES DUE TO GROUND FAILURE


                    Losses from landslides in the United States are estimated at $1 to $2 billion and 25 to 50 deaths each
                    year (National Research Council, 1985). Application of a U.S. Geological Survey method for
                    estimating the cost of landslide damage indicates that not only are reported costs much lower than
                    those actually incurred, but that losses are on the increase in most regions. In the 1964 Alaska
                    earthquake in Prince William Sound, 60% of the $500 million in damages was due to ground failure
                    (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987).


                    12  The Corps' study found that average annual damages totalled about $295 million (1985 dollars) for the
                        142,000 miles of river banks with the most severe erosion problems, while the costs to prevent that erosion
                        was about $1.3 billion (1985 dollars). It concludes that stream reaches for which erosion control measures
                        are likely to be economically justified "...will be widely scattered and located in substantially populated and
                        developed areas... or near bridges or other structures" (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1981).








                 Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                                     3-31




                 Table 3-17.       National Assessment of Streambank Erosion.



                                                                                     SEVERE AVERAGE ANNUAL DAMAGES
                                                                   EROSION            EROSION                    (1,000)
                   REGION                      STREAM-MILES BANK-MILES               BANK-MILES            (1981$)        (1985s)


                   Alaska                            568,000           58,000                <50           1,000           1,200
                   Arkansas-White-Red                218,000           56,500            22,800            79,000         93,500
                   California                        133,000           50,600              8,100           47,500         56,200
                   Pacific-Northwest                 345,400           33,600            21,200            19,900         23,600
                   Colorado                          295,900           24,600              3,900           4,100           4,800
                   Great Basin                       152,700            5,000                300             400             500
                   Great Lakes                        66,100            9,100              4,500           2,300           2,700
                   Hawaii                               2,600                0                  0               0               0
                   Lower Mississippi                  88,400           15,500            12,700            32,900         38,900
                   Middle Atlantic                    95,700           28,500              8,000           9,200          10,900
                   Missouri Basin                    538,200           52,800            11,800            14,200         16,800
                   New England                        48,200            1,900                400           1,500           1,800
                   Ohio                              147,200           27,300              6,800           4,800           5,700
                   Rio Grande                        101,800           54,800              7,100           8,900          10,500
                   Souris-Red-Rainy                   67,200            1,200                100           1,000           1,200
                   South Atlantic Gulf               213,300           37,900            22,300            10,000         11,800
                   Tennessee                          32,800            4,100              1,700             800             900
                   Texas Gulf                        149,500           98,300              4,300           6,600           7,800
                   Upper Mississippi                 198,200           14,800              6,100           4,900           5,800

                   U.S. TOTAL                      3,462,500          574,500            142,100        $248,800        $294,600

                   Note: The conversion from 1981 $ to 1985 $ was based on the Consumer Price Index.



                       Source:   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final Report to Congress - The Streambank Control Evaluation and Demonstration Act
                                 of 1974 - Section 3Z Public Law 93-251, Main Repo Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1981.




                 LOSSES FROM FLUCTUATING LAKE LEVELS

                 Recent damage estimates indicate that flooding from rising lake levels causes significant economic
                 impacts in the United States. Between 1983 and January 1985, for example, damages resulting from
                 flooding around Uke Malheur, Oregon, had reached $13.5 million. Around the Great Salt Lake in
                 Utah, damages have exceeded $200 million since 1983. Total national losses resulting from fluctua-
                 tions in lake levels exceeded $250 million between 1981 and 1986 (Federal Emergency Management
                 Agency, 1986).

                 The extent of these losses is due in large part to the attractiveness of lake shore environments for
                 residential, recreational and other uses. In recent years increased development has occurred on lake
                 shorelines near population centers and major transportation routes because of the aesthetic and
                 recreational values of lakeshores. In Minnesota, for example, between 1967 and 1982 lakeshore
                 homes increased 75%, year round lakeshore use increased 100%, and seasonal lakeshore use
                 increased 63%. In most states lake shore development, principally for year-round or seasonal
                 residential use, has occurred without adequate recognition of the flood hazard and without awareness
                 that water levels can and do vary greatly over time.









                  3-32                                                                             7he Nation's Floodplains




                  LOSSES IN URBANIZING AREAS

                  Rapidly urbanizing areas are frequently affected by flooding. Much of the flooding problem in these
                  areas is due to inadequate stormwater drainage rather than classical overbank flooding of streams,
                  although that also can be a problem. As a result, much of this development is not subject to
                  floodplain management regulations. In the Chicago metropolitan area, for example, development
                  of 375 square miles of relatively flat land with a high water table has led to estimated average annual
                  damages of $200 million from sewer backup alone (Dalton, 1987).

                  FEMA has estimated that from 1978 to 1987, over 31 percent of the total of paid flood insurance
                  claims (106,136 paid losses) was for flooding in areas outside the delineated one percent annual
                  chance floodplain.13 In addition, 18 percent of the repetitive claims during this period occurred in
                  those areas (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1988).


                  LOSSES DUE TO VOLCANIC-INDUCED FLOODING

                  On May 18, 1980, the catastrophic eruption of Mount St. Helens in Cowlitz County, Washington
                  added a new cause of flood losses in the U.S. Floods and mudflows generated by the eruption caused
                  damages in areas not directly affected by the initial explosion. Three billion cubic yards of debris
                  moved 17 miles down the North Fork Toutle River. The river was swollen by billions of gallons of
                  melting snow and glacial ice and carried the debris as mudflows down the Toutle River into the
                  Cowlitz River and the Columbia River.

                      Along the way, it destroyed homes, washed out roads and bridges, severely damaged public water
                      facilities, buried agricultural lands and clogged the navigation channel. Sediment filled the
                      Cowlitz River, reducing the channel's bankfull capacity by 85%. Mudflow depositsfilled low-lying
                      areas that previously functioned as overbank flow and floodwater storage sites. Along the
                      mudflow's 70-mile path, an estimated 150 to 200 million cubic yards of volcanic and landslide
                      material were deposited in the river channels (Deatherage, 1987).

                  Costs specifically related to flooding are difficult to determine. Initial damages and cleanup costs
                  (through mid-1987) totalled $1.2 billion. In excess of $875 million is needed to "restore the land,
                  clean up the rivers and provide flood protection to Cowlitz Valley communities" (Cowlitz County
                  Department of Community Development, 1987).


                  LOSSES TO INFRASTRUCTURE


                  A recent review (Burby, Undated) of data and previous research relating to losses of infrastructure
                  from natural hazards indicates that damage to infrastructure accounts for about one-sixth to one-
                  quarter of total annual public and private losses. The following studies are cited in this review.





                  13 These losses are for areas designated on flood hazard maps as zones B, C, D and X See Chapter 13 for
                      further description of flood insurance policy and claims data.








              Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                    3-33



              A review (Dacy and Kunreuther) of eight disasters occurring in the 1950s and 1960s found damage
              to public facilities at about 25 percent (median) of total damages, with a range from 7 percent to
              70 percent. In the Minnesota River Basin between 1965 and 1970, losses to public facilities ranged
              from 10 to 15 percent of total damages. A report for the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA)
              (Sheaffer, 1976) calculated annual flood damages to infrastructure (highways, bridges, culverts, water
              supply and sewerage systems) at 19 percent of total flood damages. In urban areas up to 25 percent
              of total damages were to infrastructure. A later study of 23 communities by the same group estimated
              average annual losses to infrastructure from flooding at $520 per acre. Another more recent study
              estimated that natural hazards cause over $1 billion (1970 dollars; $2.8 billion 1985 dollars)) in losses
              to public facilities each year. Infrastructure losses were distributed among: public utilities ($403.5
              million ($1.12 billion 1985 dollars)); highways, streets and bridges ($351.3 million ($973.4 million 1985
              dollars)); and water supply and sewerage systems (136.2 million ($377.4 million 1985 dollars)).

              These reports and estimates of losses to infrastructure seem reasonable considering that site
              development costs (roads, utilities, landscaping, etc.) typically average about 15 percent of total
              development costs, and that approximately 25 percent of the structural wealth of the Nation consists
              of public utilities, highways and streets, and water supply and sewerage systems (Burby, Undated).


              LOSSES TO AGRICULTURE


              According to the 1982 National Resources Inventory (NRI) conducted by the SCS, cropland, pasture,
              ran ge land, and forest land comprise over 90 percent of the total rural, nonfederal floodplain land
              in the United States. The 1975 Second National Water Assessment (U.S. Water Resources Council,
              1977) estimated that 50 percent of annual flood damages affect the agricultural sector.

              On irrigated cropland, flooding can damage expensive irrigation facilities such as ditches, pipelines
              and sprinklers. Sediment deposited by flood waters can cause two types of damage on cropland.
              One is the long-term loss in yield associated with the deposition of relatively infertile material on good
              agricultural land. The value of this loss has not been estimated. The other type of loss is damage
              to the current crop that occurs when sediment buries growing crops or covers plants with a thin film
              of sediment that interferes with growth of the crops. The amount of this damage ranges from $5
              to $40 per acre of flooded cropland, averaging about $20 per acre. Data from SCS watershed
              protection projects and river basin studies indicates that about 9.1 million acres of floodprone
              cropland are damaged by sediment each year. Nationwide, the loss of production caused by sediment
              deposition ranges from $150 to $500 million annually (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1989).








                  3-34                                                                             The Nation's Floodplains



                                           RELATIVE FLOOD LOSSES OVER TIME


                  It is useful to examine flood losses in the context of changes over time, to look at how flood losses
                  compare to losses from other types of natural disasters, and to look at what these losses mean in
                  terms of the overall growth and development of the Nation.


                  LOSS OF LIFE FROM FLOODS


                  As noted earlier in this chapter, data from the NWS (Table 3-7 and Figure 3-4) indicate no clear
                  trend in the average annual number of deaths due to flooding. Others have noted that there appears
                  to be no clear relationship between property damage and the number of deaths. Flood-related deaths
                  appeared to be at a slow increase or stationary, between 2.5 and 5.8 per 10 million population, with
                  the exception of three five-year periods (White, 1976). Cassidy (1962) noted that the number of flood
                  events causing a large loss of life has decreased: "Between 1900 and 1940, when the Federal flood
                  control program first began to be effective, floods causing the loss of 100 lives or more occurred on
                  the average of about once every three years, but since 1940 the frequency of such floods has averaged
                  only about once in ten years."

                  The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (1981) reviewed loss of life and property damage from
                  four types of natural disasters - floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes - from 1900 through,
                  1977 (Council on Environmental Quality, 1981). The CEQ noted that deaths from natural disasters
                  declined over the last 50 years of this period (see Figure 3-8). Major trends observed by CEQ were:
                  1) the wide fluctuations in the number of hurricane-caused deaths that characterized the first half
                  of the century had been,narrowed; 2) large losses of life from tornadoes - consistently the major
                  cause of death from natural disasters through much of the century - had dropped from 30 per 10
                  million population in the 1920s to fewer than 10 per 10 million in the 1960s and 1970s; and 3) loss
                  of life from floods had not declined.



                  PROPERTY DAMAGES FROM FLOODS


                  Cassidy (1962) also analyzed property damage caused by very large floods.

                      ... whereas [great] floods causingproperty damage of $50,000,000ormore (1959dollars) occurred
                      with a frequency of about once every six years during the period between 1900 and 1940, floods
                      causingthis amount of damage have occurred on an average of once in less than twoyears since
                      1940. As this increasingfrequency offloods causing majorproperty damage is not caused by an
                      increase in the magnitude offloodflows, it must be explained on the basis of the other component
                      of the flood problem - that is, an increasing encroachment on the flood plains.

                  The CEQ (1981) found that property damage from the four types of natural disasters which it
                  examined had increased over the 50 year period from 1927 to 1977. Floods were noted as the major
                  cause of property and crop losses. The NWS data presented in Table 3-8 and Figure 3-5 indicate
                  an increase in flood damages (in constant 1985 dollars) over a 70 year period.








                   Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                                                            3-35






                                        Average annual deaths per 10 million population

                                        80 -




                                        70 -




                                        60




                                        50 -


                                                                                           Total
                                        40       Hurricanes


                                        30-
                                                                Tornadoes


                                        20-
                                                   Earth    akes


                                        10-                                  Floods



                                        0
                                             .1900-        1910-        1920-        1930-        1940-         1950-        1960-             1975-
                                             1904          1914         1924         1934         1944          1954         1964              1977


                            Source:     Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Trends. Washington, D.C,: U.S. Government Printing office, 1981.

                   Figure 3-8.            Loss of Life from Selected Natural Disasters, 1900-1977.




                   FLOODS LOSSES AND THE NA'nONAL ECONOMY

                   Much of the data on flood losses has been reported as if development and economic factors were
                   static. Consequently, much of the literature contains statements on ever-increasing flood losses
                   despite the vast sums of money that have been invested in structural flood control measures and, more
                   recently, in nonstructural measures as well. Reports of flood losses should be examined within the
                   context of the Nation's economic conditions, with attention given to population, the amount of housing
                   stock and other development, and inflation conditions. Population, for example, has nearly doubled
                   since 1930, resulting in increased use of previously undeveloped land. Also, as the economy has
                   grown over the years, the value of land, including land subject to flooding, has grown. In addition,
                   "the general increase in prices has, by itself, caused damages measured in current dollar terms to
                   rise significantly. There has been a six-fold increase in prices since 1930, and between 1967 and 1986
                   prices tripled" (Woolley, 1986).

                   While there appears to have been little compilation of information pertaining to flood losses and the
                   national economy, that which is available indicates that property losses from floods have remained
                   relatively constant when viewed in the context of the ov                           'erall national economy. The CEQ (1981)
                   noted that for the late 1970s, the average annual loss from the four types of natural disasters it








                         3-36                                                                                                              77ze Nation's Floodplains



                         examined (Figure 3-9) was estimated at $3.2 billion, about 0.2 percent of the Gross National Product
                         (GNP) at that time. (The GNP may be the best measure of the Nation's total wealth.) Losses had
                         not grown in terms of the overall productive capacity of society, measured by the average annual
                         dollar loss as a percentage of GNP.




                                          Average annual property loss as a percent of GNP

                                          0.35




                                          0.30




                                          0.25 -




                                          0.20 -

                                                                                                                       Total


                                          0.15 -


                                          0.10 -                                                                       Floods


                                          0.05 -                                                            Hurricanes

                                                                                                                        Tornadoes

                                                                                                                                            Earthquakes

                                                                1910-         1920-         1            19-40-        1950-        1960-             1975-
                                                   1904         1914          1924          1934         1944         1954          1964              1977



                                    Source:    Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Trends.   Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981.

                         Figure 3-9.            Property Damages from Selected Natural Disasters, 1900-1977.



                         A more recent study (Woolley, 1986) also examined flood losses as a percentage of the GNP. By
                         comparing annual flood losses as a percentage of annual GNP from 1929 to 1983, large fluctuations
                         from year to year are clearly evident, but there appears to be no significant trend of a decrease or
                         increase in relative flood losses. To illustrate bow deceptive simple dollar figures can be, Woolley
                         noted that approximately $440 million of damages due to flooding in the Ohio and Lower Mississippi
                         River basins in 1937 amounted to.0049% of GNP for 1937. In contrast, damages in 1983 amounted
                         to over $4 billion, but represented only.0012% of GNP. Overall, relative flood damage appears to
                         have remained, on the average, basically constant during this period.








                  Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                                                            3-37



                                                   ESTIMATES OF FUTURE FLOOD LOSSES


                  Projections of future flood losses have been made from time to time by various individuals and groups.
                  Most of these projections appear to be simply linear extrapolations based on recent loss estimates.
                  By far the most systematic and ambitious effort at projecting flood losses was made in 1976 under
                  the auspices of the U.S. Water Resources Council. As part of the 1975 National Water Assessment,
                  a Flooding Technical Committee prepared a report of Estimated Flood Damages (U.S                                                      . Water
                  Resources Council, 1977). This report developed estimates of average annual flood damages for the
                  years 1985 and 2000.

                  Damage estimates were made for both upstream and downstream areas for each of the standard
                  water resource regions recognized by the WRC. Upstream refers to drainage areas of less than 400
                  square miles, while downstream refers to drainage areas generally exceeding 400 square miles.
                  Damage estimates were developed for three categories within bothupstream and downstream areas:
                  1) urban and built-up; 2) agricultural; and 3) other (including rural utilities, roads and railways,
                  homesteads, forest and grasslands, refuges, and parks). The Flooding Technical Committee projected
                  damages based on four alternative levels of floodplain management: 1) floodplain management to
                  remain constant (as it was in 1975); 2) floodplain regulation adoption rate to continue; 3) regulate
                  floodplain to the maximum practical extent; and 4) present trend in regulatory measures win
                  accelerate and structural measures will be installed at a slower rate. The fourth alternative was
                  selected as the one most likely to occur, and was referred to as the "Modified Central Case." Table
                  3-18 shows the projections for each alternative, and Figure 3-10 displays projected upstream and
                  downstream damages for the selected alternative by water resource regions.


                  Table 3-18.           WRC Projections of Future Flood Losses.


                                                                                           PROJECTED LOSSES (Miiiion 1985 S)

                             FUTURE ALTERNATrVES                  URBAN & AGRICVL-                                                               DOWN-
                             (POLICY AND/OR CASES)                 BUILT-UP            TURE         OTHER           TOTAL UPSTREAM STREAM


                             1985
                             Floodplain management to
                                  remain constant                      3,161           3,526          1,792         8,479          3,970         4,509
                             Current trends in increased
                                  regulations to continue              2,894           3,526          1,676         8,095          3,822         4,273
                             Maximum practical regulation              2,743           .3,526         1,676         7,944          3,732         4,212
                             Modified Central Case                     2,772           3,384          1,608         7,763          3,671         4,093


                             2000
                             Floodplain management to
                                  remain constant                      4,544           4,080          2,649         11,273         5,562         5,711
                             Current trends in increased
                                  regulation to continue               3,880           4,086          2,375         10,342         5,063         5,279
                             Maximum practical regulation              3,010           4,086          2,330         9,426          4,405         5,021
                             Modified Central Case                     3,352           3,677          2,111         9,140          4,557         4,583


                            Source:    U.S. Water Resource Council.   Estimated Flood  Dainares. Appendix B: Nationwide   Analysis Repo     U.S. Water
                                       Resources CounciL 1977,








                   3-38                                                                             The Nation's Floodplains





                                     PROJEcTED 2000 AvERAGE ANNuAL FLOOD DAMAGES BY WRC REGIONS
                                                                 (MILLION 1967 S)



                                                                      13/18
                                         51/52                                                           45/57
                                                                                      18/80
                                                             149/121        89/108
                                            5/4
                                                     3/2                                82/69      61/13

                                    84/230
                                              63/50     26/20      121/77     163/143  41119
                                                                                       357/72

                                                                     35/16
                                   4/3 @1
                                                   1/2

                                                                              0- upstream/downstream





                           Source: U.S. Water Resource GDunciL Estimated Flood Damages. Appendix B: Nationwide Analysis Report U.S. Water
                                   Resources CounciL 191n.

                   Figure 3-10.    Projections of Future Flood Losses.



                                                 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


                   Floodplain losses are of two types: 1) loss of natural and cultural resources, and 2) loss of life and
                   loss of property. Both types of losses continue to occur even with increased awareness of floodplain
                   values and of the risks of floodplain occupancy. Actual and relative amounts of these losses, however,
                   are not well quantified. Loss of wetlands and riparian habitat are difficult to measure for many
                   reasons, including differing definitions and survey techniques. Available data seems to indicate that
                   increased awareness and regulatory programs have slowed the rate of loss from the very high levels
                   that prevailed during much of the Nation's history. Nevertheless, current loss rates appear to remain
                   at unacceptable levels that, if continued, would greatly reduce the limited remaining areas of these
                   valuable resources.

                   Loss of life and property continue at high levels, with floods accounting for the greatest losses of any
                   type of natural disaster in the United States. Two trends appear clear: 1) on a per capita basis, los's
                   of life appears to have been relatively constant throughout this century; and 2) the dollar value of








             Floodplain Development and Losses                                                                  3-39



             property losses (and other economic losses) continues to escalate. Much less clear is the significance
             of the dollar loss relative to other factors. Although the per capita costs of flood damages have
             increased significantly, relative to the Gross National Product of the country, economic losses from
             floods appear to have held quite constant over the past 50 years. Consistent, reliable data on
             historical flood deaths and damages have not been collected and are still not being collected.
             Detailed analyses of trends will continue to be hampered until such data are collected.













                                                                                          PART 11:

                           THE NATION'S PROGRAM FOR
                               FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT




            The two chapters that comprise Part 11 of the Assessment Report describe the gradual
            evolution of early initiatives for flood control into a national program for reducing flood
            losses and managing the natural and cultural resources of floodplains. Chapter 4 provides
            an historical overview, describing how management efforts have shifted from the early
            emphasis on controlling floods with structural measures during most of this century, to the
            current approach that involves a mix of both structural and nonstructural measures as well
            as efforts to protect and restore floodplain natural functions. Chapter 5 provides a detailed
            description of House Document 465, A Unified National P@ogram for Managing Flood Losses,
            which in 1966 set out the initial concept of a unified national program for reducing flood
            losses. This concept was refined and expanded over the next 20 years and described in three
            different versions of A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management. This Unified
            National Program established a basic goal of wise use of the floodplain, set forth several
            concepts of floodplain management, and identified implementing strategies and tools.

            Floodplain management today is the result of a coalescence of policies for flood control,
            disaster assistance, and protection of the natural environment, and these policies have helped
            create a strong floodplain management constituency. The current Unified National Program
            for Floodplain Management provides a conceptual framework for a multi-objective approach
            to use of the Nation's floodplains and recognition of the respective roles of each level of
            government and the private sector in the decision-making process.









               CHAPTER 4:


               HISTORY OF FLOODPLAIN
               MANAGEMENT




                      [I]t is the sense of Congress that flood control on navigable waters or their tributaries Ly a
                   proper activity of the Federal Government in cooperation with States, theirpolitical subdivisions,
                   and localities thereof...

                                                                                                Flood Control Act of 1936




               The history of floodplain management reflects an evolution in federal government policy regarding
               flood control in general as well as an evolution in the roles of federal, state and local governments
               in controlling flood losses. The history also reflects a response to much broader trends and attitudes
               in the United States - with regard to urban growth and development and its consequences, for
               example, fluctuating levels of government spending, expanding technology, and recognition of the
               complexity and interrelationship of issues related to land and water uses.

               Prior to 1965, governmental actions related to flooding were primarily in response to significant or
               catastrophic events and sought to control flooding through structural measures. During the mid-1960s,
               a broadening of federal policy - towards the use of nonstructural means to address flood losses -
               began to be articulated and for Mialized. The last 25 years have witnessed a major expansion in the
               field of floodplain management, including the methods and technologies available for analyzing
               flooding, attention to floodplain natural resources, as well as shifts in the roles played by federal, state
               and local governments.

               This chapter presents a brief history of floodplain management in the United States since 1900.



                                            1900-1960: THE STRUCTURAL ERA


               The "structural era" of floodplain management began with little direct federal involvement in flood
               control. Direct federal involvement was soon established and by the 1950s there was increasing
               recognition of the need for a broader management approach that would go beyond the structural
               measures to "control" floods.








                  4-2                                                         7he Nation's Program for Floodplain Management



                  EARLY INVOLVEMENT THROUGH NAVIGATION AND CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

                  During the 1800s and early 1900s, flood control efforts were undertaken by levee districts, conservancy.
                  districts, other local and quasi-public groups and individual landowners. Federal involvement in flood
                  control was sporadic and concerned mainly with the impacts of flooding on navigation, or indirectly
                  concerned with forestry or agricultural programs.' For example, beginning in 1824 the Corps of
                  Engineers (Corps) was involved with selected river and harbor improvements. Also, the Act of 1897
                  relating to forest reserves and the Weeks Act of 1911, which authorized the purchase of new national
                  forest land, were concerned with the amelioration of water flows from timbershed catchment areas,
                  and thus the flooding and flows of navigable rivers and streams (Hoyt, 1955). The Corps had been
                  continuously involved with river and harbor improvements since 1824, but the focus was on navigation,
                  not flood control. After the Civil War, Congress assumed greater responsibility for flood forecasting
                  and warning by authorizing federal agencies such as the Corps and the U.S. Geological Survey
                  (USGS) to initiate stream gaging activities (Corps of Engineers, 1988). Due to public concern about
                  logging practices at the turn of the century, two short-term paired watershed studies were conducted
                  by the U.S. Forest Service (FS) in Colorado (Bates, 1928), and by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
                  in New Hampshire (Leighton, 1913) to study the, relationship between timber harvest and water flow.
                  The New Hampshire study responded to the 1911 Weeks Act. Direct federal involvement in flood
                  control, however, remained limited.



                  DIRECT FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN FLOOD CONTROL

                  The Flood Control Act of 1917 (P.L. 64-367) was enacted following major flooding on the Mississippi
                  River and marks the beginning of direct federal commitment to flood control. Ten years later in 1927,
                  another major Mississippi River flood resulted in the Flood Control Act of 1928 and Corps responsi-
                  bility for flood control and navigation on the river. Later, after major flood disasters in New England,
                  the Ohio River, and the Potomac and Susquehanna river basins, the Flood Control Act of 1936 (P.L.
                  74-738) expanded federal responsibility to all navigable rivers of the Nation and authorized over 200
                  flood control projects in 31 states. The Flood Control Act of 1938 further extended the scope of
                  federal involvement, assigning the full cost of building and maintaining reservoirs and channel
                  improvements and rectification projects to the federal government. (The 1941 Flood Control Act
                  restored local cooperation requirements for channel projects.) The Corps was assigned the major
                  role in these structural flood control efforts (Hoyt, 1955).

                  Although often overlooked, the early flood control acts did address both structural and nonstructural
                  measures. For example, the 1936 Act recognized that improvement of watersheds for flood control
                  was a proper federal function. It sought to reconcile conflicting views of the role of upstream and
                  watershed measures by simply providing for them without any systematic integration with structural
                  measures (White, 1989). The 1938 Act authorized evacuation of floodable areas in lieu of structural
                  measures, if economically feasible. Clearly though, the federal emphasis was on structural solutions,
                  beginning a long tradition of construction of dams, levees and channel modifications.



                      Floods, by Hoyt and Langbein, 1955, includes an extensive description of early flood control efforts in the
                      1700s to 1900s.








              Histoiy of Floodplain Management                                                                       4-3



                  The magnitude of the effort and the pressing need in the late 1930s and the early 1940s toprotect
                  as many rural and urban communities aspractical andfeasible and as soon aspossible, left little
                  time for other considerations. Dius, it was during this early era that the concept of controlling
                  floods with structural measures became widespread, prevalent, and almost 'institutionalized'
                  (Donovan, 1983).


              By 1961 - twenty-five years after the first legislation providing for federal participation in flood
              control on a nationwide basis - the authorized flood control program of the Corps consisted of over
              900 projects with an estimated federal cost of about $9 billion. Projects completed or under
              construction in 1961 included about 220 reservoirs with nearly 90,000,000 acre-feet of flood control
              capacity, over 9,000 miles of levees and floodwalls, and some 7,400 miles of channel modifications.
              Authorized projects not yet started at that time would have added 40,000,000 acre-feet of flood
              storage capacity in 120 additional reservoirs, almost 3,100 miles of levees and floodwalls, and 3,300
              miles of channel modifications (Cassidy, 1962).

              Other federal agencies became involved in flood control through a variety of resource conservation
              and economic development programs. The TVA Act of 1933 established the Tennessee Valley
              Authority (TVA) and its regional program of resource development, including construction of dams
              and reservoirs for flood control. From the 1930s to 1950s, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and
              the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) began including flood control along with other project
              considerations, and a national program for upstream watersheds was authorized. Also in the period
              of 1930 to 1950, the Forest S  *ervice embarked on major flood control research in the Intermountain
              Region and the technology developed has been extensively applied in Utah. By 1955, the Soil
              Conservation Service (SCS) of the USDA was providing assistance for the application of conservation
              measures (including flood prevention measures) to individual landowners and operators in 2,600 soil
              conservation districts.


              Other early involvement by the federal government in flood control took place along the international
              boundary with Mexico. In 1933, a U.S.-Mexico Convention was established providing for boundary
              stabilization and flood control along a section of the Rio Grande River. The U.S.-Mexico Water
              Treaty of February 3, 1944 provides the basis for international flood control projects along the
              boundary sections of the Rio Grande and the Colorado River. The federal agency charged with
              implementing these and other treaty-derived responsibilities for flood control and floodplain manage-
              ment along the international rivers is the U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commis-
              sion, United States and Mexico. Subsequent U.S.-Mexico agreements affecting flood control include
              the Convention of August 29, 1963 and the Boundary Treaty of November 23, 1970. The latter
              agreement provides for boundary river stabilization and international management of the boundary
              river floodplains (International Boundary and Water Commission, 1989).

              Along with acceptance of federal involvement in flood control came increasing federal involvement
              in disaster relief. The Federal Disaster Act of 1950 (P.L 81-875) was the Nation's first comprehensive
              disaster relief act, and Small Business Administration (SBA) disaster relief programs were initiated
              in the 1950s.








                  4-4                                                      7he Nation's Program for Floodplain Management




                  FLOOD "CONTROL" VS. FLOOD "MANAGEMENT"

                  Although the emphasis during the first half of this century was on struc tural means to "control floods"
                  and on federal financing (with limited state or community cost sharing), the need for a broader
                  approach to flood control and the concept of flood "management" (rather than "control") was being
                  studied and applied. In his 1942 dissertation "Human Adjustments to Floods," Dr. Gilbert White
                  presented a comprehensive theory of a broad, geographic approach to the flood problem involving
                  "...an integration of engineering, geographic, economic, and related techniques." He also noted that
                  "The solutions will not involve a single line of public or private action but will call for a combination
                  of all eight types of adjustments, judiciously selected with a view to the most effective use of
                  floodplains" (White, 1945). The eight types of adjustments that White discussed were: land elevation,
                  flood abatement, flood protection, emergency measures, structural adjustments, land-use readjust-
                  ments, public relief, and insurance.

                  In 1950, a Water Resources Policy Commission appointed by President Truman included among its
                  recommendations that federal authorities consider floodplain zoning and flood forecasting as integral
                  parts of flood management. A 1951 report of the Engineers Joint Council ("Principles of a Sound
                  National Water Policy") also addressed land management through emphasis on"sustained land utility"
                  rather than flow retardation. There was also an attempt to establish a federal flood insurance
                  program after the 1951 floods on the Kansas and lower Missouri rivers, but both Congressional
                  reaction and a report sponsored by the Insurance Executives Association were unfavorable. In their
                  1955 book Floods, Hoyt and Langbein discussed current flood control policy: "Even now there are
                  ideas and influences at work within government seeking to foster consideration of flood-plain
                  development and re-development, relocation, zoning of flood plains, flood-forecasting, and storage
                  of water on cultivated fields or underground as supplementary means for effective control of flood
                  damage" (Hoyt, 1955).

                  The TVA initiated its regional floodplain management assistance program in 1953, providing technical
                  assistance to communities as the basis to encourage floodplain regulations. From 1953 to 1960 the
                  TVA floodplain management program emphasized land-use regulation in floodprone areas, but was
                  later broadened to include consideration of all nonstructural measures, as well as flood control
                  structures. One of the first TVA floodplain management studies was in the twin cities of Bristol,
                  Tennessee-Virginia. A 1956 flood hazard information report recommended the adoption of local
                  floodplain regulations. A local flood study committee, with technical assistance from the state, then
                  developed a comprehensive plan for flood damage prevention. The Bristol approach was applied
                  in several other communities within the TVA region.

                  The TVA!s floodplain management program was described and recommended for national application
                  in the report "A Program for Reducing the National Flood Damage Potential," prepared for the
                  Senate in March 1959 (Tennessee Valley Authority, 1983).








               Histoiy of Floodplain Management                                                                          4-5



                                             THE 1960s: A TIME OF CHANGE


               During the 1960s, there was recognition of increasing flood losses and accelerating disaster relief costs
               despite the billions of dollars in federal investments in structural projects. As a result, major steps
               were taken to redefine federal policy and approaches to flood control. A major change in the
               composition of Congressional representation, initiated following the 1960 census, also had a significant
               input on federal water policy. Redistricting started the process of replacing rural (largely southern
               and western) project-oriented Congressmen with urban, grant-oriented members and the realignment
               of traditional Congressional coalitions (Thomas, 1983).

               This realignment of Congressional coalitions affected all water policy. It also had a major impact
               on the recognition of natural and beneficial resources as reflected in the National Environmental
               Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) and its related preceding and following legislation. At the same time,
               emphasis began to shift from a river basin to a site development focus (Thomas, 1983b, 1988).

               Following the Senate's review of the 1959 TVA report, Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960
               (P.L. 86-645) authorized the Corps of Engineers to provide technical services and planning assistance
               to communities for wise use of the floodplain and for ameliorating the flood hazard. Under this
               authority, the Corps established a National Floodplain Management Services Program and began
               producing maps and floodplain information reports (patterned after reports already being prepared
               by the TVA) describing flood hazard in terms of the area prone to floods, the history of flooding,
               depths of flooding experienced or expected, velocities of flood flows, and the time characteristics of
               floods. The studies and assistance were provided largely at federal expense. Local interests were
               encouraged to provide mapping and other survey information and to use the results in their planning
               toward wise use of the floodplain (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1968). By the end of fiscal year
               1969, over 300 flood plain information reports had been issued (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970).

               The President's water policy statement of 19622 established policies and procedures related to
               comprehensive river basin plans and individual projects. The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965
               (P.L 89-80) created the U.S. Water Resources Council (WRC) and authorized the creation of federal-
               state river'basin commissions. Several river basin commissions were formed and began producing
               comprehensive basin plans. The first plans produced by the river basin commissions made only
               general recommendations regarding floodplain management - principally that states and communities
               use the Corps' floodplain information studies to supplement specific flood control measures and land
               treatment programs included in the plan. Later studies included more detailed recommendations,
               including floodplain zoning, preparation of floodplain information studies and programs, and other
               land-use regulations such as state coastal zone legislation and creation of basin-wide wild and scenic
               rivers programs (Holmes, 1979).

               The growing recognition of the need for alternative approaches to flood loss reduction was also
               reflected in state government actions. In 1966, for example, Wisconsin's Water Resources Act


               2   Prepared by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Army, and Health, Education and Welfare; and
                   published as Senate Document 97, Policies, Standards, and Procedures in the Formulation, Evaluation, and
                   Review of Plans for Use and Development of Water and Related Land Resources (Buie, 1979).








                 4-6                                                     7he Nation Is Program for Floodplain Management



                 mandated local regulation of flood hazard and shoreline areas consistent with state standards and
                 in 1969 Minnesota adopted a state floodplain management program in conjunction with a shoreland
                 zoning program (Kusler, 1982). In 1958, seven states had adopted and were enforcing floodplain
                 management regulations, primarily for narrow channel encroachments. By 1969, 15 states had
                 floodplain management statutes, some of which included regulation of the entire floodplain (Bloom-
                 gren, 1982).

                 Local governments also initiated attempts to deal with flood hazards in a more comprehensive
                 manner. For example, with assistance and support from the TVA, the towns of Maryville and Alcoa
                 in the State of Tennessee undertookjoint flood damage reduction planning combined with community
                 redevelopment (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1971).


                 HOUSE DOCUMENT 465 AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 11296

                 The most significant step toward a more unified federal policy came in 1966, with the establishment
                 of a Bureau of the Budget Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy. The Task Force's report -
                 House Document 465, "A Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses," August 1966 -
                 has been called the "Magna Carta of contemporary floodplain management planning" (Donovan,
                 1983). Citing numerous problems - mounting flood losses, inadvertent encouragement of floodplain
                 encroachment, increasing damage potential under existing policies, and the inability of current
                 programs to prevent catastrophes, among other problems - the report advocated a broader perspec-
                 tive on flood control within the context of floodplain development and use. H.D. 465 included five
                 major goals:

                 1) To IMPROVE BASIC KNOWLEDGE ABOUT FLOOD HAZARD.
                 2) To COORDINATE AND PLAN NEW DEVELOPMENTS ON THE FLOODPLAIN.
                 3) To PROVIDE TECHNICAL SERVICES TO MANAGERS OF FLOODPLAIN PROPERTY.
                 4) To MOVE TOWARD A PRACTICAL NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR FLOOD INSURANCE.
                 5) TO ADJUST FEDERAL FLOOD CONTROL POLICY TO SOUND CRITERIA AND CHANGING NEEDS.

                 The report also included recommendations on ways to achieve these ambitious goals. (Subsequent
                 revisions to the Unified National Program are discussed in later sections of the Assessment Report.)

                 Executive Order 11296, Flood Hazard Evaluation, was issued at the same time as the Task Force
                 report and directed federal agencies to evaluate the flood hazard before undertaking federally
                 financed or supported actions and to play a lead role in preventing uneconomic use and development
                 of floodplains. The task of developing the framework, including specific legislative and other
                 programmatic needs to implement the Unified National Program, was assigned to the U.S. Water
                 Resources Council (The President, 1966).








               History of Floodplain Management                                                                      4-7




               THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM AND THE NATIONAL
               ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT


               While H.D. 465 and E.O. 11296 provided the groundwork for redirecting the federal involvement
               from structural control to a more comprehensive approach to management of the floodplain, two
               major legislative actions were also significant - establishment of the National Flood Insurance
               Program (NFIP) and passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

               At the same time the 1966 Task Force was evaluating flood control policy, the Department of
               Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was studying the feasibility of a national flood insurance
               program. The Southeast Hurricane Disaster Relief Act of 1965 (P.L 89-339), enacted after Hurricane
               Betsy caused extensive damage, particularly in the Gulf states, had authorized such a feasibility study.
               HUD's 1966 report provided the basis for the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 (P.L
               90-448)3 (Holmes, 1979).

               T11rough the NFIP, relief from the impacts of flood damages in the form of federally subsidized flood
               insurance became available to participating communities, contingent upon nonstructural flood loss
               reduction measures embodied in local floodplain management regulations. Community participation
               in the NFIP was relatively limited until the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L 93-234)
               amended the NFIA to strengthen incentives for local participation. Often overlooked is the impor-
               tance of the NFIP's 1968 decision establishing the one percent chance flood as a national standard;
               a decision that Congress concurred with in 1973.

               Passage of NEPA in 1969 provided for the consideration of environmental values in federal and
               federally supported actions. NEPA proved to be a major tool allowing for recognition of the multiple
               functions of the floodplain and for guiding use and development of floodplain lands. In addition,
               passage of NEPA signaled the initiation of the "environmental decade" to follow.



                                    THE 1970s: THE ENVIRONMENTAL DECADE


               During the 1970s, both the policy framework and management tools for floodplain management
               changed significantly, as did the national context within which floodplain use and development
               occurred. At the same time that national policy shifted toward decentralization of water management
               programs and toward nonstructural solutions to floodplain management, congressional support for
               major water resource development projects decreased. As a result of Congressional redistricting
               the number of Congressmen from urban districts steadily increased, while the strength of the rural
               groups that traditionally supported large water development projects continued to decline (T'homas,
               1983). Numerous "environmental" laws and programs at the federal and state levels, as well as
               specific water policy initiatives, opened the way for a much broader perspective on floodplains and
               a more comprehensive approach to their management.




               3   The first national flood insurance program was enacted by Congress in 1956, but was never funded.








                 4-8                                                      7he Nation's Program for Floodplain Management




                 LAND AND WATER USE PLANNING TOOLS

                 With the passage of NEPA, the establishment of environmental quality as a national goal, and the
                 requirement for environmental impact statements for proposed federal projects and actions, major
                 activities affecting floodplains and specific flood control projects became subject to greater public
                 scrutiny, and more importantly, consideration of alternatives. Complimentary environmental
                 legislation was adopted by many states, establishing environmental quality review and environmental
                 impact assessment requirements at the state and local levels.

                 Other land and water use planning tools also affected the decision-making process for floodplain use
                 and facilitated the consideration of alternative strategies for dealing with potential flooding impacts:

                 ï¿½   The Coastal Zone ManagementAct of 1972 (P.L. 92-583) provided for more direct state attention
                     to coastal resources, including coastal flood hazard areas. Through the coastal management
                     programs, states initiated or refined land and water use control procedures and programs in their
                     coastal flood hazard areas.
                 ï¿½   The Water Pollution ControlActAmendtnents of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) assigned to the U.S. Environ-
                     mental Protection Agency (EPA) the responsibility to issue permits to regulate or prohibit
                     pollutant discharges into the Nation's rivers. The Corps was given the responsibility (Section
                     404) to issue permits for dredge and fill activities in the Nation's waters. The Act also called
                     for intensified planning and intergovernmental coordination in waste treatment facilities (Section
                     208) and in river basin planning (Section 209).

                 ï¿½   The Disaster ReliefAct of 1974 (P.L. 93-288) required the development of state disaster prepared-
                     ness plans for floods and other natural hazards as a condition of receiving federal disaster
                     assistance.



                 EXPANDING FRAMEWORK FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

                 Integration of strategies for floodplain management was further enhanced through several more
                 directly related policy and legislative initiatives, including changes to the NFIP and publication of the
                 "Principles and Standards for Planning of Water and Related Land Resources."

                 ï¿½   The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) amended the National Flood Insurance
                     Act (NFIA), providing stronger incentives for communities to participate in the flood insurance
                     program by tying future federal financial assistance to states or communities and participation
                     in the NFIP. After Tropical Storm Agnes caused over $2 billion in losses in 1972, Congress
                     strengthened the requirements of the NFIP - requiring that communities in designated flood
                     hazard areas adopt appropriate land-use controls as a condition to receiving federal assistance
                     for insurable structures. Between enactment of the NFIA in 1968 and 1973, approximately 3,000
                     communities joined the program; after the 1973 amendments, community participation increased
                     to approximately 16,000 by mid-1979.

                 ï¿½   The "Ptinciples and Standards for Planning of Water and Related Land Resources " (Principles and
                     Standards), a presidential policy statement issued in September 1973, established a framework
                     for improved planning in the use of water and related land resources, based on the objectives
                     of National Economic Development (NED) and Environmental Quality (EQ).







               History of Floodplain Management                                                                     4-9



               0  The Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-25 1) addressed the cost-sharing issues
                  raised in H.D. 465 and required the consideration of nonstructural measures in federal flood
                  control projects.
               0  The Disaster ReliefAct of 1974 (P.L. 93-288) included requirements for applicants to take actions
                  to mitigate hazards as a condition of receiving disaster assistance and that rebuilding be done
                  in conformance with applicable codes, specifications and standards.

               In addition, the "Unified National Program" set forth in H.D. 465 was revised in response to new
               legislative and executive actions - first in 1976, to integrate flood insurance and floodplain manage-
               ment objectives; and again in 1979 to incorporate executive orders on floodplain management and
               protection of wetlands. (The latest revision, in 1986, is described later in this chapter.)

               ï¿½  A Unified National Program for Flood Plain Management was published by the Water Resources
                  Council in July of 1976. This updated and revised version of H.D. 465 was developed in response
                  to Sec. 1302(c) of the National Flood Insurance Act and to problems cited in a 1975 Government
                  Accounting Office (GAO) report "National Attempts to Reduce Losses from Floods by Planning
                  for and Controlling the Uses of Flood-Prone Lands." The 1976 program noted the existence
                  of new tools for managing natural resources, including floodplain lands, with an emphasis on
                  the need for greater intergovernmental coordination for effective management.

               ï¿½  Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands,
                  were issued in May, 1977. E.O. 11988, which relies on authority provided in both the NFIA and
                  NEPA, specified the responsibilities of federal agencies in floodplain management. Superseding
                  the 1966 executive order on flood hazard evaluation and reflecting the new context for manage-
                  ment of floodplains, it directed federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their actions
                  on floodplains (including the consideration of "natural and beneficial values" of floodplains) and
                  to include the evaluation and consideration of flood hazards in agency permitting and licensing
                  procedures. Since federal actions covered by the E.O. include federal financing programs, the
                  requirements apply to a broad range of construction and development activities at state and local
                  levels. The E.O. also established the one percent chance flood as the standard to be used by
                  all federal agencies.

               ï¿½  Executive Order 12127, issued on March 31, 1979, created the Federal Emergency Management
                  Agency (FEMA) to coordinate federal hazard mitigation efforts and to consolidate the programs
                  of five related agencies (the Federal Insurance Administration, the Federal Disaster Assistance
                  Administration, the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, the Federal Preparedness Agency, and
                  the U.S. Fire Administration).

               ï¿½  A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management was updated again by Water Resources
                  Council in September, 1979 to incorporate the new federal policy on flood management as set
                  forth in E.O. 11988.

               ï¿½  The Principles and Standards were also updated and revised in late 1979. The revisions required
                  that a primarily nonstructural alternative plan be prepared and considered as an alternative
                  whenever structural water resources projects are proposed. The "Principles and Standards" also
                  encouraged specific consideration of the ecological values associated with floodplains as part of
                  the environmental quality evaluation process, further defining the "natural and beneficial values"
                  cited in E.O. 11988.








                  4-10                                                      77ze Nation's Program for Floodplain Management



                      In addition, a series of studies to identify and implement opportunities for floodplain manage-
                      ment were initiated by the WRC in the 1970s. This effort led directly to the creation of the
                      interagency agreement establishing Interagency Hazard Mitigation Teams and the funding of
                      Section 1362 of the NFIA for purchase of flood-damaged properties (U.S. Water Resources
                      Council, 1979).


                  INCREASING STATE AND LOCAL INVOLVEMENT IN FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

                  During the 1970s, more state and local governments became involved in floodplain management
                  through passage of state legislation addressing specific activities, participation in the NFIP, initiation
                  of multi-purpose planning programs, or development of specific "innovative" projects. Regulatory
                  accomplishments at the state and local levels during the decade included (Kusler, 1982):

                  1) AT THE STATE LEVEL:

                      ï¿½   appointment of state flood insurance program coordinators in an 50 states;

                      ï¿½   adoption of new floodplain regulatory programs by seven more states and strengthening of
                          programs by others;
                      ï¿½   increases in staff and budgets of state programs for mapping, technical assistance, and permit
                          evaluation;

                      ï¿½   growth of state expertise, aided by access to WRC Water Resource Planning Grant funds
                          and subsequent NFIP State Assistance Funds;

                      ï¿½   adoption of resource conservation legislation that incorporated hazard reduction consider-
                          ations (e.g., wetlands protection, coastal management); and

                      ï¿½   incorporation of floodplain management measures in multi-purpose programs such as urban
                          renewal and open space acquisition programs.

                  2) AT THE LOCAL LEVEL:

                      ï¿½ adoption of floodplain regulations by close to 17,000 communities as a condition of enroll-
                          ment in the NFIP; and

                      ï¿½ adoption of local resource management regulations (e.g., wetlands protection, shoreland
                          zoning, etc.).

                  There were also many instances of states and localities taking the initiative in multipurpose programs
                  or comprehensive floodplain management programs: e.g., county-funded comprehensive floodplain
                  management program in Baltimore County, Maryland; flood reduction and community revitalization
                  in Soldier's Grove, Wisconsin; floodplain evacuation/relocation in Clinchport, Virginia.

                  The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) was founded in 1977, providing a significant
                  forum for the sharing of expertise and experience in state and local floodplain management programs
                  and assistance in improving the effectiveness of those programs.







                History of Floodplain Management                                                                           4-11



                  THE 1980s: CONTINUING EVOLUTION OF FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT


                Actions in the 1970s resulted in a broad planning framework for floodplain management - through
                both land-use related legislation and specific water policy initiatives. During the 1980s, the significant
                44new" legislative or institutional changes were few. Rather, more attention was given to implementing
                policies and programs. The federal government took on more of a coordinative role, providing
                direction and technical assistance. State and local governments gradually increased their role in
                fashioning floodplain management strategies appropriate to their jurisdictions.

                Two interagency agreements were developed in 1980 in attempts to improve federal governmental
                coordination in the provision of programs and services related to flood damage reduction. One
                interagency agreement - "Use of Nonstructural Measures in Flood Damage Reduction and Flood-
                plain Management" -was intended to establish common policy among the water resource construc-
                tion agencies on nonstructural flood loss reduction (Thomas, 1983).

                A second interagency agreement was developed after a 1980 Office of Management and Budget
                (OMB) directive that "all Federal programs that provide construction funds and long-term recovery
                assistance must use common flood disaster planning and postflood disaster recovery procedures"
                (Office of Management and Budget, 1980). The purpose of the directive was to utilize the leverage
                of the immediate postflood situation to encourage nonstructural flood loss reduction and.to link the
                efforts of disaster recovery agencies and agencies involved in planning and construction.

                As a result, 12 federal departments and agencies signed an interagency agreement committing them
                to a common policy and procedures, implemented through the action of interagency hazard mitigation
                teams (IHMT). These teams, activated after Presidentially declared disasters and under FEMAs
                leadership, provided another vehicle for evaluating a range of floodplain management opportunities,
                particularly those that might arise out of the postdisaster context (e.g., relocation of damaged
                structures). The teams make recommendations to all levels of government concerning a mix of
                strategies and tools that might be used to mitigate against future flood losses. The teams do not have
                authority to obligate federal agencies to commit funds or pursue a particular course of action.

                The 1980 OMB directive was at least partially in response to activities following a 1978 flood of the
                Kickapoo River in Wisconsin that devastated portions of the Village of Soldiers Grove. After the
                flood, the Village assembled funds from several federal, state and local sources and relocated its main
                business district to a new location out of the floodplain. As a result of this relocation, a partially
                constructed flood control dam on the Kickapoo River above the Village was never completed. This
                event generated great interest in the possibilities of postdisaster nonstructural measures. In addition,
                the confusion created in the federal government by a flooded community shopping for discretionary
                funds among various agencies stimulated discussions to find a mechanism to coordinate such activities.
                It was recognized that: a) nonstructural measures, when implemented following floods to take
                advantage of opportunities presented in the postflood period, could be much more cost-effective and
                timely than structural measures, and b) the nonstructural approach would require a federal interagen-
                cy mechanism to coordinate available resources to maximize their effectiveness. This OMB memo
                and subsequent interagency agreement provided further impetus to the transition from an emphasis








                  4-12                                                        Yhe Nation's Program for Floodplain Management



                  on flood control through structural measures to an emphasis on nonstructural floodplain management
                  measures (Zensinger, 1988).

                  State hazard mitigation planning pursuant to Section 4064 of the' Disaster Relief Act of 1974 was
                  initiated in 1980, following publication of regulations to implement this section of the 1974 law in late
                  1979. While many state and local communities had been involved in hazard mitigation previously,
                  Section 406 planning requirements made evaluation of mitigation opportunities mandatory after a
                  presidential declaration of disaster. 'Me 406 requirements tied the receipt of federal grants or,loans
                  for disaster assistance to a state's evaluation of natural hazards and identification of appropriate
                  actions, including safe land-use and construction practices, to mitigate such hazards.

                  Both the IHMT process (limited to flood disasters and intended primarily to coordinate federal
                  response and recovery) and the 406 planning process (for all types of presidentially declared disasters)
                  provided impetus to greater involvement by state and local officials in hazard mitigation activities
                  as a result of their participation on the teams.

                  The Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (P.L 97-348) prohibits new federal expenditures
                  (including the denial of federal flood insurance and disaster assistance) on undeveloped coastal
                  barriers on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The Act incorporates and, in fact, mandates the approach
                  of avoiding high hazard areas, further defining the message that was spelled out in E.O. 11988. The
                  Act defined and identified undeveloped coastal barriers, and placed a general prohibition on all
                  federal activities that might assist development of those barriers. Federal expenditures not prohibited
                  by the Act include Internal Revenue Service (IRS) deductions for casualty losses and federally insured
                  conventional loans.


                  In 1983, FEMA began to implement the concept of integrated emergency management to encourage
                  state and local progress in responding to all hazards through the Integrated Emergency Management
                  System (IEMS). The IEMS systematic approach to emergency management planning incorporates
                  hazard identification, assessment of state and local capability to deal with hazards, and multi-year
                  planning to improve capability in preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation.

                  In 1986, A Unifiled National Program for Floodplain Management was updateds to reflect changes in
                  federal programs and the strengthening of floodplain management capability at the state and local
                  levels. The 1986 document notes "that the relative role of the Federal government in national
                  floodplain management is declining as local, but especially State, governments have begun to develop
                  experience and effective programs." The report focuses on "ineffective coordination as a major
                  weakness in the use of the limited resources presently devoted to floodplain management", but also
                  recognizes the increasing fiscal burden placed on the states. "Realistically, State legislatures will find
                  it necessary to accept more responsibility to provide levels of funding needed to carry out a compre-



                  4   Section 406 was renumbered as Section 409 by the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Amendments
                      of 1988 (P.L. 100-707).

                  5   Responsibility for leadership of the UNP had been transferred to FEMA in 1982 following zero-level funding
                      of the V*rRC and transfer of WRC staff to other federal agencies.







              History of Floodplain Management                                                                    4-13



              hensive State floodplain management program, especially as Federal financial assistance is limited
              in accord with current Federal deficit reduction policies" (Federal Interagency Floodplain Manage-
              ment Task Force, 1986).

              As an indication of the growing state and local role in floodplain management, 27 states had
              floodplain management statutes in place by 1982 (Bloomgren, 1982). In 1988, 36 states had statutes
              that dither mandated or allowed regulation of riverine and/or coastal floodplains (Association of State
              Floodplain Managers, 1989). At the end of 1988, about 17,800 communities were participating in
              theNFIP. On their own initiative or due to state requirements, many of these communities had
              enacted regulations that exceeded in some instances the minimum floodplain management require-
              ments of the NFIP. States and communities have also actively pursued reduction of flood losses
              through means other than regulation, including flood preparedness and warning, acquisition of
              floodprone areas and floodproofing. State and local governments have also been involved in
              protecting floodplain natural resources, though efforts vary widely across the country and are not
              always coordinated with loss, reduction measures.

              Throughout the 1980s, organizations such as the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the
              Association (if State Dam Safety Officials, the Association of State Wetland Managers and the
              National Association of Urban Flood Management Agencies (now the National Association of Flood
              and Stormwater Management Agencies) played an increasingly important role in shaping national
              floodplain management policy and influenced both legislation and budgets.



                                            SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


              The history of floodplain management in the United States has been influenced by broad national
              trends and attitudes with respect to urban growth and development, government spending, expanding
              technology, recognition of the cOmplexity and interrelationship of issues related to land and water
              use, and shifting roles among different levels of government. Three major trends have had a
              particularly important impact on the present status of floodplain management.

              The first trend is the integration of the different government programs that affect floodplains. The
              current status of floodplain management stems from the evolution of programs for water resource
              projects, disaster assistance and environmental quality. The second trend - the Nation's growing
              urbanization - has been reflected in Congressional attitudes and representation, resulting in less
              focus on major flood control and other water resource projects and greater focus on risk management,
              environmental improvement, ecosystems protection and urban water quality. The third major trend -
              decentralization of the federal role - has resulted in the development of technical expertise and a
              greater sharing of the responsibility for floodplain management among federal, state and local
              governments.

              A Ithough floodplain management has matured considerably since the early efforts focused solely on
              flood control, today's management programs are still evolving in accordance with national trends and
              efforts to improve and expand the tools for reducing flood losses and protecting natural resources.
              Additional change can be expected in the future.









                CHAPTER 5:


                A UNIFIED NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR
                FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT




                      [A] unified nationalprogram only can be achieved through a partnersho among all levels of
                   government wherein each carries out its responsibilities ...

                                                Jeffrey S. Bragg, Former Administrator, Federal Insurance Administration



                House Document 465, A Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses, established the
                foundation of a coordinated national effort to manage the nation's floodplains. In response to a
                directive in the 1968 National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA), a conceptual framework for a unified
                national program was set forth in 1976 in A Unifwd National Program for Flood Plain Management
                (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1976). This document was revised and updated in 1979 (U.S. Water
                Resources Council, 1979), and again in 1986 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986) to
                reflect changes in relevant policies, legislation and institutional arrangements, as well as progress in
                approaches to floodplain management.

                The resulting document provides the conceptual framework for floodplain management in the United
                States today. Because of that document's importance, this chapter presents a relatively detailed
                account of how A Uni)7ed National Program for Floodplain Management has evolved over the last 25
                years and what the program now encompasses. Figure 5-1 summarizes the evolution of the Unified
                National Program for Floodplain Management from 1966 to 1986.



                                                   HOUSE DOCUMENT 465:
                    A UNIFIED NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR MANAGING FLOOD LOSSES


                In August 1966, A Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses was submitted by President
                Lyndon Johnson to Congress. This document - House Document 465 - had been prepared by
                the Task Force on Flood Control Policy, at the administration's request, in an attempt to check the
                mounting national toll of flood losses. In his transmittal letter, the President noted the extent of the
                Nation's investment in flood control projects (over $7 billion since 1936) and the need to continue
                support of these traditional programs, but he also recognized the need for new policies and measures
                to reduce growing annual flood losses and to promote sound development of floodplains.








                   5-2                                                           Me Nation's Program for Floodplain Management






                               DATE           DOCUMENT                 AGENCY                     AC7ION


                               August         A Unified National       Task Force on Federal      Prepared at the
                               1966           Program for              Flood Control Policy       administration's request
                                                                       Managing Flood             and submitted to
                                                                       Losses                     Congress by the
                                                                                                  President.


                               July           A Unified National       U.S. Water Resources       Prepared by WRC in
                               1976           Program for              Council                    response to Sec. 1302(c)
                                              Floodplain                                          of the NFIA. Submitted
                                              Management                                          to the President, but not
                                                                                                  transmitted to Congress.

                               September      A Unified National       U.S. Water Resources       Prepared by WRC to
                               1979           Program for              Council                    incorporate new policy
                                              Floodplain                                          directions (E.O. 11988
                                              Management                                          etc.). Submitted to the
                                                                                                  President and transmitted
                                                                                                  to Congress.

                               March          A Unified National       FEMA (Interagency          Prepared by the
                               im             Program for              Floodplain                 Interagency Task Force
                                              Floodplain               Management                 to reflect legislative and
                                              Management               Task Force                 other changes.
                                                                                                  Submitted to the
                                                                                                  President and transmitted
                                                                                                  to Congress.


                         Source: 'rhomas, Frank. Chairman of the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. Personal Communication. 1988.
                   Figure 5-1.      Evolution of a Unified National Program for Floodplain Management.



                   GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES


                   The Unified National Program recommended inH.D. 465 emphasized reorientation and strengthening
                   of federal agency programs under e3dsting authorities. Although no new agencies were recommended,
                   some of the task force proposals did call for new legislation, as well as specific studies or research
                   to improve planning capabilities. Responsibility for most of the specific recommendations was
                   assigned to one or more federal agencies. The U.S. Water Resources Council' (AIRC), which had
                   recently begun operations under authority granted in the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, was
                   assigned primary responsibility for many aspects of the national program.





                   I   See Chapter 7 for a description of the organization and functioning of the Water Resources Council relevant
                       to floodplain management.








             A UntTwd National Program for Floodplain Management                                                 5-3



             Although directed principally at federal agency actions to improve flood management, H.D. 465 did
             recognize the need for involvement and cooperation among all levels of government as well as private
             citizens. The Task Force recommended the following division of responsibility (Task Force on
             Federal Flood Control Policy, 1966):


                                                     Federal Responsibilities

                                             collection and dissemination of data -
                                               - provision of technical services -
                                             construction of flood control projects -
                                   management or supervision of indemnification program -
                                  provision of credit for local contributions to flood projects -

                                                      State Responsibilities

                                          establishing floodplain encroachment lines -
                                 granting of authority for demarcation of flood hazard areas -
                                    - assisting local planning and project financing efforts -

                                                      Local Responsibilities

                       guiding desirable expansion and avoiding uneconomic use of high hazard areas -
                                  - organizing flood project beneficiaries to pay for services -

                                                   Individual Responsibilifies

                            - weighing of the costs and advantages of developing alternative sites -
                             - assumption of financial responsibility for new locational decisions -



             FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

             The Task Force also included 16 recommendations for specific action in House Document 465 (these
             are summarized on Figure 5-2). One recommendation was fulfilled almost immediately when, at the
             same time that the President transmitted the Task Force report to Congress, he issued Executive
             Order 11296, Flood Hazard Evaluation, directing federal agencies to evaluate flood hazards prior
             to funding new construction or the purchase or disposal of lands. In his transmittal letter, however,
             the President named the Bureau of the Budget - rather than the new Water Resources Council as
             recommended by the Task Force - to be the agency through which interested federal agencies would
             report action. This reportedly led to long delays in achieving agency action (White, 1989).       -

             Each edition of A Unifted National Program for Floodplain Management has included a status report
             on the progress achieved in implementing the recommendations made in H.D. 465. Progress is
             categorized as: "(A) largely implemented; (B) some progress (often legislated but not implemented);
             and (C) little or nothing accomplished." Figure 5-2 indicates the status of implementation progress
             as determined by the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force (and its predecessors)








                   54                                                       Yhe Nation's Program for Floodplain Management



                   in 1976, 1979, and 1986. Of the 16 specific actions that were recommended, seven were judged to
                   have been largely implemented by 1986, some progress was seen with regard to the implementation
                   of eight other recommendations, and only one recommendation (a new national program for collecting
                   more useful flood damage data) was judged as "little or nothing accomplished."



                                                A UNIFIED NATIONAL PROGRAM
                                          FOR FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT, 1976

                   Ten years after H.D. 465 focused attention on the need for a new approach to managing flood losses,
                   the WRC submittedA Unifwd National Program for Flood Plain Management to the President             .2  H.D.
                   465 provided the foundation for a national flood management program, recognized the need for a
                   unified approach and for new planning measures, and made numerous recommendations for specific
                   actions. It did not, however, provide a detailed framework within which federal, state and local
                   agencies could formulate effective policies and implement floodplain management activities.

                   Section 1302 (c) of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 (P.L 90-448) had directed that:

                       77ze objectives of a flood insurance program should be integrally related to a unified national
                       program for floodplain management and ... the President should transmit to Congress for its
                       consideration anyfurtherproposals necessaryfor such a unifwdprogram, includingproposals for
                       the allocation of costs among beneftiaries of flood protection.

                   In 1968, the Bureau of the Budget3 requested that the WRC prepare a report in response to the
                   directive contained in Section 1302 (c) of the NFIA. In addition, the shortcomings of H.D. 465 and
                   E.O. 11296 were cited in a March 1975 General Accounting Office report (U.S. General Accounting
                   Office, 1975). The report subsequently prepared by the WRC - A Uni ied National Program for
                                                                                                 fi
                   Flood Plain Management - was submitted to the President in 1976 and also reflected several pieces
                   of federal legislation passed since 1966 as well as new directives in federal policy that had significantly
                   changed the context for floodplain management. The major changes reflected in the report were:

                   ï¿½   Federally subsidized flood insurance had been made available with passage of the National Flood
                       Insurance Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-448).

                   ï¿½   Funds for flood disaster preparedness planning were authorized by the Disaster Relief Act of
                       1974 (P.L. 93-288).

                   ï¿½   Technical assistance and construction grants for area-wide waste treatment facility planning were
                       made available under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-
                       500).



                   2   The 1976 report and subsequent 1979 and 1986 revisions were submitted to the President for transmission
                       to Congress. The 1979 and 1986 reports were transmitted to Congress while the 1976 report was not.

                   3   Predecessor agency to the Office of Management and Budget.







                    A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management                                                                                             5-5





                                      SUMMARY OF H.D. 465 RECOMMENDATIONS                                         IMPLEMENTA17ION PROGRESS*


                                                                                                                                          1976 1979 1986
                                      A. To improve basic knowledge about flood hazard:
                                      1. A three-stage program of delimiting hazards should be initiated by the Corps of                  B        B         A
                                      Engineers, the Geological Survey, and other competent agencies.
                                      ZA uniform technique of determining flood frequency should be developed by a                        A        A         A
                                      panel of the Water Resources Council.
                                      3. A new national program for collecting more useful flood damage data should be                    C        C         C
                                      launched by the interested agencies, including a continuing record and appraisals
                                      in census years.
                                      4. Research on (1) floodplain occupancy and (2) urban hydrology should be               (1)         C        C         B
                                      sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the                       (2)         B        B         B
                                      Department of Agriculture, and the Geological Survey.

                                      B. To coordinate and plan new developments on the floodylain:
                                      5. The Federal Water Resources Council should specify criteria for using flood information          B        B         B
                                      and should encourage States to deal with coordination of floodplain planning, and
                                      with floodplain regulation.
                                      6. Under the following Federal programs, steps should be taken to assure that State                 B        B         B
                                      and local planning takes proper and consistent account of flood hazard:
                                      Federal mortgage insurance
                                      Comprehensive local planning assistance
                                      Urban transport planning
                                      Recreation open space and development planning
                                      Urban open space acquisition
                                      Urban renewal
                                      Sewer and water facilities
                                      (Many of the necessary coordinating actions were accomplished during final
                                      preparation of H.D. 465.)
                                      7. Action should be taken by the Office of Emergency Planning, the Small Business                   B        B         B
                                      Administration, and other agencies to support consideration of relocation and
                                      floodproofing as alternatives to repetitive reconstruction.
                                      8. An Executive Order should be issued directing Federal agencies to consider flood                 A        A         A
                                      hazard in locating new Federal installations and in disposing of Federal land.

                                      C. To provide technical services to manneers of floodplain Rroperty:
                                      9. Programs to collect, prepare, and disseminate information and to provide limited                 A        A         A
                                      assistance and advice on alternate methods of reducing flood losses, including
                                      floodplain regulation and floodproofing, should be undertaken by the Corps of
                                      Engineers in close coordination with the Department of Agriculture.
                                      10. An improved national system for flood forecasting should be developed by the                    B        B         B
                                      Environmental Science Services Administration as part of a disaster warning system.

                                      D. To move toward a practical national program for flood insurance:
                                      11. A five-stage study of the feasibility of insurance under various conditions should              A        A         A
                                      be carried forward by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

                                      ETo adjust Federal flood control policy to sound criteria and chan2ln2 needs
                                      12. Survey authorization procedure and instructions should be broadened in concept.                 A        A         A
                                      13. Cost-sharing requirements for federally assisted projects should be modified to                 B        B         B
                                      provide more suitable contributions by State and local groups.
                                      14. Flood project benefits should be reported in the future so as to distinguish                    A        A         A
                                      protection of existing improvements from development of new property.
                                      15. Authority should be given by the Congress to include land acquisition as part                   B        B         B
                                      ,of flood control plans.
                                      16. Loan authority for local contributions to flood control projects should be                      C        C         B
                                      broadened by the Congress.

                                      From status reports in A Unified National Program for Flqgftlain Management: A = Largely Implemented; B                Some
                                      Progress (often legislated, but not implemented); C = Little or nothing accomplished


                                      Sources: U.S. Water Resources Council. A Unified National Proaram for Flood Plain Managemen Washington, D.C: U.S. Water
                                         Resources Council, 1976 and 1979; Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. A Unified National
                                         Prolram for Floodplain Managemiln-t Washington, Dr--. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1996.
                    Figure 5-2.            House Document 465 Recommendations for Federal Agency Action.








                 5-6                                                  Yhe Nation's Program for Floodplain Management



                 ï¿½  States were granted financial assistance for development of coastal management programs under
                    the Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583).
                 ï¿½  Requirements for dredge and fill permits (Section 404) expanded federal jurisdiction over
                    development in wetlands (P.L. 92-500).

                 0  Cost sharing was extended, in principle, to nonstructural flood control measures under the 1974
                    Water Resources Development Act (P.L. 93-251).

                 ï¿½  Publication of the "Principles and Standards for Planning of Water and Related Land Resources"
                    by the U.S. Water Resources Council in 1973 revised the procedures for evaluation of federally
                    funded management efforts.

                 ï¿½  Consideration of alternatives affecting floodplain management was required in environmental
                    impact statements prepared in response to the National Environmental Policy Act (P.L. 91-190).

                 The 1976 report also addressed the following more serious problems to be overcome in implementing
                 a Unified National Program:

                 ï¿½ Fragmented and uncoordinated responsibility for floodplain management.

                 ï¿½ Over-reliance on public investment to solve problems.
                 ï¿½ Inability to resolve conflicts of private property rights with state and national interests.


                 REFINEMENT AND EXPANSION OF HOUSE DOCUMENT 465

                 The 1976 report A Unified National Program for   Flood Plain Management expanded on the ideas
                 embodied in H.D. 465 in several important ways. It provided a conceptual framework of general
                 and working principles and set forth management "strategies" and implementing "tools" to guide
                 federal, state and local decision-makers in implementing a national program for floodplain
                 management. In addition, the 1976 report included more specific recommendations for federal and
                 state actions to reduce flood losses through floodplain management, and expanded on the role of
                 federal, state and local governments in implementing a Unified National Program.

                 The report was accompanied by recommendations for a revised, updated version of Executive Order
                 11296, Flood Hazard Evaluation, to reflect the above-noted legislation passed since 1966 and to
                 implement the expanded Unified National Program at the federal level. Although not adopted by
                 the President, the recommendations became the stimulus for E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management,
                 adopted in 1979.

                 While H.D. 465 emphasized. reorientation and strengthening of existing programs, the 1976 Unified
                 National Program focused on the need for improved coordination, which was cited as the "weakest
                 component of current management efforts."








              A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management                                                5-7



              CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORI@ STRATEGIES AND TOOLS
              FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

              As noted previously, a major problem in implementing a unified national approach to reduce flood
              losses was the lack of a specific framework for decision-making. The 1976 report presented a
              conceptual framework within which floodplain management policy could be formulated, along with
              a set of "strategies" and "tools" to guide. decision-making for specific floodplain management
              activities.

              The conceptual framework consisted of   general principles and working principles. General principles
              set forth in the 1976 report A Vniftwd National Program for Flood Plain Management are concerned
              with governmental responsibility for managing floodplains, the context within which the floodplain
              and flood loss reduction should be viewed, and the components of sound floodplain management.


              General Principles

              In summary, the general principles for floodplain management as set forth in the 1976 report A
              Unifw'd National Program for Flood Plain Management are:

              0   The federal government has a fundamental interest in how the Nation's floodplains are managed,
                  but the basic responsibility for regulating floodplains lies with the state and local governments.

              0   The floodplain must be considered in the context of total community, regional and national
                  planning and management.

              0   Flood loss reduction should be viewed in the larger context of floodplain management, rather
                  than as an objective in itself.

              0   Sound floodplain management embodies several aspects:

                     Goals (wise use, conservation, development and utilization of resources) and objectives
                     (economic efficiency, environmental quality and social well-being);

                     Consideration of future needs and the role of the floodplain;

                     Evaluation of all alternative strategies for alleviating flood losses;

                  -  Accounting for benefits and costs and interrelated impacts of floodplain management actions;

                  -  Motivation of decision-making individuals;

                  -  Coordination of agencies at all government levels and with responsibilities for an aspects of
                     floodplain management (regulation, planning functional areas such as water quality and water
                     supply, disaster preparedness and response, and citizen participation); and
                     Evaluation through continuous monitoring and reporting to the public.








                    5-8                                                        77ze Nation's Program for Floodplain Management



                    Working Principles

                    The working principles set forth include definitions (of floodplains, flood hazard, flood evaluation,
                    serious flood conditions, and flood disaster assistance), as well as a series of general statements
                    regarding the nature of flooding and floodplain management that provide further guidance for the
                    development of floodplain management policies (for example, existing and new development should
                    be treated differently in floodplain management, flood characteristics are likely to change as
                    development and land-use changes take place, and costs of floodplain management programs ought
                    to be shared equitably among the beneficiaries).


                    Strategies and Tools

                    Three approaches or "strategies" for achieving flood loss reduction objectives were also set forth in
                    the 1976 A Unif wid National Program for Flood Plain Management:

                    1) MODIFY SUSCEPUBILrry To FLOOD DAMAGE AND DISRUMON: actions to avoid dangerous,
                        uneconomic, undesirable, or unwise use of the floodplain.

                    2)  MODIFY FLOODING: the traditional strategy involving construction of dams, dikes, levees and
                        floodwalls; channel alterations; high flow diversions and spillways; and land treatment measures.
                    3)  MODIFY THE impAcr OF FLOODING ON INDMDUALS AND THE COMMUNrry: actions designed to assist
                        the individual and the community in the preparatory, survival and recovery phases of floods.

                    A number of specific "tools" associated with each of these basic strategies were described. The
                    strategies and tools are summarized on Figure 5-3.4 The use of flood loss reduction strategies and
                    tools are discussed in Chapters 11-13.


                    NEW FLOODPIAIN MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

                    The 1976 Unified National Program made several specific recommendations "directed toward
                    recognition and acceptance of the conceptual framework" and to provide the institutional coordination
                    necessary for implementing a unified national program for floodplain management. These included
                    federal, state and federal-interstate recommendations5 (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1976).






                    4   The listing of strategies and tools in Figure 5-3 is taken from the 1986 (most recent) edition of A Unified
                        National Program for Floodplain Management, and includes a few changes from the original 1976 edition.

                    5   Although the directive contained in Section 1302 of the NFIA included a request for proposals for cost-
                        sharing, these recommendations were excluded from the Unified National Program since they were addressed
                        in a separate report being prepared in response to the Water Resources Development Act of 1974.








                   A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management                                                                                           5-9







                                     STRATEGIES AND TOOLS FOR FLOOD Loss REDucTioN


                                     STRATEGY A.
                                     MODIFY SUSCEPTIBILITY To FLOOD DAMAGE AND DISRUPTION

                                     1. FLoODPLAIN REGULATIONS
                                           a)   State Regulations for Flood Hazard Areas
                                           b)   Local Regulations for Flood Hazard Areas
                                                1)    Zoning
                                                2)    Subdivision Regulations
                                                3)    Building Codes
                                                4)    Housing Codes
                                                5)    Sanitary and Well Codes
                                                6)    Other Regulatory Tools
                                     2.    DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES
                                           a) Design and Location of Services and Utilities
                                           b) Land Rights, Acquisition and Open Space Use
                                           c) Redevelopment
                                           d) Permanent Evacuation

                                     3.    DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
                                     4.    DISASTER ASSISTANCE
                                     5.    FLoODPROOFING
                                     6.    FLoOD FORECAST7NG AND WARNING SYSTEMS AND EMERGENCY PLANS


                                     STRATEGY B: MODIFY FLOODING

                                     1.    DAms AND RESERVOIRS
                                     2.    DIKES, LEVEES AND FLoODWALLS
                                     3.    CHANNEL ALTERATIONS
                                     4.    HIGH FLow DIVERSIONS
                                     5.    LAND TREATMENT MEASURES
                                     6.    ON-siTE DETENTION MEASURES


                                     STRATEGY C:
                                     MODIFY THE IMPACT OF FLOODING ON INDIVIDUALS AND THE COMMUNITY

                                     1. INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
                                     2.    FLOOD INSURANCE
                                     3.    TAx ADjusTmENTs
                                     4.    FLoOD EMERGENCY MEASURES
                                     5.    POST FLOOD RECOVERY





                               Source:   Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task force. A Unified National Propram for Floodplain Management
                                         Washington, D.C: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.

                   Figure 5-3.            Strategies and Tools for Flood Loss Reduction.








                  5-10                                                   77ze Nation's Program for Floodplain Management



                                                     Federal Level Recommendations

                   - coordination at the national level for research, data collection and information dissemination -
                                                   strengthening of management tools -
                                                      - support of state programs -

                                                      State Level Recommendations

                                          adoption of state enabling legislation, where needed -
                               - designation of state agencies for floodplain management responsibility -
                               - development of an information program to supplement federal efforts -
                                                 - improvement of management tools -
                               support of regional, sub-state and local floodplain management activities -

                                        Federal-Interstate Compact Commission Recommendations

                           coordination and support of federal and state floodplain management programs -



                                                        1979 REVISIONS TO
                      A UNIFIED NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT


                  While the 1976 reportA Unified National Program for Flood Plain Management significantly advanced
                  floodplain management by establishing a decision-making framework, the report was quickly dated
                  by several executive level actions, specifically: floodplain management policy articulated in President
                  Carter's 1977 Environmental Message; executive orders on Floodplain Management (E.O. 11988)
                  and Wetlands Protection (E.O. 11990); and the President's June 1978 Water Policy Initiatives. The
                  Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force updated and refined the 1976 Unified
                  National Program in a report submitted to the President in September 1979 by the YVRC (U.S. Water
                  Resources Council, 1979).

                  In addition to the three major problems hindering effective floodplain management that were noted
                  in the 1976 report, the revised version added "insufficient awareness of alternative strategies due to
                  lack of adequate technical and procedural information to guide floodplain decision-makers."

                  Major areas of change to the Unified National Program were concerned with incorporation of
                  ii natural and beneficial values" of floodplains to respond to the new policy directives mentioned
                  above, and included:

                  ï¿½   Refinement of the conceptual framework (for example: to address preservation and restoration
                      of natural floodplain resources as well as flood loss reduction; to emphasize the shared decision-
                      making responsibility for floodplain management; and to expand the discussion of managing flood
                      losses and alleviation of loss of natural and beneficial resources);

                  ï¿½   Addition of definitions (revision of the definitions of "flood or flooding" and flood hazard; and
                      addition of definitions of floodplain resources, floodplain restoration and floodplain
                      preservation);







              A. Unified National Program for Floodplain Management                                              5-11



              ï¿½   Expansion of the working principles regarding floodplain use, flood loss reduction and natural
                  floodplain resources;

              ï¿½   Expansion of strategies and tools to include those for managing natural floodplain resources;
                  and

              ï¿½   Discussion of the federal concern for natural floodplain resources.


              STRATEGIES AND TOOLS FOR MANAGING FLOODPLAIN NATURAL RESOURCES

              The 1979reportA Unifw-d National ProgramforFloodplain Management identified two basic strategies
              for managing floodplain natural resources:

              1) RESTORATION: proposed actions to provide re-establishment of a setting or environment in which
                  these natural functions can again operate.

              2) PRESERVATION: prevention of alteration to the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains;
                  or maintenance of the floodplain environment as close to its natural state as possible using all
                  practicable means.

              The 1979 report notes that the best means of preserving and protecting remaining natural values is
              to avoid development within floodplains. However, where avoidance is not practical, several tools
              (floodplain regulations, development and redevelopment policies, information and education, tax
              adjustments, and administrative measures) are available to minimize environmental harm and may
              be integrated with flood loss reduction tools (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1979). The use of
              strategies and tools for managing floodplain natural resources is described in Chapter 14.



                                                   1986 REVISIONS TO
                  A UNIFIED NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT


              In 1982, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) assigned responsibility for the Unified
              National Program to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which assumed
              chairmanship of the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. The Interagency Task
              Force submitted an updated Unified National Program to the President in March 1986, noting that
              "the 1979 report [had become] dated by the relative success and changes in federal programs and
              by strengthening of floodplain management capability at the state and local levels."

              The 1986 report reflected changes in federal legislation relevant to floodplain management as well
              as the results of several major accomplishments realized since completion of the 1979 report,
              including:

                  Use of Federal Flood Hazard Mitigation Teams, established pursuant to a July 1980 O.MB
                  memorandum and a subsequent interagency agreement ("Interagency Agreement for








                 5-12                                                    77te Nation's Program for Floodplain Management



                     Nonstructural Damage Reduction Measures as Applied to Common Flood Disaster Planning
                     and Post Flood Recovery Practices," December 15, 1980) signed by 12 federal agencies.

                 *   Passage of the 1982 Coastal Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348), which restricted federal
                     expenditures that might encourage development of coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf
                     Coasts.

                 0   Completion of two major studies by the National Science Foundation on Flood Hazard Mitigation
                     (1980) and Developing Flood Hazard Mitigation Priorities (1982).

                 Reflecting the increasing capability of state and local floodplain management roles, the report
                 included more explicit recommendations regarding the federal role in supporting state and local
                 initiatives. A total of 11 recommendations were addressed to federal agencies, seen directed at state
                 governments, and four directed at local governments. These recommendations are summarized on
                 Figure 5-4.



                                               SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


                 The Unified National Program for Floodplain Management has been periodically revised and updated
                 to reflect recognition of new concern and new initiatives taken by each level of government. Each
                 revision of the Unified National Program assessed the progress that had been made in implementing
                 the original 16 recommendations of the 1966 Task Force on Flood Control Policy. By 1986, only one
                 recommendation - a new national program for collecting more useful flood damage data - was
                 assessed as having little or nothing accomplished with regard to its implementation. Despite this
                 record of accomplishment, much remains to be done. Programs for floodplain management must
                 continually be improved and modified to respond to changing times and needs.

                 The current Unified National Program provides a conceptual framework of general and working
                 principles and sets forth management "strategies" and "tools" for implementing the national program.
                 A major change to the Unified national Program that occurred in 1979 was refinement of the
                 conceptual framework to address protection of natural floodplain resources as well as flood loss
                 reduction and expansion of the strategies and tools to include those for managing natural values.
                 The Unified National Program has served as a device to stimulate and support improvement of
                 floodplain management at all government levels. As an evolving document, further changes are
                 anticipated to accommodate new developments influencing floodplain management.








                    A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management                                                                                         5-13





                                                                       FEDERAL LEvEL JkEcommENDATiONS
                    1.  Assure that all Federal programs for water, land, and related resources support and implement the precepts of Executive Order 11988.
                        Floodolain Manazement and of"A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management7, as enunciated in this reporL RESPONSIBI11TY
                        - AJI Federal agencies.

                    2   Improved Federal support of States as they exercise their primary role in floodplain management. RESPONSIBILITY -All Federal agencies.

                    3.  Centralize floodplain data sources at the State level. RESPONSIBI= -The Federal Insurance Administration and Geological Survey
                        should Lake the lead.

                    4.  Improve Federal support of local government's role in floodplain management. RESPONSIBI= - All Federal agencies.

                    5.  Accelerate floodplain and hazard studies and improve dissemination of information to States and local users.

                    6.  Support cost sharingpolicies and project evaluation procedures that facilitate achievement ofa desirable mix ofstructural and nonstivctural
                        approaches to flood hazard adjustment. RESPONSIBILITY - All Federal agencie&

                    7.  Require appropriate non-Federal segments of floodplain management programs, including regulations or control measures and local
                        stormwater management plans as a prerequisite to Federal expenditures for the modification of flooding or of the impacts of flooding.
                        RESPONSIBILITY - All Federal agencies.

                    &   Continue to evaluate the nature, size and trend of the Federal subsidy to the National Flood Insurance Program and develop policies and
                        procedures to decrease or eliminate the subsidy in high hazard areas after the repetitive losses have been experienced. RESPONSIBILITY
                        - Federal Insurance Administration.

                    9.  Improve flood and flash flood forecasting and warning systems to include - but not be limited to - real-time data collection, forecast
                        preparation and dissemination, and public education in the use of system outputs. RESPONSIBI11TY - The National Oceanic and
                        Atmospheric Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

                    10. Utilize the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force under the auspices of the Federal Insurance Administration.

                    11. Utilize the Federal Interagency Post-Flood Hazard Mitigation Task Force, under the auspices of Federal Emergency Management Agency's
                        State and Local Programs Directorate.

                                                                        STATE LEvEL REcommENDATioNs

                    1.  Enact enabling legislation specifically addressing floodplain management programs and regulations in those States where such legislation does
                        not exist or is inadequate for the purpose.

                    2.  Establish or designate a single State agency (or another effective mechanism of coordination) to assure responsibility for floodplain
                        management and to issue State standards as floodplain management guides for State agencies and local entities.

                    3.  Develop an information program to supplement Federal efforts to inform public and local decision makers about flood hazards and floodplain
                        management.

                    4.  'Improve management tools by applying the concepts of Federal Executive order 11989, Floodylain Management to all State agencies and
                        programs.

                    5.  Establish a hazard mitigation team mechanism for State agencies similar to the Federal hazard mitigation team for the purpose ofimproving
                        the effectiveness of pre- and postflood disaster mitigation planning.

                    6.  Establish a mechanism to identify and monitor unsafe dams and levees and to provide hazard information to communities subject to potential
                        flooding from failure of unsafe dams and levees.

                    7.  Support regional, substate, and local entities in implementing their floodplain management activities.

                                                                        DDCAL LEvEL RscommENDATxoNs
                    1.  Designate a single point of contact with lead responsibility to coordinate floodplain management activities and provide liaison with State and
                        Federal floodplain management programs.

                    Z   Adopt and enforce floodplain management measures including zoning subdivision and building codes that at a minimum meet standards
                        recommended by national and State code organizations.
                    I   Coordinate with adjacent communities to assure that floodplain management practices do not shift the floodplain hazard to adjacent
                        communities.

                    4.  Develop review procedures to periodically assess the effectiveness of the local floodplain management programs,


                        Source:     Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. A Unified National Program for Floodplain Manaeemen
                                    Washington, D.C: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.
             Figure 5-4.           Recommendations for Recognition, Acceptance and Implementation of the Conceptual
                                   Framework of the Unified National Program for Floodplain Management.













                                                                                       PART III:

                                    CHANGES IN FLOODPLAIN
                                                                   MANAGEMENT
                                                              SINCE THE 1960s




            Much has changed in the fi6ld of floodplain management since the 1960s when the concept
            of a unified national program was first established. There have been important technological
            developments, for example, along with changes in the institutional framework for floodplain
            management that have resulted in an expanded legislative base, creation of new agencies,
            and supportive court decisions. In addition, understanding of basic floodplain management
            concepts has improved, new analytical procedures have been developed, and the institutional
            and individual perception and awareness of flood hazards and floodplain natural resources
            have increased.


            As a result, many new programs and initiatives have been developed at all levels of
            government. Many of these programs, however, tend to be single purpose programs that
            are not always well coordinated with one another. In addition, we have seen a shift away
            from federal dominance towards a more equal partnership among federal, state and local
            governments for floodplain management.

            Part III of the Assessment Report contains five chapters that describe many of the important
            changes in floodplain management over the past 25 years.









              CHAPTER 6:


              THE KNOWLEDGE
              AND INFORMATION BASE



                  It is evident... that the nation lacks a comprehensive base of information about manyparameters
                  of floods, flood plain use, and the consequences of floods.

                                              A Plan for Research on Floods and their Mitigation in the United States, 1983



              Effective floodplain management requires a sound understanding of the physical, biological, and
              chemical processes that impact on flood hazards and the natural and beneficial resources of flood-
              plains. Perhaps equally important is an understanding of the social processes involved in human
              interaction with flood hazards and floodplain natural functions. In addition to understanding the
              processes involved, it is necessary to measure and inventory over time the extent and quality of
              important floodplain resources and the occurrence and impacts of flood events in order to identify
              trends and determine the effectiveness of management efforts.

              A detailed description of the current "state-of-the-art" for scientific examination of the various natural
              processes associated with flood hazards and floodplain resources is outside the scope of the Assess-
              ment Report. Instead, this chapter provides a summary review of efforts to measure and inventory
              flood hazards and floodplain resources rather than a review of efforts to evaluate the physical,
              chemical, and biological processes associated with flooding. ("Social" aspects of floodplain manage-
              ment efforts to reduce losses and protect natural values are addressed in Chapter 9.)

              Expansion of the knowledge and information base has been carried out through the combined efforts
              of governmental units at all levels, academic institutions, and the private sector. Basic and applied
              research into the scientific processes has been largely the responsibility of federal agencies, academic
              institutions, and the private sector. Academic and private research is frequently conducted in
              cooperation with, and supported by, funding from federal agencies. State (other than state-supported
              academic institutions) and local governments have generally assumed a much smaller role with regard
              to research, although there are numerous instances of both major research efforts and smaller
              contributions by state and local governments.

              Inventory and measurement, primarily through data collection and mapping, have been more equally
              distributed among all levels of government, as well as in the private sector and academic institutions.
              Typically, data are collected at the state and local levels, while the federal government, an academic
              institution, or a professional or nonprofit organization assumes responsibility for assembling this
              information into formats useful for discerning regional or national trends or status. In other instances,








                   6-2                                                  Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                   with regard to data collected through remote sensing techniques, for example, responsibility for both
                   data collection and compilation may be found at the federal level.

                   The last 25 years have witnessed rapid technological advancement in all disciplines and endeavors,
                   and floodplain management has benefitted from this technological revolution in innumerable ways.
                   Probably most technological advances are so subtle, indirect, or so thoroughly integrated into everyday
                   professional life that they go largely unrecognized. Many technical advances have such widespread
                   application in numerous fields, including floodplain management, that coverage in the Assessment
                   Report is not appropriate. Other advances, however, deserve mention because they are still new
                   enough, have resulted in such dramatic changes in floodplain management practices, or are sufficiently
                   specific to floodplain management and closely related fields.



                                   CLIMATE CHANGE AND WEATHER FORECASTING


                   Both long-term climate changes and short-term weather conditions can have an important effect on
                   floodplain management. Knowledge of long-term climate conditions, particularly precipitation, is
                   needed for design of flood control structures and prediction of flood levels for a given return
                   frequency. Forecasts of short-term weather conditions are needed to prepare for and defend against
                   local flooding.


                   CLIMATE AND CLIMATE CHANGE

                   In the past, there was little reason to suspect that any large changes in the climate were imminent.
                   It was therefore assumed that statistical sampling theory could be used to predict important parame-
                   ters of climate over the next several decades. In fact, one of the basic assumptions of hydrology and
                   floodplain management for most applications has been that long-term climate is constant. That is,
                   climatic conditions will be the same in the future as they have been during the period for which
                   reliable records are available.

                   Even if the assumptions of a constant climate were correct, the period of direct measurement of
                   climate conditions in the United States is very short. As a result, the confidence that can be placed
                   in these measurements for future planning needs is limited. Because of the short historical record
                   of direct measurement, indirect methods have been developed to extend the climate record. Modern
                   research techniques such as tree ring dating, carbon 14 dating, and archeological investigations have
                   revealed little change in mean climate factors, such as temperature and precipitation, over the past
                   500 years or so.

                   Over the past few decades, however, evidence suggests that the climate can change rather quickly
                   (within the time frame of a decade or so) and last for perhaps as long as half a century or more.
                   Therefore, traditional 30-year averages for various climate parameters often fail to adequately
                   describe the climate and may be misleading for decisions involving long-term consequences. Studies
                   revealing no long-term change in mean parameters have shown that short-term variations are common








               77ze Knowledge and Information Base                                                                   6-3



               and tend to be cyclical. In addition, short-term cycles often appear within longer-term cycles, making
               interpretation of data difficult and prediction of future changes problematic.

               A recent study (Michaelsen, 1987) illustrates how indirect methods of determining climate variations
               can provide valuable information for water resources and floodplain management. Tree ring analysis
               was used to estimate the variability of annual rainfall in central California. The study concludes that,
               while there have not been any long-term changes in mean annual precipitation over the past 400
               years, there have been wide swings in the variability of precipitation over 20- to 30-year periods. In
               particular, the period 1920 to 1965 had low variability and low precipitation. Although many
               floodplain management concerns are not affected by annual precipitation, it is noted that:

                  Most of the population growth and dam construction have occurred since the last period of high
                  variability. An increase in variability, and the associated increase in the uncertainty of water
                  availability, couldput serious strains on the water impoundment and delivery systems in the area,
                  especially if there is continued growth in population and water demand. (Michaelsen, 1987.)

               Certain gases in the earth's atmosphere trap long-wave radiation emitted from the earth's surface
               and the result is a global mean temperature of 150C, as opposed to an estimated -180C without an
               atmosphere. This phenomenon is popularly known as the "greenhouse effect" and is necessary for
               the continuation of human life. By far the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, but carbon
               dioxide makes a substantial contribution, and smaller contributions come from ozone, methane, and
               nitrous oxide (Mitchell, 1990).

               During the 1970s and 1980s, evidence increased that human use of fossil fuels was adding to the
               quantity of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere to such an extent as to cause global climate
               changes (Karl, et aL, 1990). Concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are all
               now known to be increasing. In recent years, other greenhouse gases - principally chlorofluoro-
               carbons (CFC) - have been added to the atmosphere in significant quantities.

               There are many uncertainties in attempting to predict the consequences of the increase in greenhouse
               gases on climate. Numerous studies involving complex numerical climate models have been conducted
               over the past 10 years in efforts to predict these consequences. Due to the many uncertainties
               involved in understanding climate change, these studies have produced a wide range of results. While
               most studies predict a significant increase in worldwide average temperatures (global warming), other
               studies have actually shown a decrease in worldwide average temperatures. Predictions of impacts
               on specific areas of the earth are, of course, equally uncertain and variable (Mitchell, 1989).

               In 1988, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program
               created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The panel was given several
               important tasks, including: assessing the likelihood of a future climate change due to human activities,
               particularly the emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; analyzing the possible impacts
               of such a change, including socioeconomic impacts; and exploring ways to slow down or stop activities
               that lead to such changes (Bolin, 1990).








                 6-4                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                 The IPCC Working Group charged with the scientific assessment of climate change presented a
                 number of interesting findings (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1990):

                 ï¿½   Some greenhouse gases are potentially more effective than others at changing climate, and the
                     relative effectiveness of these gases can be estimated. Carbon dioxide has been responsible for
                     over half the enhanced greenhouse effect in the past and is likely to remain so in the future.

                 ï¿½   Atmospheric concentrations of the long-lived gases (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and the
                     Chlorofluorocarbons) adjust only slowly to changes in emissions. Continued emissions of these
                     gases at present rates would commit us to increased concentrations for centuries ahead. The
                     longer emissions continue to increase at present-day rates, the greater reductions would have
                     to be for concentrations to stabilize at a given level.
                 ï¿½   The long-lived gases would require immediate reductions in emissions from human activities of
                     over 60% to stabilize their concentrations at today's levels; methane would require a 15-20%
                     reduction.

                 ï¿½   Under its scenario for Business-as-Usual emissions of greenhouse gases, the IPCC predicts a
                     rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3 * C per decade
                     (with an uncertainty range of 0.2'C to 0.5*C per decade); this rate is greater than the rate seen
                     over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of
                     about VC above the present value by 2025, and 3*C before the end of the next century. The
                     rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors.

                 ï¿½   Under the other IPCC emission scenarios, which assume progressively increasing levels of
                     controls, predicted rates of increase in global mean temperature range from about 0.2*C per
                     decade to about OXC per decade.

                 ï¿½   Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual emissions scenario, an average rate of global mean sea level
                     rise of about 6 cm per decade over the next century is predicted (with an uncertainty range of
                     3-10 cm per decade), mainly due to thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting of some
                     land ice. The predicted rise is about 20 cm in global mean sea level by 2030, and 65 cm by the
                     end of the next century. There will be significant regional variations.

                 ï¿½   Global mean surface air temperature has increased by OTC to 0.6*C over the last 100 years,
                     with the five global-average warmest years being in the 1980s. Over the same period, global sea
                     level has increased by 10-20 cm. These increases have not been smooth with time nor uniform
                     over the globe.
                 ï¿½   The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also
                     of the same magnitude as natural variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely. due
                     to this natural variability; alternately this variability and other human factors could have offset
                     a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced
                     greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more.

                 ï¿½   There is no firm evidence that climate has become more variable over the last few decades.
                     With an increase in the mean temperature, however, episodes of high temperatures will most
                     likely become more frequent in the future, and cold episodes less frequent.
                 ï¿½   Ecosystems affect climate and will be affected by a changing climate and by increasing carbon
                     dioxide concentrations. Rapid changes in climate will change the composition of ecosystems;








              7he Knowledge and, Information Base                                                                    6-5



                  some species will benefit while others will be unable to migrate or adapt fast enough and may
                  become extinct. Enhanced levels of carbon dioxide may increase productivity and efficiency of
                  water use of vegetation. The effect of warming on biological processes, although poorly
                  understood, may increase the atmospheric concentrations of natural greenhouse gases.


              Accelerated Sea I.Avel Rise Due to Climate Changes

              As the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates, the historical relative
              rise in sea level is expected to continue over the next century and, as a result of human-induced
              climate changes, the rate of rise is anticipated to increase. The future rate of relative sea level rise,
              however, is uncertain. Reports by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Hoffman, 1983)
              and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (Revelle, 1983) during the early 1980S examined the
              effect of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases on relative sea level rise. The NAS report
              estimated a rise in sea level of 70 cm (2.3 feet) over the next century, given plausible models of
              atmospheric warming (Revelle,. 1983). The EPA provided several estimates/scenarios of global sea
              level rise to the year 2100. Under the EPA's high scenario, sea level would rise 345 cm (11.3 feet)
              by 2100; under the conservative scenario, sea level would rise 56 cm (1.9 feet) by 2100. 1he EPA
              felt that a global sea level 'rise between 144 cm (4.8 feet) and 217 cm (7 feet) by the year 2100 was
              most likely (Hoffman, 1983). The NAS study - Engineering Implications of Sea Level Rise (National
              Research Council, 1987) - based its recommendations on the 70 cm rise projected by Revelle (1983)
              and curves on either side as the most reasonable envelope of projections for now.

              The rate of sea level rise is likely to be higher in some areas than others. For example, the EPA
              estimated that prior to the year 2000 along most of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States,
              the rise will be 18 to 24 cm (0.6 to 0.8 feet) more than the global average. Also, the greatest changes
              in sea level rise are unlikely to occur until the last half of the next century. All projections were
              significantly higher than current trends in sea level rise (Hoffman, 1983).

              Ilese and other studies of relative sea level rise have indicated the great uncertainty in predicting
              the timing and levels of sea level rise that may be anticipated. The uncertainty is due both to
              changing estimates of global warming and likely changes in relative sea level rise in response to global
              warming. For example, a National Research Council committee in 1985 predicted that sea levels
              would rise about 1 meter with a 30C increase in global average temperature by the year 2100. On
              the basis of information available in 1989, a member of that committee reported that the best
              predictions now call for a rise of only about one-third meter with the same levels of increase in carbon
              dioxide. However, the rise is expected to occur before 2100, perhaps by mid-century. The range
              in these recent predictions varies from a 0.7 meter rise to a 0.1 meter fall in relative sea levels. The
              lower predictions for global sea level rise primarily reflect new information concerning how the
              Antarctic climate will respond to global warming. Instead of shrinking as earlier believed, new
              evidence indicates that the Antarctic ice cap will most likely expand in the coming decades, thereby
              removing water from the ocean. As one researcher stated "This means our understanding of the
              system is not very good at the moment" (Monastersky, 1989).








                  6-6                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  Assuming that global warming occurs and relative sea level does rise, several ways in which sea level
                  rise would likely exacerbate coastal and other flooding have been identified (Titus and others, 1987):

                  ï¿½ Decreased hydraulic head and higher water tables would reduce both natural and artificial
                      drainage;

                  ï¿½   More areas would be flooded by spring tides;

                  ï¿½   Storm surges would be higher;

                  ï¿½   Areas that were above sea level and relied on gravity drainage would now be below sea level
                      and have to rely on pumping;

                  ï¿½   Wetlands will. be lost in many locations where they are blocked from migrating inland by
                      structural erosion or flood protection measures, or by other types of development and natural
                      landforms; and

                  ï¿½   Increased precipitation in some areas may increase flood frequencies.


                  Long-Term Precipitation Data

                  Historic precipitation data are the basis for almost all floodplain studies in the United States where
                  streamflow data are not available. The primary agency for the collection and archiving of precipita-
                  tion data is the National Weather Service (NWS).

                  Twenty five years ago, the U.S. Weather Bureau, now the NWS, planned for one precipitation gage
                  per 625 square miles for climatological purposes, and about 80% of the planned gages were estab-
                  lished. For hydrologic purposes, one gage was recommended for every 100 square miles, and for
                  thunderstorm analysis and flood warning, one gage every square mile (Chow, 1964). In comparison,
                  the Precoitation-Frequency Atlas of the Westem United States, published by the NWS in 1973 and
                  widely used in 11 western states for hydrologic forecasting, used data from only 38 recording rain
                  gages, a density of only one gage per 3,100 square miles. In the mid-1980s, the NWS operated only
                  29 such gages in Arizona, and fewer than 40 NWS recording rain gages were in operation in Utah
                  and Nevada (Reich, 1988).

                  Throughout the rest of the United States, the RainfallFrequencyAllas ofthe United States (Hershfield,
                  1961) remains in widespread use. This atlas utilizes data collected from the earliest available records
                  through 1957 for nonrecording stations, and through 1958 for recording gages. The average length
                  of record for the longest, nonrecording data was 48 years, and for recording gages only 16 years.

                  Because of cyclical precipitation patterns noted previously, the limited number of gages used, and
                  the short length of record of most gage stations, rainfall atlases may not accurately reflect long-term
                  precipitation frequency. Frequency estimates may be high or low depending on the known precipita-
                  tion patterns during the limited period of record relative to longer, unknown precipitation patterns.







              Ae Knowledge and Information Base                                                                      6-7



              WEATHER FORECASTING

              The National Weather Service is the federal agency with primary responsibility for the collection and
              analysis of weather data useful for floodplain management. With regard to riverine flooding,
              precipitation and temperature data are most often used, while for coastal flooding, wind data are
              generally most critical. The actual or forecast intensity, extent, and duration of precipitation is used,
              sometimes in conjunction with streamflow data, to forecast flooding.

              The NWS operates a data collection system that consists of about 230 stations in the 50 states, Puerto
              Rico, and across the Pacific Ocean. Most of these stations take both synoptic and base observations.
              At locations where data cannot be collected efficiently by NWS personnel, automated weather stations
              are installed. The NWS operates about 165 automated stations in the 50 states and offshore. In
              addition, the NWS contracts for data collection at about 170 stations, mostly within the 50 states, and
              the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) staffs more than 200 observation stations from which
              weather data are collected and provided to the NWS. In marine locations where observations cannot
              be made effectively by staff, automated moored and drifting data buoys are used. These data buoys
              collect data on several parameters and relay those data by a variety of means, including several
              satellites.


              To provide near real-time data of river stage and rainfall, a network of Automatic Hydrologic
              Observing System (AHOS) stations is operated throughout the 48 conterminous states and Alaska.
              Approximately 450 of these sites are automatically interrogated by telephone every six hours, and
              an additional 67 stations automatically transmit data via satellite.

              The NWS operates 128 weather radar stations that provide information on areal coverage, height,
              intensity, and movement of storms for warning, forecasting, hydrological, and climatological programs.

              Other data are collected by the NWS from a variety of sources. There are over 1,300 ships that
              report data systematically, and 300 other ships report data whenever, they are in waters covered by
              NWS forecasts. The Solar Radiation Program collects data from 38 stations in the United States,
              Guam and Puerto Rico (National Weather Service, 1985).



                                                    STREAMFLOW DATA


              The vast majority of the stream gages in the United States are operated by the U.S. Geological Survey
              (USGS). In 1990, for example, the USGS operated 7,363 daily record stations. With very few
              exceptions, the stream gages operated by the USGS are a cooperative effort. That is, a local
              sponsor - which may be another federal agency, a state or local agency, or another organization -
              pays for part of the operation of each station. For this reason, the addition or removal of a stream
              gage from the network is generally decided by the local sponsor. As a result, there is no overall
              consistency to this aspect of data collection which is subject, in large part, to budget problems and
              political decisions made by the hundreds of local cooperating agencies (Colson, 1991).








                  6-8                                                      Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  Since the first USGS stream gage was established in 1889, the USGS stream gage network increased
                  through 1980, but has declined since, largely due to reductions in funding by local cooperators.
                  Significantly, the number of stations with 21 or more years of data has remained almost constant over
                  that time, which means that stations with relatively long records are being discontinued.

                  Almost all of the stream gages are located on larger watersheds. Of 846,000 tributaries in the United
                  States with drainage areas between one and two square miles, fewer than 60 were gaged (Reich,
                  1988). Yet, knowledge of runoff from small watersheds is important for many purposes, including
                  highway drainage design' and urban drainage analysis, and runoff from these watersheds cannot be
                  accurately extrapolated from data for larger watersheds because the runoff processes and storms are
                  different for small watersheds.

                  To partially fill this important gap, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has gaged hundreds of
                  plot-sized watersheds to measure runoff associated with individual land uses and soils. Comparative
                  runoff plots are generally located at state land-grant universities or at ARS research centers scattered
                  around the United States (von Wolffradt, 1989).

                  The United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and
                  Mexico, operates stream gages on the mainstern and tributaries of the Rio Grande, the Colorado
                  River, the Tijuana River, and several streams crossing the Arizona-Sonora, Mexico boundary. The
                  operation of these gages is mandated through treaties and other agreements between the United
                  States and Mexico and is funded totally with federal monies. The streamflow data have been
                  published annually since 1931 for the Rio Grande and its tributaries, and since 1950 for the Colorado
                  River and the other western boundary streams (International Boundary and Water Commission,
                  1989).

                  Water data have been published annually by the USGS since 1890. Records furnished by other
                  agencies are included in the reports when they supplement USGS data and appear to be consistent
                  and reliable. Streamflow and water level data have been placed in computer files for efficient storage
                  and retrieval since 1956 (Thomas, 1977). Currently, data from USGS surface-water records are
                  published annually for each state and maintained on a computerized data base- the National Water
                  Data Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE).

                  All types of water data are accessed through WATSTORE. The data are grouped and stored in five
                  files, depending on common characteristics and data collection frequencies. The five files are:

                  1)  STATION HEADER FILE: an index for the 320,OW water data storage sites;
                  2)  DAILY VALUEs FILE: more than 240,000,000 daily parameters such as streamflow, ground-water
                      levels, specific conductance, and water temperatures;
                  3)  PEAK FLOW FILE: 460,000 records on annual maximum streamflow and gage height values;
                  4)  WATER QUALITY FILE: 2,300,000 analytical results that describe biological, chemical, and physical
                      water characteristics; and




                      During the late 1960s and 1970s when the federal highway construction program was very active, the USGS
                      operated crest-stage gages in many basins of 1-2 square mile drainage area (Colson, 1989).








               Ae Knowledge and Information Base                                                                     6-9



               5) GROUND-WATER SrrE-INwNToRy FiLE (independent but cross-referenced to Daily Values and
                   Water Quality Files): data on 850,000 sites (construction history, geohydrologic data, and one-
                   time field measurements) (Dodd, undated).

               Another major source of streamflow data is STORET, EPA!s water quality data base. STORET is
               a computerized database system maintained by the EPA for storage and retrieval of data relating
               to the waterways within and contiguous to the United States. This centralized database includes
               nationwide data on water quality, water quality standards, point source pollution, fish kills, waste
               abatement needs, etc. The system is used by federal, state, and local water quality agencies
               (Melanson, 1988).



                                            HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS


               The availability and ease of use of inexpensive computers have allowed great progress in the
               application of accepted methodologies for hydrologic and hydraulic analysis. The potential impact
               of small scale development plans (even plans for single structures) on flooding and the susceptibility
               of proposed development to flooding can today be evaluated more quickly and inexpensively than
               in the past. At the same time, the methodologies themselves can be more easily and inexpensively
               evaluated.

               Today, computer programs are readily available to evaluate such widely accepted techniques as the
               Log-Pearson Type III analysis of streamflow data. Researchers and a few practitioners are using two-
               and three-dimensional analysis of flood flows to obtain more realistic and reliable results for some
               conditions than are obtainable from the "step-backwater analysis." Sediment transport models are
               being developed, calibrated and applied in many areas.

               These various computer-aided techniques allow the development of large area hydrologic and
               hydraulic models to evaluate the effects of future urbanization, structures, and other land-use changes.
               Only a decade ago, these activities were undertaken only at great expense, and were therefore applied
               infrequently.

               While the computer revolution has improved many aspects of the sciences of flood hydrology and
               hydraulics, it has also opened the door to misuse of the standardized techniques by persons and
               organizations not fully cognizant of the assumptions and limits inherent in those methods (Pilgrim,
               1986).


               HYDROLOGY


               Hydrology is the science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water on the
               surface of the land, below the surface,, and in the atmosphere. Hydrologic parameters of importance
               to floodplain management include: flood peak flows; flood volumes; time of concentration and travel;
               rate of rise; water velocities; sedimentation and degradation of flood channels and floodplains; flood








                 6-10                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                 elevations; the effect of geomorphology on floods and vice versa; the hydraulics of flood channels,
                 floodplains, and man-made structures; and water quality as it is impacted by floods.

                 Peak flows are the basis for most aspects of floodplain management. From an analysis of the peak
                 flow at a particular point on a stream, flood elevations may be computed using various hydraulic
                 analysis techniques. The primary methods for computing peak flows are contained in Guidefinesfor
                 Determining Flood Flow Frequency (Bulletin 17B) (U. S. Water Resources Council, 1981). These
                 methods are recommended for flood insurance studies performed by study contractors for the Federal
                 Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and by most states and communities that have developed
                 hydrologic procedures for floodplain management purposes.

                 The U.S. Water Resources Council (WRC) methodology recognizes four categories. of flood peak
                 data: 1) systematic records, from which annual peak flows may be derived; 2) historic data on floods;
                 3) comparisons of streams with similar watersheds; and 4) the estimation of runoff from precipitation.

                 Systematic records and historic data are generally subjected to an analysis to determine the statistical
                 characteristics of the data. These characteristics are assumed to represent all floods at that location.
                 The analysis most often used assumes a "log-Pearson Type III" (LPIII) distribution of the data.

                 Comparisons of streams with similar watersheds starts with gage data from a stream or a number
                 of streams. Flows in ungaged streams are assumed to have similar statistical characteristics, providing
                 that differences in watershed characteristics are properly accounted for. Generally, a multi-variate
                 regression analysis is used to determine the relative importance of various watershed characteristics.

                 "Exceedance probability" is determined from historic flood data and is based on a statistical analysis
                 that estimates the average frequency with which a flood of a particular magnitude will be exceeded.
                 This term may be expressed as the probability that a flood will be exceeded in any year (the "annual
                 exceedance probability"), or as the average recurrence interval (the "n-year flood"). A flood with
                 a .02 annual exceedance probability has a two percent chance of being exceeded each year (and is
                 also called a "50-year" flood).

                 The exceeclance probability methodology can be used to:

                 ï¿½   Set a design standard (e.g., new facilities must be safe from the one percent annual chance
                     flood);

                 ï¿½   Evaluate a historic flood (e.g., the flood of 1967 has a four percent chance of being exceeded
                     each year); or

                 ï¿½   Evaluate an existing policy or structure (e.g., this levee reach provides protection against a 10
                     percent annual chance flood event).

                 The methodology is used for many aspects of flood hydrology that directly and indirectly affect flood
                 losses. For example, at a given point on a stream, it is possible to calculate a variety of one percent
                 annual chance floods depending on which aspect of flooding is important for management purposes.
                 For example, floods that produce the highest instantaneous flood peak, the largest flood volume, and
                 the longest period of flow above a certain quantity can be calculated. Ile hydrology of those three








               The Knowledge and Infonnation Base                                                                         6-11



               different floods will be critical for the development of elevation standards, reservoir design, and levee
               design, respectively.

               The estimation of runoff from precipitation (precipitation/runoff analysis) uses knowledge or
               assumptions about the hydrologic characteristics of a watershed to estimate the runoff from a real
               or theoretical storm. Those characteristics and their inter-relationships are generally mathematically
               modelled in a computer program. The most widely used computer models for rainfall/runoff analysis
               of flood peaks are the TR-20 developed by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and the HEC-1
               developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). For small urban drainage areas, the SCS
               developed a methodology to be applied manually - the TR-55 method. This method has recently
               been adapted to a computerized format. For urban drainage where water quality is a concern, the
               EPA has developed the Stormwater Management Model (SWMM).


               HYDRAULICS

               Surface water hydraulics - the mechanical properties of water in motion - are basically controlled
               by a relatively few parameters: slope, surface roughness, depth of flow, channel shape and size, and
               sediment load. Each of these parameters is interrelated, so that the effect of slope is generally
               measured while holding the other parameters constant, and so forth. The effects of most of these
               parameters are only estimated by empirical methods.

               The most widely used method for calculating river hydraulics is the "step-        -backwater analysis." This
               method uses channel and overbank topography and other hydraulic parameters to maintain continuity
               of mass and energy from one river cross section to the next. The step-backwater analysis is usually
               computerized, and may include separate analysis methods for bridges, weir flow, channel modifications
               and other special features. The most widely used computer model is HEC-2, developed by the Corps'
               Hydraulic Engineering Center (HEC). Other step-backwater models in general use include the WSP-
               2 developed by the SCS and the WSPRO developed by the Federal Highway Administration
               (FHWA).

               Where the expense of a backwater analysis is not justified or affordable, a simple computation is
               frequently used for a single point on a stream. This computation - the Manning equation - can
               give acceptable results if there are no obstructions downstream that cause a backwater effect. For
               areas of shallow flow, the Manning equation is generally used because backwater is considered to
               be a relatively small influence compared to surface roughness.

               In some cases, where hydrologic conditions and channel configurations are similar over a large
               geographic area, flood depths at a number of existing stream gages are used to estimate flood depths
               on other streams that have no gages. This procedure is used for floodplain management purposes
               where it is not economically feasible to perform expensive detailed studies. The resultant estimates,
               however, are not necessarily accurate.

               A special model has been developed by the National Weather Service for estimating inundation from
               dam breaks. This DAMBREAK model uses kinematic wave theory to determine flood heights and
               is widely used by different federal and state agencies as well as private engineering organizations.








                 6-12                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                 Substantial progress has been made with regard to the modelling of coastal and riverine flooding.
                 Coastal flooding is basically a hydraulic process driven by wind and tide effects on open water, by
                 bathymetry and onshore topography, and resultant wave action. The first coastal flooding model to
                 receive widespread application was the "Special Program to List Amplitudes of Surges from Hur-
                 ricanes" (SPLASH) developed by the NWS. This model was used for initial mapping of coastal flood
                 zones under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). About 1975, the SPLASH model was
                 replaced by a more sophisticated model called "Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes"
                 (SLOSH), that can be used to model inundation areas from hurricanes of a particular magnitude,
                 forward speed, and track.

                 FEMA and the Corps of Engineers. have developed several models and methodologies used for
                 mapping the one percent annual chance flood in coastal areas. The Coastal Flooding Storm Surge
                 Model is used for determining stillwater flood elevation from hurricanes along the Atlantic and Gulf
                 coasts. Other models or methodologies may be used in conjunction with or instead of this model.
                 For example, models or methodologies have been developed to supplement the basic storm surge
                 model by adding the effects of wave height onto stillwater flood elevation (WHAFIS), adding the
                 effects of wave runup, and accounting for impacts of marsh grass on floods. Other models have been
                 developed to address flooding on the Great Lakes, flooding from Tsunamis, Chubasco flooding in
                 Southern California, Pacific Northwest storm flooding, and "northeaster" flooding in the northeastern
                 United States. (Federal Insurance Administration, 1985).



                                  FLOOD FORECASTING, WARNING AND RESPONSE

                 Efforts to forecast riverine and coastal flooding and to warn populations at risk have contributed
                 greatly to the expansion of floodplain management capabilities. Historically, most of these efforts
                 have been carried out by the National Weather Service. More recently, private weather forecasting
                 efforts have also made important contributions.


                 FLOOD FORECASTING, WARNING AND RESPONSE FOR RIVERINE FLOODING

                 Historically, most flood warning efforts in the United States focused on larger river basins where
                 timely and accurate forecasts were possible using the available technology. Hydrologic models for
                 use on these large river systems were developed by the NWS through its River Forecast Centers.
                 Data on antecedent conditions, rainfall, and river stages could be combined in the NWS models to
                 predict the magnitude, time and duration of flood peaks.

                 On hundreds of smaller streams, the NWS works with local communities to help establish self-help
                 flood warning systems (National Weather Service, 1985). These cooperative systems rely on a
                 network of community volunteers to make regular observations of rainfall and/or river levels and to
                 telephone their observations to the appropriate NWS office. The NWS uses the data g          athered by
                 the volunteers, along with its own data on soil moisture conditions and precipitation forecasts, to run
                 a hydrological model of the river basin and predict the time and level of flooding. While very
                 effective in some communities, these programs have inherent limitations. Most notably, observers







                Me Knowledge and Information Base                                                                        6-13



                are not always available to collect and report data on precipitation and river levels, particularly during
                the night and at remote locations.

                Recognizing these limitations, the NWS began developing an automated flood warning system in the
                late 1970s. The automated system was designed to take advantage of technological advances that
                permit real-time collection and transmittal of meteorological and hydrological data from remote
                locations to populated areas at risk.

                The resulting system was called Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time (ALERT). The complete-
                ly automated ALERT system does not rely on volunteer observers. Its major components are:
                precipitation gages, river gages, radio transmitters, radio receivers, data encoders and decoders, a
                microcomputer, and specially designed software to process the data. Remote rain gages automatically
                collect data on amounts and rates of rainfall and transmit this information via VHF radio to a base
                station. Similarly, stream gage stations transmit data on the rise in river levels. The data collection
                and transmittal from remote locations is generally battery powered. Becaus6 the system is designed
                for "event reporting" (data transmitted only when there is a predetermined amount of rainfall or
                change in stream level), batteries can last a year or more without recharging.

                When predetermined critical precipitation and/or stream level values are reached, an alarm is
                triggered at the base stations and personnel are placed on alert to monitor the situation closely.
                Using the rainfall and river rise information, combined with precipitation forecasts and a hydrologic
                model of the stream, NWS personnel are able to accurately forecast floods and provide downstream
                officials and residents with increased warning time. Since the information is also received at a local
                base station, local officials can, if necessary, initiate flood warnings without waiting for a forecast from
                the NWS. The increase in warning time afforded by the automated system is often sufficient to
                permit emergency actions that can save lives and reduce property losses.

                ALERT systems were initially used in the western United States where sudden rainstorms in the
                remote, upper reaches of watersheds can cause flash floods in the lower parts of the watershed where
                no rain may have fallen. ALERT systems have now been successfully installed in dozens of locations
                throughout the United States, and many more are under development. While the original ALERT
                system was developed by the NWS, several private firms have now developed similar systems (L.R.
                Johnston Associates, 1986).

                Another type of automated flood warning system developed to serve parts of the Appalachian region
                is known as the Integrated Flood Observing and Warning System (IFLOWS). This system is more
                regional in scope than ALERT systems, more dependent upon NWS warnings, and provides less
                opportunity for warnings to be issued by local communities. Recently, some elements of ALERT-type
                systems have been incorporated into the IFLOWS.

                The availability of inexpensive, highly capable minicomputers and microcomputers is currently making
                possible a great increase in the number of flood forecasting systems designed for smaller watersheds.
                The true effectiveness of these systems, however, has yet to be fully tested.








                 6-14                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                 FLOOD FORECASTING, WARNING AND RESPONSE FOR COASTAL FLOODING

                 Flood forecasting, warning, and response for coastal area flooding has focused on the observation,
                 measurement and tracking of tropical cyclones and tsunamis.


                 Technical Advances for Observing Tropical Cyclones

                 Tropical cyclones spend most of their lives over warm ocean waters and derive much of their energy
                 from those waters. Before aircraft reconnaissance and weather satellites, the detection of tropical
                 cyclones was dependent on chance encounters with shipping or populated areas. The first radio
                 weather report from a ship underway was received in 1905. In the years that followed, the amount
                 and quality of marine weather data gradually increased. By 1959, the number of observations from
                 ships during the June to November hurricane season exceeded 64,000. The number has increased
                 less rapidly since the early 1960s, but this is due to changes in the characteristics of the shipping
                 industry.

                 Technological advances since World War II have resulted in more precise tropical cyclone detection,
                 positioning, and intensity determination. Improved equipment for measuring weather conditions
                 above the earth's surface have provided additional knowledge of factors affecting tropical cyclone
                 motion and intensity. The use of aircraft to obtain data inside hurricanes was found to be feasible
                 in 1943, and U.S. Air Force and NaVy2 aircraft have made routine reconnaissance of tropical cyclones
                 since 1944. Before the operational availability of satellite data around the mid-1960s, these flights
                 were especially important for the early detection of storms.

                 An important product of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) space program
                 has been the development of weather satellites - now the standard observational tool for the
                 detection and monitoring of tropical cyclones. Systematic procedures have been developed to
                 estimate the location of the center and intensity of the storm. There is now a high probability that
                 the center (eye) of the storm can be located within 25 nautical miles of its actual position, and that
                 the intensity can be determined to within 10 knots of actual intensity. Satellites also provide the
                 means of obtaining direct or indirect measurements of other environmental conditions around the
                 storm, including wind, temperature, moisture, and rainfall conditions.

                 Although the first pictures of a tropical cyclone were transmitted by the polar orbiting TIROS-I
                 satellite in 1960, it was not until 1966 that the first completely operational weather satellite, ESSA-I,
                 was placed in orbit. The ESSA satellites orbited the poles and provided views of tropical cyclones
                 once per day. By the late 1960s, geostationary satellites allowed continuous daytime surveillance.
                 The nighttime viewing gap was closed in 1974 with the launch of the first Geostationary Operational
                 Environmental Satellite (GOES). Since the introduction of continuous weather satellite surveillance,
                 there is little chance that a tropical cyclone will go undetected.





                 2  Navy hurricane reconnaissance was discontinued after the 1974 hurricane season.







             77ze Knowledge and Information Base                                                                6-15



             Aircraft reconnaissance is still needed, however, to obtain supplemental and more precise environ-
             mental data from in and around the storm area. In addition to military aircraft reconnaissance,
             several aircraft with sophisticated instrumentation for the collection of detailed data are operated
             by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These aircraft are used primarily
             for research purposes but are also useful for operational tracking of tropical cyclones. A significant
             milestone occurred during the 1977 hurricane season when the Aircraft Satellite Data Link (ASDL)
             communications system enabled measurements taken at 60-second intervals inside a storm to be
             transmitted from the aircraft to the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and plotted by computer within
             a few seconds.

             An extensive network of powerful coastal radars is now in operation. Radar is particularly useful
             in detecting sudden changes in the direction of tropical storms within 250 miles of the radar site.
             This permits "last minute" adjustments in community preparedness efforts as the storms move ashore.

             In recent years, marine meteorological data buoys have been developed and deployed. These floating
             data platforms are anchored at strategic locations and transmit observations of wind, pressure, waves,
             and ocean and air temperatures in and around tropical cyclones and other weather systems (Neu-
             mann, 1987).

             Although the technology for observing hurricanes has improved in recent years, the science of
             predicting the movement of these tropical cyclones has shown little improvement. The standard error
             in a 24-hour forecast of landfall is about plus or minus 100 miles.


             Technical Advances for Observing Tsunamis

             The need for a tsunami warning system became apparent following the 1946 tsunami that devastated
             Hilo, Hawaii, and this need became even more urgent after the 1964 "Good Friday" tsunami in
             Alaska. As a result of these events, a warning system was developed that has been expanded and
             refined over the years into a comprehensive international tsunami warning system coordinated by
             the NWS. At the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) at Ewa Beach, Hawaii, a 24-hour watch
             is maintained on a network of tide gages and seismograph stations throughout the Pacific. Whenever
             an earthquake of sufficient magnitude to generate a tsunami (at least magnitude 7.5 on the Richter
             Scale in the Pacific and 7 along the Pacific coast of Alaska) is detected, NWS personnel work closely
             with personnel of the USGS at the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) to determine
             the epicenter and focal depth of the earthquake.

             If the epicenter of the quake is under or near the ocean, and if its focal depth is less than 20 miles
             deep, tsunami generation is possible. With this first seismic information, the warning center issues
             a WATCH, which alerts participating emergency forces and the general public that a dangerous
             earthquake has occurred, and that the possibility of a tsunami exists. Then the warning system turns
             to its second line of detection, the Pacific-wide network of tide stations.

             When a tsunami is confirmed by tidal gages that can distinguish the "signature" waves of tsunamis
             from other types of waves, a tsunami WARNING is issued. This warning alerts all participants to
             the approach of potentially destructive waves and gives the estimated arrival times for all locations.








                 6-16                                                  Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                 In recent years, automation and computer and satellite communications technology have dramatically
                 reduced the time between the detection of a tsunami-generating earthquake and the issuance of
                 watches and warnings. 'Me GOES satellite, for example, has significantly reduced the transmission
                 time of sea level and tide data from remote gages in the Pacific. At one time, it took a few hours
                 to receive data from South America because of communications delays. Now, the data are received
                 at PTWC in a few minutesfrom a GOES sea-level network of 26 remote stations that stretches across
                 the Pacific from Wake Island to Guadalcanal to Easter Island, and along the coast of South America.

                 Difficulties in tsunami forecasting remain, however. Even when a tsunami is confirmed by tidal gages,
                 the exact size of the waves is not known nor is the potential for destruction at any given site
                 (Forrester, 1987).


                 PRIVATE WEATHER FORECASTING

                 Weather forecasting was previously almost the sole responsibility of the NWS. Most NWS weather
                 data (both mesoscale and microscale data), however, is now available to private interests at a modest
                 cost. Consequently, many private weather forecasting businesses have been established over the past
                 20 years or so. Although private weather forecasting is dominated by a few very large companies
                 that cover the entire country, dozens of smaller companies now also provide forecasts.

                 Typically, the private companies obtain weather data directly from NOAA/NWS computers and serve
                 such specialized interests as: local TV and radio stations, public works departments, school districts
                 and other municipal offices, as well as private industries (shipping and agricultural industries, for
                 example) with weather-dependent concerns. The advantage that private weather services can offer
                 these interests is preparation of weather forecasts customized for a particular location,and/or time.



                                                   TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING


                 Topographic information is one of the basic information requirements for floodplain management
                 and the development of floodplain maps. Topographic maps formed the basis for preparation of
                 early floodprone area maps, and in areas where detailed floodplain maps have not yet been prepared,
                 topographic maps are still used to delineate approximate limits of floodplain areas.

                 The U.S. Geological Survey has been mapping the country for more than a century. Today, most
                 of the conterminous United States and Hawaii have been mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 (7.5 minute
                 series) with contour intervals of five to ten feet (contour intervals are greater in mountainous
                 locations). Alaska is mapped at a scale of 1:63,360 (15-minute series). As shown in Table 6-1,
                 topographic maps at a scale of 1:24,000 are expected to be published by the end of Fiscal Year 1991
                 for all states except Alaska. All but a few sections of Alaska were expected to be completed at a
                 scale of 1:63,360 by the middle of 1990 (Kelley, 1990). Much of the standard topographic mapping
                 is done on a cooperative basis by the USGS and state agencies. Local governments often prepare
                 more detailed topographic maps, with scale and contour intervals determined by local conditions.

                 The USGS is now beginning to convert existing topographic map information to a digital database.








                      77te Knowledge and Information Base                                                                                                                   6-17



                      Table 6-1.              Estimated Completion of Primary Topographic Mapping for the United States.


                                                          YEAR PUBLISHED OR
                      STATE                               FY TO PRINTING                                   T-MAPPING



                      Alabama                             1987                                              0
                      Alaska"                             1990 (C-Jun9O)                                    0
                      Arkansas                            1987                                              0
                      Arizona                             1988                                            160 (3rd Quarter FY91)
                                              . . ..........
                                                ... ......
                                         r."*,*"*,"*,","*:"'*"*".* .............. .      ........................ . .. . . . . . ........
                                                 .. ............
                                                . .........
                                               ... ......
                                                    ... . .......  ..... .
                      Colorado                            1987                                              0
                      Connecticut                         1951                                              0
                      Delaware                            1951                                              0
                      Florida                             1978                                              0

                                                                                  ........ .
                         OWN
                      ......             ..........
                      Hawaii                              1980                                              0                      .. ..   ..
                      Idaho                               1990 (C-Jun9O)                                    85 (3rd Quarter FY91)
                      Illinois                            1987                                              0                                      Maps compiled at 1:24,000-
                      Indiana                             1966                                              0
                                                                              ........ ... ....... . .                                             scale standards, published in
                                         *.. . .....                 .......
                                         X
                                                                                                                                                   15' format, now being
                                                                    ..........
                      Kansas                              1981                                              0                                      converted to 7 1/2 minute
                      Kentucky                            1957                                              0                                      format. Quarter date is the
                      Louisana                            1989                                              0                                      estimated time of
                      Maine                               1990 (C-Apr9O)                                    0                                      completion by the mapping
                                                                                                                                                    e
                                                                                                                                                   c nters-
                                                          .. .......
                                         51.
                                                          . .. . . . .....
                      Massachusetts                       1950          .. ..   ...                         0                                      Primary ma
                      Michigan                            1988                                              0 (C@Sep89 P-Feb9O)                                       pping is
                      Minnesota                           1984                                              0                                      1:63,360-scate 15' format.
                                                                                      ..                                                           Estimated date does not
                                         ... ......
                                         ..............                              ........... ........ ...............
                                                                                                 ................... . . ...... . .....
                                                                . .. .. ......        .. .................................. .. f .Kffl*@@
                                                                                                .............. ... ........... .......
                                                                                               ..............e .... ... . ...
                                                                                               ...............................................
                      Mi's's'oun'                                                              .............. ............. ...
                                                                                                ..............................                     include the Aleutian Islands
                                                          1988                                              0                                      or St. Lawrence and St.
                      Montana                             1989 (C-May89 P.Mar9o)                            7 (3rd Quarter FY91)                   Matthews Islands, nor does
                      Nebraska                            1990 (C-Mar9O P-Apr9O)                            0                                      it include 9 quads east of
                      Nevada                              1990.(C-Jun9O)                                  157 (21rd Quarter FY91)                  Unimak Pass (mainland)
                                                                                            .... ...                                               where NMD has perennial
                                         . ... .. ... ................ .
                                                                                                                  ....... .. .                     problems in obtaining
                      New Mexico                          1988                                              16 (4th Quarter FY90)                  photography.
                      New York                            1990 (C-Jun9O)                                    0
                      North Carolina                      1988                                              0                               C      Completed-mapping center
                                                                                          .......................................
                                                                 .... .....                           ...........
                                                                                                                                                     te
                                                                  ......                                                                           da

                      Oklahoma
                                                          1985                                              0 (C-Dec89 P-May9O)             P      Published date
                      Oregon                              1990 (C-Jun9O)                                    20 (3rd Quarter FY90)
                      Pennsylvania                        1973                                              0
                      Rhode Island                        1958                                              0
                                                                                                                        .......... .. ........
                                                                                                                    x        . ......... .........
                                                                                                                  .. ............ . . .........
                                                   .... . ....                  . ....                            ... .......... ........................ .....
                                                                                                                          .... .......  ........
                                   h"
                                                                                                                               .........
                                                                ............ M                                    ..           .......
                                                                ....    .....   .. ..  . .........                          . .........
                                   Dakota                                  ............... I ..
                                                          1985                                              0     ...   .......    ..... .......
                      Tennessee                           1983                                              0
                      Texas                               1985                                              0
                      Utah                                1990 (C-Jun90 P-Jul90)                            71    (3rd Quarter FY91)
                                                   .............

                      Virginia
                                                                                                 ...X. X.
                                                                                                          ... .........
                                                          1072                                              0
                      Washington                          1990 (C-Jun9O)                                    8 (3rd Quarter FY91)
                      West Virginia                       1978                                              0
                      Wisconsin                           1985                                              0
                                                          "Va



                                                    Source:     U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Production Planning and Analysis. 1990.








                 6-18                                                    Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                                          SOILS IDENTIFICATION AND MAPPING


                 The identification and mapping of soils was initially undertaken in support of agricultural needs, but
                 soils maps and data have proven useful for a great many purposes, including the identification of
                 floodplains and wetlands. For instance, many of the early maps of floodprone areas used in the initial
                 stages of the National Flood Insurance Program were based on soils information. Due to the
                 availability of soil surveys for the entire state, the State of Connecticut established an inland wetlands
                 protection program in 1974 that delineates wetlands strictly on the basis of soil types that are
                 designated as poorly drained, very poorly drained, or floodplain and alluvial (Cooper, 1984).

                 Soil surveys in the United States have been prepared since the late 1800s, but the "modern" soil
                 survey using improved techniques and standards began in the mid-1950s. Identification and mapping
                 of soils is performed under the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS), and the Soil Conservation
                 Service is the agency charged with classifying and mapping soils on nonfederal land in the United
                 States. By 1983, maps were available for about two-thirds of the land area of the United States
                 (excluding Alaska), or nearly 1.3 billion acres (Powell, 1983). At the end of fiscal year 1990, the SCS
                 expects to have mapped just over 1.625 billion acres (Calhoun, 1990). The SCS has established a
                 goal of completing soil surveys for the entire country by the year 2000 (Rohahey, 1987), and is
                 currently mapping at the rate of about 40 million acres per year (Calhoun, 1990).

                 During the 1960s and early 1970s, soil survey field work progressed much more rapidly than publica-
                 tion of the surveys. Increased use of computerized data bases and word processing and USGS
                 orthophotography has enabled the SCS to speed the publication of soil surveys. For example, the
                 number of publications increased from 31 in 1970 to 133 in 1979 and 1980 (Powell, 1983).

                 While enormous progress has been made in the development and publication of soil surveys,
                 improvements are needed in several areas. For example, map scales vary from state to state, the
                 level of detail of soil classification varies, and in many instances supporting information is inadequate
                 or nonexistent. Along most state boundaries the delineations of soil map units and the composition
                 of the units do not match (McCracken, 1984).

                 In an effort to address these and other problems, a committee of the NCSS recommended in March
                 of 1983 that a nationally consistent general soil map geographic data base be established. In
                 response, the SCS is beginning to digitize existing soil surveys, and hopes that most of the remaining
                 soil survey maps can initially be prepared using digital methods, instead of mapping first with conven-
                 tional methods then converting to a digital base.

                 The SCS has examined the possibilities of a centralized program for map digitizing, but there is
                 currently no central directive establishing priorities for digitizing soil surveys. Each state SCS office
                 working with local officials determines the relative importance of digitizing soils maps. Most current
                 digitizing efforts are being conducted on a pilot basis for specific projects and to determine the best
                 procedures. Among the states that have active soils digitizing programs are New Jersey, Vermont,
                 New York, Connecticut, and North Carolina.








              7he Knowledge and Information Base                                                                      6-19



              The central office of the SCS has been testing different types of digitizing software, and is currently
              operating seven pilot test sites in its state area and field offices to test different applications of this
              software. There is also a cooperative agreement with the University of Missouri to develop and scan
              soil surveys (Rohahey, 1987).



                                            MAPPING OF FLOOD HAZARDS


              The delineation of floodplains on maps- is a basic necessity for floodplain management. Floodplain
              maps support a variety of structural and nonstructural flood damage reduction measures and are
              useful in helping to identify and support decision-making with respect to many floodplain natural
              values.


              Prior to the enactment of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) in 1968, federal floodplain
              mapping activities consisted of the programs of the Corps of Engineers, SCS, USGS, and the
              Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). There was no national standard for preparing floodplain maps,
              and each agency mapped floodplains according to their individual authorities and missions. Some
              mapping was done on a project-by-project basis or following major floods, but most mapping was
              for systematic use in assisting state and local floodplain management efforts.


              EARLY MAPPING

              Some of the tools of "modern" floodplain management were applied to certain types of floodplain
              activities during the first part of this century. Particularly in the area of public works, including the
              design of transportation facilities, there was attention to the return periods of floods, flood elevations,
              and scour potential. For safety purposes, dams and spillways were sized to pass large, infrequent
              floods; and culverts were either designed using hydrologic computations or local flood experience.
              Although several federal agencies had developed techniques for estimating flood peaks, uniform
              standards for floodplain development were not used by most local planners.

              In an early effort to assist community planners manage floodplain development, the TVA began
              mapping floodplains in 1953 (Tennessee Valley Authority, 1983). 'Me Corps of Engineers, SCS and
              USGS began producing floodplain maps a short time later.


              Tennessee Valley Authority Mapping

              The flood hazard information developed by the TVA for the early reports included data on historical
              floods and on a hypothetical flood that was termed the "maximum flood of reasonable regional
              expectancy." Ile development of the hypothetical flood led to numerous problems regarding its
              potential application for local land-use planning purposes. The unwieldy name - "maximum flood
              of reasonable regional expectancy" - hindered its acceptance for regulatory purposes; the regional
              areas used in its determination were poorly defined; the flood event was very large; and it would be
              expected to occur very infrequently. As a result, many local officials would not accept this hypotheti-








                  6-20                                                    Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  cal flood as the basis for regulating floodplain land-use, and state planners considered it to be too
                  large a flood to be reasonable for local planning efforts.

                  On the other hand, the TVA was hesitant to develop a lesser flood measure since this might imply
                  that it was recommending a lesser planning standard for all aspects of floodplain management. A
                  decision was finally reached to compute two hypothetical floods - a "maximum probable" flood
                  and a "regional" flood. The maximum probable flood was used at that time by the TVA in the design
                  of TVA flood control works. The maximum probable flood was approximately equivalent to the
                  Corps of Engineers' standard project flood, and was generally somewhat larger than the TVXs flood
                  of "reasonable regional expectancy." Determining the flood of "reasonable regional expectancy"
                  involved defining a flood comparable in magnitude to the largest known floods on similar streams
                  within 60 to 100 miles of the stream reach under study.

                  The regional flood for most streams studied was significantly smaller than the flood of reasonable
                  regional expectancy or maximum probable flood, and rapidly became the standard for floodplain
                  regulations within the Tennessee Valley. TVA engineers felt that the regional flood was large enough
                  for that use, and the state planners felt that it was defensible as fair and reasonable since it was based
                  on actual flood occurrences in the vicinity of the studied streams. As a result, the regional flood was
                  more rapidly comprehended by local officials and citizen members of the planning commission who
                  would ultimately be called upon to enforce the regulations.

                  Except for the addition of the regional flood, the basic data contained in the TVA!s flood hazard
                  information reports did not change substantially until the mid-1970s. At that time, the TVA began
                  to include the "100-year" (and sometimes the "500-year") flood profiles and flooded areas in the
                  reports, generally in response to requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (Wright,
                  1989). As shown in Table 6-2, through 1988 the TVA had published 238 Flood Hazard Reports
                  (Tennessee Valley Authority, 1988).


                  Soil Conservation Service Mapping

                  The Soil Conservation Service began cooperative floodplain mapping efforts with other agencies in
                  1936. Following passage of the Small Watershed Program in 1954, formal studies were carried out
                  in coordination with other federal and local agencies. Through September 1988, 260 Cooperative
                  River Basin Studies and 442 Flood Plain Management Studies had been completed. Of the Coopera-
                  tive River Basin Studies, 245 had a flooding component and flood hazard maps were developed for
                  about 120 of these studies. All of the Flood Plain Management Studies resulted in the preparation
                  of flood hazard maps for the rural communities studied (von Wolffradt, 1988).


                  U.S. Geological Survey Mapping

                  The Geological Survey initiated special flood studies in 1902 with a report on the Passaic River flood
                  in northeastern New Jersey. The concept of the flood magnitude-frequency relationship was
                  introduced around 1913. In 1959, the USGS began publishing flood maps, and its 1961 flood atlas
                  for Boulder, Colorado was the first atlas to show boundaries for the "25-year     ... .. 50-year," and "100-







               Ae Knowledge and Information. Base                                                                          6-21



               year" floods. The USGS has published over 13,000 maps of communities with known flood problems
               (Haupt, 1988).


               U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mapping

               In 1960, Congress specifically authorized the Chief of Engineers to compile and disseminate informa-
               tion on floods and flood damages, and to develop general criteria for the use of floodplain areas.
               As part of this authorization, the Corps of Engineers initiated the flood plain information study
               program in 1962 to provide engineering assistance to local interests. In 1966, the Corps' authority
               was expanded to include the provision of information and technical assistance to other federal
               agencies.

               Also, Executive Order 11296 specified the Secretary of the Army as the primary source of floodplain
               information to be used in locating federal facilities and disposing of federal lands. Between 1963 and
               1976, the Corps completed about 2,000 floodplain information studies (including delineations and
               profiles) for about 4,000 places and prepared over 500 special flood hazard reports. These studies
               and reports were used for a wide range of floodplain management and flood control activities (Flood
               Plain Management Services, 1988).


               Table 6-2.       Community Flood Hazard Reports Prepared by the TVA, 1954-1988.


                                                       NUMBER                             NUMBER
                                            YEAR       PUBLISHED                YEAR      PUBLISHED


                                            1954             8                  1971            2
                                            1955             8                  1972            4
                                            1956           10                   1973            3
                                            1957           27                   1974            4
                                            1958           13                   1975            6
                                            1959           14                   1976            1
                                            1960           18                   1977            0
                                            1961           13                   1978            1
                                            1962           11                   1979            0
                                            1963             7                  1980            0
                                            1964           11                   1981            2
                                            1965             8                  1982            4
                                            1966           11                   1983            10
                                            1967             8                  1984            3
                                            1968             6                  1985            3
                                            1969             6                  1986            5
                                            1970             4                  1987            4
                                                                                1988            3


                                                              TOTAL REPORTS PUBLISHED: 238


                                            Note:  In addition, 322 flood insurance studies have been
                                                   prepared for the FIA.


                                              Source:  Tennessee Valley Authority. December 1988.








                  6-22                                                  Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s




                  MAPPING FOR THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

                  Mapping for the National Flood Insurance Program is carried out principally by the Federal Insurance
                  Administration (FIA), the Corps of Engineers, the Soil Conservation Service, the Tennessee Valley
                  Authority, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the states.and communities participating in the NFIP.


                  Federal Insurance Administration Mapping

                  Federal mapping of floodplains for the NFIP began in 1968 when the FIA set about identifying
                  floodprone communities and producing Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (FHBMs) for identified
                  communities. (The FIA was originally under the Department of Housing and Urban Development
                  (HUD) and is now part of FEMA.) The early FHBMs were intended to be temporary maps,
                  prepared quickly under a Congressional deadline to delineate floodplain boundaries in all floodprone
                  communities. More than 17,000 FHBMs were produced. While these maps incorporated information
                  available from maps prepared by other federal agencies, the FHBMs showed only the approximate
                  boundaries of floodprone areas within communities. For many communities, however, these maps
                  were the only source of floodplain information available for a decade or more. Nevertheless, since
                  the FHBMs depicted only approximate floodplain boundaries, they provided many communities with
                  only a limited basis for floodplain management.

                  At the same time as the temporary FHBMs were being prepared, the FIA entered into cooperative
                  efforts with other federal agencies and into contracts with private engineering firms to: 1) develop
                  methodologies suitable for preparing more detailed maps (e.g., "step backwater models," surge
                  models, and wave height models); 2) to conduct Flood Insurance Studies (FISs) based on these
                  methodologies; and 3) to prepare detailed floodplain maps (Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs))
                  that would be more suitable for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes.

                  As of September 1990, more than 12,000 new flood risk studies had been initiated by the FIA and
                  over 1,700 restudies undertaken at a cost of nearly $900 million as shown in Table 6-3. Figure 6-1
                  shows the number of new study and restudy initiations by fiscal year. The FIA spends about $36
                  million annually to keep published flood risk information updated and current, and to provide detailed
                  flood risk data where none existed before. Of this amount, about $4 million is spent annually to
                  distribute about seven million maps to states, communities, lenders, agents, banks, consultants, and
                  others.


                  The National Flood Insurance Act authorized the FIA to use the technical expertise of federal and
                  state agencies and private firms to complete Flood Insurance Studies. In addition to contracting with
                  numerous private firms, FEMA has utilized the resources of the Corps of Engineers, USGS, SCS,
                  TVA, NOAA, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Delaware River Basin Commission, and the
                  Susquehanna River Basin Commission on a reimbursable basis to perform this work.

                  For the period 1969-1974, Flood Insurance Studies were carried out almost exclusively by federal
                  agencies. During 1975-1979, studies were conducted by both federal agencies and private engineering
                  firms, with the percentage performed by private firms increasing until 1979. Study initiations for 1980-
                  1984 were at a minimal level, and the number prepared by federal agencies was about equal to the
                  number prepared by private firms. Table 6-4 shows the breakdown of new study initiations for fiscal
                  years 1984-1990 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1991).








               The Knowledge and Information Base                                                                         6-23



               Table 6-3.       National Flood Insurance Program: Flood Studies and Surveys, Historical Statistics
                                as of September 30, 1990.


                         NFIP COMMUNITY STATUS:
                         Participating Communities in the Emergency Program          .....................         280
                         Participating Communities in the Regular Program         ......................         18,023
                         Nonparticipating (with flood hazard identified)      .........................          2,483
                         Total Communities       .............................................                   20,506


                         MAP STATUS:

                         Emergency Program (Mapped)          ......................................                251
                         Regular Program (Mapped)        .......................................                 15,904
                         Nonparticipating (Mapped)       ........................................                2,483
                         Total Mapped      .................................................                     18,638
                         Regular Program with No Special Flood Hazard Area (Nonfloodprone)               ......  1,788
                         Emergency Program with Hazard Areas to be Mapped              .....................        67

                         INITIAL RATE STUDY STATUS (TYPE 15):
                         Rate Studies and Existing Data Studies Completed         .....................          11,653
                         Rate Studies in Progress at Study Contractors       ............................           10
                         Rate Studies Under Review       ..........................................                404
                         Existing Data Studies in Progress     ......................................               79
                         Total Studies    ..................................................                     12,146

                         RESTUDY STATUS (TYPE 19):
                         Restudies and Existing Data Studies Completed         ........................          1,132
                         Restudies in Progress at Study Contractors       .............................            237
                         Restudies Under Review       ...........................................                  265
                         Existing Data Restudies in Progress     ....................................               92
                         Total Restudies    .................................................                    1,726

                         HISTORICAL COSTS:                                                                   (Millions)
                         Total Appropriations     ............................................                   $873.0
                         Studies    .......................................................                      354.8
                         Restudies . . :......................       I ...............................             SQ.2
                         Technical Review and Cartographics        .................................             194.1
                         Revisions/FHBMs/L0MAs/LMMP              ...................................               94.8
                         Printing/Distribution    ..............................................                   46.8
                         Miscellaneous Program Support (Appeals, Special Studies, Projects)         ..........     89.7
                         Digitizing NFIP Maps      ..............................................                  0.6


                                         Source: Federal Insurance Administration. Unpublished data. 1991.






                                                                                                                                                                             -jua)L juos!a Aq suoi ui i I ApnjS :wuaoicl aoutunsul pooL.1 pauoi TaM                                                                                             :1-9 ajn3!j
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .1 Mu


                                                                                  gel't       SiS'l      JOIC't          CL Vt 090*1       Cf16        f16L       1169       'Z9          Z69       US           9LV      VC1,        M        zcl           ZL          89       :3A11v1nvyf13           -lVj.01
                                                                                  Itz         SOZ        LCI             SOI   921         601         00t        CL         R            Oz        96           zt,      got         oil      09            vi          as               :A:j SIM
                                                                                  611         SOC        soz             091   601         LC          z          0          0            0         0            0        0           0        0             0           0        :3AUvinvino                                   SNOIIVIIINI
                                                                                  I'l,        09         19              99    U           Sc          z          0          0            0         0            0        0           0        0             .0          0                :,k_A S1141                              Aan1S3U
                                                                                  LEVI        OIVI       S90'l           600'1 696         906         Z61        P69        Q9           Z6S       US           9LIP     VC1,        91,Z     ZCI           ZL          os       :3Auvinmo
                                                                                              sill       9S              09    CS          pit         86         CL         R            Oz        96           zo       got         I'll     09            VI          99               ".A J Sit 11
                                                                                  L91
                                                                                  91,111      Ht'Zi      OGO'Z 1         L06'1 I6SG'tt     99011       qVC'Ol     t t,6'6    90S'6        ILZ'6     I ZO-6       ZOO'6    CSZ'9       SIC'9    8961,         069'9       9SS'1    :Mivin no                 v ol
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               V4             _t
                                                                                  ZE          99         191             OPC   PLV         091L        LOP        SCI,       SCZ          OL        .661         .60L     GC6'1       .09VI    09Z'Z         Fol't       .9SG'l           :Ad SIHI
                                 b-C                                              8101        996        ZE6             OLS   got         019         990        9cc        691          11        0            0        0           0        0             0           0        :3Advinvino                                   SN011V111Nl
                                 K3                                               ZE          6t,        69              06    VL 1        61,1        6ZI        L91        991          1 t       0            0        0           0        0             0           0                A3 SIHI                               kanis M3N
                                                                                  Bull        oil-, I I  I z      t      @ZO't ttLL'Ok     17LI"Ot     C99'6      S09'6      LCC'6        09Z'6     IOZ'6        ZOO'6    CSZ*g       qtC'9    996*1?        869*2       9GS'l    :3Auvinnno
                                                                                              L          Z6              99Z   L6Z         169         9L?        99Z        LL           69        66t          61Q      SC6't       09C'l    09Z'?         Zlt't       9991             :AJ S1111
                                                                                  9           1     1,
                                                                                  ZL9,Cl      6zq,c I 199c,ci            090'C ILZ9'Zt     I CO'Z I    Zll'lt     SC9'Ot     LZVOI        C99'6     CLL'6 9Ll,'6          L99'9       1,99'9   060'S         OLL'Z       1, 19' 1 :3Auvinnno                                    S
                                 13                                               az          19Z        ODE             CS1,  96S         699         LOS        SOS        9,9Z         06        SR           t6t      CZ VZ       P&I      OZC'Z         99 Vt       V19'1            :AA SIM                            AO


                                                                                                                                                                               UV3A 1V3S1:J
                                                                                      0661 696t          1996 t          L96L 1            1986        0786t1CMIZ961,                     MLI       0861111, L6118L6tILL6 19MI111 L611t?L-696t
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    0
                                                                                              --WWI                                                    r] F]                                        1z                                                                              00Z
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Clot?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    009

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    008

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    0001              z

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    o0z, I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      m
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    00V 1             2)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      n
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         2m         009,1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    009' t
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    000'z             M
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          V4                                                                          U)
                                                                                                                  (sadAl 11V)                                                                                                                                                       OOZ'Z
                                                                                                                  (SOX) sa!pniS elea Bulls1x3                                                                                                                                       0017'Z
                                                                                                         1C771    (SU-1 -2 61. adA.1) salpnisall
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    009,z
                                                                                                                  (Sa-1 V S I adA.L) salpniS -ON                                                                                                                                    009'Z

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    000,C

                                                                                                                                                                       EMA IVDSI=l As
                                                                                                                                                                    SNOUVIIINI Aunis                                                                                                  '0661 -uo!lejls!u!wpV gouvinsuI Iviapal                            :awftos








             7he Knowledge and Information Base                                                                   6-25




             Table 6-4.      Breakdown of Flood Insurance Studies and Restudies for Fiscal Years 1984-1990.




                                           ARCHITECT-            FEDERAL
                                             ENGINEER            AGENCY              TOTAL
                                  FY        INITIATIONS       INITIATIONS       INITIATIONS


                                  1984             312                195               507
                                  1985             263                626               289
                                  1986             394                202               596
                                  1987             412                  41              453
                                  1988             227                  61              288
                                  1989             192                  69              261
                                  19%              118                125               243



                                             Source: Federal Insurance Administration. 1991.




             Corps of Engineers Mapping

             A great deal of effort on the part of the Corps of Engineers' Flood Plain Management Services
             (FPMS) Program has been in support of the NFIP. Much of the data generated for the Corps' flood
             plain information reports were used to provide flood insurance mapping for FEMA. The Corps
             phased out its flood plain information report program to avoid duplicating the effort of Flood
                                                                                              9
             Insurance Studies. Reimbursable work by the Corps to prepare FISs represents a major floodplain
             management effort. By 1985, the Corps' FPMS Program had administered $117 million to prepare
             2,600 FISs for the NFIP (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988). Table 6-5 shows floodplain mapping
             studies by the Corps of Engineers from 1%9 to 1988.


             Soil Conservation    Service Mapping

             The Soil Conservation Service started its first Flood Insurance Study for the Federal Insurance
             Administration in 1969 on a reimbursable basis. Through 1987, the SCS had begun 496 studies and
             completed 477 for the FIA. Under Section 6 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act
             of 1954, the SCS began working on Flood Plain Management Studies in 1970. These studies are
             funded by the SCS, sometimes with financial participation by local sponsors, and are performed to
             meet the requirements of the NFIP. Through 1987, the SCS had initiated 491 Flood Plain Manage-
             ment Studies and completed 409. Table 6-6 gives an annual tabulation of study completions for both
             types of studies. Flood Plain Management Studies and FISs include floodplain delineations and flood
             profiles (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1979; von Wolffradt, 1987).








                   6-26                                                 Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                   Table 6-5.     Floodplain Mapping Studies by the Corps of Engineers, 1969-1988.


                                                    FLOOD     FLOODPLAIN
                                               INSURANCE INFORMATION            SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD
                                      YEAR        STUDIES          STUDIES      INFORMATION STUDIES


                                      1969             20            125           40
                                      1970             80            125           50
                                      1971            185            150           50
                                      1972            130            200           50
                                      1973            160            225           60
                                      1974            110            225           60
                                      1975            260            250           75
                                      1976            430            250           75
                                      1977            310               0          85
                                      1978            200                          95
                                      1979            260                          85
                                      1980             20                          80
                                      1981             15                          75
                                      1982             70                          25
                                      1983            170                          15
                                      1984            140                          20
                                      1985             95                          25
                                      1986             80                          30
                                      1987            130                          45
                                      1988             25                          55


                                      TOTAL          2890            1550        1095


                                                   Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1989.



                   Tennessee Valley Authority Mapping

                   As a result of establishment of the NFIP in 1968, the Tennessee Valley Authority curtailed its
                   program for publishing flood hazard information reports in favor of flood insurance studies prepared
                   by the FIA. Since the early 1970s and through 1988,322 flood insurance studies have been completed
                   for communities in the Tennessee River watershed. Most of these studies have been carried out for
                   the FIA by the TVA under a contractual arrangement.

                   A program as large as the NFIP mapping effort has not been without controversy. Most early
                   concerns were related to disagreements over the level of detail, and therefore cost, that was appropri-
                   ate in such an extensive effort. Most concerns during the past ten years have been related to
                   differences between the mapping needs of floodplain managers and the needs of flood insurance
                   insurers and agents. These concerns and other aspects of the NFIP mapping program are described
                   in Chapter 11 in the section on Floodplain Regulations.








           7he Knowledge and Information Base                                               6-27



           Table 6-6.   Floodplain Mapping Studies by the Soil Conservation Service.



                                          FLOODPLAIN       FLOOD INSURANCE
                                        MGMT. STUDIES               STUDIES
                             FISCAL
                             YEAR   START COMPLETE         START COMPLETE


                             1969       0       0             1        0
                             1970       2       0            16        3
                             1971       4       2            61        3
                             1972     21        1            39       61
                             1973     27        5            24       23
                             1974     61       12            14        8
                             1975     35       20            37        8
                             1976     37       48            86       21
                             1977     12       32            52       37
                             1978     15       33            41       40
                             1979     20       37            64       54
                             1980     28       31             5       81
                             1981     22       25             0       42
                             1982     56       19            13       24
                             1983     33       27            13       19
                             1984     56       36            13        9
                             1985     29       40             0        3
                             1986     18       29             8       15
                             1987     19       28             9       15


                             TOTAL    491      409           496      477




                 Source: von Wolffradt, Donald B. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Personal correspondence, 1987.



           U.S. Geological Survey Mapping

           The U.S. Geological Survey has been preparing maps of floodplains for the NFIP since 1968. Table
           6-7 shows that the USGS has initiated approximately 581 flood insurance studies since fiscal year
           1985. In 1985, the USGS formalized limited-detail study methods for application to flood insurance
           studies (Cobb, 1985). Limited-detail methods identify only the profile and boundaries for the one
           percent chance flood, and do not identify a floodway. In cooperation with the NFIP, the USGS, from
           March through September 1984, evaluated streams iii 2,349 communities for the application of
           limited-detail study methods.








                  6-28                                                 Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  Table 6-7. Studies for Flood Insurance Purposes by the U.S. Geological Survey Since 1985.


                                            FISCAL                 FLOOD INSURANCE
                                            YEAR                   STUDY STARTS

                                            1985                    482  (a)
                                            1986                     13
                                            1987                     10  (b)
                                            1988                     28  (b)
                                            1989                     13  (b)
                                            1990                     18  (b)
                                            1991                     17  (b)

                                            (a) 471 of these were limited-detail studies.
                                            (b) Approximate number of studies started.



                                            Source: Cobb, Ernest D. U.S. Geological Survey. 1991.




                  STATE AND COMMUNITY FLOODPLAIN MAPPING

                  A 1988 survey (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988) showed that 23 states fund and
                  prepare their own floodplain maps to complement the NFIP program. Reasons for state-initiated
                  mapping included:

                  0   16 states map areas to provide greater detail, better scale, or other map improvements.

                  0   12 states map areas to reflect changes in development or hydrology.
                  9   Six states map areas for flood control planning purposes where mapping must be of greater detail
                      and go beyond corporate limits.

                  0   Three states map unique flood hazards or special natural values such as wetlands.

                  As examples of state and community floodplain mapping: Colorado has shared costs with FEMA to
                  have flood studies transposed on topographic maps with two-foot contour intervals at a scale of I"
                  = 200'. The State of Alaska has a program to map "geophysical hazard areas." Minnesota shares
                  costs with communities that request updated maps. The communities provide surveying and topo-
                  graphic mapping and the state provides the hydrologic and hydraulic computations and delineations.

                  A few states have mapped landslide hazards, generally in limited areas where the risk is extremely
                  high or where there is rapid urbanization. Some'states have adopted regulations for geologic hazards,
                  but only California has followed through with standards and codes (National Research Council, 1985).
                  California has also legislated the mapping of landslide hazards by the State Geologist and, beginning
                  in 1984, budgeted about $300,000 annually for this purpose (Kockleman, 1986). The Utah Legislature
                  has also appropriated funds for state-wide mapping of debris-flow hazards (Christenson, 1986).








             Yhe Knowledge and Information Base                                                                   6-29



             As with the states, communities have generally not been involved in floodplain mapping, although
             there are numerous exceptions. Communities have become more involved, particularly in the past
             few years, as federal mapping (or remapping) funds have decreased. Beginning in 1985, local financial
             participation in mapping, through joint funding or other contributions, has improved a community's
             priority rating for receiving federal funds for remapping.

             Also, several large western communities have begun mapping flood hazards on their own in response
             to their unique floodplain management situations, and in accordance with comprehensive local
             programs requiring more specialized mapping. These community mapping efforts consider future
             condition flooding, watershed management, erosion, and/or larger flood peaks than those used by
             the FIA for flood insurance purposes.

             In addition, private consultants frequently conduct hydrology or drainage studies for subdivisions and
             other developments. Prior to the 1970s, such studies were hot required as frequently as they are now
             because of the lack of sophisticated analytical capabilities as exist today, and the lack of ability, on
             the part of most communities, to review such studies. These studies form the basis for many amend-
             ments and revisions to original FIRMs.



                              UNDERSTANDINGAND MAPPING OF WETLANDS

             Significant improvements in wetlands mapping have also occurred. In the mid-1960s there was limited
             appreciation of the role of inland and coastal wetlands in providing a variety of useful and vital
             functions. Beginning in the 1970s, there has been significant improvement in both the scientific and
             public awareness of wetland values and, as a result, much effort has been put into the mapping of
             wetlands. Many states have developed their own mapping programs, and it is at the state level that
             much of the mapping of wetlands has occurred. The mapped information is not entirely uniform
             because of different approaches (based on soils or vegetative criteria, for example) used to define
             wetlands.



             National Wetlands Inventory Project

             Wetlands mapping on a national b     asis is being performed by the U.S.     Fish and Wildlife Service
             (FWS). This program, known as the National Wetlands,Inventory Project (NWI) was established
             in 1974 to provide scientific information on the extent and characteristics of the Nation's wetlands.
             As part of the program, two types of information are being prepared: 1) detailed maps; and 2) status
             and trends reports. Detailed wetland maps are needed for impact assessment of site-specific projects,
             and are used by local, state and federal agencies and by private organizations for many purposes,
             including the development of comprehensive resource management plans, environmental impact
             assessments, oil/chemical spill contingency plans, natural resource inventories, and wildlife surveys.
             Wetland maps are also used to support facility siting and permit review decisions. National estimates
             of the current status and trends (in terms of losses and gains) of wetlands are needed to provide
             improved information for reviewing the effectiveness of existing federal programs and policies, for
             identifying national or regional problems, and for general public awareness (Tiner, 1984).








