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
ii

FOREWORD

Twenty-five 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 the Assessment 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. The 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. Compatibility 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 of floodplain management in the United States has been prepared in response to

recommendations contained in A Unified 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 Unified

National Program for Floodplain Management.
iii

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 Report.

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. LR. 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 ongoing 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 Force requested 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, Environmental 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 views 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.

The 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 ol

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. From 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 - friend, 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 to future

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 . ........................................................ U

PREFACE....................................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................... vi

CONTEENTS ................................................................... vm

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

Ice Jam Flooding .................................................................... 1-10

FLOODING FROM SURFACE RUNOFF, URBAN DRAINAGE AND HIGH GROUNDWATER 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

LIVING RESOURCES AND HABITATS . ..................................................... 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 .................................... 3-4

Development in Coastal Regions ......................................................... 3-4

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 . ............................................................ 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 ............................................................ 3-24

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 II: THE NATION'S PROGRAM FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

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

1900-1960: THE STRUCTURAL 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" ... ................................................. 4-4
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 .................... 5-4

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 ......................................... 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 . .......................................................... 7-4

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 .................................. 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: REGULATORY 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 ......................... 8-4

Standard Project Flood and Probable Maximum Flood ...................................... 8-4

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

FLOODPLAIN 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 ....................... ..................... 11-42

Redevelopment ............................................... 11-43

Federal Programs for Redevelopment ............................................... 11-43

State and Local Activities ......................... ...................... 11-43

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 ........................................................ 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 . ................................................... 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 ............. ................................ 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 PROTECTION .......................................................... 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 ........................................................... 12-40

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 Losses . ............................................................... 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 ...................................................... 13-41

State and Local Activities . ........................................................... 13-42

Private Sector Activities . ............................................................. 13-42

American National Red Cross ...................................................... 13-45

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 . ........................................................... 1348

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

The 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 .14-31

Lack of Information and Understanding Regarding the Value of Floodplain Natural and Beneficial

Resources .14-31

TAX ADJUSTMENTS .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

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 ........ ............................ 154

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 EFFECTIVENESS 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 .............................. 15-13

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 ....................................................... 15-15

Shoreline Protection Measures ..................................................... 15-15

Modifying the Impact of Flooding on Individuals and the Community ............................ 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 ........................................................ 15-19

Tax Adjustments . ................................................................ 15-20

Administrative Measures .............. ............................................ 15-20

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................ 15-20

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 . ..................................................................... 16-4

IMPROVING THE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK .......................................... 16-4

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
oax

PART VI: EPILOGUE

RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT (An invited comment by Gilbert F. White) ..... ......... VI-1

APPENDIX A:

APPENDIX B:

APPENDIX C:

APPENDIX D:

APPENDIX E:

APPENDIX F:

PART VII: APPENDICES

CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS

INFLUENCING DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATION'S PROGRAM FOR

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT .................................. A-1

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

GLOSSARY................................................. C-1

SELECTED REFERENCES ..................................... D-1

AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS INVITED TO COMMENT ON THE

STATUS REPORT AND ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FLOODPLAIN

MANAGEMENT ......................................... E-1

ACTION AGENDA FOR MANAGING THE NATION'S FLOODPLAINS .. F-1

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 ................................................ 6-23

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 .... ....... 11-41

Table 11-9. Section 1362 Appropriated Funds ......................................... 11-46

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 124. Construction of Nonfederal Hood 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 ............................................ 13-22

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 20 Repetitive Loss Communities by Number of Losses ..................... 13-24

Table 13-16. Disaster Assistance Provided by States ..................................... 1343

Table 13-17. Private Organizations Providing Disaster Assistance ........................... 1344
xxii

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.

Figure 2-2.

Figure 2-3.

Figure 2-4.

Figure 2-5.

Figure 2-6.

Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-2.

Figure 3-3.

Figure 3-4.

Figure 3-5.

Figure 3-6.

Figure 3-7.

Figure 3-8.

Figure 3-9.

Figure 3-10.

Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-2.

Figure 5-3.

Figure 5-4.

Summary of Floodplain Natural and Cultural Resources ....... ................ 2-3

Basic Types of Coastal Barriers ........................................... 2-7

Representative Coastal Barriers . ........................................ 2-8

Inland Wetlands . ............................................... 2-11

Coastal Wetlands . ............................................... 2-12

Major Wetland and Deepwater Habitat Systems ......... .................... 2-13

Migration of a Barrier Island in Response to Sea Level Rise ...... .............. 3-7

Net Losses and Gains in Wetlands of the Conterminous U.S., Mid-1950s to

Mid-1970s .......................................................... 3-9

Causes of Recent Wetland Losses . ....................................... 3-10

NWS Estimate of Annual Flood-Related Deaths in the United States, 1916-1985 ..... 3-19

NWS Estimate of Annual Flood Damages in the United States, 1916-1985 .... ...... 3-19

Age of Dams at Time of Failure . ........................................ 3-29

Causes of Dam Failure ............................................... 3-29

Loss of Life from Selected Natural Disasters, 1900-1977 ....... ................ 3-35

Property Damages from Selected Natural Disasters, 1900-1977 ...... ............ 3-36

Projections of Future Flood Losses . ...................................... 3-38

Evolution of a Unified National Program for Floodplain Management ..... ........ 5-2

House Document 465 Recommendations for Federal Agency Action ..... ......... 5-5

Strategies and Tools for Flood Loss Reduction ......... ..................... 5-9

Recommendations for Recognition, Acceptance and Implementation of the

Conceptual Framework of the Unified National Program for Floodplain

Management . ............................................... 5-13
xxdiii

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.

Figure 11-2..

Figure 11-3.

Figure 11-4.

Figure 11-5.

Figure 12-1.

Figure 12-2.

Figure 12-3.

Figure 12-4.

Figure 12-5.

Figure 12-6.

Figure 12-7.

Figure 12-8.

Figure 12-9.

Figure 12-10.

Relationship Between Floodplain, Floodway, and Flood Fringe Areas .... ......... 11-7

Eight-Step Decision-Making Process for Executive Order 11988 ..... ............ 11-34

Location of National Weather Service River Forecast Centers ..... ............. 11-61

National Weather Service Hydrologic Forecast System ........................ 11-62

SLOSH Basins Along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Coastlines ..... ........... 11-64

Federal Agency Shares of Water Resources Spending ......................... 12-4

Total 1986 Project Outlays by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ..... ............ 12-5

Outlays for Corps of Engineers and SCS Flood Control Programs, 1960-1985 .... .... 12-5

Construction and Operations & Maintenance Costs for the Corps of Engineers

Flood Control Program . ................................................ 12-6

Number of Flood Control Reservoirs Put in Service by the Corps of Engineers ...... 12-10

Number of Corps of Engineers Flood Control Structures in Service .... .......... 12-10

Cumulative Storage in Corps of Engineers Flood Control Reservoirs .... ......... 12-11

Number of Flood Control Reservoirs Put in Service by the Soil Conservation Service . 12-12

Number of Soil Conservation Service Flood Control Reservoirs in Service .... ..... 12-12

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

LWCF Appropriations: 1965-1987 ...... ...................... 14-18

LWCF State Grants: Spending and Acreage Acquired by State and Local

Governments, 1977-1980 and 1981-1984 . ............................ 14-19

LWCF State Grants: Division of Funds Between State and Local Governments,

1977-1980 ................................ 14-19

Figure 14-1.

Figure 14-2.

Figure 14-3.
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES:

AN ASSESSMENT REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This assessment of floodplain management in the United States was commissioned by the Federal Interagency

Floodplain Management Task Force - representatives of the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency; Departments

of Agyiculture, 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 public and to the

Congress on progress toward implementation of 'A UnifiedNationalProgramforFloodplain Management" [Section

1302(c) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 19681.

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

FLOODPLAINS

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.

1
FLOODPLAIN 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 management. 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 FRAMEWORK

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 inain 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 recognitionof environmentalconsequences,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. Modifying the impacts of flooding 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 years 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 programs. The latter, however, typically do not focus on floodplains but instead address a particular resource

throughoutits natural range. Because these approaches may have limited relevance to floodplain management, 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 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

PERCEPTION AND AWARENESS OF FLoODPLAIN 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 (buildingcodes, 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 of flood-related deaths in the Nation. This goal

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.

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 improving

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 defined 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 right of the rivers to their flood-way..

Engineering News-Record, 1937

ASSESSMENT OF THE NATION'S PROGRAM'

FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT2

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:AnAssessment 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.

1 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.
Floodplain Management in the United States: An Assessment Report

2) Floodplain Managementin the United States:AnAssessmentReport (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. TheAssessmentReport evolved fromA StatusReporton the Nation's

Floodplain Management Activity: An Interim Report (the Status Report), prepared by L.R. Johnston

Associates for the Task Force in April of 1989. The major sources of information used to prepare

the Assessment Report were:

* 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;

* 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");

* Responses to a 1987-88 survey by the Association of State Floodplain Managers of state

floodplain management activities.

* 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;

* Published literature; and

* 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.

I-2
Introduction

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.

I-3
Floodplain Management in the United States: An Assessment Report

COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS

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.

* PART I: THE NATION'S FLOODPLAINS. 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.

* PART II: THE NATION'S PROGRAM FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT. The two chapters

that comprise Part II 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.

I-4
Introduction

Part II also describes two important documents that have largely established the framework for

floodplain management over the last 25 years:

* 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.

* A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management was initially prepared by the U.S.

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.

* 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 currently being applied.

The four basic strategies of floodplain management are:

* Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damages and Disruption

* Modifying Flooding

* Modifying the Impacts of Flooding

* Managing Natural and Cultural Resources

* 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 inA Unified 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.

* PART VI: EPILOGUE: The Epilogue presents a closing comment by Gilbert F. White, one of

the pioneers of floodplain management.

I-5
I-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 Unified National Program for Floodplain Management, and by specific agencies

considering needed changes in their floodplain management programs.
PART I:

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, hydrometeorologic 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 inadequate 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.
2The 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.

1-2
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 NRIr 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 according to the 1982 NRI. States having the largest

acreage of floodprone areas are Texas (20 million acres), Florida (14 million acres) and Louisiana (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.

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

* 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.

Source: Soil Conservation Service, USDA Basic Statistics. 1982 National Resource Inventory. Iowa State University Statistical

Laboratory, Statistical Bulletin No. 756. 1987. Modified by L.R. Johnston Associates, 1990.
1-4 The Nation's Floodplains

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

by State, 1982.

STATE*

* Does not include Alaska.

CROP- PASTURE- RANGE- FORESTLAND LAND LAND LAND

MINOR LAND TOTAL

COVERMUSES

_ thousands of acres

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Caribbean

TOTAL

779.3 744.6

88.7 26.0

3,027.1 818.1

3,386.6 599.6

864.7 383.7

14.6 6.0

0.0 1.2

1,286.7 1,797.2

298.2 378.0

50.3 23.7

658.3 484.1

3,129.0 591.2

1,591.A 264.3

3,450.3 895.8

3,570.5 2773

1,684.1 659.4

2,459.5 608.8

60.8 14.5

53.5 69.2

21.0 15.6

172.8 105.2

1,579.4 456.6

4,390.6 836.4

5,138.9 1,674.6

945.3 575.3

3,298.2 437.7

417.7 222.7

24.7 12.4

40.3 36.4

217.2 48.0

381.8 363.2

1,043.9 247.4

1,143.7 127.6

907.1 275.2

2,086.7 1,485.2

855.7 770.5

295.5 285.8

1.0 1.5

98.2 76.1

2,439.1 433.1

1,957.0 843.5

3,162.2 3,604.9

327.2 217.8

70.2 44.8

342.1 335.2

578.2 369.8

317.3 162.1

1,555.6 741.3

405.2 185.8

115.4 124.4

60,764.8 23,758.8

0.0 4,09&0

2,437.0 10.3

4.9 2,948.8

1,872.2 224.5

2,209.2 112.2

0.0 57.7

0.0 31.9

2,482.3 5,582.8

0.0 6,558.9

0.0 60.5

282.1 1252

0.0 842.7

0.0 497.4

0.0 394.2

1,866.1 333.3

0.0 598.3

227.5 5,210.5

0.0 816.9

0.0 284A

0.0 108.5

0.0 685.5

79.5 559.5

0.0 4,232.2

21.9 1,109.2

1,988.2 211.1

2,191.4 310.2

1,114.2 3.8

0.0 68.7

0.0 322.5

3,530.3 65.6

0.0 941.0

0.0 4,197.4

986.3 150.9

0.0 504.7

1,579.0 833.0

596.9 182.6

0.0 707.9

0.0 34.6

0.0 2,211.7

2,105.2 122.5

0.0 1,128.1

10,341.7 2,296.4

963.0 64.5

0.0 79.2

0.0 1,355.1

107.6 361.6

0.0 198.0

0.0 2,144.7

2,125.5 39.5

0.0 6.8

39,112.0 54,025.5

108.2 5,730.1

249.1 2,811.1

89.2 6,888.1

970.1 7,053.0

122.8 3,692.6

27A 105.7

96.2 129.3

3,034.5 14,165.5

445.7 7,680.8

30.2 164.7

122.5 1,672.2

70.7 4,633.6

103.9 2,457.0

145.6 4,885.9

157A 6,204.6

90.3 3,032.1

2,983.9 11,490.2

275.3 1,167.5

223.6 630.7

107.3 252.4

418.7 1,382.2

478.4 3,153.4

106.1 9,565.3

128.5 8,073.1

237.8 3,957.7

180.5 6,418.0

104.9 1,863.3

49.9 155.7

268.1 667.3

135.3 3,996.4

276.7 1,962.7

295.2 5,783.9

112.6 2,521.1

158.5 1,845.5

56.1 6,040.0

205.3 2,611.0

133.2 1,422.4

15.4 52.5

495.5 2,881.5

134.8 5,234.7

90.9 4,019.5

642.6 20,047.8

822.1 2,394.6

26.7 220.9

281.5 2,313.9

171.9 1,589.1

24.9 702.3

1,502.9 5,944.5

70.5 2,826.5

39.3 285.9

17,118.7 194,779.8

Source: Soil Conservation Service, USDA Basic Statistics, 1982 National Resource Inventor.

Laboratory, Statistical Bulletin No. 756. Table 43a. 1987.

Iowa State University Statistical
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 (SQ. M.) (ACRES) (SQ. Ml.) (ACRES) % OF

TOTAL

Alabama 50,767 32,490,880 5,237 3,351,539 10.3

Alaska 570,833 365,333,120 731 467,714 0.1

Arizona 113,508 72645,120 2,618 1,675,759 2.3

Arkansas 52,078 33,329,920 9,206 5,891,724 17.7

California 156,299 100,031,360 6,831 4,372,107 4.4

Colorado 103,595 66,300,800 1,587 1,015,610 1.5

Connecticut 4,872 3,118,080 285 182,143 5.8

Delaware 1,932 1,236,480 199 127,494 10.3

Dist.Columbia 63 40,320 1 843 2.1

Florida 54,153 34,657,920 10,034 6,421,910 18.5

Georgia 58,056 37,155,840 3,548 2,270,736 6.1

Hawaii 6,425 4,112,000 59 37,683 0.9

Idaho 82,412 52,743,680 548 351,028 0.7

Illinois 55,645 35,612800 4,559 2,917,537 8.2

Indiana 35,932 22,996,480 2,627 1,681,457 7.3

Iowa 55,965 35,817,600 2,288 1,464,373 4.1

Kansas 81,778 52,337,920 3,790 2,425,872 4.6

Kentucky 39,669 25,388,160 2,120 1,356,658 5.3

Louisiana 44,521 28,493,440 12,180 7,795,336 27.4

Maine 30,995 19,836,800 906 579,620 2.9

Maryland 9,837 6,295,680 676 432,781 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 2,778 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 49,052,160 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 2.7

New Jersey 7,468 4,779,520 958 613,196 12.8

New Mexico 121,335 77,654,400 1,868 1,195,755 1.5

New York 47,377 30,321,280 1,557 996,494 3.3

N. Carolina 48,843 31,259,520 5,265 3,369,309 10.8

N. Dakota 69,300 44,352,000 1,432 916,527 21

Ohio 41,004 26,242,560 1,907 1,220,231 4.7

Oklahoma 68,655 43,939,200 3,085 1,974,355 4.5

Oregon 96,184 61,557,760 1,459 933,921 1.5

Pennsylvania 44,888 28,728,320 1,021 653,280 2.3

Rhode Island 1,055 675,200 73 46,720 6.9

SouthCarolina 30,203 19,329,920 3,935 2,518,550 13.0

South Dakota 75,952 48,609,280 2,057 1,316,412 2.7

Tennessee 41,155 26,339,200 2,336 1,494,888 5.7

Texas 262017 167,690,880 16,837 10,775,553 6.4

Utah 82,073 52,526,720 809 518,003 1.0

Vermont 9,273 5,934,720 226 144,950 2.4

Virginia 39,704 25,410,560 1,979 1,266,436 5.0

Washington 66,511 42,567,040 1,668 1,067,478 2.5

West Virginia 24,119 15,436,160 420 268,971 1.7

Wisconsin 54,426 34,832,640 3,001 1,920,680 5.5

Wyoming 96,989 62,072,960 1,064 681,009 1.1

TOTAL 3,539,289 2,265,144,960 146,601 93,824,412 4.1

Source: Donnelley Marketing Information Service. System Update Report 1987. (Refinement of 1987 study based on

remeasurement of Special Flood Hazard Areas in the top 2,000 communities having property at risk and a statistical

adjustment to the other floodprone properties.) FEMA, 1991.
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 identified 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 magnitude 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 mountainous 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

1-6
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, placement 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 results from 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).

ALLUVIAL FANS

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
The Nation's Floodplains

over a large area. Figure 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. Army 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 arid 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.

