Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3 Floodplain
Section 6. Flood Contents Contents ........................................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Why F lood s Are a T hreat .............................................................................................................................. 6-1 Hazard Profile ................................................................................................................................................. 6-5 History o f F looding ....................................................................................................................................... 6-5 Location of Hazardous Areas .................................................................................................... 6-10 NFIP Program Participation ...................................................................................................................... 6-11 Peo ple and Property at Risk ....................................................................................................................... 6-12 Why Floods Are a Threat Unique Geograph ic and Atmospheric Conditions According to American Ha zardscapes: The R egionalization of Hazards an d D isaste rs publish ed b y the National A cademy Press, Texas, b ecau se of its size and location, consi stently outranks other states in deaths and d am age from fl oods . Texas is second in ca su alti es and d amage from hurricanes and tropical sto rms. ''From 19 75 to '1998 , t he Lone Star Sta t e w as t h e mos t storm haz rdou s pla in the coun t ry." -The atlon I Academ y P res~ Mitigating Risk: Prote cting th e Brazos V allry A gainst All H azards H20 Partners ~ Pro tected Proprietary Inf om1atio n De velop ed By H20 Partn ers, In c. Page 6-1 The State's vulnerabili ty is the r es ult of several factors: its miles of Gulf of Mexico coastline; its proximity to the Pacific Ocean off the west coa st of Mexic o; its geographical location near the Rocky Mountains o f Colorado and A rizona and the high-altitude jet stream; and its n ea rness to the unique West Texas "dry line,'' a shifting, invisible atmospheric separatio n of dry desert air from the mois t Gulf air . These factors create a breeding ground for the big s torms of spring and fall that spawn tornadoes and suck up Gulf or Pacific m o i s ture that feed the heavy rains that cause flash flooding . A ll these geographic factors cause Texas to experience extensive, annual s torms. Figure 6-1 shows the State's vulnerability to damaging s to rms. Figure 6-1 . Texas Sources of Moisture ME ICO .. ,.. .. 'Z .. CAP ftOCK ESCAR~MINT TE )(AS Flooding takes many forms in the Brazos Vall ey Region . Flash Flooding Most fl as h flo o ding is cau se d by slow-moving thunder storm s, b y thunder s torms repeatedly m oving over the sa me area, or by h eavy rains from hurricanes and tropical storms . Flash floods can occur within a few minutes or after h o urs o f excessive rainfall . Often there is no warning that fla sh fl ood s are co rrung . Page 6-2 Mitiga ting Risk : Pro tecting the Brazos Vallry Against All H azards H20 Partners ~ Prote cted Proprietary Infom1ation D eveloped By H20 Partn ers, In c. Flash fl ooding can pose a deadly danger to residents of the Brazos Valley R egion. A number of roads run throug h low-lying areas that are prone to sudden and frequent flooding during heavy rains . Motorists often attempt to drive through barricaded or flood ed roadways. It take s only 18-to-24 -inches of water moving across a roadway to carry away mos t vehicles. Floating cars easily get swe pt d own stream, making rescues difficult and dangerous. Riverine Flooding Urban flooding in Houston after Tropical Storm A llison . Riverin e flooding is n a tural and inev itable. It is the overbank flooding o f river s and s tre am s, typically resulting from large-s cale w eather sys tem s that genera te pro lo n ge d rainfall over a wide ge o graphic area . Som e river flo o d s o ccur seasonally when w inter or spring rainfalls fill river b as in s with too much water, too quickly. Torrential rains fr o m d ecaying hurricane s or tropical sys tem s can also produce river flooding . Urban Flooding rb an flooding occurs as land is converted fr o m field s or woodlands to roads, buildings and p arking lo ts and when the natural land lo ses its ability to absorb rainfall . U rbanizatio n changes the n a tural h ydro logic systems of a b as in, increas ing run o ff two to six time s over w h a t would occur on n atura l terrain. During perio d s of urban flo o ding, s treets can become swift m oving rivers, while hi ghway underpasses and underground parking garages ca n b ecome death trap s as th ey fill with wa ter . El Nino Phenomenon Flooding can occur in cycles. The E l iii o phen o m en o n -the cyc lical disruptio n o f the ocean-atmosphere system in the tropical Pacific Ocean -h as important Mitigating Risk: Protecting the Bra zos Vailry Against AJJ H azards DRAFr Page 6-3 H20 Partners ~ Pro tected Prop rietary Inform ation D evelop ed By H 20 Partne rs, In c. consequences around the globe and here in Texas. The prese nce of E l iiio is indicated by unusually warm water in the eastern Pacific Ocean, altering wind and ocean currents. El mo generally brings coo ler winters and wetter than normal co nditions to Texas . In 199 7-199 8, E l mo increased surface temperatures in the Eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean b y 5-to-7-degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal, thus contributing to the 1998 flooding . Tropical Flooding Hurricanes and tropical storms also bring flood s . Between 1900 and 2000, thirty-seven hurricanes made landfall in Texas. Four were a Category 4 on the Saffir-Simpson scale, ten were Category 3, nine were Category 2 and twelve were Category 1. Texas was hit b y six teen hurricanes and tropical storms from 197 5 to 1998 and, after a period of relative quiet, is overdue for another big hurricane. The Brazos Valley Region is not immune to the death and des tructio n that tropical sys tems can bring. Indeed, almost 60 percent of deaths in the U.S. from tropical cyclones have been from inland, fre shwater flooding. Page 6-4 Mitiga ting Risk: Protecting th e Brazos Vallry Against All Hazards H20 Partners ~ Protected Proprietary Itiformation D eveloped By J-120 Part11 ers, I 11c. Hazard Profile Major fl ooding and fl as h fl ooding events can h ave a subs ta ntial severi ty of impa ct. T h ey can ca u se multi ple d ea ths, completely shut d own fa cili ties fo r thirty d ays or m ore, and cause m ore than fifty p erce nt o f a ffe cte d p rop erties to b e d estroyed or suffer m a jor damage . T h e freq u ency of occurrence o f fl ooding i s highly lik ely, with a n event p rob a b le in the n ext year. The annual p rob a bility o f o b serving a 100-year fl ood i s o n e-p erce n t. T h e annual p rob a bili ty of o b serving a 500- yea r fl ood event is 0 .2 p e rce n t. Flooding o ccurs in season al p a tterns. T hunders to rms form w h en warm, m oi st air collid es wi th c ooler, drier air. Since these m asses te nd to com e The Bra z os Valley's 267 ,085 c itiz e n s resi de o n 5,051 s qua re miles o f E as t centra l T exa s .1 This e ntire a r ea was soake d w ith fl o odw ate rs during the unforgetta ble Bra z os Flood o f 1899. B e tweenJune 17 a ndJune 2 8 o f tha t year, r a infa ll ave raging 8. 9 inch es fe ll over 66 ,000 s qua re miles, cau s ing the Brazos River t o ove rflow its b a nks a nd inunda t e a n es timated 12 ,000 s qua re miles . D a m age t o p rop e rty was es tima t e d a t m o re tha n $9 millio n a nd 2 84 p e r son s wer e known to h ave p e ris h e d in t h e fl oo d wat e r s ; t h o u s ands o f o the r s wer e left h o meless. The fl o od's hig h est recorde d stage was at H earne, Robe rtson C o unty, w h e re, as a t m any points, the w a t e r s rose a b ove a ll availa ble fl ood gau ges .2 1 http://ww.,,v .txregio n alc ouncil.org/ regions / spag.htm 2 "Brazos Fl ood Of 1899." The Handbook efT exas O nline. together during th e tra n sitio n fr o m summer to w inter , m ost thunderstorm s and res ulting fl ooding occur during the sp ring (A p r il , May and June) and fa ll (O ctob er , November , and D ecemb er). Figure 6 -2 . Flood Hazard Profile Summary SEVERITY OF IMPACT FR EQUENCY OF OCC URRENCE HOURS OF WAR NIN G TIME P o tential severi ty o f imp ac t is d e fin e d as fo ll ows: "Sub stan tia l" m ay res ult in multi ple d eaths, co mplete shutd own o f fac ili ties for 30 o r m ore d ays, o r m ore th a n 50 % of p roperty d estroyed or with major d am age. "Major" m ay r es ult in injuries or illn esses that result in p erman ent disabili ty, Mitigating Risk: Pro tecting the Bra zos Vallry Against All Hazards DRAFT Page 6-5 H20 Partners ~ Protected Propn.etary Information Developed By H20 Pa rtners, In c. comple te shutdow n of critical facilities for at le as t 2 weeks, or more than 2S % o f property d es tr oyed or with major damage. "Mino r" may result in injuries or illnesses that do not result in permanent disabili ty, a complete shutdown o f critical faciliti es for m ore than 1 week, or more than 10 % o f property des troye d or with major damage. "Limite d" may result in injuries or illnes ses that are treatable with fir s t aid, minor quality of life lost, shutdown of critical facilities and services for 24 h ours or less, or less than 10 % of property de stro yed or with major damage . Frequency or occurrence is defined as fo ll ows: "Highly likely" means an event is probable in the next year. "Likely" means an event is probable in the n ex t three years. "Occasional" means an event is pos sible in the nex t S yea rs. "Unlikely" means an event is poss ib le in the nex t 10 yea r s. History of Flooding Flood events in the Brazos Valley Region reported to the Nation al Wea ther Service are li sted in Table 6-1. Table 6-1. Reported Flood Events by County, Figure 5-2. Flood Hazard Profile Summary Brazos Valley Region January l, 1994, to June 30, 2003 Brazos County Fla sh fl oodin BRAZOS 10 /16 /1994 0 0 Fla sh flo o ding/ BRAZOS 12 /1S /1994 0 0 flood Flash flo o d Crockett 06 /10 /199S 0 0 Fla sh fl ood Bryan / Colle ge 09 /21 /199S 0 0 Station Flash fl ood 02/20 /19 9 7 0 0 Fla sh fl ood 10 /13 /19 97 0 0 Fla sh fl ood 01 /06 /19 98 0 0 Flash flo o d 10 /17 /199 8 0 0 $S.OM $SOK SOK SK SK 0 SK 0 SK 0 SK 0 SK 0 SK 0 Page 6-6 M itigating Risk: Protecting the Brazos V allry Against All H azards Protected Prop rietary I1iformation D eveloped By H 20 Partners, Inc. Flooding, County 10 /17 /1998 1 0 0 0 nvenne Flash flood 10 /18 /1998 0 0 2K 0 Flash flood ide 10 /18 /1998 0 0 1SK 0 Flooding, 11 /12 /1998 0 0 0 0 nvenne Flash fl ood 11 /02 /2000 0 0 1.0M 0 Fla sh flood 11 /03 /2000 0 0 2SK 0 Flash flood 11 /03 /2000 0 0 2SK 0 Flash flood 11 /03 /2000 0 0 1.0M 0 Flash flood 09 /09 /2001 0 0 SOK 0 Flash flood 07 /14 /2002 0 0 20K 0 Fla sh flood ide 11 /04 /2002 0 0 9SK 0 Flash flood ide 02 /20 /2003 0 0 8K 0 I Grimes County Flash flooding GRIMES 10 /16 /1994 3 0 S.OM SOK Fla sh flo o ding/ GRIMES 12 /1S /1994 3 0 SOOK SOK flood Flash flood GRIMES 01 /17/199S 0 0 SOK 0 Flash flood GRIMES 12 /17 /199S 0 0 SK 0 Flash flood GRIMES 12 /18 /199S 0 0 SK 0 Flash flood Counrnvide 02 /20 /199 7 0 0 SK 0 Flash flood Centra l Portion 01 /21 /1998 0 0 3K 0 Flash flood Navasota 08 /04 /1998 0 0 2K 0 Flooding, County 10 /17/199 8 N /A 1 0 n venne Flash flood Countvwide 11 /12 /1998 0 0 1SK 0 Flash flood So uth P ortion 11 /12 /1998 0 0 lOK 0 Flash flood Countvwide 11 /13 /1998 0 0 lOK 0 Flash flood Counrnvide OS /04 /2000 0 0 SOK 0 Flash flood North Portion 11 /03 /2000 0 0 lOOK 0 Flash flood North Portion 11 /03 /2000 0 0 1SK 0 Flash flood Countvwide 11 /04 /2000 0 0 SOK 0 Flash fl ood Co untvw ide 11 /06 /2000 0 0 2SK 0 Mitigating Risk: Protecting the Brazos VallryAgainstAJJ Hazards DRAFT Page 6-7 H20 Partne rs ~ Protected Propn.etary Information D eveloped By H20 Partners, Inc. Flash flood Southeast 06 /09 /2001 0 0 0 0 Portion Flash flood Plantersville 07/14 /2002 0 0 3K 0 Fla sh flood Coun rwide OS /lS /2002 0 0 2SK 0 F lash flood Coun rwide 11 /04 /2002 0 0 20K 0 Flash flood Coun ;vide 02/20 /2003 0 0 SK 0 I Leon County Fla sh flooding Buffalo 10 /07/1994 0 0 0 0 Flas h flooding LEON 12 /16 /1994 0 0 0 0 F lash flood Buffalo 11 /13 /199 S 0 0 0 0 Flash flood Countvwide 01 /2S /1999 0 0 0 0 Flash fl ood Tewett 12 /16 /2001 0 0 0 0 Flash flood Centerville 11 /04 /2002 0 0 0 0 I Madison County Fla sh fl ood MADISON 10 /16 /1994 0 0 SOOK SOK F la sh MADISON 12/lS /19 94 2 0 SOOK SOK fl ood /flood Flas h fl ood Co untvwide 09 /26 /1996 0 0 SK 0 Flash flood Countvw ide 02 /20 /199 7 0 0 SK 0 Flooding, County 10 /17/199 S 1 0 0 0 nvenne Flash flood Madi sonvill e 10 /17 /199 S 0 0 SK 0 Fla sh flood Countvwide 10 /1S/199 S 0 0 10K 0 Flooding, County 11 /12/199 S 0 0 0 0 n venne Fla sh fl ood Southwest 07 /11 /19 99 0 0 2SK 0 Portion Flas h flood Countvwide 11 /02 /2000 0 0 SOK 0 Fla sh fl ood Countvwide 11 /03 /2000 0 0 2SK 0 Fla sh flood Countmvide 11 /04 /2000 0 0 2SK 0 Flash fl ood Countvwide 11 /06 /2000 0 0 2SK 0 Flash flood Countvwide 11 /04 /2002 0 0 20K 0 Flash flood Countvwide 02 /20 /2003 0 0 SK 0 Page 6-8 Mitigating Risk: Protuting the Bra zos Vallry Against All H azards H20 Partners ~ Protected Proprietary Information D eveloped By I-!20 Partners, In c. I Robertson County Flash flood Countvwide 08 /01 /199S 0 0 0 0 Flash flood Hearne 08 /01 /199S 0 0 0 Flash flood Calvert 10 /17/1998 0 0 0 0 Flash flood Hearne 11 /13 /1998 0 0 0 0 Flash flood M umford 11 /13 /1998 0 0 0 0 Flash fl ood Franklin 01 /29 /1999 0 0 0 0 Flash flood Countvwide 11 /04 /2002 0 0 SK 0 Flash flood Countvwide 11 /04 /2002 0 0 0 0 Flash flood Countvwide 02 /21 /2003 0 0 0 0 I Washington County Flash flooding WASHING-10 /16 /1994 0 0 S.OM SOK TON Flash flood Countvwid e 09 /20 /1996 0 0 SK 0 Flash flood Coun tvwide 02 /20 /199 7 0 0 SK 0 Flash fl ood Bre nha m 06 /07 /199 7 0 0 SK 0 Flash flood Brenharn 06 /10 /199 7 0 0 SK 0 Flash flood Brenham 08 /07/199 7 0 0 SK 0 Flash flood Brenham 09 /23 /199 7 0 0 SK 0 Flash flood Southwest 02 /26 /199 8 0 0 SK 0 Portion Flash flood Brenham 10 /17 /19 98 0 0 SK 0 Flash fl ood Countvwid e 10 /18 /1998 0 0 3SK 0 Flash flood Countvwid e 11 /12 /199 8 0 0 3K 0 F la sh flood Countvw ide 11 /12 /199 8 0 0 SK 0 Fla sh flood Countvwi de 11 /13 /19 98 0 0 10K 0 Flash fl ood Countvwi d e 11 /14 /1998 0 0 SK 0 Flash flood Brenham 06 /2S /1999 0 0 1SK 0 Flash flood Centra l Portion OS /04 /2000 0 0 1SK 0 Flash flood Central Portion 11 /06 /2000 0 0 2SK 0 Flash flood Countvwide 06/08 /2001 0 0 0 0 Flash flood East Portion 06/09/2001 0 0 0 0 F las h flood Coun tvwi d e 08 /1S /2002 0 0 30K 0 Fla sh fl ood C hanne ll Hill 09 /07/2002 0 0 10K 0 Mitigating Risk: Protecting the Bra zos Val!ry A gainst All H azards DRAFT Page 6-9 H20 Partne rs ~ Pro tected Propn.etary Informatio n D eveloped By I-120 Partn ers, Inc. Location of Hazardous Areas Flood -h az ard ar eas ar e determined u sing s tati stic al a nalyses o f reco rds o f riverflow, sto rm tid es, and rainfall; informa ti o n o btained throug h co n sulta ti o n with communities; fl oodplain topogr aphic surveys; and h ydro logic al and h ydraulic analyses . FEMA's Flood Insuran ce R a te M ap s (F IRMs) identify areas subj ect to fl ood ha za rd. Thes e include Sp ecial Flood Haz ard A r eas, which ar e d e fin ed as ar ea s that w ill be inunda ted by a fl ood event h aving a o n e-p ercent chance o f b eing equaled o r ex cee d ed in any give n year. T h e o n e-p er cent-annual-chance fl ood i s also referred to as the b ase fl ood o r 100-y ear fl ood . Mod erate fl ood -h azard ar ea s ar e also sh own o n the F IRM, and ar e the areas b etwe en the limits o f th e b ase fl ood and the two-tenths o f a p ercent-annual-chance (or 500- yea r) fl ood. F igure 6-3 depicts th e fl ood zon es w here there i s pote ntial for d am age to p rop er ty and loss o f life. L eon C o unty h as n o t b een m app ed under th e a ti o n al F lood Insurance Progra m . R o b ertson County h as b een p art o f the N atio nal Flood Insurance P rogram since 1997 . H owever , R o b ertson County fl ood m ap s exis t in p ap er fo rm o nly; n o digital Q3 d a ta exists. T h e statu s o f p ap er fl oodplain m ap s fo r R o b ertson County can b e fo und a t th e fo ll owing web site: h ttp ://www.fe m a.gov/ ci s/ tx.pdf. P age 6-10 Mitigating Risk: Protecting the Brazos Vallry Against All H azards H20 Partners ~ Protected Proprietary Information D eveloped By l-I20 Partners, Inc. Figure 6-3. Riverine Flooding Potential Brazos Valley Region Popul a t ion Dens ity [Peopl e/S q Km ] Less Than 50 50 . 