                   6-30                                                 Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                   Two series of wetland maps are being prepared: 1) small-scale (1:100,000 or 1:250,000); and 2) large-
                   scale (1:24,000). The 1:100,000 scale maps cover approximately 1,700 square miles and cover the
                   same area as 32 1:24,000 scale maps. The 1:100,000 scale maps are used chiefly for watershed and
                   regional planning and are now being produced in only limited areas where map users provide funding
                   for map preparation. The primary map product is the large-scale map showing the location, shape,
                   and characteristics of wetlands and deepwater habitats transposed on a USGS base map. Wetlands
                   are classified according to the FWS wetland classification system, and the detailed maps may be used
                   for site-specific project evaluation.

                   Seven major steps are involved in the preparation of NWI maps:

                   1)  preliminary field investigations,
                   2)  interpretation of high-altitude photographs,
                   3)  review of existing wetlands information,
                   4)  quality control of interpreted photos,
                   5)  draft map production,
                   6)  interagency review of draft maps, and
                   7)  final map production.

                   An  evaluation of NWI maps by the University of Massachusetts determined that the maps had
                   accuracies above 95 percent (Tiner, 1987).

                   TIrough mid-1990, wetland mapping had been completed for eleven states: Arizona, Connecticut,
                   Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and
                   Virginia. Mapping of West Virginia was almost completed. The NWI has finished mapping for 65
                   percent of the conterminous 48 states and 20 percent of Alaska (Gooklin, 1990).



                   Functional Values of Wetlands


                   Numerous attempts have been made to develop methodologies to assess the functional values of
                   wetlands. In 1981, over 40 methods for evaluation of wetlands existed. In 1979, the Water Resources
                   Council examined the state-of-the-art in wetlands evaluation as part of a series of workshops on
                   "Emerging Issues in Wetland/Floodplain Management" (Balco, 1981). An analysis of 20 existing
                   methodologies was carried out by the Corps' Waterways Experiment Station (Lonard, 1981).

                   The two basic kinds of wetlands evaluation involve:

                   ï¿½   Determining the relative ecological value of the wetland (i.e., the quality of the wetland as
                       compared with other wetland sites, or its suitability for supporting wildlife), sometimes referred
                       to as "scaling and weighing approaches"; and

                   ï¿½   Comparing natural wetlands to human ecosystems and reducing wetland values to monetary
                       terms (i.e., comparison of the ecological value of the habitat against the economic value of some
                       proposed activity that would destroy or modify it), sometimes referred to as "common denomina-
                       tor approaches."








              7he Knowledge and Infonnation Base                                                                    6-31



              However   ...... there is no universal agreement about which [approach to valuation of wetlands] is
              preferable. In part, the choice depends on the circumstances" (Mitsch, 1986).

              Much of the impetus for development of the various evaluation methodologies stems from federal
              regulatory and water resources planning requirements. Agencies that have played a major role
              include the Corps of Engineers, SCS, FHWA, and the FWS. In addition, other methodologies have
              been developed for use by states in their wetland regulatory programs. Many of these methodologies
              borrow from, or integrate, concepts of the approaches developed by the federal agencies.

              The natural and functional values of wetlands are described in greater detail in Chapter 14.


              Wetland Restoration and Creation


              Wetland restoration, creation or enhancement efforts have received a great deal of attention in the
              last several years and many projects have been undertaken. The success of these projects is difficult
              to determine, however, for several reasons, including lack of specific project goals, limited monitoring,
              and the short time that has elapsed since most projects were completed.

              While it is impossible to fully duplicate natural systems, new or restored wetlands with many of the
              characteristics of natural systems can be established in some circumstances. It may not be possible,
              however, to create all wetland types or functions. Particularly during the early years of wetland
              creation projects, the wetlands may have very different functions than the wetland systems they are
              intended to replace (Kusler, 1986).

              In 1986, the EPA adopted a Wetlands Research Plan designed to: 1) improve methods of creating,
              restoring, and enhancing wetlands and wetland functions; 2) to provide guidance for the design of
              effective projects; and 3) develop methods for evaluating the potential and actual success of projects.
              In 1989, the EPA released its first major publication resulting from research under the Wetlands
              Research Plan. The report, Welland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science (Kusler and
              Kentula, 1990), found that:

              ï¿½   Practical experience and the available science base on [wetland] restoration and creation are
                  limited for most [wetland] types and varies regionally.

              ï¿½   Most wetland restoration and creation projects do not have specified goals, complicating efforts
                  to evaluate "success."

              ï¿½   Monitoring of wetland restoration and creation projects has been uncommon.

              ï¿½   Restoration or creation of a wetland that "totally duplicates" a naturally occurring wetland is
                  impossible; however, some systems may be approximated and individual wetland functions may
                  be restored or created.

              ï¿½   Partial project failures are common.

              ï¿½   Success varies with the type of wetland and target functions, including the requirements of target
                  species.








                  6-32                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  ï¿½   The ability to restore or create particular wetland functions varies by function.

                  ï¿½   Long-term success may be quite different from short term success.

                  ï¿½   Long-term success depends upon the ability to assess, re-create, and manipulate hydrology.

                  ï¿½   Success often depends upon the long-term ability to manage, protect, and manipulate wetlands
                      and adjacent buffer areas.

                  ï¿½   Success depends upon expertise in project design and upon careful project supervision.

                  ï¿½   "Cook book" approaches for wetland restoration or creation will likely be only partially success-
                      ful.

                  Wetland restoration/enhancement and creation, along with a related management technique known
                  as wetland mitigation banking, are described in Chapter 14.



                     UNDERSTANDING OF OTHER NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES


                  Rivers, streams, coastlines, and adjacent floodprone land contain some of the Nation's most important
                  natural resources. Many communities were established along the Nation's water bodies, and some
                  of the oldest developments and most significant cultural resources are found in and near floodplains.
                  Significant advances have been made with regard to the overall understanding of natural resource
                  functions and the importance of maintaining the Nation's natural and cultural heritage. Various
                  information and data sources have been developed which have aided this understanding. These
                  include sources of data and information on: natural and/or cultural resources (including resource
                  quality and quantity); biodiversity; endangered and threatened species; unique resources; and environ-
                  mental and cultural resource locations, sites and networks.

                  Increasingly sophisticated information on the above subjects is being assembled and presented in a
                  variety of forms and formats. Perhaps the greatest progress has occurred in developing information
                  management systems. Many information sources now use computer-based data storage and retrieval
                  systems to manage large and dynamic data bases that include both federal- -and state-derived
                  information. Many systems are linked together and can be very useful in assessing resource informa-
                  tion for a variety of purposes and needs. The systems can be used to assess the type and extent of
                  the natural and cultural resources of the Nation's floodplains and can aid in determining the value
                  of those resources. Other data systems can be reduced to information on a particular stream or
                  stream segment. The following examples, which were principally reported in a U.S. Environmental
                  Protection Agency study, demonstrate the magnitude and breadth of current data and information
                  systems (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 19%).

                  0 U.S. ENviRONMENTAL PRoTEc-noN AGENCY: The EPA maintains several dozen water quality-
                      related data bases containing state, EPA, and other federal agency data. Most of this information
                      is linked together for access using the stream reach (segment) coding structure in the EPA!s
                      STORET data base. The EPA data bases, individually and through linkages that have been and








             The Knowledge and Information Base                                                                     6-33



                 are being developed, can be very useful in assessing water quality. The EPA's BIOS data base
                 contains descriptions of the distribution, abundance, and condition of aquatic organisms and their
                 habitat at sampled sites.

             9   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: T'he Department of the Interior (DOI) also has extensive
                 computer-based systems for natural resources data, including the Water Data Storage and
                 Retrieval System (WATSTORE) and the National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX). Both
                 of these systems are managed by the U.S. Geological Survey and compile water data being collect-
                 ed from tens of thousands of sites throughout the Nation. The USGS also manages land-use data
                 (40 different types) for the entire Nation based on LANDSAT satellite imagery collected primarily
                 in the mid-1570s. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) being carried out by the U.S. Fish
                 and Wildlife Service (FWS) and includes development of a computerized mapping scheme for
                 the entire country. The NWI contains vegetation data for 3,500 wetlands species, ecological
                 community types, and classification according to wetlands types. The FWS prepares an annual
                 list of all National Wildlife Refuges and other lands under its control. The FWS also maintains
                 a national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation.

                 The Nationwide Rivers Inventory developed by the National Park Service (NPS) lists over 1,500
                 river segments (approximately 62,000 miles) thought to, have sufficient natural or cultural
                 attributes to qualify for consideration for inclusion in the Nation's Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
                 The NPS National Natural Landmarks Program provides a register of significant natural areas
                 illustrating the diversity of the natural heritage of the United States. Maps of these areas have
                 been prepared along with information on their ecological and geological characteristics. The NPS
                 also operates the National Register of Historic Places which catalogs thousands of cultural and
                 historic sites throughout the country.

                 The DOI   )s Endangered Species Information System contains information on species listed under
                 the Federal Endangered Species Act, including their status as endangered or threatened, and
                 factors contributing to their present status. The Endangered Species Information System provides
                 information on the habitat types associated with various species, current and past species location
                 by county and state, watersheds/subunits where the species are found, and counties and states
                 with designated critical habitat.

                 THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION: The U.S. Department of Com-
                 merce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the Nation's principal
                 marine science agency. NOAA produces and maintains natural resources data primarily through
                 the National Ocean Service (NOS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The NOS
                 compiles data and conducts assessments relating to issues of coastal marine and estuarine
                 environmental quality. Through its National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program, the NOS
                 monitors the spatial distributions, temporal trends, and biological effects of over 70 contaminants
                 in sediments, mollusks, and fish at over 300 coastal sites throughout the United States. The fish
                 monitoring component of the NS&T Program (the Benthic Surveillance Project) is. conducted in
                 partnership with the NMFS. The NOS also maintains a comprehensive data base on the health
                 and status of over'100 U.S. estuaries through its National Estuarine Inventory (NEI). As part
                 of its Coastal Zone Management Program activities, NOS has developed a National Coastal








                  6-34                                                  Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                      Wetlands data base, containing acreage estimates for 10 wetland habitat types encompassing over
                      27 million acres of the contiguous United States. Through its Estuarine Living Marine Resources
                      (ELMR) Program, the NOS is compiling a comprehensive data base on the spatial and temporal
                      distribution and relative abundance of approximately 150 fish and invertebrate species in over
                      100 U.S. coastal estuaries. The NOS's National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory (NCPDI)
                      contains estimates for all point, nonpoint and upstream sources of pollutants discharged into
                      coastal waters of the contiguous United States. The NMFS administers comprehensive data bases
                      with information on commercial and recreational fisheries of the United States and foreign catches
                      in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Through Regional Fisheries Management Councils, data
                      bases are compiled for the NMFS pertaining to the conservation and management of living marine
                      resources in the United States.


                  ï¿½   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: Within the Department of Agriculture, the Soil Conserva-
                      tion Service maintains a National Resources Inventory which is a national survey based on 160-
                      acre units. Each unit contains data on land use, conservation practices, soil type, and erosion
                      characteristics. The U.S. Forest Service has information on land areas within the National Forest
                      System including designated wilderness areas, primitive areas, recreation areas, and wildlife pre-
                      serves.


                  ï¿½   STATE AND PRIvATE DATA SOURCES: State and private data sources include state natural
                      heritage programs that identify elements essential to preservation of biological diversity, and
                      provide information on the existence and location of rare and endangered plants and animals
                      as well as inventories of unique plant communities and aquatic systems. Over half of the states
                      have developed such programs in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy. The Nature
                      Conservancy also maintains a listing, by state, of waters containing key elements of biological
                      diversity. This listing has been developed with assistance from the state heritage programs.
                      American Rivers has compiled the state lists used to set priorities for river conservation and has
                      incorporated those lists into a report and computerized data base. The Outstanding Rivers List
                      contains 15,000 entries, totaling some 300,000 river miles, and documents the great diversity of
                      government and citizen interest in rivers. The Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology provides a
                      census, along with historical data, of 200 bird species by country. The Lawrence Berkeley
                      Laboratory maintains a collection of socioeconomic, environmental, demographic, and health-
                      related data bases covering geographic regions, and these data bases are updated annually.



                                               REMOTE SENSING TECHNIQUES

                  Much progress has been made in the past twenty years to increase the availability and analysis of
                  high altitude photography, satellite imagery, and other forms of remote sensing. Systematic compari-
                  sons of images from different time periods can provide information on changes in land use, aid in
                  the assessment of many natural values, and point out areas where future flood damages may occur.
                  After land uses and natural values are calculated for an area, much of the analysis may be automated.
                  These techniques have so far been applied on a limited basis in relatively small areas of the Nation's
                  floodplains.








             The Knowledge and Information Base                                                               6-35



             Numerous examples of the use of aerial photography and satellite imagery for monitoring land use
             can be cited, including a 1973 study of South Dade County, Florida where photos from 1963 and 1971
             were used in conjunction with 1970 census data to evaluate land-use trends (U.S. Geological Survey,
             1973). The use of LANDSAT data to determine land use has been tested. Researchers have
             determined that LANDSAT can be successful in monitoring basic land use under the USGS classifica-
             tion system, and has the advantage that the data are periodically available to update land-use informa-
             tion (Still, 1985). Efforts are underway to make these technologies available to such users as
             communities and practicing engineers and hydrologists. For example, NASA's Earth Resources
             Uboratory has been working to develop software to make satellite and aerial imagery available to
             all users at a reasonable cost (Howard, 1985).

             Many communities routinely use aerial photography from two flight dates to update their tax
             assessment files and to identify construction for which building permits may not have been obtained.

                             At least one Arizona community uses periodic aerial observations to look for floodplain
                             violations. Satellite imagery also is used in Arizona for ground-water management purposes
                             to determine the amount of irrigated land and the types of crops being grown (Bond, 1988).
                             This technology could be adapted to-floodplain manageren4 although the costs at the present
                             time dictate that only federal or state agencies, and a very few large cities, could afford such
                             monitoring.

             Aerial photography combined with floodplain maps has been used in some communities to count the
             number of structures within selected floodplains (Williams, 1987). Other communities have used or
             are anticipating using low level aerial photography following floods to assist with determinations of
             the extent of flooding and with damage assessments (LR. Johnston Associates, 1987).

             Remote sensing techniques, however, are currently being applied in only limited ways for floodplain
             management. In the future, higher resolution high altitude photography and other forms of remote
             sensing should permit greater accuracy in identifying floodplain activities, and enable the inventory
             and mapping of changes in floodplain use. The use of aerial, and particularly satellite, imagery and
             other forms of remote sensing may not grow rapidly until more automated procedures for processing
             data are available. As digital mapping becomes more widespread, the ease of monitoring floodplain
             activities through remote sensing is likely to increase, and the cost should decrease.



                                    GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS


             The substantial improvement in computer systems during the last two decades has made it much
             easier to apply computer technology to the problems of storing, manipulating, and analyzing large
             volumes of spatial data. Today, many organizations make routine use of what are called geographic
             information systems for a wide variety of purposes, including natural hazards assessment and natural
             resource management. A Geographic Information System (GIS) is a computerized system designed
             to collect, manage, and analyze large volumes of spatially referenced and associated attribute data
             (Guptill, 1988). GISs may comprise 'quite sophisticated computer software, but all systems contain
             the following major components.








                  6-36                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  1)  A data input subsystem that collects and/or processes spacial data derived from existing maps,
                      remote sensors, etc.

                  2)  A data storage and retrieval subsystem that organizes the spatial data in a form that permits it
                      to be quickly retrieved by the user for subsequent analysis, and permits rapid and accurate
                      updates and corrections to the spacial database.

                  3)  A data manipulation and analysis subsystem that performs a variety of tasks such as changing
                      -the form of the data through user-defined aggregation rules, or producing estimates of parameters
                      and constraints for various space-time optimization or simulation models.

                  4)  A data-reporting subsystem that is capable of displaying all or part of the original database as
                      well as manipulated data and the output from spatial models in tabular or map form. The
                      creation of these map displays involves what is called digital or computer cartography. This is
                      an area that represents a considerable conceptual extension of traditional cartographic approaches
                      as well as a substantial change in the tools used to create the cartographic displays.

                  The above definition of a Geographic Information System excludes a number of software systems
                  that meet only part of the stated criteria. For example, digitizing systems that concentrate on the
                  problem of data capture from map documents and that provide minimal data storage/retrieval
                  capabilities and only "quick-look" graphics are clearly not geographic information systems. Neither
                  are most remote sensing and image processing systems. Similarly, thematic mapping packages that
                  concentrate on the production of complex computer maps do not qualify (Marble, 1987).

                  Many federal, state and local government agencies, as well as private organizations, are now beginning
                  to develop or use some type of GIS. The need for larger amounts of information on smaller scale
                  projects makes the GIS a useful tool for the planning and management of all types of natural hazards
                  and resources. The GIS, however, has not yet become a widely used tool, in large part because only
                  a limited amount of needed information has yet been entered into geographic information systems.
                  Another constraint is that the different systems now in use are not always compatible. Standards
                  committees set up by professional organizations and government agencies, however, may help to
                  greatly reduce compatibility problems in the near future. In 1988, a "Proposed Standard for Digital
                  Cartographic Data" was published as a special edition of The American Cartographer (Vol 15, No.
                  1, January 1988). The proposed standard consists of four major components: definitions and refer-
                  ences, spatial data transfer, digital cartographic data quality, and cartographic features. This standard
                  is an attempt to meet the recognized requirement for easy transfer of spatial data from one spatial
                  data handling system to another,, and with both systems possibly residing on computer hardware and
                  operating system software of different makes (Guptill, 1988).

                  Once information is available in a compatible format, GIS technology holds great promise for allowing
                  planners and managers to easily identify and update the information needed to improve their decision-
                  making processes. GIS systems will be able to combine natural resources data with data on man-
                  made features and generate comprehensive maps and data bases of geographic areas of concern.
                  GIS-generated maps are expected to be easily manipulated and updated at low cost, thereby
                  overcoming one of the major obstacles in floodplain management today. Thematic data regarding
                  land parcel boundaries, land ownership, and political boundaries are critical to the use of GISs for








               7he Knowledge and Information Base                                                                             6-37



               floodplain management purposes. The initial cost of digitizing this information for input into a GIS,
               however, can be significant.

               Geographic information systems were available during the 1960s and early 1970s, but for very
               sp ecialized and limited applications. Most of the early GISs were developed and supported by
               universities and employed a grid-based mapping technique. Maps generated by these early systems
               were composed of small squares (grids) and were of limited accuracy. Most current systems rely on
               vector graphics (as opposed to grid mapping) for increased accuracy and resolution. As computer
               hardware and software systems improve, grid data may again come into widespread use because they
               can offer greater resolution for continuously variable features such as topography.

               As with so many other recent advances, new computers have                ,made possible remarkable advances
               in GIS technology. While most GISs still require at least a mini-computer for efficient operation,
               some systems have recently been made available for use on microcomputers. Over the next several
               years, even small cities should be able to develop, maintain, and update comprehensive GISs. A few
               more years may be required to bring the utility of the most powerful current GIS to the local
               community, because of the very large data storage and retrieval capabilities that are needed, and the
               complexity of the system.

               Much of the recent advancement in geographic information systems has occurred within the private
               sector. Several companies have invested in developing proprietary GISs in anticipation of selling these
               systems to a potentially vast market. While a few private systems currently dominate the GIS market,
               many more systems hold smaller shares of the market and new systems are still being produced.

               GIS technology has great potential for developing integr         ated mapping that can provide for overlays
               of different types of natural and cultural resources. As Census Bureau data and geographical data
               developed from LANDSAT images become more readily available, the use ofGISs should expand
               greatly. GIS availability should promote greater comprehensive planning and monitoring of changing
               conditions.


                                     An example of a recent CIS system being used for natural resources management
                                     purposes, is provided by the Henderson County, North Carolina Soil and Water Conserva-
                                     tion District. This is one of the first conservation districts in the Nation to install a
                                     microcomputer-based geographic information system to provide better interpretative soils
                                     information. The county's published soil survey has been digitized and stored in the
                                     system, and the computer system can capture, store, analyze and retrieve soils maps and
                                     other geographic data. A major portion of the funding for the demonstration project was
                                     provided by the TVA, supplemented by funds from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
                                     and the Henderson County Commissioners (National Association of Conservation Districts,
                                     1987).

               The National Cartographic Information Center has digitized land-use and land cover information from
               NASA high-altitude aeria     'I photographs and National High-Altitude Photography (NHAP) program
               photographs, usually on 1:250,000-scale base maps. For most urban and industrial uses, the minimum
               size polygon used for digitizing is four hectares (ha), equal to a square with 200 meter sides. For
               other uses, the minimum polygon size is 16 ha. There are seven categories of urban or built-up land








                  6-38                                                  Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  and 31 categories of agricultural, forest and other nonurbanized land use. National coverage is
                  planned (U.S. Geological Survey, 1986).

                  The Federal Emergency Management Agency has initiated pilot projects to develop Flood Insurance
                  Rate Maps on a GIS-based mapping system. In 1987, FEMA conducted a survey of floodplain
                  managers in an initial attempt to determine potential users for digital data from FIRMs. The survey
                  included public officials, private organizations and citizens. "Of those responding to this survey, 97
                  percent were found to have some type of computer capability, including 25 percent possessing micro
                  and mainframe computer capabilities. Eighty-five percent of those responding stated that they would
                  use digital FIRM data if it were free, 45 percent stated they would use digital FIRM data if it were
                  available at a reasonable cost, and 35 percent indicated that they would use digital FIRM data
                  regardless of cost." Based on the survey, FEMA concluded that "there is both a strong interest in
                  digital FIRM data and that there exists, in both the public and private sectors, the needs and
                  resources to utilize digital FIRM data" (Federal Insurance Administration, 1987)..

                  FEMA is developing a standard for digital FIRMs in public domain format consistent with USGS
                  Une Graph (DLG) standards. FEMA has also committed to a program to digitize FIRMS for at
                  least 340 counties in the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas with the greatest amount of
                  property at risk to flooding. This six-year program will provide digital FIRMs covering more than
                  75 percent of the Nation's property-at-risk and will be initiated in FY 1991 (Federal Emergency
                  Management Agency, 1989).



                                               SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


                  Knowledge and understanding of the processes that create floodplains and of the consequences of
                  human interaction with floodplains are necessary for effective floodplain management. Both long-
                  term and short-term climatic data are important in assessing flooding probabilities. Many floodplain
                  management efforts have been predicated on the assumption of constant climate conditions, an
                  assumption that may or may not be valid. Recent studies illustrate that traditional averages may not
                  be adequate to describe the consequences of global climate changes. The lack of sufficient long-term
                  data leaves many uncertainties in predicting the rate of future climate changes. The rate of sea level
                  rise in some areas is expected to continue over the next century and could exacerbate coastal and
                  estuarine flooding.

                  The National Weather Service is the primary agency for collection of climatic data to aid in flood
                  forecasting. The NWS collects data from about 230 stations in the United States and also reports
                  data collected by over 1300 ships. The U.S. Geological Survey operates over 93 percent of the
                  Nation's stream gaging network and publishes data on peak flood flows, as well as water quality in
                  the United States. These data are essential to understanding the hydrology and hydraulics of flooding
                  and for delineating floodplain boundaries. Systematic records are subjected to analyses to determine
                  flood frequencies and magnitudes. The USGS, the Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service
                  and other agencies have developed hydraulic models used for calculating the flood profile elevations








              Ae Knowledge and Information Base                                                                  6-39



              needed for floodplain mapping. The USGS initiated special flood studies in 1902 with a report on
              the Passaic River flood in northeastern New Jersey.

              The Tennessee Valley Authority, Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service and others have
              joined in producing floodplain information in response to specific Congressional authorization.
              Enactment of the National Flood Insurance Act in 1968 resulted in establishing the "100-year flood"
              as the base flood for determining risk and also led to a systematic effort to map the Nation's
              floodplains. The technical expertise of federal and state agencies and private firms has been utilized
              on a continuing basis.

              Beginning in about 1970, federal and state agencies became more aware of the value of wetlands.
              Floodplains contain a significant amount of the Nation's wetlands, and methodologies are being
              improved to assess the functional values of wetlands.

              Extensive progress has also been made in the development of remote sensing techniques that have
              resulted in increased accuracy for the identification of floodplains and flood-related flows. The use
              of improved data bases combined with advances in computer systems has led to geographic informa-
              tion systems that provide useful information directly to national and local floodplain managers.
              Projects are being developed to integrate floodplain maps with the cartographic data base of the
              USGS.

              Major progress has been made in both understanding and measuring many of the basic processes
              and values important for floodplain management. In some cases, entirely new techniques, such as
              satellite remote sensing, have been developed to aid understanding or measurement. In other cases,
              techniques and processes long in existence, such as hydrological models, have been refined or come
              into widespread use. Mapping of floodprone areas represents perhaps the single greatest increase
              in our knowledge of flood hazards.

              Clearly though, much remains to be done. In many instances, the ability to accurately measure status
              and trends has lagged behind advances in understanding the processes involved. Factors contributing
              to this disparity include lack of consistent and uniform definitions, the expense of data collection,
              absence of a national level leadership, and absence of specific responsibilities for collecting, assem-
              bling, and evaluating information. In some cases, substantial information is available in government
              offices and other locations, but has not been assembled into useful formats.








               CHAPTER 7:


               THE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK




                     [TJhe relative role of the Federal government in national floodplain management is declining
                  as local, but especially state, governments have begun to develop experience and effective
                  programs.

                                                          A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management, 1986



               Floodplain management is necessarily carried out within an established legislative, judicial and
               administrative framework. The extent and manner to which floodplain management activities are
               conducted at each level of government is highly dependent on authorizing legislation, the agencies
               assigned responsibility for carrying out legislative mandates, and the availability of funds to pursue
               those mandates.. Success in achieving stated goals may also depend on the extent to which programs
               and authorities are coordinated (or fragmented) at and between each level of government. There
               are examples of individuals and agencies achieving significant floodplain management accomplish-
               ments through initiative and creative action even though they may have lacked all of the prerequisite
               legal and administrative tools. By and large, however, effective action at any level of government
               is not achieved without a clear and adequate management framework.

               Since House Document No. 465,A Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses, was released
               in 1966, numerous changes have    occurred in the management context for floodplain management.
               Some of these changes - notably establishment of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) -
               were the direct result of initiatives to implement a recommendation contained in House Document
               No. 465 or some aspect of the Unified National Program. Many more changes have resulted from
               a combination of other factors.


               This chapter identifies some of the most significant changes that have influenced the management
               framework for floodplain management. Legislation, executive orders and directives, and interagency
               actions have all affected significant policy changes and have established, made major modifications
               to, or eliminated specific programs and agency responsibilities. Changes in the management
               framework have occurred as new problems have been identified, previously established goals achieved,
               and additional needs recognized.

               The Unified National Program for Floodplain Management envisions integration of the flood loss
               reduction and natural resources protection aspects of floodplain management. While some integration
               is evident, these two aspects of floodplain management have generally developed independently.
               Therefore, changes in the management framework for flood loss reduction and in the management
               framework for protection of floodplain natural resources are described separately in this chapter.








                  7-2                                                     Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  Implementation of activities authorized under the overall management framework are described in
                  Part IV of the Assessment Report.



                       THE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR- FLOOD LOSS REDUCTION


                  The management framework for flood loss reduction does not exist as a separate, easily identifiable
                  set of legislative and policy directives. In many cases flood loss reduction initiatives are included
                  within a broader program effort. In particular, flood loss reduction directives are frequently included
                  as part of broader initiatives in the fields of water resources management, emergency management,
                  environmental protection, and community development and redevelopment. A number of important
                  legislative and administrative actions have helped shape the flood loss reduction aspect of floodplain
                  management over the past 25 years.


                  THE FEDERAL FRAMEWORK FOR FLOOD LOSS REDUCTION


                  Figure 7-1 lists the federal agencies with programs directly or indirectly related to flood loss reduction.
                  Several significant changes in agencies and their functions have occurred since the 1960s. Probably
                  the most significant organizational changes were the creation of the Federal Emergency Management
                  Agency (FEMA) by Executive Order in 1979; the transfer of the Federal Insurance Administration
                  (FLA) and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration (FDAA) from the Department of Housing
                  and Urban Development (HUD) to FEMA; the creation of the U.S. Water Resources Council
                  (WRC) in 1965 (and its subsequent elimination by executive action in 1982); and reorganization of
                  the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) beginning in 1987.

                  These organizational changes along with numerous legislative actions had a major impact on the
                  direction of floodplain management over the last 25 years. The major actions that have created the
                  current federal framework for flood loss reduction are described below.



                  The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 and the U.S. Water Resources Council

                  The Water Resources Council was created as part of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (P.L
                  89-80). Under Title I of this Act, the V-1RC was charged with the following mandatory responsibilities
                  (Holmes, 1979):

                  1) Prepare a national assessment (biennially, or less frequently, if appropriate) of regional water
                      supply and demand.

                  2)  Study the adequacy of regional and river basin plans, and existing and proposed policies and
                      programs.

                  3)  Study the adequacy of administrative and statutory means for coordinating federal agency water
                      resources programs and policies.

                  4)  Make recommendations to the President concerning federal water resources policies and programs.























                                                                                                                                                                                        o'                    4@
                                                                               C3                            .-41
                                                                                                             6 4
                                                                                                                                                                                       Aq
                                                                                                                                                                           A


                                                                                                                                                  A
                                                                                                                                                                                         40
                                                                                                           0
                                                                                                      4*
                                                                                                              CY
                                                                               X                                                                                        0
                                                                                                                      9                                                  A
                                                                                                                                         01
                       Federal Floodplain                                         e                       41         4
                       Management and Related                                                                                                          40
                       Programs by Agency                                                                                                          R
                                                                                                                                                                      444

                                                                                                                                                                                                         C;
                                                                                                                                                                                                        4
                       Flood Insurance Studies*                      - - - - -                                                                                                    S
                       Flood Plain Management Services               - - - - -       S      S         - - -                                                                       S             S
                       Flood Plain Inform;ation Studies
                       and Reports
                         Riverine                                    - - - - -       S      S         - - -                             S              SS                         F             S
                         Coastal                                     - - - - -       I      S         G - -                             S              IS                         F
                       Technical and Planning Services-
                         Full Program                                - - - - -       S      S         - - -                                    - - - -           - - - -          F             S
                         Program Elements                            -  -  I   G  I  S      S         I S S        I                    S       I  I   S              I I I          I          S
                       Flood Modifying Construction                  - - - G      I  S      S         - F -        -                                                                 F          S     S
                       Flood Preparedness, Emergency,
                       and Recovery                                  - F - G      S  S      S         G - -        -       S        G -                          S    - - -       G S-G   G           S
                       Warning and Forecasting                       - - - - - -            S         S                                                S                                              S
                       Research                                      S -S -       I  I      S         S S                                      -S      SS
                       Open Space                                    - - - - I       S      -         G - -                         G -                 S.
                        *Administered by the Federal insurance Administration through reimbursable technical studies by agency shown.                                 S. Staff and Funds
                       "Land and Water Resouroes.                                                                                                                     F. Funds
                                                                                                                                                                      G. Grants and L'08M
                                                                                                                                                                      1. Incidental

                   Source:   Adapted from Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. A Unified National Program for Floodylain Manazemen 1996.


            Figure 7-1.            Federal Flood Loss Reduction and Related Programs by Agency.








                  7-4                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  5)  Establish - with presidential approval.- principles, standards, and procedures for federal
                      participation in river basin planning, and for formulation and evaluation of water projects -
                      whether or not they originated in river basin plans.

                  6)  Review plans submitted by the river basin commissions created pursuant to Title II of the Water
                      Resources Planning Act and send them, together with Council recommendations, to the President.

                  Under Title II of the Water Resources Act, the VVRC was authorized to participate in the creation,
                  operation, and termination of interstate, intergovernmental river basin planning commissions. Title
                  III authorized the WRC to make financial grants to states for assistance in developing and participat-
                  ing in comprehensive water and related land resources plans. Many persons now working in the field
                  of floodplain management owe their start to the opportunities provided by the development of river
                  basin plans and state water plans funded under Title III (Owen, 1989).

                  Holmes (1979) notes that, in part because the "Council" was composed of the secretaries of agencies
                  involved in water resources, the VVRC was often criticized as an ineffectual agency that placed too
                  much emphasis on planning instead of becoming more involved in important policy decisions. Each
                  agency was likely to benefit from improved planning, but one or more agencies might lose as a result
                  of resolution of policy disputes, hence the avoidance of policy issues. Nevertheless, the WRC
                  undertook numerous activities important to floodplain management, including implementation of
                  several of the recommendations presented in House Document 465. Holmes also suggested that
                  "VVRC's most important policy studies and recommendations (with the possible exception of its work
                  on the discount rate) were those that concerned flood damage reduction by nonstructural means."
                  Several of the major water resource and floodplain management activities undertaken by the WRC
                  during its 16 years of operation are listed below and described more fully in following sections of the
                  Assessment Report.

                  ï¿½   Executive Order 11296 (1966)
                  ï¿½   Flood Hazard Evaluation Guidelines
                  ï¿½   National Water Assessment
                  ï¿½   Discount Rate for Water Projects
                  ï¿½   Principles and Standards for Water and Related Land Resources
                  ï¿½   Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency
                  ï¿½   State and Local Floodplain Regulation
                  ï¿½   Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing E.O. 11988
                  ï¿½   Unified National Program for Floodplain Management
                  ï¿½   Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force

                  In 1982, the WRC was dismantled following termination of its funding.


                  River Basin Commissions


                  The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 also authorized the establishment of river basin commis-
                  sions (RBCs). Although the Water Resources Council was active in promoting the establishment
                  of river basin commissions and much of their funding was provided by the WRC, the RBCs considered
                  themselves independent of the WRC. Four RBCs were formed by 1967: the New England River







               Tze Management Framework                                                                             7-5



               Basins Commission, Great Lakes Basin Commission, Pacific Northwest RBC, and the Souris-Red-
               Rainy RBC. In 1971, the Ohio RBC was formed, and in 1972 the Missouri and Upper Mississippi
               RBCs were established. In 1973, the Upper Mississippi RBC incorporated the Souris-Red-Rainy
               RBC, leaving a total of six RBCs.

               The WaterResources PlanningAct required the RBCs to prepare "comprehensive, coordinated, joint
               plans" (CCJPs) for their region or basin. No definition or guidance regarding preparation of a CCJP
               was issued by the WRC, and each RBC prepared the plans according to their own concepts, and the
               results ranged from a collection of issue-focused studies to a collection of comprehensive river basin
               plans (Field, 1979).

               Beginning in 1982, the RBCs began to close their operations following the removal of federal funding.
               Some managed to remain in operation for a few years with funding by member states but by 1988
               only the Missouri RBC remained. The Delaware River Basin Commission and the Susquehanna River
               Basin Commission, which were formed as federal-state compact commissions, remain in existence
               with federal and state funding.


               Executive Orders and Guidelines for Floodplain Management

               Two Presidential executive orders, guidance for implementing the orders, and subsequent actions by
               federal agencies have played a major role in floodplain management at the federal level.

               ï¿½   Executive Order 11296,1966. Executive Order 11296, "Evaluation of Flood Hazard in Locating
                   Federally Owned or Financed Buildings, Roads, and Other Facilities, and in Disposing of Federal
                   Lands and Properties," was issued in 1966 at the same time that the President transmitted the
                   report on a Unified National Program for Reducing Flood Losses to the Congress. This Executive
                   Order recognized that federal government programs and financial assistance exert strong direct
                   and indirect influences on development within floodprone areas. It directed federal executive
                   agencies to "provide leadership in encouraging a broad and unified effort to prevent uneconomic
                   uses and development of the Nation's flood plains and, in particular to lessen the risk of flood
                   losses in connection with Federal lands and installations and federally financed or supported
                   improvements." In effect, the order directed all federal agencies responsible for construction and
                   operation of federal facilities, administration of federal grant, loan or mortgage insui-ance
                   programs involving construction, disposal of federal lands or properties, and programs involving
                   land-use planning, to: 1) evaluate flood hazards before taking any of these actions; 2) limit land
                   use in proportion to the degree of flood hazard involved; and 3) avoid uneconomic, hazardous
                   or unnecessary use of floodplains.

               ï¿½   Flood Hazard Evaluation Guidelines, 1969 and 1972. In 1969, the VVRC released Proposed Flood
                   Hazard Evaluation Guidelines for Federal Agencies for use by federal agencies in complying with
                   E.O. 11296. Following a year of review and testing by 75 federal executive agencies, and review
                   by state and local agencies and the private sector, the proposed guidelines were revised and issued
                   in 1972 as Flood Hazard Evaluation Guidelines for Federal Executive Agencies (U.S. Water
                   Resources Council, 1972).








                 7-6                                                    Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                 0   Executive Order 11988,1977. Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain Management," was issued by
                     the President in May 1977 to bring together federal policies to protect against both flood hazards
                     and degradation of floodplain natural resources. E.O. 11988 superseded and expanded E.O.
                     11296. A 1975 General Accounting Office (GAO) report found that "Executive Order 11296
                     proved to have a limited effect in reducing flood losses due to the lack of agency implementing
                     procedures and limited compliance by Federal agencies" (Federal Emergency Management
                     Agency, 1983).

                     The 1977 Executive Order was intended to increase the effectiveness of federal agencies' actions
                     related to floodplain management. In addition, it expanded the scope of E.O. 11296 by requiring
                     that federal agencies also address the need to diminish environmental damage due to unwise
                     planning and development of floodplains.

                     E.O. 11988 established general policy bringing together concerns for human safety, health and
                     welfare, and property with concerns for restoring and preserving natural and beneficial resources
                     of floodplains. Federal agencies were directed to:

                     ï¿½   avoid directly or indirectly supporting floodplain development;
                     ï¿½   avoid actions located in or affecting the floodplain, unless the floodplain location is the only
                         practicable alternative;

                     ï¿½   in the absence of a practicable alternative, require that actions be designed or modified in
                         order to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain; and .
                     ï¿½   use the one percent annual chance flood standard      in evaluating proposed actions affecting
                         the floodplain.

                     The executive order, which applies to proposed actions of federal agencies, required each agency
                     to issue implementing procedures and provided for public participation in federal decisions
                     affecting floodplains (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1983).

                     VMC Guidelines for Federal Agencies, 1978. In 1978, the Water Resources Council issued a set
                     of guidelines (Guidelines) for use by federal agencies in implementing E.O. 11988 (U.S. Water
                     Resources Council, 1978). The Guidelines were intended to provide broad guidance for interpre-
                     tation of the Executive Order and to assist the federal agencies in developing their own proce-
                     dures for complying with the executive order. The VVRC Guidelines, the result of a 12-month
                     interagency task force effort, included an eight-step decision-making process to be followed by
                     federal agencies when applying E.O. 11988 to their actions.

                     The Guidelines also spelled out the responsibilities of the agencies to: 1) recognize that flood-
                     plains have unique and significant public values; 2) evaluate the potential effects of any action
                     that they may take'in a floodplain; and 3) take floodplain management into account both in
                     formulating their own water and land-use plans, and in evaluating the Water and land-use plans
                     of others. In 1987, the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force issued an interim
                     document providing additional guidance on implementation of E.O. 11988 (Federal Interagency
                     Floodplain Management Task Force, 1987).







              7he Management Framework                                                                              7-7



              Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency

              The VVRC, through its hydrology committee, began work on determining the best methods of flood
              frequency analysis in 1966. The efforts of the committee were published in 1967 as Bulletin No. 15,
              A Uniform Technique for Determining Flood Flow Frequencies. The techniques presented in the
              Bulletin were adopted by the WRC for use in all federal planning involving water and related land
              resources, and recommended for use by state and local government and private organizations. Efforts
              to improve the recommended methodologies continued, and in 1976 an extension and update was
              published as Bulletin No. 17, Guidelines for Determirring Flood Flow Frequency. A second revision
              published in 1981 as Bulletin No. 17B (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1981) stands as the guidance
              used by practically all government agencies in undertaking flood frequency studies.


              Discount Rate for Water Projects

              In response to a presidential directive, the VVRC in 1968 modified the formula for determining the
              discount rate used in estimating the benefit/cost ratios of proposed water resources projects, including
              flood control projects. This change resulted in a substantial increase in the discount rate and contrib-
              uted to a decline in new water resource projects. Also as a result of the change in the formula, some
              projects authorized in the 1950s but not yet constructed were deauthorized (Holmes, 1979).


              National Flood Insurance Program

              At the same time that the President's Task Force on Flood Loss Reduction was preparing its reports
              in 1965 and 1966, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as authorized by The
              Southeast Hurricane Disaster Relief Act of 1965 (P.L 89-339), was conducting a feasibility study for
              a national flood insurance program. Recommendations resulting from this study served as the basis
              for the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) of 1968 (Title 13 of P.L 90-448) which established the
              National Flood Insurance Program within HUD. Administrative responsibility for the NFIP was
              established in the Federal Insurance Administration in HUD.

                  The NFIP was designed to reduce future flood losses through state and localfloodplain manage-
                  ment efforts and to transfer the costs of residual flood losses from the general taxpayer to the
                  floodplain occupant. This program represented a major shift in strategfrom previous structural
                  flood control and disaster relief efforts (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1979).

              The following federal acts provide the legislative authorities for the NFIP.

              0   National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The NFIA established the NFIP as a voluntary program
                  in which identified floodprone communities were encouraged to participate. Communities that
                  joined the program were required to adopt minimum regulations governing development in
                  identified flood hazard areas, and in exchange the FIA would make flood insurance (substantially
                  subsidized by the federal government) available to any structure within the community (even those
                  structures outside an identified floodprone area). The FIA was authorized to conduct flood risk








                   7-8                                                      Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                       studies (Flood Insurance Studies) and prepare maps of flood hazard areas in all communities
                       identified as floodprone.

                          SEMON 1302: Section 1302 of the NFIA stated a number of Congressional findings relati nig
                       to floods and the need for a national program of flood insurance, and it listed several purposes
                       of the Act. From Section 1302:


                           (c) The Congress Jurther finds that (1) a program of flood insurance, can promote the
                           public interest by providing appropriate protection against the perils of flood losses and
                           encouraging sound land use by minimizing exposure of property to flood losses; and (2)
                           the objectives of a flood insurance program should be integrally related to a unified
                           nationalprogram forfloodplain management and, to this end, it is the sense of Congress
                           that within two yearsfollowing the effective date of this title the President should transmit
                           to the Congress for its consideration any Jurther proposals necessary for such a unified
                           program, including proposals for the allocation of costs among beneficiaries of flood
                           protection.

                           (d) It is therefore the purpose of this title to (1) authorize a flood insurance program by
                           means of which flood insurance, over a period of time, can be made available on a
                           nationwide basis through the cooperative efforts of the Federal Government and the
                           private insurance industry, and (2) provide flexibility in the program so that such flood
                           insurance may be based on workable methods of pooling risks, minimizing costs, and
                           distributing burdens equitably among those who will be protected byflood insurance and
                           the general public.

                           (e) It is the further purpose of this title to (1) encourage State and local goventments
                           to make appropriate land-use adjustments to constrict the development of land which is
                           exposed to flood damage and minimize damage caused by flood losses, (2) guide the
                           development of proposed future construction, where practicable, away from locations
                           which are threatened byflood hazards, (3) encourage lending and credit institutions, as
                           a matter of national policy, to assist in furthering the objectives of the flood insurance
                           program, (4) assure that any Federal assistanceprovided under theprogram will be related
                           closely to all flood-related programs and activities of the Federal Government, and (5)
                           authorize continuingstudies offlood hazards in order toprovidefor a constant reappraisal
                           of the flood insurance program and its effect on land-use requirements.

                       0 SEMON 1362: Section 1362 of the NFIA authorized the Secretary of HUD to purchase from
                       willing sellers certain insured properties located in flood risk areas and to transfer the purchased
                       properties to state or local governments. To qualify for purchase, properties must have been
                       damaged substantially beyond repair by flooding, or damaged by floods on not less than three
                       previous occasions in five years with the cost of repair averaging at least 25 percent of the value
                       of the structure. Section 1362 provided an opportunity for a federal agency to establish a
                       continuing program to purchase properties for the specific purposes of reducing future flood
                       losses, as opposed to purchasing properties as part of an individual project.








               7he Management Framework                                                                               7-9



               0   Housing and Urban Development Act of 1969. The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1969
                   (P.L 91-152) amended the NFIA in two important respects. First, it established the emergency
                   phase of the NFIP, permitting property owners to purchase limited amounts of flood insurance
                   at federally subsidized rates prior to completion of detailed flood insurance studies and maps.
                   The availability of flood insurance gave communities an incentive to join the NFIP. Second, it
                   added damage and loss resulting from mudslides caused by accumulations of water on or under
                   the ground as an eligible component of the NFIP.

               0   Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. Following disastrous flooding in 1972 at Rapid City, South
                   Dakota and in several eastern states affected by Hurricane Agnes, it was found that very few flood
                   victims had purchased flood insurance. As a result, Congress strengthened the NFIP through
                   amendments in the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L 93-234). This Act provided
                   incentives for communities to join the NFIP by: 1) substantially increasing the amounts of flood
                   insurance coverage available; and 2) providing penalties for both communities and individuals
                   that chose not to join the NFIP and were subsequently flooded.

                   0 SEMON 102(a): Required the purchase of flood insurance in communities where such
                   insurance was available in conjunction with any form of federal financial assistance for acquisition
                   or construction located in identified special flood hazard areas.

                     SEMON 102(b): Required purchase of flood insurance when property located in the floodplain
                   was to be secured by a conventional mortgage from a federally related lender (includes loans,
                   grants, guaranty, insurance and other forms of direct or indirect federal financial assistance other
                   than general or special revenue sharing or formula grants to states).

                   * SECnoNs 202 (a) and (b): Communities identified by FEMA as floodprone were allowed one
                   year after such identification to enroll in the NFIP or thereafter be denied both direct and indirect
                   federal financial assistance for acquisition or construction purposes in flood hazard areas.

                   The 1973 Flood Disaster Protection Act also added damage and loss resulting from erosion and
                   undermining of shorelines by waves or currents "exceeding anticipated cyclical levels" as eligible
                   components of the NFIP.

               ï¿½   The Housing and Community Devel      opment Act of 1977. The Housing and Community Develop-
                   ment Act of 1977 (P.L 95-128) contained three major amendments to the NFIP: 1) the provisions
                   withholding benefits from nonparticipating communities were substantially relaxed; 2) thecoverage
                   limits for communities in the Regular Program were raised; and 3) the authority to purchase
                   flood-damaged property under Section 1362 was expanded to include properties damaged from
                   causes other than flooding and to authorize low-interest loans for floodproofing structures located
                   within the designated floodway.

               ï¿½   Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. Section 341 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
                   Act (OBRA) amended the NFIA to prohibit the issuance of any federal flood insurance coverage
                   after October 1, 1983 for any new construction or substantial improvements of structures located
                   on undeveloped coastal barriers.








                 7-10                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                     The OBRA established aprecedentfor withdrawal offederalfmancial assistancefor development
                     as one means of protecting coastal barriers and reducing recurring federal costs of protecting
                     coastal barriers and reducing recurring federal costs associated with their development and
                     reconstruction (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988).

                 ï¿½   Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982. Section 10 of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA,
                     P.L 97-348) repealed Section 341 of the OBRA, but retained the OBRA prohibition against
                     federal flood insurance for new construction or substantial improvements on structures on
                     undeveloped coastal barriers on or after October 1, 1983. However, the CBRA expanded the
                     scope of the prohibition of federal expenditures and financial assistance to include all federal
                     programs that support development on the undeveloped coastal barriers within the Coastal
                     Barrier Resources System (CBRS). These additional prohibitions, with several exceptions for
                     conservation, public recreation, research, national security, and other considerations, became
                     effective October 18, 1982 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988).

                 ï¿½   Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Section 402 of this Act (P.L. 99-662), as amended,
                     requires nonfederal interests to participate in and comply with the NFIP before construction of
                     any federally financed local flood protection project or any project for hurricane or storm damage
                     reduction.


                 ï¿½   The Housing and Community Development Act of 1987. Section 544 of The Housing and
                     Community Development Act of 1987 (P.L 100-242) authorized prepayment of flood insurance
                     for structures in imminent danger of collapse due to coastal erosion (including structures on the
                     shorelines of lakes, rivers and other water bodies in addition to the ocean). Insurance payments
                     may be provided either to relocate the structure further away from the shore (minimum setbacks
                     are specified) or to demolish the structure.


                 Actions to Improve Dam Safety

                 A series of dam failures and near failures in the early 1970s focused attention on the safety of water
                 storage dams and resulted in a number of legislative and presidential actions intended to improve
                 both federal and state responsibilities for dam safety.

                 ï¿½   National Dam Inspection Act of 1972. The National Dam Inspection Act of 1972 (P.L 92-367)
                     required the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to inventory all nonfederal dams in the
                     United States, and to carry out a program of safety inspections of all medium and high hazard
                     dams except for those under the jurisdiction of specified federal agencies and certain other classes
                     of dams (National Research Council, 1982).

                 ï¿½   Presidential Directives. In April 1977, President Carter directed the following actions: 1) that
                     federal agencies having responsibilities for dams undertake reviews of practices that could affect
                     dam safety; 2) that the Chairman of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science Engineering
                     and Technology (FCCSET) convene an ad hoc interagency committee to coordinate dam safety
                     programs; and 3) that the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy arrange for
                     a review of federal agency practices by an independent panel of recognized experts. In November








              Ae Management Framework                                                                             7-11



                  of 1977, the President also directed the Corps, in cooperation with the states, to proceed under
                  authority of P.L 92-367 to inspect nonfederal dams classed as "high hazard" because of down-
                  stream development.

                  In June 1979, the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety prepared by the Ad Hoc Interagency
                  Committee on Dam Safety were released. In July 1979, as part of Executive Order 12148 estab-
                  lishing the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA was directed to coordinate federal
                  dam safety efforts. In October of 1989, President Carter directed the head of each federal agency
                  having responsibilities for dams to adopt and implement the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety.

              0   Dam Safety Act of 1986. The Dam Safety Act of 1986 (Title 12 of P.L 99-662) authorized federal
                  financial and other assistance to state dam safety programs.


              Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources

              The "Principles and Standards for Planning of Water and Related Und Resources" adopted by the
              Water Resources Council in 1973 were revised and issued as the "Economic and Environmental
              Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources for Implementation Studies" in
              1983.


              ï¿½   Principles and Standards. In 1973, the WRC adopted the "Principles and Standards for Planning
                  of Water and Related Land Resources" (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1973). The Principles
                  and Standards provided standards for project-scale planning and evaluation, while recommending
                  that river basin planning provide the basis for project-scale planning, including dams and
                  reservoirs and other flood control projects. As part of the evaluation process, proposed actions
                  were to be evaluated according to three accounts: "National Economic Development," "Environ-
                  mental Quality," and "Social Well Being." The Principles and Standards represented "a major
                  attempt at standardizing federal water resources efforts by establishing detailed plan formulation
                  procedures and a system for displaying impacts of alternative plans on multiple objectives" (Field,
                  1979).

              ï¿½   Water Resources Development Act of 1974. Section 80(c) of this Act directed the President to
                  investigate and study the "Principles and Standards for Planning and Evaluating Water and
                  Related Resources Projects." Responsibility for conducting the study was assigned to the WRC.
                  An interagency study team was developed and a 22-volume report was released in 1975 (Buie,
                  1979


              ï¿½   Principles and Guidelines. In 1983, the Principles and Standards were revised and issued as the
                  "Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Und Resources
                  for Implementation Studies." These Principles and Guidelines provide for greater flexibility in
                  the application of procedures and decision-making processes than the previous Principles and
                  Standards. The 1983 Principles and Guidelines dropped the Environmental Quality and Social
                  Well Being accounts and rely only on the National Economic Development account for project
                  justification.








                   7-12                                                     Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                           In addition to evaluation of existing activities, available services, and other attributes of
                           the floodplain, the Pfinciples and Guidelines declare that the potential of the floodplain
                           for natural and beneficial values, including open space, recreation, wildlife, naturalflood
                           storage, and wetlands should be recognized and displayed in the valuation of alternatives.
                           (Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management, 1986.)


                   Consideration of Nonstructural Approaches

                   Consideration of nonstructural floodplain management approaches was authorized and promoted
                   by the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 and the 1980 Interagency on Nonstructural
                   Measures.


                   0   Water Resources Development Act of 1974. Section 73 of the Water Resources Development
                       Act of 1974 (P.L 93-251) directed all federal agencies to consider nonstructural approaches in
                       federal water resource projects. This Act also authorized acquisition of floodprone property for
                       three specific projects: 1) purchase of wetlands for flood storage in the Charles River basin near
                       Boston, Massachusetts; 2) acquisition of floodprone properties in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin;
                       and 3) acquisition of properties affected by subsidence and coastal flooding in a section of
                       Baytown, Texas.

                   0   1980 Interagency Agreement on Nonstructural Measures. An interagency agreement - "Use
                       of Nonstructural Measures in Flood Damage Reduction and Floodplain Management" - was
                       developed in 1980 to establish common policy among the water resource construction agencies
                       for nonstructural flood loss reduction (Thomas, 1983).


                   Disaster Assistance


                   The Disaster Relief Act of 1974 and the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Amendments
                   of 1988 established important requirements and opportunities pertaining to the availability of disaster
                   assistance.


                   ï¿½   Disaster Relief Act of 1974. Section 4061 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (P.L 93-288)
                       required states applying for disaster assistance to take action to mitigate hazards as a condition
                       of receiving disaster assistance. Section 406 also required that rebuilding be done in conformance
                       with applicable codes, specifications and standards (Federal Emergency Management Agency,
                       1981). The 406 requirements tied the receipt of federal grants or loans for disaster assistance
                       to a state's evaluation of natural hazards and identification of appropriate actions to mitigate such
                       hazards.


                   ï¿½   Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Amendments of 1988. The Disaster Relief and
                       Emergency Assistance Amendments of 1988 (P.L 100-707) made a number of important changes


                       Section 406 was renumbered as Section 409 by the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Amendments
                       of 1988 (P.L. 100-707).








               7he Management Framework                                                                                 7-13



                   in disaster relief programs, including: making hazard mitigation eligible for federal funding;
                   setting the minimum federal share of disaster assistance at 75%; providing for a 50150 federal/state
                   matching grant for FEMA-approved hazard mitigation projects (with the federal contribution
                   limited to 10% of the cost to repair, replace or restore damaged public facilities); increasing
                   federal matching grants for state preparedness planning from $25,000 to $50,000; establishing a
                   Great Lakes program providing grants to states to combat erosion and high water levels in the
                   Great Lakes; and prohibiting new construction in erosion-prone areas from receiving disaster
                   relief (Butler, 1989).


               Pre- and Postdisaster Planning

               Important pre- and postdisaster planning activities were authorized by the Disaster Relief Act of 1974
               and the 1980 Interagency Agreement on Nonstructural Measures.

               0   Disaster Relief Act of 1974. Section 201 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-288) provided
                   FEMA with authority to provide assistance to states to conduct Quantitative Hurricane Prepared-
                   ness Studies. FEMA established a cooperative program with the National Weather Service's
                   National Hurricane Center and the Corps of Engineers to assist states along the Gulf and Atlantic
                   coasts in the development of hurricane preparedness plans (Federal Emergency Management
                   Agency, 1987).

                   As previously described, Section 406 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 required states to develop
                   hazard mitigation plans in order to remain eligible for disaster assistance funds. While many state
                   and local communities had previously been involved in hazard mitigation, Section 406 planning
                   requirements made the evaluation of mitigation opportunities mandatory after a presidential
                   declaration of disaster.

               0   1980 Interagency Agreement on Nonstructural Measures. In 1980, the Office of Management
                   and Budget (OMB) directed that "all Federal programs that provide construction funds and long-
                   term recovery assistance must use common flood disaster planning and postflood recovery
                   procedures" (Office of Management and Budget, 1980). In response, 12 federal agencies signed
                   an Interagency Agreement (1980) to provide technical assistance to states and communities for
                   nonstructural flood damage reduction measures. Representatives from each agency formed an
                   Interagency Flood Hazard Mitigation Task Force charged with carrying out the terms of the
                   agreement. The Task Force representatives ensure that technical personnel from their agencies
                   are available to participate on postdisaster interagency hazard mitigation teams. Task Force
                   representatives also review agency programs and policies to identify and remove obstacles to
                   implementing flood hazard mitigation measures recommended by the interagency teams.


               Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force

               The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force was established in 1975 to carry out
               the responsibility of the President to prepare for the Congress a Unified National Program for
               Floodplain Management. Current membership of the Task Force consists of. the Departments of








                    7-14                                                  Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                    Agriculture, Army, Commerce, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Transporta-
                    tion; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Federal
                    Emergency Management Agency. The Task Force was chaired by a representative from the Water
                    resources Council until 1982 when the chairmanship shifted to a FEMA representative (Thomas,
                    1988). The Task Force has undertaken or sponsored several important initiatives and studies, some
                    of which are listed below (Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, 1986):

                    ï¿½  Nonstructural Floodplain Management Study: Overview, (White, 1978).
                    ï¿½  Floodplain Acquisition: Issues and Options in Strengthening Federal Policy, (Kusler, 1978).
                    ï¿½  Improved Formulation and Evaluation of Nonstructural Elements for Water Resources Plans in
                       Flood Hazard Areas, (Shabman, 1979).
                    ï¿½  Options to Improve Federal Nonstructural Responses to Flood, (Platt, 1979).
                    ï¿½  Economic Aspects of Wildlife Habitat and Wetlands, (Midwest Research Institute, 1979).
                    ï¿½  Emerging Issues in WetlandlFloodplain Management - Supporting Materials for a Report of a
                       Technical Seminar, (Kusler, 1979).
                    ï¿½  Emerging Issues in WetlandlFloodplain Management - Summary Report of a Technical Seminar
                       Series, (Kusler, 1979).
                    9  Sources of WetlandslFloodplain Research Information, (1980).
                    ï¿½  Workshop Report on Bottomland Hardwood Wetlands, (National Wetlands Technical Council,
                       1980).
                    ï¿½  Nonstructural Measures in Flood Damage Reduction Activities, (Galloway, 1980).
                    ï¿½  The Influence of Regulations and Practices on the Implementation of Nonstructural Flood Plain
                       Plans, (CME Associates, Inc., 1980).
                    ï¿½  An Assessment of Storm Surge Modeling, (Hydrology Committee, 1980).
                    ï¿½  State and Local Acquisition of Floodplains and Wetlands, (Field Associates, 198 1).
                    ï¿½  Analysis of Methodologies Used for the Assessment of Wetland Values, (USA Waterways
                       Experiment Station, 1981).
                    ï¿½  Floodplain Management Handbook, (Owen, 1981).
                    ï¿½  Cooperative Flood Loss Reduction: A Technical Manual for Communities and Induoy, (Owen,
                       1981).
                    ï¿½  Estimating Peak Flow Frequencies for Natural Ungaged Watersheds (A Proposed Nationwide Test),
                       (Hydrology Committee, 1981).
                    ï¿½  Evaluating the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management Techniques and Community Programs,
                       (1985).
                    ï¿½  A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management, (1986).
                    ï¿½  FurtherAdvice on Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, (1987).


                    A Unifled National Program for Floodplain Management

                    The Bureau of Budget assigned primary responsibility to the Water Resources Council for carrying
                    out the recommendations presented by the President's Task Force on Flood Loss Reduction as
                    published in H.D. 465. The WRC refined and expanded the Task Force's report, and the first report
                    entitledA Unified National ProgramforFloodplain Management (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1976)
                    was published in 1976. This document prescribed specific strategies and tools for flood loss reduction.
                    The Unified National Program was revised in 1979 (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1979) and
                    expanded to include strategies and tools f6r management of natural floodplain resources. Further
                    update and revision occurred in 1986 (Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force,
                    1986).








              7he Management Framework                                                                                  7-15



              Federal Emergency Management Agency

              The Federal Emergency Management Agencywas created in 1979 by Executive Order 12127. Several
              agencies and programs of different federal departments were combined into FEMA, including the
              Federal Insurance Administration and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration which were
              transferred from HUD, and the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, among others. This combination
              of agencies gave FENIA the lead in promoting nonstructural approaches to floodplain management,
              and at the same time closely aligned floodplain management with emergency management.


              Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1980

              The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has provided some form of crop insurance to farmers
              since 1938. Prior to 1980, crop insurance was limited and the USDA provided disaster assistance
              mainly through loans and direct cash payments to affected farmers. In 1980, the Federal Crop Insur-
              ance Act of 1980 (P.I_ 96-365) greatly expanded the scope and availability of crop insurance to
              include more crops and to apply in over 3,000 agricultural counties in 50 states. The objective of
              the crop insurance program is to improve economic stability of agriculture by providing multi-peril
              crop insurance for individual producers of commercially grown commodities. The crop insurance
              program is administered by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation within the USDA (Harman,
              1990; U.S. General Services Administration, 1990).


              Bureau of Reclamation Reorganization, 1997

              The Bureau of Reclamation within the Department of Interior (DOI) was originally charged under
              the Reclamation Act of 1902 to administer a reclamation program that would provide the and and
              semiarid lands of the 17 contiguous western states with a secure, year-round water supply for
              irrigation. Over the years, the BOR's mission was expanded to include provision of water supply for
              communities and industry as well as generation of hydroelectric power, river regulation and flood
              control, provision of outdoor recreation opportunities, and the enhancement and protection of fish
              and wildlife habitats (Office of the Federal Register, 1987). In large part, the role of the BOR has
              been to plan, construct, and manage large dam and reservoir projects, including flood control projects
              and multipurpose reservoirs.

              In a report it published in 1987, the BOR recognized its role was changing from that of constructing
              majorwater development projects to developing solutions for the conservation of water and protection
              of the environment. The BOR's current objectives are to improve management and use of resources
              by increasing water and power operating efficiencies, and identifying new opportunities for nonfederal
              partnerships in water resource development. These objectives will largely be met by integrating
              existing systems and making them more reliable. The BOR will also seek to manage its projects to
              provide greater opportunities for the public to enjoy recreational activities and protect the valuable
              cultural and natural resources associated with its projects. The BOR will therefore continue to play
              an important role in future floodplain management activities (Brown, 1989).








                    7-16                                                         Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                    STATE AND COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK FOR FLOOD LOSS REDUCTION

                    Major changes have occurred in the management framework for flood loss reduction at the state and
                    local level over the past 25 years. In addition to the following descriptions, details and examples of
                    state and local activities are included in chapters 11, 12 and 13 of the Assessment Report.


                    Flood Loss Reduction at the State Level


                    State organization and activities for flood loss reduction have responded to, and in many respects
                    paralleled, activities at the federal level as a result of federal legislation, programs and funding. Two
                    state level changes are perhaps most significant because they have directly affected every state and
                    practically every floodprone community in the United States.

                    The first of these changes established state administration of local floodplain management regulations
                    through a state flood insurance coordinator, As a result of the NFIP, each state now has a flood
                    insurance coordinator and some type of program for working with and providing floodplain manage-
                    ment assistance to local communities throughout the state. Each state has enacted some form of
                    enabling legislation permitting local governments to adopt floodplain regulations (Association of State
                    Floodplain Managers, 1988).2

                    The second major change is that each state now has developed a multi-hazard emergency operations
                    plan administered by the state's emergency or civil preparedness agency. These multi-hazard
                    emergency operations plans generally contain annexes or appendices dealing specifically with different
                    types of hazards, including floods, hurricanes, and other types of flood-related hazards.

                    Every state continues to have some agency involved in planning, funding, or sponsoring structural
                    flood control projects. State involvement in dam safety activities increased greatly during the 1980s.

                    In addition to the j ust-described activities that have been undertaken by every state, a variety of other
                    actions have enhanced the states' abilities to reduce flood losses. For example, several states have
                    adopted their own statewide floodplain management regulations that parallel or, in some cases,
                    contain more stringent requirements than those of the NFIP. In other states, executive orders have
                    been issued (similar to federal Executive Order 11988) requiring state agencies to take flood hazards
                    into consideration when siting facilities or initiating other actions affecting floodplains.

                    All coastal states have responsibilities and some type of permitting program for activities occurring
                    below mean high water - the area held in public trust by the states for all the people of the state.
                    While state programs vary considerably, these programs typically involve review of flood damage


                    2    In 1989, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that, under state law, counties could not regulate development
                         in a special flood hazard area on land used for agricultural purposes. Furthermore, many of these counties
                         did not have the authority to regulate the activities of levee and drainage districts. Absence of this authority
                         meant that the counties could no longer enforce the minimum floodplain management requirements for
                         participation in the NFIP (Watson, 1990). The Missouri legislature initiated action to address this deficiency
                         in late 1990, and passed necessary legislative amendments to remedy the problem in February 1991 (Federal
                         Emergency Management Agency, 1991).








              7he Management Framework                                                                                     7-17



              potential, impacts on tidal wetlands, and other factors in considering whether a proposed activity will
              be in the public interest.

              For the most part, each state carries out the same types of activities for flood loss reduction, although
              each state has its own unique administrative organization, and the level of activity varies greatly
              depending on many factors, including the frequency and severity of flooding the state has experienced.


              Flood Loss Reduction at the Community Level

              At the community level, the most dramatic change in the management framework for flood loss
              reduction since the 1960s has been the widespread adoption and enforcement of local floodplain
              regulations under the NFIP. There are now some 18,000 communities that have elected to participate
              in the NFIP and that have adopted at least minimum floodplain regulations. Although many of these
              communities have not warmly embraced floodplain regulation, by and large they have come to
              recognize the importance of taking action through local land-use regulation to protect people and
              property from flood losses. Consequently, regulatory action at the community level is now the most
              widespread and effective means of reducing flood losses to new development.

              Largely in response to state requirements, many communities have also developed multi-hazard
              emergency preparedness or operations plans. Although relatively few communities have developed
              specific flood emergency plans, the development of multi-hazard plans is widely viewed as greatly
              increasing community flood preparedness and contributing to improved flood warning and loss
              reduction.


              Flood control structures are still widely viewed as a preferred means of reducing flood losses, and
              many local communities participate as sponsors for local structural flood control works, typically
              through a public works department. The local governmental unit usually provides only a small
              contribution to the cost of these structural flood control works, and relies heavily on federal and state
              governmental units for both funding and expertise. In contrast, local governments are almost
              exclusively responsible for local drainage and stormwater management to control localized flooding.
              As the Nation has become more urbanized, drainage control and stormwater management has become
              a major local government activity and an important component of a total floodplain management
              program.



              Intergovernmental and Regional Government Management3

              Regional approaches to floodplain management, carried out on an intermediate scale between local
              and state government efforts, are often overlooked or their effects underestimated. Opportunities
              for developing regional approaches, however, are especially important because flooding is not limited


              3   A 1987 study entit 'led Regional Management of Metropolitan Floodplains edited by Rutherford H. Platt
                  addresses various opportunities and approaches for responding to flooding by regional entities. This section
                  on Intergovernmental and Regional Government Management is based largely on material included in that
                  study.








                   7-18                                                    Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                   by political boundaries. Since government jurisdictions do not conform to watershed boundaries, the
                   local, state and federal approach to floodplain management can be fragmented and weakened when
                   applied to individual communities and floodplains. Management authorities can be divided between
                   local, state and federal governments, between several different municipalities with jurisdiction in the
                   same floodplain, and amon different agencies in each unit of government involved.
                                                ,9

                   Among the entities that can contribute to floodplain management on a regional level are: 1) special
                   districts; 2) county governments; 3) private conservation groups; and 4) conservation districts.

                   0   Special Districts. Special districts are sub-state government units created by state legislation and
                       are the most numerous and fastest growing type of government entity in the United States (28,733
                       existed in 1982). Special districts perform a wide range of public and quasi-public services and
                       have many of the same powers as municipalities (e.g., the right to sue and be sued, to own
                       property, to enter into contracts, and to levy taxes or raise funds in other ways). Unlike munici-
                       palities, however, the functions of special districts are limited to one or more responsibilities as
                       defined by state law.

                       Many special districts have been created in response to federal programs, and nearly one fourth
                       of all special districts have natural resource-related functions. Many special districts are con-
                       cerned with water resources issues such as soil and water conservation, drainage, flood control,
                       and irrigation.

                       The 1982 Census of Governments listed 2,705 "drainage and flood control" districts nationally,
                       2,421 "soil and water conservation districts," and 1,617 "sewerage districts." Some, of these
                       districts existed "on paper" only (without active programs); many are too small to be considered
                       regional in scope.

                       Regional special districts may have several advantages over other units of government in accom-
                       plishing effective flood loss reduction. These advantages include: 1) area-wide jurisdiction
                       (districts may be large enough to encompass entire watersheds); 2) flexible boundaries (to
                       encompass necessary hydrologic units); 3) fiscal autonomy (not as dependent on federal and state
                       sources of funds); 4) legal flexibility; 5) professionalism; and 6) intergovernmental cooperation
                       opportunities. Possible disadvantages of special districts may include less public accountability
                       and a more narrow perspective than other units of government (Platt, 1987).

                   0   County Governments. The Nation's 3,041 counties cover nearly all of the land area of the United
                       States and overlie most municipalities and special districts within metropolitan areas. Counties
                       vary greatly in extent of jurisdiction, budgets, authorities, and political characteristics. For
                       example, while county governments are relatively weak or nonexistent in the Northeast, strong
                       county governments in the South and West have thousands of employees and provide a wide
                       range of public services.

                       Counties may serve as local governments for certain purposes and regional governments for
                       others, and may provide services through either direct authority under state law or intergovern-
                       mental agreements with other units of government. County-wide functions pertaining to flood
                       hazards may include the development of storm drainage systems, floodplain land acquisition, flash








              Ae Management Framework                                                                                 7-19



                  flood warning systems, and emergency response measures. Some counties are also authorized
                  to engage in land-use planning.

                  A survey of the roles and programs of 52 selected metropolitan counties relative to floodplain
                  management (Platt, 1987a; Platt, undated) showed that, in general, the Northeast and North
                  Central counties reported the application of fewer flood loss reduction measures per county than
                  counties in the South and West. (County governments are generally weaker in the older,
                  industrial metropolitan areas of the northern regions.) The most active counties in terms of
                  implementing flood loss reduction measures were seen to be those experiencing rapid "sun belt"
                  growth in the South and West, where flash flooding and coastal storms are important concerns.

                  The most frequently applied measure by the counties surveyed was "minimum building elevation
                  requirements" and the least frequently applied was "relocation of structures from floodplains."
                  Two types of measures were found to be usually applied on a county-wide basis: structural flood
                  control measures and emergency warning and assistance measures. By contrast, regulatory land-
                  use control measures, floodplain land acquisition, and measures to relocate structures are usually
                  limited to unincorporated areas within county jurisdictions. Such controls are traditionally the
                  responsibility of local government.

                  A great diversity was found among the counties with regard to the types and combination of
                  measures used and the geographic areas within which they are applied. It was also found that
                  counties are not well informed of each other's activities in the flood field, and that the National
                  Association of Counties has displayed little interest in flood issues (Platt, 1987a; Platt, undated).

                  Conservation Districts. "Conservation districts" are another type of regional entity involved with
                  floodplain management. These districts are known by different names in different states, including
                  Conservation Districts, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and Natural Resource Districts.

                  The Soil Conservation Act of 1935 (P.L 74-46) authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to
                  recommend creation of new units of government through state laws. Through these new laws,
                  states were to authorize the creation of districts with the power to work with the Soil Conservation
                  Service (SCS) to enforce proper land-use practices primarily to control erosion and sedimentation.
                  The SCS developed model legislation, and over the next several years, every state proceeded to
                  enact legislation authorizing conservation districts as a subdivision of state government. Nearly
                  3,000 districts, most formed on the basis of county boundaries, now cover more than 97% of the
                  country (Sampson, 1985).

                  The comprehensive resource planning and enforcement function originally envisioned for
                  conservation districts was not realized. District programs focus on the control of soil erosion and
                  water pollution. The most common service provided to landowners by conservation districts is
                  conservation planning and technical assistance for individual land users and owners.

                  Where state legislation permits, conservation districts also generally serve as the local sponsors
                  for watershed management projects implemented under the Watershed Protection and Flood
                  Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L 566). This Act authorized the SCS to participate in comprehensive
                  watershed management projects in cooperation, with states and their subdivisions. Eligible








                  7-20                                                    Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                      projects were limited to watersheds of less than 250,000 acres and flood control structures of less
                      than 12,500 acre feet of storage capacity (Stembridge, undated). P.L 566 has since been amended
                      to permit multiple purpose reservoirs to store up to 25,000 acre feet.


                  PRIVATE SECTOR ACTMITES


                  The private sector also plays important roles in flood loss reduction efforts. Typically, the various
                  groups within the private sector work with or for government agencies at all levels to research,
                  develop and implement flood loss reduction activities.



                  Academic Institutions


                  The role of academic institutions in flood loss reduction efforts has not changed greatly over the past
                  25 years. For the most part, academic institutions undertake basic and applied research and provide
                  educational opportunities. The Water Resources Act of 1964 (P.L 88-379) authorized the establish-
                  ment of a Water Resources. Research Institute within each state. These institutes have contributed
                  significantly to research on many flood-related topics.

                  Several universities have taken on specific roles to disseminate hazards information and sponsor
                  hazards- and disaster-related research. Other institutions have provided support for numerous
                  individuals who have specialized in natural hazards and emergency management research. No
                  academic institution, however, is known to offer a program of study specializing in floodplain
                  management as described in A Uni ied National Program for Floodplain Management. Table 7-1
                  provides a list of academic institutions engaged in various aspects of natural hazards and emergency
                  management research and education.


                  Nonprofit and Professional Organizations

                  There has been a tremendous increase in the number of nonprofit and professional organizations
                  that have some involvement or interest in flood loss reduction. Several professional organizations
                  have formed (or have created special interest groups) to address flood loss reduction in general or
                  some component of flood loss reduction. These groups typically draw their membership from
                  government agencies, academic institutions, and consulting/contracting companies. Many also
                  welcome as members any interested individuals, while some - particularly associations of licensed
                  professionals - have a much more restricted membership. These organizations tend to be national
                  in scope (many also have state or regional chapters) and they accomplish their objectives through
                  some combination of. national and regional meetings; publications, including symposium/conference
                  proceedings, journals and newsletters; lobbying with federal and state governments; and fostering
                  communication among the membership. Table 7-2 lists selected professional organizations currently
                  active to some degree in flood loss reduction efforts. Many of these organizations have had a major
                  influence on national and state policy and legislation.








                    77ze Management Framework                                                                                                                           7-21



                    Table 7-1.             Academic Institutions Engaged in Natural Hazards and Emergency Management
                                           Research and Education.



                                      Arizona State University, Office of Hazard Studies              University of California, California Earthquake
                                          School of Public Affairs, Tempe, AZ 85257                   Education Project and Chem leal Education for Public
                                          Joanne Nigg, Director, (602) 9654505                        Understanding Project
                                                                                                           Lawrence Hall of Science, Berkeley, CA 94720
                                      Baptist College, Earthquake Education Center                         Herbert Tbier, Director, (415) 642-8718
                                          P.O. Box 1009, Charleston, SC 29411
                                          Joyce Bagwell, (803) 7974028                                University of Central Florida, Florida Sinkhole Research
                                                                                                      Institute
                                      Brown University, Alan Shawn Feinstein World Hunger                  University of Central Florida, Orlando, Fl. 32826
                                      Program                                                              Barry Beck, Director, (407) 281-5644
                                          P.O. Box 1931, Providence, RI 02912
                                          Robert W. Kates, Director (401) 863-2700                    University of Colorado, Natural Hazards Reseach and
                                                                                                      Applications Information Center (NHRAIC), Institute of
                                      Clark University, Center for Technology,                        Behavioral Science
                                      Environment, and Development (Center)                                IBS #6, Campus Box 492, University of Colorado,
                                          Worcester, MA 01610, Jeanne Kasperson, Research                  Boulder, CO 80309-0482
                                          Librarian, (617) 793-7133                                        Dave Morton, Librarian, (303) 492-6818

                                      Colorado State University, Hazards Assessment                   University of Colorado, U@& World Data Center for
                                      Laboratory                                                      Glaciology, National Snovr and Ice Data Center
                                          204 Aylesworth Hall, Fort Collines, 00, 80523                    Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental
                                          Dennis Mileti, Director, (303) 491-5951                          Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado, Campus
                                                                                                           Box 449, Boulder, CO 80309-0449 Anne Brennan,
                                      Cornell University, Cornell Institute for Social and                 Professional Research Assistant, (303) 492-1946
                                      Economic ResearchlProgram in Urban and Regional
                                      Studies                                                         University of Delaware, Disaster Research Center
                                          Natural Disasters Project, 106 West Sibley Hall,                 Newark, DE 19716
                                          Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853                             Marge Simmons, Office Coordinator, (302) 451-6619
                                          Barclay G. Jones, Director, (607) 255-6946
                                                                                                      University of Hawaii, Pacific Islands Development
                                      Memphis State University, Center for Earthquake                 Program, Disaster Preparedness and Rehabilitation
                                      Research and Information                                        Project
                                          3890 Central Memphis, TN 38152                                   East-West Center, 1777 East-West Road, Honolulu,
                                          Arch Johnston, Director (901) 678-2007                           HI 96M8
                                                                                                           Charles Lepani@ Director, (808) 944-7745
                                      New York Medical College, Center for Psychological
                                      Response in Disaster Emergencies (PRIDE)                        University of Maryland-Baltim ore County, Emergency
                                          ValhalL NY 10595                                            Health Services Program
                                          Michael Blumenfield, Director, (901) 678-2007                    Baltimore, MD 21228, James Eastham,
                                      NevrYork University, Industrial Crisis Institute                     Department Chairman, (301) 455-3223
                                          649 East 19th Street Brooklyn, NY 11230                     University of Massachusetts, Land and Water Policy
                                          Paul Shrivastava, Director, (718) 859-3435                  Center
                                                                                                           Department of Geology and Geography, Amherst
                                      State University of New York at Buffalo, National                    MA 010003
                                      Center for Earthquake Engineering Research                           Rutherford Platt, Director, (413) 545-2499
                                          Red Jacket Quadrangle, Buffalo, NY 14261,
                                          Dr. Robert Ketter, Executive Director,                      University of North Carolina, Center for Urban and
                                          (716) 636-3391, 342 Capen Hall, SUNY-Buffalo,               Regional Studies
                                          Buffalo, NY 14260, Patricia Coty, Manager for                    Campus Box 3410, Chapel Hill, NC Z7599-3410
                                          Information Services, (716) 636-3377                             Raymond J. Burby, (919) 962-3074

                                      Texas A & M University, Hazard Reduction and                    University ofNorth Texas, Emergency Administration
                                      Recovery Center                                                 and Planning Degree Program
                                          College of Architecture, Texas A & M University,                 School of Community Service, P.O. Box 13438,
                                          College Station, TX 77843-3137                                   Denton, TX 76203
                                          Dennis Wenger, Director (409) 845-7813                           Robert R. Reed, Director, (215) 8984589

                                      Texas Tech University, Institute for Disaster Research,         University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School, Risk
                                      Wind Engineering Research Center                                and Decision Processes Center
                                          P.O. Box 4089, Lubbock, TX 79409                                 Philadelphia, PA 19104
                                          James R- McDonald, Director (806) 742-3476                       Howard Kunreuther, Director,. (215) 8984589

                                      University of Arizona, Office of Arid Lands Studies             University of Pittsburgh, Center for Social and Urban
                                      (OALS), and Arid Lands Information Center (ALIC)                Research
                                          College of Agriculture, 845 North Park Avenue,                   1617 Cathedral of Learnin& Pittsburgh, PA 15260
                                          Tucson, AZ 85719                                                 Jeanette Trauth, Association Director, Risk and
                                          Robert Varady, Manager, (602) 621-7897                           Emergency Management Program, (412) 624-5442

                                      University of California, National inform ation Service         University of Wisconsin-Extenslon, Disaster Management
                                      for Earthquake Engineering                                      Center
                                          Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 404                      Department of Engineering Professional
                                          Davis Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720                                   Development, 432 North Lake Street Madison, WI
                                          Jeanette Zerneke, (415) 642-8718                                 53706 Don Schramm, Director, (608) 262-2061

                                Source:     Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center. "Information Service." Natural Hazards Observe 13,
                                            No. 3, January, 1989.








                     7-22                                                          Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                     Table 7-2.        Selected Professional and Nonprofit Organizations Active in Flood Loss Reduction
                                       Efforts.



                            American Institute of Architects (AIA)                   National Association of Flood and Stormwater
                                                                                     Management Agencies
                            American Planning Association (APA)
                                                                                     National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)
                            American Rivers Conservation Council
                                                                                     National Association of State Conservation
                            American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)               Agencies

                            American Water Resources Association (AWRA)              National Association of State Recreation Planners

                            Association of Conservation Engineers                    National Audubon Society (NAS)

                            Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO)        National Hazards Research and Applications
                                                                                     Information Center (NHRAIC)
                            Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM)
                                                                                     National League of Cities
                            Association of State River Managers
                                                                                     National Organization for River Sports
                            Association of State Wetland Managers (ASWM)
                                                                                     National Recreation and Parks Association
                            The Coastal Society
                                                                                     Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC)
                            Coastal States Organization (CSO)
                                                                                     National Trails Coalition
                            The Conservation Foundation (CF)
                                                                                     National Waterways Technical Council
                            Council of State Governments (CSG)
                                                                                     National Water Resources Association
                            Emergency Managers Association (EMA)
                                                                                     National Wildlife Federation
                            Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
                                                                                     The Natural Areas Association (NAA)
                            Environmental Law Institute (ELI)
                                                                                     The River Conservation Fund
                            Environmental Policy Center
                                                                                     Sierra Club
                            Friends of the River, Inc.
                                                                                     The Trust for Public Land
                            Interstate Council on Water Policy
                                                                                     Urban Land Institute (ULI)
                            National Association of Conservation Districts
                            (NACD)                                                   Wetlands for Wildlife

                            National Association of Counties








              7he Management Framework                                                                                7-23



              An even larger group of private conservation and/or watershed organizations play an important role
              in water resources and floodplain management. These organizations are usually nonprofit organiza-
              tions and have a broad public membership base. Most participate in various forms of public action
              to promote their goals and objectives and educate the public. Many are more directly involved in
              environmental issues related to the natural values of floodplains, but they also have concerns with
              regard to flood loss reduction. While several of these organizations operate nationally, many more
              function at a state, regional, community, and watershed level. Table 7-3 provides a representative
              list of these types of organizations.

              The most common characteristic of these citizen-based groups is their public educational function.
              Ile organizations are typically unaffected by partisan politics, can conduct effective public forums
              on controversial issues, and may be able to respond to an issue more rapidly than government
              agencies. A common limitation faced by these organizations, however, is lack of reliable funding
              (Blunt, 1985).


              Individuals and Corporations

              The role of individuals and for-profit corporations in flood loss reduction efforts has also expanded
              since the 1960s. As flood loss reduction activities have increased, the opportunities for private sector
              involvement have also grown, and numerous individuals and companies have contributed significantly
              to the identification, development, and use of some of the major new activities and tools in use today.
              Examples include floodproofing techniques and materials, automated flood warning systems,
              geographic information systems, remote sensing techniques, and computerized information manage-
              ment.




              THE FRAMEWORKFOR MANAGING FLOODPLAIN NATURAL RESOURCES

              As described in Chapter 2, the natural and cultural resources of floodplains are many and diverse,
              and include functions related to natural flood storage and conveyance, water quality maintenance,
              ground-water recharge, wetlands, fish and wildlife, recreation, and forestry and agriculture, among
              others. Perhaps with the exception of natural flood storage and conveyance, none of the natural and
              cultural resources of floodplains are exclusive to floodplains. That is, ground-water recharge,
              agriculture, recreation, and other floodplain functions are also found outside floodplains. Natural
              floodplains simply provide special or particularly favorable locations for many of these values.

              As a result, federal, state and local programs to manage floodplain resources are usually not focused
              on the floodplain, but on a particular resource or activity that may or may not be included in the
              floodplain. For example, programs have been developed to protect water quality, but these programs
              are not focused on managing just floodplains for water quality protection. Instead, the water quality
              functions provided by floodplains are addressed in the context of a broader program. Floodplain
              management and/or protection of natural floodplain resources are typically not explicit program
              objectives. Consequently, it is difficult to discuss management of floodplain natural resources without
              also addressing the same resources in nonfloodplain areas.








                    7-24                                                           Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                    Table 7-3.         Selected Private Conservation and Watershed Organizations Concerned with Flood
                                       Loss Reduction and Natural Resources Protection.




                             American Forest Council                                   National Recreation and Park Association


                             American Land Resource Association                        National Trails Council


                             American Littoral Society                                 National Trappers Association, Inc.

                             American Rivers                                           National Trust for Historic Preservation


                             Coastal Conservation Association                          National Water Resources Association


                             The Coastal Society                                       National Waterways Conference, Inc.

                             Connecticut River Watershed Council, Inc.                 National Wetlands Technical Council


                             The Conservation Foundation                               National Wildlife Federation


                             Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Inc.          Natural Areas Association

                             The Environmental Law Institute                           The Nature Conservancy

                             Environmental Policy Institute                            New England Natural Resources Center

                             Freshwater Foundation                                     North American Lake Management Society

                             Friends of the Earth                                      The Oceanic Society

                             Friends of the River, Inc                                 Saves the Dunes Council


                             Land Trust Alliance                                       Sierra Club


                             League of Conservation Voters                             Society for Range Management

                             Mid-Atlantic Council of Watershed Association             Soil and Water Conservation Society

                             National Association of Conservation Districts            The Sounds Conservancy, Inc.

                             National Audubon Society                                  The Trust for Public Land

                             National Center for Urban Environmental Studies           Water Resources Association of the Delaware
                                                                                       River Basin
                             National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
                                                                                       Wetlands for Life, Inc.
                             National Organization for River Sports
                                                                                       The Wilderness Society
                             National Park Foundation
                                                                                       Wildlife Management Institute
                             National Parks and Conservation Association




                                                Source: National Wildlife Federation. Conservation Directory 1988. 1998.







              7he Management Framework                                                                                 7-25



              The followi ng sections of the Assessment Report review the management framework for protecting
              floodplain natural resources from the standpoint of the broader programs and activities that directly
              or indirectly address those resources.


              THE FEDERAL FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING FLOODPLAIN NATURAL RESOURCES

              Prior to the 1960s, a number of single-purpose federal laws and programs were established to protect
              various natural resources and these laws and programs indirectly addressed the protection of natural
              floodplain resources. For example, the creation of national parks and federal forest reserves resulted
              in the protection of significant areas of natural floodplains, although floodplain management or
              protection of floodplain natural resources were not explicit purposes. Other federal laws specifically
              protected wildlife habitat and open space for conservation and recreation.

              The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L 85-624) formalized federal recognition of the
              importance of wetlands as natural habitat and required that most proposed federal projects or federal
              permits that would affect streams or other water bodies be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
              Service (FWS) for review. The Housing Act of 1961 authorized federal grants to communities for
              acquisition of open space for conservation, recreation, and related purposes within the context of
              comprehensive planning. Many of the urban renewal and public housing projects administered by
              the Department of Housing and Urban Development focused on the reuse of blighted areas in the
              floodplain. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964 (P.L 88-578) offered financial
              assistance for statewide outdoor recreation planning, as well as funds for state and local land
              acquisition and development.

              Since the late 1960s, management of the water resources functions of floodplains has been accom-
              plished through a multitude of federal programs for water quality and pollution control, watershed
              management and erosion control, and ground-water and aquifer protection. Restoration and
              preservation of floodplain living resources/habitat functions have been, addressed in multi-objective
              federal programs or activities aimed at protecting inland wetlands, coastal wetlands, and barrier
              islands. In addition, other federal programs have been specifically directed toward the protection
              of habitat or living resources. Protection of cultural values has often been accomplished through
              federally supported open space and recreation planning and urban renewal programs, especially in
              older cities where early settl  'ements occurred in the floodplain. Beginning in the 1970s, cultural
              resources were also addressed in several other types of programs, including waterfront redevelopment
              projects, historic and cultural resources protection programs, and a variety of multi-purpose open
              space programs (e.g., water-oriented recreation, public access, and green belt programs).

              Among the most significant changes in the federal framework for managing floodplain natural
              resources were the creation of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Environmental
              Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970, and establishment of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources
              Management (OCRM)4        within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in
              1972. The number of agencies concerned with protection of floodplain natural resources and their



              4   Originally called the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM).








                  7-26                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  range of program activities is no less extensive and complex than the number of agencies and
                  programs involved with flood loss reduction.

                  The following major federal actions and programs have contributed, either directly or indirectly, to
                  protection and management of natural floodplain resources.


                  House Document 465


                  In 1966, House Document 465, A Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses, signaled the
                  beginning of a new era in the management of flood losses. The natural resources functions of flood-
                  plains, however, were not specifically addressed, although the Document did recognize the need to
                  expand the interest in floodplain use in open space ac  quisition programs for conservation, recreation,
                  and other purposes. H.D. 465 noted "the possibility that in some reaches the development of
                  floodplains for recreation may be their most efficient use and that floodplain regulation may be an
                  important part of a recreation program," and recommended that "Authority should be given by the
                  Congress to include land acquisition as part of flood control plans" (Task Force on Federal Flood
                  Control Policy, 1966).


                  National Environmental Policy Act

                  It was not until the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed by President Nixon in
                  1969 and became effective on January 1, 1970 (P.L 91-190) that the natural resources of floodplains
                  and other natural systems were formally recognized and incorporated in the federal decision-making
                  process. By declaring environmental quality a national goal and establishing procedures for environ-
                  mental assessment of proposed federal projects and programs, NEPA provided a firm foundation
                  for consideration of the environmental values associated with floodplains. Protection of natural
                  floodplain resources was facilitated, in particular, through the evaluation of potential impacts of
                  development on natural resources, including natural floodplain resources and values, and the consider-
                  at.ion of alternative actions to floodplain use and development.


                  Executive Orders on Floodplains and Wetlands

                  The federal Executive Orders on Floodplain Management (E.O. 11988) and Wetlands Protection
                  (E.O. 11990) issued in 1977 further specified and emphasized natural floodplain resources. E.O.
                  11988, which applies to all proposed actions of all federal agencies, brought together concerns for
                  human health, safety, welfare, and property with concerns for restoring and preserving natural
                  floodplain resources. The 1986 Unified National Program noted that "... most of the Nation's
                  wetlands, coastal barrier islands, and marine sanctuaries are located within riverine and coastal
                  floodplains. Thus, the Floodplain Management Order is central to these other areas of environmental
                  values" (Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, 1966).

                  E.O. 11990, which established federal policy favoring the protection of wetlands and required the
                  evaluation of impacts of proposed actions on wetlands, applies to most federal actions affecting








             The Management Framework                                                                             7-27



             wetlands, including federal projects, federally funded activities, and other activities licensed or
             regulated by federal agencies. E.O. 11990, however, is not applicable to "permits, licenses, or
             allocations to private parties for activities involving wetlands on nonfederal property."


             A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management

             Natural and beneficial resources were mentioned several times in the 1976 edition of A Unified
             National Program for Flood Plain Management, and were explicitly addressed in the 1979 revisions
             to that document that were prepared in response to the 1977 floodplain management and wetlands
             protection executive orders. The 1979 version ofA Unified National Program for Floodplain Manage-
             ment described the natural resources provided by floodplains in three broad categories: 1) water
             resources (including natural flood storage and conveyance, water quality maintenance, and ground-
             water recharge); 2) living resources (habitat); and 3) cultural resources (including recreational,
             historic, cultural, archaeologic, education, aquaculture, agriculture, and forestry resources). The 1979
             report also described two basic strategies - preservation and restoration - for protection of natural
             resources, along with a variety of tools available for carrying out the preservation and restoration
             strategies. (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1979). Chapter 14 describes how these strategies and tools
             have been applied to protect and manage floodplain natural resources.


             Principles and Guidelines

             The "Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Und Resources
             for Implementation Studies," issued by the Water Resources Council in 1983, provided for considera-
             tion of floodplain natural resources in federal water resources planning. In accordance with these
             guidelines, the potential of the floodplain for providing natural and beneficial resources (including
             open space, recreation, wildlife, natural flood storage, and wetland resources) must be considered
             in the evaluation of alternative proposals for federal water resources projects.


             Water Quality/Pollution Control

             The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the Rural Clean Water Program,
             and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 authorized important programs that serve to protect natural
             floodplain resources, specifically water quality functions.

             0   Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (Clean Water Act). Principal federal responsi-
                 bility for water quality programs was assigned to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by
                 the "Clean Water Act" of 1972 (P.L. 92-500). Several programs authorized by this Act and its
                 amendments affect natural floodplain resources through establishment of water quality standards,
                 provision for water quality cc  'rtification, grants and loans for construction of waste treatment
                 facilities, nonpoint source pollution control, stormwater pollution control, development of a
                 National Estuary Program, and permits for dredge and fill activities.








                  7-28                                                  Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                      Section 208 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 authorized funding for development of state plans
                      to identify and control nonpoint sources of pollution, including erosion. The Water Quality Act
                      of 1987 (P.L 10-4) gave new emphasis to the nonpoint source program by authorizing implemen-
                      tation funds as well as additional planning funds. Section 319 of the Act established requirements
                      for states to prepare and submit to the EPA a nonpoint source assessment report and a nonpoint
                      source management program. Section 319 also authorized funding for implementation of these
                      nonpoint source management programs. Additional implementation funds were authorized by
                      Section 205 0)(5) and Section 201 (g)(1)(b) which allow states to use up to 20 percent of their
                      construction grant funds for implementing their approved nonpoint source management programs
                      (referred to as the Governor's 20 Percent Discretionary Fund) (Kay, 1990).

                      Section 405 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L 100-4) gave the EPA broad authorities to
                      regulate stormwater discharges. Over the next few years, major municipalities (with population
                      greater than 100,000) will be required to participate in an EPA permit program for stormwater
                      discharges similar to the current wastewater discharge permit program. After October 1, 1992,
                      the stormwater discharge program will be expanded to include industries and smaller communities.
                      These requirements represent a significant change in the Nation's approach to stormwater as the
                      water quality of stormwater discharge will be as important a consideration as its quantity
                      (Meagher, 1988; Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators,
                      1986).

                      Rural Clean Water Program. The Rural Clean Water Program, authorized by Section 35 of P.L
                      95-217 and administered by the Soil Conservation Service, provides for a program of protecting
                      water quality in rural floodplains through establishment of best management practices to control
                      nonpoint source pollution (Buie, 1979).

                      Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. As authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (P.L
                      93-253), the EPA may designate an aquifer as a principal water supply source and require review
                      of any project affecting the aquifer. Federal assistance to the project may be denied if the project
                      would result in contamination of the designated water source.


                  Watershed Management and Erosion Control

                  The Soil Conservation Service has been involved in watershed management and flood prevention since
                  it was established in 1935. Under the Small Watershed Program (the P.L 566 Program), more than
                  1,350 projects have been planned since the program was established in 1954. In addition to flood
                  prevention and watershed protection, purposes of the program include public recreation development
                  and fish and wildlife development. As part of its general responsibilities, the SCS regularly works
                  with local conservation districts to assist individual property owners, local municipalities, and others
                  in controlling erosion from'both rural and urban areas.

                  Under the Conservation Provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L 99-198), the SCS and local
                  conservation districts are responsible for developing management plans for highly erodible agricultural
                  land to ensure that erosion can be reduced to "tolerable" levels. This Act established the Conserva-
                  tion Reserve Program (CRP) through which farmers may receive payments to set aside highly erodible








              7he Management Framework                                                                                 7-29



              cropland for at least ten years. Also, the "Sodbuster" provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985
              directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture to withhold commodity crop subsidy payments to
              individuals who convert rangeland to cropland without adequate provision for erosion control.


              Coastal Management

              Coastal management legislation and programs have had an important impact on floodplains and the
              protection of floodplain natural resources.

              0   Coastal Zone Management Act. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (P.L. 92-
                  583) authorized federal grants to states for development and implementation of coastal manage-
                  ment programs for water and land resources in coastal zones. When the CZMA was amended
                  in 1980, goals for both flood loss reduction and protection of natural resources were incorporated
                  in the coastal management goals. States were required to provide for "the management of coastal
                  development to minimize the loss of life and property caused by improper development in flood-
                  prone, storm surge, geological hazard, and erosion-prone areas and in areas of subsidence and
                  saltwater intrusion, and by the destruction of natural protective features such as beaches, dunes,
                  wetlands and barrier islands." As part of the most recent reauthorization of the CZMZ in 1990,
                  the states were encouraged to provide for "the study and development, in any case which the
                  Secretary considers it to be appropriate, of plans for addressing the adverse effects upon the
                  coastal zone of land subsidence and of sea level rise..."


                  Also in 1990, a new section 309, Coastal Zone Enhancements Grants, of the CZMA was estab-
                  lished. The purpose of this section is to encourage the states to undertake improvements to their
                  existing coastal management programs to address one or more of eight identified objectives. One
                  of these objectives is "preventing or significantly reducing threats to life and destruction of
                  property by eliminating development and redevelopment in high-hazard areas, managing develop-
                  ment in other hazard areas, and anticipating and managing the effects of potential sea level rise
                  and Great Lakes level rise." The Enhancement Grants, which are 100% federally funded, are
                  supported by a percentage of the funds appropriated for support of the basic coastal management
                  program.

              ï¿½   Coastal Barrier Resources Act. Concerns over past and possible future damage costs, along with
                  environmental and public safety concerns and the realization that federal programs have histori-
                  cally encouraged and assisted development of barrier islands with resulting losses of natural,
                  cultural, recreational, and other resources, led to the enactment of the Coastal Barrier Resources
                  Act (P.L. 97-@48) in 1982. The law was designed to establish a system of largely undeveloped
                  coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts (totalling 656 miles of oceanfront shoreline
                  and encompassing 454,000 acres) and to restrict federally subsidized development of those barriers
                  (Platt, 1987b).

              ï¿½   NOAA, Coastal Hazards Program. In 1980, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
                  tion established a Coastal Hazards Program to provide further assistance to coastal states for
                  planning for and responding to coastal hazards, including hurricane, flooding, shoreline erosion,
                  and subsidence hazards.








                   7-30                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                   0   National Estuary Program. The National Estuary Program, authorized by Section 317 of the
                       Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4), provides a comprehensive planning and implementation
                       process for nationally significant estuaries. Program goals are the protection and improvement
                       of water quality and the enhancement of living resources. These goals are to be achieved through
                       collaborative efforts called Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs).


                   Wetland Protection


                   Wetland protection programs (both regulatory and nonregulatory) are often directly applicable to
                   floodplain management. Wetlands are typically the most hazardous areas of floodplains, - often
                   found within the one-year or two-year floodplain - and the natural functions of wetlands (including
                   flood storage, wave reduction, habitat and erosion control) are well-recognized. Federal responsibili-
                   ties for wetland protection and management include regulatory authority (primarily through the
                   Section 404 (of the Clean Water Act) Regulatory Program), inventories and technical assistance in
                   wetland evaluation, and funding of wetland acquisition (either directly by federal agencies or through
                   provision of funds for state and local acquisition). The principal federal agencies responsible for
                   wetland protection are the Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Soil Conservation
                   Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The following federal laws are of particular
                   significance with regard to wetland protection.

                   ï¿½   Water Bank Act of 1970. The Water Bank Act of 1970 (P.L 91-559) authorized the Water Bank
                       Program administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) of the
                       USDA.- Under this program, wetlands along waterfowl flyways are withheld from farm use under
                       10-year agreements, with landowners. Landowners receive annual payments to help preserve
                       wetlands that are important breeding and nesting areas for migratory waterfowl. While waterfowl
                       habitat protection is the primary objective, other program objectives include flood control, ground-
                       water recharge, and pollution and sediment control.

                   ï¿½   Clean Water Act, 1972. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended) supplemented
                       the Corps of Engineers' existing permitting program (authorized by Section 10 of the River and
                       Harbor Act of 1899) regarding activities in traditionally navigable waters. Section 404 requires
                       permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into all waters of the United States. Various
                       court decisions expanded the Corps'jurisdiction to cover all waters of the United States, including
                       adjacent wetlands. Through this expansion ofjurisdiction, the Corps' responsibilities in floodplain
                       management were strengthened. Section 404 also authorized the EPA to prohibit or restrict
                       discharges with unacceptable adverse impacts on fish, shellfish, wildlife, water supply or recreation.
                       The Section 404 Program also provides for the consideration of flood conveyance, flood storage
                       and flood damage potential in the evaluation of permit applications.

                   ï¿½   Food Security Act of 1985. The "Swampbuster" provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985
                       rescinded a policy established in the original Swamplands Act of 1849 (applying to Louisiana)
                       that had encouraged reclamation of wetlands. Under the Swampbuster provisions, federal
                       agricultural subsidies, farm storage facility loans, crop insurance, and agricultural disaster








               The Management Framework                                                                                      7-31



                   payments are not to be made to individuals who convert wetlands to commodity crops after 1985
                   (Platt, 1987b).

                   The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985 focuses
                   on the protection of highly erodible lands, but previously converted wetlands may Also qualify for
                   "set-aside" under the CRP. In addition, land may be enrolled in the CRP as a "filter strip" if
                   it is located adjacent and parallel to: a) a continually flowing stream, creek, or river; b) a seasonal
                   stream that flows only during a part of the year; or c) a lake or other permanent body of water,
                   including wetlands, with a surface area of at least five acres (Soil and Water Conservation Society,
                   undated).

                   Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986
                   (P.L 99-645) includes a variety of measures to promote wetland conservation and offset or
                   prevent wetland losses. Title II of this Act authorizes several sources of increased funding for
                   the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, including acquisition of migratory bird habitat and opera-
                   tion and maintenance of refuges. Title III amends the Land and Water Conservation Fund
                   (LWCF) to: 1) eliminate the restriction on acquiring migratory waterfowl areas; 2) require that
                   Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans specifically address wetlands as important
                   outdoor recreation resources; and 3) qualify wetlands as suitable replacement for LWCF lands
                   converted to other uses. Title IV directs the Secretary of Interior to continue the National
                   Wetlands Inventory and to update the Fish and Wildlife Service report on status and trends of
                   wetlands and deepwater habitat. Title IV also directs the Secretary of Interior to report to
                   Congress on the status, condition and trends of wetlands and the effects of federal programs on
                   wetlands in specified problem areas of the United States. (Pierce, 1988).


               Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers

               The designation of certain of the Nation's rivers as "wild and scenic" serves to protect floodplain
               natural resources.

               0   Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-542)
                   provided for the designation of "wild and scenic" rivers and the evaluation of federal projects
                   that would impact the values of those designated rivers. Section 5(d) of this Act requires all
                   federal agencies involved in "planning for the use and development of water and related land
                   resources" to give consideration to potential national wild, scenic and recreational river areas.
                   Section 7 of the Act prohibits the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from licensing the
                   construction of any dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse, transmission line, or other project
                   works on or directly affecting any component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
                   Further, no department or agency of the United States is to assist by loan, grant, license or other-
                   wise in the construction of any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect
                   on the "wild and scenic" values of designated rivers (National Park Service, 1989).

                   Under Section I I of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the National Par         k Service (NPS) established
                   a State and Local River Conservation Assistance Program. The NPS offers assistance to state








                  7-32                                                  Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                      and communities in protecting rivers and streams throughout the country (Chester River Associa-
                      tion, 1988).



                  Fish and Wildlife Protection


                  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers several programs to protect fish and wildlife (including
                  rare and endangered species) and their habitat. Other agencies are involved in fish and wildlife
                  protection through a variety of programs. Since the 1960s, protection efforts have been expanded
                  through both legislation and an international agreement.

                  ï¿½   Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-205) provides
                      for the protection and restoration of threatened and endangered species and their critical habitats.
                      Section 15(b) of the Act authorized the FWS to provide grants to states that have entered into
                      cooperative agreements with the FWS to assist in the development of programs for the conserva-
                      tion of endangered and threatened species. Funds may be used for land acquisition, research,
                      habitat surveys, planning, management, and public education. The FWS will normally provide
                      up to 75 percent of eligible project costs (Office of Management and Budget, 1988).

                  ï¿½   North American Waterfowl Management Plan. In 1986, United States and Canadian officials
                      signed the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. This 15-year plan provides" a frame-
                      work for international cooperation to protect waterfowl, habitat, restore declining waterfowl
                      populations, and enhance research and management. Its objective is to restore North American
                      waterfowl populations to levels prevalent in the 1970s. Among the measures called for by the
                      plan is the restoration of over rive million acres of wetlands in the United States and Canada
                      (Groman, 1986; Collins, 1988).


                  Historic and Cultural Resources Preservation and Restoration


                  Preservation of historic resources and establishment of national landmarks began in the United States
                  in the mid-1800S.5 It was not until the 1960s, however, that federal efforts, supported by state and
                  local preservation laws and activities, became integrated in a comprehensive, focused program. The
                  National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (P.L 89-665) gave the National Park Service
                  authority to designate privately owned cultural resources as "significant" and to provide grants for
                  their rehabilitation. The NHPA also created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. In
                  addition, the NHPA broadly defined the federal interest in historic resources to include resources
                  of state and local value, as well as nationally significant properties. As amended, the NHPA remains
                  the "key federal law designed to encourage identification and preservation of America's cultural
                  resources" (Duerkson, 1983). The NPS is the agency with principal federal responsibility for historic
                  and cultural resources.







                      See Duerkson, 1983, for discussion of the evolution of federal efforts for historic preservation.








               77te Management Framework                                                                              7-33




               STATE AND COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING
               FLOODPLAIN NATURAL RESOURCES

               At the state and local levels, numerous regulatory and nonregulatory programs have been developed
               that apply directly or indirectly to floodplains. These include wetland, coastal management, sand dune
               protection, and shoreline management programs. Many of these programs have paralleled federal
               efforts in resource management and environmental protection. In addition, many state and local
               governments have incorporated performance standards or guidelines for the protection of natural
               resources into zoning, subdivision, and other community regulations. The application of various
               techniques by state and local governments to protect and manage natural floodplain resources is
               described in Chapter 14.

               As with many federal programs, management of floodplain natural resources is generally not an
               explicit objective of state and local programs, but is often accomplished incidentally with multi-
               purpose programs or programs directed at specific resources.


               Environmental Policy

               Several states have adopted environmental policy acts that provide for consideration of the impacts
               of proposed state and local projects on natural resources, including natural floodplain resources and
               values. As of 1986, thirteen states had established environmental policy acts that ranged from simple
               statements regarding the control of air, water and land pollution to complex documents with
               requirements for environmental impact statements (Cowles, 1986).


               Wetland Protection

               All coastal states currently have wetland protection programs (these are either separate coastal
               wetland programs or programs that incorporate the regulatory provisions of coastal management or
               shoreland management programs) (Kusler, 1982). In addition, several states have wetland mapping
               programs and several states have explicit inland wetland protection programs requiring permits for
               activities in these areas. Some inland wetland protection programs are based on direct state
               permitting; others on local permitting subject to state oversight or standards. Local governments have
               also adopted wetland permitting programs (with regulations consistent with state standards) or
               combined wetland protection and floodplain management ordinances.
               A recent report prepared for the EPA notes that "today, many federal agencies, including the EPA,
               recognize that much of the progress being made in wetland protection is occurring within state and
               local programs" (Cowles, 1986). However, the same report discusses several inadequacies in the
               Nation's program for wetland protection. These inadequacies include the varying extent of regulatory
               jurisdiction, the different use of restrictions for different wetlands, variation in enforcement, voluntary
               participation in some types of programs, and state and federal laws that act to discourage wetland
               protection.








                  7-34                                                    Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  Coastal and Shoreline Management

                  All coastal and Great Lakes states with the exception of Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio,
                  and Texas have adopted federally approved coastal management programs, most prepared in response
                  to the federal CZMA. Georgia and Minnesota have coastal regulatory programs, but not federally
                  approved coastal management programs. Coastal management programs in California and Oregon
                  predate the federally supported effort.

                  Through their coastal management programs, the states have adopted a great variety of measures
                  that directly or indirectly address coastal floodplains and natural resources. Some have adopted
                  comprehensive legislation that includes various provisions for restoration and preservation of living
                  resources, natural areas, floodplains, and other resources. Other examples of measures include: beach
                  and sand dune protection plans, ordinances, and regulations; wetland mapping and regulatory
                  standards; use standards for critical areas; designation of areas for preservation/restoration; and site
                  plan reviews for development in coastal areas. At the local level, some communities have developed
                  coastal management programs consistent with a state-established management framework. Some
                  state programs provide for local application of state controls.

                  As of 1982, six states (Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin) had
                  enacted special legislation for protection and management of shoreline areas and had established
                  state standards for local regulation (Kusler, 1982). This kind of legislation generally establishes
                  multiple goals for shoreline areas, including goals for the protection of wildlife, protection of sensitive
                  shoreland areas (beaches, sand dunes), and erosion control.

                  At the local level, regulations (many of which include flood hazard provisions) have been adopted
                  by many communities. Many local zoning and subdivision regulations, for example, include provisions
                  related to protection of natural floodplain resources, such as shoreline setback provisions, density
                  limits in shoreland areas, and specification of uses compatible with natural resources protection.


                  Other Resource Protection Programs

                  A 1982 report prepared for the Water Resources Council (Kusler, 1982) included the following
                  descriptions of the extent to which state and local resource protection/management programs and
                  floodplain management and regulatory programs addressed floodplain natural resources.

                  ï¿½   FLOOD CONVEYANCE: "Protection of flood conveyance was a common objective of shoreland, wild
                      and scenic river, wetland regulatory, and floodplain management progra:ms in the 1970s. Many
                      of these programs were designed to protect the entire natural or 'no-rise' floodway."

                  ï¿½   FLOOD STORAGE: "Protection of flood storage was an objective of most inland and local wetland
                      programs and some shoreland zoning and wild and scenic river programs. Some localities also
                      adopted floodplain or stormwater management regulations to protect storage."

                  ï¿½   WILDLIFE HABrirAT: "Most state coastal and inland wetland regulation and acquisition programs
                      and the Federal 404 permit program are designed, in part, to protect duck nesting and fish
                      spawning grounds. However, state and federal floodplain management regulations rarely








              The Management Framework                                                                               7-35



                  emphasize wildlife protection as an objective, although they may incidentally achieve this result
                  by limiting alteration of habitat."

              ï¿½   POLLUTION CONTROL: "FederaL state, and local wetland, shoreland zoning, coastal zone manage-
                  ment, and wild and scenic river programs are designed, in part, to prevent pollution by providing
                  setbacks and maintaining vegetation ... Although pollution control is often a stated objective
                  of floodplain regulations, regulation of shoreland vegetation removal and control of subtle sources
                  of pollution is rare."

              ï¿½   NATURAL CROPS, AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY: "Some wetland and coastal zone management pro-
                  grams are designed in part to protect natural crops. Floodplain regulatory programs rarely
                  address this issue ... Measures to preserve prime agricultural lands and shape urban growth have
                  been taken in California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Oregon ... Some
                  wetland and forest protection programs regulate excessive cutting in forest areas."

              ï¿½   GROUND-WATER SUPPLY: "Some independent wetland and aquifer recharge protection regulations
                  have been adopted, particularly in Massachusetts and the West. However, floodplain regulations
                  rarely cover groundwater supply and recharge, although they may incidentally serve to protect
                  recharge by limiting impermeable surface."

              ï¿½   RECREATION, CULTURAL AND Hisrowc RESOURCES: "In many areas of the country, states and
                  localities have acquired floodplains to serve fishing, hunting, bird watching, picnicking, hiking,
                  jogging, swimming and boating areas ... Boston, Austin and Tulsa ... have focused their major
                  urban renewal and historical preservation and restoration projects on waterfront areas ...
                  Floodplain regulations protect recreation and cultural values by limiting development densities
                  and encouraging such private recreational uses as golf courses, picnic areas, and playing fields."

              States and communities have also adopted several other types of resource management programs
              that indirectly contribute to management of natural floodplain resources. For example, Wild and
              Scenic Rivers or River Corridor Programs have been adopted in several states, including California,
              Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Oregon. In addition, states have a variety of laws and
              regulations that limit the removal of trees along streams to protect esthetics, water temperature, and
              fish habitat. Thirty two states have established Streamside Management Area best management
              practices for timber harvest near streams (Essig, 1991).

              Stormwater management has traditionally been a local concern, with only limited state and federal
              government involvement. Stormwater management is now taking on more importance at the local
              level and receiving increased attention from state and federal governments. Many urban communities
              have begun to recognize that areas devoted to stormwater management represent a significant portion
              of their open space land and opportunities for urban recreation and wildlife protection. In addition,
              the cost to communities of damages caused by stormwater flooding and investment in costly channel-
              ization and other conduits can sometimes be reduced through different approaches to stormwater
              management. A nationwide survey of communities in 1983 showed that only 39% had stormwater
              regulations in effect (Burby, 1985).

              Counties, special districts, and conservation districts as previously described are also active in
              managing natural resources. Within the last few years, several stormwater management utilities have
              been organized as special districts.








                  7-36                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITIES FOR MANAGING FLOODPLAIN
                  NATURAL RESOURCES


                  The role of the private sector in protecting natural floodplain resources is similar to the private sector
                  role for flood loss reduction. Academic institutions, professional and nonprofit groups, and for-profit
                  organizations have all made important contributions to the preservation and restoration of floodplain
                  natural resources.

                  The role of national and local land trustsand similar organizations is particularly significant. Over
                  700 of these organizations exist throughout the Nation. Most are incorporated as nonprofit organiza-
                  tions so that they may receive donations, including donations of land, that provide tax benefits for
                  donors. Typically, land trusts are created to receive and manage land as open space or for historic
                  purposes. Many target particular types. of land for acquisition, frequently including wetlands,
                  floodplains, and unique habitat areas.

                  ne private sector, particularly academic institutions and corporate entities, has also contributed
                  importantly to wetland creation and restoration/enhancement efforts.


                  THE UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL DECADE FOR NATURAL
                  DISASTER REDUCTION


                  In 1987, the United Nations' General Assembly passed resolution No. 42-169 and declared 1990 to
                  2000 A.D. as the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR). The UN's goal
                  during the IDNDR is to take concerted action to reduce loss of life and property and to minimize
                  the social and economic disruption of natural disasters. The UN urged each member country to
                  develop a national program for the IDNDR.

                  In 1989, the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences of the President's Office of Science
                  and Technology Policy formally established the Interagency Subcommittee on Natural Disaster
                  Reduction. The Subcommittee's goal is to develop a comprehensive U.S. plan for reducing natural
                  disasters. It is anticipated that thisAssessment Report will provide useful input to the United States'
                  program for the IDNDR.



                                                 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


                  The extent and manner to which floodplain management is conducted at each level of government
                  is highly dependent on authorizing legislation and the agencies given responsibility for carrying out
                  legislative mandates. The management framework for flood loss reduction does not exist as a
                  separate, easily identifiable set of legislative and policy directives. In many cases flood loss reduction
                  initiatives are included within a larger program effort - within water resources management,
                  emergency management, environmental protection, and community development and redevelopment
                  programs, for example. Similarly, the management framework for protection of floodplain natural
                  resources can not be described as a separate, cohesive set of actions. Instead, efforts to protect








              Yhe Management Framework                                                                           7-37



              floodplain natural resources are part of broader resource protection programs that address, sometimes
              only incidentally, the natural resources associated with floodplains.

              Despite the difficulty of precisely describing the management framework for floodplain management,
              it is clear that this framework has changed and expanded significantly since the 1960s. Some of these
              chang6s - notably the National Flood Insurance Program - have been the direct result of initiatives
              to implement a recommendation of House Document 465 -A Unified National ProgramforManaging
              Flood Losses. Others, such as the Executive Order on floodplain management, and incorporation
              into the Unified National Program of goals to restore and preserve floodplain natural resources, have
              resulted from actions of the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. Still others,
              such as recent changes to the NFIP to provide for flood insurance payments to structures in imminent
              danger of collapse due to erosion and changes to disaster assistance legislation to provide funds for
              mitigation, have been strongly influenced by the efforts of state and local governments and by
              professional organizations. Many more changes have occurred as a result of other, less easily
              identifiable factors, such as grassroots support for environmental protection and pollution control
              programs.

              Whatever the mechanisms leading to change, a major strengthening of the framework for floodplain
              management has been accomplished at all levels of government. Reduction of flood losses is now
              less dependent on flood control works and federal actions. While the federal government has been
              and remains a strong force behind efforts to reduce flood losses and protect natural floodplain
              resources, a major shift has occurred toward an essential partnership among federal, state and local
              governments. A shift has also occurred toward a combined program of structural and nonstructural
              approaches to floodplain management. Full coordination of the many separate programs that now
              form the expanded framework for floodplain management has yet to be achieved, however, within
              and between the different levels of government that are involved.









              CHAPTER 8:


              REGULATORY AND DESIGN
              STANDARDS




                 A national standard is necessary, and the 100-year standard is reasonable and widely used. AM
                  states that have adopted a standard use the 100-year standard. About 17,000 communities in
                  the nation use the standard in their local floodplain management regulations.

                                                                         Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1983



              Standards provide a means for uniform application and review of design, construction and regulatory
              practices. By examining the degree to which standards have been adopted and complied with, a
              limited measure of the effectiveness of program implementation can be determined. Two types of
              standards are generally employed - prescriptive standards and performance standards - and both
              are utilized for floodplain management purposes. A prescriptive standard sets some clearly identified
              limits, such as the minimum height a building must be elevated above flood waters. A performance
              standard generally requires that some goal be achieved, but allows for flexibility in how that goal may
              be attained. A requirement that buildings be designed and constructed so as to withstand the forces
              exerted by floodwater is an example of a performance standard.

              When a Unified National Program for Floodplain Management was first proposed in 1968, few
              nationwide standards for floodplain management existed. During the past 20 years, some of the
              standards that were in use in the mid-1960s have changed and additional standards have emerged.
              Several nationwide standards are now in place that apply directly to floodplain management for loss
              reduction or the protection of natural resources. Many other standards indirectly influence floodplain
              management, particularly standards pertaining to natural resources protection.

              Nationwide standards are typically established by federal agencies as part of program regulations,
              or sometimes directly by Congress. These standards may be mandatory or required only if there is
              participation in a voluntary federal program. Federal agencies commonly establish some minimum
              standard with which state or local governments must comply. Generally, the state and local govern-
              ments are then free to impose a more stringent standard within their jurisdictions. They may not,
              however, adopt a standard that is less restrictive than the federally established minimum standard.








                     8-2                                                          Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                                                FLOOD LOSS REDUCTION STANDARDS


                     Most floodplain management standards aimed at reducing flood losses relate in some manner to the
                     frequency, depth or extent of flooding that can be predicted at a particular location, or to the
                     placement of structures or other obstructions within a regulated floodplain. Most of the nationwide
                     standards for flood loss reduction are derived from the minimum floodplain management criteria of
                     the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).


                     ONE PERCENT ANNUAL CHANCE (11100-YEAR11) FLOOD AND FLOODPLAIN

                     The one percent annual chance flood' and floodplain have been widely adopted as a common design
                     and regulatory standard in the United States. Prior to recognition of the one percent annual chance
                     standard, several other standards existed. Early standards for the design of engineering works to
                     reduce flood losses included the "maximum probable flood" adopted by the Tennessee Valley
                     Authority (TVA) and the "standard project flood" adopted by the Corps of Engineers (Corps). In
                     addition, shortly after the TVA initiated its floodplain management assistance program in 1953, it
                     began promoting the use of a "regional flood" standard (based on a flood comparable in magnitude
                     to the largest known floods on similar streams within approximately 60 to 100 miles) for local flood
                     damage prevention planning. In the 1960s, the Corps adopted an "Intermediate Regional Flood"
                     (one percent frequency) flood level as its nonstructural standard. In the 1950s, the Soil Conservation
                     Service (SCS) adopted a "25-year" (four percent annual chance) flood level as its standard for use
                     in agricultural flood hazard areas and a one percent flood level for urbanized areas. Several states
                     also enacted floodplain encroachment laws incorporating different standards, including the one
                     percent annual chance flood (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1983).

                     The move toward a national program of flood insurance in the mid-1960s provided the major impetus
                     for developing a uniform national standard. In order to provide an effective flood insurance program,
                     an accurate assessment of risk based on a reasonable standard was essential. As part of its process
                     of developing regulations for the NFIP, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
                     convened a group of experts to provide advice on a regulatory standard. This group recommended
                     adoption of the one percent flood for determining acceptable risk, and that standard was incorporated
                     into the NFIP regulations and subsequently specified by Congress in the 1974 amendments to the
                     NFIP2  . As thousands of communities began to participate in the NFIP, the one percent annual
                     chance flood standard came into common use.



                         The one percent annual chance flood is also known as the "100-year" flood and the base flood. Since the
                         "100-year" flood is a statistical probability, flood levels of this magnitude may occur with a greater or lesser
                         frequency than once every 100 years, and may occur even in successive years. There is a 26 percent chance
                         of a "100-year" flood occurring at some point during the life of a 30-year mortgage. Chapter 9 describes
                         some of the confusion generated by "one percent annual chance flood            ... .. 100-year flood," and other
                         terminology used to express the same concept.

                     2   The "100-year" floodplain is designated as Special Flood Hazard Areas on maps prepared by the Federal
                         Insurance Administration (e.g., all A and V zones on Flood Insurance Rate Maps). Further discussion is
                         provided in chapters 11 and 13.








              Regulatory and Design Standards                                                                     8-3



              Most states have now enacted state legislation specifying the one percent flood as a standard. Those
              states without specific legislation support the use of a one percent standard on a community-by-
              community basis (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1983).

              The one percent annual chance flood was formally established as a standard for use by federal
              agencies with the issuance of Executive Order 11988 (the Floodplain Management Executive Order)
              in 1977. At the request of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Federal Emergency
              Management Agency (FEMA) reviewed the appropriateness of the one percent annual chance flood
              standard in 1982 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1983). FEMA concluded that:

              1) The one percent   flood standard is strongly supported and being applied successfully by all levels
                 of government.

              2) No alternatives have been identified that are -superior to the one percent flood standard, and
                 there is no evidence to justify the expenditure of funds that would be necessary to convert to
                 another standard.

              3) The review revealed areas in which improvements or refinements in application of the one
                 percent flood standard to unique flooding situations could further affect flood loss reduction.

              FEMA then made the following recommendations:

              1) The one percent flood standard should be retained.

              2) The federal agencies should be advised that the one percent flood standard is appropriate and
                 should continue to be utilized as the minimum standard in flood hazard reduction actions.

              3) FEMA should take the lead in evaluating mitigating measures that can be applied to reduce flood
                 losses in unique situations such as alluvial fans and headwater flooding, and to develop the
                 technical methods of applying the one percent flood standard to these problem areas.


              OTHER FLOOD FREQUENCY STANDARDS

              Although the one percent annual chance flood has been adopted as the primary standard for
              floodplain management, other standards, including those established by the "Economic and Environ-
              mental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources for Implementation
              Studies," may apply in certain situations. In the interest of safety, some agencies have adopted more
              stringent standards, several of which are described here.


              "Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines"

              In March 1983, the Water Resources Council (V-IRC) issued the "Economic and Environmental
              Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources for Implementation Studies."
              These Principles and Guidelines provide guidance to federal water resource agencies for maximizing
              net returns when formulating project proposals. In accordance with the Principles and Guidelines,
              maximum net returns using the "National Economic Development" (NED) account should be evaluat-








                  8-4                                                  Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  ed to optimize and proportion proposed water and related land resources projects. With regard to
                  flood prevention projects, this may mean designing a level of protection based on a standard different
                  than the one percent annual chance flood used in the NFIP. If a level of protection other than the
                  optimum established by the NED account is to be provided, the federal agency should justify the
                  selected level of protection with respect to social impacts, environmental improvements, or regional
                  development considerations. Since 1983, projects have been formulated to reflect various levels of
                  protection depending on flood damage, economic conditions, and physical settings.

                  Individual measures are designed to meet the agencies' engineering and other safety criteria. Where
                  a system of measures is needed to provide for an overall flood control program, however, the total
                  system should be optimized in accordance with the Principles and Guidelines to maximize net returns.


                  Two-tenths Percent Annual Chance C1500-Year") Flood and Floodplain

                  TheWRC's Floodplain Management Guidelines (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978) for implement-
                  ing Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) call for federal agencies to apply a "500-year"
                  flood3 (0.2 percent flood) standard to the location of "critical activities." Critical activities may
                  include health care facilities such as hospitals and nursing homes, emergency service facilities, and
                  areas for the storage of hazardous materials.


                  Standard Project Flood and Probable Maximum Flood

                  It may be appropriate to apply a very large (low frequency) design flood standard to the design of
                  major flood control structures, especially if the failure of those structures could result in massive
                  damage or great loss of life. These large design floods are usually referred to as a Standard Project
                  Flood (SPF) or a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). Neither the SPF nor the PMF are equivalent
                  to a specific return flood frequency. The SPF represents the most severe combination of meteorologi-
                  cal and hydrological conditions considered "reasonably characteristic" of a particular region (U.S.
                  Army Corps of Engineers, 1982), while the PMF is "The flood magnitude that may be expected from
                  the most severe combination of critical meteorologic and hydrologic conditions that are reasonably
                  possible..." in a region (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1979).


                  Least-Cost Design Flood

                  The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and many states use a least-cost analysis for the design
                  of many roads and bridges. A least-cost analysis takes into account the total costs, including flood
                  damage costs, over the projected life of the structure. A final design may withstand a flood event
                  greater or less than a one percent annual chance flood depending on the conditions at a particular
                  site (Federal Highway Administration, 1980).




                  3  The area affected by a "500-year" flood is shown on FIA flood hazard maps as Zone B or, on more recent
                      maps, as Zone X.








              Regulatory and Design Standards                                                                      8-5




              REGUIATORY FLOODWAY

              The "regulatory floodway" concept evolved from work of the Corps of Engineers and the TVA to
              address the needs of floodprone communities and guide development in growing communities with
              undeveloped floodplains. The concept was later incorporated into the NFIP. In areas where
              sufficient data have been developed, communities participating in the NFIP are now required to adopt
              a regulatory floodway within the designated one percent floodplain.

              The area delineated as the regulatory floodway is the area that will carry the waters of a particular
              magnitude flood without increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated level. Areas
              outside the regulatory floodway but still within the designated one percent floodplain are referred
              to as the "flood fringe." In delineating a floodway, it is assumed that the flood fringe areas will be
              fully developed and completely obstruct floodwater. The regulatory floodway will then serve to convey
              the floodwater.

              Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) minimum regulations require that the regulatory floodway
              be delineated so that it can pass the one percent annual chance flood without increasing the water
              surface elevation within the regulatory floodway by more than one foot at any point. Several states
              and communities have adopted more stringent requirements for the regulatory floodway by limiting
              the increase in water surface elevation to less than one foot, generally resulting in a wider floodway.
              For example, Minnesota and Montana limit the rise to .5 foot, New Jersey to .2 foot, Illinois and
              Indiana to. 1 foot, Wisconsin to .01 foot, and Massachusetts permits no increase in water levels within
              the floodway. Several states permit a variable rise (up to 1 foot) depending on the potential impact
              to existing development (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988).

              Floodway boundaries are determined by application of hydraulic modelling techniques. A hydraulic
              model is developed to reflect existing conditions, and the model is manipulated to reduce the area
              in the flood fringe until the water surface within the floodway rises a foot or less. In general, the
              modeled flood conveyance is removed equally from both edges of the floodplain, but exceptions to
              this practice are permitted.


              Encroachments Within the Regulatory Floodway

              FIA minimum regulations also prohibit encroachments' within the adopted regulatory floodway that
              would result in any increase in flood levels (above the one-foot rise already allowed) during a one
              percent annual chance flood. Some states have adopted more stringent standards through absolute
              prohibition of certain structures in the floodway. For example, Montana and Wisconsin do not allow
              any new buildings in the floodway, and Indiana, Michigan and Washington do not allow new
              residential buildings in the floodway (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988).






              4  Encroachments include fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development.








                  8-6                                                  Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  REGULATING AN ALLOWABLE RISE IN FLOOD LEVELS

                  In floodplains where a regulatory floodway has not been designated, FIA minimum regulations require
                  that no development be permitted within the one percent annual chance floodplain that would -
                  individually or cumulatively with other anticipated development - increase the water surface
                  elevation of the base flood by more than one foot.


                  COASTAL FLOOD STANDARDS

                  Important standards in coastal flood hazard areas pertain to designation of velocity zones and
                  determination of the one percent annual chance flood elevation.


                  Coastal Velocity Zone

                  In coastal areas, NFIP regulations establish a V-zone (Velocity zone) to indicate areas subject to the
                  effects of high velocity waters and damaging wave action during a one percent annual chance flood.
                  The extent of the V-zone is based on calcul  'ations of how far inland the storm surge can support a
                  three-foot wave. Where wave height decreases below three feet, the V-zone terminates. The three-
                  foot wave height standard was adopted based on research conducted by the Galveston District of
                  the Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975) that determined a wave height of three
                  feet or greater was likely to cause structural damage to buildings, and that waves of lesser height
                  generally did not cause structural damage.


                  One Percent Annual Chance Flood Elevation in Coastal Areas

                  Initial NFIP flood hazard maps of coastal areas showed one percent annual chance flood elevations
                  based on "still-watee' elevations. (The still-water elevation is calculated based on the effects of
                  astronomical tides and storm surge conditions, but does not include the added effects of waves on
                  top of the still-water elevation.) In 1977, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded a
                  review of the feasibility and methods for calculating wave action associated with storm surges
                  (National Academy of Sciences, 1977). Following the recommendations of the NAS report, the FIA
                  began to incorporate wave heights into Flood Insurance Studies (FISs), and began to define the one
                  percent annual chance flood elevation in coastal areas as synonymous with the estimated wave crest
                  elevation.



                  STANDARDS FOR THE ELEVATION OF STRUCTURES

                  Minimum NFIP criteria for the elevation of structures distinguish between residential and non-
                  residential structures. For residential structures, new construction and substantial improvements
                  within the one percent annual chance floodplain must have the lowest floor - including any








               Regulatory and Design Standards                                                                             8-7



               basement - elevated to or above the one percent annual chance flood level5. For nonresidential
               structures, the option of elevating the lowest floor - including basement - to or above the one
               percent annual chance flood level is provided. Also, nonresidential structures "together with attendant
               utility and sanitary facilities, [may] be designed so that below the base flood level the structure is
               watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water, and with structural compo-
               nents having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy"
               (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986).

               Eighteen states and hundreds of communities have established more stringent standards than imposed
               by the NFIP. Many jurisdictions, for example, require some or all structures to have the lowest floor
               (including the basement) elevated at least one foot above the one percent annual chance flood level.
               Other jurisdictions require even greater elevation above the one percent annual chance flood level.
               These more stringent standards may apply to all buildings in the floodplain or to only certain types
               of buildings. For example, Pennsylvania state law requires newjails, hospitals, nursing homes, mobile
               home parks, and hazardous materials facilities to be 1.5 feet higher than the base flood elevation.
               Some coastal communities in Florida require freeboards of four, six, and even eight feet. Arizona
               requires all new and replacement mobile homes to have the lowest structural member elevated one
               foot above the one percent a ninual chance flood elevation (Association of State Floodplain Managers,
               1988).


               DEFINING "SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE" AND "SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENr,

               Substantial damage to a structure and substantial improvement of a structure relate to the amount
               of damage that may be sustained or to improvements that may be made before certain regulatory
               and flood insurance requirements are triggered. NFIP regulations. (44 FR, ï¿½ 59.1) define substantial
               improvement as:

                   any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which
                   equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the 'start of construction'
                   of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred 'substantial damage'.
                   regardless of the value of or actual cost of repair work perfor med. The term does not, however,
                   include either (1) any project for improvement of structure to correct existing violations of state
                   or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code
                   enforcement of
                                   ficial and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions or (2)
                   any alteration of a 'historic structure, provided that the alteration will notpreclude the structure's
                   continueddesignation as a 'historic structure'(Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1989a).








               5   Communities may request an exception to allow dry floodproofed basements below the "100-year" base flood
                   level. See Chapter 13 for additional information.








                  8-8                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  As defined in ï¿½ 59.1 of the NFIP regulations, a building is considered to be substantially damaged
                  when:


                      damage of any origin is sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its
                      before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure
                      before the damage occurred.

                  Any work performed on structures determined to be substantially damaged is automatically considered
                  to be a substantial improvement, regardless of the actual repair work performed.

                  The Federal Emergency Management Agency notes that the market value threshold of 50% was
                  chosen as a compromise between the extremes of. 1) prohibiting all investment in structures that do
                  not meet minimum NFIP floodplain management requirements in flood hazard areas; and 2) allowing
                  structures to be improved in any fashion without regard to the hazard present. The 50% threshold
                  conforms with similar thresholds included in building codes and zoning regulations (Federal Emergen-
                  cy Management Agency, 1989b).

                  A few states and some communities have substantial improvement regulations that differ from the
                  50% standard established by the NFIP. For example, Indiana uses 40% (Association of State
                  Floodplain Managers, 1988), and some communities have reportedly adopted standards with an even
                  lower percentage threshold (Riebau, 1988).


                  PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR ACTWITIES IN FLOOD HAZARD AREAS

                  Performance standards for floodplain management are in widespread use and are included in land
                  use regulations required by the NFIP and elsewhere. Performance standards may be applied alone
                  or in combination with a prescriptive standard. Perhaps the most widely Applicable performance
                  standards relate to floodproofing of structures.


                  Floodprooring In Riverine Areas

                  As described previously (see the previous section on Standards for the Elevation of Structures),
                  existing NFIP requirements for construction of nonresidential structures require that a structure be
                  elevated to or above the one percent annual chance flood level or be designed to resist flood
                  damages. 'nis requirement provides the developer with an option of meeting a specific prescriptive
                  standard (elevation) or performance standard (resistance to effects of flooding). Rather than
                  specifying particular designs and materials, the regulations allow the designer flexibility in selecting
                  ways to resist the effects of flooding.








             Regulatory and Design Standards                                                                        8-9



             Floodproofing In Coastal Zones

             Similarly, NFIP criteria (44 FR, ï¿½ 60.3(e)(4)) require that structures located in V-zones be:

                 ... elevated on pilings and columns so that (i) the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural
                 member of the lowest floor ... is elevated to or above the base flood level; and (d) the pile or
                 column foundation and structure attached thereto is anchored to resist flotation, collapse and
                 lateral movement due to the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building
                 components- Water loading values used shall be those associated with the base flood. Wind
                 loading values used shall be those required by applicable State or local building standards
                 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1989a).

             NFIP regulations prohibit the use of fill for structural support of buildings within V-zones. Also, a
             combination of specific standards and performance standards apply to the construction of breakaway
             walls in V-zones. Current NFIP regulations permit the space below an elevated structure to be
             constructed with nonsupporting breakaway walls or other enclosures "intended to collapse under wind
             and water loads without causing collapse, displacement, or other structural damage to the elevated
             portion of the building or supporting foundation system." Safe design loading resistance is specified
             to be "not less than 10 and no more than 20 pounds per square foot" (Federal Emergency Manage-
             ment Agency, 1987).


             Floodprooring For Utilities

             Additional NFIP minimum criteria require that public utilities and facilities, including sewer, gas,
             electrical, and water systems, be located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage.
             The NFIP performance standards for floodproofing structures have been incorporated (often with
             variations) into many local and state building codes and into the principal regional building codes.

             Many technical reference documents have been prepared to assist builders and regulators in meeting
             performance standards for residential and nonresidential construction in flood hazard areas.
             Prominent examples of these reference documents include Flood-Proofing Regulations (Office of the
             Chief of Engineers, 1972), Coastal Construction Manual (Federal Emergency Management Agency,
             1986), and the Design Manual for Retro
                                                     fitting Flood-Prone Residential Structures (Federal Emergency
             Management Agency, 1986a). States have produced similar reference documents that provide
             guidance specific to local conditions and regulations/standards. These state-prepared documents are
             often based on the documents prepared by federal agencies.


             SHORELINE SETBACK STANDARDS

             NFIP criteria impose no minimum distances that structures must be set back from river channels,
             and no other national standards for stream setbacks exist. Some states and communities, however,
             have developed setback standards that may apply to designated streams, lakes and other water bodies.








                     8-10                                                         Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                                         Lincoln Township, Michigan, located on Lake Michigan, established setbacks of 110 feet
                                         from dune and bluff areas (Kusler, 1982).



                                         The State of Wisconsin - through its shoreland management program - requires a mini-
                                         mum building setback of 75 feet from the ordinary high-water mark6 (Wisconsin Depart-
                                         ment of Natural Resources, 1982).



                     In coastal areas, NFIP criteria require that all structures be "located landward of the reach of mean
                     high tide." Several coastal states have established setback standards significantly more stringent than
                     the NFIP requirements. Coastal setback standards are typically based on estimated erosion rates,
                     or goals for the protection of sand dunes and other natural features.


                                              North Carolina established setback requirements with four "tiers." First, no develop-
                                              ment may be permitted seaward of the vegetation line; second, from the vegetation
                                              line landward to a distance of 30 times the annual erosion rate (60-foot minimum),
                                              no permanent substantial structures are allowed; third, small structures (less than four
                                              units and/or less than 5,000 square feet of floor area) can be located between 30 times
                                              and 60 times the annual erosion rate landward of the vegetation; and fourth, larger
                                              structures must be set back at least 60 times the annual erosion rate behind the
                                              vegetation line (Owens, 1984).


                     Additional setback standards that apply within "zones of imminent collapse" were established as part
                     of the NFIP in December 1987 with passage of Section 544 of the Housing and Community Develop-
                     ment Act of 1987. nis Act provides for insurance payments for shorefront structures (i.e., located
                     on tidal, lacustrine or riverine shorelines) in imminent danger of collapse due to erosion. Insurance
                     payments may be authorized to either relocate the structure or to reimburse the owner for the value
                     of the structure and its demolition. Any reconstructed or relocated buildings must be set back from
                     the shoreline. To be eligible for flood insurance, residential structures containing one to four dwelling
                     units must be set back beyond the 30-year erosion line, and other structures must be set back beyond
                     the 60-year erosion line.'









                     6   This provision is part of shoreland zoning regulations that are required for all unincorporated areas of each
                         county, but are optional for incorporated areas. The purpose is to protect the quality of the shore and is
                         not directly related to reducing flood damages (Riebau, 1988).

                     7   These setback requirements were based on the North Carolina regulations described previously.








              Regulatory and Design Standards                                                                        8-11




              PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES

              The only nationwide standard protecting floodplain natural resources and specifically relating to flood
              loss reduction has been established as a minimum requirement of the NFIP. This requirement
              prohibits "man-made alteration of sand dunes and mangrove stands within... [V-zones] ... whichwould
              increase potential flood damage" (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987).


              STANDARDS FOR FLOOD PROTECTION STRUCTURES

              Important standards for flood protection structures address the design, construction and operation
              of dams, reservoirs and levees.



              Dam and Reservoir Standards


              There are no nationwide standards applicable to all dam and reservoir construction. Each federal
              agency with responsibilities for construction, maintenance, and inspection of dams has developed its
              own set of criteria, generally addressing both flood and earthquake design criteria. The Corps of
              Engineers, as part of its National Dam Inspection Program, developed classifications for size and
              hazard potential that could be applied to nonfederal dams, and also developed a set of "Recom-
              mended Guidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams." The Interagency Committee on Dam Safety
              (ICODS) has developed guidelines for dam safety that are being adopted by federal agencies
              responsible for dam safety. Additionally, these and other guidelines are used by many states to
              establish their own dam safety standards (National Research Council, 1985). Chapter 12 provides
              additional information about dam safety and the criteria for classifying dams and reservoirs.


              Levee Standards


              The three agencies that construct most federally funded levees are the Corps of Engineers, the Soil
              Conservation Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). Each of these agencies have developed
              policies for levee construction and maintenance. Although these policies differ somewhat, they
              basically conform with standards adopted by the Corps, including the requirement that design height
              be equal to a specified design flood level with freeboard provided for additional safety. The required
              minimum freeboard is generally three feet, with added height required in areas of constricted flow
              and where structures are located near the levee. Emergency levees and many small agricultural levees
              intended to provide protection from an immediate flood or from smaller floods (e.g., five to 25-year
              flood frequencies) may be excepted from these design requirements.

              For nonfederally funded levees, there is no direct federal control over construction and maintenance
              standards, and levees have been constructed to provide different levels of flood protection. As a
              result, some debate has occurred for several years among federal and state offices as to how these
              levees and the protection they provide should be treated for flood insurance purposes. In response,
              FEMA developed a temporary policy for mapping the areas behind levees. In accordance with this
              policy, areas behind levees were considered as protected from the one percent annual chance flood








                   8-12                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                   only if the levee could be certified as designed and constructed to the one percent annual chance
                   flood level with a minimum of three feet of freeboard (Federal Insurance Administration, 1981).
                   This temporary policy was subsequently modified and in 1986 new standards were promulgated as
                   regulations. The regulations now provide for mapping areas behind levees as protected from the
                   one percent annual chance flood only if the levee system provides protection from that flood, as
                   determined through application of FEMA-established design criteria for freeboard, closures,
                   embankment protection, embankment and foundation stability, settlement, and interior drainage.

                   The design criteria for freeboard apply to both riverine and coastal levees. Riverine levees must
                   provide a minimum freeboard of three feet above the water surface level of the one percent annual
                   chance flood. An additional one foot above the minimum is required within 100 feet of either side
                   of structures located on the stream side of the levee or wherever the flow is constricted. An addi-
                   tional one-half foot above the minimum is also required at the upstream end of the levee, tapering
                   to not less than the minimum freeboard at the downstream end. For coastal levees, the freeboard
                   must be one foot above the height of the one percent annual chance wave or the maximum wave
                   run-up (whichever is greater) associated with the "100-year" stillwater surge elevation at the site.
                   An exception to this standard is allowed if the levee is designed by a federal agency with responsibility
                   for levee design (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987).

                   These FEMA regulations provide significant incentive for states and communities to approve only
                   those levees that meet established criteria.




                                    NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION STANDARDS


                   Prescriptive standards and performance standards are applied to protect natural resources as well
                   as to reduce flood losses. Few, if any, of the standards for natural resources protection are applied
                   specifically to floodplains. Instead, they typically apply to the particular resource of concern, wherever
                   that resource may be found - either in or out of a floodplain.


                   WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

                   The Clean Water Act, originally passed in 1972 (P.L 92-500) and subsequently amended several
                   times, required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish several types of water
                   quality criteria and to adopt, or delegate to qualifying states the authority to adopt, water quality
                   standards to protect designated water uses. Water quality standards are applied to achieve the Act's
                   interim goals of having all surface waters "fishable and swimmable wherever attainable."

                   The EPA publishes information on the impactof surface water pollutants on aquatic life and human
                   health. The Agency is also developing criteria pertaining to sediment pollution. This scientific
                   information is used by the EPA and the states in adopting water quality standards enforceable through
                   National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. 'Best management practices
                   (BMPs) have also been identified to limit the type and amount of pollutants generated from nonpoint
                   sources.








             Regulatory and Design Standards                                                                      8-13



             The EPA has established standards for potable water and, more recently, has been responsible for
             establishing acceptable levels of toxic and hazardous substances in drinking water.



             WETLAND CLASSIFICATION AND DELINEATION


             As described in Chapter 2, several definitions of wetlands have been used by different federal agencies
             to meet their own program needs. In January 1989, the Corps of Engineers, the EPA, the U.S. Fish
             and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the SCS signed an interagency agreement to adopt a single consistent
             approach for determining wetland areas under the jurisdiction of federal programs (Cohen, 1989).
             Under this agreement, wetlands are determined to possess three essential characteristics: 1)
             hydrophytic vegetation; 2) hydric soils; and 3) wetland hydrology. A new manual entitled "Federal
             Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" was developed and distributed during
             the Spring of 1989 for use by field personnel in delineating wetlands according to the newly adopted
             approach. The manual describes technical criteria for each of the characteristics that must be present
             for an area to be considered a wetland under federal jurisdiction. (Federal Interagency Committee
             for Wetland Delineation, 1989).

             As part of the National Wetlands Inventory, the FWS has categorized wetlands and deepwater
             habitats according to five ecological systems: marine, riverine, lacustrine, estuarine and palustrine
             (see Chapter 2). This standard categorization makes it possible to delineate the different classes of
             wetlands using aerial photography, supplemented by field check@, throughout the Nation.

             Many states have their own procedures for identifying and delineating wetlands, usually based on state
             legislation. Typically, state procedures rely on a combination of vegetation and soil characteristics
             to identify wetlands, but procedures using only soils criteria (Connecticut) and only vegetation (New
             York) are also in use.


             HABITAT EVALUATION METHODS


             Several types of habitat evaluation procedures are in use but no s   ingle procedure has achieved the
             status of a national standard. Four procedures used at the national level are those developed by the
             Corps of Engineers, the FWS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the EPA.


             Wetland Evaluation Technique

             The Corps and the FHWA have combined efforts to produce the Wetland Evaluation Technique
             (WET) that is now being used by the Corps, the FHWA, and the EPA to rapidly assess the functional
             values of wetlands. The WET is a tool for conducting an initial, rapid assessment of wetland functions
             and values. Considered a "broad brush" approach, it is normally used to assess existing conditions
             and is designed for use in the 48 contiguous states (it is not for use in Hawaii, Alaska or the
             territories). The WET assesses 11 wetland functions and values in terms of social significance,
             effectiveness and opportunity, and assesses the suitability of wetland habitat for species and species
             groups.








                  8-14                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  The Corps of Engineers became involved in the development of methodologies for wetland evaluation
                  in the 1970s in response to its regulatory authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
                  Wetland functions and values were first addressed in Corps permit regulations in 1973. Development
                  of a wetlands evaluation manual was initiated in 1976 and the manual was published in 1979. Entitled
                  Wetland Values: Concepts and Methods for Wetlands Evaluation and developed by the U.S. Army
                  Engineer Institute for Water Resources, the manual contained a nonmonetary evaluation method
                  (in part because the Corps' regulatory program did not require economic valuation of wetlands), and
                  expressed wetland value in terms of relative efficiency in the performance of recognized functional
                  characteristics (Reppert, 1981).

                  Following development of this methodology, the Corps of Engineers continued to research wetland
                  evaluation techniques. Forty techniques published prior to 1981 were reviewed and no single
                  technique was found to provide an adequate framework for developing a method responsive to the
                  Corps' needs. The Corps also surveyed 37 district offices to determine assessment techniques in use
                  and found that these different Corps districts did not use formal wetland assessment methods but
                  relied primarily on professional judgment.

                  The Corps concluded that although no single assessment procedure afforded the capability for
                  accurately quantifying all wetland functions, a procedure developed for the FHWA provided an
                  excellent framework for assessment. As a result, the FHWA technique (also known as the Adamus
                  method and entitled "Method for Wetland Functional Assessment, Volume 11") was tentatively
                  adopted by the Corps as the basis for a wetland functions and values assessment procedure (Clairain,
                  1985).

                  A revised methodology - the Wetland Evaluation Technique - was jointly released by the Corps
                  and the FHWA in 1987. The WET methodology involved several changes from the previous FHWA
                  version and included development of a computer program for data analysis on microcomputers. The
                  WET methodology was released as an operational draft, and further modification is expected
                  (Adamus, 1987).

                  Several states have developed their own wetland evaluation procedures.


                  Wetland Evaluation Technique for Bottomiand Hardwood Functions

                  In 1987, the EPA released a technique "intended for use in identifying the level of functioning of a
                  specific bottomland hardwood (BLH) tract, in comparison to the entire set of all BLH tracts..." The
                  procedure, referred to as WET-BLH, is a streamlined version of the WET methodology adapted
                  specifically for the bottomland hardwood region of the southeastern United States (Adamus, 1987).


                  Habitat Evaluation Procedures


                  In 1980, the Fish and Wildlife Service developed a methodology for quantitative evaluation of the
                  suitability of wetlands and other habitat types for fish and wildlife species. This method, called the
                  Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP), combines habitat "... quality and quantity in a single index








            Regulatory and Design Standards                                                                       8-15



            value that can be used to rank present wetland values and compare baseline conditions with land
            use changes for selected target years" (Schamberger, 1979).

            An earlier version of the system was published as the "Ecological Planning and Evaluation Proce-
            dures" in 1974. The current HEP can be used to inventory baseline wetland conditions, formulate
            alternative land-use plans, evaluate alternate sites, and determine compensation requirements.


            ACCEPTABLE RATES OF SOIL EROSION

            The Soil Conservation Service has developed criteria to determine "acceptable" or "tolerable" levels
            of annual soil erosion for each soil type found throughout the country. These levels of erosion are
            measured in terms of tons of soil lost per acre. The acceptable level of erosion is based on the
            concept of maintaining long-term productivity of the soil for agricultural purposes, and takes into
            account the estimated rate at which new soil is created. The tolerable rate of erosion is commonly
            referred to as a "T"' value, and soil erosion from a particular field at a rate twice the tolerable level
            is referred to as a "2T' (Schertz, 1983; Johnson, 1987).

            The concept of tolerable soil loss erosion is used by the SCS and local conservation districts in
            developing management plans for agricultural practices. Under provisions of the Food Security Act
            of 1985 (P.L. 99-198), farming operations receiving commodity assistance payments from the
            Department of Agriculture must reduce erosion to specified "T"' levels by the early 1990s.



                                          SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

            Floodplain regulatory and design standards - including prescriptive and performance standards -
            provide a means for uniform application of floodplain management practices, and for the review and
            evaluation of flood loss reduction and natural resources protection projects. Nationwide standards
            are typically established by federal agencies as part of program regulations or sometimes directly by
            Congress. States and communities frequently adopt more stringent standards than apply nationally.

            Many of the nationwide standards for flood loss reduction now in use are directly derived from the
            minimum floodplain management requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Important
            nationwide standards have been established with respect to: the one percent annual chance flood
            and floodplain; the regulatory floodway; coastal flood elevations; and elevation of structures above
            the one percent annual chance flood level.

            Several states have established requirements for development to be set back a specified distance from
            the shoreline, particularly in coastal areas. These shoreline setback standards are generally based
            on estimated erosion rates or the need to protect natural features.

            Few, if any, of the standards for natural resources protection have been developed specifically for
            floodplain application. Instead, these standards typically apply to a particular resource to be
            protected whether the resource is found in the floodplain or not. In addition to shoreline setbacks








                   8-16                                                 Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                   to protect natural features, several national standards have been established to protect natural
                   resources. These include water quality standards (both instream standards and discharge standards)
                   and wetland classification and delineation standards. In addition, standardized techniques for wetland
                   and habitat assessment have been developed, and "tolerable" rates of soil erosion from agricultural
                   land have been established.








              CHAPTER 9:


              PERCEPTION, AWARENESS AND
              RESPONSE




                     [W]hile flooding is a serious nationalproblem, it is not perceived as a very important concern
                  in most communities in the United States.


                                                            Flood Plain Land Use Management, Burby and French, 1985



              Both individual and institutional perception and awareness of flood risk and vulnerability are major
              factors affecting response to flood hazards. While substantial progress has been made in increasing
              institutional awareness and response, individual perception and awareness generally falls far short
              of the level that many professionals and public officials feel is needed. One result of inadequate
              awareness of flood risk and vulnerability is the inappropriate development of floodprone areas. In
              addition, only a portion of the affected public usually responds appropriately to flood warnings, and
              this lack of response sometimes has grave results.

              There will always remain a segment of the population that will not take preventative actions in
              response to flood risk information. Some people will not understand or accept information on flood
              risk provided to them, particularly if they have not personally experienced serious flooding. Others
              understand the risk but are willing to take that risk and feel they have the right to do so. Often their
              strong desire to live near a river or on the coast overrides concerns for personal safety or damage
              to-property. And then there are those who feel that if a problem does exist, it should be "fixed" by
              the government.

              Both the "public good" and "individual rights" can be affected by perception and awareness of
              hazards and response to hazArd-related information. When the public good conflicts with individual
              rights, some balance must usually be achieved. Some individuals seem not to realize that by choosing
              to live in a hazardous location they are imposing costs on others through expenses for infrastructure,
              .emergency services, disaster relief, flood insurance, and other governmental activities.

              While far from universal, individual awareness of the natural resources associated with floodplains
              is now far more widespread than it was 15 or 20 years ago. The importance of preserving wetlands,
              protecting endangered species, and maintaining water quality is widely recognized. Yet this awareness
              does not necessarily translate into actions that will preserve or restore these floodplain resources,
              particularly if the actions would affect an individual's own property. Any restriction of individual
              property rights to protect natural resources may be strongly resisted, or the natural resource loss may
              be viewed as inconsequential because of the small area affected.








                   9-2                                                      Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                    RECOGNITION OF FLOOD RISK AND RESPONSE TO FLOOD WARNINGS


                   The extent to which flood risk is recognized and flood warnings are heeded is largely dependent on
                   public perception and awareness. Government agencies can help to increase awareness in various
                   ways - through information and education programs, for example, as well as regulatory measures.
                   In some instances, floodplain management terminology is an obstacle to risk perception.


                   PERCEPTION OF FLOOD HAZARD


                   Local perception of flood hazard by both governments and floodplain -residents may be related to
                   several key factors, among which are previous experience with flooding, the extent of development
                   in the floodplain, and the existence of structural flood control measures. The response of a communi-
                   ty or an individual to the perceived risk may depend on these factors as well as the seriousness of
                   the flood problem in relation to other community problems. Prevailing attitudes about land use and
                   related water resources management measures may also affect response.

                   In their 1985 assessment of floodplain land-use management, Burby and French (1985) included an
                   examination of local perception of the flood problem. Many of their findings were consistent with
                   other studies of the perception of flood risk and are summarized in this section of the Assessment
                   Report. Burby and French concluded that:

                           . . . while flooding is a serious national problem, it is not perceived as a very important
                       concern inmost communities in the United States. Potential property losses from floods are the
                       most widely recognized problem of flood-hazard areas. In addition, a number of communities
                       are also aware of environmental problems within the bounds of their flood plains. In general,
                       communities do not attach very high priority to solving flood plain problems. nereproblems
                       are most serious, however, communities do seem to be concerned and are placing a high priority
                       on governmental action to resolve them.

                   Most people discount the probability of loss from infrequently occurring events, such as major floods.
                   In keeping with the results of several other studies,' Burby and French found that in the communities
                   they surveyed, although local officials recognized that property loss from flooding was a problem,
                   "flooding was not viewed as a critical or even -a serious issue." While property loss from flooding,
                   erosion and sedimentation were recognized as problems by a majority of the communities surveyed,
                   other related issues (e.g., damage to public facilities, encroachment on natural areas, concentration
                   of poor housing in flood hazard areas) were cited much less frequently.

                   Solution of floodplain problems is generally not given high priority, except where communities have
                   experienced severe or frequent floods. Because flooding is not perceived as a serious problem, finding
                   solutions to flood-related problems is often given a low priority relative to other community concerns.
                   However, individual and community experience with flooding has been shown to result in both



                       Studies cited by Burby and French included: Burton (1972); Rossi, Wright and Weber-Burden (1982); Mileti,
                       Drabeck and Haas (1975); and Kunreuther, et. al. (1978).








             Perception, Awareness and Response                                                                 9-3



             heightened perception of risk and increased attention to solving flood problems. Previous experience
             with flooding has been related to individual perception of flood hazard, belief in hazard warnings,
             and adoption of hazard mitigation measures.2A study conducted by the University of Massachusetts
             (Rossij 1982) related the perception of community leaders regarding the seriousness of flood problems
             to the community's experience with flooding. Burby and French found that fewer than 10% of the
             communities they. surveyed assigned highest priority to floodplain problems, but "the proportion of
             communities that gave high priority to solving flood plain problems was much larger than average
             among jurisdictions with severe flood plain problems."

             Local perception of the flood risk was an important contributor to the scope and focus of a commun-
             ity's floodplain management program - more so than actual floodplain characteristics and flood
             problems. "In addition, ... the more concerned communities are with their flood plain problems ...
             the more likely they are to have adopted broader and more direct management measures."

             Perception of flood risk may also be related to the extent and nature of floodplain development.
             For example, in communities with intensively developed flood hazard areas (and limited sites outside
             the hazard area), "The perceived seriousness of the flood problem is directly associated with the
             extent of flood plain development and the existence of intensive land uses (apartments, commercial,
             and industrial uses) in the hazard area. Those are also the communities, however, in which a higher
             proportion of new construction is occurring in flood zones." Increasing development may also result
             in greater awareness of flood problems. "As urbanization increases, more individuals and groups
             in a community are likely to become concerned with particular problems and to have the expertise
             to stimulate community action to resolve them ... Communities with larger populations, those growing
             at a faster rate, and those located in metropolitan areas are more likely than others to have adopted
             broader and more direct flood plain land use management programs."

             The presence of structural flood control measures may have varying effects on perception of flood
             risk and on subsequent responses to flood problems. Some studies have shown that adoption of
             structural control measures results in a sense of complacency about the community flood problem
             or discourages adoption of alternative nonstructural measures to reduce losses. On the other hand,
             Burby and French found that "communities are more (rather than less) likely to believe they have
             a flood problem when they have some form of structural protection in place    ...... and "that they are
             more (rather than less) likely to have adopted a broad-gauged flood plain land use management
             program." However, they also noted that "... while local governments continue to be aware of the
             flood problem, citizens within these communities may believe that the structural measures solved the
             flood threat and, as a result, may continue to expose themselves to flooding."

             The degree of risk perception and the type of management measures adopted to respond to the flood
             problem may also be affected by the type of flood hazard present. "The threat of damage from
             coastal flooding seems to be taken more seriously by communities than damage from riverine flooding.
             As a result, coastal areas are more likely to use more direct hazard management measures than
             riverine communities ... In general, riverine communities are most interested in land use management


             2   See Roder (1961); Kates (1971); Mileti, Drabeck and Hass (1975); Kunreuther, et. al. (1978); and Miler
                 (1977).








                  9-4                                                  Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  when they are experiencing an intermediate level of risk ...     Apparently, communities with less
                  intensive flood plain development do not view the flood problem as serious enough to warrant a
                  major management effort, whereas those with more heavily developed flood plains look to other
                  solutions for their problems, such as flood control structures."

                  Individual perception of risk by floodplain residents may be quite different than the perception of
                  local officials. Individuals in a community may consider themselves protected from flood damages
                  by structural measures, while the local government remains concerned about potential flood losses.
                  Studies of the relocation of floodplain occupants have provided information on risk perception. Even
                  if the flood risk is known, the advantages of a floodplain location may outweigh the disadvantages.
                  Homeowners may also be more concerned with the effect of floodplain regulations on resale property
                  values than with potential flood damages.

                  Both individual and community perception of risk may be tempered by other community values. For
                  example  . ..... individual and community resistance to [floodplain land use management] programs is
                  often based on apprehension about the 'secondary' effects of land use management. Adverse
                  economic effects that are often attributed to flood plain land use management include reduction in
                  property values, reduction in community economic growth and development, reduction in the taxbase,
                  and increased construction costs. Adverse social effects can include increased community conflict
                  over regulation and inequitable costs to low- and moderate-income households" (Burby, 1985).