1-8
I (I

Floods and Floodplains l -y

Watershed Slope

and Vegetation Fan Entrenchment, Bias

Rainfall Entrance Angle /

Intensity

~~~~~~~~ ; z

7evelopment

."an.

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 1-2. Factors Affecting Flood Hazards on Alluvial Fans.

FAN CHANNELIZED BRAIDED SHEET FLOW

ZONE ZONE ZONE

t i

Range of Flow

Path Locations

aces// I I

IFlo Pah 

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 1-3. Hydraulic Zones on a Typical Alluvial Fan.
The 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.

1 J 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

Phoenix, 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 temperatures drop but a swift current prevents the formation of a solid ice cover. The frazil ice floats downstream 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.

1-10
Floods and Floodplains 1-11

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

.Culverts that can freeze solid

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.

Floods and Floodplains 1-11
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. Components 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

Mt2
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).

1-13 Floods and Floodplains
The Nation's Floodplains

Dune Crest

-Berm

-______ - M.H.W.

Profile A - Normal wove action

__

storm waves

ACCRETION ?; -

AProfile A

:- ~~~~~~ Sug ~ ~~~~Storm M. H. W. _

Crest Lowering Profile C- Stor aL.Wve atta.

of fr Crest

ACCRETION

ACCRETION

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Shore Protection Manual Volume 1. Vicksburg,

Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984.

Figure 1-5. Schematic Diagram of Storm Wave Attack on Beach and Dune.

1-14
Floods and Floodplains

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 determined that a total of 148 category 1 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.

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.

0215 

* HURRICANES

* HURRICANES

a TROPICAL STORMS

5. 02

02

z rt

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 Jalrvinen and A. C. Pike. Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1871-1986.

Asheville, North Carolina: National Climatic Data Center, 1987. Updated through 1989 by B.R. Jarvinen, National

Hurricane Center, National Weather Service.

1-15
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. 1871-1986.

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. 1 - 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, 1871-1986.

Asheville, North Carolina: National Climatic Data Center, 1987.

Figure 1-8. The Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale.
The 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.

CATEGORY

AREA 1 2 3 4 5

MAJOR

HURRICANES

ALL (Ž CATEGORY 3)

U.S. (Texas to Maine)

Texas

(North)

(Central)

(South)

Louisiana

Mississippi

Alabama

Florida

(Northwest)

(Northeast)

(Southwest)

(Southeast)

Georgia

South Carolina

North Carolina

Virginia

Maryland

New Jersey

New York

Connecticut

Rhode Island

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Maine

55 34 44 13 2 148

10 9 9 6 0 34

7 3 3 4 0 17

2 2 1 1 0 6

3 4 5 1 0 13

8 5 7 3 1 24

1 1 5 0 1 8

4 1 5 0 0 10

16 15 16 5 1 53

9 7 6 0 0 22

1 7 0 0 0 8

5 3 5 2 1 16

5 10 7 3 0 25

1 4 0 0 0 5

7 4 2 *2 0 15

11 4 8 *1 0 24

1 1 *1 0 0 3

0 *1 0 0 0 1

*1 0 0 0 0 1

3 0 *5 0 0 8

*2 2 *3 0 0 7

0 *1 *3 0 0 4

2 *1 *2 0 0 5

*1 *1 0 0 0 2

*5 0 0 0 0 5

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. 1871-1986.

Asheville, North Carolina: National Climatic Data Center, 1987. Updated through 1989 by B.R Jarvinen, National

Hurricane Center, National Weather Service.

Extratropical storms that occur along the northern part of the east coast of the United States, accompanied 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

59

15

7

2

6

11

6

5

22

6

0

8

10

0

4

9

1

0

0

5

3

3

2

0

0

1-18
Floods and Floodplains

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 (earthquakes 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 Speed Km 'hj_ 835 481 341 1 49

Source: Jervis, MichaeL "Tsunami Warning!" EmergencyPreparednessDieest EmergencyPreparednessCanada. (January-March

1990): 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).

1-19
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

1-20
Floods and Floodplains

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 increases 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 E. Hickman, Jr. "United States Sea Level Variations Through 1986." Shore and Beach. July 1988.

1-21
2The 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 predominant 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.5

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.

1-22
Floods and Floodplains

The National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council, 1985) has defined mudflood and

mudflow as follows:

* Mudflood: Refers to a flood in which the water carries heavy loads of sediment (as much

as 50% by volume) including coarse debris. Mudfloods typically occur in drainage channels

and on alluvial fans adjacent to mountainous areas, although they may occur on floodplains

as well.

* Mudflow: Refers to 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. Mudflows may be confined to drainage channels or may occur

unconfined on hill 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. Mudfloods 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,

1-23
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).

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 subsidence 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.

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: FEMA, 1987.

1-24
Floods and Floodplains

Figure 1-11. Damage Due to Differential Compaction of Soils.

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

subsidence:

* 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.

* Subsidence occurs in organic wetlands 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 likely to experience subsidence.

* Underground mining, both past and present, is the cause of subsidence in an estimated 220

counties in 42 states.

* 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.

A B

Damage due to differential compaction 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.

1-25
The Nation's Floodplains

LIQUEFACTION

Although less common than subsidence, liquefaction is another type of ground failure that contributes

to flood problems. Liquefaction 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 unconsolidated 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 fairly 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

1-26
Floods and Floodplains

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 lakes

with inadequate outlet channels may persist for years.

TYPES AND CAUSES OF LAKE LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS

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.

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District Great Lakes Water Levels Facts. Detroit, Michigan: U.S. Army 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.

1-27
The 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 modem 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.

1-28
Floods and Floodplains

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).

1-29

99~ 85, 99 750

HrUDSON SAY DRAINAGE ASIN 55'LAME ELEVATION. IN FEET ABOVE DATUM

§dP Oooeoslon i S~ 600.59 578.27 578.27 573.34 570.44 Contol|

So0 DihAKE srrou

/N*~tw \,Lwosion LAKE ONTARIO

dH ddpla SUPERIOR

RE Chicao j . . mo..nd I` Gocat Lakes

40doaifla~e bam iRSLLINOLS 1O0 2RR KILOMETERS

( \ Outuol, ~oo. MuoU- RiK.,

N INNS ELA. Saer on

SUPPER MISSISSIPPI 'cY.' o~

'DRAINAGE EASIN 

Source: U d e l a S.y v a l W of e9EWISCONSINf ra . Pwr oect' 

Water Supply P 2 WNEW YORK

Nig..o Ricer

SI Owl DivearsaiPone LdSr Clu :~~'.Oood~l 

IOWA 0000. .4.1

Lake .Mich~~~gan ~~~ - ~ ..~Barge :.:: Canal

Diverel OubO*5~~~~~~~~~~~ . ~Diversion

ILLINO INDIANA I I ~~~~~~~~~~PENNSYLVANIA -iE

40- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OHIO Phi[I~bu5I 'phE- E

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 -Hydrolojsic Events and Surface Water Resources.

Water Supply Paper 2300. Washington, D.C. U.S. Geological Survey Printing Office, 1986.
The 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 District Great Lakes Water Levels Facts. Detroit, Michigan: U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, 1987 (Table 2, 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 msl, 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).

1-30
Floods and Floodplains

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.

1-31
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 significance. 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
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 production 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 all, 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).

2-2
Floodplain Resources and Values

NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES OF FLOODPLAINS

WATER RESOURCES

Natural Flood and Erosion Control: Water Quality Maintenance:

* Reduce flood velocities * Reduce sediment loads

* Reduce flood peaks * Filter nutrients and impurities

* Reduce wind and wave impacts * Process organic and chemical wastes

* Stabilize soils * Moderate temperature of water

* Reduce sediment loads

Maintain Groundwater Supply and Balance:

* Promote infiltration and aquifer recharge

* Reduce frequency and duration of low flows;

i.e. increase/enhance base flow

LIVING REsouRcEs

Support Flora: Provide Fish and Wildlife Habitat:

* Maintain high biological productivity of * Maintain breeding and feeding grounds

floodplain and wetland vegetation * Create and enhance waterfowl habitat

* Maintain productivity of natural forests * Protect habitat for rare and endangered species

* Maintain natural crops

* Maintain natural genetic diversity

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Maintain Harvest of Natural and Agricultural Provide Recreation Opportunities:

Products: * Provide areas for active and consumptive uses

* Create and enhance agricultural lands * Provide areas for passive activities

* Provide areas for cultivation of fish and shellfish * Provide open space values

* Protect silvaculture * Provide aesthetic values

* Provide harvest of fur resources

Provide Scientific Study and Outdoor Education Areas:

* Provide opportunities for ecological studies

* Provide historical and archaeological sites

Source: Adapted from U.S. Water Resources CounciL A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management 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: Heisaicich, Ralph E. and Linda L Langer. Wetland Conversion and Farm Products. Agricultural Economic Report No.

551. Natural Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1986.

I I
27Te 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 offstream uses of surface water are for irrigation, industrial, municipal, and energy production purposes.

For all but irrigation diversions, most of the water, following its 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 consumed, 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. Department 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, streamflow 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 growing uses

have been for public water supplies (covering most residential and commercial uses) and for

2-4
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:

* Reduction of flood velocities

* Reduction of flood peaks

* 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 wetland

acquisition for flood protection purposes was completed in the Charles River Basin

(Tiner, 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-
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.

| ML A study of the Devils Lake Basin in North Dakota revealed that natural, shallow depressions 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, depending 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 currents 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 addition 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.

2-6
Floodplain Resources and Values __ __

4' (or Bay) J~~~~ Inlet

Bay Barriers Barrier Spits Bare'sans

Source: Leathennan, Stephen. Barrier Island Handbook. 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:

* Reducing sediment loads

* Processing chemical and organic wastes

* Reducing nutrients

Floodplains buffer rivers, streams, lakes and estuaries from upland sources of pollution. An undisturbed, vegetated floodplain can filter surface runoff and capture sediment loads. Wetlands provide

particularly 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.

7
The Nation's Floodplains

STATE NUMBER OF

BARRIER

ISLANDS

Alabama

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Mississippi

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Texas

Virginia

18 STATES

TOTAL ACREAGE

5 28,200

14 2,362

2 10,100

80 467,710

15 165,600

18 41,120

9 2,640

2 14,300

27 37,600

5 9,500

2 1,100

10 48,000

15 30,310

23 146,400

6 3,660

35 144,150

16 383,500

11 68,900

295 1,605,152

Ion NH.. )O.suc

pa. N.Y.5g d,

P.C. En.. I

Do. x Bni

\,\ .S />D~le"* 1

T. a a a I N;CIS,...,~~~~~~~4..

11 Cry\ pl~~~~~~~~~pll.,l..,0.

Sesa £01&

C,.a ,O~omp

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 treatment 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 examining the effects of pollutant loading on wetlands. It is thought that pollutant loadings stress and

degrade wetlands, ultimately reducing the ability of wetlands to retain pollutants (Meagher, 1988).

2-8
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 bacteria (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 be

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 most

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 (wetland vegetation); 2) the substrate

is predominantly un-drained hydric soil; 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 support, and under normal circumstances do

support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for 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 circumstances does support, a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated

soil conditions, except that this term does not include lands in Alaska identified as having a high

potential for agricultural development and a predominance of permafrost soils.

2-10 Thze Nation's Floodplains
Floodplain Resources and Values 2-l1

trb^ND~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ULN UPLAND 

UPLAND

High Water ~ h t4 l h ' Wl* .......... ;b~

DeprIWonar Weblnd Overflow Oeapwhler Overfow Seepage W.IlSnd on Slope

Wetland Habitat Wetland

Source: Tiner, Jr., Ralph W. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends. Newton Corner, Massachusetta:

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 Identifying and

Delineating Jurisdictional 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 repeatability in wetland jurisdiction decision-making, and, therefore, should result in less frequent interagency

disagreements over the 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.)

^ 7 7
7The Nation's Floodplains

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 Types

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

'tll Sprfng or Storm Tide

UPLAND x - A _~~~~~~~z; G ; 5|,2\ ~~~Daily High Tlde

high-tide bush salt hay cordgrs-L Daily Low Tide

spikegrass _ - - - - -

salt marsh aster smooth cordgrass glasswort (tall form)

smooth cordgrass

(short form)

IRREGULARLY FLOODED MARSH REGULARLY INTERTIDAL ESTUARINE

FLOODED FLAT OPEN WATER

MARSH (BAY)

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.

1. - --- -

2-12

rigure 2-5. A;
Floodplain Resources and Values

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.

PLAND

UPLAND

MARINE SYSTEM

A ~~~~~~~~~~~(OCEAN)

LEGEND

- -=- - - - System boundary

------- Estuarine System Upstream limit - -------

of saltwater -- Riverine System

-& barrier E Lacustrine System

-- -S Island 2 Palustrine System

- g Rocky shore

Intertidal beach

Tidal flat

Aquatic bed

Reservoir e Emergent wetland

W Dam *'s.. ~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, 1984.

Major Wetland and Deepwater Habitat System.

2-13

:Figure 2-6.
The 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 arid 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 characteristics 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 arid 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.

2-14
Floodplain Resources and Values

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. Approximately 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

2-15
The Nation's Floodplains

along all coasts are principal feeding grounds 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 arid 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 streamside 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).

2-16
Floodplain Resources and Values

rJ In southeastern Arizona, the San Pedro River 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 secondhighest mammalian diversity recorded in the world (Spear, 1985).

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Under today's definition, "cultural resources" are limited to prehistoric and historic sites, archaeological 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 ProgramforFloodplain Management, are many 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

species are estuarine and wetland dependent. Freshwater wetlands provide a greater value of harvest

2-17
The 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 production was considered a favorable practice, and cultivation of these areas was subject to few conservation-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 focused

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

huntingwaterfowl 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.

Nonconsumptiverecreational activities includehiking, natureobservation 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

2-18
Floodplain Resources and Values

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 development actions; 2) BLOCKING OF RUNOFF AND INTERRUPTION 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 groundwater 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 arid regions (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986).

Development and modification 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).

2-19
0The 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 floodplains 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.

2-20
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 inadvertently placed within the floodplain. Thousands of water supply projects - particularly in the arid

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.
2The Nation's Floodplains

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 (WRC) 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 7 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 communities 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.

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

3-2
Floodplain Development and Losses 3-3

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

STATE

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

TOTAL

FLOODPLAIN

AREA IN

SQUARE MILES

5,237

731

2618

9,206

6,831

1,587

285

199

1

10,034

3,548

59

548

4,559

2,627

2,288

3,790

2,120

12,180

906

676

547

657

2,778

8,217

5,143

1,072

3,079

1,880

239

958

1,868

1,557

5,265

1,432

1,907

3,085

1,459

1,021

73

3,935

2,057

2,336

16,837

809

226

1,979

1,668

420

3,001

1,064

146,601

FLOODPLAIN

HOUSEHOLDS

1987

236,766

4,750

98,052

228,252

681,438

77,442

94,470

31,949

16,657

971,323

207,293

7,572

15,060

337,642

238,576

114,569

115,197

112,743

661,839

33,459

113,343

163,182

145,384

98,493

207,413

216,453

13,392

238,846

27,452

19,712

452,579

74,518

466,947

278,863

84,780

277,989

210,713

56,360

210,987

26,602

155,543

53,596

167,644

1,069,378

28,027

13,588

147,015

93,653

31,136

139,467

8,773

9,576,877

VALUE OF

FLOODPLAIN

HOUSEHOLDS

1987

7,576,674,844

291,785,955

3,267,311,956

5,981,276,727

45,706,298,363

3,738,076,339

5,601,143,436

1,291,132,454

902,183,269

46,189,074,261

7,225,068,115

672651,254

602411,309

15,911,660,586

8,785,544,502

4,384,581,121

3,942,079,035

3,528,138,998

26,876,649,178

1,071,604,991

5,383,860,885

7,440,748,038

6,673,390,073

4,860,810,206

5,176,305,887

7,991,205,800

443,321,171

9,316,174,544

1,579,815,755

829,920,022

20,961,050,445

3,314,009,278

11,317,224,372

8,694,853,746

3,515,958,504

11,058,489,912

7,725,925,945

2,777,077,198

7,397,603,384

1,145,969,064

5,237,343,635

1,858,269,278

5,640,679,477

36,331,534,634

1,509,421,589

490,304,437

6,707,630,446

3,624,944,099

1,089,375,126

5,992,923,093

421,021,028

390,052,507,764

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

Source: Donnelley Marketing Information Service. System Update ReDort 1987. (Refinement of 1987 study based on

remeasurement of Special Flood Hazard Areas in the top 2,000 communities having property at risk and a statistical

adjustment to the other floodprone properties.) FEMA, 1991.
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 longterm 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 development 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 structures 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 encroachment 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

34
Floodplain Development and Losses

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. IC , 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

a during a major huricane 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, but on peak summer weekends, the population was estimated 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 Lakes (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 severe storms.

3-5
The Nation's Floodplains

Table 3-2. Regional Population Densities in Coastal Counties With Coastal Barriers, 1960-1980.

(population per square mile)

REGION

(No. of Counties) 1960 1970

PERCENT

CHANGE

1960-70 1980

PERCENT

CHANGE

1970-80

New England (11)

North Central

Atlantic (9)

South Central

Atlantic (11)

South Atlantic (11)

Gulf (16)

490

736

108

175

146

540

940

144

263

190

10.2

27.7

33.3

50.3

23.3

571 5.7

1223

178

381

255

31.2

23.6

44.9

34.2

Source: West, Niels. "Population Changes in Coastal Jurisdictions with Barrier Beaches: 1960-1980." In Cities on the Beach:

Manneement 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 28.0

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 Barrier Beaches: 1960-1980." In Cities on the Beach:

Manavement Issues of Developed Coastal Barriers. University of Chicago Research Paper No. 224. University of

Chicago, 1987.

3-6
Floodplain Development and Losses

The natural erosion and migration rates of most coastal barriers are high. Lands now being considered 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 types 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.

Slope ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~Post Past Location

, Slope of Coasta, Ploin o d * Shoreline of Barrier and Continental Shelf of Mainland Island

Present Present Location Post Location of

Shoreline of Migrating Barrier Island at

Sof Mainland pBarrier Island Post Sea Level

8 8AY 0 OCEA NI

lo 100 to 1000 limes H I

H = rise In sea level Tl: post sea level

0 = horizontal migration of T.= present sea level

barrier island

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

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

3-7
The 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 arid 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 arid 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 FLOODPLAIN 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 floodplains 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-19SOs, 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 and pond construction, beaver activity, and irrigation and

marsh creation projects. Although 11 million acres of wetlands were lost, this was offset by gains

of 2 million acres of new wetlands, yielding 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).

3-8
Floodplain Development and Losses

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 wetland 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 residential/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 bottomland 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.

+ WETLANDS GAINS PALUSTRINE OPEN WATER

+2 _ PAWSTRINE FLAT

ESTUARINE WETLAND

G W +PALUSTRINE EMERGENT WETLAND

Q F I I I F E _ Fl PALUSTRINE SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND

O -0.5 MI PALUSTRINE FORESTED WETLAND

O -l

*2

WETLANDS LOSSES Net losses and gains in wetlands of the conterminous U.S.

.3 between the mid-1950s and mid-1960s (from Frayer, et. al. 1983).

-4

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.

3-9

.- I
The Nation's Floodplains

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

I. HUMAN THREATS

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., pesticides, 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.

II. NATURAL THREATS

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.

Causes of Recent Wetland Losses.

8% Urban Development 7- -

5% Other Development

0

'/-.~'' =- 6- -

LU WE

U.S.~3' WidieSrie Fis aittRsucs 94 2n 

'~"-,'r87% gr~cuture~,, W

0 

PALUSTRINE WETLAND TYPES

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.

3-10

Figure 3-3.
Floodplain Development and Losses

Table 3-5. Wetland Losses in Various States.

STATE OR REGION

Iowa's Natural Marshes

California

Nebraska's Rainwater Basin

Mississippi Alluvial Plain

Michigan

North Dakota

Minnesota

Louisiana's Forested Wetlands

Connecticut's Coastal Marshes

North Carolina's Pocosins

South Dakota

Wisconsin

ORIGINAL

WETLANDS

(ACRES)

2,333,000

5,000,000

94,000

24,000,000

11,200,00

5,000,000

18,400,000

11,300,000

30,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

TODAY'S

WETLANDS

(ACRES)

26,470

450,000

8,460

5,200,000

3,200,000

2,000,000

8,700,000

5,635,000

15,000

1,503,000*

1,300,000

10,000,000 6,750,000

% OF

WETLANDS

LOST SOURCE

99 Bishop (1981, pers. comm.)

91 U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (1977)

91 Farrar (1982)

78 MacDonald, et al.(1979)

71 Michigan DNR (1982)

60 Elliott, U.S. FWS (pers.

comm.)

53 University of MN (1981)

50 Turner and Craig (1980)

50 Niering (1982)

40 Richardson, et. aL (1981)

35 Elliott, U.S. FWS, (per.

comm.)

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 Corner, Massachusetts:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat Resources, 1984.

3-11
The Nation 's Floodplains

Table 3-6. Examples of Wetland Loss Rates.

STATE OR REGION

LOSS RATE

(acres/year) RATE SOURCE

Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain

Louisiana's Forested Wetlands

North Carolina's Pocosins

Prairie Pothole Region

Louisiana's Coastal Marshes

Great Lakes Basin

Wisconsin

Michigan

Kentucky

New Jersey's Coastal Marshes

Palm Beach County, Florida

Maryland's Coastal Wetlands

New York's Estuarine Marshes

Delaware's Coastal Marshes

165,000

87,200

43,500

33,000

25,000

20,000

20,000

6,500

3,600

3,084

*50

3,055

1,000

*20

740

*20

MacDonald, et al. (1979)

Turner and Craig (1980)

Richardson, et al. (1981)

Haddock and DeBates (1969)

Fruge (1982)

Great Lakes River Basin Comm.

(1981)

Wisconsin DNR (1976)

Weller (1981)

Kentucky Fish & Wildlife

Resources (1983)

Ferrigno, et al. (1973)

JACA Corporation (1982)

U.S. FWS (1982)

Redelfs (1983)

O'Conner and Terry (1972)

Hardisky and Klemas (1983)

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

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.

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 Wolffraut, 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,

3-12
Floodplain Development and Losses

channelized, dammed, rip-rapped, converted to agricultural use, overgrazed, or altered by a combination 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 interruptions. 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

an environmental 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

trees that are significant sources of cover and food for wildlife, and widespread use of wildlifesupporting natural wildlife plantings 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 increased 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).

3-13
The Nation's Floodplains

Lowering of the water table in arid 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 channelization, both intentional and incidental to these activities, may lower the water table and change entire

ecosystems.

Introduction of nonnative 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 nonnative 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). ym 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 Sacramento'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:

* 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).

* The Missouri River was extensively developed in response to the dust bowl in the mid-1930s and

a series of floods in the 1940s. River channelization to stabilize the river, increase its navi3-14
Floodplain Development and Losses

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 differentiate 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.

3-15
The 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 Assessment 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 Index 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.

3-16
Floodplain Development and Losses 3-17

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

1916-1989.

FLOOD-RELATED DEATHS IN THE UNITED STATES

DEATHS PER

DEATHS 200 MIL POP

235

159

0

4

79

269

404

79

51

62

118

80

0

2

42

143

215

42

27

36

16

423

15

89

14

0

11

33

88

236

142

142

180

83

60

47

68

107

33

91

28

55

82

48

93

51

54

28

731

26

154

23

0

18

54

143

371

223

223

283

130

91

70

101

158

49

136

40

76

112

64

122

66

65

DEATHS PER

YEAR DEATHS 200 MIL POP

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

40

55

302

42

82

47

25

32

52

19

39

100

119

31

34

31

297

135

74

554

148

121

107

193

210

143

121

82

84

155

204

126

304

206

130

37

32

50

67

366

50

96

54

28

36

59

20

41

105

122

32

34

31

295

132

72

529

140

113

99

177

191

129

108

72

73

133

174

107

255

172

109

31

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. The 1985 population figure was used for the years 1986 to 1989. "Resident

Population" was used for all years.

Sources: Deaths - Schilling, Kyle, and others. The 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.

YEAR

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952
3-18 The Nation's Floodplains

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

States, 1916-1989.

FLOOD-RELATED DAMAGES IN THE UNITED STATES

(in millions of dollars)

DAMAGES DAMAGES

PER 200 PER 200

DAMAGES MIL POP. DAMAGES MIL POP.

YEAR DAMAGES (1985 S) (1985 $) YEAR DAMAGES (1985 $) (1985 5)

1916 26 256 481 1953 122 491 618

1917 27 227 427 1954 107 428 529

1918 8 57 107 1955 995 3,997 4,842

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 141 520 587

1923 53 334 577 1960 93 338 376

1924 17 107 185

1925 10 61 105 1961 154 554 605

1962 75 267 287

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 157 435 426

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 1,894 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 2,316

1939 14 108 163

1940 40 307 463 1976 1,240 2,344 2,154

1977 1,482 2,631 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 2.963

1949 94 424 568

1950 176 787 1.036 1986 6.007

1987 2,084

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 "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. 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. Part 1 (1916-1966). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1976; Council of Economic Advisors, various dates; U.S. General

Services Administration. Economic Indicators. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government

Printing Office, (1967-1988).
Floodplain Development and Losses

F~igure 3-4. NWS Estimate of Annual Flood-Related Deaths in the United States, 1916-1985.

NWS Estimate of Annual Flood Damages in the United States, 1Y16-1985.

3-19

CD)

Ctoo

50-

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: Deaths - Schilling, Kyle, and others. The Nation'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.

CIS

- 3000-

C

2500-

0

10-0

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.
The 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 floodrelated 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.

S 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.

3-20
Floodplain Development and Losses 3-21

Table 3-9. Hurricanes: 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

5 72 25,202

NA 0 13

NA 19 11,396

NA 2 45

NA 272 9,062

5 9 4,498

4 2 235

0 0 0

0 0 0

2 3 8

3 32 4,409

1 2 23

3 0 8

1 0 0

6 20 6,765

2 NA NA

1 0 0

2 2 961

4 16 3,094

0 0 0

2,059 148,607 150,66

6 316 322

388 29,405 29,793

1 705 706

6,046 48,734 54,780

1,887 34,442 36,329

36 24,258 24,294

0 0 0

0 0 0

45 2,514 2,559

4,642 31,670 36,312

15 498 513

6 142 148

1 3 4

6,897 65,033 71,930

NA NA 14,865

NA NA 3

NA NA 7,454

NA NA 18,663

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 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.

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

20 42 54

NA 8 43

NA 12 78

NA 51 242

NA 3 22

27 2 71

31 14 1,165

19 1 72

26 8 106

37 7 336

39 44 387

24 54 187

78 164 5,096

80 6 127

56 22 2,995

60 NA NA

97 24 2,805

55 19 421

71 19 188

11 2 25

8 1,226 1,234

23 1,723 1,746

298 1,214 1,512

276 11,331 11,607

21 3,950 3,971

117 1,207 1,324

424 9,287 9,711

104 4,687 4,791

113 1,589 1,702

238 7,600 7,838

610 28,080 28,690

106 2,662 2,768

476 17,105 17,581

144 1,892 2,036

668 16,285 16,953

NA NA 21,885

NA NA 10,746

NA NA 6,725

NA NA 5,774

NA NA 438

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

Note that these data are presented by fiscal year (July 1 -June 30).

Source: Rubin, Claire B., and others. Summary of Major 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.

1965-66

1966-67

1967-68

1968-69

1969-70

1970-71

1971-72

1972-73

1973-74

1974-75

1975-76

1976-77

1977-78

1978-79

1979-80

1980-81

1981 -82

1982-83

1983-84

1984-85

1965-66

1966-67

1967-68

1968-69

1969-70

1970-71

1971 -72

1972-73

1973-74

1974-75

1975-76

1976-77

1977-78

1978-79

1979-80

1980-81

1981-82

1982-83

1983-84

1984-85
3-22 The Nation'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 EVENTS KILLED INJURED DESTROYED DAMAGED & DAMAGED

67 22 102

NA 16 161

NA 38 824

NA 24 284

NA 51 783

49 22 58

77 519 16,587

78 105 1,559

83 71 366

90 48 500

70 55 2,071

58 165 1,469

106 1% 3,712

148 143 3,842

122 79 1,121

115 NA NA

133 70 2,561

149 69 1,988

121 65 1,478

48 9 29

91 9,131 9,222

108 22,353 22,461

84 14,224 14,308

71 17,674 17,745

83 33,769 33,852

105 6,993 7,098

7,346 133,805 141,151

3,229 81,467 84,696

1,417 31,309 32.726

803 25,008 25,811

1,377 26,179 27,556

3,581 35,942 39,523

1,489 48,508 49,997

2,659 56,646 59,305

887 37,439 38,326

NA NA 19,578

NA NA 46,256

NA NA 48,874

NA NA 41,578

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 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.

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

Cross Data.)

NO. OF NO. OF

FISCAL DEATHS DEATHS

YEAR (FLOOD) (STORM)

NO. OF 5-YEAR

DEATHS MOVING

(TOTAL) AVERAGE

22 42

16 8

38 12

24 51

51 3

22 2

519 14

105 1

71 8

48 7

55 44

165 54

196 164

143 6

79 22

NA NA

70 24

69 19

65 19

9 2

TOTAL **1,767

AVERAGE ***93.0

64

24

50

75

54

24

533

106

79

55

99

219

360

149

101

NA

94

88

83

11

*64

*44

*46

*53

53

45

147

158

159

159

174

92

162

176

186

*207

*176

'108

*92

*39

Note that these data are for Presidentially

declared disasters only.

Average of four or fewer years

through current year.

** Totals for 19 years.

*** Averages for 19 years.

**502 **2,269

***26.4 ***119.4

Source: Rubin, Claire B., and others. Summary of Major 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.

1965-66

1966-67

1967-68

1968-69

1969-70

1970-71

1971-72

1972-73

1973-74

1974-75

1975-76

1976-77

1977-78

1978-79

1979-80

1980-81

1981-82

1982-83

1983-84

1984-85

1965-66

1966-67

1967-68

1968-69

1969-70

1970-71

1971 -72

1972-73

1973-74

1974-75

1975-76

1976-77

1977-78

1978-79

1979-80

1980-81

1981-82

1982-83

1983-84

1984-85
Floodplain Development and Losses 3-23

Disaster Assistance Payments for Presidential Disaster Declarations, 1965-1989.

ALL

PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED DISASTERS

NUMBER COST

DISASTERS

DUE TO FLOODS AND HURRICANES

NUMBER COST

88,378,200

10,765,300

29,826,100

14,158,000

211,839,000

87,342,400

236,130,000

579,304,000

149,042,000

135,658,000

176,912,000

185,148,000

397,429,000

249,048,000

1,062,430,000

258,028,000

40,668,500

129,986,000

273,054,000

164,679,457

435,336,089

176,637,486

154,035,433

27,712,811

1,493,890,000

6,767,440,000

17 83,162,400

9 6,204,449

8 26,558,600

13 4,618,891

28 211,746,000

15 71,561,200

11 33,379,300

37 81,997,600

41 143,547,000

33 80,655,700

28 161,773,000

23 128,675,000

16 .267,826,000

21 244,516,000

34 490,468,000

14 206,235,000

11 240,047,000

20 117,287,000

19 267,759,000

26 127,924,700

21 406,419,123

24 172,803,240

17 140,265,115

5 24,458,312

17 1,465,650,000

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 1990.

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 governments (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 Administration (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 the bulk of other federal financial aid for disasters. The FHWA provided a total of $442.3

Table 3-13.

DATE

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

TOTAL

25

11

11

19

29

17

17

48

46

46

38

29

22

25

42

23

15

24

21

34

27

28

23

11

26

657

3-23 Floodplain Development and Losses
3-24 The 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."

Average annual property losses due to hurricanes rose from $250 million during the decade between

1951 and 1960 to over $400 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.

S 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 1 -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:

* Fii~r PRioRY: 200 miles where, if erosion continued, public safety would be endangered within

5 years.

* SECOND PRIoRITY: 1,000 miles where property or scarce wildlife habitat or important natural

landmarks would be endangered within 5 years.

* THIRD PRIoUT: 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. Arny 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).
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. The 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 11 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.

3-26
Floodplain Development and Losses

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 (L.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 threequarters 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.

3-27
The Nation's Floodplains

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

NAME & LOCATION

OF DAM

Mohegan Park, CT

Little Deer Creek, UT

Baldwin Hills, CA

Swift, MT

Lower Two Medicine, MT

Lee Lake, MA

Buffalo Creek, WV

Lake "O" Hills, AK

Canyon Lakes, SD

Bear Wallow, NC

Teton, ID

Laurel Run, PA

Sandy Run and 5 others, PA

Kelly Barnes, GA

Swimming Pool, NY

About 20 dams in CT

Lawn Lake, CO

DMAD, UT

DATE OF NUMBER OF

FAILURE LIVES LOST

March 1963

June 1963

December 1963

June 1964

June 1964

March 1968

February 1972

April 1972

June 1972

February 1976

June 1976

July 1977

July 1977

November 1977

1979

June 1982

July 1982

June 1983

DIRECT DAMAGES

6 $3 million

1 Summer cabins damaged

5 41 houses destroyed, 986 houses damaged,

100 apartment buildings damaged

19 Unknown

9 Unknown

2 6 houses destroyed, 20 houses damaged, 1

manufacturing plant damaged or

destroyed

125 546 houses destroyed, 538 houses damaged

1 Unknown

33 Unable to assess damage because dam

failure accompanied damage caused by

natural flooding

4 1 house destroyed

11 771 houses destroyed, 3,002 houses damaged, 246 businesses damaged or

destroyed

40 6 houses destroyed, 19 houses damaged

5 Unknown

39 9 houses, 18 house trailers and 2 college

buildings destroyed; 6 houses, 5 college

buildings damaged.

4 Unknown.

0 Unknown.

3 18 bridges destroyed, 117 businesses and

108 houses damaged, campgrounds,

fisheries, power plant damaged.

1 Unknown.

Source: Colorado Division ofDisasterEmergencyServices. 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.

3-28
Floodplain Development and Losses 3-29

0I

a

~- 50

0

U

A.

Overtopping

0 10 20. 30 0 10 20

AGE IN YEARS AGE IN YEARS

(cxcl. failures during construction and acts of war)

Source: Colorado Division of Disaster Emergency Services. Dam Safetv: 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.

Figure 3-7. Causes of Dam Failure.

CONCRETE

Dam failures 1900-1975 (over 15 m height)

Dam failures 1900-1975 (over 15 mn height)

CONCRETE

OVERTOPPING 29

FOUNDATION 53

PIPING AND 0 SEEPAGE

OTHERS 18

FlLu

OVERTOPPING 35

FOUNDATION

PIPING AND _l38 SEEPAGE

OTHERS

AU TYPES

OVERTOPPING [34

FOUNDATION 30

PIPING AND F28 SEEPAGE

OTHERS 8

I I 1 1 1

0 20 40

PERCENT OF FAILURES

(excl. failures during construction and acts of war)

Source: Colorado Division of Disaster Emergency Services. Dam Safetv: An Owner's Guidance Manual FEMA 145. Washington,

D.C: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987.

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 $100 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 $200 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 High 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).

3-30
Floodplain Development and Losses

Table 3-17. National Assessment of Streambank Erosion.

SEVERE AVERAGE ANNUAL DAMAGES

EROSION EROSION (1,000)

REGION STREAM-MILES BANK-MILES BANK-MILES (1981 $) (1985 S)

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 ofEngineers. Final Report to Congress -The Streambank 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.

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 Lake 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 fluctuations 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.

3-31
The 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 onequarter 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.

3-32
Floodplain Development and Losses

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,

range 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).

3-33
Tfhe 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 [greatJfloods causingpropertydamage of $50,000,000ormore (1959 dollars) occurred

with a frequency of about once every six years during the period between 1900 and 1940, floods

causing this amount of damage have occurred on an average of once in less than two years since

1940. As this increasing frequency of floods causing major property damage is not caused by an

increase in the magnitude offloodflows, it must be explained on the basis of the othercomponent

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.

3-34
Floodplain Development and Losses

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

FLOODS LOSSES AND THE NATIONAL 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 overall national economy. The CEQ (1981)

noted that for the late 1970s, the average annual loss from the four types of natural disasters it

Average annual deaths per 10 million population

80

70

60

50 -

Total

40 Hurricanes

30-

Tornadoes

20-

Earth akes

o10 

.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.

3-35
3The 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.

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 how 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.

Average annual property loss as a percent of GNP

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

Total

0.15 -

0.10 I L 

0.05

Earthquakes 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.

3-36
Floodplain Development and Losses

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 both upstream 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 will

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 (Million 1985 S)

FUTURE ALTERNATIVES

(POLICY AND/OR CASES)

URBAN & AGRICULBUILT-UP TURE OTHERDOWNTOTAL UPSTREAM STREAM

1985

Floodplain management to

remain constant

Current trends in increased

regulations to continue

Maximum practical regulation

Modified Central Case

2000

Floodplain management to

remain constant

Current trends in increased

regulation to continue

Maximum practical regulation

Modified Central Case

3,161

2,894

2,743

2,772

4,544

3,880

3,010

3,352

3,526

3,526

.3,526

3,384

1,792 8,479 3,970 4,509

1,676 8,095 3,822 4,273

1,676 7,944 3,732 4,212

1,608 7,763 3,671 4,093

4,080 2,649 11,273 5,562 5,711

4,086 2,375 10,342

4,086 2,330 9,426

3,677 2,111 9,140

5,063

4,405

4,557

Source: U.S. Water Resource CounciL

Resources Council, 1977.

LOLULmLdLVUIIUU Lnamcaz. flUIJLUICA 3. I4HIMJLowUC tIan yn flVWL

5,279

5,021

4,583

3-37

Vcisv I_-A - -n:_~ -A~n; N^ -UJ rAA A OT 1T - W -_-2AAF a U.a. watul
8The Nation's Floodplains

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, loss

of life appears to have been relatively constant throughout this century; and 2) the dollar value of

PROJECTED 2000 AVERAGE ANNUAL FLOOD DAMAGES BY WRC REGIONS

(MILLION 1967 $)

~~D -Cl- upstream/downstream

Source: U.S. Water Resource Council. Estimated Flood Damages. Appendix B: Nationwide Analysis Report U.S. Water

Resources Council, 1977.

3-38
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 II:

THE NATION'S PROGRAM FOR

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

The two chapters that comprise Part II 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 Program 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

... [Ilt is the sense of Congress that flood control on navigable waters or their tributaries is 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 formalized. 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.
The 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 responsibility 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.

4-2
Histoiy of Floodplain Management 4-3

The magnitude of the effort and the pressing need in the late 1930s and the early 1940s to protect

as many rural and urban communities as practical and feasible and as soon as possible, left little

time for other considerations. Thus, 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 Service 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 management along the international rivers is the U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, 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.

History of Floodplain Management 4-3
4The Nation's Program for Floodplain Management

FLOOD "CONTROL" VS. FLOOD "MANAGEMENT'

Although the emphasis during the first half of this century was on structural 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 readjustments, 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).

4-4
History 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 Congressmenwith 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 federalstate 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).
The Nation's 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 (Bloomgren, 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 perspective 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).

4-6
History of Floodplain Management

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).

Through 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 importance 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 (Thomas,

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.

4-7
78he 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:

* 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.

* The Water Pollution ControlActAmendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) assigned to the U.S. Environmental 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).

* The Disaster ReliefAct of 1974 (P.L. 93-288) required the development of state disaster preparedness 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."

* 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.

* The "Principles 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).

4-8
History of Floodplain Management 4-9

* 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.

* 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 management 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.)

* 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.

* Executive Order 11 988, Floodplain Management, and Executive Order 11 990, 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 management 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.

* 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).

* 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.

* 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.
The Nation's Program for Floodplain Management

* In addition, a series of studies to identify and implement opportunities for floodplain management 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:

* appointment of state flood insurance program coordinators in all 50 states;

* adoption of new floodplain regulatory programs by seven more states and strengthening of

programs by others;

* increases in staff and budgets of state programs for mapping, technical assistance, and permit

evaluation;

* growth of state expertise, aided by access to WRC Water Resource Planning Grant funds

and subsequent NFIP State Assistance Funds;

* adoption of resource conservation legislation that incorporated hazard reduction considerations (e.g., wetlands protection, coastal management); and

* incorporation of floodplain management measures in multi-purpose programs such as urban

renewal and open space acquisition programs.

2) AT THE LOCAL LEVEL:

* adoption of floodplain regulations by close to 17,000 communities as a condition of enrollment in the NFIP; and

* 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.

4-10
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

"new" 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 Floodplain Management" - was intended to establish common policy among the water resource construction 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 FEMA's

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 interagency 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
The 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. 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, 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 Unified National Program for Floodplain Management was updated' 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 compre4 Section 406 was renumbered as Section 409 by the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Amendments