100 100 . 500 ~stJ0 -1000 ~M ore Then 1000 NFIP Program Participation N A Flood 100 yea r Q3 No t Ava il able Flood in surance o ffere d throu gh the N a ti o n al F lood Ins ura nce P rogra m i s th e b es t wa y fo r h o m e and business own er s to p rotect them selves fin an ciall y agains t the ravages o f fl ooding. T h er e ar e currently over 1,000 fl ood insuran ce p o li cies in the forc e in p articip ating Brazos Vall ey R egio n jurisdictio n s with over $13 5 milli o n in pro p er ty cover ed . T h er e have b ee n 278 losses to d a te with $1 .3 millio n in claims paym ents . Mitigating Risk: Protecting the Bra zo s Vallry Against All H azards D RAFT P age 6-11 H20 Partners ~ Pro tected Proprieta ry Infom1atio n Developed By H 20 Partn ers, In c. Table 6-2. National Flood Insurance Program, Policies and Losses Communi1y Policies in Total Coverage T t 1 L Dollars Paid, Effect in Thousands 0 a asses Historical Coun1y Brenham 63 $10,539 14 $33,92 4 TOTALS 1,001 $135,77 6 278 $1,333,0 66 People and Property at Risk To assess flood ri sk, flood areas were m o deled for 100-yea r and 500-year events. Flood depth was estimated at the p ixel le v el for affected areas, alo n g with p roportion o f the area a ffected wi thin th e cen su s block. HAZUS-MH invento1y and damage functi o n s were then utilized to es tim ate exposure. Table 6-3 sh ows the estimated buildings and p eople at risk to flooding by county. Exp osure data for Leon and R o b ertson Counties could n ot b e generated because Q3 data for these Page 6-12 M itiga ting Risk: Protecting the Brazos V a!lryAgainstA!! H azards H20 Partners ~ Protected Proprietary Infom1atio n D eveloped By H 20 Partners, In c. areas is n o t av ailable; thus, the to tal ex p os ure v alu es for the r egion are co n sid er ed t o b e lower -b ound es timates . Becau se detail ed informatio n was n o t available to calcula te p o tential losses due to fl ood , it is ass umed that in a wor s t-ca se-s ce n ari o event, all exp osed ar eas would b e impacted and the ex p osed v alues would equal the p o tential losses. Table 6-3 . Potential Wet Exposure for 1 OD-Year Flood (Riverine Flooding) Potential Potential Coun1y Residential Building Commercial Building People at Risk Exposure at Risk Exposure at Risk Number Value ($1,000) Number Value ($1,000) Brazos 3,033 $7 17,42 8 33 $145,911 9 ,3 53 Burleso n 1,161 182,289 4 17,363 2,372 Grimes 1,061 221 ,817 6 33 ,216 4,503 Le o n N /A N /A N /A N /A N /A Madison 332 57,160 1 12,0 78 637 R o b ertson N /A N /A N /A N /A N /A W as hing to n 7,634 20 5,238 26 113 ,47 0 2,289 TOTAL 13,221 $1,383 ,931 7 0 $322,03 7 19 ,154 Potential Damages and Losses To es timate annualiz ed loss es due to fl ood, the exp ose d valu es w er e multiplied by the pro b abili ty o f the o ccurrence of a 100-yea r fl ood event (1 p ercent) to calcula te the es timated annuali ze d losses . A nnualize d lo sses b y co unty ar e sh own in Table 6-4. P o ten tia l impacts to critica l fa cilities and infras trncture ar e provided in Ta ble 6-5. R ep e titive losses ar e provided in Table 6-6. Table 6-4. Potential Annualized Losses (Riverine Flooding) Total Exposure of Annualized Annual ized Total Losses for Losses for Annualized Annualized County Residential and Residential Commercial Expected Percent Lo ss Commercial Buildings ($1 000) Buildings at Risk Buildings at Property Ratio ($1000) Risk ($1 000) Losses M itigating Risk: Pro tecting the Brazos Vallry Against All H azards DRA FT P age 6-13 H20 Partners ~ Protected Proprietary Information Developed By H 20 Partners, In c. County Brazos Burleson Grimes Leon Madison R obertson Washington TOTAL Page 6-14 Total Exposure of Annualized Annualized Total Losses for Losses for Annualized Res idential and Residenti al Commercial Expected Commercial Buildings ($1000) Buildings at Risk Buildings at Property ($1000) Risk ($1 000) Losses 3,538,770 29,946 544 1 35387 3,938,781 37,845 1542 39387 2,128,329 19,546 1736 2128 Not Not Not Not available avail ab le available availa ble 290,598 2,761 144 2905 Not ot Not Not available available available available 1,572,624 14,106 1619 15 726 $11,469,10 2 $104,206 $1048 $114691 Table 6-5. Critical Facilities and Infrastructure Potentially Damaged, by County Critical Facilities and Infrastructure County Number Inside Percentage Total Number the l 00-year Susceptible to Floodplain Flooding Brazos 298 129 43.29 Burleson 139 7 8 56.12 Grimes 181 105 58.01 Leon No t Available Madi son 100 24 24.00 Robertson Not Available Washington 212 109 51.42 TOTALS 930 445 47 .85 Annualized Percent Loss Ratio 0.01000 0.01000 0.01000 Not avail ab le 0.01000 Not availab le 0.0 1000 Mitigating lvsk: Protecting the Brazos Vallry Against All H azards H20 Partners ~ Protected Proprietary Information D eveloped By H20 Partners, Inc. Table 6-6. Re petit ive Losses, by County Co unty City Insured Property Loss Loss Payments Count Count Brazos Bryan No 4 9 $90,173 .29 Bryan Yes 9 19 $2 45,709.70 College Station No 2 6 $33 ,566.45 Burleson Somervill e No 1 2 $9,8 21.45 Madison Madison County SDF 1 1 6 $6 5,775.34 Madison County Yes 1 2 $23,044.28 Washing ton Brenham No 1 3 $10,0 44.40 Brenham Yes 1 3 $5,878.22 Totals 20 50 $484,013.13 1 Special Direct Facility of th e Nation al Flood Insurance Program . M itigating Risk: Pro tecting the Brazos Va/fry Against All H azards DRAFT Page 6-15 H20 Partners ~ Protected Proprietary Iefonnation D evelop ed By H 20 Partners, I nc. -. -~ t .,.....,, II I ' r I I I J'' ' . II _. II ~ii •I I 11 I ' ,, > .. . ' ' ,.. -'. FLOODPLAIN FUNDAMENTALS: How to Reduce the Cost & Risk of Flooding to Your Community As an elected community official, you're probably very concerned about flood control. Floods have caused a greater loss of life and property and have devastated more families and communities in the United States than all other natural hazards combined. This brochure is designed to answer some of your questions about flood control and provide you as a local official with information you can use to reduce the cost and risk of flooding to your community. Floodplains , if managed well , don't have to be a community liability -they can be one of its greatest assets . WHAT CAUSES FLOODING? The most frequent cause of flooding is heavy rain. Even relatively small flows may cause severe flooding if the channel has become blocked by debris, sediment or overgrown vegetation . Flooding can also occur if a community's drainage system is inadequate, or if there is no place for the local runoff to go, i.e., the main river channel is already full. Intense thunderstorms with heavy rainfall can cause "flash" floods, which can be dangerous because they often occur without warning and can result in large flows down small streams. Less intense rains that persist for several hours or days can also result in serious flooding but usually not as rapidly. WHAT CAUSES LARGE FLOODS? The flow of water that streams must carry varies from day to day, season to season and year to year. Sometimes there are long spells of little or no rain in an area and flows slow to a trickle. At other times, the same area might have a wet period in which one storm follows another. Floods vary in size depending on such things as the intensity of rain, the area over which the rain falls , and/or other factors. The amount of previous rain on a watershed or the current storage in a reservoir may also play a major role in the potential for flooding. Heavy rain on a dry watershed may not result in any flooding while just a small amount of rain on an already saturated ground may cause a flood. Sometimes the several factors combine to cause only a minor rise in the area's streams and, at other times, combine to cause destructive floods. The occurrence of factors that determine the size of floods is largely a random one. Large floods can occur at any time and may often be impossible to predict more than a short time ahead of the event. HOW OFTEN DO FLOODS OCCUR? There's no way to predict when the next flood will come or how big it will be . However, past flooding gives some clues about what to expect. Engineers studying past floods use statistics to estimate the chance that floods of various sizes will occur. For example : A relatively common small flood of a certain size might be expected from experience to occur 33 times over a 100-year period . It would be expected to happen on an average of once every third year or, said another way, have a 1 in 3 or 33% chance of happening in any particular year. It would be called the 33-year flood or the 33 percent chance flood . A larger (more unusual, less frequent) flood found to occur on the average of 10 times in 100 years would be called the 1 O percent chance flood or the 10-year flood . The flood so large and unusual that it only occurs on the average of once every hundred years would have a one percent chance of occurring in any particular year and be called the 100-year flood or 1 percent chance flood. This doesn't mean of course that a 10 percent flood occur exactly once every 1 O years . A rainy year might have several 10 percent floods and then there might not be another for many years. Similarly, two or more large floods, like the 100 year flood or even the 500-year flood could occur back to back. The percentage chance of a flood occurring is based on the average of what is expected over a long time. . . . The chance of a flood of a certain size occurring and then the same or bigger flood happen ing right away is like flipping a coin. Just because heads comes up doesn't mean that the next try has to be tails. Each time the coin is f lipped there is a 50-50 chance for either heads or ta ils. In the same way , when one flood has passed, the chances are re-set. A 1 percent f lood has a 1 percent chance of occurring in any one year. And , as soon as it does happen, the chances are still 1 percent that it will occur again sometime during the following 365 days. WHAT IS A FLOODPLAIN? Floodplains are low areas subject to flooding from time to time . Most floodplains are adjacent to streams, lakes or oceans although almost any area can flood under the right circumstances . The action of water on the land and interaction of water with vegetation produce floodplains which differ apprec iably from one another and from uplands in their soils , drainage systems and vegetation. Beaches and small river valleys are usually easily recogn izable as floodplains to people with a trained eye . Less obvious floodp lains occur in dry washes and on alluvial fans in arid parts of the western United States, around prairie potholes, in areas subject to high groundwater levels, and in low lying areas where water may accumulate. Floodg~A(l d&and adjacentMNaters-form-wcomplex, dyoamiQ:physica!:anct.biological system ~ }/ tha §ijR wwpiY..d ~ • A te ,~es~u r.c.e.s'i !iy ii;i~~~u~ anctsociet'A < s u rc es~~..,; Floodplains provide tne~Metrop ex with natural f lood and erosion reduction, water filtering , a wide variety of wildlife habitats, and ideal places for recreation. A floodplain can be defined according to the frequency of the flooding that covers it. An area that is flooded every year {a 1-year floodplain) is smaller than the floodplain that is inundated less frequently {a 15-year, 75-year, or even larger floodplain). Buildings on the 10-year floodplain can be expected to flood on the average of once every 1 O years, while buildings on higher ground will be flooded less often . Th . ll,~da to tt~BI ,i management is the base or one percent chance floodplain . This is the floodplain ttiaf nas at least one chance in 100 of being flooded in any given year. It is also called the 1~ :a fl~ptai rn his is the area shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map {FIRM) issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. As commonly applied, the concept of a 100-year floodplain can be mis leaoing . Tec~l)ica UY.,,R nlY. if the oute F-r.eqg_e of a J O.O,:year floodj?lain ~.as a _ri §l k qf on~u~~r~en .qt being:;.f lootje9 in a~y give • ~Y!~~ Tfi '1risl< rise~f o r sites\c losef to the~river, 'a rid 'alsoaflowe elevatio ns', y et m~iny peo'ple think of the entire area between the water body and the outer edge of the 100-year floodpla in as subj ect to the same risk. Variation of risk is not usually shown on floodplain maps. HOW ARE FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARIES DETERMINED? Mapping 1()9-year.floodplain boundaries is at best~n im~r:fect scien<1e. Even using the best techniques available , estimates of the 100-year flood discharge are typically off by as much as 5· to_45"percent. The accuracy is limited by the streamgaging records and detailed mapp ing ava ilable to determine model parameters. The discharge rate is then entered into a Qydraulic .. ,. mQ9~Ht> determine the elevation of the 100-year flood, which is then mapped. Research suggests th B:t tl(le pr6bab1~·na IOnyv,td~ ~t~~'t~!.P ~~rofJ Qr.'2ase., H~<?