                  GOVERNMENT ROLES FOR INCREASING AWARENESS

                  Following a review of research and experiences regarding public awareness and government programs
                  for increasing awareness of natural hazards (including hazards other than floods), Davenport and
                  Waterstone (1979) suggested appropriate roles for each level of government. These suggested roles
                  for increasing awareness continue to merit testing and adjustment and are as follows:

                  1) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Federal agencies and federally supported research would provide:

                      ï¿½    general information on each hazard;
                      ï¿½    federal legislation and policy support for awareness and other hazard mitigation efforts;
                      ï¿½    technical assistance (delineation and mapping of hazard zones, advice on building standards,
                           floodproofing, etc.);
                      ï¿½    basic preparedness advice;
                           encouragement of long-term planning with aim to lessening future losses;
                           support for good research regarding human attitudes and response to various natural hazards
                           so as to increase efficiency of future awareness programs; and
                           survey damages after a disaster for use in refining future preparedness efforts.


                  2) STATE GOVERNMENT: State governments would provide:

                      ï¿½ planning and development of basic materials keyed to a specific state which can then be
                           localized;
                      ï¿½    a good pass-through for federal funds designated for awareness/disaster mitigation programs;
                      ï¿½    aid in identifying risks;








              Perception, Awareness and Response                                                                     9-5



                  0 aid in identifying sources of funding and technical assistance, whether state or federal level
                      sources; and
                  0 providing support and perhaps funding for hazard awareness programs through state
                      legislation and igniting interest on the local level for such programs.

              3)  ]LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Local officials and leaders were identified as having ultimate responsibility
                  for increasing awareness and preparedness. Appropriate actions for local governments include:

                  0   finding and using as a rallying point a community leader with good standing, credibility, and
                      interest in the natural hazard problem;
                  0   monitoring and updating descriptions of local conditions (road, building construction,
                      population influx) which would impact public preparedness measures;
                  0   encouraging participation in awareness programs by local businesses, industry, civic clubs,
                      etc.; and
                  0   localizing federal and state hazard awareness materials to fit a specific area or, if possible,
                      developing their own where needed.



              INCREASED AWARENESS THROUGH INFORMATION AND EDUCATION


              The distribution of information and education on natural hazards typically proceeds from higher
              governmental levels of organization to lower levels. Much of the information relating to flood loss
              reduction and natural resources management has indeed been distributed from the federal govern-
              ment to state government to local government and finally to individuals. But this sequential pattern
              does not always apply. For example, much of the information and education about flood hazards
              has been distributed by federal agencies directly to both state and local governments and even to
              individual citizens. Likewise, state governments often attempt to educate and inform individual
              citizens as well as local government officials.

              Information and education may also proceed from lower to higher levels, as state or local govern-
              ments share their experiences with higher levels of authority. Frequently, new techniques and
              programs are initially developed at the local or state level, and are later incorporated into state or
              federal efforts, thereby achieving more widespread application.

              Informing and educating the public about flood risk and appropriate responses and about the
              importance of preserving and restoring floodplain natural resources is an ongoing effort. Much
              research has been directed toward identifying the most effective means of providing information on
              flood risk and stimulating people to take action, and professionals in the fields of flood loss reduction
              and natural resources management continue to search for new and more effective means of informing
              and educating the public. Studies have shown that people receive their information in different ways
              and attach different levels. of reliability to different sources. In general, these studies have shown
              that a variety of means must be used to distribute the message, and the message must be repeated
              frequently. Typical means of providing information include distribution of pamphlets and other
              publications, use of radio, television and newspapers, placement of warning signs, and many other
              more imaginative methods. Chapters 11, 13 and 14 of theAssessment Report describe many of these
              methods and include examples of their use.








                  9-6                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s




                  FORCED AWARENESS THROUGH REGUIATORY MEASURES


                  Unfortunately, even the best attempts to make individuals and communities aware of flood risks often
                  fail to achieve the desired response. As a result, regulatory actions are often required. Chapter 11
                  provides a detailed description of many of the regulatory measures that have been instituted by all
                  levels of government in an effort to force appropriate action to reduce flood losses. The widespread
                  impact of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) illustrates the effectiveness of (and need
                  for) forced awareness through regulatory measures.

                  The NFIP is a voluntary program, but its voluntary nature has been modified since initial passage
                  of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) in 1968. Originally the program made insurance
                  available to community residents if the community joined the NFIP and established minimum flood-
                  plain regulations. Few communities initially joined the program, and following the devastating
                  flooding from Hurricane Agnes in 1972, Congress made several changes to encourage greater
                  community participation in the program. Foremost among these Congressional initiatives was passage
                  of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 which prohibits disaster assistance to communities
                  identified as having floodprone areas but which have not joined the NFIP. A "first bite" approach
                  is allowed, however, by which the community is permitted to join the NFIP, and the community and
                  residents can then receive disaster assistance, even after a disaster has occurred.

                  Another NFIP mechanism intended to force flood hazard awareness on individuals is the requirement
                  that federally insured banks and other financial institutions require purchasers of homes and other
                  structures in the floodplain to obtain flood insurance. The financial institutions, however, are not
                  subject to any regulatory penalty if they do not comply with this requirement.

                  During the first 15 years of the NFIP, communities often challenged the program and resisted
                  adopting the required minimum regulations as a condition of flood insurance availability. For many
                  communities, participation in the NFIP was their first experience with a land-use regulatory program.
                  Now, after several generations of elected officials and senior civil servants have experienced the NFIP
                  regulations, the prevailing attitude has shifted to one of figuring out ways to live with the program.
                  Community experience in the courts, media coverage of flood disasters, and liability concerns have
                  all contributed to a gradually increased awareness. As a result, the NFIP regulations have become
                  institutionalized, and participation in the program is now generally accepted as a community responsi-
                  bility.

                  A few jurisdictions require realtors to make flood and other hazard information available to prospec-
                  tive home buyers.

                                       The City of Stamford, Connecticut requires developers of most projects within the one
                                       percent annual chance floodplain to prepare and file with the City an emergency
                     ,r,F@_J           preparedness plan. The City also requires that a notice be placed on local land records
                                       noting that the property is located within a flood prone area (Emerson, 1988).








              Perception, Awareness and Response -                                                                     9-7




              TERMINOLOGY AS AN OBSTACLE TO RISK PERCEPTION

              Some of the terminology associated with floodplain management almost certainly contributes to
              problems of inadequate awareness, perception and response. Several examples of commonly used
              but often misunderstood terminology follow.


              11100-Year Flood"


              Probably the most -misunderstood floodplain management term is the."100-year flood." While this
              term is generally understood within the professional floodplain management community, the general
              public almost universally does not properly understand the meaning of the term. As described in
              Chapter 8, the "100-year" flood is simply another term to refer to the one percent annual chance
              flood - the flood that has a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded each year. A flood
              of that magnitude will occur on average once each 100 years, hence use of the term "100-year flood."
              Unfortunately, the term is often taken literally, with individuals believing that if they have experienced
              a "100-year" flood, another flood of that magnitude will not occur for another 100 years. The term
              can be especially confusing when a series of flood events changes the current estimate of the "100-
              year" flood. Such changes are common as a result of both short-term gage records and increased
              runoff due to urbanization.


                                  After major flood events in 1978 and 1980, the estimated magnitude of the "100-year"
                                  flood on the Salt River in Phoenix was reduced to approximately that of a "50-year" flood
                                  (Bond, 1988).



              In an attempt to reduce confusion, some practitioners prefer to use the term "one percent annual
              chance flood"13 noting that in any given year there is a one percent chance that a flood of that
              magnitude could be equalled or exceeded. In practice, the term is often shortened to the "one
              percent flood" which may not convey the meaning as accurately. Other terms may be used to
              represent the one percent annual chance flood. For example, FIA regulations use the term "Base
              Flood" for the one percent annual chance flood. In conversation and in written documents, the terms
              "100-year flood," "base flood," and "one percent flood" maybe used interchangeably, thereby confus-
              ing those who are unfamiliar with the terms and quite possibly misleading some individuals regarding
              the severity of the flood.

              Still further confusion can result because the "100-year" flood is usually the only type of flood event
              referred to, even though larger and smaller floods will certainly occur. Many individuals tend to think
              of flooding only in relation to a flood of a "100-year" magnitude. Often overlooked is the fact that
              the "100-year" flood has been selected as a reasonable regulatory standard, and is not intended to
              describe the only magnitude of flood that will occur.




              3   The term "one percent annual chance flood" is used throughout the Assessment Report except when use of
                  the term would be confusing in association with quotes or other references.








                   9-8                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                   As commonly applied, the concept of a "100-year" flood and floodplain - no matter what terminolo-
                   gy is applied - can be very misleading. Technically, only the outer edge of the "100-year" floodplain
                   has a risk of only one percent. Moving toward the stream, ocean or other water feature, or toward
                   lower elevations, the risk rises. Yet the entire area between the water body and outer edge of the
                   "100-year" floodplain typically is thought of as subject to the same risk. Flood Insurance Rate Maps
                   (FIRMs) delineate areas of higher risk within the "100-year" floodplain.


                   "Floodproofing'14

                   The term "floodproofing" has often been cited as creating a false sense of security regarding the
                   potential for flood damage. The techniques involved in "floodproofing" a structure do not make it
                   completely safe from flooding. The term "flood resistent construction" has been suggested as an
                   alternative. More recently, the terms "retro-floodproofing" and "retrofitting" have been used to apply
                   to floodproofing of existing structures (Federal Insurance Administration, 1986).

                   The term floodproofing can be especially confusing or misleading if no distinction is made between
                   "wet" floodproofing, which refers to use of construction techniques and materials that can withstand
                   the effects of floodwater with little or no damage, and "dry" floodproofing, which refers to construc-
                   tion techniques designed to keep floodwater out of a structure.

                   As described in different contexts, floodproofing may or may not include the elevation of a structure
                   above flood levels. NFIP regulations specifically distinguish between elevation of a structure and
                   floodproofing of a structure. The Corps of Engineers, however, describes elevation as a type of flood-
                   proofing in several publications.


                   "Nonstructural Measures"


                   When the term "nonstructural measures" is used with regard to reducing flood losses, it may not
                   always be clear what measures are being included or excluded by the term. The term was originally
                   devised to distinguish techniques that modify susceptibility to flooding (such as regulation, floodplain
                   acquisition and floodproofing techniques) from the more traditional methods (such as dams, levees
                   and channels) used to control flooding. The distinction between structural and nonstructural
                   measures, however, is not always clear.

                   For example, beach nourishment - the artificial replenishment of beach sand - is considered a
                   structural measure by some and a nonstructural measure by others. Also, use of a small berm or
                   dike to protect a single structure from flooding may be considered either a structural or nonstructural
                   technique. Similarly, many "nonstructural" measures such as elevation or floodproofing clearly involve
                   some alteration of a "structure." In addition, the lack of clarity associated with the terms "structural"
                   and "nonstructural" detracts from the objective of utilizing the best mix of loss reduction measures
                   for any given floodplain.



                   4  See Chapter 11 for a more detailed description of floodproofing.








              Perception, Awareness and Response                                                                   9-9



              "Risk" and "Vulnerability"

              Although these two terms have different technical meanings, they are often incorrectly used inter-
              changeably. Risk is the relationship between the consequences resulting from an adverse event and
              its probability of occurrence. Vulnerability is the characterization of the nature and extent of damage
              that may occur during flooding. For example, the floodplain on both sides of a river may be subject
              to essentially the same risk of flooding. If the floodplain on one side has been developed with homes
              while the other has not been developed, only the developed floodplain would be considered vulnera-
              ble to damage from flooding.


              "Mitigation"

              "Mitigation" has become a popular term in recent years, but it has no consistent definition among
              users. The term is somewhat of a "catch-all" for any activity related to flood loss reduction, although
              individual users typically tend to exclude certain types of activities from the term. Some may exclude
              emergency preparedness from mitigation, others may exclude flood response activities, and still others
              may exclude short- or long-term recovery activities.

              The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has defined mitigation as follows:

                  Mitigation is any action taken to eliminate permanently or reduce the long-term risk to human
                  life and propeny from natural and technological hazards. (Federal Emergency Management
                  Agency, 1987).


              "Tidal Wave'


              The term "tidal wave" is still mistakenly used by many to refer to "tsunamis" which are more properly
              described as seismic sea waves.' These waves have no relationship to tides. Nor are they related
              to storm surge and related large waves that may be caused by hurricanes or other major coastal
              stornis (Forrester, 1987).



                            AWARENESS OF FLOODPLAIN NATURAL RESOURCES


              As noted in Chapter 2, much attention has historically been focused on the hazards associated with
              flooding and floodplains, and less attention has been directed toward floodplain natural and cultural
              resources. In recent years, however, the natural resources associated with floodplains - particularly
              wetland resources - have been the subject of increased scientific study and management. While
              the protection of floodplain natural resources has not emerged as a popularly expressed environmen-
              tal objective, such an objective is encompassed in the broader environmental goals (particularly for
              the protection of wetlands and water resources) embraced throughout the Nation. The general public


              5   See Chapter I for a more detailed description of tsunamis.








                 9-10                                                  Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                 level of environmental awareness and support for environmental protection programs has increased
                 dramatically in the past quarter-century. This awareness is seen to represent a potentially broad base
                 of public support for programs aimed at the protection or restoration of floodplain natural resources.

                 In general, the development of environmental programs from the 1970s and the experience of these
                 programs have provided a basis for understanding newly identified environmental challenges.
                 Furthermore, recent opinion surveys show that a majority of Americans believe that poor environ-
                 mental quality is one of the most serious National problems (Gilbert, 1990), and that most are willing
                 to pay for necessary actions to improve the quality of the environment. Pollster Louis Harris testified
                 before a Senate subcommittee that public support for environmental improvements was higher than
                 for any other national objective he had ever surveyed (Grove, 1990).

                 In the 1960s and 1970s, those concerned with protection of the natural environment were often
                 perceived as more concerned with wildlife (protecting whales, whooping cranes and wilderness areas,
                 for example) than with human life. As a result of this image, many Americans did not take environ-
                 mentalists seriously and viewed them as threats, particularly to economic growth (Gallop, 1984).

                 In the 1980s, however, the environmental movement developed much broader public support. A
                 national poll conducted in 1981 indicated that 45% of the population felt that "protecting the
                 environment is so important that requirements and standards can not be too high and continued
                 environmental improvements must be made regardless of cost." Fifty-eight percent agreed with this
                 same statement in 1983, and a 1986 New York Times/CBS poll found the percentage of the popula-
                 tion in agreement had increased to 66%..

                 Because the natural and beneficial resources of wetlands, once poorly understood, have been the
                 subject of much attention and study in recent years, public awareness and understanding of the
                 importance of wetlands in the natural environment is generally high. Concern over wetland losses
                 and support for wetland protection appears to be increasing. A 1982 Harris Poll found that 83%
                 of those responding felt that it is "very important" to preserve the remaining wetlands. A 1985 Harris
                 Poll reaffirmed broad support for continued wetlands protection as 85% of those polled favored strict
                 enforcement of the Clean Water Act and its wetland protection requirements (President's Commis-
                 sion, 1987).

                 The National Wildlife Federation (NWF), first included an Environmental Quality (EQ) Index in
                 National Wddlifie in 1969. The EQ Index monitors and reports the state of the environment and
                 gauges public awareness concerning the environment. In the 1960s, this awareness moved from
                 indifference to a demand for action. As a result, during the 1970S much federal legislation was
                 enacted to direct the cleanup of the Nation's natural resources.

                 According to the NVVT, the 1980s have seen public interest in the environment lag somewhat, but
                 a simultaneous development of environmental professionals has occurred over the last decade. The
                 EQ Index documents "the steadily growing, increasingly steadfast acceptance by the American people
                 of the necessity of the fight" for a cleaner environment. The president of the NWF, stated "the
                 greatest accomplishment of the environmental movement since Earth Day [in 19701 has been putting
                 our strong desire for environmental protection at the heart of the quality of life in our society."








               Perception, Awareness and Response                                                                 9-11



               Earth Day 1990 (April 22) celebrated the 20th anniversary of the first Earth Day that many point
               to as launching the modern environmental movement. The celebration demonstrated the existence
               of what can be described as the Nation's growing environmental populism and focused attention on
               many of the environmental problems that are more pressing today than they were 20 years ago.

               Gaylord Nelson, the former U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, has noted that "... Earth Day, as was
               intended, demonstrated to the Washington establishment and the public that there was an environ-
               mental movement. The principle and lasting effect was to make environmental concerns a permanent
               part of the political dialogue in this country. Obviously, not all members of Congress are now what
               I would call environmentalists, but almost without exception they are sensitive to environmental
               issues ..." (Gilbert, 1990).



                                            SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

               Clearly, the public perception, awareness and response to both flood hazards and the natural
               resources of floodplains is now much greater than it was in the mid-1960s. There also is greater
               recognition that natural environmental values and flood risk are closely related.

               The effects of information and education combined with the application of regulatory measures and
               other floodplain management tools have significantly increased public perception, awareness and
               response. Nevertheless, there is much room for additional improvement. Floodplain managers must
               seek new and improved methods, as well as greater implementation of existing methods, to reach
               those who have not yet acquired a sufficient level of awareness or the motivation to act at appropriate
               times and in appropriate ways. In doing so, floodplain managers should target government officials,
               floodplain occupants, and the general public. Methods appropriate for increasing the perception,
               awareness, and response of each group are necessary.









               CHAPTER 10:


               LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS BY THE
               COURTS




                   No higher duty can devolve upon the city authorities than that ofprotecting the property, health,
                   and lives of the people; this is their permanent duty - a duty which cannot be evaded, nor can
                   their right to do so be lost by neglect or bartered away.

                                                                               City of Welch v. Mitchell, 121 S.E. 165 (1924)
                                                                              (The first case involving floodplain regulations)



               In the last several decades, government floodplain management measures have often been legally
               challenged by individuals who oppose the measures or claim that the measures have increased flood
               damages (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1971, 1972; Kusler, 1982). While only a few law suits
               opposing floodplain regulations. have succeeded, many successful suits have been brought against
               government actions that have increased rather than decreased flood or erosion losses.

               Litigation has been of two types: 1) "constitutional" challenges to floodplain regulations and other
               loss reduction measures such as multi-objective resource management regulations (e.g., wetland
               regulations); and 2) "liability" suits based primarily upon common law theories and initiated by those
               suffering losses as a result of government interference with drainage or flood flows or incorrectly
               designed, maintained, or administered flood loss reduction measures (dikes, levees, warning systems,
               etc.) (Annots., 1948, 1949, 1958, 1964, 1975). A successful constitutional challenge may prevent the
               implementation of a floodplain regulation. In contrast, a successful liability suit will not necessarily
               prevent implementation of a measure but will require government payment for flood damages.

               In recent years, the constitutionality of floodplain management measures and the threat of successful
               claims for damages have been of increased concern to floodplain managers. The concern is due to
               a small number of lower court decisions challenging the constitutionality of land-use regulations, and
               three 1987 United States Supreme Court decisions that did not invalidate floodplain regulations but
               were widely represented to have done so. The concern is also due to the many court decisions that
               have held units of government liable for actions that increased flood or drainage damages.

               This chapter examines the constitutional challenges and liability suits pertaining to floodplain
               management as well as the actions that governments are taking to reduce potential legal problems.
               The focus of the chapter is on floodplain management measures specifically designed to achieve
               broader multi-objective goals such as wetland protection, waterfront renewal, and water quality
               protection. Many of the legal issues associated with these broader measures, however, are also








                  10-2                                                  Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  associated with the more specific measures (Kusler, 1980, 1982). The broader measures, along with
                  flood loss reduction measures, have been supported by the courts.

                  Included in this chapter is an overview of the court decisions that have addressed public flood loss
                  reduction measures in the last two decades. Major legal issues and trends throughout the United
                  States are emphasized rather than the law in a particular jurisdiction. The emphasis is on those cases
                  decided in the last eight years because these cases reflect recent legal thinking and because the infor-
                  mation presented in the chapter is intended to update rather than replace the legal discussions found
                  in Volumes 1, 2 and 3 of Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses (U.S. Water
                  Resources Council, 1971, 1972; Kusler, 1982).



                                         TRENDS OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES


                  The types of lawsuits and the specific issues litigated have changed over the last twenty years. These
                  changes have reflected the predominant floodplain management technique or techniques in use at
                  the time, the general status of constitutional and tort (liability) law, and unresolved legal issues
                  concerning loss reduction techniques.


                  PRIOR TO 1968


                  During the early years of floodplain management, the principal floodplain management techniques
                  were flood control techniques and, not surprisingly, most lawsuits concerned flood control or drainage
                  measures (Annots., 1948, 1949, 1958, 1964). A wide range of factually specific and statutorily specific
                  issues were litigated (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1971). Suits included both constitutional
                  challenges to flood control measures and claims for damages. Some of the issues addressed included
                  the adequacy of the power of various units of government to undertake flood control, government
                  liability for failure to operate and design adequate flood control works, and the sufficiency of eminent
                  domain awards. Overall, government flood control efforts were widely upheld in the courts although
                  governments were held liable for damages resulting from blockage of flows and/or inadequate
                  operation or maintenance of channels, dams, dikes or levees.

                  Floodplain regulations were challenged in only a small number of suits, reflecting the small number
                  of communities with adopted regulations (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1971). Most of the suits
                  challenged the overall constitutionality of these regulations by examining the adequacy of: 1) statutes
                  to authorize such regulations; 2) regulatory objectives; 3) the reasonableness of regulations in meeting
                  specific goals; and 4) whether floodplain regulations were a "taking" of private property. Overall,
                  regulations were sustained in the period prior to 1968 although several courts invalidated highly
                  restrictive regulations as "takings" of private propertyY





                     Citations to court decisions -are listed at the end of the chapter.







                Legal Interpretations by the Courts                                                                         10-3




                1969-1979


                In the period 1968 to 1978, the number of successful lawsuits against governments for flood damages
                increased dramatically due to expanded concepts of liability and a reduction in government defenses
                against  lawsuits (described later on) (Kusler, 1982).

                During this decade, landowners challenged regulations on constitutional grounds in a relatively large
                number of suits, reflecting the huge increase in the number of states and communities with regu               la-
                tions. The nature of these suits shifted from broad-scale constitutional attacks to very specific
                challenges concerning the reasonableness of particular floodplain management measures such as
                floodproofing requirements and prohibition of residences in a floodway.


                1978-1988


                In this decade, courts continued to hold governments liable in an increasing number of contexts for
                actions that increased flood damages. The number of constitutional challenges to regulations,
                however, was much smaller due to the widespread legal support for regulations established in the
                pre vious twenty years. Cases addressed relatively technical issues such as the validity of nonconform-
                ing use provisions and setbacks. In 1987, however, the U.S. Supreme Court issued three controversial
                land-use decisions (see below) that have created a great deal of public confusion concerning the
                constitutionality of hazard regulations.



                                               CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES

                Constitutional challenges to floodplain management measures can be described in the context of the
                three recent and controversial Supreme Court decisions, and in the broader context of the various
                types of challenges that have been brought against regulations and other flood loss reduction mea-
                sures. It is also important to note some of the important types of floodplain management measures
                that the courts have sustained over the past 20 years.


                THE THREE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS AND THEIR IMPACT
                ON FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

                In the summer of 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court issued three land use-related decisions that were
                widely (and inaccurately) reported in the press and which have been the subject of a great deal of
                discussion. Two of these decisions concerned hazard-related regulations.

                While the decisions are of primary interest from a constitutional perspective, they also affect
                government liability. Prior to these decisions, government units adopting flood loss reduction
                measures were, in most jurisdictions, liable in damages only for increasing flood losses, not for tightly
                regulating floodplain development. A government unit only needed to modify the regulation if a court
                held that the regulation was a taking of private property without payment of just compensation. As








                 104                                                     Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                 a result of the Supreme Court's 1987 decisions, a government unit might now be liable for damages
                 caused by overly restrictive regulations.

                 The three decisions are not easy to reconcile or interpret. They involve highly technical issues of
                 law and are, to some extent, contradictory. In fact, they appear to raise more questions than they
                 answer.


                 In the first of the decisions, Keystone Bituminous CoalAssociation v. DeBenedictis,2 the U.S. Supreme
                 Court upheld a 1966 Pennsylvania statute that prohibited the mining of coal where removal of coal
                 would cause the subsidence of residences, public buildings, or cemeteries. Several coal companies
                 had challenged the law as a taking of property because it effectively prevented the removal of 27
                 million tons of coal and because the companies had acquired rights to subside the land from some
                 of the landowners.

                 In this case, the Court, citing 70 years of precedents, held that there was no "taking" because the
                 regulations were adopted to serve valid health, safety and welfare goals, and because, overall, coal
                 companies had not shown'that the regulations denied them economic use of their land.

                 This decision, if read by itself, would suggest that the Court was willing to give even more support
                 to health and safety-related regulations than previously. It is the only one of the three decisions that
                 focuses on the validity of safety-related regulations.

                 Three months after the Keystone decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a second decision
                 concerning the validity of hazard-related regulations. In this decision - First Evangelical Lutheran
                 Church v. County of Los AngeleS3 - the Court held that if a temporary building moratoria adopted
                 by Los Angeles County after a severe flood was a taking of private property, temporary damages
                 should be awarded to the landowners (First Evangelical Lutheran Church) who had been prevented
                 from rebuilding in a high risk flood area. While the Keystone decision had gone almost unnoticed
                 by the press, this decision became front page news across the Nation.

                 Unfortunately, the First Lutheran decision was widely misinterpreted as holding that floodplain
                 regulations were, in general, unconstitutional, or that the specific regulations addressed by the Court
                 were unconstitutional. In reality, the Court carefully stated that it was not deciding the constitutional-
                 i!y of the floodi2lain regglationS,4 and suggested that sound grounds for the regulations might well
                 exist. The Court only held that, as a matter of law, temporary damages would be available if a taking
                 had occurred. T'he Court sent the case back to the lower courts to decide whether a taking had, in
                 fact, occurred.

                 Although the decision did not invalidate any regulations, it did establish, as a matter of principle, that
                 governments would need (at least in some situations) to pay temporary damages for regulations that
                 Were in fact a taking.

                 Shortly after issuing the First Lutheran decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a third decision
                 Nollan v. California Coastal Commission.' Here the Court held that the efforts of the California
                 Coastal Commission to require that a beachfront property owner convey a beach access easement
                 as a condition to receiving a permit for rebuilding a structure was a taking. The Court did not







               Legal Inte?pretations by the Courts                                                                        10-5



               disapprove the condition but rather felt that the Commission had not adequately demonstrated that
               the condition "substantially advanced" state interests. The Court emphasized the need for a
               regulatory agency to show a reasonable nexus between a regulation and stated goals.

               Collectively, how are these three Supreme Court decisions cases likely to affect floodplain manage-
               ment?


               The cases pertain almost entirely to regulations, not to other floodplain management techniques. The
               cases indicate the willingness of the Court to strongly support hazard-related regulations if they are
               soundly based in fact, even if the regulations substantially reduce property values or prohibit use of
               a portion of a property. But the decisions also affirm that governments must pay for a temporary
               taking of property if, in fact, their regulations "take" property. The basic tests for taking, described
               later in this chapter, are apparently unaltered by the decisions. The latter two cases (First Lutheran
               and Nollan), however, also suggest an increasing willingness of the Court to examine the factual basis
               for regulations and the relationship of particular standards to regulatory goals.

               Since these 1987 Supreme Court cases, federal and state courts have considered the constitutionality
               of floodplain regulations in at least seven cases. The regulations have been upheld in all cases               6
               including a follow-up California court decision in First Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los
               Angeles which was remanded by the Supreme Court to the California Court                 .7  In this follow-up
               decision, the California court resoundingly endorsed the floodplain regulations and held that the
               regulations were not a taking of private property.


               CONSUTUTIONAL CHALLENGES: THE BROADER CONTEXT


               How have regulations and other flood loss reduction measures fared in the broader context when
               challenged as unconstitutional in state and federal courts? In general, they have fared very well as
               flood hazard regulations have been broadly and consistently upheld (Kusler, 1982). Regulations have,
               however, been challenged as unconstitutional violations of guarantees of Due Process and unconstitu-
               tional takings of private property without payment of just compensation. Constitutional challenges
               have been raised on a number of grounds, including: inadequacy of statutory powers; invalid
               objectives; failure to comply with statutory procedures; discrimination; unreasonableness; or taking
               of property without payment of just compensation.


               Inadequacy of Statutory Powers

               In the early years of floodplain management, the adequacy of local zoning, subdivision control,
               building code, and other enabling statutes to authorize local government or agency adoption of
               floodplain regulations was often questioned, particularly where the legislature had not expressly
               authorized local governments to adopt regulations (Kusler, 1982; Strauss, 1976).

               These challenges of floodplain regulations were based upon a general rule of law that federal and
               state agencies and, to a lesser extent, local governments, may exercise only those powers specifically
               delegated to them by statute. In other words, an agency or local government is able to adopt








                  10-6                                                  Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  floodplain regulations only if a statute specifically authorizes such regulations. Otherwise, the
                  regulations violate Constitutional requirements of Due Process.

                  Although a number of challenges were made, the basic authority of local governments to regulate
                  floodplains under general zoning or other land-use control statutes was sustained in all cases (Kusler,
                  1982). As a result, lack of adequate local enabling authority is no longer a common legal challenge
                  except in those instances where: 1) units of government wish to regulate extraterritorially and they
                  are not authorized to do so; or 2) statutes provide specific exemptions (e.g., nonconforming uses)
                  and an attempt is nevertheless made to regulate exempted uses. Lack of enabling authority is also
                  a diminished problem, in part, because most states have granted cities and some counties and towns
                  broad statutory or constitutional "home rule" powers (Strauss, -1976). Home rule governments can
                  undertake a broad range of regulatory, acquisition, flood control, evacuation, and other public safety
                  and general welfare activities without specific enabling legislation.

                  Very few court decisions in the last two decades have dealt with the adequacy of enabling powers
                  for state or federal floodplain management measures because state and federal agencies are usually
                  sensitive to limitations upon statutory powers. Also, courts tend to broadly interpret powers where
                  issues of health and safety are involved.8


                  Invalid Objectives

                  Over the last two decades, courts have afforded legislative bodies broad discretion in defining public
                  objectives for regulations, acquisition, and other hazard-reduction approaches.9 Protection of public
                  safety and reduction of flood losses have repeatedly been recognized'O as valid public objectives for
                  regulatory and nonregulatory measures (Kusler, 1982).

                  Courts have examined the objectives of floodplain regulations more carefully than the objectives of
                  nonregulatory flood loss reduction techniques. Although courts have rarely invalidated hazard-related
                  regulations for invalid objectives, some zoning regulations adopted primarily to lower the cost of land
                  acquisition have been held invalid."


                  Failure to Comply with Statutory Procedures

                  In general, courts demand that governments closely comply with statutory procedures in order to meet
                  Due Process requirements. In a few cases, courts have held that flood hazard regulations were invalid
                  in their entirety or as they applied to particular lands because the regulatory agency failed to follow
                  statutory procedures for mapping, notice and hearing, or other matters.12

                  Perhaps the largest number of cases dealing with statutory procedures has involved challenges to
                  federal or federally funded flood control works or other public works based on inadequate environ-
                  mental impact statements. Courts have held that the National Environmental Policy Act requires
                  careful consideration of environmental values but that the ultimate decision with regard to location
                  and project design is up to the agency."







               Legal Interpretations by the Courts                                                                        10-7



               Courts have also considered the adequacy of federal agency actions in complying with the Floodplain
               Management and Protection of Wetlands Executive Orders (E.O.s 11988 and 11990, respectively)
               in several cases."



               Discrimination

               Very few successful challenges have been made to regulations based upon claims of discrimination,
               although an early challenge to an encroachment line was sustained." Also, a federal district court
               in Ohio recently held that certain floodway restrictions were invalid because activities posing similar
               threats to health and safety were not regulated in another area of the community.16


               Unreasonableness


               A number of suits have been brought in the last two decades challenging the reasonableness of
               reIgulations in achieving specific regulatory objectives (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1971, @ 1072;
               Kusler, 1982). Courts have broadly supported agency or legislative rules or regulations or case-by-case
               permit evaluations against claims of unreasonableness. Renewed challenges to regulations based upon
               claims of unreasonableness, however, are likely as the result of the Supreme Court's decision in Nollan
               v. California Coastal Commission.17 In this decision, the Court apparently endorsed a higher standard
               for reasonableness - in those instances where a taking is alleged              than was formerly required.
               This case, however, did not involve a natural hazard situation.


               Mapping Inadequacy

               Landowners have occasionally contested the accuracy and scale of federal, state or local flood maps.
               Mapping efforts, however, have been broadly sustained, even when some inaccuracies are found,
               provided that the regulatory agency has established administrative procedures for dealing with
               inaccuracies.18 Some maps applying to particular properties have been held inadequate where gross
               errors were identified or statutory procedures were lacking.19


               Prohibiting Particular Types of Activities in Floodways or Flood Fringe Areas

               In a small number of cases, landowners have contested the prohibition of particular activities in
               floodways or flood fringe areas. A prohibition of residences in floodways by the Washington
               Department of Ecology was upheld by the Washington Supreme Court.20 Similarly, the Iowa
               Supreme Court upheld an order of the Iowa Natural Resources Council requiring the removal of
               condominiums illegally placed in a floodway.21


               Taking of Private Property Without Payment of Just Compensation

               With the exception of a few cases in which regulations prevented all economic use of floodplain
               property, courts have upheld the general validity of floodplain regulations against claims that such








                  10-8                                                   Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  regulations take private property without payment of just compensation (Kusler, 1982). These rulings
                  are consistent with a much larger body of cases in which courts have broadly upheld land use
                  regulations against claims of taking, despite the impact of the regulations upon property values.

                  In the broader context of land use controls, courts commonly uphold the general validity of a
                  regulation (e.g., an agricultural zoning district that restricts residential development) but may hold
                  that the regulation takes private property when judging its impact on a particular parcel. This site-
                  specific determination of taking is based upon the consideration of a broad range of factors, including:
                  the goals of the regulation; the public need for the regulation; the adequacy of the factual base
                  supporting the regulation; the activities currently being carried out on the land or potentially available
                  pursuant to the regulation; the economic value of the activities to the private property owner, the
                  cost of purchase of the land; the expectations of the landowner at the time of purchase; and whether
                  these expectations were consistent with the regulations.

                  Although courts in broader contexts have often upheld the validity of regulations in general, but have
                  judged some regulations as takings with respect to particular property, the courts have almost
                  universally sustained floodplain regulations both in general and as applied to specific property. There
                  are several reasons for this support of floodplain regulations.

                  ï¿½   FiRsT, the rights of private landowners in water-oriented lands (e.g., floodplains and wetlands)
                      are subject to "public trust" and "navigable servitude" rights and interests.    22

                  ï¿½   SECOND, courts give great weight to protection of public health and safety and have, without
                      exception, sustained regulations needed to prevent nuisances' (e.g., blockage of flood flows)
                      and to prevent private actions (e.g., construction of dams) that may threaten public or private
                      safety on other land.

                  ï¿½   THiRD, courts have, over the last twenty years, broadly upheld performance standard regulations
                      like the floodplain regulations typically adopted by states and local governments that require
                      private landowners to protect floodway conveyance capacity and elevate or otherwise protect
                      structures to the 100-year flood elevation.

                  ï¿½ FouRTH, courts have broadly supported technically-based regulations adopted consistent with
                      a federal/state/local overall plan and standards (e.g., pollution controls; state and local floodplain
                      regulations adopted pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program)         .14


                  How will the three recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions affect future rulings on the "taking" issue?
                  Performance standard approaches and other regulatory approaches that tightly control only portions
                  of properties are not likely to be affected by these decisions and gain support from the Keystone
                  decision. Although the recent Court decisions have apparently not affected the basic tests for
                  determining if a taking has occurred, governments will now need to pay "temporary damages" if a
                  court determines that a taking has occurred. Some state courts had already awarded temporary
                  damages for regulatory takings prior to this decision, but most had not. Unfortunately, the Court
                  did not determine when a temporary taking would commence, under what precise circumstances a
                  temporary taking would occur, and what the measure of damages should be. A reading of the
                  Keystone and First Lutheran decisions together suggests a continuation of the overall rule for








             Legal Interpretations by the Courts                                                                10-9



             determining whether a taking has occurred - in general, no taking occurs unless an entire property
             is denied all reasonable, economic use. Even then, a taking may not occur if all economic uses are
             nuisance-like or threaten public safety (Kusler, 1982).


             COURT FINDINGS ON FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT MEASURES

             A more specific examination of cases addressing the taking issue over the last twenty years indicates
             a number of important findings concerning several types of floodplain management measures.


             Setbacks


             Courts have upheld ocean and river setback standards (e.g., distances that development must be set
             back from the water's edge) (Pupula, 1974; O'Donnell, 1976; Maloney, 1978) to reduce flood and
             erosion damage in a number of cases, including a Florida decision that broadly endorsed setbacks
             to reduce hurricane and flood damage.25A recent lower court decision in South Carolina that found
             a setback standard to be a "taking" was overturned on appeal.26 In general, setbacks affect only
             portions of properties and, therefore, do not deny all economic use of entire properties. Most setback
             standards would not be affected by the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions.


             Moratoria

             A number of courts have sustained fixed-period moratoria on rebuilding after flood disasters.27
             However, as noted previously, the U.S. Supreme Court in the First Lutheran decision held that the
             moratorium on rebuilding adopted by Los Angles County might be considered a taking if it prevented
             all economic use of the land.

             Although the First Lutheran decision raises questions concerning the validity of certain moratoria,
             it should not affect soundly based moratoria imposed for fixed and relatively short periods of time.


             Regulations Preventing All Development in Floodways and/or Flood Fringe Areas

             A number of state courts28 have upheld very tight restrictions on floodway uses against claims of
             taking. Apparently, no court has held that such regulations are a taking.

             In the last decade, a number of courts have upheld open space regulations applied to broader
             floodplain areas.29 Several earlier decisions, however, held that open space regulations were a taking
             because they denied all economic use of the lands affected.

             The recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions will probably not affect regulations preventing development
             in floodways and/or flood fringe areas although courts may now examine open space regulations with
             greater care.








                  10-10                                                 Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  Subdivision Regulations

                  Courts have broadly endorsed regulations controlling the subdivision of floodprone landS30 and
                  requiring that subdividers install storm drains and on-site flood detention areas. Courts have also
                  endorsed drainage fees and other types of exactions as long as the fee or exaction had some
                  relationship to, and was proportional to, the special problems or needs of the subdivided area. For
                  example, a subdivider can be required to install a storm drain to meet the needs of a subdivision but
                  may not be required to install or pay for a storm drain for the whole community.

                  The recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions will likely not affect subdivision approval requirements
                  although courts may now require, in light of the Nollan decision, that governments more clearlyjustify
                  conditions attached to subdivision approval and more carefully relate those conditions to the goals
                  of regulations.


                  Regulation of Nonconforming Uses

                  Efforts to prohibit the rebuilding of nonconforming uses after flood disasters have been very carefully
                  examined by courts in the last ten years due, perhaps, to the severe nature of these restrictions. For
                  example, the South Dakota Supreme Court3l held that efforts by Rapid City to summarily raze
                  structures damaged by the Rapid City flood of 1972 without payment of compensation were a taking
                  of property. This decision was based on the inadequacy of the procedures applied by the City and
                  the lack of documentation that these structures were nuisances in fact. The Minnesota Supreme
                  Court32 also held that circuitous but persistent regulatory efforts to prevent a landowner from
                  repairing a structure after a severe flood were a taking. As noted previously, the U.S. Supreme Court
                  in First Lutheran decided that a moratorium on rebuilding after a flood disaster might be a taking.

                  These cases do not suggest that reasonable regulation of nonconforming uses before or after a disaster
                  will be held a taking, only that very stringent regulations lacking adequate factual base and not
                  tailored to the circumstances may be considered a taking in some circumstances.


                  Sand Dune Protection Regulations

                  Several state courts held in the 1970s and early 1980s that highly restrictive regulations prohibiting
                  all alteration of sand dunes were a taking because they denied all economic use of entire proper-
                  ties.33 However, the Maine Supreme Court recently upheld a dune protection regulation that allowed
                  temporary, seasonal use of "back dune" areas for recreational vehicles but prohibited permanent
                  structures.34 The temporary, seasonal use was considered a reasonable use for the property.


                  Wetland Regulations

                  State courts have broadly endorsed state and local wetland regulations during the last ten years
                  (Kusler, 1982).35 Federal district courts and appellate courts in dozens of cases have also sustained
                  denial by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of applications for Section 404 permits.31 In 1985, the
                  U.S. Supreme Court unanimously endorsed the permitting requirements established under Section








              Legal Interpretations by the Courts



              404 of the Clean Water Act, but warned that such regulations might take private property where
              regulations prevent all economic use of whole properties.37

              State and federal courts have also endorsed regulations to protect the natural and cultural resources,
              including environmental and aesthetic values, of floodplain areas.38 A number of court-supported
              regulations and/or programs that serve to protect natural and cultural floodplain resources, however,
              have been established for the primary purpose of reducing flood losses.



                                          LIABILITY FOR FLOOD DAMAGES


              The threat of liability is an important concern affecting the implementation of certain floodplain
              management measures by government agencies. In contrast with only a handful of lawsuits nationwide
              over the last twenty years that have successfully challenged government flood loss reduction actions
              on constitutional grounds, landowners have won thousands of damage suits against government units
              for causing or increasing flood damages. Most of these successful lawsuits have been based on various
              common law grounds for liability such as nuisance or trespass. Some have also been based on
              constitutional grounds such as taking of private property without payment of just compensation.

              A property owner or other individual suffering a flood or drainage-caused loss- can recover damages
              from a government unit in court only if the @wner can show that: 1) the government entity owed
              a duty to the owner or individual to avoid, prevent, or mitigate such loss; 2) the entity failed to carry
              out that duty-, and 3) the owner or individual suffered damage as a result of this failure.

              The government entity charged with failure to carry out a duty may defend itself by claiming: 1) no
              duty existed; 2) there was no failure to carry out the duty if one existed; 3) the landowner or other
              property owner was not damaged, as claimed, by the failure to carry out a duty; or 4) other defenses
              exist to the suit such as sovereign immunity, contributory negligence, or expiration of the statute of
              limitations.



              REASONS FOR INCREASED LITIGATION

              Successful "liability" suits for increased flood damages have increased in recent years for the following

              reasons:


              0   Landowners suffering flood damages have been encouraged to initiate legal actions by the
                  prospect of large damage awards from juries and the willingness of lawyers to take such suits
                  on a contingent fee basis. Units of government have also often been viewed as having "deep
                  pockets" (i.e., the ability to pay large awards).

              0   Courts have recognized broadened concepts of public and private landowner responsibility. For
                  example, the "common enemy doctrine" whereby landowners may alter or increase the flow of
                  diffused surface waters even where such alteration damages other landowners has been judicially
                  modified in many states to a rule of "reasonable use." Under a reasonable use doctrine,
                  landowners can modify natural drainage only if they do so "reasonably" with regard to impact








                  10-12                                                 Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                      on others. In general, actions that substantially damage other landowners are not considered
                      reasonable by the courts.

                  ï¿½   The "act of God" defense pertaining to damages from natural hazards has been severely dimin-
                      ished by improved flood prediction capability and flood maps. In the past, a private landowner
                      or unit of government blocking a floodway with a dike, for example, might have escaped liability
                      for increased flood damage on other property from a " 100-year" flood by claiming the flood was
                      an "act of God." Such a defense, however, requires not only that a flood event be very large
                      and infrequent but that it be unforeseeable. Widespread availability of flood maps and improved
                      flood prediction make even standard project floods foreseeable.

                  ï¿½   Improved data bases (stream flow records, flood maps) and hazard modeling capability have
                      facilitated proof of causation and proof of damages. Twenty years ago it was difficult to prove
                      that a fill in a floodway had raised flood heights one foot. Today, models are readily available
                      to calculate the impact of a fill on a specific size flood (e.g., a "100-year" flood).

                  ï¿½   Improved technology, broad-scale dissemination of such technology, adoption of regulations and
                      guidelines, and the application of improved technology at many hazard locations have created
                      an increasingly high standard of care for "reasonable" government action. In general, govern-
                      ments are only liable for increased flood damages when government units do not exercise
                      reasonable care. Reasonableness depends upon the technology available, regulatory require-
                      ments, area customs, and a variety of other factors.                                 N

                  ï¿½   The "sovereign immunity" defense' of states, local governments and, to a lesser extent, the
                      federal government has been substantially modified by statutes and case law, making it now
                      possible for landowners to sue government entities for a wide range of activities including
                      grading, filling, road-building and other activities that may interfere with drainage and flood loss
                      reduction measures such as dikes, dams, levees, and flood warning systems.


                  FACTORS AFFECTING LIABILITY

                  A number of additional considerations affecting government liability are of interest to floodplain
                  managers.



                  Government Liability When No Action is Taken

                  Except in a few instances, governments are not liable for naturally occurring flood damages.,'
                  Government has, in general, no duty to construct dams, adopt regulations, or carry out other hazard
                  reduction activities unless required to do so by a statute. It is only where a government unit causes
                  flood damages or increases natural flood damages that liability may arise.

                  As a result, some government attorneys have recommended, in some instances, that agencies or local
                  governments "do nothing" with regard to flood loss reduction as a way of reducing potential liability.
                  This is increasingly poor advice. Although a common law duty to act may not exist, state legislatures
                  and Congress are requiring agencies and local governments to undertake certain hazard-reduction
                  measures which, if not carried out, may lead to liability. In addition, thousands of local governments
                  have adopted floodplain ordinances that establish specific procedures and standards for activities in








              Legal Interpretations by the Courts                                                                  10-13



              floodplains and for evaluating permit applications for floodplain use. Failure to comply with statutes
              or ordinances may also result in liability.42

              As a practical matter, it is often impossible or impractical for a city or state to "do nothing" with
              regard to hazard areas in order to avoid liability. Cities have usually already undertaken a broad
              range of activities that may increase natural flood damages on private property. Ilese activities
              include construction of roads and bridges, storm drains, dikes and levees, sewage treatment and water
              supply plants, and various public buildings in the floodplain. Given the high risk of liability associated
              with these activities, it may be far more appropriate to install a flood warning system with the slight
              chance that liability may result if the system is incorrectly designed or maintained than it is to face
              unmitigated flood damages resulting from the earlier activities.


              Strict Liability Versus Reasonableness

              In general, government units are not "strictly or absolutely" responsible for increased flood damages.
              Liability usually results only where43 there is a lack of reasonable care. In some jurisdictions,
              however, a concept of strict liability has been applied with respect to dams because of the high
              probability of serious damage from dam failures (Bender, 1979).

              Where the standard of reasonable care is judicially applied to an activity, the seriousness of foresee-
              able threat to life or economic damage is an important factor in determining reasonableness of
              condUCt.44 In general, the more serious the anticipated threat, the greater the care the government
              entity must exercise. (See the later section in this chapter on "vertical evacuation.")


              Policy or Discretionary Decisions Versus Nondiscretionary, Ministerial Actions

              As a general rule, courts do not hold legislative bodies or administrative agencies liable for policy
              decisions4l or errors in judgment where the legislature or agency exercises policy-making or discre-
              tionary powers. But they often hold agencies responsible for failure to carry out nondiscretionary
              duties or for negligence in carrying out ministerial actions. For example, an agency decision to build
              a bridge able to convey "100-year" flood flows rather than "500-year" flows will probably not result
              in liability despite damage to upstream landowners when a "500-year" flood occurs. This decision
              is discretionary - it involves judgment and the balancing of costs and other factors. In contrast, that
              same agency's failure to build or maintain the bridge consistent with sound engineering practices (a
              ministerial function) could result in liability.


              Liability of Government Employees

              Ailthough governments may be liable for increased flood or drainage losses in a broad range of
              contexts, government employees are usually not personally liable for planning, permit issuance,
              operation of dams, adoption of regulations, or other activities. Legislators enjoy almost absolute
              immunity.46Agency staff are also protected, but not to the same extent. No personal liability results
              where a government employee acts in good faith, within the scope of his or her job, and without








                  10-14                                                Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                  malice. Successful lawsuits for hazard-related damages against government employees under common
                  law theories or pursuant to Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act are apparently nonexistent.


                  LIABILITY AND HAZARD REDUCTION ACTIVITIES

                  The potential for government liability differs depending upon the level of government involved.
                  Liability also differs with regard to the following types of hazard reduction measures that may be
                  carried out.



                  Flood Control Measures


                  Local and state governments have often been successfully sued for negligence in the construction,
                  operation or maintenance of dikes, dams, levees, drainage ditches, and other flood control measures.

                  In contrast, the federal government is not liable for damages resulting from the design or operation
                  of flood control facilities because Section 702(c) of the Flood Control Act of 193617 specifically
                  exempts the federal government from liability for flood control measures. Nevertheless, landowners
                  have often attempted to sue the federal government for negligent operation of flood control works.
                  With minor exceptions," however, courts have found no federal liability because of the Section.
                  702(c) exemption.


                  Mapping

                  In several cases, landowners have attempted to sue the federal government for damages caused by
                  inaccurate federal flood maps. So far, no suit has succeeded. In two cases, the court held that maps
                  prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency were, in fact, flood control measures and
                  subject to the broad federal flood control immunity.49

                  Landowners, however, have successfully brought cases against several states for disseminating
                  inaccurate hazard information.50



                  Warning Systems

                  The adequacy of warnings and warning systems has been litigated in only a small number of cases
                  although more such cases can be expected due to the establishment of a large number of warning
                  systems and broadened concepts of government liability. In one decision, a federal court held that
                  the federal government was not liable for an inadequate or inaccurate flood warning along the
                  Missouri Rivens'

                  In a recent and widely publicized case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ist Circuit52 held that the
                  National Weather Service (NWS) was not responsible for failing to provide a weather report warning
                  ships of a quickly developing and very powerful hurricane. A NWS weather buoy had not been
                  working at the time the NWS issued its weather report for the Georges Bank off the coast of








              Legal Interpretations by the Courts                                                                        10-15



              Massachusetts. Several boats and crewmen were lost. Relatives of the victims brought action in
              federal district court claiming that the NWS was negligent because of the inoperative buoy and the
              resulting lack of warning by the NWS. The District Court held that the NWS could be sued for negli-
              gence and a jury awarded damages. This decision was appealed to a federal appellate court. The
              appellate court held that there was no evidence the NWS would have issued a different report if the
              equipment had been working, and reversed the district court. Although the federal government won,
              the case suggests that federal liability could result if a flood warning system was not adequately
              maintained and lack of maintenance could be shown as the cause of an inadequate warning and subse-
              quent damages.



              Flood Insurance


              Undowners insured by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) have filed a relatively large
              number of suits claiming inadequate payment (Neubauer, 1988). In general, the suits have been of
              a technical nature, and have addressed the precise terms of the insurance contract, including compen-
              sable types of losses (e.g., flood vs. landslide), compensable items (e.g., rugs vs. structure), and levels
              of compensation.

              Some flood insurance-related suits have been broader-based and of greater overall significance with
              regard to floodplAin management. For example, a federal court in one case held that landowners
              and communities have no right to flood insurance and can not claim that denial of such insurance
              was a taking of property.53


              Disaster Assistance

              The provision or absence of disaster assistance has not resulted in much litigation since courts have
              held that the disaster assistance statutes do not, in general, create any "rights" to disaster assistance.


              Evacuation Planning

              Apparently no court has considered the adequacy of particular evacuation plans or the community,
              federal, or state efforts to carry out such plans. A court would likely afford a government unit broad
              discretion without liability in the preparation of evacuation plans. There is a risk of liability, however,
              with respect to plan implementation. Successful law suits against communities by or on behalf of
              individuals injured or killed by police vehicles or ambulances involved in more routine emergency
              services suggest that communities could similarly be held liable for negligence in carrying out
              emergency evacuation activities. The test for reasonableness, however, would be reasonableness in
              the emergency context, not under ordinary circumstances.








                   10-16                                                  Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                   Vertical Evacuation (Refuge)

                   Potential federal, state, or local liability for designation of structures as "vertical refuges" during a
                   flood or hurricane has been broadly debated in recent years. This potential liability has also been
                   addressed in a recent study (Ruch and others, 1991).

                   The potential for liability is significant in some respects because loss of life is likely if a structure
                   designated as a vertical refuge should fail during a severe storm. There would be no way to escape
                   a collapsing structure surrounded by water at the height of a storm. As noted previously, the degree
                   of care that private individuals or governments must exercise to act "reasonably" in a specific circum-
                   stance depends, in part, upon the degree of risk present. Liability for loss of life or damages that
                   might result from vertical refuge failure, however, depends on a broad range of other factors.

                   Clearly, private developers who promote new residences as "hurricane proof" or safe for use during
                   a hurricane could be held liable if the structures failed during a hurricane.54 Occupants (or, more
                   likely, their decedents) could claim they were induced to buy the structure based on this assurance,
                   and that an express or.implied contract existed between seller and buyer.

                   Avery different liability situation, however, would exist if a government unit merely designates certain
                   buildings as possible refuges of last resort should evacuation become impossible, and warns that such
                   designation provides no guarantee of safety. In this instance, there would be no express or implied
                   contract and the government unit could only be held liable for negligence in designating the structure.



                                                  AVOIDING LEGAL PROBLEMS


                   As the threat of liability has increased, along with fears that flood loss reduction measures may be
                   judged as a taking of property, some government units have undertaken measures to reduce potential
                   legal problems. The extent to which such precautionary measures have been undertaken, however,
                   is unclear.



                   AVOIDING CONSTITUUONAL PROBLEMS


                   A number of measures have been taken to reduce the constitutional challenges to floodplain
                   regulations and other loss reduction measures.

                       Instead of prohibiting all activities in hazard areas, many states and local governments have
                       adopted regulations with stringent performance standards. These standards often exceed the
                       minimum NFrP standards. For example, Wisconsin has adopted a zero-rise floodway standard
                       to prevent any significant increase in flood heights. It is extremely unlikely that such a perfor-
                       mance standard approach based on a sound and uniformly applied concept of hazard reduction
                       would be held as a taking.








                -Legal Interpretations by the Courts                                                                       1.0-17



                ï¿½  Many states and local governments have mapped floodplains in greater detail and with greater
                   accuracy than the NFIP. Detailed and accurate maps reduce the possibility of successful
                   constitutional challenges based on claims of unreasonableness or taking.
                ï¿½  Many local governments have provided real estate tax breaks for tightly controlled land.
                   Coordination of regulatory, tax, acquisition, public works, and other community programs to
                   diminish the financial burden on tightly regulated landowners makes good sense from a constitu-
                   tional perspective.

                ï¿½  Many communities have adopted improved permitting and record-keeping procedures, including
                   relatively detailed statements of findings for permit denials, so that these communities are better
                   able to defend their positions if challenged in court.


                AVOIDING LIABILITY DUE TO INCREASED FLOOD DAMAGES


                Communities are also taking actions to reduce potential liability for flood damages or to reduce the
                impact of liability suits.

                ï¿½  Many communities, state agencies, and federal agencies are obtaining legal advice for avoiding
                   future problems. This advice may pertain not only to what the agencies do but how they do it.
                   For example, from a legal perspective it may be desirable to submit proposed standards for
                   bridge openings, stormwater design, and flood protection elevations to a community's legislative
                   body (e.g., city council) for debate and approval. Due to the special way legislative decisions
                   are treated by the courts, legislative judgments, particularly those of a discretionary nature, are
                   less likely to result in a successful liability suit than are agency decisions. Courts generally defer
                   to legislative judgment.

                ï¿½  Some communities are preparing comprehensive flood hazard reduction plans and implementing
                   such plans with the philosophy that "liability can be avoided if flood damages are avoided."
                   From a legal perspective, this is a sound philosophy. Regulations that prohibit private landown-
                   ers from increasing flood or drainage problems on land owned by others are virtually certain
                   to be upheld in court and may help to avoid future lawsuits against the municipality (which is
                   often viewed as having a deep pocket even if it is not principally responsible for flood damages).

                ï¿½  Communities -have enrolled in the NFIP to avoid liability because they have learned that
                   landowners are much less likely to sue for flood damages if the landowners have insurance'and
                   are quickly compensated for such damages.

                ï¿½  Many communities are adopting drainage plans and regulations as well as flood hazard reduction
                   plans and regulations. To do so, they are adopting stormwater and grading ordinances as well
                   as stormwater and drainage systems. Most of the suits against cities for flood problems are, in
                   fact, for damages due to interference with natural drainage.

                ï¿½  Communities are avoiding hazard-prone locations for public works such as schools and libraries
                   or quasi-public works such as industrial parks where users or lessees may be damaged by
                   flooding.

                ï¿½  Agencies and communities are operating and maintaining dikes, levees, channels, flood warning
                   systems, and other flood loss reduction measures with greater care to avoid claims of negligence.








                   1048                                                    Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s,



                   ï¿½   Communities are designing public works including roads, sewers, bridges, and sewage treatment
                       plants so that these works comply with federal, state and local floodplain guidelines and regula-
                       tions and so they do not block flood flows or cause drainage problems.

                   ï¿½   Communities are applying remedial flood loss reduction measures to reduce the vulnerability
                       of existing floodprone development, particularly where some of the flood hazard has been caused
                       by government activities. These remedial measures may include acquisition and relocation,
                       establishment of flood warning systems, construction of flood control works, and enlargements
                       for bridge opening and culverts.
                   ï¿½ Communities are purchasing liability insurance or establishing self-insurance pools or plans.



                                                 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


                   Litigation concerning government flood loss reduction measures takes two principal forms: 1)
                   "constitutional" challenges to floodplain regulations and other loss reduction measures; and 2)
                   "liability suits" initiated by those suffering flood losses as a result of incorrectly designed, maintained
                   or administered flood loss reduction measures.

                   The legality of various public flood hazard reduction measures and the threat of successful claims
                   for damages against government agencies for such measures are of concern to floodplain managers
                   at all levels of government. This concern has developed as a result of many court decisions in recent
                   years holding government agencies liable for actions that increased flood damages, and as a result
                   of a small number of successful lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of land-use regulations.

                   The types of lawsuits and the specific issues litigated have changed over the last twenty years,
                   reflecting changes in the predominant floodplain management techniques in use and the general status
                   of constitutional and tort (liability) law, as well as unresolved legal issues associated with flood loss
                   reduction techniques.

                   Three U.S. Supreme Court cases decided in 1987 addressing the constitutionality of specific land-use
                   regulations were widely, but inaccurately, reported to have invalidated hazard reduction regulations.
                   Although the three decisions are not easy to reconcile or interpret, and raise a number of additional
                   legal questions, they pertain almost entirely to regulations (not to other floodplain management
                   techniques) and do not generally invalidate hazard reduction regulations that are soundly based.

                   From a constitutional perspective, floodplain managers can continue to have confidence that
                   perform ance-oriented floodplain regulations (e.g., building codes, subdivision regulations, zoning
                   regulations) will be upheld in the courts despite restrictions that may affect private property owners
                   in some instances. It is important, however, that certain guidelines be followed in formulating and
                   implementing these regulations to reduce potential legal problems and lessen the risk of constitutional
                   challenge.








               Legal Interpretations by the Courts                                                                                       10-19



               From a liability perspective, floodplain managers should also have confidence that carefully prepared
               flood loss reduction measures will reduce community and state liability. Specific actions suggested
               in this chapter can be taken to further reduce potential government liability.



                                                                     CITATIONS


               1.   See, e.g., Monis County Land Improvement Company v. Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills, 193 A.2d 232 (N.J., 1963);
                    Dooley v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission, 197 A.2d 770 (Conn., 1964).

               2.   107 S. Ct. 1232 (1987).

               3.   107 S. Ct. 2378 (1987).

               4.   Chief Justice Rehnquist, speaking for the Court noted:

                    "We accordingly have no occasion to decide whether the ordinance at issue actually denied appellant all use of its
                    property or whether the county might avoid the conclusions that a compensable taking has occurred by establishing
                    that the denial of all use was insulated as part of the State's authority to enact safety regulations."

               5.   107 S. Ct. 3141 (1987).

               6.   SeeAdolph v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 854 F.2d 732 (5th Cir., 1988);Aprilv. City qfBrokenArrow, 775
                    p.2d 1347'(Okla., 1989); ReelEnterprises v. CityofLaCrosse, 431 N.W.2d 743 (Wis., 1988);American Cyanamid v. Dept.
                    of Envir. Prot., 555 A.2d 684 (N.J., 1989); First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 258 Cal.
                    Rptr. 893 (Cal., 1989); Armonas v. Pratt, 526 N.Y.S. 2d 511 (N.Y., 1988); Temer v. Spyco, Inc., 545 A.2nd 192 (NJ.,
                    1988).

               7.   First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 258 Cal. Rptr. 893 (Cal., 1989).

               8.   See, e.g., Maple Leaf Investors, Inc. v. State of Washingto4 Department of EcoloV, 565 P.2d 1162 (Wash., 1977).

               9.   See, e.g., Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954).

               10.  See many cases cited in Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis        107 S. Ct. 1232 (1987).

               11.  See, e.g., Burrows v. City of Keene, 432 A.2d 15 (N.H., 1981). But see County of Ramsey v. Stevens, 283 N.W.2d 918
                    (Minn., 1979).

               12.  See, e.g., Morland Development Co. v. City of Tulsa, 596 P.2d 1255 (Oki., 1979). See also Hirsch v. Maryland Department
                    of Natural Resources, 416 A.2d 10 (Md., 1980).

               13.  See generally, Homeowners, Emergency Life Protection Committee v. Lynn, 432 F. Supp. 1334 (1977); but see Texas
                    Committee on Natural Resources v. Marsh, 736 R@d 262 (1984).

               14.  See, e.g., Bergen County v. Dole, 620 F. Supp. 1009 (1985); Savia v. US. Postal Service, 659 F. Supp. 653 (1987).

               15.  City of Welch v. Mitchell, 121 S.E. 165 (W. Va., 1924).

               16.  Queen City Terminals, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 666 F. Supp. 1035 (1987).

               17.  107 S. Ct. 3141 (1987).

               18.  See, e.g., Tumpike Rea4 Co. v. Town of Dedham, 284 N.E.2d 891 (Mass., 1972); cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1108 (1973);
                    Just v. Marinette County, 201 N.W.2d 761 (Wis., 1972).








                        10-20                                                              Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s



                        19. See Sturdy Homes, Inc. v. Township of Redford, 186 N.W.2d 43 (Mich., 1971). See also A.H. Smith Sand and Gravel
                             Co. v. Department of Water Resources, 313 A.2d 820 (Md., 1974).

                        20.  Maple Leaf Investors Inc. v. State of Washington, 565 P.2d 1162 (Wash., 1977).

                        21.  Young Plumbing and Heating Co. v. Iowa Natural Resources Council, 276 N.W.2d 377 (Iowa, 1979).

                        22.  See, e.g., Just v. Marinette County, 201 N.W.2d 761 (Wis., 1972).

                        23.  See many cases cited in Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis, 107 S. Ct. 1232 (1987).

                        24.  See Responsible Citizens in Opposition to the Floodplain Ordinance v. City of Asheville, 302 S.E.2d 204 (N.C., 1983).

                        25.  See, e.g., Indialantic v. McNulty, 400 So. 2d 1227 (Fla., 1981).

                        26.  Lucas v.South Carolina Coastal Council, 403 S.E.2d 620.

                        27.  See, e.g., Lindquist v. Omaha Realty, Inc. 247 N.W.2d 684 (S.D., 1976); Cappture Reahy Corporation v. Board of
                             Adjustment of Elmwood Park, 313 A.2d 624 (NJ., 1973).

                        28.  See., e.g., Foreman v. Department of Natural Resources, 387 N.E.2d 455 (Ind., 1979); Oswalt v. Ramsey County, 371
                             N.W.2d 241 (Minn., 1985).

                        29.  See, e.g., Turnpike Realty Co. v. Town of Dedham, 284 N.E.2d 891 (Mass., 1972), cert. den. 409 U.S. 1108 (1973).

                        30.  See, e.g., Brown v. City of Joliet, 247 N.E.2d 47 (Ill., 1969); Hamlin v. Matarazzo, 293 A.2d 450 (NJ., 1972).

                        31.  Boland v. City of Rapid City, 315 N.W.2d 496 (S.D., 1982).

                        32.  Oswalt v. Ramsey County, 371 N.W.2d 241 (Minn., 1985).

                        33.  See, e.g., Lemp v. Town Board of Town of Islip, 394 N.Y.S. 2d 517 (N.Y., 1977).

                        34.  See Hall v. Board of Environmental Protection, 528 A.2d 453 (Me., 1987).

                        35.  See, e.g., Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 787 p.2d 907 (Wash., 1990); JM. Mills, Inc. v. Murphy, 352 A.2d 661 (R.I.,
                             1976); Houslet v. State Dept. ofNatural Resources, 329 N.W.2d 219 (Wis., 1982); Rowe v. Town offorth Hampton, 553
                             A.2d 1331 (N.H., 1989).

                        36.  See generally William Want, 1990, Law of Wetlands Regulation, Clark Boardman Company, N.Y., N.Y. and the many
                             cases cited therein.

                        37.  See United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 106 S. Ct. 455 (1985).

                        38.  See, e.g., County of Pine v. State, Dept. of Nat. Res., 280 N.W.2d 625 (Minn., 1979); April v. City of Broken Arrow, 775
                             p.2d 1347 (Oki., 1989).

                        39.  See, e.g., Barr v. Game, Fish, and Parks Commission of Colorado, 497 P.2d 340 (Colo., 1972).

                        40.  See, e.g., County of Clark v. Powers, 611 P.2d 1072 (Nev., 1980); Enghauser Manufacturing Company v. Eriksson
                             Engineering, Ltd., 451 N.E.2d 228 (Oh., 1983).

                        41.  See, e.g., Slemp v. City offorth Miami, 515 So. 2d 353 (Fla., 1987); but see Sprecher v. Adamson Companies, 636 P.2d
                             1121 (Cal., 1981).

                        42.  See, e.g., French v. City of Springfteld, 357 N.E.2d 438 (111.,1976); Harvey v. Board of Commissioners of Wabash County,
                             416 N.E.2d 1296 (Ind. App., 1981).

                        43.  See cases cited in Annot. "Applicability of Rule of Strict or Absolute Liability to Overflow or Escape of Water Caused
                             by Dam Failure," 51 A.L.R.3d 965 (1973).








             Legal Interpretations by the Courts                                                                   10-21



             44. See, e.g., Laukkanen v. Jewel Tea Co., 222 N.E.2d 594 (111., 1966); Ducey v. US., 830 F.2d 1071.

             45. See e.g., Valley Cattle Company v. US., 258 F. Supp. 12 (D.C., 1966).

             46. See, e.g., Lake Counny Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391 (1979).

             47. 33 U.S.CA 702(c). See, e.g., cases cited in noted 43, 45 infra.

             48. See, e.g., Price v. United States, 530 F. Supp. 1010 (SD Miss., 1981).

             49. Barvni v. United States, 662 F.2d 287 (1981); See also, Britt v. United States, 515 F. Supp. 1159 (1981).

             50. See, e.g., Connelly v. State, 84 Cal. Rptr. 257 (Cal., 1970).

             51. National Manufacturing Co. v. U.S., 210 F.2d 263 (CA., 1954).

             52. Brown  v. U.S. 790, F.2d 199 (CA., 1986).

             53. See, e.g., Texas Landowners Rights Association v. Harris, 453 F. Supp. 1025 (DC., 1978), affd. 598 F.2d 311 (1975), cert.
                 den. 444 U.S. 927 (1929). See also Responsible Citizens v. City ofAsheville, 302 S.E.2d 204 (N.C., 1983) and Adolf v.
                 FEMA, 854 F.2d 732.

             54. See, e.g., Ber4 Inc. v. Salishan Propeplies, Inc., 580 P.2d 173 (Ore., 1978); McFeeters v. Renollet, 500 P.2d 47 (Kan., 1972).













                                                                                           PART IV:

                                                 APPLICATION OF THE
                             STRATEGIES AND TOOLS FOR
                                FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT




            This Part of the Assessment Report examines how and to what extent each of the strategies
            and tools identified in A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management are currently
            being applied. A separate chapter is devoted to each of the following basic strategies:

            ï¿½ Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption
            ï¿½ Modifying Flooding
            ï¿½ Modifying the Impacts of Flooding
            ï¿½ Managing Natural and Cultural Resources

            The strategies and tools are means for achieving compatibility between floodplain use, the
            risk associated with floodplain occupancy, and protection of floodplain resources. Choosing
            between alternative uses and activities in the floodplain is primarily a local decision that may
            result in single or multi-objective floodplain use, but this use should be compatible with the
            risk and with the natural and cultural values provided by floodplain resources.









               CHAPTER 11:


               MODIFYING SUSCEPTIBILITY TO
               FLOOD DAMAGE AND DISRUPTION



                   7he range ofpossible adjustments which can be made to a hazard must be identified. It is rare
                   that only one course of action is. worthy of consideratiom

                                                          White, et al. Natural Hazard Management in Coastal Areas, 1976



               The strategy to modify susceptibility to flood damage and disruption consists of actions to avoid
               dangerous, uneconomical, undesirable, or unwise use of the floodplain.

                   These actions include restrictions in the mode and the time of day andlor season of occupancy;
                   in the ways and means of access; in the pattern, density, and elevation of structures and in the
                   character of their materials (structural strength, adsorptiveness, solubility, corrodibility); in the
                   shape and type of buildings and in their contents; and in the appurtenantfacilities and landscap-
                   ing of the grounds. The strateg may also necessitate changes in the interdependencies between
                   floodplains and surrounding areas not subject to flooding, especially interdependencies regarding
                   utilities and commerce (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986).

               Specific tools to implement this strategy include:'
               ï¿½   floodplain regulations;
               ï¿½   development and redevelopment policies;
               ï¿½   floodproofing;
               ï¿½   disaster preparedness and response plans; and
               ï¿½   flood forecasting and warning systems.












                   The 1986 edition ofA Unified National Program for Floodplain Management lists "disaster assistance" under
                   the strategy of modifying susceptibility to flood damage and disruption. For the purpose of thisAssessment
                   Report, disaster assistance is described in Chapter 13 as part of the strategy to modify the impacts of flooding.








                    11-2                                       Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                                                      FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS


                    While the early history of floodplain management was dominated by structural flood control measures,
                    the last 15 to 20 years can be characterized as an era of regulation. A substantial share of federal
                    and state efforts, as well as local efforts, have been devoted to floodplain regulation over the last 20
                    years (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1989). In the late 1960s, only a few hundred
                    municipalities and counties had adopted floodplain zoning or flood-related subdivision regulations
                    (Kusler, 1982). Since 1968 when the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) was passed, more than
                    16,000 communities have adopted some level of floodplain regulation as a result of their participation
                    in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). As a result, floodplain regulations are probably
                    the most widespread floodplain management tool currently in use, and have a potentially greater
                    impact on flood loss reduction than any other tool.

                    Floodplain regulation is primarily a local government responsibility, but generally states must enact
                    enabling legislation to permit local governments and state agencies to exercise regulatory authority
                    over floodplains.2 Several states directly regulate some development in the floodplain (usually
                    restricted to certain categories of development or development in specifically defined sections of the
                    floodplain) and may regulate all floodplain development if a local government fails to act. Much of
                    the impetus for state and local actions in floodplain regulation has come from the federal level.

                    Floodplain regulations may be used to: 1) control future development in floodplains; and 2) correct
                    inappropriate development already in the floodplain. In practice, control of future development
                    thr,ough regulations has proven much easier than efforts to, remove or otherwise correct existing,
                    inappropriate development.


                    LIMITATIONS OF FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS

                    One consequence of the significant effort directed toward community adoption of floodplain regula-
                    tions is that, to a large degree, floodplain management has become synonymous with floodplain
                    regulation in the minds of many people - among both the general public and floodplain management
                    professionals. A common misperception is that once floodplain regulations are adopted, a communi-
                    ty's flooding problems will be largely solved. Due to the inherent limitations of floodplain regulations,
                    however, and the manner and extent to which they are currently being implemented, regulations alone
                    cannot provide a community or individual with full protection from future flood losses.

                    The principal limitations of floodplain regulations are associated with the following:

                    e 'REsisTANCE TO LAND-USE REGUIATIONs: Throughout much of the country, there remains wide-
                    spread resistance to any type of land-use regulation. Floodplain regulations are perceived to restrict
                    an individual's rights on privately owned property and to reduce property values. Not everyone is


                    2   In some states, municipalities and counties have "home rule" powers. "Home rule powers are usually
                        considered 'residual powers' (not exercised by the state) which may be exercised by local legislative bodies
                        to carry out municipal functions. In most instances, home rule powers are confined to matters of local
                        concern" (Federal Insurance Administration, 1976).








              Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dismption                                                11-3



              convinced of the need for floodplain management, and some people particularly object to the use
              of regulations to help advance goals important to society (The Wildlife Management Institute, 1989).

              0 THE "TAKING ISSUE": Concern that regulations         which may reduce the potential economic value
              of an individual's property will be ruled as an unconstitutional taking of property without proper
              compensation is a factor that keeps many communities from adopting more than minimum regula-
              tions. This is the case even if local officials perceive the need for stronger regulations (Bureau of
              Reclamation, 1989). Concern over the taking issue is widespread, even though courts have consis-
              tently upheld the validity of properly constructed floodplain regulations.'

              0 ]LACK OF EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT: Effective enforcement often requires greater training
              personnel, and financial resources than many communities can provide.

                  ... the main ingredient that would improve effectiveness of the [NFIP]program in [LosAngeles]
                  is enforcement. We suspect this is a common obstacle to effective floodplain management
                  throughout the nation. Although ordinances are adequate to define andpursue violations, the
                  legalprocesses are time consuming and costly, and it is ertremely difficult to continually observe
                  the natural watercourses in order to detect these violations. The degree of effectiveness that
                  would be satisfying in this area is not acceptable in terms of manpower commitment at this time.
                  Therefore, the program operates on a random observation basis. (Tidemanson, 1989).

                  LIMITED IMPACT ON EXISTING BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE: A fundamental limitation of
              floodplain regulations is their very limited impact on buildings and infrastructure already in the
              floodplain and subject to flooding. When the NFIA was enacted, it was anticipated that redevelop-
              ment would eventually result in removal or upgrading of the inventory of existing floodplain
              structures. This process appears to be slower than originally anticipated.

              0 REGULATIONS DO NOT PREVENT DEVELOPMENT IN FLOODPL.AJNS: Another limitation of floodplain
              regulations as currently employed is that they do not prevent development in floodplains. This,
              coupled with the failure to account for future development and resulting increases in flood levels
              (see below), will lead in the long term to increased flooding in many areas.

              0 REGULATIONS DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT: Most current floodplain
              regulations are based on the development and hydrologic conditions at the time of floodplain
              mapping, and do not take into account future development that will occur within and outside of the
              floodplain.

              0 REGULATIONS DO LITTLETO PRoTEcTFLOODPLAIN NATURAL RESOURCES. Most floodplain regulations
              currently do little to protect the natural resources of floodplains. Only in coastal areas where regula-
              tions prevent sand dune and mangrove destruction that would increase flooding are natural resources
              specifically protected by floodplain regulations. To the extent that floodplain regulations allow
              development in floodplains - even though that development may not be subject to flood damage
                  the regulations can contribute to the loss of natural resources through the modification of



              3   Refer to Chapter 10 for a review of court decisions relating to the taking issue.








                  114                                      Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  wetlands and other wildlife habitat, and reduction in water quality caused by loss of stream buffers
                  and introduction of various pollutants within the floodplain.


                  FEDERAL ROLE IN FLOODPLAIN REGULATION

                  House Document 465,A Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses, noted the early efforts
                  of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to encourage floodplain regulation in communities in the
                  Tennessee Valley Region. Also noted were the efforts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
                  to evaluate regulatory measures as an alternative to traditional, structural approaches in its flood
                  information studies. Information, education, and technical assistance for floodplain regulation by both
                  the TVA and the Corps have continued and remain strong components of the overall floodplain
                  management programs of these agencies. Clearly though, the dominant federal role in regulatory
                  actions to reduce flood losses throughout the 1970s and 1980s has been the National Flood Insurance
                  Program as administered by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA).


                  National Flood Insurance Program

                  The NFIP encompasses a broad range of activities that address many aspects of floodplain manage-
                  ment. The following description of the NFIP is limited to the floodplain regulations that participating
                  communities must adopt to be eligible for flood insurance. Flood insurance and other aspects of the
                  NFIP are described in other sections of this chapter and in Chapter 13.

                  Although participation by local communities in the NFIP is voluntary, of 21,926 communities identified
                  by the FIA as floodprone, 18,023 (82 percent) had joined the program as of September 30, 1990
                  (Matticks, 1990). Communities that participate in the NFIP in order to make flood insurance
                  available within the community must enact floodplain regulations that, as a minimum requirement,
                  meet standards established by the FIA. Minimum regulation requirements established by the FIA
                  vary depending on the level of risk studies and mapping that have been prepared for the community.
                  The FIA has developed several program activities to assist states and communities in adopting and
                  complying with minimum floodplain regulations.

                  ï¿½   Emergency and Regular Phases. The NFIP operates under two components: the emergency
                      phase and the regular phase. Communities participate in the emergency phase before detailed
                      risk studies have been completed. Once risk studies have been completed, or it is determined
                      that detailed risk studies are not required because of low flood risk, communities are then
                      converted to the regular phase of the NFIP. Of the 18,023 communities participating in the NFIP
                      as of September 30, 1990, 17,743 (98.4 percent) were in the regular phase and 280 (1.6 percent)
                      in the emergency phase (Matticks, 1990). The emergency phase of the program is scheduled to
                      expire on September 30, 1991.

                  ï¿½   Flood Risk Studies and Risk Zones (Floodplain Mapping). With congressional authorization
                      through the National Flood Insurance Act, the FIA initiated a massive program to study and map
                      the flood risk for each of the floodprone communities it has identified. The first flood risk map
                      prepared for a community is the Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) which identifies flood






              Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption                                                11-5



                   hazard areas based on approximations of the land area in the community having a one percent
                   or greater chance of being flooded in a given year. This initial map is usually followed by a
                   detailed Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) which identify
                   the elevation of the one percent annual chance flood (referred to in the NFIP as the base flood)
                   and the areas that would be inundated by that level of flooding. The FHBM and FIRM are used
                   to determine areas subject to the floodplain regulations that participating communities must
                   adopt.4

                   The maps designate areas subject to different types of flood risks. Table 11-1 shows the symbols
                   and descriptions of the different risk zones used by the FIA in FHBMs and FIRMs. Floodplain
                   regulations required by the NFIP are related to the risk zone as well as to the level of mapping
                   completed. The zones subject to different types of regulations are: areas subject to a one percent
                   annual chance flood (shown as an A, AE, AO, A99, AH zone); coastal high hazard areas subject
                   to a one percent annual chance flood and wave action (shown as a V or VE zone); and designat-
                   ed floodways. Where floodways have been designated (floodways are not applicable in coastal
                   high hazard areas), the portion of the floodplain outside the floodway is referred to as the
                   floodway fringe. Figure 11-1 shows the relationship between the floodway, floodplain and
                   floodway fringe areas. Other types of designated risk zones that the FIA has not yet applied are
                   mudslide and flood-related erosion zones.

                   The FIA has developed or adapted several models and procedures to assess flood risks and
                   delineate flood risk zones for different types of hazards. Several of the models and procedures
                   have been modified to apply specifically to different geographic areas. Regulatory procedures
                   provide for community and private input into the risk studies and maps prior to adoption.
                   Amendment procedures are available to respond to inaccuracies and to make modifications based
                   on changing conditions.

                   Mapping of flood hazard areas is acknowledged as a major accomplishment of the NFIP, with
                   flood hazards identified for more than 18,000 floodprone communities. Criticisms of the mapping
                   program have generally centered on the expense involved, the inaccuracies of some maps, failure
                   to incorporate the effects of increased urbanization into the identified flood hazard areas, and
                   the printing of maps in a format that is more useful for flood insurance agents and not just
                   floodplain managers. Improvements with respect to most of these areas of criticism have been
                   made over the past decade.

                   Most of the remaining concerns relate to: 1) the need for and costs (if left to communities) of
                   remapping flood hazard areas to reflect local hydrology changes; and 2) the failure of maps to
                   incorporate increased urbanization, and subsequently higher flood levels in future years. The
                   FIA's decision not to reflect the effects of increased urbanization on floodplain maps is viewed
                   by some as contributing to future flood damages (National Association of Flood and Stormwater
                   Management Agencies, 1989).





              4    FIRMs are also used to determine flood insurance rates, as described in Chapter 13.








                  11-6                                     Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  Table 11-1.     Rate Zones Used in Flood Mapping Studies.


                              SYMBOL                       DESCRIPTION

                              Special Flood Hazard    Coastal High Hazard Areas
                              V                            Where water surface elevations have not been
                                                           determined, subject to wave action, and are
                                                           inundated by tidal floods (coastal high hazard area).
                              VE(a)                        Where water surface elevations have been determined,
                                                           subject to wave action, and inundated by tidal floods.


                              Special Flood Hazard    Other than Coastal High Hazard Areas
                              A                            Where water surface elevation has not been determined.
                              AE(b)                        Where water surface elevation has been determined.
                              AO                           Where there are shallow water depths and/or unpredictable
                                                           flow paths between (1) and (3) feet.
                              A99                          Where enough progress has been made on a protective system
                                                           (such as dikes, dams, and levees) to consider it complete
                                                           for insurance rating purposes.
                              AH                           Where there are shallow water depths and/or unpredictable
                                                           flow paths between (1) and (3) feet, and where water
                                                           surface elevations have been determined.
                              VO(c)                        Where there are shallow water depths and/or unpredictable
                                                           flow paths between (1) and (3) feet, and subject to wave action.

                              Little/Undetermined Hazard Areas
                              X(d)                         Area of moderate/minimal flood hazards.
                              D                            Area of undetermined but possible flood hazard.


                              Special Flood-Related Hazard(e)
                              E                            Area of special flood-related erosion hazards.


                              Mudslide (mudflow) Areas(f)
                              M                            Area of special mudslide (i.e., mudflow) hazards.
                              N                            Area of moderate mudslide (i.e., mudflow) hazards.
                              P                            Area of undetermined, but possible, mudslide hazards.


                              (a) In older maps, these areas are designated by the symbol VI-30.
                              (b) In older maps, these areas are designated by the symbol Al-30.
                              (c) This symbol rarely used in mapping studies.
                              (d) In older maps, areas of moderated/minimal flood hazard were designated either by B (moderate hazard),
                                  or C (minimal hazard).
                              (e) To date the FIA has not used "E" symbol/designation in mapping studies.
                              (f) To date the FIA has not used these dcsignations/symbols in mapping studies.


                      Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration. Regulations implementing the NFIP 44 CFR 64.3.







              Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption                                                11-7






                                                              Floodplain
                                   -Flood Fringe-      -Floodway               -Flood Fringe-

                      Floodway Land Uses                              Flood Fringe Uses
                        Prohibited or Discouraged:                       Prohibited or Discouraged:
                            Most structures and fills.                      Storage of toxic materials.
                                                                            Hospitals and other vital facilities.
                        Permitted:
                            Farming, pasture, forestry                   Permitted:
                            open space, recreation,                         All other uses with developments
                            wildlife preserves.                             elevated on fill or otherwise
                                                                            protected against damage.


                                       Floodplain regulation can be emplcyed to limit uses in an
                                       area to those which are consistent with the flood hazard.


                        Source: Flood Loss Reduction Asociates. Floodplain Management Handbook U.S. Water Resources CDunCit 1991.
              Figure 11-1.    Relationship Between Floodplain, Floodway, and Flood Fringe Areas.



              0   Minimum Floodplain Regulations. All communities participating in the NFIP must meet
                  minimum floodplain management requirements that include:

                  ï¿½   implementing a permit program for all proposed new development;
                  ï¿½   reviewing subdivision proposals to assure that potential flood damage is minimized;
                  ï¿½   anchoring and floodproofing structures to be built in known floodprone areas;
                  ï¿½   safeguarding new water and sewage systems and utility lines from flooding; and
                  ï¿½   (in the regular phase only) enforcing risk zone, base flood elevations, and floodway require-
                      ments after the FIRM becomes effective.

                  The states are also required to meet minimum floodplain management requirements with respect
                  to any state facilities located within a special flood hazard area. State facilities must comply with
                  the floodplain management regulations of the community in which the facility is located, or. with
                  state standards approved by the FIA.

                  Numerous performance and specified standards applicable to each risk zone are detailed in FIA
                  regulations. Some of the more critical requirements for communities participating in the regular
                  phase of the NFIP are described on the following pages. The term "base flood" is generally used
                  in the FIA regulations and is therefore used here instead of "one percent annual chance flood."
                                   :IFI,ood Fringe-








                   11-8                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                      1)  NEW DEVELOPMENT AND SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS: Most regulatory requirements apply
                          to new development and substantial improvements started after the date that the community's
                          regulations are adopted. The FIA, the states, and the communities have all encountered
                          difficulty interpreting and complying with the requirement regarding substantial improvement
                          of structures. Community officials have particular concerns with respect to the issuance of
                          permits for the repair of damaged structures following a serious flood or other disaster.
                          Questions have arisen regarding what constitutes substantial improvement or substantial
                          damage, who makes the determination, and the criteria for granting variances. The FIA has
                          attempted to address these concerns by providing information to communities (Federal
                          Emergency Management Agency, 1989), and by modifying the definitions of "substantial
                          improvemen    t9@ and "substantial damage." Current definitions as of October 1, 1989 are:

                               "Substantial damage means" damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the
                               cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50
                               percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.

                               "Substantial improvement means" any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other
                               improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market
                               value of the structure before, the "start of construction" of the improvement 77zis term
                               includes structures which have incurred 'substantial damage',, regardless of the actual
                               repair work performed. The term does no4 however, include either.

                                   (1) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state
                                   or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by
                                   the local code enforcement of
                                                                .ficials and which are the minimum necessary to assure
                                   safe living conditions or

                                   (2) Any alteration of a "historic structure, " provided that the alteration will not
                                   preclude the structure's continued designation as a "historic structure" (44 CFR,
                                   Section 59.1).

                      2) REGULATORY FLOODWAY: If a regulatory floodway has been delineated, no fill or develop-
                          ment that would raise the base flood level is permitted within the area of the regulatory
                          floodway that would raise the base flood level.

                      3)  RESISTANCE TO FLOOD WATERS: All new construction and substantial improvements must
                          be constructed: to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure; with
                          materials resistent to flood damage.; and by methods and practices that minimize flood
                          damage. Also, electrical and other service facilities must be designed and located to prevent
                          water from entering or accumulating within the components during flooding.

                      4)  ELEVATION TO BASE FLOOD LEVEL: All residential structures must have the lowest floor
                          (including basement) elevated to or above the base flood level. All nonresidential structures
                          must have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated to or above the base flood level
                          or, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be designed so that below the base
                          flood level the structure is water-tight and capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
                          loads and effects of buoyancy.







             Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption                                           11-9



                 5) ENCLOSED AREAS BELOW BASE FLOOD ELEVATION: These areas must be designed to allow
                     for the entry and exit of floodwater to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on
                     exterior walls, and have electrical and other utility connections above the base flood level.

                 6)  STRUCTURES IN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS: Specific requirements for all new construc-
                     tion or substantial improvement in coastal high hazard areas include:

                     ï¿½   All new construction or substantial improvement must be located landward of the mean
                         high tide line;

                     ï¿½   All new construction or substantial improvements must be elevated on pilings or columns
                         so that the bottom of the lowest supporting horizontal member is located at or above
                         the base flood elevation;

                     ï¿½   All pilings and columns must be anchored to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral move-
                         ment due to the effect of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building
                         components. The design standard for water loads shall be the standard associated with
                         the base flood, and for wind loads the standard required by applicable state or local
                         building standards.

                     ï¿½   No fill may be used for structural support;

                     ï¿½   No alteration of sand dunes that would increase potential flood damage is permitted;
                         and


                     ï¿½   Areas below the base flood elevation must be either free of obstruction or constructed
                         with nonsupporting breakaway walls intended to collapse without causing structural
                         damage to the elevated portion of the building or the supporting foundation system. Any
                         enclosed space may be used only for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage.

             0   Community Rating System. From 1987 through 1989, the FIA developed and pilot-tested a
                 Community Rating System (CRS). The goal of the CRS is to encourage, by the use of flood
                 insurance premium adjustments, community and state activities that go beyond the basic NFIP
                 requirements to:
                 ï¿½ Reduce flood losses;
                 ï¿½ Facilitate accurate insurance rating; and
                 ï¿½ Promote the awareness of flood insurance (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1990).

                 The CRS is the first positive incentive offered through the NFIP for communities participating
                 in the program. The CRS will give communities "credit" for eighteen activities in the categories
                 of "Public Information Activities  ... .. Mapping and Regulatory Activities," "Flood Damage
                 Reduction Activities," and "Flood Preparedness Activities." For example, Activity 430, "Higher
                 Regulatory Standards," gives credit for community requirement of mandatory freeboard, regula-
                 tion of cumulative substantial improvements, preservation of floodplain storage capacity and
                 several other regulatory approaches.








                  11-10                                   Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                      The CRS was proposed for implementation during 1990, and the FIA expected to receive the
                      first applications from communities by December 15, 1990. Communities that qualify will earn
                      for their NFIP policy holders a 5% premium reduction on October 1, 1991, with additional
                      reductions possible a year later. Ultimately, the CRS will reduce insurance premiums up to 45%
                      for NFIP policy holders in communities where the minimum NFIP standards for floodplain land-
                      use management are exceeded. Since the CRS is designed to be "revenue neutral," reduction
                      in premiums reflects the reduced exposure to flood hazards and expected reductions in losses
                      following a flood event.

                      The CRS is voluntary for communities, and is not intended to be prescriptive. Nevertheless,
                      because floodplain management at the community level is so strongly influenced by the NFTP and
                      its minimum requirements, it is expected that many communities will view the CRS's creditable
                      activities as a complete list of worthwhile floodplain management activities. Even where states
                      have more restrictive laws concerning floodplain development, communities see the NFIP as the
                      primary requirement for most of their floodplain management activities.

                      The CRS has generated great interest, as well as some concern, among state and community
                      floodplain managers. Communities that are already exceeding the NFIP minimum requirements
                      for land-use management anticipate increased public support for their programs. Floodplain
                      managers who have wished to improve their programs view the CRS as providing a political
                      incentive for their elected officials to increase resources for floodplain management. Concerns
                      have centered primarily on the likely inability of small and economically disadvantaged communi-
                      ties to participate in the program due to a lack of resources, including staff and funds to carry
                      out many of the activities for which program credit is available.

                      FIA Assistance to States and Communities. In addition to establishing minimum requirements
                      for floodplain regulations and preparation of risk studies and maps, the FIA has undertaken
                      several additional activities designed to assist states and communities adopt and enforce floodplain
                      regulations. Major activities include:

                      1)  BIENNIAL REPORTS: Every other year, each participating community is required to submit
                          to the FIA a report providing information on the number of permits and variances issued
                          within the floodplain, and information on other aspects of community administration of
                          floodplain regulations.

                      2)  COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: The FIA has established a Community Assistance
                          Program (CAP) intended to assure that communities participating in the NFIP are carrying
                          out the flood loss reduction objectives of the program. This goal is achieved by providing
                          needed technical assistance to NFIP communities, and by identifying and resolving floodplain
                          management issues before they develop into problems requiring enforcement action. Two
                          major components of the CAP are the FederalA@gency Support Services Element (FASSE)
                          and the State Support Services Element (SSSE). The FASSE is a partnership with allied
                          government agencies through interagency agreements, while the SSSE uses cooperative
                          agreements with state NFIP coordinating offices. The federal agencies and states provide
                          specific floodplain management technical assistance activities to NFIP communities, as







              Modifying Susceptibi1ity to Flood Damage and Dis7uption



                      negotiated with FEMA regional offices. Assistance activities correspond to the general areas
                      of NFIR ordinance development and administration, floodplain management education,
                      information, and regulation. The single most important activity under the CAP is the
                      Community Assistance Visit (CAV). A CAV is a scheduled visit to an NFIP community to
                      conduct a comprehensive assessment of the local floodplain management program, and assist
                      the community in implementing effective flood loss reduction measures.

                  3)  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DOCUMENTS: The FIA has prepared and distributed, either directly
                      or through state Flood Insurance Coordinator offices, numerous documents designed to assist
                      communities with adopting, interpreting, and enforcing local regulations. Types of documents
                      include: model regulations; booklets describing how to read different types of flood hazard
                      maps; and technical manuals relating to different aspects of the regulations such as flood-
                      proofing, elevation of structures, and special techniques for protecting mobile homes.

              0 FIA Enforcement Activities. To assure that communities are properly adopting and enforcing
                  their local regulations, the FIA not only provides financial and technical assistance but also takes
                  enforcement actions. Four enforcement mechanisms are currently available to the FIA:

                  1)  COMMUNITY PROBATION: Communities that fail to keep their regulations up-to-date, do not
                      adequately enforce the provisions of the regulations, or fail to meet certain other requirements
                      may be. placed on probation from the NFIR A surcharge will be placed on all new and
                      renewal flood insurance policies within a community on probation.

                  2)  COMMUNITY SUSPENSION: Communities with more long-lasting or more serious records of
                      noncompliance with required regulations may be suspended from the program.                 Flood
                      insurance policies in suspended communities would not be eligible for renewal.

                  3)  LAw Suris: A third action available to the FIA is to sue a community to recover costs of
                      paid-out insurance claimi and to cause the community to take corrective actions. "FIA has
                      filed a number of suits to collect monies paid out to insureds who have been damaged by the
                      actions of local communities, states, or other property owners. The most notable of these
                      was filed in May 1981 against two Louisiana communities, numerous developers and levee
                      districts to collect $93 million in damages and requesting the court to direct the communities
                      and levee districts to revise their floodplain management practices" (Scheibel, 1982).

                  4)  SECTION 1316 DENIAL OF INSURANCE: The fourth enforcement mechanism available to the
                      FIA is provided by Section 1316 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. As amended,
                      this section provides for the denial of flood insurance coverage for any property that the
                      Federal Insurance Administrator finds has been declared by a duly constituted state or local
                      authority to be in violation of state or local floodplain management regulations. Once a duly
                      constituted state or local authority declares a structure to be in violation, the Administrator
                      must deny flood insurance coverage provided that the individual or office making the
                      declaration has the authority to do so and that the law or regulation violated was, in fact,
                      intended to discourage or otherwise restrict land development or occupancy in the floodprone
                      area. Section 1316 will only be implemented in instances where states or communities submit
                      declarations specifically for that purpose.








                  11-12                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                      FEMA reports that after three years of experience, community probation has proved to be an
                      effective toot for stimulating community compliance. On the other hand, suits against communi-
                      ties have proven to be time consuming and expensive (MacKay, 1990).


                  Limitations of the NFIP


                  During a workshop on NFIP minimum standards in May 1988, participants agreed that the NFIP-
                  required regulations "provide a basic, minimum level of floodplain management, but do not adequate-
                  ly address all situations, and that more stringent standards or more comprehensive approaches are
                  warranted if the overall goals of sound floodplain management are to be achieved" (Association of
                  State Floodplain Managers, Workshop #3, 1988).

                  The workshop participants noted that NFIP standards do not apply or are inadequate with respect
                  to specifying minimum levels of protection for roadways (many flood-related deaths result,from
                  vehicles crossing flooded roads). Workshop participants also felt that the standards do not apply or
                  are inadequate with respect to high risk erosion and mudslide hazard areas, alluvial fans,. fluctuating
                  lake levels, ice jams, moveable stream channels, and land subsidence, and with respect to future
                  urbanization, floodplain encroachments, "B" and "C" zones, and protection of natural values.

                  Flooding due to inadequate storm drainage in areas outside the one percent annual chance floodplain
                  (A and V zones) is of particular concern. Damages in C zones (outside the "500-year" floodplain)
                  have accounted for about 30% of total payments on NF1P claims. "Many of these flood losses are
                  drainage-related. In addition, flood damages in areas outside the A and V zones accounted for some
                  27,250 repetitive loss claims between 1978 and 1987 (18% of total repetitive losses during that period)
                  (Platt, 1989). As noted by the Association of State Floodplain Managers, "It makes little sense to
                  insure structures flooded by stormwater, yet not require regulations" (Association of State Floodplain
                  Managers, 1989).

                  Despite the recognition that NFIP standards do not adequately address all regulatory concerns, there
                  was no support from the workshop participants for an overall strengthening or expansion of those
                  standards. It was felt that because NFIP standards apply nationwide, such strengthening or expansion
                  would not be appropriate to address needs of a regional nature. More stringent standards could also
                  be counterproductive and cause a decrease in participation since some local governments feel the
                  existing standards are already too restrictive. Strengthening the regulations to require one foot of
                  freeboard above the base flood was the only suggestion that received some support. One state official
                  did point out that because of state law, local governments in his state were prohibited from adopting
                  standards more stringent than the NFIP standards (Association of State Floodplain Managers,
                  Workshop #3, 1988).

                  Participants at another workshop where minimum standards for floodplain regulations were discussed
                  reached similar conclusions and made additional suggestions. Many of these participants felt that
                  states should adopt regulations that local communities would be responsible for implementing. This
                  approach is seen to be working in several states, including Massachusetts and Wisconsin. A watershed
                  approach for environmental and zoning regulations was viewed as important for addressing activities
                  in or out of the floodplain that might increase the potential for flood damages or loss of floodplain
                  natural resources.







              Modifying Susceplibility to Flood Damage and Dis7uption                                               11-13



              It was suggested that the FIA could assist state and local governments in developing more comprehen-
              sive and stricter regulations in several ways. One recommended method was for the FIA to more
              strongly impress upon local communities that the FIA standards are only minimum standards and
              that each community should adopt more stringent regulations to meet their particular needs. To assist
              communities identify appropriate standards and regulations, it was suggested that the FIA compile
              a list of more restrictive standards and regulatory approaches, and make this information available
              to communities that wish to exceed FIA minimum standards.

              Workshop participants expressed no general preference for the use of prescriptive standards versus
              performance standards, although performance standards were preferred for land-use oriented controls.
              It was noted that the use of performance standards requires more expertise at the local level. On
              the other hand, prescriptive standards (e.g., elevating to the minimum level required) are almost
              always implemented as required, even if a more stringent application might be appropriate in a
              particular situation (Association of State Floodplain Managers, Workshop #3, 1988).

              Because uniform prescriptive standards sometimes result in social inequities and inefficient allocation
              of resources, it has been suggested that federal agencies should give greater attention to use of
              performance standards that can be implemented through local programs. Increased use of perfor-
              mance standards should not result in any greater hazard vulnerability than allowed under existing
              prescriptive standards (National Review Committee, 1989).


              STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS

              Since the 1960s, the number of state and local governments exercising regulatory authority over
              floodplain uses has increased markedly, and the variety of regulatory approaches has expanded
              greatly. A few communities had adopted local flood-related regulations as early as the 1940s, and
              by the mid-1960s several states had adopted some form of floodway regulatory program - channel
              encroachment laws, for example. Widespread adoption of state and local floodplain management
              regulations, however, did not occur until the 1970s. The increasing use of regulatory approaches can
              be attributed to several factors, including:

              ï¿½   Occurrence of serious or devastating floods in various parts of the country and recognition of
                  the limitations of traditional structural measures in preventing flood damages.

              ï¿½   Requirements of the NFIP for adoption of community floodplain regulations.

              ï¿½   Increasing awareness and understanding of the applicability of alternative regulatory approaches.

              ï¿½   Increasing technical assistance by federal agencies to state and local governments in delineating
                  hazard areas as a prerequisite to establishing regulations for use of such areas.


              State floodplain management regulatory approaches include: direct state regulation of flood hazard
              areas; state standard-setting for local application; or flood hazard area regulation as part of broader
              resource. protection and management programs.








                  11-14                                  Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  To apply local floodplain regulations, a variety of approaches may be used, including: adoption of
                  specific floodplain management or stormwater management. ordinances; and incorporation of
                  floodplain management provisions in zoning and subdivision regulations, housing and building codes,
                  and resource protection regulations.


                  State Approaches for Floodplain Regulation

                  The following three approaches to floodplain management regulation are used by states and may be
                  implemented with many variations.

                  1) DIRECT STATE REGULATION OF FLOOD HAZARD AREAS: This approach may focus on different
                  parts of the floodplain. For example, direct state regulation may apply to selected floodways,
                  floodplains and floodways throughout the state, floodways and inland floodplains, or to certain kinds
                  of development in floodways or floodplains. State regulation of selected floodways may also be
                  carried out with optional local regulation of other floodplains.

                  2) STATE STANDARD-SETTING FOR LOCAL REGULAnON: This approach is similarly characterized
                  by variation from state to state. Most states using this approach have prepared statewide rules and
                  regulations (often with a model ordinance), and communities are required to meet certain minimum
                  standards. In some states, adoption of local regulations is contingent upon provision of floodplain
                  maps and technical data by the state, or is required only in communities identified by the state as
                  subject to serious flooding.

                  3) DIRECT STATE REGULATION OR STANDARD-SETTING: This approach for floodplain management
                  may also be accomplished through the incorporation of flood hazard provisions in broader resource
                  protection and management programs. Examples include: state requirements for local planning and
                  regulations with natural hazards protection as a requirement; state permitting requirements or state
                  standards for local regulation of coastal or inland wetlands; and regulation of coastal hazard areas
                  through coastal management statutes (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1971).


                  Local Approaches for Floodplain Regulation

                  Local regulation of floodplains generally occurs through the adoption of specific floodplain manage-
                  ment ordinances or incorporation of flood-related provisions in existing regulations, for example:

                  1) ZONING REGULATIONS: Using various approaches, zoning -regulations can include special
                  standards for types of land uses permitted in floodable areas.

                  2) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: These regulations can incorporate provisions for improvements to
                  alleviate potential flood hazards (e.g., drainage facilities, placement of utilities and streets); and
                  avoiding encroachments onto floodable areas.

                  3) BUILDING CODES: Codes to control building design and construction. materials can include
                  specifications to reduce flood damages (e.g., elevation requirements, floodproofing, or designs to
                  withstand flood velocities).







              Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dimuption                                                11-15



              4) HOUSING CODES: Codes setting minimum standards for structure maintenance can include
              requirements for the repair of flood-damaged structures.

              5) OTHER REGULATIONS: Other regulations that can incorporate flood-related provisions include
              sanitary and well codes, electrical codes, and plumbing codes that can establish standards for the
              location of infrastructure and utilities outside of flood hazard areas or floodproofing requirements
              for facilities and systems in flood hazard areas (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1971). Still other local
              regulations such as sand dune protection, wetlands protection, and farmland preservation regulations
              are usually focused on protecting some type of natural or cultural resource, and often have flood loss
              reduction benefits as well.



              Status of State and Local Floodplain Management Regulations

              Significant progress has been made in the past twenty years in state and local floodplain management
              regulatory efforts. Progress has been accomplished through: the adoption of state and local statutes
              and regulations, strengthening of existing statutes and regulatory programs, and incorporation of flood
              hazard provisions in a variety of related programs.

              0   State Programs. Prior to 1970, several states had adopted relatively limited flood encroachment
                  laws and a few had adopted more comprehensive floodable areas regulations. Some examples
                  of these early state efforts are:

                  ï¿½   Regulation of channel encroachments by several states, including New Jersey (1929),
                      Washington (1935), and Connecticut (1955).

                  ï¿½   In 1936, the State of Washington broadened its 1935 channel encroachment law with a Flood
                      Control Zone Act that authorized state identification and regulation of flood hazard zones.

                  ï¿½   In 1966, Wisconsin adopted a state statute requiring that all communities adopt floodplain
                      zoning by January 1, 1968 (with the state authorized to adopt regulations if a community
                      failed to do so), as well as a statute requiring shoreland zoning.

                  ï¿½   In 1967, Maryland adopted regulations for the "50-year" floodplain as part of its state water
                      pollution control program.

                  ï¿½   In 1969, Minnesota adopted a floodplain management program, in conjunction with a
                      shoreland zoning program, authorizing state standards for local regulation of floodplain areas
                      contingent on the provision of technical flood data and maps from the State.

                  By 1970, a total of 24 states had adopted statutes authorizing either direct state regulation of flood
                  hazard areas or state standard-setting for local regulations. By 1980, seven additional states
                  adopted new floodplain management regulatory programs (Kusler, 1982). Additional progress
                  in state programs was also accomplished. For example:

                      State regulations often included more restrictive standards than required by the NFIP for
                      delineation of floodway areas.








                     11-16                                        Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                         ï¿½   At least 31 states had developed model ordinances and 18 had adopted procedural manuals
                             to assist communities develop and implement their own floodplain management regulations.

                         ï¿½   Many states also assisted communities with floodplain management regulations through work-
                             shops and training sessions and assistance for evaluating permit applications and proposed
                             subdivision plats.

                         ï¿½   Coordination of floodplain management with related land and water use planning and
                             regulatory programs (such as coastal management, wetlands or critical areas programs) was
                             becoming more important.

                         ï¿½   Many state programs combined floodplain management regulation with nonregulatory
                             floodplain management measure.s, including acquisition and relocation, public awareness, and
                             hazard mitigation planning.

                         ï¿½   At least eleven states have adopted some form of setback for new development along eroding
                             coasts, in some cases extending beyond the inland reach of A-zones shown on FEMA maps.


                                                Among the most recent regulatory setbacks adopted are those incorporated into the
                                                South Carolina Beachfront Management Act. The Act establishes a "no construction"
                                                zone beginning at the crest of the actual or theoretical dune line and extending
                                                landward 20 feet or 40 times the average annual erosion rate, whichever is greater.
                                                When the South Carolina legislature enacted the legislation, it anticipated that the
                                                Act would result in the gradual elimination of structures built too close to the ocean
                                                and subject to severe damage or destruction during hurricanes and other coastal
                                                ,storms. The legislature also apparently anticipated that the state would have to
                                                compensate some property owners for their inability to build or to rebuild damaged
                                                structures.


                                                In September 1989, South Carolina was hit by Hurricane Hugo, the most destructive
                                                hurricane ever to strike the U.S. mainland. The South Carolina Coastal Council
                                                determined that 159 oceanfront homes were at least two-thirds destroyed by the
                                                storm and cannot be rebuilt as they were. As one official commented "When the
                                                General Assembly passed this law it knew there would be occasions when the state
                                                would have to compensate property owners ... But instead of a gradual retreat from
                                                the shore that many legislators had expected, we were hit by a big storm and now
                                                face a big payment up front ... We'll see how serious the state really is about
                                                enforcing the law when the General Assembly returns in January" (ENR, 11,89).

                                                Following Hurricane Hugo, FEMAnoted that the Beachfront Management Act "didn't
                                                play a big role" in minimizing damage from Hugo, but that "In the future it will be
                                                increasingly important." The "Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team Report" prepared
                                                following Hurricane Hugo stated that it is "crucial that the concept of a gradual,
                                                strategic retreat from the ocean remain a part of coastal management" at the state
                                                and local levels (ENR, 7,89).

                                                In June 1990, several amendments to the Beachfront Management Act were passed.
                                                Changes included elimination of the no construction zone; the methodology for
                                                determining the baseline was changed from the theoretical dune to the location of







              Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dis7uption                                                       11-17



                                         the primary frontal dune; a special permit provision was established to allow con-
                                         struction seaward of the dune baseline; the 40-year setback line can be adjusted to
                                         takeinto consideration beach renourishment projects; and restrictions onreplacement
                                         of damaged seawalls were to become increasingly stringent over time. As a result
                                         of these changes, most of the homes that would have been prohibited from being
                                         rebuilt under the original law can now be rebuilt


                  Some of the major problems hindering the effectiveness of state floodplain regulatory programs
                  in the early 1980s were: lack of specific expertise; inadequate funding and staffing; inadequate
                  statutory authority (e.g., applicability to limited portions of floodplains or broad allowance for
                  exemptions); lack of flood maps sufficiently detailed for regulatory purposes; conflicts between
                  state and federal policies (e.g., federal policies less stringent than state standards); fragmentation
                  of regulatory authority; and inability to deal with existing floodplain development (Kusler, 1982).

                  By 1988, every state had enacted enabling legislation authorizing state and local floodplain
                  regulations that meet the minimum standards established by the NOR Missouri was the last state
                  to authorize all local governments to adopt floodplain regulations. Due to the need to permit
                  all residents to obtain flood insurance, the Missouri Legislature in 1980 and 1983 granted county
                  commissions the authority to regulate floodplains. Some counties, however, require a general
                  referendum to participate (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988).

                  A recent report (Burby, 1985) reported on the results of surveys taken in 1979 and 1983 on the
                  status of floodplain management at the state and local levels. Some of the findings related to
                  regulatory components of state floodplain land-use management programs are as follows:

                  ï¿½   The state role in flood hazard management is primarily one of informing, aiding and coordi-
                      nating local flood management efforts.

                  ï¿½   State agency officials ranked regulation fourth among the program areas in which they
                      thought states should be involved. This may be due to the fact that the state regulatory role
                      related to nonstructural flood hazard management is relatively new, compared to active
                      regulation related to structural flood protection.

                  ï¿½   State regulatory efforts included efforts related to structural flood protection (e.g., permits
                      for flood control works); nonstructural flood protection; and flood-related environmental
                      protection regulations (see Table 11-2). "None of the five nonstructural program components
                      listed [in Table 11-2] are used by more than half of the states. Fifty percent do monitor
                      compliance with local flood management plans and nearly a third of the states (32 percent)
                      require permits for buildings in the floodplain and/or set standards for local regulation of
                      flood hazard areas."

                  ï¿½   Much of the state technical assistance role is aimed atenhancing the local capacity to develop
                      .and implement local level nonstructural measures and regulations. However, while the
                      majority of local governments received assistance related to the NFIP from state sources,
                      relatively few communities reported receiving other types of assistance from the state (e-g-,
                      one out of six had received help with disaster preparedness planning and fewer had help in
                      administering local floodplain regulations or used state hydrologic data services). Communi-
                      ties most likely to seek state assistance were those with the most severe flood hazards.








                        11-18                                                 Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                         Table 11-2.          State Regulatory Program Components in Place, 1983.


                                                                                                    PERCENT OF            MEAN STAFF
                                               PROGRAM COMPONENT                                           STATES                    SIZE


                                               STRucmRAL FLOOD PROTECnON:
                                               1. State permits for flood control works
                                                   and/or QPstructions of navigable waters                       90                   6.5
                                               2. Dam safety inspections                                         86                   5.4

                                               NONSTRucmRAL FLOOD PRoTEcnON.
                                               1.  State monitoring of compliance with
                                                   flood management regulations                                  50                   8.2
                                               2.  State permits for buildings and other
                                                   structures located in either the floodway
                                                   for the floodway fringe                                       32                   13.2
                                               3.  State standards for local regulation of
                                                   flood hazard areas                                            32                   7.9
                                               4.  State requirements for local regulation of
                                                   flood hazard areas with provision for state
                                                   regulation if localities fail to act                          16                   &2
                                               5.  State mandate of participation in National
                                                   Flood Insurance Program                                         8                  3.2

                                               FLooo-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL PRoTEcnON:
                                               1.  Wetlands protection/dredge and fill regulations               56                   9.0
                                               2.  Sedimentation pollution controllstormwater
                                                   management regulations                                        54                   8.5
                                               3.  Coastal management requirements and hazard
                                                   mitigation regulations                                        44                   10.8


                                 Source:    BurbyTaymond J. and Steven P. French. 020 Plain land Use Manapement: ANational Assessment. StudiesinWater
                                            Policy and Management No. S. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1985.



                              Local Programs. Several early studies indicated that very few communities had adopted local
                              floodplain management regulations prior to 1970. A 1957 study identified only 35 local regulatory
                              programs, most of which were considered ineffective by the author. A 1968-69 study identified
                              183 municipalities and 71 counties with floodplain zoning, and 167 municipalities and 27 counties
                              with flood-related subdivision regulations. Most of these were located in the Tennessee Valley
                              area and in Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota.5

                              After 1970, thousands of communities adopted local floodplain management regulations as a result
                              of their participation in the NFIP. Community enrollment in the NFIP began slowly, then
                              increased rapidly with the adoption of stronger incentives in the 1973 Flood Disaster Protection
                              Act. In 1970, only about 300 to 400 communities had adopted floodplain regulations. After the
                              1973 Flood Disaster Protection Act provided for withholding of federal disaster assistance and
                              other federal benefits for construction activities in the floodplain to communities not participating
                              in the NFIP, thousands of communities joined the program and adopted local floodplain manage-


                              The studies referred to are cited in Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas, Vol. 3, prepared for the U.S. Water
                              Resources Council by Jon A. Kusler, 1982, page 113.








             Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dis7uption                                           11-19



                 ment regulations. From 1974 to 1977, 13,000 communities enrolled in the NFIP, and by May
                 1981, community enrollment increased to over 17,000. As of September 7, 1988, 15,716 com-
                 munities were participating in the regular phase of the NFIP, and another 2,081 were participating
                 in the emergency phase of the program (Matticks, 1988).

                 In adopting the mandatory floodplain management regulations, most local governments adopted
                 the minimum NFIP standards, although a limited number adopted standards exceeding the NFIP
                 requirements (sometimes to comply with more restrictive state standards or to reflect local
                 conditions and attitudes). In addition, several thousand communities had adopted regulations
                 through related programs that incorporated flood hazard management or flood loss reduction
                 as an objective. These included regulations for wetland protection, shoreland zoning, coastal zone
                 management, and preservation of prime agricultural land. Also, like many of the states, communi-
                 ties have increasingly combined theirregulatory effortswith nonregulatory floodplain management
                 measures in the 1970s (Kusler, 1982).

                 Local governments surveyed by Burby (1985) in 1979 and 1983 were selected from those
                 participating in the emergency or regular phase of the NFIP. Some of the findings related to
                 regulatory components of local floodplain land-use management programs are as follows:

                 1) USE OF FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS:

                     ï¿½   Regulations are the most commonly used method of achieving community floodplain
                         goals.

                     ï¿½   Three types of regulations - subdivision ordinances, zoning, and elevation require-
                         ments - have been adopted by a majority of riverine and coastal communities participat-
                         ing in the regular and emergency phases of the NFIP. Other types of related regulations
                         (e.g., sedimentation and erosion control regulations) were less common.

                     ï¿½   The NFIP has a strong effect on the types of management measures used. Communities
                         in the regular phase were more likely to use specific elevation, floodproofing, and
                         floodway regulations in their land-use management programs.

                     ï¿½   Local conditions are important in determining the contribution of regulations to a com-
                         munity's floodplain management effort. "For example, traditional land-use management
                         measures, such as floodplain zoning and floodway encroachment regulations, may not
                         be very effective when a community's floodplains have high locational advantages or when
                         there is a scarcity of developable land outside of flood-hazard areas. In those instances,
                         land-use management might more appropriately stress public acquisition rather than
                         regulation (or levees might be more appropriate)."

                 2) USE OF NONREGULATORY MEASURES IN COMBINATION wrru REGuiAnoNs:

                         Local governments were much less likely to use nonregulatory approaches than they were
                         to have enacted regulations. (For example, about one in five of the communities
                         surveyed in 1979 and one in ten of those in the 1983 survey avoided floodplain locations
                         when siting public facilities. While many localities had acquired floodplain land for
                         recreation and open space use, incentives such as preferential taxation or density








                   11-20                                     Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                                exchanges were not widely used, and only about one-third of the communities used public
                                education to discourage floodplain development.

                                "In general, communities tend to use a wider array of land-use management measures
                                when they have had extensive previous experience in using land-use management to deal
                                with community problems, when they assign some priority to solving floodplain problems,
                                and when they have more resources to mount a vigorous management program."

                       3) ExisnNG VS. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT:

                                Regulatory approaches were generally not effective in controlling flood losses to existing
                                development. "Most floodplain land-use management measures are designed to prevent
                                increases in damage potential by affecting the design (and location) of new development.
                                With the exception of relocation measures and measures regulating the improvement
                                of existing structures, they are not designed to reduce potential damage to existing
                                development."

                       4) PROGRAM SCOPE AND FOCUS:

                            ï¿½   There is.wide variation in the scope and focus of local floodplain management programs,
                                including variation in the types of regulatory measures used. "Less than a quarter of
                                the communities surveyed in 1979 had programs that comprehended subdivision or
                                zoning regulations, elevation requirements or floodway regulations, and land acquisition
                                or relocation. Thirty-seven percent had gone as far as enacting elevation or floodway
                                regulations... while one-fifth had adopted programs that were limited to the use of
                                traditional subdivision or zoning regulations ... and a fifth had not adopted zoning,
                                subdivision, elevation, or floodway regulations, but were relying on their building codes
                                to reduce future flood losses... Communities surveyed in 1983, which, on average, were
                                smaller than those surveyed in 1979, were using fewer action instruments in their
                                floodplain land use management programs, but the measures they were employing tended
                                to be as focused, or more so than those used by communities in the 1979 survey."

                            ï¿½   A number of factors contribute to the variation in program scope and focus - the
                                proportion of the community at risk, extent of floodplain development, community
                                perception of risk, and other objective factors, such as size of community and available
                                fiscal resources, extent of urbanization, availability of developable sites outside the
                                floodplain, etc.

                        5) RIVERINE VS. COASTAL commuNmEs:

                                Differences in the scope of floodplain management programs between riverine and
                                coastal communities in the regular phase of the NFIP were not significant. But, "reflect-
                                ing the heightened perception of flood hazards in coastal areas ... coastal communities
                                participating in the NFIP emergency phase were more likely to have broader programs
                                than riverine communities in the emergency phase." In addition, "one reason for coastal
                                communities' continued interest in land use management as a hazard mitigation adjust-
                                ment ... is that structural solutions are not as viable an alternative as they are for riverine
                                communities."








             Modifying Susceplibilily to Flood Damage and Dismption                                                11-21



                         There were differences in the kinds of regulations adopted by riverine and coastal
                         communities. "Coastal communities in both the emergency and regular phases of the
                         National Flood Insurance Program, for example, were more likely than riverine communi-
                         ties to require that new construction be elevated above the base (" 100-year") flood level.
                         Coastal communities were also somewhat more likely to have adopted regulations to
                         protect wetlands and other types of critical areas, and, of course, to have adopted
                         regulations to protect sand dunes."


             Regulations Exceeding NFIP Minimum Requirements

             The National Flood Insurance Program established minimum levels of floodplain management
             regulations that participating communities must adopt based on the level of information made
             available to the community by the FIA. Many states and communities have determined that these
             minimum regulations, while providing a good level of protection, are insufficient to meet all their
             needs. In response, some states and many communities have adopted their own regulatory require-
             ments that in some manner exceed the minimum requirements of the NFIP. There are a number
             of ways in which states and communities have exceeded NFIP minimum standards. Information on
             state actions presented here and in subsequent sections of theAssessment Report, and shown in a number
             of tables in this part of the report, is derived primarily from a survey taken by the Association of State
             Floodplain Managers in 1987 and 1988, specifically for the Assessment Report (Association of State
             Floodplain Managers, 1988). Each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico,
             and the Virgin Islands received a survey form. All 50 states and the District of Columbia completed
             the forms. Information on actions taken by local governments is taken from numerous sources.

             The number of communities with some form of stricter regulatory requirements is unknown, but
             clearly the number is in the thousands, since many states impose requirements beyond NFIP
             minimums on each unit of local government. Even without state requirements, probably thousands
             of communities have adopted at least one regulatory requirement that exceeds NFIP minimums. The
             large number of these communities is indicated by a partial listing of communities with requirements
             exceeding NFIP minimums prepared by FEMA's regional office in Atlanta, Georgia. The regional
             office identified 236 communities and counties in eight states that had passed ordinances or other
             local legislative acts to establish a standard beyond NFIP minimums (Woodard, 1987).

             0   Regulation of Riverine Areas. As shown in Table 11 -3, 27 states have established regulations that
                 require local governments to meet one or more standards that are more stringent than standards
                 required by the NFIP. Eighteen states have opted to directly regulate all or portions of the flood-
                 plain instead of relying on or mandating local regulations.

                 California, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, and New York have statutes allowing the state or
                 another flood control agency to directly regulate if the local government does not adopt or enforce
                 the mandated ordinance. Colorado and Kansas have provisions that allow the governor or
                 attorney general to order abatement of a violation of a local ordinance should a community or
                 county fail to do so. Two states, Arkansas and Nebraska, have recently repealed provisions for
                 state takeover of local regulations. Conversely, three states - Alabama, Illinois, and Iowa -
                 have provisions to allow local governments to assume the state permitting program if certain
                 requirements are met.








                             11-22                                                          Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                              Table 11-3.                         State Regulatory Standards that Exceed Minimum NFIP Requirements for Riverine
                                                                  Floodplains.


                                                                                   FLOODWAY              FLOODWAY FRINGE                              BUILDING
                                                                                   STANDARDS              RISE                STANDARDS               STANDARDS


                                                   Alabama
                                                   Alaska
                                                   Arizona                              LP,R                                      IR                  F: lFt.,IP,R
                                                   Arkansas
                                                   California                           AS,L+                                     L+

                                                   Colorado
                                                   Connecticut
                                                   Delaware
                                                   District of Columbia                 S                                         S                   F. 1.517t.
                                                   Florida                              S,L                                                           R
                                                   Georgj*a                             L
                                                   Hawaii
                                                   Idaho
                                                   Illinois                             S AL                  Aft.                                    AP
                                                   Indiana                              S:L                   AFt.                L                   F: 2Ft.,R

                                                   Iowa                                 S,L                   D                   S,L                 F: 1Ft.,P
                                                   Kansas                               L+                                        L+
                                                   Kentucky                             S                                         S
                                                   Louisiana
                                                   Maine                                AS,L                                                          F: lFt.+
                                                   Maryland                             S                     D                   S                   F: lFt.
                                                   Massachusetts                        S,L                   OFt.                S,L
                                                   Michigan                             S                     D                   S                   F 1Ft.,P
                                                   Minnesota                            L+                    D:.SFt.             L+                  R
                                                   Mississippi

                                                   Missouri
                                                   Montana                              L+                    .517t.              L+                  F. 2Ft.,P,R
                                                   Nebraska                             AS                                        AS                  F. lFt.
                                                   Nevada
                                                   New Hampshire                        AS
                                                   New Jersey                           S                     .2Ft.               L+                  P
                                                   New Mexico
                                                   New York                             L+                                        L+
                                                   North Carolina
                                                   North Dakota

                                                   Ohio
                                                   Oklahoma
                                                   Oregon                               L                                         L
                                                   Pennsylvania                         SIL                                       L                   A.F: 1.5Ft.
                                                   Rhode Island                         S                                         S

                                                   South Carolina
                                                   South Dakota
                                                   Tennessee
                                                   Texas
                                                   Utah                                 S,P                                                           S,L+

                                                   Vermont
                                                   Virginia                                                                                           L
                                                   Washington                           L                                         L                   P
                                                   West Virginia
                                                   Wisconsin                            L                     .01Ft.              L                   F. 2Ft.,P,R
                                                   Wyoming

                                                   NOTE:          This table only identifies state standards or procedures that exceed minimum NFIP floodplain regulatory standards
                                                   A=             Rules apply only in certain areas, e.g., California directly regulates floodways only in the Central Valley
                                                   D=             Mlowable floodway rise depends upon impact to existing development
                                                   F=             Freeboard
                                                   L=             Local regulations must meet state requirements
                                                   P=             Buildings or residences prohibited from floodway
                                                   R=             Reconstruction of buildings more stringent than NFIP rules
                                                   S=             State directly regulates development
                                                   +=             State or other agency may directly regulate or enforce if locals do not


                                           Source:                Association of State Floodplain Managers. "State Floodplain Management Programs. Results of a Survey Conducted by
                                                                  the Association of State Floodplain Managers for I-R. Johnston Associates," 1988.








              Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Divupdon                                                           11-23



                   Twenty-six states have floodway regulatory standards more restrictive than required, by the NFIP.
                   These states are more likely to directly regulate some or all of the floodways rather than the flood
                   fringes. This is due to the technical nature of floodway regulations and to the fact that the
                   impacts of floodway development extend beyond corporate limits. For example, New Hampshire's
                   Water Resources Board has strict requirements for channel work and other activities that affect
                   flowage. In 1987 the State of Washington enacted legislation prohibiting new residences in the
                   floodway and giving the State's Department of Ecology authority to set additional requirements
                   and to review and approve local ordinances.

                   Ten states have an allowable rise standard more restrictive than the federal standard of one foot.
                   Indiana requires all floodway maps to be based on a 1/10th foot rise. Iowa, Maryland, Michigan
                   and Minnesota restrict the allowable rise to less than one foot if the rise would affect existing
                   development.

                   Eighteen states and hundreds of communities have building construction requirements stricter
                   than the NFIP's. The most common additional standard is the standard for "freeboard" which
                   requires new buildings to be elevated higher than the base flood level. Freeboard may be applied
                   to all buildings or only certain types. Pennsylvania state law requires new jails, hospitals, nursing
                   homes, mobile home parks, and hazardous materials facilities to be 1.5 feet higher than the base
                   flood level. Arizona requires that all new and replacement mobile homes have the lowest struc-
                   tural member elevated 1.0 foot above the "100-year" flood elevation.

                   Other building construction standards include prohibition of new buildings or new residences in
                   the floodplain or floodway. For example, Montana and Wisconsin do not allow any new buildings
                   in the floodway. Indiana, Michigan and, Washington prohibit new residences in designated
                   floodways.

                   A few states have substantial improvement regulations that differ from the NFIP 50% standard.
                   Indiana uses 40% and Montana treats a building damaged over 50% as a new building and does
                   not allow reconstruction in the floodway. Michigan requires that floodplains, in new subdivisions
                   must be identified and that minimum building areas must be provided above the flood elevation
                   (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988).

                                       Subdivision regulations in Arizona set aside floodprone land from development A
                                       density transfer plan worked out with developers encouraged ihe preservation of open
                                       space by allowing units permitted under normal density requirements to be transferred
                                       from the hazard portion of a tract of land to the nonhazard portion. This approach has
                                       resulted in very effective land use and design changes, with dwellings on the fringes of
                                       lakes and lagoons with common acreage maintained as open space (Federal Emergency
                                       Management Agency, 1987).








                   11-24                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                   ï¿½   Regulation of Coastal and Lakeshore Floodplains. As shown in Table 11-4, most coastal states
                       have enacted some regulations to control shoreline development, usually under the state's coastal
                       zone management program. Direct state permitting is more common with respect to coastal
                       floodplains than riverine floodplains.

                       Except for Ohio, all of the Great Lakes states have established lakeshore regulatory standards
                       or permit programs. Ohio is currently seeking passage of coastal zone management legislation.
                       These standards or programs are usually administered as part of a shoreland management
                       program, most of which were created before the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program.
                       Fourteen states have regulations to preserve or protect sand dunes, and twelve states regulate
                       areas subject to rapid erosion (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988).

                   ï¿½   Regulation of Special Hazards. Special hazards accompany flooding and cause greater damage
                       than the usual forces of flowing water. As shown in Table 11-5, most states have not yet
                       addressed these hazards, with the exception of hazardous materials. Those that have prefer direct
                       state regulation over mandating local regulations.

                                      The Colorado State Geological Survey has developed nonmandatory guidelines for develop-
                                       ment in areas of geologic hazards. With funding assistance from FEMA, Colorado has also
                                      developed a landslide mitigation plan that may serve as a model for other states.


                       Twelve states have special rules for areas below dams or protected by levees. Two states have
                       special regulations covering alluvial fans and two states address mudflow areas.

                       At least 15 states have special rules to protect public health in floodplains. Montana requires
                       that septic tank drain fields be located at least 100 feet from the "100-year" floodplain, while New
                       Hampshire and Alabama prohibit these fields in the "50-year" floodplain. Even more states
                       restrict hazardous materials (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988).

                       During a 1988 workshop that addressed state and local regulations with broader coverage or more
                       stringent requirements than required by the NFIP, participants agreed that more stringent actions
                       were necessary. These participants noted, however, that there was little documented data
                       available to demonstrate the effectiveness of such measures (Association of State Floodplain
                       Managers, Workshop #8,1988).


                   Assistance to Local Regulatory Programs

                   Implementation and enforcement of local floodplain regulations may not be effective without federal
                   and state planning and technical assistance to local governments.

                   Two common forms of assistance are preparation of a model ordinance, and help in modifying a
                   model ordinance to meet local needs. While FEMA has produced model ordinances, state versions
                   that are tied to the state's unique statutory authority, political structure, and flooding conditions are
                   much more useful. One drawback of model ordinances is that communities often adopt them
                   verbatim without taking the time to understand their requirements.








                 Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Di&UptiOn                                                                   11-25



                 Table 11-4.            State Regulations for Coastal and Ukeshore Floodplains.


                                                           COAST         LAKESHORE            SAND DUNES EROSION


                              Alabama                           S                                 S
                              Alaska
                              Arizona
                              Arkansas
                              California                        S                                 S

                              Colorado
                              Connecticut                       S,L                               S,L
                              Delaware                          S,L                               S                S
                              District of Columbia
                              Florida                           L                                 S,L              S,AL
                              Geor&                             S                                 S                L
                              Hawaii                            S
                              Idaho
                              Illinois                                          AS
                              Indiana                                           S

                              Iowa                                              S
                              Kansas
                              Kentucky                                          S
                              Louisiana                         A               L
                              Maine                             AS,L            S,L               AS,L             S
                              Maryland                          S                                                  S
                              Massachusetts                     SL              SL                L
                              Michigan                                          AS                S                L+
                              Minnesota                                         L
                              Mississippi                       S

                              Missouri
                              Montana
                              Nebraska
                              Nevada
                              New Hampshire                     L               S
                              New Jers@y                        S                                 S
                              New Mexico ,
                              New York                          L+              L+                L+               L+
                              North Carolina                    S,L                               S,L              S,L
                              North Dakota

                              Ohio
                              Oklahoma
                              Oregon                            L               L                 L                L
                              Pennsylvania                      L
                              Rhode Island                      S                                 S

                              South Carolina                    S
                              South Dakota                                      S                                  L
                              Tennessee
                              Texas                             AS
                              Utah                                              us                                 S

                              Vermont
                              Virginia                          S
                              Washingtqn.                       L               L                                  L
                              West Vir inia
                                        .9
                              Wisconsin                                         L
                              Wyoming

                              A         Rules apply only in certain areas, eg., Illinois and Michigan lakeshore regulations apply only to the Great Lakes
                              L         Local regulations must meet state requirements
                              S         State directly regulates development
                              +         State will directly regulate if locals do not


                          Source:       Association of State Floodplain Managers. "State Floodplain Management Programs. Results of a Survey Conducted by
                                        the Association of State Floodplain Managers for LR. Johnston Associates," 1989.








                           11-26                                                         Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                           Table 11-5.             State Regulations for Special Hazard Areas.


                                                                   AREAS          AREAS                                              PUBLIC            HAZARDOUS
                                                                   BELOW          BEHIND           ALLUVIAL MUD                      HEALTH            MATERIALS
                                                                   DAMS           LEVEES           FANS              FLOODS          STANDARDS         STANDARDS

                                       Alabama
                                       Alaska
                                       Arizona                                                          L                                   X                 X
                                       Arkansas
                                       California                     S                                                                     X                 X

                                       Colorado                                          S
                                       Connecticut
                                       Delaware
                                       District of Columbia                                                                                                   X
                                       Florida                        S                  S                                                  L                 L
                                       Georgj'a
                                       Hawaii                                                                                               X                 X
                                       Idaho
                                       Illinois                                                                                             X
                                       Indiana

                                       Iowa                           S                  S                                                                    X
                                       Kansas                                                                                                                 X
                                       Kentucky
                                       Louisiana
                                       Maine                                                                                                X                 X

                                       Maryland                       S                                                                     X                 X
                                       Massachusetts
                                       Michigan                                          S                                                  X                 X
                                       Minnesota                      SL                 L
                                       Mississippi

                                       Missouri
                                       Montana                                                                                              X                 X
                                       Nebraska                       AS                 AS
                                       Nevada                                                                                                                 X
                                       New Hampshire                                                                                        X

                                       New Jerse
                                                  .y                                                                                        X                 X
                                       New Mexico
                                       New York                                                                                             X
                                       North Carolina
                                       North Dakota

                                       Ohio
                                       Oklahoma                                                                                             X
                                       Oregon                         L                  L              L               L
                                       Pennsylvania                                                                                         X                 X
                                       Rhode Island

                                       South Carolina                 S
                                       South Dakota
                                       Tennessee                                                                                            X
                                       Texas                                                                                                                  X
                                       Utah                           S                  S                              S                                     X

                                       Vermont
                                       Virginia
                                       Wash n ton
                                       West tlrginia
                                       Wisconsin                      L                  L                                                                    X
                                       Wyoming

                                       A =        Rules apply only in certain areas
                                       L =        Local regulations must meet state requirements
                                       S =        State directly regulates development
                                       X =        State has regulatory standards for this special hazard
                                       + =        State v4ll directly regulate if locals do not


                                       Source:    Association of State Floodplain Managem "State Floodplain Management Programs. Results of a Survey Conducted by
                                                  the Association of State Floodplain Managers for L.R. Johnston Associates," 1989.








              Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dismption                                                           11-27



                                      To avoid having communities adopt inappropriate provisions of a model ordinance, the
                                      State of Tennessee prefers to separately design each local ordinance to ensure that
                                      floodplain rules are integrated with other local land-use controls.


              Helping communities understand their ordinances is another important type of state assistance. All
              but seven states reported that they respond to calls for this type of help. As shown in Table 11-6,
              37 states conduct training programs, and 26 have published handbooks on how to administer
              floodplain regulations. Most states also monitor local performance and help local officials respond
              to violations. While these activities, particularly assessment services, are funded by FEMA!s Commu-
              nity Assistance Program (CAP), many of these same services are also provided by states not partici-
              pating in the CAP. Maine and Minnesota have published standard building permits, as-built certifica-
              tions, and similar forms for local officials to use.

                                  In 1983, the Maine legislature enacted "Rule 80K" to allow code enforcement officials to take
                                  code violations to court. Once an official is trained, hOhe can take a land-use violation
                                  directly to the district court without an attorney. Procedures are followed that are less
                                  formal but do not sacrifice the defendant's due process rights. The court can both levy a
                                  fine and order abatement of the violation. The result of Rule 80K is cheaper and faster
                                  enforcement



                                  Faced with a large number of rural communities needing professional staff support, Vermont
                                  places priority on direct assistance. State staff will even make site inspections and set
                                  building elevations for the local officials.



                                      In addition to a model ordinance, the State of Texas published 7& State of Texas
                                      Floodplain Administrator's Manual and distributes a quarterly newsletter for local
                                      officials. The State has presented regional seminars for local administrators, two-day
                                      legal seminars, and a series of seminars focused on realtors and builders. The State con-
                                      ducts Community Assistance Visits and maintains a Community Status Report and a
                                      master list of local administrators on computer.




              States also assist local officials by facilitating communication among them. Kentucky, Montana, and
              Texas publish directories of local administrators. Arizona, California, Illinois, Louisiana, and Michigan
              have helped create and support state associations of local floodplain managers (Association of State
              Floodplain Managers, 1988).







                           11-28                                                  Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Managemfnt



                              Table 11-6.           State Assistance to Local Regulatory Programs.


                                                          MODEL             HELP                       ADMIN.           HELP         MONITOR HELP WITH
                                                          ORDINANCE ADOPT TRAIN HANDBOOK ADMIN.                                       ADMIN.,       VIOLATIONS


                                  Alabama                       X               X            X                                X                X               X
                                  Alaska                        X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  Arizona                       X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  Arkansas                      X               X            X                                X                X               X
                                  California                    X               X            X               X                X                X               X

                                  Colorado                      X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  Connecticut                   X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  Delaware                                      X
                                  District of Columbia          N/A             N/A          N/A             N/A              N/A              N/A             N/A
                                  Florida                       X               X                                             X                X               X
                                  Georgia                                       X            X                                X                X               X
                                  Hawaii
                                  Idaho                         X               X            X                                X                X               X
                                  Illinois                      X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  Indiana                       X               X            X                                                 X               X

                                  Iowa                          X               X            X                                X                X               X
                                  Kansas                        X               X            X                                X                                X
                                  KentlIcky                     X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  Louisiana                     X               X                            X                X                X               X
                                  Maine                         X               X            X                                X                X               X
                                  Maryland                      X               X            X                                X                X               X
                                  Massachusetts                 X               X            X                                X                X
                                  Michigan                      X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  Minnesota                     X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  Mississippi                   X               X                                             X                                X

                                  Missouri                      X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  Montana                       X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  Nebraska                      X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  Nevada                        X               X                            X
                                  New Hampshire                 X               X            X               X                X
                                  New Jersey                    X                                                             X                X               X
                                  New Mexico                    X
                                  New York                      X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  North Carolina                X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  North Dakota                  X               X            X                                X                X               X

                                  Ohio                          X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  Oklahoma                      X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  Oregon                        X               X            X                                X                X               X
                                  Pennsylvania                  X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  Rhode Island                                                               X                X                X

                                  South Carolina                                X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  South Dakota                                               X                                X                                X
                                  Tennessee                                     X            X                                X                X
                                  Texas                         X               X            X               X                X                X
                                  Utah                          X               X            X               X                                 X

                                  Vermont                       X               X                                             X                X               X
                                  Virginia                                                                   X                X                X
                                  Washington                                    X            X                                X                X               X
                                  West Vir i i                                                                                                 X
                                               .gima,
                                  Wisconsin                     X               X            X               X                X                X               X
                                  Wyoming                                                                                     X

                                     Source:   Association of State Floodplain Managers. "State Floodplain Management Program& Results of a Survey Conducted by
                                               the A&%ociation of State Floodplain Managers for LR- Johnston AssociateA" 198&








              Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption                                                        11-29



              Exemptions from Local Regulatory Authority

              Two common exceptions to local floodplain regulatory authority exist. First, most local governments
              do not have the authority to regulate federal or state property or development by other local
              governments. Federal and state development activities are often governed by executive orders or
              statutes. All states now control their own development activities. A notable exception to exemption
              of federal activities from state and local regulation is provided by the coastal consistency requirement
              of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA requires all federal activities, including
              such actions as construction of structural flood control measures, to be consistent, to the maximum
              extent possible, with the approved state coastal management program.

              Second, many statutory authorities have exempted certain types of activities from regulation.
              Typically, these are activities, such as agricultural and transportation activities, that are important
              to the state's economy. For example, because Arizona has a significant copper industry, the Arizona
              legislature has exempted mining from floodplain regulations (Association of State Floodplain
              Managers, 1988). Structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or on a state list of
              historic sites are also exempt from requirements of the NFIP.


              PRIVATE ROLE IN FLOODPLAIN REGULATION

              The private sector has only an indirect role in floodplain regulation, principally through the develop-
              ment of model building codes. Most states and communities have adopted (with amendments) one
              of three model building codes that apply to large regions of the country. The Standard Code,
              published by Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. is most commonly used in the
              South. The BOCA code, published by Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc.,
              is,used in the East and Midwest. The Uniform Code, published by the International Congress of
              Building Officials, is used throughout the West.

              During the early years of the NFIP, elevation, floodproofing, and other construction-related provisions
              of the NFIP minimum regulations were not incorporated into the model building codes (Manning,
              1989).' This early deficiency has since been resolved, and each of the model codes has been extensive-
              ly revised over the years to reflect new developments in construction techniques and materials and
              in government regulations, including much of the information related to floodproofing and elevation
              of structures (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986). Although standards for construction
              in flood hazard areas have now been incorporated into the regional building codes that are in
              widespread use throughout the country, not all states and localities have adopted one of these codes
              or an equivalent code of their own.

                                     Following Hurricane Hugo, the "Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team Report!' noted "that
                                     South Carolina has no statewide building code and that only about half of the cities and
                                     towns and one-third of the counties in the state have adopted the Standard Building
                                     Code. The report stated that "The state should mandate the adoption of the Standard
                                     Building Code by all local jurisdicfions." (ENR, 12,89).

                                     Posthurricane inspections of damaged structures revealed that most of the structures
                                     destroyed or severely damaged by Hurricane Hugo in South Carolina wereeither con-








                     11-30                                       Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                                           structed prior to eidsting floodplain regulations or were not constructed to meet current
                                           building codes. The most common causes of failure were wind damage and foundation
                                           failure due to erosion scour. Buildings that were constructed to current codes (particular-
                                           ly with regard to adequate depth of pilings) sustained relatively little damage. (Rogers,
                                           1989).



                     EFFECTIVENESS OF REGUIATIONS

                     Uttle hard data exists, at national, state or local levels, to support an evaluation of the effectiveness
                     of floodplain regulations in reducing flood losses. The comment of one local official typifies a
                     situation that exists across the Nation: "Pima County [Arizona] has collected and analyzed no data
                     which [can be used to] measure the success of floodplain regulations in reducing flood losses" (Fuller,
                     1989).

                     Despite the lack of supporting data, floodplain regulations are widely - but not universally - viewed
                     as an effective floodplain management tool for limiting the vulnerability of new development to
                     flooding. The fact that over 18,000 communities now participate in the NFIP has ensured a much
                     greater level of recognition of flood problems, as well as recognition that land-use decisions can affect
                     flooding and flood damages (National Review Committee, 1989). The regulatory aspects of the NFIP
                     are considered to have significantly moderated floodplain development and, therefore, damage that
                     would have occurred without the program (Corps of Engineers, 1989).

                     Not everyone agrees that floodplain regulations are effective. Perceived ineffectiveness of local
                     regulatory programs is attributed, in part, to lack of personnel and funding. Just as important,
                     however, is the lack of political support for floodplain management - it is simply not a priority for
                     most local governments. Research has indicated that local regulatory programs are more effective
                     in states with strong land-use planning programs and policies (Smith, 1989).

                     Debate over the effectiveness of floodplain regulations is often linked with the availability of flood
                     insurance through the NFIP. Many have argued that the availability of flood insurance has actually
                     increased development in floodplains beyond the level that would have occurred without insurance
                     availability. While there can be no doubt that development in floodplains has greatly increased since
                     the NFIP was established, there is not solid evidence to indicate whether or not the availability of
                     flood insurance has induced development. There is, however, extensive anecdotal evidence indicating
                     that the strong desire to live or vacation in coastal communities is primarily due to the numerous
                     natural and cultural amenities found in beachfront areas (McShane, 1988). Furthermore, develop-
                     ment on many units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System continues although it was initially
                     believed that the unavailability of flood insurance and federal financial assistance would limit or
                     discourage much of this development (McShane, 1990).

                     There is data to indicate that the development occurring after floodplain regulations are adopted
                     is less prone to flood damage than development occurring before adoption of the regulations. A
                     recent analysis of flood insurance claims data by FEMA for the period 1978 through 1989 shows losses
                     experienced by pre-FIRM structures (in regular and emergency program communities) at 21.7 per
                     1,000 policies as compared to only 5.7 per 1,000 for post-FIRM structures (in regular program








              Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dis?uption                                              11-31



              communities). In other words, construction started prior to publication of the FIRM and the
              community's adoption of detailed floodplain management ordinances are 3.8 times more likely to be
              flood-damaged than post-FIRM buildings (Thomas, 1990).

              The combination of regulatory efforts and urban growth have resulted in and will continue to
              encourage dense development adjacent to regulatory boundaries, and such concentrations of develop-
              ment may increase vulnerability to catastrophic losses from large floods (National Review Committee,
              1989). This increased vulnerability resulting from regulations may be viewed as analogous to the
              vulnerability faced by areas protected by structural measures when a flood greater than the design
              flood is experienced.


              Improved Enforcement

              Provisions of floodplain regulations can be strengthened, they can be applied to more types of
              flooding situations, and other regulatory improvements can be made, but the most important
              opportunity for improvement appears to be increased enforcement. The need for improved enforce-
              ment of floodplain regulations that are often unpopular with many property owners has been
              expressed by practically all groups concerned with floodplain management. To achieve improved
              enforcement, many concerned groups and individuals note that:

              1) Federal-level standards are important to impose regulations on those communities not particularly
                 interested and supportive of those communities and states who wish to impose more stringent
                 standards. These federal standards must include effective enforcement provisions. -

              2) A strong state program and support is necessary that must also include enforcement provisions.

              3) Regulations must balance loss reduction with maintenance of the natural and beneficial uses of
                 the floodplain, and federal regulations need to explicitly embrace these concepts.

              4) Continuous programs of information and education for local officials are necessary.

              5) Available sanctions for noncompliance must be aggressively pursued.

              6) Communities must have flexibility to address their special flood hazard problems without relaxing
                 minimum requirements.

              Strengthening the balance between loss reduction and protection of floodplain natural resources has
              special significance. Currently, floodplain regulations are designed specifically to reduce loss of life
              and property. They provide incidental protection to sand dunes and mangroves because these natural
              features are known to absorb wave impacts in coastal areas. Otherwise, regulations do nothing to
              protect floodplain natural and cultural resources, and may actually contribute to resource destruction.
              To the extent that floodplain regulations (and other floodplain management tools as well) allow new
              development in floodplains, they contribute to loss of floodplain natural resources and associated
              value. Lives and property may not be at serious risk, but natural resources are frequently sacrificed
              to make room for the new development.








                   11-32                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                                   DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES


                   In addition to the use of regulatory methods to control development in floodplains, federal, state and
                   local governments may establish programs, policies, and directives that seek to avoid inappropriate
                   use of the floodplain. Typically, these types of policies require government agencies to take action
                   themselves rather than impose a requirement on the private property owner.


                   DESIGN AND LOCATION OF SERVICES AND UTILITIES

                   The design and location of services and utilities can have both direct and indirect impacts on flood
                   losses. If roads, bridges, sewer lines, and other utilities are constructed in floodprone areas without
                   adequately taking into account the flood hazard, these utilities may be vulnerable to flood damages.
                   In addition to directly suffering flood losses, services and utilities located in and through floodprone
                   areas can indirectly lead to more intensive use of the floodplain. For example, placement of a
                   sanitary sewer line in a floodplain may create additional pressure on local authorities to allow
                   development on the floodplain and connection to the sewer line.



                   Federal Policies


                   Federal legislation and regulations often include policies relating to the location of services and
                   utilities in floodprone areas. There are several policies with particularly significant impact.

                   ï¿½   National Environmental Policy Act. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
                       for the first time established a requirement that federal agencies consider the environmental
                       impacts of proposed activities. The requirement for preparation of an environmental assessment
                       or environmental impact statement has been of major importance in identifying federal activities
                       that may be subject to flood damage and that may cause damage to floodplain natural resources.
                       The opportunity for public review and comment on draft impact statements has been viewed as
                       one of the strongest aspects of NEPA.

                   ï¿½ Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Manage-
                       ment, was issued by the President in 1977 to bring together federal policies to protect against both
                       flood hazards and the degradation of floodplain natural resources. The Order was issued in
                       response to recommendations in both the National Flood Insurance Act and NEPA. E.O. 11988
                       superseded and expanded a 1966 executive order, Flood Hazard Evaluation (E.O. 11296), which
                       had directed federal agencies to take a leadership role in guiding floodplain use and in avoiding
                       uneconomical, unnecessary, and hazardous use of floodplains. A 1975 General Accounting Office
                       (GAO) report found that "Executive Order 11296 proved to have a limited effect in reducing
                       flood losses due to the lack of agency implementing procedures and limited compliance by Federal
                       agencies" (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1983).

                       The updated 1977 Order was intended to increase the effectiveness of federal agencies' actions
                       related to floodplain management. It also expanded the scope of E.O. 11296 by requiring that
                       federal agencies also address the need to diminish environmental damage due to unwise planning








             Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dis7uption                                              11-33



                 and development of floodplains. (Similarly, E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands, which was issued
                 at the same time, was intended to reduce the adverse impacts associated with the destruction or
                 modification of wetlands.)

                 E.O. 11988 established general.policy bringing together concerns for human health, safety, welfare,
                 and property, with concerns for restoring and preserving natural and beneficial resources of flood-
                 plains. 'Federal agencies were directed to:

                 ï¿½ avoid directly or indirectly supporting floodplain development;

                 ï¿½   avoid actions located in or affecting the floodplain, unless the floodplain location is the only
                     practicable alternative; and

                 ï¿½   in the absence of a practicable alternative, require that actions be designed or modified in
                     order to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain.

                 The Order, which applies to proposed actions of federal agencies, requires each agency to issue
                 implementing procedures and provides for public participation in federal decisions affecting flood-
                 plains. As required by E.O. 11988, federal agencies taking actions affecting the floodplain are
                 held to no less a standard than demanded by the federal government of communities participating.
                 in the NFIP.


                 1) WRC GUIDELINES FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES: In 1978, the U.S. Water Resources Council
                     (VVRC) issued a set of guidelines for use by federal agencies in implementing E.O. 11988.
                     These guidelines were intended to provide broad guidance for interpretation of the Order,
                     and to assist the federal agencies in developing their own procedures for complying with the
                     Order.


                     The VVRC's guidelines, the result of a 12-month interagency task force effort, included an
                     eight-step decision-making process (shown on Figure 11-2) to be followed by federal agencies
                     in applying the Order to their actions.

                     The Guidelines also spelled out the responsibilities of the agencies to: 1) recognize that flood-
                     plains have unique and significant public values, 2) evaluate the potential effects of any action
                     that they may take in a floodplain, and 3) take floodplain management into consideration in
                     formulating their own water and land-use plans, and in evaluating the water and land-use
                     plans of others. .

                 2)  AGENCY PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING E.O. 11988. Executive Order 11988 included
                     a requirement that federal agencies prepare procedures for implementing the directives of
                     the Order. In 1982, in response to an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) request,
                     FEMA conducted a review (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1983) of the implemen-
                     tation of the Executive Order (as well as its associated one percent annual chance flood
                     standard). In conducting its review, FEMA solicited comments from federal agencies on two
                     questions regarding the Executive Order ("Are Federal agencies complying with E.O. 11988?"
                     and "What impact, if any, has there been on the level of Federal support of unwise actions
                     in designated floodplain areas?"),    as well as six additional questions regarding agency
                     compliance and effectiveness of the Order in achieving its purposes.








                    11-34                                      Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floadplain Management





                                 STEPS


                                    1. YES              DETERMINE IF PROPOSED ACTION                          0
                                                        IS IN THE BASE* FLOODPLAIN


                                    2- EARLY PUBLIC REVIEW
                                    3. IDENTIFY & EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES                4 NO ACTIEN]
                                       TO LOCATING IN TME BASE* FLOODPLAIN
                                       IN THE BASE']          NOT IN BASE*
                                       FLOODPLAIN             FLOODPLAIN
                                                                                               DOES THE ACTION HAVE
                                                                                               IMPACTS IN THE BASE*
                                                                                  YES          FLOODPLAIN
                                    4. IDENTIFY IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
                                                                                  YES          DOES THE ACTION
                                                                                               INDIRECTI.Y SUPPORT
                                                                                               FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT


                                    5. MINIMIZE, RESTORE AND PRESERVE                                        NO


                                    6. RE-EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES
                                       IN THE BASE'    FLImIT ACTION - RETURN TO. STEP 3
                                       FLOODHJUN


                                    7. FINDINGS AND PUBLIC EXPLANATION
                                    &                                            @jODNI%

                                    .  For critical actions substitute 11500-year" for "Base."


                              Source: U.S. Water Resources Councit. Floodplain Manapernent Guidelines for Implementing F-0. 11988. 43FR6030,Februaiy
                                      10,1978.

                    Figure 11-2. Eight-Step Decision-Making Process for Executive Order 11988.


                              FEMA!s report included discussion of the status of agency implementing procedures and of
                              numerous technical and procedural issues that had arisen in actual implementation. Among
                              the major findings of the review were the following:

                              ï¿½  Retention of the Order was strongly supported.

                              ï¿½  Although the Order was successful in reducing exposure to potential flood losses,
                                 significant improvements in federal actions were still needed to achieve the objectives
                                 of the Order.

                              ï¿½  Implementation procedures had not been adopted by all agencies and some agencies had
                                 adopted procedures inconsistent with the Order. Of 63 agencies, subagencies, and
                                                             W
                                                                      =CTION @Z=















                                 programs identified as requiring regulations or implementing procedures, 54 had adopted
                                 final or interim/final procedures as of February 1983 (in the form of regulations, internal
                                 directives, design manuals, etc.).

                              ï¿½ Federal agency implementation had become more effective over time, but streamlining
                                 and other improvements to the implementation process were still needed.








               Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disuption                                                         11-35



                   3)   CURRENT STATUS OF IMPLEMFMATION: As noted above, the 1983 review of implementation
                        of E.O. 11988 concluded that the Order had been effective in reducing potential flood losses,
                        but that improvements in both agency procedures and field implementation were still needed.

                        Although no systematic review of the status of implementation of the Order has been
                        conducted since the 1983 FEMA review, informal discussions with several federal agencies
                        indicate that the Order is considered effective within their agencies. However, little or no
                        systematic tracking of agency decisions based on the E.O. guidance is available to verify these
                        conclusions.

                        A UnifiedNationalNogramforFloodplain Management (1986) noted that "Continued compli-
                        ance and implementation of Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management by all affected
                        Federal agencies with endorsement by State and local governments are necessary if substan-
                        tial savings from flood damages are to be achieved" (Federal Interagency Floodplain
                        Management Task Force, 1986, Emphasis in original).

                        In 1987, the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force issued further imple-
                        mentation guidance for field-level staff in response to a recommendation in the 1983 review
                        and to supplement the WRC's 1978 guidelines (Federal Interagency Floodplain Management
                        Task Force, 1987). The Task Force will review this. interim guidance document after
                        approximately one year of use to determine if it requires revision before issuance as a
                        supplemental guidance document.


                                            In 1983, in accordance with E.O. 11988, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                            (EPA) agreed to provide federal funds for a sewer system only if the state and
                                            Worcester County, Maryland promised to deny sewer hookups for new development
                                            inside the "100-year" floodplain. The only exception to the ban was for property
                                            that had been platted for development before 1977, and eidsting homes and build-
                                            ings.

                                            A local property owner brought the issue to court, arguing that he needed sewer
                                            hookups to develop and that the State had the authority to restrict sewer hookups
                                            only if it was necessary to ensure that the treatment plant did not become over-
                                            loaded. The Worcester County Circuit Court ruled that State and local government
                                            officials did not have authority to enter into the agreement with EPA. However,
                                            in June 1989 the Maryland Court of Appeals overturned the. Circuit Court decision
                                            and upheld the agreement The appeals court supported the State and local
                                            governments as having "made a rational determination ... that the federal grant
                                            proposal presented the most viable alternative available to abate the deteriorating
                                            conditions in West Ocean City." The court also noted that the property owner
                                            could develop the land by installing his own sewerage system and stated that "The
                                            burdens on ... [the ownees] rights are necessary and not unreasonable to promote
                                            the general public health and welfare" (Watson, 1989).








                   11-36                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                   ï¿½   Principles and Guidelines. The 1983 "Principles and Guidelines for Planning Water and Related
                       Land Resources" require consideration of the potential of the floodplain for natural and cultural
                       resources as part of the evaluation of alternatives for federal water resources projects. Neverthe-
                       less, the "Principles and Guidelines" can be an impediment to use of nonstructural measures as
                       an alternative to or as part of structural flood control measures (Soil Conservation Service, 1989).
                       The Principles and Guidelines require quantification of project costs and benefits to justify federal
                       involvement. Many of the natural and cultural resources provided or protected by nonstructural
                       measures - and often removed or modified by structural measures - cannot be easily quantified,
                       and may not receive appropriate valuation during a benefit-cost evaluation.

                   ï¿½   Coastal Barrier Resources Act. Concerns over past and possible future damage costs, along with
                       environmental and public safety concerns and the realization that federal programs have histori-
                       cally encouraged and assisted development of barrier islands with resulting losses of natural,
                       cultural, recreational, and other resources, led to the enactment of the Coastal Barrier Resources
                       Act (P.L 97-348) in 1982. This legislation was specifically designed to restrict federally subsidized
                       development of undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts in order to:

                       ï¿½ Minimize loss of human life;
                       ï¿½ Reduce the wasteful expenditure of federal revenues; and
                       ï¿½ Reduce damage to fish and wildlife habitat and other valuable natural resources associated
                           with coastal barriers.

                       The Act established the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), a system of largely undevel-
                       oped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The barriers included in this system
                       show a high degree of diversity in form (e.g., wave-dominated, tide-dominated, delta-formed, etc.)
                       and function (e.g., eroding or accreting). Different regional coastlines within the system also
                       exhibit a wide range of susceptibility to hurricanes and coastal storms.

                       Tlie Act prohibits, within the CBRS, most expenditures of federal funds that serve to promote
                       economic growth and development. 7he major types of federal funds no longer available for use
                       on the coastal barriers protected by this Act are: federal assistance for construction of sewer
                       systems, water supply systems, airports, highways, bridges, jetties, seawalls and piers; federal flood
                       insurance; Corps of Engineers' structural development projects; and Veteran's Administration
                       and Federal Housing Administration loans.

                       The expenditure limitation does not prohibit private financial transactions or the construction
                       of facilities and structures with private funds or funds provided by state and local governments.
                       The effect of the Act is to put the burden of financial risk associated with development on those
                       who choose to live on coastal barriers, not on the taxpayer who, in the past, helped to bear this
                       burden through subsidized federal flood insurance and emergency relief funds.

                       The CBRA applies only to the largely undeveloped barriers within the designated Coastal Barrier
                       Resources System because it was not the intent of the legislation to penalize existing communities
                       but rather to remove incentives for future development. Barriers included in the CBRS were
                       identified by geological criteria and through the political process at the local, state and federal
                       levels.







             Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption                                               11-37



                  The barriers protected stretch from Maine to Texas. No barriers in New Hampshire, Maryland,
                  and New Jersey are included in the system. Massachusetts and Florida have the greatest numbers
                  of separate coastal barrier units protected; Texas has the greatest acreage protected.

                  Section 10 of the CBRA required the Department of the Interior, in consultation with the states,
                  to prepare and submit to Congress a report making recommendations for additions to, or
                  deletions from, the CBRS, and for modifications to the boundaries of CBRS units. This report
                  was completed in 1988. Table 11-7 summarizes the existing components of the CBRS and the
                  changes that would result if the recommendations of the Department of the Interior are adopted
                  by Congress (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988).

                  The effectiveness of the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) in limiting development on
                  sensitive coastal barriers is not clear. In many cases financing for coastal development can be
                  obtained from private sources. Because of the demand for coastal property, turnover is so fast
                  that developers have only a short time frame for financial exposure, and therefore little risk.
                  Further, purchasers of buildings in areas included in the CBRS may not be aware that many forms
                  of disaster relief will be unavailable if their property is damaged (U.S. Environmental Protection
                  Agency, 1989).


             State and Local Policies


             State policies pertaining to floodplain development have been established through executive orders
             and coastal management policies. Road and bridge standards can also affect floodplain development.

             0    Floodplain Management Executive Orders and Policies. Several states have issued executive
                  orders or other directives comparable to E.O. 11988 as a means of avoiding state expenditures
                  to support floodplain development, and every state now has a statute or executive order to govern
                  construction of state projects such as prisons and universities that are exempt from local regula-
                  tions. Most of these were implemented to meet NFIP requirements. Many go beyond the
                  minimum NFIP standards.


                               Ohio statutes require review of public faci lities to be built by both state agencies and local
                               governments.





                  All coastal states have some type of coastal management program that provides policies on
                  development in coastal flood hazard areas.












                 Table 11-7.         Summary of Department of Interior Recommendations for Changes in the CBRS.