of 1988 (P.L. 100-707).

S Responsibility for leadership of the UNP had been transferred to FEMA in 1982 following zero-level funding of the WRC and transfer of WRC staff to other federal agencies.

4-12
History of Floodplain Management

hensive State floodplain management program, especially as Federal financial assistance is limited

in accord with current Federal deficit reduction policies" (Federal Interagency Floodplain Management 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 either 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

the NFIP. 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 requirements 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 of 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.

Although 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.

4-13
CHAPTER 5:

A UNIFIED NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

[A] unified national program only can be achieved through a partnership 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 Unified 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 Unified 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.
The Nation's Program for Floodplain Management

DOCUMENT AGENCY ACTION

August A Unified National

1966 Program for

July A Unified National

1976 Program for

Floodplain

Management

September A Unified National

1979 Program for

Floodplain

Management

March A Unified National

1886 Program for

Floodplain

Management

Task Force on Federal

Flood Control Policy

Managing Flood

Losses

U.S. Water Resources

Council

U.S. Water Resources

Council

FEMA (Interagency

Floodplain

Management

Task Force

Prepared at the

administration's request

and submitted to

Congress by the

President.

Prepared by WRC in

response to Sec. 1302(c)

of the NFIA. Submitted

to the President, but not

transmitted to Congress.

Prepared by WRC to

incorporate new policy

directions (E.O. 11988

etc.). Submitted to the

President and transmitted

to Congress.

Prepared by the

Interagency Task Force

to reflect legislative and

other changes.

Submitted to the

President and transmitted

to Congress.

Source: Thomas, 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 in H.D. 465 emphasized reorientation and strengthening

of federal agency programs under existing 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' (WRC), 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.

See Chapter 7 for a description of the organization and functioning of the Water Resources Council relevant

to floodplain management.

DATE

5-2
A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management

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 Responsibilities

- 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 Unifwed National Program forFloodplain 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)

5-3
The 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 submitted A Unified 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 (NFRA) of 1968 (P.L 90-448) had directed that:

The 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 any furtherproposals necessary for such a unified program, includingproposals for

the allocation of costs among beneficiaries of flood protection.

In 1968, the Bureau of the Budget3 requested that the VVRC 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 Unif ed National Program for

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:

* Federally subsidized flood insurance had been made available with passage of the National Flood

Insurance Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-448).

* Funds for flood disaster preparedness planning were authorized by the Disaster Relief Act of

1974 (P.L. 93-288).

* 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.

5-4
A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS*

1976 1979 1986

SUMMARY OF H.D. 465 RECOMMENDATIONS

A. To improve basic knowled2e about flood hazard:

1. A three-stage program of delimiting hazards should be initiated by the Corps of

Engineers, the Geological Survey, and other competent agencies.

2. A uniform technique of determining flood frequency should be developed by a

panel of the Water Resources Council.

3. A new national program for collecting more useful flood damage data should be

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

sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the

Department of Agriculture, and the Geological Survey.

B. To coordinate and plan new developments on the floodplain:

5. The Federal Water Resources Council should specify criteria for using flood information

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

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

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

hazard in locating new Federal installations and in disposing of Federal land.

B B A

A A A

C C C

(1) C C B

(2) B B B

B B B

B B B

B B B

A A A

C. To provide technical services to managers of floodplain propert.

9. Programs to collect, prepare, and disseminate information and to provide limited

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

Environmental Science Services Administration as part of a disaster warning system.

D. To move toward a practical national proeram for flood insurance:

11. A five-stage study of the feasibility of insurance under various conditions should

be carried forward by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

E. To adiust Federal flood control policy to sound criteria and chaneine needs:

12. Survey authorization procedure and instructions should be broadened in concept.

13. Cost-sharing requirements for federally assisted projects should be modified to

provide more suitable contributions by State and local groups.

14. Flood project benefits should be reported in the future so as to distinguish

protection of existing improvements from development of new property.

15. Authority should be given by the Congress to include land acquisition as part

of flood control plans.

16. Loan authority for local contributions to flood control projects should be

broadened by the Congress.

A A A

B B B

A A A

A A A

B B B

A A A

B B B

C C B

* From status reports in A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management: A = Largely Implemented; B = Some

Progress (often legislated, but not implemented); C = Little or nothing accomplished

Sources: U.S. WaterResourcesCouncil. AUnifiedNational Program forFlood Plain Management Washington, D.C:U.S. Water

Resources Council, 1976 and 1979; Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. A Unified National

Propram for Floodplain Management Washington, D.C: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.

House Document 465 Recommendations for Federal Agency Action.

5-5

Figure 5-2.
The Nation's Program for Floodplain Management

* States were granted financial assistance for development of coastal management programs under

the Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583).

* Requirements for dredge and fill permits (Section 404) expanded federal jurisdiction over

development in wetlands (P.L. 92-500).

* Cost sharing was extended, in principle, to nonstructural flood control measures under the 1974

Water Resources Development Act (P.L. 93-251).

* 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.

* 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:

* Fragmented and uncoordinated responsibility for floodplain management.

* Over-reliance on public investment to solve problems.

* 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."

5-6
A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, 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 Unified 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

Unified National Program for Flood Plain Management are:

* 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.

* The floodplain must be considered in the context of total community, regional and national

planning and management.

* Flood loss reduction should be viewed in the larger context of floodplain management, rather

than as an objective in itself.

* 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 all 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.

5-7
The 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 Unified National Program for Flood Plain Management:

1) MODIFY sUsCEPTIBILrrY TO FLOOD DAMAGE AND DISRUPTION: 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 INDIVIDUALS AND THE COMMUNmf: 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 FLOODPLAIN 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 recommendations 5 (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 costsharing, 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.

5-8
A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management

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 FORECASTING 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 Program for Floodplain Management

Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.

Strategies and Tools for Flood Loss Reduction.

5-9

Figure 5-3.
The 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 forFlood 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 WRC (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

"natural and beneficial values" of floodplains to respond to the new policy directives mentioned

above, and included:

* 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 decisionmaking responsibility for floodplain management; and to expand the discussion of managing flood

losses and alleviation of loss of natural and beneficial resources);

* 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);

5-10
A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management

* Expansion of the working principles regarding floodplain use, flood loss reduction and natural

floodplain resources;

* Expansion of strategies and tools to include those for managing natural floodplain resources;

and

* Discussion of the federal concern for natural floodplain resources.

STRATEGIES AND TOOLS FOR MANAGING FLOODPLAIN NATURAL RESOURCES

The 1979 reportA Unified NationalProgram forFloodplain 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 OMB

memorandum and a subsequent interagency agreement ("Interagency Agreement for

5-11
2The 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.

* Completion of two major studies by the National Science Foundation on Flood Hazard Mitigation

(1980) and Developing Flood Hazard Mitigation Piorties (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.

5-12
A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management 5-13

FEDERAL LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Assure that all Federal programs for water, land, and related resources support and implement the precepts of Executive Order 11988:

Floodylain Management and of"A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management", as enunciated in this report. RESPONSIBILITY - All 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. RESPONSIBILITY - The Federal Insurance Administration and Geological Survey

should take the lead.

4. Improve Federal support of local government's role in floodplain management RESPONSIBILITY - All Federal agencies.

5. Accelerate floodplain and hazard studies and improve dissemination of information to States and local users.

6. Support cost sharing policies and project evaluation procedures that facilitate achievement of a desirable mix of structural and nonstructural

approaches to flood hazard adjustment RESPONSIBILITY - All Federal agencies.

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.

8. 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. RESPONSIBILITY - 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 11988. Floodplain 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 of improving

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

LOCAL LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS

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.

2 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.

3. 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 Management

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.

I

-
PART III:

CHANGES IN FLOODPLAIN

MANAGEMENT

SINCE THE 1960s

Much has changed in the field 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 many parameters

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 floodplains. 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 theAssessment 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 management 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,
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 parameters 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

6-2
The Knowledge and Information Base

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 lastperiod 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 15'C, 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 chlorofluorocarbons (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).

6-3
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):

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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 0.3OC per decade

(with an uncertainty range of 0.20C to 0.50C 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 1PC above the present value by 2025, and 30C before the end of the next century. The

rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors.

* Under the other IPCC emission scenarios, which assume progressively increasing levels of

controls, predicted rates of increase in global mean temperature range from about 0.20C per

decade to about 0.10C per decade.

* 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.

* Global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3OC 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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;

64
The Knowledge and Information Base

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 Level 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. The 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 - Engineeting 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).

These 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 3*C 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).

6-5
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):

* Decreased hydraulic head and higher water tables would reduce both natural and artificial

drainage;

* More areas would be flooded by spring tides;

* Storm surges would be higher;

* Areas that were above sea level and relied on gravity drainage would now be below sea level

and have to rely on pumping;

* 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

* 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 precipitation 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 established. 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 Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the Western 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 Rainfall FrequencyAtlas of the 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 precipitation patterns during the limited period of record relative to longer, unknown precipitation patterns.

6-6
The 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).
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 mainstem 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 320,000 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).

6-8
The Knowledge and Infonnation Base 6-9

5) GROUND-WATER SiTE-INVENTORY FILE (independent but cross-referenced to Daily Values and

Water Quality Files): data on 850,000 sites (construction history, geohydrologic data, and onetime 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 twoand 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
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 Guidelinesfor

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 exceedance probability methodology can be used to:

* Set a design standard (e.g., new facilities must be safe from the one percent annual chance

flood);

* Evaluate a historic flood (e.g., the flood of 1967 has a four percent chance of being exceeded

each year); or

* 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. The hydrology of those three

6-10
The Knowledge and Information 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 WSP2 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.
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 Hurricanes" (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 gathered 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

6-12
The 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 completely 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. Because 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.
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.

6-14
The Knowledge and Information Base

Aircraft reconnaissance is still needed, however, to obtain supplemental and more precise environmental 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 (Neumann, 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.

6-15
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. The 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 minutes from 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.

6-16
The Knowledge and Information Base

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)

Colorado 1987 0

Connecticut 1951 0

Delaware 1951 0

Florida 1978 0

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

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

_..........::. :~:: gcenters.

Massachusetts 1950 0 Primary mapping is

Michigan 1988 0 (CrSep89 P-Feb9O) 1:63,360-scale 15' format.

Minnesota 1984 0 Estimated date does not

include the Aleutian Islands

Missouri 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 (3rd Quarter FY91) Unimak Pass (mainland)

p ............... ~ .**. ~...... .,.......where NMvD has perennial

New- Jre 19-- problems in obtaining K ew ersey 8....... . ...................

New Mexico 1988 16 (4th Quarter FY90) photography.

New York 1990 (C-Jun9O) 0 C = Completed-mapping center

North Carolina 1988 0 date

........ 1985 0 (C-Dec89 P-May9O) P = Published date

Oregon 1990 (C-Jun9O) 20 (3rd Quarter FY90)

Pennsylvania 1973 0

Rhode Island 1958 0

South akota1985 0

Tennessee 1983 0

Texas 1985 0

Utah 1990 (C-Jun9O P-Jul90) 71 (3rd Quarter FY91)

Virginia 1972 0

Washington 1990 (C-Jun9O) 8 (3rd Quarter FY91)

West Virginia 1978 0

Wisconsin 1985 0

i l , Wp4...::::

Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Oflice of Production Planning and Analysis. 1990.

6-17
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 publication 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 conventional 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.

6-18
The Knowledge and Information Base

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). The 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." The 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 hypotheti6-19
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 TVA's 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 Cooperative 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-

6-20
The Knowledge and Information Base

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 information 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

YEAR PUBLISHED

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

8

8

10

27

13

14

18

13

11

7

11

8

11

8

6

6

4

NUMBER

YEAR PUBLISHED

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

2

4

3

4

6

1

0

1

0

0

2

4

10

3

I3

5

4

3

TOTAL REPORTS PUBLISHED: 238

Note: In addition, 322 flood insurance studies have been

prepared for the FIA.

Source: Tennessee Valley Authority. December 1988.

6-21
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 (FHA), 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 FHA 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 FHA 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).

6-22
The Knowledge and Information Base

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 .

Rate Studies in Progress at Study Contractors .....

Rate Studies Under Review ...................

Existing Data Studies in Progress ...............

Total Studies ..............................

RESTUDY STATUS (TYPE 19):

Restudies and Existing Data Studies Completed .....

Restudies in Progress at Study Contractors .........

Restudies Under Review .......................

Existing Data Restudies in Progress ...............

Total Restudies ..............................

HISTORICAL COSTS:

11,653 .................... 

10 

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

79 

12,146 

1,132 ..... 

237 .....

265 .....

....... 

..... 

(Millions)

Total Appropriations ............................................ $873.0

Studies . ............................................... 354.8

Restudies....................................................... 92.2

Technical Review and Cartographics ........... ...................... 194.1

Revisions/FHBMs/LOMAs/LMMP ............. ...................... 94.8

Printing/Distribution .............................................. 46.8

Miscellaneous Program Support (Appeals, Special Studies, Projects) .... ...... 89.7

Digitizing NFIP Maps ............................................... 6

Source: Federal Insurance Administration. Unpublished data. 1991.

6-23

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

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

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

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

..............
Source: Federal Insurance Administration. 1990.

3,000

2,800

2,600

2,400

2,200

',i 2,000

5

3 1,800

0 1,600

0

r 1,400

tli

0 1,200

z 1,000

800

600

400

200

0

1 S

STUDY INITIATIONS

BY FISCAL YEAR

M ~ ~~

U I

64197519761197711978 119791980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

FISCAL YEAR

TOTAL STUDY THIS FY: 1,614 1,156 2,320 1,474 2,123 791 295 90 264 508 507 889 596 453 288 261 243 INITIATIONS CUMULATIVE: 1,614 2,770 5,090 6,564 8,687 9.478 9,773 9.863 10,127 10.635 11.142 12.031 12.627 13.080 13,368 13,629 13,872

D THIS FY: 1.556 1.142 2.260 1.360 1.935 749 199 59 77 268 278 591 297 258 92 7 6 CUMULATIVE: 1,556 2,698 4.958 6.318 8,253 9,002 9,201 9,260 9,337 9,605 9.883 10,474 10.771 11.029 11.121 11,128 11,128

NEWSTUDY 1THIS FY: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 158 167 129 149 174 90 59 49 32

INITIATIONS -CUMULATIVE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 169 336 465 614 788 878 937 986 1,018

THIS FY: 1,556 1,142 2,260 1.360 1.935 749 199 70 235 435 407 740 471 348 151 56 32 TOTAL CUMULATIVE: 1.556 2.698 4,958 6,318 8,253 9.002 9,021 9,271 9.506 9,941 10,348 11.088 11,559 11.907 12,058 12,114 12,146

V~z TItIS FY: 58 14 60 114 188 42 96 20 29 73 98 114 53 50 56 145 167

CUMULATIVE: 58 72 132 246 434 476 572 592 621 694 792 906 959 1,009 1,065 1.210 1,337

RESTUDY THIS FY: 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 35 72 55 8 1 60 4

INITIATIONS CUMULATIVE: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 37 109 164 245 305 349

THIS FY: 58 14 60 114 188 42 96 20 29 73 100 149 125 105 137 205 211 TOTAL CUMULATIVE: 58 72 132 246 434 476 572 592 621 694 794 943 1,068 1.173 1.310 1,515 1,726

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

9'

New Studies (Type 15 & LDS) L

Restudies (Type 19 & LDS)

Existing Data Studies (XDS)

(All Types)

n

oq

Em

riz

II

034
The Knowledge and Information Base

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

1990 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

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 1969 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 Management 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).

6-25
Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s

Table 6-5. Floodplain Mapping Studies by the Corps of Engineers, 1969-1988.

FLOODPLAIN

INFORMATION

STUDIES

125

125

150

200

225

225

250

250

0

1550

SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD

INFORMATION STUDIES

40

50

50

50

60

60

75

75

85

95

85

80

75

25

15

20

25

30

45

55

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 FLA 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 FLA 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 appropriate 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.

YEAR

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

TOTAL

FLOOD

INSURANCE

STUDIES

20

80

185

130

160

110

260

430

310

200

260

20

15

70

170

140

95

80

130

25

2890

6-26
The Knowledge and Infonnation Base

Table 6-6. Floodplain Mapping Studies by the Soil Conservation Service.

FLOODPLAIN

MGMT. STUDIES

START COMPLETE

FLOOD INSURANCE

STUDIES

START COMPLETE

0 0

2 0

4 2

21 1

27 5

61 12

35 20

37 48

12 32

15 33

20 37

28 31

22 25

56 19

33 27

56 36

29 40

18 29

19 28

409

1 0

16 3

61 3

39 61

24 23

14 8

37 8

86 21

52 37

41 40

64 54

5 81

0 42

13 24

13 19

13 9

0 3

8 15

9 15

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 in 2,349 communities for the application of

limited-detail study methods.

FISCAL

YEAR

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

TOTAL 4

6-27
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:

* 16 states map areas to provide greater detail, better scale, or other map improvements.

* 12 states map areas to reflect changes in development or hydrology.

* Six states map areas for flood control planning purposes where mapping must be of greater detail

and go beyond corporate limits.

* 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 1"

= 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 topographic 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).

6-28
7he Knowledge and Information Base

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 not 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 amendments and revisions to original FIRMs.

UNDERSTANDING AND MAPPING OF WETLANDS

Significant improvements in wetlands mapping have also occurred. In the mid-1960s therewas 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 basis 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).

6-29
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) largescale (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).

Through 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:

* 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

* 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 denominator approaches."

6-30
The Knowledge and Information Base

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, Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science (Kusler and

Kentula, 1990), found that:

* Practical experience and the available science base on [wetland] restoration and creation are

limited for most [wetland] types and varies regionally.

* Most wetland restoration and creation projects do not have specified goals, complicating efforts

to evaluate "success."

* Monitoring of wetland restoration and creation projects has been uncommon.

* 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.

* Partial project failures are common.

* Success varies with the type of wetland and target functions, including the requirements of target

species.

6-31
Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s

* The ability to restore or create particular wetland functions varies by function.

* Long-term success may be quite different from short term success.

* Long-term success depends upon the ability to assess, re-create, and manipulate hydrology.

* Success often depends upon the long-term ability to manage, protect, and manipulate wetlands

and adjacent buffer areas.

* Success depends upon expertise in project design and upon careful project supervision.

* "Cook book" approaches for wetland restoration or creation will likely be only partially successful.

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 environmental 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 information 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, 1990).

* U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: The EPA maintains several dozen water qualityrelated 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

6-32
The Knowledge and Information Base

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.

* U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: The 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 collected 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-1970s. 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 Commerce'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

6-33
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.

* U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE: Within the Department of Agriculture, the Soil Conservation 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 preserves.

* 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 healthrelated 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 comparisons 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.

6-34
The Knowledge and Information Base

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 classification system, and has the advantage that the data are periodically available to update land-use information (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

Laboratory 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 iad gated land and the agpes of crops being grown (Bond, 1988).

This technology could be adapted to floodplain management 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 (L.R. 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.

6-35
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 references, 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 decisionmaking processes. GIS systems will be able to combine natural resources data with data on manmade 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

6-36
The Knowledge and Information Base

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

specialized 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 integrated 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 of GISs should expand

greatly. GIS availability should promote greater comprehensive planning and monitoring of changing

conditions.

, ' An example of a recent GIS system being used for natural resources management

purposes, is provided by the Henderson County, North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation 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 aerial 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

6-37
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

Line 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 longterm 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

6-38
The 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 information 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, assembling, 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

... [T~he 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 accomplishments 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 forManagingFlood 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.
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

(FIA) 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 WRC 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.

7-2
Federal Floodplain 2. -

Management and Related * L60 A.

Programs by Agency

Flood Insurance Studies* _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ 

Flood Plain Management Services - - - - - S S _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Flood Plain Information Studies

and Reports

Riverine - - - - - S S _- - - -S - - S S

Coastal - - - - - I S G-- - - S - - I S 

Technical and Planning Services"*

Full Program - - - - - S S _- _ _ _ _ __- -_

Program Elements - - I G I S S I S I _ -IS I 1 - _I

Flood Modifying Construction - - - G I S S - F - - _ _ _ _I

Flood Preparedness, Emergency,

and Recovery - F - G S S S G -- - S G - - - - SWarning and Forecasting - - - - - _ - - - --

Research S - S - I I S S S - - - -S S -

Open Space - - - - I S - G -- - - G - - - - S -

.Administered by the Federal Insurance Administration through reimbursable technical studies by agency shown. S

Land and Water Resources. F

Source: Adapted from Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. A Unified National Program for Floodplain Manapement 1986.

. Staff and Funds

F. Funds

G. Grants and Loans

. Incidental

Figure 7-11. Federal Flood Loss Reduction and Related Programs by Agency.
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 projectswhether 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 WRC 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 participating 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 WRC 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

"WRC'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.

* Executive Order 11296 (1966)

* Flood Hazard Evaluation Guidelines

* National Water Assessment

* Discount Rate for Water Projects

* Principles and Standards for Water and Related Land Resources

* Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency

* State and Local Floodplain Regulation

* Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing E.O. 11988

* Unified National Program for Floodplain Management

* 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 commissions (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

7-4
The Management Framework

Basins Commission, Great Lakes Basin Commission, Pacific Northwest RBC, and the Souris-RedRainy 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 Water Resources Planning Act 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.

* 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 insurance

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.

* Flood Hazard Evaluation Guidelines, 1969 and 1972. In 1969, the WRC 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).

7-5
Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s

* 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:

* avoid directly or indirectly supporting floodplain development;

* avoid actions located in or affecting the floodplain, unless the floodplain location is the only practicable alternative;

* 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

* 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).

* WRC 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 WRC 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 floodplains 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).

7-6
The Management Framework 7-7

Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency

The WRC, 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 Determining 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 contributed 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 futureflood 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. This program represented a major shift in strategyfrom 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.

* 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 FIAwould 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.

* SECTION 1302: Section 1302 of the NFIA stated a number of Congressional findings relating

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 further 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 years following the effective date of this title the President should transmit

to the Congress for its consideration any further 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 governments

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 anyFederal assistanceprovided under theprogram will be related

closely to all flood-related programs and activities of the Federal Government, and (5)

authorize continuing studies offlood hazards in orderto provide for a constant reappraisal

of the flood insurance program and its effect on land-use requirements.

* SEcnION 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.
T7he Management Framework 7-9

* Housing and Urban Development Act of 1969. The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1969

(P.L 91-152) amended the NFLA 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.

* 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.

* SECTION 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.

* SECriON 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).

* SECTIONS 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.

* The Housing and Community Development Act of 1977. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-128) contained three major amendments to the NFIP: 1) the provisions

withholdingbenefits from nonparticipatingcommunitiesweresubstantiallyrelaxed; 2) the coverage

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.

* 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.
Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s

The OBRA established a precedent for withdrawal offederalfinancial assistance for 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).

* 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).

* 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.

* 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.

* 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).

* 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

7-10
The 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 downstream 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 establishing 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.

* 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 Land 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.

* 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," "Environmental 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).

* 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).

* 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 Land 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.
Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s

In addition to evaluation of existing activities, available services, and other attributes of

the floodplain, the Principles and Guidelines declare that the potential of the floodplain

for natural and beneficial values, including open space, recreation, wildlife, natural flood

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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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).

7-12
The Management Framework

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.

* 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 Preparedness 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.

* 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 longterm 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

7-13
Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s

Agriculture, Army, Commerce, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and Transportation; 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):

* Nonstructural Floodplain Management Study: Overview, (White, 1978). * Floodplain Acquisition: Issues and Options in Strengthening Federal Policy, (Kusler, 1978). * Improved Formulation and Evaluation of Nonstructural Elements for Water Resources Plans in

Flood Hazard Areas, (Shabman, 1979).

* Options to Improve Federal Nonstructural Responses to Flood, (Platt, 1979). * Economic Aspects of Wildlife Habitat and Wetlands, (Midwest Research Institute, 1979). * Emerging Issues in Wetland/Floodplain Management - Supporting Materials for a Report of a

Technical Seminar, (Kusler, 1979).

* Emerging Issues in Wetland/Floodplain Management - Summary Report of a Technical Seminar

Series, (Kusler, 1979).

* Sources of Wetlands/Floodplain Research Information, (1980). * Workshop Report on Bottomland Hardwood Wetlands, (National Wetlands Technical Council,

1980).

* Nonstructural Measures in Flood Damage Reduction Activities, (Galloway, 1980). * The Influence of Regulations and Practices on the Implementation of Nonstructural Flood Plain

Plans, (CME Associates, Inc., 1980).

* An Assessment of Storm Surge Modeling, (Hydrology Committee, 1980). * State and Local Acquisition of Floodplains and Wetlands, (Field Associates, 1981). * Analysis of Methodologies Used for the Assessment of Wetland Values, (USA Waterways

Experiment Station, 1981).

* Floodplain Management Handbook, (Owen, 1981). * Cooperative Flood Loss Reduction: A Technical Manual for Communities and Industry, (Owen,

1981).

* Estimating Peak Flow Frequencies for Natural Ungaged Watersheds (A Proposed Nationwide Test),

(Hydrology Committee, 1981).

* Evaluating the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management Techniques and Community Programs,

(1985).

* A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management, (1986). * FurtherAdvice on Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, (1987).

A Unified 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 NationalProgram forFloodplain 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 for management of natural floodplain resources. Further

update and revision occurred in 1986 (Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force,

1986).

7-14
The Management Framework

Federal Emergency Management Agency

The Federal Emergency Management Agency was 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 FEMA 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 Insurance Act of 1980 (P.L. 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, 1987

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 arid 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).

7-15
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 management 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 specificallywith 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 just-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).

7-16
The Management Framework

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 entitled 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.

7-17
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 among different agencies in each unit of government involved.

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.

* 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 municipalities, 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 concerned 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 accomplishing 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).

* 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 intergovernmental 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

7-18
The Management Framework

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 landuse 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 bydifferent 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

7-19
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 ACTIVITIES

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 establishment 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 Unified 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.

7-20
The 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

School of Public Affairs, Tempe, AZ 85257

Joanne Nigg, Director, (602) 9654505

Baptist College, Earthquake Education Center

P.O. Box 1009, Charleston, SC 29411

Joyce Bagwell, (803) 7974028

Brown University, AMan Shawn Feinstein World Hunger

Program

P.O. Box 1931, Providence, RI 02912

Robert W. Kates, Director (401) 863-2700

Clark University, Center for Technology,

Environment, and Development (Center)

Worcester, MA 01610, Jeanne Kasperson, Research

Librarian, (617) 793-7133

Colorado State University, Hazards Assessment

Laboratory

204 Aylesworth Hall, Fort Collines, CO 80523

Dennis Mileti, Director, (303) 491-5951

Cornell University, Cornell Institute for Social and

Economic Research/Program In Urban and Regional

Studies

Natural Disasters Project, 106 West Sibley Hall,

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

Barclay G. Jones, Director, (607) 255-6846

Memphis State University, Center for Earthquake

Research and Information

3890 Central Memphis, TN 38152

Arch Johnston, Director (901) 678-2007

New York Medical College, Center for Psychological

Response in Disaster Emergencies (PRIDE)

Valhall, NY 10595

Michael Blumenfield, Director, (901) 678-2007

New York University, Industrial Crisis Institute

649 East 19th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11230

Paul Shrivastava, Director, (718) 859-3435

State University of New York at Buffalo, National

Center for Earthquake Engineering Research

Red Jacket Quadrangle, Buffalo, NY 14261,

Dr. Robert Ketter, Executive Director,

(716) 636-3391, 342 Capen Hall, SUNY-Buffalo,

Buffalo, NY 14260, Patricia Coty, Manager for

Information Services, (716) 636-3377

Texas A & M University, Hazard Reduction and

Recovery Center

College of Architecture, Texas A & M University,

College Station, TX 77843-3137

Dennis Wenger, Director (409) 845-7813

Texas Tech University, Institute for Disaster Research,

Wind Engineering Research Center

P.O. Box 4089, Lubbock, TX 79409

James R McDonald, Director (806) 742-3476

University of Arizona, Office of Arid Lands Studies

(OALS), and Arid Lands Information Center (ALIC)

College of Agriculture, 845 North Park Avenue,

Tucson, AZ 85719

Robert Varady, Manager, (602) 621-7897

University of California, National Information Service

for Earthquake Engineering

Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 404

Davis Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720

Jeanette Zerneke, (415) 642-8718

University of California, California Earthquake

Education Project and Chemical Education for Public

Understanding Project

Lawrence Hail of Science, Berkeley, CA 94720

Herbert Thier, Director, (415) 642-8718

University of Central Florida, Florida Sinkhole Research

Institute

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32826

Barry Beck, Director, (407) 281-5644

University of Colorado, Natural Hazards Reseach and

Applications Information Center (NHiRAIC), Institute of

Behavioral Science

IBS #6, Campus Box 482, University of Colorado,

Boulder, CO 80309-0482

Dave Morton, Librarian, (303) 492-6818

University of Colorado, U.S. World Data Center for

Glaciology, National Snow and Ice Data Center

Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental

Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado, Campus

Box 449, Boulder, CO 80309-0449 Anne Brennan,

Professional Research Assistant, (303) 492-1846

University of Delaware, Disaster Research Center

Newark, DE 19716

Marge Simmons, Office Coordinator, (302) 451-6618

University of Hawaii, Pacific Islands Development

Program, Disaster Preparedness and Rehabilitation

Project

East-West Center, 1777 East-West Road, Honolulu,

HI 96848

Charles Lepanl Director, (808) 944-7745

University of Maryland-Baltimore County, Emergency

Health Services Program

Baltimore, MD 21228, James Eastham,

Department Chairman, (301) 455-3223

University of Massachusetts, Land and Water Policy

Center

Department of Geology and Geography, Amherst,

MA 010003

Rutherford Platt, Director, (413) 545-2499

University of North Carolina, Center for Urban and

Regional Studies

Campus Box 3410, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3410

Raymond J. Burby, (919) 962-3074

University of North Texas, Emergency Administration

and Planning Degree Program

School of Community Service, P.O. Box 13438,

Denton, TX 76203

Robert R Reed, Director, (215) 8984589

University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School, Risk

and Decision Processes Center

Philadelphia, PA 19104

Howard Kunreuther, Director, (215) 8984589

University of Pittsburgh, Center for Social and Urban

Research

1617 Cathedral of Learning, Pittsburgh, PA 15260

Jeanette Trauth, Association Director, Risk and

Emergency Management Program, (412) 624-5442

University of lWisconsin-Extension, Disaster Management

Center

Department of Engineering Professional

Development, 432 North Lake Street, Madison, WI

53706 Don Schramm, Director, (608) 262-2061

Source: Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center. "Information Service." Natural Hazards Observer. 13,

No. 3, January, 1989.
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)

American Planning Association (APA)

American Rivers Conservation Council

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

American Water Resources Association (AWRA)

Association of Conservation Engineers

Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO)

Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM)

Association of State River Managers

Association of State Wetland Managers (ASWM)

The Coastal Society

Coastal States Organization (CSO)

The Conservation Foundation (CF)

Council of State Governments (CSG)

Emergency Managers Association (EMA)

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

Environmental Law Institute (ELI)

Environmental Policy Center

Friends of the River, Inc.

Interstate Council on Water Policy

National Association of Conservation Districts

(NACD)

National Association of Counties

National Association of Flood and Stormwater

Management Agencies

National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)

National Association of State Conservation

Agencies

National Association of State Recreation Planners

National Audubon Society (NAS)

National Hazards Research and Applications

Information Center (NHRAIC)

National League of Cities

National Organization for River Sports

National Recreation and Parks Association

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC)

National Trails Coalition

National Waterways Technical Council

National Water Resources Association

National Wildlife Federation

The Natural Areas Association (NAA)

The River Conservation Fund

Sierra Club

The Trust for Public Land

Urban Land Institute (ULI)

Wetlands for Wildlife

7-22
The Management Framework

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 organizations 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.

The 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 management.

THE FRAMEWORK FOR 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.

7-23
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

American Land Resource Association

American Littoral Society

American Rivers

Coastal Conservation Association

The Coastal Society

Connecticut River Watershed Council, Inc.

The Conservation Foundation

Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Inc.

The Environmental Law Institute

Environmental Policy Institute

Freshwater Foundation

Friends of the Earth

Friends of the River, Inc.

Land Trust Alliance

League of Conservation Voters

Mid-Atlantic Council of Watershed Association

National Association of Conservation Districts

National Audubon Society

National Center for Urban Environmental Studies

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

National Organization for River Sports

National Park Foundation

National Parks and Conservation Association

National Recreation and Park Association

National Trails Council

National Trappers Association, Inc.

National Trust for Historic Preservation

National Water Resources Association

National Waterways Conference, Inc.

National Wetlands Technical Council

National Wildlife Federation

Natural Areas Association

The Nature Conservancy

New England Natural Resources Center

North American Lake Management Society

The Oceanic Society

Saves the Dunes Council

Sierra Club