-~ar) flood eleyation mapping ~ is ~l!t ~~eet.f ifhus, the floodplain boundary line shown on a map is · not absolute and structures located within several feet {vertically) of the 100-year floodplain are still at risk . In flat areas, structures located within several hundred feet {horizontally) of the 100-year floodplain also may be at risk . .. WHAT IS THE FLOODWAY? The floodway is the river channel and the overbank area near the channel that carry the deeper and faster-moving flood waters. Some maps show a regulatory floodway, an area where construction regulations require special provisions to account for this extra hazard. FINDING OUT YOUR FLOOD RISK As part of its statutory responsibilities to carry out a National Flood Insurance Program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped most of the flood risk areas of the U.S. About 19,000 communities participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, and if your community has a 1 % chance of a flood occurring in any given year, there is probably a flood map in your community's planning office (cdl ecfaiFtdocMnsuraiice Rate.~~J?~·Pf,.f:l~M). If your community does not have a copy of its flood map, you can request a copy by calling (800) 358- 9616 or contacting the FEMA Regional Office for your community. Any maps of flood risk are likely to show only general areas that fall within one or another range of risk. Technical assistance from the source of the information is usually available in interpreting the information to determine the risk for a particular parcel of land. HOW MUCH FLOOD RISK IS ACCEPTABLE? Almost all areas are capable of being flooded under the right set of circumstances. Obviously, the risk of flooding is higher in some areas than others. The risk varies depending on the specific location, the weather that is characteristic of the region and other factors. For practical purposes, we generally only consider a location to have a flood problem if the risk is more than we can tolerate comfortably. The real question is "How much risk of flooding is acceptable?" The choices of how much risk of flooding can be tolerated depends on the case at hand. For example, it might be considered acceptable to have a junkyard, park, dairy farm or golf course in an area that can expect to be flooded every 10 years on the average. However, because the risk to life is greater, we might decide hospitals, schools and other important or expensive facilities should be limited to areas where a flood might be expected no more often then every 500 years on the average . The reasonable risk for most land uses falls somewhere between those two extremes. Deciding the tolerable risk for a specific property requires considering the investment involved, the danger to life, access to safe areas in the event of a flood, and a host of other factors. Even when all the conceivable influencing factors <;!re considered, there is no straightforward answer. For example, the amount of risk that's tolerable for a residence is ultimately a personal decision and may hinge to a large extent on non-economic considerations such as the closeness of a home to work, the value placed on a water oriented life style, or a desire to remain near relatives and friends. However, the question changes if one has to borrow money for a house or business. It then becomes "How much risk can the lender tolerate?" Lenders cannot be expected to loan money on a home or business that has a too high risk of being destroyed or severely damaged by a flood. The federal government is the major player in the home mortgage market, insuring or regulating banks and other institutions or acting more directly as a lender through the Veterans Administration and other agencies. In order to safeguard its investments, the federal government requires that any property receiving financial assistance from a source under its control have a chance of flooding of no more than once every hundred years on the average. Stated another way, the risk of flooding cannot exceed one percent in any year. But anyone can see that many homes and businesses are located in low areas or right along streams where the risk of flooding is highest. Generally, these are older developments. Almost all . . ' communities now have regulations that prevent new developments in areas having a high risk of flooding . Assume for example, a home on the 10-year floodplain. The 10-year flood is expected to occur on the average of once every 10 years and has a 10 percent chance of happening in any particular year. A house standing in the 10-year floodplain then has a 10 percent chance of being flooded each year. Over the 30-year life of a typical mortgage, that chance accumulates to 96 percent. That is, there is a 96 percent chance that the 10-year flood will occur at least once in any 30-year period. Similarly, a building on the 100-year floodplain has a 26 percent chance of being flooded over a 30 year period. When considering your personal tolerance of flood risk, consider the following: Floods are the most frequent disaster. In the U.S., 90 percent of all presidentially declared disasters are for flooding. Floods are among the biggest weather-related killers. If your home is severely damaged by flooding (repairs cost over 50% of the structure's market value), most local governments will not let you make the repairs without elevating or moving the structure to a safe elevation. Severe flooding of your home or business can result in financial ruin . WHAT IS FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT? In the early 1960s, the nation began to recognize the benefits of natural floodplains -habitat, scenic beauty, water filtration, storm buffering, groundwater recharge, and floodwater storage. The country thus began to reconsider its policy of wholesale conversion of floodplain natural areas to other uses. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT? Planning and carrying out a comprehensive floodplain management program usually requires the cooperative parti~ipation of all levels of government and the private sector for four main reasons: • • • • The various types of management and flood loss reduction measures differ with respect to the legal authorities and the technical and financial capabilities required for implementation and operation. Many can only be used effectively by one particular level of government or by an individual property owner. Some of the measures cause impacts in downstream, upstream or adjacent areas that need to be considered by all affected parties. Management of floodplains involves tradeoffs between social and economic costs and benefits that need to be weighed by each level of government and by individuals. Most measures also affect, to some degree, the natural values of the floodplain that are an important public resource. Although a variety of federal and state agencies have some authority over floodplain management, ultimate responsibility rests with individuals and local government through locat Ian use control and planning decisions . •. --?. ' . ' ·, ' ~J:u.:-"' ..... , •... WHAT ARE THE COMPONENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM? A successful f loodplain management program attacks the problem of flooding on multiple fronts , rather than relying exclusively on a single strategy. Communities can determine the best blend of strategies to reduce flooding in their area , based on the community's environmental , economic , soc ial , and other goals. To reduce a community's vulnerab ility to flooding while preserving the natural functions of a floodplain, a five-tiered strategy should be considered : 1) Reduce flooding through watershed management, 2) Use non -structural flood control when poss ible, 3) Use structural flood control when necessary, 4) Promote pre-flood prevention policies , 5) Plan post-flood programs and policies. Methods of implementing this five -tiered strategy will now be discussed in detail. 1) Reduce floodin9" thcoug t~ h~d m~a-~~ro.en _ . . The traditional approach to flooaf ng a nd d rainage ha s been to move water downstream as quickly as possible. While water readily flows from upstream to downstream , it is a rare commun ity wh ich doesn 't live somewhere in between . As a consequence, a community can have flooding problems increased by upstream neighbors who cause more water to flow downstream, as well as by downstream neighbors who retard flow and cause backwater flooding. Thus, the best overall comprehensive solution to a localized flooding problem may be watershed management. A community cannot escape the fact that what happens in the larger watershed affects what happens in their own floodplain. The amount of storm water that runs into creeks and rivers depends on the physical condition of the land in the watershed. In a watershed dominated by undeveloped land, the native soil and vegetation can act as a sponge to absorb large amounts of rainfall. When urban development occurs, much of that open space is replaced by buildings , homes, streets , and parking lots. The rain water that lands on these surfaces is then forced to drain from the watershed as storm water runoff . The capacity of the watershed has not changed, nor has the relative size of the storm events which occur. What has increased is the amount of impervious surface that prevents water from be ing absorbed by the landscape. This increased water volume becomes storm water runoff , which contributes to flooding. In addition , ae.u~j~ti<;>.Q·~urs.ina watershe<F,fraruri:il c ai:lners are.:otte . i~traig_hte f!e <l_.:.·) deepened or lined, tr~p s 1J1Jtti Q9J tJ m:~ '!~ qp wn s.)!e.a • a~ickl~ -stw" water can tnerefore accumulate downstream more quick ly tn an in natural river systems a nctproauce higher, s harper flood peaks . Unless steps are taken to mitigate the impacts of urbanization throughout the watershed , fl ood volumes and peaks will continue to increase. All cities in the watershed must cooperate to reduce urbanization's impact on flooding, because water flows "downhill " from one city to another in the watershed . Watershed management can involve .. restricting im~_rvi~us surface· areas such as concrete and asphalt, preventing soil loss, requiring on-site ·storrnwat~tdel erftio ii o-'r'j:»romoting retention of natural drainage systems rather than channelization . All of these land management strategies are essentially prerogatives of local governments. By exercising local authority through zoning, . permitting, and platting processes, local governments have the administrative tools required to manage their land to reduce flood ing . By work ing together, cities can ensure successful land management throughout the watershed, or successful watershed management. 2) Use non-structural flood control when possible "In the matter of floodplain management, most people agree that some combination of structural and nonstructural methods are probably a better approach than the previous complete reliance on dams and levees." Luna B. Leopold (Water Resources Update, Issue No. 95: Spring 1994). In the pas~effort&.;.t0c~J!~t~ o f10<11ontrying to-control-floodwate ·rather tha enc 2 !-1r~Q!rig .. B.09R!e ;t9;~~<i · t!P<>Q't.-h{lzart1af8,f,15. Yet, despite the expenditure ?f b~llions of tax dollars for "flood-control • structures such as dams , levees, and stream channelization , flood losses continued to rise. In addition, this structural approach frequently has adversely impacted the natural resources and ecological integrity of our rivers and floodplains. Since building in the floodplain is limited in non-structural flood control, the likelihood of flood damage is reduced. Wa i · · · 't-;1'!tl:l ~~!.~~~-:~!ood~lain's.i8.p· · , -~d ~ i.f __ filter stocm runoff • .-Veget e e (er BOitlEJs also prevent streamban!Cerosion, which is a problem for many local cities. In many cases, especially over the long-term, non-structural flood damage reduct ion is cheaper than structural control. Although restricting development next to the stream might appear to decrease potential property tax revenues, in actuality, revenues would probably not be affected overall , becaO~propa~aJO , e ee OJ R r~ wou!.~lise Similarly, although not developing the area right next to the stream wou mean a loss of potential revenues for developers, the lots near the park could be sold for greater profits, since people are willing to pay more to live near parks. Non-structural flood control lends itself well to multipJ~bject management o Eivers (MOM). Just like its name implies, multiple objective management involves managing rivers for multiple objectives simultaneously, instead of just for flood control or any other single objective. Multiple objective management of rivers could include two or more of the following goals : • Reducing flood and stormwater losses • Protecting and improving water quality • Protecting and improving fish and wildlife habitats • Reducing erosion losses and sedimentation problems • Enhancing recreational opportunities • Protecting aesthetic values, and • Encouraging waterfront renewal and revitalization . Making flood control part of a multiple-objective management project means that your solutions to flooding will be more effective, more sensitive to the environment, have broader support, be part of a more comprehensive program, and accomplish more than one objective . An example of non -structural flood control incorporated into a multiple-objective management project is the Arlington Johnson Creek Project, described below. · You r city's comprehensive plan , zoning ordinance, or floodplain management ordinance can enchourage non-structural flood damage reduct ion by: • preserving natural creek channels through buffer zones or set-backs , • establishing greenbelts or linear parks in floodplains , and/or • initiating a floodplain perm it process s imilar to the Trinity River Corridor's Corridor Development Certificate process . The innovative Corridor Development Certificate process is important enough to warrant further discussion below. In areas that are already developed, pursuing non-structural flood control may require evacuation of floodplains -moving people and their public and private investments out of harm's way. The City of Arlington, for example, has initiated a buy-out program for homes along Johnson Creek which are vulnerable to flooding . Buyouts are superior to structural approaches in that they completely eliminate flood risk for affected individuals and , at the same time, may provide environmental and hydrologic benefits. Buyouts can also be cheaper over the long run, when the cost of maintaining structural solutions is factored in. Most redevelopment of floodplains occurs after one or more major floods. Usually a control structure is built to protect what development remains, and a temporary moratorium is imposed to allow evaluation and planning. Unfortunately, legislative and regulatory requirements often encourage a quick return to the pre-flood status quo, wasting opportunities to pursue a non- structural approach . 