                     STATE                  NUMBER OF         NUMBER OF         SHORELINE SHORELINE                        TOTAL            TOTAL         FASTLAND          FASTLAND
                                                EXISTING      UNITS WITH         LENGTH IN             LENGTH       ACREAGEIN            ACREAGE        ACREAGEIN            ACREAGE
                                             CBRS UNITS        RECOMMEN-                 CBRS WITH RECOM-                   CBRS             WITH               CBRS             WITH
                                                                   DATIONS            (MILES) MENDATIONS                               RECOMMEN-                           RECOMMEN-
                                                                                                        (MILES)                           DATIONS                             DATIONS

                     Maine                              12                25              10.0              22.5            1,045             4,640               485             1,005
                     Massachusetts                      44                60              70.7             119.3            17,214           66,290             3,871             6,904
                     Rhode Island                       11                20              17.7              25.7            4,791             8,851             1,058             1,436
                     Connecticut                        11                15                8.2               7.5           3,045             3,741               333               302
                     New York                           12                42              21.0              45.0            4,635            18,399             1,131             1,965
                     New Jersey                          0                 8                 0              13.5                 0            5,486                  0              396               115
                     Delaware                            2                 4              17.1              17.5            1,565             6,945               517               740               Q
                     Maryland                            0                36                 0              28.0                 0            7,163                  0            1,605
                     Virginia                            4                52              13.8              80.5            11,298           52,831             1,148             3,479
                     North Carolina                      8                 6              54.6              32.6            31,913           29,741             8,610             4,579
                     South Carolina                     13                14              38.4              42.4            26,885           76,130             4,511             4,586
                     Georgia                             6                 6              16.2              19.9            33,073           64,255             5,126             5,506
                     Florida                            33                65             118.8             172.4            61,575          305,200             19,378           39,511
                     Alabama                             3                 4              17.6              19.0            10,678           11,058             2,940             2,722               Its.
                     Mississippi                         4                 6                9.6             12.8            4,1W              5,981               557               662               10%,
                     Louisiana                          12                17              91.7             180.0            59,243          353,340             4,518            12,747
                     Texas                              11                19             161.0             180.0           181,565          199,401             46,751           48,498
                     Puerto Rico                         0                42                 0              56.9                 0           21,486                  0            2,473               1-9
                     Virgin Islands                                                                                                                                                                   8
                                                         0                20                 0              13.4                 0            2,740                  0              587
                     TOTAL                              186               461            666.4            1,088.9          452,834         1,243,678           100,934           139,703              01



                      source:   U.S. Department of the Interior, Coastal Barrier Study Group. Executive Summary in Report to Conpress: Coastal Barrier Resources System Washington, D.C.: US, Department
                                Of the Interior, 1988.








                Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption                                                               11-39



                                      The Connecticut Coastal Management Program includes the policy to manage coastal
                                      hazard areas so as to insure that development proceeds in such a manner that hazards to
                                      life and property are minimized. The Coastal Management Program also contains the
                                      following policies applicable to coastal hazard areas (State of Connecticu4 1979):

                                      0    To promote nonstructural solutions to flood and erosion problems except in those
                                           instances where structural alternatives prove unavoidable and necessary to protect
                                           existing inhabited structures, infrastructure facilities, or water-dependent uses.

                                      a    To maintain the natural relationship between eroding and depositional coastal land-
                                           forms.


                                      -    To minimize the adverse impacts of erosion and sedimentation on coastal land uses
                                           through the promotion of nonstructural mitigation measures.

                                      *    Structural solutions are permissible when necessary and unavoidable for the protection
                                           of infrastructure facilities, water-dependent uses, or existing inhabited structures, and
                                           where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative, and where all
                                           reasonable mitigation measures and techniques have beenprovided to minimizeadverse
                                           environmental impacts.



                                        North Carolina has imposed strict regulations on development within coastal hazard areas.
                                        Through the state's Coastal Area Management Program, guidance and financial assistance
                                        is provided to coastal counties for local land-use planning. Local plans must be prepared
                                        in conformance with state-established guidelines and must include policies on a range
                                        of specified issues, including resource protection, economic and community development,
                                        and storm hazard protection.

                                        In addition to the local land-use plans, a second major component of the State coastal
                                        program is delineation and regulation of Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs). In
                                        AECs, development must be reviewed and approved by either the Coastal Resource
                                        Commission (major developments) or by the local government (usually for minor devel-
                                        opments), and must be consistent with state performance standards for each type of AEC
                                        and with local land-use plans.

                                        Two types of estuarine category AECs (coastal wetlands and estuarine shorelines) and
                                        three types of ocean hazard AECs (ocean erodible, high hazard flood, inlet hazard areas)
                                        are particularly significant with regard to the management of development subject to
                                        hurricanes and storm hazards. In ocean erodible zones, for example, structures are
                                        subject to a setback requirement that is related to the first line of stable natural vegetation
                                        and long-term erosion rate. Inlet hazard areas extend landward from the mean low water
                                        line to cover an area of potential inlet migration.








                     1140                                           Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                                             Some examples of State-established performance or use standards that guide development
                                             and redevelopment in North Carolina's AECs are:

                                             ï¿½  an increase in the setback distance (in addition to the rule for setback behind primary
                                                and/or frontal dunes) for larger oceanfront uses such as motels, hotels and condomin-
                                                iums;

                                             ï¿½  in ocean hazard areas, no development which involves significant removal or relocation
                                                of sand or vegetation of frontal or primary dunes;

                                             ï¿½  construction or substantial improvement in ocean hazard areas must satisfy additional
                                                standards for windstorm resistant construction as well as elevation and piling require-
                                                ments; and

                                             ï¿½  development in estuarine shorelands restricted from producing impervious surfaces
                                                exceeding 30% of the AEC land (Brower, 1986).


                          Roads and Bridges. States exhibit great variability with regard to road and bridge design and
                          construction standards. The minimum requirements of the NFIP only restrict construction of
                          roads and bridges if they create a floodway encroachment. While interstate highways must meet
                          higher standards, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires that federal-aid highways
                          meet the NFIP standard and will provide financial assistance to states in accordance with those
                          standards. Additional costs resulting from a more restrictive standard must be borne totally by
                          the state (Myers, 1989).

                          Several states require more stringent standards for roads and bridges not on the federal-aid
                          system. Some states' standards are based on economic analyses dependent on site conditions.

                                        Indiana requires state and local roads to pass a one percent annual chance flood, although
                                        the road can be inundated.




                                            Under Florida statute, no State money can be spent to construct a bridge to a coastal
                                            barrier island that did not have a bridge on October 1, 1985.




                                             Kansas allows state and local roads to pass only the four percent annual (1125-year") flood,
                                             but there must be three feet of freeboard.




                          Table 11-8 identifies those states that have adopted standards or policies that are more stringent
                          than required by the NFIP regarding construction of state or local roads and bridges (Association
                          of State Floodplain Managers, 1988).








                Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption                                                           11-41



                Table 11-8.       States with Road and Bridge Standards that ]Exceed NFIP Requirements.


                                                                        ROAD & BRIDGE STANDARDS
                                                                    STATE ROADS             LOCAL ROADS


                                        Alabama
                                        Alaska
                                        Arizona                               X
                                        Arkansas                              X
                                        California                            X                         X

                                        Colorado                              X
                                        Connecticut                           X
                                        Delaware
                                        District of Columbia                  X                         X
                                        Florida                               X                         X
                                        Georgi@a
                                        Hawaii
                                        Idaho
                                        Illinois                              X                         X
                                        Indiana                               X                         X

                                        Iowa                                  X                         X
                                        Kansas                                X                         X
                                        Kentucky
                                        Louisiana
                                        Maine                                 X

                                        Maryland                              X
                                        Massachusetts                                                   X
                                        Michigan                              X                         X
                                        Minnesota                             X                         X
                                        Mississippi                           X                         X

                                        Missouri                              X
                                        Montana                               X                         X
                                        Nebraska                              X                         X
                                        Nevada
                                        New Hampshire                         X
                                        New Jersey                            X                         X
                                        New Mexi@o
                                        New York                              X
                                        North Carolina
                                        North Dakota

                                        Ohio                                  X                         X
                                        Oklahoma                              X
                                        Oregon
                                        Pennsylvania                          X
                                        Rhode Island                          X

                                        South Carolina                        X
                                        South Dakota
                                        Tennessee
                                        Texas                                 X                         X
                                        Utah                                  X

                                        Vermont                               X
                                        Virginia                              X
                                        Waihingtcp.
                                        West ViFgmia                          X
                                        Wisconsin                             X                         X
                                        Wyoming                               X


                        Source:  Association of State Floodplain Managers. "State Floodplain Management Programs. Results of a Survey Conducted by
                                 the Association of State Floodplain Managers for LR. Johnston Associates," 1988.








                    11-42                                      Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                    LAND RIGHTS, ACQUISITION AND OPEN SPACE USE

                    Regulations and policies affecting the design and location of services and utilities may be satisfactorily
                    applied to avoid or reduce inappropriate development in many floodplains. However, this approach
                    is not adequate for all types of floodplains or for all occasions. In particular, regulation and develop-
                    ment policies have considerable limitations for protecting natural resources or for obtaining public
                    use of properties. Where natural resources must be protected, public use of the land is desired, or
                    if there are strong development pressures, acquisition of the land may be the only means of obtaining
                    desired objectives.

                    Full title to land may be acquired, or control of the land may be acquired through easements or
                    development rights; all for the purpose of precluding future uses incompatible with the flood risk and
                    open space use. In the short term, acquisition of land or land rights may be a costly substitute for
                    regulation. Long-term benefits may outweigh the short-term costs, however, and acquisition may be
                    the only acceptable approach if the proposed use has a specific nonflood-related purpose, such as
                    for public use areas. (Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, 1986).

                    The literature carries only limited examples of land rights acquisition6 for the sole or primary purpose
                    of flood loss reduction  .7 To develop favorable support for acquisition projects, government officials
                    typically will include all potential benefits of property acquisition as justification for the project,
                    including such benefits as protection of wetlands and other habitat resources and scenic resources,
                    as well as water quality, recreation, and flood loss reduction benefits.

                    Section 73 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 provided for full consideration of
                    acquisition and other nonstructural measures for flood control. Cost-sharing for nonstructural
                    measures is the same (25% nonfederal) as for structural projects. Still, land rights acquisition is not
                    widely used for flood loss reduction. The high cost of land and concerns over excessive government
                    ownership of land and/or taking of private property appear to be contributing reasons.

                                          Perhaps the most prominent example of federal land acquisition specifically for flood loss
                                          reduction purposes is the Charles River Watershed in Massachusetts. To reduce flood
                                          losses in the lower Charles River Watershed, the Corps of Engineers acquired land in the
                                          upper watershed to provide flood storage capacity.


                    The high cost of coastal property has made acquisition of this land particularly difficult, especially
                    land with potential for development. Practically the only coastal land that can be purchased is that
                    in wetlands or some other restricted category. When coastal land is acquired, flood loss reduction
                    is usually only one of several project objectives.



                    6   Acquisition of property with structures subject to flood damage is far more common. This application is
                        described later in this chapter in the section on Permanent Evacuation.

                    7   Land acquisition is an integral part of most structural flood control measures which are described in Chapter
                        12.







              Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disniption                                               11-43



              Further description of land acquisition to preserve open space, protect floodplain natural resources,
              and reduce future flood losses is provided in Chapter 14.


              REDEVELOPMENT

              Redevelopment may offer opportunities for reducing vulnerability to flood losses as well as improving
              blighted or uneconomical development. Only infrequently is flood damage reduction the sole motive
              for redevelopment. Nevertheless, sound floodplain management principles can be applied to
              practically any redevelopment within the floodplain. (Federal Interagency Floodplain Management
              Task Force, 1986).


              Federal Programs for Redevelopment

              The federal government promotes redevelopment primarily through grants, loans and technical
              assistance to state and local governments, rather than by engaging directly in redevelopment projects.
              During the 1970s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided several
              programs aimed at redevelopment of urban and blighted areas. Among the programs available to
              assist states and local communities were the 701 planning program and the urban redevelopment
              program. These particular programs were eliminated in the 1970s and largely replaced with revenue-
              sharing programs, most specifically the. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.
              CDBG funds have been used by many communities throughout the country to assist with redevelop-
              ment projects involving floodplains.


              State and Local Activities

              Although federal agencies often contribute significantly through funding and technical assistance,
              redevelopment is primarily a function of state and local governments and the private sector. Much
              redevelopment of floodprone areas has been associated with a rediscovery of and reorientation toward
              the urban waterfront. Major waterfront redevelopment in Baltimore, Boston, Pittsburgh, and San
              Antonio have helped to revitalize existing urban areas. Areas that were once blighted have been
              redeveloped and turned into major economic resources. This same type of waterfront development
              has taken place on a much smaller scale in many other locations around the country.

              Most redevelopment relating to flood loss reduction occurs following a major flood or a series of
              floods. If the development continues to occupy the floodplain, then typically some type of localized
              structural measure is undertaken to accompany the redevelopment or floodproofing of structures.
              A temporary moratorium may be imposed to allow proper evaluation and planning prior to permitting
              any redevelopment (see the section on Postflood Recovery in Chapter 13). Redevelopment primarily
              for flood loss reduction purposes is associated with permanent evacuation of the floodplain (see
              following section).

              Of course, not all redevelopment conforms to accepted floodplain management practices. From
              expansion or reconstruction of individual homes to revitalization of entire neighborhoods, redevelop-








                  1144                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  ment often fails to incorporate actions that would reduce the flood hazard. Unfortunately, this is
                  often the case following a damaging flood. In the rush to restore normalcy to the lives of individuals
                  and entire communities, redevelopment often leaves an area just as vulnerable to flooding as it was
                  before the flood. Too often, legislative and regulatory requirements actually encourage - or even
                  require for some forms of financial assistance - redevelopment to preflood conditions, and opportu-
                  nities to mitigate against future flood losses are lost.


                  PERMANENT EVACUATION

                  Permanent evacuation of a portion of a floodplain is usually associated with some type of redevelop-
                  ment in another, nonfloodplain location. Many individuals and organizations have proclaimed the
                  need to remove structures and inappropriate uses from flood risk areas, but achieving such action
                  can be difficult. Consequently, permanent evacuation is currently less common than other tools
                  except perhaps for small, isolated sectors of nonconforming uses. Permanent evacuation of the
                  floodplain typically occurs only when the flood risk is exceptionally great or frequent and no structural
                  protection is practical. In some cases, permanent evacuation may result from a combination of
                  reducing flood risk and achieving other community goals at the same time.

                  The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force has noted that permanent evacuation
                  may be the only economically viable alternative in some instances (Federal Interagency Floodplain
                  Management Task Force, 1986). The Task Force recommended that, "to the extent permitted by
                  statute, Federal agencies should provide encouragement for relocation of structures and facilities from
                  floodways and perilous floodprone areas, leaving such areas for open space uses." Even in instances
                  when permanent evacuation is not feasible, it provides a standard by which other flood loss reduction
                  tools may be evaluated.



                  Federal Activities


                  Historically, most federal activity related to permanent evacuation of floodplains was limited to
                  specific projects. Permanent evacuation was, and still is, often a part of structural flood control
                  projects. Individual structures, groups of structures, and even entire small communities have been
                  permanently removed from the floodplain so that a structural project can proceed. Occasionally,
                  permanent evacuation has been selected as an alternative to a structural project. In these instances,
                  floodprone structures have been either purchased and demolished, or relocated out of the floodplain.

                  Programs that involve acquisition and permanent evacuation of developed floodplains often need to
                  provide some type of financial and/or technical assistance in relocation. If federal funds are used
                  for acquisition of any occupied properties, the guidelines established in the Federal Relocation
                  Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 will normally need to be followed.
                  The federal relocation assistance law requires, and state laws may also require, the payment of moving
                  expenses and "replacement housing payment" consisting of any additional money beyond the fair
                  market value of the acquired structure that is required for a displaced resident to purchase decent,
                  safe, and sanitary housing outside the floodplain. Because it is a voluntary program, FFMA!s Section
                  1362 program offers no specific financial assistance for relocation (Field, 1981).







               Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption                                                           11-45



                    Congressionally authorized projects. A few permanent evacuation projects have been specifically
                    authorized by Congress. Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin is probably the best known example.

                                    Portions of the Town of Prairie du Chien, including much of the original development, were
                                    located in the floodplain of the Mississippi River. Floods have been a recurring problem,
                                    and following a particularly devastating flood in 1965, the Town requested the Corps to
                                    conduct a flood protection study. The Corps found structural measures to be too expensive,
                                    and the plan developed by the Corps, approved by the Town, and authorized by Congress,
                                    involved the evacuation of all residences and two businesses in the "10-year" floodplain.
                                    All other businesses were allowed to remain.

                                    The plan included relocation assistance to those evacuated, technical assistance to owners
                                    of remaining floodplain properbes who wished to floodproof their structures, continued
                                    floodplain regulation, and continued availability of flood insurance. The Town is responsible
                                    for maintaining the evacuated area in its intended reuses - open space recreation and a
                                    historical tourist attraction (Field, 1981).


                    1)  FUNDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS: Several federal programs have been
                        available at various times to provide technical and/or funding assistance for property acquisi-
                        tion and permanent evacuation of the floodplain. Most notable among these has been HUD's
                        Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs). Other programs or funding sources used
                        include the Secretary of the Interior's discretionary fund; the Secretary of HUD'S discretion-
                        ary fund; Und and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) administered by the Department of
                        Interior; disaster, business, and home repair loans from the Small Business Administration
                        (SBA); and emergency loans from the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA); among others.

                    2)  SECTION 1362 OF THE NFIA. Section 1362 (Flooded Property Acquisition Program) of the
                        National Flood Insurance Act authorized acquisition of selected flood-damaged properties.
                        However, it was not until after legislative modifications were made in 1973 and a feasibility
                        study was conducted beginning in 1976 that the program was implemented.

                        The 1979 implementation of Section 1362 signaled a new approach by the federal government
                        for reducing flood losses. Section 1362 authorizes the acquisition of flood damaged properties,
                        subject to several restrictions. All properties must have been covered by flood insurance at
                        the time the flood damage occurred, and the property must have been damaged by a single
                        flood event to at least 50% of value, or damaged three times in five years to at least 25%
                        of value. Program funds can be used to acquire the lot on which a flood damaged structure
                        is located, but cannot be used to acquire vacant land. The program negotiates for the
                        acquisition based on preflood fair market value, less any payments for flood insurance claims.

                        Land acquired with Section 1362 funds must be converted to some type of open space use.
                        Communities participating in the program must submit an acceptable project application to
                        FEMA, and commit to maintaining a reuse plan and to clearing the damaged structure(s)
                        from the site. Although title to acquired property is temporarily transferred to FEMA,
                        permanent title is transferred from FEMA to either the local government or to a unit of state
                        government.








                   11-46                                      Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                            The Section 1362 program was first funded in 1980 at a level of $5.4 million. As shown in
                            Table 11-9, funding has ranged from a low of $1.6 million to a high of about $6.8 million.
                            Through fiscal year 1988, a total of 797 properties had been acquired and 1,251 structures
                            were approved for acquisition. Of the total $42,063,601 appropriated for the program,
                            $23,502,368 had been spent for acquired structures ($25,977,762 including administrative costs)
                            (MacKay, 1988). Acquisition of flood-damaged properties, however, is not always without
                            difficulty, no matter how serious the flood risk (see the example from the State of Texas on
                            the next page).

                            The Section 1362 program has proved popular with states and communities because its
                            implementation has resulted in open space use in flood hazard areas. In most years since
                            the program was first funded, the number and dollar value of potential community applica-
                            tions has exceeded the available funds. Recommendations by governments at all levels and
                            by professional organizations that Congress increase the funding level have proven unsuccess-
                            ful.




                   Table 11-9.      Section 1362 Appropriated Funds.


                                                                APPROPRIATED
                                       FISCAL YEAR                        FUNDS          FUNDS SPENT(a)

                                       1980                            $5,400,000                $5,951,867
                                       1981                            5,400,000                  3,591,867
                                       1982                            1,600,000                  1,402,632
                                       1983                            4,334,353                  4,708,124
                                       1984(b)                         6,778,000                  4,813,370
                                       1985                            4,778,000                  4,813,370
                                       1986                            4,522,248                    566,867
                                       1987                            4,720,000                  3,080,881
                                       1988                            4,531,000

                                       TOTAL                          $42,063,601               $25,977,762

                                       (a) Includes funds for administrative costs.
                                       (b) Fiscal year program authorized two-year funding. in 1984, a one-time
                                          $2,000,000 supplemental appropriation was made availa ble.


                                     Source:  MacKay, Ross. Federal Insurance Administration. Personal communication, 1988.








               Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dis7uption                                                                1147



                                          The Brownwood subdivision on a peninsula in Baytown, Texas contained some 300
                                          homes built in the 1950s. The extent of the flood hazard in the area was first realized
                                          in 1961 when Hurricane Carla resulted in eight-foot deep flooding in the subdivision.
                                          Since that time, the area has continued to subside (five feet between 1963 and 1985)
                                          to just above sea level, and tidal flooding occurred frequently (including five flood alerts
                                          and four evacuations in 1979 alone). Although homeowners had experienced frequent
                                          tidal flooding (and submitted repeated flood insurance claims), they were unprepared
                                          for the strength of Hurricane Alicia in August 1983. More than 600 housing units in
                                          Baytown were destroyed, half of them in the Brownwood subdivision. Because of the
                                          extent of the flood damages, as well as the history of repeated damages and insurance
                                          claims, the city and FEMA decided to acquire the properties in Brownwood through
                                          the Section 1362 Acquisition Program. The City passed an ordinancepreventing repairs
                                          and occupancy of structures in the Brownwood area, thus qualifying all homes there
                                          for Section 1362.

                                          Although most property owners were initially in favor of the acquisition program, many
                                          later became suspicious of the effort (e.g., there were rumors that the City intended
                                          to resell the properties to industry at a profit). In addition, others changed their minds
                                          because of the long waiting period (the first purchases were not made until seven
                                          months after the storm) and the low values offered for the properties (in some cases
                                          only the $1000 - $2000 value of the lot). Two homeowner groups sued the City for
                                          large amounts, claiming that the City's regulatory ordinance prohibiting repairs and
                                          occupancy of structures in the Brownwood area was a "taldng" of property. Eventually,
                                          despite all the problems and even though all property owners were not satisfied, 177
                                          of 265 homes eligible for acquisition, were purchased under the 1362 Program (Strong,
                                          1985).


                    Housing and Community Development Act of 1987. Section 544 (commonly referred to as the
                    Upton/Jones provisions) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-242)
                    authorized payment of flood insurance claims prior to actual damage to a structure if the structure
                    was found to be in imminent danger of collapse due to coastal erosion.

                    Prior to passage of the Upton/Jones amendment, such structures had to literally fall into the water
                    before a claim could be paid under the'flood insurance policy. Under this amendment, any
                    structure covered by flood insurance, located on the shore of a body of water, and subject to
                    imminent collapse or subsidence as a result of erosion or undermining may be eligible for claims
                    payments. The Federal Insurance Administration determines final eligibility after certification
                    by an appropriate state or local land-use authority that the structure is subject to "imminent
                    collapse or subsidence as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water
                    exceeding anticipated cyclical levels." If the structure is demolished, payment can be for up to
                    110% of the value of the structure or actual demolition costs. For relocated structures, payment
                    of 40% of the value of the structure is authorized. If collapse occurs before demolition or
                    relocation, and no effort had been made to demolish or relocate, payment is limited to 40 percent
                    of the value of the structure.








                     11-48                                         Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                          Structures are not eligible for these payments unless covered by a flood insurance policy in effect:
                          a) on or before June 1, 1988; b) for a period of two years prior to certification of "imminent
                          collapse"; or c) for the term of ownership if less than two years. Reconstructed or relocated
                          buildings must be set back from the water. Structures with one to four dwelling units must be
                          set back a distance greater than 30 times the average annual erosion rate. Other structures must
                          be set back 60 times the average annual erosion rate (Association of State Floodplain Managers,
                          1988).

                          In July 1988, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) began a one-year study to review some
                          of the issues related to carrying out this program. The NAS report recommended a possible
                          methodology for determining coastal erosion rates to determine when a structure is subject to
                          "imminent collapse orsubsidence" (Simmons, 1988). TheFederal Insurance Administration (FIA)
                          implemented interim rules for the program effective in September 1988 (Federal Emergency
                          Management Agency, 1988). As of November 1990, 381 claims had been referred to the FIA
                          under this program, of which about half had been approved for payment (80% of which were
                          for demolition). Twenty-three percent of the claims were for riverine areas (Federal Emergency
                          Management Agency, 1990).


                     State and Local Activities


                     More and more states are promoting and funding acquisition as an effective method to redevelop
                     a floodprone area.

                                          Minnesota assisted four communities in relocating buildings out of the floodplain and then
                                          wrote a brochure on the local experiences for distribution to other towns. In 1987, the
                                          Minnesota Legislature created an ongoing program for flood damage reduction assistance
                                          which provides matching funds for a variety of community actions, including relocation of
                                          floodplain structures.


                                          Louisiana's Flood Control Act provides for a 50/50 cost sharing with local units of govern-
                                          mentforflood mitigation projects, including levees, dikes, dams, and relocationof structures.


                                          Maryland estimates that 380 properties have been acquired over the last six years as a direct
                                          result of 50% state funding (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988).



                     In addition, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico authorized $36 million for an island-wide mitigation
                     project that will be implemented entirely without federal aid. Coastal protection of ports and
                     industrial areas with flood control structures will be complemented by the relocation of 1,400 families
                     living in high hazard areas (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987).

                     Many other states have general purpose redevelopment funding programs, such as the Community
                     Development Block Grant. Land acquisition programs for open space or recreation are included








                Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption                                                             11-49



                because they generally give priority to waterfront property and the land is maintained as open space
                free from flood damage. Open space funds are frequently obtained through bonding, and the State
                of Maine recently passed a $35 million bond referendum for land acquisition (Association of State
                Floodplain Managers, 1988).

                Local governments may also initiate redevelopment proje4pts that involve permanent evacuation of
                the floodplain. Many of these local projects were undertaken following devastating floods, and
                involved substantial financial and technical assistance from federal and state agencies.

                                      In Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin, the Corps of Engineers planned and began construction of
                                      an earthen dam to protect downstream communities from flooding of the Fickapoo River.
                                      However, the dam would not have provided complete protection for the Village of Soldiers
                                      Grove, and to provide full protection, the Village would have had to share in the construc-
                                      bon costs of two massive levees running through the downtown area. For this and other
                                      reasons, opposition to the dam prevented the project from being completed.

                                      The Village of Soldiers Grove decided to relocate its central business district outside of the
                                      floodplain. A devastating 1978 flood accelerated the planning and implementation of the
                                      relocation project The village spent its own funds to acquire a new site for the central
                                      business district, and began obtaining commitments of federal and state assistance.
                                      Commitments were obtained from the Department of Commerce's Economic Development
                                      Administration, to assist with installing sewer and water lines to the new area; HUD
                                      Secretary's Discretionary Fund; Department of the Interior's Secretary's Discretionary Fund;
                                      state Community Development funds; and state Natural Resources funds (Field Associates,
                                      1981).


                Other local projects involving permanent evacuation from the floodplain have been accomplished
                primarily or entirely with local funds.

                                      Baltimore County, Maryland suffered serious flooding problems for decades. Following
                                      especially severe flooding in the early 1970s, the county examined ways to deter future
                                      flooding. Acquisition and permanent relocation were found to be the most cost-effective
                                      approach in six of eight watersheds studied. The county was able to determine that its
                                      previous costs for stormwater drainage improvements had averaged $4.5 million annually.
                                      The acquisition program, which would eliminate these stormwater costs, was scheduled
                                      over a six-year period to avoid any increase in annual expenses (Field Associates, 1981).




                EFFECTIVENESS OF DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES

                Strong policies regarding avoidance of inappropriate floodplain development are widely regarded
                as necessary and important floodplain management tools. Policies incorporated into legislation, such
                as the National Environmental Policy Act, are generally viewed as more effective than policies
                embodied in executive orders or administrative guidance. When an administrative policy conflicts
                or is perceived as conflicting with a legislative mandate, the policy is less likely to be implemented.
                For example, E.O. 11988 has been implemented effectively by those agencies that viewed its








                  11-50                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  provisions as supporting other agency programs and missions. It has had less impact on agencies such
                  as HUD and the Federal Highway Administration which find its provisions sometimes at odds with
                  mandates to provide low-income housing and essential transportation links. Similarly, informal agency
                  policies to promote mitigation following flood disasters have often been stymied by legislative
                  provisions that require redevelopment to preflood conditions. Policies may help to provide needed
                  direction when legislative mandates are subject to interpretation, but to be most effective, policy needs
                  to be translated into legislative and regulatory requirements.

                  Not all states have strong policies regarding development and redevelopment in floodplains and
                  sensitive natural resource areas. The EPA has suggested that every state should have a public
                  environmental review process similar to the process established by the National Environmental Policy
                  Act (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989). Exemptions from general policies regarding
                  avoidance of inappropriate development in floodplains is a weakness of many state policies.
                  Exemptions apply to activities ranging from road and bridge construction to agricultural activities.
                  The cumulative floodplain areas affected by these exemptions can be large and the impact of flood
                  risk and loss of natural resources significant.



                                                    DISASTER PREPAREDNESS


                  Disaster preparedness encompasses a broad spectrum of activities, including plans and programs for
                  predisaster mitigation, warning and emergency operations; training at all levels; public information
                  activities; exercises to test disaster preparedness plans; and readiness evaluations. Other concerns
                  include research, review and coordination of federal, state, and local disaster preparedness plans and
                  programs, and post disaster evaluation. The effectiveness of disaster preparedness is dependent on
                  the degree to which individuals, local governments, and states implement the plans. Preparedness
                  plans often are developed in concert with flood forecast, warning and emergency plans (see following
                  section). While it is most desirable to develop preparedness and recovery programs prior to flood
                  disasters, the opportunity should be seized when such disasters do occur to design and implement
                  recovery and redevelopment activities that will reduce or eliminate future flood hazards (Federal
                  Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, 1986).


                  FEDERAL ACTWITIES FOR DISASTER PREPAREDNESS

                  The federal role in disaster preparedness includes regulatory requirements, technical assistance, and
                  funding. Major federal disaster preparedness activities are described on the following pages.


                  Disaster Preparedness Improvement

                  Under the authority of Section 201(d) of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, FEMA provides up to 50
                  percent matching grants to assist states in developing and improving state and local plans, programs,
                  and capabilities for disaster preparedness and mitigation. The program promotes development of
                  integrated emergency preparedness plans that address all types of natural and technological hazards.
                  This concept, known as the Integrated Emergency Management System (IEMS), has evolved from








              Modifying SusceptibiliV to Flood Damage and Disntption                                                  11-51



              earlier civil defense planning. The IEMS program is based on the idea that preparedness needs for
              all types of natural and technological hazards is very similar, even though the details may vary for
              each type of hazard. FEMA has developed extensive guidance for state agencies to use in preparing
              integrated emergency management plans (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987).

              For many years funding was provided to states at the level of $25,000 per year. The Robert T.
              Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 (P.L 100-707) increased the level
              of authorized funding to $50,000 per state each year.


              Interagency Flood Hazard Mitigation Teams

              In December 1980, in response to a July 1980 directive issued by the Office of Management and
              Budget (Office of Management and Budget, 1980), 12 federal agencies signed an Interagency
              Agreement to provide technical assistance to states and communities for nonstructural flood damage
              reduction measures (Interagency Agreement, 1980). Representatives from each agency formed an
              Interagency Flood Hazard Mitigation Task Force charged with carrying out the terms of the agree-
              ment. The Task Force representatives ensure that technical personnel from their agencies are
              available to participate on postdisaster interagency hazard mitigation teams, and review agency
              programs and policies in order to identify and remove obstacles to implementation of flood hazard
              mitigation measures recommended by the interagency teams.

              Following each major flood disaster declared by the President," an Interagency Flood Hazard
              Mitigation Team is formed to provide technical assistance and guidance to communities and states
              affected by the disaster. 'A FEMA representative leads the interagency team, and calls upon
              representatives from each of the 12 federal agencies, as needed, to participate on the interagency
              team. The exact makeup of the team is determined largely by the type of damages incurred.
              Typically state and local representatives also participate on the interagency teams.

              Within 15 days after a disaster declaration, the interagency team prepares a report identifying flood
              hazard mitigation measures that may be implemented in the affected areas. These reports provide
              local and state officials, as well as federal agencies, an opportunity to take mitigation actions before
              the recovery process has proceeded too far and many mitigation opportunities have been lost. A
              follow-up report by the interagency team is prepared 90 days after the disaster declaration to assess
              the extent to which its recommendations have been implemented, and to try and identify and resolve
              any obstacles to implementation (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1981). There has not
              been any recent systematic review of the extent to which recommendations of the hazard mitigation
              teams have been implemented by state and local governments.

              While the OMB memorandum and the Interagency Agreement also call for federal technical
              assistance for predisaster planning, to date little or no predisaster planning assistance has been
              provided under this provision.



              8   Teams may also be formed in the absence of a Presidential declaration - for less disastrous flood events
                  and for predisaster planning - but typically are used only after a Presidential declaration.








                   11-52                                   Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                   Section 409 Hazard Mitigation Plans

                   Under Section 4099 of the Stafford Act, any jurisdiction that receives federal disaster assistance must
                   prepare a hazard mitigation plan within 180 days of the disaster declaration. If the state fails to meet
                   requirements under this section, future federal assistance may be curtailed. Regulations for imple-
                   menting Section 409 were first issued in 1979.

                   Since state and local mitigation planning was initiated in 1980 in response to the Section 409
                   requirements, most states have gained some experience in planning for and implementing hazard
                   mitigation measures. The level of quality and effectiveness of the programs developed, however, has
                   varied considerably from state to state. As noted in a 1986 FEMA guidance document (Federal
                   Emergency Management Agency, 1986), some states have used the Section 409 requirements as a
                   "spring board" to more comprehensive planning and implementation. In other jurisdictions, only
                   minimal plans have been prepared, and there have also been some difficulties in program ad-
                   ministration (e.g., deadlines for completion of plans have sometimes not been met). In some
                   instances, preparation of a Section 409 plan has been undertaken merely to meet the requirement,
                   and only limited follow-up activity has been directed toward program development.

                   FEMA has provided several forms of guidance on the Section 409 planning process. In addition to
                   the formal regulations (44 CFR Part 206, Subpart M), interim guidance has been provided to states
                   on suggested content and format of Section 409 plans, training programs have been offered at
                   FEMA!s Emergency Management Institute, and several published FENLA, documents include guidance
                   related to Section 409 plans. The Making Mitigation Work (Federal Emergency Management Agency,
                   1986) handbook was intended to serve as an orientation manual for acquainting the state Hazard
                   Mitigation Coordinator with some of the basic programs, processes and requirements for accomplish-
                   ing mitigation (but not as a step by step guide to meeting Section 409 planning requirements). FENLA,
                   has also issued mitigation guidance through the Integrated Emergency Management System series
                   of publications. In addition, the 1981 Flood Hazard Mitigation Handbook of Common Procedures
                   (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1981) prepared for Interagency Regional Hazard
                   Mitigation Teams provides guidance for the teams to use in preparing their reports, which are often
                   used in the development of Section 409 plans. In September 1990, FEMA published a handbook
                   on Section 409 hazard mitigation planning entitled Post-Disaster Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance
                   for State and Local Governments (DAP-12) (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1990).


                   Hurricane Preparedness Program

                   The need for hurricane evacuation studies arose with the rapid and large population growth experi-
                   enced in coastal areas over the last 20 years. All levels of government became increasingly concerned
                   about the relative complacency of coastal residents to hurricane threats. It was clear that the ability
                   to prepare and react to major coastal storms had to be refined and improved. To do so, reliable data
                   was needed to help state and local emergency managers make well-informed decisions.



                   9   The Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Amendments of 1988 resulted in a renumbering of sections,
                       and Section 406 was changed to Section 409.








             Modifyin Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dismption                                               11-53
                 .1 9




             FEMA, the Corps, and the National Weather Service (NWS) joined together to carry out a program
             of comprehensive hurricane evacuation planning in association with states along the Atlantic and Gulf
             coasts. NWS develops the SLOSH model for each coastal basin under its Hurricane Preparedness
             Program. FEMA funds the running of the SLOSH models for each basin by the NWS's National
             Hurricane Center (NHC), which produces data on surge elevations and the arrival of gale force winds
             at selected points within each basin for a sequence of storm directions, speeds, and intensities. The
             Corps and FEMA jointly fund, manage, and coordinate the studies. The Corps conducts the studies,
             using its own personnel, and in some cases contractors for specialized efforts.

             Comprehensive Hurricane Evacuation Studies are prepared from exhaustive research and provide
             detailed information on a broad spectrum of storm potentials. They evaluate areas vulnerable to
             destruction and flooding from storm surges and estimate the arrival time of gale force winds. Based.
             on those predictions, the Corps prepares detailed maps dividing impacted areas into zones depending
             on the storm intensity. Within each zone, population data, evacuation routes, available shelters, and
             medical facilities are studied. Behavioral research is performed to predict what percent of the
             population would comply with ordered evacuation and what their likely routes and destinations would
             be. These data are then used to determine the time required to respond and evacuate the affected
             .zones for each hurricane scenario.

             Throughout the study process, local and state emergency planners are closely involved. They review
             the study phases, provide input and react to the concepts presented. This insures that the final results
             are relevant to the particular plans and resources of each local official. The close coordination
             produces a document and decision-making tools, and gives the emergency manager the benefit of
             the latest technology in hurricane planning.

             The value of Comprehensive Hurricane Evacuation Studies was particularly evident in 1989 during
             Hurricane Hugo when hundreds of thousands of people were evacuated from areas devastated by
             the storm, and loss of life was kept to a minimum. Hurricane Evacuation Study results were
             integrated in the state and local emergency preparation plans and used to evacuate extensive areas
             along the coasts of South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia. Advance study data were also used
             in evacuating areas in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The extent of injuries and fatalities from Hurricane
             Hugo would have been far greater if affected areas had not had a high degree of preparedness. This
             readiness was significantly enhanced by the planning partnership forged between FEMA, the Corps,
             NWS, and the individual states.

             Comprehensive Hurricane Evacuation Studies require three to four years to complete, depending
             on size, complexity, and availability of funding. Studies cost between $500,000 and $700,000. Table
             11-10 shows the status and funding levels of the on-going joint Hurricane Evacuation Studies, as well
             as funding and time-frame data for completed studies as of October 1989 (Peterson, 1989).


             Other Federal Programs and Activities

             In addition to the activities described above, federal agencies have been and continue to be involved
             in providing disaster preparedness funding and technical assistance to state and local governments
             in many ways. Several examples illustrate the range of these activities.








                          11-54                                                 Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management




                         Table 11-10. Status of Hurricane Evacuation Studies.



                                          STATUS OF JOINT FEMA, CORPS, NWS HURRICANE EVACUATION STUDIES
                                                                                      OCTOBER 1989

                                               AREAS STUDIED                                PROJECT STATUS                                     COST ($000)
                                                                                  Completed                Underway               Completed          Underway (est.)
                           Div.        Dist.     Community                      Start     Compl.         Start    Compl.       Total     Corps       Total        Corps


                           SAD         SAC       South Carolina Coast           3/94        4/87                                544       174

                                       SAJ       San Juan, PR                                            9/87        IZ190                              189           95
                                       SAJ       Lee Co., FL                    1/78        5179                                120       120
                                       SAJ       Tampa Bay Regional             6179        6/81                                300       300
                                       SAJ       SE Fla.                        12180       6/83                                378       328
                                       SAJ       SE Fla. Restudy                                         8/87        12/90                              440        150

                                       SAM       Tri-States(MSAL,FL)            9/83        9/86                                640          90

                                       SAS       Georgia Coast                  10/85       9/89                                526       206

                                       SAW       North Carolina Coast           3/84        12/87                               537       232
                                       SAW       Long Island, NY                                      FY 86       FY 92                                 775        310

                                                         SAD TOTALS                                                             3045      1450          629        245



                           NAB         NAB       Maryland Coast                                       FY 85       FY 90                                 695        300

                                       NAO       Virginia Coast                                       FY 85       FY 91                                 715        275

                                       NAP       Delaware Coast                 FY85        FY89                                468       233
                                       NAP       New Jersey Coast                                     FY 85       FY 90                                 685        325

                                                         NAD TOTALS                                                             468       233        2095          90  0



                                       POD       Southern Oahu                  FY84        7/88                                351       121
                           POD         POD       Windward Oahu                                           7/89     FY 91                                 250        100


                                                         POD TOTALS                                                             351       121           250        100



                                       LMN       SE Louisiana Coast                                   FY 87       FY 90                                 431        115
                           LMVD


                                       NED       Connecticut Coast                                    FY 86       FY 92                                 575        275
                           NED         NED       Rhode Island Coast                                   FY 87       FY 93                                 450        200
                                       NED       Massachusetts Coast                                  FY 87       FY 93                                 450        200


                                                         NED TOTALS                                                                                  1475          675




                                 Source:     Peterson, Jerome. Chie( Floodplain Management Services@ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Personal communication, 1989.








           Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dismption                                 11-55



           0   Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program. Beginning in 1985, FEMA began providing limited
               funding (approximately $200,000 per year) for grants to states for conducting hazard mitigation
               projects. These projects may involve disaster preparedness or may be more directly related to
               disaster recovery and mitigation . ..... Over the last 3 years, this program has provided $600,000
               to states for new and innovative mitigation projects. With this relatively small amount of money,
               FEMA has funded over 36 projects in 26 states... which has proven to be the catalyst to initiate
               mitigation programs in these states and many communities" (Watson, 1988).

           Several examples are listed below to, illustrate the range of activities funded under this program
           (Stallschmidt, 1987):

               ï¿½  CITY OF SHELTON, CONNECTICUT: To develop a plan to acquire and remove a group of 56
                  structures which are located in the floodplain of the Housatonic River and are subject to
                  annual flooding.

               ï¿½  WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES: To hold a two-day flood recovery and
                  mitigation forum for West Virginia local officials to discuss the application of successful
                  mitigation recovery strategies with nationally recognized mitigation experts.

               ï¿½  KENTUCKY FLOOD CONTROL ADVISORY COMMISSION. The Flood Control Advisory Commission
                  and the Kentucky Housing Corporation will develop an emergency housing relocation site
                  program to identify flood-free housing sites in 14 highly floodprone southeastern counties.

               ï¿½  MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. To conduct a study of the effects of rising
                  lake levels through a detailed investigation of 20 lakes in the state. The report will include
                  a summary of the hydrologic history, degree of risk, and mitigation strategies for each lake.

               ï¿½  INDIAN NATIONS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, OKLAHOMA. To begin the initial phase of
                  establishing a coordinated multi-jurisdictional storm water/flooding plan, on a drainage basin
                  approach. This project will cover the Tulsa metropolitan area which is subject to frequent
                  severe flooding.

               ï¿½  MISSOURI STATE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY: To: 1) Conduct a statewide levee policy
                  conference; 2) prepare a hazard mitigation plan for the City of Hannibal; 3) prepare a
                  handbook outlining the role of regional planning commissions in local mitigation; and 4)
                  promote mitigation at workshops.

               ï¿½  LEwis AND CLARK Cou"Es, MONTANA: To develop a multi-hazard mitigation plan for an
                  18 square mile rapid growth area located northeast of East Helena. Phase I win consist of
                  a detailed hazard identification. Phase II will consist of planning through public participation.

               ï¿½  NEVADA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: To prepare a state Hazard Mitigation
                  Officer position description, appoint a person to fill that position, provide training for the
                  HMO, prepare a hazard mitigation annex to the Nevada Emergency Operations Procedures,
                  and prepare standard operating procedures for Section 406 planning.








                     11-56                                       Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                             ALAsKA DnqsioN OF EMERGENCY SERvicEs: To develop and implement pilot flood mitigation
                             plans for villages on the major river systems. The project will involve identification of up
                             to 25 top priority communities, with an ultimate goal to develop mitigation plans for each
                             community.

                     ï¿½   Flood Audits. T'he SCS has worked closely with the State of Connecticut to provide both funding
                         and technical assistance for a pilot project to conduct flood audits of structures located within
                         the floodplain of the Yantic River in the City of Norwich, Connecticut. Under this program,
                         individual structures are inspected to identify specific measures (both permanent and temporary
                         emergency measures) that property owners may take to reduce their potential losses during a
                         flood. The recommended actions are directly related to the projected height of flood waters
                         during a one percent annual chance flood. The Corps and NWS have also provided assistance
                         for this pilot project (von Wolffradt, 1986). @

                     ï¿½   Comprehensive Flood Damage Reduction Studies. At the request of a local sponsor, the Corps
                         will conduct technical evaluations to determine appropriate floodplain management measures
                         for a particular area. In recent years these planning studies have included recommendations for
                         flood warning systems and other disaster preparedness measures. In addition, the Corps can
                         provide technical analyses and planning assistance to local sponsors for comprehensive flood
                         warning/preparedness studies under the Flood Plain Management Services program.


                     STATE AND LOCAL ACTIVITIES


                     Every state has an emergency management or disaster preparedness agency that is responsible for
                     preparing for flood and other disasters. Each state on the Gulf and Atlantic coasts now has a
                     hurricane preparedness plan either completed or under preparation through the Hurricane Prepared-
                     ness Program described previously. Under the FEMA IEMS program, each state also has developed
                     an integrated emergency management plan.

                     Many local governments also have emergency management plans prepared in accordance with the
                     IEMS guidance. However, only a relative few local communities have detailed preparedness plans
                     that deal specifically with floods. Some states, such as Florida, North Carolina, and California, have
                     established requirements for county or municipal governments to develop emergency preparedness
                     plans as part of their comprehensive land-use plans.

                                               In 1984, New Jersey noted that it had only recently recognized predisaster planning
                                               as a separate work element (Gilman, 1984), and that such recognition was primarily
                                               the result of New Jersey's involvement in the Coastal Storm Planning and Prepared-
                                               ness Pr ogram. Although initiated for coastal communities, the concept of predisaster
                                               planning is being applied to inland communities as well. Eight specific methods for
                                               reducing flood losses through predisaster planning were identified:

                                               ï¿½ update municipal Emergency Operations Plans;
                                               ï¿½ review and develop detailed standards for construction;
                                               ï¿½   develop a standard operating procedure to alert residents of vulnerable areas;
                                               ï¿½   develop plans for removal of contents from vulnerable structures, where feasible,







              Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dis7uption                                                         11-57



                                         0   conduct surveys of existing structures to identify those that require retrofitting
                                             to provide adequate anchorage-,
                                         0   identify inadequate protective structures and establish adequate setbacks;
                                         0   improve planning for traditional flood fighting techniques;
                                         0   purchase flood insurance.

                                         "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" (Ehinger, 1984). Transfer of
                                         Development Rights (TDR) was one concept being evaluated in Upper Township, NJ
                                         as a means of designating a high hazard section of the Township as a conserva-
                                         tion/recreation zone and permitting higher density development in mainland portions
                                         of the Township.



              EFFECTIVENESS OF DISASTER PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES

              Participants during a 1988 workshop on postflood response and recovery addressed the need for and
              advantages of disaster preparedness plans. They were aware of only a few examples of plans
              prepared before a flood disaster that were designed specifically to deal with mitigation actions after
              a flood. Examples cited were Nags Head, North Carolina; Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Boulder, Colorado.
              It was noted that these examples really represented planning in response to one or more floods and
              in anticipation of the next flood. Many reasons were suggested for the absence of more of these types
              of plans, including: lack of local expertise and funding to develop plans, the short-sighted approach
              of many local elected officials, the hope that the flood problem would be taken care of through some
              structural measure, and the expectation of federal disaster assistance in the event a flood does occur.

              Participants noted several instances where plans that had been prepared at some point in the past
                 often as part of a Corps project feasibility study - were pulled off the shelf after a flood, and
              recommendations from the plan implemented. These examples prompted the observation that
              it predisaster planning works even if plans don't exist; think what success we could have if they did
              exist."

              The importance of a postdisaster planning process as opposed to a postdisaster plan with site-specific
              recommendations was discussed by workshop participants. The Nags Head, North Carolina plan was
              cited as providing a planning process that would be applied to specific sites depending on the severity
              of damage that occurred during a flood. The flood - not the plan - would determine the specific
              sites to which the planning process would apply. This approach was seen as having many benefits,
              especially avoiding the problems posed by trying to identify particular properties for demolition or
              other postflood restrictive actions, and thereby raising the ire of property owners (Association of State
              Floodplain Managers, Workshop #4,1988.)

              Several organizations and agencies (ASFPM, Bureau of Reclamation, and National Review Commit-
              tee, among others) also have noted that preparedness plans are not used as much as some other
              floodplain management tools and that they deserve greater attention as viable damage reduction
              measures. The ASFPM (Larson, 1989) noted that areas below dams and behind levees were in
              particular need of preparedness and response plans. Research on the techniques, benefits, and costs
              of preparedness plans to identify their utility and impediments to their firiplementation has been








                    11-58                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                    recommended (National Review Committee, 1989). Better coordination between different agencies
                    at the state level to prepare disaster preparedness plans, as well as more information and education
                    regarding the need for disaster preparedness, have also been cited as essential items if preparedness
                    planning is to become more effective (Fuller, 1989).

                    In comparing the results of a 1985 study of local emergency management agencies with studies in
                    1969 and 1977, a researcher noted that although disaster response activities have remained very
                    similar, planning activities are more systematic and realistic. At the same time      . .. ... the quality of
                    planning, while better than in the past ... still leaves much to be desired ... Most local emergency
                    management agencies actually engage less in planning than in the production of disaster plans... The
                    tendency to emphasize an end product, by Way of a written plan, works against good disaster planning,
                    but this is nonetheless the prevailing activity." By comparison with the earlier studies, communities
                    are generally better prepared for nonwar emergencies (Quarantelli, 1985).

                    Another author noted that there has been no systematic study of preparedness plans, their implemen-
                    tation during flood emergencies, or flood detection and warning systems. It is therefore assumed that:
                    1) a disproportionate amount of the effort and funding in communities with flood warning systems
                    has gone toward flood detection; 2) preparedness plans are nonexistent or inadequate in many of
                    those communities; and 3) where there are both flood detection systems and preparedness plans, the
                    plans are frequently unrealistic. These shortcomings are attributed to 1) lack of understanding at
                    the community level of the value of preparedness planning; and 2) lack of federal interest and
                    leadership in flood preparedness planning (Owen, 1986).



                                FLOOD FORECASTING / WARNING / EMERGENCY PLANS

                    Flood forecasting and flood warning and emergency plans are described together because in the
                    context of flood emergencies, they must work together. Forecasting, warning and emergency plans
                    are also closely linked with preparedness planning. The first element of response to an emergency
                    is identification of the threat. The final element of an effective flood warning system is appropriate
                    response to the warning, which requires preparedness planning (Owen, 1980a).

                    As in other areas of flood loss reduction, there is activity and interest in flood warning and prepared-
                    ness planning among federal, state and local governments and the private sector. Federal and state
                    agencies generally lack local operating capability needed for these activities, and most communities
                    do not have the financial and technical ability to operate alone (Owen, 1980b). Although the theories
                    and systems can be applied to a wide range of flood threats, they have generally been limited to
                    riverine flooding (Owen, 1980a) and to flood threats from hurricanes.

                    In riverine flooding, the opportunities for effective flood warning and response depend on the nature
                    of the flood threat. Flood forecasting procedures rely on real-time" hydrologic and meteorologic



                        Real-time data refers to data that are accessible to a user immediately or almost immediately (perhaps a
                        few minutes) after an event occurs.








              Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dismption                                                       11-59



              data. These data are analyzed and transferred to downstream points by various methods, some
              simple, some quite complex. In the more sophisticated procedures, estimates of future meteorologic
              data are added to real-time data to improve the forecast. In a large river basin, upstream flows in
              the river and its tributaries may produce a very accurate forecast of downstream flooding, with many
              hours or even days to prepare for the flood. In upstream areas, where the watersheds are small, and
              especially if the watershed area is steep, the time between the causative event (generally rainfall)
              and the onset of flooding is only a few hours or minutes. Obviously, the preparedness opportunities
              are reduced as the warning time is reduced, but the need for preparedness is increased.

              Flood warning systems are not static. They must be modified over time as more is learned about
              the hydrology, as warning needs change, and as the technology changes. There may be drastic
              changes required as the result of a cataclysmic event such as a dam failure or a volcanic eruption
              (Pasteris, 1987). Similarly, as institutional changes occur, the local response plan must be updated.

              Flood warning and emergency response have long been recognized as effective ways to reduce flood
              damages and save lives.

                                   In one documented example, annual damage reductions of $750,000 were estimated for
                                   the Connecticut Ptiver Basin with a flood warning system with an estimated annual cost
                                   of $250,000 (Day, 1976). A later study estimated a 20:1 ratio of benefits over costs for
                                   a state-wide warning system for Connecticut (Committee on Automated Flood Warning,
                                   1988). It should be noted, however, that these estimates did not conform to standard
                                   benefit/cost calculations required of federal projects.


              These types of large benefits have been observed in a few instances. In Manitoba, contents damages
              were only 6.3% of the total damages incurred during a 1979 flood. The low proportion of contents
              damages is largely credited to flood warning (Shawcross, 1987) and a long lead time (up to three
              weeks) (Myers, 1989).

              Emergency preparedness planning often has been given a relatively low priority among both structural
              and nonstructural flood loss reduction measures, perhaps because many floodprone areas did not
              have adequate flood warnings to make preparedness planning effective. A 1982 publication notes
              that " ... [plans] should not be considered in lieu of other feasible permanent structural or nonstruc-
              tural alternati ves due to their temporary nature and uncertain reliability during flood episodes" (U.S.
              Army Corps of Engineers, 1982). Four reasons have been given for the lack of attention to prepared-
              ness plans:

              1) Lack of precedents, examples, or similar. experiences that can easily be transferred to
                  preparedness planning;

              2)  Uck of awareness of the potential benefits;

              3)  Lack of federal interest and leadership; and

              4)  Lack of an appreciation of preparedness planning as a necessary adjunct to flood warnings
                  (Owen, 1986).








                   11-60                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management




                   FEDERAL ACTIVITIES


                   Several federal agencies are actively involved in flood forecasting, warnings and emergency plans.
                   NOAA has lead responsibility for flood, forecasting and initial distribution of warnings. FEMA has
                   primary responsibility for working with local communities to ensure warning dissemination.


                   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

                   NOAA has the lead role among the federal agencies with regard to flood forecasting and warning.
                   Through its Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management (OCRM), the NWS, the National
                   Ocean Service (NOS), the National Hurricane Center (NHC), and the Environmental Research
                   Laboratories (ERL), NOAA issues warnings for floods and conducts research. In addition, the
                   National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) operates the Geostationary
                   Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) which generate and relay meteorologic and other
                   environmental data that are used in forecasts.

                   0   Riverine flood forecasts and warnings. As the federal agency with primary responsibility for flood
                       warning in the United States, the NWS provides specific flood forecast and warning services to
                       over 3,100 communities. The NWS also works with many of the approximately 900 communities
                       with some form of local flood warning system. Other communities (over 21,000 identified by
                       FEMA as floodprone) receive warnings only through general county-wide flash flood warnings.
                       Because of the large number of small, flash flood streams in these communities, the NWS is
                       unable to collect and analyze data and disseminate effective warnings in these situations (National
                       Weather Service, 1986). Local flood warning systems are not necessarily needed or even desired
                       in all of the 17,000 or so communities that do not currently receive a direct flood warning.

                                       In the State of Connecticut, it is estimated that an integrated network of about 30 local
                                       flood warning systems will pro-Ade warning for most of the state (Committee on Automat-
                                       ed Flood Warning, 1988).


                       The NWS operates 13 regional River Forecast Centers (RFC) which prepare river and flood
                       forecasts and warnings for approximately 3,000 communities. The area of responsibility for each
                       of these RFC's includes one or more major river systems. Figure 11-3 shows the location of the
                       RFCs, and Figure 11-4 graphically shows how information from several sources contribute to
                       forecasts and warnings. Flood forecasts include the height of the flood crest, the time(s) when
                       the river is expected to overflow its banks (reach flood stage), and when the river will recede
                       within its banks.


                       Crest forecasts can be made a few hours in advance for communities on rivers draining small
                       areas, but can be two or more weeks in advance for downstream sites on large rivers. At many
                       points, particularly along larger streams, daily forecasts of river stage and/or discharge are
                       routinely prepared. Reservoir inflow forecasts aid federal, state and local agencies in the
                       operation of reservoirs. Forecasts of ice formation and breakup are prepared for a selected
                       number of locations. Forecasts of seasonal snowmelt or water-year runoff are prepared monthly







                  Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disniption                                                                                 11-61



                       from January through May by RFCs in the west, and forecasts of seasonal snowmelt and monthly
                       runoff are prepared monthly by RFCs in the northeast (National Weather Service, 1985).

                       The potential for local flood warning systems is very large, and the number of operational systems
                       is growing rapidly. A new NWS radar system, NEXRAD, that can provide more quantitative
                       observations of precipitation should lead to improved flood warnings and more timely decision-
                       making capability in the operation of flood control structures. Recent technology provides real-
                       time snow-water equivalents and soil moisture measurements. The NWS Airborne Gamma
                       Radiation Snow Survey Program uses the attenuation of natural terrestrial radiation by soil
                       moisture and snowpack to make these estimates, which are better, in many cases, than ground
                       measurements. These data are used for flood forecasts and other services (Carroll, 1986).

                             ]LOCAL FLOOD WARNING sysTEms: Local flood warning systems (LFWS) are categorized as
                             either manual or automated. A manual system usually consists of volunteer observers who
                             relay data by telephone to a community flood coordinator. This person uses some kind of
                             simple procedure, usually provided by the NWS, to convert the data to a river stage forecast.
                             After consultation with NWS staff, the coordinator notifies the local response agencies.
                             Automatic systems consist of an automated data collection system, communications, data
                             processing, and warning dissemination system. An automated LFWS may be as simple as
                             an upstream river stage gage which sounds an alarm downstream at some predetermined
                             stage, or complex enough to include satellite telemetry, sophisticated hydrologic modelling
                             and detailed response plans.







                                     Portland                XV
                                                                                            Minneapolis


                                                                                                                                                 Bloomfield
                                                                                                                              Harrisburg
                                                                                                                                 I


                                                                                                                Cincinnati
                               Surnry                 Salt Like City
                                                                                                  Kaln s
                                                                                                  City



                                                                                         Tulsa
                                                                                                                4"V
                                                                                                            Val
                                                                                                            %           Atlanta


                                                                                     Fort Wo
                                                                                                    'Slidell
                                  @Anchmge                                                         0     Location of River Forecast Centers
                                                                                                   SO111 Boundary of Area Served by River Forecast Centers
                                                                                                         Includes-Water Supply Forecast Service


                              Source:    National Weather Service. Operations of the National Weather Service. Silver Sprin& Maryland, 1985.

                 Figure 11-3.           Location of National Weather Service River Forecast Centers.








                     11-62                                          Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management





                                                      HYDRoLoGic FORECAST SYSTEM
                                                                                                 METEOROLWICAL
                                                                                                    FORECASI!
                                                 OBSERVATIONAL DATA                                 PRoDucTs
                                                      River/Rainfall                          Temperature/Quantitative
                                                      Radar, Satellite                         Precipitation Forecast



                                               WSFO/WSO               --b     RIVER                NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
                                                                              FORE                       HEADQUARTERS
                                                                              CENTER


                                               Local Dissemination                                  National Summaries
                                                      of                                                    of
                                                   Forecasts                                             Forecasts
                                                      and                                                   and
                                                   Warnings                                            Observations
                                                      via                                                   to
                                                  News Media,                                          Headquarters
                                             NOAA Weather Radio,                                            Of
                                              NOAA Weather Wire                                      Disaster Agencies
                                                      to                                                    for
                                                 General Public                                     Emergency Planning
                                                      and
                                               Federal, State, and
                                               Local Government                   Flow of Observational Data
                                                   Agencies                    v. Flow of Forecasts and Warnings and Guidance Products


                                  Source:  National Weather Service. Operations of the National Weather Serdee. Silver Spring, Mafyland, 1995.
                      Figure 114. National Weather Service Hydrologic Forecast System.

                               In 1985, about 540 manual LFWSs were in operation with NWS coordination. These systems
                               are simple, inexpensive and encourage a high level of community awareness and participation,
                               but they are prone to communication failures and unreliable data.

                               Automated LFWSs which are operational are of two basic types. The Automated Local
                               Evaluation in Real Time (ALERT) system developed by the NWS consists of automatic
                               reporting rain and stream gages, radio telemetry and computer analysis of the data. This
                               analysis may include hydrologic modeling. The Integrated Flood Observing and Warning
                               System (IFLOWS) is a network of automated systems which uses federal, state and local
                               resources to provide detailed flood warnings to a large region with numerous political
                               jurisdictions (Barrett, 1986).

                               The NWS inventory of local flood warning systems lists over 1,200 such systems in 42 states
                               and Puerto Rico as of January 1, 1987 (National Weather Service, 1987). This figure is only
                               of relative significance, however, since it appears (at least in some cases) to inventory
                               individual precipitation and streamflow gages instead of complete integrated systems. Further,
                                                                                  ER
                                                                                  C
                                                                         A:@
                                                                             Fg.EASr
                                                      VSO
                                                      E @tin                      @ER
                                                      issernin.                                     National Summaries








































                               a single gage reporting to a single downstream point is counted the same as a complex data
                               collection and analysis system which provides forecasts at a number of locations.

                               Although the NWS had the lead role in developing ALERT systems, in cooperation with
                               private interests, resource limitations have resulted in a reduced role for the NWS and an
                               expanded role for private vendors who work directly with states and communities.







              Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dismption                                                   11-63



              ï¿½   Coastal Flood Forecasts and Warnings. Among NOAA's efforts to reduce hurricane losses are:
                  1) research on hurricane surge models; 2) assistance to states and communities in evacuation
                  planning; 3) research on storm modification through seeding; and 4) tracking and forecasting the
                  path, speed and intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes.

              ï¿½   Hurricane Preparedness Program. As discussed in the Disaster Preparedness section of this
                  chapter, NOAA cooperates with FEMA and the Corps to prepare Hurricane Preparedness Plans
                  for Gulf and Atlantic coast states. One of the first elements of a Hurricane Preparedness Study
                  is performance of a Hurricane Hazard Analysis. Analysis results form the basis for determining
                  vulnerable areas that require evacuation. The principle tool used in the hazard analysis is the
                  NWS SLOSH (Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes) model. SLOSH is used to
                  generate a series of simulations of possible hurricanes within a specific area or basin. Figure 11-5
                  shows the location of SLOSH basins along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coastlines. Normally,
                  the five storm intensities of the Saffir/Simpson scale are simulated. Three hundred or more
                  simulation runs may be performed, representing various combinations of hurricane intensity, track,
                  size, and forward speed.

                  Each hypothetical hurricane simulated by SLOSH would confront an area with one of many
                  distinct hazard scenarios which, in turn, ultimately make up the evacuation scenarios, or levels.
                  The output of the SLOSH model provides four major types of information on the effects of the
                  sim'ulated hurricanes. They are: 1) surface envelope of highest surges above mean sea level; 2)
                  time histories of surges at selected gages or grid points; 3) computed wind speeds at selected
                  gages or grid points; and 4) computed wind directions at selected gages or grid points. The results
                  of individual surge model simulations (and/or groups of common intensity/track types, termed
                  Maximum Envelopes of Water-MEOWs) provide predicted storm surge elevations. Inundation
                  maps based on these predicted storm surge elevations indicate vulnerable coastal areas and form
                  the basis for several distinct evacuation levels (L.R. Johnston Associates, 1986).

              0   Forecasts and Warnings for Hurricanes and Tropical storms. The National Hurricane Center
                  in Coral Gables, Florida issues all forecasts and storm warnings for hurricanes, including storm
                  surge forecasts generated by the SLOSH model. A separate wave height forecast is not prepared
                  for hurricanes since the SLOSH model indirectly incorporates waves into its storm surge predic-
                  tion. NWS Regional Weather Service Forecast Offices (WSFO) and local Weather Service
                  Offices (WSO) do not modify the NHC forecasts and warnings, although they may supplement
                  them with up-to-date reports on local conditions, including wave heights, and provide additional
                  warnings for particular geographic areas. Local weather conditigns are provided to the NHC over
                  a Hurricane Hotline by NWS offices in the affected areas, and used by the NHC in developing
                  its hurricane forecast. Hurricane forecasts are updated by the NHC every six hours. When
                  Hurricane Watches or Warnings       12 are not in effect, Public Advisories based on these forecasts
                  are issued. Once the NHC issues a Watch or Warning for a particular area, Public Advisories
                  are issued every three hours. Similar procedures are followed by the NHC in preparing forecasts
                  and warnings for tropical storms (LR. Johnston Associates, 1986).



                  A Hurricane Watch is issued for a coastal area when there is a threat of hurricane conditions within 24-36
                  hours. A Hurricane Warning is issued when hurricane conditions are expected in a specified coastal area
                  in 24 hours or less (Carter, 1983).








                  11-64                                  Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management





                        0.                       6-                        .0.                        10,




                                        SLOSH BASINS

                                                                                                                  -401
                             1.  Boston Harbor                 15. Biscayne Bay
                             2.  Narragansett/                 16. Florida Bay                                  2
                                 Buzzards Bays                 17. Charlotte Harbor                        3
                             3.  New York/                     18. Tampa Bay
                    .4           Long Island Sound             19. Cedar Keys                             4
                             4.  Delaware Bay                  20. Apalachicola Bay                       5
                             5.  Atlantic City                 21. Pensacola Bay
                             6.  Ocean City                    22. Mobile Bay                          7
                             7.  Chesapeake Bay                23. Lake Pontchartrain/
                             8 , Pamlico Sound                      New Orleans
                             9.  Wilmington N. C.              24. Vermilion Bay
                                 Myrtle Beach                  25. Sabine Lake
                             10. Charleston Harbor             26. Galveston Bay
                             11. Savannah/Hilton Head          27. Matagorda Bay                 9
                             12. Brunswick/Jacksonville        28. Corpus Christi  Bay                             7W
                             13. Lake Okeechobee               29. Laguna Madre
                             14. Cape Canaveral                30. Oahu, Hawaii
                                                               31. Puerto Rico             10
                                                                                     12   11
                                                           -                                14

                                                       23   22 2:1     19   le       13
                                                                      20
                                   28 27 282      24                                           15
                                   29
                                                                             17

                                                                                                      J(LOW
                    'too-                                                                  @cr

                          Source: JelesniansK CP.,J. Chen, W.A Shaffer, and AJ. Gilad. "Slosh -A Hurricane Storm Surge Forecast Model." Silver
                                 Spring, Maryland: Techniques Development Laboratory, National Weather Service, NOAA, Undated.
                  Figure 11-5. SLOSH Basins Along the Gulf of Me)dco and Atlantic Coastlines.
                                                                           8








             Modifying Susceptibility to Flood, Damage and Dismption                                               11-65



                 Beginning with the 1983 hurricane season, the NHC began including in the Advisory the probabili-
                 ty of the hurricane reaching landfall at specific locations. Probabilities are defined as the percent
                 chance that the center of the storm will pass within approximately 65 miles of a stated location
                 (Carter, 1983).


             Other Federal Agencies

             The Corps, TVA, and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) collect hydrometeorological data and
             prepare operational forecasts, frequently in cooperation with the NWS, for their multi-purpose (e.g.,
             flood control, water supply, and navigation) structures. T'he NWS generally provides warnings from
             all of these sources to the public. Ile U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collects streamflow and other
             data that can be used for flood forecasting.

             The Corps provides comprehensive fl    'ood warning and preparedness planning assistance to states and
             communities under its Flood Plain Management Services Program. The Corps also develops flood
             warning and preparedness plans as either stand-alone systems or as components to more complex
             flood damage reduction plans for communities.
             The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and the NWS cooperate with numerous federal, state and local
             agencies to produce generally volumetric runoff forecasts for western areas where snow is a major
             contributor to annual water supplies. It has been suggested that data used for these analyses can
             be interpreted to give long-term quantitative peak flow estimates for spring runoff. Real-time data
             from snowcourses can also be used in conjunction with other real-time data to improve more
             immediate forecasts (Potyondy, 1987).

             Several of these federal agencies also operate research facilities that contribute heavily to the body
             of knowledge about flood forecasting and response, and all of them have worked with states and
             communities on different aspects of flood warning and preparedness planning.


             STATE AND LOCAL ACTIVITIES

             In general, the states have not assumed a major role in flood warning or even defined what role they
             should have. Less than half of the states are involved in flood warning, which includes cooperation
             in the IFLOWS system in Appalachia and installing automated data collection equipment. A
             comprehensive study by the State of Connecticut recommended about 30 ALERT-type systems
             coordinated on a statewide basis, citing 40,000 floodprone buildings in the state despite the expendi-
             ture of over $315 million on structural flood control measures. The state estimated that a system
             that would cost $2 million to install over a 15-year period would reduce loss of life in floods by 75%
             and produce average annual damage reduction of $5 million. Implementation is underway (Commit-
             tee on Automated Flood Warning, 1988). Table 11-11 lists state involvement in flood warning
             activities as of 1988 (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988).








                      11-66                                            Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                      Table 11-11. State Flood Waming Activities.



                                                                                     STATE-                ASSIST LOCALS
                                                                     DATA       OPERATED
                                     FUNDING                 COLLECnON              SYSTEM        INFORMATION           FUNDING


                                     Alaska
                                     Alaska                          X                                    X               X
                                     Arizona                         X                 X                  X               X
                                     Arkansas
                                     California                      X                 X                  X               X

                                     Colorado                        X                 X                  X
                                     Connecticut                     X                 X                  X               X
                                     Delaware                        X                 X                  X
                                     District of Columbia
                                     Florida                         X                 X
                                     Gem&
                                     Hawaii                          X                 X
                                     Idaho
                                     Illinois
                                     Indiana                         X                                    X               X

                                     Iowa
                                     Kansas                                                                               X
                                     Kentucky                                                             X
                                     Louisiana
                                     Maine

                                     Maryland                        X                 X                  X               X
                                     Massachusetts                                                                        XX
                                     Michigan                        X                 X                  X
                                     Minnesota                       X                                    X               X
                                     Mississippi
                                     Missouri                                                                             X
                                     Montana
                                     Nebraska                        X
                                     Nevada
                                     New Hampshire                   X                 X
                                     New Jersey                      X                 X                  X               X
                                     New Mexico                      X                 X
                                     New York                        X                                    X
                                     North Carolina                  X                 X                  X               X
                                     North Dakota

                                     Ohio                                                                                 X
                                     Oklahoma                                                                             X
                                     Oregon
                                     Pennsylvania                    X                 X                  X               X
                                     Rhode Island

                                     South Carolina                  X                                    X
                                     South Dakota                    X                 X                  X
                                     Tennessee                                                                            X
                                     Texas                                                                                XX
                                     Utah                            X                 X                  X               X

                                     Vermont
                                     Virginia
                                     Washin ton                                                                           XX
                                     West @",Fginia                  X                 X                  X
                                     Wisconsin                                                            X
                                     Wyoming                                                                              X

                                     I  Alaska operates a tsunami warning system.



                                Source: Association of State Floodplain Managem "State Floodplain Management Programs. Results of a Survey Conducted by
                                        the Association of State Floodplain Managers for LR. Johnston Associates," 1988.








                Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dimuption                                                             11-67



                As with the states, there is no consistent flood warning policy among the nation's communities. Some
                large urban communities have included flood forecasting and preparedness planning in their opera-
                tions for years. Other communities have participated in flood warning systems that serve a large
                geographic area with many communities affected. Others have developed systems on their own. It
                is likely that communities with local flood warning systems are those that have been flooded and which
                have the financial resources to do so. The result is that some of the areas that might benefit most
                from an expenditure in flood warning do not have it, while wealthier, but less flood-prone communi-
                ties do.

                Local governments are involved in nearly all local flood warning systems reported by the NWS. The
                NWS Operations Manual states in its General Policy, "Recognizing the importance of LFWS's in
                improving flood warning service tocommunities, the NWS will continue to provide technical assistance
                to communities to the extent resources are available ... The basic NWS philosophy behind an LFWS
                is that it is a cooperative venture between the Federal Government and a cooperator with a need
                for a flood warning system ... Communities are usually in the best position to understand their local
                flood problems, to observe events during flood periods, and to take appropriate actions to limit flood
                losses ... In general, the cooperator is expected to procure, install, maintain and operate all LFWS
                equipment necessary to meet its requirements ..." (National Weather Service, 1986).

                                       Lycoming County, Pennsylvania lies almost entirely within the drainage area of the West
                                       Branch of the Susquehanna River and contains close to 2,200 miles of streams. The
                                       majority of the county's population is located on or near the river. Although annual
                                       flooding on many of the waterways was common, major flooding caused by tropical storm
                                       Agnes in 1972 ($54 million in damages) and tropical storm Eloise in 1975 ($9 million
                                       in damages) provided the stimulus for an integrated system of floodplain management,
                                       which includes floodplain land-use management, an early flood warning system, and
                                       public and private emergency preparedness.

                                       Development of the warning component dated back to the flooding from Agnes when
                                       forecasting and warning were inadequate du@ to several reasons - among them, damage
                                       to river gauges during the flooding, incomplete radar coverage, and lack of formal warning
                                       procedures. After the second major flooding three years later with Eloise, a self-help flood
                                       early warning system was developed in 1976 with an initial investment of $500. With
                                       the help of the National Weather Service, forecasting procedures were established for each
                                       county watershed, and the system was put into operation within three months.

                                       Volunteer observers (over 100) were recruited and trained to observe and monitor stream
                                       gauges and make reports to a stream coordinator. The stream coordinator, in turn,
                                       assembles the data for a watershed and conveys it to a system coordinator. With the help
                                       of expert personnel, the data are evaluated and a determination of expected flooding and
                                       appropriate response measures is made.

                                       Over the last 10 years, improvements to the system have been made. To assure adequate
                                       back-up for data transmission, the county provided NOAA weather radios to the volunteer
                                       observers, and the NWS distributed base station radios to the stream coordinators. In
                                       addition, a system of 10 automated rain gauges and four automated stream alarm de%qces
                                       were ins-tailed to supplement the manual data collection system (Hunter, 1986).








                    11-68                                          Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                    Examples of communities which have installed automated LFWSs on their own include Denver,
                    Colorado (Stewart, 1987); Maricopa County, Arizona; Stamford, Connecticut; Westchester County,
                    New York; and Harris County, Texas. A plan for an improved flood warning system has been
                    designed for the Passaic River Basin in New Jersey.

                                                The Passaic River Watershed is a 935-square mile, highly populated area located in
                                                the states of New York and New Jersey with severe unsolved flood problems. The
                                                Passaic River Basin, with a population of over 2 million (1980 est.), includes many
                                                levels of politicaijurisdiction (portions of two states, 10 counties and 132 municipali-
                                                des). The flooding problem has been extensively studied by both state and federal
                                                interests since 1900. Estimated annual flood damages were estimated at over $80
                                                million (in 1985 dollars).

                                                An early warning system had been recommended as part of a Corps feasibility study
                                                on the Passaic River Basin authorized by Congress in 1976. Severe flooding in April
                                                1984, causing over $350 million in damages and four deaths - despite an existing
                                                flood warning system - provided the impetus to implementation of an improved
                                                warning system.

                                                The plan for an improved flood warning system, with an estimated cost of $675,000,
                                                was recommended forimplementation under the Corps Small ProjectAuthority, rather
                                                than as part of a comprehensive project authorized by Congress. It was designed to
                                                extend the coverage of the existing system and to reduce the time necessary for
                                                forecast preparation and warning systems. Elements of the plan included:

                                                ï¿½  automated reporting of data in six tributary areas where response time was
                                                   exceeded by forecast preparation time,
                                                ï¿½  automation of all precipitation and stream gages to avoid observer bias and to
                                                   speed delivery of data;
                                                ï¿½  transmission of radio signals from the gages to county micro-computer sites and
                                                   automatic dialing to remote terminals at municipal emergency headquarters;
                                                ï¿½  preparation of stage-inundation maps;
                                                ï¿½  updating and coordination of county/municipal response plans; and
                                                ï¿½  periodic flood response exercises and public education.

                                                A major issue raised by the proposed project was the degree to which the Corps
                                                should be involved in planning and implementation of the project and the long-range
                                                impact of establishing a precedent for Corps flood emergency preparedness projects
                                                across the Nation. The 1976 Congressional authorization for the Passaic River Basin
                                                Study had specifically directed the Corps to consider early flood warning systems along
                                                with other nonstructural measures. However, the final projectwas to be implemented
                                                as a discreet project under Corps' continuing small project authorities, rather than
                                                as part of a comprehensive construction project authorized by Congress. The argu-
                                                ment was also made that the project should be authorized by Congress for implemen-
                                                tation by agencies involved in the existing warning system (NWS, FEMA and USGS).
                                                However, the other federal agencies supported the Corps recommendation and played
                                                major roles in the development of project specifications. The final project study was
                                                completed by the New York District of the Corps in September 1984 and the Local
                                                Cooperation agreement was signed in October 1986 (Pietrowsky, 1986).








               Modifying Susceptibilily to Flood Damage and Dis7uption                                              11-69



               Local governments have apparently accepted a responsibility for preparedness planning, perhaps
               because of a history of civil defense and emergency management funding by the federal government.
               The NWS policy on local flood warning systems strongly encourages the cooperator in such a system
               (generally the local government) to develop an emergency action plan prior to development of the
               data collection and analysis system, but no standards for these plans are given (National Weather
               Service, 1986). It has also been noted that this NWS policy does not appear to have been consistently
               enforced (Owen, 1989).

               At the local level, the agency usually designated as the emergency response agency actually spends
               most of its time in planning and preparedness. This is because in even the most disaster-prone
               communities, disasters are relatively infrequent and generally of relatively short duration. This
               planning ranges from a total civil defense (mainly nuclear war) orientation to integrated emergency
               preparedness planning which prepares the agency and the community for a wide range of emergen-
               cies.


               Local emergency management agencies are generally active in the warning process, although they
               are seldom the first agency to become aware of the threat. They have taken on the role of monitoring
               emergencies and disseminating information to other agencies and to the public, although there are
               usually problems related to a lack of good information during emergencies (Quarantelli, 1985).


               PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITIES

               University research has contributed substantially to the available knowledge on data collection
               requirements, hydrology, and benefits of flood warning systems. In addition, universities have
               performed most of the research on disaster response and system effectiveness. Much of this research
               was funded by the U.S. Water Resources Council, the National Science Foundation, and other federal
               sources, but the Nation's universities provide a large pool of expertise to use these funds effectively.

               Nonprofit organizations are less active in this area because they generally deal with disaster response
               or recovery. They frequently provide input to planning agencies based on their experience with flood
               disasters. While this experience may be of great assistance to the planners, it is generally a small
               part of the actiVities of the nonprofit agencies.

               Special districts and utility companies include flood control districts, stormwater management districts,
               drainage districts, irrigation districts, nature conservancy districts, electric utilities which operate
               hydroelectric facilities, private fire companies, and similar organizations. They are usually financed
               by taxes and regulated by federal, state or local agencies. Because they usually have narrowly defined
               objectives (relative to government as a whole), they frequently have technical capabilities and
               expertise disproportionate to their size and budget. When their objective is related to water, or is
               unusually affected by water, much of this capability or expertise is often applicable to flood warning
               and disaster preparedness. In the case of flood control and stormwater management districts, these
               districts may be so closely related to local government that they are in fact the action agency for flood
               warning or preparedness planning.








                  11-70                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  The development of technology for data collection, telemetry, and analysis has been largely accom-
                  plished in. the private sector. The application of these new technologies has been accomplished
                  through the NWS in large measure, but private funds have been used for most of the research and
                  development. Due to a limited number of flood warning professionals in the Nation, the private
                  sector has an extremely important role in the implementation of local flood warning systems, from
                  design through installation, operation, maintenance, and modification (Curtis, 1986).

                  Finally, there are instances where industry has cooperated for the implementation of flood warning
                  systems to reduce its own losses. These efforts are coordinated with government activities and may
                  supplement public efforts, including funding (Wright, 1986).


                  EFFECTIVENESS OF WARNING AND RESPONSE SYSTEMS


                  Activity and interest in flood warning and preparedness planning among federal, state and local
                  governments and the private sector has increased significantly over the last ten years. Among the
                  reasons for the increased interest are: the advantages of low cost, high benefit/cost ratio, no environ-
                  mental impact, little controversy, quick planning and implementation, and an almost unique ability
                  to cope with catastrophic levels of flooding (Owen, 1989).

                  Automated systems have been developed that are gradually taking the place of manual warning
                  systems or being used in locations where no warning system was previously in place. Although the
                  theories and systems can be applied to a wide range of flood threats, they have generally been limited
                  to riverine flooding and to flood threats from hurricanes.

                  In an overview of the technological aspects of automated flood warning systems during a 1988
                  workshop, it was pointed out that the systems are highly integrated and a breakdown in any part of
                  the system can render the system inoperable (Association of State Floodplain Managers, Workshop
                  #7, 1988). In fact, this breakdown has been observed in many locations throughout the country
                  (Mendell, 1988).

                  The benefits of automated warning systems are reduced       damages and saved lives, but these benefits
                  have seldom been quantified and related to system costs. 'Mere are few evaluations of flood warning
                  systems in the literature, and no "before and after" studies of effectiveness. Because of political
                  decisions to install systems, there is little incentive for local communities to conduct and publicize
                  this type of information, except where the systems have clearly been successful. In a recent study
                  of 18 warning systems, nine had not yet had experience with flooding. In the systems that had
                  experienced flooding, seven worked acceptably, while two had problems (Association of State
                  Floodplain Managers, Workshop #7,1988).

                  Performance of warning systems can be measured in terms of warning time provided relative to
                  warning time needed to take effective action, the dollar savings in property removed from the
                  floodplain or otherwise protected, and lives lost. Another - often overlooked - benefit and measure
                  of performance is prevention of unnecessary warnings and evacuations. Cost savings of not deploying
                  emergency services or causing businesses to close can be substantial. Research has discounted the
                  "cry wolf" syndrome as a myth with regard to flood warnings, and has shown that individuals are
                  willing to accept a limited number of false warnings without loosing confidence in the system or failing
                  to take action. Installation of an automated flood warning system can be a means for local officials








               Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption                                                    11-71



               to appear to have taken effective action, even if the system is not property designed or maintained.
               Many automated systems were installed primarily to save lives from flash floods, and it can be almost
               impossible to establish a useful benefit/cost ratio for these systems (Mulady, 1988).

               A response system used in concert with the local forecast/warning system is essential. Absence of
               an effective response system would greatly reduce the usefulness of a sophisticated automated warning
               system (Mulady, 1988), and there would be a strong likelihood of taking inappropriate action in
               response to a warning. "Flood warning and preparedness planning may be discussed separately for
               purposes of evaluation, but they must be linked together operationally if flood warning is to be
               effective" (Owen and Wendell, 1981).

               Although the NWS and some other agencies do some work on flood warning, tying the warnings to
               flood response plans has been left up to the warning recipient. Lack of sufficient NWS funds and
               staff to assist in implementing local flood warning systems and flood preparedness planning has limited
               development and maintenance of these systems (Wetmore, 1989).

               Federal and state agencies generally lack the local operating capability needed for these activities,
               and most communities do not have the financial and technical ability to operate alone. With the
               exception of the Hurricane Preparedness Planning effort, it is unusual for state or local governments
               to fund an adequate flood warning system and emergency plan until there is a major flood. In some
               cases, funding is lacking even following major floods in which it is clear that millions of dollars in
               property damage and even loss of life could have been avoided. State and local governments are
               sometimes unwilling to establish and maintain such systems and plans. Finding ways to strongly
               encourage the establishment of such systems is a challenge facing the floodplain management
               community (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1989).



                                            FL06DPROOFING AND ELEVATION

               Floodproofing refers to the use of techniques to either prevent entry of flood waters into buildings
               (dry floodproofing) or to minimize the damages from water13 that is deliberately allowed to enter
               a building (wet floodproofing). Floodproofing may be applied both to construction of new buildings
               and to existing structures (retrofitting) located within floodplains.

               Some of the floodproofing techniques that may be employed include:14 use of permanent or
               temporary seals; closures or barriers to prevent floodwater from entering a building; use of water




               13  Water may sometimes be deliberately introduced into wet floodproofed structures in order to equalize the
                   hydrostatic pressure inside and outside the building.

                   Elevation of a structure above a specified flood level is sometimes cited as a "floodproofing" technique.
                   However, the NFIP makes a clear distinction between elevating structures and floodproofing them. Similarly,
                   use of small levees or floodwalls to protect individual structures or a small group of structures is considered
                   by some as "floodproofing" rather than as a "structural" protection method.








                  11-72                                   Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  resistent materials; and temporary relocation of contents of buildings to avoid contact with floodwater.
                  These techniques may be used individually or in various combinations.

                  Floodproofing may also be defined in terms of the level of human intervention required:

                  ï¿½  PERMANENT MEAsuREs: Those that become an integral part of the structure and are rarely
                     noticeable. They also generally do not require any type of human intervention to be effective.

                  ï¿½  CONTINGENT OR STANDBY MEASURES: Those that are used only during floods, but which are con-
                     structed or made ready prior to any flood threat. These measures require some human action
                     to be effective.

                  ï¿½  EMERGENCY MEAsuREs: Those carried out during a flood according to a predetermined plan.
                     These may require major efforts to be effective (Sheaffer, 1967).

                  Floodproofing in some form can be applied to almost any type of building: single- and multi-family
                  residences; small commercial buildings; industrial facilities; public buildings; and public utilities.

                  Floodproofing as a means of reducing susceptibility to flood losses has long been employed in a
                  limited manner by individual property owners. In fact, floodproofing is probably the flood loss
                  reduction tool most widely used by the private sector with only limited governmental assistance.
                  Prominent early examples of private floodproofing efforts include the Pittsburgh Press Building and
                  Horne's Department Store in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania which were floodproofed following major
                  floodingin 1936 (Sheaffer, 1967).

                  Much of the private floodproofing effort has been accomplished using methods devised by individual
                  property owners, without benefit of technical knowledge of the effectiveness of the chosen method
                  to actually protect a structure from a given flood level. Consequently, much of the private effort is
                  suspect in terms of its effectiveness. Application of tested floodproofing techniques is not nearly as
                  widespread.


                  LIMITATIONS OF FLOODPROOFING

                  While floodproofing offers many advantages, and if properly used can significantly reduce flood losses,
                  the risk of failure of floodproofing measures from a variety of causes is always a possibility. There
                  are many limitations and issues concerning the use of floodproofing measures, including:

                  ï¿½  'Floodproofing may generate a false sense of security and encourage inappropriate occupancy
                     of buildings during floods.

                  ï¿½  If flood levels exceed the design standard for floodproofing measures, residual losses may be
                     high.

                     If applied to structurally unsound buildings, floodproofing can result in more damage than would
                     occur without floodproofing, (e.g., if water pressure on the foundation or walls of a building
                     become too great, the walls may collapse from hydrostatic pressure).








               Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption                                              11-73



               ï¿½ Floodproofing is only partially effective unless it also provides safe access - especially for
                  commercial buildings and critical facilities such as hospitals and police and fire stations.

               ï¿½ Floodproofing should avoid aggravating the effects of flood hazard on others.

               The limited effectiveness of floodproofing techniques can be attributed to many causes, including:
               insufficient knowledge of flood risk (probability of flood waters reaching a given height), insufficient
               warning of the magnitude and extent of flooding; use of inappropriate techniques and materials; and
               failure to use available measures.



               FEDERAL ACTIVITIES IN FLOODPROOFING

               The TVA and the Corps were the first federal agencies to become actively involved in research and
               promotion of floodproofing. In the early 1960s the TVA conducted studies into the benefit/cost
               of floodproofing for several communities in Tennessee and Virginia. The TVA and the Corpsjointly
               funded publication of Introduction to Flood Proofing. An Outline of Principles and Methods, the first
               comprehensive treatment of floodproofing as a technique for reducing flood losses (Sheaffer, 1967).
               This publication was based on earlier research by John Sheaffer at the University of Chicago
               (Sheaffer, 1960). These two documents were the first to carefully examine the technique of flood-
               proofing, classify the different types of floodproofing that could be used, and provide guidance for
               the use of floodproofing.

               Following a review of available information and evaluation of suitable techniques, the Corps in 1972
               published Flood-Proofing Regulations (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1972). This document was
               intended to provide specific floodproofing standards that could be used to supplement existing
               building codes, or to devise a separate floodproofing code. The major regional building codes, many
               state codes, and hundreds of local codes either incorporated these "Flood-Proofing Regulations"
               into their codes by reference or referred to them as guidelines that individuals were encouraged to
               follow.

               Over the next few years additional research regarding floodproofing techniques and application
               continued, primarily at the federal level. The Corps continued to lead in this effort as field offices
               included floodproofing as an alternative flood loss reduction measure as part of feasibility studies
               for flood control projects. Most of the Corps' early efforts at floodproofing focused on existing
               structures.


               In 1976, the. Corps' Waterways Experiment Station published Structural Integrity of Brick-Veneer
               Buildings (Pace, 1976), documenting for the first time under laboratory conditions structural failures
               of brick-veneer walls at a depth of three feet of flooding. In 1977, the South Atlantic Division of
               the Corps published Flood Proofing.- Example of Raising a Private Residence (McKeever, 1977). In
               the late 1970s, the Corps provided technical assistance to property owners for floodproofing several
               structures in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin as part of a well known. nonstructural flood control project.

               In the mid-1970s the FIA also became involved in efforts to provide information on floodproofing.
               The FIA emphasis was on new construction, and the first of many FIA documents relating to flood-








                    11-74                                         Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                    proofing and construction of structures in floodprone areas were published in 1977: Elevated
                    Residential Structures: Reducing Flood Damage Through Building Design: A Guide Manual (Federal
                    Insurance Administration, 1977); and Manual for the Construction of Residential Basements in Non-
                    Coastal Flood Environs (Federal Insurance Administration, 1978).

                    During the next ten years, these early documents were followed by a succession of additional and
                    revised documents released by both the Corps and the FIA. Most of these publications were based
                    on research into techniques for new construction and for retrofitting existing structures. For
                    construction in coastal areas, the research and ensuing publications included techniques for protecting
                    structures from the effects of high winds (including hurricane force winds), and from the effects of
                    wave run-up and scour on foundations. Relatively little research and publication was devoted to
                    temporary and emergency floodproofing measures.

                    After several years of researching floodproofing for residential properties, the Corps in 1985
                    established a National Flood Proofing Committee to promote the development and use of flood-
                    proofing techniques for all types of properties, provide a source of technical expertise on floodproof-
                    ing techniques, and to disseminate floodproofing information. The activities of the Committee have
                    included: a seminar on floodproofing in December 1987 as part of the seminar series of the Federal
                    Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, publication of Systems and Materials to Protect
                    Buildingsftom Floodwaters (Waterways Experiment Station, 1988), and publication of a bibliography
                    of floodproofing (National Flood Proofing Committee, 1988).

                                           The Corps has been involved for several years with a project to reduce flood damages in
                                           the communities of Williamson and Matewan in West Virginia and South Williamson in
                                           Kentucky, all in the Tug Fork Valley. Major flooding in the Tug Fork Valley in 1977
                                           destroyed about 600 homes and damaged another 6,000. Corps technical and financial
                                           assistance was authorized by Section 202 of P.L. 93-25. This Act specified that flood
                                           protection should be provided to the level of the 1977 flood, which was about a 0.2
                                           percent annual chance ("500-year") flood.


                                           The project involves several components, including floodproofing of about 270 homes.
                        C=@                Cost-effectiveness criteria are being applied to determine which homes should be flood-
                                           proofed. There is no floodproofing of manufactured homes or of any structures in the
                                           floodway (the floodway is being evacuated). Many homes are being elevated as much
                                           as 12 feet Because of the magnitude of the project, the variety of size and construction
                                           styles of the homes being floodproofed, and the height to which some homes are being
                                           elevated, the Corps is carefully documenting the entire project and has prepared a
                                           technical manual for design of floodproofing/elevation techniques (Everman, 1987).


                                           The Baltimore District of the Corps, at the request of the City of Baltimore, Maryland,
                                           has performed planning evaluations and made recommendations for floodproofing to
                                           several businesses and industries in the Jones Falls Valley portion of Baltimore (Baltimore
                                           District, Undated).








              Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dis7uption                                               11-75



              In addition to the specific projects described above, the Corps routinely evaluates the potential for
              floodproofing as part of all project feasibility studies. Through the Flood Plain Management Services
              Program, the Corps also provides technical assistance to local communities (Plott, 1987).

              In the past, HUD has incorporated construction standards, including floodproofing requirements, into
              HUD minimum property standards. However, HUD is now relying more on local codes and
              ordinances and less on its own minimum property standards (Randall, 1987).

              Floodproofing or elevating existing structures (retrofitting) to render them less susceptible to flood
              damages provides a major opportunity and challenge given the large number of buildings constructed
              in floodplains prior to community adoption of minimum floodplain regulations (referred to by FEMA
              as pre-FIRM structures). As of the end of 1986, FEMA estimated that 1,338,767 out of 1,972,034
              (or 68%) of all flood insurance policies covered these pre-FIRM structures. FEMA has been
              considering several alternatives for encouraging or requiring greater retrofitting of pre-FIRM
              structures. Technical and financial assistance options being considered include: 1) provide FEMA
              technical assistance to assist with privately funded projects; 2) initiate a low interest loan program
              for retrofitting, using the provision of Section 1362(c) of the NFIA, 3) coordinate use of the substan-
              tial improvement clause to qualify flood-damaged buildings for Small Business Administration (SBA)
              loans; and 4) work with communities to help them obtain funding, such as HUD grants, for retro-
              fitting.

              Insurance options that the FIA has considered include: 1) reduction in insurance rates for retrofitted
              buildings; 2) waiver of the insurance deductible if the building is retrofitted; 3) allow claim payments
              to be used, along with other forms of funding, to permit retrofitting; 4) initiate a low interest loan
              program for insured buildings to be retrofitted, based on a calculated reduction in insurance loss
              expectancy; 5) recognition of a retrofitting program in the community rating system; 6) insurance rate
              surcharge for buildings that suffer repetitive losses; and 7) enactment of a co-payment penalty to
              claims payments for buildings that suffer repetitive losses if they are not retrofitted (Mahoney, 1987).

              The federal government, through the Corps, TVA and FIA, clearly established the lead in both
              researching and promoting the use of floodproofing as a tool for reducing flood losses.


              STATE AND LOCAL INVOLVEMENT IN FLOODPROOFING

              There are a number of examples illustrating the provision of information and technical assistance
              by state governments, as well as examples of local governmental assistance for the floodproofing of
              individual structures.



              State Activities


              The predominant role of state governments during most of the last 20 years has been to distribute
              information about floodproofing and provide technical assistance to individuals or groups of property
              owners, often using information developed and published by the Corps and FIA. Several states have
              taken a more active role in assisting with and promoting the use of floodproofing.








                    11-76                                         Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain, Management



                                           Minnesota, in 1974, incorporated Corps floodproofingregulations in the state building
                                           code (applicable to all local governing bodies) (State of Minnesota, 1974) and developed
                                           an administrative manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977).


                                           Perhaps the most ambitious state effort to directly promote and provide financial assis-
                                           tance for floodproofing was that undertaken by Massachusetts following the "Blizzard of
                                           '78." After this devastating coastal storm in February, 1978, the Commonwealth of
                                           Massachusetts established a program to provide technical assistance to owners of coastal
                                           residences. The state developed a guidebook (Disaster Recovery Team, 1979) to assist
                                           homeowners in: determining whether their residence was a candidate for floodproofing,
                                           identifying floodproofing techniques that might be used; working with a contractor who
                                           would actually do the work and obtaining financial assistance. The effort was focused
                                           primarily on elevating structures and/or elevating utilities above the base flood level.
                                           Structures located within coastal high hazard areas (V-zones) were not recommended for
                                           floodproofing.

                                           Funding of $1.78 million for the program was obtained through grants from HUD, using
                                           the Secretary's Discretionary Fund and the Community Development Block Grant
                                           Program. A total of 105 communities participated in the Massachusetts Coastal Flood-
                                           proofing Program. Following completion of the initial program, the Disaster Recovery
                                           Team assisted in the development of and provided funding for floodproofing programs
                                           in the coastal communities of Revere and Hull, Massachusetts. Approximately 50 families
                                           received assistance for floodproofing their residences under this additional program, at
                                           a total program cost of approximately $470,000 (Domas, 1982).


                                           In 1979, Illinois published the first of a series of manuals directed to homeowners that
                                           included information on floodproofing. In 1984, Illinois published a second manual that
                                           could be used by local governments or individuals to determine if a building was suitable
                                           for floodproofing. Since then Illinois has held floodproofing seminars addressed to both
                                           industry and residences, produced additional publications on floodproofing, provided
                                           technical assistance to individual property owners, provided information on floodproofing
                                           to disaster victims, and established a loan program for floodproofing structures following
                                           a flood.

                                           After floods in 1982, 1985, 1986 and 1987, Illinois provided technical assistance on flood-
                                           proofing and other mitigation techniques to disaster victims who visited the local Disaster
                                           Application Centers. Follow-up surveys havebeen conducted to determine the extent to
                                           which residents took action, including floodproofing. A summary of the findings from
                                           these surveys indicated (Laska, 1988):

                                           ï¿½    Over half of the flood victims had altered their houses and/or yards to protect them-
                                                selves from future flooding.
                                           ï¿½    The average homeowner implemented three different floodproofing measures. The.
                                                median costs of each ranged from $42 (standpipe or sewer drain plugs) to $2,350
                                                (sewer backup valves), with most costing between $200 and $600).








                Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dimuption                                                          11-77



                                       0   Floodproofing measures were installed very soon after the flood. Where weather was
                                           not a factor, two-thirds of the projects were done within two months. Many of them
                                           were probably done in conjunction with repairs and reconstruction.
                                       0   Income, education, and sex were not determinants of who floodproofed. Sixty-five
                                           percent of the floodproofing measures implemented were financed entirely by the
                                           owners. However, those who received funds from disaster assistance or flood
                                           insurance were more likely to, floodproof.
                                       9   Those who were flooded again in 1987 found that their floodproofing measures were
                                           generally effective. They also filed fewer flood insurance claims or applications for
                                           disaster assistance after the 1987 flood.
                                       0   Those homeowners who learned about what to do from personal contact with a
                                           contractor or someone who had floodproofed were more likely to implement some-
                                           thing than those who learned about floodprooffing via the media, a manual, or a
                                           presentation.
                                       0   Most homeowners (71%) still want to undertake one or more floodproofing projects,
                                           even those who had not done so. Their primary reason for not undertaking projects
                                           is their inability to afford to.

                                       The success of earlier floodproofing technical assistance efforts led the Illinois Housing
                                       Development Authority (IHDA) and the Department of Transportation's Division of Water
                                       Resources (DWR) to develop a program for funding floodproofing measures in selected,
                                       participating communities. DWR will provide up to $500,000 in low interest loans to
                                       enable victims of 1987 Chicago area floods to protect themselves from repeated damages
                                       from future flooding. The program involves cooperation of IHDA, cifies,villages, counties,
                                       DWR, and local banks. Loans are to be made to install or construct flood or sewer backup
                                       protection measures as approved by local building departments. The funds may not be
                                       used for repairs or reconstruction (because there are already federal disaster assistance
                                       programs available for that) and would be restricted to residences of low and moderate
                                       income families in participating communities (Watson, 1988).


                                       Kentucky has established a Community Flood Damage Abatement Program to provide
                                       financial assistance to communities for several types of flood control projects. At least
                                       one community has used funding from this program to support floodproofing.


                                       Pennsylvania recently created a $100,000 loan program to encourage industrial flood-
                                       proofing. The funds can be made available after a flood audit is conducted in cooperation
                                       with the Corps (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988).


                                       In 1983, Colorado published the Colorado Flood Proofing Manual (Colorado, 1983).



                Thirty-four states now provide information directly to interested property owners, either in the form
                of responses to inquiries or publications. Six states also provide some type of funding for flood-
                proofing. Table 11-12 shows state and local activities related to floodproofing (Association of State
                Floodplain Managers, 1988).








                      11-78                                              Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                      Table 11-12. State and Local Activities Related to Floodproofing.


                                                                            STATE                                       LOCAL

                                                  INFORMATION PUBLICATION FUNDING                         INFORMATION           FUNDING


                                 Alabama                       X
                                 Alaska                        X                  X
                                 Arizona                       X
                                 Arkansas
                                 California                    X

                                 Colorado                      X                  X
                                 Connecticut.                  X
                                 Delaware                      X                                                     X
                                 District of Columbia          X                                                     X
                                 Florida                       X
                                 Georgia
                                 Hawaii
                                 Idaho
                                 Illinois                      X                  X             X                    X
                                 Indiana                       X                  X                                  X                  X

                                 Iowa                          X
                                 Kansas                        X
                                 Kentucky                      X                                X                    X                  X
                                 Louisiana
                                 Maine                         X
                                 Maryland                      X                                                     X                  X
                                 Massachusetts                 X                  X
                                 Michigan                      X                                X                    X
                                 Minnesota                     X                                X                    X
                                 Mississippi

                                 Missouri                      X
                                 Montana                       X                                                     X
                                 Nebraska                                         X
                                 Nevada                        X                                                     X
                                 New Hampshire                                                                       X
                                 New Jersqy                    X                                                     X                  X
                                 New Mexico
                                 New York                      X
                                 North Carolina
                                 North Dakota                  X                  X

                                 Ohio                          X
                                 Oklahoma                      X                                                     X
                                 Oregon
                                 Pennsylvania                  X                  X             X
                                 Rhode Island                  X

                                 South Carolina                X
                                 South Dakota                  X                                                     X
                                 Tennessee                     X
                                 Texas                         X                  X
                                 Utah                          X                  X             X                    X

                                 Vermont
                                 Virginia
                                 Washington                    X
                                 West Virginia
                                 Wisconsin                                                                           X                  X
                                 Wyoming
                                 NOTE This table does not include the Community De velopment Block Grant or similar general purpose programs which
                                            may fund these activities.


                              Source:       Association of State Floodplain Managers, "State Floodplain Management Programs. Results of a Survey Conducted by
                                            the Association of State Floodplain Managers for I-R. Johnston Associaters" 1998.








               Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dismption                                                        11-79




               Local Government Activities


               Local government involvement with floodproofing has been largely on an individual basis - e.g., for
               floodproofing of individual structures. Where larger projects have been undertaken involving several
               municipal and/or private structures, state and federal governments have usually been involved.

                                      In Kentucky several communities have used Community Development Block Grant
                                      (CDBG) funds from HUD to partially fund floodproofing efforts.


                                      In Maryland, Howard County established a floodproofing loan program for local residents
                                      and commercial establishments using a combination of state and local funds. Prince
                                      George's County established a similar floodproofing loan program using 100 percent local
                                      funds. Maryland state officials estimate that about 15 commercial/industrial structures
                                      and 75 residences have been floodproofed using these programs.


               In Indiana, the Cities of Fort Wayne and Kokomo have provided assistance to local citizens for flood-
               proofing (Trakimas, 1988). The Bassetts, Creek Flood Control Commission in Minnesota; the City
               of Tulsa, Oklahoma; Soldier's Grove, Wisconsin; and Rapid City, South Dakota are examples of other
               communities that have provided local funding (sometimes combined with federal and state funds)
               and/or technical assistance to local businesses and residences for floodproofing.


               PRIVATE SECTOR

               The primary role of the private sector has been the actual implementation of measures, such as
               raising a structure to a higher elevation, and installing shielding and closure devices. Practically all
               of the early expertise with floodproofing techniques originated with architects, engineers, and building
               contractors as they worked with homeowners and businesses to solve individual problems.

               Beginning in the early 1960s, the federal government began to systematically evaluate much of this
               local expertise and to assess the best techniques and materials for different floodproofing situations.
               Much of the federal research was carried out in cooperation with the private sector, particularly
               professional associations. For example, the FIA has contracted with the American Institute of
               Architects, the National Association of Homebuilders, university researchers, and private engineering
               firms to actually perform the research and prepare the technical assistance information that the FIA
               has released over the last ten years.

               While the private sector continues to be the primary implementor of floodproofing measures, some
               private companies also have undertaken research and development of new products. Prominent,
               current examples of these efforts include the development of vinyl sheathing and sewer backflow
               preventive devices to reduce flood damages to existing structures (Pomerantz, 1984). Other compa-
               nies have developed and promoted replacements for standard sand bags, equipment for more efficient
               filling of traditional sand bags, and flood shields to be used for temporary closure of windows, doors
               and other openings in buildings.








                  11-80                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  The private sector has also been involved through incorporation of floodproofing standards and
                  guidelines in the major model building codes. The standards committees of the building code
                  organizations have worked with FEMA and other government agencies in selecting provisions
                  appropriate for inclusion in the codes. This has particular importance because most states and
                  communities have now adopted for use one of the model building codes, although many communities
                  and some states continue to have their own codes (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986).


                  CURRENT STATUS OF FLOODPROOFING AND ELEVATION

                  Floodproofing and/or elevation is now routinely incorporated into the design of most new structures
                  to be located within the floodplain. Research over the past 20 years has shown new and improved
                  methods of construction that can enable structures to better withstand the hydrostatic and hydrody-
                  namic forces of water. In coastal areas, techniques to combat the effects of scour and high wind are
                  also part of the construction techniques. Regulations of all communities participating in the NFIP
                  require that new residential structures be elevated above the one percent annual chance flood level.
                  For construction in coastal high hazard areas, floodproofing in lieu of elevating a structure is not an
                  acceptable alternative. Also, in coastal high hazard areas certifications are required by a registered
                  professional engineer or architect that the design and methods of construction to be used are in
                  accordance with accepted standards of practice for the breakaway wall criteria and the anchoring
                  requirements for elevated buildings.

                  In 1966, House Document 465 noted that floodproofing can provide for development in lower risk
                  floodplain areas by keeping damage within acceptable limits. However, floodproofing for new
                  construction is not being restricted to use in low risk floodplains. In some cases floodproofing is being
                  used to build structures in high risk areas that perhaps would not be built on without knowledge of
                  improved construction techniques.

                  While new construction is routinely either elevated above a specified flood level or constructed so
                  as to prevent water from entering the structure and causing damage, floodproofing of existing
                  structures (retrofitting) has been much less widespread. In the last few years new research on
                  retrofitting methods has been conducted and information is being made available regarding reliable
                  methods for retrofitting existing structures. However, this information is not yet routinely used by
                  architects and engineers.

                  As part of a 1984 review of floodproofed structures, the Corps contacted each of its field offices
                  regarding the number of known floodproofing projects in their regions. The Corps concluded that
                  use of floodproofing measures was "widespread" but was unable to make any estimate of the number
                  of floodproofed structures nationwide (Plott, 1987). In a survey of each of the states conducted for
                  this assessment, only a few states were able to provide any estimates of the number of floodproofed
                  structures within their state (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1088b).

                  These results are not particularly surprising. The fact that most floodproofing is carried out by
                  individual property owners without governmental assistance, and the absence of any procedure for
                  reporting and recording floodproofed structures, combine to render any estimate of the number of
                  floodproofed structures impractical. Although no estimate is available of the number of individually








              Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dis7uption                                               11-81



              floodproofed structures, there are millions of existing floodprone homes to which floodproofing
              techniques could usefully be applied (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1989).

              Although several states and communities, as well as the federal government, have implemented
              information and education programs regarding floodproofing, the vast number of structures that may
              benefit from some form of floodproofing requires a much greater information and education effort.
              Information must be provided to individual homeowners and businesses regarding best techniques,
              advantages and disadvantages, and sources of funding and technical assistance (Larson, 1989). Even
              with an increased education effort, more widespread application of tested floodproofing techniques
              will likely be hindered by the inability of individual property owners to receive a rate reduction on
              their flood insurance premium for investments in floodproofing (Myers, 1989). The new Community
              Rating System which provides credit to a community for floodproofing practices, and a potential
              reduction in individual flood insurance rates, may help to offset this obstacle.

              Floodproofing and elevation are being widely used throughout the United States as flood damage
              reduction measures. Over the years, many existing structures have been floodproofed and a substan-
              tial number of new structures have incorporated floodproofing or elevation features into their designs.
              However, there are still many more existing structures and structures under construction that need
              floodproofing.

              Like other flood damage reduction measures, floodproofing and elevation have their limitations.
              Floodproofing seldom provides complete protection. Even the best system will not protect against
              floods that exceed the design elevation. Improperly designed or poorly constructed floodproofing
              schemes can cause even greater flood damages than would have occurred without them. There is
              also an inherent danger that installed floodproofing systems will create a false sense of security and
              thereby encourage people to remain in floodproofed buildings during floods, thus exposing them to
              a life threatening risk. The effectiveness of floodproofing is therefore relative not only to how it
              performs but also to how it is perceived and expected to perform.

              Floodproofing methods and materials have been continuously improved and refined and when used
              properly are very effective. However, in almost all cases, they require professional engineering and
              qualified contractors for correct design and installation. The willingness of individual property owners
              to consider floodproofing and their ability to pay for the design and installation are major contributing
              factors towards effective floodproofing. More use of floodproofing and elevation, under the right
              circumstances, will increase the potential to improve effectiveness.

              When properly planned, designed, and installed, floodproofing and elevation have resulted in
              significant reductions in flood damages. Based on past trends, it is evident that these measures will
              continue to be used. However, the overall level of the effectiveness of floodproofing and elevation
              remains to be determined.








                  11-82                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                                                 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


                  Nonstructural measures to modify an individual's or community's susceptibility to flood damages and
                  disruption have been the major focus of flood loss reduction efforts over the past 20 years. While
                  several tools are available to reduce susceptibility to damages, floodplain regulation has been the most
                  widely used and appears to have had the greatest impact. As a result of participation in the National
                  Flood Insurance Program, over 17,000 communities have adopted at least minimal floodplain
                  regulations. Many states and communities have also adopted more stringent regulations than required
                  by the NFIP. Enforcement of floodplain regulations, however, remains inadequate for many
                  communities. Regulations, though generally accepted, are unpopular with many affected property
                  owners, and communities often do not have the resources needed for diligent enforcement. Without
                  enforcement, inappropriate construction will continue to occur in floodplains. Regulations do little
                  to protect or reduce the large inventory of floodplain structures built prior to the adoption of
                  floodplain regulations. Nor do they protect natural and cultural resources. To the extent that they
                  permit further development they may actually contribute to the loss of these resources.

                  Executive Order 11988, the major federal policy concerning development and redevelopment in
                  floodplains, firmly establishes the one percent annual chance floodplain as the minimum area for
                  floodplain management and the application of flood loss reduction measurers. Many states have
                  developed similar policy through executive orders or legislation. Other policies seek to avoid
                  development in the floodplain and to ensure that flood control and other types of government projects
                  take into consideration the flood risk to the project, potential flood risk off-site of the project, and
                  potential loss of floodplain natural and cultural resources. While these policies have great potential,
                  application has been spotty, there is often conflict with other policies and legislative mandates, and
                  there may be court challenges.

                  Acquisition of undeveloped land to avoid flood losses is a little-used technique. More common is
                  acquisition of flood-damaged properties to permanently remove them from the floodplain. Typically,
                  acquisition and relocation projects have involved both financial and technical input from all levels
                  of government. Permanent relocation from the floodplain is typically used only in instances of severe
                  or repetitive flooding, and when structural flood control measures are not practical. Despite the risk
                  and inconvenience, individual residents are often reluctant to relocate from properties near the water
                  that provide many benefits, and their opposition to relocation signals the end of many relocation
                  projects. Some of the most successful acquisition and/or relocation projects have incorporated flood
                  loss reduction goals with other community goals.

                  Development of automated, flood warning systems that employ near real-time collection of precipita-
                  tion and strearnflow data hold great promise for increasing warning time and reducing losses in
                  remote locations and areas subject to flash'flooding. Problems with implementing and maintaining
                  these various systems have developed, and as yet there is limited experience with the systems during
                  actual floods. Too often, forecast and warning systems are not linked with a response plan, thereby
                  making an otherwise good forecast and warning system ineffective.

                  Floodproofing has long been used by individual property owners, although most private floodproofing
                  efforts have been implemented without knowledge of the chosen method's general effectiveness.








             Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dismplion                                              11-83



             Significant research into effecti ve floodproofing measures, however, has been conducted in recent
             years. Effective construction practices for new residential and nonresidential development in coastal
             and riverine areas have been identified, and methods for retrofitting existing structures have been
             researched and documented. Since floodproofing is essentially a technique to be used by individual
             property owners, the task of providing potential candidates with proper information is formidable.
             To date this challenge has not been successfully met.

             Each of these tools has been used successfully, but seldom is a single floodplain management tool
             adequate to address a community's flooding problems. As a result, the available tools have often
             been used in various combinations. Still, development and implementation of a comprehensive plan
             to address a community's flood problems is not common. Particularly lacking is recognition that
             floods are natural events with beneficial effects that should be accommodated rather than eliminated;
             that controls are needed on activities occurring outside the floodplain to avoid aggravating an existing
             flood problem; and that all areas of the floodplain need not be treated the same. The flood risk is
             greater or less at different locations within the floodplain, and different approaches and the applica-
             tion of different tools may be. needed to effectively address the flood risk and protect natural
             resources.









              CHAPTER 12:


              MODIFYING FLOODING




                 Flood controlprojects have saved billions of dollars in propeny damage andprotected hundreds
                 of thousands of people from anxiety, injury and death.

                                                         Joseph L Arnold, 77ze Evolution of the 1936 Flood Control Act,
                                                                                   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988



              As described inA Unified NationalProgramforFloodplain Management (1986), the traditional strategy
              of modifying flooding relies on the following tools:
              ï¿½  construction of dams and reservoirs;
              ï¿½  construction of dikes, levees and floodwalls;
              ï¿½  channel alterations;
              ï¿½  high flow diversions and spillways; and
              ï¿½  land treatment measures.

              'Flooding can also be modified by two additional tools:
              ï¿½ shoreline protection; and
              ï¿½ stormwater management.

              These several tools, often referred to as "structural" measures, are further described in this chapter.
              The application of structural measures can affect changes in the volume of runoff, peak flood stage,
              time of rise and duration of floodwater, location of flooding, extent of area flooded, and velocity and
              depth of floodwater. These changes influence the amount of debris, sediment, and pollutants carried
              by floodwater.

              The effectiveness of structural measures for protecting property and saving lives has been well
              demonstrated throughout history. Dams have been built in other parts of the world since ancient
              times, and there is archaeological evidence of dam construction dating back 6,000 years. Indeed,
              throughout much of this century, structural measures were the sole means of addressing many flood
              problems. Today, floodplain regulations, warning systems, and other "nonstructural" measures are
              commonly, but not universally, used in concert with flood control measures. The nonstructural
              measures help to avoid inappropriate development of floodplain areas protected by flood control
              structures. The nonstructural measures also provide alternative protection against flood damages
              in the event of structural failure or flows in excess of design capacity.








                   12-2                                     Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                                              INVES71MENT IN FLOOD CONTROL


                   The traditional approach to reducing flood losses has involved attempts to control floodwater. As
                   a result of devastating floods and the potential for catastrophic flood losses, the Nation invested
                   heavily in the construction of dams and reservoirs, alteration of channels, and other flood control
                   structures during the first seven decades of this century. The U.S. Water Resources Council (WRC)
                   estimated that between 1936 and 1975 the federal government spent more that $13 billion for dams
                   and other structures such as levees, floodwalls, and channel work. At the same time, there was also
                   a substantial, but unquantified, investment in nonfederal flood control measures (U.S. Water
                   Resources Council, 1977). Since the 1970s, nonstructural floodplain management measures have
                   become more prominent, but structural measures to control floodwater are still necessary, important,
                   and widely used. Many communities and floodplain residents continue to prefer structural measures.

                   It appears that most of the potential large flood control structures have been built. New flood control
                   structures tend to be smaller in size and designed to protect a smaller area. A marked shift in the
                   financing of flood control projects has also occurred. Early in this century most flood control projects
                   were completely financed by the federal government. Cost-sharing with state and local governments
                   and with private sponsors, however, has now increased, and some form of cost-sharing is now required
                   for practically all flood control projects.

                   The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662) increased the nonfederal share for
                   construction of most water resource projects, including flood control projects. Cost-sharing provisions
                   specifically for flood control were applied only to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) projects
                   and required a moderate increase in nonfederal responsibility. Prior to P.L. 99-662, nonfederal
                   responsibility for Corps flood control projects ranged from 20 to 50 percent of construction costs.
                   P.L 99-662 increased the minimum nonfederal share to 25 percent while retaining th        e maximum of
                   50 percent. A larger increase in nonfederal responsibility was introduced for other types of water
                   resources projects (Schilling and others, 1987).

                   Concerns about the environmental impacts of structural flood control measures have also contributed
                   to a reduction in the number of flood control projects, particularly large projects, implemented in
                   recent years. Dams and reservoirs, levees and floodwalls, and channelization work can all produce
                   a number of adverse impacts on wildlife habitat, scenic values, and water quality. These potential
                   impacts are frequently seen to outweigh the beneficial impacts of structural flood control projects,
                   including the creation of recreational opportunities and different types of wildlife habitat.


                   FEDERAL INVESTMENTS


                   Federal involvement in flood control became significant when the Mississippi River Project was
                   authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1928. The problem of Mississippi River flooding was regional
                   in scope and beyond the authority and capacities of state and local governments to address on their
                   own. The Corps was designated to undertake a massive program of building levees, reservoirs, and
                   floodwalls throughout the Mississippi River system, supplemented by a comprehensive system of flood
                   control reservoirs on the Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, Red, Upper Mississippi, and White rivers and








             Modifying Flooding                                                                                   12-3



             other Mississippi River tributaries. The federal government was responsible for 100 percent of the
             cost of the Mississippi River Project.

             The nationwide program for flood protection, contained in the Flood Control Act of 1936, established
             the federal interest in controlling floods in navigable waters and their tributaries. The Act authorized
             $310 million to carry out flood control projects along river basins, and assigned major responsibilities
             for mainstream and downstream projects to the Corps of Engineers. The Soil Conservation Service
             (SCS) was also assigned responsibilities for flood protection projects on upstream watersheds. The
             Flood Control Act established the condition that federal involvement in flood control would be
             appropriate "... if the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue are in excess of the estimated costs
             and if the lives and social security of the people are otherwise adversely affected." This one phrase
             has been the basis for 50 years of efforts to develop techniques for analyzing the benefits and costs
             of water resources projects.

             In addition to the Corps and the SCS, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the Tennessee Valley
             Authority (TVA) are involved in the construction of flood damage prevention structures. The BOR
             has planned and constructed many large irrigation and hydropower reservoir projects in the western
             United States and these projects also provide flood control. Some of the BOR's more important pro-
             jects include Grand Coulee Dam, Central Valley Project, Hoover Dam, North Platte Project and the
             Colorado River Storage Project. Since its creation in 1933, the TVA has also played a major role
             in flood control. Two of its legislated purposes are "to improve navigation in the Tennessee River
             and to control destructive floodwaters in the Tennessee River and Mississippi River Basin" (Tennes-
             see Valley Authority, 1983).

             Of the roughly $3.4 billion spent by all four of the major federal water resource agencies in 1986,
             the Corps accounted for 70 percent, the BOR for 21 percent, the SCS for eight percent, and the TVA
             for one percent. As shown on Figure 12-1, the relative shares of these four agencies for water
             resources projects has been at this level for some time. The Corps has been the lead agency for
             projects involving inland waterways, commercial harbors, and urban flood control, while the BOR
             has been the lead agency for irrigation (with high rural flood control involvement as well) (Schilling,
             1987). Figure 12-2 shows that in 1986, about 39 percent of the Corps' total outlay for water resources
             projects was spent on flood control (not including flood control projects for the Mississippi River and
             tributaries) (National Council on Public Works Improvement, 1988).

             Although total Corps outlays for the flood control projects fluctuated considerably in the 1960S and
             1970s, outlays have remained relatively stable at around $1.1 billion since 1982, as shown on Figure
             12-3. This total includes spending for: construction, operation, and maintenance; emergency flood
             control; and a special flood control program for the Mississippi River and its tributaries. SCS
             expenditures fluctuated between $31 and $217 million between 1960 and 1987, averaging about $82
             million per year. As shown on Figure 12-4, construction outlays by the Corps peaked in the mid-
             1960s, again in the early 1970s, and fell to about $550 million in 1987. This falloff in capital outlays
             occurs largely because Congress made no significant new project authorizations from the mid-1970s
             until 1986 when the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 was enacted. Corps of Engineers'
             operation and maintenance outlays have continued to increase over this period, from about $20
             million in 1960 to $200 million in 1987 (National Council on Public Works Improvement, 1988).








                              12-4                                                             Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management






                                                                   WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
                                                                   U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CORPS), BUREAU OF
                                                                   RECLAMATION (BUREAU), SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE (SCS),
                                                                   AND TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)

                                                               7






                                                               6







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


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



                                                                   ..........
                                                               4                ......

                                                        0                                ...................
                                                                                                               ..................



                                                                                                                   CORPS
                                                               3   ............
                                                        0                       .......                                                                      ......

                                                                   ...........  :::::::  ...........
                                                        0          *::::::::::: .......               ........
                                                                   ...........           ...........           ..................

                                                                   ..................
                                                               2                                               ..................                          ........
                                                                                      ... .......   ..........                               .. ..........
                                                                                                                                                           ..........
                                                                                                                  ................
                                                                                                           . ..........




                                                                                                                   BUREAU
                                                                                                                                                           X.


                                                                                                                     SCS
                                                                                                                                                        TVA

                                                               1960    1962     1964     1966     1968      1970    1972    1974     1976     1970     1980     1982

                                                                                                        Fiscal Years




                                         Source:      Schilling, Kyle, and others. Tle Nation's Public Works: Report on Water Resources. Categories of Public Works Series.
                                                      Washington, D.C.: National Council on Public Works Improvement, 1997.
                              Figure 12-1.              Federal Agency Shares of Water Resources Spending.







               Modi,fidng Flooding                                                                                                   12-5








                                                                                 ..........
                             Flood Control (38.8%)                                 ...................... Navigation (45.9%)
                                                                             ...............................
                                                                            .... ................ ...........
                                                                                   ... .. .........
                                                                                 ........  .........
                                                                             ............. .......... *@ ........
                                                                            ....... ................ ........
                                                      ...                ...........                .. .......
                                                                        . . . .... ... ............................
                                                                             ..........    ......... .. .......
                                                  F...                                              ..............
                                                                               .. .......  ........... ......
                                                                                ................
                                                                        . .........                 ..........
                                                                            .... ...............I.... ..
                                                                                 ............
                                                                                           ........ .. ...........
                                                                                           ..................
                                                                                                    ...........
                                                                                                    ..........
                                                                                           .....    ......... .
                                                  ... ... . ... .
                                                                       ....                ..........I.............
                                                         ..... . ...... ... .........
                                                                                           ................... ....
                                                                                   .................. .. ..
                                                                                           .............................
                                                                                           .. .......... ... ..
                                                                                           ...............I......
                                                                                           ........ ..........
                                                                                 ............I...............
                                                                                 ............................
                                                                                 ..... ..........   ....
                                                            ....... .....                           .....
                                                                                 ................   '' .........
                                                                                 .......... ... .......
                                                                                   ............................
                                                                                                    ..........
                                                                                   ..........I...   I.......
                                                                                           ..............
                                                                                   ... . ........ .
                                                                                     .................

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

                                                                                     ..........
                                         Mississippi River
                                            Tributaries (11.1%)                    Others (4.25%)

                      Source:   National Council on Public Works Improvement. Fragile Foundations: A Report on Am2rica's Public Works. Final
                                Report to the President and the CongIss. Preprint. Washington, D.C,, 1989.
               Figure 12-2.       Total 1986 Project Outlays by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.





                                  2.1
                                                  Corps of Engineers

                                                  Soil Conservation Service
                                  1.7                                                      7@

                                  1.5

                             W
                                  1.3





                                  0.9


                                  0.7


                                  0.5


                                  0.3


                                  0.1


                                        1960      1953     1965      1969       1972       1975     1978   1981      1984

                                                                          Fiscal Year


                        Source:   National Council on Public Works Improvement. Fra0i e Foundations: A Report on America's Public Works, Fina
                                  Report to the President and the Congress PreprinL Washington, D.C, 1989.
               Figure 12-3.       Outlays for Corps of Engineers and SCS Flood Control Programs, 1960-1985.








                12-6                              Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management




                             1.2                              7                     Capital
                                             7
                                                                                    Operations &
                             1.0
                                          7               7                         Maintenance
                                        7,/
                                                          X
                              .9
                                             X
                         0
                                                                                          77
                              .7 -7


                              .5
                         0    .4
                              .3

                              .2



                              0
                                1960  1963    1966  1969   1972   1975  1978   1981   1984   1087

                                                           Fiscal Year


                      Source: National Council on Public Worlm Improvement Fragile Foundations: A Report on America's Public Works, Final
                              Report to the President and the Conzres& Preprint Washington, D.C, 1998.
                Figure 12-4.  Construction and Operations & Maintenance Costs for the Corps of Engineers Flood
                              Control Program.



                STATE AND LOCAL INVESTMENTS

                Tremendous variations exist in the, water resources programs operated at the state and local levels.
                Development of these programs is primarily motivated by local needs and budgets, and by shortfalls
                in federal programs. States may view nonfederal projects as a totally local responsibility or they may
                be very active in funding. States and local governments play two major roles in funding water
                resources development. First, they construct and operate their own water resources projects, and
                second, they finance and maintain the nonfederal share of federal water projects.

                A report by the U.S. Water Resources Council (WRC, 1981) presented information on state water
                planning capabilities. The WRC found that 35 states had specific legislative or administrative
                authority for some type of comprehensive water resources planning. The technical capabilities of
                states with respect to water resources planning, engineering, and construction were found to be
                diverse. Generally, the emphasis was on funding for water resources planning activities, rather than
                project construction.

                In addition, the WRC found that most states combined their water quality-related activities with water
                quantity activities, with water quality being the lead concern and other water resources concerns
                                                   71
                                                                              71

                                                     7)
                                                     X




































                assigned lesser priority. The majority of reported water quantity-related activities appeared to be
                for water supply, not for flood control, dam safety, urban drainage, or other flood-related activities.


                                                                                                  I







             Modifying Flooding                                                                                         12-7



             Twenty-two states had comprehensive water quantity planning programs and a mandate to continue
             those programs. In addition, the VVRC found that western states have tended to integrate water
             quantity planning and management functions in a single agency, while in the Northeast it is more
             likely that water quality and water quantity planning functions are spread among several agencies.

             Many federal water resources development programs were initiated at a time when state and local
             government capabilities were less developed than at the present time. Over the last 20 years, state
             and local capabilities to provide financial, technical, and management assistance for water resource
             programs have grown significantly. As a result, and in response to the decline in water resources
             development on the federal level, many states have expanded their ongoing programs. A 1983
             Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report notes that state bonding activity had increased seven-fold
             since 1959, and that over the three-year period 1981-1983, all states combined issued almost $8 billion
             in water-related general obligation and revenue bonds. The CBO report pointed out that some states
             have created new programs to deal with growing water problems. It notedJor example, that Florida
             had created Water Management Districts authorized to levy ad valorem taxes to finance local water
             projects. In Montana, a water development fund -was created in 1981 to make loans and grants for
             all water development purposes (National Council on Public Work            s Improvement, 1988).

             As of 1988, twenty-four states provided technical (planning) assistance to communities for flood
             control (Table 12-1, column 1). Louisiana, Maryland, and Minnesota have recently created programs
             that provide financial assistance to communities that develop flood contr o*1 or flood hazard mitigation
             plans. The State of Washington provides grants to communities to help maintain levees and other
             flood protection projects. Many more states are directly involved in other ways with projects for
             structural flood control, most commonly through cooperation with federal projects. Several states
             act as local sponsors or fund the nonfederal share for projects designed and built by the Corps of
             Engineers and the SCS (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988).

             At the local level, there are also a great number of institutions with a role in water resources
             development and management. Most of the formalized local institutions are involved with wastewater
             treatment and water supply. The 1982 U.S. Census of Governments noted about 9,400 special
             purpose districts providing one or more water management services.. Over 85 percent of those
             districts were single-function districts (e.g., port, drainage, flood control, irrigation districts), with the
             remainder being multi-function districts (e.g., sewer and water supply, flood protection and water
             supply, natural resources and water supply districts). About 47 percent of the special purpose districts
             identified were concerned with water resources-related functions (e.g., port operation, drainage, flood
             control, irrigation, and reclamation). Local governments appear to see their role as one of providing
             mostly water supply and wastewater treatment services (Schilling, 1987).








                     12-8                                          Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                     Table 12-1.        State Activities to Modify Flooding.


                                                     PLANNING         STRUCTURAL PROJECT               DAM SAFETY REGULATION
                                                     ASSISTANCE PROJECTS                FUNDING        INSPECTIONS OF LEVEES


                        Alabama                          X                 X                X
                        Alaska                           X                                                    X
                        Arizona                                            X                X                 X                  X
                        Arkansas                                                                              X
                        California                       X                 X                                  X                  X

                        Colorado                         X                 X                X                 X
                        Connecticut                      X                 X                X                 X
                        Delaware                         X                 X                X                 X
                        District of Columbia
                        Florida                          X                 X                                  X                  X
                        Georgl'a                         X                                                    X
                        Hawaii                                             X                                  X
                        Idaho                                              X                                  X                  X
                        Illinois                         X                 X                X                 X
                        Indiana                          X                 X                X                 X                  X

                        Iowa                                                                                  X                  X
                        Kansas                                             X                                  X                  X
                        Kentucky                                                            X                 X
                        Louisiana                        X                                  X                 X
                        Maine                            X                                                    X

                        Maryland                         X                 X                X                 X                  X
                        Massachusetts                                      X                                  X
                        Michigan                         X
                        Minnesota                        X                 X                X                 X
                        Mississippi                                                                           X

                        Missouri                                                                              X
                        Montana                          X                                                    X
                        Nebraska                                           X                                  X
                        Nevada                                             X                X
                        New Hampshire                                                                         X
                        New Jersey                                         X                X                 X
                        New Mexico                                                                            X
                        New York                         X                 X                X                 X
                        North Carolina                   X                 X                X                 X
                        North Dakota                     X                 X                X                 X                  X

                        Ohio                                               X                X                 X                  X
                        Oklahoma                         X                                                    X
                        Oregon                                                                                X
                        Pennsylvania                     X                 X                X                 X                  X
                        Rhode Island                                                                          X

                        South Carolina                                                                        X
                        South Dakota                                                                          X
                        Tennessee                        X
                        Texas                                              X                                  X                  X
                        Utah                             X                 X                X                 X

                        Vermont                                                                               X
                        Virginia                                                                              X
                        Washingtqn.                                        X                X                 X
                        West Vqginia                     X                                                    X
                        Wisconsin                                                                                                X
                        Wyoming                                                                               X


                                   Source: Association of State Floodplain Managers. "State Floodplain Management Programs. Results of a Survey Conducted by
                                        the Association of State Floodplain Managers for LR. Johnston Associates," 1988.








             Modifying Flooding                                                                                    12-9



                                                DAMS AND RESERVOIRS


             Storage of floodwater in reservoirs can reduce flood flow rate, the extent of the area flooded, and
             the timing of peak floods. While dams and reservoirs may be constructed solely for flood control
             purposes, flood control is most often only one of several objectives served by multi-purpose dams
             and reservoirs.

             In areas that are already well-developed with structures and uses subject to damage from flooding,
             temporary storage of floodwater in a reservoir may be the only feasible means - short of permanent
             evacuation of the floodplain - of reducing potential flood damages. Even though the potential for
             flood damage may be greatly reduced by reservoir storage, the damage potential remains if a flood
             of greater than design capacity occurs or if the dam should fail.

             Although the total number of dams of all types and sizes in the United States is unknown, when small
             dams (such as dams for farm ponds) are considered, the total appears to be several million. In
             support of such a large number, the SCS estimates that as of 1977 it had been involved in the design
             or construction of over 2.5 million dams. Almost 1.1 million of these dams were pond dams,
             indicating that most of the SCS-assisted dams are rather small (Buie, 1979). In 1982, the Corps
             inventoried more than 66,000 dams of all types in the United States. Ile darns inventoried were
             either in excess of six feet in height with a capacity of at least 50 acre-feet, or at least 25 feet high
             with a capacity of at least 15 acre-feet (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1982). Also, the 1989 Report
             on Review of Status of Nonfederal Dam Safety Programs conducted for the Association of State Dam
             Safety Officials (ASDSO) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reported that
             about 80,000 dams were regulated by the states.


             FLOOD CONTROL CAPACITY

             The Nation's dams and reservoirs include those owned by the federal government as well as nonfeder-
             al dams and reservoirs, many of which are regulated by federal authorities.

             Federal Dams and Reservoirs

             More than 20 federal agencies and four independent offices and commissions own approximately
             4,000 dams, have regulatory authority over approximately 6,000 nonfederal dams, and have various
             other responsibilities for additional tens of thousands of nonfederal dams (Federal Emergency
             Management Agency, 1990). Over 300 dams and reservoirs owned by the Corps have been built
             primarily for flood control. Other federal agencies, including the SCS, the TVA, and the BOR, build
             and operate a less extensive array of flood control structures. Figures 12-5 and 12-6 indicate that
             while the number of flood control reservoirs built by the Corps has doubled since 1960, the actual
             rate of increase has declined. These data suggest three distinct periods in the construction of new
             flood control reservoirs: the 1960s, when facilities grew by an average of 6 percent a year; the 1970s,
             when facilities were added more slowly - about two percent a year; and the 1980s, when net
             additions slowed even further - less than one percent a year. Figure 12-7 shows that the cumulative
             flood control storage in Corps flood control reservoirs grew steadily in the 1960S and 1970s, but has
             leveled off since the late 1970s.








                          12-10                                                       Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management




                                               20
                                               19    -




                                               16
                                               15
                                               14
                                               13    -
                                               12
                                               I I
                                               10
                                                     0
                                          4.
                                          0
                                                     7-
                                          .8         C;-                                                                                                                                            i
                                          E
                                          z          4
                                                     3
                                                     2
                                                     1
                                                     0
                                                     1960        1963         1966         1969         1972         1975         1978         1981         1984

                                                                                                  Calendar Year

                                       Source:       National Council on Public Works Improvement. Fragile Foundations: A Report on America's Public Works, Final
                                                     Report to the President and the Congress Preprint, Washington, D.C., 1988.
                           Figure 12-5.              Number of Flood Control Reservoirs put in Service by the Corps of Engineers.




                                               11,10 -                                                                                                             1
                                               300   -

                                               "180  -
                                               2 G 0 -

                                               I

                                               2 1@7 a-

                                               200   -
                                       0
                                       t.      1130  -
                                       U
                                               160   -

                                               140   -
                                       0
                                               120   -
                                       E       100
                                       z       00    -
                                               60    -

                                               40    -
                                               20

                                                     0
                                                     1960      1963          1966         1969         1972         1@75         19'78        19'81        1@84

                                                                                                Calendar Year


                                      Source:        National Council on Public Works Improvement Fragile Foundations: A Report on America's Public Works, Final
                                                     Report to the President and the Congress Preprint. Washington, D.C., 1988.
                           Figure 12-6.              Number of Corps of Engineers Flood Control Structures in Service.







                  Modifying Flooding                                                                                                                     12-11





                                     130 -




                                     120 -




                                     110 -




                                     loo -


                                4.
                                 0
                                      go -




                                      80 -




                                      70
                                         1963          1966         1969          1972         1975          1978           1981         1984

                                                                                 Calendar Year

                          Source:    National Council on Public Worlm Improvement Frazile Foundations: A Report on Am2rica's Public Works, Final
                                     Report to the President and the Congress Preprint. Washington, D.C., 1988.
                  Figure 12-7.         Cumulative Storage in Corps of Engineers Flood Control Reservoirs.


                  Within the Corps of Engineers' Southwestern Division, which consists of Oklahoma, Texas, and parts
                  of Colorado, Louisiana, and New Mexico, there is over 50 million acre-feet of flood storage, or 31
                  percent of all such storage space in Corps reservoirs nationwide. The Missouri River and Ohio River
                  Divisions are also responsible for managing significant portions (20 and 14 percent, respectively) of
                  the nationwide total of flood storage space provided by the Corps. In the lower Mississippi Valley,
                  flood control facilities built and maintained by the Corps contain storage space for approximately
                  16 million acre-feet of water (National Council an Public Works Improvement, 1988).

                  Data from the SCS's Small Watershed Program show a peak of facilities construction in the 1960s
                  that has since slowed dramatically. Total facilities have increased significantly since 1960, but the
                  rate of construction has slowed in the 1980s (see Figures 12-8 and 12-9) (National Council on Public
                  Works Improvement, 1988).








                           12-12                                                   Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management






                                             340


                                             300


                                             260


                                             220


                                       0
                                             180


                                             140
                                      z
                                             100


                                               60

                                                         1960        1963       1966       1969       1972       1975        1978       1981       1984

                                                                                                  Year



                                      Source:   National Council on Public Works Improvement. FraOt e Foundations: A Report on America's Public Works, Fina
                                                Report to the President and the Congress. Preprint. Washington, D.C, 1988.
                           Figure 12-8.           Number of Flood Control Reservoirs put in Service by the Soil Conservation Service.



                                                6   z

                                               5.5


                                                5


                                               4.5


                                                4


                                               3.5


                                                3


                                               2.5
                                        46
                                                2
                                        E      1.5
                                        z



                                               0.5
                                                        19W         1963        Iw           1969        1972       1975        1978       1981         1984

                                                                                                   Year


                                    Source:    National Council on Public Works Improvement Frapile Foundations: A Report on America's Public Works, Final
                                               Report to the President and the Congre   Preprint. Washiogton, D.C., 1989.

                           Figure 12-9. Number of Soil Conservation Service Flood Control Reservoirs in Service.








                   Modifying Flooding                                                                                                                              12-13



                   Nonfederal Dams and Reservoirs

                   Table 12-2 lists the number of nonfederal dams constructed for different purposes in each decade
                   of this century (data are not available to show multipurpose dams). As of 1980 there were almost
                   10,000 nonfederal dams (at least six feet high with a capacity of at least 50 acre-feet, or at least 25
                   feet high with a capacity of at least 15 acre-feet) constructed for the primary purpose of flood control.
                   Of the over 63,000 nonfederal dams, 8,818 were inspected in 1980, and 2,925 were found to be unsafe.
                   Table 12-3 shows the storage capacity of nonfederal dams. Table 12-4 shows a steady and dramatic
                   decrease in the number of dams completed each year from 1961 through 1981.


                   Table 12-2.                Number of Nonfederal Dams Constructed by Major Purposes and Decade.

                                                                                             CONSTRUCTION PERIOD

                                                              1700-      1900-     1911-     1921-   1931-     1941-    1951-   1961-       1971-
                                  PURPOSE                     1899       1910      1920      1930    1940      1950     1960    1970        1980  TOTAL

                                  Irrigation                    282      548       639       388     537       695    1,474     1,293       885     6,741
                                  Hydropower                    125      189       224       277     104       112      109        93       40      1,273
                                  Flood control                   61       68      35        51      128       158    1,937     4,709       2,481   9,628
                                  Water supply                  510      475       423       483     769       810    1,801     1,603       629     7,503
                                  Recreation                  1,290      986       673       987    1,736     Z239    4,908     6,148       2,941 21,890
                                  Navigation                      23       23      16          8          53      4       16       45       21        209
                                  Debris control                   3           6     4         3          6      17       66      177       178       460
                                  Stock pond                      68       70      55        135     910      1,269   2,787     3,782       2,386 11,462
                                  Other                         299      161       157       134     295       295      648     1,2M        1,024   4,175

                                  TOTALS                      2,661    2,508   2,226       2,466    4,538     5,523  13,746 19,088       10,585   63,341
                                  CUMULATIVE                  2,661    5,169   7,395       9,861   14,399    19,922   33,668  52,756     63,341
                                  % 1980 TOTAL                     4.2         8.2 11.7      15.6         22.7  31.5      53.2     83.3     100.0


                               Source:        U.S. Army Corps of Enginceis. National Program of Inspection of Non-Federal Dams 1982 (from Table 10).


                   Table 12-3.                Storage Capacity of Nonfederal Dams Constructed by Decade and Cumulative.


                                              CONSTRUCTION                     STORAGE              CUMULATIVE                % OF 1980
                                              PERIOD                           CAPACITY                   CAPACITY            CAPACITY
                                                                                   (Acre-ft)                 (Acre-ft)

                                              1700-1899                        9,758,000                  9,758,000                   1.1
                                              1900-1910                        15,272,000                 25,030,000                  2.9
                                              1911-1920                        27,432,000                 52,462,000                  6.1
                                              1921-1930                        69,365,000                 121,827,000                 14.1
                                              1931-1940                        106,241,000                228,068,000                 26.3
                                              1941-1950                        80,807,000                 308,875,000                 35.6
                                              1951-1960                        210,939,000                519,814,000                 60.0
                                              1960-1970                        251,833,000                771,647,000                 89.0
                                              1971-1980                        95,475,000                 867,122,000              100.0

                                              NOTE: The storage capacity doubled between 1956 and 1980.



                                Source:       U.S. Army Corps of Engineess. National Program of Inspection of Non-Federal Dams 1982 (from Table 4).








                   12-14                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                   Table 12-4.     Construction of Nonfederal Flood Control Dams, 1961-1981.



                                                 YEAR                  DAMS CONSTRUCTED


                                                 1961                              432
                                                 1962                              437
                                                 1963                              599
                                                 1964                              498
                                                 1965                              622
                                                 1966                              499
                                                 1967                              481
                                                 1968                              422
                                                 1969                              391
                                                 1970                              328
                                                 1971                              290
                                                 1972                              334
                                                 1973                              287
                                                 1974                              275
                                                 1975                              271
                                                 1976                              289
                                                 1977                              262
                                                 1978                              228
                                                 1979                              129
                                                 1980                              116
                                                 1981                                27


                          Source:  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. National Program of Inspection of Non-Federal Dam 1982 (from Table 10).




                   DAMAGE REDUCTION ATTRIBUTABLE TO FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURES

                   No estimates are available of the damages prevented by the Nation's total inventory of flood control
                   dams. Estimates prepared by the Corps and the TVA, however, provide a good indication of the
                   amount of damage prevented.

                   The Corps estimates that the number of communities protected by its flood control dams has basically
                   increased in proportion to the number of dams placed in service. No accurate account of the actual
                   number of people protected by these dams, however, is available (National Council on Public Works
                   Improvement, 1988).

                   Between 1960 and 1985, it is estimated that Corps projects prevented an estimated $245 billion (1985
                   dollars) in potential damages as shown in Table 12-5. Figure 12-10 compares estimates of damages
                   averted with estimates of the total damages that would have occurred if there was no flood control
                   program.' On average, Corps' dams prevented an estimated 78 percent of potential damages
                   (National Council on Public Works Improvement, 1988).


                       One problem with this comparison is that it is based on the assumption that floodplains would have been
                       equally developed in the absence of flood protection. While this is not necessarily true, there is no way to
                       accurately project induced floodplain growth.








                  Modifying Flooding                                                                                                                       12-15







                  Table 12-5.           Damages Prevented by Corps of Engineers Flood Control Structures.


                                                                      FLOOD                DAMAGES
                                                                   CONTROL              PREVENTED
                                                                    VOLUME                    (Current)
                                                YEAR         (xnfilion acre-ft.)            (biffions S)               1985$


                                                1960                                             0.5                     1.82
                                                1961                                             0.9                     3.24
                                                1962                      M                      0.7                     2.49
                                                1963                      M                      0.5                     1.76
                                                1964                      M                      0.7                     2.43
                                                1965                                             1.5                     5.11
                                                1966                    77.5                     0.6                     1.99
                                                1967                    80.1                     1.0                     3.22
                                                1968                    83.5                     0.4                     1.24
                                                1969                    84.4                     2.4                     7.04
                                                1970                    90.2                     0.8                     2.22
                                                1971                    91.3                     0.4                     1.06
                                                1972                    91.3                     2.3                     5.92
                                                1973                    98.7                    11.9                   28.81
                                                1974                    99.2                    13.0                   28.37
                                                1975                  101.0                     15.9                   31.78
                                                1976                  102.9                      1.7                     3.21
                                                1977                  104.0                      2.6                     4.62
                                                1978                  120.1                      6.3                   10.39
                                                1979                  120.4                     19.4                   28.75
                                                1980                  120.4                      7.3                     9.53
                                                1981                  122.7                      1.2                     1.42
                                                1982                  123.0                      4.3                     5.41
                                                1983                  123.0                     23.2                   25.05
                                                1984                  123.0                     16.8                   17.04
                                                1985                  123.3                     10.8                   10.80


                                                TOTAL                 2080                    147.10                  244.72


                            Source:     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Annual Reports of the Chief of Engineers. Statistical Highlights from different years.








                                 12-16                                                                  Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management









                                                       100070

                                                       90WO/O


                                                       wo

                                                       70W17o


                                                       WTO

                                                       50%

                                                       40VOlo


                                                       300/0

                                                       2DO/o


                                                       10176

                                                       V0
                                                              1960         1963            1966           1969           1972            1975           1978           1991           1984


                                                                                                            Calendar Year




                                                 Source:      National Council on Public Works ImprovemenL Fragile Foundations: A Report on America's Public Works, Final
                                                              Report to the President and the Congress. Preprint Washington, D.C 1988.
                                 Figure 12-10.                Annual Damages Prevented as a Percent of Total Possible Damages.



                                 The TVA prepares estimates of flood damages prevented by its dam and reservoir system, and reports
                                 that over the years its multipurpose dam and reservoir system has prevented damages that would
                                 have amounted to nearly $3.03 billion. At Chattanooga, for example, which is perennially affected
                                 by flooding, average annual flood losses have been reduced to less than two percent of the losses that
                                 would have been suffered if the river system had not been regulated. The estimate of accumulated
                                 damages averted at Chattanooga is over $2.62 billion. Table 12-6 summarizes flood reductions at
                                 Chattanooga since 1936. Elsewhere in the Tennessee Valley, prevented damages have risen to
                                 approximately $262 million, and outside the Valley - on the lower Ohio and Mississippi Rivers -
                                 to nearly $137 million. Table 12-7 totals the damages prevented along the Ohio and Mississippi rivers
                                 as a result of TVA dams and reservoirs. In addition, the TVA reservoir system reduces flood heights
                                 along Mississippi River levees that protect six million acres of productive land, and it is estimated
                                 that the reservoir system increases the value of that land by $150 million (Tennessee Valley Authority,
                                 1988).







                Modifying Flooding                                                                                                        12-17


                Table 12-6.         Benefits from Tennessee Valley Authority Flood Reduction at Chattanooga, Tennes-
                                    see Since 1936.*


                                                             STAGE IN FEET

                                                                COMPUTED                           ACTUAL             DAMAGES
                              DATE                 ACTUAL       NATURAL REDUCTION DAMAGES PREVENTED

                              March'1936                37.1         41.3            4.2       $   175,000        $ 2,100,000
                              January 1937              33.0         35.8            2.8             3,000                29,000
                              February 1939             31.7         33.3            1.6             2,000                30,000
                              December 1942             35.8         39.7            3.9           108,000            1,582,000
                              March 1944                31.7         37.8            6.1             2,000              702,000
                              January 1946              35.7         45.8          10.1            190,000            11,948,000
                              January 1947,             31.9         44.5          12.6              8,000            10,092,000
                              February 1948             33.8         44.3          10.5             71,000            10,929,000
                              January 1949              29.5         36.3            6.8                  0           1,113,000
                              February 1950             28.4         39.6          11.2                   0           3,125,000
                              March 1951                25.8         35.6            9.8                  0             440,000
                              January 1954              29.8         41.4          12.2                   0           7,100,000
                              March 1955                22.5         35.0          13.3                   0             390,000
                              February 1956             27.4         32.2            4.8                  0               25,000
                              April 1956                17.8         34.0          16.2                   0             200,000
                              February 1957             32.2         54.0          21.8             31,000          111,969,000
                              November 1957             29.6         36.8            7.2                  0           2,150,000
                              February 1961             27.7         36.4            8.7                  0           2,950,000
                              February, 1962            29.0         39.0          10.0                   0           27,495,000
                              March 1963                32.6         48.3          15.7             50,000          115,950,000
                              April 1964                22.7         34.7          12.0                   0           1,505,000
                              March 1965                28.4         42.9          14.5                   0           47,000,000
                              February 1966             20.6         34.4          13.8                   0           1,750,000
                              February 1969             23.2         32.4            9.2                  0               60,000
                              December 1969             28.5         39.0          10.5                   0           34,500,000
                              December 1972             26.7         37.1          10.4                   0           24,500,000
                              March 1973                36.9         52.4          15.5       **35,000,000          465,000,000
                              May 1973                  29.1         35.7            6.6                  0           14,000,000
                              January 1974              27.8         37.1            9.3                  0        '53,207,000
                              March 1975                25.6         43.8          18.2                   0         216,000,000
                              April 1,977               28.4         49.0          20.6                   0         510,000,000
                              March 1979                25.8         34.7            9.1                  0           20,002,000
                              March 1980                27.0         41.3          14.3                   0         206,000,000
                              January 1982              20.6         33.7          13.1                   0           12,520,000
                              April 1983                19.3         32.7          13.4                   0           6,068,000
                              May 1984                  34.8         51.0          16.2          3,400,000          700,000,000

                                                                                TOTAL          $39,040,000       $2,622,431,000

                                  Omits minor floods (under 32ft. natural) and secondary crests in same flood period.
                                  Includes $12,000,000 damages incurred by South Chickamauga Creek headwater flooding.

                              NOTE: Actual and prevented damages for floods beginning in 1963 are based upon projected
                                      developments as judged from actual surveys in 1938, 1948, 1953, 1961, and 1978.



                                                    Source:   Tennessee Valley Authority, December 1988.








                          12-18                                                     Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                          Table 12-7.            Stage Reduction at Cairo, Illinois, and Prevented Flood Damages Along the Ohio and
                                                 Mississippi Rivers Resulting From Tennessee Valley Authority Dams and Reservoirs.

                                                                                          CAIRO STAGE (Feet)*
                                                                                              WITHOUT
                                                                                              TENN. RIVER REDUCTION DAMAGES
                                          YEAR          MONTH                 ACTUAL          REGULATION (Feet)                         PREVENTED"

                                          1945          Mid-March             53.92               55.4                 1.48                $   970,000
                                          1946          January               52.13               53.5                 1.37                    500,000
                                          1947          April                 47.12               48.0                 0.88                    480,000
                                          1948          April                 51.&'@t             53.4                 1.8                     1,600,000
                                          1949          January               50.7,               51.3                 0.6                     200,000
                                          1950          January               55.35               57.2                 1.85                    1,8P0,000
                                          1951          February              49.02               49.0                 0                                0
                                          1952          March                 50.7                51.2                 0.5                     400,000
                                          1953          None
                                          1954          None
                                          1955          March                 50.1                50.9                 0.8                     580,000
                                          1956          February              43.7                45.8                 2.1                     700,000
                                          1957          February              45.7                47.2                 1.5                     4,870,000
                                          1958          May                   43.1                46.2                 3.1                     8,000,000
                                          1959          February              40.3                41.6                 1.3                     590,000
                                          1960          April                 47.4                50.1                 2.7                     4,500,000
                                          1961          May                   54.5                55.0                 0.5                     4,150,000
                                          1962          March                 50.5                51.7                 1.2                     2,530,000
                                          1963          March                 51.5                53.9                 2.4                     4,010,000
                                          1964          March                 48.2                50.4                 2.2                     3,250,000
                                          1965          April                 47.4                50.5                 3.1                     1,150,000
                                          1966          February              41.9                43.2                 1.3                     634,000
                                          1967          May                   43.6                45.3                 1.7                     1,017,000
                                          1968          June                  43.9                45.5                 1.6                     1,402,000
                                          1969          February              47.4                47.7                 0.3                     337,000
                                          1970          May                   49.1                51.5                 2.4                     1,844,000
                                          .1971         March                 47.9                49.0                 1.1                     237,000
                                          1972          April                 49.1                51.6                 2.5                     3,091,000
                                          1973          April                 55.7                57.8                 2.1                     15,299,000
                                          1974          February              52.2                53.1                 0.9                     7,358,300
                                          1975          April                 56.4                57.3                 0.9                     8,227,000
                                          1976          February              42.0                42.8                 0.8                     142,000
                                          1977          April                 41.4                44.1                 2.7                     515,000
                                          1978          March                 50.7                51.9                 1.2                     8,926,000
                                          1979          April                 54.6                55.8                 1.2                     24,612,000
                                          1980          April                 48.3                50.5                 2.2                     4,404,000
                                          1981          June                  39.0                39.2                 0.2                     178,000
                                          1982          March                 47.8                49.5                 1.7                     1,779,000
                                          1983          May                   54.2                56.2                 2.0                     12,328,000
                                          1984          May                   54.0                54.1                 0.1                     48,000
                                          1985          March                 49.2                49.8                 0.6                     4,730,000
                                          1986          December              41.4                42.2                 0.8                              0
                                          1987          April                 42.1                44.3                 2.2                     $ 42,000

                                                                                                                    TOTAL.               $136,890,300

                                               Flood stage is 40 feet.
                                               Damage prevented in all flood during the year. Determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers since 1965.

                                          NOTE. Stage data shown are for the maximum flood without Tennessee River regulation in each year.



                                                                     Source:    Tennessee Valley Authority, December 1988.







              Mod,ifying Flooding                                                                                   12-19



              DAM SAFETY

                      i
              The impoundment of water is never without risk. Millions of people live and work in thousands of
              communities downstream of dams, and no matter how safely a dam is designed, constructed and main-
              tained, the threat of failure due to structural deficiencies, earthquakes or sabotage remains. When
              a dam fails, the unexpectedness and high velocity of the escaping water can cause severe damage.
              Once signs of dam failure become visible, breaching often occurs within hours and there is limited
              time for evacuation.


              There are a number of factors that affect the hazard classifications of the Nation's dams. For
              example, the availability of water, power, and/or recreational opportunities associated with dams often
              attracts new development. As a result, if adequate land-use regulations are not in place, development
              can encroach onto the floodplain and over time increase downstream vulnerability in areas protected
              by dams. Also, misconceptions or lack of understanding regarding dams can create a false sense of
              security, and reservoir sedimentation can significantly reduce flood control capacity. Competing reser-
              voir uses can impair flood control functions, as irrigation interests, manufacturers, homeowners, and
              others relying on the dam for -recreation and water supply often press for continued high water levels.
              As a result, little or no reservoir storage space may remain for flood control. In addition, the
              majority of dams are not designed to provide flood control, although there is often an impression
              that the control exists.



              Hazard Classification


              Classification of the hazard potential of a dam is based on the severity of the potential impact of dam
              failure rather than the dam's structural safety. Dams may be of sound construction and classified
              as "high hazard" if failure could result in catastrophic loss of life. Lower risk classifications include
              dams that pose a "significant hazard" if it is estimated that failure would result in large property loss,
              and "low hazard" dams that pose a risk of only minimal property loss if they fail (U.S. Army Corps
              of Engineers, 1982). Table 12-8 shows the criteria developed by the Corps of Engineers for classifying
              dam hazard potential. This classification scheme, or some modification of it, is used by most federal
              agencies and many states.


              Federal Activities  for Dam Safety

              The failure of several dams during the 1970s led to a flurry of efforts to evaluate unsafe dams in the
              United States. The.February 1972 failure of a coal mine waste impoundment at Buffalo Creek, West
              Virginia resulted in the loss of 125 lives and was largely responsible for passage of the National Dam
              Inspection Act (P.L 92-367). This Act authorized the Corps to inventory and inspect nonfederal
              dams. Adequate funding for dam inspections, however, was not provided until 1976. Following
              failure of the Teton Dam in June of 1976, President Carter (on April 23, 1977) directed federal
              agencies to review their dam safety practices. An ad hoc interagency committee was established to
              coordinate dam safety programs and propose federal dam safety guidelines. In June 1979, the Federal
              Guidelines for Dam Safety was issued, and a Presidential memorandum directed each federal depart-
              ment and agency responsible for dam safety toadopt and implement the new guidelines (Committee








                    12-20                                       Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                    on the Safety of Nonfederal Dams, 1982). Also in 1979, the executive order creating the Fedqral
                    Emergency Management Agency designated the Director of FEMA as coordinator of federal activities
                    to enhance dam safety. The activities and responsibilities of federal agencies with major dam safety
                    responsibilities are reviewed below and summarized in Table 12-9.


                    Table 12-9.      Hazard Potential Classification for Dams.



                                                               HAZARD POTENTIAL CLASSIFICATION


                                                        LOSS OF LIFE                         ECONOMIC LOSS
                                  CATEGORY (EXTENT OF DEVELOPMENT)                    (EXTENT OF DEVELOPMENT)


                                  Low           None expected (No permanent           Minimal (Undeveloped to
                                                structures for human habitation)      occasional structures or agriculture)

                                  Significant   Few (No urban developments and        Appreciable (Notable
                                                no more than a small number of        industry or structures)
                                                inhabitable structures)

                                  High        More than a few                         Excessive (Extensive community,
                                                                                      industry or agriculture)


                                  Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. National Program of Inspection of Non-Federal Dam 1982



                        Corps of Engineers. The Corps has some level of responsibility for five categories of dams: 1)
                        dams planned, designed, constructed, and operated by the Corps; 2) dams designed and construct-
                        ed by the Corps, but operated and maintained by others; 3) dams providing flood control storage
                        at federal expense but which are owned by other agencies; 4) dams permitted/regulated by the
                        Corps; and 5) dams inventoried and inspected by the Corps in accordance with the National'Dam
                        Inspection Act and the Dam Safety Act of 1986 (P.L 99-662).

                        In 1975 the Corps published the National Program of Inspection of Dams, which consisted of an
                        inventory of dams, a survey of state capabilities in dam safety, "Recommended Guidelines for
                        Safety Inspection of Dams," and recommendations for a national dam safety program (Duscha,
                        1982). Public Law 92-367 directed the Corps to undertake a national program to inventory and
                        inspect nonfederal dams that might pose a hazard because of their locations in vulnerable or
                        populated areas. The Corps completed the inventory in 1982, and listed over 68,000 dams,
                        including almost 9,000 "high-hazard" dams. About one-third (2,884) of the high hazard dams
                        were evaluated as "unsafe," due primarily to inadequate spillway capacity (Federal Emergency
                        Management Agency, 1985).








                          Modifying Flooding                                                                                                                                                                             12-21



                          Table 12-9.                     Federal Responsibilities for F3dsting Dams.


                                                                                                                                                           DAMSUNDER
                                                  DEPART-                   DAN INVENTORY                          PERIODIC INSPECTIONS                    FURTHER            DAM SAFETY     DAMS WMi
                                                  MENT                                                                                                     INIVEST            MODIFICA-      EAP-BY
                                                                                                                            CONDUCTED                      & STUDY            TIONS          HAZ CLASSIP.