Society for Range Management

Soil and Water Conservation Society

The Sounds Conservancy, Inc.

The Trust for Public Land

Water Resources Association of the Delaware

River Basin

Wetlands for Life, Inc.

The Wilderness Society

Wildlife Management Institute

Source: National Wildlife Federation. Conservation Directorv 1988 1988.

7-24
The Management Framework

The following 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 accomplished 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 settlements 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).

7-25
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 floodplains, however, were not specifically addressed, although the Document did recognize the need to

expand the interest in floodplain use in open space acquisition 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 environmental 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 consideration 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

7-26
The Management Framework

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 Management described the natural resources provided by floodplains in three broad categories: 1) water

resources (including natural flood storage and conveyance, water quality maintenance, and groundwater 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 Land Resources

for Implementation Studies," issued by the Water Resources Council in 1983, provided for consideration 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.

* Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (Clean Water Act). Principal federal responsibility 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 certification, 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.

7-27
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 implementation 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 ()(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 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) through which farmers may receive payments to set aside highly erodible

7-28
The Management Framework

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.

* 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 management 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 floodprone, 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 established. 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 development 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.

* 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 historically 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. 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).

* NOAA, Coastal Hazards Program. In 1980, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 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.

7-29
Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s

* 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 responsibilities 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.

* 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, groundwater recharge, and pollution and sediment control.

* 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.

* 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

7-30
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 operation 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.

* 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 otherwise 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 11 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the National Park Service (NPS) established

a State and Local River Conservation Assistance Program. The NPS offers assistance to state
Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s

and communities in protecting rivers and streams throughout the country (Chester River Association, 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.

* 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 conservation 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).

* 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 framework 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 five 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.

5 See Duerkson, 1983, for discussion of the evolution of federal efforts for historic preservation.

7-32
The 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 multipurpose 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.

* FLOOD CONVEYANCE: "Protection of flood conveyance was a common objective of shoreland, wild

and scenic river, wetland regulatory, and floodplain management programs in the 1970s. Many of these programs were designed to protect the entire natural or 'no-rise' floodway."

* FLOOD sroFAGE: "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."

* WILDLiFE HABITAT: "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."

* POLLUTION CONTROL: "Federal, state, and local wetland, shoreland zoning, coastal zone management, 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."

* NATURAL CROPS, AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY: "Some wetland and coastal zone management programs 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."

* 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."

* RECREATION, CULTURAL AND HISTORIC 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 channelization 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.
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 trusts and similar organizations is particularly significant. Over

700 of these organizations exist throughout the Nation. Most are incorporated as nonprofit organizations 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.

The 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 AD. 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 this Assessment 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 communitydevelopment 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

7-36
The 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

changes - notably the National Flood Insurance Program - have been the direct result of initiatives

to implement a recommendation of House Document 465 -A Unified National Program forManaging

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.

7-37 The Management Framework
CHAPTER 8:

REGULATORY AND DESIGN

STANDARDS

A national standard is necessary, and the 100-year standard is reasonable and widely used. All

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 governments 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.
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 ("100-YEAR") FLOOD AND FLOODPIAIN

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.

8-2
Regulatory and Design Standards

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-bycommunity 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 Environmental 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 (WRC) 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 evaluat8-3
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 ("500-Year") Flood and Floodplain

The WRC's Floodplain Management Guidelines (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1978) for implementing 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 meteorological 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.

8-4
Regulatory and Design Standards

REGULATORY 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 4 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.

8-5
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 calculations 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 threefoot 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-water" 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 nonresidential structures. For residential structures, new construction and substantial improvements

within the one percent annual chance floodplain must have the lowest floor - including any

8-6
Regulatory and Design Standards

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 components 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 new jails, 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 annual chance flood elevation (Association of State Floodplain Managers,

1988).

DEFINING "SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE" AND "SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT"

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, § 59.1) define substantial

improvement as:

any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which

equals or exceeds SO 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 performed. 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 official 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 asa 'historic structure'(Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, 1989a).

S Communities may request an exception to allow dry floodproofed basements below the "100-year" base flood

level. See Chapter 13 for additional information.

8-7
Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s

As defined in § 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 SO percent of the market value of the structure

before the damage occurred.

Anywork 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 Emergency Management Agency, 1989b).

A few states and some communities have substantial improvement regulations that differ from the

50% standard established by the NFI. 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 ACTIVITIES 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.

Floodproofing 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. This 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.

8-8
Regulatory and Design Standards

Floodproofing In Coastal Zones

Similarly, NFIP criteria (44 FR, § 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 (ii) 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 Management Agency, 1987).

Floodproofing 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 Manualfor Retrofitting 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.

8-9
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 minimum building setback of 75 feet from the ordinary high-water mark6 (Wisconsin Department 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.

Cam7 North Carolina established setback requirements with four "tiers." First, no development 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 Development Act of 1987. This 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.7

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.

8-10
Regulatory and Design Standards

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] ... which would

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 "Recommended 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

8-11
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 additional 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 impact of 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.

8-12
Regulatory and Design Standards

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.

WETILAND 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 checks, 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 single 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.

8-13
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 II") 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 Bottomland 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

8-14
Regulatory and Design Standards

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 Procedures" 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 standardsprovide 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

8-15
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

... [WIhile flooding is a serious national problem, 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.
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 community 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 in most communities in the United States. Potentialproperty 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 prioity to solving flood plain problems. Where problems

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

1 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).

9-2
Perception, Awareness and Response

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. 2 A study conducted by the University of Massachusetts

(Rossi, 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 community'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).

9-3
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 tax base,

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:

* general information on each hazard;

* federal legislation and policy support for awareness and other hazard mitigation efforts;

* technical assistance (delineation and mapping of hazard zones, advice on building standards,

floodproofing, etc.);

* basic preparedness advice; e 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:

* planning and development of basic materials keyed to a specific state which can then be

localized;

* a good pass-through for federal funds designated for awareness/disaster mitigation programs;

* aid in identifying risks;

9-4
Perception, Awareness and Response

* aid in identifying sources of funding and technical assistance, whether state or federal level

sources; and

* 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:

* finding and using as a rallying point a community leader with good standing, credibility, and

interest in the natural hazard problem;

* monitoring and updating descriptions of local conditions (road, building construction,

population influx) which would impact public preparedness measures;

* encouraging participation in awareness programs by local businesses, industry, civic clubs,

etc.; and

* 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 government 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 governments 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.

9-5
Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s

FORCED AWARENESS THROUGH REGULATORY 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 NFP 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 floodplain 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 responsibility.

A few jurisdictions require realtors to make flood and other hazard information available to prospective home buyers.

C 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

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).

9-6
Perception, Awareness and Response

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.

"100-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.

rJ 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,"3 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 confusing 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.

9-7
Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s

As commonly applied, the concept of a "100-year" flood and floodplain - no matter what terminology 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.

"Floodproofirl" 4

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 construction 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 floodproofing 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.

9-8
Perception, Awareness and Response 9-9

"Risk" and "Vulnerability"

Although these two terms have different technical meanings, they are often incorrectly used interchangeably. 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 vulnerable 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 property 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. 5 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

storms (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 environmental 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

s See Chapter 1 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 environmental 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 environmentalists 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 population 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 Commission, 1987).

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF), first included an Environmental Quality (EQ) Index in

National Wildlife 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 NWF, 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 1970] 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 environmental 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 of protecting 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
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 information 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 property.*

* Citations to court decisions are listed at the end of the chapter.

10-2
Legal Interpretations by the Courts 10-3

1968-1978

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 regulations. 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

previous twenty years. Cases addressed relatively technical issues such as the validity of nonconforming 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 measures. 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
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 constitutionality of the floodplain regulations,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. The 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 decisionNollan v. California Coastal Commission.5 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

104
Legal Interpretations 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 management?

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.

CONSTITUTIONAL 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 unconstitutional 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
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'1 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.'1

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 environmental 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."3

10-6
10-7 Legal Interpretations by the Courts

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.14

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.'s 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.' 6

Unreasonableness

A number of suits have been brought in the last two decades challenging the reasonableness of

regulations in achieving specific regulatory objectives (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1971, 1972;

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." 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
Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s

regulations take private property without payment ofjust 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.

* FiRSr, 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.'

* 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.

* 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.

* 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). 24

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

10-8
Legal Interpretations by the Courts

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.25 A recent lower court decision in South Carolina that found

a setback standard to be a "taking" was overturned on appeal.2 6 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.

10-9
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 clearly justify

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 Court3 ' 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

Court3 2 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 properties.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.3 6 In 1985, the

U.S. Supreme Court unanimously endorsed the permitting requirements established under Section

10-10
Legal Interpretations by the Courts 10-11

404 of the Clean Water Act, but warned that such regulations might take private property where

regulations prevent all economic use of whole properties.3 7

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.

LUIBILITY 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 owner 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:

* 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).

* 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
Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s

on others. In general, actions that substantially damage other landowners are not considered

reasonable by the courts.

* The "act of God" defense pertaining to damages from natural hazards has been severely diminished 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."39 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.

* 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).

* 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, governments are only liable for increased flood damages when government units do not exercise

reasonable care. Reasonableness depends upon the technology available, regulatory requirements, area customs, and a variety of other factors.

* The "sovereign immunity" defense4 0 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.4

1

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

10-12
Legal Interpretations by the Counts

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. These 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 foreseeable threat to life or economic damage is an important factor in determining reasonableness of

conduct.4" 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

decisions45 or errors in judgment where the legislature or agency exercises policy-making or discretionary 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

Although 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.46 Agency 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

10-13
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 193647 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, 48 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.5

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 River.51

In a recent and widely publicized case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit 52 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

10-14
Legal Interpretations by the Courts

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 negligence 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 subsequent damages.

Flood Insurance

Landowners 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 compensable 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.

10-15
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 circumstance 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 hurricanes 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 CONSTITUTIONAL 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 NFIP 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 performance standard approach based on a sound and uniformly applied concept of hazard reduction

would be held as a taking.

10-16
Legal Interpretations by the Courts

* 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.

* 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 constitutional perspective.

* 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.

* 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

tp legislative judgment.

* 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 landowners 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).

i 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

10-17
Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s

* 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 regulations and so they do not block flood flows or cause drainage problems.

* 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.

* 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

performance-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.

10-18
Legal Interpretations by the Courts

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., Morris 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. See Adolph v. Federal Emergency ManagementAgency, 854 F.2d 732 (5th Cir., 1988); April v. City of BrokenArrow, 775

p.2d 1347 (Okla., 1989); ReelEnterprises v. City of LaCrosse, 431 N.W.2d 743 (Wis., 1988);American Cyanamid v. Dept.

of Envir. Prot., 555 A.2d 684 (N.J., 1989); First English EvangelicalLutheran 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 (N.J.,

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 Washington, Department of Ecology, 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 (Okl., 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 F.2d 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 Realty 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).

10-19
Changes in Floodplain Management Since the 1960s

19. See Sturdy Homes, Inc. v. Township of Redford, 186 N.W.2d 43 (Mich., 1971). See alsoA.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 Realty 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 (III., 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); J.M Mills, Inc. v. Murphy, 352 A.2d 661 (R.I.,

1976); Houslet v. State Dept. of Natural Resources, 329 N.W.2d 219 (Wis., 1982); Rowe v. Town of North 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 (Okl., 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 of North 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 Springfield, 357 N.E.2d 438 (Ill.,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).

10-20
Legal Interpretations by the Courts

44. See, e.g., Laukkanen v. Jewel Tea Co., 222 N.E.2d 584 (Ill., 1966); Ducey v. U.S., 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 Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional PlanningAgency, 440 U.S. 391 (1979).

47. 33 U.S.C.A. 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. Baroni 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 (C.A., 1954).

52. Brown v. US. 790 F.2d 199 (C.A., 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., Beri, Inc. v. Salishan Properties, Inc., 580 P.2d 173 (Ore., 1978); McFeeters v. Renollet, 500 P.2d 47 (Kan., 1972).

10-21
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:

* Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

* Modifying Flooding

* Modifying the Impacts of Flooding

* 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

The range of possible adjustments which can be made to a hazard must be identified. It is rare

that only one course of action is worthy of consideration.

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 landscaping of the grounds. The strategy 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:'

* floodplain regulations;

* development and redevelopment policies;

* floodproofing;

* disaster preparedness and response plans; and

* 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 this Assessment

Report, disaster assistance is described in Chapter 13 as part of the strategy to modify the impacts of flooding.
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS

While the early history of floodplain managementwas 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 (NFRA) 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

through 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 regulations 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 community'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:

* RESISrANCE TO LAND-USE REGULATIONS: Throughout much of the country, there remains widespread 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).

11-2
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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).

* 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 regulations. 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 consistently upheld the validity of properly constructed floodplain regulations.3

* 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 [Los Angeles]

is enforcement. We suspect this is a common obstacle to effective floodplain management

throughout the nation. Although ordinances are adequate to define and pursue violations, the

legal processes are time consuming and costly, and it is extremely 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 redevelopment would eventually result in removal or upgrading of the inventory of existing floodplain

structures. This process appears to be slower than originally anticipated.

* REGULATIONS DO NOT PREVENT DEVELOPMENT IN FLOODPLAINS: 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.

* 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.

* REGULATIONS DO LITTLE TO PROTECT FLOODPLAIN NATURAL RESOURCES. Most floodplain regulations

currently do little to protect the natural resources of floodplains. Only in coastal areas where regulations 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.

11-3
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 management. 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 FHA 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 FHA

vary depending on the level of risk studies and mapping that have been prepared for the community.

The FHA has developed several program activities to assist states and communities in adopting and

complying with minimum floodplain regulations.

* 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.

* 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

11-4
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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 designated 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 FHA 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.

11-5
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 V1-30.

(b) In older maps, these areas are designated by the symbol A1-30.

(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 'EF' symbol/designation in mapping studies.

(f) To date the FIA has not used these designations/symbols in mapping studies.

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration. Regulations implementing the NFIP 44 CFR 64.3.

11-6
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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 employed 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 Council, 1981.

Figure 11-1. Relationship Between Floodplain, Floodway, and Flood Fringe Areas.

* Minimum Floodplain Regulations. All communities participating in the NFIP must meet

minimum floodplain management requirements that include:

* implementing a permit program for all proposed new development;

* reviewing subdivision proposals to assure that potential flood damage is minimized;

* anchoring and floodproofing structures to be built in known floodprone areas;

* safeguarding new water and sewage systems and utility lines from flooding; and

* (in the regular phase only) enforcing risk zone, base flood elevations, and floodway requirements 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 FLA

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."

. .S .i , -

Floodway Land Uses Flood Fringe Uses

11-7
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

improvement" 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 50percent 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 actual

repair work performed. The term does not, 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 officials 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 development 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.

11-8
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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 construction or substantial improvement in coastal high hazard areas include:

* All new construction or substantial improvement must be located landward of the mean

high tide line;

* 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;

* All pilings and columns must be anchored to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement 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.

* No fill may be used for structural support;

* No alteration of sand dunes that would increase potential flood damage is permitted;

and

* 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.

* 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:

* Reduce flood losses;

* Facilitate accurate insurance rating; and

* 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, regulation of cumulative substantial improvements, preservation of floodplain storage capacity and

several other regulatory approaches.

11-9
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 landuse 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 NFIP 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 communities 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 FHA 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 Federal Agency 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

11-10
11-11 Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dismption

negotiated with FEMA regional offices. Assistance activities correspond to the general areas

of NFIP: 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 floodproofing, elevation of structures, and special techniques for protecting mobile homes.

* 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) COMMUNrrY 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 NFIP. 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 SUIrS: A third action available to the FIA is to sue a community to recover costs of

paid-out insurance claims and to cause the community to take corrective actions. "FHA 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 tool for stimulating community compliance. On the other hand, suits against communities 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 NFIPrequired regulations "provide a basic, minimum level of floodplain management, but do not adequately 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 NFIP 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 Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dismption

It was suggested that the FLA could assist state and local governments in developing more comprehensive and stricter regulations in several ways. One recommended method was for the FIA to more

strongly impress upon local communities that the FLA 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 performance 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:

* 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.

* Requirements of the NFIP for adoption of community floodplain regulations.

* Increasing awareness and understanding of the applicability of alternative regulatory approaches.

* 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.

11-13
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-SETING FOR LOCAL REGULATION: 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 management 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).

11-14
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

4) HOUSING CODES: Codes setting minimum standards for structure maintenance can include

requirements for the repair of flood-damaged structures.

5) OTElR 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.

* 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:

* Regulation of channel encroachments by several states, including New Jersey (1929),

Washington (1935), and Connecticut (1955).

* 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.

* 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.

* In 1967, Maryland adopted regulations for the "50-year" floodplain as part of its state water

pollution control program.

* 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.

11-15
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

* 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.

* Many states also assisted communities with floodplain management regulations through workshops and training sessions and assistance for evaluating permit applications and proposed

subdivision plats.

* 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.

* Many state programs combined floodplain management regulation with nonregulatory

floodplain management measures, including acquisition and relocation, public awareness, and

hazard mitigation planning.

* 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.

C7~ Among the most recent regulatory setbacks adopted are those incorporated into the

by 2 South Carolina BeachfrontManagementAct TheActestablishes 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, FEMA noted that the BeachfrontManagementAct"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

11-16
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

the primary frontal dune; a special permit provision was established to allow construction seaward of the dune baseline; the 40-year setback line can be adjusted to

take into consideration beach renourishmentprojects; and restrictions on replacement

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 NFLP. 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:

* The state role in flood hazard management is primarily one of informing, aiding and coordinating local flood management efforts.

* 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.

* 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."

* Much of the state technical assistance role is aimed at enhancing 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). Communities most likely to seek state assistance were those with the most severe flood hazards.

11-17
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

STRUCTURAL FLOOD PRoTECroN:

1. State permits for flood control works

and/or obstructions of navigable waters 90 6.5

2. Dam safety inspections 86 5.4

NONSTRucruRAL FLOOD PRoTECTIoN:

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 8.2

5. State mandate of participation in National

Flood Insurance Program 8 3.2

FLoOD-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECrION:

1. Wetlands protection/dredge and fill regulations 56 9.0

2. Sedimentation pollution control/stormwater

management regulations 54 8.5

3. Coastal management requirements and hazard

mitigation regulations 44 10.8

Source: Burby, Taymond 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.

* 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 manageS 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.

11-18
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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 communities 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, communities have increasingly combined their regulatory efforts with nonregulatoryfloodplain 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:

* Regulations are the most commonly used method of achieving community floodplain

goals.

* Three types of regulations - subdivision ordinances, zoning, and elevation requirements - have been adopted by a majority of riverine and coastal communities participating in the regular and emergency phases of the NFIP. Other types of related regulations

(e.g., sedimentation and erosion control regulations) were less common.

* 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.

* Local conditions are important in determining the contribution of regulations to a community'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 WITH REGULATIONS:

* 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

11-19
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) EXISTING 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:

* 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."

* 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 COMMUNITIES:

* Differences in the scope of floodplain management programs between riverine and

coastal communities in the regular phase of the NFIP were not significant. But, "reflecting 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 adjustment ... is that structural solutions are not as viable an alternative as they are for riverine

communities."

11-20
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

* 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 communities 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 FLA. 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 requirements 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).

* 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 floodplain 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.

11-21
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

State Regulatory Standards that Exceed Minimum NFIP Requirements for Riverine

Floodplains.

FLOODWAY FLOODWAY FRINGE BUILDING

STANDARDS RISE STANDARDS STANDARDS

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia Wisconsin

Wyoming

LP,R

AS,L+

S

S,L

L

SAL

S,L

S,L

L+

S

AS,L

S

S,L

S

L+

L+

AS

AS

S

L+

.lFt.

.lFt.

D

D

OFt.

D

D:.5Ft.

.5Ft.

LR

L+

S

L

S,L

L+

S

S

S,L

S

L+

AS

.2Ft.

L

SL

S

L

L

S

SP

L

L

F: lFt.,LP,R

F: 1.5Ft.

R

AP

F: 2Ft.,R

F: lFt.,P

F: lFt.+

F: lFt.

F: lFt.,P

R

F: 2Ft.,P,R

F: lFt.

IP

AF: l.5Ft.

S,L+

.OlFt.

L

L

L

P

F: 2Ft.,P,R

This table only identifies state standards or procedures that exceed minimum NFIP floodplain regulatory standards

Rules apply only in certain areas, e.g., California directly regulates floodways only in the Central Valley

Allowable floodway rise depends upon impact to existing development

Freeboard

Local regulations must meet state requirements

Buildings or residences prohibited from floodway

Reconstruction of buildings more stringent than NFIP rules

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 L.R Johnston Associates," 1988.

Table 11-3.

NOTE:

A =

D =

F =

L =

P =

R =

iS =

11-22
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dismption

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 structural 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).

1J Subdivision regulations in Arizona set aside floodprone land from development A

density transfer plan worked out with developers encouraged the 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).

11-23
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

* 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).

* 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. Z I The Colorado State Geological Survey has developed nonmandatory guidelines for development 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 Ma-lagers, 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.

11-24
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption 11-25

Table 11-4. State Regulations for Coastal and Lakeshore Floodplains.

COAST LAKESHORE SAND DUNES EROSION

Alabama S S

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California S S

Colorado

Connecticut SL S,L

Delaware SL S S

District of Columbia

Florida L S,L SAL

Georgia 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 Jersey 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 u/S S

Vermont

Virginia S

Washington L L L

West Virginia

Wisconsin L

Wyoming

A = Rules apply only in certain areas, e.g., 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," 1988.
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

State Regulations for Special Hazard Areas.

AREAS AREAS

BELOW BEHIND

DAMS LEVEES

PUBLIC HAZARDOUS

ALLUVIAL MUD HEALTH MATERIALS

FANS FLOODS STANDARDS STANDARDS

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

L

S

S

S S

S S

S

S

SL L

AS

L

AS

L L

S

S

L

S

L

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 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," 1988.

Table 11-5.

X

x

L

X

X

X

L

X X

x

X

X

X

X

X

X

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

L

X

S

X

x

X

11 -26
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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 Community Assistance Program (CAP), many of these same services are also provided by states not participating in the CAP. Maine and Minnesota have published standard building permits, as-built certifications, and similar forms for local officials to use.

In 1983, the Maine legislature enacted "Rule 80K" to allow code enforcement officials to take

,/ 1 code violations to court Once an official is trained, he/she 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

7Z 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 The 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 conducts 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).

11-27
11-28 Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

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

Kentucky 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 Virginia X

Wisconsin X X X X X 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.
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disuption

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 development 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 extensively 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 jurisdictions." (ENR, 12,89).

Posthurricane inspections of damaged structures revealed that most of the structures

destroyed or severely damaged by Hurricane Hugo in South Carolina were either con11-29
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

structed prior to existing 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 (particularly with regard to adequate depth of pilings) sustained relatively little damage. (Rogers,

1989).

EFFECTIVENESS OF REGULATIONS

Little 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, development 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

11-30
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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 development 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 enforcement 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.

11-31
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.

* 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.

* Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 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

11-32
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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 floodplains. Federal agencies were directed to:

* avoid directly or indirectly supporting floodplain development;

* avoid actions located in or affecting the floodplain, unless the floodplain location is the only

practicable alternative; and

* 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 floodplains. 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

(WRC) 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 WRC'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 floodplains 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 implementation 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.

11-33
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

STEPS:

1. 7 A =

2. EARLY PUBLIC REVIEW

3. IDENTIFY & EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES

|TO LOCATING IN THE BASE* FLOODPLAIN|

FLOODPIN FLOPLAIN 

4 IDENTIFYIMPASOFNDOES . TE ACTION HAVE

IMPACTS IN THlE BASE*

1 t 2 } ~~~~~~~~~FLOODPLAIN 4. |IEFYIPCSOF PROPOSED ACTION I _

2 'a-Ei}~~~~~~~~~DOES THlE ACTION

INDIRECTLY SUPPORT

FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT

5. MINIMIZE, RESTORE AND PRESERVE |NE

6. RE-EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES

[~~~~ LITEBAE MIT ACTION -RETURN TO STEEP 3|

FLOODPLAIN|

7. l FINDINGS AND PUBLIC EXPLANATION

8. liIMPLEMENT ACTION 

* For critical actions substitute "500-year" for "Base."

Source: U.S. Water Resources Council. Floodplain Management Guidelines forImplementine E.O. 11988. 43 FR 6030, February

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:

* Retention of the Order was strongly supported.

* 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.

* Implementation procedures had not been adopted by all agencies and some agencies had

adopted procedures inconsistent with the Order. Of 63 agencies, subagencies, and

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.).

* Federal agency implementation had become more effective over time, but streamlining

and other improvements to the implementation process were still needed.

11-34
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

3) CURRENT STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION: 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 Unified National Program for Floodplain Management (1986) noted that "Continued compliance and implementation of Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management by all affected

Federal agencies with endorsement by State and local governments are necessary if substantial 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 implementation 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.

^ J In 1983, in accordance with E.Q. 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 existing homes and buildings.

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 overloaded. 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 owner's] rights are necessary and not unreasonable to promote

the general public health and welfare" (Watson, 1989).

11-35
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

* 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. Nevertheless, 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.

* 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 historically 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:

* Minimize loss of human life;

* Reduce the wasteful expenditure of federal revenues; and

* 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 undeveloped 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.

The Act prohibits, within the CBRS, most expenditures of federal funds that serve to promote

economic growth and development. The 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.

11-36
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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.

* 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 regulations. Most of these were implemented to meet NFIP requirements. Many go beyond the

minimum NFIP standards. QF Ohio statutes require review of public facilities 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.

11-37
Table 11-7. Summary of Department of Interior Recommendations for Changes in the CBRS.

NUMBER OF

UNITS WITH

RECOMMENDATIONS

SHORELINE

LENGTH IN

CBRS

(MILES)

SHORELINE

LENGTH

WITH RECOMMENDATIONS

(MILES)

TOTAL

ACREAGE IN

CBRS

TOTAL

ACREAGE

WITH

RECOMMENDATIONS

FASTLAND

ACREAGE IN

CBRS

Maine

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Connecticut

New York

New Jersey

Delaware

Maryland

Virginia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Georgia

Florida

Alabama

Mississippi

Louisiana

Texas

Puerto Rico

Virgin Islands

TOTAL

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Coastal Barrier Study Group.

of the Interior, 1988.

Executive Summary in Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System.

STATE NUMBER OF

EXISTING

CBRS UNITS

'-.4

'-.

FASTLAND

ACREAGE

WITH

RECOMMENDATIONS

12

44

11

11

12

0

2

0

4

8

13

6

33

3

4

12

11

0

0

186

25

60

20

15

42

8

4

36

52

6

14

6

65

4

6

17

19

42

20

461

10.0

70.7

17.7

8.2

21.0

0

17.1

0

13.8

54.6

38.4

16.2

118.8

17.6

9.6

91.7

161.0

0

0

666.4

22.5

119.3

25.7

7.5

45.0

13.5

17.5

28.0

80.5

32.6

42.4

19.9

172.4

19.0

12.8

180.0

180.0

56.9

13.4

1,088.9

1,045

17,214

4,791

3,045

4,635

0

1,565

0

11,298

31,913

26,885

33,073

61,575

10,678

4,309

59,243

181,565

0

0

452,834

4,640

66,290

8,851

3,741

18,399

5,486

6,945

7,163

52,831

29,741

76,130

64,255

305,200

11,058

5,981

353,340

199,401

21,486

2,740

1,243,678

485

3,871

1,058

333

1,131

0

517

0

1,148

8,610

4,511

5,126

19,378

2,940

557

4,518

46,751

0

0

100,934

1,005

6,904

1,436

302

1,965

396

740

1,605

3,479

4,579

4,586

5,506

39,511

2,722

662

12,747

48,498

2,473

587

139,703

t

Q

0.

9

Q.

09