3) Use structural controls when necessary Non-structural flood control is not always a viable or desirable solution . Evacuation may not be feasible, or in certain cases , allowing certain structures to remain in the floodplain may make economic, social, and environmental sense. In these instances, traditional structural flood control measures, such as creation of additional storage and levees, are called for. Dams, levees, channels and other protective works are designed to provide protection against some specific level of flooding . The specific "level of protection" .is selected based on cost, desire of the community, potential damage, environmental impact, and other factors. Engineers can design and construct levees, dams and other measures providing a very high level of protection. Communities tend to choose lower levels of protection because of the initial financial cost rather than overall costs and benefits. Dams and Reservoirs Storing flood water in reservoirs can modify floods by reducing the speed at which the water flows, limiting the area flooded, and reducing and altering the timing of peak flows . However, misconceptions about or lack of understanding of dams can create an exaggerated sense of security. Reservoir sedimentation can significantly reduce flood control capacity. Competing uses of the reservoir can impair flood control because those relying on the dam for recreation and water supply (irrigators, manufacturers and residential users) often press for continued high pool levels, resulting in less storage space in the reservoir for flood waters . In addition , most dams are designed for purposes other than flood control , although they do have the temporary effect of flood reduction through storage. The availability of water, power, or recreational opportunit ies associated with dams therefore often attracts new development regardless of the flood risk or the ability of the dam to provide flood protection. Over time, without adequate land use regulat ions , encroachment onto the floodplain downstream of dams can prevent proper operation of the structure and increase exposure to flooding. Once signs of dam failure become v isible, breach ing often occurs w ithin minutes or a few hours, leaving little or no time for evacuation . The massive volume of water and its high velocity will cause severe damage. Dikes. Levees. and Floodwalls Dikes, including levees and floodwalls, can be thought of as dams built roughly parallel to a stream rather than across its channel, or parallel to the shorelines of lakes, oceans, and other water bodies . Levees are generally constructed of earth, floodwalls of masonry or steel. Levees are the most common type of flood control works . Although they can be effective in reducing flood losses, a large percentage of private or locally built levees and floodwalls provide a low level of protection suitable only for agricultural purposes or are poorly designed and maintained . Levee or floodwall overtopping or failure is involved in approximately one-third of all flood disasters. Areas behind levees and floodwalls may be at risk of greater than normal flood damage for several reasons. Many floodplain residents in those areas believe that they are protected from floods and do not think it necessary to take proper precautions. Development may also continue or accelerate based on expected flood protection. A levee breach or floodwall failure, like a dam break, can release a large wave of flood waters with high velocity. After a breach, the downstream portion of the levee system may also act like a dam, catching and prolonging flooding of the once-protected area. 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 after construction. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has established minimum design , operation, and maintenance standards for levees that, for insurance purposes, must be met in order to be credited with providing protection against a 1 % annual probability flood. Levees may be either "engineered " or not. Engineered levees are those in which professional consideration has been given to the underlying soil conditions, the kind of earth used in building the levee, optimum compaction of the levee materials, armoring of the levee face if needed and other factors. Non-engineered levees amount to a pile of earth pushed up along a river. Engineered levees have a far lower rate of failure than non-engineered levees. Levees failures are usually due to either: a) a flow greater than their design flow; b) poor maintenance; and/or c) erosion or undercutting of the levee by high flow. Channel Alterations Channel alterations increase the flow-carrying capacity of a stream's s;hannel and thereby reduce the height of a flood. The various types of alterations include straightening, deepening, or widening the channel, removing debris, paving the channel, raising or enlarging bridges and culverts, and removing dams and other obstructions. · Channel alteration is widely practiced by state and local governments to control flooding by rapidly conveying storm runoff through populated locales to downstream areas. The Corps and the Soil Conservation Service also undertake channel alterations. The Corps projects typically lie on larger streams and rivers, while Soil Conservation Service works mostly in smaller streams on the upper portions of watersheds. Th use ·of channe~ niodificatiOl')S jlas pecreased primarily.because of the potentially adverse t env.ironme~tal imp_ac)s. Alternative -designs a're now developed that include less straightening of channels, e·mploy more gradual slopes, and use natural vegetation or riprap rather than concrete- lined channels . This minimizes destruction of fish and wildlife habitat, helps maintain water quality, and avoids undesirable downstream impacts. High Flow Diversions Diversions intercept flood waters upstream of a damage-prone or constricted area and convey them around it through an artificial channel or a designated flow-way. Diversions may either completely reroute a stream or collect and transport only excessive or potentially damaging flows . A negative aspect of such diversions is the false sense of security that may prevail in the protected areas along with a lack of awareness that the floodway actually exists . Other Alternatives. Multi-Objective Projects Grassland channels, swales, and other less environmentally/aesthetically harsh structural controls should be considered. When possible, structural flood control projects should be made multi-objective. An outstanding example of this , described below, is the City of Dallas Floodway project. 4) Promote pre-flood prevention policies When the floodplain has already been developed, cities must take steps to reduce the vulnerability of structures in the floodplain to flood damage. Individuals and their investments in the floodplain will always be at risk. Though it is impossible to remove the risk completely, it is possible to reduce the degree of risk through promotion of: • flood insurance, • flood warning systems, and • floodproofing. Flood Insurance When floods do occur, impacts on individuals and communities can be mitigated with a flood insurance program. To join the National Flood Insurance Program, a city must adopt floodplain management ordinances which conform to minimum guidelines established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The minimum regulations vary depending upon the risk studies and mapping that have been done in the community, but include • Permitting for all proposed new development • Reviewing subdivision proposals to assure that they will minimize flood damage • Anchoring and floodproofing structures to be built in known floodprone areas ; • Safeguarding new water and sewage systems and utility lines from flooding; and • Enforcing risk zone, base flood elevation , and floodway requirements after the flood insurance map for the area becomes effective Once a community becomes a FEMA participant, individual property owners become eligible to purchase federally subsidized flood insurance. FEMA also provides floodplain risk maps and coordinates a federally financed technical review of proposed engineered modifications of major stream channels. In exchange for these services, local governments assume responsibility for managing development within floodplains and along stream corridors. Insurance is a mechanism for spreading the cost of losses both 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 made flood insurance available for existing property in flood hazard areas in return for enactment and enforcement of floodplain management regulations designed to reduce future flood losses. Although participation in the program is voluntary, of 21 ,926 communities in the nation identified as floodprone, 18,023 (82%) had joined the program as of November 30, 1990. At the end of calendar year 1990, there were 2.39 million policies i.n force with $201 billion of coverage. From 1978 through 1989, over 384,000 claims were paid fotaling over $3.1 billion. In 1983, the Federal Insurance Administration initiated its 'Write-Your-Own" program whereby private insurance companies, under special arrangements, are permitted to sell and service flood insurance under their own names. The success of this program is evidenced by the fact that 80% of all flood insurance is presently sold by the participating WYO insurance companies. Insurance premiums are based on the location of a structure within the floodplain and are determined primarily by the height of the structure's lowest floor in relation to the height of water during a base flood. Higher rates apply to structures subject to fast-moving waters. New and substantially improved structures in the floodplain that are not properly elevated to the base flood level are subject to higher rates than structures already in the floodplain at the time a community joined the program . The Federal Insurance Administration has implemented a Community Rating System to encourage communities to go beyond the required standards . The incentive will be a reduction in flood insurance premiums for policyholders within communities that take approved actions to reduce flood losses. Many experts complain that, as written, the current National Flood Insurance Program sometimes provides incentive for floodplain encroachment and increased flood risks, which is the opposite result from program goals. The NFIP should thus be reevaluated. Flood Warning Systems Warning systems and accompanying emergency response have long been recognized as effective ways to save lives and reduce flood damages in riverine floodprone areas. As the cost of the required equipment continues to decrease, more and more state and local governments are funding the development of flood warning systems and emergency plans. The National Weather Service conducts research, provides specific flood forecast and warning services to over 3, 100 communities, and works with many of the 900 communities that have local warning systems. Some large urban communities have included forecasting and preparedness planning in their operations for years, participated in regional warning systems, or have developed their own systems. In many instances, industries have cooperated in the installation and operation of flood warning systems and reduced their own flood losses. Floodproofing and Elevation Floodproofing is the use of permanent, contingent, or emergency techniques either to prevent flood waters from entering buildings or to minimize the damages from water that does get in. Some of the techniques involve using water-tight seals, closures or barriers; using water-resistant materials; and temporarily relocating the contents of a building. Elevating a structure means raising it on fill, piers, or pilings so that it is above expected flood levels. Most new floodplain structures are now designed to incorporate flood-proofing and/or elevation, primarily because it is required by the regulations of all National Flood Insurance Program communities. There are millions of existing floodprone homes to which floodproofing could be applied retroactively ("retrofitted"), but this technique is not yet routinely used. One obstacle has been that flood insurance rates stay the same when a residence is retrofitted; the new Community Rating System of the National Flood Insurance Program should help remove that disincentive. Local governments have floodproofed individual structures. A few communities have provided their own funding for larger projects, and others have provided technical and financial assistance to local businesses and residences. · 5) Plan post-flood policies Despite the best flood prevention strategies, flooding and flood damage will occur, at least occasionally. A city should thus have plans in place for implementing flood emergency measures, requesting disaster assistance, and providing for post-flood recovery. Flood Emergency Measures Flood emergency measures are typically carried out by local civil defense, police and fire departments, public works agencies, and public health personnel, supplemented as necessary by assistance from state and federal agencies. Emergency activities during and immediately after a flood may include removing people and property from areas about to be flooded, sandbagging around individual structures and constructing emergency dikes to direct water away from vulnerable areas, search and rescue, and steps to protect the health and safety of residents. To be successful, flood emergency measures must have the thorough involvement of the private sector, from individuals who evacuate and take household-level emergency precautions, to the organized group efforts like those of the American Red Cross local chapters. Private contractors work for communities and individuals to remove debris and repair homes, roads, bridges, and other property damaged from floods. Some states have standing contracts with private businesses to provide emergency services in disasters. The Corps is the federal agency most commonly involved in flood emergencies, under authority of P.L. 84-99, which authorizes it to help in flood fighting, repair and restoration of flood control works, provision of emergency water supplies, implementation of advance protective measures, and the performance of other hazard mitigation activities. The support may take the form of technical assistance, materials, equipment, or services. The Soil Conservation Service may also become involved with emergency efforts. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requires emergency action plans for all its licensed dams. The Federal Emergency Management Agency helps state and local governments assess the extent and severity of damage in order to seek disaster assistance. State emergency services agencies generally coordinate state resources and activities during flood emergencies, and the state police and transportation or public works departments, the state national guard, and the agencies responsible for dam safety and water resources also play major roles. Disaster Assistance Disaster assistance is provided by federal, state, and local governments, and the private sector. It may take the form of financial relief, or of help to repair, replace, or restore facilities damaged or destroyed by a disaster. The system is most often efficient and adequate to provide the necessary financial relief to individuals and communities . The greatest source of federal disaster assistance is provided under the Disaster Relief Act of 197 4 and takes the form of grants to the states from the President's Disaster Relief Fund after Presidentially declared disasters. The assistance is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which also directs and coordinates the disaster assistance functions of all federal agencies. The Small Business Administration issues its own disaster declarations and makes low-interest loans available directly to eligible individuals and businesses to replace or repair damaged real estate, inventory, or other business property The Federal Highway Administration provides funding assistance for damaged highway facilities that were constructed with federal aid. Under the Emergency Watershed Protection Program, the Soil Conservation Service may directly undertake emergency work such as clearing debris from channels and stabilizing stream banks. As mentioned above, the Corps has authority to provide assistance for disaster the Corps has authority to provide assistance for disaster preparedness, advance protective measures, rehabilitation of flood control works damaged or destroyed by flood, protection or repair of federally authorized shoreline protection works threatened or damaged by coastal storms, and provision of emergency drinking water. The Farmers Home Administration ' . State Director may make emergency loans to farmers , ranchers, and oyster planters. Under the Emergency Conservation Program, an Agricultural Stab ilization and Conservation Service State Director may designate areas eligible for cost-sharing grants of up to 64% to rehabilitate farm lands damaged by natural disasters. Although all state and most local governments have programs to coordinate and provide ass istance during an emergency, few have special funds for financial assistance to victims . Most states limit their own disaster assistance funding to local governments, rather than extending it to bus inesses or individuals. States may also declare their own emergencies or disasters ; 28 states then provide assistance to localities out of a governor's emergency fund . Local governments may provide disaster ass istance to their residents and business commun ity, most commonly through some form of tax break. Many localities have joined mutual aid agreements with nearby communities to provide equipment, personnel , and other disaster assistance. Research has shown that local governments have the capacity to assume a much higher proportion of losses than they usually do within the existing framework of federal and state programs. A number of national voluntary organizations provide disaster relief services , primarily emergency shelter, food, clothing , and medical aid. Some also provide longer-term assistance, such as rebuilding homes or job placement. A committee known as the National Voluntary Organ izations Active in Disaster coordinates 11 private 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 the Federal Emergency Management Agency formalizing the provision of their disaster assistance. In addition to national organizations, local churches and other voluntary groups often provide significant assistance during and after disasters. Post-Flood Recovery Post-flood recovery work, aided by many types of disaster assistance , has been largely effective at restoring flood-damaged communities and individual properties to their pre-flood condition. Unfortunately, this has not always been the wisest course of action , because returning to the status quo leaves the door open for a repeat of the disaster. Numerous recommendations have been made over the years to alter recovery procedures to take advantage of the opportunities presented immediately after a flood, when outs ide expertise and money flows into a community damaged or destroyed facilities are waiting to be repaired or replaced , and local attitude toward mitigation are more flexible than before. Gradually over the past two decades, federal agency policies have begun to change so that now individuals and communities have had to meet certain conditions in order to receive disaster assistance. These include protecting the environment, implementing floodplain management measures, purchasing flood insurance, and taking action to mitigate hazards. Passage of the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in 1988, which allows federal disaster assistance funds to be spent on mitigation activities and not just to rebuild to the pre-disaste r cond ition , signaled a new approach to post-flood recovery. FOR MORE INFORMATION If you would like more information about designing a floodplain management program for your city, please contact Jack Tidwell of the North Central Texas Council of Governments at (817)695 - 9220. Much of the information in this brochure was adapted from The Floodplain Management Website at http://www.floodplain.org. Dallas Floodway Project The City of Dallas' application of the MOM approach through its extensive Trinity River Corridor Citizens Committee was recognized by American Rivers , a leading river conservation organ ization , with its 1996 Urban River Restoration Award for Grassroots Activism . It started in the summer of 1994 when the City Council challenged the people of Dallas to come up with a new vision for the entire Trinity River Corridor within the city limits --one that would provide flood protection , improve transportation, preserve and restore the beauty of the natural open space, create new opportun it ies for economic development and create a "front yard" that would raise Dallas to the level of a ''worldclass" city. The citizens took up the challenge and an open-membership Trinity River Corridor Citizens Committee (TRCCC) was formed with two councilmembers as co-chairs, more than 400 citizens participating, and many city staff and other agencies such as NCTCOG , NPS and the Corps providing support. The TRCCC was divided into five functional and three area subcommittees . A Coordinating Committee with representation from each subcommittee helped resolve details and reconcile the differences and inconsistencies among the subcommittees . Close coordination and involvement in the regional COMMON VISION process occurred, and vice versa. A truly visionary plan evolved. It asks you to imagine Dallas twenty years from now after implementing the recommendations. New York Central Park, a mere 1,000 acres, "pales by comparison to the Trinity River Greenway and the urban forest that the TRCCC sees for Dallas' future." Dallas "is linked throughout the region by a 2000 mile integrated system of off-road trails and a 2000 mile integrated on-road system of bikeways," including the Dalhoma segment of the Trin ity Trails System from Dallas north to the Oklahoma border at Lake Texoma. One proposed solution to the transportation problems of downtown is the innovative design of a "Levee Coupler concept which depresses "high-speed one-way roadways into the river-sides of the pre-existing Dallas Flood way levees, leaving the outside faces of the levees (facing adjacent neighborhoods and businesses) almost unchanged in appearance." A "flood wall would rise above the top of the existing levee to an elevation reinstating the Standard Project Flood plus four feet of protection to some 10,000 acres," including half of the Central Business District. Residential and office buildings "could be built near the Levee Couplet concept, with raised pedestrian plazas linking the buildings through the levee top to the park beyond." In May of 1995 the citizens of Dallas passed a $175 million bond package that included over $7 million for the first phase of the comprehens Lve program. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has launched a "Major Investment Study" for a potential Trinity Parkway, with the Levee Couplet as the starting design point. An important component of the Trinity Trails System in Dallas has received funding under TxDOT's Statewide Transportation Enhancements Program. And the detailed studies of the integration of all components with the floodway improvements are being funded with $3 .2 million of federal and city funds in Phase 2 of the Upper Trinity River Feasibility Study. As the Mayor of Dallas has stated many times over the past year, his 5 top priorities for the City of Dallas are the: Trinity River, Trinity River, Trinity River, Trinity River and Trinity River. And he says he is "not interested in a dinky little river walk" like San Antonio, but something that is "big , bold and magnificent" that "could be the greatest legacy we leave for our children." Arlington Johnson Creek Project A tributary to the Trinity River, Johnson Creek had been beset with flooding problems during the 1980s and early 90s. To alleviate this flooding, the US Army Corps of Engineers developed a plan for lining much of the channel of the creek with concrete. However, during public hearings on the plan, many citizens , both those living in the creek's path and outside it, pointed out that if the Corps' plan was adopted, important considerations such as preservation of natural resources, recreation, community aesthetics and transportation would be ignored. A multi-objective master plan for the Johnson Creek Corridor was a far better idea, they said . After several public hearings on the issue, Arlington's City Council went out on a proverbial limb, changed its mind, and turned down the Corps' 4.5 million dollars in flood relief and assistance. The Council then appointed a 19 member citizen planning committee to formulate a master plan for the creek. Over the next year, with the assistance of a group of talented and creative local greenway planners, as well as the input of hundreds of citizens, a multi-objective master plan was developed. The master plan will turn what was once a 15 mile unnoticed and in many places unattractive creek into a worldclass greenway belt consisting of multiple detention ponds, bike paths, and expanded park and recreational facilities, including an 18 hole golf course. Five parks were redrawn or created along the creek's path, some with water sculptures and outdoor art , other with amphitheaters, pavilions, and places for public gatherings. Large detention ponds became places to fish and enjoy various water sports as well as address downstream flooding concerns. Other areas emphasized the preservation of the creek's natural environment, promoted bird and animal life, and fostered the preservation of the creek's historical significance. Hundreds of citizen ideas brought forth during the first 12 months of the committee's activities and a 3-day design charette were woven into the draft of the master plan with amazing artistry. The plan that emerged is truly a work of art. Due to involving those impacted by the project, Arlington will end up with a world class greenway and tourist attraction rather than an unattractive concrete lined ditch. And the greenway project has already leveraged over twice the amount of federal funding that the initial plan would have garnered, with much additional funding to come. e-.. - I - I ~ ;> I I I ---·-I I ,/-f~ I I L f'1nclU~ ~·~ t~. I \ ·~1.-1 ~ I ,, ~ I , t;'.M v1 /(.,(fl'\, l"l'\ ~ s I -f, .-<.. ~,/JS I ,. vv-e, t I tp,,_dS - ·-I -S o\ IS I Nfl.ts -<fl.I\~- (I') ·- I I -~-----~----- ~-~----·- 1----·--------------~-----~ -------------- , I I J I - lf.fl'rlr~ ,1 I~ ~ ,,k.JV~ll 'C)Jld/5/k>J ~ I/ J I 'fl?rvn<YJ C J_ _)./i.a4V~ /\!Yid cJ 'Wt?/ ~ -;I ,A .n) 1J J rf /VA cQ J,.,J_ CVV>:.7 J ~'(r ~~;''l_._~":J) ~~ )!~n ~ ,,d-VJV~,, /)?J..U~ ~ i i ( ~lf'?0 l ~l'JldtooiJ "'~' of ~~ar )'r44 »;'} rwr 5 rJ) .:3S\M2fJ4 I I ~~1~~r~, + H J,#N~" ~ - "1J1!1J yW"JJ ~ )~ \ of ., J>IN~n ~ ~ ~,J~ ~/~, ~ ,,c)>:lt.Jt?,i 1YtJ1 J1?Jzj ---c~r.pn01 ~J~ .. I~.'* d~~\.fJ ~"'1Mf ~ d5}1 )Mtt1 5 y :l) :;J~NI (2,ay <) ...f"1-' Llj_>'k~'? · (2,0Z/) . ~~~'151 1 N . i Floodplain Management Best Management Practices City Council June 25, 2009 Timeline (cont.) C ity Council (November 2008) -Narrow Zero-Rise Ordinance Considered (W"rth a Pub6c HearTig) -Councl directed: • Staff to bring baclc a broader No Adverse Impacts Ordinance • In Draft Ordinance form ff possible City Council (March 2009) -Zero-Rise Ordinance Draft was expanded to No Adveru Impacts Ordinance (\/¥Ith a Public Hearing) • Tentative Council Suppo<t of Draft No A~ru Impact Ordinance • Request for Stakeholder Input -Ad<itional number of Initiatives Topics • Council dir~ed staff to bring back selected Initiatives for further discus:sion Stakeholder Input-Session #3 No Adverse Impact (Aoril 2009) City Council (June 2009) -No Adverse Impacts Orcinance (With a Public Hearing) [Regular Mtg] • Incorporated Stakeholder Session #3 Input -Counci Selected Initiatives "Best Management Practices· [Workshop] Initiative #1 Increasing ET J Oversight Current Regulations : -Ch. 13 Flood Hazard Protection Oninance -Ch . 12 Unified Deve lopment Ordinance -BCS Drai'lage Guidelines -CS I BC lnter1ocal Agreement {ILA} • Regulations need to be updated for consistt.tney and clarity • Very Minimal City Inspection of Drainage Facifities Seeking Council direction on Increasing Standards and Oversight: a} Engneering Review? b) Inspection? • Note, likaly INOUld require additional staff c) D irect Staff to meet with Brazos County to coordnate? d) Work on regulation~ update for conslstency and clarity? Time line City Council directed Staff for Draft Ordinance (May 2008) Staff sought further clarification from Council (June 2008) Council d irected: -Staff to proceed first on Zero-Rise to Floodplains w / Stakeholder Input -Staff to later bring discussion of "No Adverse Impacts• Staff drafting Ordi nance (with CS Legal & State for FEMA) Staff sought Stakeholder Input -#1 ASCE/TSPE Meeting (Se ptember 18th) -#2 P\Jblic Meeting (September 30th) Planning and Zoning Commission (October 2008) Initiatives 1. ET J -Drainage, Detention, and Floodplain Management 2. Speculative Fi ll Policy Clarification 3. Increased Freeboard 4. Require or lncent leaving parallel open space between creek an d street S. Regiona l Detention Ponds or other Mitigation Initiative #2 Speculative Clearing & Fill Policy Current Ordinance and previous general Councils' Direction have yielded the following i nterpretation: - A Development Permit for Tree Clearing and Grading (Fl) will rutl be tssued where: Floodplain or "Greenways· are involved: -(Speculative) Ahead of a compiete, approved site plan -Beyond the Rmits of the approved site pian Genera/ construction of Public Infrastructure for Platting: -Beyond the Ii!!!!!! of the approved public lntrastructure -Exception, Single Famiy Residential SubcfMsions, oft.en clear lots Ahead of Land being zoned for the foreseen or indicated Use -Exemptions not requiring a Development Pennit: Less than 11 J inch caliper tree and underbrush Incidental grounds m aintanance Homeowner improvements outside floodplain Bona fids agricultural purposes (no defin~ parametttrs) Does this reflect the Will of the Council? Should staff wor1< to revise Ordinance for changes or clarity? 1 Initiative #2 Speculative Clearing & Fill Policy Ch . 