# Course Title: Floodplain Management 

**Module 6:** Course Exercise in Floodplain Management

**Session 1:** Exercise Introduction

**Author:** Bob Freitag CFM, University of Washington

> **Time: 75 minutes**

**Objectives:**

At the end of this session, the students will be able to:

28.1 Perform tasks required by the final course exercise.

28.2 Be able to apply course concepts to the case study problem.

**Scope:**

This course examined floodplains as the product of their respective
basins/watershed and as contributors to down stream impacts. This final
course exercise will be driven by a development problem and builds on
each of the earlier exercises. Several problems are offered here as
examples, but the instructor is encouraged to develop unique problems
that may better address the needs and talents of the class.

During this exercise, students will practice recognizing and devising
alternative measures to reduce the adverse impacts. Students will be
expected to integrate, build upon, and balance conflicting objectives as
they apply the knowledge and skills learned in the previous sessions.
They should add to and tailor the problem to better address the course
themes and their particular case study floodplain.

Each development problem lacks critical information and students will
have to make assumptions concerning missing information.

This session is devoted to describing what is being expected of the
student team, helping the teams identify and clarify the development
problem that will drive their team activity, and provide time for the
students to work within their teams.

Readings:

***Student and Instructor Reading:***

*NEPA Process: <http://www.c470.info/hnepa.pdf>*

*Environmental Policy Act:
<http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm>*

*The Natural and Beneficial Functions of Floodplains: Reducing flood
losses by Protecting and Restoring the Floodplain Environment*" FEMA
2002

*NO ADVERSE IMPACT: A Toolkit for Common Sense Floodplain Management,*
ASFPM 20*03*

***Additional Instructor Reading:***

J. Baird Callicott, 1994. *Earth's Insights: A Multicultural Survey of
Ecological Ethics from the Mediterranean Basin to the Australian
Outback,* University of California Press.

**General Requirements:**

It is assumed that student teams that were created in session 2: will
have been active throughout the course; will have completed all previous
exercises; and will have the products of these exercises available for
review.

Students will be expected to have read all previously required material
and have their notes available to refer to during the exercise.

No additional data or case study research should be needed to perform
the tasks required of the course exercise. Students will be expected to
work off of the products prepared at the end of each of the subsequent
module. The module templates were designed to support the course
exercise required of these concluding sessions.

**Remarks:**

The planning process for this exercise is drawn from National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as were the module exercises. Where
procedural planning guidance is needed, the instructor should look to
NEPA for guidance.

I. Discussion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

> A. The NEPA model examines impacts from a specific point of reference
> -- impacts to a specific project.
>
> 1\. Most states have adopted NEPA type procedures as state regulation
> and apply them to State projects.
>
> B. It is the intent of NEPA to expose a problem -- and that is all. It
> may uncover guidance and standards but NEPA by itself has only
> procedural requirements. If the federally funded bridge is proposed,
> NEPA requires that the bridge be assessed as to its impact.
>
> C. For example, if during a "Scoping" meeting the bridge were thought
> to interrupt a deer population's access to a mating ground or a
> migration route, NEPA would require in the NEPA generated Environment
> Assessment (EA) a determination of this removal and if the removal
> were significant.
>
> 1\. If it were determined NOT to be significant, a Finding of Non
> Significance (FONSI) would be prepared.
>
> 2\. If it were found to be significant, an Environmental Impact
> Statement (EIS) would have to be prepared.
>
> a\. This EIS only informs. Although it would probably trigger other
> authorities and the design of the project might have to be
> significantly changed it is not because of NEPA.
>
> b\. If these identified adverse impacts were significant, but the
> adversity could be mitigated, then a conditional FONSI or (Mitigated
> FONSI) could be prepared. All a Mitigated FONSI does is prevent an EIS
> from being prepared. In assessing impacts, NEPA requires that all
> cumulative impacts be assessed.
>
> D. For example, a NEPA generated EIS could document that all of the
> deer in the world would die if a certain project were built, and if
> this EIS does not trigger other authorities, NEPA could not stop the
> project.
>
> 1\. The Act is among the shorter documents ever passed by Congress,
> and is only a couple of pages.
>
> 2\. Task 3 of each module exercise was adapted from NEPA.