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption 11-39

j l ~ 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 Connecticut, 1979):

* 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.

* To maintain the natural relationship between eroding and depositional coastal landforms.

* 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 been provided to minimize adverse

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 developments), 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.
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:

* 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 condominiums;

* in ocean hazard areas, no development which involves significant removal or relocation

of sand or vegetation of frontal or primary dunes;

• construction or substantial improvement in ocean hazard areas must satisfy additional

standards for windstorm resistant construction as well as elevation and piling requirements; and

. 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. Dl 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.

j \ Kansas allows state and local roads to pass only the four percent annual ("25-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).

11-40
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption 11-41

Table 11-8. States with Road and Bridge Standards that Exceed NEIP 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

Georgia

Hawati

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 Mexico

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

Washington

West Virginia 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 L.R Johnston Associates," 1988.
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 development 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

~i 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.

11-42
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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 revenuesharing programs, most specifically the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.

CDBG funds have been used by many communities throughout the country to assist with redevelopment 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, redevelop11-43
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 redevelopment 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, FEMA's Section

1362 program offers no specific financial assistance for relocation (Field, 1981).

11-44
11-45 Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

* Congressionally authorized projects. A few permanent evacuation projects have been specifically

authorized by Congress. Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin is probably the best known example.

, j 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 properties 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 acquisition 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 discretionary fund; Land 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.
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 unsuccessful.

Table 11-9. Section 1362 Appropriated Funds.

FISCAL YEAR

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984(b)

1985

1986

1987

1988

TOTAL

APPROPRIATED

FUNDS

$5,400,000

5,400,000

1,600,000

4,334,353

6,778,000

4,778,000

4,522,248

4,720,000

4,531,000

$42,063,601

FUNDS SPENT(a)

$5,951,867

3,591,867

1,402,632

4,708,124

4,813,370

4,813,370

566,867

3,080,881

$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 available.

Source: MacKay, Ross. Federal Insurance Administration. Personal communication, 1988.

11-46
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

g _ 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 ordinance preventing 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 "taking" 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.

11-47
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 FHA

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- mentfor flood mitigation projects, including levees, dikes, dams, and relocation of structures.

Efi> M 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

11-48
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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 projects 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.

% j In Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin, the Corps of Engineers planned and began construction of

an earthen dam to protect downstream communities from flooding of the Kickapoo 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 construction 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.

1 0 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

1149
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 ACTIVITIES 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

11-50
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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 agreement. 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, 8 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.

11-51
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 implementing 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 administration (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 FEMA documents include guidance

related to Section 409 plans. The MakingMitigation 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 accomplishing mitigation (but not as a step by step guide to meeting Section 409 planning requirements). FEMA

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-DisasterHazardMitigation PlanningGuidance

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 experienced 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.

11-52
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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.

11-53
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

SAJ

SAJ

SAJ

SAJ

SAJ

SAM

SAS

SAW

SAW

South Carolina Coast 3/84

San Juan, PR

Lee Co., FL 1/78

Tampa Bay Regional 6/79

SE Fla. 12180

SE Fla. Restudy

Tri-States(MS,AL,FL) 9/83

Georgia Coast 10/85

North Carolina Coast 3/84

Long Island, NY

SAD TOTALS

4/87

5/79

6/81

6/83

9/86

9/89

12/87

544 174

9/87 12/90

8/87 12/90

FY 86 FY 92

120 120

300 300

378 328

640 90

526 206

537 232

3045 1450

189 95

440 150

775 310

629 245

NAB NAB Maryland Coast

NAO Virginia Coast

NAP Delaware Coast

NAP New Jersey Coast

NAD TOTALS

POD Southern Oahu

POD POD Windward Oahu

POD TOTALS

FY 85 FY 90

FY 85 FY 91

FY85 FY89

FY84 7/88

FY 85 FY 90

7/89 FY 91

695 300

715 275

468 233

685 325

468 233 2095 900

351 121

250 100

351 121 250 100

LMN SE Louisiana Coast FY 87 FY 90 431 115

NED Connecticut Coast

NED NED Rhode Island Coast

NED Massachusetts Coast

NED TOTALS

FY 86 FY 92

FY 87 FY 93

FY 87 FY 93

Source: Peterson, Jerome. Chief, Floodplain Management Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Personal communication, 1989.

LMVD

575

450

450

1475

275

200

200

675

11-54
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

* 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):

* 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.

* 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.

* KENTUCKY FLOOD CONTROLADVISORY COMMISSION. The Flood ControlAdvisory 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* LEWIS AND CLARK CouNnIEs, MONTANA: To develop a multi-hazard mitigation plan for an

18 square mile rapid growth area located northeast of East Helena. Phase I will consist of

a detailed hazard identification. Phase II will consist of planning through public participation.

* 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.

11-55
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

* ALASKA DIVISION 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.

* Flood Audits. The 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).

* 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 Preparedness 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 Preparedness Program. 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:

update municipal Emergency Operations Plans;

review and develop detailed standards for construction;

develop a standard operating procedure to alert residents of vulnerable areas;

develop plans for removal of contents from vulnerable structures, where feasible;

11-56
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

* conduct surveys of existing structures to identify those that require retrofitting

to provide adequate anchorage;

• identify inadequate protective structures and establish adequate setbacks;

improve planning for traditional flood fighting techniques;

* 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 conservation/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

"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 Committee, 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 implementation has been

11-57
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 implementation 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 preparedness 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.

11-58
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disnuption

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.

p ~ l in one documented example, annual damage reductions of $750,000 were estimated for

the Connecticut River 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 nonstructural alternatives 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 preparedness plans:

1) Lack of precedents, examples, or similar experiences that can easily be transferred to

preparedness planning;

2) Lack 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).

11-59
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.

* 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.

g 11 ~ In the State of Connecticut, it is estimated that an integrated network of about 30 local

flood warning systems will provide warning for most of the state (Committee on Automated 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

11-60
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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 decisionmaking capability in the operation of flood control structures. Recent technology provides realtime 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.

Location of National Weather Service River Forecast Centers.

- ,b Bloomfield

, 'i, Alnta' 

* Location of River Forecast Centers

SO Boundary of Area Served by River Forecast Centers

3 Includes Water Supply Forecast Service

Source: National Weather Service. Operations of the National Weather Service. Silver Spring, Maryland, 1985.

11-61

Figure 11-3.
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

Figure 11-4. 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,

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.

HYDROLOGIC FORECAST SYSTEM

- - a Flow of Observational Data

*- Flow of Forecasts and Warnings and Guidance Products

Source: National Weather Service. Operations of the National Weather Service. Silver Spring, Maryland, 1985.

11-62
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

* 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.

* 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 maybe 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

simulated 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).

* 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 prediction. 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 conditions 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 (L.R. Johnston Associates, 1986).

12 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).

11-63
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

T6 6,0*

SLOSH BASINS

1. Boston Harbor

2. Narragansett/

Buzzards Bays

3. New York/

Long Island Sound - 4. Delaware Bay

5. Atlantic City

6. Ocean City

7. Chesapeake Bay

8. Pamlico Sound

9. Wilmington N.C./

Myrtle Beach

10. Charleston Harbor

11. Savannah/Hilton Head

12. Brunswick/Jacksonville

13. Lake Okeechobee

14. Cape Canaveral

15. Biscayne Bay

16. Florida Bay

17. Charlotte Harbor

18. Tampa Bay

19. Cedar Keys

20. Apalachicola Bay

21. Pensacola Bay

22. Mobile Bay

23. Lake Pontchartrain/

New Orleans

24. Vermilion Bay

25. Sabine Lake

26. Galveston Bay

27. Matagorda Bay

28. Corpus Christi Bayf

29. Laguna Madre

30. Oahu, Hawaii

31. Puerto Rico Qe

5LO5H

90 o0

Source: Jelesnianski, CP., J. Chen, W.A Shaffer, and AL Gilad. "Slosh - A Hurricane Storm Surge Forecast ModeL" Silver

Spring, Maryland: Techniques Development Laboratory, National Weather Service, NOAA, Undated.

SLOSH Basins Along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Coastlines.

too,

11-64

Figure 11-5.
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

Beginning with the 1983 hurricane season, the NHC began including in the Advisory the probability 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. The NWS generally provides warnings from

all of these sources to the public. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collects streamflow and other

data that can be used for flood forecasting.

The Corps provides comprehensive flood 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 expenditure 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 (Committee on Automated Flood Warning, 1988). Table 11-11 lists state involvement in flood warning

activities as of 1988 (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988).

11-65
11-66 Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

Table 11-11. State Flood Warning Activities.

STATE- ASSIST LOCALS

DATA OPERATED

FUNDING COLLECTION SYSTEM INFORMATION FUNDING

Alaska

Alaska X 1 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

Georgia

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

NewJersey 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

Washington XX

West VlXginia X X X

Wisconsin X

Wyoming X

1 Alaska operates a tsunami warning system.

Source: Association of State Floodplain Managers. "State Floodplain Management Programs. Results of a Survey Conducted by

the Association of State Floodplain Managers for L.R Johnston Associates," 1988.
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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 operations 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 communities 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 to communities, 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 due 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 laterwith 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 devices

were installed to supplement the manual data collection system (Hunter, 1986).

11-67
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 political jurisdiction (portions of two states, 10 counties and 132 municipalities). 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:

. automated reporting of data in six tributary areas where response time was

exceeded by forecast preparation time;

* automation of all precipitation and stream gages to avoid observer bias and to

speed delivery of data;

* transmission of radio signals from the gages to county micro-computer sites and

automatic dialing to remote terminals at municipal emergency headquarters;

preparation of stage-inundation maps;

updating and coordination of county/municipal response plans; and

* 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 project was 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 argument was also made that the project should be authorized by Congress for implementation 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).

11-68
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption 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 emergencies.

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.
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

The development of technology for data collection, telemetry, and analysis has been largely accomplished 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 environmental 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. There 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

11-70
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Dismption

to appear to have taken effective action, even if the system is not properly 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).

FLOODPROOFING 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.

14 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.

11-71
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:

* 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.

* CONTINGENT OR STANDBY MEAsuREs: Those that are used only during floods, but which are constructed or made ready prior to any flood threat. These measures require some human action

to be effective.

* 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

flooding in 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:

* Floodproofing may generate a false sense of security and encourage inappropriate occupancy of buildings during floods.

* 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).

11-72
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

* 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.

* 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 Corps jointly

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 floodproofing, 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 flood11-73
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 NonCoastal 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 floodproofing techniques for all types of properties, provide a source of technical expertise on floodproofing 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

Buildings from Floodwaters (Waterways Experiment Station, 1988), and publication of a bibliography

of floodproofing (National Flood Proofing Committee, 1988).

K Ž 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.

&i~ The project involves several components, including floodproofing of about 270 homes.

Cost-effectiveness criteria are being applied to determine which homes should be floodproofed. 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).

i<. 0 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).

11-74
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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 substantial 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 retrofitting.

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 FHA, 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.

11-75
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

Minnesota, in 1974, incorporated Corps floodproofing regulations in the state building

an administrative manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977).

Perhaps the most ambitious state effort to directly promote and provide financial assis-

-iii! 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 Floodproofing 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).

rJ 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 floodproofing and other mitigation techniques to disaster victims who visited the local Disaster

Application Centers. Follow-up surveys have been conducted to determine the extent to

which residents took action, including floodproofing. A summary of the findings from

these surveys indicated (Laska, 1988):

* Over half of the flood victims had altered their houses and/or yards to protect themselves from future flooding.

* 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).

11-76
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption 11-77

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.

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.

* 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.

• Those homeowners who learned about what to do from personal contact with a

contractor or someone who had floodproofed were more likely to implement something than those who learned about floodprooffing via the media, a manual, or a

presentation.

* 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, cities, 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).

B ej~ 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 floodproofing. The funds can be made available after a flood audit is conducted in cooperation

with the Corps (Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1988).

D 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 floodproofing. 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 Jersey 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 Development 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 LR Johnston Associates," 1988.
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption 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.

Ifj) In Kentucky several communities have used Community Development Block Grant

(CDBG) funds from HUD to partially fund floodproofing efforts.

^iw~7~ 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 commercialindustrial 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 floodproofing (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 companies 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.
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, 1988b).

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

11-80
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption

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 substantial 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.

11-81
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 precipitation and streamflow 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.

11-82
Modifying Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disuption 11-83

Significant research into effective 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 application of different tools may be needed to effectively address the flood risk and protect natural

resources.
CHAPTER 12:

MODIFYING FLOODING

Flood control projects have saved billions of dollars in property damage and protected hundreds

of thousands of people from anxiety, injury and death.

Joseph L. Arnold, The Evolution of the 1936 Flood Control Act,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988

As described inA Unified NationalProgram forFloodplain Management (1986), the traditional strategy

of modifying flooding relies on the following tools:

* construction of dams and reservoirs;

* construction of dikes, levees and floodwails;

* channel alterations;

* high flow diversions and spillways; and

* land treatment measures.

Flooding can also be modified by two additional tools:

* shoreline protection; and

* 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.
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

INVESTMENT 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 the 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

12-2
Modifying Flooding

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 projects 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" (Tennessee 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 mid1960s, 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).

12-3
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

5

-6

Q

00

00

0

.2

4

3

2

a I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I i X

1950 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982

Fiscal Years

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, 1987.

Figure 12-1. Federal Agency Shares of Water Resources Spending.

12-4
Modifying Flooding

Flood Control (38.8%)

......... .. .. - :

f ... :, :: ,..:,.-. ......

A . .: ::::: ... :.

Mississippi River &

Tributaries (11.1%)

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

........... I.... l..................

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

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

.:::::::::::.ok.aviatin (4.9%

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

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

_ ' '. . ... .. ... ......... i ............ :: ::: :: .................

.... .............. _ ..................- ..................... _. . ...... .. . . _ ..... ... ..

_......... .. .. .. .

Othes (.25%).

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 12-2. Total 1986 Project Outlays by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Outlays for Corps of Engineers and SCS Flood Control Programs, 1960-1985.

2.1

Corps of Engineers

1.9

Soil Conservation Service

1.7

1.3

00

-N 0.9

4-

0

~s 0.7

0.5

0.3

0.1

1950 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1 978 1931 1984

Fiscal 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, 198&

12-5

Figure 12-3.
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

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

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.

1.2

1.1 7 Capital

1.0rce: National Coni o uli ok Ipoemn rgieFunain- eor nA Operations &

Maintenance

.7

1.6

.0 .8

0 .7

.6

0

1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1907

Fiscal Year

Source: National Council on Public Works Improvement. Fragile Foundations: A Report on America's Public Works. Final

Report to the President and the Conzress. Preprint Washington, D.C, 1988.

12-6
Modifying Flooding

Twenty-two states had comprehensive water quantity planning programs and a mandate to continue

those programs. In addition, the WRC 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 noted, for 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 Works 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 control 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).

12-7
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

Georgia 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

Washington X X X

West Virginia 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

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. The dams 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 nonfederal 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.

12-9
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

Figure 12-5. Number of Flood Control Reservoirs put in Service by the Corps of Engineers.

Figure 12-6. Number of Corps of Engineers Flood Control Structures in Service.

12-10

20

19

la

1-

16

15

14

13 -

*~12 -

00

8' 11 -1,1.ml1 0)

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. Preprnt. Washington, D.C., 1988.

23n0 300 -i

220-

.w 200-

100

4.- 140 0

100

00-0

60

40

20

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.
Modifying Flooding

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 on 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).

130

120

110

0) i' 100-

90

70

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.

12-11
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

Figure 12-8. Number of Flood Control Reservoirs put in Service by the Soil Conservation Service.

Figure 12-9. Number of Soil Conservation Service Flood Control Reservoirs in Service.

340

300

E260

A 220

4.0) 4

° 180

E 140

100

60

1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984

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.

6 _

5.5

4.5

3

2.5 9 

'- 2

1.5

z

1

0.5

1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984

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.

12-12
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.

PURPOSE

Irrigation

Hydropower

Flood control

Water supply

Recreation

Navigation

Debris control

Stock pond

Other

TOTALS

CUMULATIVE

% 1980 TOTAL

CONSTRUCTION PERIOD

1700- 1900- 1911- 1921- 1931- 1941- 1951- 1961-

1899 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

282

125

61

510

1,290

23

3

68

299

548 639 388

189 224 277

68 35 51

475 423 483

986 673 987

23 16 8

6 4 3

70 55 135

161 157 134

537

104

128

769

1,736

53

6

910

295

695

112

158

810

2,239

4

17

1,269

295

1,474

109

1,937

1,801

4,908

16

66

2,787

648

1,293

93

4,709

1,603

6,148

45

177

3,782

1,238

1971-

1980 TOTAL

885

40

2,481

629

2,941

21

178

2,386

1,024

6,741

1,273

9,628

7,503

21,890

209

460

11,462

4,175

2,661 2,508 2,226 2,466 4,538 5,523 13,746 19,088 10,585 63,341

2,661 5,169 7,395 9,861 14,399 19,922 33,668 52,756 63,341

4.2 8.2 11.7 15.6 22.7 31.5 53.2 83.3 100.0

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 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 Engineers. National Program of Inspection of Non-Federal Dams, 1982 (from Table 4).
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

Table 12-4. Construction of Nonfederal Flood Control Dams, 1961-1981.

DAMS CONSTRUCTED

432

437

599

498

622

499

481

422

391

328

290

334

287

275

271

289

262

228

129

116

27

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. National Propram of Inspection of Non-Federal Dams. 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.

YEAR

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

12-14
Modifying Flooding

Damages Prevented by Corps of Engineers Flood Control Structures.

FLOOD

CONTROL

VOLUME

YEAR (mnilion acre-ft.)

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

TOTAL

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

(*)

77.5

80.1

83.5

84.4

90.2

91.3

91.3

98.7

99.2

101.0

102.9

104.0

120.1

120.4

120.4

122.7

123.0

123.0

123.0

123.3

2080

DAMAGES

PREVENTED

(Current)

(billions $)

0.5

0.9

0.7

0.5

0.7

1.5

0.6

1.0

0.4

2.4

0.8

0.4

2.3

11.9

13.0

15.9

1.7

2.6

6.3

19.4

7.3

1.2

4.3

23.2

16.8

10.8

147.10

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Annual Reports of the Chief of Engineers. Statistical Highlights from different years.

Table 12-5.

1985 $

1.82

3.24

2.49

1.76

2.43

5.11

1.99

3.22

1.24

7.04

2.22

1.06

5.92

28.81

28.37

31.78

3.21

4.62

10.39

28.75

9.53

1.42

5.41

25.05

17.04

10.80

244.72

12-15
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

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).

100%7

90%/

80%/

70%/

60%1

50% -

40%

30%

,0%- 1

10%-

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.

12-16
Modifying 12-17 Flooding

Benefits from Tennessee Valley Authority Flood Reduction at Chattanooga, Tennessee Since 1936.*

STAGE IN FEET

COMPUTED

ACTUAL NATURAL REDUCTION

ACTUAL DAMAGES

DAMAGES PREVENTED

March 1936

January 1937

February 1939

December 1942

March 1944

January 1946

January 1947

February 1948

January 1949

February 1950

March 1951

January 1954

March 1955

February 1956

April 1956

February 1957

November 1957

February 1961

February 1962

March 1963

April 1964

March 1965

February 1966

February 1969

December 1969

December 1972

March 1973

May 1973

January 1974

March 1975

April 1977

March 1979

March 1980

January 1982

April 1983

May 1984

37.1

33.0

31.7

35.8

31.7

35.7

31.9

33.8

29.5

28.4

25.8

29.8

22.5

27.4

17.8

32.2

29.6

27.7

29.0

32.6

22.7

28.4

20.6

23.2

28.5

26.7

36.9

29.1

27.8

25.6

28.4

25.8

27.0

20.6

19.3

34.8

41.3

35.8

33.3

39.7

37.8

45.8

44.5

44.3

36.3

39.6

35.6

41.4

35.0

32.2

34.0

54.0

36.8

36.4

39.0

48.3

34.7

42.9

34.4

32.4

39.0

37.1

52.4

35.7

37.1

43.8

49.0

34.7

41.3

33.7

32.7

51.0

4.2

2.8

1.6

3.9

6.1

10.1

12.6

10.5

6.8

11.2

9.8

12.2

13.3

4.8

16.2

21.8

7.2

8.7

10.0

15.7

12.0

14.5

13.8

9.2

10.5

10.4

15.5

6.6

9.3

18.2

20.6

9.1

14.3

13.1

13.4

16.2

$ 175,000

3,000

2,000

108,000

2,000

190,000

8,000

71,000

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

31,000

0

0

0

50,000

0

0

0

0

0

0

**35,000,000

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3,400,000

$ 2,100,000

29,000

30,000

1,582,000

702,000

11,948,000

10,092,000

10,929,000

1,113,000

3,125,000

440,000

7,100,000

390,000

25,000

200,000

111,969,000

2,150,000

2,950,000

27,495,000

115,950,000

1,505,000

47,000,000

1,750,000

60,000

34,500,000

24,500,000

465,000,000

14,000,000

53,207,000

216,000,000

510,000,000

20,002,000

206,000,000

12,520,000

6,068,000

700,000,000

TOTAL $39,040,000 $2,622,431,000

* Omits minor floods (under 32ft. natural) and secondary crests in same flood period.

*t Includes 512,000,000 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.

Table 12-6.

DATE
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)*

YEAR MONTH

1945 Mid-March

1946 January

1947 April

1948 April

1949 January

1950 January

1951 February

1952 March

1953 None

1954 None

1955 March

1956 February

1957 February

1958 May

1959 February

1960 April

1961 May

1962 March

1963 March

1964 March

1965 April

1966 February

1967 May

1968 June

1969 February

1970 May

1971 March

1972 April

1973 April

1974 February

1975 April

1976 February

1977 April

1978 March

1979 April

1980 April

1981 June

1982 March

1983 May

1984 May

1985 March

1986 December

1987 April

WITHOUT

TENN. RIVER

ACTUAL REGULATION

53.92

52.13

47.12

51.6

50.7

55.35

49.02

50.7

50.1

43.7

45.7

43.1

40.3

47.4

54.5

50.5

51.5

48.2

47.4

41.9

43.6

43.9

47.4

49.1

47.9

49.1

55.7

52.2

56.4

42.0

41.4

50.7

54.6

48.3

39.0

47.8

54.2

54.0

49.2

41.4

42.1

55.4

53.5

48.0

53.4

51.3

57.2

49.0

51.2

50.9

45.8

47.2

46.2

41.6

50.1

55.0

51.7

53.9

50.4

50.5

43.2

45.3

45.5

47.7

51.5

49.0

51.6

57.8

53.1

57.3

42.8

44.1

51.9

55.8

50.5

39.2

49.5

56.2

54.1

49.8

42.2

44.3

REDUCTION

(Feet)

1.48

1.37

0.88

1.8

0.6

1.85

0

0.5

0.8

2.1

1.5

3.1

1.3

2.7

0.5

1.2

2.4

2.2

3.1

1.3

1.7

1.6

0.3

2.4

1.1

2.5

2.1

0.9

0.9

0.8

2.7

1.2

1.2

2.2

0.2

1.7

2.0

0.1

0.6

0.8

2.2

TOTAL:

DAMAGES

PREVENTED**

$ 970,000

500,000

480,000

1,600,000

200,000

1,800,000

0

400,000

580,000

700,000

4,870,000

8,000,000

590,000

4,500,000

4,150,000

2,530,000

4,010,000

3,250,000

1,150,000

634,000

1,017,000

1,402,000

337,000

1,844,000

237,000

3,091,000

15,299,000

7,358,300

8,227,000

142,000

515,000

8,926,000

24,612,000

4,404,000

178,000

1,779,000

12,328,000

48,000

4,730,000

0

$ 42,000

$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.

12-18
Modifying Flooding

DAM SAFETY

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 maintained, 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 reservoir uses can impair flood control functions, as irrigation interests, manufacturers, homeowners, and

others relying on the dam forrecreation 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 department and agency responsible for dam safety to adopt and implement the new guidelines (Committee

12-19
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 12-8. 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 Propram of Inspection of Non-Federal Dams, 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 constructed 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).

12-20
Modifying Flooding 12-21

Table 12-9. Federal Responsibilities for Existing Dams.

USDA TOTAL

ARS

FmHA

FS

REA

SCS

DOD TOTAL

Corps

Army

Navy

Air Force

DOE TOTAL

APA

RL

RF

SR

DOI TOTAL

BOR

BLM

BIA

FWS

NPS

FERC

IBWC

MSHATOTAL

COAL

MINW

NRC TOTAL

NRR

NMSS

TVA

28,127a

78b

3,361

29c

2391

0

4

560

0

2,985

7

985

0

64

30

29

3

2

3

1

0

1

1

128

48

16j

24

19

21

22,290

0

10

1,816

0

295

118

145

13

19

8

1

S

1

1,528

20

900

239

127

242

11,960

0

unk e

379

unk e

11,581

583

579

0

2

2

92

1

52

2f

37

667

163

261

69

144

30

1,6u0

0

unk

80

unk

10,072

0

unk

291

unk

288

0

unk

8

unk

357

0

unk

18

unk

1,520 9,781 250 339 115

266

266

0

0

0

3

0

0

3

124

2

10

86

25k

312

309

0

2

I

37

I

NA

2

34

538

161

251

68

58

0

5

4

0

0

0

NA

NA

NA

5

0

0

0

0

O

23

21

0

0

2

O

0

0

134

60

0

0

4

70

DEPART- DAMS ~~~~~~~~~~~~UNDER DAM SAFErY DAMNS W]T H DEPART- DAM INVENTORY PERIODIC INSPECTIONS FNURTT. MDA -UA_

ODNDU1CTED & STUDY TIONS l'AZ CLSS

HAZARD CLASSIE. SINCE LAST REPORT QCIMPL CEMPL TOTAL ~~~SINCE IN SINCE IN

AGENCY TOTAL TOTAL LAST PROS- LAST PROGHIGH SIG. LOW FORMAL INTER DURING REPORT RESS REPORT RESS HIGH SIG.

179

0

unk

64

unk

48

48

0

0

0

0

0

182

ill

0

0

2

69

63

0

unk

28

unk

14

14

0

0

0

0

0

0

69

32

0

0

8

29

810

0

unk

483

unk

404

402

2

0

0

0

NA

0

0

216

200

1

0

9

6

2,40

0

unk

190

unk

35 13271 50 24,658d 11,827 1,992 120,464

22

22

0

0

0

0

O

NA

g

87

45

8

0

17

17

250 j 1,278 3,239 151 2,170 918 1 256 141 101 525 1241m

4 0 10 0 121 0

801

314

487

53 31 14 8

a. ________ _______ _______

810

560

213

16

21

10

2

0

6

2

1,925

282h

917i

300

155

271

20821

8

1,386n

827n

559

27

19

8

451

412

39

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

269

214

37

9

8

548

4

286

229

37

0

253

218

35

181 4 I 14

0

o0

Op

0

0

0

111

270

270

0

33

S

28

25

270

270

0

33

S

28

1,223q

0

0

0

0

0

0

245

245

0

0

0

0

0 14

0

66

66

0

0

0

0

5

57

0

unk

23

unk

34

17

17

0

0

0

0

0

0

19

4

1

0

9

5

51

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0 0

0 0

2 I 31 I 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.

c. Includes 29 dams whose classification is unknown. Agency is taking action to obtain current hazard classifications.

d. Includes 375 dams whose classification is unknown. Most are expected to be low hazard, but their current classification has not been verified by actual

field checks

e. FmHA and REA are working with owners to obtain current data.

f. 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.

i Approximately 850 more structures exist that have not been evaluated or added to the BLM inventory. The 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 low-hazard dams.

n. Includes 66 dams not assigned a hazard classification.

o. Dams under major construction are inspected on a monthly basis.

p. All dams are inspected four times yearly for underground mines and twice yearly for surface mines.

q. Includes approximately 1,000 monthly field inspections and 87 special inspectors.

* All figures for this chart were provided by the individual agencies.

Source:

Federal Emergency Management Agency.

National Dam Safety Program: A Propress Report

Volume 1. FEMA 195, July 1990.
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

* 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).

* Bureau of Reclamation. The BOR is the coordinating agency for dam safety within the Department 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).

* 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. This 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 management agencies to develop their plans to cope with dam safety emergencies (Tennessee Valley

Authority, 1989).

* Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture (USDA), in fulfilling its responsibilities with regard to the maintenance and improvement of American agriculture, has a major

12-22
Modifying 12-23 Flooding

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.

* THE 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.

* THE FOREST 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 ADMINISrRATION, 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 developments. 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:

* Preconstruction approval of dam designs, plans, and specifications often utilizing an independent Board of Consultants.

* 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.
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

* 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.

* Emergency action plans to provide early warning to persons who might be affected by a

project emergency.

* Periodic tests of the emergency action plan.

* 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 governments, municipalities, watershed districts, industries, lake associations, developers, and private citizens

(Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1990).

The 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 used the 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 statutory 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.

12-24
12-25 Modifying Flooding

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 legislative/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 (FTIE)

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:

* provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and experiences in state dam safety programs and

issues;

* foster interstate cooperation;

* provide information and assistance to state dam safety programs;

* provide representation of state interests before Congress and federal agencies responsible for

dam safety; and

* improve efficiency and effectiveness of state dam safety programs.
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

Table 12-10. Summary of 1989 State Dam Safety Statutory or Regulatory Authority.

INSPECTS

DURING

CONSTRUCTION

NO

YES

YES

YES c

YES c

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES c

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES c

YES c

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

NO c

YES

NO

YES c

YES c

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES

YES c

YES

NO c

YES c

YES

YES c

YES c

YES c

ISSUES PERIODPERMIT TO ICALLY

IMPOUND INSPECTS

NO

YES

YES

NO c

YES c

YES c

YES c

NO

YES

NO c

NO

YES

YES

NO c

NO c

YES c

YES

YES

NO

YES c

NO c

NO

NO c

YES

YES c

YES c

NO c

YES

YES c

YES

YES

YES c

YES c

YES

YES c

YES

NO

YES c

NO

YES

YES

YES

NO c

YES c

YES c

YES

YES c

NO cc

NO

YES c

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES c

YES c

NO

YES

YES c

YES

YES c

YES

YES c

NO c

YES c

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES c

NO

YES

YES c

YES c

YES c

YES c

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES

YES c

YES c

YES

YES c

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES

NO c

YES c

YES c

NO c

NO c

YES c

REQUIRES

REMEDIAL

WORK

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES c

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES

YES

YES c

YES

YES

YES c

YES c

YES

YES c

YES

YES

ADOPTS

RULES &

REGULATIONS TIONS

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES c

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES

YES c

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES c

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES YES c

YES YES

YES YES

YES YES

YES YES

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO c

YES

YES

YES cc

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO cc

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO c

YES

YES

YES c

YES

YES c

REQUIRES

FEE OR

BOND

NO

NO

YES c

YES c

YES c

NO c

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES c

YES c

NO c

YES c

NO c

NO

NO cc

NO c

YES

YES c

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES c

YES c

NO

YES

NO

YES c

NO

NO

NO c

YES

YES

NO

YES c

NO

NO

YES c

YES

NO

YES c

YES c

NO

NO

NO c

YES

NO c

REQUIRES

EAP

NO c

YES

YES c

YES c

NO

YES c

YES

YES c

NO

NO c

YES

YES c

YES

NO c

YES c

YES c

NO

YES

YES cc

YES c

YES c

NO

YES c

NO

YES c

YES c

YES c

YES

YES c

YES

NO c

NO c

YES c

NO

YES

YES c

NO

YES c

NO c

NO c

YES c

NO c

NO c

NO

NO

YES

NO c

NO c

YES 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 1988.

12-26

STATE

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia'

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

REVIEWS &

APPROVES

PLANS

NO c

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES

NO

NO

YES c

YES c

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES

YES c

YES

YES

NO c

YES

YES

YES cc

YES

YES

YES c

YES c

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES c

YES

YES c

YES c

YES

YES c

YES c

YES
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,3 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 overtopping, 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 floodwalls 4 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.
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 constructed 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 immediately 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 levee/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 ACTIVITIES

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).

12-28
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 NF[P maps. Approximately 1,000 communities nationwide (or

5.5% of the communities identified as floodprone) have one or more levees credited on NFP 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 TVA's 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 emergency 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 thannel.

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

Modifying 12-29 Flooding
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 ACTIVITIES

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 accomplished 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

12-30
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 government 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
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 downstream 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

12-32
Modifying Flooding

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 establishment 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

12-33
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 communities 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.

12-34
Modifying Flooding

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 nonstructural 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 consideration 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.

12-35
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, the jetty'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

12-36
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:

* 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 336.3 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).

* As of 1983, 57 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 ACTIVITIES

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 construction 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.
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

Table 12-11. Status of Federal Expenditures on Authorized Beach Erosion Control Projects.

NUMBER OF

PROJECTS

FEDERAL

COST

($000)

FEDERAL EXPENSE

THRU 6/85

($000)

BALANCE TO

COMPLETE

($000)

Completed

Under Construction

Deferred

Inactive

TOTAL

(Data as of July 1985)

62

23

15

14

124

35,091

438,852

35,927

31,506

541,376

35,091

98,762

887

3,713

138,453

0

340,090

35,040

27,793

402,923

Source: Schilling, Kyle, and others. The Nation's Public Works: Revort on Water Resources. Categories of Public Works Series.

Washington, D.C.: National Council on Public Works Improvement, 1987.

Table 12-12. Total Federal and Nonfederal Investment in Beach Erosion Control Projects Completed or Under Construction.

TOTAL NON-FEDERAL

PROJECTS COST

($000)

FEDERAL

COST

($000)

TOTAL

COST

($000)

MILES

PROTECTED

Completed

Under Construction

57 26,206

10 68,267

19,056 45,262

63,423 131,690

67 94,473 82,479 176,952 159.4

(Data as of 1983)

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, 1987.

PROJECT

STATUS

PROJECT

STATUS

TOTAL

89.9

69.5

\ , . .

12-38
Modifying Flooding

PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITIES

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. Techniques 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.

Land 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

12-39
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 construction, 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 Watenvays

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

12-40
Modifying Flooding

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 applications 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 environmental 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,

12-41
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

concerns 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 to control 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 that relatively few large flood control structures will be built. Nevertheless, increasing

flood damages and concentrations of floodplain development indicate a continuing need for investment 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 rediscovered - 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.

1242
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 EDUCATION 2

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 information 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 Unifled National Program for Floodplain Management (1986), disaster assistance is listed as a tool under

the strategy to modify susceptibility to flooding. For purposes of the Assessment Report, disaster assistance

is described in this chapter along with other tools to modify the impacts of flooding.

2 A Unified National Program 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.
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 ACTIVITIES

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).

13-2
Table 13-1. NHRAIC Annotated Bibliographies of Hazards Publications, 1975-1987.

CLIMATE AND DROUGHT

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

EARTHQUAKES AND TSUNAMIS

FLOODS

1975-76 1976-77 1977-78

11 7 7

4 12 9

59 20 48

60 28 54

1978-79

15

17

34

45

1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83

19 15 12

19 12 12

54 47 65

60 37 31

1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87

7 12 13

9 12 5

52 49 40

36 39 25

HURRICANES, CYCLONES, TORNADOES AND

SEVERE STORMS 11

LANDSLIDE AND OTHER MASS EARTH MOVEMENTS 3

MISCELLANEOUS HAZARDS

AVALANCHES 3

COASTAL ZONE HAZARD AND EROSION 4

GENERAL 2

MULTI-HAZARDS

BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 0

GENERAL 41

HAZARDS PLANNING 0

HEALTH AND MEDICAL 0

LAND USE 6

TECHNICAL HAZARDS 0

VOLCANOES 7

WATER RESOURCES AND WETLANDS MANAGEMENT 0

TOTAL 211

9 20 22 13 18 11

0 4 7 4 7 9

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 5 14 4 0 27

8 8 1 4 6 3

10 36 40 36 9 53

4 10 6 13 15 2

4 9 10 9 15 8

9 8 7 10 2 1

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 4 0 18 16 14

2 0 7 8 7 7

113 222 225 271 216 255

13 16 12 19 16

5 6 10 12 7

5b 25b 24b

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

21 25 0 0 0

0 0 0

45 57 42

7 11 10

8 15 10

52 0 0

0 0 19

11 7 5

5 20 9

224 271 205

0

54

7

21

0

22

7

11

300

0

71

0

17

27

6

9

314

(b) Not divided into sub-categories.

Source: Morton, David R A Selected Bibliography of Recent Hazards Publications,

Boulder, Colorado: University of Colorado, 1988.

(Issues 1975-76 through 1986-87). Natural Hazards Research and Application Information Center.

16 21

15 16

59 68

32 32
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

STATE AND LOCAL ACTIVITIES

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 computerized indexing system to quickly locate appropriate references (Watson, 1988, 1990).

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 ("I"); 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).

Arizona 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 FEMAts Limited Map Maintenance Program (LMMP), and other areas for which

communities have requested detailed mapping information. Restudy areas are listed by

priority and cost/benefits.

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 (NFJP), 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.