                                                                                       HAZARD CLASSIR                                                      COWL          COWL
                                                                                                                   TOTAL    SINCE LAST REPORT              SINCE      IN SINCE         IN
                                                  AGENCY                    TOTAL                                                                          LAST       PROG. LAST       PROG-
                                                                                       HIGH     SIG.     I LOW                              DURING1 REPORT            RESS REPORT      RESS  HIGH         SIG.
                                                  USDA TOTAL                28.127a    Z391  Z985        2Z290     11,960   1,600  10,On    288            357        179     57       63    810          240
                                                  ARS                       1          0        1        0         0        0         0         0          0          0       0        0        0         0
                                                  FmHA                      78b        4        7        10        unk c    unk       unk   unk            unk        unk unk          unk   unk          unk
                                                  FS                        3,361      560      995      1,916     379      80        291       8          is         64      23       28    483          190
                                                  REA                       291c       0        0        0         unk e    unk       unk   unk            unk        unk unk          unk   unk          unk
                                                  SCS                       24,658d    1,827  1,992      20,464    11,581   1,520  9,781    280            339        115     34       35    327          50


                                                  DOD TOTAL                 910        451      64       295       583      266       312       5          23         48      17       14    404          22
                                                  Corps                     560        412      30       118       579      266       309,      4          21         48      17       14    402          22
                                                  Army                      213        39       29       145       0        0         0         0          0          0       0        0        2         0
                                                  Navy                      16         0        3        13        2        0         2         0          0          0       0        0        0         0
                                                  Air Force                 21         0        2        19        2        0         1         1          2          0       0        0        0         0


                                                  DOE TOTAL                 10         0        3        8         92       3         37                   1          1                                   1
                                                  APA                       2          0        1        1         1        0         1         0          1          1       0        0        0         0
                                                  RL                        0          0        0        1         52                 NA    NA                                               NA           NA
                                                  RF                        6          0        1        5         2f       0         2     NA             0          0       0        0        0         1
                                                  SIR                       2          0        1        1         37       3         34    NA             0          0       0        0        0         9


                                                  DOITOTAL                  1,925      269      128      1,528     667      124       538       5          134        182     19       69    216          87
                                                  BOR                       282h       214      48       20        163      2         161       0          60         Ill     4        32    200          45
                                                  BLAI                      917i       1        16i      900       261      10        251       0          0          0       1        0        1         8
                                                  BIA                       300        37       24       239       69       1         68        0          0          0       0        0        0         0
                                                  FWS                       155        9        19       127       144      96        58        0          4          2       9        8        9         17
                                                  NPS                       271        .8       21       242       30       25k       0         5          70         69      5        29       6         17


                                                  FERC                      2,0821     548      250      1,278     3,239    151  Z170       919            256        141     51       101   525     241m


                                                  IBWC                      8          4        0        4         18       4         14        0          0          0       0        0        2         0


                                                  MSHATOTAL                 1,386a     266      Z53      801       270      0         270       0          2,45       66      0        0        0         0
                                                  COAL                      827n       229      218      314       X70      OD        Z70       0          245        66      0        0        0         0
                                                  MINW                      559        37       35       487       0        OP        0         0          0          0       0        0        0         0


                                                  KRC TOTAL                 r                                      33       0         33        0          0          0       0        0        0         0
                                                  NRR                       19                                     5        0         5         0          0          0       0        0        0         0
                                                  NMSS                      8                                      28       0         28        0          0          0       0        0        0         0


                                                  TVA                       53         31       14       8 L223q            ill       25        0          4          5       5        2     31           14



                                a.  Includes 461 dams whose classification is unknown.
                                b.  Includes 57 dams whose classification is unknown. Agency is taking action to obtain current hazard classifications.
                                I-  Includes 29 dams whose classificatio is unknown. Agency is taking action to obtain current hazard classifications.
                                d.  Includes 375 dams whose [email protected]. is unknown. Most are expected to be low hazard, but their current classification has not been verified by actual
                                    field checks.
                                e.  FrnHA and REA are working with owners to obtain current daw
                                E   Annual intermediate inspections: one by USACE and one by the State of Colorado.
                                g.  Engineering is in the process of developing a formal plan.
                                h.  Dams examined and classified under the BOR Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams (SEED) Program.
                                L   Approximately 850 more structures exist that have riot been evaluated or added to the BLM inventory. Ile majority of those dams barely meet the
                                    Guidelines' size criteria and are expected to be low hazard.
                                j.  Hazard ratings for eight of these structures are being re-evaluated.
                                k   This figure represents both high- and significant-hazard dams.
                                L   Includes 171 dams not constructed and 12 dams under construction. Hazard classification not established for six dams under Current applications for
                                    license.
                                m.  Additional EAP's for 209 law-hazard dams.
                                a.  Includes 66 dams not assigned a hazard classification.
                                0.  Dams under major construction are inspected on a monthly basis.                                                                   Source:
                                p.  All dams are inspected four times yearly for underground mines and twice yearly for surface mines.                                Fedeml Emergency Management Agency.
                                q.  Includes approximately 1,000 monthly field inspections and 97 special inspectors.                                                 National Dam Safety Program: A Prouess Rc
                                .   AU figures for this chart were provided by the individual agencies.                                                               Volume 1. FEMA 195, July 1990.








                  12-22                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  ï¿½   Federal Emergency Management Agency. Upon its creation in 1979, FEMA was given a
                      responsibility to coordinate dam safety. In this capacity, FEMA coordinates the national dam
                      safety program and reports progress to the President; chairs the Interagency Committee on Dam
                      Safety; encourages the development and use of uniform guidelines and standards; coordinates
                      dam safety research; coordinates the development and funding of training materials; facilitates
                      information exchange among federal and state officials; encourages the use of model state
                      legislation and programs; and encourages the use of model programs for preparedness, warning
                      and evacuation (Tschantz, 1982).

                  ï¿½   Bureau of Reclamation. The BOR,.is the coordinating agency for dam safety within the Depart-
                      ment of Interior (DOI). In addition to responsibility for the safety of its own dams, it provides
                      standards and guidelines for the safety of dams owned or operated by seven other DOI agencies.

                      With respect to its own dams, the BOR has undertaken a "Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams"
                      program. Activities of this program include: the preparation of emergency preparedness plans
                      and inundation maps for downstream areas; structural modification of unsafe dams in some
                      instances; and independent technical review of new dam design and construction. For other DOI
                      agencies, the BOR provides: standards for design, construction, operation and maintenance; a
                      dam inventory data base; and other program and technical services, including staff training
                      (Parrett, 1982).

                  ï¿½   Tennessee Valley Authority. The TVA has complete responsibility for the planning, design,
                      construction, operation, and maintenance of all its dams. The TVA's responsibilities with regard
                      to dam safety differ from those of other federal agencies in that: 1) the TVA constructs its dams
                      with its own resources; and 2) all except one of its dams are located in a single river basin and
                      operated and maintained for the unified development and regulation of the Tennessee River
                      system. In addition, the TVA forecasts and schedules the flow of four privately owned large dams,
                      and schedules hydroelectric production of eight Corps of Engineers' dams in the Cumberland
                      River basin.

                      As a result of a review of all its dams, the TVA identified 22 dams for possible modification to
                      meet safety-related criteria for new dams. All of these identified dams are categorized by the
                      TVA as requiring nonemergency corrective action.

                      The TVA has developed and is implementing a comprehensive program to help ensure the
                      structural integrity of its dams for the protection and enhancement of the water resources system
                      and the well-being of the people in the Tennessee Valley region. Th        is program consists of 1)
                      ongoing inspection, operation, and maintenance; 2) study of existing TVA dams in light of modern
                      dam design criteria and, if indicated, performance of rehabilitation work to bring the dams up
                      to present-day standards; 3) management of emergencies; and 4) preparation and maintenance
                      of emergency action plans that provide the basis for local, state, and regional emergency manage-
                      ment agencies to develop their plans to cope with dam safety emergencies (Tennessee Valley
                      Authority, 1989).

                  ï¿½ Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture (USDA), in fulfilling its responsibili-
                      ties with regard to the maintenance and improvement of American agriculture, has a major








              Modifying Flooding                                                                                 12-23



                   involvement with dams. The USDA permits, owns, manages, plans, designs, constructs, finances,
                   and grants dams. Most of these dams are small, but a few range up to about 200 feet in height.

                   A Dam Safety Committee, chaired by an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, coordinates dam
                   safety activities within the USDA. , The Dam Safety Officer of the SCS serves as Executive
                   Secretary of the Committee. Within the USDA, the Soil Conservation Service, Forest Service,
                   and several other agencies also have roles and responsibilities pertaining to dams.

                     TnE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. The SCS has provided technical and/or financial. assistance
                   for the installation of over 25,000 dams. Almost all of these are nonfederal dams, and ownership
                   rests with state agencies, local conservation groups, cities or towns, and individuals. Most of the
                   SCS-assisted dams are small, in the 25-60 foot height range, but several are over 100 feet high.
                   The SCS is responsible for the design assistance it provides, and when federal financial assistance
                   is provided, is also responsible for construction inspection. The SCS can provide some technical
                   assistance for operation and maintenance (O&M), but O&M responsibility rests with the owner.

                   6 THE FoREs-r SERVICE. The Forest Service (FS) owns 1,316 dams and administers permits for
                   an additional 2,366 dams. Most of the dams owned by the Forest Service are designed and
                   constructed by the FS in conjunction with the management of national forests and grasslands.
                   The permitted dams are operated by other groups or individuals on FS-administered land. The
                   FS maintains a staff of engineers trained in the design, construction, and maintenance of dams.

                      THE FARMERs HOME ADmimsTRATION, RURAL ELEcrRiFICATION . ADMINIsTRATION, AND THE
                   AGRICULTURAL REsEARcH SERVICE. These agencies serve on the USDA's Dam Safety Committee
                   and have some involvement with dams, but they generally depend on the SCS for technical
                   assistance.


                   Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The 1920 Federal Power Act authorizes the Federal
                   Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to regulate and license nonfederal hydropower develop-
                   ments. The Act requires that all licensed projects be safe, adequate, and best adapted to a
                   comprehensive plan for development of river basins. FERC is currently responsible for the safety
                   of about 2,000 nonfederal hydropower dams, and the Department of Energy (DOE) has asked
                   FERC to be responsible for dam safety review on 20 DOE dams.

                   As required by Section 10(c) of the Federal Power Act, FERC has developed a dam safety
                   program to ensure that licensed hydro projects are adequately constructed, operated, and
                   maintained for the protection of life, health, and property. No failures of dams licensed by FERC
                   have caused loss of life or significant property damage. FERC's dam safety program calls for:

                   ï¿½  Preconstruction approval of dam designs, plans, and specifications often utilizing an indepen-
                      dent Board of Consultants.

                   ï¿½  Prelicense dam site inspection, periodic and special inspection during construction, and
                      periodic inspections during project operation, every one to three years, depending on project
                      sites and potential hazards.








                  12-24                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                      0   Safety inspections and analysis of dams, every five years, conducted by an independent
                          consulting engineer, employed by the licensee or exemptee, and approved by FERC.

                      0   Emergency action plans to provide early warning to persons who might be affected by a
                          project emergency.

                      0   Periodic tests of the emergency action plan.

                  0   Other Federal Agencies. Other federal agencies involved with dam safety include the Federal
                      Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET) which reported on
                      federal activities in Improving Federal Dam Safety, published in 1977, and the Office of Science
                      and Technology Policy (OSTP) which published Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety in 1979
                      (Tschantz, 1982).


                  State and Local Activities for Dam Safety

                  The work of state dam safety agencies is vitally important for protecting the public from the hazards
                  of unsafe dams. More than 95 percent of the approximately 80,000 dams in the United States
                  meeting the size criteria used in the National Dam Inspection Program are owned by state govern-
                  ments, municipalities, watershed districts, industries, lake associations, developers, and private citizens
                  (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1990).

                  Ile first regulation of dams by state authorities apparently resulted from the construction of dams
                  to harness water power. State regulation of dams in the 20th century is generally considered to have
                  started in California after the failure of the St. Francis Dam in 1928. California law pertaining to
                  dam safety has been strengthened at least twice following other major dam failures or near-failures
                  (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1988).

                  In 1970, the U.S. Committee on Large Dams (USCOLD)2 usedthe California state law as the basis
                  to prepare model state legislation (Model Law for State Supervision of Safety of Dams and Reservoirs)
                  for the regulation of nonfederal dams. The model legislation describes five major functions that
                  should be carried out relative to dam safety:

                  1) Review and approve plans for dams;
                  2) Inspect dams during construction;
                  3) Certify approval of new dams;
                  4) Inspect dams at least every five years; and
                  5) Take necessary actions to ensure maintenance of dams.

                  Other states were slow in following California's lead for dam regulation, and by the mid-1970s, only
                  about half the states had established some form of dam safety program. During the 1980s, however,
                  state dam safety initiatives increased. In 1986, the Association of State Dam Safety Officials
                  (ASDSO) developed the Model State Dam Safety Program (Association of State Dam Safety Officials,
                  1987). As of 1989, 31 states had statut  .ory authority to perform all five of the major functions listed
                  above, compared with 24 states in 1982. In 1989, two states - Alabama and Delaware - had no
                  statutory authority in any of these areas (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1989).


                  2   USCOLD is a professional society composed of engineers and others involved with large dam engineering.








             Modifying Flooding                                                                                12-25



             A 1989 survey (Tschantz, 1990) examined several aspects of state dam safety programs, noting
             changes from a similar survey conducted in 1985. Aspects examined were: statutory authorities for
             regulating dams; funding resources and personnel for implementing dam safety responsibilities;
             inventories of regulated dams, unsafe dams, and high-hazard dams; and policies for classifying dams
             and specifying spillway design floods.

             Table 12-10 shows the results of this survey regarding state dam safety statutory or regulatory
             authority in 1989. The survey indicated that 19 states did not have adequate statutory authority to
             conduct effective dam safety programs. Of the 31 states with adequate statutory authority, two had
             no program budget. State compliance with the FEMA/ASDSO Model State Dam Safety Program
             appeared to be mixed, and significant gaps existed among most states with regard to legisla-
             tive/regulatory authority, and permitting and inspection activities.

             Data from forty-four states indicated a collective 1989 budget designated for dam safety of $17,668,-
             552, with a median budget of $250,000. The average state budget of $401,558 had increased from
             a 1985 average of $315,448. Forty-six states reported at least one full-time equivalent (FTE)
             personnel position with dam safety responsibilities. The total number of personnel available to all
             46 states was 389 FTE, an increase of 30 percent from the 1985 45-state total of 324. States generally
             rated themselves fair to poor in terms of training and educating their own staffs and promoting public
             awareness and educating dam owners.

             Some states do not maintain dam inventories, and there are wide differences among states regarding
             what constitutes a dam, which dams should be regulated or exempted from regulation, and how to
             define an unsafe dam. Forty-five states reported 1,550 unsafe dams remaining from the 1977-1981
             Corps inspection program; five states did not know or report how many of these dams were still
             unsafe.



             Private Sector Activities

             Several private organizations are concerned with dam safety issues. The U.S. Committee on Large
             Dams, in addition to developing model state legislation for dam safety, has also participated in a
             number of other dam safety activities. The Interstate Conference on Water Policy (ICWP), while
             addressing a wide range of water policy issues, also provides important support for effective dam
             safety programs at both the federal and state levels.

             A major private organization concerned with dam safety is the Association of State Dam Safety
             Officials (ASDSO) which was organized in 1984 to:

             ï¿½   provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and experiences in state dam safety programs and
                 issues;
             ï¿½   foster interstate cooperation;
             ï¿½   provide information and assistance to state dam safety programs;
             ï¿½   provide representation of state interests before Congress and federal agencies responsible for
                 dam safety; and
             ï¿½   improve efficiency and effectiveness of state dam safety programs.








                             12-26                                                          Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                            Table 12-10.             Summary of 1989 State Dam Safety Statutory or Regulatory Authority.

                                STATE                REVIEWS &       INSPECTS         ISSUES           PERIOD-         REQUIRES         ADOPTS           REQUIRES        REQUIRES
                                                     APPROVES        DURING           PERMIT TO        ICALL.Y         REMEDIAL         RULES &          FEE OR          EAP
                                                     PLANS           CONSTRUC-        IMPOUND          INSPECTS        WORK             REGULA-          BOND
                                                                     TION                                                               TIONS


                                Alabama              NO c            NO               NO               NO              NO               NO               NO              NO c
                                Alaska               YES             YES              YES              YES             YES              YES              NO              YES
                                Arizona              YES             YES              YES              YES             YES              YES              YES c           YES c
                                Arkansas             YES             YES c            NO c             YES             YES              YES              YES c           YES c
                                California           YES c           YES c            YES c            YES c           YES c            YES c            YES c           NO


                                Colorado             YES             YES              YES c            YES c           YES              YES c            NO c            YES c
                                Connecticut          NO              YES              YES c            YES c           YES              YES              NO              YES
                                Delaware             NO              NO               NO               NO              NO               NO               NO              YES c
                                Florida              YES c           YES              YES              YES             YES              YES              NO              NO
                                Georgia*             YES c           YES c            NO c             YES c           YES c            YES              NO              NO c

                                Hawaii               YES             YES              NO               YES             YES              YES              NO              YES
                                Idaho                YES             YES              YES              YES c           YES              YES c            YES c           YES c
                                Illinois             YES             YES              YES              YES             YES              YES              YES c           YES
                                Indiana              YES c           YES c            NO c             YES c           YES c            YES c            NO c            NO c
                                Iowa                 YES             YES c            NO c             NO c            YES              YES              YES c           YES c


                                Kansas               YES c           YES c            YES c            YES c           YES              YES              NO c            YES c
                                Kentucky             YES             YES              YES              YES             YES              YES              NO              NO
                                Louisiana            YES             YES              YES              YES             YES              YES              NO cc           YES
                                Maine                NO c            NO               NO               NO              YES c            YES              NOc             YES cc
                                Maryland             YES             YES              YES c            YES             YES              YES              YES             YES c

                                Massachusetts        YES             YES              NO c             YES c           YES              YES c            YES c           YES c
                                Michigan             YES cc          NO c             NO               NO              YES c            YES              NO              NO
                                Minnesota            YES             YES              NO c             YES             YES              YES              NO              YES c
                                Mississippi          YES             NO               YES              YES c           YES              YES              NO              NO
                                Missouri             YES c           YES c            YES c            YES c           YES c            YES c            NO              YES c


                                Montana              YES c           YES c            YES c            YES c           YES c            YES c            YES c           YES c
                                Nebraska             YES             YES              NO c             YES c           YES              YES              YES c           YES c
                                Nevada               YES             YES              YES              YES             YES c            YES              NO              YES
                                New Hampshire        YES             YES              YES c            YES             YES              YES              YES             YES c
                                New Jersey           YES             YES              YES              YES             YES              YES              NO              YES

                                New Mexico           YES             YES              YES              YES c.          YES              YES c            YES c           NO c
                                New York             YES             YES c            YES c            YES             YES              YES              NO              NO c
                                North Carolina       YES             YES              YES c            YES c           YES              YES              NO              YES c
                                North Dakota         YES c           YES              YES              YES c           YES              YES              NO c            NO
                                Ohio                 YES             YES              YES c            YES             YES              YES              YES             YES


                                Oklahoma             YES             YES c            YES              YES c           YES              YES              YES             YES c
                                Oregon               YES             YES              NO               YES             YES              YES              NO              NO
                                Pennsylvania         YES             YES              YES c            YES             YES              YES              YES c           YES c
                                Rhode Island         YES             YES              NO               YES             YES c            NO cc            NO              NO c
                                South Carolina       YES             YES              YES              YES             YES              YES              NO              NO c


                                South Dakota         YES             YES c            YES              YES             YES              YES              YES c           YES c
                                Tennessee            YES             YES              YES              YES             YES              YES              YES             NO c
                                Texas                YES c           YES c            NO c             YES c           YES              YES              NO              NO c
                                Utah                 YES             YES              YES c            YES             YES              YES              YES c           NO
                                Vermont              YES C           NO c             YES c            NO c            NO c             NO c             YES C           NO


                                Virginia             YES c           YES c            YES              YES c           YES              YES              NO              YES
                                Washington           YES             YES              YES c            YES c           YES              YES              NO              NO c
                                West Virginia        YES c           YES c            NO cc            NO c            YES cc           YES c            NO c            NO c
                                Wisconsin            YES c           YES c            NO               NO c            YES              YES              YES             YES c
                                Wyoming              YES             YES c            YES c            YES c           YES              YES c            NO c            YES c

                                NOTE: C              Comment provided; see text [of source document].
                                              cc     No specific response; judgement made based on state's comments@ consistent with other state responses.
                                                     No survey response - Data based on interpretation of submitted statute and regulation information.


                                              Source: Tschantz, Bruce A 1989 Report on Review of State Non-Federal Dam Safety Programs FEMA 188, January 1989.







               Modifying Flooding                                                                                      12-27



               The ASDSO has become a major influence for improving state regulation of dams. With considerable
               support from FEMA, the ASDSO has developed a strong program to help state dam safety agencies
               improve their efforts to protect the public from unsafe dams (Federal Emergency Management
               Agency, 1988).



                                             DIKES / LEVEES / FLOODWALLS

               Dikes,' including levees and floodwalls, are essentially dams erected generally parallel to a stream
               (rather than across its channel) or parallel to the shoreline of lakes, oceans, and other water bodies.
               A levee is typically constructed of earth, while a floodwall is usually of masonry or steel construction
               (Linsley, 1972).

               Levees were probably the first structures built for flood control by European immigrants to North
               America. The first levee in the Mississippi Valley was constructed at New Orleans in 1717, and levees
               have been built and rebuilt along the Mississippi River ever since (Leopold, 1954).

               Levees are linear structures extending from high ground along one side of a floodprone area to
               another area of high ground on the same side of the water body. Levees generally protect the area
               between the levee and high ground adjacent to the floodprone area. Ring levees, however, are built
               entirely within the floodprone area to protect the area inside the levee.

               For stability, the bottom width of the levee is normally several times the levee height. This requires
               considerable land area and, as a result, masonry floodwalls are typically constructed in urban areas
               instead of earthen levees (Flood Loss Reduction Associates, 1981). A long levee system may actually
               include several segments of earthen levees and masonry floodwalls.

               Levees and floodwalls should be planned, designed, and constructed to avoid problems with overtop-
               ping, erosion of the levee material, seepage through or under the levee, subsidence, and cracking..
               Design should also anticipate storm drainage accumulation behind the levee. Levees and floodwalls
               can be designed to protect relatively small areas, but they may create a false sense of security since
               the level of protection is limited. These structures may actually increase flood elevations on adjacent
               upstream and downstream properties by obstructing or accelerating flood flow and/or increasing flood
               peaks (California Department of Water Resources, 1984).

               An estimated 25,000 miles of levees and floodwallS4 have been built nationwide, and these structures
               are the most common type of flood control works. While levees and floodwalls are effective in
               reducing flood losses, results of the Corps' nonfederal dam inspection program suggest that a large


               3  "Dike" is a general term used to describe longitudinal structures that serve to retain water. Levees and
                  floodwalls are both considered a type of dike. In this chapter the terms "levee" and "floodwall" are used
                  instead of "dike."

               4  In the course of work on the Assessment Report, no data were found to distinguish between miles of levees
                  and miles of floodwalls constructed.








                  12-28                                   Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  percentage of private or locally built levees and floodwalls provide a low level of protection or are
                  poorly designed and maintained. Some privately built levees and floodwalls may have been construct-
                  ed without regard to any design standards at all. Over time, a levee or floodwall's history - and its
                  protective limitations - are easily forgotten. Maintenance, particularly of privately owned levees,
                  is often inadequate. Levee or floodwall overtopping or failure is involved in approximately one-third
                  of all flood disasters.

                  Levees and floodwalls provide only partial protection from flood problems for several reasons:

                  1)  Many levees (including those built for emergency or agricultural purposes) are designed to provide
                      protection only from smaller floods (e.g., 5- to 15-year flood frequencies) or were built immediate-
                      ly before or during a specific flood event.

                  2)  Only a portion of all earthen levees built with-crown elevations equal to the design flood elevation
                      can provide the expected flood protection because of changing hydrologic conditions and the
                      possibility of structural failure before overtopping.

                  3)  Areas behind levees and floodwalls are often subject to severe internal drainage problems. The
                      exclusion of floodwater also contributes to retention of stormwater runoff. Surfacing ground-water
                      may be another problem.

                  Areas behind levees and floodwalls may be subject to greater than normal risk of flood damage for
                  several reasons. For example, floodplain residents may believe they are protected from floods and
                  do not feel it necessary to take proper precautions; development may continue or accelerate based
                  on expected flood protection. A levee breach or floodwall failure, however, is similar to a dam break
                  and can release flood waters with high velocity. After a breach, the downstream portion of the lev-
                  ee/floodwall system may also act as a dam, prolonging the flooding behind it (Federal Emergency
                  Management Agency, 1987).

                  There is no national data base of information on the condition and safety of levees and floodwalls
                  that covers all levels of government and classes of ownership (Schilling, 1987).


                  FEDERAL ACTTVITTES

                  The principal federal agencies with roles and responsibilities pertaining to levees and floodwalls are
                  the Corps of Engineers, FEMA and the TVA.


                  Corps of Engineers

                  While the Corps maintains data on the Nation's flood control reservoirs, similar data are not collected
                  for the other types of flood control structures such as levees, dikes and floodwalls (National Council
                  on Public Works Improvements, 1988). The National Research Council reported that the Corps has
                  designed and constructed about 10,500 miles of levees and floodwalls, most of which have been
                  assigned to nonfederal sponsors for operation and maintenance (National Research Council, 1982).







              Modifying Flooding                                                                                 12-29



              Federal Emergency Management Agency

              For purposes of making special flood hazard area determinations for the National Flood Insurance
              Program (NFIP), FEMA has established minimum design, operation, and maintenance standards for
              levees. FEMA accepts determinations by other federal agencies as to whether or not the levees
              designed, constructed, or inspected by those agencies meet one percent annual chance flood
              protection standards. Protected areas behind levees meeting such standards are shown as areas of
              moderate flood hazard (Zone B) on NFIP maps. Approximately 1,000 communities nationwide (or
              5.5% of the communities identified as floodprone) have one or more levees credited on NFIP maps
              with providing one percent annual protection. The total length of these structures is approximately
              9,000 miles and the structures protect approximately 5,000 square miles of land. The states of
              Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas have the greatest number and length of levees
              providing one percent or greater protection (Mrazik, 1989).


              Tennessee Valley Authority

              The TVA owns and inspects 38 saddle dams and levees which are subject to the same criteria for
              inspections, instrumentation, and maintenance as are the TVXs regular dams (Tennessee Valley
              Authority, 1989).


              STATE AND LOCAL ACTIVITIES

              As shown in the last column of Table 12-1, 13 states have. established special regulations pertaining
              to levees. Minnesota, for example, has established a requirement that all communities with emergen-
              cy levees must prepare emergency response plans. The State of Washington provides grants to
              communities to help maintain levees and other flood protection projects.



                                                CHANNEL ALTERATIONS


              Channel alterations reduce flooding by increasing the flow-carrying capacity of a stream's channel.
              The various types of alterations include: straightening, deepening or widening the channel; removing
              debris; paving the channel; raising or enlarging bridges and culverts that restrict flow, and removing
              dams that interfere with flow. Underground conduits can also be installed to carry part or all of a
              small stream's flow.

              All of these channel alterations contribute to reducing the height of a flood. It is sometimes possible,
              by extensively reconstructing a stream channel, to contain major floods within the channel banks.
              Unfortunately, such alterations sometimes result in increased downstream flooding by accelerating
              the flow of flood waters.

              Channel deepening is not very well suited to major streams because sediments can quickly fill in the
              excavated area. Even on smaller streams, frequent dredging is often necessary to maintain a deeper








                  12-30                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  channel. Care must also be taken to avoid causing erosion when changing a channel. Channel
                  alteration can become a significant expense for local governments, and local maintenance of such
                  channels is historically poor.

                  Channel alterations are similar to levees and floodwalls in that they can be used to protect a specific
                  site or region. Channel alterations, however, are not subject to sudden or disastrous failure. Channel
                  alterations for flood control can sometimes be used for other purposes such as navigation and
                  recreation. Boat launching facilities, for example, can be included in projects to deepen a channel.

                  The environmental impact of altering a stream channel depends on the specific techniques used.
                  Bridge and culvert reconstruction usually has only a temporary impact during construction. Widening,
                  deepening, or paving of channels, however, may destroy fish and wildlife habitat and other natural
                  resources for several years, decades, or perhaps even permanently (Flood Loss Reduction Associates,
                  1981).


                  FEDERAL ACTIVITIES

                  The Corps and the SCS are the two agencies that undertake the largest number of projects involving
                  channel alterations. Corps projects are typically in larger streams and rivers, while SCS projects are
                  mostly focused on smaller streams in the upper portions of watersheds. As of June 30, 1976 the SCS
                  had provided assistance for the construction of 16,971 miles of open channels. Of these, 9,927 miles
                  had been constructed under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program. (Buie, 1979).

                  Channel alterations are still an integral part of many flood control projects. Channel alterations may
                  constitute an entire project, or may be included at sections along a stream as part of a more
                  comprehensive project. In recent years, channel modification has decreased in use primarily because
                  of concern over adverse environmental impacts. Alternative designs are frequently developed that
                  include less straightening of channels, more gradual slopes, and use of natural vegetation or riprap
                  rather than concrete-lined channels.



                  STATE AND LOCAL ACTINTIIES

                  Urban drainage systems have historically provided for the safe passage of storm flows through
                  populated areas. The primary emphasis has been on efficient systems that rapidly convey storm
                  runoff to downstream receiving waters. Achievement of efficient drainage has typically been accom-
                  plished through some form of channel modification involving widening, deepening and straightening
                  of existing channels, and by creation of new channels, particularly drainage ditches or buried storm
                  drains. Channel alteration is widely practiced by state and particularly local governments to control
                  local flooding.

                  Historically, once runoff was transported out of populated areas and into a watercourse, the control
                  of stormwater was considered complete. Until recently, the downstream impacts and the water quality
                  impacts of urban drainage systems were often not fully considered. As urbanization accelerated, the
                  concept of conveyance-oriented water management was reassessed. The development of upland areas








              Modifying Flooding                                                                                    12-31



              produces increasing quantities of runoff, and culverts and drainage pipes that were once adequate
              have become unable to accommodate the increased volume of runoff generated. Localized flooding
              has become more prevalent, and the cost of installing larger pipes and culverts has often been
              prohibitive. Further, there is no guarantee that new channel modifications will be adequate under
              future development conditions. As a consequence, many state and local governments no longer rely
              strictly on channelization and rapid drainage. Instead, they have adopted a more balanced approach
              that incorporates stormwater storage (see section on Stormwater Management later in this chapter)
              with stormwater conveyance, as well as other measures to address the water quality of stormwater
              (Division of Water Resources, 1986).



                                                 HIGH FLOW DIVERSIONS


              Diversions intercept flood flows upstream of a damage-prone or constricted area, and route flows
              around the area through an artificial channel or a designated flow-way. Diversions may either
              completely reroute a stream or they may collect and transport only those flows that: a) exceed the
              normal capacity of the channel; or b) would cause damage.

              Diversions sometimes offer the advantage of protecting several nearby communities with one major
              facility. Negative aspects include the false sense of security that may prevail in the protected areas
              and lack of awareness that the floodway actually exists.

              Diversions are particularly well suited for protecting developed areas because they do not require
              land acquisition or construction within the protected area. Opportunities for diversions, however,
              are often limited by local land formations and soil conditions. The receiving channel must have
              enough capacity to carry the flow conveyed through the diversion without causing flooding. Also,
              ,the use of diversions may be limited in some states by laws prohibiting transfer of water between
              basins or watersheds (Flood Loss Reduction Associates, 1981).

              Examples of high flow diversions include several projects (often called floodways or spillways) along
              the Mississippi River. These include the New Madrid Floodway below Cairo, Illinois, the Morganza
              Floodway above Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and the Bonnet Carre Spillway above New Orleans. These
              types of high flow diversions are expensive and ordinarily used only for the protection of major urban
              areas (Linsley, 1972). A recent example described in Chapter 1 is the temporary diversion of excess
              water from the Great Salt Lake, Utah to an evaporation basin.



                                             STORMWATER MANAGEMENT


              Stormwater management has traditionally been primarily a local concern. State and federal govern-
              ment involvement has been typically limited to managing stormwater runoff from roadways.
              Stormwater management is now taking on more importance at the local level and receiving increased
              attention from state and federal governments. This newfound attention by federal and state








                   12-32                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                   governments is due in part to a natural expansion of more traditional flooding concerns, and to
                   awareness that a large percentage of flood insurance claims are for areas not identified as floodplains.

                   Flooding can be increased significantly by the runoff from land that has been stripped of vegetation
                   or covered with buildings, pavements, and other impervious materials. Historically, most communities
                   sought to remove excess surface water following a rainfall from roadways, individual homesites,
                   subdivisions, and other areas, and to confine and transport that water as quickly as possible. As
                   urbanization has spread, this approach has contributed significantly to increased frequency of down-
                   stream flooding and/or the need to construct flood control structures. Reduced ground-water supplies
                   and degraded water quality are frequent byproducts of this approach.

                   Today, runoff is often handled in a totally different manner than it was in the past. For example:
                   runoff equivalent to a relatively high frequency storm (e.g., a 2- to 10-year event) may be detained
                   or retained on-site through a variety of measures; excess runoff may be retained or detained within
                   a regional system; total runoff within a watershed may be managed so that discharges from different
                   sub-units reach the main channel at different times and reduce peak flows in downstream areas; and
                   conveyance of stormwater is more likely to involve some type of natural drainage system rather than
                   a concrete-lined channel or enclosed pipe.

                   The main objective of on-site detention is to prevent excessive runoff from developed areas. A
                   secondary benefit is that on-site detention measures may be designed to trap pollutants, and may
                   therefore improve water quality.

                   Use of on-site detention measures may be voluntary or required by regulatory programs. Regulations
                   requiring on-site detention are often part of zoning or other broad programs controlling land-use and
                   development in upland areas. Most on-site detention is for storm water runoff from storms of greater
                   frequency that the one percent annual chance flood, and as a result, most stormwater detention
                   measures typically provide little protection from the one percent flood.

                   On-site detention measures can include small ponds on land used for open space purposes. These
                   ponds sometimes take the form of shallow grass-covered basins that can be used during dry periods
                   as athletic fields, parking lots, or for other purposes. Detention basins are also sometimes created
                   as a result of excavation during sand and gravel mining operations. Controls pertaining to the clearing
                   of land and the amount of impervious area on a site are most applicable to sites under construction.
                   In urban areas, on-site detention measures usually take the form of design provisions to slow runoff,
                   and may include: equipping roofs or parking lots for temporarily storing at least a part of the water
                   that falls on them; designing streets in hilly areas to prevent rapid runoff; incorporating small
                   retention basins into landscaping; using rock-filled pits to catch gutter runoff; and using pavements
                   that let water seep through into the ground below.

                   The cost of individual on-site detention measures is usually not high. The cost often falls on the
                   owner of the land where flood waters arise, while most other flood control measures are paid for
                   by those protected or by the general public.

                   On-site detention ponds or reservoirs can lose their effectiveness over time if they are not regularly
                   cleaned and maintained, and cleaning and maintenance costs can be significant. Another potential








             Modifying Flooding                                                                              12-33



             problem with on-site detention measures is the lack of unified control over drainage patterns. This
             problem, however, can be handled through broad-scale planning of the overall system (Flood Loss
             Reduction Associates, 1981).

             The use of detention basins as a type of structural flood control measure has greatly increased over
             the last 20 years. Many local ordinances now require "zero-increment" runoff for new development,
             and this means that on-site detention must be provided. In addition, guidelines on storm runoff and
             erosion and sediment control developed by the SCS and others place a strong emphasis on on-site
             detention. Extensive use of detention basins, however, may pose problems that are not yet fully
             evident. For example, provisions for maintenance are seldom included, particularly if responsibility
             for the detention basin is not transferred to a government unit.

             Throughout the country there is now considerable interest in using natural wetlands to help manage
             stormwater runoff. Several research projects are being undertaken to evaluate the methods and
             wisdom of this approach to stormwater management. One point of view holds that natural wetlands
             are generally already heavily stressed, particularly in areas where stormwater management is a
             problem, and as a result stormwater should not be discharged to natural wetlands but used instead
             to help restore or create wetlands (Meagher, 1988).


             FEDERAL ACTIVITIES


             The principal federal activity pertaining to stormwater management is the Stormwater Discharge
             Permit Program of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Section 405 of the Water Quality
             Act of 1987 (P.L 100-4) gave the EPA broad authorities to regulate stormwater discharges. Over
             the next few years, major municipalities (with populations greater than 100,000) will participate in
             a permit program for stormwater discharges. This program will be similar to the current wastewater
             discharge permit program. After October 1, 1992, the stormwater discharge program will be
             expanded to include industries and smaller communities. A significant change is that with establish-
             ment of the Stormwater Discharge Permit Program, the water quality of stormwater discharge will
             be as important a consideration as its quantity (Meagher, 1988).


             STATE AND LOCAL ACTIVITIES

             Many urban communities have begun to recognize that a significant portion of their open space land
             provides stormwater management functions along with opportunities for urban recreation and wildlife
             protection. In addition, many of these same communities are recognizing that their costs associated
             with stormwater flooding damage and investment in costly channelization can be reduced through
             different approaches to stormwater management, including approaches that combine stormwater
             management with open space programs.

             A nationwide survey of communities in 1983 showed only 39% with stormwater regulations in effect
             (Burby, 1985). The effectiveness of those programs, however, may be somewhat better than that
             statistic implies. In Arizona, for example, the larger, rapidly urbanizing communities all have some
             form of stormwater management requirement for new development. Although only 35% of the








                   12-34                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                   surveyed communities in Arizona have such regulations, all of the larger communities in the two urban
                   counties that include 77% of the State's population regulate the development of watersheds (Bond,
                   1988).

                   Within the last few years, several stormwater management utilities have been organized in communi-
                   ties throughout the country. Many of these utilities have local taxing authority and assess property
                   owners within the district to pay the costs of stormwater management.



                                                     SHORELINE PROTECTION


                   The United States has a total of 84,240 miles of shoreline, of which 3,680 (four percent) are along
                   the Great Lakes. These shores encompass practically all known landforms and consist of materials
                   of varying vulnerability to the coastal processes that flood and erode the shore. Damages from shore
                   erosion include the loss of beaches for recreation; loss of waterfront land; damage to highways,
                   residences, commercial development, and other waterfront structures; and loss of wetland and other
                   environments important to marine and coastal life forms.

                   Among the most important issues facing coastal floodplain managers in the coming years are the
                   issues relating to continued development of the coastal zone, the erosion of new and existing
                   development, and the impacts of accelerated sea level rise.

                   The EPA and others have undertaken several research projects, including case studies, to examine
                   the potential impacts of accelerated sea level rise. These studies have highlighted the potential risk
                   to natural and man-made coastal features in addition to the obvious risks faced by structures built
                   directly on the shore. For example, coastal wetlands may be lost if shoreline development prevents
                   the inland migration of wetlands in response to sea level rise, or if sea level increases more rapidly
                   than wetlands can adjust. Also, storm drainage systems (e.g., existing drainage outlets) may not be
                   able to function properly, and inland flooding conditions may change with a change in sea level. In
                   addition, water supplies may be endangered as rising sea levels cause salt water intrusion into aquifers
                   and coastal rivers.

                   Assuming that sea level will continue to rise at an accelerated rate (regardless of what that rate is),
                   coastal flooding and erosion will also accelerate, placing billions of dollars worth of additional coastal
                   property at risk. Major questions facing coastal managers include whether or not to retreat from
                   the shoreline, armor the shoreline, or provide for beach nourishment. The direction of future efforts
                   to address rising sea level is currently unclear.

                   Many coastal geologists have joined to urge a strategic retreat from the coast. The National Park
                   Service (NPS) has adopted a policy of allowing.natural forces to act on the shoreline rather than
                   attempt to prevent erosion through use of structural measures. The State of North Carolina has
                   adopted a similar policy toward projects for erosion and flood control in the coastal area.







             Modifying Flooding                                                                                   12-35



             Some federal agencies have limited the use of structural measures on federal lands. The Coastal
             Barrier Resources Act prohibits most federal expenditures (including expenditures that could be used
             for structural erosion control measures) in "undeveloped" coastal regions. Where economically
             justifiable and environmentally acceptable, federal agencies still construct projects to protect existing
             development. Many states have also limited the use of structural controls in undeveloped or lightly
             developed areas, but continue to permit structural projects to protect existing development. Pressure
             from property owners and community leaders to protect existing investments in coastal areas has
             been, and is likely to continue to be, very strong.

             Traditionally, historical hydrological data have been used to judge and evaluate the need for shoreline
             protection measures. It is beginning to appear, however, that current and projected future changes
             in climate are leading to environmental changes - particularly rising sea level - with at least three
             key water resources implications. First, shoreline protection problems associated with sea level rise
             are likely to become more significant relative to infrastructure policy. Second, existing hydrological
             data and analytic techniques may not be relevant to assessing future project needs. Third, climate
             changes or sea level rise may affect water resources in inland regions in ways that are not well
             understood today (Schilling, 1987).


             SHORELINE PROTECTION METHODS


             Measures used to protect the shoreline from flood and erosion processes include the use of nonstruc-
             tural measures such as beach nourishment, and structural measures, designed to stabilize the
             shoreline.



             Nonstructural Measures


             When the natural protection system fails during large storms, the first solutions frequently chosen
             are quasi-natural methods such as beach nourishment or artificial sand dune building. Such solutions
             retain the beach as an effective wave energy dissipater and the dune as a flexible last line of defense.
             These methods, however, may provide only a temporary solution to chronic long-term erosion caused
             by a diminishing supply of sediment in the littoral system and by the slow rise of sea level.

             When conditions are suitable, long reaches of shore may be protected by artificial beach nourishment
             at a relatively low cost per linear foot of protected shore. An equally important advantage is that
             artificial nourishment responds directly to the basic cause of most erosion problems - a deficiency
             in natural sand supply - and enhances rather than damages the adjacent shore. An added consider-
             ation is that a widened beach has added recreational value. Well-known beach nourishment projects
             include the 10.5-mile beach restoration in Dade County, Florida, including Miami Beach (U.S. Army
             Corps of Engineers, 1984), and the 26-mile long Harrison County "sand beach" in Harrison County,
             Mississippi.








                   12-36                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                   Structural Measures

                   In general, structural measures designed to stabilize the shore fall into two classes: 1) structures such
                   as breakwaters, seawalls, bulkheads, and revetments to prevent waves from reaching a harbor area;
                   and 2) structures such as groins and jetties used to retard the longshore transport of sediment in the
                   littoral zone. Groins and jetties may be used in conjunction with seawalls or beach fills or both.

                   Providing separate protection for short reaches (e.g., individual shorefront lots) within a larger zone
                   of eroding shore, is difficult and costly. Such individual protection efforts often fail at their flanks
                   as the adjacent unprotected shoreline continues to recede. Partial or inadequate protective measures
                   may even accelerate erosion of the adjacent shores. Regional and coordinated action in accordance
                   with a comprehensive plan that considers erosion processes over the larger zone of eroding shore
                   is much more effective and economical.

                   Onshore structures such as bulkheads, seawalls, and revetments armor the shore and provide
                   protection, based on their use and design, for backshore development or erodible bluffs. Shorefront
                   owners often resort to "shore armoring" by constructing wave-resistent walls of various types when
                   the economic or esthetic values of their properties are threatened.

                   Breakwaters can.have beneficial as well as detrimental effects on the shore. All breakwaters reduce
                   or eliminate wave action in their lee (shadow). Whether breakwaters are constructed as offshore,
                   detached, or shore-connected structures, the reduction or elimination of wave action also reduces
                   longshore sediment in the shadow.

                   Groins are barrier-type structures that extend from the backshore into the littoral zone. They are
                   generally constructed in a series - referred to as a groin field or system - along the entire length
                   of beach to be protected. The basic purpose of a groin is to modify the longshore movement of sand
                   and to either accumulate sand on the shore or retard sand losses. Trapping of sand by a groin is
                   accomplished at the expense of the adjacent down-drift shore unless the groin or groin system is
                   artificially filled with sand to its entrapment capacity. To reduce the potential for erosion damage
                   to property down-drift of a groin, some limitation must be imposed on the amount of sand permitted
                   to be impounded on the up-drift side. Since more and more shores are being protected, and less
                   and less sand is available as natural supply, it is now desirable, and frequently necessary, to place
                   sand artificially in the area between the groins, thereby ensuring an uninterrupted passage of the sand
                   to the down-drift beaches.


                   Jetties are structures used at inlets to stabilize the position of the navigation channel, shield vessels
                   from wave forces, and control the movement of sand along the adjacent beaches so as to minimize
                   the movement of sand into the channel. Like the groin, thejetty's major adverse impact is the erosion
                   of the down-drift beach (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984).


                   FEDERAL ACTIVITIES

                   The Corps of Engineers is the federal agency most directly involved with shoreline protection
                   methods. The Corps' authority to participate in shoreline protection projects began with legislation








              Modifying Flooding                                                                                  12-37



              enacted in 1936. Under existing law, however, federal funds may not be used to protect private land
              unless there is a significant public benefit. Upon request, the Corps may provide technical guidance
              and planning assistance to help local interests handle shoreline problems.

              The Corps cannot construct any shoreline protection project without Congressional approval, with
              the exception of projects authorized by the Corps' Small Projects Program. This program authority
              allows the Corps to participate in the construction of a shore protection project when the federal
              cost does not exceed $2,000,000. Congressional approval is required for specific beach erosion control
              projects that would have an estimated federal cost greater than $2,000,000. Beach erosion control
              projects may be authorized individually or may be part of multi-purpose projects that include
              shoreline protection objectives. Data on the costs of shoreline protection are summarized below:

              ï¿½   As of June 1985, the total investment, both federal and nonfederal for all shoreline protection
                  studies and projects, regardless of status or purpose, was calculated as $360.1 million. This total
                  represents the financial investment in 404 shoreline protection projects, including 124 Beach
                  Erosion Control Projects for which Congress has authorized construction on @36.3 miles of
                  shoreline. Of the $360.1 million, 38 percent or $138.5 million has been federal funds. The total
                  federal investment in the 124 authorized Beach Erosion Control Projects was $138.5 million of
                  a total planned federal expenditure of $541.4 million (see Table 12-11).

              ï¿½   As of 1983, 5 7 of the authorized Beach Erosion Control Projects had been completed and 10
                  were under construction. The completed projects, protecting 89.9 miles of shoreline, had been
                  constructed at a total cost of $45.3 million, of which 42 percent ($19.1 million) was federal funds
                  (see Table 12-12) (Schilling, 1987).


              STATE AND LOCAL ACTPaTIES


              Most coastal states have historically participated in structural and nonstructural projects for shoreline
              protection. Because of the high cost of most structural projects, only a limited number of these have
              been undertaken without federal assistance. Some states, notably North Carolina, have adopted
              policies against new structural shoreline protection projects, opting instead to allow the shoreline to
              retreat naturally. Other states, such as Connecticut, have adopted policies that discourage construc-
              tion of new structural projects, but do not specifically prohibit them. Still others, such as New Jersey,
              have active structural protection programs.

              Federal funds cannot be applied to protect privately owned land unless significant public benefit can
              be demonstrated. Some states (e.g., Connecticut and Maryland), however, do offer funding assistance,
              and some states have empowered localities to establish Beach Protection Districts with the authority
              to collect taxes to fund long-term maintenance programs.

              On the local level, communities may undertake structural shoreline protection measures, but these
              tend to be for relatively small projects. Few communities have the financial resources to undertake
              major shoreline protection projects without either state or federal assistance.








                           12-38                                                   Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                           Table 12-11. Status of Federal Expenditures on Authorized Beach Erosion Control Projects.


                                      PROJECT                       NUMBER OF                FEDERAL               FEDERAL E)(PENSE BALANCE TO
                                      STATUS                        PROJECTS                 COST                  THRU 6/85                     COMPLETE
                                                                                             ($000)                ($000)                        ($000)


                                      Completed                          62                    35,091                 35,091                               0
                                      Under Construction                 23                  438,852                  98,762                     340,090
                                      Deferred                           15                    35,927                      887                     35,040
                                      Inactive                           14                    31,506                    3,713                     27,793

                                      TOTAL                              124                 541,376                  138,453                    402,923

                                      (Data as of July 1985)



                                 Source:    Schilling, Kyle, and others. The Nation's Public Works: Report on Water Resources. Categories of Public Works Series.
                                            Washington, D.C.: National Council on Public Works Improvement, 1997.





                          Table 12-12. Total Federal and Nonfederal Investment in Beach Erosion Control Projects Complet-
                                                 ed or Under Construction.



                                      PROJECT                     TOTAL               NON-FEDERAL FEDERAL                        TOTAL              mum
                                      STATUS                      PROJECTS            COST                   COST                COST               PROTECI`ED
                                                                                      ($000)                 ($")                0000)


                                      Completed                          57           26,206                 19,056              45,262               89.9
                                      Under Construction                 10           68,267                 63,423            131,690                69.5

                                      TOTAL                              67           94,473                 82,479            176,952              159.4

                                      (Data as of 1983)



                                 Source:    Schilling, Kyle, and others. Tle Nation's Public Works: Reporl on Water Resources. Categories of Public Works Series.
                                            Washington, D.C: National Council on Public Works Improvement, 1987.








            Modifying Flooding                                                                                 12-39




            PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITTES


            Private land owners have also applied measures to forestall erosion and reduce damages. These
            measures are necessarily low-cost and small-scale, and include, for example, vegetation plantings,
            beach fill, breakwaters, groins, revetments, bulkheads, and seawalls. Typically, private landowners
            cannot expect their efforts to be successful in areas where wave heights in excess of six feet are
            common, or where severe storms are likely to occur each year (Schilling, 1987).



                                          LAND TREATMENT MEASURES


            Land treatment measures are used to reduce the runoff of water to streams or other areas. Tech-
            niques of land treatment include: maintenance of trees, shrubbery and vegetative cover; terracing;
            slope stabilization; grass waterways; contour plowing; and strip farming. These measures are intended
            to reduce water flow by improving infiltration of rainfall into the soil, thereby slowing and reducing
            runoff and reducing sedimentation that can clog stream channels.or storage reservoirs. While the
            effect of any individual measure is small, extensive land treatment programs can effectively reduce
            flooding in small headwater areas. Land treatment measures are less effective in downstream areas
            subject to larger floods. In addition to reducing flooding, many land treatment measures may also
            reduce off-site pollution caused by the runoff of agricultural chemicals.

            I-and treatment measures are most commonly used in agricultural areas. In areas with steep slopes
            and unstable soils, maintaining a good growth of grass and other vegetation may be the most practical
            way to reduce runoff and erosion. Several land treatment measures involve little or no additional
            cost to the farmer, and some, such as "no-till" or minimum tillage practices, actually reduce farming
            costs. Land treatment measures may be undertaken as either a public or private effort. Efforts that
            require significant expenditures by the land-owner are frequently supported by technical and financial
            assistance from public sources, particularly. programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Flood
            Loss Reduction Associates, 1981). Land treatment measures are both structural and nonstructural.


            STRUCTURAL MEASURES


            Several land treatment measures to reduce runoff and erosion involve creation of structures to retain
            or redirect runoff. Terraces and diversion channels act on-site to limit runoff and reduce erosion,
            while sediment basins and grassed waterways trap sediment and promote infiltration of runoff after
            it leaves the site but before it reaches receiving waters (Clark, 1985).


            Terraces


            Terraces are among the oldest and most common soil erosion control practices, and are needed where
            other types of conservation practices are inadequate or inappropriate. The typical terrace is an
            earthen embankment, or a channel or combination of ridge and channel constructed across a slope.
            Terraces are used to intercept runoff before it can concentrate sufficiently to cause erosion, and then








                    12-40                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                    direct the runoff to a stable outlet. In so doing, terraces trap sediment and associated nutrients and
                    pesticides that would otherwise reach watercourses. The trapped sediment can subsequently be
                    redistributed over the land. As of 1977, terraces were in use on an estimated 31.3 million acres of
                    land, and were being constructed on an average of 600,000 additional acres annually (Highfill, 1983).

                    Disadvantages of terraces include their relatively high costs, particularly the costs of initial construc-
                    tion, and complications that may be caused for farm management. Many terraces built in the past
                    are now being removed from the land because they are incompatible with the large, heavy agricultural
                    machinery now commonly used in the United States (Clark, 1985).


                    Diversion Channels


                    Diversion channels are vegetated channels constructed across the slope of a field to catch water and
                    carry it off the field. They are relatively inexpensive to construct, but must be maintained regularly
                    by mowing the vegetation and periodically removing accumulated sediments (Clark, 1985).


                    Control Basins


                    Control or sediment basins are generally used in fields where terraces are impractical because of the
                    topography. Control basins are designed to control runoff of water and sediment, and are generally
                    designed to accommodate a "10-year" frequency storm. Runoff must be released through infiltration
                    or underground outlets (Highfill, 1983).


                    Grassed Waterways

                    Grassed waterways are natural or constructed channels lined with vegetation to prevent gully
                    formation. They can be effective even on steep land, provided they are seeded with suitable grasses.
                    As with diversion channels, grassed waterways may take some acreage out of crop production and
                    interfere with large farm machinery (Clark, 1985).


                    NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES

                    A variety of nonstructural measures can be used on agricultural land to reduce runoff and erosion.
                    These include tillage practices, cropping patterns, and use of filter or buffer strips.


                    Tillage Practices

                    Tillage practices to reduce runoff and erosion include contouring and conservation tillage practices.
                    Contouring involves plowing, planting, and harvesting along the contours of the land rather than up
                    and down slopes. The furrows catch and hold water, reducing runoff by allowing it to infiltrate into
                    the ground. Contouring is one of the most widely applied and longest used conservation techniques
                    in the United States. As with some structural land treatment measures, however, recent increases








              Modifying Flooding                                                                                 12-41



              in machinery size, farm size, and labor costs have reduced the frequency with which contouring is
              used (Clark, 1985).

              Conservation tillage is a term applied to several practices that reduce soil cultivation and leave a
              protective vegetative layer on the surface. Although conservation tillage is a relatively new technique
              for modern agricultural practice, it has been estimated that about 24 percent of all U.S. cropland was
              in some form of conservation tillage in 1982 (Clark, 1985). The technique appears to be growing
              in popularity as its benefits, including lower economic costs and reduced runoff and erosion, are
              demonstrated. One disadvantage of conservation tillage is the need for increased herbicide applica-
              tions to control weeds.



              Cropping Patterns

              The choice of cropping patterns may also have a significant impact on runoff and erosion, particularly
              when the choice is between row crops that leave large amounts of land uncovered and permit easy
              flow of water, and field crops that provide a soil cover and retard runoff. Crop rotation (e.g.,
              periodically rotating row crops with field crops), cover cropping (planting a cover crop when land
              would otherwise be left fallow), and strip-cropping (planting alternate strips of row crops and grass
              in a field) are all methods that can be used to reduce runoff and erosion (Clark, 1985). Some
              farmers, however, in order to maintain their crop production acreage bases for participation in price
              support and other farm programs, may not have the flexibility to fully use these techniques.


              Filter Strips

              Filter (or buffer) strips are strips of grasses or other conservation vegetation planted along the
              downslope edges of cultivated fields or between fields and adjacent streams. Filter strips may also
              be used in nonagricultural settings to reduce runoff and sedimentation from highways, construction
              sites, and other, areas subject to erosion.



                                           SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


              During the first half of this century, flood control structures served as the primary - indeed, almost
              the only - means of addressing the Nation's flooding problems. Estimates, while not precise, indicate
              that the Nation's large investment in flood control structures has yielded major benefits in lives saved
              and damage prevented.

              During the second half of the century, the number and size of new flood control projects has
              decreased for a variety of reasons. High construction costs coupled with increased cost-sharing
              requirements for nonfederal sponsors have contributed to the lower number of new projects. Also,
              structural measures have been criticized for causing destruction of riparian habitat and other envi-
              ronmental resources, creating potential for catastrophic damage in the event of structural failure, and
              inducing floodplain development. The eventual loss of flood storage capacity due to sedimentation,








                  1242                                      Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  the need to maintain structures, and the length of time required to build federal projects are other
                  conce  rns affecting the use of structural flood control measures. Furthermore, there is now greater
                  recognition that humans can effectively adjust to floods as an alternative to trying tocontrol flooding.

                  As the number of new flood control structures has slowed, the use of other floodplain management
                  measures such as regulations, floodproofing, and warning systems has increased. It appears likely
                  that, for the foreseeable future, the number of new flood control projects may hold steady or decrease
                  further and tha:t relatively few large flood control structures will be built. Nevertheless, increasing
                  flood damages and concentrations of floodplain development indicate a continuing need for invest-
                  ment in structural flood control, along with nonstructural and compensation strategies. Flood control
                  needs that can now be identified are more localized, with greater identifiable local benefits consistent
                  with local and state construction, or larger nonfederal shares for projects with federal participation.

                  Local and private construction of relatively small structural flood control projects is certain to continue
                  and may even increase. Detention and retention basins to regulate runoff from newly developed areas
                  are being used with increasing frequency. Regional variation in use of detention/retention basins and
                  other stormwater management measures is great. In some areas of the country, management
                  techniques are employed on individual lots and small sub-watersheds. In other areas, regional
                  solutions are routinely applied. Achieving effective stormwater management - rather than simply
                  stormwater drainage - in a manner that reduces flood risk while also protecting natural values is
                  a significant challenge. New approaches are being developed - and in some instances rediscov-
                  ered - to provide for efficient runoff or detention of stormwater while simultaneously maintaining
                  or creating valuable wildlife habitat and recreational or open space areas. Greater information
                  sharing is necessary to speed the application of environmentally sensitive techniques for stormwater
                  management.

                  Perhaps the greatest structural issue facing the Nation in the coming decades concerns the aging
                  inventory of existing flood control structures. Many of the existing dams and reservoirs are near or
                  past their design life. The structural integrity of these facilities is of concern, but perhaps even more
                  important is the reduction in reservoir flood control capacity due to anticipated and/or unanticipated
                  sedimentation and the fact that more stringent design standards apply now than when the structures
                  were originally built.

                  State and federal agencies must now face important decisions related to loss of flood storage capacity
                  and the high costs associated with structure maintenance. Local and private owners are also faced
                  with high costs associated with maintenance and repair of dams and other structural measures. Even
                  though federal and state dam safety programs have been greatly strengthened within the last 10 years,
                  financial resources are not available to undertake required remedial actions. One approach being
                  actively considered by the Soil Conservation Service, and used on a limited basis by the SCS and
                  others, is to breach dams that are no longer required.









               CHAPTER 13:


               MODIFYING THE IMPACTS OF
               FLOODING



                   Floods are an act of God, flood damages result from acts of man.

                                                                                                   House Document 465, 1966



               Despite efforts to control flooding and to reduce susceptibility to flooding, floods do occur, with
               adverse consequences on individuals and communities. Therefore, a "third strategy for mitigating
               flood losses consists of actions designed to assist,individuals and communities in their preparatory,
               survival, and recovery responses to floods. Tools' include information dissemination and education,
               arrangements for spreading the costs of the loss over time, and purposeful transfer of some of the
               individual's loss to the community" (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986).



                                              INFORMATION AND EDUCATION2


               Information and education activities for most aspects of floodplain management have expanded
               dramatically since the 1960s. This is illustrated by the vast increase in the number of. publications
               produced and distributed, including technical manuals and brochures and other public information
               materials; conferences, symposiums and workshops held; organizations formed that are directly or
               indirectly involved in floodplain management efforts through flood loss reduction and/or natural
               resources protection efforts; and print and broadcast media presentations. This increase in informa-
               tion has affected both flood loss reduction and natural resources management. Only a limited amount
               of the information produced, however, has served to integrate the flood loss reduction and natural



                   InA Unified National Progran? for Floodplain Management (1986), disaster assistance is listed as a tool under
                   the strategy to modify susceptibility to flooding. For purposes of the Assessment Repoit, disaster assistance
                   is described in this chapter along with other tools to modify the impacts of flooding.

               2   A Unified National Nogram for Floodplain Management groups information and education with other tools
                   under the strategy to modify the impacts of flooding. Information and education are actually components
                   of every strategy and tool for floodplain management, and in the Assessment Report have been addressed
                   directly or indirectly in the descriptions of most floodplain management tools. Additional descriptions of
                   information and education topics not specific to other floodplain management tools are provided in this
                   section of this chapter. Mapping of floodplains and related resources - a major information-related
                   activity - is described in chapters 6 and 11.








                   13-2                                     Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                   resources protection aspects of floodplain management efforts. Flood loss reduction and natural
                   resources protection efforts have generally been integrated to a greater extent in coastal areas than
                   in riverine areas.


                   As one indication of the amount of floodplain management information produced, Table 13-1 shows
                   the number of flood and other hazard-related publications listed by the Natural Hazards Research
                   and Application Information Center (NHRAIC) at the University of Colorado, Boulder for the years
                   1975-1987.



                   FEDERAL ACTMIIES


                   Federal agencies have directly developed or sponsored much of the original information that today
                   provides the base of data on which floodplain management activities are built. The range of federal
                   information and education involvement includes such diverse activities as publication of A Unified
                   National Program for Floodplain Management, highly technical design and application manuals,
                   research reports, computerized data bases, and public awareness materials. As just one example of
                   the continuing flow of information, the National Science Foundation (NSF) recently released a
                   package of information on natural hazards, including a summary report on natural hazards research
                   recommendations, bibliographic data base software, and computer data files on recent major research
                   reports (Butler, 1989). The total volume of materials produced and distributed, and the total number
                   of individuals trained may be greater at the state level, but much of the basic information has
                   originated with federal agencies.

                   Federal agencies have also been very active in providing training in various aspects of floodplain
                   management. Each agency trains its own personnel in agency programs and activities. In addition,
                   federal agencies have been very active in providing and supporting literally hundreds of conferences,
                   seminars, and workshops on every aspect of floodplain management. The Corps of Engineers
                   (Corps), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Weather Service (NWS),
                   Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and U.S. Geological Survey
                   (USGS) have been particularly active in lending their financial and technical support to a wide range
                   of conferences, symposiums, workshops, and other educational activities that reach floodplain
                   management professionals at all levels of government and in the private sector, and affected
                   floodplain residents as well.

                   One of the major training programs is operated by FEMA at its Emergency Management Institute
                   (EMI) in Emmitsburg, Maryland. Through this training facility, FEMA has provided training to
                   hundreds of state and local government personnel across the country, as well as representatives of
                   the private sector. Courses have included training in general floodplain management, postflood
                   recovery, hazard mitigation teams, disaster assistance programs, operation of disaster application
                   centers, preparation of Section 406 plans, hazard mitigation planning, and other activities. To reach
                   a greater audience, several of the training courses initially conducted at the EMI have been modified
                   for use by FEMA regional offices and by state agencies (Federal Emergency Management Agency,
                   1988).










                     Table 13-1.            NHRAIC Annotated Bibliographies of Hazards Publications, 1975-1987.



                                                                            1975-76     1976-77     1977-78     1978-79      1979-80    1980-81   1981-82    1982-83      1983-84    1984-85    1985-86     1986-87

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ell
                      CLIMATE AND DROUGHT                                        11            7          7            15         19          15         12         7            12        13        16            21

                      COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING                         4           12         9            17         19          12         12         9            12        5         15            16                *T1

                      EARTHQUAKES AND TSUNAMIS                                   59            20       48             34         54          47         65       52             49        40        59            68


                      FLOODS                                                     60            28       54             45         60          37         31       36             39        25        32            32


                      HURRICANES, CYCLONES, TORNADOES AND
                      SEVERE STORMS                                              11            9        20             22         13          18         11       13             16        12        19            16


                      LANDSLIDE AND OTHER MASS EARTH MOVEMENTS                     3           0          4            7          4           7          9          5            6         10        12            7


                      MISCELLANEOUS HAZARDS                                                                                                                                                5b        25b           24b
                              AVALANCHES                                           3           0          0            0          0           0          0          0            0         0          0            0
                              COASTAL ZONE HAZARD AND EROSION                      4           0          0            0          0           0          0          0            0         0          0            0
                              GENERAL                                              2           0          5            14         4           0          27       21             25        0          0            0


                      MuLn-HAZARDS
                              BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION                     0           8          a            1          4           6          3          0            0         0          0            0
                              GENERAL                                            41            10       36             40         36          9          53       45             57        42        54            71
                              HAZARDS PLANNING                                     0           4        10             6          13          15         2          7            11        10         7            0
                              HEALTH AND MEDICAL                                   0           4          9            10         9           15         8          8            15        10        21            17
                              LAND-USE                                             6           9          8            7          10          2          1        52             0         0          0


                      TECHNICAL HAZARDS                                            0           0          0            0          0           0          0          0            0         19        22            27


                      VOLCANOES                                                    7           0          4            0          18          16         14       11             7         5          7            6


                      WATER RESOURCES AND WETLANDS MANAGEMENT                      0           2          0            7          8           7          7          5            20        9         11            9


                                                     TOTAL                      211         113        222          225         271         216       255        224          271        205         300           314


                      (b) Not divided into sub-categories.


                            Source:     Morton, David R. A Selected Bibliography of Recent Hazards Publications. (Issues 1975-76 through 1986-87). Natural Hazards Research and Application Information Center.
                                        Boulder, Colorado: University of Colorado, 1988.








                    13-4                                        Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                    STATE AND LOCAL ACTWITIES

                    Since about 1970, states have released literally thousands of documents relating to floodplain
                    management. Many of these are based on documents published by federal agencies such as FEMA,
                    the Corps, the SCS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and others. In this manner,
                    information prepared by the federal agencies receives much wider distribution than it otherwise would,
                    and the information can be tailored to the particular legal, administrative, and geographic situations
                    of each state. In 1988, the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), with funding support
                    from federal agencies and private sources, initiated a Floodplain Management Resource Center
                    located at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The Resource Center became operational during
                    the first half of 1989 and includes a collection of floodplain management publications with a comput-
                    erized indexing system to quickly locate appropriate references (Watson, 1988, 1990)1.

                    Table 13-2 displays three types of information and education activities related to flood loss reduction
                    and provided by states as indicated by a 1988 survey. These activities are: 1) providing information
                    in response to inquiries ("1"); 2) publishing manuals, handouts, or other publications ("P"); and 3)
                    conducting training workshops or conferences ("T"). The activities may be directed toward local
                    officials, insurance agents and lenders, and property owners, and may also be in response to insurance
                    questions from the general public. Several specific examples of state information and education
                    activities are provided below (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988).

                                        Mzona maintains a community status report and a list of local administrators on a personal
                                        computer. The data file also includes areas.currently being mapped, areas to be studied
                                        under FEMA's Limited Map Maintenance Program (LMMP), and other areas for which
                                        communities have requested detailed mapping information. Restudy areas are listed by
                                        priority and cosVbenefits.


                    Almost every state is active in assisting and providing information to local officials on a variety of
                    floodplain management topics, especially floodplain regulations typically addressed through the local
                    code enforcement staff.

                    The second most common topic for information requests/assistance is flood insurance. Most states
                    will answer questions on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and several have published
                    manuals or hand-outs to help respond to requests for information. Examples include: "Flood
                    Insurance Facts - A Consumer Guide to the National Flood Insurance Program in Missouri," "Flood
                    Insurance Facts to Help You" published by the Kansas Insurance Department, and Louisiana's
                    "Homeowner's Guide to the National Flood Insurance Program."

                    Insurance agents and lenders are also helped, as one state official noted, "because we have to answer
                    the phone." Eight states conduct training sessions for agents and lenders.

                                      Texas imites lenders, agents, realtors, and others to workshops on the NFIP, tailored to the
                        ls@           host county's flood situation.








                Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                                        13-5



                Table 13-2.        State Activities in Floodplain Management Information and Education.


                                                               LOCAL             INSURANCE AGENTS & PROPERTY
                                                              OFFICIALS          QUESTIONS        LENDERS         OWNERS


                                 Alabama                         I,T                  I                                I
                                 Alaska                          I,T,P                I                I,T             I
                                 Arizona                         I,P,T                I                                I
                                 Arkansas                        I,T                  I
                                 California                      I,TP                 I,TP             I,T             I,TP

                                 Colorado                        I,TP                 I                I               I,TP
                                 Connecticut                     I,TP                 I                I               I
                                 Delaware                        I
                                 District of Columbia            N/A                  I                                I
                                 Florida                         I,T                  I                I
                                 Geor&j*a                        I'T                  I                Ij              I
                                 Hawaii                          I                    I                I               I
                                 Idaho                           Ij                   I                I
                                 Illinois                        I,T,P                I,P              I               I,TP
                                 Indiana                         I,TP                 I,P              I,P             I,P

                                 Iowa                            IT                   I                I               I
                                 Kansas                          I:T                  IP
                                 Kentucky                        I,TP                 IP               I
                                 Louisiana                       IP                   I:P                              P
                                 Maine                           I:T                  I                I               I
                                 Maryland                        I,TP                 I                I,P             I,P
                                 Massachusetts                   Ij                   I                                P
                                 Michigan                        I,TP                 I,TP             I,P             I,P
                                 Minnesota                       I,TP                 I                                P
                                 Mississippi                     I                    I
                                 Missouri                        I,T,P                P                                I,TP
                                 Montana                         I,TP                 Lp               I,T             I,P
                                 Nebraska                        I,TP                 I                I'T             P
                                 Nevada                          I                    I                I
                                 New Hampshire                   LT
                                 New Jers@y                      I'T                                                   I,T
                                 New Mexico
                                 New York                        1,T,P                I                LT              I
                                 North Carolina                  1,T,P                I                T               I
                                 North Dakota                    LT                   I                i,
                                 Ohio                            I,T,P                I                I               I
                                 Oklahoma                        LT                   IP               I
                                 Oregon                          I,T
                                 Pennsylvania                    1,T,P                I,P              I               I,P
                                 Rhode Island                    LTIP                 I                I               I
                                 South Carolina                  Ij                                                    I,TP
                                 South Dakota                    LT                   I                I
                                 Tennessee                       Ij                   I                                I
                                 Texas                           I,TP                 I,P              I,T             I,P
                                 Utah                            I1TP                 I                                IP

                                 Vermont                         I'T                  I
                                 Virginia                        I
                                 Washington                      I,T
                                 West Virginia
                                 Wisconsin                       I,TP
                                 Wyoming                         I

                                 I=        Provide information in response to inquiries
                                 P=        Publications or manuals
                                 T=        Training worksbops or conferences


                        Source:   Association of State Floodplain managers. "State Floodplain Management Programs. Results of a Survey Conducted by
                                  the Association of State Floodplain Managers for LR. Johnston Associates," 1988.








                     13-6                                         Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                     Property owners need information on the NFIP, floodproofing, flood emergency preparedness, and
                     other methods to protect themselves from flood loss. A few states provide guidance on flood
                     protection.


                                       In Tennessee, a community planner will visit a site upon request, recommend actions, and
                                       direct the owner to more information or help.


                                       An interesting example of the use of specialized publications is from Maryland. The Maryland
                                       Department of Natural Resources created "Farley Floodhound," a cartoon character who
                                       appears in a coloring book and helps "flood pups" learn flood safety Ups.



                     Most states that do advise property owners do so with publications such as floodproofing manuals.
                     This approach helps the state reach a large audience and avoids the concern of many state officials
                     that they may be liable for damages if a property owner takes their advice and is later flooded.

                     One very helpful information activity is to advise potential property purchasers or renters, as well
                     as realtors, lenders and builders, about the flood hazard. Several states distribute brochures prepared
                     by the TVA, others have prepared their own brochures. Examples include: "Suggestions for
                     Prospective Buyers of Waterfront Property in Rural Wisconsin" and Minnesota's "Before You Buy
                     or Build in the Floodplain: What You Should Know." Other states require more direct action.


                                       Arizona is preparing a short course for real estate agents to be presented at local real estate
                                       schools.




                                       In Wisconsin, if a property is shown as floodprone on NFIP maps, state law requires realtors
                                       to make that fact known to prospective property buyers.




                                       Oklahoma's legislature passed a law in 1986 that requires: "if the premises to be rented has
                                       been flooded within the past rive years and such fact is known to the landlord, the landlord
                                       shall include such information prominently and in writing as part of any written rental
                                       agreements."








              Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                    13-7




              PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITIES

              Private sector activities with regard to information and education have also increased dramatically.
              This is particularly evident in the number of nonprofit and professional organizations formed in recent
              years to provide information and education on some aspect of floodplain management. Tables 7-2
              and 7-3 in Chapter 7 list many of the national organizations concerned with floodplain management.
              Table 7-1 lists the major academic institutions with research or educational programs for the study
              of natural hazards and emergency management, including floodplain management. These organiza-
              tions and institutions are active in conducting research, producing publications, holding conferences
              and workshops, and providing a network for professionals to exchange information.


              EFFECTIVENESS OF INFORMATION AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES


              The effectiveness of information and education activities is difficult to assess. An individual assess-
              ment of the effectiveness of activities for each specific purpose would be necessary, and this type of
              assessment has not been undertaken. Most research on hazards-related information and education
              has focused on the effectiveness of warnings issued to the public. This research has shown that
              information regarding floods and other hazards is most accepted if disseminated by a recognized and
              credible authority (possibly a local mayor, for example), if the information provided is consistent, and
              if the information is repeated frequently and through various media. Research has further indicated
              that friends and relatives have a strong influence on an individual's acceptance of the information
              provided.

              Concern is frequently expressed regarding the lack of basic understanding by local officials and
              property owners of the need for floodplain management. Many people simply do not have a good
              understanding of concepts of probability, cumulative impacts, off-site impacts, and functional values -
              all of which are important to understanding various aspects of floodplain management. As long as
              the majority of the public - those living in floodplains as well as those who do not - fail to
              understand the need for proper floodplain management, the effectiveness of information and
              education efforts for specific management activities will fall short of desired goals. Finding the best
              means of informing and educating people regarding floods, floodplains, and floodplain management
              will remain a challenge.



                                                    FLOOD INSURANCE


              Insurance is a mechanism for spreading the cost of losses over time and over a relatively large number
              of similarly exposed risks. Until 1969, insurance against flood losses was generally unavailable. Under
              the National Flood Insurance Program initiated in 1968 and significantly expanded in 1973, the federal
              government makes flood insurance available for existing property in flood hazard areas. This
              insurance is available in return for local enactment and enforcement of floodplain management
              regulations designed to reduce future flood losses and regulate new development in the designated
              flood hazard areas (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986).








                    13-8                                     Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                    NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

                    The National Flood Insurance Program was authorized by Congress in the National Flood Insurance
                    Act (NFIA) of 1968. The program is administered by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA),
                    originally as part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and since 1979
                    as part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The NFIP does far more than simply provide
                    flood insurance. It encompasses a broad program of floodplain management activities, including
                    performance of flood risk studies and preparation of maps of flood hazard areas, as well as provision
                    of technical assistance for many purposes (e.g., floodproofing) to states and communities. In addition,
                    the NFIP establishes requirements for participating communities to adopt minimum floodplain
                    regulations. NFIP activities in addition to flood insurance activities are described in other chapters
                    of the Assessment Report. The total program of the NFIP has probably been the most dominant
                    influence on floodplain management over the past 15 years.


                    Eligibility for Flood Insurance

                    Flood insurance is made available for both structures and the contents of structures within each
                    community that participates in the NFIP. When the NFIP was first established, participation in the
                    program was restricted to communities for which a flood risk assessment study (called a Flood In-
                    surance Study or FTS) had been completed. Because FISs were detailed and time-consuming, few
                    communities were able to join the program immediately.

                    The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1969 expanded participation in the NFIP by authorizing
                    an "Emergency Program" providing insurance coverage at nonactuarial, federally subsidized rates
                    in limited amounts during the period prior to completion of a community's FIS. To participate in
                    the Emergency Program, communities were required to adopt and enforce only minimal floodplain
                    management standards.

                    To increase community participation in the NFIP and to achieve other objectives, the Flood Disaster
                    Protection Act of 1973 amended the NFIP in several ways. First, it required the FIA to formally
                    notify all floodprone communities of their flood hazards as a means of encouraging program
                    participation; second, it substantially increased the limits of insurance coverage; and third, it intro-
                    duced provisions for withholding certain federal benefits from flood      prone communities that chose
                    not to participate in the NFIP and from owners of floodprone structures unwilling to purchase flood
                    insurance. Following these program amendments, participation in the NFIP grew rapidly. As of
                    November 30, 1990, a total of 18,023 communities were participating in the Program: 280 in the
                    Emergency Program and 17,743 in the Regular PrograM3           (Matticks, 1990).

                    Flood insurance is not restricted to structures located within the designated floodplain subject to a
                    one percent annual chance flood, but is available for any eligible structure located in a community
                    participating in the NFIP.



                    3  See the section on Floodplain Regulations in Chapter 11 for a description of the differences between the
                       Emergency and Regular phases of the NFIP.








              Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                    13-9



              Mandatory Purchase Requirements.

              In general, purchase of flood insurance is voluntary. However, any federally regulated or insured
              financial institution (primarily banks and savings and loan institutions) that provides financial
              assistance for the purchase of property located in the one percent annual chance floodplain of a
              community participating in the NFIP must require that flood insurance be purchased and maintained
              for the property. Lenders must determine if the property is located in a floodplain, notify the
              borrower, and require insurance. Since there is no penalty for a lender that fails to comply, however,
              there is no real economic incentive for most lenders to be diligent in following this requirement. In
              fact, there is considerable evidence to indicate that this requirement is generally not being met. NFIP
              statistics show that only a small percentage of structures in special flood hazard areas have insurance,
              and a recent postdisaster study by FEMA showed a high rate of failure by lenders to apply the
              requirements.

              There are several adverse consequences of this failure on the part of many lending institutions:

              ï¿½  Far fewer flood insurance policies are sold than would be otherwise, reducing the total pool of
                 policy holders, and negatively affecting the flood insurance program.
              ï¿½  Individuals without flood insurance and who are subsequently flooded may receive disaster
                 .assistance that might otherwise be unnecessary, thereby creating an unnecessary drain on federal,
                 state, local, and private funds.
              ï¿½  Individuals may be moving into the floodplain without adequate knowledge of the hazard or of
                 the added costs they may face due to flood insurance and other possible costs. The prospective
                 owner may therefore not have an opportunity to decide against acquiring property based on
                 knowledge of vulnerability to flooding.
              ï¿½  Lenders face possible lawsuits if the property owner subsequently sustains flood damages.


              To address these concerns, the following actions can be considered:

              ï¿½  Modify existing federal legislation to impose financial penalties on lenders.
              ï¿½  Provide greater training and education for lenders regarding their responsibilities and liability.
              ï¿½  Provide mechanisms that will make it easier for lenders to make the floodplain determination.
              ï¿½  Impose requirements on real estate brokers to disclose if a property is located in a special flood
                 hazard area and that flood insurance may be required.
                 Require that the location of the property within a special flood hazard area be filed with the
                 deed to the property.
                 Encourage greater involvement by the private sector. Several firms are already operating
                 throughout the country to provide map determinations to banks, individuals, and local govern-
                 ments.
                 Provide some legal mechanism to assure state and local government officials that they will not
                 face liability if they provide assistance in making map determinations and someone is later
                 flooded.








                   13-10                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                   Rates and Limits of Coverage.

                   The federal government established the NFIP in 1968 because flood insurance was generally not
                   available to floodplain residents. Private insurance companies had found it unprofitable to provide
                   flood insurance, since only those individuals who were most susceptible to flooding were willing to
                   purchase the insurance. To make flood insurance available at a reasonable cost, the federal
                   government, through the NFIP, provides insurance at subsidized rates for structures existing before
                   detailed information on the flood hazard was available. The federal government pays for all claims
                   up to the level of coverage, minus the deductible selected by the policyholder when purchasing the
                   flood insurance policy. Insurance rates are not subsidized for new structures built after Flood
                   Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the community are prepared              .4 One goal of the NFIP is to
                   gradually reduce the level of subsidy until the entire program can operate on an actuarial basis.

                   Insurance premiums are based on the location of a structure within the floodplain, and are deter-
                   mined primarily by the height of the structure's first floor relative to the height of floodwater during
                   a base (one percent annual chance) flood. Higher rates apply to structures subject to velocity waters
                   (structures within V-zones). New and substantially improved structures in the floodplain are subject
                   to higher rates than structures already in the floodplain at the time a community joined the NFIP.
                   Since 1974, flood insurance rates have increased several times to reduce the amount of the federal
                   subsidy and bring the cost of flood insurance closer to true actuarial rates. Table 13-3 shows NFIF
                   rate revisions since 1974. In early 1988, the Administrator of the FIA announced that premium rates
                   would remain stable for at least two years, and that the FLA, "has been successful in achieving the
                   goal of making the NFIP self-supporting for the historical average loss year." The average annual
                   premium increased from about $75/year in 1981 to about $265/year in 1988. This increase is partially
                   due to an increase in the average amount of insurance coverage purchased, which is currently over
                   $80,000; up from about $55,000 five years ago (Watson, 1989).

                   Insurance coverage is provided for both structures and contents. The amount of insurance available
                   depends on whether a community is participating in the Emergency or Regular Phase of the NFIP.
                   Table 13-4 shows the maximum amounts of flood insurance available for different types of structures
                   for both the Emergency and Regular phases of the NFIP. Some changes in coverage have been made
                   since the program was initiated, particularly to increase the deductible and limit coverage available
                   for the contents of basements.



                   Number of Policies and Claims


                   Although flood insurance coverage is now available through local insurance agents or brokers in over
                   18,000 communities that participate in the NFIP, only one-quarter to one-third of the approximately
                   nine million U.S. buildings exposed to flooding risks are insured.





                   4  Structures built before December 31, 1974, however, may also be insured using subsidized rates, even if
                      the FIRM for the community was issued prior to that date.








               Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                        13-11



               Table 13-3.      National Flood Insurance Program Rate Revisions Since January 1, 1974.



                                                                   PERCENT
                                        EFFECTIVE DATE              CHANGE            INDEX

                                        1973                                            1.00
                                        January 1, 1974                   -44           0.56
                                        July 1, 1974                      -4            0.54
                                        January 1, 1981                   34            0.72
                                        October 1, 1981                   28            0.92
                                        June 1, 1982                      20            1.10
                                        October 1, 1983                   11            1.22
                                        March 1, 1986                       6           1.29
                                        October 1, 1986                     6           1.37
                                        June 1, 1987                        5           1.44
                                        September 1, 1988                 10            1.63


                       Source: U.S. General Accounting office. Flood Insurance: Statistics on the National F" Insurance Prozram Fact Sheet for
                               Congressional Requesters. GAO/RCED48455FS, 1988.





               At the end of calendar year 1987, there were a total of 2,056,680 policies in force with
               $113,843,556,592 of insurance coverage (Flood Insurance Producers National Committee, 1988).
               Table 13-5 shows the number of policies and insurance coverage, by state, in 1987. At the end of
               1990 there were 2.39 million policies in force with $201 billion in coverage. A state-by-state break-
               down of policies and coverage is not available at this time (Federal Emergency Management Agency,
               1991).

               From 1978 through 1989, a total of over 384,000 claims were paid with a value in excess of $3.1
               billion. Table 13-6 lists, by state, the number and amount of claims paid for the period of 1978-1987.

               As shown in Table 13-7, the difference between net receipts from policy premiums and claims
               payments varies substantially from year to year. For the period 1978 to 1989, the net operating deficit
               or surplus ranged from a deficit of $261 per policy in 1979, to a surplus of $98 per policy in 1987.
               A surplus of premiums over claims payments was realized in fiscal years 1986, 1987 and 1988. As
               of October 1, 1988, the flood insurance fund was operating with a net surplus of $450 million.
               According to the FIA, the surplus generated in 1986-1988 resulted from a combination of rate
               increases and relatively low flood losses, and the accumulated surplus provides a reserve for years
               with catastrophic losses (Federal Insurance Administration, 1988).








                         13-12                                                   Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                         Table 13-4.             Maximum Amounts of Flood Insurance Available.



                                                                                                         AMOUNT AVAILABLE
                                             PROGRAM -
                                             AND BUILDING TYPE                                   BUILDING(a)               CONTENTS(a,b)

                                             Emergency Program:
                                                  Single-  *family residence(c)                          $35,000                     $10,000
                                                  Other residential(c,d)                                 100,000                      10,000
                                                  Nonresidential(e)                                      100,000                     100,000

                                             Regular Program:
                                                  Single-family residence                                185,000                      60,000
                                                  2-4 family residence                                   250,000                      60,000
                                                  Other residential(f)                                   250,000                      60,000
                                                  Small business(g)                                      250,000                     300,000
                                                  Other nonresidential(h)                                200,000                     200,000


                                             (a)  The maximum flood insurance available is set forth by the National Flood Insurance Act
                                                  of 1968 (P.L 90-448), as amended by the Disaster Assistance Act of 1973 (P.L 93-234).

                                             (b)  Jimit per unit.

                                             (c). Higher maximum amounts are available in Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, and the U.S. Virgin
                                                  Islands.

                                             (d)  A residential building, excluding hotels and motels with normal room rentals for less than
                                                  6 months, that contains 2 or more dwelling units.

                                             (e)  A nonresidential building includes, but -is not limited to: small businesses, churches,
                                                  schools, nursing homes, farm buildings, government buildings, mercantile structures,
                                                  industrial plants, and warehouses.

                                             (f)  A residential building, excluding hotels and motels with normal room rentals for less than
                                                  6 months, containing more than 4 dwelling units.

                                             (g)  A business, together with its affiliates, that does not have a net worth in excess of $6
                                                  million, and does not have an average net income, after federal income taxes (excluding
                                                  any carry-over losses) for the preceding two years in excess of $2 million.

                                             (h)  A nonresidential building other than a small business.



                                    Source:      U.S. General Accounting Office. Flood InsulInce: Statistics on the National Flood Insurance Program Fact Sheet for
                                                 Congressional Requesters. GAOIRCED-98-i55FS, 1998.







                         Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                                                                                 13-13



                         Table 13-5.                     Number of Flood Insurance Policies and Amount of Insurance by State, 1987.

                                                                                CALENDAR YEAR 1987
                                                                          DIRECT AND WYO(b) COMBINED


                                                                 NUMBER OF             AMOUNT OF                WRITTEN
                                         STATE(a)                     POLICIES         INSURANCE                PREMIUM

                                         Alabama                          17,176       $ 738,556,687            $ 4,556,898
                                         Alaska                           Z172            6ZO44,958             474,452
                                         Arizona                          20,857          675,930,819           4,937,291
                                         Arkansas                         6A82            113,153,031           1,48Z606
                                         California                       110,700      3@449,831,921            30,311,748


                                         Colorado                         8@232           186,899,201           Z228,008
                                         Connecticut                      17,573          574,394,040           6,321,552
                                         Delaware                         6@710           491,580,924           Z129,550
                                         Dist. of Columbia                      42           .720,479             28,775
                                         Florida                          714,327      53,059,644,551           198,650,415


                                         Georgia                          19,930       1,06Z021,325             5,066,186
                                         Guam                                   26             11,303              7,773
                                         Hawaii                           9,254           416,975,358           3,576,794
                                         Idaho                            1,694           33,613,292            393,071
                                         Illinois                         23,484          399,938,881           5,65Z207

                                         Indiana                          IZ706           197,955,390           ;8ZA2
                                         Iowa                             4,450           67,707,633            1,044,600
                                         Kansas                           6,882           7ZO28,244             1,505,797
                                         Kentucky                         13j961          401,646,758           3,434,637
                                         Louisiana                        240,783      13,829,024,764           55,330,229

                                         Maine                            5,290           175,227,036           1,553,924
                                         Maryland                         2Z929        1,273,345,242            6,138,474
                                         Massachusetts                    25,250          347,496,629           8,395,941
                                         Michigan                         17,354          43Z677,825            4,152,490
                                         Minnesota                        4,899           91,115,034            1,20,843

                                         Mississippi                      3Z868        1,521,793,482            7,254,782
                                         Missouri                         14,552          209,331,660           3,631,236
                                         Montana                          1,428           IZ413,560             317,296
                                         Nebraska                         7,488           135,585,148           1,528,809
                                         Nevada                           5,395           100,341,432           1,321,177

                                         New Hampshire                    Z956            65,041,379            898,482
                                         New Jersey                       113,770      5,618,093,264            34,247,492
                                         New Mexico                       4,638           85,896,683            1,015,034
                                         New York                         6Z356        1,738,759,341            17,908,263
                                         North Carolina                   A066         1,621,196,678            9,793,509

                                         North Dakota                     5,130           4433,114              1,153,921
                                         Ohio                             14,358          223,716,503           3,459,521
                                         Oklahoma                         11,494          219,167,324           Z78Z920
                                         Oregon                           5,505           95,17Z922             1,37ZS70
                                         Pennsylvania                     55,405       1,431,833,803            14,715,636

                                         Puerto Rico                      8,007           14,2Z7,639            1,545,629
                                         Rhode Island                     7,629           185,259,656           Z753,574
                                         South Carolina                   46,361       4,151,536,594            IZ660,585
                                         South Dakota                        817          10,189,974            185,309
                                         Tennessee                        6,687           177,822,915           1,640,044
                                         Texas                            225,275      15,327,249,Z75           59,9OZ831            (a)    "State," as defined by FEMA program
                                         Utah                             1,552           25,204,318            385,504                     regulations, means any state, the District
                                         Vermont                          Z013            46,918,293            529,374                     of Columbia, the territories and posses-
                                         Virgin Islands                   1,764           26,70ZS74             513,593                     sions of the United States, the Common-
                                         Virginia                         36,368       2,068,974,649            8@910,08                    wealth of Puerto Rico, and the Trust
                                         Washington                       10,442          14Z729,050            2,5a498                     Territory of the Pacific Islands.
                                         West Virginia                    a330            274,550,039           3,430,325
                                         Wisconsin                        6,297           75,310,508            1,52A399             (b)    Write Your Own Program. See pages 13-
                                         Wyoming                          1,396           26,573,514            343,550                     25 and 13-26 for a description of this pro-
                                         TOTAL                        Z056,680 S113j843,556,592            $539,691,544                     gram.


                                                         Source: Flood Insurance Producers National Committee. FIPNC. Vol 11, Bulletin #3, November 1988.








                                13-14                                                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                                Table 13-6.                  Number and Amount of Flood Claims Paid by State, 1978-1987.


                                                                                                                      TEN YEARS 1918 - 1987
                                                                                                                   NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF
                                                                                                                       FLOOD CLAIMS PAID


                                                                                                                  NUMBER OF               AMOUNTOF
                                                                                         STATE                   CLAIMS PAID            CLAIMS PAID


                                                                                         Alabama                             7,258            $ 97,805,791
                                                                                         Alaska                                  54              32ZS39
                                                                                         Arizona                             1,395            14,064,010
                                                                                         Arkansas                            1,457            10,800,307
                                                                                         California                          10,703           IMS46,266


                                                                                         Colorado                              426             3,2Z3,467
                                                                                         Connecticut                         5,709            34,906,126
                                                                                         Delaware                              423             1,929,167
                                                                                         DiSt. of Columbia                        7              101,518
                                                                                         Florida                             25,652           165,125,349

                                                                                         Georgia                             1,318             8,455,396
                                                                                         Guam                                     2                17,492
                                                                                         Hawaii                                115            10,354,101
                                                                                         Idaho                                 117               499,193
                                                                                         Illinois                            15,145           81,307,867

                                                                                         Indiana                             Z901             13,289,339
                                                                                         Iowa                                  860             3,101,421
                                                                                         Kansas                              1,698            JZ957,557
                                                                                         Kentucky                            5,075            48,913,951
                                                                                         Louisiana                           63,341           502,019,965

                                                                                         Maine                               1,643            15XI,597
                                                                                         Maryland                            Z355             21,959,402
                                                                                         Massachusetts                       7,120            40,890,955
                                                                                         Michigan                            4,945            23,999,710
                                                                                         Minnesota                           Z419             16,518,655

                                                                                         Mississippi                         13,176           108,496,982
                                                                                         Missouri                            16,486           113,043,717
                                                                                         Montana                               575             1,943,610
                                                                                         Nebraska                            1,501             9,460,795
                                                                                         Nevada                                208             1,891,589

                                                                                         New Hampshire                         708             3,729,914
                                                                                         New Jersey                          18,594           117,979,379
                                                                                         New Mexico                            123               490,587
                                                                                         New York                            29,239           105,271,504
                                                                                         North Carolina                      Z925             15,495,7921

                                                                                         North Dakota                        Z275              9,7KS73
                                                                                         Ohio                                5,850            29,549,982
                                                                                         Oklahoma                            4,165            60,986,298
                                                                                         Oregon                                466             Z404,346
                                                                                         Pennsylvania                        1Z784            61,971,275

                                                                                         Puerto Rico                         8,()89           32,200,608
                                                                                         Rhode Island                          859             7,828,172
                                                                                         South Carolina                      Z730             10,324,333
                                                                                         South Dakota                          347             It,103,419
                                                                                         Tennessee                           1,421             %482,M

                                                                                         Texas                               55,862           575,588,046
                                                                                         Utah                                  436             4,439,661
                                                                                         Vermont                               330             1,403,419
                                                                                         Virgin Islands                        529             8,482,208
                                                                                         Virginia                            4,360            59,077,329

                                                                                         Washington                          1,307            13,196,518
                                                                                         West Virginia                       6,975            67,7AS31
                                                                                         Wisconsin                             949             3,295,144
                                                                                         Wyoming                               152             1,038,852

                                                                                         TOTAL                             356,149        $Z657,819,907


                                                     Source:       Flood Insurance Producers National Committee. FIPNC- Vol. 11, Bulletin #3, November 1998.








                   Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                                                                13-15



                    Table 13-7.            National Flood Insurance Program:                                 Underwriting Experience by Calendar
                                           Year/Accident Year, 1978-1987.




                                                                                           1978            1979               1980               1981              1982


                      1)   AVERAGE AMT. OF INS. PER POLICY                              $33,150          $37,650           $45,101            $50,883            $55,169
                      2)   EARNED PREMIUM                                           $81,813,509    $125,483,655       $149,179,251       $180,984,641      $247,700,475
                      3)   LOSSES INCURRED                                         $147,672,767    $483,237,012       $230,341,570       $127,100,112      $198,243,095
                      4)   LOSS ADJUSTER EXPENSE                                     $7,914,631     $22,501,561        $13,563,102         $7,775,372        $11,140,752
                      5)   LOSS AND LOSS ADJUSTER RATIO                                   1.902            4.030              1.635             0.745              0.945
                      6A)  INSURANCE AGENT COMMISSION - DIRECT                      $13,515,233     $20,729,357        $25,435,596        $29,280,077        $4Z209,515
                      6B) AGENT COMMISSION ALLOWANCE - WYO                                  NA               NA                NA                 NA                 NA
                      7A)  GENERAL EXPENSE - DIRECT (a)                             $13,924,450     $16,536,232         25,599,361        $31,117,236        $28,290,194
                      7B) OPERATING ALLOWANCE - WYO                                         NA               NA                NA                 NA                 NA
                      8)   PROFIT TO SERVICING FACILITY                              $1,017,623      $1,390,706         $2,596,091         $1,767,883         $Z85Z968
                      9)   EARNED EXPOSURE                                           $1,059,761      $1,624,268          1,953,211          1,967,255          1,89Z266
                      10)  AVERAGE PREMIUM                                              $77.20           $77.26             $76.38            $92.00             $130.90
                      11)  AVERAGE OPERATING COST OTHER THAN
                           AGENT COMMISSION AND LOSS
                           ADJUSTER EXPENSE (b)                                         $14.10           $11.04             $1&48             $16.72              $16.46
                      12)  AVERAGE INSURANCE AGENTS
                           COMMISSION (c)                                               $12.75           $IZ76              $13.02            $14.88              $22.31
                      13)  AVERAGE LOSS AND LOSS ADJUSTER
                           COST PER POLICY                                              $146.81         $311.36            $124.87            $6&56             $110.65
                      14)  OPERATING PROFITI(DEFICIT) PER POLICY
                           (d)                                                         ($96.47)       ($257.91)           ($7&00)             ($&16)            ($1&52)
                                                                                                                                                           (Continued)



                                         (a)      Includes $2,391,144 for development, printing and distribution of the new flood
                                                  insurance manual and the business system to support its implementation, for 1980.

                                         (b)      Operation cost is funded on an ongoing basis (starting in 1981) by the collection of an
                                                  expense constant from each policyholder.

                                         (c)      A savings of $571,260 in commission was negotiated with the insurance agents of Puerto
                                                  Rico by the FIA in connection with 57,126 policyholders who were required to purchase
                                                  insurance as a condition of federal disaster relief, for 1990.

                                         (d)      Prior to the 1990 analysis, a positive number on this line represented an operating deficit
                                                  per policy.



                            Sources:     National Flood Insurance Association. 1970-77 Financial and Statistical Reports; EDS Federal Corporation (Servicing
                                         Facility), as presented by CSCs EAIS. 1978-79 Financial and Statistical Reports; CSQ Servicing Facility through its
                                         EAIS, 1980-89 Financial and Statistical Reports.








                            13-16                                                     Applkation of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                            Table 13-7.            (Cont.) National Flood Insurance Program: Underwriting Experience by Calendar
                                                   Year/Accident Year, 1978-1987.




                                                                                                1983            1984               1985              1986              1987


                            1)   AVERAGE AMT. OF INS. PER POLICY                             $58,105         S61,862           S66,898             $71,110            $76,700
                            2)   EARNED PREMIUM                                         $313,023,597     $334,865,116      $364,767,808       $403,326,133      S452,675,995
                            3)   LOSSES INCURRED (f)                                    $439,457,608     $254,599,652      $368,977,214       $126,936,225      S104,659,319
                            4)   LOSS ADJUSTER EXPENSE (f)                               $21,361,786      $11,206,399      $13,721,600          S4,814,996         $4,193,493
                            5)   LOSS AND LOSS ADJUSTER RATIO                                   1.472           0.794              1.049             0.327             0.240
                            6A)  INSURANCE AGENT COMMISSION - DIRECT                     $46,953,540      $47,797,423      $43,866,513        $34,01ZI66        $26,752,857
                            611) AGENT COMMISSION ALLOWANCE - WYO                                NA       $Z432,344        $10,848,658        $26,496,753       $41,148,542
                            7A)  GENERAL ENFENSE - DIRECT (e)                            $31,131,245      $36,451,369      $34,025,399        $35,944,266       $30,261,948
                            713) OPERATING ALLOWANCE - WYO                                       NA       $Z45Z614         $IZ421,713         $31,033,647       $45,949,205
                            8)   PROFIT TO SERVICING FACILITY                             $2,584,452      $2,618,700          $Z376,027         $2,487,001         $2,507,731
                            9)   EARNED EXPOSURE                                          $1,917,613      $1,917,003           1,920,394         2,034,676          Z072,202
                            10)  AVERAGE PREMIUM                                             $163.24         $174.68           $189.94             $198.23            $218.45
                            11)  AVERAGE OPERATING COST OT14ER THAN
                                 AGENT COMMISSION AND LOSS
                                 ADJUSTER ENPENSE (b)                                         $17.58           $21.66             $25.42           $34.14              $37.99
                            12)  AVERAGE INSURANCE AGENTS
                                 COMMISSION                                                   $24.49           M.20               $28.49           $29.73              $32.77
                            13)  AVERAGE LOSS AND LOSS ADJUSTER
                                 COST PER POL1CY                                             $240.31         $138.66           $199.29             $64.75              $5Z53
                            14)  OPERATING PROFITI(DEFICIT) PER POUCY
                                                                                           (SI19.14)         (S11.94)          ($63-25)            $69.60              $95.17



                                                 (e)     Includes contractor transition costs, for 1983.

                                                 (f)     Beginning with 1985, includes an allowance for open claims.

                                                 (g)     Prior to the 1990 analysis, a positive number on this line represented an operating deficit
                                                         per policy.



                                       Sources:    National Flood Insurance Association. 1970-77 Financial and Statistical Reports; EDS Federal Corporation (Servicing
                                                   Facility), as presented by CSCs EAIS. 1978-79 Financial and Statistical Reports; CSC, Servicing Facility through its
                                                   EAIS, 1980-89 Financial and Statistical Reports.








               Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                          13-17



               Table 13-8 provides information on loss and expense experience in different risk zones for the period
               1978-1987. Analysis of this information by the FLA, shows that:

               ï¿½   Post-FIRM construction in the coastal high hazard area zones generated an operating surplus
                   of $185 per policy. These policies for new construction are not intended to be subsidized
                   and have not been subsidized. Because of relatively low flood losses in the last few years,
                   even the pre-FIRM construction eligible for a subsidy has generated an operating surplus
                   per policy of $12.

               ï¿½   Post-FIRM construction in areas where new construction is subject to NFIP floodplain
                   'management regulations experie      .nced significantly lower loss frequencies and consequently
                   significantly lower loss costs per policy. This indicates that NFIP flood loss reduction
                   standards are effective in reducing flood losses to new construction.

               ï¿½   In all zones where post-FIRM construction has been subject to NFIP floodplain management
                   standards, there has been an operating surplus for flood insurance policies. This reflects the
                   design of the NFIP to not provide subsidies for -new construction in the floodplain. With
                   the exception of zones B, C and X, program deficits were only experienced for pre-FIRM
                   construction eligible for a subsidy. Rating and coverage changes in the last few years have
                   been aimed at correcting the B, C and X problem, and the NFIP expects these policies to
                   be self-supporting in the future (Federal Insurance Administration, 1988).

               Table 13-9 provides information on average annual premiums based on a comparison of the 1978-
               1987 loss experience with the projected written premium based on 1989 cost levels. The FIA notes
               that:


                   Comparing the 1978-1987 loss experience with the average annual premium based on rates
                   effective September 1, 1988, shows that the combined actuarial and subsidized rates results
                   in a program expected to have only a 1.9 percent shortfall. for the historical average loss year.
                   The NFIP has essentially met its goal of being self-supporting at a level equivalent to the
                   historical average.

                   The actuarially rated policies, which comprise about 50 percent of the NFIP book of business,
                   are to be paying premiums ranging from 103 percent to 185 percent of the premium indicated
                   by the historical average. This reflects that these policies are being charged to cover cata-
                   strophic loss potential - a magnitude of loss not really reflected in the 1978-1987 time period.
                   The NFIP rate structure is geared to provide a subsidy only for those pre-FIRM policies
                   eligible to be subsidized (Federal Insurance Administration, 1988).












                   Table 13-8.           National Flood Insurance Program: Loss and Expense Experience, 1978-1987.


                                                               ZONES VE,VI-V30                UNNUMBERED ZONE A                      ZONES AEAl-A30
                                                                                                                                                                                  EMERGENCY            PROGRAM
                                                           POST-FIRM         PRE-FTRM         POST-FIRM         PRE-FIRM         POST-FIRM         PRE-FIRM      ZONES B,CX          PROGRAM              TOTALS

                      1.  Earned Exposure
                          (earned policy terms)                82,705            468,227          264,238         1,095,942        1,069,168         5,218,977        5,369,538         3,246,779       18,535,187

                      2.  Average Earned Premium               S352.26           $232.67          S201.70          S172.12           S132.39          $160.91           S119.25          $107.36          S142.67

                      3.  Number of Paid Losses                    993             8,893             1,183           21,3G7            5,356          106,136           64,437           102,449          337,965

                      4.  Average Loss Payment               $7,191.17         $8,187.59        $8,420.79         $8,198.56        $9,885.42         S6,958.47        $7,614.82        S5,516.04         $7,164.43

                      5.  Loss Ratio                               0.25             0.67              0.19             0.93             0.37              0.88             0.77              1.62             0.92

                      6.  Loss Frequency Per
                          100 Policies                              1.2               1.9              0.4              1.9               0.5              2-0               1.2              3.2               1.8

                      7.  Average Loss Cost Per Policy         $86.34            $155.51           $37.70          S159.39           $49.37           $141.51           $91.38           $174.05          $130.63

                      &   Other Expenses
                          (average per policy)
                          a) Agent Commission/
                               Allowance                       $54.64             S36.09           $31.28            $26.70          $20.53            S24.96           $18.50            $16.65            S22.13
                          b)   Loss Adjuster                      $4.44            S6,47             $1.80            $6.71            $2.13            S$6.72            $4.22           $10.06             S6.24
                          c)   Serving Facility/
                               WYO Operating Allowance         $21.63             $21.63           S21.63            S21.63          $21.63            S21.63           S21.63            $21.63            S21.63

                      9. Operating Surplus/(Deficit)
                          Per Policy on Paid Basis*            $185.22            $12.97          S109.29          ($42.31)          $38.73           ($33,91)         (S16.48)        ($115.03)          (S37.97)


                          The operating surplus is the policyholder contribution in periods of relatively better loss experience towards reserves used to fund high loss years.


                                                     Source:     Federal Insurance Administration. "Supplementary Data on the NFIR" Unpublished data from'FLAJFEMA, 1988.










              Table 13-9.    National Flood Insurance Program: Annual Premium Loss Experience (1979-1987) vs. Projected Written Premium
                             on 1989 Cost Level.



                                                       AVERAGE ANNUAL PREMIUM          PROJECTED AVERAGE ANNUAL              PERCENTAGE OF
                                                       BASED ON'78-'79 LOSS            WRITTEN PREMIUM USING                 ON LEVEL PREMIUM
                                                       EXPERIENCE WITH LOSSES &        9/1/88 RATES WITH                     BASED ON
                                                       EXPENSES ON 1989 LEVEL(a)       PROJECTED INSURANCE AMOUNTS           178-'87 EXPERIENCE(b)

                 A. Regular Program
                    - Actuarial Rates

                    Zones AE,A,AD,AH,AHB,AOB                   126.96                         105.64                          146.2%
                    Zones VE,V                                 273.90                         506.02                          104.7%
                    Zones B,C,X,D                              203.97                         210.88                          103.3%
                        Sub-Total Actuarial                    174.50                         203.10                          116.4%

                 B. Regular Program
                    - Subsidized Rates                         347.89                         312.83                           89.9%

                 C. Emergency Program                          368.95                         231.31                           62.7%
                        Sub-Total Subsidized                   368.89                         309.01                           88.6%

                 D. NFIP Total                                 260.13                         255.10                           98.1%



                 (a)  Includes $45.00 Expense Constant.
                 (b)  Based on'78279cxperience. Does not include consideration for development of catastrophic loss reserve. Simulation
                      modeling for the NFIP indicates that, because the'79-'87 period does not include the large scale catastrophic year, the
                      losses experienced in this time period will prove to be lower than the long-term average including catastrophic years.




                                        Source: Federal Insurance Administration. "Supplementary Data on the NFIP." Unpublished data from FIA/FEMA, 1988.








                  13-20                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  Subsidized vs. Actuarial Rates

                  Initially, the NFIP provided heavily subsidized rates for practically all insurance premiums. The
                  program has been gradually increasing premiums for new policies so that the premiums will reflect
                  actuarial rates. One of FEMA!s major goals is to make the NFIP self-supporting. FEMA currently
                  interprets this goal as providing overall premium income sufficient to meet the loss and expense
                  requirements of the historical average loss year (excluding potential catastrophic years), rather than
                  relying on the authorized borrowing authority from the Federal Treasury. FEMA now estimates that
                  this goal has essentially been met. The combined loss and expense ratio for 1978-1987 was 128%,
                  that same ratio was only 55% in 1987. Such an extremely low loss year allows for the accumulation
                  of reserves for future heavier loss years (Mrazik, undated).

                  Not everyone is convinced that charging actuarial rates produce the best floodplain management
                  results. Concern has been expressed that flood insurance premium costs have increased to a level
                  so high that many persons do not purchase flood insurance unless required to do so by a mortgage
                  lender or unless they have experienced flooding. Many of those who do purchase insurance subse-
                  quently allow it to expire (DeCTroot, 1989). The net result appears to be that only those individuals
                  exposed to the greatest risk actually purchase and maintain flood insurance. To maintain actuarial
                  rates for this group, insurance rates will have to be forced even higher (Burby, et al., 1988).


                  Repetitive Losses

                  Many of the claims paid out each year are for structures that have been previously damaged. FEMA
                  defines a repetitive loss structure as one for which two or more losses of more than $1,000 (building
                  and contents combined) have been paid during the most recent 10-year period. A repetitive loss is
                  defined as a loss of more than $1,000 to a repetitive loss structure.

                  Repetitive losses have been one of the major concerns of the NFIP, particularly since many of the
                  losses occur outside the designated base floodplain (the one percent annual chance floodplain). A
                  recent analysis by the FIA (Federal Insurance Administration, 1990) indicates that during the 10-year
                  period January 1980 through December 1989, there were 75,299 repetitive losses to 30,516 repetitive
                  loss structures. Tables 13-10 through 13-15 provide information on repetitive claims and losses during
                  this. 10-year period.

                  Although most repetitive loss structures had two losses during the 10-year period, a few had three,
                  four, or more losses. A high percentage of the dollars paid for repetitive losses are for contents
                  coverage, indicating that removal of contents from vulnerable areas of the structure either perma-
                  nently or immediately prior to a flood may prove to be a cost-effective mitigation technique.

                  Repetitive losses during the 1980s represent 27.5 percent of the total losses and 32.5 percent of the
                  total dollar amount paid on all losses. The average claim for a repetitive loss structure is somewhat
                  higher than for the NFIP as a whole, due at least in part to the exclusion of losses under $1,000 from
                  the definition of repetitive loss. In addition, most losses resulting from Hurricane Hugo are not
                  included in this data, and these losses will increase the average loss for the program as a whole.








                Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                                    13-21



                The distribution of repetitive loss structures         among zones is similar to the distribution for all losses.
                One notable difference is that 3.7 percent of all losses for the same period are for structures in Zones
                V, V1-30, and VE. This is substantially higher than the 2.9 percent of repetitive loss structures
                located in these same zones. Based on this information, it appears that repetitive losses caused by
                coastal flooding are of less concern than repetitive losses resulting from riverine and stormwater
                flooding.

                The distribution of repetitive building damage claims indicates that for most repetitive losses, building
                damage is a relatively low percentage of building value (53.2 percent of repetitive losses are 10
                percent or less of building value). The range of cost-effective floodproofing techniques for such
                structures is likely to be limited. In most cases, damages in excess of 50 percent meet the definition
                of substantial damage and are subject to NFIP elevation requirements and actuarial rates. The
                distribution of repetitive losses by the dollar amount of combined building and contents damage,
                however, shows that most repetitive losses are for relatively small dollar amounts.


                Table 13-10. Basic Data for Repetitive Losses and Total NFIP Losses for the 10-Year Period 1980
                                   through 1989.


                                       Number of Repetitive Losses:                                    75,299

                                       Total Amount Paid on these Lossses:
                                                Building                                         $434 million
                                                Contents                                         $313 million
                                                Total Building and Contents                      $747 million

                                       Average Amount Paid per Loss
                                                (Building and Contents):                               $9,922

                                       Number of Repetitive Loss Structures:                           30,516

                                       Average Number of Losses per Structure:                              2.6


                                       Number of Losses:                                               273,982

                                       Total Amount Paid on these Losses:
                                                Building                                         $1.33 billion
                                                Contents                                         $938 million
                                                Total Building and Contents                      $2.27 billion

                                       Average Amount Paid per Loss:                                   $8,289



                         Source:  Federal Insurance Administration, Office of Loss Reduction. "Summary and Assessment of National Flood Insurance
                                  Program (NFIP) Repetitive Loss Data." June 1990.








                      13-22                                            Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                      Table 13-11. Distribution of Pre-FIRM Repetitive Loss Structures by Zone.


                                                                                    NUMBER OF                  PERCENT OF
                                                                             REPET1TIVE LOSS             REPETITIVE LOSS
                                           ZONES(a)                                STRUCTURES                  STRUCTURES


                                           A, AO, AH, AI-30, AE                              17,530                      59.7%
                                           V, VI-30, VE                                         942                       2.9%
                                           B, C, X, D                                        6,194                       21.1%
                                           Unknown(b)                                        4.793                       16.3%
                                                                                             29,359                    100.0%


                                           (a) See Appendix C for deflnitions of A and V zones-, see also Table I 1 -1.
                                           (b) These policies are believed to be Emergency Program (Pre-FIRM) policies
                                                for which no zone was identified.



                                Source:   Federal Insurance Administration, Office of Loss Reduction. "Summary and Assessment of National Flood Insurance
                                          Program (NFIP) Repetitive Loss Data." June 1990.




                      Table 13-12. Distribution of Repetitive Building Coverage Claims by Building Damage as a
                                          Percentage of Building Value.


                                                                               NUMBER OF           PERCENTAGE OF
                                                  PERCENT RANGE                      CLAIMS                    CLAIMS


                                                  0-5%                                 27,392                    34.8%
                                                  5-10%                                14,508                    1&4%
                                                  10-15%                                8,773                    11.1%
                                                  15-20%                                6,343                    8.0%
                                                  20-25%                                5,012                    6.4%
                                                  25-30%                                3,870                    4.9%
                                                  30-35%                                2,888                    3.7%
                                                  35-40%                                2,152                    2.7%
                                                  4045%                                 1,571                    2.0%
                                                  45-50%                                1,221                    1.5%
                                                  More than 50%(a)                      5,068                    6.4%
                                                                                       78,798                    99.9%


                                                  (a) These structures are substantially damaged and are subject to
                                                      NFIP elevation requirements and actuarial rates.


                                Source:   Federal Insurance Administration, Office of Loss Reduction. "Summary and Assessment of National Flood Insurance
                                          Program (NFIP) Repetitive Loss Data." June 1990.








           Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                     13-23



           Table 13-13. Distribution of Repetitive Losses by the Dollar Amount of Total Damages (Building
                         and Contents Combined).


                                                  NUMBER OF     PERCENTAGE OF
                                                       LOSSES             LOSSES


                             Less than $5,000           31,558            40.0%
                             S5,000 - $10,000           18,870            24.0%
                             $10,000 - $25,000          18,933            24.0%
                             W,000 - $50,000             6,432              8.2%
                             More than $50,OW            3,017              3.8%
                                                        78,810            100.0%


                 Source: Federal Insurance Administration, Office of Loss Reduction. "Summary and Assessment of National Flood Insurance
                        Program (NFIF) Repetitive Loss Data." June 1990.





           Table 13-14. Distribution of Repetitive Losses by States (Top Ten States)-



                                            NUMBER OF          PERCENT OF     PERCENT OF
                    STATE            REPETnTVE LOSSES    REPETITWE LOSSES      ALL LOSSES


                    Louisiana                     21,356              28.4%          20.8%
                    Texas                         12,160              16.1%          16.3%
                    Missouri                      5,636               7.4%           4.4%
                    New Jersey                    4,620               6.1%           5.6%
                    New York                      3,810               5.1%           6.5%
                    Illinois                      3,754               5.0%           4.0%
                    Mississippi                   3,418               4.5%           3.8%
                    Florida                       3,383               4.5%           6.5%
                    California                    2,358               3.1%           3.4%
                    Puerto Rico                   2.348               3.1%           2.4%
                                                  62,843              83.1%          73.7%



                Source: Federal Insurance Administration, Office of Loss Reduction. "Summary and Assessment of National Flood Insurance
                       Program (NFIP) Repetitive I.Am Data." June 1990.








                      13-24                                            Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                      Table 13-15.       Top 20 Repetitive Loss Communities by Number of Losses.


                                                                                                               NUMBER OF
                                         RANK         COMMUNITY                              STATE                    LOSSES


                                         I            Jefferson Parish                       LA                        7,871
                                         2            Orleans Parish                         LA                        5,153
                                         3            Houston, City of                       TX                        2,596
                                         4            Harris County                          TX                        2,379
                                         5            Puerto Rico, Commonwealth              PR                        2,348
                                         6            St Charles County                      MO                        2,044
                                         7            New York, City of                      NY                        1,256
                                         8            St. Bernard Parish                     LA                          987
                                         9            Wayne, Township of                     NJ                          742
                                         10           Gretna, City of                        LA                          674
                                         11           Kenner, City of                        LA                          605
                                         12           Sonoma County                          CA                          604
                                         13           Mibile, City of                        AL                          549
                                         14           Galveston County                       TX                          544
                                         15           St. Petersburg, City of                FL                          533
                                         16           Texas City, City of                    TX                          524
                                         17           Peoria County                          IL                          516
                                         18           St. Louis County                       MO                          498
                                         19           East Baton Rouge Parish                LA                          483
                                         20           Montgomery County                      TX                          450

                                                                                                 TOTAL LOSSES 33,356


                              Source:   Federal Insurance Administration, Office of Loss Reduction. "Summary and Assessment of National Flood Insurance
                                        Program (NFIP) Repetitive Loss Data." June 1990.





                      Repetitive losses and repetitive loss structures are not uniformly distributed across the Nation. The
                      problem is largely concentrated in several states with histories of severe flooding. Repetitive losses
                      tend to be more concentrated in a few states than do NFIP claims in general, and this is largely due
                      to the significantly higher percentages of repetitive losses in the states of Louisiana and Texas.
                      Twenty of the 54 states and territories have had fewer than 100 repetitive losses.

                      The repetitive losses appear to be concentrated in a relatively small number of the 18,000 communi-
                      ties participating in the NFIP. The top six repetitive loss communities have had 29.7 percent of all
                      repetitive losses. The top twenty repetitive loss communities have had 44.3 percent of all repetitive
                      losses. The top one hundred repetitive loss communities have had 66.2 percent (49,826 losses) of
                      all repetitive losses. Although twelve of the top twenty repetitive loss communities would be
                      considered coastal communities, in only two of these communities is there a significant number of
                      flood insurance policies in effect in the coastal area. Even these two communities have extensive
                      areas subject to riverine or stormwater flooding. Only 22 of the top 100 repetitive loss communities
                      can be chai:acterized as being primarily subject to tidal flooding. Ibis tends to support the idea that
                      the repetitive loss problem is more related to riverine or stormwater flooding than tidal flooding.








             Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                    13-25



             Community Rating System

             The Federal Insurance Administration has established a Community Rating System (CRS) to
             encourage communities participating in the NFIP to undertake floodplain management activities that
             go beyond the activities required for program participation. As incentive, a reduction in flood
             insurance premiums will be provided for policy holders within communities that take approved action
             to reduce flood losses.

             A multi-discipline task force was established in early 1987 to plan the development of the CRS. The
             task force recommended a preliminary set of community activities or activity elements that could be
             considered as a basis for rating. These activities were the subject of a field survey of approximately
             200 communities conducted in 1988-1990.

             Among the creditable activities are:
             ï¿½   More restrictive standards for new development;
             ï¿½   More restrictive standards for existing development;
             ï¿½   Community maintenance of FEMA elevation certificates;
             ï¿½   Required disclosure statements for floodplain properties;
             ï¿½   Public information programs;
             ï¿½   Programs to reduce repetitive losses;
             ï¿½   Maintenance of existing structural flood protection projects;
             ï¿½   Channel maintenance;
             ï¿½   Stormwater management programs;
                 Sand dune maintenance and replenishment programs;,
                 Flood warning and response programs; and
                 High risk flood hazard mitigation programs.

             '17he purpose of the field survey program in 1988-90 was to examine programs in selected communities
             to determine difficulties in evaluating program effectiveness for flood loss reduction and to establish
             specific measurement criteria. Additional activities that'might be suitable for the community rating
             system will be considered (MacKay, 1988).


             Sale of Flood Insurance

             The National Flood Insurance      Act (NFIA) provides that the NFIP can be operated by private
             insurance companies under federal direction, or that the program can be managed by the government
             itself. Until 1978 the Program was operated through pools of private insurance companies. In 1978
             the FIA eliminated the involvement of private insurance companies because of problems related to
             budgeting, contracting, and the FIA's regulatory authority. From 1978 until November 1983, only
             the FIA sold and serviced flood insurance policies, and did so directly through a contractor and
             insurance agents.

             In 1981, the FIA began an effort to once again involve private insurance companies in the flood
             insurance program. Under this new effort - referred to as the Write Your Own (VVYO) program
             - the FIA established a policy sales and servicing mechanism by which insurance agents could sell
             flood insurance policies through individual property and casualty insurance companies.








                             13-26                                                         Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                             The V*rYO program arrangement is similar to the direct government sales program for flood insurance
                             through which insurance agents have worked directly with a government contractor since 1978. The
                             direct government sales program enabled insurance agents to sell policies under the NFIP name,
                             service policies, and arrange for claims adjusters to visit and document reported losses. Agents
                             receive a 15 percent commission for their expenses based on premiums collected for policies under
                             the direct program. A contractor to the FIA handles the day-to-day operation of the direct sales and
                             servicing aspects of the NFIP.

                             VVY0 companies sell insurance under their own names, collect premiums, and retain a percentage
                             of the premiums -as an allowance for commissions and other administrative expenses. Companies
                             service their own flood insurance policies, inspect and document losses, and pay the claims arising
                             from flooding of their policyholders' properties. When companies' paid claims exceed net premium
                             monies on hand, the companies are reimbursed by the federal government through a letter-of credit.
                             Thus, the companies bear no financial risk due to flood losses. The first VVYO policy was sold in
                             1983. In 1984 the FIA arranged for agents to transfer or "rollover" policies from the direct program
                             to designated WYO companies (U.S. General                                  'Accounting Office, 1987). As of 1987, about one-third
                             of all flood insurance policies were sold through WYO companies, and the FIA expects increasing
                             sales through the VVYO program and decreasing sales through its contractor (Simmons, 1988). Figure
                             13-1 shows the organizational structure for sales and servicing of flood insurance policies.





                                                                                                                    ---I
                                                                                                   Overall responsibility:
                                                                                                        FEIVIA!s FIA




                                                                                                                          TO   program reporting system
                                                                                                                          run by government contractor.
                                                                                                                                      CSC


                                                                                          Direct Program      Write Your Own Program


                                                                Policy sales and service through govern ant               licy sales and service through
                                                                      contractor, CSC@ on behalf of FIA m                     private property and .
                                                                                    t                       or           casualty insurance companies
                                                                                                            4

                                                                                                    Insurance agents









                                          Source:     U.S. General Accounting Office. Flood Insurance: Private Companies' Participation in the Write Your Ckvn Prozram
                                                      Report to Legislation and National Security Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations. GAO/RCED-87-1m
                                                      1987.
                             Figure 13-1.             Organizational Structure of the National Flood Insurance Program.







             Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                   13-27



             PRIVATE SECTOR FLOOD INSURANCE

             The NFIP was authorized by Congress because flood insurance was typically not available through
             private insurers. Insurance companies had found that there was not enough information to determine
             actuarial rates and that, unlike fire, automobile, and most other types of insurance, flood insurance
             would only be purchased by those individuals and businesses with a high likelihood of being flooded.
             Today, flood insurance is still largely unavailable except through the NFTP. Some companies,
             however, do underwrite flood insurance. Lloyds of London-based policy, for example, has as many
             policy holders in Utah as the NFIP has. Some private policies or riders are available for basement
             flooding; these were initiated after the NFIP limited the coverage available for basements and the
             damage caused by subsurface flows. In addition, flood insurance is included as part of a comprehen-
             sive flood insurance policy for some large businesses with offices and land holdings in many locations
             in and out of the floodplain.


             CROPINSURANCE


             Crop insurance provides protection to agricultural producers from losses caused by unavoidable
             disasters such as insects, disease, fire, hail, drought, floods, freezing, and wind. The U.S. Department
             of Agriculture's Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) is a government-owned corporation
             created in 1938 to promote the national welfare by improving the economic stability of agriculture
             through a sound program of federal crop insurance. The FCIC encourages the construction of dikes
             as well as other measures for emergency preparedness (Soil Conservation Service, 1989). Crop
             Insurance Program data on flood losses are not available.


             EFFECTIVENESS OF FLOOD INSURANCE

             Since the National Flood Insurance Program was authorized in 1968, the FIA has made significant
             progress toward increasing the number of structures insured on an actuarial basis and achieving a
             financially self-supporting program. During this time, the availability of flood insurance has greatly
             eased the financial trauma of flood damage for many thousands of property owners and renters.

             Few question the desirability of a viable program of flood insurance. There are some questions,
             however, concerning the manner in which flood insurance is made available and the level of success
             that has been achieved in insuring the large number of structures su   bject to the one percent annual
             chance flood.

             Because only a small percentage of floodprone structures are insured, and many structures are still
             insured at subsidized rates, the premium base is not large enough to permit the NFIP to operate on
             a fully actuarial basis. In addition, those structures covered by flood insurance tend to be the
             structures most at risk. FEMA has stated that it is interested in increasing the market penetration
             of flood insurance by at least 100 percent to reduce the financial suffering of disaster victims, spread
             the cost of flood losses, and provide additional mechanisms for postdisaster relief (Federal Emergency
             Management Agency, 1989). In an attempt to increase the market share, FEMA is aggressively
             pursuing the sale of flood insurance in areas outside the one percent annual chance floodplain. This








                   13-28                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                   strategy has been questioned by those who feel that insurance should not be made available in areas
                   not subject to regulation.
                   Other methods for increasing the number of structures with flood insurance have been suggested,
                   including stricter enforcement by lenders of mandatory purchase requirements, and maintenance of
                   premiums at reasonable levels. The number of flood insurance policies has remained relatively
                   constant for several years, yet new structures (most with federally insured mortgages) continue to
                   occupy the floodplain and there is no evidence that the existing inventory of floodplain structures
                   is significantly declining. Consequently, the number of flood insurance policies should be steadily
                   increasing. It is not, however, and FEMA and others have noted that the federal lending institutions
                   have not been diligent in requiring purchase of flood insurance as a mortgage condition, nor have
                   they consistently required that the insurance, if purchased, be maintained. Various recommendations
                   have been put forth to address this concern, including recommendations for new legislation.

                   Another approach for increasing sale of flood insurance is to increase awareness of the flood hazard.
                   If lending institutions do not properly inform a buyer that a structure is floodprone, or if a federal
                   financial institution is not involved, a new owner or renter may not be aware that a structure is
                   located within the floodplain. To help reduce the number of persons who are uninformed or
                   misinformed about the flood risk, disclosure requirements for realtors have been suggested. In only
                   a very few areas of the country are realtors now required to notify prospective occupants if a structure
                   is located in a floodprone area.

                   Not everyone is convinced, however, of the long-term benefits of making flood insurance available
                   throughout the one percent annual chance floodplain. One view is that flood insurance should not
                   be available in high risk areas such as floodways and V-zones. A more extreme view is that lending
                   institutions should not be permitted to make any loans at all for property located in floodplains
                   (Vessey, 1989). FEMA, however, prefers to make flood insurance available and to allow the high
                   rates for vulnerable structures to serve as a deterrent to inappropriate development.



                                                          TAX ADJUSTMENTS

                   Tax adjustments at the federal, state, or local level can influence decisions about floodplain occupancy
                   and can provide relief to individuals affected by a flood disaster. Tax provisions can be used to
                   encourage appropriate floodplain use and discourage inappropriate use. Financial relief can be
                   provided through provisions for claiming losses in federal and state income taxes and through special
                   allowances on real estate taxes following a flood (Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task
                   Force, 1986).


                   FEDERAL TAX ADJUSTMENTS

                   The U.S. income tax was enacted in 1913 and the Internal Revenue Code was enacted in 1954.
                   During the three decades prior to 1986, exclusions, itemized deductions, and deduction value of
                   credits increased greatly and offset about 34 percent of personal income in 1982 as opposed to 18








            Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                    13-29



            percent in 1954. These exclusions and deductions became, along with the market, a major determi-
            nant of how economic resources were used, and the tax system exerted a pervasive influence on the
            behavior of private decision-makers (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988). As noted by the
            Department of the Treasury:

                The United States income tax is not used simply to raise revenue. Instead it is used to subsidize
                a long list of economic activities through exclusions ftom income subject to tar, adjustments to
                income, business deductions unrelated to actual expenses, deferral of tax liability, deductions of
                personal consumption expenditures, tax credits and preferential tax rates (U.S. Department of
                the Treasury, 1984).

            The Tax Reform Act (TRA) of 1986 made major changes in the Internal Revenue Code. These
            changes were in large part designed to reduce the code's interference with economic decisions made
            by individuals and businesses.


            Casualty Losses

            Prior to the TRA, all taxpayers were authorized to deduct any loss from fire, storm, flood, shipwreck,
            or other casualty or theft sustained during the taxable year and not compensated for by insurance
            or other means. The only limitation was that the aggregate amount of all such losses sustained by
            an individual was limited to the amount that exceeded 10 percent of the adjusted gross income of
            the individual (Section 165(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code). Development connected with a
            trade or business, and development conducted as transactions for profit by corporations,@ were also
            permitted to take casualty loss deductions (Section 165(c)(1) and (2) of the Internal Revenue Code).
            Section 165(i) allowed taxpayers to take certain disaster losses into account for the tax year immedi-
            ately preceding the tax year in which the disaster occurred. These provisions had the effect of
            reducing the risk of financial loss for those who built in floodplains and other dangerous locations.

            The TRA prohibited any deduction for individuals for the first $100 of any casualty loss. The casualty
            loss deduction is limited to the total amount lost in any year (reduced by $100 per casualty) in excess
            of 10% of the adjusted gross income. The $100 exemption and the 10 percent rule, however, do not
            apply to business property (Bernstein, 1987).


            Development Incentives

            Several provisions of the Internal Revenue Code provide incentives for development (casualty loss
            deductions also provide development incentives by removing a portion of the risk), while relatively
            few provisions provide incentives to leave land undeveloped.s No data have been found to provide
            insights into the magnitude of floodplain development that has resulted from tax code development
            incentives. The major tax incentives for development are summarized on the following page.




                Tax incentives to leave land undeveloped are described in Chapter 14 of the Assessment Report.








                    13-30                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                    ï¿½   Depreciation Allowances. The Accelerated Cost Recovery System (ACRS) was established by
                        the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and controlled depreciation allowances for tangible
                        property placed in service after 1980. The ACRS assigned all "recovery property" to a class with
                        a specified recovery period and depreciation schedule. The ACRS was one of the principle tax
                        shelters available to investors and owners of real property placed in service after 1980. Its
                        provisions greatly enhanced the internal rate of return, stimulated the growth of tax shelters, and
                        provided powerful incentives for development. It also made possible the sheltering of an
                        investor's unrelated income, deferred tax liability, and encouraged taxpayers to make investments
                        that they otherwise would not make, in order to obtain tax benefits. The Tax Reform Act
                        eliminated the ACRS and allows only straight-line depreciation of property over a longer time
                        period.

                    ï¿½   Long-Term Capital Gains Deductions. Prior to the TRA of 1986, gains or losses from the sale
                        or exchange of capital assets held for more than six months (one year for assets acquired before
                        June 23, 1984) were treated as long-term capital gains or losses and received preferential tax
                        treatment. For individuals and other noncorporate taxpayers, 60 percent of net capital gain was
                        excluded from income, with the balance of 40 percent taxable at ordinary rates. For corporations,
                        the regular maximum tax rate was reduced to 28 percent on net capital gain if the tax computed
                        using that rate was lower than the corporation's regular tax. The TRA eliminated long-term
                        capital gains deductions.

                    ï¿½   Deductibility of Interest Expenses. Interest expenses on loans to finance purchase of residential
                        or investment property may be deducted.. The TRA placed limitations on the amount of interest
                        expenses that could be deducted.

                    ï¿½   Investment Tax Credits. The TRA eliminated investment tax credits previously available to
                        businesses.


                    ï¿½   At-Risk Limitations on Real Estate Holdings. The amount of loss that an investor may deduct
                        is limited to the amount of capital actually at risk. Prior to 1987 this limitation did not apply to
                        real estate holdings or to limited equipment leasing by closely held corporations. Real estate and
                        equipment leasing investors were thus allowed to offset taxable income with tax losses not
                        matched by economic losses, guaranteeing an investor a return that might make an otherwise
                        uneconomical investment feasible (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988).

                    While the 1986 TRA did not eliminate all development incentives in the Internal Revenue Code, it
                    placed major restrictions on many tax deductions and credits previously used to build in floodplains,
                    on barrier islands, and in other hazardous locations, as well as in nonhazardous locations.



                    STATE AND LOCAL AC`ITVITIES

                    Many states and communities provide some type of tax relief and development incentives (or
                    disincentives) that have important floodplain management applications.








                Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                                 13-31



                Casualty Losses

                Following disastrous floods, many states and communities provide some type of tax relief. A
                community may reduce or temporarily suspend local real estate taxes or business taxes for individuals
                and businesses affected by flooding. States may do the same where real estate or other taxes are
                paid directly to the state. States may also provide for casualty deductions on state income taxes.
                Some states have provided reimbursement to communities for lost tax revenues.

                                      Following disastrous flooding in June 1982, the State of Connecticut enacted special flood
                                      relief legislation that included a provision for tax abatements for persons whose property
                                      was damaged more than 10 percent of its value by the floods. Towns were authorized
                                      to abate up to one-third of the taxes due, and the state would reimburse the towns for
                                      90 percent of the taxes lost. Eighteen towns offered some tax abatement to property
                                      owners, and the state reimbursed these towns a total of $49,504 (L.R. Johnston Associates,
                                      1983).


                Development Incentives

                Many state and local tax codes are based on the federal Internal Revenue Code and so contain some
                of the same development incentives. In addition, state and local governments devise their own
                programs to provide tax incentives for business growth and development. Property taxes and sales
                taxes are the two most common means through which local governments (and many state govern-
                ments) provide tax incentives. Techniques may include property tax reductions and abatement or
                deferral of taxes to entice or retain businesses. "Enterprise zones" or other special business areas
                maybe established to promote development and employment opportunities in economically depressed
                areas. Special impact fees and assessments for services may also be used to help influence develop-
                ment decisions or to help offset government costs of development.

                                    The City of Stamford, Connecticut has required developers of certain projects constructed
                                    in the floodplain to contribute funds for the operation and maintenance of the City's
                                    automated flood warning system (Emerson, 1988).


                                    In a reverse treatment of taxes, in 1987, Des Plaines, Illinois initiated a permit surcharge of
                                    $200 for floodplain development projects to help finance city flood protection activities.





                EFFECTIVENESS OF TAX ADJUSTMENTS

                The extent to which the Tax Relief Act has actually reduced the influence of the U.S. Tax Code on
                economic decisions made by individuals with regard to floodplain development is unclear. Because
                most of the casualty loss provisions were retained, the tax code still provides financial aid to those
                suffering flood losses. While this may be a worthwhile social goal consistent with floodplain manage-
                ment concepts, some inconsistencies with sound floodplain management practices and other federal
                policies are evident.








                  13-32                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  For example, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) is intended to avoid federal subsidy of
                  development on undeveloped coastal barriers, and most forms of federal financial assistance on
                  coastal barriers are prohibited, including flood insurance. Yet, the availability of casualty loss
                  deductions means that an individual can use private funds for development on property within the
                  Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) with limited financial risk from damaging floods.
                  Availability of casualty loss deductions for structures within the one percent annual chance floodplain
                  also appears to conflict with a number of floodplain management objectives and to actually weaken
                  the effectiveness of the NFIP. An individual may locate in a floodprone area, not purchase flood
                  insurance, and be eligible for casualty loss deductions in the event of a damaging flood. A more
                  consistent approach would be to limit casualty loss deductions to property located outside the
                  designated one percent annual chance floodplain (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989).

                  In general, it would appear that tax incentives and disincentives for influencing location and develop-
                  ment decisions in floodprone areas have not been effectively used. For the most part, tax incentives
                  at all government levels have been used to encourage development without regard to whether that
                  development might occur in a hazardous location. Tax provisions to discourage development in
                  hazardous areas appear to have been little used (Fuller, 1989).



                                               FLOOD EMERGENCY MEASURES


                  Flood emergency measures are typically carried out by communities, supplemented as necessary by
                  assistance from state emergency services agencies and federal agencies. Preparation for floods and
                  establishment of flood fighting plans, including contingency and emergency floodproofing, can be
                  completed in anticipation of flooding for areas where flood warning time permits. During and
                  immediately after a flood, emergency activities may include emergency actions to remove people and
                  property from areas that may be flooded; sandbagging around individual structures and constructing
                  emergency dikes and other activities to direct floodwater away from vulnerable areas; search and
                  rescue efforts during and immediately after flooding; and immediate postflood emergency measures
                  to protect the health and safety of area residents. One of the functions of an overall program for
                  floodplain management is to reduce the need forthis type of emergency action (Federal Interagency
                  Floodplain Management Task Force, 1986).


                  FEDERAL ACTWITIES


                  The Corps of Engineers is the federal agency most commonly involved in flood emergencies. The
                  Corps has authority under P.L. 84-99 to provide assistance to other agencies and to supplement local
                  and state resources during a flood emergency. The Corps can furnish assistance for: flood emergency
                  preparation; flood fighting; the repair and restoration of any flood control works threatened or
                  damaged by a flood; provision of emergency supplies of clean drinking water for communities with
                  water supply contaminated by a flood; advance measures to protect against flooding; and hazard
                  mitigation to limit damage potential caused by future flood events. Assistance under P.L 84-99 may
                  include furnishing technical advice and assistance; furnishing flood fighting materials, such as sandbags,








              Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                             13-33



              polyethylene sheeting, pumps, and riprap to stabilize eroding levees; hiring of equipment and
              operators for flood fighting operations; and removal of log or debris jams that are blocking stream
              flow and causing flooding of communities. During a flood emergency, the maximum use of local and
              state resources must first be made before assistance in the form of supplies and equipment can be
              provided by the Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987).

              The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requires emergency action plans (EAPs) for
              all its licensed dams, To provide comprehensive tests of the plans, licensees must hold periodic
              exercises, or in-depth tests, of their EAPs. These tests require the licensees to interact with state
              and local disaster agencies. The goal is to help licensees improve the EAPs so that they are clear,
              concise, and easily understood by evacuation agencies. The exercises promote cooperation between
              licensees and agencies, and develop the coordination vital to a successful response to a failure of a
              dam. To facilitate the exercise process, FERC conducts a two-day training seminar on EAPs.

              The Soil Conservation Service may also become involved in flood emergency measures through its
              Emergency Watershed Protection Program, and specifically with regard to efforts to stabilize
              streambanks and prevent further erosion and flooding. The Emergency Watershed Protection
              Program is divided into two phases: Exigency Phase and Non-Exigency Phase. The Exigency Phase
              provides for temporary or permanent measures in areas where immediate action is needed to prevent
              further damage from occurring. The Non-Exigency Phase provides for stabilization efforts where
              there is no immediate threat of further damage if additional flooding were to occur.

                                    Following widespread flooding in June 1982 in Connecticut, the Soil Conservation Service
                                    office in Connecticut contacted the SCS national office and requested immediate funding
                                    to permit e)dgency work to begin. The requestwas approved and additional SCS personnel
                                    were assigned to Connecticut from Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The
                                    SCS personnel immediately prepared designs for stream channel stabilization and let the
                                    first contracts for emergency work only 6 days after serious flooding began. Within one
                                    week, 20 contracts were awarded for work in 13 communities involving removal of trash,
                                    lumber, trees, homes and cars from stream channels. Stream banks were seeded to
                                    stabilize them, and thousands of tons of riprap were used on stream banks. Total costs
                                    of these emergency stream stabilization projects was $2,655,229, funded 100 percent by
                                    the SCS.


                                    Several nonexigency projects were also undertaken by the SCS with 80 percent of funding
                                    from the SCS and 20 percent from the local sponsor - the Connecticut Department of
                                    Environmental Protection. Eighty sites were investigated by the SCS for possible treat-
                                    ment under the nonexigency program, and 25 were selected for treatment Only 20 sites
                                    were ultimately included in the program, with work at the remaining rive sites funded by
                                    the FEMA Public Assistance Program or directly by the town. Total cost of the projects
                                    was $800,083 (L.R. Johnston Associates, 1983).


              Other federal agencies such as the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Bureau of Land Management
              (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and Forest Service (FS) may become involved in flood
              emergency measures for floods occurring within their jurisdiction or on lands that they manage.








                     13-34                                        Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                     FEMA involvement during the emergency phase of flooding is primarily to assist state and local
                     governments in assessing the extent and severity of damage in order to seek disaster assistance.


                     STATE AND LOCAL ACTMTIES


                     State emergency services agencies generally coordinate state resources and activities during flood
                     emergencies. State police, transportation or public works departments, and state national guard units
                     typically undertake major roles during flood emergencies. Other state agencies, particularly those
                     responsible for dam safety and water resources activities, may also become involved depending on
                     the type and severity of flooding.

                                         California published and distributes a nontechnical manual titled "Flood Fighting Methods"
                                         which includes basic information such as how to fill sandbags, and detailed discussions on
                                         types of levee failure and actions to prevent such failures. The State also offers courses on
                                         flood fighting to communities and the public. Illinois has prepared a similar manual called
                                         "Flood Fighting."



                     Most flood emergency measures are carried out at the local level. Local civil defense, police, fire
                     departments, public works agencies, public health personnel, and most other local government
                     personnel may become involved in emergency measures depending on the severity of the flooding.
                     Experience has shown that most communities that are not flooded frequently remain inadequately
                     prepared to deal with flood emergencies. The infrequency of major flooding (at least in most
                     communities) appears to result in complacency and lack of preparedness.

                                         In Utah, Salt Lake County and City experienced above normal precipitation and flooding in
                                         1983. In early May the potential for severe flooding was apparent due to a large snowpack
                                         and unusually cold temperatures into the spring. The county began 24-hour monitoring of
                                         critical streams and personnel were shifted to staff flood control operations. The most
                                         vulnerable flooding location in the City was at 13th South where three streams came
                                         together. City forces, with assistance from volunteers, diked the street for use as a stream
                                         channel. Following a sudden thaw on May 26, the County and City declared an emergency
                                         status and flood control plans were placed in operation. Two days later another creek reached
                                         a flood discharge nearly double its previous record and went out of control. Volunteers were
                                         called in to sandbag 1.5 miles of State Street through the City. Flood waters were successful-
                                         ly controlled in a temporary river down State Street.

                                         During the flooding period, volunteers provided an estimated 50,000 person days of effort
                                         in Salt Lake City and about twice that in the remainder of the County. The value of
                                         volunteer efforts during the period of flooding and cleanup afterwards was estimated at over
                                         $18 million. (Armstrong and Rosen, 1986).








             Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                    13-35




             PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITIES

             The private sector is usually thoroughly involved with flood emergency measures. Activity may range
             from the individual who evacuates in anticipation of flooding and/or takes emergency measures such
             as relocating furniture or placing sandbags around a home, to the efforts of organized groups such
             as local chapters of the American Red Cross who may provide emergency food, shelter and other
             supplies. Private contractors play a major role in work for communities and individuals to remove
             debris, repair homes, roads, bridges, and other property damaged from floods. Some states and
             communities have entered into agreements with private contractors to provide emergency services
             in the event of a flood or other disaster. As illustrated by the example of the 1983 floods in Utah,
             volunteers, acting as individuals and as organized groups, often play a major role during flood
             emergencies.



             EFFECTIVENESS OF FLOOD EMERGENCY MEASURES

             The effectiveness of flood emergency measures depends in large part on the state of preparedness.
             Unfortunately, most communities that do not experience frequent flooding do not have well devel-
             oped, up-to-date emergency plans with which essential personnel are familiar. Emergency response
             is therefore handicapped during the time of actual emergency. In many cases, this deficiency is offset
             by the abilities of local police, fire and public works departments with knowledge of local conditions
             as well as practical knowledge and experience with emergency situations.



                                                 DISASTER ASSISTANCE


             Disaster assistance is provided by federal, state and local governments and the private sector.
             Assistance may be provided to repair, replace, or restore facilities damaged or destroyed by a disaster
             and to provide financial relief.


             FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

             Federal disaster assistance is provided in varying degrees and for different types of emergency and
             rehabilitation activities after natural disasters. The greatest source of Federal disaster assistance is
             provided under the authorities of the Disaster Relief Act (P.L 93-288, as amended), which is
             implemented by the Federal Emergency Management Agency following a Presidential declaration
             of a major disaster or emergency. In November 1988, P.L 93-288 was amended by P.L 100-707 and
             retitled the "Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act." FEMA administers
             grants to the states from the President's Disaster Relief Fund and directs and coordinates the disaster
             assistance functions of all federal agencies. In some cases, disaster assistance may be obtained from
             specific federal agencies such as the Small Business Administration or the Farmers Home'Administra-
             tion without a Presidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency.








                    13-36                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                    Disaster Declaration Request Process

                    A federal declaration of a major disaster will be considered only at the request of the governor of
                    the affected state or territory. When the governor determines that disaster recovery is beyond the
                    capability of the state and local governments, he or she may request the President to declare a major
                    disaster. FENIA regional office personnel, accompanied by state and local government representa-
                    tives, then conduct on-site preliminary damage assessments. On the basis of information in the
                    governor's request and information gathered during the damage assessment, the FEMA regional office
                    prepares a regional summary and an analysis and recommendation for FEMA headquarters review.
                    FEMA!s State and Local Programs and Support Directorate decides on the proposed recommenda-
                    tion to be presented to the FEMA Director for transmittal to the President. The declaration package
                    is prepared by FEMA and delivered to the White House for a final decision (U.S. General Account-
                    ing Office, 1989).


                    Major Disaster vs. Emergency

                    A "major disaster" as defined in the Stafford Act means:

                       any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tomado, storm, flood, high water, wind-driven
                       water, tidal wave, tsunam4 earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm or
                       drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States,
                       which in the determination of the Presiden4 causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude.
                       to warrant major disaster assistance under this Act to supplement the efforts and available
                       resources of States, local govemments, andprivate relief organizations in alleviating the damage,
                       loss, hardsho or suffering caused by a disaster.

                    An "emergency" is defined as "any instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal
                    assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and protect
                    property and public health and safety or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster in any part of the
                    United States."

                    After a Presidential declaration of a "major disaster," a broad range of assistance is made available
                    to the community and to affected individuals.. Federal assistance made available under a declaration
                    of "emergency" is more limited in scope.

                    Under a major disaster declaration three general types of assistance may be authorized - Public
                    Assistance, Individual Assistance, and hazard mitigation assistance. Federal funds for public assistance
                    may be available to the disaster-affected community or to the state for both emergency and longer-
                    term recovery activities, including:

                    ï¿½ clearance of debris on public or private land or water;
                    ï¿½ emergency protective measures for the preservation of fife and property;
                    ï¿½ repair or replacement of roads, streets, bridges, and water control facilities (dikes, lev            ees,
                       irrigation works, and drainage facilities);








             Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                   13-37



             *   repair or replacement of public buildings and related equipment, public utilities, and public
                 facilities damaged while under construction;
             0   repair or restoration of recreational facilities and parks;
             0   repair or replacement of private nonprofit educational, utility, emergency, medical, and custodial
                 care facilities, including those for the aged or disabled, and facilities on Indian reservations;
             0   community loans from FEMA to those communities that may suffer a substantial loss of tax and
                 other revenues and demonstrate a need for financial assistance to perform their governmental
                 functions;
             0   repairs and operating assistance to public elementary and secondary schools; and
             0   use of federal equipment, supplies, facilities, personnel, and other resources (other than the
                 extension of credit) from various federal agencies.


             Specific funding for hazard mitigation measures is also available to state and local governments, and
             to eligible private nonprofit organizations through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Require-
             ments of this program are:

             ï¿½   up to 50 percent federal funding is available for mitigation measures;
             ï¿½   total federal mitigation funding is limited to 10 percent of the estimated public assistance grants
                 for permanent restorative work;
             ï¿½   measures must be cost-effective;
             ï¿½   measures must be consistent with state and local hazard mitigation plans required as a condition
                 of receiving federal disaster assistance; and
             ï¿½   measures can protect private or public property so long as they are eligible under Program
                 guidelines.


             A range of federal assistance is also made available to individuals affected by a major disaster,
             including:

             ï¿½   temporary housing, or essential repairs to owner-occupiect residences in lieu of other temporary
                 housing;
             ï¿½   disaster unemployment assistance;
             ï¿½   low interest loans for repair or replacement of damaged property;
             ï¿½   agricultural assistance, including technical assistance, payments to eligible farmers who perform
                 emergency conservation actions on farmland damaged by the disaster, and provision of federally
                 owned feed grain for livestock and herd preservation;
             ï¿½   distribution of food coupons to eligible disaster victims;
             0   individual and family grants of up to $10,400 to meet disaster-related necessary expenses or
                 serious needs of those adversely affected by a major disaster;
             ï¿½   legal services to low-income families and individuals, consumer counseling and assistance in
                 obtaining insurance benefits, and crisis counseling and referrals to appropriate mental health
                 agencies to relieve disaster-caused mental health problems; and








                   13-38                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                       Social Security assistance for recipients or survivors, such as death or disability benefits or
                       monthly payments, and veterans assistance, such as death benefits, pensions, insurance settle-
                       ments, and adjustments to home mortgages held by the Veterans Administration if a VA-insured
                       home has been damaged.


                   Federal assistance provided for declared "emergencies" is intended to meet specific needs and is
                   generally limited to immediate actions to reduce the threat of a more severe disaster. This type of
                   assistance includes:

                   ï¿½   emergency mass care, such as emergency shelter, emergency provision of food, water, medicine,
                       and emergency medical care;
                   ï¿½   clearance of debris to save lives and protect property and public health and safety;
                   ï¿½   emergency protective measures, including search and rescue; demolition of unsafe structures;
                       warning of further risks and hazards; public information on health and safety measures; and
                       other actions necessary to remove or reduce immediate threats to public health and safety, to
                       public property, or to private property when in the public interest;
                   ï¿½   emergency communications and emergency transportation; and
                   ï¿½   emergency repairs to essential utilities and facilities as necessary to provide for their continued
                       operation.


                   Federal Emergency Management Agency

                   FEMA administers grants for federal disaster assistance from the President's Disaster Relief Fund
                   and directly coordinates the disaster assistance functions of all federal agencies. The state govern-
                   ment, as a partner in the FEMA-state agreement signed after a Presidential disaster declaration, has
                   specified responsibilities, including an important role in the disbursement of certain federal disaster
                   assistance funds. As the coordinating federal agency, FEMA performs many services, including:
                   establishment of a Disaster Field Office (DFO) as a base for all federal disaster assistance functions;
                   establishment of one or more Disaster Application Centers (DAC) to help victims receive guidance,
                   apply for assistance from various federal programs, and receive information regarding potential
                   mitigation actions; conduct of briefings for state and local officials on procedures related to obtaining
                   disaster assistance; and administration of FEMA's disaster assistance grants and loans as described
                   previously (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1982, 1984).


                   Other Federal Agencies

                   Although most federal disaster assistance is coordinated through FEMA, a few other federal agencies
                   have disaster assistance programs that are provided separately from FEMA. Assistance from these
                   programs may be available both with and without a Presidential declaration of a major disaster or
                   emergency.

                   0 Small Business Administration. The Small Business Administration (SBA) issues its own disaster
                       declaration, separate from FEMA. SBA makes low-interest Physical Disaster Loans available








             Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                    13-39



                  directly to eligible individuals and businesses to replace or repair damaged real estate, inventory,
                  or other business property. Businesses are required to document their flood damages and have
                  the damages verified by an SBA representative, and all SBA loan recipients must demonstrate
                  an ability to repay the loan. In addition to Physical Disaster Loans, the SBA offers Economic
                  Injury Disaster Loans to businesses that suffer economic injury as a direct result of the disaster
                  (with or without physical damage) and cannot obtain commercial credit. Application for SBA
                  loans must be made within 180 days of the SBA disaster declaration.

                  Prior to 1988, loans could be made for up to 85 percent of the verified losses. P.L 100-590
                  authorized the SBA to provide mitigation funding for all physical disasters declared on or after
                  August 1, 1988. A physical disaster loan may be increased by an amount up to 20 percent of the
                  loan to provide necessary or appropriate mitigation measures. The measures must be designed
                  to protect against the same kind of disasters that caused the damage and may include building
                  retaining walls and seawalls, grading and contouring of land, relocation of utilities, and modifying
                  structures.


             ï¿½    Federal Highway Administration. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administers
                  the Emergency Relief Program in extending aid to State highway agencies to pay unusually heavy
                  expenses of repairing serious damages to federal-aid highways resulting from natural disasters
                  or catastrophic failures. The federal share is 90 percent for Interstate highways and 80 percent,
                  in most instances, for other federal-aid highways. The federal share for emergency repairs to all
                  federal-aid highways accomplished within 180 days of a natural disaster or catastrophic failure
                  is 100 percent."

             ï¿½    Soil Conservation Service. Under the Emergency Watershed Protection Program, the U.S.
                  Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service may directly undertake emergency work
                  for clearing debris from channels and stabilizing streambanks. Typically, SCS personnel prepare
                  all plans and designs and supervise the work performed by contractors. Stream modification work
                  that must be undertaken immediately to reduce the likelihood of further damage is authorized
                  under an Exigency Phase, and is funded 100 percent by the SCS. Needed stream modification
                  work not required immediately due to the threat of further damage is authorized under a Non-
                  Exigency Phase, which is funded 80 percent by the SCS and 20 percent by a local sponsor. A
                  municipality or a state agency may serve as the local sponsor.

             ï¿½    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps has authority to provide several types of flood disaster
                  assistance, including assistance for: disaster preparedness, advance measures, flood response,
                  postflood response and rescue work, rehabilitation of flood control works damaged or destroyed
                  by flood, protection or repair of federally authorized shore protection works threatened -or
                  damaged by coastal storms, and provision of emergency drinking water.

             ï¿½    Fariners Home Administration. Emergency Loans for agriculture may be made to farmers,
                  ranchers and oyster planters in areas designated as eligible by the FmHA State Director under
                  delegated authority.

             ï¿½    Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Under the Emergency Conservation
                  Program, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) State Director may








                   1340                                     Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                       designate areas eligible for cost-sharing grants of up to 64% to rehabilitate farm lands damaged
                       by natural disasters.


                   Signiricant Changes in Federal Disaster Assistance

                   Historically, the federal programs for disaster assistance have been oriented to provide financial and
                   direct assistance for emergency response actions for short- and long-term recovery. These programs
                   were designed to speed the return of the community to its predisaster condition. In the past twenty
                   years, however, applicants for disaster assistance (communities and individuals) have had to comply
                   with changing requirements and conditions to be eligible for disaster assistance, including requirements
                   and conditions related to environmental protection, floodplain management and flood insurance, and
                   hazard mitigation. In addition, there have been institutional changes in the disaster assistance delivery
                   system, as well as changes in specific programs available to victims of disasters.

                   ï¿½   Institutional Changes. The first major federal disaster relief legislation was enacted in 1950.
                       Subsequently, a number of other federal agency disaster assistance programs were established.
                       It was not until the mid-1970s, however, that the federal programs were coordinated and
                       organized into a comprehensive effort. The major piece of legislation that consolidated and
                       reorganized the disaster assistance provided by federal agencies was the Disaster Relief Act of
                       1974 (P.L 93-288). Responsibility for coordinating disaster relief was assigned to the Federal
                       Disaster Assistance Administration (FDAA), under the Department of Housing and Urban
                       Development (HUD). When FEMA was established in 1979, the FDAA was reorganized as a
                       component of FEMA.

                   ï¿½   Hazard Mitigation Opportunities and Incentives. Since 1979, several changes have been made
                       to federal disaster assistance programs in an attempt to increase postdisaster mitigation measures
                       and reduce vulnerability to damages from future disasters. Policy changes now allow funding
                       options for disaster assistance. In addition, planning requirements have been established and
                       technical assistance made available for hazard mitigation.

                       Two important nonfunded postdisaster mitigation activities are the Interagency Hazard Mitigation
                       Team process and the requirement under Section 409 of the Stafford Act that state and local
                       governments prepare postdisaster hazard mitigation plans. The Interagency Hazard Mitigation
                       Teams are comprised of interagency, intergovernmental, and interdisciplinary teams of individuals
                       that convene after a flood disaster to seek immediate opportunities for mitigation. These teams
                       often identify mitigation issues to be addressed in the postdisaster mitigation plans that state and
                       local governments are required to prepare as a condition of receiving federal disaster assistance.
                       These state and local plans, in turn, help identify projects to be funded under the Hazard
                       Mitigation Grant Program described earlier. The Interagency Teams and the Section 409
                       planning requirement are described in greater detail in Chapter 11.








              Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                    13-41



                   Since 1982, federal funds for public assistance generally provide for reimbursement of 75% of
                   the cost of repairing or rebuilding public facilities to predisaster conditions. In recent years,
                   FEMA policies have been revised to allow state and local governments to undertake mitigation
                   actions during disaster recovery. These funding options include:

                   0  Authorization of cost-effective hazard mitigation measures to make a damaged public facility
                      more disaster resistant.
                   a  Funding for an "improved project," consisting of financial assistance totaling 75% of the
                      estimate for restoration of a damaged facility to build a better or larger facility.
                      Funding for an "alternate project" to perform approved work projects or construct new public
                      facilities rather than to restore damaged public facilities.

              The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Amendments of 1988 (P.L 93-288
              as amended by P.L 100-707) made a number of important changes to existing disaster relief
              programs, including:

                   ï¿½  Hazard mitigation is added as an eligible item under the Disaster Preparedness Improvement
                      Grant Program (DPIG). The funding level for the DPIG is increased from $25,000 to
                      $50,000 per state.

                   ï¿½  A separate hazard mitigation funding program is established to fund 50% of the cost of
                      measures that "substantially reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, loss or suffering."
                      Such measures must be identified in a hazard mitigation plan prepared in accordance with
                      Section 409 (formerly Section 406) and are subject to approval by the President. The
                      maximum federal funds available are 10% of the estimated public assistance grants for
                      permanent restorative works.

                   ï¿½  If a community or private nonprofit agency decides not to rebuild a destroyed or damaged
                      facility, 90% of the federal share for reconstruction is made available for other activities that
                      include hazard mitigation measures. This is termed an "alternate project."

                   ï¿½  Within 90 days of passage of the bill, any property owned by a governmental agency or
                      private, nonprofit organization and located in a special flood hazard area damaged by
                      flooding would not receive full federal disaster assistance. The amount received would be
                      reduced by the value of the facility on the date of damage or by the maximum amount of
                      flood insurance that can be purchased to cover that facility.

                   ï¿½  Damages identified under floodplain management and hazard mitigation criteria are
                      considered as eligible costs for federal funding for repair or reconstruction of public or
                      private nonprofit facilities.


              Disaster Assistance Payments

              From 1965 through 1989 the President declared 657 major disasters under Public Law 93-288, of
              which 508 (77 percent) were related to floods and hurricanes. Total obligations from the Disaster
              Relief Fund for these disasters was $6,767,440,000, of which $5,205,540,000 (77 percent) was for
              disasters due to floods and hurricanes (refer to Table 3-13 in Chapter 3).








                  13-42                                   Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management




                  STATE AND LOCAL ACTIVITIES

                  For the most part, state and local governments rely on the federal government and the private sector
                  to provide financial assistance after disasters. While all state and most local governments have some
                  type of program to coordinate and provide assistance during the flood emergency, few have set aside
                  any special fund to offer financial assistance to flood victims.

                  Disaster assistance by state governments varies greatly. As shown in Table 13-16, most states limit
                  their own disaster assistance funding to local governments, rather than to individuals or businesses.
                  All states now contribute some of the nonfederal share of assistance for Presidentially declared disas-
                  ters. For example, several states will provide 12.5 percent of the matching funds required for federal
                  aid. States may obtain this funding by issuing bonds or allocating funds from existing budgets
                  (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988).

                                      In 1982, flooding in Connecticut resulted in a Presidential disaster declaration for the
                      @3              southern half of the State. The State declared its northern half as a disaster area and
                                      pro'Oded financial assistance to local governments. The State paid for 75% of the cost of
                                      rebuilding public facilities in the areas not eligible for PEMA's Public Assistance funds (L.R.
                                      Johnston Associates, 1988).


