HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrazos Clean WaterDATE: Tuesday, January 6th, 2009
TIME: 12:00PM to 2:00PM
LOCATION: City of Bryan MSC Conference Room
PARTICIPANTS:
Organization Representative Name
Brazos County Gary Arnold
Brazos County Megan Parsons
CitY ofBryan ~ltorfHogers
City of Bryan Mary Strauss
City of Bryan Josh Kercho
City of College Station Alan Gibbs
City of College Station Donnie Willis
·City of College Station Jennifer Nations
City of College Station Gary L. Balmain
Texas A&M University Jeff Truss
TXDOT -Bryan District John Moravec
TXDOT -Bryan District James Normant
AGENDA ITEMS:
)> Introductions
)> Review of November meeting
)> Update of Permit Status
)> Logo/Website Ideas
)> Draft Resolution Available
)> Organization of Shared Goals
)> Education Strategy Discussion
)> ·phased Work Plan Discussion
)> Available Budgets/Manpower/Volunteers
)> Next steps? (August 09' is end of Permit Year 2)
Representative Title
Director of Planning and Traffic
GIS Coordinator
. Streets 8i. Drainage Manager
Sustainability Coordinator
Graduate Engineer
City Engineer
Environmental Engineering Inspector
Water Resource Coordinator
Streets and Drainage Superintendent
TAMU Environmental Health and Safety
Planning and Development Specialist
Environmental Quality Coordinator
Brazos Basin Stormwater
Education Consortium
Meeting Two (2)
January 6, 2009
City of Bryan MSC Conference Room
Introductions
)> Brazos County
)> City of Bryan
)> City of College Station
)> TAMU
)>TX Department of Transportation
Review of November Meeting
)> Established:
• Group Name
• Brazos Basin Stormwater Education Consortium
• Group Justification
·Efficiency
• Economic Sense
• Consistent message
• Future Plans
• Create a group education strategy and phased
work plari
1/5/2009
1
Permit Approval Update
J> Has your organization's permit been
approved by TCEQ?
Logo Ideas
J> BBSEC Logo
• Stay consistent with TCEQ and state by using
"Don't Feed the Storm Drain" logo with
BBSEC info surrounding it
• Logo used by BBSEC and individual entities?
• Other ideas?
J> EPA Nonpoint Source (NPS) Outreach
Toolbox
• http://www.epa.gov/nps/toolbox/
TCEQ
Don't Feed the Storm Drain
~ OON•r
...._S -. "'° <., 'r . .;:,;., <"
'I (C' a.. C'
•
1/5/2009
2
Website Needed
»-Website URL
• www.bbsec.com
• www.brazosstormwater.com
• Other Ideas?
>Cost -$10 per year
>Info
• Educational only -complaints must be filed with
·individual entities -links and phone numbers
available
> Hosting and management volunteers?
Draft Resolution Available
>Review of Text
• Any changes?
> Will email Word Doc. to group
> Any member interested in using?
Organization of Shared Goals
> Basis of group's future plans
»-Which goals overlap? These will be jointly
implemented by the group
> Earliest required permit year will set
baseline for group implementation
1/5/2009
' J . I t1...')"-L .LJ;J£-1 ,,_,,/ro -
3
Education Strategy Outline.
> Introduction
Justification and Motivation
• Background
• Synopsis of previous and ongoing education efforts
> BBSEC Goals and Objectives
> Strategy and Scope for Implementation of Phased Work Plan
Educatio'n Providers
• TargetAudiences
• Maximizing Efficiency and Availabilrty
> Evaluation and Reporting
Criteria
• Accountability
Phased Work Plan
l> By Permit Year
l> Each Portion of Work Plan Establishes:
Measurable Goal
Specific StormwaterT opic
Target Audience
Method of Outreach
location and/or Date de~vered
Evaluation Techniques and Tracking
lead Service Provider and Other Participants
Funds Required and Available
>Ideas??
Budgets/ManpowerN ol u nteers
l> Are we all aware of what we funds have
available for this permit year? Subsequent
years?
l> Who is the main contact for each member
organization?
J> Are there volunteer groups yqur organization
has already established or maintain a
relationship with that we can utilize?
1/5/2009
4
Next Steps??
> August 09' end of Permit Year 2
• Need to execute some goals
> Make it official
• Municipal Resolutions
• CountyfTX DOT
> Create Logo/Website
>Write:
• A Regional Stormwater Education Strategy
• A Phased Education Work Plan
> April 1 Blh Earth Day event -OT Bryan
• Stormwater Zone
• Management Volunteers?
1/5/2009
5
Draft Resolution
Proposed by the Brazos Basin Stormwater Education Consortium
January 6, 2009
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A REGIONAL WATERSHED STORMWATER EDUCATION STRATEGY
WHEREAS, population growth, residential and industrial development, and the resulting changes to the
landscape have led to stormwater quality and quantity concerns throughout the Brazos Basin and
WHEREAS, these impacts cannot be entirely avoided or eliminated but can be minimized; and
WHEREAS, it is currently recognized that control of stormwater quantity and quality is most effectively
implemented when people and organizations understand the related causes and consequences of
polluted stormwater runoff and flooding, and the actions they can take to control these, and
WHEREAS, the need arises not only from the regulatory requirements of EPA NPDES Phase II
Stormwater rules, but also from the recognition that local decision makers, citizens and elected officials
will require more than a rudimentary grasp of stormwater pollution and flooding concerns in order to make
effective decisions that will have a positive impact on stormwater issues, and
WHEREAS, the development and implementation of effective, outcomes-based stormwater education
and outreach programs will meet the related federal stormwater pollution control requirements and those
of the communities they serve,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that ______ _
(CITY/COUNTY) fully supports the development and implementation of a regional watershed stormwater
education strategy. Efforts will be overseen by the Brazos Basin Stormwater Education Consortium and
their respective municipal and county representatives. This approach seeks to coordinate use of local
resources and expertise to achieve economy of scale by jointly addressing common needs of the cities
and counties and provide uniformity in educational message to enhance learning.
·. ::~citicatl~ruii.6c>~j:.~(·~~,r~Ms4 ~'er.rr:i~): '
.. ;·· ., ... ; ........ ·.; '• •. · ':· ............ :. -•. '. '.!)
Create Educational Pamphlets and Flyers
Distribute Outreach Materials
Develop Public Service Announcements
Conduct Public Service Announcements
(educational and asking participation)
Coordinate Annual Education Events
(Earth Day, HHW, Texas Recycles Day)
Coordinate Adult Education Events
{HOA's, Service and Professional Groups)
Develop Educational Partnerships with
Local Schools
Hold Annual Stakeholders Meeting
Implement Stormwater Hotline
Perform City-Wide Cleanup Event
Implement Storm Dra in Stenciling
Program
BBSEC Shared Education Goa s
Brazos.
··County ·
.Permit
. Vear
c(>nege
I ·station .
~.. .., . <x ·
. i.
; ~ , .
...
,•' .i ... ··3--·.· '.
1. . <'.·'I •·' ·,« '·'
l::·
'' ,.;
i i I J.
I
1.,' r
-... ···(·
·· 1·'
I
BBSEC Meeting Two (2)
January 6, 2009
Draft Outlines
Education Strategy Outline
~ Introduction
o Justification and Motivation
o Background
o Synopsis of previous and ongoing education efforts
~ BBSEC Goals and Objectives
~ Strategy and Scope for Implementation of Phased Work Plan
o Education Providers
o Target Audiences
o Maximizing Efficiency and Availability
~ Evaluation and Reporting
o Criteria
o Accountability
Phased Work Plan
~ By Permit Year
~ Each Portion of Work Plan Establishes:
o Measurable Goal
o Specific Stormwater Topic
o Target Audience
o Method of Outreach
o Location and/or Date delivered
o Evaluation Techniques and Tracking
o Lead Service Provider and Other Participants
o Funds Required and Available
Taraet Audlenu{s)
General Public
•
K-12
(Students, Youth Groups, etc.)