II\. Summary of course modules

> A. Most likely students came to this course from a wide variety of
> disciplines and backgrounds. And with a little luck, some of the
> students had more knowledge than the instructor in a specific field
> and the instructor drew on this class richness to involve the class.
>
> B. Each module presented a perspective according to an experiential
> model learning cycle introduced in Session 1 and followed throughout
> the course. Floodplain Management was presented as to the:

1.  "What" -- concepts

2.  "So What" -- impacts, and

3.  "Now What?" \-- management of the floodplain..

In summary by module perspective and learning cycle, students should
have the following understanding.

> C. Geology

1.  The "What":

> a\. Students probably came to the class knowing that water runs down
> hill, but they may not have understood the hydrologic and tectonic
> processes involved in: getting the water up hill to begin with, what
> it carries down hill, what controls its path, and the impacts we
> humans have caused to alter this journey.

2.  The "So What"

> a\. These processes create change in a river's course, flood cycle,
> and floodplain.

3.  The "Now What?"

> a\. In sessions 6 and 7, we learned that this change often has adverse
> impacts that can be reduced over the short term by levees, dredging,
> hardening channels.
>
> b\. However, we also learned why these short-term fixes often come
> with severely negative impacts over the long term.
>
> c\. Students explored management practices that recognize and
> incorporated natural river physical processes through increasing
> friction, channel lengthening, diverting current, and spreading and
> storing high discharges off channel though "Low Impact Development."
>
> D. Biology

1.  "What"

> a\. Students undoubtedly came to the class knowing that water supports
> life, but they probably didn't fully understand the interdependences
> of the biological processes that are involved in supporting life.
>
> b\. That the biology within the watershed and along the riparian
> corridors impacts the transport of sediment, chemicals and water. That
> small changes impact many things including the water surface elevation
> of a floodplain.
>
> c\. Students also learned to understand rivers from four dimensions
> and the need to understand the past to manage future floodplain
> activates.

2.  The "So What"

> a\. We learned that making small changes to these processes can have a
> critical impact on the life historically supported by our rivers and
> floodplain.

3.  The "Now What?"

> a\. Students realized that humans have so impacted our river processes
> that, in many cases, we are left with no alternative but to
> aggressively manage our floodplains and watersheds. Managing
> floodplains includes understanding the stressors that impact the
> watershed and riparian corridor that intern impacts the physical
> characteristics of the floodplain -- water quality, species
> habitability (including us), scour, and channel migration, water
> surface flood elevations.....
>
> b\. Sessions 12 and 13 suggested management approaches and stressed
> the importance of providing complexity along our river corridors and
> the importance of biological diversity that is strengthened by this
> complexity.
>
> c\. We learned of the importance of complexity in our watersheds and
> rivers -- the contributions made by large woody debris, riffles, long
> channels, and connectivity.
>
> E. Risk

1.  The "What":

> a\. Students knew when they came to class that rivers flood and these
> floods often cause severe damage, but after these sessions they could
> also conduct hazards based risk analyses.

2.  The "So What"

> a\. Students, by understanding what went into a hazards risk
> analyses--- what contributed to risk ---also gained insight into how
> to avoid and mitigate adverse impacts attributable to flooding.

3.  The "Now What?"

> a\. Historically, our United States Christian and Jewish European
> descendants attempted to "subdue" our rivers (Callicott, Chapter 2).
>
> b\. In Sessions 18, 19, and 20 we learned how the emphasis has shifted
> to managing flood related risks by incorporating lower impact longer
> term solutions.
>
> c\. We learned of the successes of promoting "nonstructural" policies
> in reducing flood losses; principally by encouraging structures to be
> built off, or elevated above, the floodplain.
>
> F. Policy

1.  The "What":

> a\. Students probably came to the class knowing that rivers are
> regulated, but they may not have understood the complexity and often
> contradictory nature of rivers and water rights regulation.
>
> b\. We learned of the cultural importance of "private property rights"
> and their impact on rivers as natural systems.