                  States may also declare their own emergencies or disasters. No systematic data are available on state-
                  declared emergencies or disasters, but twenty-eight states provide assistance to local communities,
                  usually out of a governor's emergency fund, in the event of a state-declared disaster. In some cases
                  financial assistance has been provided through special appropriations.

                  Table 13-16 shows those states that provide financial assistance to recovering individuals and families
                  and to businesses. Not shown are the states that provide technical advice. Many of the states'
                  homeowner publications include advice on clean up, financial assistance, how to deal with contractors,
                  and other important postdisaster information (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988).

                  Local governments may provide disaster assistance to their residents and business community.
                  Perhaps the most common method for local governments to provide disaster assistance is through
                  some form of tax break for those affected by the flooding. Many local governments have joined in
                  mutual aid agreements whereby they agree to assist nearby communities through provision of
                  equipment, manpower and other means.


                  PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITIES


                  As shown in Table 13-17, a number of national level voluntary organizations provide a variety of
                  disaster relief services, primarily emergency assistance for shelter, food, clothing, and medical aid.
                  Longer-term assistance - for rebuilding homes or forjob, placement, for example - is also provided
                  by some organizations. A committee known as the National Voluntary Organizations Active in
                  Disaster coordinates a group of 11 disaster relief groups. Three of these organizations - the
                  American National Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the Mennonite Disaster Service - were
                  formally recognized in the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 and have signed memoranda of agreement
                  with FEMA regarding their disaster assistance activities (National Science Foundation, 1980).








                Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                                  13-43



                   Table 13-16.        Disaster Assistance Provided by States.


                                                     ASSISTANCE             ASSISTANCE            ASSISTANCE
                                                     TO GOVERNMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS TO BUSINESSES


                        Alabama
                        Alaska                                X                     X
                        Arizona                               X                     X
                        Arkansas
                        California                            X                     X

                        Colorado                              X
                        Connecticut                           X
                        Delaware
                        District of Columbia                  N/A                   X                    X
                        Florida                               X
                        Georgia
                        Hawaii                                X                     X                    X
                        Idaho
                        Illinois
                        Indiana                               X

                        Iowa                                  X
                        Kansas                                X
                        Kentucky
                        Louisiana
                        Maine                                                       X                    X

                        M r
                           a.yland                            X                     X                    X
                        Maine
                        Michigan                              X                     X                    X
                        Minnesota                             X
                        Mississi ,
                                   ppi

                        Missouri                              X                     X
                        Montana                               X
                        Nebraska                                                    X
                        Nevada                                X
                        New Hampshire                         X                                          X
                        New Jers@y
                        New Mexico                            X
                        New York                              X                     X                    X
                        North Carolina                        X                     X
                        North Dakota                          X

                        Ohio                                  X
                        Oklahoma
                        Oregon
                        Pennsylvania                          X
                        Rhode Island

                        South Carolina
                        South Dakota                          X                     X                    X
                        Tennessee
                        Texas                                 X
                        Utah                                  X                     X                    X

                        Vermont
                        Virginia
                        Washingtcp.
                        West ViFgmja                          X                     X                    X
                        Wisconsin
                        Wyoming                               X


                        I  South Carolina has never had a Presidentially declared flood disaster. From the State's response to other types of disasters,
                           it is assumed that assistance would be made available.



                            Source:   Association of State F"plain Managers. "State Floodplain Management Programs. Results of a Survey Conducted by
                                      the Association of State Floodplain Managers for LR. Johnston Associates," 1988.






                         13-44                                                       Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management


                         Table 13-17.           Private Organizations Providing Disaster Assistance.







                                                                                     0.
                                    tX-N X 1@
                                                k -"t       Atl;l
                                                                     el              .0.
                                          9N


                                                4 ef                                  If
                                                X  X X   X x   x x   x   x  x        x x xX x X  X  X  X  X  X X   X   Professional Staff
                                                X  X X   X X   X X   X   X x         XIXX X X    X  X X   I  X X   X   Trained Staff
                                                X  X X   X  X  X     XX  X X         XXXX X X    X  X  X  I  X X X     Trained Volunteers
                                                X  X  X  x  x  x     xI  x  x x      xiX x    I  X  x  X  I  X  I  X   Untrained Staff
                                                X  X  X  X  x  x     xI  x  x        xIxx x   I  x  x  X  x  I  I  X   Untrained Volunteers
                                                X  X  X  X  X  X     XI  X  X        XII   X  I  X  X  X  I  I  I  X   Facilities for Stationary Feeding
                                                X  I  X  X  X  X     XI  I  I        III   I  I  I  X  X  I  I  I  X   Equipment for Mobile Feeding
                                                X  X  X  X  X  X     XI  X  X        XIIX X   I  X  X  X  I  I  I  X   Mass Shelter Facilities

                                                X  I  I  X  X  X     XX  I  I        IIX   I  I  I  X  X  I  I  X X    Trucks
                                                X X X    X  X  X     XX  X  I        IIX   X  I  I  X  X  I  I  X  X   Vans
                                                X  X  X  X  X  X     XX  X  I        IIX   X  I  I  X  X  I  I  X  X   Buses
                                                X  X  X  I  X  X     XX  X  I        IIX   X  I  I  X  X  I  I  X  X   Station Wagons
                                                X  I  I  I  X  X     I   I  I        III   I  I  I  I  X  I  I  I  X   Rescue Equipment
                                                X  I  I  X  I  X     XX  I  I        IIXX  I  I  I  X  I  I  X  X  X   Communication Equipment
                                                X  X  X  X  I  X     XI  X  X        XIIX  X  X  I  X  X  I  X  I  X   Clothing
                                                X  X  X  X  X  X     XI  X  X        XII   X  X  I  X  X  I  X  I  X   Bedding
                                                X  X  X  I  X  X     XI  X  X        XII   X  I  I  X  X  I  X  I  I   Used Furniture
                                                X  X  X  I  i  I     XI  X  I        IIXX  X  I  I  X  X  I  I  I  X   Materials for Rebuilding Homes

                                                X  X  X  X  X  X     XI  X  I        IXIX  X  I  I  X  X  X  I  I  I   Collection and Distribution of Donated
                                                                                      X                                  Goods Other Than Clothing
                                                X  X  X  X  X  X     XI  X  I        IXIX  X  I  I  X  X  X  I  I  I   Collection. Sorting, Sizing of Used Clothing
                                                X  I  X  X  X  X     II  I  I        IIX-  I  I  X  X  X  X  I  I  I   Cleaning Debris From Private Property
                                                X  X X   X  X  X     II  X  I        IIX X X  I  X  X  X  X  I  I  I   Cleaning Homes
                                                X  X  X  X  X  X     II  X  I        IIX   X  I  X  X  X  I  I  I  I   Free Labor To Repair or Rebuild Homes
                                                X  I  I  X  X  X     XI  I  I        IIIX  I  I  I  X  X  I  X  X  X   Welfare Inquiry Scr%icc
                                                X  X  X  X  X  X     XI  X  I        IIIX  X  I  X  X  X  I  X  I  X   Registration and Irdonnation Savicc
                                                X  X  X  X  X  X     XI  X  X        XXX   X  I  I  X  X  I  X  I  X   Counseling Service
                                                X  X  X  X  X  I     XI  X  X        XIIX  X  I  I  X  X  I  I  I  I   Capability To Handle Crisis Intervention
                                                                                      X                                  and Long-Term Recovery
                                                X  I  X  X  X        X   I  I        IIB   I     I  X  I  I     I  X   Training
                                                X  X  X  X  X  X     XI  X  X        XI    X  X  I  X  X  I  X  I  X   Financial Assistance
                                                G        E  F  D C                   B           B  B              A   Comments


                                      COMMENTS: A - Congressional mandate. If no other resource. the Red Cross will meet needs.
                                                      B - Expertise in establistting Interfaith organization.
                                                      C -Bulk food distribution; warehousing ready supplies.
                                                      D -Private mobile homes avaflabic for major disasters.
                                                      E -00.000 revohing fund, more if needed.
                                                      F - May be only in one or a few larger councils.
                                                      G - Ambulances and air transportation and rescue.

                                 Source:    Federal Emergency Management Agency. Integrated Emergency Management Course. Emergency Management Institute,
                                             1983.








               Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                   1345



               In addition to the organizations that operate nationally, local churches and other voluntary groups
               often have a significant role in supplementing the disaster assistance offered by the larger.organiza-
               tions.



               American National Red Cross


               The American National Red Cross was chartered as a national disaster relief agency by Congress
               in 1905. Before federally funded disaster assistance programs became extensive in the late 1950S
               and mid-1960s, the Red Cross played the primary role in providing disaster relief. After federal
               disaster assistance was expanded to include SBA disaster loans for flood victims, Farmers Home
               Administration (FmHA) loans, unemployment assistance for disaster victims, and other programs,
               Red Cross assistance focused more on mass care and emergency assistance, supplementing available
               federal programs and providing services in disasters where governmental programs were not available
               (i.e., where there was not a Presidential Declaration of Major Disaster).

               The Red Cross functions through a national office, three operations headquarters, and over 2,800
               local chapters. Disaster assistance provided by the Red Cross includes assistance for: damage
               assessment; emergency shelters; registration; communications; first aid personnel and stations;
               distribution of emergency supplies; stationary and mobile facilities for feeding victims and emergency
               workers; medical and nursing aid; blood and blood products; welfare inquiries and information
               services; emergency financial assistance for food, clothing, rent, bedding, selected furnishings,
               transportation, medical needs, temporary home repairs, occupational supplies, and other essentials
               on an individual or family basis; referral service to government and private agencies; casework services
               to provide additional recovery assistance to families where governmental programs are not available;
               and other recovery assistance when no resources are available.

               From January 1974 to December 1979, Red Cross aid to flood victims totaled $63,415,000 (National
               Science Foundation, 1980).


               Salvation Army

               Operating through state and regional headquarters and community centers throughout the country,
               the Salvation Army provides disaster services similar to those of the Red Cross. The Salvation Army
               offers spiritual counseling, family counseling and casework services, registration and identification
               of victims services, missing-persons services, temporary shelter and feeding in Salvation Army
               institutions or temporary facilities operated as shelters, and mobile feeding for disaster victims and
               emergency workers. The Salvation Army also collects and distributes food, clothing, furniture,
               bedding, cleaning supplies, medical supplies, building materials, tools and utensils, and other items,
               and provides medical assistance and other services as needed.








                  13-46                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  Mennonite Disaster Service


                  The Mennonite Disaster Service is involved with cleanup and debris removal after natural disasters,
                  with temporary and permanent repairs to private properties for the elderly and under-insured, and
                  with rebuilding and reconstruction for low-income, poverty-level families, disadvantaged minorities,
                  widows, and handicapped families.


                  Other Organizations

                  In addition to the major organizations, several other organizations provide disaster relief services:

                  ï¿½   Ananda Marga Universal Relief Team (Amurt). This organization operates through its national
                      headquarters in Washington, D.C., regional coordinators and disaster teams, and 100 local units.
                      Its principal functions in a disaster are shelter management, survey, casework, stockpiling of
                      clothes and food, teaching first aid, starting clinics, and distribution of food and clothing.

                  ï¿½   Christian Reformed World Relief Committee. This committee consists of a synodical board of
                      the Christian Reformed Church, based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Volunteers include trained
                      caseworkers who serve as supplemental staff to the Red Cross in working with disaster victims,
                      as well as persons skilled in the building trades, including contractors, carpenters, electricians,
                      and plumbers. The committee also assists local church groups in setting up an organization to
                      carry out a longm-term community relief program.

                  ï¿½   Church of the Brethren General Board. The church disaster response coordinators operate
                      through 22 districts, and local congregations are encouraged to have coordinators organize the
                      parish for disaster response. The disaster response capability of the church varies with the
                      strength and commitment of the districts. Some districts provide immediate response and long-
                      term rebuilding assistance, while others engage only in the immediate cleanup phase. Initiation
                      of response is from local congregations or districts, with General Board support when a specific
                      disaster is beyond local and/or district capability. Emphasis is on assistance to the poor, elderly,
                      and handicapped for longer-term relief and reconstruction.

                  ï¿½   Goodwill Industries of America. nis organization's disaster response involvement consists of
                      making available physical facilities and equipment, such as food service, transportation, warehous-
                      ing, and communications - used by the Red Cross by local mutual agreement. Emphasis is on
                      developing and maintaining programs for the handicapped.

                  ï¿½   Society of St. Vincent De Paul. The Society's disaster response services include volunteer person-
                      to-person service, emergency assistance by parish units, and social services, depending on local
                      needs and available resources.


                  ï¿½   National Catholic Disaster Relief Committee. If disaster needs exceed resources of local Catholic
                      Charities Offices, consultants may go to the affected area to advise the local church authorities.
                      Volunteers are recruited as needed, and some immediate financial help may be available from








              Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                     13-47



                  the committee's small emergency reserve. If the disaster is of major proportion and large-scale
                  help is needed, the Committee may launch a national appeal through the local dioceses.

              0   Seventh-Day Adventists Community Services. Disaster response services include: receiving,
                  processing, and distributing clothing, bedding, household supplies and food; emergency feeding
                  and counseling services; and emergency health care where professional personnel are available.

              ï¿½   Southern Baptist Conventions Home Mission Board. The principal services provided. by the
                  Home Mission Board in a disaster are funding and manpower services, usually working closely
                  with the Red Cross. The Home Mission Board in Atlanta has a $100,000 unrestricted revolving
                  fund for disaster relief.

              ï¿½   Volunteers of America. Volunteers of America provides initial services to meet the critical needs
                  of disaster victims through a variety of programs and facilities. Personnel are trained for casework
                  and shelter management, and fleets of trucks and special-service vehicles are available to transport
                  supplies and victims to emergency shelters using the personnel of the Volunteers of America's
                  men's rehabilitation centers. Food, shelter, and clothing, equipment for field canteens and special.
                  air fl ight services are also provided.


              EFFECTIVENESS OF DISASTER ASSISTANCE

              Recent research indicates that local governments have the capacity to assume a much higher
              proportion of losses than they typically do within the context of current federal and state disaster
              relief policies. These same studies indicate that because of the area-wide character of current relief
              policies, a relatively large proportion of governments (two-thirds of those experiencing losses between
              1980 and mid-1987) receive federal assistance for relatively minor (under $50,000) losses. Conversely,
              governments experiencing losses in disasters not covering broad areas and not resulting in a Presiden-
              tial declaration do not receive federal aid, even though their losses can be much larger than those
              experienced by the majority of local governments receiving aid in Presidentially declared disasters
              (Burby, 1989)@

              Following Hurricane Hugo in September 1989 (and the Loma Prieta earthquake in October), the
              U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a review of the federal government's response
              to these two large disasters. In a preliminary report, the GAO noted that, historically, in an "average"
              disaster about 2,000 individuals and families seek federal disaster assistance and FEMA spends about
              $10 million (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1990). During the Hurricane Hugo and Loma Prieta
              earthquake disasters, about 375,000 individuals and families sought disaster assistance, and estimated
              expenditures from the President's Disaster Relief Fund for these disasters alone amounted to $2
              billion. Although the GAO had not reached any final opinions at the time its preliminary report was
              released, it did report apparent coordination difficulties and uncertainty about the roles and responsi-
              bilities among the agencies involved in disaster relief.

              Notwithstanding the apparent problems that occurred following Hurricane Hugo, and the inevitable
              confusion, uncertainty and stress following any disaster, delivery of disaster assistance through a variety
              of federal programs is largely efficient and adequate to provide the necessary financial relief to








                   1348                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                   individuals and communities. In fact, disaster assistance has been viewed by many floodplain
                   managers as so efficient that it negates many potential opportunities to undertake hazard mitigation
                   following a flood (see the following section on Postflood Recovery).

                   Many forms of federal disaster assistance are not available to property owners in the Coastal Barrier
                   Resources System and it is not clear if purchasers of these properties are aware of this situation (U.S.
                   Environmental Protection Agency, 1989).



                                                      POSTFLOOD RECOVERY


                   Postflood recovery consists of any activity to actually recover from the damaging effects of flooding.
                   Recovery actions are typically carried out by the individual, community, or other entity directly
                   affected by the floods. Recovery may be aided by the several forms of disaster assistance discussed
                   in the preceding section on Disaster Assistance. Recovery has traditionally been undertaken with
                   the goal of restoring a community to its preflood condition - leaving the community just as vulnera-
                   ble to flood damages as it was before the recovery. In more recent years, efforts have been made
                   to at least partially break the "vicious circle" of flood disaster followed by disaster assistance to aid
                   recovery, followed by yet another flood disaster, and so on. Undertaking recovery that reduces
                   vulnerability to floods requires choices involving the entire range of floodplain management tools
                   described in chapters 11, 12, and 13. Ideally some type of plan should be prepared in anticipation
                   of a flood, and this plan should guide community recovery actions to mitigate the flood hazard. Such
                   plans, however, are seldom prepared.


                   FEDERAL ACTIVITIES

                   Federal involvement in postflood recovery consists principally of providing financial aid and technical
                   assistance for recovery and mitigation as described previously in this chapter. Recovery actions are
                   also linked to disaster preparedness activities such as preparation of disaster preparedness plans and
                   recommendations for flood hazard mitigation described in Chapter 11,


                   STATE AND LOCAL ACTMTIES

                   As with federal activities, many state and local activities for disaster recovery are tied to disaster
                   assistance and preparedness requirements and efforts described elsewhere in theAssessment Report.
                   Where mitigation has been part of the recovery effort, many floodplain management tools have been
                   used, including floodproofing, acquisition of damaged properties, and regulations. The following
                   prominent examples illustrate state and local efforts for postflood recovery.







               Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                                13-49



               An extensive recovery effort followed the Big T'hompson Canyon flash flood in Colorado:

                                     The Big Thompson Canyon flash flood in Colorado in July 1976 caused property damages
                                     of $43 million ($16 million private and $27 million public) and resulted in 139 deaths.
                                     Following a 10-inch rain in a four hour period (on already saturated soils), an 18-foot high
                                     wall of water roared through the canyon without warning, sweeping away retirement
                                     cabins, vacation and year-round homes and destroying public roads. Colorado state law
                                     authorized the local adoption of moratoria for up to six months in emergency situations.
                                     The Larimer County Commissioners imposed such a six-month moratorium on rebuilding
                                     of homes that were more than 50 percent damaged in the flood.

                                     The moratorium provided an opportunity for local and state officials to complete a flood-
                                     plain study to ensure safer redevelopment Floodplain regulations adopted for one area
                                     of the county in 1974 were evaluated for their applicability to the rest of the canyon area.
                                     Despite strong public opposition, the Big Thompson maps were added to the floodplain
                                     regulations (primarily to secure recovery assistance). In addition, an acquisition program
                                     was developed to acquire floodway lands in the canyon for public open space.

                                     The revised flbodplain regulations prohibited rebuilding in the floodway where homes were
                                     more than 50 percent damaged. Funds were obtained to acquire these properties from
                                     a number of sources (including Colorado Land and Water Conservation funds, state
                                     appropriations, the Four Comers Commission, Department of Interior Discretionary Fund,
                                     and HUD relocation and rehabilitation grants). Acquisibon began to take place in December
                                     1977; eventually 114 parcels were acquired from 94 property o*wners at a cost of $1.5
                                     million. (The original estimate was for $2.5 million to acquire 364 parcels.)

                                     Major problems in the Big Thompson recovery effort were delays and uncertainties.
                                     Obtaining funding for the acquisition program was a lengthy process, and purchases of
                                     damaged properties did not begin until 17 months after the flood. Also, there was political
                                     pressure to rebuild damaged and destroyed homes because of the lack of timely incentives
                                     for mitigation.

                                     Still, the moratorium did provide some "breathing space" - time to focus on the immedi-
                                     ate emergency needs and short-term recovery activities, to identify and assess damages,
                                     and to make a plan for a safer long-term recovery and redevelopment (Thayer, 1985).


               The State of Alabama provides an example of postflood recovery in a coastal setting:

                                     Hurricane Frederic, which struck the coast of Alabama on September 12, 1979, was one
                                     of the most physically destructive storms ever to hit the Gulf coast with water elevations
                                     up to 15 feet above mean sea level and winds of up to 145 miles per hour. In Gulf Shores,
                                     the one incorporated municipality on Pleasure Island which received the most severe
                                     damage along the coast, destruction was nearly total. Ninety percent of the first two tiers
                                     of development were either totally destroyed or severely damaged and insurance claims
                                     amounted to over $16 million. Damage to natural systems was also extensive (including
                                     flattening of dunes and shoreline erosion up to 100 feet) and the tourist-based economy
                                     was devastated. Total damages were estimated at $28.4 million.








                     13-50                                          Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                                            Although Gulf shores had taken steps to prepare itself for storm damages through partici-
                                            pation in the NPIP, adoption of the Southern Standard building code and a flood control
                                            ordinance, and revision of its zoning ordinance, much of the shorefront development
                                            predated these measures.

                                            Following the storm and a Presidential disaster declaration, many residents, business people
                                            and local officials pressed for a quick reconstruction, to get things back to normal as fast
                                            as possible. New building and zoning regulations, however, as well as federal and state
                                            requirements for disaster assistance and reconstruction, were significant factors in the
                                            recovery process. Despite intergovernmental conflicts and development pressures, a
                                            temporary moratorium on redevelopment was imposed and some damaged properties were
                                            acquired (five parcels were acquired using FEMA's Section 1362 Flooded Property Acquisi-
                                            bon Program and three parcels with Town funds and matching funds from the Department
                                            of Interior).

                                            Although many opportuni des for long-range hazard mitigation were missed (e.g., relocation
                                            of the damaged beach highway), the recovery process did involve strengthening the
                                            community's buildings (through application of the building code), and allowed for a more
                                            orderly redevelopment than might have occurred otherwise.

                                            Despite a number of advances in its development procedures and a successful economic
                                            recovery, in many ways Gulf Shores is not prepared for a next hurricane. The higher
                                            density development that occurred after Hurricane Frederic has changed the nature of the
                                            hazard problem by increasing the number of seasonal residents that could be exposed to
                                            a severe storm. In addition, although community leaders have explored ways 6 increase
                                            evacuation capacity, as of 1984 the evacuation plan was inadequate for peak season
                                            evacuation (Brower, 1986).


                     Nags Head, North Carolina is one of the few communities that has prepared a plan specifically
                     addressing postflood recovery:

                                            The Town of Nags Head is a resort community facing substantial growth on the Outer
                                            Banks of North Carolina. This growth has created new problems for a formerly quaint
                                            village of seaside cottages. in addition to protecting the quality of its natural resources,
                                            how should it best prepare its residents and thousands of visitors for hurricanes and coastal
                                            storms?


                                            The North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act Program (CAMA) provided some
                                            direction. The program mandated local land-use planning in 1974 and now requires local
                                            plans to include a poststorm policy section. The section must include a prestorm mitiga-
                                            tion program, evacuation plans, and poststorm reconstruction policy.

                                            In developing its mitigation plan, Nags Head surveyed all properties at risk. The survey
                                            found 84% of the Town's 2,500 buildings to be in the one percent annual chance floodplain
                                            and 44% of them in the high hazard areas. High hazard areas were identified as being
                                            within 300 feet of the ocean and V-zones. Also located in the one percent annual chance
                                            floodplain were four public buildings, 27 miles of street and 32 miles of public water
                                            mains.








                Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                                   13-51



                                       Following a series of meetings and workshops, the Board of Commissioners adopted
                                       policies and implementing actions "to reduce, to the extent possible, future damage from
                                       hurricanes and severe coastal storms." Nags Head's plan for responding to the hazards
                                       was divided into four phases: prestorm mitigation, warning and preparedness, response,
                                       and recovery and reconstruction.

                                       Of particular interest to floodplain managers are some of the mitigation and reconstruction
                                       policies. There are twelve mitigation policies, including a policy to use the capital improve-
                                       ments program to encourage growth away from high hazard land, and a policy opposing
                                       construction of finger canals and other projects that destroy the protection provided by
                                       natural features.

                                       The twelve poststorm reconstruction policies are designed to take advantage of the natural
                                       land clearance provided by severe storrns to redevelop the Town. The Town will limit
                                       reconstruction of substantially damaged buildings and public utilities, will rebuild public
                                       structures strong enough to be used as shelters, and will not permit oceanfront recon-
                                       struction until the CAMA setback line is re-established (Williams, 1988).




                EFFECTIVENESS OF POSTFLOOD RECOVERY


                Postflood recovery efforts, aided by many types of disaster assistance, have been largely effective at
                restoring flood-damaged communities and individual properties to their preflood condition. The very
                effectiveness of the effort has meant that implementation of mitigation actions has not been very
                effective during the recovery period. Until the 1980s, relatively little attention was given to the need
                for postflood mitigation, and all attention was on recovery to preflood conditions. Throughout the
                1980s, recommendations were made to modify recovery efforts so that mitigation actions could also
                be taken. Most federal disaster assistance legislation, however, frustrated postflood mitigation through
                the emphasis on repairing structures to their predisaster condition. Agency policies gradually began
                to change and passage of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in
                November 1988 finally signaled a new approach to postflood recovery. It remains to be seen,
                however, how effectively disaster assistance funds will be spent for mitigation purposes in the future.

                Participants at a 1988 workshop on postdisaster recovery held as part of the 1988 annual conference
                of the Association of State Floodplain Managers concluded that a "window of opportunity" exists
                after some floods, particularly major disasters. The infusion of outside expertise and money into a
                community, combined with damaged or destroyed facilities that must be replaced, represents a large
                component of this opportunity. In addition, there maybe some improvement in local attitudes toward
                mitigation.

                The time during which the "window of opportunity" is open is seen to be quite short. For public
                facilities, the period might extend for a few months, and mechanisms are in place to identify public
                facilities that should receive some type of mitigation attention. For private property, the time frame
                for mitigation was seen as extremely short, from a few days to perhaps as much as three months.








                  13-52                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  The implementation of mitigation actions on private property is made more difficult by the lack of
                  any routine mechanism (such as exists for public facilities) for identifying needed mitigation actions
                  and delaying reconstruction until a well-considered decision is made. Disaster assistance from
                  government agencies is still primarily intended to speed restoration to preflood conditions, and the
                  speed with which disaster aid is provided has increased, thereby lessening the opportunity for
                  identifying mitigation needs. The window of opportunity might not be available throughout the
                  floodplain area, but might be concentrated in areas of greatest and most frequent damage, such as
                  the 5- or 10-year floodplain. In communities accustomed to structural solutions, however, no
                  postflood opportunity for mitigation may exist (Association of State Floodplain Managers, Workshop
                  #4,1988).

                  Many communities may be more inclined to speed recovery to preflood conditions than to undertake
                  mitigation actions. Consequently, state and federal agencies should take the lead in requiring
                  postflood recovery plans and providing assistance in developing and implementing such plans (Fuller,
                  1989).



                                                 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


                  A significant increase of information and education-related activities in most areas of floodplain
                  management during the last twenty years is evident in the large number of publications, conferences,
                  training programs, and organizations now involved with floodplain management. Federal agencies
                  have produced much of the information that forms the core of floodplain management knowledge
                  and have been active in providing training in various aspects of floodplain management. States have
                  also released hundreds of documents relating to floodplain management, many based on documents
                  published by federal agencies. As a result, information prepared by the federal agencies receives
                  much wider distribution than it would otherwise. Private sector activities relative to information and
                  education have also increased dramatically.

                  Flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program is now available to residents of more
                  than 18,000 communities. In 1987, just over two million flood insurance policies were in force under
                  the NFIP, with insurance coverage at approximately $114 billion. At the end of 1990, there were
                  2.39 million policies in force with $201 billion in coverage. Still, only one-quarter to one-third of the
                  approximately nine million buildings in the United States exposed to flooding risks are insured under
                  the NFIP, although participation in the "Write-Your Own" program is expected to increase the
                  number of insurance policies sold and provide coverage to a greater number of structures.

                  Tax adjustments are commonly used by states and localities following a flood disaster to provide some
                  relief to flood victims. The federal government still provides limited tax deductions for casualties,
                  including floods, but these allowances have been reduced by tax reform measures.

                  Most communities have developed an emergency preparedness plan, but many have not developed
                  detailed procedures for flood emergencies. Even in the most floodprone communities, specific
                  warning, flood fighting, and other emergency measures for neighborhoods subject to flooding often
                  have not been prepared. Because of the infrequency of flooding, emergency materials such as sand








              Modifying the Impacts of Flooding                                                                      13-53



              bags are often not available in needed quantities. Many communities rely heavily on the National
              Guard and other outside assistance.

              Traditionally, recovery from floods has meant restoring a community to its preflood condition. Efforts
              to accomplish postflood mitigation have been undertaken, but progress has been limited.

              It is not clear if the present mi:x of flood insurance, disaster assistance, tax adjustments, and postflood
              recovery practices are adequately combined to provide an equitable sharing of the capital and
              operating costs of floodplain occupancy among the beneficiaries. The Unified National Program for
              Floodplain Management calls for costs to be shared among the beneficiaries and for a minimum of
              cost-shifting from the individual to the public and government agencies. There has been, however,
              no clear statement of what portion of the cost of floodplain development should properly be borne
              by the general public. Some argue that all costs should be borne by those who occupy the floodplain.
              Others argue that development of the floodplain provides economic benefits, and the general public
              should therefore assume the burden of any costs associated with floodplain occupancy.









             CHAPTER 14:


             MANAGING NATURAL AND CUL RAL
             RESOURCES




                 If contemporaryfloodplain managers overlook environmental values, theymay bejudged deficient,
                 as were their predecessors, for being strongly predisposed toward flood control measures.

                                                         A Unified National Program for F16odplain Management, 1976



             The second major objective of floodplain management as presented in A Unifwd National Program
             for Floodplain Management (1986) is to minimize the potential adverse effects of development
             activities on the natural and cultural resources provided by floodplains. A Unified National Program
             for Floodplain Management describes three broad categories of natural and cultural resources:'

             1) WATER RESOURCES: The water resources functions provided by floodplains include those related
             to natural storage and conveyance of flood waters, the maintenance of water quality, and the recharge
             of ground water.

             2) IJVING REsOURCES (HABITAT): Floodplains provide habitat for large and diverse populations
             of plants as well as fish and wildlife species. Floodplain wetlands, for example, are major sources
             of food and breeding habitat for both saltwater and freshwater fisheries and for many types of wildlife.
             Floodplains are especially important and productive sources of energy and nutrients, in large part
             because they contain the elements of both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The fish and wildlife
             resources supported directly and indirectly by floodplains represent a renewable resource of great
             economic importance to the states and to the Nation.

             3) CULTURAL REsOURCES: Floodplains provide a wide variety of cultural resources including
             historical, archaeological, scientific, and recreational sites and opportunities, in addition to highly
             productive agricultural, aquacultural, and forestry uses. Most of our earliest archaeological and
             historical sites are found in floodplain areas that can also provide unique opportunities for natural
             science study and research. In addition, floodplains can provide community open space resources
             and urban green belts. The recreational opportunities associated with floodplains include opportuni-
             ties for water-oriented sports, hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, and simple "passive" enjoyment of
             scenic resources. Floodplains also provide a highly productive resource base for agriculture,
             aquaculture, and forestry (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986).



                 See Chapter 2 for a more detailed description of the natural and cultural resources of floodplains.








                  14-2                                     Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                                   PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION STRATEGIES


                  Only in recent years have the natural and cultural resources of floodplains been recognized as
                  valuable in their own right. All of these resources are threatened by various human and natural
                  conditions, and particularly by floodplain modification and development. Only a limited type and
                  amount of human uses are compatible with most floodplain resources, and there is general agreement
                  among floodplain management professionals that the natural and cultural resources of floodplains
                  are not being adequately protected.

                  A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management suggests that the best means of protecting
                  floodplain natural and cultural resources is to avoid floodplain development. Two basic strategies
                  for protection of floodplain natural resources are identified:

                  1) PRESERVA-11ON OF NATURAL RESOURCES: prevention of alteration of floodplain natural and
                  cultural resources, or maintenance of the floodplain environment as close to its natural state as
                  possible using all practicable means.

                  2) RESTORATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: actions to provide re-establishment of a setting or
                  environment in which natural functions can again operate.

                  Preservation strategies focus on strict control or prohibition of development in sensitive or highly
                  hazardous areas (through establishment of wildlife sanctuaries, for example), while restoration
                  strategies focus on actions to improve the quality or functioning of degraded floodplains (by restoring
                  damaged wetlands, for example). It is not always possible, however, to make a clear distinction
                  between the two strategies. Preservation and restoration of floodplain natural resources are often
                  accomplished, either directly or indirectly, through a wide variety of development controls or by means
                  of regulatory standards designed to protect valuable natural resources or minimize adverse impacts
                  on those resources.


                  Preservation strategies do not exclude management activities that are compatible with sustaining
                  floodplain functions. Preservation strategies, for example, can include activities to improve habitat
                  conditions and the nonpoint pollution control functions of riparian forests (Lowrance, 1985). Types
                  of regulatory activities and management programs that directly or indirectly contribute to the
                  restoration and preservation of living resources/habitat resources include:

                  ï¿½   single or multi-purpose resource management and protection programs that include objectives
                      for habitat and living resources protection, and that apply to floodplains;

                  ï¿½   incorporation of provisions for protection of habitat and living resources in zoning, subdivision,
                      and other land-use regulations that apply in whole or in part to floodplains; and

                  ï¿½   incorporation of specific provisions related to living resources and habitat protection in floodplain
                      management programs and regulations.

                  These kinds of programs are directed toward inland and coastal wetlands, estuarine and coastal areas,
                  barrier beaches and sand dunes, rare and endangered species, riverine and coastal fisheries, and wild








             Managing Natural and Cultural Resources                                                              14-3



             and scenic rivers. Most of the Nation's wetlands, coastal barriers and marine sanctuaries are located
             within riverine and coastal floodplains, and restoration and preservation of the living resources and
             habitat resources of floodplains; are often accomplished through multi-objective programs or regula-
             tions aimed at protecting inland wetlands, coastal wetlands, or barrier islands.

             Preservation and restoration of floodplain water resources has been accomplished through a variety
             of water supply, watershed management, agricultural erosion control, and water quality maintenance
             and improvement programs.

             Protection of floodplain cultural resources has often. been accomplished through open space and
             recreation planning and urban renewal programs, especially in older cities where early settlement
             concentrations occurred in the floodplain. Some of these programs include waterfront redevelopment
             projects, historic and cultural resources protection programs, and a variety of multi-purpose open
             space programs, including programs that focus on the development of water-oriented recreation,
             public access, and green belts.

             As shown in Table 14-1, there are a number of "tools" that can be used to preserve and protect
             floodplain natural and cultural resources. The available tools include:

             ï¿½   Floodplain, wetland and coastal barrier regulations
             ï¿½   Development and redevelopment policies
             ï¿½   Information and education
             ï¿½   Tax adjustments
             ï¿½   Administrative measures

             As described inA Unified National Program forFloodplain Management, "thesetools and theirapplica-
             tion may not be as well documented or understood as those for flood loss reduction, but should be
             used to support one another and may be integrated with flood loss reduction tools" (Federal
             Emergency Management Agency, 1986). The National Review Committee writes that "it is clear ...
             that engineering techniques and institutional means of flood loss reduction are much better under-
             stood, and more clearly embodied in various federal programs than are comparable techniques and
             institutional programs for protection and restoration of natural values" (National Review Committee,
             1989.)

             Table 14-2 lists a number of ways in which the strategies and tools for natural resource loss reduction
             may be used to protect floodplain natural and cultural resources.

             The following sections of this chapter describe some of the more prominent ways that the strategies
             and tools have been applied. The same types of tools are also used, as described in chapters 11 and
             13, to minimize susceptibility to flood losses and the impacts of those losses. (Descriptions included
             in chapters 11 and 13 of particular types of programs or actions will not be repeated here, except
             by reference, or if further description is necessary.)








                   14-4                                        Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                   Table 14-1.       Strategies and Tools for Natural Resource Loss Reduction.


                                    STRATEGIES:


                                    1. RESTORATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
                                    2. PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES


                                    TooLs:


                                    1. FLoODPLAIN, WETLAND, COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES REGULATIONS
                                        a)  State Regulations
                                        b)  Local Regulations
                                            1)  Zoning
                                            2)  Subdivision Regulations
                                            3)  Building Codes
                                            4)  Housing Codes
                                            5)  Sanitary and Well Codes
                                            6)  Other Regulatory
                                    2.  DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT POUCIES
                                        a) Design and Location of Services[Utilities
                                        b) Land Rights, Acquisition and Open Space
                                        c) Redevelopment
                                        d) Permanent Evacuation

                                    3. INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
                                    4. TAx ADiUSTMENFS
                                    5. ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES



                           Source:  Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management
                                    Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.




                   In many cases, actions to reduce flood losses also serve to protect floodplain natural resources. In
                   other instances, flood loss reduction efforts conflict with efforts to protect and restore floodplain
                   natural and cultural resources. There are, however, many instances where flood loss reduction and
                   natural resources protection efforts have been successfully combined.

                   The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) has observed that conflicts with flood loss reduction goals
                   can be resolved through integrated management approaches and practices designed by interdisciplin-
                   ary teams that would include ecologists, biologists, and natural resource managers. In this regard,
                   a new, energetic, and concerted effort should be launched to accomplish the objectives of natural
                   resources loss reduction, and to advance such measures as greenway management efforts that
                   encompass protection for natural resources as well as enhancement of outdoor recreation opportu-
                   nities. (Jahn, 1989.)








               Managing Natural and Cultural Resources                                                                                      14-5



               Table 14-2.         Examples of Tools for Protecting and Managing Natural Floodplain Resources.




               FLOOD STORAGE AND CONVEYANCE:


                    Minimize floodplain fills and other actions that require fills, such as construction of dwellings, factories, highways, etc.
                    Require that structures and facilities on wetlands provide for adequate now circulation.
                    Use minimum grading requirements and save as much of the site from compaction as possible.
                    Relocate nonconforming structures and facilities outside of the floodplain.
                    Return site to natural contours.
                    Preserve free natural drainage when designing and constructing bridges, roads, fills and large built-up centers.
                    Prevent intrusion on and destruction of wetland, beach, and estuarine ecosystems, and restore damaged dunes and
                    vegetation.

               WATER QUALITY MAINTENANCE:


                    Maintain Welland and floodplain vegetation buffers to reduce sedimentation and delivery of chemical pollutants to the
                    water body-
                    Support agricultural practices that minimize nutrient flows into water bodies.
                    Control urban runoff, other storm water, and point and nonpoint discharges of pollutants.
                    Support methods used for grading, filling, soil removal, and replacement, etc. to minimize erosion and sedimentation
                    during construction.
                    Restrict the location of potential pathogenic and toxic sources on the floodplain, such as sanitary land fills and septic
                    tanks, heavy metal wastes, etc.

               GROUNDWATER RECHARGE:


                    Require the use of pervious surfaces where practicable,
                    Design construction projects for runoff detention.
                    Dispose of spoils and waste materials so as not to contaminate ground or surface water or significantly change land
                    contours.


               liviNG RESOURCES AND HABITAT:


                    Identify and protect wildlife habitat and other vital ecologically sensitive areas from disruption.
                    Require topsoil protection programs during construction.
                    Restrict wetland drainage and channelization.
                    Reestablish damaged floodplain ecosystems.
                    Minimize tree cutting and other vegetation removal.
                    Design floodgates and seawalls to allow natural tidal activity and estuarine flow.

                                                                                                                                (Continued...


                        Source:   Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. A Uniied National Propram for Floodylain Manar-ement
                                  Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.








                      14-6                                            Application of the Strategies and Tools for Roodplain Management



                      Table 14-2. (Cont.) Examples of Tools for Protecting and Managing Natural Floodplain Resources.




                      CULTURAL RESOURCES:


                           Provide public access to and along the waterfront for recreation, scientific study, educational instruction, etc.
                           Locate and preserve from harm historical and cultural resources; consult with appropriate government agencies or
                           private groups.

                      AoRicuLTuRAL RESOURCES:


                           Minimize soil erosion on cropped areas within floodplains.
                           Control use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer.
                           limit the size of fields and promote fence rows, shelter belts, and stripcropping for improved wildlife habitat.
                           Strengthen water bank and soil bank type programs in a manner consistent with alternate demands for the use of
                           agricultural land.
                           Minimize irrigation return flows and excessive applications of water.
                           Eliminate feedlot-type operations.
                           Discourage new agricultural production requiring use of drainage.
                           Retain agricultural activity on highly productive soils where flood risk is compatible with the value of crops grown.

                      AoUACULTURAL RESOURCES:


                           Construct impoundments in a manner that minimizes alteration in natural drainage and flood flow. Existing natural
                           impoundments such as oxbow lakes and sloughs may be used with proper management.
                           limit the use of exotic species, both plant and animal, to those organisms already common to the area or those known
                           not to compete unfavorably with existing natural populations.
                           Discourage mechanized operations causing adverse impacts. Machinery such as dredges, weeders, and large-scale
                           harvesting equipment may lead to environmental problems such as sediment loading in adjacent watercourses.
                           Use extreme caution in the disposal of animal waste.

                      FOREmy:


                           Control the practice of clear-cutting, depending upon the species harvested, topography, and location.
                           Complement state law governing other aspects of harvest operations; proximity towatercourses, limits on road-building,
                           equipment intrusions, etc.
                           Include fire management in any overall management plans. Selective burning may reduce the probability of major
                           destructive fires.
                           Require erosion control plans on all timber allotments, roads, and skidways.







                              Source:   Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. A Unified National Program for Floodylain Managemen
                                        Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.








           Managing Natural and Cultural Resources                                                               14-7



                                           REGULATIONS TO PROTECT
                         FLOODPLAIN NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES


           Regulatory measures are among the most widely used and most effective means of protecting the
           natural and cultural resources of floodplains, and are used by all levels of government. Regulations,
           however, are limited in their ability to achieve total protection or preservation of floodplain resources
           and functions, largely because of the possibility for an unconstitutional "taking" of private property
           if the property owner is denied all potential for economic return on the land. Where complete
           protection of a resource is required, use of some other tool, such as acquisition, may be necessary
           (Field, 1981). Important regulations to protect floodplain natural and cultural resources have been
           established on the federal, state and local levels.



           FEDERAL REGULATIONS

           Federal regulations protect several types of floodplain natural and cultural resources by limiting the
           ways, locations and extent to which these resources may be modified. These regulations have been
           established following the passage of major federal legislation.


           The National Environmental Policy Act

           The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (P.I_ 91-190) enacted in 1970 requires federal
           agencies. to include detailed evaluations of the potential impacts of floodplain development and use
           on natural floodplain resources as part of the decision-making process. The NEPA requirements
           have facilitated the protection of floodplain resources by establishing procedures for environmental
           assessment. NEPA and other legislation and regulations have resulted in a broader view and goal-
           setting for floodplain management.


           The Clean Water Act and the Section 404 Wetlands Regulatory Program

           The Clean Water Act, first enacted in 1972 and amended several times since, contains many
           provisions that protect natural resources and functions. The major regulatory tool at the federal level
           for managing floodplain natural resources is the Section 404 regulatory program established by the
           Clean Water Act (P.L 92-500 and subsequent amendments). Jointly administered by the Corps of
           Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Section 404 program
           regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including adjacent
           wetlands. Permit applications are subject to a "public interest review" that includes consideration
           of floodplain resources and flood hazards (33 CFR 320.4(a)(1)). Permit applications are also subject
           to a determination of compliance with the EPA's Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The Section 404(b)(1)
           Guidelines provide extensive environmental criteria for judging permit applications, emphasizing the
           need to prevent avoidable losses of aquatic resources, as well as the need to minimize adverse
           environmental impacts.








                    14-8                                   Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                    The environmental guidelines provided by the EPA for evaluating "404" permit applications include
                    a series of mitigation measures to minimize the effects (including effects on floodplain natural
                    resources) of permitted discharges. One mitigation option - restoration of alternative degraded-
                    sites - "has introduced a number of experiments with the rehabilitation of degraded wetlands, and
                    in a few cases, attempts to create entirely new wetlands" (Platt, 1987).

                    The EPA has been involved with wetland management efforts (primarily though the Section 404
                    Regulatory Program) since the agency's inception, and has recently strengthened its management
                    efforts. In 1986 the EPA created a separate Office of Wetlands Protection to increase its wetlands
                    management, protection and research activities and to pursue its Section 404 responsibilities.

                    In addition to the Section 404 program, other regulatory provisions of the Clean Water Act, such as
                    the provisions governing municipal and industrial waste discharges, are critically important for
                    maintaining water quality or restoring water quality to levels that can support fish and wildlife and
                    associated habitat.



                    The Endangered Species Act

                    Plant and animal species may become threatened or endangered as a result of natural events and
                    human activities. Many declining species "are highly specialized and restricted to rather rare and
                    often highly unstable habitats, such as mountain tops, sand dunes, and flood plains, quite often in
                    association with other rare species" (Dowan, 1976).

                    One of the most significant developments relating to increased understanding and protection of these
                    rare species - including those occupying floodplains - was the establishment of a national program
                    for identifying and protecting rare species of flora and fauna in immediate or foreseeable danger of
                    extinction throughout all or a major part of their geographic range. The Endangered Species Act
                    of 1973 (P.L 93-205) established a program to designate and protect such species as "endangered"
                    or "threatened." This program is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the
                    National Marine Fisheries Service.

                    The Act authorizes the Secretary of Interior to identify endangered or threatened species, designate
                    habitats critical to their survival, establish and conduct programs for their recovery, and enter into
                    agreements with states to conserve endangered and threatened species. It further requires other
                    federal agencies to cooperate with the Secretary for enhancement of those species. The U.S.
                    Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Interior (DOI) are authorized to acquire
                    land to conserve designated animals and plants, and federal agencies are directed not to authorize,
                    fund, or carry out actions that may jeopardize the existence of or modify the habitats of endangered
                    or threatened species (Council on Environmental Quality, 1980).

                    The number of species listed as threatened or endangered has steadily increased over the years, but
                    the actual number of listings is of limited significance. A long list could be viewed as indicating that
                    many species are in danger or that many species receive special protection (Conservation Foundation,
                    1984).

                    Many states have developed their own programs for identifying rare and endangered species.








             Managing Natural and Cultural Resources                                                               14-9



             The Coastal Zone Management Act

             The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (P.L 92-583), provides funding assistance to states (and
             indirectly to local governments) for awride range of resource protection activities, including activities
             that directly or indirectly affect the Nation's coastal floodplains. In addition, the CZMA includes a
             consistency provision, whereby most federal activities must be consistent with a coastal management
             program adopted by a state (and by local governments) if the state program has been approved by
             the federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management (OCRM). This consistency provision
             has proven to be a powerful tool for state and local governments to influence federal activities in
             the coastal zone.



             Swampbuster Provisions of the Farm Bills

             Under the "Swampbuster" provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 and the Food, Agriculture,
             Conservation and Trade Act of 1990, federal agricultural subsidies, farm storage facility loans, crop
             insurance, and agricultural disaster payments may not be made to farmers who convert wetlands to
             make possible the growing of commodity crops after November 28, 1990, or plant an agriculture
             commodity on a wetland converted after December 23, 1985.


             Legislation and Regulations to Protect Cultural Resources

             The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L 89-665) was passed, in part, because the
             Congress recognized that federal projects, such as highways, dams, and urban renewal projects, had
             damaged or destroyed thousands of historic properties during the 1950s and 1960s. The Act required
             federal agencies to consider the effect of any federal action on historic properties included in a
             national register of historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects. In 1980 Congress amended the
             Act, principally Section 110, to require federal agencies to establish historic preservation programs,
             nominate their historic properties to the National Register of Historic Places,2 and maximize the use
             of their historic properties (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1988).

             The national historic preservation program has operated as a working partnership between federal,
             state, and local governments, private citizens, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP),
             and the National Trust for Historic Preservation (National Trust). In general, the federal government
             provides guidelines, technical assistance, and grants-in-aid for state and local historic preservation
             efforts, and monitors its own activities so as not to unnecessarily harm historic properties. State
             historic preservation officers (SHPOs) coordinate the national program at the state level, assist local
             governments and the interested public, give them advice on preservation matters, and carry out other
             aspects of the national program on behalf of the federal government. Preservation work at historic
             sites takes place primarily at the community level through local governments, nonprofit organizations
             and institutions, corporations, and interested individuals.



             2   Properties must be at least 50 years old or have achieved significance of exceptional importance within the
                 past 50 years to be included on the National Register of Historic Places.








                    14-10                                     Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                    The Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-523) required that "before any agency of the United
                    States shall undertake the construction of a dam, or issue a license for the construction of a dam"
                    it must notify the Department of Interior, which was to survey the area. The survey and salvage work
                    is to be performed by the National Park Service (NPS). This law was amended in 1974:to apply to
                    any federal agency whenever it received information that its direct, federally licensed, or federally
                    assisted activities might cause the "irreparable loss or destruction of significant scientific, prehistorical,
                    historical, or archaeological data..." The 1974 amendments authorized federal agencies to transfer
                    up to one percent of the total authorization for a project to the NPS to pay for the salvage work
                    (Duerksen, 1983).

                    Most of the recent federal land-use planning laws require that historic and cultural resources should
                    be planned for, identified and preserved. For example, the CZMA authorizes planning and resource
                    protection grants to states. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 requires the
                    Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to consider and protect cultural resources on its lands, and the
                    National Forest Management Act of 1976 imposes similar requirements on the U.S. Forest Service.
                    The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act allows rivers to be protected, if they have outstanding national
                    significance, including'historic features. No rivers have yet been protected solely for historic qualities,
                    but components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System that have been designated for other qualities
                    may also be managed to protect cultural resources (Duerksen, 1983). Under Section 60.6 of the
                    National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), communities may issue variances for the application of
                    elevation, floodproofing, or other requirements of the NFIP's minimum floodplain regulations, as
                    these requirements would apply to reconstruction, rehabilitation or restoration of structures listed
                    on the National Register of Historic Places or on a State Inventory of Historic Places. Such variances
                    may be issued if, without the variance, the reconstruction, rehabilitation, or restoration activities would
                    destroy the historic character of the structure and its designation as a historic building (Federal
                    Emergency Management Agency, 1987).


                    Other Federal Regulatory Programs

                    Many other federal regulatory programs directly or indirectly protect floodplain natural resources.
                    These include programs established to implement the Safe Drinking Water Act, Federal Insecticide,
                    Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FfFRA), the Solid Waste Disposal Act (P.L. 94-580), and other
                    federal laws.



                    STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS

                    Floodplain, wetland, and coastal barrier management and protection at the state and local levels'can
                    be accomplished with a variety of regulatory tools that contain provisions for preserving and restoring
                    floodplain resources.








               Managing Natural and Cultural Resources                                                                           14-11



               State Regulations

               Statewide floodplain, wetland protection, or similar regulations may be applied directly by a state
               or, as is more often the case, by local communities according to state-established standards.

                                    Wisconsin has adopted a statewide floodplain zoning regulation that requires counties, cities,
                                    and villages to adopt floodplain zoning ordinances. The State regulation also establishes
                                    minimum use standards for the floodway and flood fringe areas. A shoreland protection law
                                    further requires counties to regulate and adopt comprehensive sanitary and subdivision
                                    ordinances in all shoreland areas. Shoreland areas are defined as those within 300 feet of
                                    streams and 1,000 feet of lakes and flowages (Conservation Foundation, 1980).


               As shown in Table 14-3, all coastal states and many inland states regulate wetlands. Several states
               have enacted coastal wetland regulations focused on wetland protection, including Maine (Alteration
               of Coastal Wetlands Act) and Maryland (Tidal Wetlands Act). "By 1970, Connecticut and Massachu-
               setts had adopted coastal regulatory programs specifically to protect coastal wetlands. These
               programs established a permitting system for development activities that would alter the characteris-
               tics of coastal wetlands. Both laws became models for numerous other states." "Other coastal
               regulatory laws, such as Maine's Mandatory Shoreline Zoning and Subdivision Control Act, and
               Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Protection Act provide wetland protection as one of
               several program goals" (Cowles, 1986).

               The coastal wetland regulatory programs of some states outline minimal criteria (e.g., the proposed
               projects must be in the public interest or water-dependent) for permit issuance, and all other
               development is prohibited. Any alteration of the natural topography or habitat, or any damage to
               flora or fauna requires a permit in the states of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, New Jersey, Rhode
               Island, South Carolina, and Virginia. Under Maryland's Critical Area Program, habitat and water
               quality enhancement are required for permit issuance. Cumulative impacts are considered in a few
               states* (Florida, Rhode Island) during the permit review process, and mitigation is often a condition
               for permit issuance in several states (see Cowles, 1986).

               Although many states also protect inland wetlands, "inland wetlands nationwide generally receive less
               protection than coastal wetlands" (Cowles, 1986). Fourteen states administer specific inland wetland
               protection laws (Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire,
               New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin). The inland
               wetland programs of some states (e.g., Connecticut, Florida, New York) are delegable to local
               governments or implemented through district environmental commissions as in Vermont, or by local
               government as in Massachusetts.

                                In Michigan, communities have adopted combined floodplain and wild and scenic liver regula-
                                tions pursuant to statutes or river corridor plans to manage these areas for floodplain and other
                                natural values.








                       14-12                                     . -       Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                        Table 14-3.         State Regulatory Activities for Protection of Natural Resources.


                                                                                              REVIEW           SPECIAL
                                                                            WETLAND           FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION
                                                                            REGULATIONS       PERMITS          PROGRAMS


                                                Alabama                            AS                                X
                                                Alaska                             A                                 X
                                                Arizona
                                                Arkansas
                                                California                         S              A                  A

                                                Colorado
                                                Connecticut                        AS+,AL+        AS                 X
                                                Delaware                           S                                 X
                                                District of Columbia                              X
                                                Florida                            S,L                               X
                                                Georgia                            AS
                                                Hawaii                             S                                 X
                                                Idahq
                                                Illinois                                          X
                                                Indiana                            AS             X

                                                Iowa                                              X
                                                Kansas                                            X
                                                Ken u ky                                                             X
                                                         @.c
                                                Louisiana
                                                Maine                              S              X                  X

                                                Maryland                           AS             X                  L
                                                Massachusetts                      S,L
                                                Michigan                           S                                 X
                                                Minrie@ota                         S
                                                Mississippi                        AS

                                                Missouri                                                             X
                                                Montana
                                                Nebraska                                                             X
                                                Nevada
                                                New Hampshire                      S                                 X
                                                New Jersey                         S              S                  S
                                                New Mexico
                                                New York                           ASAL           X
                                                North Carolina                     AS                                X
                                                North Dakota                       AS

                                                Ohio                                                                 X
                                                Oklahoma                           AS
                                                Oregon                             L
                                                Pennsylvania                       S              X
                                                Rhode Island                       S

                                                South Carolina                     S
                                                South Dakota                       S
                                                Tennessee                                                            X
                                                Texas                              S
                                                Utah                               S                                 X

                                                Vermont                            S
                                                Virginia                           AS
                                                Was4rigtqn.                        AS
                                                West ViFginia
                                                Wisconsin                          L
                                                Wyoming

                                                A =      Rules apply only in certain areas, e.g., New York directly regulates tidal wetlands and requires
                                                         locals to regulate freshwater wetlands.
                                                L=       Local regulations must meet state requirements
                                                S=       State directly regulates development
                                                +=       State will directly regulate if locals do not
                                                X=       State is involved in this activity.


                                  Source:   Association of State Floodplain Managers. ,State Floodplain Management Programs. Results of a Survey Conducted by
                                            the Association of State Floodplain Managers for LR. Johnston Associates," 1988.








               Managing Natural and Cultural Resources                                                                              14-13



               Lwal Regulations

               Local regulations, including zoning and subdivision regulations, building codes, housing codes, sanitary
               and well codes, and other regulations, may directly or indirectly address management of floodplain
               natural resources. Many local zoning and subdivision regulations establish requirements related to
               protection of floodplain natural resources. These provisions include: specified distances that buildings
               must be set back from the shore; density limitations in shoreland areas; restrictions or prohibitions
               on certain kinds of development in highly sensitive areas; and specification of uses compatible with
               natural resources protection.

                                 A zoning ordinance in Clearwater, Florida includes special regulations for areas of environmental
                                 sensitivity, including mangrove and freshwater swamps, barrier islands, coastal beaches, natural
                                 drainageways, and aquifer recharge areas.


                                 In addition to floodplain regulations that require permits for activities involving filling, grading
                                 or structures, Virginia Beach, Virginia has adopted coastal wedand regulations and sand dune
                                 protection regulations that require building setbacks.


                                 Resource-based floodplain regulations in Glastonbury, Connecticut include a density transfer
                                 mechanism enabling development rights to be shifted from one location to another.




               A variety of other regulatory measures address floodplain natural resources, including regulations
               pertaining to riparian habitat protection, agricultural use, and zoning.


                                 In California, several communities have adopted ordinances regulating the removal of riparian
                                 cover along watercourses to reduce bank erosion, increase ground-water infiltration and provide
                                 wildlife habitats.




                                 In Northampton, Massachusetts, 1,500acresof floodplainalong the Connecticut River have been
                                 placed in an exclusive agricultural use district



                                 Glastonbury, Connecticut has zoned approximately 800 acres along the Connecticut River for
                                 agricultural use (Kusler, 1982).








                   14-14                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                   Many communities apply several types of regulations in combination with other floodplain manage-
                   ment and resource protection measures.

                                    In East Hampton, New York floodplain regulations are supplemented by a beach grass protec-
                                    don ordinance, tidal and inland wedand regulations, a dune setback regulation, and acquisition
                                    of scenic easements to protect wetlands, sand dunes and other areas.




                   DIFFICULTIES IN USING REGULATORY MEASURES TO PROTECT
                   FLOODPLAIN NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

                   Despite the successful application of regulatory measures on the federal, state and local levels to
                   protect floodplain natural and cultural resources, a number of problems associated with use of these
                   measures have been identified by agencies and groups concerned with floodplain management.

                   Perhaps the greatest obstacle is that many people object to regulatory restrictions on land use (Jahn,
                   1989; Sprague, 1989). Largely because of these objections, the "taking issue" is often raised in the
                   course of discussing regulatory measures for natural resource protection (Bureau of Reclamation,
                   1989; Soil Conservation Service, 1989). Efforts to restrict development for the purpose of protecting
                   natural resources and associated functions are often viewed less favorably than restrictions intended
                   to reduce flood damages to public or private property (Association of State Floodplain Managers,
                   Workshop #6, 1988). Similarly, the courts view efforts to protect natural resources less favorably
                   than efforts to protect property and lives from natural hazards (Kusler, 1989).

                   Regulations to protect natural resources often conflict with regulations intended to reduce flood losses
                   (DeGroot, 1989). Structural flood control measures, in particular, may result in the loss or degrada-
                   tion of natural floodplain resources if the measures are not properly designed and constructed. On
                   the other hand, well-conceived flood control measures such as dams and reservoirs may sometimes
                   create wildlife habitat and recreational resources in areas where such resources did not previously
                   exist.

                   Nonstructural measures to reduce losses to life and property may also result in a reduction of
                   floodplain natural resources. Floodplain land-use regulations typically do not include provisions to
                   protect natural resources, and relatively risk-free development in the floodplain may still cause
                   significant loss of natural resources. To avoid this loss, floodplain regulations should include explicit
                   provisions for protection of floodplain resources as well as provisions for reduction of life and
                   property losses (Jahn, 1989). In some instances, this regulatory approach may require regional or
                   watershed-based planning efforts to accomplish both goals while still maintaining development
                   potential (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989).







               Managing Natural and Cultural Resources                                                                    14-15



                   DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS


               Objectives for protecting floodplain natural and cultural resources can be incorporated in a variety
               of development and redevelopment policies and programs. These policies and programs may be
               related, for example, to the design and location of utilities and services, open space acquisition, urban
               renewal, and other actions. Broad policies may be established through legislative or executive action
               and implemented through more specific, but separate, legislative or program initiatives.


               INFLUENCING THE DESIGN AND LOCATION OF SERVICES AND UTILITIES

               The design and location of services and utilities can have both direct and indirect impacts on
               floodplain use and development and therefore on the protection of floodplain resources. Federal,
               state, and local policies and programs influence the design and location of services and utilities in
               the Nation's floodplains.


               Federal Policies and Programs

               Important federal policies and programs influencing the design and location of services and utilities
               in the Nation's floodplains have been established in the floodplain and wetland Executive Orders,
               and in accordance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.

               ï¿½   Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain Management"; and Executive Order 11990, "Wetlands
                   Protection." At the federal level, these Executive Orders establish policy regarding the placement
                   of federal facilities in floodplains, and wetlands. Pursuant to these executive orders, federal
                   projects as well as state and local projects funded or regulated by federal agencies, must be
                   evaluated in terms of the proposed project's impacts on floodplain natural resources.

               ï¿½   Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. The report of the President's Commission on Americans
                   Outdoors, notes that the United States contains almost 3.6 million miles of rivers and streams
                   (President's Commission on Americans Outdoors, 1987). In 1968, the Congress passed the Wild
                   and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542) and declared National policy that:

                        certain selected rivers of the Nation's which, with their immediate environments, possess
                        outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, hiYtoric, cultural,
                        or other similar values shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment ofpresent and
                        future generations.

                   Sections 5(d) and 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provide specific tools for protecting suitable
                   rivers. Section 5(d) requires that:

                        In allplanningfor the use and development of water and related land resources, consider-
                        ation shall be given by all Federal agencies involved topotential national wild, scenic and
                        recreational river areas, and all river basin and project plan reports submitted to the
                        Congress shall consider and discuss any such potentials.








                  14-16                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                      In partial fulfillment of the Section 5(d) requirements, the National Park Service has compiled
                      and maintains a Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) of river segments that potentially qualify as
                      national wild, scenic or recreational river areas. Ass of late 1989, the NRI contained 1,524 river
                      segments totalling 61,700 river miles, and federal land-managing agencies were conducting
                      assessments of rivers on their lands for the purpose of identifying possible additions to the NRI
                      and to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

                      As of 1990, 9,351 miles in 123 rivers or river segments had been designated as wild or scenic
                      rivers. The U.S. Forest Service manages 3,417 miles of this total. Within the U.S. Department
                      of Interior, the National Park Service manages 2,121 miles, the Bureau of Land Management
                      (BLM) 1,982 miles, and the Fish and Wildlife Service 1,043 miles. The remaining river segments
                      are managed by the states and Indian Nations.

                      Pursuant to Section 11 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the NPS has been providing states with
                      technical assistance for conducting statewide river assessments and inventories. These efforts
                      provide a source for potential future, state-administered additions to the NRI and the National
                      Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

                      Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic River Act prohibits the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
                      (FERC) from licensing the construction of any dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse,
                      transmission line, or other project works on or directly affecting any component of the National
                      Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Further, no department or agency of the United States shall
                      assist by loan, grant, license or otherwise in the construction of any water resources project that
                      would have a direct and adverse effect on the resource criteria by which the river was designated,
                      as determined by the Secretary of the Interior or, in the case of rivers in National Forests, by the
                      Secretary of Agriculture.

                      0 CONSULTATION DIRECTIVE: Pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the National
                      Environmental Policy Act, a 1979 Presidential Directive and subsequent Council on Environmen-
                      tal Quality (CEQ) procedures require that each federal agency shall, as part of its normal
                      planning and environmental review processes, take care to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on
                      rivers identified in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory compiled by the NPS. In addition, all
                      agencies are required to consult with the NPS prior to taking actions that would eliminate the
                      possibility of wild, scenic, or recreational status for rivers included in the NRJ.

                      0 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONSULTATION AND TECHmcAL ASSISTANCE: The NPS river conserva-
                      tion staff offers technical assistance, consultation, cooperation, and coordination with respect
                      to all federal agencies and activities that significantly impact rivers. This assistance is offered
                      in an effort to avoid or mitigate adverse actions on existing and potential Wild and Scenic Rivers,
                      including associated potential trail corridors. Federal agencies and activities of interest include,
                      but are not limited to: FERC licensing/relicensing; federal loans, grants, permits, development
                      projects, and flood insurance; and plans by federal water agencies, the Corps, EPA, DOT, and
                      the USDA.


                      In cooperation with federal agencies, states and interest groups, NPS river conservation staff
                      jointly review and consult on federal legislation, programs, policies, plans and procedures. A








              Managing Natural and Cultural Resources                                                              14-17



                  major goal is to cooperatively develop strategies and agreements for redirecting specific federal
                  development subsidies and other activities within sensitive portions of certain river corridors.
                  The intent is to guide growth toward less sensitive areas, thereby optimizing river conservation
                  along with other river corridor objectives, and minimizing the potential for future conflicts.
                  Other major goals include protecting and increasing recreation opportunities along river
                  corridors. The program also encourages and assists other conservation programs such as the
                  Conservation Reserve Program of the USDA, to provide priority for NRI rivers and associated
                  trail corridors.

              0   Coastal Barrier Resources Act. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) (described in
                  Chapter 11) is designed to protect the natural functions of coastal barriers as well as reduce flood
                  losses. By denying federal financial support for most types of development assistance, the CBRA
                  makes it more difficult for private development of these barriers to occur, but does not actually
                  prohibit private development.


              State and Local Policies and Programs

              Some states have adopted executive orders to control the placement of public facilities on floodplains,
              while other states directly regulate these public facilities.

                                In New Jersey, the state Environmental Protection Agency conditioned a sewer grant to the
                                municipality of Cape May in accordance with an agreement thatwould limitsewer extensions
                                in flood hazard areas (Kusler, 1982).




              LAND RIGHTS AND ACQUISITION; OPEN SPACE PROGRAMS AND LEGISLATION

              Federal, state and local efforts as well as private sector activities contribute to the acquisition and
              protection of floodplain land.


              Federal Programs

              There are a number of federal laws and programs that provide funding and other assistance that can
              be used to acquire and protect floodplain land. These include the Land and Water Conservation
              Fund, the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, the Water Bank Program, several fish and wildlife
              restoration programs, and the Endangered Species Act. In addition, the National Estuary Program
              and federal wetland protection policies contribute to the protection of floodplain natural and cultural
              values.


              0 Land and Water Conservation Fund. At the federal level, the Land and Water Conservation
                  Fund (LWCF) has been the major source of funding for open space acquisition (40% of the fund
                  is reserved for direct acquisition by federal agencies; 60% is distributed to the states for acquisi-
                  tion and improvement of open space facilities on a cost-sharing basis).








                 14-18                                  Application of the Strategies and Tools for F16odplain Management



                     Since 1965 the fund has provided a total of $6.8 billion - $3.6 billion for the purchase of federal
                     parklands and other recreational resources, and $3.2 billion to help states and local governments
                     buy and develop parklands. The fund has provided assistance for almost 32,000 state and local
                     projects. Figure 14-1 shows total LWCF appropriations from establishment in 1965 through 1987.
                     Figure 14-2 shows spending and acreage acquired by state and local governments for the two
                     periods 1977-1980 and 1981-1984. The distribution of LWCF state grants between state and local
                     governments for the period 1977-1980 is shown on Figure 14-3.

                                     The Charles River Project is a well-known example of acquisition efforts by the Corps of
                                     Engineers. In the largest federally funded watershed management project in history, the
                                     Corps purchased 8,500 acres of wetlands in the Charles River watershed upstream from
                                     Boston, Massachusetts. These wetlands provide 50,000 acre-feet of floodwater storage,
                                     eliminating the need for a flood control dam or some other form of structural solution.






                                      Million
                                      dollars                                 Authorized Funding
                                      900 -         Estimated


                                      800 -


                                      700 -                                          11 Federal portion
                                                                                     [J State grants
                                      600 -


                                      500


                                      400


                                      300
                                                           ...........

                                      200


                                      100

                                             ..........
                                         0
                                         1965        1970         975         1980        1985 19Er7*


                       source: Myers, Phyllis. State Grants for Parklands 190-1984: Lessons for aNew Land and Water Conservation Fund. Tlke
                               Conservation Foundation, 1987. (Used with permission.)
                 Figure 14-1. LWCF Appropriations: 1965-1987.








                   Managing Natural and Cultural Resources                                                                                                       14-19




                                                     1977-1980                              Spending

                                                         State

                                                         Local



                                                     1981-1984                                                      FA Acquisition
                                                         State                                                      0* Development

                                                         Local


                                                                0              200              400              600            800
                                                                                          Million dollars

                                                                                             Acreage
                                                     1977-1980                                                      R State Governments
                                                     1981-1984
                                                                                                                    El Local Governments


                                                                0              200              400              600            800
                                                                                              Acres


                              Source:     Myers, Phy1lis. State Grants for Parklands, 1965-1984: Ussons for a New Land and Water Conservation Fund. Ile
                                          Conservation Foundation, 1987. (Used with permission.)
                   @igure 14-2.           LWCF State Grants: Spending and Acreage Acquired by State and Local Govern'
                                          ments, 1977-1980 and 1981-1984.



                   0     Emergency Wetlands Resources Act. The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 requires
                         any State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) prepared in accordance with the
                         LWCF to address federal and state acquisition of wetlands as an important outdoor recreation
                         resource. Other provisions include establishment of a National Wetlands Priority Conservation
                         Plan for wetland acquisition, completion of wetlands mapping under the National Wetlands
                         Inventory (NWI), and updating the wetland status and trends report (President's Commission on
                         Americans Outdoors, 1987).

                         Water Bank Program. The Water Bank Program was authorized by the Water Bank Act of 1970
                         (P.L. 91-559) and is administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
                         (ASCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Under this program, wetlands along waterfowl
                         flyways are withheld from farm use under 10-year agreements with landowners. Landowners
                         receive annual payments to help preserve wetlands of importance as breeding and nesting areas
                         for migratory waterfowl. While waterfowl habitat protection is the primary objective of the Water
                                                                ctives include floo
                         Bank Program, other obje                                         d control, ground-water recharge, and pollution and
                         sediment control. Financial assistance can also be provided for installing habitat and water quality
                         improvement measures (Swader, 1987; Field, 1981).

                         The Water Bank Program has been used primarily in the "prairie pothole" region of Minnesota,
                         North Dakota, and South Dakota. From 1979 through 1987, the ASCS had signed 5,044
                         landowner agreements covering 565,609 acres (Office of Management and Budget, 1988).








                   14-20                             -        Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management







                                                                              Percent
                                                     0            25             50           75            100

                                               Alabama                            7777777:7:777 7
                                               Alaska
                                               Arizona
                                               Arkansas
                                               California
                                               Colorado
                                               Connecticut
                                               De,,Iawa
                                               10
                                               "rid
                                               Georgia
                                               Hawaii
                                               Idaho                                                  777777771
                                               Illinois
                                               Indiana
                                               Iowa  IM-M
                                               Kansas
                                               Kentucky
                                               Lousiana
                                               Maine
                                               Maryland
                                       Massachusetts
                                               Michigan
                                               Minnesota                          BRIM.
                                               M ississi ppi              :7:w.
                                               Missouri                                         .................  6---.--6.-.----.--,.l
                                               Montana
                                               Nebraska                                               777777
                                               Nevada
                                     New       Hampshire
                                               New Jersey                         ----------- -
                                               New Mexico                               :1:::r 6. 71i
                                               New York
                                      North Carolina
                                       North Dakota
                                               Ohio  B888888B88888888888M@:.,.......:::::::@:@:::.b.@:@:::@:@:]:...@:@.::::::::,:::@::::::::,*.:::,:.6..4:.@:::,:@::::]@:::::@:@:::::.:;@.:::::::::::::::,;;::@@
                                               Oklahoma
                                               Oregon
                                       Pennsylvania                                                     xb
                                       Rhode Island
                                      South Carolina
                                       South Dakota
                                               Tennessee                          777777.:4@,:,
                                               Texas
                                               Utah  P99EMMEZZM=
                                               Virginia
                                                     Mft%%Nk@
                                               Vermont
                                               Washington
                                               Wisconsin
                                       West Virginia
                                               Wyoming

                                       United States


                                                     0 State Governments
                                                     ED Local Governments



                           Source:   Myers, Phyllis. State Grants for Parklands 1965-1984: Lessons for a New Land and Water Conservation Fund, Tle
                                     Conservation Foundation, 1987. (Used with pemission.)

                   Figure 14-3       LWCF State Grants: Division of Funds Between State and Local Governments 1977-
                                     1980.
                                                           7:'.1:':,:'j::.,:: r.:;: .:,. 9:.6_44:;:..







                Managing Natural and Cultural Resources                                                                          14-21



                     Fish and Wildlife Restoration Programs. For over 50 years the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                     has provided grants to state fish and game departments in support of land acquisition, develop-
                     ment, research, and coordination efforts pertaining to fish and wildlife management or restoration.
                     Assistance is provided under two separate programs: 1) Wildlife Restoration (also known as the
                     Pittman-Robertson or P-R Program) authorized under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration
                     Act of 1937; and 2) Sport Fish Restoration (also known as the Dingall-Johnson or DJ Program)
                     under the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950. (The Dingall-Johnson Program
                     was reauthorized and expanded in 1984, and is now referred to as the Wallop-Breaux Program,
                     after the sponsors of the 1984 legislation.) FWS funds will provide 75 percent of total project
                     costs.


                     Funds from the P-R and D-J/Wallop-Breaux programs have been used for acquisition of land
                     to develop lakes, provide fishing and fishing access, and develop wildlife and waterfowl manage-
                     ment areas. A large portion of land acquired and managed with assistance from these programs
                     is located within floodplains (Field, 1981).

                                      The State of New Jersey used funds from the Federal Aid to Wildlife Fund to acquire
                                      additions to the 4,400 acre Cape May Wetlands maintained as a wildlife refuge by the state.
                                      Program funds were used to acquire a 315-acre salt marsh adjacent to other state-owned
                                      lands previously acquired under the state Green Acres program. The private owner of the
                                      property donated 25 percent of the acquired land to the state, which provided the state's
                                      required matching funds (Field, 1981).


                     Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, the Corps of Engineers is authorized to
                     give fish and wildlife conservation equal consideration with other project purposes.

                                      When the Wynoochee Dam was constructed in Washington State, a portion of wildlife
                                      habitat was lost under the lake and a number of elk and deer were left homeless. To
                                      mitigate the loss, 1,034 acres of land were acquired to provide replacement winter range-
                                      land. Within each area, cultivated fields, accounting for 232 acres in all, supply winter
                                      forage, while the remaining acres serve as buffer, escape, and cover habitat

                                      Similarly, the Walla Walla District has begun development of wildlife habitat to compensate
                                      for losses of land along the Lower Snake River resulting from the construction of four
                                      navigation projects with hydroelectric power facilities. Five thousand acres of Corps-owned
                                      land have been allocated for this purpose, of which 1,454 will be intensively managed
                                      (Chief of Engineers, 1979).


                     Endangered Species Act Section 15(b) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L 93-205)
                     authorized the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide grants to states that enter into cooperative
                     agreements with the FWS to assist in the development of programs for the conservation of endan-
                     gered and threatened species. Funds may be used for land acquisition, research, habitat surveys,
                     planning, management, and public education. The FWS will normally provide up to 75 percent
                     of eligible project costs (Office of Management and Budget, 1988).








                  14-22                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  0   National Estuary Program. The National Estuary Program, authorized by Section 317 of the
                      Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L 100-4), provides a planning and implementation program for
                      nationally significant estuaries. This program is for the specific purpose of protecting and
                      improving water quality and enhancing living resources through collaborative efforts called
                      Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMP). The program represents an
                      opportunity for comprehensive watershed planning for estuaries.

                      Development of CCMPs is carried out by oversight committees (called management conferences)
                      authorized to function for five years by the Water Quality Act. A management conference
                      consists of federal, state, local, and interstate agencies, as well as interested academic and
                      scientific institutions, industries, and citizen groups. Through a consensus-building approach, the
                      management conference establishes program goals and objectives, then identifies and selects the
                      problems to be addressed in the CCMP, and then designs pollution control and resource manage-
                      ment strategies to meet each objective.

                      Twelve estuaries included in the National Estuary Program have been given priority consideration
                      by Congress:

                      Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds, North Carolina
                      Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts
                      L,ong Island Sound, New York and Connecticut
                      Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island
                      Puget Sound, Washington
                      San Francisco Bay, California
                      Delaware Bay, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware
                      Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware
                      Galveston Bay, Texas
                      New York/New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey
                      Santa Monica Bay, California
                      Sarasota Bay, Florida

                      "No Net Loss of Wetlands" Policies. The desire to reduce the cumulative impacts of wetland
                      losses, supported by advances in identifying the functional values of wetlands, has led many
                      jurisdictions to adopt a "no net loss of wetlands" policy. In some areas, determinations of "no
                      net loss" are based strictly on acreage. In other areas, "no net loss" is addressed in ter  'ms of the
                      functional value of wetlands. A combined approach requiring no net loss of wetlands on either
                      an acreage or functional basis is also being pursued by some. Frequently, programs requiring
                      no net loss of wetlands are combined with some type of wetland mitigation banking and wetland
                      restoration program.

                      "No net loss" of wetlands policies appear to offer great opportunities for combining flood loss
                      reduction objectives with objectives for the protection and restoration of floodplain natural
                      resources. In 1987, the EPA sponsored a National Wetlands Policy Forum "to address major
                      policy concerns about how the Nation should protect and manage its valuable wetlands resources."
                      In its final report, the Forum made a number of recommendations for protecting and restoring
                      wetlands. Chief among these recommendations was the establishment of the following national
                      wetland protection policy:








                Managing. Natural and Cultural Resources                                                                          14-23



                         to achieve no overall net loss of the nation's remaining wetlands base, as defined by
                         acreage and function, and to restore and create wetlands, where feasible, to increase the
                         quality and quantity of the nation's wetlands resource base (National Wetlands Policy
                         Forum, 1988).

                     In 1989, President Bush endorsed the concept of no net loss of wetlands, and a new wetlands
                     executive order to replace E.O. 11990 is anticipated. Although not yet embodied in an executive
                     order or federal legislation, the "no net loss" policy has been incorporated into the policies of
                     several agencies responsible for wetland protection.

                     In February 1990, the EPA and the Corps of Engineers signed a Memorandum of Agreement
                     that, clarified policies and procedures to be used in determining the type and level of mitigation
                     neces sary to comply with wetland protection provisions (Section 404) of the Clean Water Act
                     (Memorandum of Agreement, 1990). The memorandum lays out a three-step process of- 1)
                     avoidance; 2) minimization of adverse impacts; and 3) compensatory mitigation for unavoidable
                     adverse'impacts.


                State and Local Programs

                State programs that contribute to management and protection of floodplain resources are often open
                space and recreation programs, and include greenway and river corridor programs as well as programs
                to protect and restore wetlands. On occasion, these programs are specifically linked to floodplain
                management. Pennsylvania, for example, has provided flood disaster bond money for acquisition of
                flood-damaged properties and the conversion of these properties to open space use (Kusler, 1982).
                In 1987, residents of Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island voted for bond issues that
                will generate a total of $300 million for the acquisition, management, and enhancement of publ                  ic land
                (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1989). Several states have their own programs to encourage farmers
                to maintain and manage wetlands for waterfowl habitat.

                A review of state acquisition programs conducted as part of a wetland protection study indicated that
                     the majority of states have at least one program which acquires wetlands, and some have more
                than one progrAm. However, many of the programs were not specifically designed to acquire
                wetlands. Wetlands were frequently acquired incidentally because of their ability to provide habitat
                for endangered/nongame species and waterfowl, open space, or other values" (Cowles, 1986). Some
                state acquisition programs, including the New Jersey Green Acre Program and the Florida Save Our
                Rivers Program, are focused on floodplain areas.

                                         New Jersey!s Green, Acres Program focuses on acquisition of inland areas, ... and
                                         concentrates on watersheds as a basis for stream corridor protection ... Local acquisition
                                         is a key element in. the program, including 20-year loans at 2% interest, and grants to
                                         municipalities with a 25% bonus if en--Aronmentally sensitive land such as stream
                                         comdors and headwaters are purchased. Municipalities are required to put up open
                                         ,space as collateral ... Fee simple acquisition is preferred for all areas except. stream
                                         corridors and headwaters, where easen ents are the preferred alternative" (Cowles, 1986).








                    14-24                                         Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                                          In Florida, the Save Our Rivers Program is one of several state acquisition programs that
                                          have resulted in the protection of substantial acreage for habitat, water quality and water-
                                          shed protection, and recreation. The Save Our Rivers Program           is a concerted, long-
                                          range effort to purchase hundreds of thousands of acres along the state's major liver
                                          systems in the state's five water management districts, for water management and protec-
                                          bon purposes. Substantial acreage has been purchased for restoration of channelized or
                                          impounded rivers which feed the Everglades. As part of the Save Our Everglades Program,
                                          the state has purchased thousands of acres along the Vissimmee River, to restore it to its
                                          original channels, and has initiated a pilot project of marsh habitat renewal. Massive
                                          acreage has been purchased in the Green Swamp.. The program purchases floodplains in
                                          addition to river banks. Management of these lands is within the water management
                                          districts" (Cowles, 1986).


                    As of 1982, an estimated several thousand communities had acquired a portion of their floodplains
                    for park, parkway, wildlife, conservation, agriculture, or other environmental or social uses (Kusler,
                    1982).

                                           TheMecklenburg County (North Carolina) Greenway MasterPlan, developed in 1980, emi-
                                           sioned a network of greenways along the county's creeks that would include 4,000 acres
                                           and 60 miles of trails. As of 1986, more than 1,075 greenway acres had been acquired
                                           using local park bonds and dedications through the development process. (Over 40% of
                                           the acquired acres had been donated by developers and other individuals.)

                                           The 1980 plan for preservation of selected floodplains, which identified priority areas for
                                           acquisition along more than 20 creeks, was designed to provide opportunities for passive
                                           recreation, habitat protection, and reduction of flood damages that averaged $1.4 million
                                           annually. A 20-year land-use plan for the county prepared in 1985 endorsed the greenway
                                           program and recommended additional creeks for greenway designation.

                                           Success of the greenway program is attributed to the coordination and cooperation of
                                           several government departments and the favorable climate created by actions of elected
                                           boards. The Program is administered by the Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation
                                           Department, while most of the dedications arise through the zoning and subdivision
                                           review process of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission. Cooperation with
                                           other local planning, engineering and regulatory agencies has also been important. To
                                           promote the relatively new concept of greenways with the public, a fact sheet on income
                                           tax incentives of land donations has been prepared for potential donors, and educational
                                           materials for use in local schools were being developed (Brunnemer, 1986).


                         Greenways and River Corridor Programs. Some floodplain management efforts have been
                         unsuccessful because they were seen to benefit only a select group of individuals at the expense
                         of the entire community. Also, floodplain management controls typically restrict the property
                         rights of individuals who occupy or own land in the floodplain. As a result, such controls may
                         encounter resistance from those who wish to gain the greatest economic return from their
                         property.








                Managing Natural and Cultural Resources                                                                            14-25



                    To counter these obstacles to effective floodplain management, some jurisdictions have moved
                    to develop programs that combine floodplaih management objectives with other community
                    objectives, including those for recreation (open space, hiking/walking, cycling, and other forms
                    of passive recreation, for example) and natural resource protection (water quality and aquifer
                    protection, wetlands protection, and fish and wildlife protection, for example). Because a number
                    of community and public objectives are being met and a broad constituency is being reached,
                    these types of programs are often more likely to gain community support and funding.

                    These multi-objective programs often take the form of greenway or river corridor projects or,
                    particularly in urban and coastal areas, community redevelopment projects.

                    The principle federal program providing information, technical assistance, and limited funding
                    for river planning is the State and Local River Conservation Assistance Program administered
                    by the National Park Service with authority provided by Section 11 of the National Wild and
                    Scenic River Act. Projects range from statewide river assessments to greenway plans for a single
                    stream. Statewide river assessments have been undertaken in Maine, Maryland, New York, the
                    Pacific Northwest, South Carolina, and Vermont. Examples of river greenway plans include plans
                    for the Wood-Pawcatuck River in Connecticut and Rhode Island, the Lackawanna River Corridor
                    in Pennsylvania, the Boquet River Corridor in New York, and the Battenkill River in Vermont
                    (National Park Service, 1987).

                                       The City of Scottsdale, Arizona chose a greenbelt over a more typical flood control channel
                                       when the Corps of Engineers agreed to provide flood protection for the Indian Bend Wash.
                                       This project was much more expensive for the city, since the much greater land acquisi-
                                       don costs for the greenbelt were a local responsibility. However, the city gained a linear
                                       park which is in many ways a focal point of the city's recreational activities (Bond, 1988).


                                          The City of Tulsa, Oklahoma provides a prominent example of the effectiveness of
                                          multi-objective greenway and river corridor programs for accomplishing floodplain
                                          management objectives. Tulsa has experienced seven Presidential disaster declarations
                                          in the past 10 years. Despite this history of severe flooding, city officials were unable
                                          to gaLher the public support needed to implement a strong flood loss reduction
                                          program. Recently, however, the City introduced a broader river corridor management
                                          program that included the development of trails for various recreational uses in addition
                                          to floodplain management activities. This concept has met with wide public support
                                          and many recreation-based interest groups havejoined to support the project. (Flan-
                                          agan, 1988).


                    Interest in greenways has been spurred by the release in 1986 of the report of the President's
                    Commission on Americans Outdoors. In its report, the Commission recommended that riversides
                    and stream courses, abandoned railroad rights of way, and other open spaces be used "to link
                    together the rural and urban spaces in the American landscape" (President's Commission on
                    Americans Outdoors, 1987).








                   14-26                                   Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                  0   Wetlands Protection and Restoration Programs, Including Mitigation Banking Programs. Goals
                      to protect and restore wetlands are continuing to gain importance throughout the country. Most
                      states have now enacted legislation to protect wetlands and additional states are considering such
                      legislation. Many states with existing legislation have found that the incremental loss of small
                      wetland areas still results in an unacceptable cumulative loss of wetlands. In response, these
                      states are acting to tighten existing wetland protection programs. Several states are establishing
                      a variety of mitigation banking programs.

                      MITIGATION BANKING: Mitigation banking has been described as "... an innovative alternative
                      for compensating for the unavoidable- impacts of development in wetlands where mitigative
                      measures cannot be achieved at or near the site of impact. Banking is not a scientific technique
                      for wetlands restoration or creation, but a management alternative - a way of administering off-
                      site mitigation projects." (Niedzialkowski and Jaksch, 1986)

                      At least 10 mitigation "banks" were functioning in the United States in 1986. Although these
                      banks differ in many ways, there are some characteristics that distinguish mitigation banking from
                      other, more traditional approaches to mitigation:

                      ï¿½   Mitigation banking falls within the "compensation" category, and generally applies only to
                          situations in which off-site mitigation is appropriate (e.g., where habitat loss or other adverse
                          impacts are unavoidable and where on-site mitigation is not a viable alternative).

                      ï¿½   Mitigation actions are taken prior to the initiation of development projects, and are generally
                          aggregated at a preselected site, rather than implemented at scattered locations. "Measures
                          intended to create wetlands or enhance wetland values are quantified and, if approved, imple-
                          mented prior to initiation of the permitted activity requiring mitigation. The permittee or
                          bank sponsor receives credits for the enhancement actions, which are deposited in the
                          "bank." Credits are available for the mitigation of future unavoidable impacts of approved
                          permit activities" (Niedzialkowski and Jaksch, 1986).

                      ï¿½ Mitigation banking generally occurs as part of a broader resource management effort, rather
                          than on a case-by-case basis.

                      The following, in varying degrees of formality or complexity, are generally'considered as require-
                      ments for an effective mitigation bank:

                      ï¿½   Sponsorship by a responsible public agency or private entity with sufficient funds for
                          establishing and implementing a mitigation banking program (including administration,
                          planning, design, and monitoring components).

                      ï¿½   An agreement among the interested parties as to the terms and scope of the mitigation bank.
                          Although informal agreements have been used, a formal document such as a Memorandum
                          of Agreement signed by all involved parties generally defines how the bank will function and
                          specifies the geographic scope of the bank as well as any other conditions agreed to by the
                          signatories.







              Managing Natural and Cultural Resourc                                                                         14-27



                       An evaluation method to determine how mitigation credits and debits will be calculated (e.g.,
                       acre for acre compensation, application of the FWS Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP),
                       or use of resource habitat categories based on qualitative measurements).

                       A determination of the geographic boundaries or "area of applicability" within which the
                       bank can be used (e.g., a specified hydrologic area, management planning area, or a state-
                       wide area).

                       A mitigation plan, or marsh management plan, that establishes the resource management
                       objectives and goals underlying the mitigation banking effort.

                       Procedures for monitoring and assessing both short-term and long-term effectiveness of the
                       particular mitigation measures implemented as well as the overall banking effort:

                       An explanation of the relationship of the mitigation banking program to ongoing state and
                       federal regulatory programs (e.g., provision for incorporation of applicable mitigation banking
                       actions in an approved permit).

                   Mitigation banking can alleviate many of the problems associated with other mitigation approach-
                   es. It can provide for compensatory actions to be taken prior to development activities, while
                   conventional approaches require that specific mitigation measuresbe negotiated and implemented
                   simultaneously with project development, or after a project is completed. In addition, mitigation
                   banking can avoid the problem of noncompliance with development permit conditions that specify
                   mitigation actions.

                   Mitigation banking also provides an opportunity to clarify resource management objectives and
                   achieve the different goals of interested parties, including management and regulatory agencies,
                   as well'as developers. The "banking" process can be integrated with comprehensive planning
                   efforts to achieve broader and more regional resource management and economic goals.

                   Mitigation banking provides a mechanism for mitigating the potential adverse impacts of develop-
                   ment activities that may be exempt from permitting requirements (e.g., timbering of bottomland
                   hardwoods), or the impacts of small projects that may not be subject to regulatory control, but
                   that collectively may have significant cumulative impacts on wetlands (e.g., small-scale dredging
                   for temporary road construction to move oil exploration equipment).

                   Mitigation banking is not, however, a replacement for other mitigation measures and is appropri-
                   ate, only in certain situations. In addition, it requires a great deal of administrative and planning
                   effort, as well as commitments by sometimes numerous participants. A major criticism has been
                   that mitigation banking, if not carefully implemented, can be used to circumvent the permitting
                   process or to substitute for more appropriate mi         tigation measures.

                                         Mitigation Banking: Columbia River Estuary, Oregon: The Oregon Division
                                         of State Lands (DSQ, which is responsible for administration of mitigation banks in
                                         the State, has defined a mitigation bank as "a large area in which new estuarine
                                         habitat is created, or an area previously part of the estuary restored tc) estuarine
                                         function, or an existing estuarine area enhanced by more effective resource manage-








                     14-28                                         Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                                                ment practices" (Oregon DSL, 1987). In 1984, the DSL developed guidelines for
                                                mitigation banking, which have since been incorporated in a Mitigation Bank Hand-
                                                book. The DSL has recommended criteria (size, location, ownership, and mitigation
                                                potential) for selection of potential banking sites. Funding sources for mitigation
                                                banks may be private or public; in 1987 the Oregon Wetlands Revolving Fund was
                                                established by the State Legislature to provide seed money for the establishment of
                                                mitigation banks.

                                                Under the Oregon Program, there are three basic steps in setting up a mitigation
                                                bank: 1) identification of a proposed site and submittal of an application to the DSL
                                                by the sponsor (which may be any legal public or private entity); 2) preparation of
                                                a Mitigation Bank Habitat Development Plan (including existing conditions, analysis
                                                of mitigation credits, schedule of mitigation activities, and a monitoring program);
                                                and 3) signing of a Memorandum of Agreement between the bank sponsor and the
                                                DSL

                                                A pilot mitigation bank program - the Astoria Airport Mitigation Bank - was
                                                initiated to offset impacts of.estuarine, intertidat, and subtidat water-dependent
                                                development Established under DSL sponsorship, the bank was proposed in response
                                                to a Port of Astoria dredging project in the Columbia River which required mitigation.
                                                Following two years of planning and habitat assessment, mitigation actions, which
                                                involved breaching of an existing flood control dike to expose 33 acres of freshwater
                                                wetlands to tidal influence, were completed. In May 1987, a Memorandum of Agree-
                                                ment (MOA) for the Astoria Airport Mitigation Bank was signed by seven state and
                                                federal agencies.

                                                According to the MOA, projects eligible for the mitigation bank, developed on land
                                                owned by the Port of Astoria and the DSL, must be water-dependent projects within
                                                a specified geographic area, approvable under applicable state and federal regulations,
                                                and involve unavoidable and necessary impacts where on-site mitigation is unavailable
                                                or insufficient The DSL's habitat relative-value system is used to determine credit
                                                withdrawals from the bank, and annual monitoring reports and a five-year evaluation
                                                of the project are required by the MOA. Title to the area was to be transferred to the
                                                DSL which has responsibility for retaining it in perpetuity for natural resource
                                                production purposes (IEP, 1988).


                         Despite the successful examples of wetland creation and restoration, the Nation still experiences
                         a net loss of wetlands. Over 300,000 acres of wetlands are lost each year; many in floodplains
                         (Meagher, 1988). In addition, not all wetland creation and restoration efforts are successful.
                         There remains considerable controversy over these approaches, particularly where they may be
                         used as a tradeoff for the destruction of other wetlands. In the western United States, lack of
                         available water creates serious obstacles for wetland creation.







              Managing Natural and Cultural Resources                                                              14-29




              Private Sector Activities

              The private sector - operating largely through private, nonprofit organizations - has a major role
              with regard to land acquisition for open space purposes. Much of the land targeted by these
              organizations is wetland or has some type of water access, and includes much floodplain land. The
              Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the Audubon Society are two well-known private organizations that
              operate throughout the United States to acquire and preserve land. The Nature Conservancy reports
              that as of early 1989 it has been responsible for the protection of 3,643,352 acres in 50 states, Canada,
              Latin America and the Caribbean (The Nature Conservancy, 1989). TNC owns and manages about
              1,000 preserves - the largest privately owned nature preserve system in the world.

              In addition to these large national organizations, other organizations operate at the municipal,
              regional, or state level. In the last 30 years the number of private land trusts in the United States
              has increased from 50 to over 700 (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1989). These organizations
              attempt to protect land through acquisition, conservation easements, and other mechanisms.

              Several private organizations, most notably Ducks Unlimited, have active programs to preserve
              wetlands as waterfowl breeding areas.


              CONCERN OVER LACK OF INNOVATIVE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

              Policies and programs designed to protect the natural and cultural resources of floodplains have had
              some success, but many groups and individuals involved with floodplain management have expressed
              concern over what they see as a lack of innovative policies and programs for the protection of
              floodplain resources and their associated values,

              The Environmental Protection Agency believes that stronger federal support of state and local
              programs are needed to protect floodplains from development. The EPA also believes that currently
              innovative flood control efforts such as creation or enhancement of wetlands (thereby improving
              natural flood retention or reduction features) are not encouraged by federal, state and local agencies
              due to the potential for failure. Further, federal planning does not promote innovative methods for
              maintaining floodplain natural and cultural resources. Agencies are reluctant to try innovative
              planning to protect or maintain these resources, and "current planning guidance and engineering
              regulations may actually obstruct or reduce the level of federal participation in innovative projects
              that maintain floodplain natural and beneficial values" (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989).

              The EPA points particularly to the "Principles and Standards for Planning of Water and Related Land
              Resources" (see Chapter 7) which limit water resources project features to those with quantifiable
              economic benefits. Since many natural and cultural values of floodplains are difficult to quantify or
              add only incremental benefits, "the long term costs associated with removing such features or inducing
              development such that these features are eliminated may not be taken into account."

              In addition to removing disincentives for protecting natural and cultural resources, new incentives
              need to be developed (Tennessee Valley Authority, 1989; Sprague, 1989). Policies such as the "no
              net loss of wetlands" and "fishable and swimmable waters" are helpful. These policies, however, are
              not specifically focused on floodplains.








                  14-30                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                                               INFORMATION AND EDUCATION


                  Technical information and public education related to management of floodplain resources are
                  important components of a floodplain management program. Relatively little information is provided
                  that is focused specifically on the natural and beneficial resources of floodplains. A vast amount of
                  information, however, is available regarding the resources and natural functions associated with
                  floodplains.



                  FEDERAL LEVEL ACTIVITIES


                  Many federal agencies provide information on natural resources, but the EPA, FWS and OCRM are
                  most active in this regard. Activities include distribution of information on inventories (e.g., the
                  National Wetlands Inventory) and mapping of important natural resources, habitat requirements for
                  species, and measures to preserve and restore natural resources. Federal agencies actively use a wide
                  variety of media to inform and educate professionals, government officials and employees, and the
                  general public. Press releases, newsletters, magazines, journals, and television programs all contribute
                  to creating a more informed population.


                  STATE AND LOCAL ACTIVITIES

                  State activities parallel those of the federal government with regard to the types of information and
                  education provided on floodplain natural and cultural resources. Most states have active programs
                  to prepare and distribute literature, films, and other materials, and these programs are typically
                  carried out by state agencies and departments concerned with natural resources, environmental
                  protection, and parks and recreation. Many states offer instruction to local government staff and
                  officials. Activities by local governments tend to be less extensive than state-level activities.

                  Natural resource inventory and mapping is a major component of many state and local programs.
                  Mapping of wetlands at a larger scale than provided by the National Wetlands Inventory can provide
                  valuable information regarding the most productive and fragile portions of floodplains. "Mapping
                  of coastal wetlands has been completed in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
                  Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia. In Florida, Mississippi, and New
                  Hampshire mapping is in progress. Minimal mapping is being done in Georgia, Maine, and Rhode
                  Island. Alabama is securing funding now for a major inventory effort to be conducted with several
                  state and federal agencies" (Cowles, 1986). Inventory and mapping of inland wetlands is being carried
                  out by several states, including New York and Rhode Island.

                                      As of 1984, approximately three-fourths of the wetlands in the state of Michigan had been
                                      mapped at a scale of 1:24,000. Mapping has been conducted as part of the National
                                      Wetlands Inventory with some modifications to the National Wedand Classification System
                                      (open water classification is included as is unconsolidated shoreline).








               Managing Natural and Cultural Resources                                                                        14-31



                                    Mapping procedures involve coordinated efforts between the National Wetlands Inventory
                                    staff and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources:

                                    ï¿½   Photographs (initially 1:80,000 scale black & white, replaced with NASA 1:58,000 scale
                                        color infrared photos) are supplied by the National Wetlands Inventory staff in St.
                                        Petersburg.
                                    ï¿½   Mylar overlays are placed on the photographs, which are analyzed under the stereoscope
                                        to identify and mark wetlands. (Wetlands as small as 3/4 acre can be identified through
                                        this process.)
                                    ï¿½   Quality checks are made by field staff of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
                                        and by the St. Paul regional office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
                                    ï¿½   After draft maps are prepared by a contractor, they are reviewed for accuracy by state
                                      . and/or federal staff.
                                    ï¿½   Final corrected maps are prepared for inclusion in the wetlands inventory.

                                    Within the state, maps are used in planning and permitting programs in conjunction with
                                    a computerized environmental tracking/warning system (Harrington, 1984).



               PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITIES


               The private sector has an active and major role in providing natural resource-related information
               and education. Hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations exist across the Nation with objectives
               to provide information and education for natural resources, including floodplain resources. Many
               of the larger organizations are listed in Chapter 7. As with federal and state governments, private
               organizations use newsletters, magazines, television programs, and other media to reach their
               membership and the general public. Smaller local organizations offer the major advantage of regular
               meetings, field trips, and other means of providing first-hand information to interested individuals.


               LACK OF INFORMATION AND UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE VALUE OF
               FLOODPLAIN NATURAL AND BENEFICIAL RESOURCES


               Most of the natural and cultural floodplain resources are not associated exclusively with floodplains,
               but area specialized and important component of a larger set of resources. While the values of
               floodplain resources are now well recognized and most natural processes in the floodplain are
               reasonably well understood, only limited information is available quantifying the value of these natural
               and cultural floodplain resources. Even wetlands, which are nearly coincident with floodplains and
               which have been studied extensively, are not well quantified. Estimates of total wetlands in the
               United States, as well as state-by-state estimates, vary widely depending on when the estimate was
               made, what definition of wetlands was used, and the survey techniques employed. Improved
               documentation and quantification (including dollar values) of floodplain natural resources is required
               to improve public understanding and acceptance of the need for protection (Association of State
               Floodplain Managers, Workshop #1, 1988).

               A major impediment to effective floodplain management as identified by the Wildlife Management
               Institute is a "lack of understanding of reasons and approaches for effective management, including








                   14-32                                   Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                   restoration of natural values and associated outdoor recreational opportunities" (Jahn, 1989). Much
                   of the private sector, particularly developers, appears not to be aware of the natural and cultural
                   resources of floodplains. The emphasis continues to be on deriving the greatest economic return from
                   each site, within the limits permitted by local planning or zoning restrictions. Relatively few develop-
                   ers seem to recognize that the preservation of floodplains and wetlands not only protects important
                   natural resources and functions, but also esthetic values that can enhance property values (U.S.
                   Environmental Protection Agency, 1989).

                   On the other hand, it has been observed that public officials place a high value on wetlands and
                   floodplains but are not often willing to compensate private property owners for not developing these
                   "valuable" resources. At least one observer has suggested that landowners be compensated for the
                   flood storage value of their undeveloped land (Scheaffer, 1989).

                   There appears to be widespread agreement that additional information and education is needed
                   regarding: 1) the need to protect floodplain natural resources; and 2) the tools available for maintain-
                   ing these resources (Bureau of Reclamation, 1989; Association of State Floodplain Managers,
                   Workshop #1, 1988). If greater understanding of their importance can be achieved, increased
                   demand for preserving na1ural features may follow, and this may have an effect on development
                   action (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989).



                                                         TAX ADJUSTMENTS

                   Tax adjustments at the federal, state, or local level can play an important role in protecting natural
                   and cultural floodplain resources. Tax adjustments, for example, can influence decisions about
                   floodplain occupancy, can be used to encourage appropriate floodplain use and to discourage
                   inappropriate use, and can also facilitate the acquisition of floodplain land.


                   FEDERAL TAX ADJUSTMENTS

                   The Tax Reform Act (TRA) of 1986 (see Chapter 13) eliminated investment tax credits and imposed
                   restrictions on the expenditure of farm conservation investments, which are considered disincentives
                   for draining land for agricultural production (Pavelis, 1987). Provisions of the Internal Revenue Code
                   have an important effect on the conservation and use of floodplain resources.


                   Tax Exempt Organizations

                   The Internal Revenue Code provides that organizations meeting certain criteria may achieve tax
                   exempt status. Most conservation-oriented organizations are tax exempt and, as described previously,
                   some of these organizations are actively involved in acquiring wetlands and floodplains. Many other
                   professional and conservation organizations would not be able to carry out their programs of
                   environmental education, technical assistance, and other activities without the advantage of tax exempt
                   status.








               Managing Natural and Cultural Resources                                                                          14-33



               Donations to Tax Exempt Organizations

               The Internal Revenue Code also provides that individuals and business may receive a deduction for
               the value of land donated to a government agency or qualified nonprofit organization. Generally
               the property must be donated in perpetuity and used for some historical or conservation-related
               purpose. Conservation easements as well as fee simple donations may qualify under provision of the
               tax code. The TRA of 1986 reduced income tax rates for both individuals and corporations, and
               raised fears that charitable donations, including land donations, would diminish. Under the TRA,
               an individual may deduct up to 30 percent of adjusted gross income in a given year. A donation that
               exceeds this allowable percentage can be carried forward for up to five years. To date there does
               not seem to be strong evidence that a significant diminishment of deductions will occur. Rapidly
               accelerating land prices in some parts of the country can have a greater impact on donation decisions
               than tax rates may have (Evans, 1989).


               STATE AND LOCAL TAX ADJUSTMENTS

               Positive incentives for the preservation and restoration of floodplain resources may be provided
               through several kinds of tax adjustments. Tax incentives have often been used to acquire areas for
               open space uses. "At least 43 states offer broad real estate tax incentive programs for land in
               agriculture, forestry, and certain other open space uses. Undeveloped floodplains may qualify for
               reduced taxation pursuant of many to these statutes" (Kusler, 1982).

                                   Two programs in the State of Minnesota - a Water Bank Program and a Wetlands Tax
                                   Exemption and Tax Credit Program - compliment the state's regulatory and acquisition
                                   programs for preserving wetlands. Unlike the state's traditional programs, both employ
                                   relatively new methods. The State Water Bank Program, administered by the Department
                                   of Natural Resources (DNR), provides compensation to qualifying landowners who are denied
                                   permits for draining designated wetlands for agricultural purposes. Several compensation
                                   options are available: 10-yearannual payments; purchase by the DNR; permanent easements;
                                   conservation restrictions; and leases. As of June 1984, 79 Water Bank projects had been
                                   completed, covering close to 3,000 acres of wetlands and adjacent areas.

                                   The Tax Exemption and Credit Program, administered by the Departmentof Revenue through
                                   county auditors' offices, was first enacted in 1979 and amended several times. The tax
                                   exemption is autornatically determined by the county for the landowner. Eligible wetlands
                                   must rneet state-established definitions and may include adjacent land that is unsuitable for
                                   agricultural purposes due to the presence of the wetlands. Wetlands meeting the state
                                   definitions are exempt from property tay-

                                   The Wetlands Tax Credit Program, which is voluntary, is available to landowners who agree
                                   not to drain the wetlands in the year the credit is received. Excess credits for wetland
                                   property may be applied to the landowners's tax liability for the owner's contiguous property.

                                   The state reimburses the county for revenue lost due to the tax exemption and for the value
                                   of the tax credits (Gerbig, 1984).








                    14-34                                       Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                                          Funds acquired through a real estate taxation program in Florida are earmarked for
                                          acquisition of floodplains and wetlands. The Florida program involves a documentary tax
                                          of $.075 per $100.00 on all real estate transactions. This money goes into the Water
                                          Management Lands Trust Fund which is divided among five water management districts
                                          throughout the state. The money is used for acquisition and management of floodplains
                                          and wetlands, including isolated wetlands. Revenue estimates projected over the next 30
                                          years go as high as $1 billion. This program incorporates public participation through
                                          hearings prior to each land purchase, and provides for an annual 5-year water management
                                          plan update. A substantial amount of public education material is distributed on the
                                          program (Cowles, 1986).




                                                      ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES


                    Many different types of administrative measures can be used to contribute to the preservation and
                    restoration of natural floodplain resources and their associated functions. These measures include:

                    ï¿½    restrictions or conditions in contracts, grants, loans, permits, and licenses;
                    ï¿½    applications of appropriate encumbrances during land conveyance;
                    ï¿½    delegation of responsibility for floodplain activities to a specific office with sufficient authority
                         to play an active leadership role both within and outside the agency;
                    ï¿½    systematic review of existing agency programs to identify opportunities for floodplain resource
                         preservation and restoration;
                    ï¿½    conservation plans under the Food Security Act;
                    ï¿½    federal coastal programs review; and
                    ï¿½    coordination within and among agencies to implement unified floodplain management efforts.

                    There are several prominent examples of administrative measures involving government agencies and
                    private interests for the restoration and preservation of wetlands and floodplains.


                                          Kissimmee River Restoration: Prior to the 1960s, the Kissimmee River in south
                                          Florida flowed for 98 miles through a system of lakes and meandering channels from its
                                          headwaters to Lake Okeechobee. Between 1961 and 1971, a federal flood control project
                                          transformed the Kissimmee River into a 56-mile canal. With this channelization, about
                                          40,000 acres of environmentally sensitive marshland along the original river vanished.
                                          The primary aim of better flood control was achieved, but environmental degradation
                                          resulted when the area's wetlands were reduced.


                                          Since 1971, efforts have been underway to restore the oxbows and floodplain marshes that
                                          had been such an important part of the natural river system. In 1983, the Governor of
                                          Florida created the Kissimmee River-Lake Okeechobee-Everglades Coordinating Council
                                          and established several objectives for restoration of the river system:

                                             Avoid further destruction or degradation of these natural systems.








               Managing Natural and Cultural Resources                                                                           14-35



                                       ï¿½  Reestablish the natural ecological functions of these natural systems in areas where
                                          the functions have been damaged.
                                       ï¿½  Improve the overall management of water, fish and wildlife, and recreation.
                                       ï¿½  Successfully restore and preserve these unique areas.

                                       As part of the restoration effort, the South Florida WaterManagement District, in coopera-
                                       don with other state and federal agencies, agreed to develop, design, construct, operate
                                       and maintain a demonstration program to de-channelize the Mssimmee River. In the mid-
                                       1980s, a restoration field test was completed with the construction of three weirs, or dams,
                                       to divert river flow into the old channel as part of the demonstration project Water levels
                                       are also being monitored, and fluctuation is designed to correspond more closely to natural
                                       wet and dry cycles typical of the Everglades. The District hopes to restore as many as
                                       1,300 acres of wetlands into the river system. Information gathered from the demonstra-
                                       bon project and other studies is being assessed before additional restoration is undertaken
                                       (South Florida Water Management District, 1987).



                                       Wetland Creation: Bottomland Hardwoods in Louisiana: The Soil Conservation
                                       Service has completed numerous small watershed projects (P.L. 566 Program) in the state
                                       of Louisiana, many of them involving enlargement of channels to remove excess water
                                       from agricultural lands. In response to concerns about the impacts of stream channel-
                                       ization, wetlands drainage, and woodlands clearing, the SCS has implemented three
                                       projects to create flooded wetlands - called greentree reservoirs - to mitigate the loss
                                       of forested wetlands. In the greentree reservoirs, tracts of bottomland hardwoods are
                                       impounded and managed to attract waterfowl b    y seasonal flooding to provide habitat and
                                       maintain the integrity of the hardwood stands. Operation and maintenance of the
                                       structural components is the responsibility of the local sponsors.

                                       ï¿½  East Carroll Watershed: A greentree reservoir was created by enclosing a 27-acre tract
                                          of bottomland hardwoods with a levee to compensate for the loss of 25 acres of type
                                          1 wetlands. Wells, pumps and water control structures were built to alternately flood
                                          and drain the reservoir on a seasonal basis according to a management plan for the
                                          area. Total cost for the project was $168,993 ($126,000 SCS; $42,248 local). Conser-
                                          vation easements will protect a larger 455 acres of wetlands as additional mitigation.
                                       ï¿½  Walnut Roundaway Watershed: An 80-acre greentree reservoir will mitigate the loss
                                          of 40 acres of type 6 and 7 wetlands at another site. Water control structures are used
                                          to regulate,annual flooding, with a total project cost of $136,606 ($102,455 SCS;
                                          $34,151 local). The management plan also calls for installation of weirs for main-
                                          tenance of water levels in 1,574 wetland acres and planting of 421 acres with hardwood
                                          seedlings and additional mitigation measures.
                                       ï¿½  Lake Verret Watershed: Construction of a levee around a 30-acre tract of bottomland
                                          hardwood and installation of a well and water control structure for flooding and
                                          drainage will provide mitigation for the loss of 29 acres of type 7 wetlands in a chan-
                                          nelization project The area will be flooded seasonally according to a management plan
                                          and managed for waterfowl and crawfish production, at a cost of $85,697 ($64,975
                                          SCS; $21,491 local) (Simmering, 1986).








                     14-36                                           Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                                             Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project: A 2.8-mile stretch of the Des
                                             Plaines River in northeastern Illinois is the site of a large wetland restoration project. The
                                             450-acre site of the demonstration project is located in Lake County, near Wadsworth.,
                                             about 35 miles north of Chicago. Project objectives are:

                                             0   Demonstrate the benefits of wedand restoration for flood control, water quality
                                                 improvement, and fish and wildlife habitat enhancement;
                                             0   Formulate and evaluate restoration and maintenance techniques;
                                             0   Develop and testalternatives to existing environmental investment strategies and water
                                                 maintenance programs; and
                                             0   Create wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.

                                             The Lake County Forest Preserve District and the Open Lands Project, a conservation
                                             organization, formed a not-for-profit joint venture called Wetlands Research, Inc. to
                                             undertake the research project The research design divided the site into two parts. The
                                             southern half is designed for passive research, while the northern half is intended for
                                             active research. In the passive area, research will be based on observation rather than
                                             experimentation. In the active area, eight experimental wetlands are being constructed
                                             ranging in size from 4.0 to 11.6 acres. The sites permit earth movement, manipulation
                                             of water levels and other research techniques. *

                                             Total cost of the project, including land acquisition, is estimated at $10.2 million.
                                             Construction started in the spring of 1986, and research is scheduled to continue until
                                             1992. The project is expected to serve as a national model for wedand re-creation and
                                             provide important information regarding pollution abatement, flood storage capacity, and
                                             other wedand functional values (Wetlands Research, Inc., 1987).


                                             Wetland Restoration: California: As of 1982, at least 33 wedand restoration projects
                                             had been completed along California's coast since 1968; the majority in San Francisco
                                             Bay and others in Humboldt Bay and San Diego Bay. These projects were of several
                                             types, involving experimental plantings on dredge spoils, dike breaching and/or construc-
                                             tion of tidal gates and culverts, or major substrate alterations prior to establishment of
                                             tidal flows. Some projects were single purpose, while others were designed to fulfill
                                             multiple objectives, including wildlife habitat improvement or protection, flood control,
                                             public access, mitigation, research, open space, or mosquito control.

                                             The California Coastal Act of 1976 established state policy to maintain and, where feasible,
                                             restore the biological productivity and quality of wetlands and estuaries. State guidelines
                                             summarize wedand restoration goals and procedures, and some local coastal programs
                                             include requirements for wedand restoration plans.

                                             Actual restoration projects have ranged from relatively low cost restoration of diked
                                             tidelands to complex, large scale projects.

                                             Two adjacent projects in Freshwater Slough, a tributary of Humboldt Bay, are typical of
                                             wedand projects involving restoration of diked tidelands. In the Park Street Restoration
                                             Project (approved in 1976), 17 acres of saltmarsh and two acres of riparian habitat were
                                             restored by breaching a dike surrounding the areas and constructing a low dike and








              Managing Natural and Cultural Resources                                                                        14-37



                                    drainage controls to protect freshwater habitats. Following re-establishment of tidal
                                    action, revegetation occurred naturally. Restoration and management of the site is the
                                    responsibility of the project sponsor, the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conser-
                                    vation District.


                                    An adjacent restoration site approved in 1984 was designed to restore 23 acres of diked
                                    tideland pastures to salt marsh with tidal channels, create nine acres of open pond, and
                                    create nine acres of willow swamp through excavation, construction of impoundment
                                    structures, and water wells and plantings.

                                    Restoration costs at these sites have been relatively low ($5000 - $7500/acre), requiting
                                    a low level of site modification. In addition, the sites were attractive to the sponsors and
                                    regulators due to their proximity to adjacent wetlands and access to water.




              ADMINISTRATIVE CONCERNS

              The successes and failures of recent efforts to manage the natural and cultural resources of the
              Nation's floodplains, point to the need for more coordination among the various disciplines (wetland
              management, floodplain management, emergency management) that can contribute to protection of
              floodplain resources. Ile National Review Committee writes that "Federal agencies have been
              inconsistent in assimilating the concept of the natural value of floodplains. Their mission statements
              are accordingly inconsistent. Full implementation of natural value protection is less widespread"
              (National Review Committee, 1989).

              This same view is held by most of the federal agencies with floodplain management responsibilities.
              A statement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency reflects the concern of other federal
              agencies that: "... many types of administrative measures can be used. to contribute to the preservation
              and restoration of natural floodplain resources. However, unless there is increased coordination
              among thevarious disciplines (wetland managers, floodplain managers, emergency managers) involved
              in making decisions about such permits, etc., the results will not be satisfactory from a public policy
              perspective" (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1989).



                                               SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


              Biologically productive and environmentally sensitive areas are geographically coincident with
              floodplains. However, the National Flood Insurance Program is not statutorily mandated to require
              communities to preserve the natural resources and associated values of floodplains as a condition
              for participation in the Program. There are, however, provisions of the Program that can act to
              preserve and protect the natural resources and functions of floodplains. For example, streambanks
              and wetlands located in designated floodways are protected, de facto, by a NFIP provision to prohibit
              any development that would increase flood heights in the floodway. Therefore, limited preservation
              and restoration of floodplain natural and cultural resources can be accomplished indirectly through
              flood loss reduction actions. For the most part, however, efforts to manage floodplain natural








                   14-38                                    Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management



                   resources are carried out separately from loss reduction efforts. As described in Chapter 2 of the
                   Assessment Report, most of the natural and cultural resources of floodplains are not associated
                   exclusively with floodplains but represent an important component of a larger set of resource values.
                   As a result, with the exception of some riparian and estuarine resource management programs, most
                   programs that serve to protect floodplain resources have not been developed specifically for flood-
                   plain application but apply to resources found outside of the floodplain as well.

                   A wide range of regulatory programs and requirements have been enacted at federal, state and local
                   levels to protect natural resources. These include: programs for wetland protection and control of
                   dredging and filling; environmental impact review requirements; ground-water and aquifer protection
                   programs; erosion control programs; and permit requirements for discharge of pollutants into surface
                   waters.


                   Numerous programs at all government levels establish policies that encourage, but generally do not
                   require, protection of floodplain natural resources. Land acquisition, the most effective form of
                   protection, has been widely used, particularly by federal and state governments, to purchase wildlife
                   refuges and parks. Other tools such as the purchase of development rights have been used to protect
                   important farmland and unique ecosystems. Private organizations have played a major role in
                   identifying and acquiring important ecosystems.

                   Information on the importance and functions of floodplain natural resources can receive widespread
                   distribution. Environmental values are widely taught in schools at all levels, and popular television
                   programs reach a wide audience. Additional information is provided by federal and state governments
                   and local environmental organizations.

                   Federal income and estate tax benefits are available to individuals and organizations who donate land
                   and provide easements to governments and eligible nonprofit organizations. These tax benefits have
                   been a major factor in facilitating private donations of property with valuable wildlife and habitat
                   functions.

                   Some of the most important types of administrative measures that may be applied to help protect
                   and restore floodplain natural resources address the inventory, classification, and mapping of wetlands,
                   wildlife, aquifers, and other types of natural resources. An important new measure links erosion
                   control actions on agricultural land to federal commodity payments.

                   These initiatives have done much to increase awareness and protection of floodplain natural resources
                   over the past 25 years. Additional efforts are needed, however, and increased public awareness and
                   education concerning the importance of floodplain natural and cultural resources and the measures
                   that can be used for their protection are also needed. Of perhaps equal importance is the need for
                   improved coordination among government agencies to help ensure that diverse programs work in
                   concert.













                                                                                   PART V:

                                                              APPROACHING
                                                THE NEXT CENTURY



           The concluding 'chapters. of the Assessment Report address the extent to which various
           strategies and tools have helped to achieve the goals of floodplain management. Chapter
           15 provides an overview of the effectiveness of the Nation's program for floodplain
           management and of the activities of that program, and describes some major accomplish-
           ments and disappointments. Chapter 16 reviews ways to remedy inadequacies in the
           program and presents a riumber of opportunities for improving floodplain management in
           the coming decades.









              CHAPTER 15:


              THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FLOODPLAIN
              MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES




                  The real problem ... is that it is very diftiult to ... deal in the real world of what has happened
                  and try to evaluate the tradeoffs.

                                                                                         Robertson Mackay, Chairman,
                                                                                    National Flood Insurers Association
                       Testimony before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs, October 31, 1973



              Assessing the effectiveness of floodplain management in the United States is a difficult task. The
              degree of accomplishment to date is impressive; at the same time a considerable distance remains
              between the status quo and the ideal that can be envisioned. The economic, environmental, political,
              and philosophical backdrops against which floodplain management takes place are constantly
              changing, even though these provide the very standards by which the effectiveness of any national
              program is necessarily measured. Additional complications are that few clear, measurable goals have
              been set and there is not enough reliable data about all program activities and their impacts to tell
              how much progress is being made in a given direction. This chapter describes this fluid and some-
              times puzzling scene. It summarizes the key achievements in floodplain management so far, describes
              some of the difficulties in judging progress, and then reviews the general effectiveness of the
              management framework and the specific strategies being used to manage the Nation's floodplains.



                                               OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS


              There is consensus that floodplain management efforts should be headed in three general directions:

              1) FLoODPLAIN MANAGEMENT SHOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF FLOOD-RELATED DEATHS IN THE
                  NATION.

              2)  FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT SHOULD RESULT IN AN ACTUAL DECLINE IN THE NATION'S FLOOD
                  LOSSES, INCLUDING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY DAMAGE, INJURIES, AND DISASTER RELIEF.

              3)  FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT SHOULD REDUCE TTIE LOSS OF THE CULTURAL AND NATURAL
                  RESOURCES OF THE NATION'S FLOODPLAINS.








                  15-2                                                                     . Approaching the Next Century



                  The first of these goals has been partially achieved. Average annual loss of life from flooding has
                  been somewhat reduced from the level that prevailed early in this century, and has remained relatively
                  constant for many years. Over the last 70 years there has been an average of slightly over 100 flood-
                  related deaths annually; there is no indication that deaths are increasing or decreasing on a per capita
                  basis. Many of the fatalities were onlookers who drove or fell into flood waters.

                  An actual decline in flood losses (the second goal) has not been achieved. In fact, there was a
                  definite increase in flood damages from 1916 to 1985. Per capita flood damages were almost 2.5
                  times as great from 1951 to 1985 as they were from 1916 through 1950, after adjusting for inflation.
                  By most measures, the average annual monetary losses attributable to flooding also are increasing.
                  On the other hand, these losses have remained fairly constant over the last two decades when
                  measured against such broad economic indicators as the Gross National Product (GNP) (Wooley,
                  1986).

                  The programs designed to protect the natural and cultural resources of floodplains (the third goal)
                  have not yet arrested resource deterioration. Although precise measurements have not been made,
                  there is general agreement among professionals that riparian habitat, wetlands, open spare, and other
                  floodplain resources are still being lost in spite of efforts to maintain and restore them.


                  ACHIEVEMENTS TO DATE


                  Several significant achievements in floodplain management can be noted, even though all goals have
                  not yet been reached. Among the accomplishments:

                  ï¿½   There is widespread public recognition of flood hazards, the value of the cultural and natural
                      resources of floodplains, and the close interrelationship of floodplain hazards and resources.

                  ï¿½   Many new programs and initiatives are underway at all levels of government; the legislative base
                      has been expanded and new agencies created.
                  ï¿½   Widespread judicial support for floodplain management activities has developed over the last
                      25 years. Courts have recognized the broad responsibility of public and private landowners to
                      other landowners and to the general public with regard to flood damages of all types; courts are
                      also recognizing a duty and ability on the part of governments to avoid, prevent, or mitigate flood
                      losses. Plaintiffs have won thousands of damage suits against government units for causing or
                      increasing flood damages. Most of these have been based on grounds of nuisance or trespass.
                      The "act of God" defense has diminished as a result of improved flood prediction capability and
                      maps. Improved data on stream flow and better hazard modeling have made proof of causation
                      of flood damages easier. All these changes show a perception throughout society that flood
                      losses can and should be managed in some way, and that government-sponsored control projects
                      are no longer considered the only option.

                  ï¿½   In some locales, floodplain development has been prevented or reduced as a result of mapping
                      and the establishment and enforcement of regulations.

                  ï¿½   Losses to new development that meets commonly applied flood protection standards have been
                      greatly reduced.








              The Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States                                        15-3



              ï¿½   There has been a shift from federal dominance toward a more equal partnership among federal,
                  state, and local governments.
              ï¿½   There is a greater awareness that no single management strategy is inherently superior to
                  another, and that the most effective mix of strategies and tools varies from one floodplain to
                  another.

              ï¿½   Numerous standards of terminology, procedures, performance, and quality have been developed,
                  providing a uniform means of applyin& reviewing, and evaluating the design, construction, and
                  regulation needed for floodplain management, and also providing a limited measure of effective-
                  ness evaluation.



              DIFFICULTIES IN EVALUATION

              Assessing the effectiveness of floodplain management is hindered by the small number of specified
              goals by which success can be measured, and by the shortage of data suitable for substantiating
              evaluations.



              The Need for Specified Goals

              No single piece of legislation or other authority outlines a comprehensive set of goals and objectives
              for floodplain management in the United States. Nor is there authority for establishing the relative
              importance of competing goals, resolving apparently inconsistent goals, or setting out schedules for
              their achievement or standards for measuring achievement. Goals such as "reduction in flood losses"
              or "wise use of the floodplain" are very broad for national implementation and not susceptible to
              precise measurement. This ambiguity in intent and direction has inhibited the development of a truly
              unified national program for floodplain management.


              The Need for a Comprehensive Data Base

              There is a considerable amount of information about floodplain management available, but most of
              this information has not been collected with evaluation in mind and is therefore not precise enough
              to support judgments about the effectiveness of various floodplain management activities. Without
              reliable data, it is difficult or impossible to quantify a cause-and-effect relationship between a
              particular floodplain management activity and any increase or decrease in floodplain losses. This
              not only inhibits evaluation, but also hinders legislators, regulators, and professionals in their efforts
              to establish, overhaul, or fine-tune programs and strategies to make them more effective. Although
              it is sometimes possible to quantify the effectiveness of a particular management effort with regard
              to a specific flood or flood control project, there are not enough data to make such assessments on
              a national, or cumulative level.

              Many other uncertainties are caused by the incompleteness of the national floodplain management
              data base. For example, there are conflicting estimates of the total land area of the United States
              subject to a 1% annual chance flood - estimates range from about 7% to over 14% - and of the








                  15-4                                                                       Approaching the Nert Centuty



                  annual property damages and loss of life caused by flooding. There are also unresolved questions
                  about how seriously annual wetland loss impairs the natural resources of the Nation's floodplains.
                  In general, both the state- and national-level data that address these subjects are either unreliable
                  or out of date.


                  The incompleteness of the floodplain management data base has been well documented. A 1983
                  report to the National Science Foundation stated that "It is evident ... that the nation lacks a compre-
                  hensive base of information about many parameters of floods, flood plain use, and the consequences
                  of floods" (Changnon and others, 1983). The recommendation of House Document 465, A Unified
                  National Program for Managing Flood Losses, that a national effort be launched to establish a
                  comprehensive data base is the only one of that document's 16 recommendations on which little or
                  no progress has been made. The other 15 have all been implemented.



                               EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK


                  The framework for floodplain management today is a coalescence of legislation, programs, policies,
                  and constituencies for flood control, water resources management, disaster assistance, protection of
                  the natural environment, and other objectives. The Unified National Program for Floodplain
                  Management provides the general and working principles for the management of floodplains at each
                  level of government and within the private sector, sets forth strategies and tools for the effort, and
                  stimulates and supports the improvement of floodplain management throughout the country.


                  THE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKS PROGRESS


                  Although a truly unified national effort is not yet in place, great strides have been made in that
                  direction. The management fram     'ework has matured and expanded significantly since the 1960s. The
                  growing recognition of the need for alternatives to federal investments in structural projects for flood
                  loss reduction has been of particular importance. A major improvement was made in 1979, when
                  the reportA Unified National Program for Floodplain Management, first published by the U.S. Water
                  Resources Council in 1976, was refined to address protection of floodplain natural resources as well
                  as flood loss reduction. Some of the more important changes in the last 25 years - notably the
                  implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) - have been the result of initiatives
                  to carry out the 16 recommendations made in House Document 465. Other changes, such as the
                  issuance of Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, have been the product of action by the
                  Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. Still others have been achieved through
                  legislative action: the 1988 amendments to the NFIP, for example, provide for flood insurance
                  payments to the owners of structures in imminent danger of collapse due to erosion. Modification
                  of disaster assistance legislation has provided funds for mitigation. These positive changes have been
                  strongly influenced by the efforts of state and local governments and by professional organizations.








              77ze Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States                                         15-5




              SHORTCOMINGS IN THE FRAMEWORK

              Experience over the last 25 years has shown that the management framework itself could still be
              improved. Some of the areas needing attention are: 1) the definition of floodplain management; 2)
              floodplain management goals; 3) the structure of the management framework; 4) the integration of
              flood loss reduction efforts with efforts to preserve floodplain natural resources; and 5) coordination
              among government agencies.


              Definition of Floodplain Management

              Even though tremendous progress has been made without universal agreement on a definition of
              floodplain management or what is encompassed by it, efforts probably would be sharpened if there
              were a concise, generally accepted description. Most of the organizations, agencies, and documents
              that deal with floodplain management resort to long discussions of an imprecise concept. For
              example, both A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management and the policy statement of
              the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) embrace a broad concept of floodplain
              management that extends beyond the delineated "100-year" floodplain to include actions that can
              influence floods and flooding along with actions for the protection and management of natural
              resources within the floodplain. Elements of insurance, emergency management, disaster relief, and
              other program areas are included as well. It has been suggested that such views are too broad, and
              that floodplain management should focus only on reducing losses to lives and property            . (Sprague,
              1989). Perhaps the most widespread (albeit erroneous) view of floodplain management is that it
              consists simply of regulation of the "100-year" (or perhaps "500-year") floodplain. Floodplain
              management is also widely viewed as synonymous with the NFIP (Myers, 1989).

              An accepted, well-defined concept of floodplain management would improve the implementation of
              management techniques and simplify evaluations of their effectiveness. It would also make it easier
              to reconcile conflicting views about accomplishments, effectiveness, and needed changes.


              Goals Of Floodplain Management

              As noted above, the existing management framework contains no clearly specified, measurable goals
              for floodplain management activities. Goals such as "wise use, conservation, and development," as
              described in A Unified NationalPrograrn for Floodplain Management, are subject to varied interpre-
              tation and cannot be measured on any national scale. Neither have states or municipalities estab-
              lished their own goals or clarified the national concepts. When the goals are restated with discrete
              targets, it will be easier to direct efforts and to measure the degree of accomplishment.


              The Structure of the Management Framework

              Because the framework within which floodplains are managed today was not designed at a fell swoop
              but rather evolved over time, it is not surprising that there are some inconsistencies in the manage-
              ment framework. The most well-conceived component of the framework is the statement of concepts,








                  15-6                                                                       Approaching the Next Century



                  strategies, and tools contained in A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management, yet even
                  that statement could now bear reexamination in light of the past few decades of experience.

                  For example, strategies for implementing any sort of management program ought to be actions that,
                  if carried out successfully, would result in achievement of the program's goals. The strategies for
                  floodplain management as first identified in the 1976 reportA Unified National Program for Floodplain
                  Management may now need to be scrutinized with this in mind. After 15 years of efforts to implement
                  the strategies it is still not clear how much progress is being made. This is partly because, due to
                  lack of specific goals, "progress" in the context of floodplain management is amorphous. But it may
                  also be because the strategies as elucidated are not precisely appropriate to the specific achievements
                  desired.

                  Perhaps there are other strategies that may now be effectively employed; some of the existing
                  strategies, especially as implemented through the current management framework, appear to be
                  working at cross purposes. "Modifying flooding" and "restoring and preserving the natural resources
                  of floodplains," for example, seem to be inherently contradictory. Two of the tools (tax adjustments
                  and postflood recovery) designed for implementing the strategy of "modifying the impacts of flooding"
                  have recently been altered so that they are not directed solely at making flooding impacts easier to
                  bear but also at reducing susceptibility to future flooding (a separate strategy). Finally, some of the
                  strategies seem to have taken on the characteristics of ends in themselves rather than means to
                  reaching goals. Restoring the natural resources of a floodplain, in particular, could well be construed
                  as a goal; it could also be a step along the way to achievement of another, larger purpose; it could
                  conceivably even be both. This confusion is reinforced by the discussion in A Unified National
                  Program for Floodplain Management on this point, in which four substrategies are suggested as ways
                  to reach the "goal" of "preserving and restoring natural resources."

                  More effective management and implementation of a unified program for managing the Nation's
                  floodplains will be possible if these distinctions are made clearer, and if all the components of the
                  framework have better identified relationships to each other. It would be worthwhile in the future
                  to examine the structure of the framework, including the Unified National Program for Floodplain
                  Management, to ensure that the goals, strategies, and tools are all conceptually well-integrated,
                  especially if new components are added or other refinements are made.


                  Integration of Flood Loss Reduction and Natural Resources Protection

                  Over the past 30 years, a wide array of new laws and programs has been established aimed at
                  protecting natural resources. The integration of these efforts with flood loss reduction programs has
                  been encouraged through legislation and through Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management,
                  and Executive Order 11990, Wetlands Protection. Nevertheless, substantial impediments to integrat-
                  ing these two aspects of floodplain management remain. Unless steps are taken now to resolve the
                  inconsistencies, the problem areas may grow as natural resource protection programs mature and
                  gain public support.

                  Many of the existing programs for flood loss reduction and resource protection are applied within
                  differing geographic areas: most local flood loss reduction programs focus primarily on the "100-year"








               7he Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States                                         15-7



               floodplain, while natural resource protection programs focus on a particular resource (wetlands, for
               example) which may or may not be located in the floodplain. In addition, the two types of programs
               are triggered by different events. Disaster relief, for example, occurs after a flood; a Section 404
               permit is required when a fill activity is planned; a Wild and Scenic River study begins after Congres-
               sional action. These differences make integration of the programs problematic.

               Beyond lack of integration, sometimes the programs for the two strategies actually create conflicts,
               as illustrated in this comment from Denver's Urban Drainage and Flood Control District:

                   The 'Protection " of wetlands often seems to takeprecedence over every other aspect offloodplain
                   management. The regulators seem to have noproblem in delaying remedialflood controlprojects
                   in heavily urbanized areas, or driving their costs up dramatically, in order to save very marginal
                   and often trashed out areas. In the meantime, the occupants of the flood plain remain at risk

                   Similarly, we have had trouble obtaining 404permits to maintain existingflood control channels.
                   In one instance we were required to build fah ladders, where none had previously existed, before
                   we were granted a permit to repair a series of seriously deteriorated drop structures. At the same
                   time FEMA wants local governments to ... maintain new flood control facilities before FEMA
                   will recognize them on their FIRMs.

                   At the same time that the regulators are busily maldng it more difficult for local governments to
                   provide flood protection for their citizens, they do very little to promote sound flood plain
                   management practice. On several occasions I have objected to the issuance of a 404permit on
                   the basis that the activity in question violatedprincoals offloodplain management, such asfilling
                   in afloodway, only to be told that kind of activity is of no concern to the authorities administering
                   the program (DeGroot, 1989).


               Coordination Among Government Agencies

               There is more coordination and better cooperation among all levels of government now than there
               was 25 years ago, but improvements could still be made. Each government agency involved with
               floodplain management has its own legislative mandate and, in general, each has been diligent in
               carrying out that mandate within the imposed statutory limits. From the standpoint of an overall
               federal program for floodplain management, however, there are many inconsistencies of purpose and
               procedure, overlaps, gaps, and conflicts. Fragmented and uncoordinated responsibility and inadequate
               cooperation among government agencies are frequently cited as obstacles to more effective floodplain
               management. In the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo in 1989, for example, better intergovernmental
               coordination and cooperation could have improved the provision of federal disaster assistance to
               South Carolina. A member of the National Review Committee has described intergovernmental
               coordination problems extending from the federal government to the local level:

                   At the Federal level, the large number of agencies working in the floodplain management arena
                   operate under a wide variety of laws, regulations and guidelines that make coordination of these
                   manyprograms difficult, inhibit cooperation, create unneeded competition among agencies, and
                   develop inefficiencies in overallprogram execution ... Similarproblems face floodplain manage-








                 15-8                                                                        Approaching the Next Century



                     ment activities operating at the state and local level ... "en action is needed in the floodplain
                     ... myriad agencies rush to respond. However, they must cope with legislated restrictions that limit
                     their ability to cooperate with each other or to develop a comprehensive approach to problem
                     solution. (Galloway, 1989)

                 The fact that government programs sometimes work at cross purposes is illustrated by the historical
                 case of disaster assistance programs, which were legislatively mandated to provide financial assistance
                 as quickly as possible to the individuals and local governments needing to restore their lives and
                 communities. This usually meant rebuilding public and private buildings to their preflood conditions.
                 In fact, the requirements for receiving assistance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
                 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Small Business Administration (SBA)
                 specifically prohibited rebuilding a flood-damaged structure in a different (even flood-free) location
                 or to a higher design standard. As a result, in the past these programs sometimes actually prevented
                 action that would have reduced future vulnerability to flooding. The Disaster Relief and Emergency
                 Assistance Amendments of 1988 helped to remedy this particular situation by making hazard
                 mitigation activities eligible for federal funding.



                                                    THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
                              FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND TOOLS


                 Examining each of the floodplain management strategies and tools separately can help determine
                 exactly where progress is being made. Even though there is not as much information and specific
                 data available about each tool as would be ideal, assessments can be based on observed trends and
                 professional opinions. This process will also help point out places at which the concepts themselves
                 could benefit from redefinition or clarification. There is no doubt that additional accomplishments
                 could be achieved through better or more extensive use of the same strategies and tools. It may also
                 be that some of them have been ineffective or even counterproductive. Perhaps the application of
                 some of the strategies and tools has resulted in unintended side effects. For the purpose of the
                 following discussion, the three strategies to reduce flood losses and the single strategy to restore and
                 preserve the natural resources of floodplains are treated simply as four strategies directed toward
                 floodplain management in general.

                 Of the four strategies, modifying flooding has traditionally been the most popular because: 1) limited
                 local resources are required for its implementation (most of the costs have been borne by the federal
                 government); 2) individual adjustments or sacrifices are minimal; 3) community growth is not
                 restricted, even in the area "protected" by the structure; and 4) structural measures require only
                 operation and maintenance at the local level because the planning, construction, and implementation
                 are carried out by capable professional staff from the state or federal government. In contrast, many
                 measures to modify susceptibility to flood damages or to modify the impact of flooding are implement-
                 ed on a structure-by-structure or property-by-property basis and require constant vigilance, personal
                 inconvenience, and financial sacrifice. In the past, these drawbacks resulted in a lack of public
                 support for such measures and, consequently, local governments were often reluctant to impose or
                 enforce them. By the mid-1980s, however, this impediment had been largely overcome and local








              Yhe Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States                                         15-9



              officials began to focus on how to comply with federal and state requirements and idminister
              community programs. Measures to modify susceptibility to flood damage and disruption and to
              modify the impacts of flooding are now widely accepted, even though some communities still have
              difficulty administering them. The strategy of restoring and preserving the natural and cultural
              resources of floodplains has had little exposure so far, and needs to be better integrated with the
              other strategies, both conceptually and in practice.


              MODIFYING SUSCEPTIBILITY TO FLOOD DAMAGE AND DISRUPTION

              A review of the tools used under this strategy shows widespread, fairly successful implementation.
              Susceptibility to flooding in the United States is constantly being effectively lessened at individual
              and local levels with these tools. Evidence does indicate, however, that overall vulnerability has either
              increased or stayed the same, probably because of the large amount of vulnerable development
              already in place, numerous exceptions to the state and local policies that would reduce that develop-
              ment, and the fact that population growth, movement, and urbanization sometimes take place so
              quickly or in such unexpected ways that adequate planning and regulation simply cannot be estab-
              lished soon enough to prevent unwise use of floodplain areas. There are still questions about the
              effectiveness of various types of warning systems, and the extent to which private floodproofing or
              retrofitting has been used.

              This strategy may have the most potential for widespread future use, because its tools can be
              coordinated well with other strategies and because it works to provide an ongoing, more enduring
              way of adjusting to the flood hazard - that is, altering human behavior usually before the losses
              occur.



              Floodplain Regulations

              Floodplain regulations have been the most widely used tool to reduce susceptibility to flood damages,
              and they have had the greatest impact. Over 18,000 communities now have adopted at least minimal
              floodplain regulations as a result of participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, and
              several states and several hundred communities have adopted more stringent standards. The
              regulatory aspects of the NFIP are considered to have significantly moderated floodplain development
              and therefore the damage that would have occurred without the program (U.S. Army Corps of
              Engineers, 1989). Development after regulations are in effect is less prone to damage than preexist-
              ing development. From 1978 to 1988, FEMA recorded an average of 21.7 losses per 1,000 flood
              insurance policies on structures built before regulation, compared to only 5.7 per 1,000 regulated
              structures (Thomas, 1990). During Hurricane Hugo, structures built to NFIP standards sustained
              significantly less damage than structures that did not meet the standards. Mapping of flood hazard
              areas and enforcement of regulations within the hazard areas have helped to reduce or avoid
              floodplain development in many locales.

              Courts have upheld the constitutionality of floodplain management regulations, despite their impact
              on property values, because such regulations help protect public health and safety; because they may
              be part of wider government plans or programs that benefit the public in general (e.g., pollution








                  15-10                                                                       Approaching the Next Century



                  controls or the NFIP); and because even privately owned water-based lands are subject to public trust
                  and navigation servitudes.

                  To be effective, regulations must be properly enforced, but this is not always done. Floodplain land-
                  use regulations are enforced at the local level, but many communities find themselves without the
                  resources, public support, or the will to achieve proper enforcement. Experience has shown that some
                  floodprone communities will not pursue enforcement without assistance and/or the threat of sanctions
                  from state and federal agencies. In the past, the lack of sanctions that could be applied by the states
                  or by the federal government hindered effective enforcement. The only sanction initially available
                  to FEMA was suspension of a community from the NFIP - a harsh move that the agency was
                  reluctant to take. In recent years, however, FEMA has begun taking two other steps to increase
                  compliance with adopted regulations: 1) putting the community on probation and imposing a
                  surcharge on policy premiums within that community-, and 2) bringing a lawsuit against a community
                  if flood losses are incurred and insurance claims paid as a result of the community's failure to properly
                  enforce the regulations.

                  Federal requirements for mandatory purchase and maintenance of flood insurance on properties in
                  delineated floodplains must be enforced by federal lending institutions, but a recent postdisaster study
                  conducted by FEMA showed a high rate of failure by the lenders to do so. Because there is no
                  penalty for failure to apply the mandatory purchase requirement, there is no real economic incentive
                  for most lenders to comply.

                  The widespread use of floddplain land-use regulations has had some drawbacks. The combination
                  of regulations and urban growth has resulted in dense development adjacent to many regulatory
                  boundaries. Such concentration may increase vulnerability to catastrophic losses from large floods
                  (National Review Committee, 1989). Floodplain regulations have had relatively little effect on
                  reducing losses to existing buildings and infrastructure, which make up the greatest potential for flood
                  losses in the country. Between 1978 and 1989, damage to buildings constructed before the adoption
                  of community floodplain regulations accounted for $2.8 billion (93%) of the total $3.0 billion National
                  Flood Insurance Program losses. Both the monetary damages and the number of buildings at risk
                  have increased significantly since the mid-1970s. In addition, the value of the structures in the
                  floodplain tends to increase over time. Finally, to the extent that floodplain regulations allow
                  development in floodplains - even though the potential for damage has been significantly reduced
                  - these regulations can contribute to the loss of natural and cultural resources.

                  One "built-in" drawback to regulations as currently used is that although the one percent annual
                  chance flood has been clearly established as a national standard, this standard is not always appropri-
                  ate, and at times may even limit the effectiveness of flood loss reduction measures. Observers have
                  commented:

                      The '100-yearflood'standard ... should be recognized as a necessary, but not always sufficient,
                      geographic parameter for public management (Platt, 1989).

                      A majority of flood losses that occur in the United States are caused by floods greater than the
                      100-yearflood (Sheaffer, 1989).








              Re Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States                                        15-11



              In addition, the National Review Committee (National Review Committee, 1989) has noted that
              regulatory reliance on a "100-year" flood standard has created a large inventory of structures located
              just outside the boundaries of the "100-year" floodplain and these structures are vulnerable to floods
              of greater magnitude.

              These opinions, however, are not shared by all floodplain managers and there are not enough hard
              data to confirm or disprove them. A good argument can certainly be made for applying a higher
              design standard to such "critical" facilities as hospitals, nursing homes, police stations, fire stations,
              and waste water treatment plants that must be kept operational during emergencies or where flooding
              presents a particular threat to human life.

              In addition, although FEMA data indicate that damage claims from areas outside the mapped "100-
              year" floodplain have accounted for about 30% of the NFIP's total claims payments, most of these
              losses can be attributed to the result of rapid urbanization that exceeds the capacity of managers to
              remap, regulate, manage stormwater, or accommodate the increased runoff in the drainage area.


              Development and Redevelopment Policies

              Damages to existing public infrastructure in floodprone areas, including roads, bridges, utilities, and
              public service buildings, still account for the majority of FEMA's disaster assistance payments. The
              Federal Highway Administration also provides millions of dollars in disaster assistance for flood-
              damaged highways and bridges. The process of removal or upgrading (through redevelopment) of
              the inventory of existing structures in the floodplain is taking longer than anticipated. Data (Donnelly
              Marketing Information Sources, 1985) and professional opinion indicate that the number and value
              of properties at risk in the Nation's floodplains is actually increasing.

              In a 1983 review, FEMA concluded that Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, had been
              effective in reducing potential flood losses by establishing a federal policy against development and
              redevelopment in floodplains. Since then, there has been little or no systematic tracking of agency
              decisions based on the Executive Order guidance to confirm that judgment. In general, E.O. 11988
              has been implemented effectively by those agencies that viewed its provisions as supportive of their
              other programs and missions.

              All coastal states have policies on development in coastal flood hazard areas. Several states have
              issued executive orders or other directives comparable to E.O. 11988, and every state now has a
              statute or executive order to govern construction of state projects, such as prisons and universities,
              that are exempt from local regulation. But not all states have strong floodplain development, and
              redevelopment policies. The weaknesses in the state policies are generally exemptions for activities
              ranging from road and bridge construction to agriculture. The cumulative impact of these exemptions
              on flood risk and damage to cultural and natural resources can be significant.

              Land rights acquisition is not widely used to accomplish flood loss reduction, largely because of the
              high cost of land, concern about excessive government ownership of land, and challenges of unconsti-
              tutional takings. Relocation (permanent evacuation) is used less commonly than other tools except
              in small isolated sectors of nonconforming uses. In any case, flood damage is rarely the principal
              motive for redevelopment.








                   15-12                                                                        Approaching the Nert Century



                   Disaster Preparedness

                   Disaster preparedness efforts have proven very effective in reducing flood losses, especially loss of
                   life. Every state has an integrated emergency management plan and an emergency management or
                   disaster preparedness agency responsible for preparing for floods. Each Gulf and Atlantic coast state
                   has a hurricane preparedness plan at least underway.

                   Several organizations and agencies have noted that disaster preparedness plans are not used as much
                   as some other tools and deserve greater attention. In the last 25 years, local disaster response
                   activities have changed very little, but planning has become more systematic and realistic. Even
                   though most local emergency management agencies seem to spend more time producing written plans
                   than actually preparing for a disaster, communities in general are now better prepared for nonwar
                   emergencies (Quarantelli, 1985). Because there has been no systematic study of preparedness plans,
                   their implementation during floods, or detection and warning systems, it is assumed that most of the
                   funding and effort has gone toward flood detection, that preparedness plans are nonexistent or
                   inadequate in many communities, and that where there are both flood detection systems and plans,
                   the plans are unrealistic (Owen, 1986).


                   Disaster Assistance


                   The disaster assistance system provided by federal, state, and local governments and the private
                   sector, which takes the form of financial assistance or help to repair, replace, or restore facilities, is
                   largely efficient and adequate to provide necessary relief to individuals and communities. From 1965
                   through 1989 the President declared 508 major federal disasters related to floods and hurricanes; the
                   total obligation from the Disaster Relief Fund was $5,205,540,000. In a preliminary report the U.S.
                   General Accounting Office noted that in an "average" disaster about 2,000 individuals and families
                   seek federal disaster assistance, and FEMA spends about $10 million (U.S. General Accounting
                   Office, 1990). Other assistance is provided by the Small Business Administration and the Farmers
                   Home Administration (FmHA).

                   One unfortunate and unanticipated consequence of this effective disaster assistance system has been
                   the tendency of individuals and communities, with very little countervailing guidance from government
                   agencies, to use these funds to return themselves and their property to the hazardous, preflood
                   condition (see later discussion on Postflood Recovery). It is worth ascertaining the degree to which
                   current disaster assistance policies may actually undermine long-range floodplain management efforts
                   to rebuild consistent with the risk (if at all).


                   Floodproofing

                   Elevation to or above the base flood level is now routinely incorporated into the design of most new
                   floodplain structures, primarily because it is required under the National Flood Insurance Program,
                   and it has proved effective in reducing losses from 1% or more frequent floods. Further, over the
                   past 20 years new construction methods have been developed to enable structures to better withstand
                   the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces of water and the effects of scour and high winds, and many








               7he Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States                                       15-13



               of these methods can be used to meet the special criteria of the NFIP that apply to coastal high
               hazard areas, for example.

               In 1984, the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (Corps) concluded that use of floodproofing measures
               (other than elevation) was "widespread" but was unable to estimate the number of floodproofed
               structures nationwide (Plott, 1987). Likewise, when each of the states was surveyed, few were able
               to estimate the number of floodproofed structures within their jurisdictions (Association of State
               Floodplain Managers, 1988a). Although it is not known how many structures have been individually
               floodproofed, there certainly are millions of existing floodprone homes to which floodproofing
               techniques could usefully be applied (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1989). Although
               floodproofing efforts have long been carried out by individual property owners, most of these private
               efforts have involved the use of untested systems and procedures, without the usual requisite technical
               expertise to ensure their effectiveness. Additional methods for retrofitting existing structures to
               reduce flood vulnerability have been researched and documented in recent years.


               Flood Forecasting and Warning Systems and Emergency Plans

               Forecasting and warning systems have reduced flood losses, particularly loss of life. In one document-
               ed example, an annual damage reduction of $750,000 was estimated for the Connecticut River Basin
               as the result of a flood warning system that cost about $250,000 annually (Day, 1976). A later study
               estimated a 20:1 ratio of benefits over costs for a statewide warning system for Connecticut (Commit-
               tee on Automated Flood Warning, 1988). Many automated warning systems have been installed
               primarily to save lives, and it is impossible to establish a useful benefit/cost ratio for such systems
               (Association of State Floodplain Managers, Workshop #7,1988b). The performance of automated
               flash flood warning systems that have been installed in communities in Arizona, California, Colorado,
               Connecticut, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas, has been uneven; many have
               not been tested under actual flooding situations to determine if they will indeed provide the anticipat-
               ed level of warning. In a recent study of 18 warning systems, nine had not yet had experience with
               flooding. Of the others, seven worked acceptably, and two had problems (Association of State
               Floodplain Managers, Workshop #7, 1988b). There have been few formal evaluations of flood
               warning systems in the literature, and no "before-and-after" studies of effectiveness.

               The effectiveness of flood emergency measures varies widely according to the locality, the type of
               flooding and measures available, and the state of preparedness of the populace. Most communities
               that experience only rare flooding do not have current, workable emergency plans, but this deficiency
               often is offset by the skill of the local police, fire, and public works departments.


               MODIFYING FLOODING


               National efforts to modify flooding have probably been more successful than those of any other
               strategy. The concept of controlling floods is older than the other strategies, and over the course
               of five or six decades, countless flooding situations have been altered by means of structural measures.
               Between 1936 and 1975 the federal government spent more than $13 billion for dams and other flood
               control structures (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1977). In return for this investment, flood control








                  15-14                                                                     Approaching the Next Century



                  projects have saved billions of dollars in property damage and protected hundreds of thousands of
                  people from anxiety, injury, and for some, death.

                  There is an increasing recognition that the strategy of modifying flooding can sometimes be counter-
                  productive in two ways. First, it has been suggested that the creation of structural protective works
                  encourages development in the "protected" area, resulting in increased vulnerability, perhaps not
                  to the design flood, but to larger floods or to unforeseen catastrophic events like structural failure.
                  Second, unless it is planned and implemented very carefully, this strategy is incompatible with
                  preserving and restoring the natural resources of floodplains. Structural measures can have adverse
                  impacts on wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and water quality that undermine the effectiveness of
                  comprehensive floodplain management.

                  Partly as a result of these concerns and partly because the most-needed projects had already been
                  built, there was a considerable shift away from reliance on structural solutions beginning in the early
                  1960s. The planning and installation of measures to modify floods, however, have not been aban-
                  doned. Flood control projects are still needed to complement the application of other floodplain
                  management strategies, particularly to protect existing structures. From time to time, Congress has
                  authorized flood control projects in water resources development acts, and agencies such as the Corps
                  and U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) have ongoing authority to plan and carry out local flood
                  protection measures.

                  There is not enough information to determine the extent to which each of the tools to implement
                  this strategy are being used, although there seems to be a trend toward the abandonment of certain
                  land treatment measures (terracing, for example) in the wake of the use of large, mechanized farm
                  equipment. This is particularly disturbing because a large proportion of flood losses occur to
                  agricultural lands.



                  Dams and Reservoirs

                  Between 1960 and 1985, Corps projects prevented an estimated $245 billion (1985 dollars) in potential
                  damages. Since its inception, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) dam and reservoir system has
                  prevented flood damages that would have amounted to nearly $3.03 billion. No estimate is available
                  of the number of people being afforded some degree of protection by dams.


                  Dikes, Levees and Floodwalls

                  About 1,000 communities (5.5% of floodprone communities) have levees and floodwalls, that provide
                  protection from "100-year" floods; the cumulative length of these structures is about 9,000 miles and
                  they protect about 5,000 square miles of land. An estimated 25,000 miles of levees and floodwalls
                  have been built nationwide, but most of these structures are designed only to protect agricultural
                  property from small floods. Levee or floodwall overtopping or failure is involved in about one-third
                  of all flood disasters.







               7he Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in. the United States                                       15-15



               Channel Alterations

               As of 1976, the SCS had helped construct or modify nearly 17,000 miles of channels. Such channels
               are effective at protecting agricultural lands from frequent, small floods. Other agencies, such as the
               Corps, also participate in channel construction for flood control.


               High Flow Diversions

               Diversions have very limited but specific application for reducing flood damages. Ilere is insufficient
               information about the use of this tool to judge its effectiveness at this time.


               Land Treatment Measures

               As of 1977, terraces were in use on an estimated 31.3 million acres of land, and an average of 600,000
               additional acres were being protected annually. Many of these terraces, however, are now being torn
               out. A significant proportion of all U.S. cropland is in some form of conservation tillage. Pursuant
               to the 1985 Farm Bill, all farms with highly erosive lands must now have conservation plans.


               On-site Detention Measures

               There is insufficient information about the use of this tool to judge its full effectiveness at this time.
               It is being used more frequently in ce   rtain areas of the country.


               Shoreline Protection Measures

               One tool not identified inA Unified National Program for Floodplain Management but which has come
               to be widely used includes shoreline protection measures. The effectiveness of these measures varies
               widely., Sand fills and other beach nourishment techniques protect upland development without
               interfering with the littoral transport of sediment. Structures like breakwaters, seawalls, bulkheads,
               and revetments can prove ineffective at providing long-term flood and erosion protection if they are
               not properly engineered, because they then tend to fail at their flanks, allowing continued erosion
               of the adjacent shoreline. Structures like jetties and groins can provide longer-term protection, but
               they may interfere with the natural movement of sand and degrade or destroy natural and cultural
               resources along the shore.


               MODIFYING THE IMPACT OF FLOODING ON INDIVIDUALS
               AND THE COMMUNITY


               The impacts of flooding on individuals and communities have definitely been reduced over the last
               20 years, largely through increased awareness of flood hazards as a result of the provision of
               information and education, and because of the availability of flood insurance. After many years of
               counterproductive effects, two of the tools for implementing this strategy have recently undergone
               basic revisions that may make them more effective at reducing future losses: tax adjustments for flood








                  15-16                                                                       Approaching the Next Century



                  losses have been reduced, and postflood recovery measures to minimize future losses have been
                  determined to be an appropriate use of disaster assistance funds.


                  Information and Education

                  Public perception, awareness, and response to flood hazards is significantly greater today than it was
                  in the mid-1960s, partly as a result of increased information and education for floodplain management.
                  The extensive use of this tool is evident in the large number of publications now in existence,
                  conferences and training programs held, and organizations now involved in floodplain management.
                  Federal agencies have produced much of the information that forms the core of floodplain manage-
                  ment programs and have been active in providing training. The Federal Insurance Administration
                  (FIA) now spends about $4 million annually to print and distribute about seven million maps to states,
                  communities, lenders and agents, banks, consultants, and others. The states have prepared hundreds
                  of documents on various aspects of floodplain management. Private sector activities with regard to
                  education and information dissemination have also increased dramatically. There has been a
                  tremendous increase in the number of professional and nonprofit organizations with some involvement
                  in floodplain management.

                  Although substantial progress has been made in increasing institutional awareness and response to
                  flood risk and vulnerability, individual perception and awareness generally falls short of the level that
                  many professionals and public officials think is needed. Some believe that this condition is the
                  greatest impediment facing floodplain management today (Soil Conservation Service, 1991). Only
                  a portion of the affected public usually responds appropriately to flood warnings or advice about flood
                  risk, and sometimes this lack of response has disastrous results.

                  The American Planning Association (Smith, 1989) and Burby and French (Burby and French, 1985)
                  have found that floodplain management is simply not a priority for local governments and that
                  floodplain control is not perceived as a serious problem by the thousands of suburbs, small towns,
                  and rural communities with designated floodplains. This lack of perception can be attributed in part
                  to inadequate information and lack of awareness on the part of floodplain residents and local officials.
                  There is not the same level of public and local political support for floodplain management as there
                  is for programs to protect other sensitive environmental areas or resources (like wetlands). Lack of
                  funding and personnel also limit the effectiveness of local floodplain management programs and
                  reduce the priority attached to them. The expectation of outside assistance for postflood recovery
                  reinforces local attitudes that higher levels of government will provide any needed remedies.

                  It is difficult to keep local elected and appointed officials adequately informed due to their high
                  turnover rate (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1989), especially volunteer boards and
                  commissions that play a major role in local government in some sections of the country. The
                  American Planning Association believes that responsibility for educating and informing local officials
                  rests with the federal government and the states, and is concerned that:

                     federal and state floodplain managers have not done an adequate job of informing the public and
                     local elected leaders of the benefits offloodplain management... [or] ... of educating localplanning
                     boards, city councils, real estate salesmer4 bankers, and developers of the need to prevent excessive
                     development of floodplain areas (Smith, 1989).








              The Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States                                        15-17



              At all levels of government, the limited number of personnel with specific training in the interdisciplin-
              ary field of floodplain management is a significant impediment.

              Some local government officials believe that strict local land-use regulations designed to protect
              against flood hazards may be challenged as unconstitutional takings of private property without
              compensation. Although this concern is rarely well-founded, it still can hinder both local adoption
              and enforcement of regulations more stringent than the federal standards.


              Flood Insurance


              As of 1990,82% of the Nation's nearly 22,000 floodprone communities had joined the National Flood
              Insurance Program. In 1990, 2.39 million flood insurance policies were in force, providing insurance
              coverage in excess of $200 billion. From 1978 to 1989, over 384,000 claims had been paid for a value
              of about $3.2 billion. For many thousands of property owners and renters, the availability of flood.
              insurance has greatly eased the financial trauma created by damaging floods. NFIP experience is
              beginning to yield evidence that the flood loss reduction standards are preventing flood damages and
              that the insurance mechanism is shifting a significant amount of flood damage costs from disaster
              assistance programs to floodplain occupants.

              Since the NFIP was authorized in 1968, the Federal Insurance Administration has made significant
              strides toward increasing the number of structures insured on ari actuarial basis and achieving a
              financially self-supporting NFIP. Since 1985, premium income has been sufficient to cover all
              expenses and claims, including $365 million for Hurricane Hugo, without utilizing the program's
              federal borrowing authority. The Write Your Own (Vv'YO) program is expected to increase the
              number of policies sold and provide coverage to even more structures.

              Because only a small percentage of floodprone structures are insured, and many structures are still
              insured at subsidized rates, the premium base is not large enough to permit the NFIP to operate on
              a fully actuarial basis. Those structures covered by insurance tend to be the ones at most risk. The
              number of policies has remained relatively constant for several years, but new structures continue
              to occupy the floodplain and there is no evidence that the existing inventory of structures is signifi-
              cantly declining. Consequently, the number of policies should be steadily increasing.