Professionals
(Contractors, Engineers, Developers, Public
Works)
Employees
• Method(s) of Dutreach
StorITTNat~ Hotline
Pamphlets& Flyers
Publk Servke Announcements
Mass Media
Events
dassroom Materials
Presentations
Stom'I Drain Stencilins
Educ;;1tional Materials (BMPs)
Educntlonal Materials
Tralnins
I
Activity
Implement StorITTNater Hotline
Create Public Outreach Materials
Distribute PublK: Outreach Materials
Crc<1te Public Service Announcements
Conduct Public Se1vice Announcements
Website Implementation
Radio Advertisements
Bus Advertisements
HHW Disposal
Cle<1n-up Event
Education Event
Develop Omroom Materials
Distribute aauroom Materials
Develop Presentations
Conduct Presentations 0
Implement Stenclllng Prosram
Develop Educoitional Mate1i<ils
Dist1ibute Educ:<itlonal Materioils
Develop Educatlona Materla!s
Distribute Educational Materials
Develop Trainint Worlcsl'\ops
Conduct Trainine: Workshops
If-
BB SEC
Compa.tion YHr B111ios County PermltVaaf •rv., Permlt:Ye• COU.1e St2tion PermltYear 1XDOT PennltYHr
N/A N/A
x
x x
N/A N/A
x N/A N/A
'
x
x
NA N/A
N/A N/A
x N/A N/A
x x x
x x
x
3>
5 -
iSWM.
<~-ement
iSWM Resource Guide:
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
October 2007
October 2007
Table of Contents
SECTION 1 Local Floodplain Management and Storm Water Management.. ................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Floodplain Management Goals .................................................................................................................. 1
SECTION 2 National Flood Insurance Program ................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................ 2
2.2 NFIP Program Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Shortcomings of the NFIP .......................................................................................................................... 3
SECTION 3 Strategies and Tools for Improved Floodplain Management and Flood Mitigation .................... 4
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 4
3.2 Developing an Effective Local Floodplain Management Program ............................................................. 5
3.3 Watershed I lnterjurisdictional Issues ........................................................................................................ 6
LIST OF TABLES
3-1 Approaches to Effective Local Floodplain Management and Flood Mitigation .............................................. 4
LIST OF FIGURES
2-1 Floodplain Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 2
2-2 Example of a FEMA Flood Risk Map ......................................................................................................... 3
Floodplain Management
October 2007
SECTION 1 -Local Floodplain Management and Storm Water
Management
1.1 Introduction
Floodplain management involves the designation of flood-prone areas and the limiting of their uses to those
compatible with a given degree of risk. It is also aimed at minimizing modifications to streams, reducing flood
hazards, and protecting the water quality of streams. As such, floodplain management can be seen as a subset
of the larger consideration of surface water and storm water management within a local community.
Storm water management has traditionally been involved with the protection of downstream areas from flooding
by mitigating the cause of increased flows, whereas floodplain management has dealt with mitigating the effects
of floodwaters. However, new emphasis on water quality, nonstructural approaches and watershed management
have caused storm water management and floodplain management to overlap, particularly in regard to the use of
riparian areas for mitigating storm water quantity and quality. The development of riparian buffers and greenway
corridors along streams and rivers can preserve floodplain areas and protect their function in safely conveying
floodwaters and protecting water quality. Floodplain regulations and development restrictions, particularly when
based upon the full built out 100-year floodplain, can greatly reduce future flooding impacts, preserve habitat, and
may allow communities to waive storm water quantity control requirements for larger storm events.
The concepts related to floodplain management have broadened and matured in parallel with those of storm
water management. Prior to the mid-1960's, flood control in Texas and elsewhere had been seen primarily as a
structural control program wherein dams, levees and other flood control works were constructed to keep
floodwaters away from developed areas. Beginning in 1966, the focus has steadily shifted toward protecting
property and human life from flood waters through floodplain regulations, flood insurance, public education, post
disaster assistance, the community rating system (CRS) and other flood loss reduction strategies often
administered as part of a local storm water management program.
Since the early 1970's, with the passage of the Flood Disaster Protection Act, most communities in Texas have
adopted, at a minimum, a floodplain ordinance and programmatic requirements to be eligible for the Federal flood
insurance program. By the late 1980's, communities began to include the restoration and preservation of the
natural values of floodplain areas into their floodplain management programs. Today the focus of floodplain
management has broadened to include the notion that floodplains are only one component of an overall
watershed-based water resource management program.
1.2 Floodplain Management Goals
Floodplain management is a decision-making and regulatory process, the goal of which is to achieve the wise use
of local floodplains. "Wise use" means to define and make choices among often competing demands for
floodplain locations. It includes the responsibility to regulate uses that are compatible with, and balance: (1 ) the
need to preserve the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains , (2) allow for economic development where
necessary and appropriate, and (3) minimize risk to human life and risk of property damage. Local floodplain
policy should be developed based upon the following principles:
• Floodplain management should balance economic development, environmental quality, and health/safety
issues.
• Development in flood prone areas, or adversely affecting floodplains, should be avoided unless it is
considered necessary for the public interest.
• New developments adjacent to floodplains should not increase the risk of flooding for other properties.
• Capital and operating costs of floodplain management should be shared equitably among the public and
specific beneficiaries instead of being borne by floodplain landowners.
• Consideration should be given to a combination of structural and non-structural tools to reduce flood
damages.
• The floodplain should be considered in the context of the collective needs of the local community and as a
part of a larger watershed.
Floodplain Management
October 2007
SECTION 2 -National Flood Insurance Program
2.1 Background
In response to escalating flooding problems, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in
1968 to reduce flood losses and disaster relief cost by guiding future development away from flood hazard areas
where practicable, requiring flood-resistant design and construction and transferring costs of losses to floodplain
occupants through flood insurance premiums.
The National Flood Insurance Program has played a critical role in fostering and accelerating the principles of
floodplain management. Flood insurance is available to floodprone communities through the NFIP, which is
administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Prior to the NFIP, flood insurance was
generally unavailable from the private sector and most communities did not regulate floodplain development.
The NFIP was broadened and modified by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, which requires the purchase
of flood insurance as a condition for receiving any form of federal or federally related financial assistance, such as
mortgage loans from federally insured lending institutions. Many communities have established floodplain
management programs and adopted floodplain management statutes and regulations that go beyond NFIP
requirements.
The National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA), signed into law in 1994, strengthened the NFIP by providing
for mitigation insurance and establishing a grant program for state and community flood mitigation planning
projects. The NFIRA also codified the Community Rating System (CRS), established objectives for CRS and
directs that credits may be given to communities that implement measures to protect natural and beneficial
floodplain functions and manage the erosion hazard. The CRS is an incentive pr.ogram whereby communities
that exceed the minimum requirements of the NFIP secure reductions in the flood insurance premiums for their
residents.
2.2 NFIP Program Requirements
For flood insurance purposes, the regulatory floodplain is defined as the area inundated by the one-percent
chance (100-year) flood [see Figure 2-1]. Within these outer boundaries there is another area, termed the
floodway, in which the depths of flow and high velocities are such that construction of structures within these
boundaries would entail unacceptable risk of loss and obstruction of the free flow of the waterbody. The area
between the floodway and the outer edge of the 100-year floodplain is termed the flood fringe.
2
Flood
Fringe
Floodway
100. Year Floodplain
Flood
Fringe
Figure 2-1 Floodplain Definitions
Floodplain Management
October 2007
Minimum program requirements for communities under the NFIP include:
• Permitting for all proposed new development (includes new buildings, improvements to buildings, filling,
grading, or any other human-caused change to the land);
• Reviewing subdivision proposals to assure that they will minimize flood damage;
• Anchoring and floodproofing structures to be built in known flood prone areas;
• Safeguarding new water and sewer lines from flooding; and
• Enforcing risk zone, base flood elevation, and floodway requirements after the flood insurance map for the
area becomes effective.
• Figure 2-2 shows an example of a FEMA flood map used in the NFIP. Penalties for non-
participation in the federal program involve the loss of ability to obtain flood insurance, and
reduction or denial of access to federal disaster funding and home loans. Information on the
National Flood Insurance Program can be obtained by contacting the Federal Emergency
Management Agency Region VI office.