13 Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance -Section 4 •E. CONDITIONS OF APPRoyA!. Aptptonl or denilll d • dewlopm.it permit by the M-ministnlof .t-.11 be based on al of the proviNlns of this chapt. and the ~ riMYant ~ (1) The danger to ff• or prop«ty durl '° llooding or wosion ~; (2) The susceptibllty d 1he prqlOMd f.atty end its contents to ftood ~ Ind the effect of such d.mage en the individulil owner: (3) The dang9r tNt l'Mteri91s may be 9-pt onto other lancll to the Jijury of Clhra; (4) The compatlblltty of the proposed un with existing and •nticlpatH dtvtlopment; (5) The costs of providnQ ~ Mrvicn d11-ing and •ftet ftood ccncition&, incluifng ~ ww:I repW of atrHta Ind bridges, wld pU>-.lc utilties and faclities such u ww., gn, ~. Wld water sysmn.. (6) The expeded heighb, w&ocity, cb.tion. nit. of riM W1d ~ '"-fl'ort of the ftood Wlltwl and lhlen.ctsofwawaction, lf ~.ex~ attheaitll: en The neceuity to the~ of. W11ter#ront lo-<::ation, whwe ~·: {8) The evailaibility ol .itwnlitive locatioM, not aubject to flooding « wosion damage, fa the prOfXIMd UH; (t) The relationship of the proposed UH to the com-pt""1thenslv. sit. plAO for that •ru.." Initiative #3 Additional Freeboard College Station currently has 1 foot Freeboard Texas Floodplain Managers Association -2008 Freeboa rd Survey: -159 Texas Cities and Counties responded: 12 (7 .5%} -1.5 Feet of Freeboard 29 (18.2%) -2 Feet of Freeboard 5 (3%) -3 Feet of Freeboard Total of '46 (29%) have Freeboard exceecing 1 Foot How would Council direct Staff to proceed on this Initiative? Initiative #4 Parallel Open Space Regulations from City of Plano Subdivision Regulations: -Where the city has designated ftoodplain as part of the park system, the foBowing shal be provided: Parallel Streets fronting the Park Cu/des&c$ and Loop streets providing accass fron ting the Parl< Where physically feas ible, parks should be bounded by streets or other ptJblic uses (e.g., school, library, recreation center) Streets abutting Park shall be construct&<! to Collector width to enlure access and prevent trafflc congestion -City Parlicipates at 50% of inctea$0d costs -P&Z Commission may prohi>it development of any property in Floodplain, if deemed necessary for health, safety, or welfare -No portion of• Drainage or Aoodway Easement shal be contained w;thin a sngle Famiy residential lot -this land shal be decicated as a single lot to the city or an HOA How would Council direct Staff to proceed on this Initiative? Initiative #3 Additional Freeboard 1--Special Flood Hazan! Ana -j ..... ..... i-®-@ -'1.itW .. U...1-1-..- t... ©-@ .Ao..;:M-.M.'--1..- Initiative #4 Parallel Open Space Exhibit from City of Plano Subdiyjsion Ordinance: I Initiative #5 Regional Detention I Mitigation Definition : Mitigation of development's increased flow by a facility that serves multiple tracts of land Benefits: -Increase Efficiency -Encourage Development -Tend toward Ina-eased Maintenance -Amenity -Environmentalty (Potential) Built either: -Private Development (CUTently alowed and enCOLn1ged in BCS Drainage Gl.idelines) -P\bfically (e .g. by City) 2 Initiative #5 Regional Detention I Mitigation Hurdles : -Private Development Requires a "Master Plannecr efforl Require$ a Developer w;th a large interest in land, or Multiple land owners collaborating Often form an HOA Of' POA to own and maintain the fadl;ty -Pubfioally (e .g . by City) City have to invest funds to study, acquire land, and construct Anticipate: -High r1rowth areas: reimburs~ent of expended ft.Jnds -Development buildout; desirable layout Examples : -Crowley Pond -•djacent to Amngton I Decatur (Private) -Crescent Pointe Pond -adjacent to Copperfield Dr. (Private) -TAMU Pond -adjacent to Bonfire Mem orial (Pubfic) How would Council direct Staff to proceed on this Initiative? Proposed Ordinance 1. Restrict activtt ies in Specia Flood Haza rd Area where: -The flood elevation is net-eased, -The Special Flood Hazard Area is r.creased, -The conveyance capacity Is decreased, -The stora ge V<Mume Is decreased, -The velocities are inaeased, and 2. ~to the above: -Impacts wholty contained on: Subj ect Property Adjacent Prop~rty. where A djacent Owner: -JOns--Dedicates a Privat. Drainage EHement Pubflc Right~f-Way -120 day delayed Effective Date of entre ordinance amendment Plats filed prior to Effective Date • Al subsequent pennit:s exempted Cross Section What is Zero-Rise? "-®-®-n...i:n----r-- ,_ ©-@ -~""-""'-'-- Proposed Ordinance 3 . Require mitigation to be ii place fnt before enaoachment Plan View -4 . Require Engineer's Certification of Compaction of fin in accordance with FEMA 5. Clarify FEMA C onditional Letters of Map Revision CLOMR are required a 300 feet channel or culvert modification 6. City Engineer is the Flood Ordinance Ad ministrator 3 Ill INSURANCE SERVICES 1250 Brannon Rd , Pineville , LA 71360 ; Phone : 830 -7 08-0305 E-mail : JEllington@iso.com December 5 , 2008 Mr. Alan Gibbs City Engineer P.O. Box 9960 College Station , TX 77842 Re : CRS Community Cycle Visit Dear Mr. Gibbs : OFFICE, INC. NFIP# 480083 Thank you for you and Mr. Willis ' assistance during my visit on 12/2//08. It was noted that you had numerous duties and responsibilities ; therefore , I am most appreciative of the time you took from your schedules to devote to our efforts . "As we discussed , the :ol ing documentation needs to be submitted to me on or before January 15h, 2008 Activity 3 • Create publicity notice , using the example provided in the Coordinators Manual and mail to all realtors , lenders , and insurance agents within the area of College Station . Provide me a copy of the notice that shows the date it was mailed . • Provide a copy of the addresses that received the publicity notice . Activity 330 • Provide a write-up on the classes Donnie gives at A&M . Make sure to include where , when , what was discussed , and include a note that it is done on an annual basis . Activity 350 • As discussed , review the city 's website and make changes to include the ten topics as described in Activity 330 . We discussed using the City of Bryan and the City of North Richland Hills as guides. • Remember the information has to be easily found from the city 's homepage and their must be a link to FEMA. If the city decides to this , provide copies of actual web pages . Activity 410 . • Review all LOMRS for possible future credit once new D-FIRM maps are r published . Nothing is required at this time. ~u-&,l ·bvl Rrf.J\k~ A;..c../C av. ~ . ,,..,.,, t <}._,. ~ ~ OJVl I -Activity 420 \.&rt./_, ") 1 .--....... • Provide a list of all the pen space reas located within the SFHA making sure to include the acreage of a ea listed . • Provide a list of th Gree0.s1:2ace areas and the acreage of each area . • ProvideJ he total acreage amount of SFHA within t e c1 y. {-+ Page 2 City of College Station December 5, 2008 Activity 430 • Provide the adoption pages to the following I-Codes appendixes : plumbing , mechanical , fuel and gas , and private sewage codes . Activity 430LD . ~--> • Provide ma showing the various planning zones that require minimum lot sizes of o1fe acre or greater that are within the SFHA. rov1 e a copy o t e · o · ance that shows the m inimum lot sizes of each de 1gnated zone. • For LO credit, provide a copy of an approved plat that s hows the cl tes development ordina ce was enforced. Activity 440 • Provide maps showing the various layers that are used on the city 's GIS system . • Provide copies of the FIRM Index Panels for all FIRMS ever issued to the city , up to and including the Flood Hazard Boundary Maps if available. Also , provide copies of the cover of all corresponding FIS '. • Update Benchmarks to meet the prerequisites of a qualifying benchmark . If this is done , provide a new list and map . Activity 510 • Provide documentation showing the city 's adoption of the Brazos County Hazard Mitigat ion Action Plan. • Prov ide an electronic version of the Brazos County Hazard Mitigation Action Plan Activity 540 • Provide an SOP from Public Works for open channel dra inage maintenance using t he "540 Questionnaire" that was provided as guidance. • Provide a map showing all open channels and detention areas that indicates maintenance ownership . • Provide documentation that the city has the right to enter onto private property when necessary to maintain the integrity of a channel. • Prov ide a list of "Choke Points " that are maintained more frequently to keep them from flooding . • Complete the "Capital Improvements Questionnaire" and return with described documentation . Activity 610 • Complete the attached "Flood Warning Questionnaire " and return with a copy of the city 's Emergency Operations Plan . The copy can e ither be electronic or hard copy . Once I place this additional documentation with the CRS Activity Worksheets and information I collected earlier, you and your CEO will receive a preliminary report and credit point summary . • Page 3 City of College Station December 5, 2008 Thank you in advance for your timely submittal of the requested documentation . Please do not hesitate to call me at 860-708-0305 or email me at jellington@iso.com should you have any questions. Respectfully yours , Janine E Ellington, CFM ISO/CRS Specialist Enclosures: (1) cc : Mr. Donnie Willis Mr. William Trakimas , ISO/CRS Technical Coordinator NO ADVERSE IMPACTS -"PROPOSED" ORDINANCE Restrict activities in SFHA • In other words, to encroach in SFHA the following must be demonstrated did not occur : o Increase elevation o Increase floodplain area (horizontal delineation) o Decrease capacity (cross-section of flow) o Decrease storage volume (no increase in fill below BFE) o Increase velocity • Doesn't completely remove the "unintended consequences" previously discussed . Tree Preservation or Riparian Buffer would assist . • Grandfathering -Plats prior to (120 days out) so that subsequent site plans , development permits, building permits are exempt • Effective date -similarly 120 days out -provides time for developers to submit plats for projects underway prior to regulation going into effect • Technically not "flexible" -definitive to be able to administer-however there are exemptions that make this less restrictive for developers . • Exemptions -Impacts wholly contained within : • Sub j ect tract (may include multiple owners)(legal?) • ROW -Due to bridges/culverts have minimal rises • (In both cases , no impacts allowed to adjacent properties) • City Engineer expressly designated as the Administrator of Ch. 13 Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance -to interpret and enforce , etc February 12, 2009 Regular Agenda Ch. 13 Flood Hazard Protection -No Adverse Impacts to Floodplain To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Mark Smith, Director of Public Works ~ Agenda Caption: Public Heari ng, presentation, possible action, and d iscussion an ~ ./- ordinance amending (Zero-Rise) City of College Station Code of Ordinances Chapter 13: \-o <V Flood Hazard Protection: Section 5-A: Designation of Administrator, Section 5-E: Specia~I V Provisions for Areas of Special Flood Hazard, Section 5-G: Special Provisions for Floodways, and Section 5-H: Special Provisions for Areas of Shallow Flooding. . ~ .. .h'' ~'7 ~v· Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of this ordinance amendment with 'V\ ~.: the primary benefit of enhanced flood hazard protect ion. ~~ Summary: At the November 5th Regular Council Meeting, City Council directed staff to nng back a revised ordinance wh ich addressed a more complete No Adverse Impacts to Floodplain Management instead of the Zero Rise requirement alone. Council also requested a grandfathering provision for projects underway, an effective date 120 days out, and for staff to explore i ncentives or a means for flexibility w ith the new requirements. This ordinance amendment proposes restrict construction or activities that would have an adverse impact on the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (floodpla i n) in the 100-year event where: the flood elevation is increased, the floodplain area is increased, the conveyance capacity is decreased, the storage volume is decreased, and the velocities are increased. A grandfathering provision has been included which exempts the above restrictions for tracts platted prior to June 12, 2009 which is 120 days from consideration at this meeting. So, subsequent Site Plans, Development Permits, and Building Permits on grandfathered tracts would be exempt from these proposed amendments. The effective date for this ordinance similarly has a proposed 120 day effective date. With regard to the flexibility of the proposed requirements, staff recommends the ordinance be structured to be definitive. However, additional exemptions from the proposed restricti ons are included in the proposed ordinance including where the adverse impact is wholly contained on the subject property or in the Public Right-of-Way. This adds flexibility while ensuring the adjacent properties upstream and downstream are not adversely impacted. Note that staff does not propose i ncentives associated with the proposed ordinance requirements. Note also that the existing ordinance infers that the City Engineer is the Administrator referenced throughout; this -ordinance amendment proposes to explicitly state such. Budget &. Financial Summary: N/ A Attachments: 1. Ordinance NO ADVERSE IMPACTS -"PROPOSED" ORDINANCE Restrict activities in SFHA • In other words, to encroach in SFHA the following must be demonstrated did not occur : • • 0 0 0 0 0 Increase elevation Increase floodplain area (horizontal delineation) Decrease capacity (cross-section of flow) ~ Decrease storage volume (no increase in fill below BF\~ Increase velocity Doesn't completely remove the "unint ~~2_~ consequences" previously discussed . Tree Preservation or Riparian Buffer would~ssist . Grandfathering -Plats prior to (120 days out) so that subsequent site plans, development permits, building permits are exempt Effective date -similarly 120 days out -provides time for developers to submit plats for projects underway prior to regulation going into effect Technically not "flexible" -definitive to be able to administer-however there are exemptions that make this less restrictive for developers . Exemptions -Impacts wholly contained within : • Subject tract (may include multiple owners)(legal?) • ROW -Due to bridges/culverts have minimal rises • (In both cases, no impacts allowed to adjacent properties) City Engineer expressly designated as the Administrator of Ch . 13 Flood Hazard Protection @rdinance -to interpret and enforce, etc l <; d-11 \f""') \A I 1 Niilt(j"J J , · -~~C,Cfd . Vi.!J 11fl ('ld } 'td ----A.O tf '"l?f? '-\ I ~ NO ADVERSE IMPACTS -"POSSIBLE" INITIATIVES The NAI Toolkit provides a matrix of various tools or activit ies to improve local floodplain management programs . The Toolkit matrix lists ninety-seven (97) such activities, many of which we are currently engaged in . The following are a few staff suggest Council to consider : Non-Speculative Fill Policy Clarification • Ch . 