J_ Texas invites lenders, agents, realtors, and others to workshops on the NFIP, tailored to the

host county's flood situation.

13-4
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,T,P I,T LTP

Colorado I,T,P I I I,T,P

Connecticut I,T,P I I I

Delaware I

District of Columbia N/A I I

Florida I,T I I

Georgia I,T I I,T I

Hawait I I I I

Idaho I,T I I

Illinois I,T,P I,P I IT,P

Indiana I,TP I,P I,P I,P

Iowa I,T I I I

Kansas I,T I,P

Kentucky I,T,P I,P I

Louisiana I,P I,P P

Maine I,T I I I

Maryland I,T,P I I,P I,P

Massachusetts IT I P

Michigan I,T,P I,TP I,P I,P

Mirmesota I,TP I P

Mississippi I I

Missouri I,T,P P I,T,P

Montana IT,P I,P I,T I,P

Nebraska I,T,P I I,T P

Nevada I I I

New Hampshire I,T I

New Jersey I,T I IT

New Mexico I

New York I,TP I I,T I

North Carolina I,T,P I I,T I

North Dakota I,T I I

Ohio I,T,P I I I

Oklahoma IT I,P I

Oregon I,T Pennsylvania I,T,P I,P I I,P

Rhode Island I,TP I I I

South Carolina I,T I,T,P

South Dakota I,T I I

Tennessee I,T I I

Texas I,T,P I,P IT I,P

Utah I,TP I I,P

Vermont I,T I

Virginia I I

Washington IT

West Virginia

Wisconsin I,T,P I

Wyoming I

I = Provide information in response to inquiries

P = Publications or manuals

T = Training workshops 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 L.R Johnston Associates," 1988.
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.

Loss M An interesting example of the use of specialized publications is from Maryland. The Maryland

Department of Natural Resources created "Parley Floodhound," a cartoon character who

appears in a coloring book and helps "flood pups" learn flood safety tips.

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

QJ 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.

;VQ Oklahoma's legislature passed a law in 1986 that requires: "If the premises to be rented has

been flooded within the past five 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."

13-6
Modif ying the Impacts of Flooding

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 organizations 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 assessment 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 valuesall 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).

13-7
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 (FHA),

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 Insurance Study or HIS) 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 NFlP 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 introduced provisions for withholding certain federal benefits from floodprone 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.

13-8
Modifying the Impacts of Flooding

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. NFLP

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:

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* Lenders face possible lawsuits if the property owner subsequently sustains flood damages.

To address these concerns, the following actions can be considered:

* Modify existing federal legislation to impose financial penalties on lenders.

* Provide greater training and education for lenders regarding their responsibilities and liability.

* Provide mechanisms that will make it easier for lenders to make the floodplain determination.

* 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 governments.

* 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.

13-9
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 determined 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 NFIP

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 FIA "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.

13-10
Modifying the Impacts of Flooding

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 Flood Insurance Program. Fact Sheet for

Congressional Requesters. GAO/RCED-88-155FS, 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 breakdown 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).

13-11
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) Limit 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 Insurance: Statistics on the National Flood Insurance Program. Fact Sheet for

Congressional Requesters. GAO/RCED-88-155FS, 1988.

13-12
Modifying 13-13 the Impacts of Flooding

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

POLICIES INSURANCE PREMIUM

17,176 S 738,556,687 S 4,556,898

2,172 62,044,958 474,452

20,857 675,930,819 4,937,291

6,682 113,153,031 1,482,606

110,700 3,449,831,921 30,311,748

8,232 186,899,201 2228,008

17,573 574,394,040 6,321,552

6,710 491,580,924 2,129,550

42 720,479 28,775

714,327 53,059,644,551 188,650,415

19,930 1,062,021,325 5,066,186

26 11,303 7,773

9,254 416,975,358 3,576,794

1,684 33,613,292 393,071

23,484 399,938,881 5,652,207

12,706 197,955,390 2,825,282

4,450 67,707,633 1,044,600

6,882 72,028,244 1,505,797

13,961 401,646,758 3,434,637

240,783 13,829,024,764 55,330,229

5,290 175,227,036 1,553,924

22,929 1,273,345,242 6,138,474

25,250 347,496,629 8,395,941

17,354 432,677,825 4,152,490

4,899 91,115,034 1,260,843

32,868 1,521,793,482 7,254,782

14,552 209,331,660 3,631,236

1,428 12,413,560 317,296

7,488 135,585,148 1,528,809

5,385 100,341,432 1,321,177

2,956 65,041,379 898,482

113,770 5,618,093,264 34,247,492

4,638 85,896,683 1,015,034

62356 1,738,759,341 17,908,263

38,066 1,621,186,678 9,783,509

5,130 68,433,114 1,153,921

14,358 223,716,503 3,459,521

11,484 219,167,324 2,782,920

5,505 85,172,922 1,372,870

55,405 1,431,833,803 14,715,636

8,007 14,227,639 1,545,629

7,629 185,259,656 2,753,574

46,361 4,151,536,594 12,660,585

817 10,189,974 185,309

6,687 177,822,915 1,640,044

225,275 15,327,249,275 59,902,831

1,552 25,204,318 385,504

2,013 46,918,293 529,374

1,764 26,702,574 513,593

36,368 2,068,974,649 8,910,838

10,442 142,729,050 2,513,498

13,330 274,550,039 3,430,325

6,297 75,310,508 1,526,399

1,396 26,573,514 343,550

2,056,680 $113,843,556,592 $539,691,544

(a) "State," as defined by FEMA program

regulations, means any state, the District

of Columbia, the territories and possessions of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Trust

Territory of the Pacific Islands.

(b) Write Your Own Program. See pages 13-

25 and 13-26 for a description of this program.

Source: Flood Insurance Producers National Committee. FIPNC. VoL II, Bulletin #3, November 1988.

STATE(a)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Guam

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virgin Islands

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

TOTAL
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 1978 - 1987

NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF

FLOOD CLAIMS PAID

NUMBER OF AMOUNT OF

CLAIMS PAID CLAIMS PAID

7,258 S 87,805,791

54 322,839

1,395 14,064,010

1,457 10,800,307

10,703 108,846,266

426 3,223,467

5,709 34,906,126

423 1,929,167

7 101,518

25,652 165,125,349

1,318 8,455,396

2 17,492

715 10,354,101

117 499,193

15,145 81,307,867

2,901 13,289,339

860 3,101,421

1,688 12,957,557

5,075 48,913,951

63,341 502,019,965

1,643 15,921,597

2,355 21,859,402

7,120 40,890,955

4,945 23,999,710

2,419 16,518,655

13,176 108,496,982

16,486 113,043,717

575 1,943,610

1,501 9,460,795

208 1,891,589

708 3,729,914

18,594 117,979,379

123 490,587

29,239 105,271,504

2,925 15,495,792]

2275 9,786,873

5,850 29,549,982

4,165 60,986,298

466 2,404,346

12,784 61,971,275

8,039 32,200,608

859 7,828,172

2,730 10,324,333

347 1,403,419

1,421 8,482208

55,862 575,588,046

436 4,439,661

330 1,403,419

529 8,482,208

4,360 59,077,329

1,307 13,196,518

6,975 67,738,531

949 3,295,144

152 1,038,852

356,149 2,657,819,907

Source: Flood Insurance Producers National Committee. FIPNC. Vol. II, Bulletin #3, November 1988.

13-14

STATE

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Dist. of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Guam

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Okldahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virgin Islands

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

TOTAL
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 $55,168

2) EARNED PREMIUM $81,813,509 $125,483,655 $149,179,251 S180,984,641 $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 LAOSS ADJUSTER RATIO 1.902 4.030 1.635 0.745 0.845

6A) INSURANCE AGENT COMMISSION -DIRECT $13,515,233 $20,729,357 $25,435,596 $29,280,077 $42,209,515

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 $2,852,968

9) EARNED EXPOSURE $1,059,761 $1,624,268 1,953,211 1,967,255 1,892,266

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 $16.4S $16.72 $16.46

12) AVERAGE INSURANCE AGENTS

COMMISSION (c) $12.75 $12.76 $13.02 $14.88 $22.31

13) AVERAGE LOSS AND LOSS ADJUSTER

COST PER POLICY $146.81 $311.36 $124.87 $68.56 $110.65

14) OPERATING PROFIT/(DEFICl') PER POLICY

(d) ($96.47) ($257.91) ($78.00) ($8.16) ($18.52)

(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 FHA 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; CSC, Servicing Facility througb its

EAIS, 1980-89 Financial and Statistical Reports.
13-16 Application 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 $61,862 $66,888 $71,110 $76,700

2) EARNED PREMIUM $313,023,597 $334,865,116 $364,767,808 $403,326,133 $452,675,995

3) LOSSES INCURRED (f) $439,457,608 $254,599,652 S368,977,214 $126,936,225 $104,659,319

4) LOSS ADJUSTER EXPENSE (f) $21,361,786 $11,206,399 $13,721,600 $4,814,996 $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 $34,012,166 $26,752857

6B) AGENT COMMISSION ALLOWANCE - WYO NA $2432,344 $10,848,658 $26,486,753 $41,148,542

7A) GENERAL EXPENSE - DIRECT (e) $31,131,245 $36,451,369 $34,025,399 $35,944,266 $30,261,948

7B) OPERATING ALLOWANCE - WYO NA $2452,614 $12,421,713 $31,033,647 $45,949,205

8) PROFIT TO SERVICING FACILITY $2,584,452 $2,618,700 $2,376,027 $2,487,001 $2,507,731

9) EARNED EXPOSURE $1,917,613 $1,917,003 1,920,394 2,034,676 2,072,202

10) AVERAGE PREMIUM $163.24 $174.68 $189.94 $198.23 $218.45

11) AVERAGE OPERATING COST OTHER THAN

AGENT COMMISSION AND LOSS

ADJUSTER EXPENSE (b) $17.58 $21.66 $25.42 $34.14 $37.99

12) AVERAGE INSURANCE AGENTS

COMMISSION $24.49 $26.20 $28.49 $29.73 $3277

13) AVERAGE LOSS AND LOSS ADJUSTER

COST PER POLICY $240.31 $138.66 $199.28 $64.75 $5253

14) OPERATING PROFIT/(DEFICIT) PER POLICY

(g) ($119.14) ($11.84) ($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 CSC's EAIS. 1978-79 Financial and Statistical Reports; CSC, Servicing Facility through its

EAIS, 1980-89 Financial and Statistical Reports.
Modifying the Impacts of Flooding

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 FIA shows that:

* 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.

* Post-FIRM construction in areas where new construction is subject to NFIP floodplain

management regulations experienced 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.

* 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 catastrophic 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).

13-17
National Flood Insurance Program: Loss and Expense Experience, 1978-1987.

ZONES VE,V1.V30

POST-FIRM PRE-FIRM

UNNUMBERED ZONE A ZONES AEAI-A30

EMERGENCY

POST-FIRM PRE-FIRM POST-FIRM PRE-FIRM ZONES B,CX PROGRAM

PROGRAM

TOTALS

1. Earned Exposure

(earned policy terms)

2. Average Earned Premium

3. Number of Paid Losses

4. Average Loss Payment

5. Loss Ratio

6. Loss Frequency Per

100 Policies

7. Average Loss Cost Per Policy

& Other Expenses

(average per policy)

a) Agent Commission/

Allowance

b) Loss Adjuster

c) Serving Facility/

WYO Operating Allowance

9. Operating Surplus/(Deficit)

Per Policy on Paid Basis*

82,705

$352.26

993

$7,191.17

0.25

1.2

$86.34

$54.64

$4.44

$21.63

$185.22

468,227

$232.67

8,893

$8,187.59

0.67

1.9

$155.51

$36.09

$6.47

$21.63

$12.97

264,238

$201.70

1,183

$8,420.79

0.19

0.4

$37.70

$31.28

$1.80

$21.63

1,095,942

$172.12

21,307

$8,19&56

0.93

1.9

$159.39

$26.70

$6.71

$21.63

$109.29 ($42.31)

1,069,168

$132.39

5,356

$9,885.42

0.37

0.5

$49.37

i20.53

$2.13

$21.63

$38.73

5,218,977

$160.91

106,136

$6,95&47

0.88

2.0

$141.51

$24.96

$$6.72

$21.63

5,369,538

$119.25

64,437

$7,614.82

0.77

1.2

$91.38

$18.50

$4.22

$21.63

3,246,779

$107.36

102,449

$5,516.04

1.62

3.2

$174.05

$16.65

$10.06

$21.63

18,535,187

$142.67

337,965

$7,164.43

0.92

1.8

$130.63

$22.13

$6.24

$21.63

($33.91) ($16.48) ($115.03) ($37.97)

* 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 NFIP." Unpublished data from FIAJFEMA, 1988.

Table 13-8.

00

01.

,0.

0~

0

S-4
National Flood Insurance Program: Annual Premium

on 1989 Cost Level.

Loss Experience (1979-1987) vs. Projected Written Premium

AVERAGE ANNUAL PREMIUM

BASED ON '78-'79 LOSS

EXPERIENCE WITH LOSSES &

EXPENSES ON 1989 LEVEL(a)

PROJECTED AVERAGE ANNUAL

WRI1TEN PREMIUM USING

9/1/88 RATES WITH

PROJECTED INSURANCE AMOUNTS

PERCENTAGE OF

ON LEVEL PREMIUM

BASED ON

'78-'87 EXPERIENCE(b)

A. Regular Program

- Actuarial Rates

Zones AE,A,AD,AH,AHB,AOB

Zones VE,V

Zones B,C,X,D

Sub-Total Actuarial

B. Regular Program

- Subsidized Rates

C. Emergency Program

Sub-Total Subsidized

D. NFIP Total

126.96

273.90

203.97

174.50

347.89

368.95

368.89

260.13

105.64

506.02

210.88

203.10

312.83

231.31

309.01

255.10

(a) Includes $45.00 Expense Constant.

(b) Based on '78-'79 experience. Does not include consideration for development of catastrophic loss reserve. Simulation

modeling for the NFIP indicates that, because the '78-'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.

Table 13-9.

0z

R0

Z0

0'

0; 0.

146.2%

104.7%

103.3%

116.4%

89.9%

62.7%

88.6%

98.1%

tAJ
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 subsequently allow it to expire (DeGroot, 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 permanently 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.

13-20
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:

Total Amount Paid on these Lossses:

Building

Contents

Total Building and Contents

Average Amount Paid per Loss

(Building and Contents):

Number of Repetitive Loss Structures:

Average Number of Losses per Structure:

Number of Losses:

Total Amount Paid on these Losses:

Building

Contents

Total Building and Contents

Average Amount Paid per Loss:

Source: Federal Insurance Administration, Office of Loss Reduction. "Summary and Assessment of National Flood Insurance

Program (NFIP) Repetitive Loss Data." June 1990.

75,299

$434 million

$313 million

$747 million

$9,922

30,516

2.6

273,982

$1.33 billion

$938 million

$2.27 billion

$8,289

Modiffing the Impacts of Flooding 13-21
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

Table 13-11. Distribution of Pre-FIRM Repetitive Loss Structures by Zone.

NUMBER OF

REPETITIVE LOSS

STRUCTURES

A, AO, AH, A1-30, AE

V, V1 -30, VE

B, C, X, D

Unknown(b)

17,530

842

6,194

4.793

29,359

PERCENT OF

REPETITIVE LOSS

STRUCTURES

59.7%

2.9%

21.1%

16.3%

100.0%

(a) See Appendix C for definitions of A and V zones; see also Table 11-1.

(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.

PERCENT RANGE

NUMBER OF

CLAIMS

PERCENTAGE OF

CLAIMS

0-5%

5-10%

10-15%

15-20%

20-25%

25-30%

30-35%

3540%

40-45%

45-50%

More than 50%(a)

27,392

14,508

8,773

6,343

5,012

3,870

2,888

2,152

1,571

1,221

5068

78,798

34.8%

18.4%

11.1%

8.0%

6.4%

4.9%

3.7%

2.7%

2.0%

1.5%

6.4%

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.

ZONES(a)

13-22
Modifying the Impacts of Flooding

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

$5,000 - $10,000

$10,000 - $25,000

$25,000 - $50,000

More than $50,000

31,558

18,870

18,933

6,432

3.017

78,810

40.0%

24.0%

24.0%

8.2%

3.8%

100.0%

Source: Federal Insurance Administration, Office of Loss Reduction. "Summary and Assessment of National Flood Insurance

Program (NFIP) Repetitive Loss Data." June 1990.

Table 13-14. Distribution of Repetitive Losses by States (Top Ten States).

NUMBER OF

REPETITIVE LOSSES

21,356

12,160

5,636

4,620

3,810

3,754

3,418

3,383

2,358

2,348

62,843

PERCENT OF

REPETITIVE LOSSES

28.4%

16.1%

7.4%

6.1%

5.1%

5.0%

4.5%

4.5%

3.1%

3.1%

83.1%

PERCENT OF

ALL LOSSES

20.8%

16.3%

4.4%

5.6%

6.5%

4.0%

3.8%

6.5%

3.4%

2.4%

73.7%

Source: Federal Insurance Administration, Office of Loss Reduction.

Program (NFIP) Repetitive Loss Data." June 1990.

"Summary and Assessment of National Flood Insurance

STATE

Louisiana

Texas

Missouri

New Jersey

New York

Illinois

Mississippi

Florida

California

Puerto Rico

13-23 
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

1 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 NFLP 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 communities 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 characterized as being primarily subject to tidal flooding. This tends to support the idea that

the repetitive loss problem is more related to riverine or stormwater flooding than tidal flooding.

13-24
Modifying the Impacts of Flooding

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:

* More restrictive standards for new development;

* More restrictive standards for existing development;

* Community maintenance of FEMA elevation certificates;

* Required disclosure statements for floodplain properties;

* Public information programs;

* Programs to reduce repetitive losses;

* Maintenance of existing structural flood protection projects;

* Channel maintenance;

* Stormwater management programs;

* Sand dune maintenance and replenishment programs;

* Flood warning and response programs; and

* High risk flood hazard mitigation programs.

The 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 (WYO) 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.

13-25
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

The WYO 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.

WYO 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 WYO 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 WYO program and decreasing sales through its contractor (Simmons, 1988). Figure

13-1 shows the organizational structure for sales and servicing of flood insurance policies.

Organizational Structure of the National Flood Insurance Program.

Source: U.S. General Accounting Office. Flood Insurance: Private Companies' Participation in the Write Your Own Program.

Report to Legislation and National SecuritySubcommittee, Committee on Government Operations. GAO/RCED-7-108,

1987.

13-26

Figure 13-1.
Modifying the Impacts of Flooding

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 NFIP. 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 comprehensive flood insurance policy for some large businesses with offices and land holdings in many locations

in and out of the floodplain.

CROP INSURANCE

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 subject 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

13-27
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

13-28
Modifying the Impacts of Flooding

percent in 1954. These exclusions and deductions became, along with the market, a major determinant 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 from income subject to tax, adjustments to

income, business deductions unrelated to actual expenses, deferral of tax liablity, 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 immediately 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.5 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.

S Tax incentives to leave land undeveloped are described in Chapter 14 of the Assessment Repon.

13-29
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* Investment Tax Credits. The TRA eliminated investment tax credits previously available to

businesses.

* 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 ACTIVITIES

Many states and communities provide some type of tax relief and development incentives (or

disincentives) that have important floodplain management applications.

13-30
Modifying the Impacts of Flooding

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.

Jr Il 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 governments) 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 development decisions or to help offset government costs of development.

The City of Stamford, Connecticut has required developers of certain projects constructed

{ 7_J in the floodplain to contribute funds for the operation and maintenance of the City's

automated flood warning system (Emerson, 1988).

Ad 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 management concepts, some inconsistencies with sound floodplain management practices and other federal

policies are evident.

13-31
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 development 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 for this type of emergency action (Federal Interagency

Floodplain Management Task Force, 1986).

FEDERAL ACTIVITIES

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,

13-32
Modifying the Impacts of Flooding

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. P | ~ 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 exigency work to begin. The request was 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 treatment under the nonexigency program, and 25 were selected for treatment Only 20 sites

were ultimately included in the program, with work at the remaining five 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.

13-33
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 ACTIVITIES

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 successfully 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).

13-34
Modifying the Impacts of Flooding

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 developed, 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 Administration without a Presidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency.

13-35
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. FEMA regional office personnel, accompanied by state and local government representatives, 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 recommendation 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 Accounting Office, 1989).

Major Disaster vs. Emergency

A "major disaster" as defined in the Stafford Act means:

any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, 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 President, 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 governments, and private relief organizations in alleviating the damage,

loss, hardship 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 longerterm recovery activities, including:

* clearance of debris on public or private land or water;

* emergency protective measures for the preservation of life and property;

* repair or replacement of roads, streets, bridges, and water control facilities (dikes, levees,

irrigation works, and drainage facilities);

13-36
Modifying the Impacts of Flooding

* repair or replacement of public buildings and related equipment, public utilities, and public

facilities damaged while under construction;

* repair or restoration of recreational facilities and parks;

* 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;

* 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;

* repairs and operating assistance to public elementary and secondary schools; and

* 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. Requirements of this program are:

* up to 50 percent federal funding is available for mitigation measures;

* total federal mitigation funding is limited to 10 percent of the estimated public assistance grants

for permanent restorative work;

* measures must be cost-effective;

* measures must be consistent with state and local hazard mitigation plans required as a condition

of receiving federal disaster assistance; and

* 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:

* temporary housing, or essential repairs to owner-occupied residences in lieu of other temporary

housing;

* disaster unemployment assistance;

* low interest loans for repair or replacement of damaged property;

* 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;

* distribution of food coupons to eligible disaster victims;

* 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;

* 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

13-37
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 settlements, 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:

* emergency mass care, such as emergency shelter, emergency provision of food, water, medicine,

and emergency medical care;

* clearance of debris to save lives and protect property and public health and safety;

* 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;

* emergency communications and emergency transportation; and

* 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 government, 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.

* Small Business Administration. The Small Business Administration (SBA) issues its own disaster

declaration, separate from FEMA. SBA makes low-interest Physical Disaster Loans available

13-38
Modifying the Impacts of Flooding

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.

* 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."

* 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 NonExigency 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.

* 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.

* Farmers 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.

* Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Under the Emergency Conservation

Program, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) State Director may

13-39
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.

Significant 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.

* 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.

* 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.

13-40
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:

* Authorization of cost-effective hazard mitigation measures to make a damaged public facility

more disaster resistant.

* 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:

a 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.

* 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.

* 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."

* 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.

* 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 disasters. 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

southern half of the State. The State declared its northern half as a disaster area and

provided financial assistance to local governments. The State paid for 75% of the cost of

rebuilding public facilities in the areas not eligible for FEMA's Public Assistance funds (L.R.

Johnston Associates, 1988).

States may also declare their own emergencies or disasters. No systematic data are available on statedeclared 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 for job 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).
13-43 Modifying the Impacts of Flooding

Table 13-16. Disaster Assistance Provided by States.

ASSISTANCE ASSISTANCE ASSISTANCE

TO GOVERNMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS TO BUSINESSES

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Maine

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia Wisconsin

Wyoming

X

X

X

X

N/A

X

X

X

x

x

X

x

X

X

X

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

X

X

X

X

x

X

x

x

X

x

X

X

X

1

x

x

x

x

x

1

x

x

x

X

x

1 South Carolina has never had a Presidentially declared flood disaster.

it is assumed that assistance would be made available.

From the State's response to other types of disasters,

Source: Association of State Floodplain Managers. "State Floodplain Management Programs. Results of a Survey Conducted by

the Association of State Floodplain Managers for L.R Johnston Associates," 1988.

X

X

X

X

X

1

x

x

x
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

Table 13-17. Private Organizations Providing Disaster Assistance.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x I x xx x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x

x x x x x x x I x x x x I xx I x

x x x x x x x I x x x I x xx I x

xx xx x xx I x xx I I x I x

x Ix xx xxx I I I I I I I I I xxxxxxx I xxx I Ixx I x

xxxxxx

xx I xxx

xx I xxx

xx I x Ix

xxx I Ix xx I I Ix

xx I I Ix

xx I I Ix

Professional Staff

Trained Staff

Trained Volunteers

Untrained Staff

Untrained Volunteers

Facilities for Stationary Feeding

Equipment for Mobile Feeding

Mass Shelter Facilities

X I

X X

X X

X X

XlI

X I

X X

X X

X X

X X

I XXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

X I XXX

I I XX I

I X I XX

XX I XX

XXXXX

X I XXX

X I II X

XXXXXXX I

XXXXXXX I

X I XXXX II

XXXXXX I I

XXXXXX I I

X I IXXXX I

XXXXXXX I

XXXXXXX I

XXXXX I X I

X I XXX X

XXXXXXX I

G E F DC

X I I I I X

X X I I I X

X X I I I X

X XI I I X

I I I I I

X I II I XX

I XXX I I X

I XX XI I

I XXX I I

I X I I I XX

X I I X I X

X

X I I X I X

I I I I X

X I I I XX

X I I I X

I I I I IX

X I II IX

X X X X X

XXX I IX

X

I I I IB

XXX I

B

I I I I XXI XX

XI I XX I I XX

X II XX I I XX

X II XX I I XX

I II I X I I IXX

I I I X I I XXX

XX I XX I X I X

XX I XX I X I X

X I I XX I X I I

X II XX II I X

X II XXX I I I

X II XXX I I I

I I X X X X A I I

X I X XXX I I I

X I X XX I I I I

I II XX I XXX

X I X XX I X I X

X II XX I X I X

X I I XX I I I I

I I X I I I X

XX XIX IX I X

B B A

Trucks

Vans

Buses

Station Wagons

Rescue Equipment

Communication Equipment

Clothing

Bedding

Used Furniture

Materials for Rebuilding Homes

Collection and Distribution of Donated

Goods Other Than Clothing

Collection. Sorting. Sizing of Used Clothing

Cleaning Debris From Private Property

Cleaning Homes

Free Labor To Repair or Rebuild Homes

Welfare Inquiry Service

Registration and Information Service

Counseling Service

Capability To Handle Crisis Intervention

and Long.Tenn Recovery

Training

Financial Assistance

Comments

COMMENTS: A - Congressional mandate. If no other resource. the Red Cross will meet needs.

B - Expertise in establishing interfaith organization.

C - Bulk food distribution; warehousing ready supplies.

D -Private mobile homes available for major disasters.

E -850.000 revohling fund; more if needed.

F -May be only in one or a few larger councils.

G - Ambulances and air transportation and rescue.

Source: Federal EmergencyManagementAgency. IntearatedEmereencvManagementCourse. EmergencyManagementInstitute,

1983.

13-44
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 organizations.

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.
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:

* 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.

* 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 long-term community relief program.

* 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 longterm 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.

* Goodwill Industries of America. This organization's disaster response involvement consists of

making available physical facilities and equipment, such as food service, transportation, warehousing, and communications - used by the Red Cross by local mutual agreement. Emphasis is on

developing and maintaining programs for the handicapped.

* Society of St. Vincent De Paul. The Society's disaster response services include volunteer personto-person service, emergency assistance by parish units, and social services, depending on local

needs and available resources.

* 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

13-46
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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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 flight 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 Presidential 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 responsibilities 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

Modifying 13-47 the Impacts of Flooding
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 vulnerable 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 ACTIVITIES

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 the Assessment 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.

13-48
Modifying the Impacts of Flooding 13-49

An extensive recovery effort followed the Big Thompson Canyon flash flood in Colorado: Z | 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 floodplain 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 Corners Commission, Department of Interior Discretionary Fund,

and HUD relocation and rehabilitation grants). Acquisition began to take place in December

1977; eventually 114 parcels were acquired from 94 property owners 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 immediate 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.
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

Although Gulf shores had taken steps to prepare itself for storm damages through participation in the NFIP, 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 Acquisition Program and three parcels with Town funds and matching funds from the Department

of Interior).

Although many opportunities forlong-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 to 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:

c77 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 mitigation 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.

13-50
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 improvements 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 storms 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 reconstruction 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 may be 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.
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

13-52
Modifying the Impacts of Flooding

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 mix 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.

13-53
CHAPTER 14:

MANAGING NATURAL AND CULTURAL

RESOURCES

Ifcontemporaryfloodplain managersoverlookenvironmental values, theymaybe judged deficient,

as were their predecessors, for being strongly predisposed toward flood control measures.

A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management, 1976

The second major objective of floodplain management as presented in A Unified 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) LiVING RESOURCES (HABrrAT): 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 opportunities 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.
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) PRESERVATION 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:

* single or multi-purpose resource management and protection programs that include objectives

for habitat and living resources protection, and that apply to floodplains;

* 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

* 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

14-2
Managing Natural and Cultural Resources.

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 regulations 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:

* Floodplain, wetland and coastal barrier regulations

* Development and redevelopment policies

* Information and education

* Tax adjustments

* Administrative measures

As described inA Unified National Program forFloodplain Management, "these tools and their application 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 understood, 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.)

14-3
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 POLICIES

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 ADJUSTMENTS

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 interdisciplinary 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 opportunities. (Jahn, 1989.)

14-4
Managing Natural and Cultural Resources.

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 flow 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 wetland 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 Unified National Program for Floodplain Management

Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.

14-5
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain 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.

AGRICULTURAL RBSOURCES:

* 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.

AQUACULTURAL 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.

FORESTRY:

* 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 Floodplain ManagemenL

Washington, D.C: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.

14-6
Managing Natural and Cultural Resources.

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.L 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 goalsetting 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.

14-7
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.

14-8
Managing Natural and Cultural Resources.

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 a wide 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.

14-9
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 (FIFRA), 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.

14-10
Managing Natural and Cultural Resources.

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.

Ax 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 Massachusetts had adopted coastal regulatory programs specifically to protect coastal wetlands. These

programs established a permitting system for development activities that would alter the characteristics 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 river regulations pursuant to statutes or river corridor plans to manage these areas for floodplain and other

natural values.

14-11
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

Idaho

Illinois X

Indiana AS X

Iowa X

Kansas X

Kentucky X

Louisiana

Maine S X X

Maryland AS X L

Massachusetts S,L

Michigan S X

Minneseta S

Mississippi AS

Missouri X

Montana

Nebraska X

Nevada

New Hampshire S X

New Jersey S S S

New Mexico

New York AS,AL 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

Washington AS

West Virginia

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.

14-12
Managing Natural and Cultural Resources

Local 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.

I,, 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.

,w,/3, In addition to floodplain regulations that require permits for activities involving filling, grading

or structures, Virginia Beach, Virginia has adopted coastal wetland 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.

n 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, 1,500 acres of floodplain along the Connecticut River have been

placed in an exclusive agricultural use district.

P | ~ ~Glastonbury, Connecticut has zoned approximately 800 acres along the Connecticut River for

agricultural use (Kusler, 1982).

14-13
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

Many communities apply several types of regulations in combination with other floodplain management and resource protection measures. 4j In East Hampton, New York, floodplain regulations are supplemented by a beach grass protection ordinance, tidal and inland wetland 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 degradation 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).

14-14
Managing Natural and Cultural Resources.

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.

* 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.

* 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, geologicfish and wildlife, historic, cultural,

or other similar values shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present 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, consideration shall be given by all Federal agencies involved to potential 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.

14-15
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. As 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.

* CONSULTATION DIRECiVi: Pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the National

Environmental Policy Act, a 1979 Presidential Directive and subsequent Council on Environmental 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 NRI.

* NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONSULTATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: The NPS river conservation 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

14-16
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.

* 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.

if) In New Jersey, the state Environmental Protection Agency conditioned a sewer grant to the

municipality of Cape May in accordance with an agreement that would limit sewer 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.

* 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 acquisition and improvement of open space facilities on a cost-sharing basis).
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain 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.

LWCF Appropriations: 1965-1987.

Milion

dollars

Authorized Funding

900 - * Estimated

700 - HFederal portion

600 E~~~~~~~~~~~~I ~~~State grants

500

400-

300 -

200

100

0

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1987-

Source: Myers, Phyllis. State Grants for Parklands 1965-1984: Lessons for a New Land and Water Conservation Fund. The

Conservation Foundation, 1987. (Used with permission.)

14-18

Figure 14-1.
7 Ain

Managing Natural and Cultural Resources l -l 7

1977-1980 Spending

State Ns

Local

1981-1984 Acquisition

State EJ Development

Local

I I l I

0 200 400 600 800

Million dollars

Acreage

1977-1980 N State Governments

1981-1984 = . Local Governments

0 200 400 600 800

Acres

Source: Myers, Phyllis. State Grants for Parklands 1965-1984: Lessons for a New Land and Water Conservation Fund. The

Conservation Foundation, 1987. (Used with permission.)

Figure 14-2. LWCF State Grants: Spending and Acreage Acquired by State and Local Governments, 1977-1980 and 1981-1984.

* 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

Bank Program, other objectives include flood 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).
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

Percent

0 25 50 75 100

Alabama 2 7777

A laska - _ _ _:u_-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A r i z o n a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :_ _ _ _ _ _ :, _ _ _ _ :_ _ :_ _ :- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ :_ :: _: Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware _7_ Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho :: I llin o is 7 7 7 7 - 7 = Indiana :

Iowa _: . Kansas

Kentucky

Lousiana :

Maine

Maryland Massachusetts M ichigan __=________: __-_: _____ Minnesota

Mississippi Missouri

Montana

N e b ra s k a _:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- _ _ _ _ _

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico --- 1

New York s I I:a: - North Carolina :: - : 1

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon Pennsylvania

Rhode Island _ .e .. South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee Texas

Utah

Virginia n

Vermont

Washington 

W isconsin _ ________ : :____ --,______

West Virginia

Wyoming -7:

United States 77777::t

E State Governments

L] Local Governments

Source: Myers, Phyllis. State Grants for Parklands 1965-1984: Lessons for a New Land and Water Conservation Fund. The

Conservation Foundation, 1987. (Used with permission.)

Figure 14-3 LWCF State Grants: Division of Funds Between State and Local Governments 1977-

1980.

I -

14-20
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, development, 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 D-J 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 management 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.

f II 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 rangeland. 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 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).
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

* 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 management 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

Long 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 terms 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:

14-22
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

necessary 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 public 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 environmentally sensitive land such as stream

corridors 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 easements are the preferred alternative" (Cowles, 1986).
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 watershed protection, and recreation. The Save Our Rivers Program " ... is a concerted, longrange effort to purchase hundreds of thousands of acres along the state's major river

systems in the state's five water management districts, for water management and protection 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 Kissimmee 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).

The Mecklenburg County (North Carolina) Greenway Master Plan, developed in 1980, envisioned 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.

14-24
Managing Natural and Cultural Resources

To counter these obstacles to effective floodplain management, some jurisdictions have moved

to develop programs that combine floodplain 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).

M l 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 acquisition 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 gather 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 developmentof trails forvarious recreational uses in addition

to floodplain management activities. This concept has met with wide public support

and many recreation-based interest groups have joined to support the project. (Flanagan, 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).

14-25
Application of the Strategies and Tools for Floodplain Management

* 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 offsite 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:

* 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).

* 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).

* 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 requirements for an effective mitigation bank:

* 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).

* 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.

14-26
Managing Natural and Cultural Resources 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 statewide 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 approaches. It can provide for compensatory actions to be taken prior to development activities, while

conventional approaches require that specific mitigation measures be 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 development 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 appropriate 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 mitigation measures.

7 Mitigation Banking: Columbia River Estuary, Oregon: The Oregon Division

of State Lands (DSL), 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 to estuarine

function, or an existing estuarine area enhanced by more effective resource manage-
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 Handbook 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, intertidal, and subtidal 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 Agreement (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.

14-28
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.
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.

cot., 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 Wetland Classification System

(open water classification is included as is unconsolidated shoreline).

14-30
Managing Natural and Cultural Resources

Mapping procedures involve coordinated efforts between the National Wetlands Inventory

staff and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources:

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.

* 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.)

* 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.

* After draft maps are prepared by a contractor, they are reviewed for accuracy by state

and/or federal staff.

• 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 are a 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

14-31
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 developers 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 maintaining 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 natural 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.

14-32
Managing Natural and Cultural Resources.

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).

r7 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-year annual 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 Department of Revenue through

county auditors' offices, was first enacted in 1979 and amended several times. The tax

exemption is automatically determined by the county for the landowner. Eligible wetlands

must meet 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 tax.

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).

14-33
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:

* restrictions or conditions in contracts, grants, loans, permits, and licenses;

* applications of appropriate encumbrances during land conveyance;

* 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;

* systematic review of existing agency programs to identify opportunities for floodplain resource

preservation and restoration;

* conservation plans under the Food Security Act;

* federal coastal programs review; and

* 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:

0 Avoid further destruction or degradation of these natural systems.

14-34
Managing Natural and Cultural Resources

* Reestablish the natural ecological functions of these natural systems in areas where

the functions have been damaged.

* Improve the overall management of water, fish and wildlife, and recreation.

* Successfully restore and preserve these unique areas.

As part of the restoration effort, the South Florida Water Management District, in cooperation with other state and federal agencies, agreed to develop, design, construct, operate

and maintain a demonstration program to de-channelize the Kissimmee River. In the mid1980s, 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 demonstration project and other studies is being assessed before additional restoration is undertaken

(South Florida Water Management District, 1987).

it l 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 channelization, 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 by 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.

* 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). Conservation easements will protect a larger 455 acres of wetlands as additional mitigation.

* 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 maintenance of water levels in 1,574 wetland acres and planting of 421 acres with hardwood

seedlings and additional mitigation measures.

* 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 channelization 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).

14-35
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:

. Demonstrate the benefits of wetland restoration for flood control, water quality

improvement, and fish and wildlife habitat enhancement,

* Formulate and evaluate restoration and maintenance techniques;

* Develop and testalternatives to existing environmental investmentstrategies and water

maintenance programs; and