Figure 2-2 Example of a FEMA Flood Risk Map
2.3 Shortcomings of the NFIP
While almost all communities in Texas participate in the NFIP, the minimum requirements of the Federal program
are generally seen as having several inherent weaknesses including:
• Little or no action to reduce damages in existing flood prone areas
• The tendency for the program to actually stimulate development in floodplain areas due to reduction of fears
of substantial losses from flood damage
• Little or no coverage for the smaller feeder and headwaters streams
• The tendency for flood boundaries to shift over time as increased runoff from new development increases the
floodplain width ; resulting in structures thought to be beyond the area of flooding being more at risk of flooding
• Maps are not updated with broader insurance zones
• Does not account for development impacts outside the regulatory floodplain
Local communities add to the problems inherent in the NFIP through incomplete floodplain management
including:
• Adopting land use regulations for flood hazard areas, such as those required to participate in the NFIP, and
then failing to enforce them (for example, issuing permits that do not comply with the ordinance, or unwisely
overruling the professional staff that administers the ordinance)
Floodplain Management 3
October 2007
• Taking the position of doing only the minimum necessary to meet Federal requirements, and not integrating
the broader issues of community health and safety, watershed and water quality management, and quality of
life
• Agreeing to maintain a flood control or other project built with state or federal assistance, and then failing to
provide for the maintenance in the community budget
• Taking "piecemeal" approaches that may correct one problem area but create a worse problem elsewhere.
It should be remembered that the NFIP is not designed to be a comprehensive floodplain management program
but simply to reduce flood losses and provide for subsidized flood insurance. The NFIP should serve as the
beginning of a broader floodplain management program. The next section provides guidance and approaches for
developing a more comprehensive program.
SECTION 3 -Strategies and Tools for Improved Floodplain
Management and Flood Mitigation
3.1 Introduction
Many Texas communities are seeking ways to break out of the cycle of ever increasing flooding , damage to older
floodplain structures, streambank stability problems, loss of floodplain habitat, and increasing erosion and
sedimentation problems. Approaches to dealing with these problems range from individual actions to
comprehensive multi-objective management plans that integrate a wide range of community desires and goals
dealing with floodplain areas . Table 3-1 summarizes a variety of floodplain management and flood mitigation
approaches.
Table 3-1 Approaches to Effective Local Floodplain Management and Flood Mitigation
1. Preventive policies keep flood problems from getting worse. The use and development of flood-prone areas
is limited through planning, land acquisition, or regulation by building, zoning, planning, and/or code
enforcement departments.
Planning and zoning Buffer requ irements
Open space preservation Storm water management requirements
Floodplain requlations Drainaqe system maintenance requirements
2. Property protection activities are usually undertaken by property owners on a building-by-building or parcel
basis. They include:
Relocation Flood proofing
Acquisition Sewer backup protection
Building elevation Insurance
3. Natural resource protection activities preserve or restore natural areas or the natural functions of floodplain
and watershed areas. They are usually implemented by parks and recreation departments, public works, or
conservation agencies and organizations.
Wetlands protection Riparian zone/buffer restoration
Streambank restoration Erosion and sediment control
Coastal barrier protection
4. Emergency services measures are taken during a flood to minimize its impact. These measures are the
responsibility of city or county emergency management staff and the owners or operators of major or critical
facilities.
Flood warning Critical facilities protection
Flood response Health and safety maintenance
5. Structural projects keep floodwaters away from an area with a levee, reservoir, or other flood control
measure. They are usually designed by engineers and managed or maintained by public works staff.
Reservoirs Channel modifications
Levees/floodwalls/seawalls Beach nourishment
Diversions Storm sewers
4 Floodplain Management
October 2007
6. Public infonnation activities advise property owners, potential property owners, and visitors about the
hazards, ways to protect people and property from the hazards, and the natural and beneficial functions of
local floodplains.
Map information Library
Outreach projects
Real estate disclosure
Technical assistance
Environmental education
3.2 Developing an Effective Local Floodplain Management Program
Most local programs have at their heart the objective of ensuring that flood levels are not increased, that public
and private flood losses are minimized, and that natural and beneficial values of floodplains are preserved. This
is typically accomplished through a combination of:
1. Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety and property due to water or erosion
hazards or which result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities;
2. Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities that serve such uses, be protected against flood
damage at the time of initial construction;
3. Controlling the alteration of natural floodplains , stream channels and natural protective barriers which are
involved in the accommodation of flood waters;
4. Controlling filling , grading, dredging and other development which may increase flood damage erosion;
5. Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which
may increase flood hazards to other lands; and
6. Seeking ways to reduce loss of natural floodplain areas and enhance natural benefits of floodplains in areas
facing development.
Below are some of the ways that a community can improve its floodplain management program through a
combination of structural and non-structural means making use of technology and tools.
Strategies to Keep Out of Floodprone Areas
• Planning and regulatory floodplains -Use two floodplain definitions in which the full built out floodplain is
used for location and elevation of new construction, while the current condition FEMA maps are used for the
Federal flood insurance program.
• Use built out floodplain for regulation -Regulate new development on the basis of full built out floodplains
based on a master plan, even if the FEMA maps are not updated.
• Land use limitations -Limit the types of uses allowable in the floodplain to those necessary uses that are
functionally dependent on being close to the water and those that would not be substantially damaged by
flooding. Use the master plan and GIS capability to influence rezoning decisions before they are approved.
• Provide incentives for staying out of the floodplain -Develop the ability to make dedication of floodplain
areas attractive to developers through transferable development rights , tax credits for conservation designs,
partnering with developers to establish greenways along streams, or other approaches.
Strategies to Reduce Damage Due to Flooding
• Implement a comprehensive floodproofing program -Seek to reduce the amount of damage to local
nonresidential structures located in the present floodplain through a combined capital improvement program,
floodproofing , voluntary and attractive property acquisition, and education and warning (as appropriate).
Develop a cost-shared floodproofing program for nonresidential structures that experience only shallow
flooding and an elevation program for residential structures.
Floodplain Management 5
October 2007
• Enhanced first floor elevation requirements -Implement a requirement to raise the first finished floor of all
floodplain structures one foot (or more) above the full built out 100-year flood elevation.
• Maximize floodplain flow capacity -Minimize floodplain infill and enhance and maintain the conveyance of
streams in floodprone areas on a priority basis.
• Require effective storm water quantity management -Ensure that upstream developments, remote from
the floodplain or adjacent to it, mitigate the storm water runoff impacts of their development downstream to
the point that the impacts are insignificant (see the iSWM Design Manual for Site Development).
• Develop a flooding mitigation plan -Develop a during-and post-flood mitigation and assistance plan that
protects citizens from the risk of driving or falling into flood waters (e.g. traffic barricades in place well ahead
of deep water conditions). The plan should seek to eliminate repetitive loss properties and seek to floodproof
those damaged by flooding.
Strategies to Preserve and Restore Open Space and Natural Features
• Innovative density trading away from flood prone areas -Provide the ability and incentive to dedicate
floodplain areas while retaining the ability to construct the same number of homes on a tract of land as
without dedication. This is often integrated with a community greenway program or other riparian buffers
requirements.
• Extension of floodplain management to smaller streams -Extend the floodplain program to feeder
streams and to areas above the upper limit of mapped areas, and requ ire backwater calculations on all
streams not mapped.
• Flood prone property and land acquisition -Acquire flood prone properties, perhaps as part of a
community open space or greenway program, and construct open space parks in their place.
• Mandatory new construction floodplain dedication -Require the dedication of floodplain lands and
buffers for the purposes of flood protection, pollution reduction , and multi-objective riparian corridor
recreation.
Strategies to Use Technology for Better Information Management Support
• Downstream impact assessment -Implement a mandatory requirement to assess and mitigate the impacts
of proposed new developments downstream to a point where the impact is negligible. Mitigation can include
the purchase of a flood easement, on-site controls, system improvements, etc. This might also include the
development of watershed master plans for the purposes of solving floodplain problems and avoiding
exacerbating problems.
• Aggressive map maintenance -Require mandatory letters of map amendment or revision for all new
floodplain developments, or a mandatory requirement for backwater profiles to be privately developed for
proposed developments along all streams. Map estimated full bu ilt out floodplain.
• On-line GIS and models -Implement the use of GIS and on-line models in assessing new developments as
they are proposed and prior to re-zoning request approvals. The city or county would work with the developer
in coming up with an alternative that reduces impacts and preserves floodplain areas while maintaining
economic viability.
• Make floodplain maps accessible -Make the community's most current floodplain boundaries available on
the Internet for easy access. Identify those persons in the floodplain and notify them of the availability and
advisability of flood insurance.
3.3 Watershed I lnterjurisdictional Issues
Ideally, floodplains should be managed at the watershed level. Activities that result in runoff anywhere within the
watershed can increase the incidence and magnitude of floods downstream. Intergovernmental cooperation and
coordination is a critical consideration especially when multiple jurisdictions contribute to collective flood problems
or detract from floodplain resources.