              For years there have been claims that the NFIP has contributed to an increase in floodplain develop-
              ment. No studies have specifically addressed this issue. Neither the data collected and maintained
              by the FIA nor other readily available data provide a conclusive answer. There is no doubt that
              development in floodplains has continued and perhaps even accelerated (especially in coastal areas)
              but there is no evidence that this development has been induced by the availability of flood insurance.
              It may be a result of increasing population, more water-related leisure activities, or other factors.
              Because infrastructure is a prerequisite to development, flood insurance at most probably only acts
              as a contributing factor.








                  15-18                                                                        Approaching the Next Century



                  Tax Adjustments

                  It is not known yet whether the federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 has reduced the tax code's historic
                  incentive to develop property without regard to flood risk. There are scattered state and local tax
                  adjustment programs whose impact also is unknown.


                  Flood Emergency Measures

                  All states and most localities have some sort of emergency management office or agency responsible'
                  for preparing for floods. There is little specific information about how much or how effectively certain
                  emergency measures are used, except in the case of hurricane preparedness. Because of the
                  seriousness of this threat, all coastal communities have some form of emergency preparedness and
                  most have effective evacuation plans as a result of the cooperative hurricane evacuation study effort
                  by federal, state, and local agencies.


                  Postflood Recovery

                  Postflood recovery efforts, aided by many types of disaster assistance, have been largely effective at
                  restoring flood-damaged communities and individual properties to their preflood conditions. It has
                  recently been recognized, through changes in federal legislation and policy, that those preflood
                  conditions were hazardous conditions that should not have been recreated. In late 1988 the passage
                  of the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act signaled a new approach to postflood recovery,
                  making hazard mitigation activities eligible for federal funding. This should make it easier for
                  individuals and localities to take mitigation actions. It remains to be seen whether the Act will
                  actually motivate and enable state and local officials to use disaster assistance funds for postflood
                  mitigation.


                  RESTORING AND PRESERVING THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF FLOODPLAINS

                  As the latest addition to the array of floodplain management strategies and the one least well-
                  integrated with the others, it is not surprising that the strategy of restoring and preserving the natural
                  resources of floodplains has met with minimal success. Floodplain land is being preserved in a limited
                  way through regulatory controls and through acquisition; public understanding and support for
                  preservation and restoration of natural resources is growing; and mapping of the Nation's wetlands
                  is more than half finished. These accomplishments, however, have been the result largely of
                  programs, policies, and efforts outside the floodplain management arena. There is little debate that
                  the natural and cultural resources of floodplains are still being lost.


                  Regulations

                  A wide range of regulatory programs and requirements has been enacted at federal, state, and local
                  levels to protect natural resources; these include programs for wetlands protection and control of
                  dredging and filling, environmental impact review requirements, ground-water and aquifer protection








              Ae Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States                               - 15-19



              programs, erosion control programs, and permit requirements for discharge of pollutants into surface
              waters. In addition, as of 1986, 7,365 miles on 72 rivers had been designated as wild or scenic, and
              therefo re protected under federal law. Nevertheless, proposed river alterations by dam construction,
              channel modification, and other flood control projects greatly outnumber the stream segments
              currently protected under federal or state statutes.

              Many people object to using regulations to restrict land use, and especially for the purpose of
              protecting natural resources (Jahn, 1989; Sprague, 1989; Bureau of Reclamation, 1989; Soil Conserva-
              tion Service, 1989). There has been less judicial support for the constitutionality of land-use
              regulations that protect natural resources than for regulations that protect life and property (Kusler,
              1989).

              In general, regulations to protect natural resources are not well integrated with those to reduce flood
              losses, resulting in conflicts when implementation and enforcement are at stake. There have been
              more and more recent instances, however, in which natural resource protection regulations have been
              integrated with flood loss reduction measures to yield flood control projects that are environmentally
              sensitive.



              Development and Redevelopment Policies

              Numerous programs at all levels of government establish policies that encourage, but generally do
              not require, the protection of the natural and cultural resources of floodplains. State policies
              governing development and redevelopment on floodplains generally contain exemptions for certain
              activities, such as road and bridge construction or agriculture, and the cumulative impact of these
              exemptions significantly damage natural resources.

              Land acquisition - the most effective form of protection - has been widely used, particularly by
              the federal government and the states, to establish wildlife refuges and parks. A considerable amount
              of floodplain acreage, particularly wetlands, has been preserved through government and private
              sector efforts to acquire or otherwise protect important natural areas. Other tools, such as the
              purchase of development rights, have been used to protect important farm lands and unique
              ecosystems.. Private organizations have played a major role in identifying and acquiring important
              natural areas. As of 1989, The Nature Conservancy alone had been responsible for the protection
              of 3,643,352 acres in the United States, Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean islands. Several
              thousand communities have acquired a portion of their floodplains, for parks, wildlife areas, conserva-
              tion, agriculture, or other environmental or social uses.


              Information and Education

              Only in recent years have the natural and cultural resources of floodplains been recognized as
              important.in their own right. Hundreds or thousands of private organizations now exist across the
              country to inform and educate the public concerning natural resources, including those found on
              floodplains. During the last 25 years or so, the combined effects of research, legislation, and
              education have heightened public environmental awareness and support for all types of protection








                   15-20                                                                        Approaching the Next Century



                   programs. There is also greater recognition that natural environmental resources and flood risk are
                   closely related. Harris polls taken in 1981, 1984, and 1986 found that support for protecting the
                   environment regardless of cost was supported by 45%, 58%, and 66% of the population, respectively.
                   Likewise, 83% of those polled in 1982 believed that it was very important to preserve the Nation's
                   wetlands, and in 1985, 85% of those polled favored strict enforcement of the Clean Water Act and
                   its wetlands protection requirements.

                   Although substantial progress has been made in increasing institutional awareness and response,
                   individual perception and awareness generally falls far short of the level that many professionals and
                   public officials believe is needed. Even where individual awareness is high, it does not necessarily
                   translate into action that will preserve or restore natural resources, particularly if the appropriate
                   actions would affect the individual's own property. Resistance to restrictions on private property
                   rights is generally high. Also, the loss of flood storage potential, wildlife habitat, and other natural
                   resources is often viewed as inconsequential if the losses are relatively small and the area affected
                   is not large. It is hard for community officials to address the cumulative impacts of a series of
                   individually small actions that, collectively and over time, may have significant effects on natural
                   resources.


                   Local land-use regulations designed to maintain natural resources in floodplains may realistically be
                   challenged as unconstitutional takings of private property without compensation, depending on the
                   issues and objectives involved in each particular situation. Concern about this sort of challenge may
                   dampen local willingness to adopt and enforce regulations more stringent than the federal standards.


                   Tax Adjustments

                   Federal income and estate tax benefits have facilitated private donations of property with valuable
                   wildlife and habitat functions. These tax benefits are available to individuals and organizations who
                   donate land and provide easements to governments and eligible nonprofit organizations. At least
                   43 states offer real estate tax incentives for land in agriculture, forestry, and certain other open space
                   uses, and undeveloped floodplains qualify under some of the statutes.


                   Administrative Measures

                   There is currently not enough information about the use of this tool to judge its effectiveness.



                                                 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


                   Since the Bureau of the Budget Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy issued its seminal report
                   -A Unified National Program to Reduce Flood Losses - more than 25 years ago, floodplain manage-
                   ment has matured from a focus on reducing flood losses by using structures to a broader approach
                   that incorporates structural and nonstructural measures for flood loss reduction and takes into
                   consideration the protection of the natural and cultural resources of floodplains. Legislation,








               77te Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States                                        15-21



               programs, and policies geared toward wisely managing the Nation's floodplains have blossomed at
               all levels of government throughout the country; the private sector and the academic world have
               participated energetically; fruitful alliances have been formed among seemingly unlikely partners;
               public awareness and judicial support have increased steadily. The examples of flood damages
               averted, lives saved, and resources preserved are plentiful. It is evident that substantial progress has
               been made, and that diligent work is underway to overcome past shortcomings and achieve even
               greater progress. Even in the light of this undeniable progress, however, there is yet no feasible way
               to make quantified judgments about the effectiveness of floodplain management activities in
               relationship to overall goals or program costs.

               Some trends in the use of the various tools and strategies over the last several decades can be noted,
               along with general observations of their effectiveness. The strategy of modifying susceptibility to
               flooding has been pursued diligently by means of all its tools, although regulations are the most visible.
               A number of effective ways to prevent damages.from floods have been developed, from construction
               techniques to innovative zoning schemes, and these have been translated into regulations and
               development policies throughout the country. This strategy will likely be more extensively employed
               in the future because of its capability to actually prevent many damages without undermining other
               program objectives or activities.

               Almost all the available tools for modifying flooding (the second strategy) have been used to
               thoroughly implement the strategy, and there are even dollar estimates of its effectiveness in saving
               lives and reducing damages. Over the past decade the structural measures associated with this
               strategy have been implemented less frequently, because of their cost and potential negative impacts.

               With regard to the third strategy, the impacts of flooding on individuals and communities have been
               dramatically modified by the provision of flood insurance (which is coordinated with regulations for
               modifying susceptibility to flooding), the aggressive application of postflood recovery measures, and
               by extensive public awareness and education efforts.

               Awareness of the relatively new fourth strategy of restoring and preserving floodplain natural
               resources has grown, which is a first step toward fuller implementation of the strategies and its tools.
               It will be particularly important for this strategy to be more thoroughly integrated with the others
               in the future, both in concept and in practice.

               Shortcomings can be pointed out in virtually all of the tools and strategies for floodplain management,
               in the ways they have been implemented, and in the existing management framework itself. The
               program fragmentation, conflicting goals, lack of funding, overlaps, omissions, and other deficiencies
               typical of any program of this magnitude and ambition have contributed to a lower level of integration
               and accomplishment than is desired and possible. Hence, there is much work left to be done, and
               numerous opportunities for improving the effectiveness of the Nation's floodplain management efforts
               already have been identified. Some ideas for taking advantage of these opportunities are discussed
               in the next, final chapter.









             CHAPTER 16:


             OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREASING
             THE EFFECTIVENESS
             OF FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT




                 ... [T]here are a number of trends on the national scale that make floodplain management
                 intricate and require flexible methods ... [Tjhe national program as a whole must be alert and
                 flexible in dealing with new conditions as they arise.

                                                                 "Action Agenda," National Review Committee, 1989



             This chapter highlights some of the ways in which floodplain management may be improved in the
             coming year& Although specific recommendations are not presented (these will require additional
             attention and study), examples of the sorts of actions and initiatives that can be carried out to make
             floodplain management more effective are described. Many of these actions and initiatives have been
             suggested by government agencies and other observers of floodplain management. Many involve
             efforts to better implement the existing strategies and tools as set forth in the report A Unified
             National Program for Floodplain Management as updated by the Federal Emergency Management
             Agency (FEMA) in 1986. The discussion begins with the broadest opportunities and proceeds to
             the more specific.



                             SEWING MEASURABLE AND ACHIEVABLE GOALS


             Floodplain management would benefit from a set of goals meant to be achieved by a certain date
             and whose degree of achievement can be measured. Strong, clear, measurable goals help develop
             constituencies for the programs they guide (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990). The goal
             set in the 1972 Clean Water Act of having all the Nation's rivers and lakes "fishable and swimmable"
             by 1983 was thought to have been partly responsible for the high levels of funding and significantly
             improved water quality over the past 20 years, even though the goal itself was not reached. Another
             example is the "no net loss of wetlands" goal developed by the National Wetlands Forum and
             endorsed by President Bush (Sheaffer, 1989). Several organizations and agencies have suggested
             specific goals, presented on the following pages, to better guide and focus national floodplain
             management efforts. Note that not all of the goals suggested would be readily or precisely measur-
             able.








                   16-2                                                                         Approaching the Next Century



                   The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has suggested that goals for the year 2000 and beyond should
                   include the management of the natural resources of floodplains in conjunction with loss reduction.
                   efforts and that it would probably "be necessary and desirable" for governments to enter into
                   partnerships with private organizations to achieve that goal (Bureau of Reclamation, 1989).

                   The American Red Cross has recommended goals of. 1) moving people out of areas where they are
                   continuously threatened by flooding-, 2) providing better flood loss reduction programs, such as wet
                   and dry floodproofing; and 3) providing community education on personal and family safety and flood
                   hazard in general (Vessey, 1989).

                   The National Review Committee has identified two existing national goals - to 1) reduce the
                   vulnerability of all Americans to the danger and damage of floods; and 2) preserve and enhance the
                   natural functions of the Nation's floodplains - and has noted that these goals need to be clarified
                   and harmonized, even though it will be a difficult task. Nevertheless, the committee notes that
                   ddappropriate management shared by the agencies involved in ways that can be measured" could result
                   in reconciliation and achievement of the two goals (National Review Committee, 1989).

                   Goals suggested by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) include: 1) increasing funding for
                   federal programs that directly contribute to a balanced floodplain management program; 2) enhancing
                   public awareness, arousing social consciousness, and successfully marketing the concept of floodplain
                   management; and 3) achieving a balance among conflicting interests for the use of land and water
                   resources (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1989).

                   Several observers have noted the need for reducing losses to existing buildings and infrastructure.
                   There is strong support for using structural measures to protect existing facilities and for increased
                   efforts to floodproof and retrofit existing buildings. The SCS has suggested increased forecasting and
                   warning efforts in combination with individual residential and business flood-response plans (Soil
                   Conservation Service, 1990). The National Review Committee has suggested the issuance of a new
                   federal executive order requiring all federal agencies to assess the vulnerability of federal facilities
                   to flooding as well as the vulnerability of those state and local facilities constructed with federal aid.
                   A report would be submitted to the President and to Congress recommending appropriate steps to
                   protect federal facilities from flooding. The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force
                   could recommend and draft such an executive order (National Review Committee, 1989). Full
                   implementation of the Community Rating System (CRS) of the National Flood Insurance Program
                   (NFIP) should also help to reduce losses to the existing stock of floodprone structures. Changing
                   the provisions of flood insurance policies to exclude coverage for most basement contents has helped
                   reduce repetitive loss claims, but additional measures are needed. As one way of attacking this
                   problem, FEMA has recommended that the Internal Revenue Service's casualty loss regulations be
                   modified (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1989), perhaps by limiting them to areas outside
                   the designated "100-year" floodplain or by reducing or eliminating deductions for repetitive losses.

                   FEMA's Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) has established eight goals for the U.S. Decade
                   for Natural Disaster Reduction: 1) broaden the geographic spread of the insurance policy base and
                   strengthen the enforcement of the mandatory purchase requirement; 2) mitigate existing risks by
                   establishing a mitigation evaluation system for repetitive loss and substantially damaged structures;








              Opportunities for Increasing the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management                                  16-3



              3) complete deployment of an effective, comprehensive community rating system; 4) assure multi-
              hazard compatibility of flood loss reduction standards; 5) digitize flood insurance maps; 6) address
              special area management programs such as for alluvial fans and coastal erosion areas; 7) strengthen
              the Unified National Program for Floodplain Management; and 8) strengthen the National Flood
              Insurance Program financial base to meet the catastrophic flood (Federal Emergency Management
              Agency, 1990). These goals are in concert with the goals of the U.S. Decade for Natural Disaster
              Reduction to stimulate activities that will minimize the impact of natural disasters on the Nation.

              Another goal that has been mentioned is that of reducing losses to areas and structures outside
              regulated floodplains. One way to reduce stormwater flooding losses in areas outside the "100-year"
              floodplain is to require floodplain regulations in all areas where flood insurance is available. This
              approach is supported by the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), which recommends
              the identification and regulation of stormwater flooding areas. It can be argued that it makes little
              sense to insure, but not regulate, structures flooded by stormwater (Urson, 1989).



                                              IMPROVING THE DATA BASE


              A more complete and reliable data base for floodplain management will increase the capabilities of
              agencies to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs, allow groups such as the Federal Interagency
              Floodplain Management Task Force to better assess the Nation's collective floodplain management
              program, and give local government leaders more opportunities to identify the public risks and costs
              associated with floodplain development.

              The obstacles to developing and maintaining an adequate data base are substantial. Important
              determinations must be made about the type of data to be collected, how often it should be collected,
              by whom, and using what criteria. Adequate funding must be found.

              Information from FEMA!s flood insurance data base could be added to national flood damage
              estimates. It may be important to distinguish agricultural damages from other flood damages, and
              to distinguish coastal flooding damages from riverine damages. The consensus of an interagency
              seminar on flood loss data was that the more categories of data there are, the more meaningful the
              information will be to different users (von Wolffradt, 1990).

              Recent advances in the development and application of geographic information systems (GISs) can
              improve the data base. With these systems, layers of information, such as that from flood insurance
              maps, cultural resource maps, and the UGER data system of the U.S. Census Bureau, can be com-
              bined for display, analysis, and management applications. Use of a GIS also can expedite and support
              local floodplain management decisions.

              The American Planning Association has suggested that the federal government support the collection
              of data to demonstrate the adverse economic impact of floodplain development on public sector
              investments (Smith, 1989). This would help local officials who are responsible for controlling private
              development to identify the public risks and costs associated with floodplain occupance.








                   16-4                                                                        Approaching the Nert Century




                   NEW RESEARCH


                   To improve the data base, additional research should be conducted on several important topics.

                       The National Science Foundation should be requested to considerfunding research to examine,
                       in a selected sample of communities, the full benefits and costs, both public and private, of
                       floodplain occupancy and associated floodplain management measures, having due regard for
                       national productivity, the impacts on natural values, and the equitable distribution of costs and
                       beneflas (National Review Committee, 1989).

                   A related research topic would be evaluation of the economic benefits of floodplain management.
                   This would include an identification of the monetary benefits derived from maintaining the natural
                   uses of the floodplain, including benefits associated with reduced flood losses, increased recreational
                   opportunities, and reduced costs for water quality maintenance (U.S. Environmental Protection
                   Agency, 1989)_

                   It has also been suggested that 10-20 areas in the Nation be identified where the potential for flooding
                   is highest and the potential impacts most catastrophic, and that special studies be undertaken to
                   determine steps needed to reduce the potential losses from catastrophic events affecting these areas.

                   Information about flood risks could be improved by mapping all areas subject to flooding, including
                   drainage basins under one mile square, and by adding to flood risk maps provisions for future land-use
                   changes that will increase peak discharges.

                   Tlie Association of State Floodplain Managers has developed and published a list of research needed
                   to improve state and local floodplain management efforts (Larson, 1989). The suggestion has also
                   been made that a national plan for floodplain management research be developed and implemented,
                   and that particular emphasis be placed on devising means to fund and carry out the research (Owen,
                   1989).



                                      IMPROVING THE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK


                   Members of the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, which developed and
                   refined the Unified National Program for Floodplain Management in report documents issued in 1976,
                   1979, and 1986, have indicated that the conceptual approach presented in the current program should
                   be considered as still evolving and not yet achieved in practice (Federal Emergency Management
                   Agency, 1989). The same could be said for the rest of the management framework - the legislation,
                   agency policies, judicial support, coordination, economic constraints and incentives, and other
                   components. A good start toward improving the framework could be made by sharpening the focus
                   of the national effort with a clear definition of floodplain management, a set of goals, and a workable
                   plan for achieving them. With that foundation, any remaining components in need of refinement
                   will be more easily identified and made operational. Some specific opportunities are described on
                   the following pages.








              Opportunities for Increasing the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management                                    16-5



              INTEGRATE STRATEGIES FOR FLOOD LOSS REDUCTION AND FOR RESTORING
              AND PRESERVING NATURAL RESOURCES

              Flood loss reduction and natural resources protection should be better integrated in theory and
              practic e to make floodplain management truly effective. This will require: a general rethinking of
              the two concepts and how they can and should relate to each other; a possible reformulation of goals
              for each as presented inA Unified National Program forFloodplain Management; and work at all levels
              to minimize actual and potential conflicts between the two strategies as they are applied to real
              situations.

              Federal agencies can lead the way by identifying opportunities within the context of existing programs
              to better maintain the natural resources of the floodplain. State and local units can do likewise (U.S.
              Environmental Protection Agency, 1989). The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) has suggested
              that conflicts can be resolved "through integrated management approaches and practices designed
              through interdisciplinary teams, including ecologists, biologists and natural resource managers" (Jahn,
              1989). The WMI has also suggested that a "white paper" be prepared and distributed to elected
              officials throughout the country in order to "emphasize the needs and opportunities for action."

              The National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) has suggested that a joint commission
              or committee of federal, state, local, and private interests be established in each state to identify
              potential problems and develop plans and priorities to solve them (Sprague, 1989).

              A member of the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies has suggested
              that "with respect to organizational approaches at the federal, state, and local level that would better
              accomplish flood loss reduction and maintenance of natural values, probably the most productive
              accomplishment would be consistency in criteria between agencies in the same level of government
              together with a better appreciation of the respective needs of the various agencies" (Tidemanson,
              1989).

              The National Association of Water Institute Directors has suggested an even broader approach:

                   You cannot separa te floodpla in m anagem entftom the other objectives of la nd and wa ter resources
                   management to specij@ an organizational structure that will achieve this objective by itself. Rather,
                   floodplain management, flood control, stormwater management and related activities have to be
                   carried out in combination with an integrated water resources management strategy. Such a
                   strategy requires a clear definition of roles at the different levels ofgovernment and by the different
                   functional organizations responsible for water management ... A statement of organizational
                   structure for floodplain management alone is overly simplistic, but there needs to be some
                   attention given to the integration offloodplain management with other water resources activities
                   (Grigg, 1989).


              IMPROVE COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION

              Many observers have pointed out the need for improving the integration of all aspects of floodplain
              management as well as coordination and cooperation among the agencies and groups with floodplain








                   16-6                                                                       Approaching the Next Centuty



                   management responsibilities. The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force and the
                   Association of State Floodplain Managers could work together and with others to expand their efforts
                   to achieve these objectives.

                   Some of the conflicts among federal programs can be reduced or eliminated by administrative action.
                   Several conflicts result from differing attitudes and expectations about the ultimate responsibility and
                   commitment of resources to respond to flood problems. Many have their origins in the legislative
                   mandates of the different agencies with floodplain management responsibilities, and they will be more
                   difficult to address. The agencies have only limited ability and incentives to pursue the types of
                   legislative and institutional changes that wQuld reduce or eliminate some of the more significant
                   program inconsistencies as well as the overlaps, gaps, and conflicts that affect the national program.
                   Much of the impetus for the changes that will be needed to reduce conflicts will come from outside
                   sources, such as the ASFPM, the Association of State Wetlands Managers, the Coastal States
                   Organization, and the Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO).


                   IMPROVE COOPERATION


                   Some observers believe that building on the cooperation that already exists among floodplain
                   management agencies at all levels is the best way to improve floodplain management effectiveness
                   (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1989). Interstate and inter-county water basin planning can be
                   encouraged to address inteiJurisdictional problems (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989).
                   The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force has a special leadership role, and can
                   develop recommendations for maximizing the integration of the diverse strategies and tools into a
                   coherent national approach (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1989). One observer has
                   suggested that federal agencies need greater coordination at the regional level, where "turf battles"
                   are often greater than at headquarters. Suggestions for promoting this improvement include
                   interagency sponsorship of committee symposia and workshops at the regional level to promote the
                   integration of diverse floodplain management interests.

                   The Corps has commented that an adequate and functioning organizational structure is in place at
                   the federal level and in some states but that "no single entity is accountable or has the responsibility
                   for accomplishing all of the floodplain management goals. The national policy should be consolidated
                   in a clear, concise document that outlines the responsibilities at federal, state, and local levels of
                   government and establishes a high degree of coordination to formulate an open and participatory
                   process that encourages active involvement" (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1989).

                   One Corps representative has suggested, however, that "to fully realize the benefits of floodplain
                   management at the federal level, some form of water resources coordinating body, along the lines
                   of the now defunct Water Resources Council, must be established with a mission of addressing these
                   issues. While its performance may have been spotty, the existence of the council, at a level above
                   the departments and agencies, provided a vehicle for taking on the 'bigger' issues including the role
                   of the Congress. These issues are shunned by interagency task forces. Similar approaches must be
                   taken, where appropriate, at the state level, to assure inter-state coordination" (Galloway, 1989).







             Opportunities for Increasing the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management                                  16-7



             An example of positive interagency and intergovernmental coordination is the formation and function
             of professional groups, such as the Association of State Floodplain Managers and the Association
             of State Dam Safety Officials. State coordinators of the National Flood Insurance Program formed
             the ASFPM in the 1970s to represent state floodplain management interests in their dealings with
             the newly created Federal Emergency Management Agency, which at the time was viewed as an
             agency oriented toward defense and civil preparedness with relatively little interest in floodplain
             management activities. From an initial adversarial relationship grew an important spirit of coopera-
             tion and coordination that has advanced floodplain management greatly over the past decade (Accurti,
             1988). The cooperative efforts of federal, state, and local officials as members of the Interagency
             Committee on Dam Safety (ICODS) have been beneficial to floodplain management. The ASDSO
             and the ICODS meet formally once a year and coordinate throughout the year through subcommittee
             work (Spragens, 1989).


             ALLOW DIFFERENT APPROACHES


             In attempting to devise and implement a truly national program, special situations sometimes are
             overlooked. Many floodplain losses are of a sort that simply cannot be addressed through a "by-the-
             book approach." The management framework must remain flexible enough to permit any effective
             approach, including those described below.


             Management of High Risk Flood Hazard Areas

             Because the minimum floodplain management standards of the NFIP do not include management
             techniques for such high risk flood problems as ice jams, flash floods, coastal flooding and erosion,
             mudslides, ground failure, alluvial fans, fluctuating lake levels, moveable stream beds, and areas
             behind unsafe levees or below unsafe dams, most local programs simply do not address these hazards.
             It has been suggested that the National Science Foundation and the interested federal agencies jointly
             fund a program to develop methods for identifying, mapping, and regulating areas with special flood
             hazards (National Review Committee, 1989). This type of preflood planning could identify alterna-
             tives available to a community to reduce future flooding and protect the natural and cultural resources
             of its floodplains.

             In the absence of such a program, definite progress still has been made over the past few years in
             addressing these areas. Some states faced with these hazards - particularly in the and West - have
             worked cooperatively with FEMA to better understand and define the hazards and to develop flexible
             and innovative approaches for effective management. Participants at a workshop held during the
             1988 Annual Conference of the Association of State Floodplain Managers to address high risk flood
             hazards concluded that "... while more research aimed at understanding natural processes is needed,
             the focus now should be on developing state and local strategies using existing information"
             (Association of State Floodplain Managers, Workshop #10, 1988).

             Incentives for communities to map and regulate high risk hazard areas are now being provided
             through the Community Rating System of the NFIP. Studies are underway to identify more creditable
             methods for mapping and managing these areas. Development of new mapping, management, and








                   16-8                                                                         Approaching the Next Century



                   regulatory standards will require increased time and effort, but relatively simple interim standards
                   may be effective in the meantime (Bond, 1990).


                   Broader Management Approaches

                   The conditions that cause floods and influence the impacts of flooding do not recognize the political
                   boundaries by which most floodplain management techniques are applied. Many professionals believe
                   that a comprehensive management approach based on hydrologic units and encompassing entire
                   watersheds must be made a higher priority, especially if the natural resources of the hydrologic units
                   are to be protected. The efforts of river basin commissions, the U.S. Environmental Protection
                   Agency's National Estuarine Sanctuary program, and the National Park Service's State and Local
                   River Conservation Assistance Program are examples of this type of comprehensive basin approach.

                   Others have suggested that in order to achieve widespread development of floodplain management
                   plans, legislation is needed to provide states and communities with the opportunity to develop plans
                   that meet federal guidelines. The federal Coastal Zone Management Act was offered as a model
                   for such a program. The major advantages of such an approach would include voluntary participation,
                   federal financial assistance for participating states to help cover the costs of preparing state and local
                   floodplain management plans, and a "consistency" provision whereby actions of federal and state
                   agencies would have to conform to approved local floodplain management standards (Burby, 1989).

                   Participants in a workshop held during the ASFPM's 1988 annual conference suggested that communi-
                   ty programs related to economic development and water quality have the greatest potential for
                   implementation in combination with flood loss reduction efforts. "Economic redevelopment projects
                   were judged important because they provide tangible community benefits of new jobs and an
                   increased tax base. Combining floodplain management with water quality maintenance, particularly
                   through nonpoint source control projects, was seen as a logical combination in that many projects
                   of this type would not require expensive maintenance" (Association of State Floodplain Managers,
                   Workshop #5,1988).

                   To facilitate broader management approaches, the states could enact legislation providing for regional
                   or watershed management, for river corridor management, and for other regional efforts based on
                   hydrologic and other natural boundaries rather than political jurisdictions. Authority for such regional
                   approaches could rest with a state agency or be delegated to a regional entity, or even to counties
                   or cooperating communities.

                   0   Watershed Management. Watershed management has been applied in areas involving several
                       communities and, in some instances, metropolitan areas. Sophisticated watershed models
                       reflecting various development patterns provide analytical bases for planning and effective
                       management. Although expensive and time-consuming to develop, the use of these models can
                       often be justified for rapidly developing areas and they will probably continue to be used in the
                       future. More accurate identification of the impacts of development and other actions on flood
                       risk and vulnerability throughout the watershed can help in the design of management approaches
                       ranging from onsite detention basins to broader area-wide measures. Water quality issues are








             Qvortu n ities for In creasin g the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management                             16-9



                 expected to be of increasing concern to floodplain managers working within watershed manage-
                 ment programs.

             0   River Corridor Management. Over the past two decades, better procedures have been developed
                 to identify and document the cultural and natural resources contained within river corridors, and
                 to analyze potential impacts to these resources. Over the past two decades environmental
                 legislation has supported river corridor management, as has the expansion of interdisciplinary
                 and intergovernmental cooperation. Because most riverine wetlands are located within flood-
                 plains, wetland managers, floodplain managers, and other natural resources managers, are
                 discovering that they have many common interests and needs. In addition, the President's
                 Commission on Americans Outdoors made special note of the importance of stream corridors
                 for outdoor recreation. Proposed legislation to facilitate better multi-objective river corridor
                 planning and management was introduced in the last session of Congress, indicating that interest
                 and support for river corridor management is growing at that level as well.


             Considering Local Conditions

             The National Review Committee and other observers have noted the importance of incorporating
             awareness of local conditions into the national program. Prescribing uniform national standards for
             the preservation, use, and development of floodplains and other hazard areas for application at the
             local level can create the potential for inefficient allocation of resources and social inequities. The
             Review Committee has suggested that federal agencies examine the practicality of using performance
             standards, based on national standards and implemented through local watershed and floodplain
             management programs, to achieve floodplain management goals. If performance standards are
             applied, however, care should be taken to ensure that they do not lessen the existing federal limits
             on permissible vulnerability in the floodplain.

             Communities should be encouraged to adopt flood hazard mitigation measures particularly suited
             to their local circumstances (National Review Committee, 1989). Adoption and implementation of
             .the Community Rating System within the National Flood Insurance Program may encourage
             communities to do this. The CRS can recognize the need to reconcile loss reduction, public safety,
             and environmental objectives.


             Helping Rural and Economically Disadvantaged Areas

             It is increasingly important to find special ways to improve floodplain management, including natural
             resources protection, in small rural communities and economically disadvantaged areas. Many of
             the existing floodplain management tools are more appropriately applied in communities with fairly
             high standards of living. Priorities for natural resource preservation are virtually nonexistent in low-
             income communities where a resident cannot even count on the availability of potable water or
             sanitary facilities during and after a flood. Certain legislation, agency policies, and federal guidelines
             require that a positive benefit/cost ratio be shown before federal funding can be obtained for
             structural or nonstructural flood control projects. This requirement often excludes small rural
             communities and owners of inexpensive homes from participating in these projects because in areas








                  16-10                                                                     Approaching the Next Century



                  with low property values it is often difficult to demonstrate that flood control projects will yield
                  enough economic benefit to offset the costs of construction, acquisition, or other expenses, even
                  though the social benefits may be high (Galloway, 1989).

                  The Soil Conservation Service has observed that the Community Rating System will primarily benefit
                  individuals in communities that have the staff and resources to complete the required paperwork and
                  implement programs that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements (Soil Conservation Service, 1989).
                  Many small and rural communities may not be able to take advantage of this program because of
                  their limited staff and resources.

                  Certain rural and economically disadvantaged communities, particularly those with a high incidence
                  of flood losses per capita, should be targeted for special attention. States can provide floodplain
                  management services to them through funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
                  Community Assistance Program (CAP). States could also direct floodplain management services to
                  regional entities or to "circuit-riding" staffs that serve several communities under a contractual
                  arrangement. Creative means should be employed to provide needed levels of assistance to part-time,
                  volunteer, or unpaid staff and officials in rural areas.

                  In addition, new initiatives should be aimed at reducing flood losses to agricultural and forest
                  resources, which are the most prevalent floodplain land uses, particularly in rural areas. According
                  to the 1982 National Resources Inventory data (Table 1-1, page 1-4), over 90% of the nonfederal
                  floodplain lands inventoried are in cropland, pasture, rangeland, and forestry. The Second National
                  Water Assessment (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1975) (the most recent data available) showed
                  that 50% of flood damages are to agricultural resources. Labor-intensive agricultural uses, such as
                  vegetable farming, cotton, and corn farming, will suffer considerable losses if flooded during the
                  growing season. In most cases, the nonintensive uses such as forestry and grassland should be
                  considered compatible land uses on rural floodplains.


                  Encouraging the "Best Mix" of Floodplain Management Measures

                  Several agencies and observers have identified. the need for incentives to achieve the best mix of
                  floodplain management measures.

                  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, would like to see "a program of
                  federal, state and local incentives to conserve floodplain values and minimize potential property and
                  fife losses as well as disincentives to discourage development that is incompatible with the natural
                  and beneficial values of floodplains" (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989). The Association
                  of State Floodplain Managers has carried this thought one step further and observed that "the multi-
                  objective approach that has been used successfully in a few local programs in the nation will only
                  blossom if some federal actions are taken to remove cross program conflicts and provide appropriate
                  incentives" (Larson, 1989).

                  The Federal Interagency Floodplhin Management Task Force can contribute to the 'best mix' by
                  sharing information on the agencies undertaking nonstructural damage reduction activities as well
                  as information about the funding available for such activities (National Review Committee, 1989).








              Opportunities for Increasing the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management                                 16-11



                                  IMPROVING THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
                                                  STRATEGIES AND TOOLS


              The four strategies for managing the Nation's floodplains and the tools for implementing these
              strategies appear to cover the gamut of currently possible approaches to the general goals of halting
              or reducing floodplain losses. If new goals are set over the next few years, the strategies and tools
              may need to be re-examined to determine whether additional strategies and tools are needed.
              Meanwhile, it is generally agreed that additional progress could be made in floodplain management
              with better or more extensive application of the existing strategies and tools. Some opportunities
              for improved application are described below.


              MODIFYING SUSCEPTIBILITY TO FLOOD DAMAGES AND DISRUPTION

              In the long run, preventing as many floodplain losses as possible is the most effective and efficient
              way of dealing with the flood hazard. Because of this, modifying the Nation's susceptibility to flood
              losses may prove to be the wisest and most widely used strategy in the coming decades, and it is likely
              that new tools will be developed to implement this strategy. In the meantime, there are numerous
              ways to improve the effectiveness of the tools that already exist.


              Regulations

              Improved enforcement of floodplain regulations by local governments will in large part depend on
              reducing local apathy and negative attitudes about floodplain management. State and community
              support for local regulations as well as the imposition of penalties for lack of enforcement are
              essential. Incentives for improved enforcement should be strengthened and disincentives eliminated.
              To facilitate improved enforcement, the federal government and the states should assist local officials
              in understanding data requirements and the proper procedures to be followed in administering
              floodplain regulations.

              There are several measures that can help reduce the usually unfounded concern of local and state
              officials that strict floodplain regulations will be challenged as unconstitutional "takings" of private
              property. More information should be provided to state and local officials, and to the attorneys that
              advise them, so that they can better understand the types of actions that are likely to be judged
              takings and those that are not. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Association of
              State Floodplain Managers, and others can distribute information to the states and communities.


              Development and Redevelopment Policies

              Minimizing flood damage to existing infrastructure will ensure the continual operation of vital
              community services. Because the location of new infrastructure in the floodplain can encourage the
              use and development of hazardous areas, it is particularly important that infrastructure that must be
              located in or near the floodplain be properly designed and regulated.








                  16-12                                                                       Approaching the Nert Century



                  The potential adverse impacts of infrastructure decisions on flood vulnerability should be minimized.
                  The operation and maintenance of existing infrastructure should be continually evaluated for its
                  potential impact on floodplain use. The mitigation of possible future damages should be provided
                  when relocating, restoring, replacing, or repairing flood-damaged infrastructure and facilities.


                  MODIFYING FLOODING

                  Although the strategy of modifying flooding may be incompatible with some environmental protection
                  objectives, structural measures still have important roles to play in comprehensive floodplain
                  management programs. There is an opportunity now to reformulate this strategy to acknowledge
                  the importance of preserving and restoring the natural and cultural resources of floodplains. Some
                  of the tools to implement this strategy, such as land treatment measures and onsite detention, can
                  be important components of comprehensive floodplain management and resource protection
                  programs, and should be emphasized.

                  Structural shoreline protection measures, not included as a tool to modify flooding in A Unified
                  National Nogram for Floodplain Management, may be considered for inclusion under this strategy.
                  The movement of the Nation's population toward coastal areas, the incorporation of erosion-induced
                  flooding into some existing programs, and the prospect of rising sea level make this an opportune
                  time for pondering the feasibility of such measures in comprehensive programs.


                  MODIFYING THE IMPACT OF FLOODING ON INDIVIDUALS AND COMMUNITIES

                  It is not surprising that most of the perceived opportunities for modifying the impact of flooding are
                  directed toward broadening the awareness and knowledge of flood hazards on the part of local
                  officials, professionals of all types, and the general public. Without widespread awareness and
                  continually updated information, none of the tools or strategies for floodplain management can be
                  effectively implemented.


                  PUBLIC AWARENESS AND EDUCATION


                  The need for improved information and education is highlighted by the following comments and
                  suggestions from a broad spectrum of agencies and groups involved with floodplain management.

                  0   Ile National Committee on Property Insurance has stated that "public education and awareness
                      programs are ... essential" (Cogswell, 1989). ,

                  *   Both the American Planning Association (APA) and the All Industry Research Advisory Council
                      (AIRAC) have commented on educational needs at the local level. The APA believes that
                      sophisticated educational materials should be provided for the local officials and citizens affected
                      by floodplain controls. These materials could help build the public support necessary for local
                      floodplain management efforts (Smith, 1989). The AIRAC has emphasized the value of
                      educational materials to inform local decision-makers and the public about the importance of
                      floodplain management (Unnewehr, 1989).








               C@Zporrunities for Increasing the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management                                16-13



               ï¿½  The Soil Conservation Service has noted that local officials, the public, and most of all, develop-
                  ers need to be better educated about the hazards of developing floodprone areas. To this end,
                  the SCS has recommended increased publicity about the dangers and consequences of flooding,
                  including more graphic detail of potential water depths, velocities, and probable damages. For
                  example, the high water fines of past floods could be prominently displayed in public places to
                  call attention to the flood hazard (Soil Conservation Service, 1989).

               ï¿½  The Soil Conservation Service also has pointed out the need for a better coordinated interagency
                  public information program to increase awareness of flood hazards. It is expected that many
                  communities, particularly rural ones, would take additional measures to protect themselves if
                  more flood hazard information was made available to them. To increase the information
                  exchange, interagency brochures should be used and video presentations prepared for television
                  and/or presentation to local groups and organizations (Soil Conservation Service, 1991).

               ï¿½  The Federal Emergency Management Agency has suggested that to reduce false-expectations
                  lawsuits, insurance rating and compliance information be filed with the property deed to assure
                  that the current owner and future buyers of floodprone property are fairly warned of flood risk
                  (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1989).
               ï¿½  The National Review Committee has suggested that federal agencies take appropriate actions
                  to increase information and education. For example           . ..... the interagency task force and its
                  member agencies should continue, expand, and evaluate efforts to inform and educate the public
                  about the nature of flood hazards, the natural values of floodplains, and the various strategies
                  and tools available for comprehensive floodplain management" (National Review Committee,
                  1989).

               ï¿½  The Association of State Floodplain Managers supports increased information and education,
                  but also believes that to sell citizens and communities on flood loss reduction, it is important
                  to present the value of floodplain management as one element of a broader concept or package
                  that addresses a number of other local problems as well (Larson, 1989).
               ï¿½  The American PlanningAssociation has suggested demonstration projects to show how floodplain
                  management fits into other community planning objectives. These demonstrations could show
                  how communities can use floodplain management techniques to complement open space
                  protection programs, help ensure good ground-water supplies, provide recreation facilities, and
                  meet other goals (Smith, 1989).
               ï¿½  The Environmental Protection Agency has described the need to widely distribute examples of
                  innovative solutions to floodplain management problems. Furthermore, the EPA believes that
                  a regular exchange of ideas and solutions among developers, planners, and floodplain managers
                  is important and that federal agencies can do much to foster this exchange and increase
                  awareness through publications, training programs, and conferences (U.S. Environmental
                  Protection Agency, 1989).

               ï¿½  The National Park Service has suggested that its regional offices and state river conservation
                  managers continually provide information and consultation about existing and potential wild,
                  scenic, and recreational rivers. This information can be provided to federal, regional, state, and
                  local offices and programs that affect floodplain management.








                   16-14                                                                      Approaching the Next Century



                   Training and Education for Government Officials

                   To help counter the impediments to local floodplain management created by the rapid turnover of
                   elected and appointed public officials, regular opportunities for floodplain management training and
                   education should be provided. For the most part, state agencies, through agreements with FEMA
                   and on their own, are currently providing most of the training of local officials and will probably
                   continue this function. Federal agencies and programs could increase their training and education-
                   related assistance to the states, and the states could become more active in providing similar
                   assistance to local governments. Improved training programs are needed for code administrators,
                   planners, inspectors, public works directors, and other local government personnel directly involved
                   in floodplain management (Smith, 1989). The Corps of Engineers has suggested that the states
                   establish committees of state, local, and federal representatives to work on education, increasing
                   awareness, and promoting floodplain management (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1989). More
                   information also should be provided to state and local officials about the types of regulatory actions
                   that are likely to be judged "takings" and those that are not.

                   At the federal level, it has been suggested that the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task
                   Force develop training programs and conduct regional training exercises at reasonable costs for
                   appropriate government personnel (National Review Committee, 1989).


                   Flood Insurance


                   In order to expand the premium base and move the National Flood Insurance Program closer to a
                   fully actuarial basis, the number of insured structures must be increased by a combination of actions,
                   including expanding the market penetration, insuring structures outside the floodplain, enforcing the
                   mandatory purchase requirements, increasing awareness of the flood hazard, and keeping premiums
                   at a low, affordable rate.


                   Postflood Recovery

                   The immediate application of all available resources to implement mitigation measures after a flood
                   - while the affected population can still see the need for change - can help to prevent recurring
                   losses. To do this, predisaster planning is essential. Such planning could include the identification
                   by communities of repetitively flooded structures, or making a list of persons or firms with expertise
                   to help local building officials assess structural damage and oversee rebuilding after the disaster. The
                   states could establish technical assistance teams of representatives from various state agencies to be
                   mobilized in a disaster, dispersing throughout the area to identify mitigation opportunities and
                   encourage action.

                   Careful attention must be given to ensuring that funding for postdisaster mitigation as authorized by
                   the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Amendments of 1988 and other sources of funds are
                   used creatively and completely. State and federal agencies can help local governments apply for the
                   funds, and the recommendations of the postdisaster interagency hazard mitigation teams should guide
                   their use.








              C@ponunities for Increasing the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management                                16-15




              RESTORING AND PRESERVING THE NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
              OF FLOODPLAINS


              As noted in Chapter 15, the limited implementation of this strategy sets the stage for a close re-
              examination of it both conceptually and operationally'. Is it really two strategies - restoration and
              preservation - as described in A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management? If so, are
              the same tools appropriate for both? Are the strategies really goals?

              It may be that some of the tools assigned to this strategy are inadequate to carry it out today, given
              the fact that potentially more effective approaches - comprehensive river corridor management,
              endangered species protection, and water quality maintenance approaches, for example- are already
              underway outside the framework of floodplain management. If that is the case, then the tools from
              the other, effective programs need to be examined closely, borrowed, and tailored to floodplain
              management needs. In any case, this strategy could be much more thoroughly integrated with the
              other tools and strategies and with compatible efforts in other fields. For example, there may be a
              great potential for coordinating plans for restoring and preserving the natural and cultural resources
              of floodplains with postdisaster recovery efforts, or with wetland protection programs.

              The Federal Emergency Management Agency has suggested that:

                  The solution to [lack of awareness of natural floodplain resources] is not in re-writing statutes
                  to be more environmentally sensitive, but in educating decision makers and practitioners on
                  natural floodplain functions and the need for creative solutions. 771e solution then is to teach
                  them correct principles and to let them govem themselves. The current trend toward mitigation
                  solutions, for example, couldbe complemented by training workshops and manuals on incorporat-
                  ing environmentally sensitive design into mitigation projects ... Information ... would include
                  promotional information, benefit cost data and technical assistance regulations (Federal Emer-
                  gency Management Agency, 1989).



                                             SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


              A number of important opportunities are emerging for improving the effectiveness of floodplain
              management in the United States. If current trends continue, the near future will see a further
              broadening of the scope of floodplain management to encompass such activities as stormwater
              management, greenway and river corridor management, and watershed management.                       Further
              integration of individual strategies and tools is likely, so that a more unified program can emerge,
              with fewer conflicts among goals and activities. The floodplain management framework itself will
              continue to be examined and tailored so that its components are as appropriate, consistent, and well
              coordinated as possible. Technological advances hold great promise for improving the application
              of existing strategies and tools. An additional avenue of opportunity is the likely future integration
              of flood loss reduction strategies and measures with those designed to manage other natural hazards,
              such a
                    ,s ground subsidence, dam failure,. earthquakes, and hurricanes.








                  16-16                                                                     Approaching the Next Century



                  This report on the Nation's floodplain management activities - the first comprehensive assessment
                  in over 25 years - has identified a plethora of actions to be pursued if significant improvements are
                  to be made in floodplain management in the coming decades. Of these, two are of paramount
                  importance. First, the concept of floodplain management needs to be simplified. Second, a set of
                  specific goals needs to be placed on the national agenda, along with a timetable for their accomplish-
                  ment. T'hese two needs should be addressed as the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management
                  Task Force undertakes to further refine the Unified National Program for Floodplain Management.













                                                                                    PART VI:

                                                                           EPILOGUE




           Gilbert F. White was invited by the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force
           to provide a closing comment - which he entitles "Retrospect and Prospect" - for the
           Assessment Report. His Doctor of Philosophy dissertation Human Adjustment to Floods, A
           Geographic Approach to the Flood Problem in the United States, was prepared in 1942, and
           first proposed a broad, integrated approach to solving the Nation's flood problems. It
           stimulated the interest and set the course for the emergence and evolution of floodplain
           management during the ensuing decades. In the 50 years since his study, Mr. White has, in
           countless ways, remained actively involved in facilitating and promoting the floodplain
           management mission.













                                      RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT
                                            an invited comment by Gilbert F. White


                 This Assessment is unprecedented in its depth of analysis of the nature and
                 effectiveness of the nation's management of floodplains. It is the most detailed and
                 nearly comprehensive of all studies of those matters since the concept of floodplain
                 management took official root in the mid 1960s. It places that concept in a broader
                 context than ever before, and it provides a base for launching a series of steps to assure
                 that local and State as well as Federa@ programs can at last approach the aspirations
                 that have evolved over the past 65 years.

                 That evolutionary process has been reflected in a stream of laws, executive orders,
                 regulations, new groups, and reports. Debate over the wisdom of reliance on simple
                 levees and channel modifications began in the wake of the 1927 flood on the Loower
                 Mississippi. It widened to include issues of dams and economic justification after the
                 Ohio River floods of 1936 and 1938, and a concurrent upstream versus downstream
                 controversy over land treatment. By 1966 a still broader view of the potential role of
                 nonstructural measures found favor. Then followed a series of revisions and expansions
                 of Federal and State activities. Those included the National Flood Insurance Act of
                 1968, a National Science Foundation appraisal of flood research in 1977, a Unified
                 National Program for Floodplain Management in 1976, with revisions in 1979 and 1986,
                 three Executive Orders, a formal linkage with emergency management programs, and
                 the organization of vigorous nongovernment groups such as the Association of State
                 Floodplain Managers and the Association of State Wetland Managers.

                 All of this and much more is examined in the Assessment. To sum up, the report tells
                 the country what has been happening in floodplain management; how well or how
                 poorly the responsible Federal and State agencies have been doing; and, what are
                 promising means of improving the prospect. The result is the first thorough appraisal
                 of ambiguous national aims and how those compare with the present situation on the
                 lands at risk -- the diverse areas of watercourses, adjacent wetlands, and the shores of
                 streams., lakes, and oceans.

                 The report candidly recognizes the severe handicaps of incomplete and inconsistent
                 collection of data on which policy judgments must be based. The data base is the one
                 need specified in the 1966 House Document on which almost no action has been taken.







                                                                                                           VI-1











                     For other needs, the record of change has been diverse but generally positive. In no
                     instance, however, has achievement matched the hopes of earlier years. The definition
                     of precisely what is meant by floodplain management in particular areas of the country
                     or under the jurisdiction of specific agencies is still far from clear or uniform in either
                     principle or practice. The policy goals for the sustainable use of floodplains have
                     progressed in agency thinking but are proving difficult to meet in operation in the field.
                     It has not been made clear how floodplain use is inseparably linked to the maintenance
                     of natural resources for th@ common good for the foreseeable future. The effectiveness
                     of individual Federal and State programs, each with a different statutory authority,
                     suffer thereby.

                     Cooperation among the administrators of Federal programs, while generally cordial and
                     helpful, has not yet yielded a genuinely unified effort. Lacking exemplary effectiveness
                     at that level, State and local agencies cannot be expected to act in concord in meeting
                     national goals.

                     Great gains have been made in public information and education. Far more legislators,
                     administrators, business executives, farmers, householders, and school children are
                     aware of flood hazards than a decade ago. The level and quality of information,
                     however, still is far below what would be required to induce effective action in the event
                     of a threatening flood, and even more so in the days when measures are needed to
                     mitigate future emergencies.

                     Flood forecasting precision has generally improved. The demonstrated ability of
                     communities to respond positively to a warning is less certain, and is uneven.

                     The report suggests lines along which improvement can be brought about, and
                     recommends consideration of a number of changes in policy and procedure. The
                     Report's Review Committee does likewise with its Action Agenda for Managing the
                     Nation's Floodplains. These must be examined now against the background of
                     experience with previous statements of optimal floodplain policy, such as House
                     Document 465 or the Unified National Program for Floodplain Managemen . Only
                     fragments of those proposals were adopted. Can anything be learned from the
                     conditions that either promoted or blocked them? What are the factors in climate of
                     public opinion and in government organization that worked for or against them at that
                     time and that may have changed subsequently?

                     It is evident that the reconciliation of thinking among professional groups, for example,
                     has been advanced by research, conferences, training, and publications. Hydrologists,
                     engineers, geographers, economists, land planners, ecologists, city managers, insurance
                     executives, and disaster relief directors, among others, now are speaking the same






                     VI-2











                    language. But there are at least three directions in which lessons learned are still not
                    practiced.

                    One important lesson was that quick and nation-wide change in procedures without
                    careful trial in selected areas and without subsequent critical appraisal can be counter-
                    productive. When the Tennessee Valley Authority established its community assistance
                    program for flood damage prevention planning in 1953 and the Corps of Engineers
                    introduced its floodplain management services program in 1960, they moved cautiously
                    and employed a variety of trial approaches. In contrast, when national flood insurance
                    was introduced in 1968 there was a brave commitment to offer coverage to all parts of
                    the country at once. Little attention was given to post-audits of the rates, teri        of
                    insurance, map adequacy, and relation of detailed regulations to local physical and social
                    conditions. As a result, the Federal Insurance Administration found itself locked into
                    sometimes unwieldy or ineffective procedures that might well have been avoided in the
                    light of experimentation. The attempt in the late 1970s to set up a nation-wide
                    floodplain map file was likewise an unfortunately hasty enterprise. In its 23 years of
                    operations, the National Flood Insurance Program has achieved much and continues to
                    gain new experience. The current implementation of the Community Rating System
                    now offers special opportunities to appraise the suitability of national standards and
                    procedures at the local level. As new improvements are made in Federal programs, it
                    would be important to craft them on an experimental basis with careful provision for
                    evaluation as they are launched.

                    A second lesson derives from the contrast over the years between expressions of
                    desirable unified policy and measures to, in practice, unify the activities of agencies
                    which in theory subscribe to the policy. There has been neither a single statement of
                    Congressional intent with respect to floodplain management such as in the Earthquake
                    Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, nor a delegation        'to a single executive agency of
                    responsibility for coordination of the various Federal programs. The Bureau of the
                    Budget was interested in such coordination in the mid 1960s but did not take a strong
                    hand. The Water Resources Council served as a meeting place of interested agencies
                    without having statutory authority. After the Council disbanded in 1982 it was followed
                    by the Interagency Task Force, a voluntary group that also lacked authority to enforce
                    desirable action as outlined in three Executive Orders. It cannot be expected that
                    conscientious administrators will abandon their own statutory authority and
                    responsibility before joining cooperative ventures, no matter how desirable the goals.
                    It is just as clear that unless a strong statement is made by the Congress on the ways
                    in which the basic policies of the individual Federal agencies are to be related to the
                    underlying ainis in managing floodplain resources those policies will have little
                    significance in the field where they influence or are constrained by State and local
                    practices.





                                                                                                           V1-3











                      The third major lesson is that floodplain policy changes must be taken in the context
                      of broad environmental goals applied to local conditions. This was the case in the
                      unfoldingof the Coastal Zone ManagementAct where four Federal agencies havejoined
                      in a partnership for action on habitat protection, nonpoint source pollution
                      management, and sediment control. It occurs in the implementation of soil conservation
                      programs on lands where environmental integrity must harmonize with economic
                      considerations. It is acutely the case in the delineation of wetlands where the rigidity
                      of proposed national criteria confronts wide variety in interpretation of suitable
                      floodplain use. Coastal erosion raises similar issues. The reconciliation of multiple and
                      sometimes inconsistent national goals is an endemic problem in resource management.
                      It can only be achieved effectively by dealing with particular landscapes in particular
                      regions. When national goals shift or are clarified, as they surely will, the complexity
                      increases. Unless floodplain management practices take into account local food and
                      fiber production, biota, water supply, urban land use, recreation, and more - in addition
                      to flood loss reduction - the goals for maintaining the sustainability of floodplains will
                      surely not be met.

                      Experience over the past 25 years suggests that to help achieve the improvements in
                      prospect will require a willingness to test and appraise new programs, a Congressional
                      definition of unified Federal policy, an executive decision to assure the coordination of
                      the Federal agencies, and a commitment by representatives of the principal State, local,
                      and nongovernment groups to collaborate in adapting national ainis to local conditions
                      where the benefits will be seen - on the borders of the nation's rivers, lakes, and coasts.
                      Without these measures, the resources of those areas will remain unduly vulnerable to
                      natural extremes in stream flows and tides and the people of this nation will receive less
                      than optimal benefits from floodplains' products of amenities, soil, water, and biota.


                                                                                                       08 Oct 1991





                              Gilbert W%ite has been observing the Nation's floodplains for over 50 years. He
                              is a Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Geography and the founder and
                              former director of the Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information
                              Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. He was Chair of the Task
                              Force on Federal Flood Control Policy, 1965-66, and of the National Review
                              Committee established in 1989 to assist in carrying out this Assessment.










                      V1-4













                                                                     PART VIE

                                                          APPENDICES




                                                                      El APPENDIX A:
                                CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITIES AND EVENT'S
                              INFLUENCING DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATION'S PROGRAM
                                                     FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT


                                                                      U APPENDIX B:
                                             LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS


                                                                         APPENDIX Q
                                                                           GLOSSARY


                                                                        APPENDIX D:
                                                              SELECTED REFERENCES


                                                                      Q APPENDIX E:
                                AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS INVITED TO COMMENT
                               ON THE STATUS REPORT AND ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
                                                          FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT


                                                                         APPENDIX F:
                        "ACTION AGENDA FOR MANAGING THE NATION'S FLOODPLAINS"









                  APPENDIX A:

                  CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT
                  ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS INFLUENCING
                  DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATION'S
                  PROGRAM FOR FLOODPLAIN
                  MANAGEMENT




                                                           MAJOR FEDERAL ACTIONSI

                  1849-50 - Swamp and Overflow Land Acts of 1849 and 1850. Congress deeded millions of acres of swampland to states
                                  along the Mississippi River. States sold land to pay for construction of flood control levees. New private
                                  owners drained swampland, converted it to agricultural use, and demanded protection by new and larger
                                  levees.

                  1879     - Congress created the Mississippi River Commission. Gave control to the Corps of Engineers (Corps) and
                                  directed the Corps to "prevent destructive floods."

                  1889     - First stream-gaging station in the United States set up on the Rio Grande at Embudo, NM.

                  1890     - River and Harbor Act of 1890. Gave the Corps responsibilities for regulating structures in navigable waters.

                  1899     - River and Harbor Act of 1899. Gave Corps responsibilities for regulating pollutants in Nation's waterways
                                  (Refuse Act).

                  1902     - Federal Reclamation Act of 1902. Established what is now the Bureau of Reclamation.

                  1903     - Flood studies became part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) water resources program following-disastrous
                                  floods in the Passaic River basin in northern New Jersey in 1902 and 1903.

                  1905     - Act of Congress (33 Stat. 599), chartered the American National Red Cross to undertake disaster relief
                                  activities.

                  1917     - The Flood Control Act of 1917 (P.L. 64-367; 33 Stat. 701-3). The beginning of federally sponsored flood
                                  control, with projects on the Mississippi and Sacramento Rivers.
                           - U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) began experimental rainfall and runoff measurements that provided
                                  the basic concepts and data for development of the rational method for computing maximum runoff.

                  1920     - Federal Power Act (P.L. 66-280). The Act established the Federal Power Commission (FPC) to license
                                  nonfederal hydroelectric projects. The Act requires that all of the Commission's licensed projects must
                                  be safe, adequate, and best adapted to a comprehensive basin plan of the river.

                  1928     - The Flood Control Act of 1928.
                           - Initiation of Mississippi River and Tributaries Project, Corps of Engineers.




                  I        Many of these activities were performed in cooperation with, or resulted from, prior actions of state and
                           local governments.








                     A-2                                                                                                            Appendk A



                               - Congress limited the federal financial contribution for cooperative water resources studies to no more than
                                       50% of the funds for each investigation.

                     1933      - TVA Act of 1933 (Public 17, 73d Cong. 48 Stat. 58). Established the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
                               - The United States-Mexico Convention of February 1, 1933 (TS 864; 48 Stat. 1621) provides for international
                                       boundary stabilization and flood control along a 90-mile reach of the boundary section of the Rio Grande.

                     1934      - Report of Water Resources Committee of National Resources Board.

                     1935      - Soil Conservation Act of 1935 (P.L 74-46; 49 Stat. 163). Directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish
                                       the Soil Conservation Service (SCS).
                     1936          The Flood Control Act of 1936 (P.L. 74-738; 49 Stat. 1570). Expanded federal responsibility for flood
                                       protection projects to all navigable rivers, and authorized the SCS to undertake studies and investigations
                                       of watersheds of all waterways covered by Corps "308" reports.

                     .1937         Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (50 Stat. 917). Authorized grants and technical assistance
                                       for land acquisition, development, research, and coordination for wildlife management or restoration.

                     1938      - The Flood Control Act of 1938. Authorized permanent evacuation of flood areas in lieu of flood protection.

                     1944      - Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534; 58 Stat. 887,905). Authorized USDA to implement reports completed
                                       under authority of P.L. 74-738.
                               - The United States-Mexico Water Treaty of February 3,1944 (TIAS 994; 59 Stat. 1219). Provides the basis
                                       for international flood control projects along the boundary sections of the Colorado River and the Rio
                                       Grande.

                     1950      - Federal Disaster Act (P.L. 81-875). First comprehensive disaster relief act.
                               - Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-920). Authorized federal assistance to state and local emergency
                                       management agencies.
                               - Report of President Truman's Commission on Water Resources Policy, including recommendations that federal
                                       authorities consider floodplain zoning and flood forecasting as integral parts of flood management.
                               - Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 430). Authorized grants to restore and manage
                                       sport fisheries.

                     1951      - Principles of a Sound National Water Policy. Report issued by the Engineers Joint Council recommended
                                       emphasis on "sustained land utility" rather than flow retardation.

                     1953      - Establishment of disaster relief programs under the Small Business Administration.
                               - Initiation of first full-scale regional floodplain management program by the TVA.

                     1954      - The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-566; 68 Stat. 666). Authorized SCS to
                                       help local organizations plan and carry out works of improvement for flood prevention and conservation
                                       on watersheds that did not exceed 250,000 acres in size.

                     1958      - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (P.L. 85-624; 72 Stat. 507, 563).

                     1959      - TVA transmitted to Congress a study and report entitled A P@qgram for Reducing the National Flood Damage
                                       Potential, based on its local floodplain management assistance experiences.

                     1960      - Flood Control Act of 1960 (P.L 86-645). Section 206 authorized the Corps of Engineers to establish a
                                       National Program for Flood Plain Management Services.

                     1961      - The Housing Act of 1961. Authorized federal grants to communities for acquisition of open space for
                                       conservation, recreation, and related purposes.








                 Chronology of Significant Activities and Events                                                                             A-3



                 1962      - Senate Document 97, Policies, Standanis, and Procedures in the Formulatior; Evaluatior;, and Review ofPlans
                                   for Use and Development of Water and Related Land Resources. Forerunner of the "Principles and
                                   Standards."

                 1963      - United States-Mexico Convention of August 29, 1963 (TIAS 5515; 15 UST 21) provides for boundary
                                   stabilization and flood control along 4.4 miles of the Rio Grande boundary river.

                 1964      - Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-379). Authorized establishment of state water resources
                                   research institutes.
                           - The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (P.L. 88-578; 78 Stat. 897). Authorized funds to purchase federal
                                   land and water resources and to help state and local governments buy and develop recreation areas.

                 1965      - Southeast Hurricane Disaster Relief Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-339). Authorized feasibility study of a national flood
                                   insurance program.
                           - Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-80; 79 Stat. 244). Created the U.S. Water Resources Council
                                   (WRC); authorized creation of federal-state river basin commissions; required establishment of principles,
                                   standards, and procedures to be followed for all federal projects affecting water and related land areas.

                 1966      - House Document 465. A Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses.
                           - E.O. 11296, "Evaluation of Flood Hazard in Locating Federally Owned or Financed Buildings, Roads, and
                                   Other Facilities, and in Disposing of Federal Unds and Properties." The first floodplain Executive Order.
                           - National Historic Preservation Act (P.L. 89-665; 80 Stat. 915). The basic federal statute regarding historic
                                   preservation; ensures that no federal funds are spent on work affecting historic properties until local groups
                                   and the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation have a chance to review the project plan.

                 1967.     - A Uniform Technique for Determining Flood Flow Frequencies (Bulletin No. 15, issued by WRC Hydrology
                                   Committee).
                           - Introduction to Flood Proofing (CorpsfIVA publication distributed nationally).
                           -   Guidelines for Reducing Flood Damages (Corps pamphlet distributed nationally).
                           -   List of Urban Places with Information About Flood Problems (Corps National Inventory).

                 1968      -   National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-448). Authorized establishment of a National Flood Insurance
                                   Program (NFIP) withib the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
                           -   7he Nation's Water Resources (first national water assessment published by WRC).
                           -   Formula for determining the discount rate for water projects modified by WRC.
                           -   Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-542). Ensures that no federal agency recommends authorization
                                   of any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values of rivers designated
                                   "wild and scenic."


                           -   P.L. 90-515 authorized establishment of a National Water Commission.

                 1969      -   Pruposed Flood Hazard Evaluation Guidelines for Federal Agencies released by WRC for review and testing.
                           - Housing and Urban Development Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-152; 82 Stat. 587), established the emergency phase
                                   of the NFIP.

                 1970      - The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190). Created the Council on Environmental Quality
                                   and established requirements for environmental impact assessments of federal actions.
                           - President's Water Policy Message.
                           - Establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970.
                       -   - The Water Bank Act (P.L. 91-559; 84 Stat. 1468).
                           - Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (P.L 91-224). Requires federal agencies to implement
                                   environmental policy.








                      A4                                                                                                               Appendix,A



                                - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-W). Ensures
                                        uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced by federally assisted programs.
                                - United States-Mexico Boundary Treaty of November 23,1970 (TIAS 73; 23 UST) provides for boundary river
                                        stabilization and international management of the boundary river floodplains for the 1254-mile international
                                        reach of the Rio Grande and the 24 miles international reach of the Colorado.

                      1971      - Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses (Volumes 1 and 2) published by WRC.

                      1972      - National Dam Inspection Act (P.L. 92-367).
                                - Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500; 86 Stat. 816). Required a permit
                                        from Corps for placing dredge and fill material into, or adjacent to, waters of the U.S.; development of
                                        water quality management plans by each state; permits required for municipal and industrial discharges.
                                - Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583). Authorized development of state coastal management plans
                                        and required that actions of federal agencies be consistent with approved plans.
                                - Flood Hazard Evaluation Guidelines for Federal Executive Agencies issued by WRC for compliance with E.O.
                                        11296.
                                - Flood Plain Regulations, distributed nationally by the Corps to guide state and local flood hazard statutes.

                      1973      - The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234; 87 Star. 979). Included incentives for participation
                                        in the NFIP and sanctions for nonparticipation.
                                - The "Principles and Standards for Planning of Water and Related Land Resources'.' ("Principles and
                                    Standards") adopted by WRC.
                                - Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-205; 87 Star. 884). Requires federal agencies to ensure that their
                                        projects do not jeopardize endangered or threatened species of plants and wildlife or their habitat.

                      1974      - Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-251; 88 Star. 12, 32). Sec. 73 encouraged consideration
                                        of nonstructural approaches in federal water resource projects; Sec. 80(c) required an investigation and
                                        study of principles and standards for planning and evaluation of water and related resource projects.
                                - Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-288). Required applicants for disaster assistance to take actions to
                                        mitigate hazards as a condition of receiving disaster assistance and that rebuilding be done in conformance
                                        with applicable codes, specifications and standards.
                                - Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974-(P.L. 93-291). Ensures preservation of historical and
                                        archeological materials.

                      1975      -   Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management created (formerly a committee).

                      1976      - A Unified National P@vgram for Flood Plain Management published by WRC.

                      1977      - E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management (superseded E.O. 11296).
                                -   E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands.
                                -   The Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-128), including significant amendments to
                                        the NFIP.
                                -   President Carter directed federal agencies to review their dam safety practices.
                                -   Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-192). Required SCS to develop a National
                                        Conservation Program.

                                -   Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L 95-217).

                                -   The Federal Power Commission (FPC) became the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) when
                                        the Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L 95-91) was enacted. Most FPC duties were transferred
                                        to the FERC.







                 Chronology of Significant Activities and Events                                                                            A-5



                 1978      - 77te Second National Water Assessment: 7he Nations' Water Resources 1975-2000, published by WRC, which
                                  included Appendix B, "Estimated Flood Damages, Nationwide Analysis Report."
                           - Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing E. 0. 11988 released by WRC.
                           - President's Water Policy Message: Required consideration of nonstructural measures in all flood control
                                  feasibility studies. -
                           - National Water-use Information Program established within USGS to collect, store and disseminate water-use
                                  information.

                 1979      -   E.O. 12127. Established the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
                           -   Revisions to the "Principles and Standards."
                           -   FEMA!s State Assistance Program initiated.
                           - A Unified National Program for Flood Plain Management (updated from 1976 version).

                 1980      -   Sec. 406 of P.L. 93-288 put into effect. Disaster assistance contingent on hazard mitigation planning.
                               OMB memorandum issued on "Nonstructural Flood Protection Measures and Flood Disaster Recovery."
                           - "Interagency Agreement for Nonstructural Damage Reduction Measures as Applied to Common Flood
                                  Disaster Planning and Post-Flood Recovery Practices" signed in December by 12 federal agencies in
                                  response to OMB memorandum.
                           - First properties acquired under FEMA's Flooded Property Program (Section 1362 of NFIA).
                           - Amendments (P.L. 96-515) to the National Historic Preservation Act. Directed federal agencies to establish
                                  historic preservation programs.

                 1981      - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 97-35). Prohibited issuance of federal flood insurance after 10/10/83
                                  for new construction or substantial improvements in designated areas of undeveloped coastal barriers.
                           - Establishment of Interagency Hazard Mitigation Teams in accordance with the "Interagency Agreement for
                                  Nonstructural Damage Reduction Measures."
                           - Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) established the Write Your Own program to involve private insurance
                                  companies in the NFTP.

                 1982      - Coastal Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348). Created Coastal Barrier Resources System and limited use of
                                  federal funds (including flood insurance) in designated areas of undeveloped coastal barriers.
                           -   Volume 3 of Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses published by WRC.
                           -   WRC's staff disbanded and its functions transferred to other federal agencies or assumed by the President's
                                  Cabinet on Natural Resources.
                           -   FEMA becomes chairman of the Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management.
                           -   Corps report on National Program of Inspection of Non-Federal Dams.

                 1983      -   Initiation of Integrated Emergency Management System (IEMS) by FEMA.
                           - Economic and Envin"nental PnncTles and Guidelows for Water and Related Land Resources for Impkmentatwn
                                  Studies issued to replace the "Principles and Standards."
                           -   National Hurricane Center began to include the probability of a hurricane reaching landfall at specific locations
                                  in Public Advisories.

                 1985      -   The Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198), including "Swampbuster" provisions.

                 1986      - A Unified National Program for FloodpLain Management, updated from 1979 version.
                           -   Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). Section 402 requires nonfederal interests to
                                  participate in and comply with the NFIP before construction of any federally financed local flood protection
                                  project; broadened cost sharing for water resources projects.
                           -   The Tax Reform Act of 1986. Limited deductions for casualty losses and reduced tax incentives for develop-
                                  ment.
                           -   Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. Provided funds for acquisition of wetlands.








                      A-6                                                                                                           Appendix A



                      1987     - Bureau of Reclamation reorganization announced.
                               - Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-242). Section 544 (Jones/Upton Amendment)
                                       authorizes prepayment of flood insurance for structures in imminent danger of collapse due to coastal
                                       erosion.
                               - Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-4; 101 Stat. 7). Section 317 established the National Estuary Program;
                                       Section 405 provided for control of municipal and industrial stormwater discharges.

                      1988     - Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Amendments of 1988 (P.L. 100-707). Provides for use of disaster
                                       assistance funds after a Presidential disaster declaration for a 50150 cost sharing for mitigation actions.
                               - Congress passed a resolution endorsing the U.S. Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction.

                      1989     - U.S. National Committee for the Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction established at the request of the
                                       federal interagency Subcommittee on Natural Disaster Reduction.



                                                       SELECTED STATE AND LOCAL ACTIONS2


                      1929     - New Jersey adopted channel encroachment regulations.

                      1935-6   - Washington adopted one of the first state floodway regulatory programs, followed by a broader Flood Control
                                       Zone Act that authorized state identification and regulation of flood hazard zones.

                      1949     - Iowa started providing planning assistance for flood damage reduction and required state approval of flood
                                       control works. @State law made it illegal to undertake certain activities in floodplains (no penalties or
                                       enforcement mechanism).

                      1955     - Connecticut adopted stream channel encroachment lines.

                      1957     -   Iowa developed state law requiring a mandatory permit system for construction within floodways of streams.

                      1960     -   Maryville and Alcoa, Tennessee. Joint flood damage reduction planning and community redevelopinent.

                      1963     -   Massachusetts adopted first state permit system for coastal wetlands.

                      1965     -   Iowa extended its mandatory permit system to the entire floodplain.

                      1966     -   Wisconsin Water Resources Act, mandating local regulation of flood hazard and shoreline areas consistent
                                       with state standards.

                      1967     -   Maryland adopted regulations for the 50-year floodplain as part of its state water pollution control program.

                      1969     -   Minnesota adopted a state floodplain management program in conjunction with a shorcland zoning program.

                      1975     -   Baltimore County, MD. Initiation of comprehensive flood hazard management program relying on county
                                       funds.
                               -   Scottsdale, AZ- Acquisition of floodway corridor for recreation.

                      1976     -   Soldiers Grove, WI. Development of plan combining flood reduction and community revitalization (not
                                       implemented until after floods of July 1978).

                      1977     -   Clinchport, VA. Floodplain evacuation/relocation following devastating floods in April 1977 (based on study
                                       done in 1972).





                      2   Many of these activities were performed in cooperation with federal agencies.







                Chronology of Significant Activities and Events                                                                            A-7



                1978      - Massachusetts established a Coastal Floodproofing Program to provide technical and financial assistance to
                                  homeowners whose property was damaged during the "Blizzard of '78."
                          - Lee County, FL. Nation's first regional comprehensive hurricane evacuation study prepared.

                1979      - Minnesota enacted a Wetlands.Tax Exemption and Tax Credit Program designed to provide incentives for
                                  preserving wetlands.

                1980      -   Littleton, CO. Acquired overflow areas and converted to park land.

                1982      -   Kentucky established a Community Flood Damage Abatement Program to provide financial assistance to
                                  communities for several types of flood control projects.

                1983      -   Charles River, 1@M. Acquired natural flood storage area upstream of communities.
                          -   Maine enacted "Rule 8OK" allowing code enforcement officials to take code violations to court.
                          -   Colorado published the Colorado Flood Proofing Manual.
                          -   Illinois published the first in a series of manuals directed to assisting homeowners deal with flooding problems.
                          -   Florida created the Kissimmee River-Lake Okeechobee-Everglades Coordinating Council to restore wetlands
                                  along the Kissimmee River, including oxbows and floodplain marshes destroyed as part of an earlier flood
                                  control project.

                1985      -   Prairie du Chien, WL Converted evacuated flood-prone areas to open space greenbelt.

                1987      -   Washington enacted legislation prohibiting new residences in the floodway and giving the Department of
                                  Ecology authority to set additional requirements and to review and approve local ordinances.
                          -   Minnesota created a program for flood damage reduction assistance that provides matching funds for a variety
                                  of community actions, including relocation of floodplain structures.
                          -   Des Plaines, IL initiated a permit surcharge of $200 for floodplain development projects to help finance city
                                  flood protection activities.

                1988      -   Illinois developed a low interest floodproofing loan program to enable low to moderate income victims of a
                                  1987 flood to protect themselves from repeated damages of future flooding.
                          -   California legislated mapping of landslide hazards by the State Geologist.
                          -   Utah State Legislature appropriated funds for state-wide mapping of debris-flow hazards.
                          -   North Carolina policy to allow natural forces to act on the shoreline.
                          -   First ALERT system in California.
                          -   Pennsylvania created a $100,000 loan program to encourage industrial floodproofing.
                          -   Howard County, Maryland established a floodproofing loan program for local residents and commercial
                                  establishments using a combination of state and local funds.
                          -   California enacted law on dam safety.
                          -   Town of Nags Head, NC developed a postflood recovery plan and adopted policies and implementing actions
                                  "to reduce, to the extent possible, future damage from hurricanes and severe coastal storms."
                          -   North Carolina policy/plan required local plans to include a poststorm policy section.



                                                          SELECTED PRIVATE ACTIONS


                1905      - American National Red Cross chartered by Congress as a national disaster relief agency.

                1913      - Establishment of Miami Conservancy District of the Ohio Valley.

                1945      - Publication of Human Adjustment to the Flood Problem in the United States by Dr. Gilbert White.

                1953      - Establishment of The Nature Conservancy.








                     A-8                                                                                                         Appendix A



                     1962     - Publication of Guideforthe Development offlood Plain Regulations by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

                     1965     - Charles River Watershed Association founded; advocacyofstructural/nonstructuraI flood management program.

                     1976     - Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center established at the University of Colorado,
                                      Boulder, CO.

                     1977     - Formation of Association of State Floodplain Managers.

                     1980     - Formation of Association of State Wetland Managers.

                     1982     - Arizona Floodplain Management Association formed, the first of its kind in the country and the first state
                                      chapter to be accepted into the ASFPM.

                     1984     - Formation of Association of State Dam Safety Officials.



                                                         SELECTED MAJOR FLOOD EVENTS

                     1889     - Johnstown, Pennsylvania: Dam break killed 2,200 people.

                     1900     - Hurricane at Galveston, Texas killed approximately 6,000 people.

                     1913     -   Ohio River Valley floods. 713 people killed in Ohio and Indiana.

                     1926     -   Miami, Florida. Hurricane killed more than 100 people.

                     1927     -   Lower Mississippi River flooding killed between 250 and 500 people.

                     1928     -   Santa Clara Valley, California. St. Francis Dam failed and flooding killed 420 people.

                     1928     -   Hurricane. Killed 1,000 people in Puerto Rico, 2,000 people in Florida.
                              -   Lake Okeechobee dikes failed.

                     1935     -   Lower Matecumbe Key, Florida. Hurricane killed 400 people.

                     1935-8   -   Series of severe droughts and major floods affecting large portions of the country, including 1936 floods on
                                      the Potomac, Susquehanna, and upper Ohio River Basins; 1937 floods in the Ohio Valley; and 1938
                                      Atlantic Seaboard hurricane killed almost 700 people.

                     1938     -   California. Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta flooding killed at least 16 people.
                              -   Los Angeles-Southern California. Floods and landslides killed 95 people.
                              -   Alabama and Georgia. A tornado and floods that followed killed 27 people.

                     1939     -   Northeastern Kentucky flash floods killed at least 75 people.
                              -   Southern California Coast. A tropical storm killed 18 people.

                     1940     -   New York and Pennsylvania. Floods killed 17 people.
                              -   Southern Texas. The Lavaca, Colorado, and Guadalupe rivers flooded after heavy rainstorms and killed at
                                      least 10 people.
                              -   Texas and Louisiana. Flooding in the Sabine River region after a hurricane killed 19 people.
                              -   Eastern United States. Flooding after a hurricane from Savannah, Georgia to Georgetown, South Carolina
                                      killed at least 16 people.

                     1941     -   Midwestern United States. Severe storms in Minnesota and South Dakota killed approximately 150 people.

                     1942     -   Eastern Pennsylvania. Flooding killed at least 30 people.








                Chronology of Sipfficant Activities and Events                                                                          A-9



                1943     - West Virginia. Flash flood killed 21 people.

                1944     - East Coast, United States. A hurricane between the Carolinas and Canada killed at least 35 people.
                1945     - Cincinnati, Ohio. Flooding on the Ohio River and other midwestern rivers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
                                 Kentucky and Indiana killed at least 10 people.

                1946     -   Hawaiian Islands. Series of Tsunamis killed 159 people.
                         -   Susquehanna River Valley, New York-Pennsylvania. Flooding killed 12 people.

                1947     -   Cambridge, Nebraska. Flash flood killed 16 people.
                         -   St. Louis Missouri. Flooding in the Missouri and upper Mississippi valleys killed 16 people.
                         -   Gulf of Mexico. A hurricane hitting southern Florida,, Louisiana and M)ssissippi killed 84 people.
                         -   New Orleans, Louisiana. Flooding after a hurricane at least 55 people.

                1948     -   Columbia River Basin, Oregon. Flooding killed 40 people; large economic losses; failure of Columbia River
                                 dike killed 15 people.

                1950     -   West Virginia. Flash floods killed 33 people.

                1951     -   Major flooding on the Kansas and lower Missouri Rivers killed 28 people and resulted in huge economic losses.

                1953     -   Louisiana. Floods in the wake of tornadoes killed 12 people.

                1954     -   Hurricane Hazel. Major flooding in southern New England killed 99 people.
                         -   Hurricane Edna. Struck from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to Nova Scotia and killed at least 22 people.
                         -   Chicago, Illinois. A severe rainstorm killed 19 people.

                1955     -   Hurricane Diane. Major flooding in southern New England Pennsylvania and New York killed 200 people.
                         -   Northeastern United States. Torrential rains and floods killed 42 people.
                         -   Northern California-Oregon. Flooding killed 80 people.
                         -   Yuba City, California. Dike failures and flooding along the Yuba River killed 80 people. Successful evacuation
                                 limited deaths.

                1956     -   Pennsylvania. Flooding killed 15 people.
                         -   Hurricane Flossey. Struck Florida, Georgia and Louisiana and killed at least 24 people.

                1957     -   Hurricane Audrey. Cameron Parish, Louisiana hit by tidal wave and several hundred people killed.
                         -   Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia. Flooding in the Cumberland Valley killed 15 people.
                         -   St. Louis Missouri. Flash flooding killed 17 people.

                1958     -   Lituya Bay, southeast Alaska. Tsunami killed 2 people.
                         -   Northern California. Flooding killed 13 people.
                         -   Audubon, Iowa. Rainstorm killed 13 people. 6 missing and presumed dead.
                         -   North Central Indiana. Flooding killed 13 people.

                1960     -   Tsunami killed 61 people in Hawaii, mostly in Hilo.

                1961     -   Hurricane Carla. Struck Texas-Louisiana and only 40 people were killed due to an orderly evacuation.
                         -   Charleston, West Virginia. Flash flooding killed 21 people.
                         -   Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. Flooding killed 12 people.
                1962     -   Good Friday northeaster affected eastern seaboard from SC to CT.
                         -   Southern California. Flooding and mud slides killed 20 people.








                      A-10                                                                                                           Apperift A



                               - East Coast, United States. Heavy storm with racing tides killed at least 40 people. March 10.
                               -   Pacific Northwest, United States. A severe storm from the ocean with high winds killed at least 46 people.
                               -   Guam. Typhoon Karen killed 6 people. Early warnings allowed an orderly evacuation.

                      1963     -   Los Angeles, California. Baldwin Hills dam failure. Successful evacuation limited deaths to 5 people.
                               -   Eastern United States. Flooding in 10 Atlantic seaboard and Ohio Valley states killed 21 people.

                      1964     -   "Good Friday" earthquake generated tsunami that killed 131 people in Alaska, Oregon and California.
                               -   Dam at Swift, Montana failed, killing 19 people.
                               -   Midwestern United States. Flooding in the Ohio River Valley states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia,
                                       Kentucky and Indiana killed 15 people.
                               -   Montana. Flash flooding killed 34 people, broke dams and washed out bridges. 30 people missing.
                               -   Pacific Northwest. Washington, Oregon and northern California. Flooding rivers killed at least 42 people.

                      1965     -   Hurricane Betsy struck southern Florida and the Mississippi River delta and killed 74 people.
                               -   Mississippi Valley, United States. The month-long rampage of the Mississippi River, from St. Paul-Minneapolis
                                       to St. Louis, was recorded as the greatest flood in the river's history and killed 15 people.
                               -   Sanderson, Texas. Flash flood killed 16 people.
                               -   West Central United States. Rainstorms in Montana set off flooding in the Arkansas and South Platte river
                                       valleys through Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas and New Mexico which killed 20.

                      1969     -   Hurricane Camille. The states of Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Virginia were ravaged and at least 400
                                       people were killed or presumed dead.
                               -   Southern California. Torrential rains and mud killed at least iOO people.
                               -   Southern California. Renewed flooding and mudslides killed at least 18 people.
                               -   Ohio. A sudden violent storm caused high choppy waters on Lake Erie and flooding. 41 people were killed.

                      1970     -   Hurricane Celia killed 14 people in Florida and 13 people in Texas.
                               -   Arizona. Flooding in Maricopa County killed 15 people,
                               -   Puerto Rico. A tropical depression and associated heavy rainfall killed at least 60 people.

                      1971     -   Baltimore County, Maryland. Heavy Rains and swollen rivers killed 13 people.
                               -   Pennsylvania. Flooding left 13 people dead or missing.

                      1972     -   Flash floods and dam failure in Black Hills of South Dakota killed 236 people.
                               -   Coal waste dam failed on Buffalo Creek, West Virginia, killing 125 people.
                               -   Tropical Storm Agnes, Eastern seaboard killed 117 people.

                      1973     -   Mississippi River Basin flooding.
                               -   Lake Michigan. A 24-hour storm churned up Lake Michigan causing damage to 28 miles of lakefront. 'Me
                                       storm killed 26 people.

                      1975     -   Hurricane Eloise struck Puerto Rico and dumped torrential rains that killed 34 people. The storm moved
                                       to the Florida panhandle and killed 12 people before continuing to eastern Alabama.

                      1976     -   Teton Dam at Teton, Idaho failed, killing 11 people.
                               -   Big Thompson Canyon, Colorado flash flood killed 139 people.

                      1977     -   Flash flood and dam failures near Johnstown, Pennsylvania caused 78 deaths.
                               -   Flash floods in Kansas City, Missouri and adjacent areas killed 25 people.
                               -   Kelly Barnes Dam, Georgia, failed killing 39 people.

                      1979     -   Hurricane Frederick, Gulf Shores, Alabama.








               Chronology of Significant Activities and Events                                                                 A-11




                        - Iake flooding at Lake Elsinore, CA.
                        - Great Salt Lake began to increase in size.
                        - Great Lakes rise.
                        - Pearl River flooding, Mississippi.

               1980        Eruption of Mount St. Helens, causing floods and mudflows on the North Fork Toutle River, Cowletz, River
                               and Columbia River.
                           Southern California and Arizona. Flooding killed 26 people.

               1982        Connecticut. Flooding killed 12 people.

               1983        Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Tennessee. Flooding killed 15 people.
                           Hurricane Alicia struck southern Texas and killed 17 people.

               1984        Vermont. Flash flood caused by collapse of series of beaver dams washed out railroad track support.
                               Subsequent derailment of Amtrak Montrealer killed 5 people.

               1985        Hurricane Gloria. Severe flooding along Lackawanna River in Pennsylvania.

               1986        Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Flooding killed 8 people.
                           South Dakota. Severe storms and flooding.

               1987        Typhoon Nina struck the island of Truk, Federated States of Micronesia and killed 5 people.
                           Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Severe spring flooding.
                           Typhoon Lynn struck the Northern Mariana Islands causing significant damage to public property and no
                               deaths.
               1988        Typhoon Roy struck Guam, Marshall Islands and the Island of Rota, Northern Marianas with no deaths.

               1989     -  Utah. Dike failure at Quail Creek Reservoir caused flash floods.
                        -  Kentucky. Heavy rains and flooding in central and western Kentucky effected 18 counties.
                        -  Washington. Mudslides and flooding.
                        -  Alaska. Flooding on the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers and their tributaries.
                        -  Hurricane Hugo. Severe damage in U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and South Carolina. Estimated more
                               than $10 billion in damages.



                                       SIGNIFICANT FLOODPLAIN REGULATORY CASES3

               1930     - America Land Co. v. City of Keene, 41 F. 2d 484 (1st Cir., 1930). Court upheld a zoning ordinance that
                               prevented residential development in a riverine flood hazard area.

               1953     - McCarthy v. Manhattan Beach, 257 P. 2d 679 (Cal., 1953). Court upheld a coastal beach zone that prevented
                               all but beach recreational uses in an area subject to storm damage.





               3   This annotated fist of 48 of the most significant court cases dealing with floodplain regulations was selected
                   from a broader group of approximately 270 constitutionally-related floodplain regulatory cases. Selection
                   was based upon the level of decision (e.g., State Supreme Court versus lower court, the issues considered
                   by the case, and the quality of the legal analysis). The list includes cases that uphold and strike down
                   regulations. It should be noted that virtually all of the cases that hold regulations to be unconstitutional
                   are older cases.








                      A-12                                                                                                          Appenft A



                      1957     - Ardolino v, Board of Adjustment of Borough of Florham Park, 130 A. 2d 847 (NJ., 1957) Court strongly
                                       endorsed power of planning commission to impose conditions upon plat approval relating to drainage and
                                       flooding.

                      1959     - Varlelas v. Water Resources Commn, 153 A@ 2d 822 (Conn., 1959). Court upheld a Connecticut, state4evel,
                                       encroachment statute.

                      1960     - Longridge Estates v. City of Los Angeles, 6 Cal. Rptr. 900 (Cal., 1960). Court held that city could reasonably
                                       charge subdivider $9,944 for connection to use of municipal storm drains and sewers where fees went
                                       exclusively for the construction of outlet sewers.

                      1960     - City of Buena Park v. Boyar, 8 Cal Rptr. 674 (Cal., 1960). Court upheld condition that $50,000 be paid by
                                       developers to permit municipal construction of a drainage ditch to carry away surface waters from
                                       subdivision plat approval.

                      1962     - ConsofidatedRockProducts Co. v. LosAngeles, 370 P. 2d 342 (Cal., 1962), appeal dismissed, 371 U.S. 36 (1962).
                                       Court upheld an ordinance that prevented gravel operations in an area which, due to flooding, had few,
                                       if any, other economic uses.

                      1963     - Morris County Land Imp. Co. v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Tp., 193 A. 2d 23Z (NJ., 1963). Court invalidated a
                                       conservancy district designed to preserve wildlife and headwater storage areas.

                      1964     - Dooley v. Town Plan & Zoning Commm of Town of Fairfield, 197 A. 2d 770 (Conn., 1964). Court invalidated
                                       a floodplain zoning ordinance for estuarine area as applied to a plaintiffs land.

                      1965     - Blakeman v. Planning Commission of City ofShellon, 206 A@ 2d 425 (Conn., 1965). Planning commission could
                                       refuse plat approval for subdivision of 34 acres where there was evidence that proposed street access would
                                       cause surface drainage problems.

                      1966     - Spiegle v. Beach Haven, 218 A. 2d 129 (NJ., 1966). Court upheld building setback and fence ordinances for
                                       coastal areas.

                      1967     - Baker v. Planning Board of Fnvniroam, 228 N.E. 2d 831 (Mass., 1967). Court invalidated a refusal of a
                                       planning commission to approve a subdivision plat for a parcel of land that functioned as a natural flood
                                       storage area.

                      1968     - Iowa Natural Resources Council v. Van Zee, 158 N.W. 2d 111 (Ia., 1968). Court generally upheld an Iowa,
                                       state-level, encroachment statute.

                      1969     - Brown v. City-ofJoliet, 247 N.E. 2d 47 (111.,1969). City council could refuse plat approval where no provision
                                       was made in subdivision plan for drainage as required by statute.

                      1972     - Turner v. County of Del None, 101 Cal. Rptr. 93 (Cal., 1972). Court upheld county floodplain regulations
                                       limiting an area subject to severe flooding to parks, recreation and agricultural uses.
                               - Turnpike Really Co. v. Town of Dedham, 284 N.E. 2d 891 (Mass., 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1108 (Mass.,
                                       1973). Court upheld zoning regulations essentially limiting the floodplain to open space uses despite
                                       testimony that the land was worth $431,000 before regulations and $53,000 after regulations and evidence
                                       that several hills above the regulatory flood elevation had been included in the floodplain district.

                      1973     - Cappture Realty Corp. v. Board ofAdjustment ofBorough of Elmwood Park, 313 A. 2d 624 (NJ., 1973). Court
                                       upheld interim zoning ordinance declaring a moratorium on construction in flood-prone area unless special
                                       exception permits were obtained.

                      1974     - A.H. Smith Sand and Gravel Co. v. Dept. of WaterResourres, 313 A. 2d 820 (Md. 1974). Court upheld an order
                                       of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources prohibiting filling on land within the 50-year floodplain
                                       but redefined floodplain boundaries in light of new flood information.








                 Chronology of Significant Activities and Events                                                                          A-13



                 1976     - Lindquist v. Omaha Reafty, Inc., 247 N.W. 2d 684 (S.D., 1976). Court held that resolution of the Rapid City
                                  City Council prohibiting the issuance of building permits for one block on either side of Rapid Creek after
                                  the devastating flood of June 12,1972, until a study was completed by the planning commission, was a valid
                                  exercise of the police power.

                 1977     - Maple Leaf Investors, Inc. v. State Dept. of Ecology, 565 P. 2d 1162 (Wash., 1977). Court upheld denial of a
                                  state permit for proposed houses in floodway of the Cedar River and held that both the statute and
                                  regulations adopted pursuant to them were valid.
                          - Pope v. City of Atlanta, 240 S.E. 2d 241 (Ga., 1977). Court held that the Gebrgia River Protection Act,
                                  designed in part to address flooding and erosion problems, served valid objectives and did not violate home
                                  rule.

                 1978     - Tew Landowners Rights AssrL v. Harris, 453 F. Supp. 1025 (D. D.C., 1978, affd mem. 598 F. 2d 311 (D.C.
                                  Cir., 1979) cert. denied 444 U.S. 927 (1979). Court held that the National Flood Insurance Program and
                                  its requirements that communities adopt regulations to qualify property owners for insurance was a rational
                                  exercise of Congressional power and NFIP sanctions did not constitute a taking of property. (Note, this
                                  is not a regulatory case, per se.)

                 1979     - American Dredging Co. v. State Dept. of Environmental Protection, 404 A. 2d 42 (NJ., 1979). Court held an
                                  entire 2,500-acre tract that included a floodplain/wetland area was to be viewed in its entirety in determin-
                                  ing whether a wetland restriction on 80 acres was reasonable.
                          - Foreman v. State Dept. of Natural Resources, 387 N.E. 2d 455 (Ind., 1979). Court sustained an injunction
                                  prohibiting defendants from making deposits on a floodway and compelling removal of deposits previously
                                  made in violation of a statute requiring a permit from a state agency for such deposits.
                          - County ofRamsey v. Stevens, 283 N.W. 2d 918 (Minn., 1979). Court indirectly but strongly endorsed Minnesota
                                  state floodplain management statute requiring communities on a state list prepared by the Commissioner
                                  of Natural Resources to adopt floodplain regulations in order to qualify for the National Flood Insurance
                                  Program. The court sustained the decision of a lower court ordering the City Council of Lilydale,
                                  Minnesota to adopt regulations within 24 hours.
                          - Krahlv. Nine Mile Creek WatershedDistrict, 283 N.W. 2d 538 (Minn., 1979). Court held that watershed district's
                                  floodplain encroachment regulations affecting 2/3 of an 11 -acre tract were not an unconstitutional taking
                                  of property.
                          - Subaru offew England, Inc. v. Board ofAppeals of Canton, 395 N.E. 2d 880 (Mass, 1979). Court upheld denial
                                  of permit for construction in flood district based on possible loss of flood storage, public health, safety,
                                  and general flood damages.

                 1980     - Usdin v. State Dept. of Environmental Protection, 414 A. 2d 280 (NJ., 1980). Court upheld state floodway
                                  regulations prohibiting structures for human occupancy, storage of materials, and depositing solid wastes.

                 1981     - Town of Indialantic v. McNulty, 400 So. 2d 1227 (Fla., 1981). Court upheld against a "taking" challenge a
                                  coastal setback line contained in zoning ordinance adopted, in part, to reduce flood damage.
                          - Britt v. United States, 515 F. Supp. 1159 (M.D. Ala., 1981). Court held that the United States was not liable
                                  for negligence in the preparation or dissemination of flood hazard boundary maps since they were "flood
                                  control" initiatives subject to immunity under the Federal Flood Control Act. (Note, this is not a regulatory
                                  case, per se.)

                 1983     - Annicelli v. Town of South Kingston, 463 A. 2d 133 (R.I., 1983). Court held that an unconstitutional taking
                                  occurred where local government denied all economic use of barrier island lot based on flooding and
                                  environmental concerns.
                          - Responsible Citizens in Opposition to the Flood Plain Ordinance v. City ofAshville, 302 S.E. 2d 204 (N.C., 1983)
                                  Court held that a performance standard floodplain regulation was not a taking of private property.

                 1984     - C & D Partnership v. City of Gahanna, 474 N.E. 2d 303 (Ohio, 1984). Court held that City's delay in approval
                                  of subdivision plot due to concerns with flooding was justified and discretionary and did not give rise to
                                  1983 action. In addition, City officials acting in good faith were immune from Section 1983 suit.









                        A-14                                                                                                                Appendix A



                                  - State v. City of La Crosse, 354 N.W. 2d 738 (Wis. App. 1984). Trial court should not have excluded the result
                                          of State's hydraulic analysis showing actual effect of fill an flooding rather than rely on City's floodway line.

                        1985      - SocietyforEED v. NewJersey D.E.P., 504 A. 2d 1180 (NJ., 1985). Court held that comprehensive regulations
                                          addressing flooding, pollution and preservation of plant and animal life including a 20% net fill rule were
                                          not ultra vires and not a taking of property or violation of due process.
                                  - Oswalt v. County of Ramsey, 371 N.W. 2d 241 (Minn., 1985.). Court held that a county attempt to eliminate
                                          nonconforming use in floodway by denying a permit pursuant to a hazardous condition statute without
                                          adequatellindings of fact was a taking but landowner award of damages for emotional stress.
                                  - Sarasota County v. Purser, 476 So. 2d 1359 (Fla., 1985). Court held that denial of special exception for travel
                                          trailer park in federally designated area of special flood hazard was not arbitrary, discriminatory or
                                          unreasonable.
                                  - Ravalese v. Town of East Hartford, 608 F. Supp. 575 ( D. Conn., 1985). Court held that a landowner did not
                                          have a constitutionally protected right to have his property excluded from the floodplain maps and that
                                          the maps did not take property despite economic impacts.

                        1986      - Matcha v. Mattax on Behalf of People ofTexas, 711 S.W. 2d 95 (Tex., 1986). Court held that a property owner
                                          could not rebuild cottage after destruction by hurricane because beachline moved due to hurricane erosion
                                          and public now had prescriptive right to use beach.

                        1987      - Hall v. Board of Environmental Protection, 528 A. 2d 453 (Me., 1987). Court held that denial of sand dune
                                          permit was not an unconstitutional taking where beneficial and valuable uses of property remained despite
                                          denial of building permit. Court found that "camping" was an economic use for beachfront property.
                                  - First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 107 S. Ct. 2378 (1987). Court
                                          held that if county regulations were a taking, at least temporary compensation would need to be the paid.

                        1988      - Adolph v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 854 F. 2d 732 (5th Cir., 1988). Federal Court held that
                                          Flood Insurance Program and a parish ordinance not a taking of property.
                                  - Terner v. Spyco, Inc., 545 A 2d 192 (NJ Super. A.D., 1988) Court held that township planning board decision
                                          granting hardship variance to construct residences within floodplain could not stand without proof of
                                          peculiar or exceptional conditions.
                                  - Reel Enterprises v. City qfLa Crosse, 431 N.W. 2d 743 (Wis., 1988). Court held that, as a matter of law, Wis.
                                          DNR had not "taken" private floodplain property by undertaking floodplain studies, disapproving municipal
                                          ordinance, and announcing an intention to adopt floodplain ordinance for City putting all or most
                                          properties within floodway designation. Plaintiff had also failed to allege or prove the deprivation of "all
                                          or substantially all, of the use of their property." (Good taking case dealing with the "ripeness issue" and
                                          exhaustion of remedies.)

                        1989      - Easter Lake Estates, Inc. v. Polk County, 444 N.W. 2d 72 (Iowa, 1989). Court held that an abatement order
                                          that put a mobile home park located on the floodplain beneath a dam out of business was not a taking
                                          since the park owner bad created the health and safety problem.
                                  - April v. City ofBroken Arrow, 775 P. 2d 1347 (Okla., 1989). Court held that city floodplain and earth modifica-
                                          tion ordinances were validly adopted to reduce risks of loss of life and property, protect the public interest
                                          in health, preserve the aesthetic environment and fiscal integrity, and enable landowners to purchase flood
                                          hazard insurance to protect their investments.
                                  - American Cyanamid v. D. of Envir. Prot., 555 A. 2d 684 (NJ., 1989). Court held that it was permissible for
                                          the NJ. DEP to use the USGS "500-year" design floodline and to divide flood hazard area into floodway
                                          and flood fringe despite statutory"100-year" flood standard. DEP argued that "500-year" flood reflected
                                          "100-year" plus 25% to reflect "future development within the basin."
                                  - First English Evangelical Lutheran Church ofGlendak v. County ofLos Angeles, 258 Cal. Rptr. 893 (Cal., 1989).
                                          Court held that county interim floodplain ordinance could not, on the facts, be an unconstitutional taking.
                                          On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court decision of the same name (listed previously).









           APPENDIX B:

           LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS





           ACHP   .................   Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
           ACRS   .................   Accelerated Cost Recovery System
           AEC    ..................  Area of Environmental Concern
           AFOS   .................   Automation of Field Operations and Services
           AHOS   .................   Automatic Hydrologic Observing System
           AIRAC   ................   All Industry Research Advisory Council
           ALERT   ................   Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time
           APA    ..................  American Planning Association
           ASCS   ..................  Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
           ASDL   .................   Aircraft Satellite Data Link
           ASDSO   ................   Association of State Dam Safety Officials
           ASFPM   ................   Association of State Floodplain Managers
           ASWM    ................   Association of State Wetland Managers

           BFE    ................... Base Flood Elevation
           BLH    ..................  Bottomland Hardwood
           BLM    ..................  Bureau of Land Management
           BMP    ..................  Best Management Practices
           BOCA   .................   Building Officials and Code Administrators International,. Inc.
           BOR    ..................  Bureau of Reclamation

           c  .....................   Centigrade
           CAMA   .................   Coastal Area Management Act
           CAP    ..................  Community Assistance Program
           CAPE   .................   Community Assistance Program Evaluation
           CAV    ..................  Community Assistance Visits
           CBO    ..................  Congressional Budget Office
           CBRA   .................   Coastal Barrier Resources Act
           CBRS   .................   Coastal Barrier Resources System
           CCJP   ..................  Comprehensive, Coordinated, Joint Plan
           CCMP   .................   Comprehensive @ Conservation Management Plan
           CDBG   .................   Community Development Block Grant
           CEO    ..................  Council on Environmental Quality
           CERC   .................   Coastal Engineering Research Center
           cfs    .................... CubicFeet per Second
           cm     .................... Centimeter
           Corps  ..................  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
           CRBS   .................   Cooperative River Basin Studies
           CRS    ................... Community Rating System
           CSG    ..................  Council of State Governments
           CSO    ..................  Coastal States Organization
           CWA    ..................  Clean Water Act
           CZMA   .................   Coastal Zone Management Act








                B-2                                                                            Appendix B




                DAC   ..................   Disaster Assistance Center
                DFO   ..................   Disaster Field Office
                DNR   ..................   Department of Natural Resources
                DOA   ..................   Department of the Army
                DOC   ..................   U.S. Department of Commerce
                DOI   ...................  U.S. Department of the Interior
                DOT   ..................   Department of Transportation
                DPIG  ..................   Disaster Preparedness Improvement Grant Program
                DSL   ...................  Division of State Lands
                DSR   ..................   Dam Survey Report
                DVvFR ..................   Division of Water Resources

                EENET   ................   Emergency Education Network (FEMA)
                EMI   ..................   Emergency Management Institute
                EO    ...................  Executive Order
                EOSAT   ................   Earth Observation Satellite Company
                EPA   ..................   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                EQ    ...................  Environmental Quality
                ERL   ..................   Environmental Research Laboratories
                EROS   .................   Earth Resources Orbiting Satellite
                ERTS   .................   Earth Resources Technology Satellites

                FAA   ...................  Federal Aviation Administration
                FCCSET    ...............  Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology
                FDAA   .................   Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
                FEMA   .................   Federal Emergency Management Agency
                FERC   .................   Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
                FmHA   .................   Farmers Home Administration
                F14BM  .................   Flood Hazard Boundary Map
                F14WA  .................   Federal Highway Administration
                FIA   ...................  Federal Insurance Administration
                FIFRA  .................   Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act
                FIMS  ..................   Flood Information Management System
                FIRM   .................   Flood Insurance Rate Map
                FIS   ...................  Flood Insurance Studies
                FPMS   .................   Floodplain Management Service
                FS    .................... U.S. Forest Service
                FWS   ..................   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

                GAO   ..................   General Accounting Office
                GIS   ...................  Geographic Information System
                GOES   .................   Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite
                GNP   ..................   Gross National Product


                Ha    .................... Hectare
                HCRS   .................   Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
                HD 465  ................   House Document No. 465 (1966)
                HEC   ..................   Hydrologic Engineering Center
                HEP   ..................   Habitat Evaluation Procedures
                HUD   ..................   Department of Housing and Urban Development








             List of Acronyms and Abbreviations                                                                      B-3



             ICODS      ................       Interagency Committee on Dam Safety
             IDDNHR.    ...............        International Disaster Decade for Natural Hazards Reduction
             IEMIS    .................        Integrated Emergency Management Information System
             IEMS   ..................         Integrated Emergency Management System
             IFIA)WS    ...............        Integrated Flood Observing and Warning System
             IHDA     .................        Illinois Housing Development Authority
             UC     ...................        International Joint Commission
             IRS    ...................        Internal Revenue Service
             ISO    ...................        Interstate Services Organization

             LANDSAT     ..............        Land Remote-sensing Satellite
             LESA     .................        Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
             LFWS     .................        Local Flood Warning System
             LMMP     .................        Limited Map Maintenance Program
             LWCF     .................        Land and Water Conservation Fund

             MHW      .................        Mean High Water
             MLW    ..................         Mean Low Water
             MOA    ..................         Memorandum of Agreement
             MSL    ..................         Mean Sea Level


             NACD     .................        National Association of Conservation Districts
             NAFSMA      ..............        National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies
             NAPP     .................        National Aerial Photography Program
             NAS    ..................         National Academy of Sciences
             NASA     .................        National Aeronautic and Space Administration
             NAUFMA      ..............        National Association of Urban Flood Management Agencies
             NAWID      ................       National Association of Water Institute Directors
             NCPI   ..................         National Committee on Property Insurance
             NCSS   ..................         National Cooperative Soil Survey
             NED    ..................         National Economic Development
             NEIC   ..................         National Earthquake Information Center
             NEPA     .................        National Environmental Policy Act
             NERBC      ................       New England River Basin Commission
             NESS   ..................         National Environmental Science Services
             NETC     .................        National Emergency Training Center
             NEXRAD      ..............        Next Generation Weather Radar
             NFIA   ..................         National Flood Insurance Act
             NFIP   ..................         National Flood Insurance Program
             NGVD     .................        National Geodetic Vertical Datum (1929)
             NH.    AP .................       National High Altitude Photography
             NHC    ..................         National Hurricane Center
             NOAA     .................        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
             NOS    ..................         National Ocean Service
             NPDES      ................       National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
             NPS;   ...................        National Park Service
             NRC    ..................         National Research Council
             NRI    ...................        National Resource Inventory
             NRI    ...................        Nationwide Rivers Inventory
             NSF    ...................        National Science Foundation
             NTH    ..................         Natural and Technology Hazards
             NWF    ..................         National Wildlife Federation
             NWI    ..................         National Wetlands Inventory
             NWS    ..................         National Weather Service








                B4                                                                          Appendix B



                OBRA   .................  Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
                OCRM   ................   Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management
                OMB    .................. Office of Management and Budget
                OSTP   .................  Office of Science and Technology Policy

                PL     .................... Public Law
                PMF    .................. Probable Maximum Flood
                ppm    ................... Parts Per Million
                P&G    .................. Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and
                                             Related Land Resources for Implementation Studies
                P&S    ................... Principals and Standards for Planning of Water and Related Land Resources
                PTWC   .................  Pacific Tsunami Warning Center

                RBC    .................. River Basin Commission
                RFC    .................. River Forecast Center
                ROM    .................. Read Only Memory

                SAP    ................... State Assistance Program
                SBCCI  .................  Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc.
                SBA    ................... Small Business Administration
                SCORP  ................   State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
                SCS    ................... Soil Conservation Service
                SHPO   .................  State Historic Preservation Officers
                SLOSH  ................   Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes
                SPF    ................... Standard Project Flood
                SPLASH  ...............   Special Program to List Amplitudes of Surges from Hurricanes
                STORET  ...............   Storage and Retrieval (EPA!s Water Quality Data Base)
                SVavIM ................   Storinwater Management Model

                TDR    .................. Transfer of Development Rights
                TRA    .................. Tax Reform Act of 1986
                TVA    .................. Tennessee Valley Authority

                UNP    .................. Unified National Program for Floodplain Management
                USCOLD  ...............   U.S. Committee On Large Dams
                USDA   .................  U.S. Department of Agriculture
                USDNR  ................   U.S. Decade for Natural Disasters Reduction
                USGS   .................  U.S. Geological Survey

                WATSTORE    ............  National Water Data Storage and Retrieval System
                WET    .................. Wetland Evaluation Technique
                WFSO   .................  Weather Field Service Offices
                WHAFIS  ...............   Wave Height Analysis, Flood Insurance Study
                WSO    .................. Local Weather Services Offices
                WSP-2  .................  Water Surface Profile 2
                WSPRO  ................   Water Surface Profile Model
                WRC    .................. U.S. Water Resources Council
                WRI    .................. Water Resources Institute
                WYO    .................. Write Your Own









               APPENDIX C:

               GLOSSARY'




               A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management: A concept (and document of the same name)
               establishing the foundation of a coordinated national effort to manage the Nation's floodplains. The Unified
               National Program recommends a continuing unified program for planning and action at all levels of government
               to reduce the risk of flood losses and to protect floodplain values. The document was originally prepared by
               the U.S. Water Resources Council in 1976 in response to a directive of the 1968 National Flood Insurance Act,
               and subsequently revised and updated in 1979 and 1986.

               Actuarial Rates: Insurance rates determined on the basis of a statistical calculation of the probability that a
               certain event will occur. Actuarial rates are also called "risk premium rates." They are established by the
               Federal Insurance Administration pursuant to individual community Flood Insurance Studies and investigations
               that are undertaken to provide flood insurance in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act and with
               accepted actuarial principles, including provisions for operating costs and allowances.

               Alluvial Fan: Deposits of rock and soil that have eroded from mountainsides and accumulated on valley floors
               in a fan-shaped pattern and which occur mainly in dry mountainous areas.

               Associationof State Floodplain Managers: An organization of persons concerned with floodplain management;
               formed in 1977 to provide a forum for the sharing of expertise and experience with regard to state and local
               floodplain management problems and to assist with efforts to improve the effectiveness of those programs.

               A-Zone: That portion of the coastal floodplain as marked on maps prepared by the Federal Emergency
               Management Agency that is likely to be inundated by the one-percent ("100-year") flood and not subject to
               wave action. The A-zone, however, may be subject to residual forward momentum of breaking waves. The
               A-zone and the V-zone together form the Coastal Special Flood Hazard Area.

               Base Flood: The selected flood frequency for regulatory purposes. The NFIP has adopted the "100-year" flood
               as the base flood to indicate the minimum level of flooding to be used by a community in its floodplain
               management regulations.

               Bottomland Hardwoods: Tree species that occur on water-saturated or regularly inundated soils. Classified
               as wetlands, these areas contain both trees and woody shrubs.

               Breakwaters: Structures, usually built offshore, to protect a shore area, harbor, anchorage or basin by
               intercepting the energy of approaching waves.

               Bulkhead: A vertical wall of wood, steel or concrete, built parallel to the shoreline and designed to deflect
               waves and control erosion.

               Carrying Capacity: A term most generally used to refer to the level of use or extent of modification an
               environmental or man-made system may bear without experiencing unacceptable resource deterioration or
               degradation.





                        The definitions of terms contained in this glossary are for the purpose of the Assessment Report only.
                        The meaning and use of the terms included here may differ in federal and state lam and regulations.








                     C-2                                                                                                    Appendix C



                     Coastal Barrier. Elongated, offshore formations of sand and other unconsolidated sediments lying generally
                     parallel to mainland coastlines; including bay barriers (connected to headlands on both ends), barrier spits
                     (connected on one end), and barrier islands (bounded on one side by inlets without attachment to the mainland).

                     Coastal High Hazard Area: The area subject to high velocity waters, including, but not limited to, hurricane
                     wave wash or tsunamis. The area is designated on a FIRM as Zone V1-30.

                     Community Assistance Program (CAP): The program established by the Federal Insurance Administration
                     and intended to assure that communities participating in the NFIP are carrying out the flood loss reduction
                     objectives of the program. The CAP provides needed technical assistance to NFlP communities and attempts
                     to identify and resolve floodplain management issues before they develop into problems requiring enforcement
                     action.

                     Community Rating System (CRS): A program developed by the Federal Insurance Administration to encourage
                     - by use of flood insurance premium adjustments - community and state activities that go beyond the basic
                     NFIP requirements; the CRS gives communities "credit" for certain activities to reduce flood losses, facilitate
                     accurate insurance rating, and promote the awareness of flood insurance.

                     Conservation Tillage: Practices that reduce cultivation of soil, leave a protective vegetative layer on the surface,
                     and thereby serve to reduce or minimize soil erosion.

                     Control Basin: Also called a sediment basin, and used in fields to control runoff and sediment where terraces
                     are impractical due to topography.

                     Cultural Resource Values: Floodplain values associated with the harvest of natural products (agricultural,
                     4quacultural and forestry uses), as well as historical/archaeological, scientific and recreation/open space values.

                     Cumulative Impacts: The impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of an action
                     when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions. Cumulative impacts can result from
                     individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

                     Deepwater Habitats: Permanently flooded areas having a depth of greater than two meters.

                     Dike: A general term for longitudinal barriers that confine floodwaters to the river channel and thereby help
                     to protect floodprone areas.

                     Diversion: A structural flood control measure that intercepts flood flows upstream of a damage-prone or
                     constricted area and routes flood flows around the area through an artificial channel or designated flow-way.

                     Diversion Channel: A vegetated channel constructed across the slope of a field to catch water and carry it off
                     a field.

                     Drainage Area: The total land area where surface water runs off and collects in a stream or series of streams
                     that make up a single watershed.

                     Dune Stabilization: The most frequently used type of land treatment in coastal areas, including protection or
                     establishment of plant cover on existing sand dunes and/or construction of replacement dunes.

                     Emergency: Any instance for which, in the determination of the President, federal assistance is needed to
                     supplementstate and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and protect propertyand public health and safety
                     or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster in any part of the United States.

                     Emergency Program: The interim program of the National Flood Insurance Program as implemented on an.
                     emergency basis to provide a first layer of subsidized insurance before the detailed risk studies from which
                     actuarial rates are computed have been completed.







              Glossary                                                                                                      C-3



              Encroachments: Activities or construction within the floodway (including fill, new construction, substantial
              improvements, and other development) that result in an increase in flood levels.
              Environmental Assessment: An examination of the positive and adverse impacts on the environment of a
              proposed water resources solution and alternative solutions.

              Environmental Impact Statement. A detailed environmental analysis and documentation of a proposed water
              resources solution 'when the proposed solution is expected to have a significant effect on the quality of the
              human environment or the area's ecology.

              Erosion: The process of the gradual wearing away of land masses.

              Estuary: A confined coastal water body with an open connection to the sea and a measurable quantity of salt
              in its waters.

              Executive Order 11988: The "Floodplain Management" Executive Order issued by the President and which
              specifies the responsibilities of federal agencies in floodplain management. E.O. 11988 directed federal agencies
              to evaluate and reflect the potential effects of their actions on floodplains and to include the evaluation and
              consideration of flood hazards in agency permitting and licensing procedures.

              Exceedance Probability: The average frequency with which a flood of a particular magnitude will be exceeded;
              expressed as the probability that a flood will be exceeded in any year (the annual exceedance probability) or
              as the average recurrence interval (the n-yeaT flood).

              Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force- The Task Force established in 1975 to carry out the
              responsibility of the President to prepare for the Congress a Unified National Program for Floodplain
              Management; member agencies are the Department of Agriculture, Department of Army, Environmental
              Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Interior, and the Tennessee Valley
              Authority.

              Fetch: The horizontal distance (in the direction of the wind) over which the wind generates waves or creates
              a wind setup.

              Flash Flood: Flooding characterized by a rapid rise in water, high velocity, and large amounts of debris.

              Flood/Flooding: A general and temporary condition of: 1) partial or complete inundation of normally dry land
              areas from the overflow of inland and/or tidal waters; and/or 2) the unusual accumulation of waters from any
              source.

              Flood Control Structures: Structures such as dams, dikes, levees, drainage ditches, and other structures built
              to modify flooding and protect areas from flood waters.

              Flood Discharge: The total quantity of water flowing in a stream and adjoining overflow areas during times
              of flood. It is measured by the amount of water passing a point along a stream within a specified period of
              time and is usually measured in cubic feet of water per second (cfs)

              Flood Frequency: The frequency with which a flood of a given discharge has the probability of recurring. For
              example, a "100-year" frequency flood refers to a flood discharge of a magnitude likely to occur on the average
              of once every 100 years or, more properly, has a one-percent chance of being exceeded in any year. Although
              calculation of possible recurrence is often based on historical records, there is no guarantee that a '1100-year"
              flood will occur at all within the 100-year period or that it will not recur several times.

              Flood Fringe: Areas outside the regulatory floodway but still within the designated one percent annual chance
              floodplain and often referred to as the floodway fringe.

              Flood Hazard: The potential for inundation that involves risk to life, health, property, and natural floodplain
              values.








                    C4                                                                                                     Appendix C



                    Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM): The first flood risk map prepared for a community which identifies
                    flood hazard areas based on approximation of the land area in the community having a one percent or greater
                    chance of being flooded in a given year. The FHBM is an official map of a community, issued through the
                    NFIP, where the boundaries of the flood, mudslide (i.e., mudflow), and related erosion areas having special
                    hazards have been designated as Zone A, M, or E.

                    Flood Hazard Mitigation T    eams: Teams consisting of representatives of the 12 federal agencies that signed
                    an interagency agreement to provide technical assistance to states and communities for nonstructural flood
                    damage reduction measures. The teams are typically employed after each major flood disaster declared by the
                    President to provide technical assistance and guidelines to communities and states affected by the disaster.

                    Flood Insurance: The insurance coverage provided through the National Flood Insurance Program.

                    Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): An official map of a community on which the Federal Emergency
                    Management Agency has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to
                    the community. FIRMs identify the elevation of the one percent annual chance flood and the areas that would
                    be inundated by that level of flooding, and are used to determine flood insurance rates.

                    Flood Insurance Study (FIS): An examination, evaluation, and determination of flood hazards and, if
                    appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations, or an examination, evaluation, and determination of
                    mudslide (i.e., mudflow) and/or flood-related erosion hazards.

                    Floodplain: Low lands adjoining the channel of a river, stream or watercourse, or ocean, lake or other body
                    of water, which have been or may be inundated by flood water, and those other areas subject to flooding.

                    Floodplain Management: The operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for
                    reducing flood damage, including but not limited to emergency preparedness plans, flood control works, and
                    floodplain management regulations.

                    Floodplain Management Regulations: Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, health
                    regulations, special purpose ordinances (covering, for example, floodplains, grading, and erosion control) and
                    other regulations to controlfuture developmentin floodplains and tocorrect inappropriate development already
                    in floodplains.

                    Floodplain Resources: Natural and cultural resources including wetlands, surface water, groundwater, soils,
                    historic sites, and other resources that may be found in the floodplain and which provide important water
                    resources, living resources (habitat), and cultural/historic values.

                    Floodplain Values: The qualities of or functions served by floodplains which include but are not limited to:
                    a) water resource values (natural moderation of floods, water quality maintenance, groundwater recharge); b)
                    living resource values (fish, wildlife, plant resources and habitats); c) cultural resource values (open space,
                    naturalbeauty, scientific study, outdooreducation, archaeological and historicsites, recreation); and d) cultivated
                    resource values (agriculture, aquaculture, forestry).

                    Floodproofing: The modification of individual structures and facilities, their sites, and their contents to protect
                    against structural failure, to keep water out, or to reduce the effects of water entry.

                    Floodwall: Reinforced concrete walls that act as barriers against floodwaters and confine them to the river
                    channel, thereby helping to protect floodprone areas. Floodwalls are usually built in areas with a limited amount
                    ofspace.

                    Floodway: The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in
                    order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a
                    designated height. The floodway is intended to carry the deep and fast-moving water. Normally the base flood
                    is defined as the one percent chance flood and the designated height is one foot above the prefloodway
                    condition.








               Glossary                                                                                                      C-5



               Fluctuating Lake Levels: Short- or long-term water level fluctuations that can cause high water and subsequent
               flooding problems and which can result from natural and man-induced events.

               Foreshore: The strip of coastal land between the high and low water marks and that is alternately wet and dry
               according to the ebb and flow of the tide.

               Freeboard: A factor of safety usually expressed in feet above a flood level for purposes of floodplain manage-
               ment. "Freeboard" tends to compensate for the many unknown factors that could contribute to flood heights
               greater than the height calculated for a selected size flood and floodway conditions, such as wave action, bridge
               openings, and the hydrological effect of urbanization of the watershed.

               Geographic Information System (GIS): A computerized system designed to collect, manage, and analyze large
               volumes of spatially referenced and associated attribute data.

               Groin: Barrier-type structures that extend from the backshore into the littoral zone used to retard longshore
               transport of sediment in the littoral zone and generally constructed parallel to the shoreline.

               Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP): A methodology developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
               quantitative evaluation of the suitability of wetlands and other habitat types for fish and wildlife species.

               House Document 465: The 1966 report of the Bureau of the Budget Task Force on Federal Flood Control
               Policy, entitled A Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses, and advocating a broader perspective
               on flood control within the context of floodplain development and use.

               Hurricane: A warm-core tropical cyclone in which the maximum sustained surface wind (1 minute mean) is
               greater than or equal to 64 knots (73.6 mph).

               Hydraulics: The science dealing with the mechanical properties of liquids that describes the specific pattern
               and rate of water movement in the environment.

               Hydrology. The science dealing with the properties, distribution and circulation of water on the surface of the
               land, below the surface, and in the atmosphere.

               lee Jam: A barrier to strearnflow that may occur when ice cover breaks up into large floating masses that lodge
               at bridges or other constrictions. Rapid flooding may occur, first upstream, then downstream, as the mass of
               ice finally breaks free.

               Integrated Emergency Management System (IEMS): A program developed by the Federal Emergency
               Management Agency to promote development of integrated emergency preparedness plans that address all
               types of natural and technological hazards.

               Jetty: A structure used at inlets to stabilize the position of a navigation channel, to shield vessels from wave
               forces, and to control the movement of sand along adjacent beaches to minimize the movement of sand into
               a channel.

               Land Treatment Measures: Measures used to reduce runoff of water to streams or other areas; techniques
               include: maintenance of trees, shrubbery and vegetative cover; terracing; slope stabilization; grass waterways;
               contour plowing; and strip farming.

               Landslide: An extreme form of erosion which is a natural process of the earth's surface and occurs when
               external forces exceed internal forces within the soil and rock of a hillside.

               Levee: A linear structure extending from high ground adjacent to a floodprone area along one side of a river
               to another area of high ground on the same side of the river.








                    C-6                                                                                                 Appendix C



                    Liquefaction: A type of ground failure triggered by earthquakes and which occurs when seismic shock waves
                    pass through unconsolidated and saturated soil.

                    Littoral: Of or pertaining to the shore, especially of the sea.

                    Littoral Drift: The movement of sand by littoral (longshore) currents in a direction generally parallel to the
                    beach along the shore.

                    Major Disaster. Any natural catastrophe or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion in any part of
                    the United States which in the determination of the President, causes damage of sufficient severity and
                    magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
                    Assistance Act.

                    Mean High Water (MHW): The average height of the maximum elevation reached by each rising tide over
                    a specific 19-year period. MHW is the reference base for structure heights, bridge clearances, etc.

                    Mean Low Water (MLW): The average height of the minimum elevation reached by each falling tide over a
                    specific 19-year period. All depth measurements in coastal waters and all depths shown on navigation charts
                    are referenced to MLW.

                    Mean Sea Level (MSL)/ Mean Tide Level (MTL): MSL is the arithmetic mean of hourly heights observed over
                    a specific 19-year period. MSL is very nearly the same as Mean Tide Level. MTL (also known as half-tide
                    level) is the arithmetic mean of mean high water and mean low water.

                    Mitigation: Any action taken to permanently eliminate or reduce the long-term risk to human life and property
                    and the negative impacts on natural and cultural resources that can be caused by natural and technological
                    hazards.

                    Mitigation Banking: An alternative for compensating for the unavoidable impacts of development in wetlands
                    where mitigative measures cannot be achieved at or near the site of impact.

                    Mudflood: A flood in which the water carries heavy loads of sediment, including coarse debris; typically
                    occurring in drainage channels and on alluvial fans adjacent to mountainous areas.

                    Mudflow: A specific subset of landslides where the dominant transporting mechanism is that of a flow having
                    sufficient viscosity to support large boulders within a matrix of smaller sized particles.

                    National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): established by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide
                    relief from the impacts of flood damages in the form of federally subsidized flood insurance that became
                    available to participating communities, contingent on nonstructural flood loss reduction measures embodied
                    in local floodplain management regulations. The NFIP is designed to reduce future flood losses through state
                    and local floodplain management efforts and to transfer the costs of residual flood losses from the general
                    taxpayer to the floodplain occupant.

                    National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD): A fixed reference adopted as a standard geodetic datum for
                    elevation in the United States. For land-based vertical measurements, NGVD is usually given a value of 0.0
                    and all other points are measured according to their distance above or below.

                    National Wetlands Inventory Project: Wetlands mapping on a national basis performed by the U.S. Fish and
                    Wildlife Service to provide scientific information on the extent and characteristics of the Nation's wetlands and
                    consisting of detailed maps and status and trends reports.

                    No Net Loss: A term used in wetlands protection and restoration programs with the intent to reduce the
                    cumulative impacts of wetland losses; no net loss determinations may be based on acreage and/or functional
                    value of wetlands.








               Glossary                                                                                                      C4



               Nonstructural Measures: A term originally devised to distinguish techniques that modify susceptibility to
               flooding (such as regulation, floodplain acquisition and floodproofing techniques) from the more traditional
               structural methods (such as dams, levees, and channels) used to control flooding.

               Northeaster: An extratropical storm that occurs along the northern part of the east coast of the United States,
               accompanied by strong winds from the northeast quadrant.

               100-year Flood: A term commonly used to refer to the one percent annual chance flood. The "100-year" flood
               is the flood that is equaled or exceeded once in 100 years on the average, but the term should not be taken
               literally as there is no guarantee that the "100-year" flood will occur at all within the 100-year period or that
               it will not recur several times.

               One-Percent Annual Chance Flood: A flood of the magnitude that has a one-percent chance of being equalled
               or exceeded in any given year. Often referred to as the 11100-y6ar" flood or base flood, the one-percent annual
               chance flood is the standard most commonly used for floodplain management and regulatory purposes in the
               United States.

               Overbank Flooding: The increase in volume of water within a river channel and the overflow of water from
               the channel onto the adjacent floodplain.

               Overwash: Storm waves that wash across the beach and onto adjacent land areas.

               Principles and Standards/Principles and Guidelines: "The Principles and Standards for Planning of Water
               and Related Land Resources" is a Presidential policy statement issued in September 1973 which established
               a framework for improved planning for the use of water and related land resources based on the objectives
               of National Economic Development and Environmental Quality. The "Principles and Standards" were revised
               and issued as the "Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land
               Resources for Implementation Studies."

               Public Trust Doctrine: The doctrine based on the common law principle that certain lands and waters are so
               important to the public that private ownership or other impediments to public uses should not be permitted.
               Under the Public Trust Doctrine, the coastal states generally hold title to the foreshore, open tidal waters, and
               submerged land under tidal waters seaward of the mean high water line as trustee for the public and must
               administer the use of these lands in the public interest.

               Recurrence Interval: The average interval in which a flood of a given size is equaled or exceeded as an annual
               maximum. ,

               Regional Flood: A term used by the Tennessee Valley Authority,to estimate a flood comparable in magnitude
               to the largest known floods on similar streams within approximately 100 miles for purposes of local flood damage
               prevention planning.

               Regular Program: The phase of the National Flood Insurance Program in which communities participate once
               risk studies have been completed or it is determined that detailed risk studies are not required because of low
               flood risk.

               Regulatory Floodplain: The area adjoining a river, stream lake or ocean that is inundated by a regulatory flood.
               In riverine areas, the floodplain usually consists of a re@ulatory floodway and regulatory flood fringe (also
               referred to as a floodway fringe). In coastal areas, the floodplain may consist of a single regulatory floodplain
               area or a regulatory high hazard area and a regulatory low hazard area.

               Regulatory Floodway: The area regulated by federal, state or local requirements to provide for the discharge
               of the base flood so the cumulative increase in water surface elevation is no more than a designated amount
               (not to exceed one foot as set by the National Flood Insurance Program).








                    C-8                                                                                                     Appendix C



                    Regulatory Flood Fringe: The portion of the regulatory floodplain beyond the limits of the regulatory floodway.
                    The regulatory flood fringe is subject to less frequent and lower velocity flooding and does not play a major
                    role in passing flood flows.

                    Repetitive Loss: A flood-caused loss of more than $1,000 to a repetitive loss structure.

                    Repetitive Loss Structure: A structure for which two or more losses of more than $1,000 (building and contents
                    combined) have been paid during the most recent 10-year period.

                    Retrofitting: Floodproofing of existing structures.

                    Riparian Ecosystems: Distinct associations of soil, flora and fauna occurring along a river, stream, or other
                    body of water and dependent for survival on high water tables and occasional flooding.

                    Riparian/Littoral Rights: The rights of an owner of land contiguous to a navigable body of water. If the water
                    in question is flowing (e.g., river or stream) the rights are said to be riparian. If the property is subject to the
                    ebb and flow of the tide, the rights are said to be littoral rights. The terms "riparian" and "littoral" are
                    commonly used interchangeably. Riparian/littoral rights are usually defined to include: a) the use of the water
                    for general purposes such as swimming; and b) the right of access to navigable waters, including the right to
                    wharf out to navigability.

                    Risk: The probability of being flooded.

                    SaMr/SimpsonHurricaneSeate: Scale, adopted for use by the National Hurricane Center, that relates hurricane
                    intensity to damage potential.

                    Seawall: A wall built parallel to the shore, designed to halt shoreline erosion by absorbing the impact of waves.

                    Section 10 and 404 Regulatory Programs: The principal federal regulatory programs, carried out by the U.S.
                    Army Corps of Engineers, affecting structures and other work below mean high water. The Corps, under
                    Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899, regulates structures in, or affecting, navigable waters of the
                    U.S. as well as excavation or deposition of materials (e.g., dredging or filling) in navigable waters. Under Section
                    404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (Clean Water Act of 1977), the Corps is also
                    responsible for evaluating application for Department of the Army permits for any activities that involve the
                    placement of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands.

                    Section 409 Hazard Mitigation Plan: A plan prepared as required by Section 409 of the Robert T. Stafford
                    Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 by any jurisdiction that receives federal disaster
                    assistance.

                    Setback Standards: Minimum distances established by regulation that structures must be set back from river
                    channels and coastal shorelines.

                    Special Hazards: Hazards that accompany flooding and cause greater damage than the usual forces of flowing
                    water. Special hazard areas include areas below dams, areas behind levees, alluvial fans, and areas subject to
                    mudfloods.

                    Standard Project Flood: A very large (low frequency) design flood standard applied to the design of major
                    flood control structures and representing the most severe combination of meteorological and hydrological
                    conditions considered reasonably characteristic of a particular region.
                    Standards: Floodplain regulatory and design standards, including prescriptive and performance standards, that
                    provide a means for uniform application of floodplain management practices and for the review and evaluation
                    of flood loss reduction and natural values protection projects.








               Glossary                                                                                                       C-9



               State Coordinating Agency: The agency of a state government or other office designated by a state governor
               or by state statute at the request of the NFIP Administrator to assist in the implementation of the National
               Flood Insurance Program in that state.

               Step-Backwater Analysis: The most widely used method for calculating river hydraulics.

               Still-Water Elevation: The estimated height of the water surface during a coastal storm as generated by the
               storm surge and the astronomical tide. Measured in relation to NGVD, the estimated still-water elevation does
               not include the added effects of waves on the water surface elevation. The still-water elevation associated with
               the one-percent flood is referred to on maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as the
               Base Flood Elevation.

               Storm Surge: The increase in water surface elevation above normal tide levels due primarily to atmospheric
               pressure reduction and the piling up of water in coastal areas due to the cumulative effects of wind stress acting
               in essentially a constant direction across an open expanse of water.

               Strategies and Tools: The management strategies and implementing tools established in House Document 465
               to guide federal, state and local decision-makers in implementinga national program for floodplain management.

               Structural Measures: Measures such as dams, reservoirs, dikes, levees, floodwalls, channel alterations, high
               flow diversions and spillways, and land treatment measures designed to modify floods.

               Subsidence: A type of ground failure that can lower the ground surface, causing or increasing flood damage
               in areas of high ground water, tides, storm surges, or overbank stream flow.

               Substantial Damage- The amount of damage to a structure caused by flooding that may be sustained before
               certain regulatory and flood insurance requirements are triggered. As defined in NFIP regulations, a building
               is considered substantially damaged when the cost of restoring the building would exceed 50% of the market
               value of the structure.

               Substantial Improvement: Any repair, reconstruction or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals
               or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure either a) before the improvement or repair is started, or
               b) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred.

               Terrace: A technique to reduce soil erosion, often consisting of an earthen embankment, channel or combina-
               tion of ridge and channel constructed across a slope.

               Tidal Wave: A term used inappropriately to refer to tsunamis (seismic sea waves).

               Tropical Cyclone: Storms of various intensities that form over warm tropical and subtropical waters; classified
               according to intensity and degree of organization and including tropical disturbances, tropical depressions,
               tropical storms, and hurricanes.

               Tropical Storm: A warm-core tropical cyclone in which the maximum sustained surfacevirind (1 minute mean)
               ranges from 34 to 63 knots (39-72.5 mph).

               Tsunami: Long-period, low-height sea waves of seismic origin; generated principally by undersea earthquakes
               of magnitudes greater than 6.5 on the Richter scale.

               Typhoow. Pacific Ocean hurricanes that develop in the regions off Mexico and Central America.

               V-zone: The velocity zone, or the portion of the coastal floodplain as marked on maps prepared by the Federal
               Emergency Management Agency that is subject to high velocity waters from wave action associated with the
               one-percent annual chance flood. Also called the coastal high hazard area, the-V-zone is usually determined
               by the area subject to wave heights of three feet or greater.








                   C-10                                                                                                 Appendix C



                   Vertical Evacuation: The use of higher rise structures as "vertical refuges" during a flood or hurricane.

                   Vulnerability: Characterization of the nature and extent of damage that may occur during flooding.

                   Watershed: A region or area contributing ultimately to the water supply of a particular watercourse or water
                   body.

                   Water Resources Values: Floodplain values including those related to natural storage and conveyance of flood
                   waters, the maintenance of water quality, and the recharge of groundwater.

                   Waters of the United States: Currently defined by regulation to include all navigable and interstate waters, their
                   tributaries and adjacent wetlands, as well as isolated wetlands and lakes and intermittent streams.

                   Wave Crest Elevation: The height, measured above NGVD, of wave crests in the coastal floodplain during a
                   coastal storm, including the height of wind-generated waves as well as the effects of the tide and surge.

                   Wave Run-Up: The action of a wave after it breaks and the water "runs up" the shoreline or other obstacle,
                   flooding areas reached by the storm surge itself.

                   Wave Set-Up: The super-elevation of the water surface over normal surge elevation due to onshore mass
                   transport of the water by wave action alone.

                   Wetlands: Those areas that are inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency sufficient to support
                   and, under normal circumstances, does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires
                   saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include
                   bottomland hardwoods, swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river
                   overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds.

                   Wetland Evaluation Technique- A technique used by the Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway Administra-
                   tion, and the Environmental Protection Agency to rapidly assess wetland functions and values.

                   Wind Setup: The vertical rise in the stillwater level on the leeward side of a body of water caused by wind
                   stresses acting on the surface of the water.

                   Write-Your-Own Program: An effort to involve private insurance companies in the National Flood Insurance
                   Program, and consisting of a policy sales and servicing mechanism by which insurance agents can sell flood
                   insurance policies through individual property and casualty insurance companies.









                 APPENDIX D:

                 SELECTED REFERENCES




                                                                    CHAMR I


                 Anonymous. "Severe Impact Predicted on Great Lakes from C02 Increase." Sea Technology 29, No. 11 (November 1988):
                     76.

                 Barth, Michael C. and James G. Titus. Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: A Challenge for 1his Generation. New York:
                     Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1984.

                 Bond, Leslie A., Leslie A. Bond Associates, Arivaca, Arizona. Personal communication, September 1988.

                 Cox, Robert R., Director, Floodplain Management Regulations, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.
                     Personal communication, September 1988.

                 Deason, Jonathan P., Director, Office of Environmental Project Review, U.S. Department of the Interior. Letter to James
                     M. Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management,
                     August 30,1989.

                 Delleur, J.W. "Introduction to Urban Hydrodology and Stormwater Management." Urban StormwaterHydrology, American
                     Geophysical Union, Water Resources Monograph 7 (1982).

                 Donnelley Marketing Information Services. System Update Report. 1987.

                 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region VIIL Closed-Basin Lake Flooding. Case Studies and Mitigation Oppor-
                     tunities. Presented at Association of State Floodplain Managers Western State High Risk Flood Areas Symposium,
                     March 1986.

                 Federal Emergency Management Agency. ReducingLosses in High RiskFlood HazardAreas:A GuidebookforLocal Officials
                     (FEMA 116). Washington D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987.

                 Federal Emergency Management Agency. State Non-Federal Dam Safety Programs - 1985 (FEMA 101). Washington, D.C.:
                     Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1985.

                 Forrester, Frank H. "Tsunami!" Weatherivise 40, No. 2 (1987).
                 Goddard, James E. "The Nation's Increasing Vulnerability to Flood Catastrophe," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
                     (March/April 1976).

                 Great Lakes Commission. Water Level Changes, Factors Influencing the Great Lakes. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Great Lakes
                     Commission, 1986.

                 Haupt, Clifford A., Chief, Environmental Affairs Program, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior.
                     Personal communication, 1988.

                 Heimlich, Ralph E. and Linda L. Langar. Wedand Conversions and Farm Programs (Agricultural Economic Report No.
                     551). Natural Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986.

                 Hicks, Steacy D. and Leonard E. Hickman, Jr. "United States Sea Level Variations Through 1986." Shore and Beach (July,
                     1988).








                     D-2                                                                                                         Appendix D



                     Hill, Joseph C. "Occurrence of Unique Hazards in San Diego." In Improving the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management
                          in Western State High-RiskAreas: Proceedings of a Workshop in Palm Springs, California, February 15-16, 1984 (Natural
                          Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special Publication #9). Boulder, Colorado: Natural Hazards
                          Research and Applications Information Center (NHRATC), University of Colorado at Boulder, 1984.

                     Hoyt, William G. and Walter B. Langbein. Floods. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1955.

                     Hough, Jack L. "Great Lakes (North America)." In The Encyclopedia of Geomorphology, ed. Rhodes W. Fairbridge. New
                          York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1968.

                     Hoffman, John S., D. Keyes and J.G. Titus. Projecting Future Sea Level Rise: Methodology, Estimates to the Year 2100, and
                          Research Needs. Washington D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983.

                     Houston,JamesR. Type 19FIoodInsurance Study: Tsunami PredictionsforSouthern California (Technical Report HL-80-18).
                          Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.9. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, 1980.

                     Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. A Unified NationalProgramforFloodplain Management (FEMA 100).
                      . Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.

                     Jarvinen, Brian R., National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center, Coral Gables, Florida. Personal communication,
                          August 1990.

                     Jervis, Michael. "Tsunami Warning!" Emergency Preparedness Digest. Emergency Preparedness Canada (January-March
                          1990).

                     Kemmerly, Phillip. "The Need for Recognition and Implementation of a Sinkhole-floodplain Hazard Designation in Urban
                          Karst Terrains." Environmental Geology 3 (1981).

                     Kusler, Jon A. and Pat Blomgren. "Improving the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in High Risk Areas." In
                          Managing High Risk Flood A reas, 1985 and Beyond: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Association of
                          State Floodplain Managers, June 11-14,1984, Porrlanc4 Maine (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information
                          Center Special Publication #11). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1984.

                     L.R. Johnston Associates. Automated CoastalFloodMonitoningNetwork and WamingSystem: FeasibilityAnalysis andDesign
                          Recommendations. Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources
                          Center, 1986.

                     Long Island Regional Planning Board. Hurficane Damage Mitigation Planforthe South Shore ofNassau and Suffolk Counties,
                          New York. Hauppauge, New York: Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1984.

                     Mather, J.R. and others. "Coastal Storms of the Eastern United States." Journal ofApplied Meteorology 3 (1965): 693-706.

                     Neumann, Charles J., B.R. Jarvinen and A.C. Pike. Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocear; 1871-1986. Asheville,
                          North Carolina: National Climatic Data Center, 1987.

                     National Research Council. Reducing Lossesfiom Landsliding in the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Research
                          Council, 1985.

                     National Research Council. Respondingto Changes in Sea Level - Engineering Implications. Washington, D.C.: National
                          Academy Press, 1987.

                     Pearthree, Marie S. "Channel Change in Southern Arizona - Implications for Floodplain Management." In Flood Hazard
                          Management in Government and the Private Sector. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of the Association of
                          State Floodplain Managers, April 29-May 3,1985, New Orleans, Louisiana (Natural Hazards Research and Applications
                          Information Center Special Publication #12). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1984.

                     Roberts, Benjamin. "Summary Comments." In Improvingthe Effectiveness ofFloodplain Management in Western State High-
                          Risk Areas: Proceedings of a Workshop in Pabn Springs, California, February 15-16, 1984 (Natural Hazards Research
                          and Applications Information Center Special Publication #9). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado
                          at Boulder, 1984.









                 Selected References                                                                                                    D-3




                 Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Basic Statistics, 1977 National Resources Inventory (Statistical
                     Bulletin No. 686). Iowa State University Statistical Laboratory, 1982.

                 Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Basic Statistics, 1982 National Resource Inventory (Statistical
                     Bulletin No. 756). Iowa State University Statistical Laboratory, 1987.

                 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Shore Protection Manual, Volume L Vicksburg, Mississippi:
                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984.

                 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District. Great Lakes Water Level Facts. Detroit, Michigan: U.S. Army Corps of
                     Engineers, 1987.

                 U.S. Geological Survey. National WaterSummary 1985 -Hydrologic Events and Surface WaterResources (Water Supply Paper
                     2300). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986.

                 U.S. Water News. "Great Salt Lake Pumps Idled." (July 1989).

                 U.S. Water Resources Council. Estimated Flood Damages:Appendir B, NationwideAnalysisReport. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
                     Government Printing Office, 1977.

                 von Wolffradt, Donald B., Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Personal communication, October
                     1988.

                 White, Gilbert F. Human Adjustment to Floods: A Geographical Approach to the Flood Problem in the United States
                     (Research Paper No. 29). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago, 1945.



                                                                   . CHAPTER 2

                 Cowardin, Lewis M. and others. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for U.S.
                     Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979.

                 Dahl, T.E. and C.E. Johnson. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States, Mid-1970's to Mid-1980's.
                      Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991.

                 Dunne, Thomas and Luna B. Leopold. Water in Environmental Planning. San Francisco, California: W.H. Freeman and
                     Co., 1978.

                 Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
                     Wetlands (Cooperative Technical Publication). Washington, D.C.: U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental
                     Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 1989.

                 Greeson, Phillip E., John R. Clark and Judith E. Clark, editors. Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understand-
                     ing: Proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetlands, American Water Resources Association. 1979.

                 Heimlich, Ralph E. and Linda L. Ungar. Wetland Conversions and Farm Programs (Agricultural Economic Report No.
                     551). Natural Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986.

                 Horwitz, Elinor L. OurNation's Wetlands, An Interagency Task Force Report. Coordinated by the Council on Environmental
                     Quality, 1978.
                 Hunt, Constance. "The Need for Riparian Habitat Protection." National Wetlands Newsletter (September-October, 1985).
                 Johnson, Roy R. and Charles H. Lowe. "On the Development of Riparian Ecology." In Riparian Ecosystems and Their
                     Management:ReconcilingConflicting Uses: Proceedingsofthe FirstNorthAmerican Riparian Conference (GeneralTechni-
                     cal Report RM-120). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1985.

                 Kusler, Jon A. Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses, Volume 3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Water
                     Resources Council, 1982.

                 Leatherman, Stephen. Barrier Island Handbook. College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland, 1980.








                      D4                                                                                                             Appendix D



                      Ludden, Albert P. "Water Storage Capacity of Natural Wetland Depressions in the Devils Lake Basin of North Dakota."
                           Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (January-February, 1983).
                      Meagher, John W., Director, Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
                           Personal communication, September 1988.

                      Meagher, John W., Director, Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
                           Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain
                           Management, September 29, 1989.

                      Mitsch, William J. and James G. Gosselink. Wetlands. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1986.

                      National Water Commission. Water Policiesfor the Future, Final Report to the President and to the Congress. Washington,
                           D.C.: National Water Commission, 1973.

                      Office of Technology Assessment. Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation (OTA-0206). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress,
                           1984.

                      President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. Americans Outdoors, the Legacy, the Challenge. Washington, D.C.: Island
                           Press, 1987.

                      Riekert, Edward G., U.S. Soil Conservation Service, and Gary F. Reynolds, U.S. Forest Service. Letter to James M. Wright,
                           Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 1989.

                      Spear, Michael J. "Position Paper: Activities and Views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service On Riparian Ecosystems."
                           In Riparian Ecosystems and 7heir Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses: Proceedings of the First North American
                           Riparian Conference (General Technical Report RM-120). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1985.

                      Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Basic Statistics, 1982 National Resourre Inventory (Statistical
                           Bulletin No. 756). Iowa State University Statistical Laboratory, 1987.

                      Tincr Jr., Ralph W. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends. Newton Corners, Massachusetts: U.S.
                           Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Resources, 1984.

                      U.S. Department of Agriculture. 77te Second RCA Appraisal. U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1989.
                      U.S. Geological Survey. National WaterSummary: 1985-HydrologicEvents and Surface WaterResources (USGS Water-Supply
                           Paper 2300). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986.

                      U.S. Water Resources Council. A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Water
                           Resources Council, 1979.



                                                                            CHAPIER 3

                      Bryandt, Larry D. "Livestock Management in the Riparian Ecosystem." In Riparian Ecosystems and 7heir Management:
                           Reconciling Conflicting Uses: Proceedings of the Firs"t North American Riparian Conference (General Technical Report
                           RM-120). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1985.

                      Bond, Leslie A., Leslie A. Bond Associates, Arivaca, Arizona. Personal communication, 1988.

                      Burby, Raymond J. "Coping with Losses to Infrastructure from Natural Hazards." (Undated).
                      Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1989. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce,
                           1989.
                      Cassidy, William F. "Twenty-Five Years of National Flood Control." In Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, 1962 1
                           (1962).

                      Colorado Division of Disaster Emergency Services. Dam Safety. An Owner's Guidance Manual (FEMA 145). Washington,
                           D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987.








                Selected References                                                                                                   D-5




                Conservation Foundation. State of the Environment 1982,1982.

                Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Trends. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981.

                Cowlitz County Department of Community Development. "The Mount St. Helens Eruption" (In a booklet prepared for
                     a Mount St. Helens Tour for the Association of State Floodplain Managers). June 13, 1987.
                Dalton, Frank E. "Setting Hydraulic Speed Limits: A New Tool for Flood Control." In Realistic Approaches to Bett        er
                     Floodplain Management: Proceedings of the EleventhAnnual Conference of theAssociation of StateFloodplain Managers,
                     June 8-13,M7, Seattle, Washington (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special Publica-
                     tion #18). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1987.
                Deatherage, Sarah. "Floodplain Management in Cowlitz County, Washington: The Mount St. Helens Experience." In
                     RealisticApproaches toBetterFloodplain Management: Proceedings of the EleventhAnnual Conference oftheAssociation
                     of State Floodplain Managers, June 8-13, 1987, Seattle, Washington (Natural Hazards Research and Applications
                     Information Center Special Publication #18). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1987.

                Dobyns, Henry F. From Fire to Flood: Historic Hiuman Destruction on Sonoran Desert Riverine Oases (Anthropological Papers
                     No. 20). Ballena Press, 1981.

                Donnelley Marketing Information Services. System Update Repoli, 1987.

                Duryee, Harold T., Administrator, Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Letter
                     to Larry R. Johnston (and others), May 1990.

                Federal Emergency Management Agency. "DMIS Reports for Major Disasters and Emergencies, 1953-1984." 1985.
                Federal Emergency Management Agency. "DMIS Report 2.4: Presidents Fund: Actual and Project Obligations; Major
                     Disasters; Period of Declarations: 83/10/01 - 90/07/31." July 1990.
                Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region VIII. Closed-Basin Lake Flooding: Case Studies and Mitigation Opporfuni-
                     ties. Presented at Association of State Floodplain Managers Western State High Risk Flood Areas Symposium, March
                     1986.

                Federal Emergency Management Agency. "Flood Studies and Surveys; Historical Statistics" (as of September 30,1989).
                     Unpublished, 1989.

                Federal Emergency Management Ageqcy. "National Flood Insurance Program, Loss and Expense Experience, Accident
                     Period 1978 - 1987." Unpublished data provided by Ross MacKay, Federal Insurance Administration, December 1988.
                Federal Emergency Management Agency. ReducingLosses inHigh RiskHoodHazardAreas:A GuidebookforLocal Officials
                     (FEMA 116). Washington D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987.

                'Federal Highway Administration, Office of Engineering and Program Development. Data supplied by Mohan Pillay,
                     Highway Engineer, August 1990.

                Flood Insurance Producers National Committee. F1PNC H, Bulletin No. 3 (November 1988).

                French, Jean, and others. "Mortality from Flash Floods: a Review of National Weather Service Reports, .1969-81." Public
                     Health Reports 98, No. 6 (November-December 1983).
                Forrester, Frank H. "Tsunami!" Weathenvise 40, No. 2 (1987).

                Graham, Wayne, Bureau of Reclamation. Personal communication, 1991.

                Heimlich, Ralph E. and Linda L. Langer. Wetland Conversion and Farm Programs (Agricultural Economic Report No. 551).'
                     U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, 1986.
                Hear, Alexander R. and Michael J. Erwin. "Relationships Between the Expansion of Agriculture and the Reduction of
                     Natural Riparian Habitat in the Missouri River Floodplain of Northeast Montana, 1938-1982." In Riparian Ecosystems
                     an,d 77teirManagement: ReconcifingConflicting Uses: Proceedings ofthe FirstNorthAmerican Riparian Conference (Forest
                     Service General Technical Report RM-120). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1985.







                    D-6                                                                                                         Appendix D



                    Horvath, Frank J, Martin R. Jannereth and Chris Shafer. "Impacts of Water Level Fluctuations." In Great Lakes Water
                         Levels: Shoreline Dilemmas, Reporton a Colloquium Sponsoredbythe WaterScience and TechnologyBoard. Washington,
                         D.C.: National Academy Press, 1989.

                    HoustonjamesR. Type 19FIood Insurance Study: Tsunami PredictionsforSouthem California (Technical Report HL-80-18).
                         Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, 1980.

                    Hunt, Constance. "The Need for Riparian Habitat Protection." National Wetlands Newsletter (September-October 1985).

                    Hunter, William C., Bertin W. Anderson and Robert D. Ohmart. "Summer Avian Community Composition of Tamarix
                         Habitats in Three Southwestern Desert Riparian Systems." In Riparian Ecosystems and TheirManagement: Reconciling
                         Conflicting Uses: Proceedings of the First North American Riparian Conference (General Technical Report RM-120).
                         U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, 1985.

                    IEP, Inc. and L.R. Johnston Associates. Reducing the Flood Damage Potential in Ocean City, Maryland. Maryland
                         Department of Natural Resources, 1984.

                    Jarvinen, Brian R., National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center, Coral Gables, FL. Personal communication,
                         August 1990.
                    Johnson, R. Roy and Charles H. Lowe. "On the Development of Riparian Ecology." In Riparian Ecosystems and 7heir
                         Management:ReconcilingConf7icting Uses: Proceedings oftheFirstNorlhAmerican Riparian Conference (GeneralTechni-
                         cal Report RM-120). U.S..Department of Agriculture., U.S. Forest Service, 1985.

                    Kingsley, Kenneth J. "The Pecan Orchard as a Riparian Ecosystem." In Riparian Ecosystems and 77zeir Management:
                         Reconciling Conflicting Uses: Proceedings of the First North American Riparian Conference (General Technical Report
                         RM-120). U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, 1985.

                    L.R. Johnston Associates. Realizing the Risk: A History of the June 1982 Floo& in Connecticut (Water Planning Report No.
                         7). Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Center, 1983.

                    Leatherman, Stephen P. Banier Island Handbook. College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland, 1982.

                    McGee, W J. "The Flood Plains of Rivers." Forum N (1891).

                    Meagher, John W., Director, Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
                         Personal communication, September 1988.

                    Melanson, Jeanne, Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Personal
                         communication, 1989.

                    Menard, H. William. "USGS: The 'Old' Hazards Agency that's Still Growing." The Hazard Monthly (October 1980).

                    Monday, Jacquelyn, ed. Preventing Coastal Flood Disasters: 7he Role of the States and Federal Response: Proceeding of the
                         Association of State Floodplain Managers Symposium. Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., 1983.

                    National Research Council, Assembly of Engineering, Committee on the Safety of Nonfederal Dams. Safety ofMonfederal
                         Dams, a Review of the Federal Role. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1982.
                    New England River Basins Commission. Water, Watts, and Wilds: Hydropower and Competing Uses in New England 7he
                         Final Report of the New England River Basins Commission's Hydropower Expansion Study. New England River Basins
                         Commission, 1981.

                    Olsen, Stephen and Virginia Lee. Rhode Island's Salt Pond Region:A SpecialArea Management PLan. Rhode IslandCoastal
                         Resources Management Council, 1985.

                    Riekert, Edward G., U.S. Soil Conservation Service, and Gary F. Reynolds, U.S. Forest Service. Letter to James M. Wright,
                         Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 1989.

                    Rubin, Claire B., and others. Summary ofMajor Natural Disaster Incidents in the U S. -1965-85 (Natural Hazards Research
                         and Applications Information Center Special Publication #17). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado
                         at Boulder, 1986.








                Selected References                                                                                                     D-7




                Schilling, Kyle, and others. 77te Nation's Public Works: Report on Water Resources (Categories of Public Works Series).
                     National Council on Public Works Improvement, 1987.

                Sheaffer and Roland, Inc. Alternatives for Implementing Substantial Improvement Definitions (Report to the Department
                     of Housing and Urban Development). Chicago, Illinois, 1978.

                Southwest Environmental Service. Flood and Erosion Hazards in Tucson. Tucson, Arizona, 1980.

                Stallings, Gene, National Weather Service. Personal communication, 1988.

                Tiner, Jr., Ralph W. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends. Newton Corners, Massachusetts: U.S.
                     Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Resources, 1984.
                U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Final Report to Congress - The Streambank Erosion Control Evaluation and Demonstration
                     Act of 1974 - Section 32, Public Law 93-251, Main Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1981.

                U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. National P@qgam of Inspection on Non-Federal Dams. 1982.

                U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Repott on the National Shoreline Study. 1971.

                U.S. Department of Agriculture. 77te Second RC4 Appraisal. U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1989.

                U.S. General Services Administration. 1990 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
                     Printing Office, 1990.

                U.S. Geological Survey. Extent and Development of Urban Flood Plains (Circular 601-J). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological
                     Survey, 1974.

                U.S. Water Resources Council. Estimated Flood Damages. Appendix B: Nationwide Analysis Report. Washington, D.C.:
                     U.S. Water Resources Council, 1977.

                von Wolffradt, Donald, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Personal communication, 1988.

                West, Niels. "Population Changes in Coastal Jurisdictions with Barrier Beaches: 1960-1980." In Cities on the Beach:
                     Management Issues of DevelGped Coastal Barriers (University of Chicago Research Paper No. 224). Chicago, Illinois:
                     University of Chicago, 1987.

                White, Gilbert F. Flood Hazard in the United States: A Research Assessment. Boulder, Colorado: University of Colorado,
                     Institute of Behavioral Science, 1975.

                White, Gilbert F. and others. Natural Hazard Management in Coastal Areas. Washington D.C.: Office of Coastal Zone
                     Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1977.

                Williams, Scott R. and Sidney W. Smith. "Personal Flood Protection, the Educational Approach to Protection of Residents."
                     In Realistic Approaches to Better Floodplain Management: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the
                     Association ofState Floodplain Managers, June 8-13,1987, Seattle, Washington. (Natural Hazards Research and Applica-
                     tions Information Center Special Publication #18). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder,
                     1987.

                Wooley, Douglas. "An Economic and Historical Perspective of Flood Damage: The Viability of Structural Solutions." In
                     Strengthening Loca I Flood Protection Programs: Proceedings of the Tenth A nnual Conference of the Association of State
                     Floodplain Managers, June 17-19,1986, Pkubwgk Pennsylvania (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information
                     Center Special Publication #15). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1986.








                     D-8                                                                                                        Appendix D




                                                                         CHAPTER 4

                     Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "Floodplain Management 1989: State and Local Programs." Madison,
                         Wisconsin: Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1989.
                     Bloorngren, Patricia A. "Strengthening State Floodplain Management." In Appendix A toRegulation offloodHazardAreas
                         to Reduce Flood Losses (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special Publication #3).
                         Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1982.

                     Buie, Eugene C. A History of United States Department of Agriculture Water Resource Activities. U.S. Department of
                         Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1979.

                     Cassidy, William F. "Twenty-Five Years of National Flood Control." In Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, 1962 1
                         (1962).

                     Donavan, William J. "The Less Traveled Road: An Overview of Nonstructural Measures in Flood Plain Management
                         Planning." In SeminarProceedings: Implementation offonstructuralMeasures (Policy Study 83-G520). U.S. Army Corps
                         of Engineers, Engineer Institute for Water Resources, 1983.

                     Holmes, Beatrice Hort. History offederal WaterResources Programs andPolicies, 1961-70 (U.S. Department of Agriculture,
                         Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, Natural Resource Economics Division Misc. Publ. No. 1379). Washing-
                         ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.

                     Hoyt, William G. and Walter B. Langbein. Floods. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1955.
                     Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. A Unified NationalProgramforFloodplain Management (FEMA 100).
                     Washington,       D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.

                     Keyes, Jr., Conrad G., Principal Engineer, International Boundary and Water Commission United States and Mexico. Letter
                         to James M. Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain
                         Management, September 29,1989.

                     Kusler, Jon A. Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses, Volume 3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Water
                         Resources Council, 1982.

                     Office of Management and Budget. "Nonstructural Flood Protection Measures and Flood Disaster Recovery." Memoran-
                         dum, July 1980.

                     Tennessee Valley Authority. Floodplain Management: Yhe TVA Experience. Knoxville, Tennessee: Tennessee Valley
                         Authority, 1983.

                     Thomas, Frank H. "Alternative Floodplain Management Land Uses: Achieving Wise Land Use." In Seminar Proceedings:
                         Implementation of Nonstructural Measures (Policy Study 83-G520). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Institute
                         for Water Resources, 1983.

                     Thomas,Frankl4. "Searching for National Water Policy: More to Come." The Environmental Professional 5: (1983): 6-10.

                     Thomas, Frank H., Assistant Administrator, Office of Loss Reduction, Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency
                         Management Agency. Personal communication, October 1988.

                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, 1967. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1968.

                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, 1969. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970.

                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Floodplain Management Services Office. Personal Communication, October 1998.