2.  The "So What"

> a\. Students learned how this complex and often conflicting policy is
> often at odds with natural science-based river processes.
>
> 3\. The "Now What?"
>
> a\. Session 25 and 26 explored approaches to manage rivers as natural
> systems that acknowledge our policy history.
>
> b\. Alternative management models were discussed that recognize
> natural systems and the need to address floodplains as corridors that
> are products of their watersheds.
>
> c\. Students also were presented with models for managing floodplains
> as products of their larger watersheds.

And, lastly in performing the course exercises, student will gain
practice in the NEPA planning process.

**Objective 28.1 Perform tasks required by the final course exercise.**

**Scope:**

Students will develop a workable problem and workable team structure
capable of performing the required exercise.

The objective of the exercise is to give practice in applying the
concepts learned in the course. Students are expected to integrate these
concepts from each perspective in suggesting development alternatives
that have the least adverse impact to stakeholders. This process
recognizes that adverse impact to one stakeholder might not be adverse
to another.

Here student teams will identify and clarify the development problem
that will drive their team activity.

 

Readings:

*Review of the NEPA Process: <http://www.c470.info/hnepa.pdf>*

**General Requirements:**

**Introduction**

Students will keep their same case study team assignment and will work
within their case study floodplain taking advantage of the previous
exercises and notes.

Team members may assume the role of one or more stakeholders as they did
in the first session.

One team member will own the development problem and will help their
team define the problem, make assumptions, and fill in the blanks.

**Teamwork**

The exercise assumes that the team will work as collaboratively as
possible, but from within their objective framework -- developer wants
to make money, sportsman wants to fish, homeowners wants to see the
river, etc.

Students may assume that their team has been assembled by the city or
county council with the hope that alternatives can be developed that
would represent a win-win for the jurisdiction.

**Remarks:**

**Discuss the final course exercise, purpose, and specific objectives.**

I. Objectives of Final Course Exercise

> A. Offer an opportunity to apply knowledge learned from each
> perspective to a specific problem through a final course exercise.
>
> B. Expand the list of "No Adverse Impact" examples included in the
> Association of Floodplain Managers Web site to include a variety of
> perspectives.

II\. Final course exercise development problems.

> A. It is intended that each student team choose one problem, further
> develop the problem and develop alternatives that have the least
> adverse impact from a geological, biological, risk, and policy
> perspective.
>
> 1\. These are only suggestions. At this point in the course, the
> students and instructor may have identified a more realistic and
> appropriate problem.
>
> 2\. Evaluating Exercise: The Instructor may evaluate the exercise
> according to three substantive criteria.
>
> a\. Integration of the four perspectives through time
>
> Until this point student team have addressed floodplain management
> perspective by perspective. Some integration has occurred in that the
> Module 3 exercise required knowledge gained from the Module 2 exercise
> as did the Module 4 and 5 exercise build on previous exercises. The
> objective of this concluding exercise is to give practice in
> integrating concepts learned from each perspective through time
>
> For instance in working a development problem suggested below, the
> student team could conclude that building a levee around a proposed
> development would solve the problem offered.
>
> This may be a correct answered, but did the team understand the
> interrelationships among the processes including within the four
> perspectives addressed in this course. Did the team address the
> problem with the context of a river as a system, , and, did the team
> present future conditions that were based on an understanding of the
> past and unique future..
>
> An example of an appropriate answer for an Ames Iowa development
> proposal along the Ames River might include:

1.  A low levee around the development

2.  A levee structure that is set back from the river and include a soft
    edge on development side.

3.  As a condition of the development, the City may encourage the
    development through tax and density incentives to increase the
    corridor complexity by providing compensatory rehabilitation at a
    different site along the river.

4.  City in working with State and County could create a
    drainage/watershed district that:

    -   Subsidizes no-till farming on critical acreage to control both
        discharge and sediment transport.

    -   Purchases easements to store flood waters on agricultural lands

    -   Incorporates the proposed development into a riparian corridor.