6 Floodplain Management
October 2007
Regulatory consistency and coordinated flood response will ensure that land uses and flood analyses are
compatible between jurisdictions. There are many ways communities can pool their resources, technical,
financial , and personnel, for flood damage reduction studies, hydrologic and hydraulic watershed modeling, and a
variety of floodplain and flood mitigation projects.
Floodplain Management 7
•
What is iSWM?
integrated Storm Water Management (iSWM) is a new way of managing storm water in North Central Texas by
looking to mitigate the negative impacts of development by integrating the management of the quality and quantity
of storm water, as well as integrating storm water considerations into the earliest stages of the development and
site planning process. iSWM is an avenue to provide comprehensive and practical guidance oriented to
implementation in everyday practice .
WhyiSWM?
Comprehensive guidance is needed for the region in order to integrate the management of storm water quantity
and quality throughout the planning, design , construction, operation, and maintenance of storm water
infrastructure that will protect water quality, minimize streambank erosion and provide flood control both onsite
and downstream. iSWM guidelines will greatly enhance the storm water management initiatives of North Central
Texas area communities by improving and streamlining the development process for communities, developers,
and consultants. The short-term and long-term impacts on the storm water quality and quantity improvements
brought about by these guidelines will prove invaluable for the region.
What iSWM documents are available?
iSWM Design Manual for Construction -December 2003
Provides guidance on the control of sediment and other pollutants on during construction activities.
iSWM Design Manual for Site Development -January 2006
A detailed design document to guide developers, consultants, and government agencies on the
preparation of an integrated Storm Water Management Site Plan to control and manage storm water
quality and quantity for new developments and redevelopments.
iSWM Resource Guides -October 2007
Provide guidance for local jurisdictions and developers on various aspects of effective urban storm water
management.
These documents can be found at http://iswm.nctcoq.org/.
-•••• ••••ir •'·Illa. North Central Texas
Council of Gov en1ments
616 Six Flags Drive, Suite 200
Arlington, TX 76005-5888
(817) 640-3300
ONLY RAIN
DOWN THE DRAIN
Brazos Basin Stormwater Education Committee
October 19, 2010 Quarterly BBS EC Committee Meeting
CS Wolf Pen Creek "Green Room"
1 :30 pm -3:30pm
AGENDA
1. Draft SWMP Ordinance and Guidelines
a. Present to Stakeholders July 25th at Home Builders Assn
b. Modeled Draft Ord after (Abliene)
c, Modeled Draft Guidelines Construction Sequencing after EPA guideance and
general references to TCEQ
d. COB Ordinance: First reading October 12th, Second reading October 251h
2. General MS4's Coordination for SWMPs
a. Reminder Annual Report due November 11 th
b. HGAC Clean Waters Initiative Workshop -Low Impact Dev -October 27th
c. Public Education Examples?
d. TAMU Stream Clean
e. General Projects?
3. Water Quality Related Updates
a. TCEQ Memo -New Federal Construction Storm Water Rules
b. Navasota Ladies Tresses -TxDOT/CS Conservation Easement
c. Bioretention Pilot Experiments -TxDOTfTTl-TAMU
d. FEMA Mer}lo -New ESA Requirement for LOMC
e. TMDL Committee and Work Group Meetings
4. Future BBSEC Meetings (Quarterly, 3rd Tuesdays, 1 :30pm -3:30pm , Rotating)
a. January 18. 2011
Brazos Center, Room 105
1 :30pm -3:30pm
b. April 19. 2011 -tentative
c. July 19. 2011 -tentative
d. October 18, 2011 -tentative
5. Calendar of Upcoming Dates
a. Maintaining Calendar?
6. 2011 BBSEC Coordinator
October
ONLY RAIN
DOWN THE DRAIN,
UPCOMING EVENTS CALENDAR
20th -TAMU Sustainable Day, 1 Oam -2pm
Contact: Monica Hartman, TAMU , 845-7378
20th -CS Webinar, Rooftop Disconnection, Filter Strips & Rainwater Harvesting,
CSU Training Facility, 603 Graham Road , 11 am -1 pm (brown bag)
Contact: Venessa Garza, CS, 764-3570
23rd -TAMU Stream Clean, Sam Start
Contact: Monica Hartman, TAMU , 845-7378
2ih -HGAC Clean Water Initiative Workshop (or Teleconference)
Low Impact Development and Sustainability, 1 pm -5pm
Contact: Aubin Phillips , HGAC, aubin.phillips@h-gac.com
29th -TMDL Coordination Committee and Work Group Meeting,
CSU Training Facility, 603 Graham Road , 2:30 -4:30pm
Contact: Lucas Gregory, TWRI Agrilife, 845-7869
November
11 th -SWMP Annual Reports Due to TCEQ
15th -Free Freon Unit Day, BVSMA Landfill accepting 2 free freon canisters,
Contact: Heather Qualls, BVSMA, 764-3806
18th -B/CS Webinar, Construction Stormwater BMPs,
December
Carters Creek WWTP Training Rm , N Forest Pkwy, 11 am -Noon (brown bag)
Contact: Alan Gibbs, CS, 764-3570
15th -CS Webinar, Better Site Design Gets Better,
CSU Training Facility, 603 Graham Road, 11 am -1 pm (brown bag)
Contact: Venessa Garza, CS, 764-3570
Rules for Stream Clean
1. Please have your volunteer group check in with the Environmental
Health and Safety Office between 8: 15-8:30 the morning of the clean
up event. Your group members will receive their t-shirts after check
in. If your group is large it might be split and assigned to different
team leaders and different creeks.
2. Please ensure that all of your group members wear appropriate
clothing and shoes for the event. Jeans and closed toe shoes must
be worn at all times. If you plan on getting in the creeks to clean
rubber rain boots would be a good option of shoes. There are a
few hazards associated with working in the stream environment such
as poison ivy, snakes, insects, etc. We want to ensure that all
participants are properly geared for the event. EHS will provide
gloves, bug spray, sunscreen and tools to assist in this matter.
3. Have your group members review the pictures of the hazards
included in the packet.
4. All participants will need to check out with their team leader and
return gloves and tools prior to leaving the clean-up site.
5. Have fun!!
I Poison Ivy
I Poison Oak
Copperhead
Cottonmouth/
Plecise aoi11 Us FoP t;lte
"GhiPd
"Gexcis A&l11 Utti'\Te:Psit;-s
St;:Peellt! Clecot
Oct;obe:P 23 .. 201.0
s:J:OO -1.1.:30
Check in time begins at 8:15 am, at the Grenada Bldg parking lot at
1111 Research · Parkway
(same location as University Police).
Please contact Tassie Fish for more information
@ 845-8767 or tfish@tamu.edu.
Sponsored by:
SE I ~ ........ .,
-..... -::.
Envlrcinment:BI, Inc.
Stream Clean Liability Form
Individuals who sign this form are voluntarily agreeing to participate in this
event at their own risk, i.e. they understand and assume any and all risks
involved while participating in clean-up activities. Risks may include, but
are not limited to: traveling to and from the project area, exposure to poison
ivy , snakes and other wildlife, the use of hand tools, picking up or handling
litter and heavy garbage bags. Those individuals are aware of no medical
reason why they should not participate and agree to hold Texas A&M
University and its employees and agents harmless for any injury, illness or
other claim associated with the activities described above.
Please Print
Name: -------------
Sign : ____________ _
Date: -------------
1''.~ t ~{ f ~ ~ ~n -t,~~ ~~ 1iriA?>S~ .'~ -4/~ ' vl JS ~ J1 \
~ ~ :r
ONLY RAIN
DOWN THE DRAIN i
Brazos Basin Stormwater Education Committee 'o/ f ~ "f
I .
4 October 19, 2010 Quarterly BBSEC Committee Meeting
CS Wolf Pen Creek "Green Room"
1 :30 pm -3:30pm
i lli ~ ,J\ j1.