* 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 seive as a national model for wetland re-creation and

provide important information regarding pollution abatement, flood storage capacity, and

other wetland functional values (Wetlands Research, Inc., 1987).

Wetland Restoration: California: As of 1982, at least 33 wetland 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 construction 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 wetland restoration goals and procedures, and some local coastal programs

include requirements for wetland 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

wetland 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

14-36
Managing Natural and Cultural Resources

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 Conservation 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), requiring

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. The 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, emergencymanagers) 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

14-37
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 floodplain 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 ofwetlands,

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.

14-38
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 accomplishments and disappointments. Chapter 16 reviews ways to remedy inadequacies in the

program and presents a number 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 difficult 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 sometimes 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 THE LOSS OF THE CULTURAL AND NATURAL

RESOURCES OF THE NATION'S FLOODPLAINS.
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 floodrelated 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 space, 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:

* 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.

* Many new programs and initiatives are underway at all levels of government; the legislative base

has been expanded and new agencies created.

* 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.

* In some locales, floodplain development has been prevented or reduced as a result of mapping

and the establishment and enforcement of regulations.

* Losses to new development that meets commonly applied flood protection standards have been

greatly reduced.

15-2
The Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States

* There has been a shift from federal dominance toward a more equal partnership among federal,

state, and local governments.

* 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.

* Numerous standards of terminology, procedures, performance, and quality have been developed,

providing a uniform means of applying, reviewing, and evaluating the design, construction, and

regulation needed for floodplain management, and also providing a limited measure of effectiveness 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

15-3
Approaching the Next Century

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 comprehensive 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 FRAMEWORK'S PROGRESS

Although a truly unified national effort is not yet in place, great strides have been made in that

direction. The management framework 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 forFloodplain 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.

15-4
The Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States

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 National Program for Floodplain Management, are subject to varied interpretation and cannot be measured on any national scale. Neither have states or municipalities established 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 management framework. The most well-conceived component of the framework is the statement of concepts,

15-5
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 NationalProgram forFloodplain

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 integrating 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"

15-6
The Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States

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 Congressional 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 take precedence over every other aspect offloodplain

management. The regulators seem to havenoproblem in delayingremedialflood control projects

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 404 permits to maintain existingflood control channels.

In one instance we were required to build fish 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 making 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 404 permit on

the basis that the activity in question violatedprincipals offloodplain management, such asfilling

in a floodway, 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 overall program execution ... Similarproblems face floodplain manage15-7
Approaching the Next Century

ment activities operating at the state and local level ... When 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 implemented 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

15-8
The Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States 15-9

officials began to focus on how to comply with federal and state requirements and administer

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 development, 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 established 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 preexisting 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
Approaching the Next Century

controls or the New); 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 landuse 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 floodplain 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 appropriate, 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).

15-10
The Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States

In addition, the National Review Committee (National Review Committee, 1989) has noted that

regulatory reliance on a "1 00-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 flooddamaged 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 unconstitutional 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.

15-11
15-12 Approaching the Next 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
15-13 The Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States

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. Army 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 documented 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 (Committee 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 anticipated 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
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 counterproductive 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 abandoned. 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.

15-14
15-15 The Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States

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. There 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 certain 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 management 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 of floodplain management ... [or] ... of educating local planning

boards, city councils, real estate salesmen, 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 interdisciplinary 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 an 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 (WYO) 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 significantly 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 development. 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.
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 wellintegrated 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

15-18
The Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States

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

therefore 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 Conservation 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, conservation, 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

15-19
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 management 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,

15-20
The Effectiveness of Floodplain Management in the United States

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.

15-21
CHAPTER 16:

OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREASING

THE EFFECTIVENESS

OF FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

... [TJhere are a number of trends on the national scale that make floodplain management

intricate and require flexible methods ... [T]he 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 years. 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.

SETTING 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 measurable.
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

''appropriate 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;

16-2
Opportunities for Increasing the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management

3) complete deployment of an effective, comprehensive community rating system; 4) assure multihazard 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 (Larson, 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 TIGER data system of the U.S. Census Bureau, can be combined 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.

16-3
Approaching the Next 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 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

nationalproductivity, the impacts on natural values, and the equitable distribution of costs and

benefits (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.

The 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.

16-4
Opportunities for Increasing the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management

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

practice 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 for Floodplain 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 separate floodplain managementfrom the other objectives of land and waterresources

management to specify 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 of floodplain 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

16-5
Approaching the Next Century

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 would 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).

16-6
Opportunities for Increasing the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management

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 cooperation 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-thebook 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 alternatives 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 arid 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

16-7
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 bywhich 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 community 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.

* 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

16-8
Opportunities for Increasing the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management

expected to be of increasing concern to floodplain managers working within watershed management programs.

* 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 floodplains, 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 lowincome 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

16-9
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

life 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 multiobjective 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 Floodplain 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).

16-10
Opportunities for Increasing the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management

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.

16-11
Approaching the Next 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 Program 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.

* The 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).

16-12
Opportunities for Increasing the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management

* The Soil Conservation Service has noted that local officials, the public, and most of all, developers 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 lines of past floods could be prominently displayed in public places to

call attention to the flood hazard (Soil Conservation Service, 1989).

* 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).

* 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).

* 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).

* 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).

* 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).

* 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).

* 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.

16-13
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 educationrelated 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.

16-14
Opportunities for Increasing the Effectiveness of Floodplain Management

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 reexamination 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. The solution then is to teach

them correct principles and to let them govern themselves. The current trend toward mitigation

solutions, for example, could be complemented by training workshops and manuals on incorporating environmentally sensitive design into mitigation projects ... Information ... would include

promotional information, benefit cost data and technical assistance regulations (Federal Emergency 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 as ground subsidence, dam failure, earthquakes, and hurricanes.

16-15
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 accomplishment. These 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 Federal 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 Lower

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.
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 the 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 Management. 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 counterproductive. 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, terms 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 aims in managing floodplain resources those policies will have little

significance in the field where they influence or are constrained by State and local

practices.

VI-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

unfolding of the Coastal Zone Management Act where four Federal agencies have joined 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 aims 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 White 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.

VI-4
PART VII:

APPENDICES

o APPENDIX A:

CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS

INFLUENCING DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATION'S PROGRAM

FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

I] APPENDIX B:

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

u APPENDIX C:

GLOSSARY

U APPENDIX D:

SELECTED REFERENCES

U APPENDIX E:

AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS INVITED TO COMMENT

ON THE STATUS REPORT AND ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

n 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 ACTIONS'

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 Appendix 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 entitledA Program 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, Standards, and Procedures in the Formulation, Evaluation, and Review of Plans

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 Lands 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 (Corps/TVA 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) within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

- The 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 - Proposed 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. 91-646). 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 Stat. 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 Stat. 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 Stat. 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 Program 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.
A-S Chronology of Significant Activities and Events

1978 - The Second National WaterAssessment: The Nations' Water Resources 1975-2000, published by WRC, which

included Appendix B, "Estimated Flood Damages, Nationwide Analysis Report."

- Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing E.O. 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 NFIP.

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 Environmental Pinciples and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources for Implementation

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 development.

- Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. Provided funds for acquisition of wetlands.
6Appendix 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 50/50 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 redevelopment.

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 shoreland 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.

Ad6
Chronology of Significant Activities and Events

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, MA. Acquired natural flood storage area upstream of communities.

- Maine enacted "Rule 80K" 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, WI. 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-7
Appendix A

1962 - Publication of Guide forthe Development of Flood Plain Regulations by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

1965 - CharlesRiverWatershedAssociationfounded; advocacy of structural/nonstructural 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.

A-8
Chronology of Significant Activities and Events

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 Mississippi 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-9
Appendix 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 0oo 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. The

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.

A-10
Chronology of Significant Activities and Events

- Lake 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 list 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-11
Appendix A

1957 - Ardolino v. Board of Adjustment of Borough of Florham Park, 130 A. 2d 847 (N.J., 1957) Court strongly

endorsed power of planning commission to impose conditions upon plat approval relating to drainage and

flooding.

1959 - Vartelas v. Water Resources Comm'n, 153 A. 2d 822 (Conn., 1959). Court upheld a Connecticut, state-level,

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 - Consolidated RockProducts 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 - Morns County Land Imp. Co. v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Tp., 193 A. 2d 232 (NJ., 1963). Court invalidated a

conservancy district designed to preserve wildlife and headwater storage areas.

1964 - Dooley v. Town Plan & Zoning Comm'n. of Town of Fairfield, 197 A. 2d 770 (Conn., 1964). Court invalidated

a floodplain zoning ordinance for estuarine area as applied to a plaintiff's land.

1965 - Blakeman v. Planning Commission of City ofShelton, 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 (N.J., 1966). Court upheld building setback and fence ordinances for

coastal areas.

1967 - Baker v. Planning Board of Framingham, 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 of Joliet, 247 N.E. 2d 47 (Ill., 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 Norte, 101 Cal. Rptr. 93 (Cal., 1972). Court upheld county floodplain regulations

limiting an area subject to severe flooding to parks, recreation and agricultural uses.

- Tumpike Realty 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 of Borough of Elmwood Park, 313 A. 2d 624 (N.J., 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 Water Resources, 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.

A-12
Chronology of Significant Activities and Events

1976 - Lindquist v. Omaha Realty, 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 Georgia River Protection Act,

designed in part to address flooding and erosion problems, served valid objectives and did not violate home

rule.

1978 - Texas Landowners Rights Ass'n. v. Hanis, 453 F. Supp. 1025 (D. D.C., 1978, aff'd 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 (N.J., 1979). Court held an

entire 2,500-acre tract that included a floodplain/wetland area was to be viewed in its entirety in determining 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 of Ramsey 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 Watershed District, 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 of New England, Inc. v. Board of Appeals 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 (N.J., 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-13
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 on flooding rather than rely on City's floodway line.

1985 - SocietyforEED v. NewJersey D.E.P., 504 A. 2d 1180 (N.J., 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

adequate findings 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. Mattox on Behalf of People of Texas, 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 of La 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 had created the health and safety problem.

- April v. City of Broken Arrow, 775 P. 2d 1347 (Okla., 1989). Court held that city floodplain and earth modification 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 EvangelicalLutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los 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).

A-14
APPENDIX B:

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACHP .................

ACRS .................

AEC ..................

AFOS .................

AHOS .................

AIRAC ................

ALERT ................

APA ..................

ASCS ..................

ASDL .................

ASDSO ................

ASFPM ................

ASWM ................

BFE ...................

BLH ...

BLM .....

EMP .................

BOCA .................

BOR .................

CO ....................

CM .................... CAMA .................

CAP .................

CAPE .................

CAV ..................

CBO .................

CBRA .................

CBRS .................

CCJP .................

CCMP .................

CDBG .................

CEQ .................

CERC .................

cfs ....................

Corps..................

CRBS .................

CRS .................

CSG ..................

CSO ..................

CWA ..................

CZMA .................

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Accelerated Cost Recovery System

Area of Environmental Concern

Automation of Field Operations and Services

Automatic Hydrologic Observing System

All Industry Research Advisory Council

Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time

American Planning Association

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

Aircraft Satellite Data Link

Association of State Dam Safety Officials

Association of State Floodplain Managers

Association of State Wetland Managers

Base Flood Elevation

Bottomland Hardwood

Bureau of Land Management

Best Management Practices

Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc.

Bureau of Reclamation

Centigrade

Coastal Area Management Act

Community Assistance Program

Community Assistance Program Evaluation

Community Assistance Visits

Congressional Budget Office

Coastal Barrier Resources Act

Coastal Barrier Resources System

Comprehensive, Coordinated, Joint Plan

Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan

Community Development Block Grant

Council on Environmental Quality

Coastal Engineering Research Center

Cubic Feet per Second

Centimeter

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Cooperative River Basin Studies

Community Rating System

Council of State Governments

Coastal States Organization

Clean Water Act

Coastal Zone Management Act
Appendix B

DAC ..................

DFO ..................

DNR ..................

DOA ..................

DOC ..................

DOI ...................

DOT ..................

DPIG ..................

DSL ...................

DSR ..................

DWR ..................

EENET ................

EMI ..................

EO ...................

EOSAT ................

EPA ..................

EQ ...................

ERL ..................

EROS .................

ERTS .................

FAA ..................

FCCSET ...............

FDAA .................

FEMA .................

FERC .................

FmHA .................

FHBM .................

FHWA .................

FIA ...................

FIFRA .................

FIMS ..................

FIRM .................

FIS ...................

FPMS .................

FS ....................

FWS ..................

GAO ..................

GIS ...................

GOES .................

GNP ..................

Ha ....................

HCRS .................

HD 465 ................

HEC ..................

HEP ..................

HUD ..................

Disaster Assistance Center

Disaster Field Office

Department of Natural Resources

Department of the Army

U.S. Department of Commerce

U.S. Department of the Interior

Department of Transportation

Disaster Preparedness Improvement Grant Program

Division of State Lands

Dam Survey Report

Division of Water Resources

Emergency Education Network (FEMA)

Emergency Management Institute

Executive Order

Earth Observation Satellite Company

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Quality

Environmental Research Laboratories

Earth Resources Orbiting Satellite

Earth Resources Technology Satellites

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology

Federal Disaster Assistance Administration

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Farmers Home Administration

Flood Hazard Boundary Map

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Insurance Administration

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act

Flood Information Management System

Flood Insurance Rate Map

Flood Insurance Studies

Floodplain Management Service

U.S. Forest Service

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

General Accounting Office

Geographic Information System

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite

Gross National Product

Hectare

Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service

House Document No. 465 (1966)

Hydrologic Engineering Center

Habitat Evaluation Procedures

Department of Housing and Urban Development

B-2
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ICODS ................

IDDNHR ...............

IEMIS .................

IEMS ..................

IFLOWS ...............

IHDA .................

IJC ...................

IRS ...................

ISO ...................

LANDSAT ..............

LESA .................

LFWS .................

LMMP .................

LWCF .................

MHW .................

MLW ..................

MOA ..................

MSL ..................

NACD .................

NAFSMA ..............

NAPP .................

NAS ..................

NASA .................

NAUFMA ..............

NAWD ................

NCPI ..................

NCSS ..................

NED ..................

NEIC ..................

NEPA .................

NERBC ................

NESS ..................

NETC .................

NEXRAD ..............

NFIA ..................

NFIP ..................

NGVD .................

NHAP .................

NHC ..................

NOAA .................

NOS ..................

NPDES ................

NPS ...................

NRC ..................

NRI ...................

NRI ...................

NSF ...................

NTH ..................

NWF ..................

NWI ..................

NWS ..................

Interagency Committee on Dam Safety

International Disaster Decade for Natural Hazards Reduction

Integrated Emergency Management Information System

Integrated Emergency Management System

Integrated Flood Observing and Warning System

Illinois Housing Development Authority

International Joint Commission

Internal Revenue Service

Interstate Services Organization

Land Remote-sensing Satellite

Land Evaluation and Site Assessment

Local Flood Warning System

Limited Map Maintenance Program

Land and Water Conservation Fund

Mean High Water

Mean Low Water

Memorandum of Agreement

Mean Sea Level

National Association of Conservation Districts

National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies

National Aerial Photography Program

National Academy of Sciences

National Aeronautic and Space Administration

National Association of Urban Flood Management Agencies

National Association of Water Institute Directors

National Committee on Property Insurance

National Cooperative Soil Survey

National Economic Development

National Earthquake Information Center

National Environmental Policy Act

New England River Basin Commission

National Environmental Science Services

National Emergency Training Center

Next Generation Weather Radar

National Flood Insurance Act

National Flood Insurance Program

National Geodetic Vertical Datum (1929)

National High Altitude Photography

National Hurricane Center

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

National Park Service

National Research Council

National Resource Inventory

Nationwide Rivers Inventory

National Science Foundation

Natural and Technology Hazards

National Wildlife Federation

National Wetlands Inventory

National Weather Service

B-3
Appendix B

OBRA .................

OCRM ................

OMB ..................

OSTP .................

PL ....................

PMF ..................

ppm ...................

P&G ..................

P&S...................

PTWC .................

RBC ..................

RFC ..................

ROM ..................

SAP ...................

SBCCI .................

SBA ...................

SCORP ................

SCS ...................

SHPO .................

SLOSH ................

SPF ...................

SPLASH ...............

STORET ...............

SWMM ................

TDR ..................

TRA ..................

TVA ..................

UNP ..................

USCOLD ...............

USDA .................

USDNR ................

USGS .................

WATSTORE ............

WET ..................

WFSO .................

WHAFIS ...............

WSO ..................

WSP-2 .................

WSPRO ................

WRC ..................

WRI ..................

WYO ..................

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management

Office of Management and Budget

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Public Law

Probable Maximum Flood

Parts Per Million

Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and

Related Land Resources for Implementation Studies

Principals and Standards for Planning of Water and Related Land Resources

Pacific Tsunami Warning Center

River Basin Commission

River Forecast Center

Read Only Memory

State Assistance Program

Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc.

Small Business Administration

State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

Soil Conservation Service

State Historic Preservation Officers

Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes

Standard Project Flood

Special Program to List Amplitudes of Surges from Hurricanes

Storage and Retrieval (EPA's Water Quality Data Base)

Stormwater Management Model

Transfer of Development Rights

Tax Reform Act of 1986

Tennessee Valley Authority

Unified National Program for Floodplain Management

U.S. Committee On Large Dams

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Decade for Natural Disasters Reduction

U.S. Geological Survey

National Water Data Storage and Retrieval System

Wetland Evaluation Technique

Weather Field Service Offices

Wave Height Analysis, Flood Insurance Study

Local Weather Services Offices

Water Surface Profile 2

Water Surface Profile Model

U.S. Water Resources Council

Water Resources Institute

Write Your Own

B4
APPENDIX C:

GLOSSARY1

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 FloodplainManagers: 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 laws and regulations.
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 NFIP 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 Administrationto 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, aquacultural 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

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.

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.

C-2
Glossary

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 responsibilitiesof federal agencies infloodplainmanagement. 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-year flood).

Federal Interagency FloodplainManagement 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

ProtectionAgency, Federal Emergency ManagementAgency, Department of Interior, and the TennesseeValley

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 "100-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.

C-3
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 Teams: 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 control future development in floodplains and to correct 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,

natural beauty, scientific study, outdooreducation, archaeologicaland historic sites, recreation); and d) cultivated

resource values (agriculture, aquaculture, forestry).

Floodprooflng: 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

of space.

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.

C-4
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 management. "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.

Ice Jam: A barrier to streamflow 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

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 "100-year" 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 regulatory 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-7
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.

Saflir/SimpsonHurricaneScale: 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.

C-8
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 nationalprogram for floodplainmanagement.

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 combination 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 surface wind (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.

Typhoon: 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 Administration, 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

CHAPTER 1

Anonymous. "Severe Impact Predicted on Great Lakes from CO2 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 This 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 StormwaterHydmolog, American

Geophysical Union, Water Resources Monograph 7 (1982).

Donnelley Marketing Information Services. System Update Report. 1987.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region VIII. Closed-Basin Lake Flooding: Case Studies and Mitigation Opportunities. Presented at Association of State Floodplain Managers Western State High Risk Flood Areas Symposium,

March 1986.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. ReducingLosses inHighRiskFloodHazardAreas:A GuidebookforLocal Officials

(FEMA 116). Washington D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. State Non-Federal Dam SafetyPrograms - 1985 (FEMA 101). Washington, D.C.:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1985.

Forrester, Frank H. "Tsunami!" Weatherwise 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. Wetland 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 (NHRAIC), 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, James R. Type 19FloodInsurance Study: TsunamiPredictionsforSouthem California (Technical Report HL-80-18). Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, 1980.

Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. A Unified National Program for Floodplain 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 Areas, 1985 and Beyond: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of theAssociation of State Floodplain Managers, June 11-14, 1984, Portland, 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 Coastal Flood MonitoringNetworkand WamingSystem:FeasibilityAnalysisand Design Recommendations. Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources

Center, 1986.

Long Island Regional Planning Board. Huricane Damage Mitigation Plan forthe South Shore of Nassau 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 of Applied Meteorology 3 (1965): 693-706.

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.

National Research Council. Reducing Losses from Landsliding in the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Research

Council, 1985.

National Research Council. Responding to 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 of Floodplain Management in Western State High- Risk Areas: Proceedings of a Workshop in Palm 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 I. 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:AppendixB, NationwideAnalysis Report. 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 Understanding: Proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetlands, American Water Resources Association. 1979.

Heimlich, Ralph E. and Linda L. Langar. 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:ReconcilingConflictingUses:Proceedingsof theFirstNorthAmerican Riparian Conference (General Technical 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.
D-4 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 Policies for 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 Their 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 Resource Inventory (Statistical Bulletin No. 756). Iowa State University Statistical Laboratory, 1987.

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. Department of Agriculture. The 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.

CHAPTER 3

Bryandt, Larry D. "Livestock Management in the Riparian Ecosystem." In Riparian Ecosystems and Their 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.

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

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 Better

Floodplain Management:Proceedings of the EleventhAnnualConference of theAssociation 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.

Deatherage, Sarah. "Floodplain Management in Cowlitz County, Washington: The Mount St. Helens Experience." In

RealsticApproaches toBetterFloodplainManagement:Proceedings of the EleventhAnnual Conference of theAssociation

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 Human Destruction on Sonoran Desert Riverine Oases (Anthropological Papers

No. 20). Ballena Press, 1981.

Donnelley Marketing Information Services. System Update Report, 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 Opportunities. 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 Agen~cy. "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 inHighRiskFloodHazardAreas: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. FIPNC II, 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!" Weatherwise 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.

Hoar, 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

and TheirManagement:ReconcilingConflicting Uses:Proceedings of the First NorthAmericanRiparian Conference (Forest

Service General Technical Report RM-120). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1985.

D-5
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, Report on a Colloquium Sponsored by the WaterScience and TechnologyBoard. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1989.

HoustonJames R. Type 19Flood Insurance Study: TsunamiPredictionsforSouthem Califomia (Technical ReportHL-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." InRiparianEcosystems 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 Their

Management:ReconcilingConflictingUses:Proceedingsof theFirstNorthAmericanRiparian Conference (General Technical 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 Their 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 Floods in Connecticut (Water Planning Report No.

7). Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Center, 1983.

Leatherman, Stephen P. Barrier Island Handbook. College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland, 1982.

McGee, W J. "The Flood Plains of Rivers." Forum XI (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: The 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 of Nonfederal 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. The

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 SaltPond Region:A SpecialArea ManagementPlan. Rhode Island Coastal

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 of MajorNatural DisasterIncidents 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.
D-7 Selected References

Schilling, Kyle, and others. The 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 Program of Inspection on Non-Federal Dams. 1982.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Report on the National Shoreline Study. 1971.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Second RCA 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 Developed 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 of StateFloodplain 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.

Wooley, Douglas. "An Economic and Historical Perspective of Flood Damage: The Viability of Structural Solutions." In

Strengthening Local Flood Protection Programs: Proceedings of the TenthAnnual Conference of the Association of State

Floodplain Managers, June 17-19, 1986, Pittsbuwgh 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.

Bloomgren, Patricia A. "Strengthening State Floodplain Management." In Appendix A toRegulation ofFlood HazardAreas

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).

Donovan, William J. "The Less Traveled Road: An Overview of Nonstructural Measures in Flood Plain Management Planning." In SeminarProceedings:lmplementation ofNonstructuralMeasures (Policy Study 83-G520). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Institute for Water Resources, 1983.

Holmes, Beatrice Hort. History of Federal WaterResources Programs and Policies, 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 NationalProgram forFloodplain 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: The TYVA Experience. Knoxville, Tennessee: Tennessee Valley Authority, 1983.

Thomas, Frank H. "Alternative Floodplain Management Land Uses: Achieving Wise Land Use." In SeminarProceedings: Implementation of Nonstructural Measures (Policy Study 83-G520). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Institute for Water Resources, 1983.

Thomas, Frank H. "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 1988.

U.S. Water Resources Council. Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses, Volumes 1 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

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

Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. A Unified National Program 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 Losses from Floods by Planning for 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 Unified 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 Wetland 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, GaryE. "Debris-Flow Mapping and HazardsAssessment in Utah." Inlmprovingthe Effectivenessof Floodplain

Management inArid and Semi-arid Regions:Proceedings of a Western State High RiskFloodAreas Symposium, 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-9
D-10

Colson, B.E., U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Personal communications, 1988 and 1989.

Connecticut Committee on Automated Flood Warning. Automated Flood Warningin 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 theirHabitats (Report of Investigations 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. The 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 Process forEvaluating 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 from 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and Return

Periods from 1 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, Susan A. "NASA/ERL Technology Applied to Floodplain Management." In Flood Hazard Management in Government and the Private Sector: Proceedings of the NinthAnnual Conference oftheAssociation 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 of the Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, Report

to IPCC from Working Group 1. Executive Summary, June 1990. Meteorological Office, Bracknell, U.K., Reproduced

in EarthQuest 4, No. 2 (Summer 1990).

Johannsen, Chris J. "Resource Information for Conservation Decisions." Joumal of Soil and WaterConservation (NovemberDecember 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.

Appendix D
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 of Impacts

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 Restoration: The Status of the Science. Washington, D.C.:

Island Press, 1990.

L.R. Johnston Associates. Automated Coastal Flood MonitoringNetwork and WamingSystem: FeasibilityAnalysisand 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 of Methodologies Used for 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 Church, 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 communication, 1988.

Michaelsen, Joel, Laura Haston and Frank W. Davis. "400 Years of Central California Precipitation Variability Reconstructed from Tree-Rings" (Water Resources Bulletin 23, No. 5). Bethesda, Maryland: American Water Resources Association, 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). Washington, 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: The TVA 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 (WET), Vol. II, Operational Draft, Final Report (FHWA-IP-88-029). 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Office of Water. The 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 forDeterminingFlood FlowFrequency (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

Williams, Allen, Connecticut Department ofEnvironmental Protection, Natural Resources Center. Personal communication,

1987.

Wright, James M., Tennessee Valley Authority. Personal communication, 1989.

CHAPTER 7

Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc. "State Floodplain Management Programs: Results of a Survey Conducted

by the Association of State Floodplain Managers for LR. 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 Streamflow Experiment at Wagon Wheel Gap, Colorado." US. 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. The Conservation Foundation and the National

Center for Preservation Law, 1983.

Essig, D.A. "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. The 100-YearBase Flood Standard and the Floodplain Management Executive

Order:A ReviewPreparedforthe Office of Management and Budget by the FederalEmergencyManagementAgency. 1983.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Integrated Emergency Management System: Mitigation Program Development

Guidance. 1987.

Field Associates, Ralph M. Regional WaterResources PlanningA Review of LevelB StudyImpacts. 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-13
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. HistoryofFederal WaterResourcesPrograms and Policies, 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.

InteragencyTask Force on Floodplain Management. A Unified NationalProgramforFloodplainManagement (FEMA 100). Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986.

Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. Further Advice on Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1987.

Kay, Morris. "The Federal Perspective on Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems," in The Water QualityAct: MakingNonpoint Pollution Control Programs Work: National Nonpoint Conference Proceedings, St. Louis, Missouri4 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. "The Relationship 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 Review 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 1977/88. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1987.

Office of Management and Budget. "Nonstructural Flood Protection Measures and Flood Disaster Recovery" (Memorandum). 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 of Metropolitan Floodplains, Experience in the United States and Abroad.

(Program on Environment and Behavior, Monograph #45). Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado,

1987.

Platt, Rutherford H. Coastal Wetland Management: Strengthening EPA's Role. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, 1987.

D-14
Selected References

Pierce, Dale A. "The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act: Status Report on Implementation."National WetlandsNewsletter

9, No. 5 (September-October 1987): 10-11.

Sampson, Neil R. ForLove of the Land:A History of the 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." 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, 1988.

U.S. Congress, Senate, 89th Congress, Second Session, Committee on Banking and Currency. Insurance and OtherPrograms

forFinancialAssistance to Flood Victims. A Report from the Secretary of Housing and 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 Banier Resources 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 Barriers Task 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 of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses, Volumes 1 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-15
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.

CHAPTER 8

Adamus, Paul R., and others. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), Volume HI: 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 ManualforRetrofittingFlood-Prone Residential Structures (FEMA 114).

September 1986.

Federal Emergency ManagementAgency. National Flood InsuranceProgram and RelatedRegulations (Revised as of October

1, 1986, with Amendment No. 1). June 30, 1987.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. NationalFlood InsuranceProgram andRelatedRegulations (Revised as of October

1, 1989). 1989.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Questions &Answers: Substantial Improvement & Substantially Damaged Structures

in Post-Disaster Situations. September, 1989.

Federal Highway Administration. The Design of Encroachments on Flood Plains UsingRiskAnalysis (Hydraulic Engineering

Circular No. 17). 1980.

Federal Insurance Administration. FEMA Levee Policy. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1981.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland 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

forIdentifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Cooperative Technical Publication). Washington, D.C.: Federal

Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989.

Johnson, Leonard C. "Soil Loss Tolerance: Fact or Myth?" Journal 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.

D-16
Selected References