    -   Stabilizing a larger channel corridor though time through off
        channel sediment control initiatives and on in channel through
        placement of the barbs and drop structures discussed in session
        7.

b\. Floodplain Management is the balancing of the differing objectives
of the various stakeholders.

> Did the student teams correctly identify the stakeholders involved in
> the problem? Did they correctly define the objectives of each
> stakeholder and their standing in the problem? And, did their
> solutions address these differences. The reading in Session 24 "Who's
> in Charge?" offers an example of one approach to this concern.
>
> In any river decision there are typically a dozen or stakeholders that
> have a life style if not a legal interest in the river. A beneficial
> activity to one stakeholder is often seen as an adverse impact to
> another.

c., Did the students sufficiently expand on the problem that the above
concerns were addressed.

> The problems offered here are brief and should serve as starting
> points. At this point in the course the student teams should have a
> very broad understanding of their floodplain. And, they should be able
> to expand on the simple problem offered.

For instance:

1.  Is the watershed developing, in agriculture, forest?

2.  Is sediment an issue?

3.  Is the water clean or becoming cleaner?

4.  Are there endangered species or exotic species issues?

5.  Is the development at risk from high water, frequent low water
    flooding, velocity...?

6.  Is the floodway an issue?

7.  Is the policy/cultural playing field one of riparian rights, public
    trust or private rights.

> B. Development Proposals -- Case study problems

1.  A developer is proposing to build a 100 unit group living quarters
    for the elderly. The developer wants to take advantage of the
    floodplain amenities and riverside location.

> a\. The site under consideration is 40 acres and located entirely
> within the FEMA 100 year floodplain.
>
> b\. About 10 acres lies within the designated FEMA Floodway.

2.  A developer, at the request of the Council and local Chamber of
    Commerce, is recommending building a convention center on an
    underused railroad yard close to the center of the city. The site
    abuts a river that has had 100 year flows of 10,000 cfs. To expand
    the center, one of the proposals has the complex bridging the river.
    For several years now efforts have been made by the "Save the River"
    group to redesign the river and have its corridor more integrated
    into the metropolitan framework. "Save the River" has been
    responsible for the conversion of several older sections of an
    abandoned river side railroad rights-of-way into a bike/pedestrian
    paths. These are currently heavily use.

3.  A sub divider is proposing a 50 home development that will be
    marketed to a very high-end income, retired population. The
    aesthetics of the floodplain is critical to the development. 60
    percent of the development site is located within the floodplain.

> a\. A floodway has not been designated on this reach of the river.
>
> b\. The river has some history of flash flooding and currents along
> the river during flood stage can be very fast.
>
> 4\. A wildlife conservation organization has identified the floodplain
> along a specific reach as a critical riparian corridor that links
> several important habitats. They wish to preserve the corridor but
> don't have the funds to acquire the property. They would like to
> purchase or have control over a 10 mile long area about 25 yards wide.
>
> 5\. A nonprofit has received funds to build a 300 home subdivision for
> low and moderate income. The site is not in a floodplain. However, the
> site is on very erosive soil, is close to a designated wild and scenic
> river, and there are several old logging roads that lead from the
> development sit to the river. The river has a significant population
> of Bull Trout.
>
> C. Retrofitting proposals.

1.  A 50 home middle-income subdivision is increasingly being flooded.
    Some nuisance flooding occurs every couple of years. Every 10 years
    or so about 2 feet of water covers the subdivision. The problem is
    getting worse.