AGENDA
Draft SWMP Ordinance and Guidelines
a. Present to Stakeholders July 25th at Home Bui lders Assn
b. Modeled Draft Ord after (Abliene)
~1 t
t\;-'f: l VJ'
! } "li~
1 ~ J ! 0 d.
c. Modeled Draft Guidelines Construction Sequencing after EPA gu ideance and
general references to TCEd
I CXl ~ ~ 2. General MS4's Coordination for SWMPs
COB Ordinance: First reading October 1 i h, Second reading October 25th
... ~ b. HGAC Clean Waters Initiative Workshop -Low Impact Dev -October 27th li .:t. a. Reminder Annual Report due November 11 th
1
\ \~ c. Public Education Examples? f
• ~ '\ d. TAMU Stream Clean
; ~ ....,. e. General Projects? ....... J
i) ~~ 3. Water Quality Related Updates
, ~'t a. TCEQ Memo -New Federal Construction Storm Water Rules
i · ~ ) {4. b. Navasota Ladies Tresses -TxDOT/CS Conservation Easement ~ ·~.'~ c. Bioretention Pilot Experiments -TxDOT/TTl-TAMQ__ I
-~ ~ ~ d. FEMA Memo -New ESA Requirement for LOMC
'r e. TMDL Committee and Work Group Meetings
4. Future BBS EC Meetings (Quarterly, 3rd Tuesdays, 1 :30pm -3:30pm, Rotating)
a. January 18. 2011
Brazos Center, Room 105
1 :30pm -3:30pm
b. April 19. 2011 -tentative
c. July 19. 2011 -tentative
d. October 18. 2011 -tentative
Calendar of Upcoming Dates
a. Maintaining Calendar?
6. 2011 BBSEC Coordinator
October
ONLY RAIN
DOWN THE DRAIN
UPCOMING EVENTS CALENDAR
2oth _ TAMU Sustainable Day, 10am -2pm
Contact: Monica Hartman, TAMU, 845-7378
201h -CS Webinar, Rooftop Disconnection, Filter Strips & Rainwater Harvesting,
CSU Training Facility, 603 Graham Road, 11 am - 1 pm (brown bag)
Contact: Venessa Garza, CS, 764-3570
23rd -TAMU Stream Clean, Sam Start
Contact: Monica Hartman, TAMU, 845-7378
27'h -HGAC Clean Water Initiative Workshop (or Teleconference)
Low Impact Development and Sustainability, 1 pm -5pm
Contact: Aubin Phillips, HGAC, aubin.phillips@h-gac.com
29th -TMDL Coordination Committee and Work Group Meeting,
CSU Training Facility, 603 Graham Road, 2:30 -4:30pm
Contact: Lucas Gregory, TWRI Agrilife, 845-7869
' . November ... . ....
11 th -SWMP Annual Reports Due to TCEQ
15th -Free Freon Unit Day, BVSMA Landfill accepting 2 free freon canisters,
Contact: Heather Qualls, BVSMA, 764-3806
181·h -8/CS Webinar, Construction Stormwater BMPs,
December
Carters Creek WWTP Training Rm, N Forest Pkwy, 11 am -Noon (brown bag) , •
Contact: Alan Gibbs, CS, 764-3570
15th -CS Webinar, Better .Site Design Gets Better,
CSU Training Facility, 603 Graham Road, 11 am - 1 pm (brown bag)
Contact: Venessa Garza, CS, 764-3570
l
Uan Gibbs -REMINDER: Register now for the next Clean Waters Initiative Workshop
i'rom:
fo;
)ate:
"Phillips, Aubin" <Aubin.Phillips@h-gac.com>
"Phillips, Aubin" <Aubin.Phillips@h-gac.com>
10/18/2010 3:18 PM
;ubject: REMINDER: Register now for the next Clean Waters Initiative Workshop
oin H-GAC for the next Clean Waters Initiative Workshop on Wednesday, October 27. This workshop, scheduled from 1 p.m. to :
i.m. at the H-GAC, will cover Low Impact Development and Sustainability for Devel opers. Present ations will be given by Harris
:aunty, the City of Houston, the Land/Water Sustainability Forum, and developers familiar with LID practices. Below is the draft
1genda for the workshop.
~ow Impact Development and Sustainability
Vednesday, October 27, 2010
.:oo p.m. -5 :00 p.m.
-1-GAC
!nd Floor Conference Room A
LSSS Timmons Lane
-loust on, TX 7702 7
DRAFT
f.\genda
)ctober 27, 2010
1 :00 pm
1 :15 pm
1:45 pm
2:15 pm
2:30 pm
3:00 pm
3:45 pm
4:15 pm
•:.:30 pm
Introduction and Welcome
Richard Johnson, Rice University
Harris County Storm Water Permit an.d BMP Policies
Nick Russo, Harris County Publ ic Infrastructure Department
City of Houston LID Policies
Break
The Houston LID Competition: What We Learned and Where We're Going from Here
Bob Adair, Houston Land/Water Sustainability Forum
LID Competition Participants
Justin Ring, Ediminister Hinshaw Russ
Ross Gordon, AECOM
Working With Local LID Policies from the Developer's Perspective
Charles Penland, Walter P. Moore
The TCEQ 319(h) Nonpoint Source Program -LID Funding Opportunities
Kerry Ni emann, TCEQ
Audience Q&A
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
To:
Thru:
From:
Docket No.:
Subject:
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Commissioners
LaDonna Castafiuela, Chief Clerk
Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director
L'Oreal W. Stepney, P.E., Deputy Director
Office of Water
2010-0316-RUL
Commission Approval for Rulemaking Adoption
Chapter 305, Consolidated Permits
Date: October 15, 2010
Amendment of §305.541 to Implement New Federal Construction Storm Water
Rules by Reference
Rule Project No. 2010-015-305-0W
Background and reason(s) for the rulemaking:
The rulemaking adopts 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 450, a new chapter that sets
new requirements for regulated construction sites. These rules require operators of any regulated
construction activity (disturbing at least one acre or part of a larger plan of development or sale) to
meet a series of non-numeric effluent limitations.
The rule also requires a numeric effluent limit for turbidity. On September 20, 2010, as a result of
a court challenge to these1new rules, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Petition No.
09-4113), at the request of EPA, remanded the administrative record and is holding the case in
abeyance. The remand is to allow EPA time to reconsider the rule and to fully respond to
comments received during its rulemaking that related to the turbidity limit of 280 nephelometric
turbidity units. EPA also asked the court to vacate the turbidity limit of 280 nephelometric
turbidity units due to identified flaws in their method of calculation, but the court declined to do so.
The executive director has taken a position that until revised federal rules are promulgated numeric
turbidity limitations will not be implemented in TCEQ issued construction storm water permits.
Since this state rulemaking is an adoption by reference as amended, further TCEQ rulemaking will
not be required.
In its motion before the court, EPA stated that it intended to reexamine the turbidity effluent limit
through a narrowly tailored notice and comment (public participation) rulemaking and, if
necessary, revise that portion of the limit before proceeding with its defense of the rule. The court
will not be involved in the rulemaking. Following conclusion of the federal rulemaking, the fate of
the court challenge will be determined.
Scope of the proposed rulemaking:
The rulemaking is not required by state or federal statute, but is necessary to keep commission
rules synchronized with the EPA's rules as required by the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
with EPA.
Statutory authority:
Texas Water Code, (TWC), §5.102, General Powers
TWC, §s.103, Rules
TWC, §5.105, General Policy
TWC, §s.120, Conservation and Quality of Environment
Commissioners
Page 2
October 15, 2010
Re: Docket No. 2010-0316-RUL
Effect on the:
A) Regulated community: Any entity engaging in regulated construction activities will
be affected. The non-numeric limits are similar to the requirements in the current Texas
Pollutant Discharge Elimination (TPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP),
TXR150000. These non-numeric limits will be included in:
• Any individual construction storm water permit issued after the adoption of this
rule;
• Sectors G, H, and J (related to mining) of the TPDES Multi-Sector General Permit
(TXR050000) renewal due to be issued by August 2011; and
• The CGP renewal due to be issued by August 2013.
Numeric limits will also be included in these permits provided EPA adopts a revised
turbidity limit through rulemaking.
B) Public: No effect on the public is anticipated.
C) Agency programs: The agency will be required to modify inspection protocols, (Field
Operations Division), increase public outreach, modify forms, update educational materials
(Small Business and Local Government Assistance Division), and modify the requirements
of storm water permits (Water Quality Division).
Stakeholder meetings:
No stakeholder meetings were held since the requirements were set by the federal regulations.
Public comment:
A public hearing was held July 29, 2010. No comments were made at the hearing. The Lower
Colorado River Authority (LCRA) and the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT)
submitted comments. LCRA indicated that they would work through their issues with the new
regulations during the renewal of the CGP rather than through this rulemaking. TXDOT is
concerned with the ability of construction projects to meet the turbidity limit and the cost of
compliance.