                     U.S. Water Resources Council. Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses, Volumes I and 2. Washington
                         D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.

                     U.S. Water Resources Council. Opportunities to Expedite Implementation of Nonstructural Measures for Floodplain
                         Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Water Resources Council, 1979.









                Selected References                                                                                                  D-9




                White, Gilbert F. HumanAdjustment to Floods: A GeographicalApproach to the Flood Problem in the US (Research Paper
                    No. 29). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago, 1945.

                White, Gilbert F., Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
                    Personal communication, September 1989.

                Zensinger, Larry, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Personal communication, November 1988.



                                                                    CHAPTER 5

                InteragencyTask Force on Floodplain Management. A Unified NationalProgram for Floodplain Management (FEMA 100).
                    Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.
                Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy. House Document No. 465: A Unified National Program for Managing Flood
                    Losses. 89th Congress, 2d Session, Committee on Public Works. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
                    August 10, 1966.

                Thomas, Frank, Chairman of the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. Personal communication, 1988.

                U.S. General Accounting Office. National Attempts to Reduce Lossesfrom Floods by Planningfor and Controlling the Use
                    of Flood Prone Lands. Washington, D.C., 1975.

                U. S. Water Resources Council. A Unified National Program for Flood Plain Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Water
                    Resources Council, 1976.

                U. S. Water Resources Council. A Unifled National Program for Flood Plain Management. Washington, D,C.: U.S. Water
                    Resources Council, 1979.

                White, Gilbert F., Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
                    Personal communication, September, 1989.



                                                                    CHAPTER 6

                Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "State Floodplain Management Programs: Results of a Survey Conducted
                    by the Association of State Floodplain Managers for L.R. Johnston Associates." Madison, Wisconsin: Association of
                    State Floodplain Managers, 1988.

                Balco, John J. "Assessing Wetlands Values - Evaluation Dilemmas." In Selected Proceedings of the Midwest Conference
                    on Welland Values and Management, June 17-19, 1981. The Freshwater Society, 1981.

                Bolin, Bert. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." EarthQuest 4, No. 2 (Summer 1990).

                Bond, Leslie A., Leslie A. Bond Associates, Arivaca, Arizona. Personal communication, 1988.

                Calhoun, Tommy, Assistant Division Director, Soil Conservation Service. Personal communication, August 1990.

                Changon, Stanley A. and others. A Plan for Research on Floods and Their Mitigation in the United States. Final Report to
                    the National Science Foundation. Illinois State Water Survey, 1983.

                Chow, Ven Te. Handbook of Applied Hydrology. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

                Christenson, Gary E. "Debris-Flow Mapping and Hazards Assessment in Utah." In Improvingthe Effectiveness ofFloodplain
                    Management inArid and Semi-arid Regions: Proceedings ofa Westem State High Risk FloodAreas Symposiurn, Las Vegas,
                    Nevada. Madison, Wisconsin: Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1986.
                Cobb, Ernest D. "Evaluation of Streams in Selected Communities for the Application of Limited Detail Study Methods
                    for Flood-Insurance Studies" (U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation 85-4098). U.S. Geological Survey,
                    1985.








                     D-10                                                                                                         Appenft D



                     Colson, B.E., U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Personal communications, 1988 and 1989.

                     Connecticut Committee on Automated Flood Warning. AutomatedFlood Wamingin Connecticut:A MasterPlan. Hartford,
                          Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, October 1988.

                     Cooper, Doug. "Save that Swamp! 10 Years of Wetlands Protection in Connecticut." DEP Citizens Bulletin (1984).

                     Dodd, Kurt, H. Kit Fuller, and Paul F. Clarke. Guide to Obtaining USGS Information (U.S. Geological Survey Circular 900).
                          (Undated).

                     Dowan, Joseph J. and Robert J. Craig. Rare and Endangered Species of Connecticut and their Habitats (Report of Investiga-
                          tions No. 6). Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 1976.
                     Federal Insurance Administration. Flood Insurance Study Guidelines and Specifications for Study Contractors (FEMA 37).
                          Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1985.
                     Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 77te Application of Geographic Information
                          Systems Technology to the National Flood Insurance Program. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management
                          Agency, September 1987.

                     Forrester, Frank H. "Tsunami!" Weatherwise 40, No. 2 (1987).

                     Gooklin, Joann, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corners, Massachusetts. Personal communication, August 1990.

                     Guptill, Stephen C. ed. A PwcessforEvaluating Geographic Information Systems (Technology Exchange Working Group -
                          Technical Report 1, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-105). Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee
                          on Digital Cartography, 1988.

                     Haupt, Clifford A., Chief, Environmental Affairs Program, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior.
                          Personal communication, October 1988.

                     Hershfield, David M. Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for Durations jrom 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and Return
                          Periods jrom I to 100 Years (Technical Paper No. 40, Prepared for Engineering Division, Soil Conservation Service,
                          U.S. Department of Agriculture). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1961.

                     Hoffman, J. S., D. Keyes and J. G. Titus. Projecting Future Sea Level Rise: Methodology, Estimates to the Year 2100, and
                          Research Needs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983.

                     Howard,SusanA. "NASA/ERL Technology Applied to Floodplain Management." In Flood Hazard Management in Govern-
                          ment and the Private Sector. Proceedings of the NinthAnnual Conference of theAssociation of State Floodplain Managers,
                          April 29-May 3,1985, New Orleans, Louisiana (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special
                          Publication #12). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1984.

                     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Policymakers Summary ofthe ScientificAssessment of Climate Change, Report
                          to IPCCfrom Working Group 1. Executive Summary, June 1990. Meteorological Office, Bracknell, U.K., Reproduced
                          in EarlhQuest 4, No. 2 (Summer 1990).

                     Jobannsen, Chris J. "Resource Information for Conservation Decisions." JoumalofSoil and Water Conservation (November-
                          December 1983).

                     Karl, Thomas R., and others. "The Recent Climate Record: What It Can and Cannot Tell Us." Reviews of Geophysics
                          27, No. 3, American Geophysical Union (August 1989).

                     Kelley, Michael A. Office of Production Planning and Analysis, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Personal
                          communication. August 1990.

                     Keyes, Jr., Conrad G., Principal Engineer, International Boundary and Water Commission United States and Mexico. Letter
                          to James M. Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain
                          Management, September 29, 1989.









                 Selected References                                                                                                       D-11




                 Kockleman, William J. "Community Planning to Reduce Mudflow and Mudflood Hazards." In Improving the Effectiveness
                      of Floodplain Management in Arid and Semi-arid Regions: Proceedings of a Western State High Risk Flood Areas
                      Symposium, Las Vegas, Nevada. Madison, Wisconsin: Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1986.
                 Kusler, Jon A. "Wetland Restoration/Creation: A Summary of Science Views and Perspectives." in Mitigation ofImpacts
                      and Losses: Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium, October 8-10, 1986. Association of State Wetland
                      Managers, Inc., 1986.

                 Kusler, Jon A. and Mary E. Kentula, ed. Wetland Creation and Restoratiow 7he Status of the Science. Washington, D.C.:
                      Island Press, 1990.

                 L.R. Johnston Associates. Automated CoastalFloodMonitoringNetwork and WamingSystem: FeasibilityAnalysis and Design
                      Recommendations. Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources
                      Center, 1986.

                 L.R. Johnston Associates. Rhode Island's Salt Pond Region: A Post Hurricane Recovery and Mitigation Plan. Rhode Island
                      Coastal Resources Management Council, 1987.

                 Lonard, R.I., and others.Analysis ofMethodologies Usedfor the Assessment of Wetland Values, Final Report. Environmental
                      Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, 1981.

                 MacKay, Ross, Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Personal communication, 1991.
                 Marble, Dr. Duane F. "Geographic Information Systems: An Overview." In GISforResource Management:A Compendium.
                      Falls Churchi Virginia: American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing and American Congress on Surveying
                      and Mapping, 1987.

                 McCracken, Ralph J. "National Instruction No. 430-302: State General Soil Map Geographic Data Base." 1984.

                 Melanson, Jeanne, Environmental Protection Agency, Wetland Strategies and State Programs Division. Personal communi-
                      cation, 1988.

                 Michaelsen, Joel, Laura Haston and Frank W. Davis. "400 Years o    f Central California Precipitation Variability Reconstruct-
                      ed from Tree-Rings" (Water Resources Bulletin 23, No. 5). Bethesda, Maryland: American Water Resources Associa-
                      tion, October 1987.

                 Mitchell, John F. B. "The 'Greenhouse' Effect and Climate Change." Reviews of Geophysics 27, American Geophysical
                      Union (February 1989): 115-139.

                 Mitsch, William J. and James G. Gosselink. Wetlands. New York, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1986.

                 Monastersky, R. "Predictions Drop for Future Sea-Level Rise." Science News 136 (December 16, 1989).
                 National Association of Conservation Districts. "District @ Computer Provides Geographic Information System." Tuesday
                      Letter (November 10, 1987).

                 National Research Council. Responding to Changes in Sea Level: Engineering Implications. Washington, D.C.: National
                      Academy Press, 1987.

                 National Weather Service. Operations of the National Weather Service. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Weather Service,
                      1985.

                 Neumann, Charles J., B.R. Jarvinen and A.C. Pike. Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1986. Asheville,
                      North Carolina: National Climatic Data Center, 1987.

                 Pilgrim, David H. "Bridging the Gap Between Flood Research and Design Practice." Water Resources Research 22, No.
                  . 9 (August, 1986).

                 Powell, J. Clatie. "Progress in the U.S. Soil Survey." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (September-October 1983).

                 Reich, Brian M. "Need for New Rainfall Intensity Atlas Analyses in the West" (Preprint of Paper No. 870687). Washing-
                      ton, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, January, 1988.








                     D-12                                                                                                        Appendix D



                     Revelle, Roger R. "Probable Future Changes in Sea Level Resulting from Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." In
                          Changing Climate. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1983.

                     Rohaley, George, Soil Conservation Service. Personal communication, 1987.

                     Schamberger, Melvin L., and others. "Evaluation Wetlands as Wildlife Habitat," in Wetland Functions and Values: The State
                          of Our Understanding. American Water Resources Association, November, 1978.

                     Still, D. A. and S. F. Shih. "Using LANDSAT Data to Classify Land Use for Assessing the Basinwide Runoff Index." In
                          Water Resources Bulletin 21, No. 6. Bethesda, Maryland: American Water Resources Association, December, 1985.

                     Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy. House Document No. 465: A Unified National Program for Managing Flood
                          Losses. 89th Congress, 2d Session, Committee on Public Works. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
                          August 10, 1966.

                     Tennessee Valley Authority. Floodplain Management: 77ze 7VA Experience. Knoxville, Tennessee: Tennessee Valley
                          Authority, 1983.

                     Thomas, D.M. "Surface Water Data Collection and Publication." (Unpublished information sheet dated December 28,
                          1977, provided by B.E. Colson, U.S. Geological Survey).

                     Thomas, Frank H., Assistant Administrator, Office of Loss reduction, Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency
                          Management Agency. Letter to James M. Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and
                          Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, December 1989.

                     Tiner, Ralph W., Jr. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends. Newton Corners, Massachusetts:
                          U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Resources, 1984.

                     Tiner, Ralph W. Jr., W. Zinni, and K. Drake. "An Update of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands
                          Inventory Project." Newton Corners, Massachusetts: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, undated.

                     Titus, James G., and others. "Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise, and Coastal Drainage Systems." Journal of WaterResources
                          Planning and Management 113, No. 2 (March 1987).

                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Floodplain Management Services. "FPMS FY 1979 Budget" (Unidentified document dated
                          8 Sep 1977 supplied by Mr. Bob Plott, OCE-FPMS, with updated information provided by Floodplain Management
                          Services). Washington, D.C.: Floodplain Management Services, December, 1987 and November, 1988.
                     U.S. Department of Agriculture. A History of Water Resources Activities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1979.
                     U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Technical Summary, Wetland Evaluation Techniques
                          (NET), Vol. H, Operational Draft, Final Report (FHWA-IP-88-029). 1988.
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Office of Water. 77ie National Estuary
                          Program: Final Guidance on the Contents of a Governor's Nomination. 1990.

                     U.S. Geological Survey. Resource and Land Information for South Dade County, Florida (GSI 1-850, USGPO 0-508-067).
                          1973.

                     U.S. Geological Survey. Land Use andLand CoverDigitalDatafrom 1.250, 000- and 1:100, 000-Scale Maps: Data Users Guide
                          4. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey, 1986.

                     U.S. Water Resources Council. Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses, Volume 1. Washington, D.C.:
                          U.S. Water Resources Council, 1971.

                     U. S. Water Resources Council. Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency (Bulletin 17A). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
                          Water Resources Council, 1977.

                     U.S. Water Resources Council. Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency (Bulletin No. 17B of the Hydrology
                          Committee). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981.

                     von Wolffradt, Donald B. Soil Conservation Service. Personal correspondence, 1987, 1988, and 1989.









                Selected References                                                                                                  D-13




                Williams, Allen, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Center. Personal communication,
                    1987.

                Wright, James M., Tennessee Valley Authority. Personal communication, 1989.



                                                                     CHAPMR 7

                Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "State Floodplain Management Programs: Results of a Survey Conducted
                    by the Association of State Floodplain Managers for L.R. Johnston Associates." 1988.

                Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators. "Highlights of Clean Water Act Reauthorization
                    Passed by Congress October, 1986." Washington, D.C., 1986.

                Bates, C.G. and AJ. Henry. "Forest and Strearnflow Experiment at Wagon Wheel Gap, Colorado." U.S. Monthly Weather
                    Review, Supp. 30, W.B. 946 (1928).

                Blunt, Terry, Rutherford H. Platt and Margaret LaDouce. "Private Conservation and Watershed Agencies: Catalysts for
                    Regional Flood Mitigation" (Working Paper No. 13). May 1985.

                Brown, Bruce, Bureau of Reclamation. Personal communication, 1989.

                Buie, Eugene C. A History of U.S. Department ofAgriculture Water Resource Activities. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
                    Soil Conservation Service, 1979.

                Burby, Raymond J. and Steven P. French. Flood Plain Land Use Management: A National Assessment (Studies in Water
                    Policy and Management, No. 5). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1985.

                Butler, David L. (ed.). "Disaster Relief Act Passed." Natural Hazards Observer 13, No. 3 (January 1989).
                Chester River Association and National Park Service, Mid-Atlantic Region. Strategies for the Chester River, A Guide for
                    Actions in the Chester River Watershed. 1988.

                Collins, Charles H. "Recent Strides in North American Wetland and Waterfowl Protection." National Wetlands Newsletter
                    10, No. 4 (July-August 1988): 9-10.

                Cowles, C. Deming, and others. State Wetland Protection Programs-Status and Recommendations. Prepared for U.S.
                    Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands Protection, 1986.

                Duerkson, Christopher J. (ed.). A Handbook on Historic Preservation Law. 71be Conservation Foundation and the National
                    Center for Preservation Law, 1983.

                Essig, DA. "Implementation of Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Programs." Washington, D.C.: National Association of State
                    Foresters, 1991.

                Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Hazard Mitigation: Handbook of Common Procedures. 1981.

                Federal Emergency Management Agency. Yhe 100-Year Base Flood Standard and the Floodplain Management Executive
                    Order. A Review Preparedforthe Office ofManagement and Budget by the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency. 1983.

                Federal Emergency Management Agency. Integrated Emergency Management System: Mitigation Program Development
                    Guidance. 1987.

                Field Associates, Ralph M. Regional Water Resources Planning. A Review ofLevel B Study Impacts. Prepared for the U.S.
                    Water Resources Council, 1979.

                Groman, Hazel A. (ed.). "U.S. and Canada Sign North American Waterfowl Management Plan." National Wetlands
                    Newsletter 8, No. 4 (July-August 1986): 15-16.








                     D-14                                                                                                     Appendix D



                     Harman, John W., Director, Food and Agriculture Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division,
                          U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Roles, Cost, and Criteria for Assessing Agriculture Disaster Assistance Programs
                          Between 1980 and 1988" (Testimony before the Subcommittee on Agricultural Production and Stabilization of Prices,
                          Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry). March 6, 1990.

                     Holmes, Beatrice Hort. History offederal WaterResourcesP@qgrams andPolicies, 1961-70. (U.S. Department of Agriculture,
                          Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1379). 1979.

                     Interagency Agreement. "Interagency Agreement for Nonstructural Damage Reduction Measures as Applied to Common
                          Flood Disaster Planning and Post-Flood Recovery Practices." December 1980.
                     Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. A Unified NationalProgramforFloodplain Management (FEMA 100).
                          Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.

                     Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. FurtherAdvice on Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management.
                          Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987.
                     Kay, Morris. "The Federal Perspective on Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems," in 77ze Water QualityAct: MakingNoripoint
                          Pollution Control Programs Work: National Nonpoint Conference Proceedings, St. Louis, Missour4 April 23-26, 1989.
                          League City, Texas: National Association of Conservation Districts, 1990.

                     Kusler, Jon A. Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas, Volume 3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Water Resources Council, 1982.

                     Leatherman, Stephen P. Barrier Island Handbook. College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland, 1982.

                     Leighton, M.O., A.C. Spenser and B. McKay. "Ibe Relationsbip of Forests to Stream Flow." US. Geological Survey 137
                          (1912).

                     Meagher, John W., Director, Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division, Environmental Protection Agency. Personal
                          communication, September 1988.

                     Memorandum of Agreement. "Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the
                          Department of the Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b) (1)
                          Guidelines." February 6,1990.
                     National Research Council, Assembly of Engineering, Committee on the Safety of Nonfederal Dams. Safety of Nonfederal
                          Dams, a Retiew of the Federal Role. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1982.

                     National Wetlands Policy Forum. ProtectingAmerica's Wetlands: AnActionAgenda (Final Report of the National Wetlands
                          Policy Forum). Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1988.

                     National Wildlife Federation. Conservation Directory 1988. 1988.
                     Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center. "Information Service." Natural Hazards Observer 13, No.
                          3 (January 1989).

                     Office of the Federal Register. The United States Government Manual 1977188. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
                          Printing Office, 1987.

                     Office of Management and Budget. "Nonstructural Flood Protection Measures and Flood Disaster Recovery" (Memoran-
                          dum). July 1980.

                     Owen, H. James. Personal communication, 1989.

                     Platt, Rutherford H., Robert L. Borchers and Keane Callahan. "County Roles in Metropolitan Flood Loss Mitigation"
                          (Working Paper No. 9). Undated.
                     Platt, Rutherford H., (ed.). Regional Management ofMetropolitan Floodplains, Experience in the United States andAbroad.
                          (Program on Environment and Behavior, Monograph #45). Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado,
                          1987.

                     Platt, Rutherford H. Coastal Weiland Management: Strengthening EPA's Role. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
                          Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, 1987.









               Selected References                                                                                                 D-15




               Pierce, Dale A. "The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act: Status Report on Implementation." National Wetlands Newsletter
                    9, No. 5 (September-October 1987): 10-11.

               Sampson, Neil R. ForLove ofthe Land:A History ofthe NationalAssociation of Conservation Districts. League City, Texas:
                    National Association of Conservation Districts, 1985.

               Soil and Water Conservation Society. "Vegetative Filter Strips." Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
                    Undated.

               Spitzer, William T., Chief, Recreation Resources Assistance Division, National Park Service. Letter to James M. Wright,
                    Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, September,
                    1989.

               Stembridge, James E. Jr., "The Role of Conservation Districts in Urban Floodplain Management" (Working Paper No'
                    4). Oregon: Coast Environment Resources Institute, Undated.
               Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy. House Document No. 465: A Unified National Program for Managing Flood
                    Losses. 89th Congress, 2d Session, Committee on Public Works. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
                    August 10, 1966.

               Thomas, Frank H. "Searching for National Water Policy: More to Come." Ae Environmental Professional 5 (1983): 6-10.

               Thomas, Frank H. Assistant Administrator, Office of Loss Reduction, Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency
                    Management Agency. Personal communication, 1988.

               U.S. Congress, Senate, 89th Congress, Second Session, Committee on Banking and Currency. Insurance and OtherPrograms
                    forFinancialAssistance to Flood Victims. A Reportftom the Secretary ofHousingand Urban Development to the President
                    of the United States. 1966.

               U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service in conjunction with National Park Service,
                    Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Coastal Zone Management, Council on Environmental Quality. "Alternative
                    Policies for Protecting Barrier Islands Along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the U.S. and Draft Environmental
                    Statement." 1979.

               U.S. Department of the Interior. Draft Report to Congress on the Coastal Barrier Resourres System as Required by Section
                    10 of P.L. 97-348: the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of .1982. 1985.

               U.S. Department of the Interior, Coastal BarriersTask Force. Final Environmental Statement, Undeveloped CoastalBarriers.
                    1983.

               U.S. Department of Interior. Final Supplemental Legislative Environmental Impact Statement: Proposed Changes to the
                    Coastal Barrier Resources System, 1988.

               U.S. General Services Administration. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 1990. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent
                    of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990.

               U.S. Geological Survey. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Reston, Virginia: 1990.

               U.S. Water Resources Council. Regulation offlood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses, Volumes I and 2. Washington,
                    D.C.: U.S. Water Resources Council, 1971.

               U.S. Water Resources Council. Flood Hazard Evaluation Guidelines for Federal Executive Agencies. 1972.

               U.S. Water Resources Council. "Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources." Federal
                    Register 38, No. 174, 10 September 1973, 24778, with 2 appendices, 1973.

               U.S. Water Resources Council. Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing E.O. 11988. 1978.

               U.S. Water Resources Council. Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency (Bulletin No. 17B of the Hydrology
                    Committee). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981.

               Watson, Diane (ed.). "60 Missouri Counties Face Suspension." News & Views 4, No. 43, Association of State Floodplain
                    Managers, 1990.








                      D-16                                                                                                         Appendix D



                      Wells, John T. and Peterson, Charles H. Restless Ribbons of Sand, Atlantic and Gulf Coast Barriers. Institute of Marine
                           Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Louisiana Sea Grant College Program, Louisiana State University,
                           in cooperation with U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Research Center,
                           Undated.




                                                                           CHAMER 8

                      Adamus, Paul R., and others. Wetland Evaluation Technique (RET), Volume 11. Methodology- OperationalDraft. Vicksburg,
                           Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, 1987.

                      Adamus, Paul R. Wetland Evaluation Technique for Bottomland Hardwood Functions (Draft). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
                           Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands Protection, 1987.

                      Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "State Floodplain Management Programs: Results of a Survey Conducted
                           by the Association of State Floodplain Managers for L.R. Johnston Associates." 1988.

                      California Department of Water Resources. "Nonproject Levee Hazard Mitigation." Sacramento, California: California
                           Department of Water Resources, April 1984.

                      Clairain, Jr., Ellis J., and others. Wetlands Functions and Values Study Plan (Technical Report Y-83-2). U.S. Army Corps
                           of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory, 1985.

                      Cohen, Dave. "Note to Correspondents." Press release by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 11, 1989.

                      Federal Emergency Management Agency. The 100-Year Base Flood Standard and the Floodplain Management Executive
                           Order. A Review Prepared for the Office of Management and Budget by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
                           September 1983.

                      Federal Emergency Management Agency. Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA 55). February 1986.

                      Federal Emergency Management Agency. Design Manualfor Retrofitting Flood-Prone Residential Structures. (FEMA 114).
                           September 1986.

                      Federal Emergency Management Agency. NationalFloodInsurance Program andRelatedRegulations (Revised as of October
                           1, 1986, with Amendment No. 1). June 30,1987.

                      Federal Emergency Management Agency. NationaffloodlnsuranceP@vgram and RelatedRegulations (Revised as of October
                           1; 1989). 1989.

                      Federal Emergency Management Agency. Questions &Answers: SubstantialImprovement & Substantially Damaged Structures
                           in Post-Disaster Situations. September, 1989.

                      Federal Highway Administration. Yhe Design ofEncroachments on Flood Plains UsingRiskAnalysis (Hydraulic Engineering
                           Circular No. 17). 1980.

                      Federal Insurance Administration. FEM4 Levee Policy. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1981.

                      Federal Interagency Committee for Wettand Delineation (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection
                           Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service). FederalManual
                           forldentiffing and DefineatingJuiisdictional Wetlands (Cooperative Technical Publication). Washington, D.C.: Federal
                           Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989.

                      Johnson, Leonard C. "Soil Loss Tolerance: Fact or Myth?" Joumal of Soil and Water Conservation (May-June 1987).

                      Kusler, Jon A. Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses, Volume 3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Water
                           Resources Council, 1982.

                      National Academy of Sciences. Methodology for Calculating Wave Action Effects Associated with Storm Surges. 1977.
                      National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Safety Criteria for Dams. Safety of Dams: Flood and Earthquake Criteria.
                           Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1985.









               Selected References                                                                                                 D-17




               Office of the Chief of Engineers. Flood-Proofing Regulations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1972.

               Owens, David W. "Erosion Rates and Hazard Mapping in Coastal Resource Management." In ManagingHigh Risk Flood
                    Areas, 1985 and Beyond: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Association of State Floodplain Managers,
                    Portland, Maine (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special Publication #11). Boulder,
                    Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1984.

               Reppert, R.T. "Wetland Values, Concepts and Methods for Wetlands Evaluation." In Selected Proceedings of the Midwest
                    Conference on Welland Values and Management. The Freshwater Society, 1981.

               Riebau, Mark, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Personal communication, October 1988.

               Schamberger, Melvin L., C. Short, and A. Farmer. "Evaluation Wetlands as Wildlife Habitat," in Wetland Functions and
                    Values: 77te State of Our Understanding. Proceedings ofthe National S)*nposium on Wetlands. Minneapolis, Minnesota:
                    American Water Resources Association, 1979.

               Schertz, D.L., "The Basis for Soil Loss Tolerances." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (January-February 1983).

               U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District. Guidelines for Identifying Coastal High Hazard Zones (Including
                    "Appendix B: Criteria Relating to the Adoption of the 3-Foot Breaking Wave"). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, June
                    1975.

               U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Recommended Guidelinesfor Safety Inspection ofDams (ER 1110-27106). U.S. Army Corps
                    of Engineers, 1979.

               U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. Regulation Manua4 StamfordHunicane Barrier, Stamford, Connecticut
                    (Revised November 1982).

               U.S. Water Resources Council. Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing E. 0. 11988 (43 FR 6030). February
                    10,1978.

               U.S. Water Resources Council. Economic andEnvironmentalP@inciples and Guidelinesfor Water andRelated LandResources
                    for Implementation Studies. 1983.

               Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. FloodplainlShoreland Management: A Guide for Local Zoning Officials.
                    Madison, Wisconsin, 1982.



                                                                    CHAPTER 9


               Bond, Leslie A., Leslie A. Bond Associates, Arivaca, Arizona. Personal communication, 1988.

               Burby, Raymond J. and Steven P. French. Flood Plain Land Use Management: A National Assessment (Studies in Water
                    Policy and Management, No. 5). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1985.

               Burton, Ian. "Cultural and Personality Variables in the Perception of Natural Hazards." Environment and the Social
                    Sciences: Perspectives and Applications. 1972.

               Conservation Foundation. State of the Environment: A View Toward the Nineties. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation
                    Foundation, 1987.

               Davenport, Sally S. and Penny Waterstone. Hazard Awareness Guidebook: Planning for "at Comes Naturally. Texas
                    Coastal and Marine Council, 1979.

               Emerson, David, Executive Director, Environmental Protection Board, Stamford Connecticut. Personal communication,
                    April, 1988.

               Federal Emergency Management Agency. Integrated Emergency Management System: Mitigation Program Development
                    Guidance (FEMA-122). 1987.

               Federal Insurance Administration, Office of Loss Reduction. Design ManualforRetrofittingFibod-prone ResidentialStructures
                    (FEMA 114). 1986.








                     D-18                                                                                                      Appendix D



                     Forrester, Frank H. "Tsunami!" Weatherwise 40, No. 2 (1987).

                     Gallop, Jr., George, with William Proctor. Forecast 2000. New York, New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1984.
                     Gilbert, Bil. "Earth Day plus 20, and Counting." Smithsonian (April 1990).

                     Grove, Noel. "Which Way to the Revolution? (Environmentalism)." American Forests (March-April 1990).

                     Kates, Robert W. "Natural Hazard in Human Ecological Perspective: Hypotheses and Models." Economic Geography
                          47(1971).

                     Kunreuther, Howard, and others. Disaster Insurance Protection: Public Policy Lessons. 1978.

                     Mileti, Dennis, and others. Human System in Extreme Environments: A Sociological Perspective. 1975.

                     President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. Americans Outdoors, the Legacy, the Challenge. Washington, D.C.: Island
                          Press, 1987.

                     Roder, Wolf. "Attitudes and Knowledge on the Topeka Floodplain." Papers on Flood Problems (1961).
                     Rossi, Peter H., James D. Wright and Eleanor Weber-Burdin. Natural Hazards and Public Choice: 7he State and Local
                          Politics of Hazard Mitigation. New York, New York: Academic Press, 1982.



                                                                        CHAPTER 10

                     Annot. "Liability for Municipal Corporation for Damage to Property Resulting from Inadequacy of Drains and Sewers
                          Due to Defects in Plan." 173 A.L.R. 1031. 1948.

                     Annot. "Liability of Municipal or Other Governmental Subdivision in Connection with Flood Protection Measures." 5
                          A.L.R. 2d 57. 1949.

                     Annot. "Municipality's Liability Arising from Negligence or Other Wrongful Act in Carrying Out Construction or Repair
                          of Sewers and Drains." 61 A.L.R. 3d 874. 1964.

                     Annot. "Municipality's Liability for Damage Resulting From Obstruction or Clogging of Drains or Sewers." 59 A.L.R.
                          2d 281. 1958.

                     Annot. "liability of Government for Insurance of Permit Which Caused or Accelerated Flooding." 62 A.L.R. 3d 514.
                          1975.

                     Bender, D. "Dam Safety: The Critical Imperative," 14 Land and Waters Law Review 341. 1979.

                     Kusler, J. Regulating Sensitive Lands. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1980.
                     Kusler, J. Regulation offlood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses, Volume 3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Water Resources
                          Council, 1982.

                     Kusler, J. "Liability as a Dilemma for Local Managers." Public Administrative Review, Special Issue (1985).

                     Maloney, F.E. and AJ. O'Donnell, Jr. "Drawing the Line at the Ocean Front." 30 University of Florida Law Review 383.
                          1978.

                     Neubauer, E.M. Digest ofLitigation on the National Flood Insurance Program (Third Edition). Washington, D.C.: Federal
                          Emergency Management Agency, 1988.

                     O'Donnell, AJ. Drawing the Line at the Oceanfront. 7he Role of Coastal Construction Set-Back Lines in Regulating
                          Development of Florida's Coastal Zone. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, 1976.

                     Pupula, J. and Sensabaugh, W. Coastal Construction SetbackLines. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Marine Advisory
                          Program, 1974.









               Selected References                                                                                                D-19




               Ruch, Carlton, H. Crane Miller, Mark Haflich, Nelson M. Farber, Philip R. Berke, and Norris Stubbs. The Feasibility of
                   VerticalEvacuation: Behaviora4 Lega4 Pofifica4 and Structural Considerations (Program on Environment and Behavior
                   Monograph #52). Boulder, Colorado: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, 1991.

               Strauss, E. and Kusler, J. Statutory Land Use Control Enabling Authority. National Flood Insurance Program, Federal
                   Insurance Administration, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1976.
               U.S. Water Resources Council. Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses, Volumes I and 2. Washington,
                   D.C.: U.S. Water Resources Council, 1971, 1972.



                                                                  CHAPTER 11

               Abeles, Schwartz, Haeckel & Silverblatt, and Ralph M. Field Associates. Evaluation ofAltemative Means oflinplementing
                   Section 1362ofthe NationalFloodInsuranceActofl968. Federal Emergency management Agency, Office of Mitigation
                   and Research, 1981.

               Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "State Floodplain Management Programs. Results of a Survey Conducted
                   by the Association of State Floodplain Managers for L.R. Johnston Associates." Madison, Wisconsin: Association of
                   State Floodplain Managers, 1988.

               Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. Completed questionnaires used in: "State Floodplain Management Programs.
                   Results of a Survey Conducted by the ASFPM for L.R. Johnston Associates." Madison, Wisconsin: Association of State
                   Floodplain Managers, 1988.
               Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "Current Legislation Regarding Coastal Erosion." ASFPM Newsletter
                   (January 1998).

               Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "Going Beyond NFIP Minimums: State and Local Regulations." Workshop
                   #3: Land-Use Regulations. In Floodplain Harmony: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Association
                   ofState Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special Publication #19).
                   Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1988.

               Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "Effectiveness of Predisaster Plans for Postdisaster Recovery and
                   Mitigation." Workshop #4: Post-Flood Response and Recovery. In Floodplain Harmony: Proceedings of the Twelfth
                   Annual Conference of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications
                   Information Center Special Publication #19). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1988.

               Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "Effectiveness and Reliability of New Technologies." Workshop #7:
                   Awareness and Preparedness IL InFloodplainHarmony: Proceedings ofthe TwelfthAnnual Conference oftheAssociation
                   ofStateFloodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special Publication #19).
                   Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1988.

               Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "Going Beyond NFIP Minimums: State and Local Regulations." Workshop
                   #8: Land-Use Regulations II. In Floodplain Harmony: Proceedings ofthe TwelfthAnnual Conference of the Association
                   ofState Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special Publication #19).
                   Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1988.

               Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "Floodproofing Recommendations for I. Sekine Company, Inc." U.S.
                   Army Corps of Engineers, Undated.

               Barrett, Curtis B. "Local Flood Warning Systems." Proceedings of a Seminar on Local Flood Warning - Response Systems.
                   Davis, California: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, December 1986.

               Bond, Leslie A. "State Roles in Flood Warning." Proceedings of a Seminar on Local Flood Warning - Response Systems.
                   Davis, California: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, December 1986.

               Brower,.David, D. Godschalk, and T. Beatley. Implementing Coastal Storm Hazard Policy. University of North Carolina:
                   Center for Urban and Regional Studies, 1986.








                     D-20                                                                                                       Appen&x D



                     Burby, Raymond J. and Steven P. French. Flood Plain Land Use Management: A National Assessment (Studies in Water
                           Policy and Management, No. 5). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1985.
                     Carroll, Tom. Airbome Gamma Radiation Snow WaterEquivalent and Soil Moisture Measurements:A User's Guide (Version
                           2.1). Minneapolis, Minnesota: National Weather Service, November 1, 1986.

                     Carter, Michael T. P@obability ofHurricanelTropical Storm Conditions: A User's Guide for Local Decision Makers. Severe
                           Weather Branch, National Weather Service, NOAA, 1983.

                     Colorado Water Conservation Board and Colorado Water Resource Research Institute. Colorado Flood Proofing Manual.
                           1983.

                     Committee on Automated Flood Warning. Automated Flood Warning in Connecticut: A Master Plan. 1988.
                     Curtis, David C. "Role of the Private Sector in Flood Warning Systems." Proceedings ofa Seminar on Local Flood Waming -
                           Response Systems. Davis, California: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, December 1986.

                     Day, Harold J. and Kwang K. Lee. "Flood Damage Reduction Potential of River Forecast." Journal of the WaterResources
                           Planning and Management Division XX, No. WRI. New York, New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, April
                           1976.

                     Disaster Recovery Team, Office of the Lieutenant Governor. A Coastal Homeowner's Guide to Floodproofing. Mas-
                           sachusetts, Undated (1979?)

                     Domas, Richard K. "The Massachusetts Coastal Floodproofing Program: One Approach to Hazard Mitigation."
                           (Unpublished paper). 1982.

                     Ehinger, Ruth. "Predisaster Planning for Postdisaster Reconstruction." In Managing High Risk Flood Areas, 1985 and
                           Beyond: P@oceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Association of State Floodplain Managers, Portland, Maine
                           (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special Publication #11). Boulder, Colorado:
                           NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1984.

                     Engineering News Record (July 1989).

                     Engineering News Record, "Building Restrictions Upheld." (November 2,1989).
                     Engineering News Record, 11FEMA Endorses Beach Act." (December 7, 1989).

                     Everman, James, Huntington District, Corps of Engineers. Presentation on the Tug Fork Project made during a Flood
                           Proofing Seminar sponsored by the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. Washington, D.C.,
                           December 1987.

                     Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Hazard Mitigation: Handbook of Common Procedures. Interagency Regional
                           Hazard Mitigation Teams, 1981.

                     Federal Emergency Management Agency. The 100-Year Base Flood Standard and the Floodplain Management Executive
                           Order. A Review Prepared for the Office of Management and Budget. September 1983.
                     Federal Emergency Management Agency. Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA 55). 1986.

                     Federal Emergency Management Agency. Making Mitigation Work A Handbookfor State Officials (DAP 12). June 1986.
                     Federal Emergency Management Agency. Integrated Emergency Management System: Mitigation Program Development
                           Guidance (FEMA 122). 1987.

                     Federal Emergency Management Agency. "Training and Education for the Nation's Fire and Emergency Management
                           Community" (Pamphlet). April 1987.

                     Federal Emergency Management Agency. "Request for Proposal No. EMW-88-R-2813." June 1988.

                     Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration. "Regulations implementing the NFIP 44 CFR
                           64.3.tt









               Selected References                                                                                                 D-21




               Federal Insurance Administration. ElevatedResidentialStructuresReducingFloodDamage YhroughBuildingDesign:A Guide
                   Manual (HUD-FIA-184(2)). 1977.

               Federal Insurance Administration. Manual for the Construction of Residential Basements in Non-Coastal Flood Environs
                   (HUD-FIA-285). 1978.

               Federal Insurance Administration. "Flood Studies and Surveys: Historical Statistics" (As of September 30, 1987). Data
                   sheet supplied by Mr. John Matticks, FIA, FEMA, 1987.

               Federal Insurance Administration. National Flood Insurance Program: Handbook for Conducting Community Assistance
                   Contacts and Community Assistance Visits (Draft). July 1988.
               Field Associates, Ralph M. State and LocalAcquisition offloodplains and Wetlands: A Handbook on the Use ofAcquisition
                   in Floodplain Management. Prepared for the U.S. Water Resources Council, September 1981.

               Flood Loss Reduction Associates. Floodplain Management Handbook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Water Resources Council,
                   1981.

               Fuller, Jonathan, Principal Hydrologist, Pima County Transportation and Flood Control District. Memo to Diane VanDe
                   Hei, National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies. Comments on Status Report and
                   Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 2, 1989.

               Frank, Richard A. "Living with Coastal Storms: Seeking an Accommodation." In Hurricanes and Coastal Storms -
                   Awareness, Evacuation and Mitigation. ed. Earl J. Baker (Report Number 33). Florida Sea Grant College, April 1980.

               Gilman, Clark. "Predisaster Planning for Postdisaster Reconstruction." In Managing High Risk Flood Areas, 1985 and
                   Beyond: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Association of State Floodplain Managers, Portland, Maine
                   (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special Publication #11). Boulder, Colorado:
                   NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1984.

               Grady, Deborah M. and Robert M. Ruteledge. A Flood Plain Management HandbookforLocal Planners. Division of Water,
                   Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1982.

               Hunter, K.L., and R.W. McCullough, Jr., "Self-Help Flood Mitigation: Organizing the Community Through Planning,"
                   Strengthening Local Flood Protection Programs: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference ofthe Association of State
                   Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special Publication #15).
                   Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1986.

               Hyatt, M. Leon, Chief, Earth Sciences Division, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee
                   Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, September 18, 1989.

               Interagency Agreement. "Interagency Agreement for Nonstructural Damage Reduction Measures as Applied to Common
                   Flood Disaster Planning and Post-Flood Recovery Practices." December 1980.

               Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. A Unified NationalProgramforFloodplain Management (FEMA 100).
                   Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.

               Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management Task Force. Further Advice on Executive Order 11988 Floodplain
                   Management. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987.

               ISO Commercial Risk Services, Inc. "Summary of the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System."
                   1989.

               Jahn, Laurence R., President, Wildlife Management Institute. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority.
                   Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 31, 1989.
               Jelesnianski, C.P., J. Chen, W.A. Shaffer, and A.J. Gilad. "Slosh - A Hurricane Storm Surge Forecast Model." Silver
                   Spring, Maryland: Techniques Development Laboratory, National Weather Service, NOAA, Undated.
               Kuslcr, Jon A. Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses, Volume 3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Water
                   Resources Council, 1982.








                      D-22                                                                                                       Appendix D



                      Larson, Larry A., Executive Director, Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee
                           Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 31, 1989.

                      Laska, Shirley. Homeowner Floodproofing Behavior. 1988.

                      L.R. Johnston Associates. Automated CoastalFloodMonitoringNetwork and WamingSystem: FeasibilityAnalysis and Design
                           Recommendations. Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources
                           Center, 1986.

                      Mahoney, Michael G. "Retrofitting: Reducing Flood Losses to Existing Structures." RealisticApproaches toBetterFloodplain
                           Management: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (Natural
                           Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special Publication #18). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC,
                           University of Colorado at Boulder, 1987.

                      MacKay, Ross, Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Personal communication,
                           1988.

                      MacKay, Ross, Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Personal communication,
                           1990.

                      Manning, Billy R. Director of Engineering and Education, Southern Building Code Congress International Inc. Letter to
                           James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments of Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management,
                           August 23, 1989.

                      Matticks, John, Federal Insurance Administration. Unpublished data, 1988.

                      McKeever, Shelton R. Flood Proofing: Example ofRaising a Private Residence (Technical ServicesReport). Georgia: U.S.
                           Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division, 1977.

                      Meagher, John W., Director, Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley
                           Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, September 29, 1989.

                      Mendell, Todd, Flash Flood Hydrologist, National Weather Service, Northeast River Forecast Center, Bloomfield,
                           Connecticut. Personal communication, 1988.

                      Myers, Mary Fran, Project Manager, Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center of the University of
                           Colorado at Boulder. Personal communication, 1989.

                      National Flood Proofing Committee. Flood Proofing Bibliography. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988.

                      National Review Committee. "Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains." October 17,1989.

                      National Weather Service. "National Weather Service Operations Manual - Local Flood Warning Systems." In Proceedings
                           ofa Seminar on Local Flood Warning - Response Systems. Davis, California: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic
                           Engineering Center, December 1986.

                      National Weather Service. Operations of the National Weather Service. Silver Spring, Maryland, 1985.

                      National Weather Service. "Report on LFWS by State" (Computer printout). Silver Spring, Maryland: National Weather
                           Service, January 12, 1987.

                      Office of Management and Budget. "Nonstructural Flood Protection Measures and Flood Disaster Recovery" (Memoran-
                           dum). July 10, 1980.

                      Owen, H. James and M. Wendell. Effectiveness ofFlood WamingandP@eparednessAltematives (Research Report 81 -R08).
                           Fort Belvoir, Virginia: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, August 1980.

                      Owen, H. James and M. Wendell. Implementation Aspects of Flood Warning and Preparedness Planning Alternatives
                           (Research Report 81-RO7). Fort Belvoir, Virginia: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources,
                           August 1980.

                      Owen, H. James. "Overview of Local Flood Preparedness Plans." In Proceedings of a Seminar on Local Flood Warning -
                           Response Systems. Davis, California: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, December 1986.









                Selected References                                                                                                   D-23




                Pace, Carl E. and R. L Campbell. Structural Integrity of Brick-Peneer Buildings (Technical Report C-78-3). Vicksburg,
                     Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, , 1976.

                Pasteris, Phillip A. and Robert K. Hartman. "The Effect of Volcanic Devastation on Flood Forecasting in the Cowlitz River
                     System." In Realistic Approaches to Better Floodplain Management: Proceedings of the 11thAnnual Conference of the
                     Association of State Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special
                     Publication #18). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1987.

                Peterson, Jerome, Chief, Floodplain Management Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Personal communication, 1989.

                Pietrowsky, R.A. "Flood Preparedness Planning for the Passaic River Basin." In Proceedings of a Seminaron LocalFlood
                     Warning - Response Systems. Davis, California: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center,
                     December 1986.

                Platt, Rutherford. H. "Management Standards for Special Flood Hazards." Preliminary report for the National Review
                     Committee, August 1989.

                Plott, Bob, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Presentation made at a Flood Proofing Seminar sponsored by the Federal
                     Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. Washington, D.C., December 1987.

                Plott, Bob, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Personal communication, 1987.

                Pomerantz, Carol. "Eveready Means Excellence in Flood Control." Plumbing & Mechanical 1, No. 6 (August 1984).

                Potyondy, John P. "Some Techniques for Using Frequency Analysis and Realtime Data to Interpret Flood Potential Data."
                     Water Resources Bulletin 23, No. 1. Bethesda, Maryland: American Water Resources Association, February 1987.
                Quarantelli, E. L. 77te Functioning of the Local Emergency Services Offices in Disasters (RF Project 763270/714847 Final
                     Report). Columbus, Ohio: Disaster Research Center, Ohio State University, October 1985.

                Randall, Tim. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Remarks made at a Flood Proofing Seminar sponsored
                     by the Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. Washington, D.C., December 1987.

                Riebsame, William E. "Research Needs in Western Flood Hazards," in Improving the Effectiveness ofFloodplain Manage-
                     ment in Arid and Semi-Arid Regions: Proceedings of a Western High Risk Flood Areas Symposium, Las Vegas, Nevada.
                     Madison, Wisconsin: Association of State Floodplain Managers, March 1986.

                Rogers, Spencer. Presentation at National Flood Insurance Program conference, 1989.

                Scheibel, John. "Avoiding Legal Problems in Dealing with the National Flood Insurance Program." Floodplains & Wetlands:
                     Legal Constraints & Options. Supplemental Reading Materials. American Bar Association, 1982.

                Shawcross, Stephen W. "Flood Damage Reductions Resulting from the Implementation of Contingency Measures." In
                     RealisticApproachei toBetterFloodplain Management: Proceedings ofthe EleventhAnnual Conference oftheAssociation
                     ofState Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Application Information Center Special Publication #18).
                     Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1987.

                Sheaffer, John R. Flood, Proofing. An Element in a Flood Damage Reduction Program (Research Paper #65). Chicago,
                     Illinois: Department of Geography, University of Chicago, 1960.

                Sheaffer, John R. Introduction to Flood Proofing. An Outline ofPrinciples and Methods. Chicago, Illinois: Center for Urban
                     Studies, The University of Chicago, 1967.

                Simmons, Malcolm M. 77ze Evolving National Flood Insurance Program (88-641 ENR). Congressional Research Service,
                     1988.

                Stallings, Eugene. Personal correspondence, September 22, 1987.

                Stalischmidt, Pat, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Personal communication, 1987.
                State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Area Management Program. Coastal Policies and
                     Use Guidelines (Planning Document No. 30). Hartford, Connecticut: Department of Environmental Protection, 1979.








                     D-24                                                                                                      Appendix D



                     State of Minnesota. "Rules and Regulations to Building Code Division, Department of Administration. Adoption of Flood
                          Proofing Regulations-Amendments." 1974.

                     Stewart, Kevin G. "Planning for the Inevitable - Urban Flash Flood Warning Programs in the Denver Metropolitan Area,"
                          in Realistic Approaches to Better Floodplain Management: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the
                          Association of State Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Application Information Center Special
                          Publication #18). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1987.

                     Strong, R.B. "Acquisition: the Baytown Experience." In Post Disaster Response and Mitigation of Future Losses. 1985.

                     Tidemanson, T.A. Director of Public Works, County of Los Angeles. Memo to Diane Van DeHei, National Association
                          of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies. Comments on Status Reporl and Effectiveness of Floodplain
                          Management, August 16,1989.

                     Thomas, Frank H., Assistant Administrator, Office of Loss Reduction, Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency
                          Management Agency. Personal communication, 1990.

                     Trakimas, Bill, Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Personal communication, 1988.

                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Flood-Proofing Regulations. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Engineers, 1972.

                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Flood-P@ocfingAdministrative Manualfor Minnesota. State of Minnesota, Department of
                          Administration, Building Code Division, 1977.

                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Analytical Instruments for Formulating and Evaluating Nonstructural Measures (Training
                          Document No. 16). Davis, California: The Hydrologic Engineering Center, January 1982.

                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "Flood Proofing Systems & Techniques. Examples of Flood Proofed Structures in the
                          United States." 1984.

                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Proceedings of a Seminar on Local Flood Warning - Response Systems. Davis, California:
                          U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, December 1986.

                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Systems and Materials to Protect Buildingsfrom Floodwaters.
                          Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, 1988.
                     U.S. Department of the Interior, Coastal Barriers Study Group. Executive Summary in Report to Congress: Coastal Banier
                          Resources System. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988.

                     U.S. Water Resources Council. Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing E.O. 11988. 43 FR 6030, February
                          10,1978.

                     von Wolffradt, Donald B., Soil Conservation Service. Personal communication, 1989.

                     Watson, Diane (ed). "Low Interest Loan Program for Flood Protection." Vie Insider 1, No. 4. Association of State
                          Floodplain Managers (March 1988).

                     Watson, Diane (ed). News and Views. Association of State Floodplain Managers (January 1988).

                     Watson, Diane (ed). "Few Claims Submitted for Coastal Erosion Damage." 77te Insider 1, No. 9. Association of State
                          Floodplain Managers (January 1989).

                     Wetmore, French. Presentation made at a Flood Proofing Seminar sponsored by the Federal Interagency Floodplain
                          Management Task Force. Washington, D.C., December 1987.

                     White, Gilbert F. and others. Natural Hazard Management in Coastal Areas. Washington D.C.: Office of Coastal Zone
                          Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1977.

                     Woodard, Glenn C., Chief, Natural and Technological Hazards Division, FEMA, Region IV. "Communities that Exceed
                          Minimum FPM Program." Memo to Frank Thomas, Assistant Administrator, Office of Loss Reduction, FIA, FEMA,
                          August 25, 1987.








                Selected References                                                                                               D-215




                Wright, Stewart K. "Industries and Flash Flood Warning Systems." InImprovingthe Effectiveness ofFloodplain Management
                    inAdd and Semi-arid Regions: Proceedingsof a Western StatesHigh RiskFloodAreas Symposium, Las Vegas, Nevada,
                    March 24-26, 1986. Madison, Wisconsin: Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1986.



                                                                   CHAPTER 12

                Association of State Dam Safety Officials. Model State Dam Safety Program (FEMA 123)  Federal Emergency Management
                    Agency, April 1987.

                Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "State Floodplain Management Programs: Results of a Survey Conducted
                    by the ASFPM for L.R. Johnston Associates." Madison, Wisconsin: Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988.

                Bond, Leslie A., Leslie A. Bond Associates, Arivaca, Arizona. Personal communication, 1988.

                Buie, Eugene C., U.S. Department of Agriculture. A History of WaterResourceActivities ofthe US Department ofAgricultum.
                    Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, 1979.

                Burby, Raymond J., and others. Flood Plain Land Use Management (Studies in Water Policy and Management, No. 5).
                    Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1985.

                California Department of Water Resources. Nonproject Levee Hazard Mitigation. Sacramento, California: California
                    Department of Water Resources, April 1984.

                Clark, Edwin H., J.A. Haverkamp, and William Chapman. Eroding Soils: 77te Off-Farm Impacts. Washington, D.C.: The
                    Conservation Foundation, 1985.

                Colorado Division of Disaster Emergency Services. Dam Safety: An Owner's Guidance Manual (FEMA 145). Washington,
                    D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987.

                Committee on the Safety of Nonfederal Dams, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council. Safety of Nonfederal
                    Dams:A Review ofthe FederalRole (FEMA 31). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1982.

                Division of Water Resources. Regional Stormwater Management Planning, South Branch Rockaway Creek. New Jersey
                    Department of Environmental Protection, 1986.

                Duscha, Lloyd A. "The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dam Safety Program." Dam Safety Practices and Concems in the
                    United States (GPO 834-920). U.S. Committee on Large Dams, April 1982.

                Federal Emergency Management Agency. State Non-Federal Dam Safety Programs - 1985 (FEMA 101). Washington, D.C.:
                    Federal Emergency Management Agency, December 1985.

                Federal Emergency Management Agency. ReducingLosses in High RiskFloodHazardAreas:A GuidebookforLocalOfficials
                    (FEMA 116). Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, February 1987.

                Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Dam Safety Program-4986 and 1987. A P@ogress Report. 1988.

                Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Dam Safety P@vgram: A Progress Report, Volume I (FEMA 195). July
                    1990.

                Flood Loss Reduction Associates. Floodplain Management Handbook. U.S. Water Resources Council, 1981.

                Highfill, Richard E. "Modern Terrace Systems." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (July-August, 1983).

                Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. A Unified National Program forFloodplain Management (FEMA 100).
                    Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.

                Leopold, Luna B. and Thomas Maddox,Jr. The Flood Control Controversy -BigDams, Little Dams, and Land Management.
                    New York, New York: Ronald Press, 1954.

                Linsley, Ray K. and Joseph B. Franzini. Water-Resources Engineering (Second edition). New York, New York: McGraw
                    Hill, 1972.








                      D-26                                                                                                          Append& D



                      Meagher, John W., Director, Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division, Environmental Protection Agency. Personal
                           communication, September 1988.

                      Mrazik, Brian R., Federal Insurance Administration. Personal communication, 1989.

                      National Council on Public Works Improvement. Fragile Foundations: A Report on America's Public Works, Final Reporr
                           to the President and the Congress (Preprint). Washington, D.C., 1988.

                      National Research Council. A Levee Poficyforthe National Flood Insurance Program. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
                           Press, 1982.

                      Parrett, Neil. "Implementation of a Dam Safety Program in the Bureau of Reclamation." Dam Safety Practices and
                           Concerns in the United States (GPO 834-920). U. S. Committee on Large Dams, April 1982.

                      Schilling, Kyle, and others. The Nation's Public Works: Report on Water Resources (Categories of Public Works Series).
                           Washington, D.C.: National Council on Public Works Improvement, 1987.

                      Tennessee Valley Authority, 1988.

                      Tennessee Valley Authority. Floodplain Management: Yhe 7YA Experience. Knoxville, Tennessee: Tennessee Valley
                           Authority, 1983.

                      Tennessee Valley Authority. Dam Safety Program - 1988 and 1989 - A P@qgress Report. Knoxville, Tennessee: Tennessee
                           Valley Authority, December 1989.

                      Tschantz, Bruce A. "Recent United States Progress to Improve Dam Safety," Dam Safety Practices and Concerns in the
                           United States (GPO 834-920). United States Committee on Large Dams, April 1982.
                      Tschantz, Bruce A. 1989 Report on Review of State Non-Federal Dam Safety Programs (FEMA 188). January 1988.

                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. National Program of Inspection of Non-Federal Dams. 1982.

                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. National Hydroelectric Power Resource Study National Report (WIR-82-11-2). Fort Belvoir,
                           Virginia: Institute for Water Resources, May 1983.

                      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Shore Protection ManuA Volume I. Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1984.

                      U.S. Water Resources Council. Estimated Flood Damages: Appendix B, Nationwide Analysis Report. Washington, D.C.:
                           U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.

                      Wright, James M. Tennessee Valley Authority. Personal correspondence, October, 1988.



                                                                           CHAPTER 13

                      Armstrong, Ellis L., and Howard Rosen. Effective Emergency Response. 7he Salt Lake Valley Floods of 1984,1984 & 1985
                           (Retrospective Report #1). Public Works Historical Society, 1986.

                      Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc "Effectiveness of Predisaster Plans for Postdisaster Recovery and Mitigation."
                           Workshop #4: Post-Flood Response and Recovery. In Floodplain Harmony: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual
                           Conference of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information
                           Center Special Publication #19). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1988.

                      Association of State Floodplain Managers. "State Floodplain Management Programs: Results of a Survey Conducted by
                           the ASFPM for L.R. Johnston Associates." Madison, Wisconsin: Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988.

                      Bernstein, Peter W. (ed). 77te A?ihur Young Tax Guide, 1988. New York, New York: Arthur Young & Co. Ballantine
                           Books, 1988.

                      Brower, D., D. Godschalk, and T. Beatley. Implementing Coastal Storm Hazard Policy. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Center
                           for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina, 1986.









                Selected References                                                                                               D-27




                Burby, Raymond J., and others. Cities Under Water. Boulder, Colorado: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of
                    Colorado, 1988.

                Butler, David L. and Sylvia C. Dane (eds). "On Disk: An Annotated Data Base of Natural Hazards Recommendations."
                    Natural Hazards Observer 13, No. 3 (January 1989).

                DeGroot, Bill, Chief, Floodplain Management, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 69. Memo to Diane VanDe
                    Hei, National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies. Comments on Status Report and
                    Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 24,1989.

                Emerson, David, Executive Director, Environmental Protection Board, Stamford, Connecticut. Personal communication,
                    1988.

                Federal Emergency Management Agency. Federal Disaster Assistance Program (DR&R-1 3). 1982.

                Federal Emergency Management Agency. Integrated Emergency Management Course. Emergency Management Institute,
                    1983.

                Federal Emergency Management Agency. Administrative GuidelinesforFEMAAssistance Programs (FEMA Manual 2100.2).
                    1984.

                Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1988189 Emergency Management Institute. 1988.

                Federal Insurance Administration. "Supplementary Data on the NFIP." Unpublished data from FIA/FEMA, 1988.

                Federal Insurance Administration, Office of Loss Reduction. "Summary and Assessment of National Flood Insurance
                    Program (NFIP) Repetitive Loss Data." June 1990.

                Flood Insurance Producers National Committee. FIPNC 11, Bulletin #3 (November 1988).

                Fuller, Jonathan, Principal Hydrologist, Pima County Transportation and Flood Control District. Memo to Diane VanDe
                    Hei, National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies. Comments on Status Report and
                    Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 2,1989.

                Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. A Unified NationalProgram for Floodplain Management (FEMA 100).
                    Washington, D.C.: Federal'Emergency Management Agency, 1986.

                L.R. Johnston Associates. Realizing the Risk: A History of the June 1982 Floods in Connecticut. (Water Planning Report
                    No. 7). Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Environment Protection, Natural Resources Center, 1983.

                MacKay, Ross, Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Personal communication, 1988.

                Matticks, John, Federal Insurance Administration. Unpublished data, 1988.

                Meagher, John W. Director, Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division, United States Environmental Protection
                    Agency. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Repon and Effectiveness of
                    Floodplain Management, September 29,1989.
                Morton, David R. A Selected Annotated Bibliography of Recent Hazards Publications (Issues 1975-76 through 1986-87).
                    Boulder, Colorado: Natural Hazards Research and Application Information Center, University of Colorado at Boulder,
                    1988.

                Mrazik, Brian R. and Harriet A. Kinberg. "The National Flood Insurance Program - Twenty Years of Progress Towards.
                    Nationwide Flood Loss Reduction, DRAFT." Federal Emergency Management Agency, Undated (1989?).

                National Science Foundation. Flood Hazard Mitigation. 1980.

                Simmons, Malcolm M. 77te Evolving National Flood Insurance Program (88-641 ENR). Congressional Research Service,
                    1988.

                Thayer, N.- "Successes and Failures with Moratoria and Long-Term Mitigation after the Big Thompson Canyon Flood."
                    Post Disaster Response and Mitigation of Future Losses. 1985.








                     D-28                                                                                                       Appendix D



                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District. Emergency Flood Fight Manual. 1987.

                     U.S. Department of the Interior, Coastal Barriers Study Group. Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System with
                         Recommendations as Required by Section 10 ofthe Public Law 97-348, The CoastalBamierResourcesActofl982, Volume
                         1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988.

                     U.S. Department of the Treasury. Tax Reform for Fairness, Simplicity and Economic Growth. Washington, D.C.: The
                         Treasury Report to the President, 1984.

                     U.S. General Accounting Office. Flood Insurance: Private Companies'Participation in the Write Your Own Program. Report
                         to Legislation and National Security Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations. GAO/RCED-87-108,
                         1987.

                     U.S. General Accounting Office. Flood Insurance: Statistics on the National Flood Insurance Program (Fact Sheet for
                         Congressional Requesters, GAO/RCED-88-155FS). 1988.

                     U.S. General Accounting Office. DisasterAssistance. runeliness and Other Issues Involving the Major Disaster Declaration
                         P@ocess (Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO/RCED-89-138). 1989.

                     Watson, Diane (ed). "Illinois Chapter Supports Resource Center." News and Views 3, No. 32. Association of State
                         Floodplain Managers (1988).

                     Watson, Diane (ed). "Flood Insurance Premium Rates Won't Change for Two Years." News and Views 3, No. 33.
                         Association of State Floodplain Managers (1989).

                     Williams, Berry A. "Coastal Hazard Mitigation." News and Views 3, No. 4. Association of State Floodplain Managers
                         (August 1988).



                                                                        CHAPTER 14

                     Adamus, Paul R. Weiland Evaluation TechniqueforBottomland Hardwood Functions (Draft). Office ofWetlands Protection,
                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.

                     Adamus, Paul R, and others. "Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET). Operational Draft." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                         and Department of Transportation, 1987.

                     Ammann, Alan P., and others. "Method of the Evaluation of Inland Wetlands in Connecticut" (DEP Bulletin No. 9).
                         Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 1986.

                     Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "Conflicts Between Flood Loss Reduction and Natural Values Protection."
                         Workshop #1: Natural and Beneficial Values. In Floodplain Harmony: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference
                         oftheAssociation ofState Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special
                         Publication #19). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1988.

                     Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "Success in Achieving Flood Loss Reduction and Protection of Natural
                         Values." Workshop #6: Natural and Beneficial Values H. In Floodplain Harmony: Proceedings of the 71velfth Annual
                         Conference of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information
                         Center Special Publication #19). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1988.
                     Association of State Wetland Managers and Center for Governmental Responsibility. Weiland Protection: Strengthening
                         the Role of the States. Proceedings of a National Symposium, September 1984.

                     Bond, Leslie A., Leslie A. Bond Associates, Arivaca, Arizona. Personal communication, 1990.

                     Brunnemer, N.M., and O.J. Furuseth. "Mecklenburg County Greenways: A Planned Open Space Network of Floodplains."
                         In StrengtheningLocalFlood Protection Programs: Proceedings of the TenthAnnual Conference of theAssociation ofState
                         Floodplain Managers, June 17-19, 1984 Piltsbu?gk Pennsylvania (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information
                         Center Special Publication #15). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1986.

                     Chief of Engineers. Annual Report of the US. Army Corps of Engineers. 1979.









                Selected References                                                                                                 D-29




                Conservation Foundation. Flood Hazard Management andNaturalResource Protection (Prepared for FEMA). Washington,
                     D.C.: The Conservation Commission, April 1980.

                Conservation Foundation. State of the Environment: An Assessment at Mid-Decade. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation
                     Foundation, 1984.

                Conservation Foundation. State of the Environment: A View Toward the Nineties. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation
                     Foundation, 1987.

                Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality - 1980. The Eleventh Annual Report of the Council on
                     Environmental Quality. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1980.

                Cowles, C. Deming, and others. State Welland Protection Programs-Status and Recommendations. Prepared for U.S.
                     Environmental Protection Agency, December 1986.

                DeGroot, Bill, Chief, Floodplain Management, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 69. Memo to Diane VanDe
                     Hei, National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies. Comments on Status Report and
                     Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 24,1989.
                Dowan, Joseph J. and Robert J. Craig. Rare and Endangered Species of Connecticut and their Habitats (Report of Investiga-
                     tions No. 6). Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 1976.

                Duerksen, Christopher J. (ed). A Handbook on Historic Preservation Law. The Conservation Foundation and the National
                     Center for Preservation Law, 1983.

                Evans, Carolie, Executive Director, Connecticut Land Trust Service Bureau. Personal communication, 1989.

                Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Flood Insurance Program and Related Regulations, 1987.

                Field Associates, Ralph M. State and Acquisition of Floodplains and Wetlands: A Handbook on the Use ofAcquisition in
                     Floodplain Management. U.S. Water Resources Council, 1981.

                Flanagan, Ronald, D. "Multi-Purpose Planning for Greenway Corridors." 1988.
                Gerbig,B.H. "The Minnesota Water Bank and Wetland Tax Credit Programs." Weiland Ptotection: Strengthening t       he Role
                     of the States. Association of State Wetland Managers, 1984.

                Hammer, Donald A., Projects Manager, Waste Technology Program, Valley Resource Center, Tennessee Valley Authority.
                     Letter to James Wright, Tennessee. Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain
                     Management, August 30,1989.

                Harrington, H.F. "Michigan's Wetland Inventory." Welland Protection: Strengthening the Role of the States. Association
                     of State Weiland Managers, 1984.

                Hyatt, M. Leon, Chief, Earth Sciences Division, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee
                     Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, September 18, 1989.

                Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. A Unified National ProgramforFloodplain Management (FEMA 100).
                     Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.

                Jahn, Laurence R., President, Wildlife Management Institute. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority.
                     Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 31, 1989.

                Josselyn, M. and J. Buchholz, "Summary of Past Weiland Restoration Projects in California," in Weiland Restoration and
                     Enhancement in Califomia. M. Jossely (ed.). California Sea Grant College, December 1982.

                Kusler, Jon A. Our National Weiland Heritage. A Protection Guidebook. Environmental Law Institute, 1983.
                Kusler, Jon A. Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses, Volume 3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Water
                     Resources Council, 1982.

                Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. "Financing Open Space and Conservation." Land Lines (April, 1989).








                     D-30                                                                                                      Appendix D



                     Lowrance, R., and others. "Managing Riparian Ecosystems to Control Nonpoint Pollution." Joumal of Soil and Water
                          Conservation 40, No. 1 (1985).

                     Meagher, John W. Director, Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division, United States Environmental Protection
                          Agency. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of
                          Floodplain Management, September 29,1989.

                     Myers, Phyllis. State Grants for Parklands 1965-1984: Lessons for a New Land and Water Conservation Fund. The
                          Conservation Foundation, 1987.

                     National Review Committee. "Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains." October 17,1989.
                     National Wetlands Policy Forum. ProtectingAmefica's Wetlands: AnActionAgenda (Final Report of the National Wetlands
                          Policy Forum). Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1988.

                     Niedzialkowski, D.M. and J.A. Jaksch. "Wetland Mitigation Banking as an Innovative Approach to Wetland Regulation."
                          1986.

                     Office of Management and Budget. 1988 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
                          Printing Office, 1988.

                     Pavelis, George A. (ed). Farm Drainage in the United States: History, Status and Prospects (Misc. Publication No. 1455).
                          U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1987.

                     Peterjohn, W.T., and D.L. Correll. "Nutrient Dynamics in Agricultural Watershed: Observation on the Role of a Riparian
                          Forest." Ecology 65 No.5 (1985).

                     Platt, Rutherford H. Coastal Wetland Management: StrengtheningERA's Role. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
                          Agency, February 1987.

                     President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. Americans Outdoors: 77te Legacy, the Challenge. Washington, D.C.: Island
                          Press, 1987.

                     Ray, D.K., and W.O. Woodroof. "Mitigating Impacts to Wetlands and Estuaries in California's Coastal Zone" and
                          "Approaches for Restoring and Recreating Wetlands in California's Coastal Zone," in Proceedings: National Wetland
                          Symposium, Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. Association of State Wetland Managers, 1986.

                     Reppert, R.T. "Wetland Values, Concepts and Methods for Wetlands Evaluation." In Selected Proceedings of the Midwest
                          Conference on Wetland Values and Management, June 17-19, 1981. The Freshwater Society, 1981.

                     Riekert, Edward G., Soil Conservation Service and Gray F. Reynolds, Forest Service, Co-Chairman, Water Issues Work
                          Group, United States Department of Agriculture, Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments
                          on Status Repon and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 30, 1989.

                     Sheaffer, John R. Personal communication, September, 1989.
                     Simmering, Richard W. "Mitigating Impacts of Louisiana SCS Watershed Projects." In Proceedings: National Wetland
                          Symposium, Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. Association of State Wetland Managers, 1986.

                     Sprague, Lynn A., Northeastern Regional Representative, National Association of Conservation Districts. Letter to James
                          Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management,
                          September 7, 1989.

                     Swader, Fred and George A. Pavelis. "Drainage Challenges and Opportunities." In Farm Drainage in the United States:
                          History, Status, and Prospects (Misc. Publication No. 1455). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
                          Service, 1987.

                     South Florida Water Management District. "Yissimmce River Restoration Phase I - A Demonstration Project." A Closer
                          Look (1987).

                     The Nature Conservancy. 77te Nature Conservancy Magazine 39, No. 2 (March/April 1989).









                Selected References                                                                                                D-31




                U.S. General Accounting Office. Cultural Resources: Implementation of Federal Historic Preservation Program Can be
                    Improved (Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO/RCED-88-81). June 1988.

                Wetlands Research, Inc. "Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project." 1987.



                                                              CHAPTERS 15 and 16

                Acurti, Dante, Former Chair, Association of State Floodplain Managers. Personal communication, 1988.

                Arnold, Joseph L The Evolution of the 1936 Flood ControlAct. Office of History. Fort Belvoir, Virginia: U.S.Army Corps
                    of Engineers, 1988.

                Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "Conflicts Between Flood Loss Reduction and Natural Values Protection."
                    Workshop #1: Natural and Beneficial Values. In Floodplain Harmony: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference
                    oftheAssociation ofState Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special
                    Publication #19). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1988.

                Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "The Role and Effectiveness of Information and Education vs. Mandatory
                    Requirements." Workshop #2: Awareness and Preparedness. In Floodplain Harmony: Proceedings of the 7Welfth
                    Annual Conference of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications
                    Information Center Special Publication #19). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1988."

                Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "Going Beyond NFIP Minimums: State and Local Regulations." Workshop
                    #3: Land-Use Regulations. In Floodplain Harmony: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Association
                    ofState Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special Publication #19).
                    Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1988.

                Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "Effectiveness of Predisaster Plans for Postdisaster Recovery and Mitiga-
                    tion." Workshop #4: Post-Flood Response and Recovery. In Floodplain Harmony: Proceedings of the TwelfthAnnual
                    Conference of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information
                    Center Special Publication #19). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1988.

                Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "Tying Flood Loss Objectives to Other Community Objectives." Workshop
                    #5: Multiobjective Use of Floodplains. In Floodplain Harmony: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the
                    Association of State Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special
                    Publication #19). Boulder, Colorado- NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1988.

                Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. ."Success in Achieving Flood Loss Reduction and Protection of Natural
                    Values." Workshop #6: Natural and Beneficial Values 11. In Floodplain Harmony: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual
                    Conference of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information
                    Center Special Publication #19). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1988.

                Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "Effectiveness and Reliability of New Technologies." Workshop #7:
                    Awareness and Preparedness IL In Floodplain Harmony: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the
                    Association of State Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special
                    Publication #19). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1988.

                Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "Going Beyond NFIP Minimums: State and Local Regulations." Workshop
                    #8: Land-Use Regulations 11. In Floodplain Harmony: Proceedings ofthe TwelfthAnnual Conference oftheAssociation
                    ofState Floodplain Managers (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center Special Publication #19).
                    Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1988.

                Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "Are Special Approaches Needed for Special Flood Hazards?" Workshop
                    #10: Special Flood Hazards. In Floodplain Harmony: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Association
                    ofState FloodplainManagers (Natural HazardsResearch and Applications Information Center Special Publication #19).
                    Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1988.
                Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "ASFPM Floodplain Yanagement Policy Statement." In National Directory
                    of Floodplain Managers, 1989 Edition. Madison, Wisconsin: Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1989.








                     D-32                                                                                                       Appenftx D



                     Bates, Jimmy F., Chief, Policy and Planning Division, Directorate of Civil Works, United States Army Corps of Engineers.
                          Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain
                          Management, October 31, 1989.

                     Billings, Richard H. and Vito K. Latovich. "Modular Hydrologic Data Acquisition and Real-Time Communications
                          Instrumentation." In A Critical Assessment of Forecasting in Western Water Resources Management: Symposium
                          Proceedings, American Water Resources Association (TPS-84-1). Bethesda, Maryland: American Water Resources
                          Association, 1985.

                     Bond, Leslie A., Leslie A. Bond Associates, Arivaca, Arizona. Personal communication, 1990.

                     Bowker, Peggy, President, Nimbus Engineers, Reno, Nevada. Personal communication, 1988.

                     Burby, Raymond J. and Steven P. French. Flood Plain Land Use Management: A National Assessment (Studies in Water
                          Policy and Management, No. 5). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1985.

                     Cardin, C. William, John E. Moore and Joan M. Rubin. Water Resources Division in the 1980's - A Summary ofActivities
                          and Programs of the U.S. Geological Survey's Water Resources Division (USGS Circular 1005). Denver, Colorado: U.S.
                          Geological Survey, 1986.

                     Changon, Stanley A. and others. A Plan for Research on Floods and 77teir Mitigation in the United States. Final Report to
                          the National Science Foundation. Illinois State Water Survey, 1983.

                     Chow, Ven Te. Handbook ofApphed Hydrology. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1984.

                     Cogswell, Paul M., Vice President, National Committee on Property Insurance. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley
                          Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 30, 1989.

                     Committee on Automated Flood Warning. Automated Flood Warning in Connecticut: A Master Plan. 1988.

                     Conrad, G. Keyes, Jr., Principal Engineer, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico. Letter
                          to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Manage-
                          ment, September 29, 1989.

                     Conservation Foundation. State ofthe Environment:AnAssessment at Mid-Decade. Harrisonburg, Virginia: R. R. Donnelley
                          & Sons Company, 1984.

                     Crook, Arthur G. "Ibe SNOTEL Data Acquisition System: A Tool in Runoff Forecasting." In A Critical Assessment of
                          Forecasting in Western Water Resources Management: Symposium Proceedings, American Water Resources Association
                          (TPS-84-1). Bethesda, Maryland: American Water Resources Association, 1985.

                     Day, Harold J. and Kwang K. Lee, "Flood Damage Reduction Potential of River Forecast." Journal ofthe Water Resources
                          Planning and Management Division XX, No. WRI. New York, New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, April
                          1976.

                     Deason, Jonathan P., Director, Office of Environmental Project Review, U.S. Department of the Interior. Letter to James
                          Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August
                          30,1989.

                     DeGroot, Bill, Chief, Floodplain Management, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 69. Memo to Diane VanDe
                          Hei, National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies. Comments on Status Report and
                          Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 24,1989.

                     Dendy, Farris E. "Sedimentation in the Nation's Reservoirs." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 23, No. 4. Ankeny,
                          Iowa: Soil Conservation Society (1968).

                     Donnelley Marketing Information Services. System Update Report. 1987.

                     Douglass, Janie, Volunteers for Flood Control, Harlan, Kentucky. Personal communication, 1988.

                     Engineering News Record. "FEMA Endorses Beach Act" (December 7, 1989).
                     Engineering News Record. "Building Restrictions Upheld" (November 2,1989).









                Selected References                                                                                               D-33




                Federal Emergency Management Agency. State Non-Federal Dam Safety Programs - 1985. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
                    Government Printing Office, 1985.
                Federal Emergency Management Agency. Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Insurance Studies, Appendix 5: Alluvial
                   . Fan Flooding. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1985.
                Federal Emergency Management Agency. Reducing Losses in High Risk Areas: A Guidebook for Local Officials (FEMA
                    116). Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, February 1987.

                Fuller, Jonathan, Principal Hydrologist, Pima County Transportation and Flood Control District. Memo to Diane VanDe
                    Hei, National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies. Comments on Status Report and
                    Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 2,1989.

                Gallaway, Gerald E., Jr. "Intergovernmental Coordination" (Preliminary Report to the National Review Committee).
                    Unpublished, 1989.
                Grazulis, Thomas P. "Flood Losses and Their Documentation" (Transcript of presentation at the ASF?M conference in
                    Scottsdale, Arizona). May 1989.

                Grazulis, Thomas P. Letter to David Wingerd, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, July 1989.

                Grigg, Neil S., Director, National Association of Water Institute Directors. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley
                    Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 30, 1989.

                Hammer, Donald A., Projects Manager, Waste Technology Program, Valley Resource Center, Tennessee Valley Authority.
                    Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain
                    Management, August 30,1989.

                Heaney, James P., Professor of Environmental Engineering Sciences and Director, Florida Water Resources Research
                    Center. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of
                    Floodplain Management, September 5, 1989.

                Herndon, Morris G., Program Manager, Dam Safety, Tennessee Valley Authority. Letter toJames Wright, Tennessee Valley
                    Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, July 19, 1989.

                Hyatt, M. Leon, Chief, Earth Sciences Division. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee
                    Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, September 18, 1989.

                Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. A Unified NationalProgram for Floodplain Management (FEMA 100).
                    Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.

                ISO Commercial Risk Services Inc. "National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System Schedule." Parsippany,
                    New Jersey: ISO/CRS, 1990.

                Jahn, Laurence R., President, Wildlife Management Institute. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority.
                    Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 31, 1989.
                Jordan, J. Ralph. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of
                    Floodplain Management, August 10, 1989.

                Kusler, Jon. Executive Director, The Association of Wetland Managers, Inc. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley
                    Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, October 11, 1989.

                L.R. Johnston Associates. State Assistance to Illinois Communities for Nonstructural Flood Hazard Mitigation. Illinois
                    Department of Transportation, Division of Water Resources, Local Floodplain Programs, 1985.

                L.R. Johnston Associates. A Status Report on the Nation's Floodplain Management Activity: An Interim Report. Prepared
                    for the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, April 1989.

                Larson, Larry A., Executive Director, Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee
                    Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 31, 1989.








                    D-34                                                                                                       Appenft D



                    Manning, Billy R., Director of Engineering and Education, Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. Letter
                         to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Manage-
                         ment, August 23, 1989.

                    Meagher, John W., Director, Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division, United States Environmental Protection
                         Agency. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of
                         Floodplain Management, September 29,1989.

                    Mendell, Todd, Flash Flood Hydrologist, National Weather Service, Northeast River Forecast Center, Bloomfield,
                         Connecticut. Personal communication, 1988.

                    Mrazik, Brian R. and Harriette A. Kinberg. "The National Flood Insurance Program -- Twenty Years of Progress Towards
                         Nationwide Flood Loss Reduction, DRAFT." Federal Emergency Management Agency, Undated (1989?).

                    Myers, Mary Fran, Project Manager, Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center of the University of
                         Colorado at Boulder. Personal communication, 1989.

                    National Weather Service. Operations of the National Weather Service. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Weather Service,
                         1985.

                    National Review Committee. "Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains." October 17,1989.

                    Owen, James. "Research" (Preliminary Report for the National Research Committee). 1989.

                    Owen, H. James and M. Wendell. Effectiveness ofFlood Warning and PreparednessAltematives (Research Report 81 -RO8).
                         Fort Belvoir, Virginia: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1981.
                    Pasteris, Phillip A. and Robert H. Hartman. "Automated Data Acquisition Techniques for Forecasting Pacific Northwest
                         Rivers." In A Critical Assessment of Forecasting in Westem Water Resources Management: Symposium Prvceedings,
                         American WaterResourcesAssociation ('ITS-84-1). Bethesda, Maryland: American Water Resources Association, 1985.

                    Peterson, Jerome, Chief, Floodplain Management Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Personal communication, 1989.

                    Platt, Rutherford. H., "Management Standards for Special Flood Hazards" (Preliminary report for the National Review
                         Committee). August 1989.

                    Platt, Rutherford H., Professor of Geography and Planning Law, Department of Geography and Geology, University of
                         Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. Personal communication, 1989.

                    Plott, Bob, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Personal communication, 1987.

                    Price, James M., Southeast Representative, Sierra Club. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments
                         on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 24,1989.

                    Quarantelli, E. L. 77te Functioning of the Local Emergency Services Offices in Disasters (RF Project 7632701714847 Final
                         Report). Columbus, Ohio: Disaster Research Center, Ohio State University, October "85.

                    Riekert, Edward G., Soil Conservation Service and Gray F. Reynolds, Forest Service, Co-Chairman, Water Issues Work
                         Group, United States Department of Agriculture. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments
                         on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 30, 1989.
                    Rinne, John N.. Livestock Grazing Effects on Southwestern Streams: A Complex Research Problem." In Riparian
                         Ecosystems and 7heir Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses: Proceedings fiom the First North American Riparian
                         Conference (General Technical Report RM-120). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1985.

                    Rogers, Spencer. Presentation at National Flood Insurance Program conference, 1989.

                    Salvesen, David, Senior Research Associate, Urban Land Institute. Utter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority.
                         Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 30, 1989.

                    Schilling, Kyle, and others. Ae Nation's Public Works: Report on Water Resources (Categories of Public Works Series).
                         Washington, D.C.: National Council on Public Works Improvement, 1987.









                 Selected References                                                                                                  D-35




                 Shafer, Bernard A. and John M. Huddleston. "Analysis of Seasonal Volume Strearnflow Forecast Errors in the Western
                     United States." InA CriticalAssessmentofForecastingin Western WaterResources Management: Symposium Proceedings,
                     American WaterResourcesAssociation (T?S-84-1). Bethesda, Maryland: American Water Resources Association, 1985.

                 Sheaffer, John R. "Improvement of Data Base" (Draft report for the National Review Committee). Unpublished, August
                     1989.

                 Sheaffer, John R. Personal communication, September 1989.

                 Smith, Thomas P.,Associate Director of Research, American Planning Association. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee
                     Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, September 7, 1989.

                 Spitzer, William T., Chief, Recreation Resources Assistance Division, National Park Service. Letter to James Wright,
                     Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, September
                     21,1989.

                 Spragens, Lori C., Executive Director, Association of State Dam Safety Officials. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley
                     Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, July 23, 1989.

                 Sprague, Lynn A., Northeastern Regional Representative, National Association of Conservation Districts. Letter to James
                     Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management,
                     September 7, 1989.
                 Tennessee Valley Authority. Floodplain Management: 77te TYA Experience. Knoxville, Tennessee: Tennessee Valley
                     Authority, 1983.

                 Thomas, Frank H., Assistant Administrator, Office of Loss Reduction, Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency
                     Management Agency. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and
                     Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, October 5, 1989.

                 Thomas, Frank H., Assistant Administrator, Office of Loss Reduction, Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency
                     Management Agency. Personal communication, 1989.

                 Thompson, Philip, Chief, Hydraulic and Geotechnical Branch, Federal Highway Administration. Letter to James Wright,
                     Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, September
                     11,1989.

                 Tidemanson, T.A., Director of Public Works, County of Los Angeles. Memo to Diane Van DeHei, National Association
                     of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain
                     Management August 16, 1989.

                 Tippie, Virginia K., Director, Estuarine Programs Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Letter to
                     James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management,
                     July 7, 1989.

                 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. NationalProgram ofInspection offon-Federal Dams - FinalReport to Congress. Washington,
                     D.C.: Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, 1982.

                 U.S. Water Resources Council. Estimated Flood Damages. Appendix B: Nationwide Analysis Report. Washington, D.C.:
                     U.S. Water Resources Council, 1977.

                 Unnewehr, David, Research Manager, All;Industry Research Council. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority.
                     Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, September 5, 1989.

                 Vessey, Robert D., Director, Disaster Services, American Red Cross. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority.
                     Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 24, 1989.

                 von Wolffradt, Donald B., Soil Conservation Service. Personal communication, 1989.

                 Wetmore, French. "Community Rating System Commentary" (10/20/89 draft prepared for the Community Rating Task
                     Force). Park Forest, Illinois: French and Associates, 1989.








                    D-36                                                                                                        Appendix D



                    Wetmore, French. "Reducing Vulnerability of Existing Buildings" (Preliminary Report to the National Review Committee).
                          Unpublished, 1989.

                    White, Gilbert F. "Need for Appraisal of Overall National Changes in Productivity of Floodplains" (Preliminary Report
                          for the National Review Committee). Unpublished, 1989.

                    Williams, Stanley M., Director, Stormwater Management Department, City of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Personal communication,
                          1989.

                    Wooley, Douglas. "An Economic and Historical Perspective of Flood Damage: The Viability of Structural Solutions." In
                          Strengthening Local Flood Protection Programs: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Association of State
                          Fkiodplain Managem June 17-19,1987, Pittsburgk Pewzy)lvania (Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information
                          Center Special Publication #15). Boulder, Colorado: NHRAIC, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1987.

                    Wright, Stewart K "What the 100 Year Flood Level Isn't." Noah's Notes 2, No. 3 (October-November 1989).









                APPENDIX E:

                AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS INVITED TO
                COMMENT ON THE STATUS REPORT
                AND ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
                FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT1




                                                       GOVERNMENT AGENCIES



                Federal Emergency Management Agency*                        U.S. Department of the Interior*
                Federal Insurance Administration                            Bureau of Reclamation


                International Boundary and Water Commission*                U.S. Department of the Interior*
                United States and Mexico                                    National Park Service

                Tennessee Valley Authority*                                 U.S. Department of the Interior*
                Floodplain Management Program                               Office of Environmental Project Review

                U.S. Department of Agriculture*                             U.S. Department of the Interior
                Soil Conservation Service                                   U.S. Geological Survey

                U.S. Department of the Army*                                U.S. Department of Transportation*
                U.S. Army Corps of Engineers                                Federal Highway Administration

                U.S. Department of Commerce*                                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration             Office of Federal Activities
                Estuarine Programs Office
                                                                            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*
                U.S. Department of Commerce                                 Office of Wetlands Protection
                National Weather Service

                U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
                ment








                         In 1989, the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force sent letters to the representatives
                         of 15 government agencies and 56 professional and nonprofit organizations requesting their comments
                         on the Status Report and on the effectiveness of floodplami managIement. Specific questions pertaining
                         to the Status Report were prepared and sent to each invited reviewer. This appendix lists the agencies
                         and organizations invited to comment, and includes copies of the letters and questions sent to each.
                         Those that provided comments are noted with an asteriskm. The comments provided were- incorpo-
                         rated into the Assessment Report where appropriate and are available from the Federal Interagency
                         Floodplain Management Task Force on request.








                   E4                                                                                                       Appendk E




                                           PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS



                   All Industry Research Advisory Council*                         National Association of State Research Planners

                   American Institute of Architects Foundation                     National Association of Towns and Townships

                   American Planning Association*                                  National Association of Water Institute Directors*

                   American Public Works Association                               National Audubon Society

                   American Red Cross*                                             National Committee on Property Insurance*

                   American Rivers                                                 National Conference of State Legislatures

                   American Society of Civil Engineers                             National Governor's Association

                   American Water Resources Association                            National Institute for Urban Wildlife

                   Association of Conservation Engineers                           National League of Cities

                   Association of State Dam Safety Officials*                      National Organization for River Sports

                   Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc.*                 National Recreation and Park Assoc.

                   Association of State River Managers                             National Waterways Conference

                   Amociation of State Water and Interstate Pollution              National Wetlands Technical Council
                   Control Agencies
                                                                                   National Wildlife Federation
                   Association of Wetland Managers, Inc.*
                                                                                   Natural Hazards Research & Applications Information
                   Building Officials & Code Administrators,                       Center
                   International
                   Coastal States Organization                                     The Nature Conservancy, Inc.
                   The Conservation Foundation and Wildlife Fund                   North American Lake Management Society
                                                                                   Sierra Club*
                   Council of State Governments
                                                                                   Society for Ecological Restoration and Management
                   Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
                   Environmental Policy Institute                                  Soil and Water Conservation Society
                   Friends of the River Foundation                                 Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc.*
                                                                                   Trust for Public Land
                   International Congress of Building Officials
                                                                                   The Urban Land Institute*
                   Interstate Conference on Water Problems
                                                                                   Water Science and Technology Board
                   Isaak Walton League of America
                                                                                   Wetlands Research, Inc.
                   National Association of Conservation Districts*
                   National Association of Counties                                Wetlands for Wildlife

                   National Association of Flood & Stormwater Manage-              Wilderness Society
                   ment Agencies*
                                                                                   Wildlife Management Institute*
                   National Association of Home Builders







            Agencies and Organizations Invited to Comment
                                                                                                      E-3




                      LETTER SENT TO REPRESENTATIVES OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES












                     Te@lneSsee Valie, Au@norqy -CC 'NeSl Sirrmil Hili Dfive Krox@.@ilc Ter-Ss@e 37932
                                   IDENTICAL LETTER SENT TO THOSE ON ATTACHED LIST




                                                     June 1, 1989











                     Mr. Bruce Brown
                     Land Resources Management Branch
                     Bureau of Reclamation
                     Main Interior Building
                     Washington, D.C. 20240


                     Dear Mr. Brown:


                     You are being sent under separate mailing the requested number of copies
                     of a report entitled "A Status Report on the Nation's Floodplain
                     Management Activity." They are being sent to you to obtain your agency's
                     review of this document and to assist in the evaluation of the status and
                     effectiveness of floodplain management efforts. Should you need additional
                     copies, please contact me.

                     This report was prepared by a work group of the Federal Interagency Task
                     Force on Floodplain Management, of which your agency is a member or parti-
                     cipant. The task force is responsible for following up on recommendations
                     to the President and the Congress contained in an earlier report by the
                     task force entitled A Unified National Proxram for Floodplain Management.
                     You should have copies of this report. Additional copies are available
                     from the Federal.Emergency Management Agency.

                     One of the recommendations in the "Unified National Program" document is
                     to "provide evaluation of floodplain management activities with periodic
                     reporting to the public and to the Congress on progress toward implemen-
                     tation of 'A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management'.- The
                     enclosed report is the first segment of a three-year effort to fulfill the
                     above recommendation. It represents a compilation of both known and avail-
                     able information about the background and current status of floodplain
                     management. Despite our goals to include all relevant information, to
                     adequately discuss all topics, and to provide balance in the treatment of
                     subjects, there may be important information and data that have been
                     omitted that should be included in a report on the status of the Nation's
                     floodplains. Thus, this document is an interim status report.








               E-4                                                                                Appendix E



                          LETrER SENT TO REPRESENTATIVES OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
                                                        (Continued)



                                                              -2-


                          Mr. Bruce Brown                                          June 1, 1989




                          In addition to serving as a status report, it will also be a foundation
                          for evaluating the degree of success or failure of the basic strategies
                          and tools utilized to reduce the loss of human life and property and
                          maintaining natural and beneficial floodplain values. Evaluations and
                          comments on this (interim) status report obtained from the task force
                          agencies, national organizations, and from other expects will be compiled
                          and used by the task force in preparing a second report on the effective-
                          ness of the various strategies and tools for achieving the above floodplain
                          management goals. Your evaluations and comments will also be used as input
                          for developing a final status report. Finally, the task force will utilize
                          the status and evaluation reports for updating A Unified National Program
                          for Floodplain Management.


                          We would like your agency's views as to the adequacy of the status report
                          in describing what is happening in the Nation's floodplains, but we would
                          particularly like its perspectives on the effectiveness of the various
                          floodplain management strategies and tools and recommendations for improv-
                          ing their implementation and use. Because a large number of agencies and
                          organizations are being invited to contribute their assistance, you ace
                          requested to attempt to organize the comments and recommendations of your
                          agency accordant to the enclosed questions. These represent questions for
                          which the task force is particularly interested in obtaining your views.
                          Of course, any additional thoughts and views will be welcomed. Your
                          agency's comments will be compiled along with others and become a part
                          of this study and will be made available for further reference and use.

                          So that the views and comments of your agency might be used in carrying
                          out an evaluation of the effectiveness of floodplain management and in
                          preparing the final status report, we would appreciate receiving your
                          comments by August 30 at the above address. Should you have any questions
                          in preparing your comments, I can be contacted at (615) 632-4792.

                          The task force work group has asked me to emphasize to you the importance
                          of receiving your agency's views and comments. For this reason, we hope
                          you will be able to provide us with this valuable assistance.

                          Thank you in advance for taking the time and making this effort.

                                 ly,
                                             @A
                          James M. Wright
                        7
                              e S
                           _6W, @14      I
                          Project Manager



                          Enclosures








            Agencies and Organizations Invited to Comment                                            E-5



                         LETTER SENT TO REPRESENTATIVES OF PROFESSIONAL AND
                                          NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS











                     Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knomife. Terressee 37902
                                   IDENTICAL LETTER SE14T TO THOSE ON ATTACHED LIST




                                                    May 30, 1989










                     Ms. Diane Vande Hei
                     National Association of Flood and
                       Stormwater Management Agencies
                     1225 Eye Street, NW., Suite 300
                     Washington, D.C. 20005


                     Dear Ms. Hei:


                     Enclosed is a copy of a report entitled "A Status Report on the Nation's
                     Floodplain Management Activity." It is being sent to you as a representa-
                     tive,of an organization with knowledge or concerns regarding our flood-
                     plains. Your organization's evaluation of the status and effectiveness of
                     floodplain management efforts is sought to improve floodplain management
                     at the local, state, and Federal levels. A limited number of additional
                     copies of the report are available from this office upon request for your
                     use in assisting us.

                     This report was prepared by the Federal Interagency Task Force on Flood-
                     plain Management, which is responsible for following up on recommendations
                     to the President and the Congress contained in an earlier report by the
                     task force entitled A Unified National Prozram for Floodplain Management.
                     Also enclosed is a document entitled "Conceptual Framework and Basic
                     Strategies and Tools for Implementing A Unified National Program for
                     Floodplain Management" which provides relevant materials excerpted from
                     the earlier report. 'Additional copies are also available upon request.

                     One of the recommendations in the "Unified National Program" document is
                     to "provide evaluation of floodplain management activities with periodic
                     reporting to the public and to the Congress on progress toward implemen-
                     tation of 'A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management'." The
                     enclosed report is the first segment of a three-year effort to fulfill the
                     above recommendation. It represents a compilation of both known and avail-
                     able information about the background and current status of floodplain
                     management. Despite our goals to include all relevant information, to
                     adequately discuss all topics, and to provide balance in the treatment of








                E-6                                                                                Appendix E



                            LETTER SENT TO REPRESENTATIVES OF PROFESSIONAL AND
                                              NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
                                                        (Continued)

                                                             -2-


                         Ms. Diane Vande Hei                                       May 30, 1989




                         subjects, there may be important information and data that have been
                         omitted that should be included in a report on the status of the Nation's
                         floodplains. Thus,  this document is an interim status report.

                         In addition to serving as a status report, it will also be a foundation
                         for evaluating the degree of success or failure of the basic strategies
                         and tools utilized to reduce the loss of human life and property and
                         maintaining natural and beneficial floodplain values. Evaluations and
                         comments on this (interim) status report obtained from organizations such
                         as yours and from other experts will be compiled and used by the task
                         force in preparing a second report on the effectiveness of the various
                         strategies and tools for achieving the above floodplain management goals.
                         Your evaluations and comments will also be used as input for developing a
                         final status report. Finally, the task force will utilize the status and
                         evaluation reports for updating A Unified National Program for Floodplain
                         Management.


                         We would like your organization's views as to the.adequacy of the status
                         report in describing what is happening in the Nation's floodplains, but we
                         would particularly like its perspectives on the effectiveness of the
                         various floodplain management strategies and tools and recommendations for
                         improving their implementation and use. Because a large number of
                         agencies and organizations are being invited to contribute their assist-
                         ance, you are requested to attempt to organize the comments and recommenda-
                         tions of your organization accordant to the enclosed questions. These
                         represent questions for which the task force is particularly interested in
                         obtaining your views. Of course, any additional thoughts and views will
                         be welcomed. Your organization's comments will be compiled along with
                         others and become a part of this study and will be made available for
                         further reference and use.


                         So that the views and comments of your organization might be used in
                         carrying out an evaluation of the effectiveness of floodplain management
                         and in preparing the final status report, we would appreciate receiving
                         your comments by August 30 at the above address. Should you have any
                         questions in preparing your comments, I can be contacted at (615) 632-4792.

                         The task force work group has asked me to emphasize to you the importance
                         of receiving your organization's views and comments. For this reason, we
                         hope you will be able to provide us with this valuable assistance.

                         Thank you in advance for taking the time and making this effort.
                      (
                         Sin er ly,
                              r
                             ,A4 (       I
                        t@@
                         James M. Wright
                         Project Manager


                         Enclosures







            Agencies and Organizations Invited to Comment                                             E-7



                    QUESTIONS SENT TO REPRESENTATIVES OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
                            AND PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZA11ONS




                                      An Assessment of the Nation's Program
                                             for Floodplain Management

                                     Questions for Reviewing "A Status Report
                                 on the Nation's Floodplain Mananement Activity"



                      I. What is the significance of the status report information on loss
                          reduction tools and strategies?

                          A. For each strategy and tool (Part IV, status report) which seeks
                              to reduce loss of human life and property, please answer the
                              following questions.

                              1. How well is the stated objective (reduce loss of life and
                                  property) being accomplished at the Federal, State, and
                                  local levels, and by the private sector?



                              2. What can be done at each level to improve its effectiveness?


                              3.  Who should be responsible for carrying out this objective?



                              4.  Are all the tools for flood loss reduction discussed in the
                                  status report being utilized to their fullest potential?
                                  Why?



                              5.  In achieving reduction in loss of human life and property,
                                  are there conflicts with maintaining natural values? Can
                                  these conflicts be resolved? If so, how?



                              6. Do you have any other related comments or recommendations?



                          B.  For each strategy and tool (Part IV, status report) which seeks
                              to maintain floodplain natural and beneficial values, please
                              answer the following questions.

                              1. How well is the stated objective being accomplished at the
                                  Federal, State, and local levels, including the private
                                  sector and by the private sector?



                              2. What can be done at each level to improve its effectiveness?


                              3.  Who should be responsible for carrying out this objective?


                              4.  Are all the tools for maintaining floodplain natural and
                                  beneficial values discussed in the status report being
                                  utilized to their fullest potential? Why?








               E-8                                                                                Appendix E



                       QUESTIONS SENT TO REPRESENTATIVES OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
                               AND PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
                                                        (Continued)



                                                            -2-




                                   5.  In achieving preservation or restoration of natural
                                       floodplain values, are there conflicts with flood loss
                                       reduction goals? Can these conflicts be resolved? If so,
                                       how?



                                   6. Do you have any other related comments or recommendations?




                           II. What organizational structure and approach or combination of
                               approaches at the Federal, State, and local levels do you think
                               are necessary to accomplish the two broad floodplain manage-
                               ment Soals of reducing loss of life and property and maintaining
                               natural values?




                          III. Considering the overall status of floodplain management as we come
                               to the end of this decade and century, and the trends that have been
                               discussed in the status report, what do you think is achievable as a
                               goal or goals for floodplain management for the year 2000 and beyond?




                           IV. What one or two factors do you believe are the greatest impediments
                               to the effective implementation of floodplain management?


                           V.  What comments do you have on the quality of the status report?

                                   Is information contained in the status report accurate and
                                   reasonably complete? Is there an adequate and appropriate
                                   balance in presentation of subjects and information? Does the
                                   report provide for a proper balance in discussing the strategies
                                   and tools for flood loss reduction and maintaining natural
                                   values?



                                   If not, please indicate where corrections should be made or
                                   supplementary information included. Please provide this
                                   supplementary information if possible and indicate the source of
                                   the data or information.




                         VI. Please share any other comments or concerns of your organizations'
                               members.









               APPENDIX F:

               "ACTION AGENDA FOR MANAGING THE
               NATION'S FLOODPLAINS99

               October 17, 1989

               (A Review of A Status Report on the Nation's Floodplain Management Activity, April 1989.)






               Prepared by the National Review Committee:'

               Raymond J. Burby
               Gerald E. Galloway
               James E. Goddard
               James G. Gosselink
               H. James Owen
               Rutherford H. Platt
               William E. Riebsame, Vice-Chair
               John R. Sheaffer
               French Wetmore
               Gilbert F. White, Chair
               Stanley M. Williams








                        A National Review Committee consisting of prominent floodplain and natural resource management
                        professionals was formed by the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force in 1989.
                        The National Review Committee reviewed A Status Report on the Nation's Floodplain Management
                        Activity: An Intefim Report, April 1989, and provided detailed comments on the data and analysis
                        contained in that report. The Committee also met to discuss the effectiveness of floodplain manage-
                        ment in the Nation and prepared "An Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains" (the
                        Action Agenda).

                        The Action Agenda report, which is presented in its entirety in this appendix, contains the Review
                        Committee's observations on the present floodplain management situation, the evolution of national
                        floodplain management goals, and some key factors that affect the ability of governmental agencies
                        and the private sector to improve floodplain management capabilities. The report ends with the
                        Committee's recommendations for further actions that should be carried out by federal agencies to
                        improve the current status of floodplain management.

                        Biographical sketches describing the qualifications of each member of the Review Committee are
                        provided at the end of the Appendix.








            F-2                                                             Appendix F












                       ACTION AGENDA FOR MANAGING THE NATION'S FLOODPLAINS




                                        Table of Contents





                The Situation in Brief                                  F-5

                Two Goals of National Floodplain Management             F-7

                Assessment                                              F-8

                Factors Affecting Further Activity                      F-12

                Recommended Action                                      F-16
















                    Preparation of both our detailed comments and this broader
                assessment was greatly facilitated by the staff of the Natural
                Hazards Research and Applications Information Center of the
                University of Colorado at Boulder, and by its project manager,
                Mary Fran Myers.








         "Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"                  F-3








                    ACTION AGENDA FOR HANAGING THE NATION'S FLOODPLAINS



                  A report on the status of floodplain management in the

             United States provides a timely occasion to examine the

             effectiveness of those activities in recent years and the extent

             to which they are likely to meet the nation's needs in the years

             ahead. We have reviewed the interim Status Report on the

             Nation's FloodylAin Management Activity and have offered a

             detailed set of comments on the data and analysis it contains.

             These comments have been transmitted to the Task Force and to

             L.R. Johnston Associates.

                  Based on review of that report and our experience with

             diverse aspects of floodplain problems, we call attention here to

             implications of the report for future public and private policy

             affecting the use of floodplains. We sum up the present

             situation, observe how the national aims of floodplain management

             have evolved and how Federal activities have moved toward them,

             and recommend further action required in light of current

             conditions and trends.

                  The test of how well the management activities are being

             carried out is in what happens at the level of individual farms,

             households, and local communities. We haveassessed the wide-

             ranging efforts of Federal, State and Local agencies to support

             or guide actions at that level, and have sought to appraise the

             outcomes of those efforts as reflected in the natural and social

             environment of the nation's floodplains and related areas. This








            F-4                                                              Appendix F







                report sums up the Committee's assessment and recommends a series

                of actions that should be taken as soon as practicable at the

                Federal level.

                     At the outset it is important to recognize that in practice

                there is no truly unified national program for floodplain

                management. This stems in part from ambiguity in national goals.

                If the limited resources of money and people are to be

                effectively deployed, it will be necessary to clarify and

                harmonize the two major goals as they have come to be defined on

                the national scene and as they are discussed in the following

                pages.

                     In numerous instances the evidence provided by the Status

                report is insufficient to warrant a firm judgment as to the

                progress of floodplain management. In those cases we suggest

                steps that should be taken to provide a basis for sound

                evaluation. Lacking fully satisfactory data, we nevertheless

                have ventured provisional judgments as to what has been happening

                and as to what accounts for conspicuous successes and failures.

                Further data collection and analysis thereby may be spurred.

                     The present status of floodplain management does not

                encourage complacency. The record is mixed. There are

                encouraging trends, as with the number of communities having some

                form of floodplain regulations, but the rising toll of average

                annual flood losses has not been stopped or reversed. Some

                activities look more productive on paper than on the ground or in

                the real vulnerability of people. on balance, progress has been







         "Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"                  F1-5







              far short of what is desirable or possible, or what was envisaged

              at times when the current policies and activities were initiated.

                                   The Situation in Brief

                   When the first Federal commitment to flood problems on a

              national scale took shape in 1936, the emphasis was heavily on

              protection of hazardous areas by flood control works in the

              floodplain or upstream. In 1966, a Presidential Order focused

              attention on a broader array of measures that could be practiced

              by Federal, State, and Local agencies to manage flood losses.

              During the late 60's and early 701s, with increasing

              environmental awareness and enactment of the NEPA and Clean Water

              legislation, additional attention was focused on protection of

              the natural values of floodplains. The'possible Federal

              approaches were refined and expanded in A Unified National

              Program for Flood Plain Management in 1976, and further revised

              in 1979 and 1986, as described in the Status Report.

                   Despite massive public and private efforts to reduce flood

              vulnerability, losses to the nation from occupance of riverine

              and coastal areas subject to inundation are continuing to

              escalate in constant dollars. Some of the losses can be

              attributed to failure to complete protection works. Most can be

              attributed to increased property at risk.   Vulnerable property

              clearly is expanding in extent and value. Losses include damages

              to properties and public infrastructure, disruption of local

              economies, disruption of traffic flows, and death and suffering

              for people living or caught in flooded areas. Average annual








            F-6                                                             Appendix F







                damages for the country as a whole are on the order of $2-6

                billion (1985 dollars). This indicates that the statistics are

                notoriously incomplete and inaccurate. There has been little

                careful appraisal of benefits derived from use of floodplains, or

                of the proportion of losses and corrective expenditures that are

                plainly uneconomic.

                     When floodplains are developed for urban and agricultural

                purposes, the natural values they provide can be reduced. Data

                on the rate and quality of loss of these environmental assets are

                also poor. The continuing flood damages and losses stem from the

                ways floodplains are used. Private interests, in many instances,

                develop land to maximize the owner's economic return but in a

                fashion that degrades natural values and increases public

                expenditure for relief, rehabilitation, and corrective action.

                Government programs, however well intentioned, often encourage

                such adverse developments. The exceptions, however, where

                development enhances and preserves natural values, provide

                encouragement that it may be achieved more widely.

                     The current system for managing floodplains and protecting

                the nation from impacts of unwise use is piecemeal. It is

                dispersed among a variety of agencies at Federal, State, and

                Local levels. The Unified National Program for Flood Plain

                Management was intended to correct this. In order to address why

                that program has not succeeded and what now should be done, it is

                important to step back, and recognize and clarify the goals that

                have evolved.







         "Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"                     F-7







                           Two Goals of National Floodplain Management

                    The goals now being pursued by the Nation in these matters

               are two-fold and inter-related, and often not easily harmonized.

                    1.    To reduce the vulnerability of all Americans to the
                          danger and damage of floods.

                    The dangers of flooding include threats to life, safety,

               public health, and mental well being as well as damages to

               properties and infrastructure, and disruptions of the economy.

               Protection from those hazards should be provided, by whatever

               measures are suitable, for floods of the 1%, or 100-year,

               frequency level as a minimum. Protection from the effects of

               greater, less frequent flooding is still needed in those places

               where such flooding will cause unacceptable or catastrophic

               damages.

                    2.    To preserve and enhance the natural values of the
                          Nation's floodplains.

                    Natural floodplains serve society with flood water storage,

               ground water recharge, water quality enhancement, aesthetic

               pleasure, and habitat for plants and animals. Many floodplains

               have cultural and historical significance. Urban and

               agricultural developments in floodplains may reduce those

               services with resulting costs to society for replacement or in

               degraded quality of life. It is in the public interest to avoid

               development that destroys those values or, in instances where the

               public good requires development, to assure that measures are

               taken to mitigate the loss in values by replacement or other


               means.








            F-8                                                              Appendix F






                     These two goals are achievable and can be reconciled through

                appropriate management shared by the agencies involved in ways

                that can be measured.




                                            Assessment


                     The National Review Committee believes that:

                          While considerable progress has been made over the past

                          two decades, the Unified National Program is neither

                          unified nor national. It falls short of achieving the

                          goals set out for it by the Congress and previous

                          administrations in several respects. It does not

                          integrate adequately either the numerous program aims

                          or the efforts of those charged with implementing them.



                          Federal agencies have, in general, made efforts to

                          focus on the immediate goals of their specific missions

                          defined in legislation and administrative guidance, as

                          outlined in the accompanying figure. They have, for

                          the most part, been diligent and forward-looking within

                          the bounds of their statutory charters. At the

                          technical level, they have made major contributions to

                          the Nation's ability to cope with flood hazards. The

                          figure does not show the vast differences among

                          agencies in how they foster local efforts. It does

                          suggest the complexity faced by a local agency in

                          trying to deal with diverse Federal programs.







                      "Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"                                                                                                                     F-9










                                                                                                                                                                    -1h
                                                                               OV
                                                                                      _,p      4V
                                                                                         d?                                                   0-
                                 FEDERAL AGENCY
                                 FLOODPLAIN MGMT.
                                 PRO-GRAMS



                                 Flood Hazard
                                 SuidiewReport,                 0       0                                         0                  0              0
                                 Tachni I/Planning              0       0         0                     0         0        0         0              0
                                 AWsta:u.

                                 Suucwml Flood
                                 Control                        0       9                                                            0              0

                                 Warning and
                                 Forecasting                                      0

                                 Emergency Preparedness         0       0                                         0                                        0
                                 and Recovery

                                 Rese rcb                       0       0         0                     0         0                  0                            0

                                 Nonstructural Flood
                                 Control                        0       0                                         0

                                 Environmental Protection       0                                       0

                                 Water (hmlity Protection
                                 and Wetlands                   0       9                               0                            0

                                 Protection of Endangered
                                 Species                                                                                             46





                                                     There is no central direction for the Unified National

                                                     Program. No agency has the charter or capability to

                                                     carry it out in its entirety, and no agency has

                                                     authority for assuring coordination of the numerous

                                                     programs targeted on its objectives. There are serious

                                                     overlaps, gaps, and conflicts among programs aimed at

                                                     solving the same problem.







             F-10                                                             AppendU F






                        Federal agencies, partly in response to budget

                        reductions, have made significant advances in shifting

                        operational responsibility for selected programs

                        involving either funding or regulations - to the State

                        and Local level. Generally, the response of State and

                        Local governments has been constructive, although its

                        quality varies by State and region.

                        Several indicators point to progress in floodplain

                        management programs:

                             - Participation in the National Flood Insurance

                             Program (NFIP) has increased. Initial

                             identification of flood hazards has been completed

                             for over 18,200 communities now in the program, of

                             which 16,400 have adopted some kind of management


                             measures.


                             - The NFIP no longer subsidizes insurance for new

                             construction in the floodplain.

                             - The new technologies and techniques associated

                             with hydrologic forecasting, modeling, and flood

                             warning have substantially improved the quality of

                             those activities.

                             - Considerable effort has been made to identify

                             and protect wetlands within as well as outside

                             floodplains.

                        Federal agencies have been inconsistent in assimilating

                        the concept of the natural value of floodplains. Their




                                                                    i







         "Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"                 F-I I






                     mission statements are accordingly inconsistent. Full

                     implementation of natural value protection is less

                     widespread.

                ï¿½    Agency competition, duplication, and resulting

                     inefficiency are fostered by the patchwork of Federal

                     legislation giving differing authorities and

                     directives.

                ï¿½    Responsibility at the Federal level for data collection

                     is scattered among many agencies so that none take the

                     lead in collecting, analyzing, and reporting on the

                     full range of floodplalLn characteristics and management

                     activities. As a result, it is impossible to

                     accurately appraise the current status of floodplain

                     management activities across the nation.

                     The many Federal programs lack a common focus, and

                     create conflicts and limitations that act as

                     impediments to Local jurisdictions in implementing

                     floodplain management.

                     States and communities have had varying success at

                     accepting and balancing the disparate elements of the

                     Federal programs. Some states and most communities

                     appear to lack the full resources necessary to bring

                     about comprehensive local action without Federal

                     support.

                     Considerable infrastructure and many important Federal

                     and local structures remain in the floodplain and,







             F-12                                                            'Appendix F






                          although protected to a degree, remain vulnerable to

                          large scale damage. Little information is available on

                          the degree of vulnerability.

                          While some states and communities have taken a

                          comprehensive approach to floodplain management, others

                          have not. This failure to integrate flood loss

                          reduction, protection of natural values, and Federal

                          and community development goals, hinders achievement of

                          floodplain management objectives. In addition, because

                          many problems may encompass larger hydrologic regions

                          and may extend across several local jurisdictions and

                          perhaps states, development of broad state and

                          interstate plans may be necessary.

                     The detailed support for these assessments is to be found in

                the Status Report or, in its lack of necessary information.

                               Factors Affecting Further Activity

                     As background for our recommendations, we note significant

                factors that may be expected to shape the ability of government

                and private sectors to improve floodplain management.

                     Much of the public action is constrained by prevailing

                perceptions, sometimes incorrect, of floods and their

                consequences. Flooding is rare in many areas, and generally is

                not regarded as an important issue in community policy making.

                People believe it won't happen again, or in their community.

                Although some kind of regulation of flood-prone land may be

                enacted, flood problems in most communities have low salience in








          "Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"                    F-13






              the public budget. Local governments misjudge their ability to

              deal  with severe overflows. Moreover, many people believe the

              best  way to deal with a flood problem when it does seem crucial

              is to commit public funds to construction of a project to store

              or control flood waters.,   All this is reflected in budgets and in

              the interaction of public   agencies and private developers.

                    Even where the public is well informed, the management

              effort is difficult.and complicated. There are conflicting

              technica 1 viewpoints in mapping the precise areas to be inundated

              by an event defined by a statistical probability, in making the

              results lucid for lay people, and in identifying and evaluating

              the whole set of natural features affected. There are

              complications in approaching a flood problem in the context of an

              entire drainage area, and in anticipating the consequences of a

              loss mitigation measure upon an area's economy and welfare.

                    The barriers to smooth implementation of a management effort

              are well known wherever a large number of agencies, each with its

              own statutory mission, seek their own ends. This is the case

              with floodplains. Administrative staffs defend their own turf

              and prefer sole responsibility for a project or program.

                    Floodplain managers at all levels of government have an

              uneven degree of knowledge about the diverse strategies and

              measures comprising floodplain management, for example, a

              combination of structural and non-structural measures. A variety

              of disciplines therefore are called into play, but there is no

              well-established institution to train floodplain managers.








            .F-14                                                            ,@ppendix F







                often, lack of familiarity with all of the available techniques

                biases the investigation and selection of solutions for specific

                flood problems, hinders the development of comprehensive

                floodplain management, and impedes balancing of.the dual

                objectives of flood vulnerability reduction and natural values

                protection.

                     Beyond such direct constraints, there are a number of trends

                on the national scale that make floodplain management intricate

                and require flexible methods. We enumerate a selection of these.

                          Aging public infrastructure (bridges, roads, water and

                          sewer lines) will require replacement or upgrading

                          during the coming decades. The strengthening or

                          expansion of existing services in riverine and coastal

                          flood hazard areas will require tough decisions at the

                          local level as to whether and how further growth in

                          those areas can be managed without increasing flood

                          vulnerability.

                          Existing small-scale development in numerous hazard

                          areas is gradually being replaced by new forms and

                          patterns. In coastal areas, for example, traditional

                          seashore cottages are being replaced by higher density

                          condominiums and commercial structures; whether this

                          can be done while achieving the twin goals of reducing

                          vulnerability to flood and erosion losses and

                          protecting natural values remains to be seen. Some

                          other areas where property is deteriorating due to








         "Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"                 F-15







                         repeated flooding are being resettled by low income

                         people.

                    a    Improved water quality in some river reaches is
                         attracting more recreational use of waterside'lands.

                    0    Floodplain management will increasingly be seen as an

                         element in overall environmental protection and

                         improvement. Floodplains will be viewed as integral

                         landscape elements requiring special attention.

                    a    The increasing scale and sophistication of urban

                         development increase the potential for integrating

                         floodplain considerations in the planning process but

                         also enlarge the possibility for dramatic changes in

                         vulnerability.

                    0    The recent decades of regulatory efforts, along with

                         urban growth, have resulted in and will continue to

                         encourage dense development adjacent to regulatory

                         boundaries. Such concentration of development may

                         increase vulnerability to catastrophic losses from

                         large floods.

                   Other technological and social trends are provided in the

              Status Report. The ones noted above are enough to suggest that

              the national program as a whole must be alert and flexible in

              dealing with new conditions as they arise.








            F-16                                                             Appcndix F








                                       Recommended Action

                    we recommend six groups of actions that should be taken by

               the Interagency Task Force or by other Federal agencies in close

               collaboration with State and Local organizations.

               1.   Intecrrate flood loss vulnerability and Rrotection of

                    floodylain natural valueg into broader state and communit

                    development and resource manacrement processes.

                    1.1  To promote integrated planning and management of

                         appropriate hydrologic units, many of which encompass

                         multiple local and state jurisdictions, the Interagency

                         Task Force on Floodplain Management should vigorously

                         foster the preparation of State floodplain management

                         plans involving both public and private interests and,

                         where appropriate, interstate agreements for

                         preparation of basin plans. Such plans should consider

                         and balance measures to preserve and enhance the

                         ecological integrity of hydrologic units with measures

                         to meet social needs.

                    1.2  Because comprehensive floodplain management programs

                         provide a means for balancing economic development,

                         flood-loss reduction, environmental protection, and

                         other community goals, along with means of integrating

                         stormwater quality and quantity objectives with upland

                         and floodplain land uses, sections 1361 and 1315 of the

                         National Flood Insurance Act should be administered so

                         as to require preparation of comprehensive floodplain







          "Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"                -F-17






                       management plans that complement the two national goals

                       as a condition for continued participation in the

                       National Flood Insurance Program. (Several of our

                       members regard this requirement as impractical  because

                       many local governments lack the resources necessary to

                       meet it.)

                  1.3 As a further incentive for the preparation of such

                       plans, the Interagency Task Force should draft and

                       recommend an Executive Order requiring that new Federal

                       investments, regulations, grants-in-aid, and other

                       floodplain actions be consistent with State and Local

                       floodplain management plans insofar as they conform to

                       Federal standards.

                  1.4  To assist in preparing comprehensive floodplain

                       management plans, the Interagency Task Force should

                       seek to coordinate Federal programs and to foster model

                       plans, demonstration projects, and research to improve

                       planning methods and techniques.

            2.    Improve the data base for floodRlain management.

                  2.1  In jurisdictions expected to experience rapid rates of

                       urban growth in upstream drainage areas, the

                       floodplains should be re-mapped to take into account

                       hydrologic conditions associated with full development

                       of the drainage areas under existing land-use plans and

                       policies of relevant jurisdictions, with a view to

                       curbing increased stormwater runoff.








            F-18                                                             Appendix F







                   2.2  A cooperative and jointly funded program should be
                        established by the National science Foundation and the

                        interested Federal agencies to develop methods for

                        mapping, regulating, and identifying natural values in

                        areas with special flood hazards including: 1)

                        alluvial fans; 2) fluctuating lake levels; 3) ice

                        jams; 4) moveable stream channels; 5) land

                        subsidence; 6) storm drainage overflow and backup, and

                        7) mud flows, and to develop methods for measuring the

                        flood storage capacity of river reaches.

                   2.3  The Interagency Task Force should formulate an accurate

                        and affordable national system for gathering flood loss

                        data meeting the needs of policy makers and floQdplain

                        managers.

                   2.4  The National Sci4nce Foundation should be requested to

                        consider funding research to examine, in a selected

                        sample of communities, the full benefits and costs,

                        both public and private, of floodplain occupancy and

                        associated floodplain management measures, having due

                        regard for national productivity, the impacts on

                        natural values, and the equitable distribution of costs

                        and benefits.

              3.   Give weight to local conditions

                   3.1  Because uniform national prescription standards for the

                        preservation, use, and development of floodplains and

                        other hazard areas sometimes create the potential for








          "Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"                F-19,








                        inefficient allocation of resources and for social

                        inequities, the Federal agencies should examine the

                        practicability of using performance standards,

                        implemented through local watershed and floodplain

                        management programs, but should not promote any

                        slackening of limits on permissible vulnerability.

                  3.2   The Federal Insurance Administration should adopt and

                        implement a community rating system to encourage

                        communities to adopt flood hazard mitigation measures

                        particularly suited to their local circumstance. Such

                        a system should recognize the need to reconcile loss

                        reduction, public safety-, and environmental objectives.



             4.   Minimization of Conflicts gmona Federal Programs

                  4il   The Office of Management and Budget should establish an

                        independent task force to further review the Status

                        report's findings, and recommend those changes in the

                        Federal structure and delegated legislative authority

                        needed to insure execution of a sound Unified National

                        Program for Floodplain Management.



             5.   Reducing Vulnerability of Existing Buildings

                  5.1   Because the vast majority of buildings and

                        infrastructure presently exposed to flood damage will

                        not be protected fully from flood waters by structural

                        projects or nonstructural programs, other approaches








            F@20                                                             Append& F








                        are needed at both Federal and Statelevels. As a

                        first step in addressing that problem, the Interagency

                        Task Force should draft and recommend an Executive

                        Order charging all Federal agencies with the

                        preparation of assessments of the vulnerability to

                        flooding of a sample of Federal facilities and those

                        State and Local facilities constructed wholly or in

                        part with Federal aid. The report should identify the

                        facilities' expected average annual damages, estimate

                        the costs of various protection measures, and

                        extrapolate conclusions on the total Federal investment

                        subject to flood damage. The report should be

                        submitted to the President and the Congress with

                        recommendations on appropriate programs to protect

                        Federal facilities.

                   5.2  As an aid to coordination of those activities, the

                        Interagency Task Force should report which agercies are

                        undertaking nonstructural damage reduction activities

                        and their funding levels.

                   5.3  Two approaches, in particular, deserve greater

                        attention as viable damage reduction measures: flood

                        preparedness and retrofitting (floodproofing). The

                        National Science Foundation should be encouraged to

                        fund research on the techniques, benefits, and costs of

                        these approaches to identify their utility and

                        impediments to their implementation.







         ,"Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"                 F-21








             6.   Imnrovement in Professional Skills and Public Education

                  6.1   Inasmuch as the lack of personnel in Federal agencies

                        and in State and Local government who are trained in

                        the interdisciplinary field of floodplai n management is

                        an important constraint on progress in the

                        implementation of comprehensive floodplain management,

                        the Interagency Task Force should develop training

                        programs and conduct regional training, at an

                        affordable rate, of appropriate governmental personnel.

                  6.2   Recognizing that comprehensive floodplain management

                        programs will be more successfully implemented if they

                        are understood and supported by the general public, the

                        Interagency Task Force and its member agencies should

                        continue, expand, and evaluate efforts to inform and

                        educate the public about the nature of flood hazards,

                        the natural values of floodplains, and the various

                        strategies and tools available for comprehensive

                        floodplain management.








                  F-22                                                                                   Appendix F














                                                      National Review Committee



                     Raymond J. Burby, Professor of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
                     27599-3140. Author of Floodplain Land Use Management (Westview, 1985) and Cities Under Water
                     (University of Colorado, 1988); Chair, Research Committee, Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1985-
                     89.

                     Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., Professor and Head of Department of Geography, U.S. Military Academy, West
                     Point, NY 10996-1695. District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974-77; Member, Mississippi River
                     Commission, 1988-present.

                     James E. Goddard, Floodplain Management Consultant, Tucson, AZ 85718. Chief, Tennessee Valley
                     Authority Floodplain Management Program, 1953-66; Member, Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy,
                     1965-66.

                     James G. Gosselink, Professor of Marine Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803,
                     Member, National Wetland Policy Forum, 1988-89.

                     H. James Owen, Principal, Flood Loss Reduction Associates, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Head of Comprehensive
                     Planning, Nebraska Soil and Water Conservation Commission, 1960-66; Consultant to the Water Resources
                     Council for A Unified National Program for Flood Plain Management 1975.

                     Rutherford H. Platt, Professor of Geography and Planning Law, Department of Geography and Geology,
                     University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003. Chair, National Research Council Committee on Options
                     to Preserve Cape Hatteras I-ighthouse, 1987-88; Member, National Research Council Committee on Coastal
                     Erosion Han ds, 1988-89.

                     William E. Riebsame, Professor of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0482. Director,
                     Natural Ha7a ds Research and Applications Information Center, 1984-present.

                     John R. Sheaffer, President, Sheaffer & Roland, Inc-, Wheaton, IL 60187. Science advisor to the Secretary of
                     the Army, 1970-72; Member, U.S. Section of the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board to the International
                     Joint Commission, 1978-81.

                     French Wetmore, President, French & Associates, Ltd., Park Forest, IL 60466. Chief, Local Floodplain
                     Programs, Illinois Division of Water Resources, 1976-88; Chair, Association of State Floodplain Managers,
                     1985-87.

                     Gilbert F. White, Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder,
                     CO 80309-0482. Chair, Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy, 1965-66.

                     Stanley M. Williams, Director, Stormwater Management Department, City of Tulsa, OK 74127. Vice
                     President, National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, 1989-present; Local
                     Government Representative, Community Rating System Task Force, 1987-present.










                                                                           Index'



                  A                                                                      Bureau of Reclamation, 4-3,7-2,7-15,8-11,11-57,11-65,
                                                                                              12-3, 12-9, 12-22, 13-33, 16-2
                  Academic institutions, 7-20, 7-21
                  "Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's noodplains,"
                       1-2, 1-3, VI-2                                                    C
                  Agriculture
                       harvest of natural and agricultural products, 2-17                California, 13-34, 14-13
                       losses to, 3-33                                                        Sacramento River, 3-14
                       nonstructural measures for agricultural land,                          wetland restoration, 14-36-14-37
                             1240-1241                                                   Climate change and weather forecasting, 6-2--6-7
                  Agricultural Research Service, 6-8, 12-23                                   greenhouse effect, 6-3
                  Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,                        Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
                       13-39-1340,14-19                                                            6-3-6-5
                  All Industry Research Advisory Council, 16-12                          Coastal areas and management
                  Alluvial fans, 1-7-1-8                                                      coastal barriers, 2-6-2-7, 3-5-3-8
                  American National Red Cross, 3-15, 3-20-3-22, 13-35,                        coastal flood standards, 8-6
                       13-45,16-2      1                                                      coastal flooding and erosion, 1-12-1-22
                  American Planning Association, 15-16,16-3,16-4,16-12,                       development in coastal regions, 34-3-8
                       16-13                                                                  flood-caused losses in, 3-24-3-26
                  Arid regions, 3-8                                                           population in coastal areas, 3-5
                  Arizona, 1-10, 11-23,134,13-6                                               shoreline erosion, 3-25
                       San Pedro River, 2-17                                                  state and community, efforts, 7-34
                       Scottsdale, 14-25                                                      v-zones, 8-6
                  Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 4-13,                       Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982, 4-12, 5-12, 7-10,
                       12-24-12-25, 12-27, 16-6, 16-7                                         7-29, 11-36-11-37, 13-32, 14-17
                  Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1-2, 1-3,                              Coastal Barrier Resources System,
                       11 -57,13-4,13-51,15-5,16-3,16-6,16-7,16-8,16-10,                                 11-36-11-37,13-32
                       16-11, 16-13, VI-1                                                Coastal States Organization, 16-6
                  Association of State Wetland Managers, 4-13,16-6, VI-1                 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 4-8, 5-6, 7-292
                  Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time (ALERT),                            11 -29, 14-9, 14-10, 16-8, VI-4
                       6-13,11-62                                                        Colorado, 11 -24, 11-77
                                                                                              Big Thompson Canyon flash flood, 1349
                                                                                         Community Assistance Program, 11-10-11-11, 11-27,
                  B                                                                           16-10
                                                                                         Community Development Block Grant Programs, 11-43,
                  Building codes, 11-29                                                       11-45
                  Bureau of the Budget, 5-4, 7-14                                        Community Rating System, 11 -9-11-10, 13-25, 16-2,
                  Bureau of Land Management, 13-33,14-10,14-16                                16-7,16-9,16-10


                             This index has been prepared to assist the reader with references to the Introduction, 16 chapters, and
                             Epilogue of the Assess7nent Report. The index does not include references to the Appendices. Users
                             of the Assessment Report should note that the index may not include every reference to the subjects
                             listed, and that some subjects or topics of interest to the reader may not be included in the index.











                       Congressional Budget Office, 12-7                                      Effectiveness of floodplain management, 15-1-15-21
                       Connecticut, 11-55, 11-59, 11-60, 13-31, 13-33, 14-13                     effectiveness of management framework, 15-4--15-8
                            Coastal Management Program, 11-39                                      effectiveness of strategies and tools,. 15-8--15-20
                       Council on Environmental Quality, 3-34,3-35,7-25,14-16                      opportunities for increasing effectiveness, 16-1-
                       Cultural resources, 2-17--2-19                                                    16-16
                            harvest of natural and agricultural products,                          overall effectiveness, 15-1-15-4
                                 2-17--2-18                                                    "Emergency," 13-36
                            recreational and other resource functions, 2-18--                  Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 7-31
                                 2-19                                                         Endangered Species Act of 1973, 7-32,14-8,14-21
                                                                                              Environmental Quality Index, 9-10
                       D                                                                      Erosion
                                                                                                   losses due to streambank erosion, 3-30
                       Damages and deaths from flooding, 3-15--3-24, 3-34,                     Evacuation
                            liability, 10-11-10-16                                                 vertical, 10-16
                       Dams and reservoirs, 12-9--12-27,15-14                                       permanent, 11 44 11-49
                            Dam Safety Act of 1986, 7-11                                      Exceedance probability, 6-10
                            damage reduction attributable to flood control                    Executive Order 11296 (Flood Hazard Evaluation), 4-6,
                                 structures, 12-14--12-18                                           5-3,5-6, 6-21, 7-5
                            federal dams and reservoirs, 12-9--12-12                           Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), 4-9,
                            Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, 12-19                               5-10, 7-26, 11-32-11-35, 11-37, 14-15, 15-4, 15-6,
                            flood control capacity, 12-9--12-13                                     15-11
                            International Commission on Large Dams, 3-27                      Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) 4-9,
                            losses due to failure of, 3-27                                         5-10, 7-26,14-23,15-6
                            National Dam Inspection Act of 1972, 7-10                         Executive Order 121271 (Federal Emergency
                            non-federal dams and reservoirs, 12-13--12-14                            Management Agency), 4-9
                            Presidential directives, 7-10
                            safety, 7-10--7-11
                            standards, 8-11                                                   F
                       Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, 15-7
                       Development and redevelopment policies, 16-11-16-12                    Farmers Home Administration, 12-23,13-35,13-39
                       Dikes/levees/floodwalls, 12-27--12-29                                   Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering
                       Disaster Act of 1950, 4-3                                                   and Technology, 12-24
                       Disaster assistance, 13-35--13-48,15-12                                 Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1980, 7-15
                            declaration request process, 13-36                                Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, 7-2
                            major disaster, 13-36--13-38                                       Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1-2--1-3,1-6,
                            payments, 13-41                                                         1-25, 3-2, 3-27, 4-9, 4-12, 5-11, 6-10, 6-12, 6-38, 7-2,
                       Disaster preparedness, 15-12                                                7-13, 7-15, 8-3, 8-8, 8-11, 9-9, 10-14, 11-27, 11-
                            Disaster Preparedness Improvement Grant                                33-11-35, 11-45, 11-51, 11-52, 11-53, 11-55, 11-75,
                                 Program, 13-41                                                    12-9, 12-20. 12-22, 12-29, 13-2, 13-4, 13-8, 13-9, 13-
                       Disaster Relief Act of 1974, 4-8, 4-9, 7-12, 7-13, 11-50,                   20,13-27--13-28,13-35, 13-38,13-40,13-42, 14-37,
                            13-40                                                                  15-9,15-10,15-11, 16-1,16-3,16-7,16-11,16-13,16-
                                 Section 201, 7-13                                                 14,16-15
                                 Section 406, 4-12, 5-4, 7-12, 7-13                           Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12-23-12-24,
                       Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Amendments                         13-33,14-16
                            of 1988, 7-12--7-13, 15-18, 16-14                                  Federal Highway Administration, 3-23, 6-11, 8-4, 8-13,
                                                                                                   8-14, 11-40, 13-39, 15-11
                                                                                              Federal Insurance Administration, 3-23,3-33,6-22,6-25,
                       E                                                                           7-2, 7-7, 8-5, 8-6,11-4--11-13,11-47,11-73--11-75,
                                                                                                   11 -79, 13-8, 13-10, 13-25, 13-26, 15-16, 15-17, 16-2,
                       Earth Day, 9-10-9-11                                                        VI-3
                       Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, VI-3                         Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task
                       Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines                        Force, 1-1, 5-10,5-11, 7-13--7-14,11-35,11-44,15-4,
                            for Water and Related Land Resources for                               16-2, 16-3, 16-4, 16-6, 16-10, 16-14, VI-3
                            Implementation Studies, 7-11, 7-27, 8-3--8-4, 11-36                Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
                                                                                                   Jurisdictional Wetlands, 2-11, 8-13





                       2                                                                                                                           INDEX
 










                  First Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los                   Floodplain losses, 3-15-3-37
                       Angeles, 10-4,10-5,10-8,10-9                                         -due to failures of flood control structures,
                  Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, 7-25, 14-21                       3-26--3-27
                  Fish and wildlife habitat, 2-15--2-17                                      due to flash floods, 3-27
                       evaluation procedures, 8-14                                          due to ground failure, 3-30
                       Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, 14-21                       due to streambank erosion, 3-30
                       Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, 14-21                     due to volcanic-induced flooding, 3-32
                       restoration programs, 14-21                                          estimates of property damages and deaths,
                  Flash floods                                                                  3-15-3-24
                       flash flood areas, 1-7                                               flood losses and the national economy, 3-35--3-36
                       losses due to, 3-27                                                  from fluctuating lake levels, 3-31
                  Flood audits, 11-56                                                       in coastal areas, 3-24-3-26
                  Flood "control," 4-2--4-4                                                  in urbanizing areas, 3-32
                  Flood Control Acts, 4-2, 10-14                                            loss of life, 3-34
                  Flood control structures                                                  property damages from floods, 3-34
                       losses due to failure of, 3-26--3-27                                  to agriculture, 3-33
                  Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 4-7, 4-8, 7-9, 13-8                to infrastructure, 3-32
                  Flood emergency measures, 13-32--13-35, 15-18                         Floodplain natural and cultural resources, 2-1--2-20,
                  Flood forecasting, warning and emergency plans,                           7-23--7-36, 14-1--14-38, 15-18--15-20, 16-15
                       6-12-6-16, 10-14-10-15, 11-58ff, 15-13                                   administrative measures for protection of,
                            for coastal flooding, 6-14                                               14-34--14-37,15-20
                            effectiveness of warning and response systems,                      awareness of, 9-9--9-11
                                 11-70-11-71                                                    common threats to resources, 2-19
                            federal activities, 11-60-11-65                                     cultural resources, 2-17--2-19, 14-1
                            private sector activities, 11-69-11-70                              development and redevelopment policies and
                            for riverine flooding, 6-12--6-13                                        programs, 14-15--14-29, 15-19
                            state and local activities, 11-65-11-69                             federal framework for management, 7-25--7-32
                  Flood Hazard Boundary Maps, 6-22                                              information and education, 14-30--14-32,
                  Flood Hazard Evaluation Guidelines, 1969 and 1972, 7-5                             15-19--15-20
                  Flood insurance (see National Flood Insurance                                 living resources and habitats, 2-9--2-17, 14-1
                       Act and Program), 15-17                                                  preservation and restoration strategies,
                            crop insurance, 13-27                                                    14-2--14-6
                            effectiveness of, 13-27--13-28                                       regulations to protect floodplain natural and
                            private sector, 13-27                                                    cultural resources, 14-7--14-14, 15-18-
                  Flood Insurance Rate Maps, 6-22, 6-38, 9-8,13-10                                   15-19
                  Flood Insurance Studies, 6-22, 6-25, 8-6, 13-8                                standards for protection, 8-12--8-15
                  Floodproofing, 8-8--8-9,9-8,11-71-11-81,15-12-15-13                            tax adjustments, 14-32--14-33, 15-20
                       current status of, 11-80-11-81                                           water resources, 24--2-9, 14-1
                       federal activities, 11-73-11-75                                 Floodplain regulations, 10-9--10-11, 11-2--11-31,
                       for utilities, 8-9                                                   15-9--15-11, 16-11
                       in coastal areas, 8-9                                                    of coastal and lakeshore floodplains, 11-24
                       in riverine areas, 8-8                                                   limitations of, 11-2-11-4
                       limitations, 11-72-11-73                                                 federal role, 11-4-11-13
                       private sector, 11-79                                                    of riverine areas, 11-21-11-23
                       state and local involvement, 11-75-11-79                                 of special hazards, 11-24
                  noodplain development, 3-1--3-8                                                state and local, 11-13-11-29
                       development in and regions, 3-8                                 Floods and floodplains, 1-1--1-31
                       development in coastal regions, 3-4--3-5                               area subject to flooding in the U.S., 1-2--1-6
                       estimates of future flood losses, 3-37                               riverine flooding, 1-6--l-8
                       extent of floodplain development, 3-2--3-8                            flooding from surface runoff, urban drainage and
                       floodplain development and awareness of flood                            high groundwater levels, 1-11-1-12
                            hazard, 3-4                                                      coastal flooding and erosion, 1-12--1-22
                       historical losses from floods, 3-15--3-33                             ground failure areas, 1-22--1-26
                       impacts of development on floodplain natural                         fluctuating lake levels, 1-26--1-31
                            values, 3-8--3-15                                           Florida, 11-40, 14-13, 14-34
                       relative flood losses over time, 3-34--3-36                           Save Our Rivers Program, 14-24





                  INDEX                                                                                                                         3
 










                          Kissimmee River Restoration, 14-34-14-35
                     Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990,
                          14-9                                                         Ice jam flooding, 1-10-1-11
                     Food Security Act of 1985, 2-10, 3-12, 7-28, 7-30                 Illinois, 11 -76-11-77, 13-31
                          Conservation Reserve Program, 7-31                                Des Plains River, 14-36
                          Swampbuster provisions, 2-10,14-9                            Indiana, 11-40
                                                                                       Information and education, 9-5, 13-1-13-7, 14-30-
                                                                                            14-32,15-16-15-17
                     G                                                                 Infrastructure, 3-32-3-33
                                                                                       Integrated Emergency Management System, 4-12,
                     "General Principles for Floodplain Management," 5-7                    11-50-11-51, 11-56
                     Geographic Information Systems, 6-35--6-38,16-3                   Integrated Flood Observing and Warning System
                     Great Lakes, 1-28-1-29                                                 (IFLOWS), 6-13, 11-62
                     Great Salt Lake, Utah, 1-30, 3-31,                                Interagency Agreement on Nonstructural Measures, 7-12,
                     Greenways and river corridor programs, 14-24-14-25                     7-13
                     Groins and jetties, 12-36                                         Interagency Committee on Dam Safety, 8-11, 16-7
                     Gross National Product, 3-36                                      Interagency Hazard Mitigation Teams, 4-10, 4-11, 11-51
                     Ground failure, 3-30                                              Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 6-3-6-5
                     Ground water                                                      Interstate Conference on Water Policy, 12-25
                          supply and balance, 2-9
                     H                                                                 K
                                                                                       Kansas, 11-40
                     Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 2-18                Kentucky, 11 -55, 11-74, 11-77, 11-79
                     History of Floodplain Management, 4-1-4-13                        Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis,
                          1900 - 1960: the structural era, 4-1-44                           10-4,10-8
                          the 1960s: a time of change, 4-5-4-7
                          the 1970s: the environmental decade, 4-7-4-11
                          the 1980s: continuing evolution of floodplain                L
                              management, 4-11-4-13
                     House Document 465, A Unified National Program for                Lake level fluctuations, 1-26-1-31
                          Managing Flood Losses, 1-5, 4-6, 4-9, 5-1-54, 7-1,                in great Lakes System, 1-28-1-30
                          7-26,114,154                                                      losses from, 3-31
                     Housing Act of 1961, 7-25                                              types and causes, 1-27-1-28
                     Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 7.9                Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964, 7-25,
                     Housing and Community Development Act of 1987,7-10,                    7-31, 1145, 14-17-14-18
                          8-10,1147                                                    Levees, 3-26, 8-11, 12-27-12-29
                              Upton/Jones provisions, 1147                                  standards, 8-11-8-12
                     Housing and Urban Development Act of 1969, 7-9                    Liability for flood damages, 10-11-10-16
                     Hurricanes (and tropical cyclones), 1-13, 1-15, 3-24,             Liquefaction, 1-26
                          6-1"-15                                                      Local Flood Warning Systems (LFWS), 11-61-11-62,
                              comprehensive evacuation studies, 11-53                       11-67
                              Frederic, 1349-13-50                                     Louisiana, 1148
                              Hugo, 11 -29-11-30, 1347, 15-7, 15-9                          wetlands creation, 14-35
                              preparedness program, 11 -52-11-53, 11-63
                     Hydraulic Engineering Center, 6-11
                     Hydrology and hydraulics, 6-9-6-12
                          hyd rology, 6-9-6-11                                         M
                          hydraulics, 6-11-6-12
                                                                                       Maine, 11-27
                                                                                       "Major disaster," 13-36-13-37
                                                                                       Managing natural and cultural resources, 14-1-14-38
                                                                                            development and redevelopment policies and
                                                                                                programs, 14-15-14-30





                     4                                                                                                                  INDEX











                     information and education, 14-30--14-32                        N
                     preservation and restoration strategies, 14-2--14-6
                     regulations to protect resources, 14-7--14-14                  National Academy of Sciences, 1-22,1-23, 8-6,11-48
                     tax adjustments, 14-32--14-37                                  National Aeronautic and Space Administration, 6-14
                 Mapping, 10-14                                                    National Association of Conservation Districts, 16-5
                     of flood hazards, 6-19--6-21                                   National Association of Flood and Stormwater
                     for the National Flood Insurance Program,
                          6-22--6-25                                                     Management Agencies, 4-13, 16-5
                     of soils, 6-18--6-19                                           National Association of Water Institute Directors, 16-5
                     by states and communities, 6-28--6-29                          National Cartographic Information Center, 6-37
                     topographic, 6-16--6-17                                        National Committee on Property Insurance, 16-12
                     of wetlands, 6-29--6-32                                       National Cooperative Soil Survey, 6-18
                                                                                   National Dam Inspection Act of 1972, 7-10
                 Maryland, 11-48, 11-74, 11-79, 13-6                                National Economic Development, 8-3--8-4
                     Baltimore County, 11-49                                       National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 4-5, 4-7, 5-6,
                     Howard County, 11-79                                               7-26, 11-32, 11-49--11-50, 14-7, 14-16
                     Ocean City, 3-5                                               National Estuary Program, 7-30, 14-22
                     Worcester County, 11-35                                              Comprehensive Conservation and Management
                 Massachusetts, 11-76, 14-13
                  Charles River Basin, 2-5, 11-42, 14-18                                  Plan, 14-22
                 Mennonite Disaster Service, 13-46                                 National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 4-7, 4-9, 5-1, 5-4,
                 Michigan, 14-30--14-31                                                  6-22, 6-39, 7-7--7-8, 13-8, 13-25, VI-1
                 Minnesota, 11-48, 11-55, 11-76, 14-33--14-34                                Section 1302, 7-8
                     Lake Pulaski, 1-31                                                      Section 1362, 7-8, 11-45-11-46, 11-75
                 Missouri, 11-55                                                   National Flood Insurance Program, 4-7, 4-13,6-12, 6-18,
                     River, 3-14                                                        6-26, 7-7, 7-16--7-17, 8-2, 8-5-8-11, 9-8, 10-15, 10-
                 Mitigation, 9-9, 13-40--13-41                                           16-10-17, 11-3, 11-4--11-13, 11-17-11-24, 13-42
                     Section 409 hazard mitigation plans, 11-52                         13-6, 13-7--13-27, 14-10, 15-4, 15-9, 15-11, 15-17,
                     hazard mitigation assistance program, 11-55                        16-3, 16-7, 16-10, 16-14, VI-3
                     "banking," 14-26--14-28                                                  assistance to states and communities,
                 Modifying flooding, 12-1--12-42,15-13--15-15                                       11-10--11-11
                     channel alterations, 12-29--12-31                                        Community Assistance Program, 11 -10--11 -11,
                     dams and reservoirs, 12-9--12-27                                              16-10
                     dikes/levees/ floodwalls, 12-27--12-29                                   community efforts, 7-17
                     high flow diversions, 12-31                                             Community Rating System, 11-9--11-10,13-25,
                     investment in flood control, 12-2--12-8                                       16-2,16-7, 16-9,16-10
                     land treatment measures, 12-39--12-41                                    eligibility, 13-8
                     shoreline protection, 12-34--12-39                                       emergency and regular phases, 11-4,13-8
                     stormwater management, 12-31--12-34                                      enforcement, 11-11-11-12
                 Modifying the impacts of flooding, 13-1--13-53,                              floodplain mapping, 11-4-11-6
                     15-15--15-18                                                             limitations, 11-12-11-13
                          disaster assistance, 13-35-13-48                                   mandatory purchase requirements, 13-9
                          flood emergency measures, 13-32--13-35                              minimum regulations, 11-7-11-9
                          flood insurance, 13-7--13-28                                        number of policies and claims, 13-10-13-11,
                          information and education, 13-1--13-7                                    13-17
                          postflood recovery, 13-48--13-52                                     rates and limits of coverage, 13-10
                          tax adjustments, 13-28--13-32                                      repetitive losses, 13-20--13-24
                 Modifying susceptibility to flood damages and disruption,                   risk zones, 13-17
                     11 -1--11 -83, 16-11--16-12                                               sale of, 13-25--13-26
                          development and redevelopment policies,                            state efforts, 7-16--7-17
                               11-32--11-50                                                   subsidized vs. actuarial rates, 13-20
                          disaster preparedness, 11-50--11-71                                 Write Your Own Program, 13-25--13-26,15-17
                          floodplain regulations, 11-2--11-31                       National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 7-32,14-9
                          floodproofing and elevation, 11-71-11-81                 National Hurricane Center, 1-15, 6-15, 7-13
                 Mudflows and mudfloods, 1-22--1-24                                 National Ocean Service, 1-21, 6-33--6-34





                 INDEX                                                                                                                      5
 











                     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1-29,             Office of Science and Technology Policy, 12-24
                          6-15, 6-19, 6-33, 11-60--11-63                                Ohio, 11-37
                               coastal hazards program, 7-29                            Oklahoma, 11-55,13-6
                               riverine forecasts and warnings, 11-60-11-62                 Tulsa, 14-25
                     National Park Service, 2-18, 6-33, 7-31, 7-32,12-34,               Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, 7-9
                          14-10, 14-16, 14-25, 16-8, 16-13                              "One hundred year flood," 1-31, 6-20, 8-2--8-3, 8-6,
                     National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, 8-12                  9-7--9-8, 15-5, 15-6--15-7
                     National Research Council, 6-5                                     Oregon
                     National Resources Inventory, 1-3,1-6, 2-14, 3-33, 6-34,               Columbia River, 3-15,14-27--14-28
                          16-10
                     National Review Committee, 1-2, 1-3,11-57,15-7,16-2,
                          16-9,16-13, VI-2                                              P
                     National Science Foundation, 5-12, 11-69, 16-4, 16-7,
                          VI-1                                                          Pennsylvania, 11-77
                     National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster,                   Lycoming County, 11-67
                          13-42                                                         Perception/awareness of flood hazards, 9-1-9-11,
                     National Weather Service, 3-15--3-20, 3-34, 6-6, 6-7, 6-                16-12--16-14
                          11, 6-12--6-13, 6-16, 6-38, 10-14--10-15, 11-53, 11 -                     government roles for increased awareness,
                          56, 11-60--11-63, 11-65, 11-67, 11-69, 13-2                                  9-4--9-5
                     National Wetlands Inventory, 6-29--6-30, 6-33, 8-13,                          increased awareness through information and
                          14-19,14-30                                                                 education, 9-5
                     National Wildlife Federation, 9-10                                           forced awareness through regulatory measures,
                     Nationwide Rivers Inventory, 6-33                                                9-6
                     Natural and cultural resources (see  Floodplain natural            Postflood recovery, 13-48--13-52
                          and cultural resources)                                       Presidential disaster declarations, 3-15, 13-35, 13-36,
                     Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information                  13-41
                          Center, 13-2                                                  President's Commission on Americans Outdoors, 14-15,
                     The Nature Conservancy, 6-34,14-29,15-19                               14-25,16-9
                     Nevada, 11-55                                                      President's Disaster Relief Fund, 3-20, 13-35
                     New England River Basins Commission, 3-14                          Principles and Standards for Planning of Water and
                     New Jersey, 11 -56--11-57, 14-17, 14-21                                 Re Ilated Land Resources, 4-8, 4-9, 5-6, 14-29
                          Green Acres Program, 14-23--14-24
                          Passaic River watershed, 11-68
                     New York, 14-14
                     Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 10-4,10-5,10-7            R
                     Nonprofit and professional organizations, 7-20, 7-22
                     Nonstructural measures, 9-8, 11-1--11-83, 12-35,                    Recreation, 2-18--2-19
                          12-40--12-41                                                    Regional approaches to floodplain management,
                     North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 7-32                         7-17--7-20
                     North Carolina                                                               special districts, 7-18
                          Coastal Management Program, 11-39--1140                                  county governments, 7-18--7-19
                          Henderson County, 6-37                                                  conservation districts, 7-19
                          Nags Head, 13-50--13-51                                        Regulations (see floodplain regulations)
                          Mecklenburg County, 14-24                                     Remote Sensing, 6-34--6-35
                     North Dakota, 2-6                                                      LANDSAT, 6-35
                                                                                        Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960, 14-10
                                                                                        Rhode Island salt pond region, 3-5
                     0                                                                  Rio Grande River, 4-3
                                                                                        Riparian Ecosystems, 2-14
                                                                                            impacts of development on, 3-12--3-15
                     Office of Management and Budget, 5-11, 7-13,8-2,11-33             Risk and vulnerability, 9-9
                          11-51                                                         Risk zones, 11-4--11-6,13-7
                     Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management,                  River basin commissions, 7-4--7-5
                          7-25, 1-60, 14-9, 14-30                                      River corridor management, 16-9
                                                                                        River forecast centers, 11-60--11-61
                                                                                        Rural Clean Water Program, 7-28





                     6                                                                                                                   INDEX
 












                Rural Electrification Administration, 12-23                          Structural flood control measures, 12-1-12-42
                                                                                          channel alterations, 12-29--12-31
                                                                                          dams and reservoirs, 12-9--12-27
                S                                                                         dikes/levees/floodwalls, 12-27--12-29
                                                                                          high flow diversions, 12-31
                                                                                          investment in flood control, 12-2--12-9
                Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 7-28                                     land treatment measures, 12-39--12-41
                Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale, 1-15, 1-17                                shoreline protection, 12-34--12-39
                Salvation Army, 13-45                                                     stormwater management, 12-31--12-34
                Sea Level Rise, 1-20--1-22, 6-5--6-6                                   Subsidence, 1-24
                SLOSH, 6-12,11-53,11-63                                              "Substantial" damage and improvement, 8-7---8-8
                Small Business Administration, 3-23, 11-75, 13-35,
                     13-38--13-39
                Soil identification and mapping, 6-18-6-19
                South Carolina Beachfront Management Act, 11-16-                     T
                     11-17
                South Dakota                                                         "Taking" of private property, 10-7--10-8,11-3
                     Rapid City, 3-27                                                Tax adjustments, 13-28--13-32,14-32--14-34,15-18
                SPLASH,6-12                                                               Tax reform Act of 1986, 13-29--13-31, 14-32
                Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency                          casualty losses, 13-29, 13-31
                     Assistance Act of 1988, 11-51, 13-35, 13-40--13-41,                   development incentives, 13-29, 13-31
                     13-51                                                                Internal Revenue Code, 13-28--13-29,14-32--14-33
                          Section 409, 11-52, 13-40                                       tax exempt organizations, 14-32--14-33
                Standards for flood loss reduction, 8-2--8-12                         Tennessee, 11-27,13-6
                     coastal flood standards, 8-6                                    Tennessee Valley Authority, 4-3, 4-4, 6-19--6-20, 6-26,
                     for elevation of structures, 8-6--8-7                                6-39, 8-2, 8-5, 11-4, 11-65, 11-73, 11-75, 12-3, 12-9,
                     for flood protection structures, 8-11                                12-14, 12-22, 12-29, 13-2, 13-33, 15-14
                     least-cost design flood, 8-4                                    Texas, 11-27,13-4
                     one-percent annual chance flood and floodplain,                      Baytown, 11-47
                          8-2--8-3, 8-6                                               Topographic mapping, 6-16--6-17
                     performance standards, 8-8--8-9                                 Tropical storms, 1-13, 1-15, 6-14--6-15
                     regulatory floodway, 8-5                                        Tsunamis, 1-19--1-20, 3-26, 6-15--6-16, 9-9
                     shoreline setback, 8-9--8-10
                     standard project flood and probable maximum
                          flood, 8-4                                                 U
                     two-tenths percent annual chance flood and
                          floodplain, 8-4                                            Unified National Program for Floodplain Management,
                     v-zones, 8-6                                                         1-1, 1-5, 2-2, 2-17, 4-9, 4-12, 5-1--5-13, 7-1, 7-14,
                Standards for natural resources protection, 8-11, 8-12-                   7-27,11-35,13-1,14-3,15-4,15-5,15-6,15--15,16-1,
                     8-15 water quality standards, 8-12                                   16-3, 16-4, 16-5, 16-15, VI-1, VI-2
                          wetland classification and delineation, 8-13                        House Document 465: A Unified National
                          habitat evaluation methods, 8-13                                         Program for Managing Flood Losses,
                          acceptable rates of soil erosion, 8-15                                   1-4, 1-5, 4-6, 4-9, 5-1--5-4, 7-1, 7-26, 15-4
                A Status Repon on the Nation's Floodplain                                     A Unified National Program for Flood Plain
                     Management Activity, 1-2                                                      Management, 1976, 5-4--5-10
                STORET, 6-9                                                                   1979 Revisions to a Unified National Program
                Strategies and tools for floodplain management, 5-7--5-9                            for Floodplain Management, 5-10-5-11
                     for flood loss reduction, 5-8--5-9                                        1986 Revisions to a Unified National Program
                     for managing floodplain natural resources, 5-11                                for Floodplain Management, 5-11-5--12
                     for modifying the impacts of flooding, 13-1-13-53,              United Nations International Decade for Natural
                          16-12                                                           Disaster Reduction, 7-36
                     for modifying flooding, 12-1--12-42,16-12                        Unstable and meandering channels, 1-8, 1-10
                     for modifying susceptibility to flood damage and                Urbanizing areas, 3-32
                          disruption, 11 -1-11 -83, 16-11--16-12
                Streamflow data, 6-7--6-9





                INDEX                                                                                                                          7
 











                         U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2-10-2-11,3-13,4-2,4-5,                   Utah
                              6-11,6-12,6-19,6-21, 6-25,6-38,6-39,7-13,8-2, 8-5,                      Davis County, 3-4
                              8-6,8-11,8-13,11-53,11-56,11-65,11-73,11-74, 11-
                              80, 12-3, 12-7, 12-9, 12-11, 12-14, 12-16, 12-19, 12-
                              28, 12-30, 12-36-12-37, 13-2, 13-32-13-33, 13-39,                  V
                              14-7, 14-16, 14-21, 14-23, 15-13, 16-2, 16-6, 16-14,
                              VI-3 Beach Erosion Control Projects, 12-37                         Vermont, 11-27
                                   Comprehensive Flood Damage Reduction                          Virginia, 14-13
                                        Studies, 11-56                                           Volcanic-induced flooding, 3-32
                                   Flood Plain Management Services, 6-25
                                   National Dam Inspection Program, 8-11, 12-20
                                   National Floodproofing Committee, 11-74                       W
                                   Small Projects Program, 12-37
                         U.S. Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, 16-2                        Warning systems, 10-14
                         U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3-23, 4-3, 6-343 7-15,                  Washington State, 14-21
                              7-30,12-22-12-23,12-39,14-8,14-16-14-17,14-19                      Water Bank Act of 1970, 7-30
                                   Dam Safety Committee, 12-23                                   Water Data Storage and Retrieval System
                         U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,                            (WATSTORE), 6-8-6-9
                              7-2, 7-7, 7-25, 8-2, 11-43, 11-75                                  Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)
                         U.S. Department of the Interior, 6-33, 7-15,14-8,14-10,                      Amendments of 1972, 4-8, 5-4, 7-27-7-28, 7-30
                              14-16                                                                        Section 404, 2-11, 7-30, 14-7-14-8, 16-1
                         U.S. Department of Transportation, 14-16                                Water quality
                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1-22,2-10-2-11,                        maintenance of, 2-7-2-9,
                              6-5, 6-11, 6-31, 6-32, 7-25, 77-7-28, 7-33, 8-13, 8-                  standards, 8-12
                              143 8-15,11-35,11-50,12-34,14-7-14-8,14-16,14-                          Water Quality Act of 1987,14-22
                              22-14-23, 14-29, 14-30, 16-8, 16-10, 16-13                         Water resources, 2-4-2-9
                                   Stormwater Discharge Permit Program, 12-33                         ground-water supply and balance, 2-9
                                   National Estuarine Program, 16-8                                   natural flood and erosion control, 2-5-2-6
                         U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2-2, 2-10-2-11, 3-13,                        water quality maintenance, 2-7-2-9
                              6-29, 6-33, 7-25, 7-31, 7-32, 8-13, 8-14, 14-8, 14-16,                  Water Resources Development Act of 1974, 4-9,
                              14-21, 14-30                                                                 5-6, 7-12,11-42
                         U.S. Forest Service, 4-2, 6-34, 12-23, 13-33, 14-10, 14-16                   Water Resources Development Act of 1986, 7-10,
                         U.S. General Accounting Office, 13-47                                             12-2,12-3
                         U.S. Geological Survey, 3-2, 4-2, 6-7, 6-16, 6-19,                           Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, 4-5, 7-2, 7-4
                              6-2G8&21 6-27, 6-33, 6-38. 6-39,13-2                             Watershed management, 16-8
                         U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water                               Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of
                              Commission, U.S. and Mexico, 4-3, 6-8                                        1954,749
                         U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1-2-1-3, 1-6, 2-2, 2-11,                West Virginia, 11-55-11-74
                              2-14, 3-12-3-13, 3-33, 6-11, 6-18, 6-19, 6-20, 6-255               Wetlands, 2-5-2-6, 2-7-2-8, 2-9-2-14,14-11
                              6-34, 6-38, 6-39, 7-19, 7-28, 8-2, 8-113 8-13, 8-14, 11 -               classification and delineation, 8-13
                              56,11-653 12-3,12-7-12-9,12-23,12-33,13-2,15-143                        functional values of, 6-32-31
                              16-2,16-10,16-13                                                        impacts of development on, 3-8-3-12
                                   Emergency Watershed Protection Program,                            mitigation "banking," 14-26-14-28
                                        13-33-13-39                                                   National Wetlands Inventory, 6-29-6-30,6-33,8-13,
                                   Small Watershed Program, 7-28,12-11                                     14-19,14-30
                                   Watershed Protection and Flood Protection                          natural flood control functions, 2-5-2-6
                                        Program, 12-30                                                "no net loss," 14-22,16-1
                         U.S. Supreme Court, 10-1, 10-3-10-9                                          protection programs, 7-30,7-33, 14-26-14-29
                         U.S. Water Resources Council, 1-5, 1-2, 1-6, 3-2, 3-37,                      regulations, 10-10-10-11
                              4-6, 5-2, 5-4, 5-10, 6-10, 7-2, 7-53 7-6, 7-11, 7-14, 7-                restoration and creation, 6-31-6-32
                              27, 8-3, 8-4, 11-33, 11-69, 12-2, 12-6                                  understanding and mapping of, 6-2-32
                                   guidelines for federal agencies, 7-6, 11-33                        wetland evaluation technique, 8-13-8-14
                                   guidelines for determining flood flow frequency,                   wetland types, 2-12-2-14
                                        7-7                                                      White, Gilbert F., 4-4, VI-1, VI-4
                                   discount rate for water projects, 7-7                         Wild and scenic rivers, 7-31-7-32




                         8                                                                                                                             INDEX
 










                        Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, 7-31, 14-10,
                              14-15, 14-16,14-25
                        State and Local River Conservation Assistance
                              Program, 14-25
                   Wildlife Management Institute, 144,16-5
                  Wisconsin, 13-6
                        Kickapoo River, 4-11
                        Prairie du Chien, 11-45
                        Soldiers Grove, 11-49































































                  INDEX                                                                                                                                         9


                                                                                                              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1 992-623-787/60303













































































































                                                                          1                     .1
                                                                           1018111,110111M,
                                                                            3 6668 00000 3311
                                                                          i