> 2\. A levee has breached and in the process was destroyed. The levee
> had protected about 25 homes on large lots. Most of these lots are
> large and deep and have buildable areas outside FEMA designated
> floodplain. The river is migrating toward the homes. A developer on
> the opposite side of the river is contemplating building a new
> subdivision.
>
> D. Post Disaster
>
> 1\. A small 1000 resident agriculturally based town was flooded. The
> town was included in a federal disaster declaration. This is the
> second time within the past 15 years that the town was flooded.
>
> a\. The town has not experienced much growtn within the past 50 years.
> Most of the residents are aging and the farm community is taking
> advantage of government conservation programs. As a result of these
> programs, there are fewer cattle in the area and less tilled land.
>
> b\. The predominate crop was dry land wheat. The larger farming
> community is included within the drainage of a major historic salmon
> fishery.
>
> 2\. A storm washed out 100s of road segments and bridges within a
> recently harvested forest. These roads served isolated, developed, and
> undeveloped home sites.
>
> a\. None of these structure or homes they serve is within a
> floodplain.
>
> b\. The forest is a prime habitat, and the rivers are used heavily for
> recreation (e.g. canoers, kayakers, fishermen)

**Objective 28.2** **Apply course concepts to the case study problem**.

**Scope:**

Here, class time will be set aside for teams to meet and discuss their
project, once students understand what is expected and have a workable
developmental problem.

Students will apply the concepts learned in the course to a selected
development problem and develop alternatives that having the least
adverse impact possible from each perspective. They will also develop
strategies for how the alternatives may be implemented.

Students will have to recognize that adversity to one stakeholder might
not be adversity to another.

The product could be designed as guideline alternatives or alternative
strategies, or as specific as a site plan. However, in coming up with
this product student teams will need to:

-   Format (scope) the problem

-   Identify the objectives of the stakeholder

-   Identify the processes involve from each perspective

-   Develop a conceptual model on how to evaluate the impacts in light
    of the identified processes and stakeholder objectives

-   Identify adverse impact by stakeholder or stakeholder objective

-   Develop alternative ways to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts, yet
    achieve the objectives of the stakeholders.

-   Reassess these alternatives

-   Prepare a presentation for class

-   Create a couple of paragraph document to send to the ASFPM
    suggesting improvements and additions to their NAI initiative.

 

Readings:

*Have available all course material for review.*

**General Requirements:**

Student teams will be expected to also work outside the class. In class,
the instructor should be available to assist and student teams can ask
other teams for advice.

Session 29 has been set aside for students to work on projects in class
so they can ask questions of their instructor as well as other students.

Student presentation will be made in Session 30.

**Remarks:**

Teams should address the following tasks although not necessarily in the
order given

I.  Develop problem, determine if a proposed action is in a
    floodplain...(In NEPA language this is the "scoping meeting")

II. Address objectives of public

    A.  Who are the stakeholders?

    B.  What are their objectives?

    C.  Who should comprise the public?

III. Assess Risks

     A.  Identify stressors and hazards

     B.  Determine and assess exposure

     C.  Identify natural and beneficial processes

IV. Identify and evaluate practical alternatives to impacting the
    floodplain

    A.  Does all of the proposed development need to be in the
        floodplain?

    B.  Does the development impact the floodplain?

    C.  The river basin should not be excluded from the list of
        alternatives offered.

V.  Identify the impacts of the proposed alternatives

    A.  Impacts can be judged as positive or negative depending on
        stakeholder and stakeholder objectives.

> 1\. Impacts positive to one stakeholder may be negative to another.

B.  Our goal is No Adverse Impact, but to who and can compromises be
    made.

IV\. Substantive Criterion

> A. Do the alternatives minimize threats to life, property and to
> natural and beneficial floodplain values, and restore and preserve
> natural and beneficial floodplain values.
>
> 1\. This is taken from an EO 11988 substantive criterion (See Session
> 28A for a brief discussion of EO 119880). NEPA has no substantive
> standards only procedural ones.

VI. Reevaluate alternatives

    A.  Does all of the development need to be in the floodplain?

    B.  Does the development impact the floodplain?

    C.  The river basin should not be excluded from the list of
        alternatives offered.

VII. Present findings during in-class presentation in Session 30.

     A.  Students should determine which alternatives they feel best
         represents their best examples and send them to the Association
         of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM).
         ([www.floods.org](http://www.floods.org/) )

     B.  These examples may be published in revisions to their NAI
         publication used in this course.

VIII. Implement the action.

      A.  Obviously, students will not be implementing actions, but they
          can comment and offer implementation guidelines.