Significant changes from proposal:
Changes were made to the preamble in light of EPA's decision to re-examine the turbidity limit due
to identified flaws in their method of calculating the limits established in 40 CFR Part 450. This
addresses the comments regarding the turbidity numeric effluent limitation. No change was made
to rule language since it is an adoption by reference as amended.
Potential controversial concerns and legislative interest:
None.
Will this rulemaking affect any current policies or require development of new
policies?
No.
Commissioners
Page 3
October 15, 2010
Re: Docket No. 2010-0316-RUL
What are the consequences if this rulemaking does not go forward? Are there
alternatives to rulemaking?
The alternative is to leave §305.541 as it is. Consequences for not amending the rule are that the
commission will have to rely on the federal rules to implement the new storm water requirements
in 40 CFR Part 450. Without the amendment of §305.541, TCEQ could be considered out of
compliance with the MOA requirement that states in Section A.17., TNRCC Responsibilities,
"Ensure new federal NPDES regulations are incorporated into state regulations within one year of
federal promulgation or within. two (2) years if a state statute must first be enacted."
Key dates in the proposed rulemaking schedule:
Key points in adoption rulemaking schedule:
Texas Register proposal publication date:
Anticipated Texas Register publication date:
Anticipated effective date:
Six-month Texas Register filing deadline:
Agency contacts:
July 2, 2010
November 19, 2010
November 25, 2010
January 3, 2011
Sherry Smith, Rule Project Manager, 239-0571, Water Quality Division
Robert Brush, R~le Project Attorney, 239-5600
George Ortiz, Ruie Team Member, 239-1457, Field Operations Support Division
Natalia Henricksen, Texas Register Coordinator, 239-0177
Attachments:
40 CFR Part 450
7th US Court of Appeals Petition
cc: Chief Clerk, 2 copies
Executive Director's Office
Susana M. Hildebrand, P.E.
Kevin Patteson
Curtis Seaton
Daniel Womack
Office of General Counsel
Sherry Smith
Natalia Henricksen
/
T ecbmcal R eport D p ocumeatation age
1. Report No. I 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
FHW AJTX-10/0-5949-2
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
BIORETENTION FOR STORMWATER QUALITY Oct-0ber 2009
IMPROVEMENT IN TEXAS: PILOT EXPERINIBNTS Published: July 2010
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Ming-Han Li, Chan Yong Sung, Myung Hee Kim, Kung-Hui Chu Report 0-5949-2
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Te,xas Transportation Institute
The Texas A&M University System .. 11. Contract or Grant No .
College Stc;i.tion, Texas 7784'3-3135 Project 0-5949
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report:
Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2007-0ctober 2009
P.O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Austin, Texas 78763-5080
15. Supplementary Notes
Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway
Administration.
Project Title: Bioretention for Stormwater Quality Improvement in Texas
URL: http://tti.tamu.edu/ documents/0-5 94 9-2.pdf
16. Abstract '
This report summarizes the results of pilot-scale bioretention experiments''. Five steel boxes of 6 ft (L) x 6 ft
(W) x 4 ft (D) were constructed, each of which has a different type of vegetation: (1) shrubs, (2) grass
species in Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Bryan District seed mix, (3) native grasses, (4)
Bermudagrass, and (5) no vegetation as the control. Vegetation was given 14 months to establish before
testing. Synthetic runoff containing predetermined pollutants with target concentrations was used. The
results indicate that pilot bioretentions effectively removed zinc (Zn), lead (Pb), total suspended solids
(TSS), and ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) from stormwater runoff, but exported copper (Cu), nitrate-nitrogen
(N03-N), total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP). Vegetation plays an important role on N03-N and
TN removals due to root uptake and the denitrification processes in root zone. However, vegetation could
negatively affect the water quality if the soil infiltration rate is significantly increased by its root system.
This effect was specifically obvious on the TSS removal, in which the control box with the longest detention
time had much better performance than the vegetated boxes. The results suggest that bioretention is useful to
treat stormwater runoff from TxDOT highways, but the design specifications developed in other states
should be revised to reflect Texas' unique climate and environmental conditions. Challenges and learned
lessons are described in the report.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
Stormwater Best Management Practice, Highway No restrictions. This document is available to the
Runoff, Texas Highway, Roadsides, Low Impact public through NTIS:
Development National Technical Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22161
http://www.ntis.gov
19. Security Classif.(ofthis report) 120. Security Classif.(ofthis page) 21. No. of Pages I 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 56
' ·' ·~: v,.iorm DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
·----':
Reproduction of completed page authorized
August 18, 2010
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Regional Division Directors
Regions I -X
Doug Bellomo, P.E.
Director, Risk Analysis Division
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
500 C Street SW
Washington, DC 20472
FEMA
Procedure Memorandum 64 -Compliance with the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) for Letters of Map Change
All Conditional Letter of Map Change submittals received as of October
1, 2010
Background: The purpose of the ESA is to conserve threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend. Congress passed the ESA in 1973 with recognition that the natural
heritage of the United States was of "esthetic, ecological, educational, recreational, and scientific value to
our Nation and its people." Congress understood that, without protection, many of our nation's living
resources would become extinct. Species at risk of extinction are considered endangered, whereas species
that are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future are considered threatened. At present
approximately 1,900 species are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The U.S . Department
of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Marine
Fisheries Service (collectively known as "the Services") share responsibility for implementing the ESA.
Section 7 of the ESA requires each federal agency to insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries
out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction of
adverse modification of designated critical habitat 1•
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits anyone from "taking" or "harming" endangered wildlife and similar
prohibitions are generally extended through regulations for threatened wildlife. If an action might harm2
a threatened or endangered species, an incidental take authorization is required from the Services under
Sections 7 or 10 of the ESA.
Issue: Conditional Letters of Map Change (LOMCs) are issued before a physical action occurs in the
floodplain and are FEMA's comments as to whether the proposed project would meet minimum National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements and how the proposed changes would impact the NFIP
maps. Because Conditional Letters of Map Revision based-on Fill (CLOMR-Fs) and Conditional Letters
1 In accordance with Section 4 of the ESA, critical habitat includes specific areas essential to conservation of a
species and those areas which may require special management considerations or protection.
2 Harm can arise from "significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by
significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering" [50 CFR Part 17 .3].
Page 2 of 4 Procedure Memorandum No. 64 August 18, 2010
of Map Revision (CLOMRs) are submitted to FEMA prior to construction, there is an opportunity to
identify if threatened and endangered species may be affected by the potential project. If potential
adverse impacts could occur, then the Services may require changes to the proposed activity and/or
mitigation.
For LOMC requests involving floodplain activities that have already occurred, private individuals and
local and state jurisdictions are required to comply with the ESA independently of FEMA's process.
These requests do not provide the same opportunity as Conditional LOMCs for FEMA to comment on the
project because map changes are issued only after the physical action has been undertaken.
The following table provides a general summary of FEMA' s ESA requirements.
'
Conditional LOMC Requests
CLO MA
CLOMR-F
CLO MR
I
LOMC Requests
LOMA
LOMR-F
LOMR
No physical modification to floodplain is proposed.
Proposed placement of fill in the floodplain.
Proposed modifications of floodplains, fl ood ways, or
flood elevations based on physical and/or structural
changes.
No physical modification to floodplain has occurred.
Placement of fill in floodplain has occurred.
Modifications of floodplains, floodways, or flood
elevations have occurred based on physical and/or
structural changes.
ESA compliance is required independently ofFEMA's
process. The community needs to ensure that permits
are obtained per requirement under Section 60.3(a)(2)
of FEMA' s regulations.
ESA compliance must be.documented tci FEMA prior .
to issuance of CLOMR-F. FEMA must receive
confirmation of ESA compliance from the Services.
ESA compliance must be documented to FEMA prior
to issuance of CLOMR. FEMA must receive
confirmation of ESA compliance from the Services.
·:
ESA compliance is required independently.ofFEMA's
process. The community needs to ensure that permits
are obtained per requirement under Section 60.3(a)(2)
ofFEMA's regulations.
ESA compliance is required independently of FEMA's
process. The community needs to ensure that permits
are obtained per requirement under Section 60.3(a)(2)
of FEMA' s regulations.
ESA compliance is required independently ofFEMA's
process. The community needs to ensure that permits
are obtained per requirement under Section 60.3(a)(2)
of FEMA' s regulations.