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 Wetland 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: The State of Our Understanding. Proceedings of the National Symposium 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 of Dams (ER 1110-2-106). U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, 1979.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. Regulation Manua4 StamfordHurricane 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 andEnvironmentalPrinciples and Guidelinesfor WaterandRelatedLandResources

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 NationalAssessment (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: Planningfor What 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 LossReduction. DesignManualforRetrofittingFlood-proneResidentialStructures

(FEMA 114). 1986.

D-17
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: The 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 of Flood 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 of Litigation 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. the 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.

D-18
Selected References

Ruch, Carlton, H. Crane Miller, Mark Haflich, Nelson M. Farber, Philip R. Berke, and Norris Stubbs. The Feasibility of

Vertical Evacuation: Behavioral, Legal, Political 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 1 and 2. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Water Resources Council, 1971, 1972.

CHAPTER 11

Abeles, Schwartz, Haeckel & Silverblatt, and Ralph M. Field Associates. Evaluation ofAlternative Means of Implementing

Section 1362 of the NationalFlood lnsuranceAct ofl968. 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 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

of State FloodplainManagers(Natural Hazards ResearchandApplicationsInformation 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 II. In FloodplainHarmony: Proceedings of the TwelfthAnnual Conference oftheAssociation

of StateFloodplainManagers (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. InFloodplainHarmony: Proceedingsof the TwelfthAnnual Conference oftheAssociation

of StateFloodplainManagers (Natural Hazards Research and ApplicationsInformation 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-19
D 0-Appendix 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. Airborne 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. Probability of Hurricane/Tropical 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 of a 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. WRL. 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. Massachusetts, 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: 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.

Engineering News Record (July 1989).

Engineering News Record, "Building Restrictions Upheld." (November 2, 1989).

Engineering News Record, "FEMA 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 Handbook for 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."

D-20
Selected References

Federal Insurance Administration. ElevatedResidentialStructures ReducingEloodDamage ThroughBuildingDesign: 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, FHA, 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 of Floodplains 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,"

StrengtheningLocal Flood Protection Programs: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the 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 National Program forFloodplain 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.

Kusler, Jon A. Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses, Volume 3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Water

Resources Council, 1982.

D-21
2Appendix 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 Coastal Flood Monitoring Network and Waming System: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 to BetterFloodplain

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 of Raising a Private Residence (Technical Services Report). 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

of a 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" (Memorandum). July 10,1980.

Owen, H. James and M. Wendell. Effectiveness of Flood Warning and PreparednessAlternatives (Research Report 81 -RO8).

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.

D-22
Selected References

Pace, Carl E. and R. L. Campbell. Structural Integrity of Brick-Veneer 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 RealisticApproaches to BetterFloodplain Management: Proceedings of the 11th 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.

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 Seminar on Local Flood

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. The 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 of Floodplain Management 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

RealisticApproaches to BetterFloodplain Management: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference oftheAssociation

of State 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 of Principles and Methods. Chicago, Illinois: Center for Urban

Studies, The University of Chicago, 1967.

Simmons, Malcolm M. The Evolving National Flood Insurance Program (88-641 ENR). Congressional Research Service,

1988.

Stallings, Eugene. Personal correspondence, September 22, 1987.

Stallschmidt, 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-23
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 Report 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-ProofingAdministrative ManualforMinnesota. 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 Barrier

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." The 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." The 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.

D-24
Selected References

Wright, Stewart K. "Industries and Flash Flood Warning Systems." InImprovingthe Effectiveness of FloodplainManagement

in Arid and Semi-arid Regions: Proceedings of a Western States High Risk Flood Areas Symposium, Las Vegas, Nevada,

March 24-26, 1986. Madison, Wisconsin: Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1986.

CHAPTER 12

Association of State Dam Safety Officials. ModelState Dam SafetyProgram (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 of the US Department ofAgriculture.

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: The 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 of the 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 Concerns in the

United States (GPO 834-920). U.S. Committee on Large Dams, April 1982.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. State Non-FederalDam Safety Programs - 1985 (FEMA 101). Washington, D.C.:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, December 1985.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. ReducingLosses in High RiskFlood HazardAreas:A GuidebookforLocal Officials

(FEMA 116). Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency, February 1987.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Dam Safety Program--1986 and 1987: A Progress Report. 1988.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Dam Safety Program: 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).

InteragencyTask Force on Floodplain Management. A Unified NationalProgramforFloodplainManagement (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-25
Appendix 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 Report

to the President and the Congress (Preprint). Washington, D.C., 1988.

National Research Council. A Levee Policy forthe NationalFlood 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: The TVA Experience. Knoxville, Tennessee: Tennessee Valley

Authority, 1983.

Tennessee Valley Authority. Dam Safety Program - 1988 and 1989 -A Progress 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 PowerResource Study National Report (IWR-82-H-2). Fort Belvoir,

Virginia: Institute for Water Resources, May 1983.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Shore Protection Manual, 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. The 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). The Arthur 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.

D-26
Selected References

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 DisasterAssistance Program (DR&R-13). 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. 1988/89 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 II, 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 NationalProgramforFloodplain 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 Report 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. The 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-27
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 bySection lOof the Public Law 97-348, The CoastalBanierResourcesAct of 1982, 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, GAOIRCED-88-155FS). 1988.

U.S. General Accounting Office. DisasterAssistance. Timelinessand OtherlssuesInvolvingtheMajorDisasterDeclaration

Process (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. WetlandEvaluation Technique forBottomland Hard wood Functions (Draft). Office of Wetlands 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 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 II. 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 Wetland Managers and Center for Governmental Responsibility. Wetland 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 ProtectionPrograms: Proceedings of the TenthAnnual Conference oftheAssociation of State

Floodplain Managers, June 17-19, 1986 Pittsbugh, 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1979.

D-28
Selected References

Conservation Foundation. Flood Hazard Management and NaturalResource 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 Wetland 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 theirHabitats (Report of Investigations 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 of Acquisition 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." Wetland Protection: Strengthening the 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." Wetland Protection: Strengthening the Role of the States. Association

of State Wetland 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 Program forFloodplain 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 Wetland Restoration Projects in California," in Wetland Restoration and

Enhancement in Califomia. M. Jossely (ed.). California Sea Grant College, December 1982.

Kusler, Jon A. Our National Wetland 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-29
Appendix D

Lowrance, R., and others. "Managing Riparian Ecosystems to Control Nonpoint Pollution." Journal 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. ProtectingAmerica'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: StrengtheningEPA 's Role. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, February 1987.

President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. Americans Outdoors: The 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 Report 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. "Kissimmee River Restoration Phase 1 - A Demonstration Project." A Closer

Look (1987).

The Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 39, No. 2 (March/April 1989).

D-30
Selected References

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 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. "The Role and Effectiveness of Information and Education vs. Mandatory

Requirements." Workshop #2: Awareness and Preparedness. 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

#3: Land-Use Regulations. 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 of Predisaster Plans for Postdisaster Recovery and Mitigation." 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 II. In Floodplain Harmony: Proceedings of the TwelfthAnnual

Conference of theAssociation 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 II. 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 II. InFloodplain Harmony: Proceedings of the TwelfthAnnual Conference oftheAssociation

ofStateFloodplainManagers (Natural Hazards Researchand 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

ofStateFloodplainManagers (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 Management Policy Statement." In National Directory

of Floodplain Managers, 1989 Edition. Madison, Wisconsin: Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1989.

D-31
D-32 Appendix 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 of Activities

and Programs of the US. 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 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, 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 Waming 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 of the Environment:AnAssessment at Mid-Decade. Harrisonburg, Virginia: R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company, 1984.

Crook, Arthur G. "The 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." Joumal of the 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.

Galloway, 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 ASFPM 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 to James 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 National Program 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 Appendix 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 of Flood Warning and PreparednessAlternatives (Research Report 81-R08). 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 Western Water Resources Management: Symposium Proceedings, American WaterResourcesAssociation (TPS-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. The Functioning of the Local Emergency Services Offices in Disasters (RF Project 763270/714847 Final

Report). Columbus, Ohio: Disaster Research Center, Ohio State University, October "985.

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 Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses: Proceedings from 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. Letter to James Wright, Tennessee Valley Authority. Comments on Status Report and Effectiveness of Floodplain Management, August 30, 1989.

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.
Selected References D-35

Shafer, Bernard A. and John M. Huddleston. "Analysis of Seasonal Volume Streamflow Forecast Errors in the Western

United States." InA CriticalAssessmentofForecastingin Western WaterResourcesManagement:SymposiumProceedings,

American WaterResourcesAssociation (TPS-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: The TVA 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. National Program of Inspection of Non-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, AlljIndustry 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

Floodplain Managers, June 17-19, 1987, Pittsburgw Pennsylvania (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 MANAGEMENT'

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Federal Emergency Management Agency*

Federal Insurance Administration

International Boundary and Water Commission*

United States and Mexico

Tennessee Valley Authority*

Floodplain Management Program

U.S. Department of Agriculture*

Soil Conservation Service

U.S. Department of the Army*

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Department of Commerce*

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Estuarine Programs Office

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Weather Service

U.S. Department of the Interior*

Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Department of the Interior*

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior*

Office of Environmental Project Review

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Department of Transportation*

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Activities

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*

Office of Wetlands Protection

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

1 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 floodplain management. 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 asterisk (*). The comments provided were incorporated into the Assessment Report where appropriate and are available from the Federal Interagency

Floodplain Management Task Force on request.
E-2 Appendix E

PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

All Industry Research Advisory Council*

American Institute of Architects Foundation

American Planning Association*

American Public Works Association

American Red Cross*

American Rivers

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Water Resources Association

Association of Conservation Engineers

Association of State Dam Safety Officials*

Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc.*

Association of State River Managers

Association of State Water and Interstate Pollution

Control Agencies

Association of Wetland Managers, Inc.*

Building Officials & Code Administrators,

International

Coastal States Organization

The Conservation Foundation and Wildlife Fund

Council of State Governments

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.

Environmental Policy Institute

Friends of the River Foundation

International Congress of Building Officials

Interstate Conference on Water Problems

Isaak Walton League of America

National Association of Conservation Districts*

National Association of Counties

National Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies*

National Association of Home Builders

National Association of State Research Planners

National Association of Towns and Townships

National Association of Water Institute Directors*

National Audubon Society

National Committee on Property Insurance*

National Conference of State Legislatures

National Governor's Association

National Institute for Urban Wildlife

National League of Cities

National Organization for River Sports

National Recreation and Park Assoc.

National Waterways Conference

National Wetlands Technical Council

National Wildlife Federation

Natural Hazards Research & Applications Information

Center

The Nature Conservancy, Inc.

North American Lake Management Society

Sierra Club*

Society for Ecological Restoration and Management

Soil and Water Conservation Society

Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc.*

Trust for Public Land

The Urban Land Institute*

Water Science and Technology Board

Wetlands Research, Inc.

Wetlands for Wildlife

Wilderness Society

Wildlife Management Institute*
1t -,

Agencies and Organizations Invited to Comment

LETIER SENT TO REPRESENTATIVES OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Rennessee Va!le, Auth'o ty 'CC WeSt Sumrmt Hili Drive Krpo.File Teessee 37902

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 participant. 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 Program 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 implementation 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 available 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.

11,
::-4 Appendix E

LETTER 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 experts 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 are 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.

XQ ~si~ely,

James M. Wright

Project Manager

Enclosures

I

i

- I
Agencies and Organizations Invited to Comment

LETTER SENT TO REPRESENTATIVES OF PROFESSIONAL AND

NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summnt H.i Drive Knoxville Tennessee `7902

IDENTICAL LETTER SENT 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 representative of an organization with knowledge or concerns regarding our floodplains. 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 Floodplain 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 Program 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 implementation 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 available 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-5
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 assistance, you are requested to attempt to organize the comments and recommendations 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.

SinA e aly 

James M. Wright

Project Manager

Enclosures -

-
Agencies and Organizations Invited to Comment

QUESTIONS SENT TO REPRESENTATIVES OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

AND PROFESSIONAL AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

An Assessment of the Nation's Program

for Floodplain Management

Questions for Reviewing "A Status Report

on the Nation's Floodplain Management 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-7
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 management goals 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.

E-8
APPENDIX F:

"ACTION AGENDA FOR MANAGING THE

NATION'S FLOODPLAINS"

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 Interim 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 management 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.
Appendsx F

ACTION AGENDA FOR MANAGING THE NATION'S FLOODPLAINS

Table of Contents

The Situation in Brief F-5

Two Goals of National Floodplain Management

Assessment

Factors Affecting Further Activity

Recommended Action

F-7

F-8

F-12

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.

F-2
"Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"

ACTION AGENDA FOR MANAGING 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 Floodplain 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 have assessed the wideranging 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-3
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

F-4
"Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"

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 70's, 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. Thefpossible 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-5
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.

For
"Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"

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.

I

-

F-7
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.

For
"Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"

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-9
Appendix 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

F-10
"Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains" F-11

mission statements are accordingly inconsistent. Full

implementation of natural value protection is less

widespread.

* Agency competition, duplication, and resulting

inefficiency are fostered by the patchwork of Federal

legislation giving differing authorities and

directives.

* 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 floodplain 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,

-
Appendx F F-12

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

technical 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.

I
Appendix 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

F-14
"Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"

repeated flooding are being resettled by low income

people.

* Improved water quality in some river reaches is

attracting more recreational use of waterside lands.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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-15
Appendix 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. Integrate flood loss vulnerability and protection of

floodplain natural values into broader state and community

development and resource management 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

I

F-16
"Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"

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 floodplain 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-17
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 floodplain

managers.

2.4 The National Science 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

-

F-18
"Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"

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 among Federal Programs

4.1 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 Buildinas

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-19
Appendix F

are needed at both Federal and State levels. 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.

-

I

F-20
"Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains"

6. Improvement 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 floodplain 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-21
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 Proeram 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 Lighthouse, 1987-88; Member, National Research Council Committee on Coastal

Erosion Hazards, 1988-89.

William E. Riebsame, Professor of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0482. Director,

Natural Hazards 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.

F-22
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 Floodplains,"

1-2, I-3, VI-2

Agriculture

harvest of natural and agricultural products, 2-17

losses to, 3-33

nonstructural measures for agricultural land,

12-40-12-41

Agricultural Research Service, 6-8, 12-23

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,

13-39-13-40, 14-19

All Industry Research Advisory Council, 16-12

Alluvial fans, 1-7-1-8

American National Red Cross, 3-15, 3-20-3-22, 13-35,

13-45, 16-2

American Planning Association, 15-16,16-3,16-4,16-12,

16-13

Arid regions, 3-8

Arizona, 1-10, 11-23, 13-4, 13-6

San Pedro River, 2-17

Scottsdale, 14-25

Association of State Dam Safety Officials, 4-13,

12-24-12-25, 12-27, 16-6, 16-7

Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1-2, 1-3,

11-57,13-4,13-51,15-5,16-3,16-6,16-7,16-8,16-10,

16-11, 16-13, VI-1

Association of State Wetland Managers, 4-13,16-6, VI-1

Automated Local Evaluation in Real Time (ALERT),

6-13, 11-62

B

Building codes, 11-29

Bureau of the Budget, 5-4, 7-14

Bureau of Land Management, 13-33, 14-10, 14-16

C

California, 13-34, 14-13

Sacramento River, 3-14

wetland restoration, 14-36-14-37

Climate change and weather forecasting, 6-2-6-7

greenhouse effect, 6-3

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

6-3-6-5

Coastal areas and management

coastal barriers, 2-6-2-7, 3-5-3-8

coastal flood standards, 8-6

coastal flooding and erosion, 1-12-1-22

development in coastal regions, 3-4-3-8

flood-caused losses in, 3-24-3-26

population in coastal areas, 3-5

shoreline erosion, 3-25

state and community efforts, 7-34

v-zones, 8-6

Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982, 4-12, 5-12, 7-10,

7-29, 11-36-11-37, 13-32, 14-17

Coastal Barrier Resources System,

11-36-11-37, 13-32

Coastal States Organization, 16-6

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 4-8, 5-6, 7-29,

11-29, 14-9, 14-10, 16-8, VI-4

Colorado, 11-24, 11-77

Big Thompson Canyon flash flood, 13-49

Community Assistance Program, 11-10-11-11, 11-27,

16-10

Community Development Block Grant Programs, 11-43,

11-45

Community Rating System, 11-9-11-10, 13-25, 16-2,

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 Assessment 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.

A

Index'
Congressional Budget Office, 12-7

Connecticut, 11-55, 11-59, 11-60, 13-31, 13-33, 14-13

Coastal Management Program, 11-39

Council on Environmental Quality, 3-34,3-35,7-25,14-16

Cultural resources, 2-17-2-19

harvest of natural and agricultural products,

2-17-2-18

recreational and other resource functions, 2-18-

2-19

D

Damages and deaths from flooding, 3-15-3-24, 3-34,

liability, 10-11-10-16

Dams and reservoirs, 12-9-12-27, 15-14

Dam Safety Act of 1986, 7-11

damage reduction attributable to flood control

structures, 12-14-12-18

federal dams and reservoirs, 12-9-12-12

Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, 12-19

flood control capacity, 12-9-12-13

International Commission on Large Dams, 3-27

losses due to failure of, 3-27

National Dam Inspection Act of 1972, 7-10

nonfederal dams and reservoirs, 12-13-12-14

Presidential directives, 7-10

safety, 7-10-7-11

standards, 8-11

Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, 15-7

Development and redevelopment policies, 16-11-16-12

Dikes/levees/floodwalls, 12-27-12-29

Disaster Act of 1950, 4-3

Disaster assistance, 13-35-1348, 15-12

declaration request process, 13-36

major disaster, 13-36-13-38

payments, 13-41

Disaster preparedness, 15-12

Disaster Preparedness Improvement Grant

Program, 13-41

Disaster Relief Act of 1974, 4-8, 4-9, 7-12, 7-13, 11-50,

13-40

Section 201, 7-13

Section 406, 4-12, 5-4, 7-12, 7-13

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Amendments

of 1988, 7-12-7-13, 15-18, 16-14

E

Earth Day, 9-10-9-11

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, VI-3

Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines

for Water and Related Land Resources for

Implementation Studies, 7-11, 7-27, 8-3-8-4,11-36

Effectiveness of floodplain management, 15-1-15-21

effectiveness of management framework, 1 54--15-8

effectiveness of strategies and tools, 15-8-15-20

opportunities for increasing effectiveness, 16-1-

16-16

overall effectiveness, 15-1-15-4

"Emergency," 13-36

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 7-31

Endangered Species Act of 1973, 7-32, 14-8, 14-21

Environmental Quality Index, 9-10

Erosion

losses due to streambank erosion, 3-30

Evacuation

vertical, 10-16

permanent, 11-44-11-49

Exceedance probability, 6-10

Executive Order 11296 (Flood Hazard Evaluation), 4-6,

5-3, 5-6, 6-21, 7-5

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), 4-9,

5-10, 7-26, 11-32-11-35, 11-37, 14-15, 15-4, 15-6,

15-11

Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) 4-9,

5-10, 7-26, 14-23, 15-6

Executive Order 121271 (Federal Emergency

Management Agency), 4-9

F

Farmers Home Administration, 12-23, 13-35, 13-39

Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering

and Technology, 12-24

Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1980, 7-15

Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, 7-2

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1-2-1-3,1-6,

1-25, 3-2, 3-27, 4-9, 4-12, 5-11, 6-10, 6-12, 6-38, 7-2,

7-13, 7-15, 8-3, 8-8, 8-11, 9-9, 10-14, 11-27, 11-

33-11-35, 1145,11-51,11-52, 11-53, 11-55, 11-75,

12-9, 12-20. 12-22, 12-29, 13-2, 13-4, 13-8, 13-9, 13-

20,13-27-13-28, 13-35, 13-38, 13-40, 13-42, 14-37,

15-9,15-10, 15-11, 16-1, 16-3, 16-7,16-11,16-13, 16-

14, 16-15

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12-23-12-24,

13-33, 14-16

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,

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,

VI-3

Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task

Force, I-1, 5-10,5-11, 7-13-7-14,11-35,11-44,15-4,

16-2, 16-3, 16-4, 16-6, 16-10, 16-14, VI-3

Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating

Jurisdictional Wetlands, 2-11, 8-13

2 INDEX
First Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los

Angeles, 10-4, 10-5, 10-8, 10-9

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, 7-25, 14-21

Fish and wildlife habitat, 2-15-2-17

evaluation procedures, 8-14

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, 14-21

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, 14-21

restoration programs, 14-21

Flash floods

flash flood areas, 1-7

losses due to, 3-27

Flood audits, 11-56

Flood "control," 4-2-4-4

Flood Control Acts, 4-2, 10-14

Flood control structures

losses due to failure of, 3-26-3-27

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 4-7, 4-8, 7-9, 13-8

Flood emergency measures, 13-32-13-35, 15-18

Flood forecasting, warning and emergency plans,

6-12-6-16, 10-14-10-15, 11-58ff, 15-13

for coastal flooding, 6-14

effectiveness of warning and response systems,

11 -70-11 -71

federal activities, 11-60-11-65

private sector activities, 11-69-11-70

for riverine flooding, 6-12-6-13

state and local activities, 11-65-11-69

Flood Hazard Boundary Maps, 6-22

Flood Hazard Evaluation Guidelines, 1969 and 1972,7-5

Flood insurance (see National Flood Insurance

Act and Program), 15-17

crop insurance, 13-27

effectiveness of, 13-27-13-28

private sector, 13-27

Flood Insurance Rate Maps, 6-22, 6-38, 9-8, 13-10

Flood Insurance Studies, 6-22, 6-25, 8-6, 13-8

Floodproofing,8-8-8-9,9-8,11-71-11-81,15-12-15-13

current status of, 11-80-11-81

federal activities, 11-73-11-75

for utilities, 8-9

in coastal areas, 8-9

in riverine areas, 8-8

limitations, 11-72-11-73

private sector, 11-79

state and local involvement, 11-75-11-79

Floodplain development, 3-1-3-8

development in arid regions, 3-8

development in coastal regions, 314-3-5

estimates of future flood losses, 3-37

extent of floodplain development, 3-2-3-8

floodplain development and awareness of flood

hazard, 3-4

historical losses from floods, 3-15-3-33

impacts of development on floodplain natural

values, 3-8-3-15

relative flood losses over time, 3-34-3-36

Floodplain losses, 3-15-3-37

due to failures of flood control structures,

3-26-3-27

due to flash floods, 3-27

due to ground failure, 3-30

due to streambank erosion, 3-30

due to volcanic-induced flooding, 3-32

estimates of property damages and deaths,

3-15-3-24

flood losses and the national economy, 3-35-3-36

from fluctuating lake levels, 3-31

in coastal areas, 3-24-3-26

in urbanizing areas, 3-32

loss of life, 3-34

property damages from floods, 3-34

to agriculture, 3-33

to infrastructure, 3-32

Floodplain natural and cultural resources, 2-1-2-20,

7-23-7-36, 14-1-14-38, 15-18-15-20, 16-15

administrative measures for protection of,

14-34-14-37, 15-20

awareness of, 9-9-9-11

common threats to resources, 2-19

cultural resources, 2-17-2-19, 14-1

development and redevelopment policies and

programs, 14-15-14-29, 15-19

federal framework for management, 7-25-7-32

information and education, 14-30-14-32,

15-19-15-20

living resources and habitats, 2-9-2-17, 14-1

preservation and restoration strategies,

14-2-14-6

regulations to protect floodplain natural and

cultural resources, 14-7-14-14, 15-18-

15-19

standards for protection, 8-12-8-15

tax adjustments, 14-32-14-33, 15-20

water resources, 2-4-2-9, 14-1

Floodplain regulations, 10-9-10-11, 11-2-11-31,

15-9-15-11, 16-11

of coastal and lakeshore floodplains, 11-24

limitations of, 11-2-11-4

federal role, 11-4-11-13

of riverine areas, 11-21-11-23

of special hazards, 11-24

state and local, 11-13-11-29

Floods and floodplains, 1-1-1-31

area subject to flooding in the U.S., 1-2-1-6

riverine flooding, 1-6---8

flooding from surface runoff, urban drainage and

high groundwater levels, 1-11-1-12

coastal flooding and erosion, 1-12-1-22

ground failure areas, 1-22-1-26

fluctuating lake levels, 1-26-1-31

Florida, 11-40, 14-13, 14-34

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

Food Security Act of 1985, 2-10, 3-12, 7-28, 7-30

Conservation Reserve Program, 7-31

Swampbuster provisions, 2-10, 14-9

G

"General Principles for Floodplain Management," 5-7

Geographic Information Systems, 6-35-6-38, 16-3

Great Lakes, 1-28-1-29

Great Salt Lake, Utah, 1-30, 3-31,

Greenways and river corridor programs, 14-24-14-25

Groins and jetties, 12-36

Gross National Product, 3-36

Ground failure, 3-30

Ground water

supply and balance, 2-9

H

Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 2-18

History of Floodplain Management, 4-1-4-13

1900 - 1960: the structural era, 4-1-4-4

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

management, 4-11-4-13

House Document 465, A Unified National Program for

Managing Flood Losses, I-5, 4-6, 4-9, 5-1-5-4, 7-1,

7-26, 11-4, 15-4

Housing Act of 1961, 7-25

Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 7-9

Housing and Community Development Act of 1987,7-10,

8-10, 11-47

Upton/Jones provisions, 11-47

Housing and Urban Development Act of 1969, 7-9

Hurricanes (and tropical cyclones), 1-13, 1-15, 3-24,

6-14-6-15

comprehensive evacuation studies, 11-53

Frederic, 13-49-13-50

Hugo, 11-29-11-30, 13-47, 15-7, 15-9

preparedness program, 11-52-11-53, 11-63

Hydraulic Engineering Center, 6-11

Hydrology and hydraulics, 6-9-6-12

hydrology, 6-9-6-11

hydraulics, 6-11-6-12

4

I

Ice jam flooding, 1-10-1-11

Illinois, 11-76-11-77, 13-31

Des Plains River, 14-36

Indiana, 11-40

Information and education, 9-5, 13-1-13-7, 14-30-

14-32, 15-16-15-17

Infrastructure, 3-32-3-33

Integrated Emergency Management System, 4-12,

11-50-11-51, 11-56

Integrated Flood Observing and Warning System

(IFLOWS), 6-13, 11-62

Interagency Agreement on Nonstructural Measures, 7-12,

7-13

Interagency Committee on Dam Safety, 8-11, 16-7

Interagency Hazard Mitigation Teams, 4-10, 4-11, 11-51

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 6-3-6-5

Interstate Conference on Water Policy, 12-25

K

Kansas, 11-40

Kentucky, 11-55, 11-74, 11-77, 11-79

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis,

10-4, 10-8

L

Lake level fluctuations, 1-26-1-31

in great Lakes System, 1-28-1-30

losses from, 3-31

types and causes, 1-27-1-28

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1964, 7-25,

7-31, 1145, 14-17-14-18

Levees, 3-26, 8-11, 12-27-12-29

standards, 8-11-8-12

Liability for flood damages, 10-11-10-16

Liquefaction, 1-26

Local Flood Warning Systems (LFWS), 11-61-11-62,

11-67

Louisiana, 1148

wetlands creation, 14-35

M

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

INDEX
information and education, 14-30-14-32

preservation and restoration strategies, 14-2-14-6

regulations to protect resources, 14-7-14-14

tax adjustments, 14-32-14-37

Mapping, 10-14

of flood hazards, 6-19-6-21

for the National Flood Insurance Program,

6-22-6-25

of soils, 6-18-6-19

by states and communities, 6-28-6-29

topographic, 6-16-6-17

of wetlands, 6-29-6-32

Maryland, 11-48, 11-74, 11-79, 13-6

Baltimore County, 11-49

Howard County, 11-79

Ocean City, 3-5

Worcester County, 11-35

Massachusetts, 11-76, 14-13

Charles River Basin, 2-5, 11-42, 14-18

Mennonite Disaster Service, 13-46

Michigan, 14-30-14-31

Minnesota, 11-48, 11-55, 11-76, 14-33-14-34

Lake Pulaski, 1-31

Missouri, 11-55

River, 3-14

Mitigation, 9-9, 13-40-13-41

Section 409 hazard mitigation plans, 11-52

hazard mitigation assistance program, 11-55

"banking," 14-26-14-28

Modifying flooding, 12-1-12-42, 15-13-15-15

channel alterations, 12-29-12-31

dams and reservoirs, 12-9-12-27

dikes/levees/ floodwalls, 12-27-12-29

high flow diversions, 12-31

investment in flood control, 12-2-12-8

land treatment measures, 12-39-12-41

shoreline protection, 12-34-12-39

stormwater management, 12-31-12-34

Modifying the impacts of flooding, 13-1-13-53,

15-15-15-18

disaster assistance, 13-35-13-48

flood emergency measures, 13-32-13-35

flood insurance, 13-7-13-28

information and education, 13-1-13-7

postflood recovery, 13-48-13-52

tax adjustments, 13-28-13-32

Modifying susceptibility to flood damages and disruption,

11-1-11-83, 16-11-16-12

development and redevelopment policies,

11-32-11-50

disaster preparedness, 11-50-11-71

floodplain regulations, 11-2-11-31

floodproofing and elevation, 11-71-11-81

Mudflows and mudfloods, 1-22-1-24

N

National Academy of Sciences, 1-22, 1-23, 8-6, 11-48

National Aeronautic and Space Administration, 6-14

National Association of Conservation Districts, 16-5

National Association of Flood and Stormwater

Management Agencies, 4-13, 16-5

National Association of Water Institute Directors, 16-5

National Cartographic Information Center, 6-37

National Committee on Property Insurance, 16-12

National Cooperative Soil Survey, 6-18

National Dam Inspection Act of 1972, 7-10

National Economic Development, 8-3-8-4

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,4-5,4-7, 5-6,

7-26, 11-32, 11-49-11-50, 14-7, 14-16

National Estuary Program, 7-30, 14-22

Comprehensive Conservation and Management

Plan, 14-22

National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 4-7, 4-9, 5-1, 5-4,

6-22, 6-39, 7-7-7-8, 13-8, 13-25, VI-1

Section 1302, 7-8

Section 1362, 7-8, 11-45-11-46, 11-75

National Flood Insurance Program, 4-7, 4-13, 6-12, 6-18,

6-26, 7-7, 7-16-7-17, 8-2, 8-5-8-11, 9-8, 10-15, 10-

16-10-17, 11-3, 11-4-11-13, 11-17-11-24, 13-4,

13-6, 13-7-13-27, 14-10, 15-4, 15-9, 15-11, 15-17,

16-3, 16-7, 16-10, 16-14, VI-3

assistance to states and communities,

11-10-11-11

Community Assistance Program, 11 -10-11 -11,

16-10

community efforts, 7-17

Community Rating System, 11-9-11-10,13-25,

16-2, 16-7, 16-9, 16-10

eligibility, 13-8

emergency and regular phases, 11-4, 13-8

enforcement, 11-11-11-12

floodplain mapping, 11-4-11-6

limitations, 11-12-11-13

mandatory purchase requirements, 13-9

minimum regulations, 11-7-11-9

number of policies and claims, 13-10-13-11,

13-17

rates and limits of coverage, 13-10

repetitive losses, 13-20-13-24

risk zones, 13-17

sale of, 13-25-13-26

state efforts, 7-16-7-17

subsidized vs. actuarial rates, 13-20

Write Your Own Program, 13-25-13-26,15-17

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 7-32, 14-9

National Hurricane Center, 1-15, 6-15, 7-13

National Ocean Service, 1-21, 6-33-6-34

INDEX 5
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1-29,

6-15, 6-19, 6-33, 11-60-11-63

coastal hazards program, 7-29

riverine forecasts and warnings, 11-60-11-62

National Park Service, 2-18, 6-33, 7-31, 7-32, 12-34,

14-10, 14-16, 14-25, 16-8, 16-13

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, 8-12

National Research Council, 6-5

National Resources Inventory, 1-3, 1-6, 2-14, 3-33, 6-34,

16-10

National Review Committee, 1-2, 1-3, 11-57, 15-7, 16-2,

16-9, 16-13, VI-2

National Science Foundation, 5-12, 11-69, 16-4, 16-7,

VI-1

National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster,

13-42

National Weather Service, 3-15-3-20, 3-34, 6-6, 6-7, 6-

11, 6-12-6-13, 6-16, 6-38, 10-14-10-15, 11-53, 11-

56, 11-60-11-63, 11-65, 11-67, 11-69, 13-2

National Wetlands Inventory, 6-29-6-30, 6-33, 8-13,

14-19, 14-30

National Wildlife Federation, 9-10

Nationwide Rivers Inventory, 6-33

Natural and cultural resources (see Floodplain natural

and cultural resources)

Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information

Center, 13-2

The Nature Conservancy, 6-34, 14-29, 15-19

Nevada, 11-55

New England River Basins Commission, 3-14

New Jersey, 11-56-11-57, 14-17, 14-21

Green Acres Program, 14-23-14-24

Passaic River watershed, 11-68

New York, 14-14

Nollan v. Califomia Coastal Commission, 10-4,10-5,10-7

Nonprofit and professional organizations, 7-20, 7-22

Nonstructural measures, 9-8, 11-1-11-83, 12-35,

12-40-12-41

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 7-32

North Carolina

Coastal Management Program, 11-39-11-40

Henderson County, 6-37

Nags Head, 13-50-13-51

Mecklenburg County, 14-24

North Dakota, 2-6

0

Office of Management and Budget, 5-11,7-13,8-2,11-33,

11-51

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management,

7-25, 11-60, 14-9, 14-30

Office of Science and Technology Policy, 12-24

Ohio, 11-37

Oklahoma, 11-55, 13-6

Tulsa, 14-25

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, 7-9

"One hundred year flood," 1-31, 6-20, 8-2-8-3, 8-6,

9-7-9-8, 15-5, 15-6-15-7

Oregon

Columbia River, 3-15, 14-27-14-28

P

Pennsylvania, 11-77

Lycoming County, 11-67

Perception/awareness of flood hazards, 9-1-9-11,

16-12-16-14

government roles for increased awareness,

9-4-9-5

increased awareness through information and

education, 9-5

forced awareness through regulatory measures,

9-6

Postflood recovery, 13-48-13-52

Presidential disaster declarations, 3-15, 13-35, 13-36,

13-41

President's Commission on Americans Outdoors, 14-15,

14-25, 16-9

President's Disaster Relief Fund, 3-20, 13-35

Principles and Standards for Planning of Water and

Related Land Resources, 4-8, 4-9, 5-6, 14-29

R

Recreation, 2-18-2-19

Regional approaches to floodplain management,

7-17-7-20

special districts, 7-18

county governments, 7-18-7-19

conservation districts, 7-19

Regulations (see floodplain regulations)

Remote Sensing, 6-34-6-35

LANDSAT, 6-35

Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960, 14-10

Rhode Island salt pond region, 3-5

Rio Grande River, 4-3

Riparian Ecosystems, 2-14

impacts of development on, 3-12-3-15

Risk and vulnerability, 9-9

Risk zones, 11-4-11-6, 13-7

River basin commissions, 7-4-7-5

River corridor management, 16-9

River forecast centers, 11-60-11-61

Rural Clean Water Program, 7-28

INDEX 6
Rural Electrification Administration, 12-23

S

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 7-28

Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale, 1-15, 1-17

Salvation Army, 13-45

Sea Level Rise, 1-20-1-22, 6-5-6-6

SLOSH, 6-12, 11-53, 11-63

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-

11-17

South Dakota

Rapid City, 3-27

SPLASH, 6-12

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act of 1988, 11-51, 13-35, 13-40-13-41,

13-51

Section 409, 11-52, 13-40

Standards for flood loss reduction, 8-2-8-12

coastal flood standards, 8-6

for elevation of structures, 8-6-8-7

for flood protection structures, 8-11

least-cost design flood, 8-4

one-percent annual chance flood and floodplain,

8-2-8-3, 8-6

performance standards, 8-8-8-9

regulatory floodway, 8-5

shoreline setback, 8-9-8-10

standard project flood and probable m .ximum

flood, 8-4

two-tenths percent annual chance flood and

floodplain, 8-4

v-zones, 8-6

Standards for natural resources protection, 8-11, 8-12-

8-15

water quality standards, 8-12

wetland classification and delineation, 8-13

habitat evaluation methods, 8-13

acceptable rates of soil erosion, 8-15

A Status Repont on the Nation's Floodplain

Management Activity, 1-2

STORET, 6-9

Strategies and tools for floodplain management, 5-7-5-9

for flood loss reduction, 5-8-5-9

for managing floodplain natural resources, 5-11

for modifying the impacts of flooding, 13-1-13-53,

16-12

for modifying flooding, 12-1-12-42, 16-12

for modifying susceptibility to flood damage and

disruption, 11-1-11-83, 16-11-16-12

Streamflow data, 6-7-6-9

Structural flood control measures, 12-1-12-42

channel alterations, 12-29-12-31

dams and reservoirs, 12-9-12-27

dikes/levees/floodwalls, 12-27-12-29

high flow diversions, 12-31

investment in flood control, 12-2-12-9

land treatment measures, 12-39-12-41

shoreline protection, 12-34-12-39

stormwater management, 12-31-12-34

Subsidence, 1-24

"Substantial" damage and improvement, 8-7-8-8

T

"Taking" of private property, 10-7-10-8, 11-3

Tax adjustments, 13-28-13-32, 14-32-14-34, 15-18

Tax reform Act of 1986, 13-29-13-31, 14-32

casualty losses, 13-29, 13-31

development incentives, 13-29, 13-31

Internal Revenue Code, 13-28-13-29,14-32-14-33

tax exempt organizations, 14-32-14-33

Tennessee, 11-27, 13-6

Tennessee Valley Authority, 4-3, 4-4, 6-19-6-20, 6-26,

6-39, 8-2, 8-5, 11-4, 11-65, 11-73, 11-75, 12-3, 12-9,

12-14, 12-22, 12-29, 13-2, 13-33, 15-14

Texas, 11-27, 13-4

Baytown, 11-47

Topographic mapping, 6-16-6-17

Tropical storms, 1-13, 1-15, 6-14-6-15

Tsunamis, 1-19-1-20, 3-26, 6-15-6-16, 9-9

U

Unified National Program for Floodplain Management,

I-1, 1-5, 2-2, 2-17, 4-9, 4-12, 5-1-5-13, 7-1, 7-14,

7-27,11-35,13-1,14-3,15-4, 15-5, 15-6,15-15,16-1,

16-3, 16-4, 16-5, 16-15, VI-1, VI-2

House Document 465: A Unified National

Program for Managing Flood Losses,

1-4, I-5, 4-6, 4-9, 5-1-5-4, 7-1, 7-26, 15-4

A Unified National Program for Flood Plain

Management, 1976, 5-4-5-10

1979 Revisions to a Unified National Program for Floodplain Management, 5-10-5-11

1986 Revisions to a Unified National Program

for Floodplain Management, 5-11-5-12

United Nations International Decade for Natural

Disaster Reduction, 7-36

Unstable and meandering channels, 1-8, 1-10

Urbanizing areas, 3-32

INDEX

7
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2-10-2-11,3-13,4-2,4-5,

6-11, 6-12,6-19, 6-21, 6-25,6-38,6-39,7-13,8-2, 8-5,

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,

14-7, 14-16, 14-21, 14-23, 15-13, 16-2, 16-6, 16-14,

VI-3

Beach Erosion Control Projects, 12-37

Comprehensive Flood Damage Reduction

Studies, 11-56

Flood Plain Management Services, 6-25

National Dam Inspection Program, 8-11, 12-20

National Floodproofing Committee, 11-74

Small Projects Program, 12-37

U.S. Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, 16-2

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3-23, 4-3, 6-34, 7-15,

7-30,12-22-12-23,12-39,14-8,14-16-14-17,14-19

Dam Safety Committee, 12-23

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

7-2, 7-7, 7-25, 8-2, 11-43, 11-75

U.S. Department of the Interior, 6-33, 7-15, 14-8, 14-10,

14-16

U.S. Department of Transportation, 14-16

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1-22,2-10-2-11,

6-5, 6-11, 6-31, 6-32, 7-25, 7-27-7-28, 7-33, 8-13, 8-

14, 8-15,11-35, 11-50, 12-34, 14-7-14-8,14-16, 14-

22-14-23, 14-29, 14-30, 16-8, 16-10, 16-13

Stormwater Discharge Permit Program, 12-33

National Estuarine Program, 16-8

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2-2, 2-10-2-11, 3-13,

6-29, 6-33, 7-25, 7-31, 7-32, 8-13, 8-14, 14-8, 14-16,

14-21, 14-30

U.S. Forest Service, 4-2, 6-34, 12-23, 13-33, 14-10, 14-16

U.S. General Accounting Office, 13-47

U.S. Geological Survey, 3-2, 4-2, 6-7, 6-16, 6-19,

6-20-6-21, 6-27, 6-33, 6-38. 6-39, 13-2

U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water

Commission, U.S. and Mexico, 4-3, 6-8

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1-2-1-3, 1-6, 2-2, 2-11,

2-14, 3-12-3-13, 3-33, 6-11, 6-18, 6-19, 6-20, 6-25,

6-34, 6-38, 6-39, 7-19, 7-28, 8-2, 8-11, 8-13, 8-14, 11-

56,11-65,12-3,12-7-12-9,12-23,12-33,13-2,15-14,

16-2, 16-10, 16-13

Emergency Watershed Protection Program,

13-33-13-39

Small Watershed Program, 7-28, 12-11

Watershed Protection and Flood Protection

Program, 12-30

U.S. Supreme Court, 10-1, 10-3-10-9

U.S. Water Resources Council, 1-5, 1-2, 1-6, 3-2, 3-37,

4-6, 5-2, 5-4, 5-10, 6-10, 7-2, 7-5, 7-6, 7-11, 7-14, 7-

27, 8-3, 8-4, 11-33, 11-69, 12-2, 12-6

guidelines for federal agencies, 7-6, 11-33

guidelines for determining flood flow frequency,

7-7

discount rate for water projects, 7-7

Utah

Davis County, 3-4

V

Vermont, 11-27

Virginia, 14-13

Volcanic-induced flooding, 3-32

W

Warning systems, 10-14

Washington State, 14-21

Water Bank Act of 1970, 7-30

Water Data Storage and Retrieval System

(WATSTORE), 6-8-6-9

Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)

Amendments of 1972, 4-8, 5-4, 7-27-7-28, 7-30

Section 404, 2-11, 7-30, 14-7-14-8, 16-1

Water quality

maintenance of, 2-7-2-9

standards, 8-12

Water Quality Act of 1987, 14-22

Water resources, 2-4-2-9

ground-water supply and balance, 2-9

natural flood and erosion control, 2-5-2-6

water quality maintenance, 2-7-2-9

Water Resources Development Act of 1974, 4-9,

5-6, 7-12, 11-42

Water Resources Development Act of 1986, 7-10,

12-2, 12-3

Water Resources Planning Act of 1965,4-5, 7-2, 7-4

Watershed management, 16-8

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of

1954, 7-19

West Virginia, 11-55-11-74

Wetlands, 2-5-2-6, 2-7-2-8, 2-9-2-14, 14-11

classification and delineation, 8-13

functional values of, 6-30-6-31

impacts of development on, 3-8-3-12

mitigation "banking," 14-26-14-28

National Wetlands Inventory, 6-29-6-30,6-33,8-13,

14-19, 14-30

natural flood control functions, 2-5-2-6

"no net loss," 14-22, 16-1

protection programs, 7-30-7-33, 14-26-14-29

regulations, 10-10-10-11

restoration and creation, 6-31-6-32

understanding and mapping of, 6-29-6-32

wetland evaluation technique, 8-13-8-14

wetland types, 2-12-2-14

White, Gilbert F., 4-4, VI-1, VI-4

Wild and scenic rivers, 7-31-7-32

INDEX

8
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, 14-4,16-5

Wisconsin, 13-6

Kickapoo River, 4-11

Prairie du Chien, 11-45

Soldiers Grove, 1149

INDEX 9

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1992-623-787160303