Action Taken: For CLOMR-F and CLOMR applications, the submittal will be reviewed based on:
• Required data elements cited in the NFIP regulations
• Required data elements cited in the MT-1 and MT-2 Application/Certification Form instructions
• Demonstrated compliance with the ESA
Page 3 of 4 Procedure Memorandum No. 64 August 18, 2010
The CLOMR-F or CLOMR request will be processed by FEMA only after FEMA receives
documentation from the requestor that demonstrates compliance with the ESA. The requestor must
demonstrate ESA compliance by submitting to FEMA either an Incidental Take Permit, Incidental Take
Statement, "not likely to adversely affect" determination from the Services or an official letter from the
Services concurring that the project has "No Effect" on listed species or critical habitat. If the project is
likely to cause jeopardy to listed species or adverse modification of critical habitat, then FEMA shall
deny the Conditional LOMC request. This Procedure Memorandum will not change the review process
for Conditional Letters of Map Amendment (CLOMA), Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), Letter of
Map Revision based-on Fill (LOMR-F), or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) applications. In addition,
FEfyiA's Cooperating Technical Partners will be required to comply with this Procedure Memorandum.
Attachment:
Guidance for Compliance with the Endangered Species Act for Conditional Letters of Map Change
Cc: See Distribution List
Page 4 of 4 Procedure Memorandum No. 64 August 18, 2010
Distribution List (electronic distribution only):
Office of Chief Counsel
Risk Analysis Division
Risk Reduction Division
Environmental and Historic Preservation Unit
Regional Mitigation Divisions
Regional Environmental Officers
Legislative Affairs Division
Production and Technical Services Contractors
Customer and Data Services Contractor
Cooperating Technical Partners
Guidance for Compliance with the Endangered Species Act for
Conditional Letters of Map Change
This document supplements the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Procedure Memorandum
No. 64. It highlights additional resources and frequently asked questions to help guide Conditional Letter of Map
Revision (CLOMR) and Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR-F) applicants in the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) compliance process. The following sections identify helpful web resources, while the final
section includes responses to frequently asked questions.
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM AND LETTERS OF MAP CHANGE
Additional information about the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and Letters of Map Change (LOMC) is
available from FEMA.
NFIP: http://www.fema .gov/hazard/flood/info.shtm
LOMCs: http://www.fema.gov/hazard/map/lomc.shtm
ESA OF 1973
Additional information about the ESA and Endangered Species Programs is available from the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). These two agencies, collectively known
as "the Services," share responsibility for implementing the ESA and assisting all individuals (public and private)
in the ESA compliance process .
NM FS: http://www. nmfs. no a a .gov /pr /laws/ esa/
USFWS: http://www.fws.gov I e nda ngered/whatwedo. htm I
GETTING STARTED WITH ESA COMPLIANCE AND WHO TO CONTACT
CLO MR and CLOMR-F applicants are responsible for demonstrating to FEMA that ESA compliance has been
achieved prior to FEMA's review·of a CLOMR or CLOMR-F application. The applicant may begin by contacting a
local Service office, State wildlife agency office, or independent biologist to identify whether threatened or
endangered species exist on the subject property and whether the project associated with the CLOMR or
CLOMR-F request would adversely affect the species. These entities are also available to discuss questions
pertaining to listed species and ESA compliance.
NMFS Regional Offices: http://www.nmfs.noaa .gov/regional.htm
USFWS Office Directory: http://www.fws.gov/offices/
DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE ESA
If species may be affected adversely by the project, the applicant (as a non-Federal entity) would be required to
obtain compliance through the Section 10 process. This process includes applying for an Incidental Take Permit
{ITP) and preparing a habitat conservation plan (HCP). Additional information about Section 10 requirements
and the permit application process is available from NMFS and USFWS.
ITPs and NMFS : http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/faq esapermits.htm
ITPs and USFWS: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/hcp/hcpplan.html
HCPs and NMFS: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Habitat/Habit at-Conservation-Plans/lndex.cfm
HCPs and USFWS: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/hcp/index.html
NMFS Permit applications: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/esa permits.htm
USFWS Permit application: http://www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-56.pdf
Aug ust 18, 2010 Pa ge 1
. Guidance to Procedure M emorandum No. 64
To demonstrate to FEMA that ESA compliance has been ach ieved, the requestor must provide an ITP, an
Incidental Take Statement, a "not likely to adversely affect" determination from the Services, or an official letter
from the Services concurring that the project has "No Effect" on proposed or listed species or designated critical
habitat. If the project is likely to cause jeopardy of a species' continued existence or adverse modification to
designated critical habitat, then FEMA shall refuse to review the CLOMR or CLOMR-F request without prior
project approval from the Services. If a Federal entity is involved in a proposal or project for which a CLOMR or
CLOMR-F has been requested, then the applicant may coordinate with that agency to demonstrate to FEMA
that Section 7 ESA compliance has been achieved through that other Federal agency.
Frequently Asked Questions
For1which map change applications does FEMA require demonstrated ESA compliance?
FEMA requires applicants to dem onstrate compliance for CLOMRs and CLOMR-Fs only.
Why is ESA compliance required before FEMA can review my CLOMR or CLOMR-F application?
All individuals in this country (private and public) have a legal respo nsibility to comply with the ESA. FEMA recognizes
that potential projects for wh ich a CLOMR or CLOMR-F has bee n requested may affect threatened and endangered
species. As a result, FEMA requires documentation to show that potential projects comply with the ESA before a
CLOMR or CLOMR-F application can be reviewed.
Why does FEMA not require demonstration of ESA compliance for other LOMC applications?
Many LOMC requests involve floodplain activities that have occurred already. As a result, FEMA does not have the
opportunity t o comment on these projects in terms of ESA compliance prior to the physical changes taking place.
Private individuals and local and state jurisdictions are required to comply with the ESA independently of FEMA's
process.
What will FEMA require from CLOMR and CLOMR-F applicants to demonstrate ESA compliance?
As part of the CLO MR or CLOMR-F application, the requestor must provide an ITP, an Incidental Take Statement, a
"not likely to adversely affect" determination from the Services, or an official letter from the Services concurring that
the project has "No Effect" on proposed or listed species or designated critical habitat.
How much time will be required to achieve ESA Compliance?
The timeframe needed to achieve ESA compliance will depend entirely on the complexity of the project, the extent to
which species may be affected by the project, the quality of biological analyses conducted by the applicant, and the
review process as determined by the Services. Therefore, we recommend that LOMC applicants coordinate with the
Services as soon as possible within the project development process.
Who is available to answer my questions about ESA compliance?
NMFS and the USFWS both have staff available around the country to answer questions about threatened and
endangered species and ESA compliance. Refer to the NMFS Regional Offices and USFWS Office Directory links on
Page 1 of this guidance document to identify the nearest available Service office. FEMA does not have staff available
to assist with this process.
How do I determine if there are threatened or endangered species or critical habitat in my project area?
The applicant may begin by contacting a local Service office, state wildlife agency office, or independent biologist to
identify whether threatened or endangered species exist on the subject property and whether the project associated
with the CLOMR or CLOMR-F would adversely affect the species.
August 18, 2010 Page 2
Guidance to Procedure Memorandum No. 64
Do I need to hire a biologist for this process?
While hiring a biologist may be unnecessary, doing so may help facilitate the process . Biologists familiar with subject
species and the regulatory process can help adequately complete many of the studies required as part of the Section
10 process and fulfill other Section 10 requirements.
How are the following ESA-related terms defined?
"Take" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in
any such conduct and may include habitat modification or degradation.
"Harm" can arise from significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by
significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.
"Section 7" requires all Federal agencies, in consultation with USFWS or NMFS, to use their authorities to further the
purpose of the ESA and to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the con,tinued existence of li sted
species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
"Section 10" lays out the guidelines under which a permit may be issued to non-Federal parties to authorize
prohibited activities, such as take of endangered or threatened species.
"ITP" or incidental take permit is a permit issued under section lO(a)(l)(B) of the ESA to a non-Federal party
undertaking an otherwise lawful project that might result in the "take" of an endangered or threatened species.
Application for an incidental take permit is subject to certain requirements, including preparation by the permit
applicant of a HCP.
"HCP" or habitat conservation plan is a legally binding plan that outlines ways of maintaining, enhancing, and
protecting a given habitat type needed to protect species. It usually includes measures to minimize impacts and may
include provisions for permanently protecting land, restoring habitat, and relocating plants or animals to another
area. An HCP is required before an incidental take permit may be issued to non-Federal parties.
Other ESA-related terms not described here may be defined on the following website:
http://www.fws.gov I e ndangered/pdfs/glossa ry. pdf
August 18, 2010 Page 3
;pecies By County Report Page 1 of 1
>pecies By County Report
·he following report contains Species that are known to occur in this county. If you are looking for the Section 7 range (for Section 7 Consultations),
,lease visit the IPaC application.
:ounty: Brazos, TX
.T.. .. ............ -. ----·-· .
;roup_ !Name.. :Pcu:iuli!Jion !Statu..§. !.1,.ead OJ.fij;_g !Re covery Plan Name I.Recovery Plan Action Status 'Recqvery Plan Stagg ····-··--· --t···--·---·-····-·· ·-··-.. ···-·--·-··-··-·· ··:--··--------___ .. _________ -·;·-··---··---· ..................... !·-··---.. -----·-·-····--, .... --·-;--·-· ---· ··------··-··--· ....... ---.. ----·-----·-.. r--··-------····-·-·-___ ........................ ··· ·---· ·-----· -· .......... --·-----....... .
lU.S.f\ (CO, i i
3irds
!Experimental!Office Qf !Whooping crane !ID, FL, NM , • ; :Population, !The
jamericana)
iUT, and the : ,Non-:western half : ' !Essential !of Wyoming) :
i~ional
loirector
.J
i-
.J. . .............................. ..
isald eagle
l(Haliaeetus
!Jeucocephalus)
!Sonoran
iArizona
!Ecological iThreatened · '-:Desert DPS !services
j
i ····· ! .................................... ··············· ·-· ·--
···-·-·---·-··L-·--··-· !Field Office ..... ,--·-·--·--······· .. -·····-.. ...... -................. -... -.. _ ................ -............ t .................... _. ____ ., . ............ -·--········--· .. J ............... -........................ _ .... .;.. .... -.. -..
!Arctic peregrine '
!Falcon (Fa/co
Jperegrinus
!tundrius) ·······-··--.. !·----···--········--· ............................ .
!Northern
Recovery
!Fairbanks
IFish And
!wildlife :-
!Field Office i . -i·········................ .. ................ ______ ......... y ..
1~~.Yt.M..~~~9. i I
!Ecological !Aplomado Falcon !view Implementation Endangered ' ; , !~ervices !(Norther11J iP_r_qgres~
!se tentrionalis \Field Office i
la lomado falcon
i(Fa/co femoralis.
JM~~·~1;1~-p-IO;~; . . ... ; .... i ...... . .. .. ·-~ ...
1 , iProposed I !( Charadrius !Threatened I :-
\montanus) , , I l ··---· .. ---·--i-·---·---·------··-+---·----·-·-·------f·--··--.. ---·------··--~ .. ··--····-··· ··--··-. ·-·---·-···-.. -·---·-·---····-·-·--····-··'! ........... _···---······-·-·--··-··--···-···-·-.. . i !Arlington 1
'Final
Fishes !Shiner (Notro~ 11' !Candidate \_ ! ' :Sharpnose llEcological i
, · ~ervice.§. ; i ;
!oxyrhynchus) __ ! __ ·-·-1----!Field Office -~----------·--j-----------------------·-------·--···
i ~ !Arlington.
/Smalleye Shiner : !Ecological
j(Notrop_is !Candidate !services
!buccu/a) !Field Office
................ +---·--......
. !
. ls1ender rush-pea i Flowering! ! !(Hoffmannseggia i Plants i , itene//a) ·
+·--· !corpus
: !Christi
!Endangered J~ical
l se[Yice~
!Slender Rush-Qfil!
!(Hoffmannseg.9.@
!tenella) Recovery
:Plan
1-
l i
·······!
I
!view lmplem_entatio11
jProgress
\Houston
i ---------··--·----!----· \Field Office I I ! : ------.........,l.------------i---~~--
INavasota ladies·~i
!tresses
!(Spiranthes
: !Ecological Navasota Ladies'-!Endangered i . ' 1Serv1ces !tresses
I !View Implementation
!Progress
i !Field Office ,
...... ,_ .. ,.l. ·-··--l------------·····-·---···--.l--····· .................... -...... -.. ···-······ ··---·-······-...... ;. ... . iparksii) ·-··----------+--.--·•--·--· ................ _ ... -----.... .
!American black
Mammalslbear (Ursus
iamericanus)
. !Office Of :similarity of ! : 1The jrange of LA !Appearance :-. ; !Regional !(Threatened)! ' \Qirecto_r
!County
ib.bear
!-
···---··-·---.... :. ........ ,. ____ ........................................ ·--~ .... .. ········----·--·--··--··--····--··-· ··········--··--l----········--····'··-·-.... -----···--........................................ ··-····-
: Export options: CSV I EXCEL i XML I
httn://ecos .fws.gov/tess public/countySearch!speciesByCountyReport.action?fips=48041
'Final
Fina l
10/19/2010
Carters Creek and Burton Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for E. coli
Coordination Committee & Work Group Meeting
October 29, 2010
2:30 PM -4:30 PM
Location:
College Station Utilities Meeting and Training Facility: Auditorium
1603 Graham Road
College Station, TX 77845 •
The purpose of this meeting is to further discuss the Carters and Burton Creek TMDL
Technical Support Document and provide needed information to the Carters and Burton
Creek Coordination Committee and respective Work Groups for the development of the
TMDL Implementation Plan for the Carters and Burton Creek TMDL that is currently
under development by TCEQ. Each Work Group will also be asked to fill out seyeral
worksheets that will help in the development of each Work Group's respective portions
of the TMDL Implementation Plan. Monthly meeting schedules for each Work Group--wilr
also be set at this time.
MEETING AGENDA
2:30 -Introductions and Meeting Overview (Lucas Gregory, TWRI)
2:40 -Technical Support Document Findings (Larry Hauck, TIAER)
3: 15 -TMDL Options for Excluded Area (Amanda Ross, TCEQ)
3:30 -Bacteria Load Reductions Needed (Amanda Ross, TCEQ)
3:45 -Work Group Discussions (Lucas Gregory, TWRI)
-Causes, Concerns, Goals & Indicators Worksheet
-Identifying Existing Management Efforts Worksheet
-Set monthly meeting time for each Work Group
4: 15 -Open Discussion
4:30 -Adjourn
You are invited to a Brown Bag (bring your own lunch) Webinar Series on Watershed and
Stormwater Management.
They are provided through the Center for Watershed Protection. (http://www.cwp.org/)
The first one is next Wednesday.
Please invite others who may benefit from this training.
CEU info is at the bottom of this email.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Location:
College Station Utilities Meeting & Training Facility
Auditorium
1603 Graham Road
College Station, TX
Time: Wednesdays 11 a.m. -1 p.m.
Wednesday October 20, 2010
Rooftop Disconnection, Filter Strips & Rainwater Harvesting
Innovative stormwater management starts at the rooftop and the yard, whether
for residential, commercial, or institutional applications. This webcast will review
various disconnection techniques: simple downspout disconnection, small-scale
infiltration and bioretention, compost-amended so ils, and rainwater harvesting .
Case studies will cover several interesling approaches for inspecting and
maintaining these types of distributed practices.
Wednesday December 15, 2010
Better Site Design Gets Better
The Center for Watershed Protection first introduced the concept of Better Site
Design (BSD) in 1998 and has used BSD in its work with many communities. The
objective of BSD was and remains to improve local development codes so that
development and redevelopment projects can reduce impervious cover and
runoff. However, new concepts and innovations in development design and
stormwater approaches have provided an opportunity to update BSD. Whether
you are a seasoned Development Roundtable veteran, or new to BSD, this
webcast will introduce you to a "better" way to do Better Site Design.
Continuing education credits (CEUs) are available for attending CWP webcasts.
A total of 1 CEU ( 10 Professional Development Hours) may be earned for
attending all 5 webcasts in the 2010 series. The CEU is a nationally recognized
measure of participation in non-credit continuing education programs that
meet established criteria for increasing competency. Attendance for each
entire two hour webcast is required to earn the CEUs. While we encourage
multiple participants per registration to make webcasts an affordable method of
training, only registered participants are eligible to earn CEUs. Webcast
attendees interested in CEUs should indicate this during the registration process.
Venessa Garza
Greenways Program Manager
Planning & Development Services
City of College Station
P.O.Box 9960
1101 Texas A venue
College Station, TX 77845
Phone: (979) 764-3674
Fax: (979) 764-3496
Website: www.cstx.gov
City of College Station
Home of Texas A&M University