13 Flood Hazard Ord, Sec 4. E: o (4) The compatibility of the proposed use w ith existing and anticipated development; o (8) The availability of alternate locations, not subject to flooding or erosion damage , for the proposed use; o (9) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive site plan for that area. • Clarify : o Compatibility? o Alternate lo cations? o Comprehens ive Site Plan? o Clearing and Grading Permit alone? No floodplain, proper zoning, reasonable zoning o Existing Residential lots? • FPM -Decreases unnecessary fill as compared to fill specific to actual site plan Riparian Stream Buffer • Definition -Recharge zone, cleansing zone , plant and wildlife habitat, water quality, natural floodpla i n area ~-3J -I DO+~ . • Delineation -SFHA floodplain , or defined width centered on creek, etc • Dedication I Regulation -Fee simple, easement, or buffer (setback with lim ited encroachment) • Trigger-If Dedication, maybe only plat -if buffer, maybe plat, site plan , building permits, etc • Example cit ies - • Site Plan incentives? • Relationship to Greenways and "Floodplains and Streams"? • FPM -Preserve floodplain or greater area -simple to regulate Future Conditions Hydrology • Flood studies to include hydrology based on full build out of Land Use Plan for a subject basin • FEMA allows use of "better data" locally and shown on FIRM maps • Ordinance amendment to require all LOMRs to include this future conditions hydrology • To update entire floodplain in CS to future conditions would have a significant cost • FPM -Increased community awareness of pollutants, debris, water quality, and green ways Increased funding for Acquisition S~ A.~~' 'S • Acquire Green ways, floodplains, connecti ng hike and bike trails areas,.¥near park\ etc. • Current ba lances, annual contributions, roll over, properties purchased? • Are we aware if we have passed on properties due to absence of funds? • Do we need to re-evaluate appraisal approach for offers? DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CT T Y OF C OLLEGE STATI O 1101 Texas Avenue South , P .O . Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 I Fax 979 .764 .3496 MEMORANDUM June 6, 2008 Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission Alan Gibbs , P.E ., City Enginee r Zero-Rise in Floodplain Development At the May 22 , 2008 Council Workshop Meeting , City Council voted unanimously requesting staff to bring this subject item to the June 26 1h Council Meeting . Currently , the C ity of Col lege Station Code of Ordinances , Ch . 13 : Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance, Section 5.G. (attached) prohibits encroachments into Floodways unless an eng ineering report is provided demonstrating no increase in water surface elevation (z ero-rise). In addition to this minimum requirement set o ut by FEMA, College Station requires that the Zoning Board of Adjustments considers specifi c criteria and prerequ isites before g ran ti ng this associated variance . This item discusses applying these regulations to the Floodplain or more specifically the Special Flood Hazard A rea (SFHA ) which is commonly Zones AE and A as depicted on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). No fo rmal action from the Planning and Zoning Commission is required . Attached Ch. 13 : Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance , Section 5 .G . Special Provisions for Floodways 24 • ,. . . Ch . 13: Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance Section 5: Special Provisions G . SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR FLOODWAYS Located within Areas of Special Flood Hazard established in Section 5-B are areas designated as floodways. The floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris , potential projectiles, and the potential for erosion; therefore, the following provisions shall be required: (Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22 , 1987) ( 1) Encroachments shall be prohibited , including fill, new construction , substantial improvements of existing construction , structures , manufactured homes , or other development Variances requested on this standard shall be accompanied by a complete engineering report fully demonstrating that the encroachments shal not result in any increase in water surface elevation or flood hazard upstream, within , or downstream of the encroachment location. The engineering_ report shall conform to the requirements of the Biyan/College Station . Unified Design Guidelines Standard Details , and Technical Specifications and shall 5ear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer. (Ordinance No . 2950 of January 11 , 2007) (2) Exemptions for the requirements of Section 5-G may be made in the following cases : (a) (b) (c ) CustomafY and incidental routine grounds maintenance , landscaping and home gardening which does not require a building Qerryiit , zon~ change request , or variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance ; Emergency repairs of a temporary nature made on public or private property which are deemed necessary for the preservation of life , health , or property , and which are maae under such circumstances where it would be impossible or impracticable to obtain a de- velopment permit. Temporary excavation for the P.Urpose of maintaining , or repairing any public street, public utility facility , or any service lines relatea thereto ; (Ord in ance No . 1740 of February 25 , 1988) (d) Proposed street and public utility encroachments shall be exempt from the requirement of a variance provided that the proposal 1s accompanied by a complete engineering report fully demonstrating that the encroachments shall not result in any increase in water surface elevation or flood hazard UP-Stream , within , or downstream of the encroachment location . The engineering report shall conform to the requi rements of the Drainage Policy and Design Standards and shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer. (Ord i nance No. 2939 of November 20 , 2006) 25 (3) All new construction or substantial improvements of existing construction shall be subject to the methods of flood hazard reduction outlined in Sec - tion 5. (Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22 , 1987) (4) When a regulatory floodway has not been designated , no new construction , substantial improvements, or other developmentA including fill , shall be germitted within zones designated Al-A30 and AE on the community 's FIRM, unless it is demonstrafed that the cumulative effect of the proposed development 1 when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community. (Ordinance No . 1740 of February 25 , 1988) 26 ... (Proposed Council Initiated Ordinance Amendment regarding "Zero-Rise " to Floodplains .) Chapter 13 : Flood Hazard Protection (The proposed language is "bold".) Section 5, E. Special Provisions for Areas of Special Flood Hazard . (The following language is proposed to replace the existing language in Section 5.8.) 9130108 (10) (a) For all new construction or any substantial improvement to a structure, encroachments, including fill, located within Areas of Special Flood Hazard may not increase the Base Flood Elevation. This shall be demonstrated through certification of this based upon a submitted engineering report that includes hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, conforms to the requirements of this Chapter and the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines, Standard Details, and Technical Specifications, and bears the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer. (b) For encroachments relating to any new construction or any substantial improvement to a structure, including fill, that are located within Floodways, the following additional provisions apply: (1) A variance must be granted; and (2) It must be demonstrated and certified on the required engineering report as set forth above that such construction or improvement does not increase the Base Flood Elevation. (c) The following are exempt from subsections 5.E.10.a. and 5.E.10.b. above: (1) Customary and incidental routine grounds maintenance, landscaping and home gardening provided same (i) does not increase the Base Flood Elevation; (ii) does not create new Areas of Special Flood Hazard; and (iii) does not require a building permit, zone change request, or variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; (2) Temporary emergency repairs deemed necessary for the preservation of life, health, or property provided a permanent repair be done as soon as practicable; and provided that to the maximum degree deemed reasonable and prudent by the City such repair is made and maintained so as to minimize increasing the Base Flood Elevation and to minimize the creation of additional Areas of Special Flood Hazards. Certification of this shall be required based upon a submitted engineering report that includes hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, conforms to the requirements of this Chapter and the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines, Standard Details, and Technical Specifications, and bears the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer; or (3) Temporary excavation for the purpose of maintaining or repairing any public street, public utility facility including service lines related thereto, or any other public infrastructure provided such area of excavation is returned as soon as practicable to its prior condition or better with respect to meeting the requirements set forth in this section 5.E.10." (Section 5. G, Special Provisions for F/oodways is proposed to be deleted.) (Section 5. H. Special Provisions for Areas of Shallow Flooding is proposed re-lettered as new Section G.) (Proposed Sta te initiated Ordinance Amendmen ts to bring our ordinan ce in to FEMA compliance) Chapter 13 : Fl ood Hazard Protection (The proposed language is "bold".) Sect ion 2 : Defin itions (The following language is proposed to be added.) BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) -shall mean the elevation shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and found in the accompanying Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Zones A, AE, AH, A1-A30, AR, V1-V30, or VE that indicates the water surface elevation resulting from the flood that has a 1% chance of equaling or exceeding that level in any given year -also called the Base Flood. EXISTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION -means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the effective date of the floodplain management regulations adopted by a community. EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION - means the preparation of additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads). FLOODPROOFING -means any combination of structural and non-structural additions, changes, or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities , structures and their contents. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE -means a vehicle which is (i) built on a single chassis; (ii) 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projections; (iii) designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and (iv) designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational , camping, travel, or seasonal use. 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. HISTORIC STRUCTURE -means any structure that is: (1) Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register; (2) Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district; (3) Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior; or (4) Individually listed on a local inventory or historic places in communities with historic preservation programs that have been certified either: (a) By an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior or; (b) Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs . Section 5. B. Establishment of Areas of Special Flood Hazard Area (The following language is proposed to replace the existing language in Section 5. 8.) The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the current effective scientific and engineering report entitled, "The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Brazos County, Texas and Incorporated Areas, dated Februrary 9, 2000, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps and/or Flood Boundary-Floodway Maps (FIRM and/or FBFM) dated February 9, 2000, and any revisions thereto are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. Section 5, E. Special Provisions for Areas of Special Flood Hazard (The following "bold " language is proposed to replace the existing language in Section 5.E (1)) (1) All new construction , any substantial improvement to a structure , and appurtenances shall be constructed in such a manner as to minimize flood damage and provide adequate drainage ; and , all electrical , heating , ventilation , pluming , and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during condit ions of flooding ; Sect ion 5, E. Special Provisions for Areas of Special Flood Hazard (The following "bold " language is proposed to replace the existing language in Section 5.E (8)) (8) For all new construction and substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a basement and that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters . Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria : A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided . The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade . Openings may be equipped with screens , louvers , or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters ; Sect ion 5, E. Special Provisions for Areas of Special Flood Hazard (The following language is proposed to added as Section 5.B (11)) (11) In A1-30, AH, and AE Zones [or areas of special hazard], all recreational vehicles to be placed on a site must (i) be elevated and anchored; or (ii) be on the site for less than 180 consecutive days; or (iii) be fully licensed and highway ready. t A Developer's Introduction to the CDC Process Introduction Surprisingly enough, flash floods and flooding kill more people in this country than tornadoes or lightning. City steets can become rivers in seconds. The power behind the rapidly rising waters can uproot trees or demolish buildings and bridges. And, unlike other natural disasters, flooding can last a week or more. If the "big flood" were to occur in the Metroplex today, more than 12,000 homes and over 140 million square feet of commercial property would be heavily damaged along the Trinity River Corridor. This flood would cause more than $4 billion of damage, almost 1 O times that of the Midwest floods of 1997, with an untold loss of life. This harrowing scenario pushed local governments in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area in the late 1980s to establish a COMMON VISION for the Trinity River Corridor. The innovative Corridor Development Certificate (CDC) process forms the cornerstone of COMMON VISION 's flood control program. Historically, new development, which fills the floodplain and raises the water level, has outpaced government efforts to reduce flooding by building levees. The CDC process allows development in floodplains to continue, but ensures that this development will not raise water levels and thereby exacerbate flooding. Under the CDC process, cities retain ultimate control over floodplain permitting decisions, but other cities along the Trinity River the opportunity to review and comment on projects in their neighbor's jurisdiction. The CDC process should ensure that as development, so vital to the Metroplex economy, continues, flooding will not increase. The purpose of this brochure is to answer questions that you as a developer might have about the CDC process. We hope to work with you to help build a more flood-resistant community. Where is a CDC permit required? A CDC permit is required for the approximate 100-year floodplain of the Trinity. The Regulatory Zone is specifically delineated in the latest version of the digital Trinity River Corridor Map, which is available from your local floodplain administrator or from the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). What type of development needs a CDC permit? Any public or private development within the Regulatory Zone must obtain a CDC prior to start of any development activity, unless specifically exempted. Development activity includes filling, grading, paving, and dredging, among other activities. Are there any exemptions to the CDC process? An exemption to the CDC process may be issued for specific activities outlined in the CDC Manual, including: • Ordinary maintenance and repairs of any operational control structures, • Permitted outfall structures and associated intake structures, • Discharge of material for backfill or bedding for utility lines, and • Bank stabilization activities. In addition, under certain circumstances, the city may issue a variance from these common permit criteria. Are there any penalties for failure to comply with CDC regulations? Failure to comply with the provisions outlined in the CDC Manual will result in the penalties provided for under the floodplain management ordinance or regulations of the jurisdiction. I What permit criteria must projects in the CDC Regulatory Zone meet? Projects that fall within the 100-year floodplain of the Trinity River must meet common permitting criteria to ensure that the projects do not raise the water level and augment flooding. These common permit criteria include: • no rise in the 100-year flood elevation, • a maximum allowable loss of valley storage in the 100-year and Standard Project Flood discharges of 0% and 5%, respectively, and • no increases in erosive water velocity on-site or off-site. The developer should submit hydraulic data showing that he/she has satisfied these permit criteria. What must be included in a CDC permit application? To receive a CDC permit, a developer should submit the following to the local floodplain/CDC administrator, who will forward it to the appropriate parties for review: • Standard CDC Form Parts 1 & 2, which includes hydrologic and hydraulic data • Project site plans What mapping is available to me to aid in completing the CDC application? As part of the development of the CDC process, a state-of-the art floodplain map was developed , with includes more than 76,000 individual buildings mapped along with 2-foot interval topography, roadways, and other important engineering details. The mapping provides a consistent base for all the cities in the river corridor and is available from the North Central Texas Council of Governments. What model should I use to evaluate the hydraulic impacts of my proposed development? The USACE maintains the HEC-RAS model and frequently updates the model to incorporate floodplain development. This model provides a consistent basis for cities and developers to analyze impacts of proposed development. What is the fee for submitting a CDC application? CDC applicants for development activities within the Regulatory Zone must submit a $1,500 base fee to the CDC Review Fund. CDC applicants for development activities within the Regulatory Zone and within a CDC ineffective flpw area must submit a $750 base fee to the CDC Review Fund. Projects requiring more extensive analysis must pay for additional technical review. These additional costs will be billed on a per hour basis beyond the base fee. What happens to the CDC application after I submit it? The CDC permit application is forwarded to each of the cities in the Trinity River corridor for review and comment. Each individual city retains authority over final development decisions. The local CDC/floodplain administrator also has the opportunity to request a preliminary technical review of the application by the Corps of Engineers. This review provides city floodpla in administrators with additional data to make well-informed permitting decisions. For More Information Additional information about the CDC process is available in the current edition of the CDC Manual. For more information, please contact the Environmental Resources Department of the North Central Texas Council of Governments at (817)695-9210. ----=-------=-=--------------------=!Fr-I ~ 11 • 420 OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION Community: ___________ _ This activity credits preserving vacant land in the floodplain as open space, i .e., as areas where there will be no buildings and no filling. The areas must be PRESERVED as open space either through public ownership or by development regulations that prohibit buildings and filling. The areas can be public parks, private preserves, playing fields, golf courses, or other uses provided that the owner documents that the land will stay as open space. The open space must not be federal land and it must not be water (i .e., not a lake or river). There must be no buildings on the land, although parcels larger than 10 acres may have one building that is a necessary appurtenance to open space use, such as a restroom facility, ranger's cabin, or bleachers. Open space is not credited in FIRM Zones A99 or AR. 421 Credit Points .~ a. Enter 36 points if at least 5 acres of yo ur community's SFHA are preserved as open ~pace , Enter 72 points if at least 10% of your SFHA is preserved as open space. b. Enter 7 points if at least 5 acres of the open space credited under 421 .a have deed restrictions that prohibit future owners from building or filling on the property. The . deed must have clauses ensuring that no new buildings may be allowed on the property, that the restriction runs with the land, and that the restriction cannot be changed by a future owner (it can only be amended by a court for just cause). c. Enter 10 points if at least 5 acres of the open space credited under 421 .a are in an undeveloped natural state or have been restored to a natural state (i.e., there are no picnic grounds, ball fields, or recreational facilities other than trails). Enter the total of 421.a through c. Enter this value in the blank after "420 " on page 48. 424 Application Documentation You must attach the following documentation to this page of your application. The ISO/CRS Specialist will explain what additional materials will be needed during the verification visit and for your annual recertification. Check each section that applies: __ a. A copy of the prohibitory ordinance language (if your credit is based on restrictive regulations). You must have the following items available for the verification visit. Check that you will have the applicable ones available: b. Documentation that shows that at least 5 acres of floodplain will continue to be preserved as open space, such as a letter from the head of the parks department that states that it is the community 's intent to keep the parcel(s) as public open space. c. [If you are applying for credit for deed restrictions, Section 421.b] The deed restrictions for at least 5 of the acres credited as open space under 421.a. d. [If you are applying for credit for open space in a natural state, Section 421 .c] Documentation that shows that at least 5 of the acres credited as open space under 421.a are in an undeveloped natural state or have been restored to a natural state. This documentation must be signed by a professional qualified in a natural science, conservation, or environmental protection. e. A map showing the floodplain and the areas preserved as open space . CRS App Ji cation FEMA Form No . 81-73 28 Edition : 2007 Cin' OF COLLEGE STATION Q3 -100 year Boundary City Limits 10% Lands Preserved C Within Greenway ~ Within Parks S'4b· Total A-0 Zoning * A-OR Zoning * S'Ab • Total Acres 3,945.49 394.55 % of 100 yr. Acres floodplain 366 9.28% 465.61 831.61 2,066.41 81.89 2,148.30 [ J 11.80% 21.08% 52.37% 2.08 % 54.45% Ti~ CUMULATIVE ~ 1* TOTAL for Greenway, Parks, A-0 Zoning and A- OR Zoning ~553.28"] 65% * See attached zoning ordinance for descriptions of A-0 and A-OR tttJoi t> =J1'4 tt ;s 9i,.4J o c r,.r "t.,.·u lo-tf \6;j" i · SV\;\i ·\\J\'i\\r ~ht<"«$ \t::c ~ Cl- CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Q3 -100 year Boundary City Limits Acres 3,945.49 10% 394.55 Lands Preserved Acres Within Greenway 366 Within Parks 465.61 Total 831.61 A -0 Zoning * 2 ,066.41 A-OR Zoning * 81.89 Total 2, 148.30 CUMULATIVE ** TOTAL for Greenway, Parks, A-0 Zoning and A- OR Zoning 2,553 .28 % of 100 yr. floodplain 9.28% 11.80% 21.08% 52.37% 2 .08 % 54.45% 65% * See attached zoning ordinance for descriptions of A-0 and A-OR f-1 A.? ?J <6 '>)\ ~ / 3~~ ?--0 ~ / 'lf'~ ~ -\-" I °' **Parks and Greenway property in some cased overlapped with property identified in areas z oned a s A -0 and A-OR .. (~v ~ )~ if c 0 NO ADVERSE IMPACTS Tree Preservation • PDS to provide presentation at Council Workshop in coming weeks • In General staff is recommending an ordinance similar to Round rock , Aust i n, and Conroe : o Plats , Site Plans , and non -commercial Building Permits trigger o Requires Tree Survey initially from qualified personell to determine specimen trees, etc o Replace trees based on point system or pay i nto fund • FPM -Disincentive to remove trees (typically wooded areas along creeks) Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) • State-wide mandate from EPA, Clean Water Act, Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System • Currently in year 2 of 5 of implementation • Primarily focuses on stormwater "quality" • 6 minimum control measures o Public Education and Outreach o Public Involvement/ Participation o Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination o Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Controls o Post -Construction Management for Development o Pollution Prevention/ Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations • FPM -Water quality -Debris control is beneficial to FPM Brazos Basin Stormwater Education Consortium • • • • • • Formed out of SWMP Joint effort: College Station, Bryan , TAMU , TxDOT, and Brazos County Primary focus is consistency, collaboration, and efficiency in educating community as r equired in each of these agencies SWMP-to encourage best management practices toward clean waters Currently i n formative stage Intention to bring Council a resolution to formally join consortium and alert of funding needs FPM -Increased community awareness of pollutants, debris, water quality, and greenways FEMA Map Modernization • FEMA's consultant should be delivering shortly • Current FEMA maps (FIRMs) are paper, outdated streets , doesn't match GIS • Map Mod : o Digital o Based on CS land base and contours o Seamless GIS layer • FPM -More accurate floodplain delineations, for general management, Land Use "Floodplains and Streams " where is removes discrepanc ies, include with Comp Plan Update FEMA Community Rating System (CRS) • Applied for acceptance in January 2009, waiting for response • Possible Class Rating and Savings :"\. -o Class 9-5% o Class 8 -10%, etc • FPM -Exhaustive evaluation and suggestions for improvement of our local FPM from experts that have reviewed numerous other cities Greenways ,f~j~ ~<'tat., fedt$-\U""" ~ GUQl~S' ~ • Comp Plan -Land Use : where "Floodplains and Streams" are annexed and preserved as A-0 which has very limited uses • Map Mod will delineate more accurately • "Floodpla i ns and Streams" or Greenways could be based on floodplain, wider, extend further, o r connect parks, hike and bike trails, etc . • Dedication : Fee simple , easement, etc. • Acquisition • FPM -Greensways are often clear preservation -Land Use regs also effective in FPM ETJ -Drainage, Detention, and Floodplain Management • Recent discussions with Brazos County • lnterlocal Agreement o Agencies work toward consistent standards o In the interim, the "higher standards shall prevail" • City Regs -Ch. 13 Flood Hazard Protection Ord applies in ETJ, Ch . 12 UDO ETJ "surface channels" • County Regs -detention new {no standards), County staff indicated they want to maintain FPM • We could increase our standards that we review to, and let County review to their standards and process Floodpla i n Permits o Impact on review time? On inspection time? o Most drainage in ETJ will be private or the County's as integral to the road • FPM -Could increase standards i mpacting ETJ and adjacent properties Green College Station • From the Land Use Section of the Plan, "We will develop specific strategies to promote efficient use of our land while protecting our natural resources . We will promote open and green space as a prominent component of our community character ." (worth including?) • FPM -Promotion, Educati on , ... Parks • Parkland Dedication Requirements -with plats -land or fee in lieu • Bond Election projects • FPM -Perserves lands often including creeks and floodplain areas t 't . . , I'. < • • ' . ' . --------···-··----····-----··-·,.-··-····-·--·-·.------·----····· ... - ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13, "FLOOD HAZARD PROTECTION'', OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, BY AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS AS SET OUT BELOW; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; DECLARING A PENALTY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: ·PART 1: PART2: PART3: That Chapter 13, "Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, be amended as set out in . Exhibits "A-G," attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes. That if any provisions of any section of this ordinance shall be held to be void or . unconstitutional, such holding ·shall in no way effect the validity of the remaining provisions or sections of this ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect. That any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof ·shall be punishable by a fine of not less than Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). Each day such violation shall continue or be permitted to continue, shall be deemed a separate offense. Said Ordinance, being a penal ordinance, becomes effective one hundred and twenty (120) days after its date of passage by the City Council, and as provided by Section 35 of the Charter of the City of College Station. · - PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this __ day of ______ , 2009. APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: 34 ORDINANCE NO. --------Page2 EXHIBIT "A" That Chapter 13, "Flood Hazard Protection," Section 3, "General Provisions and ApplicabilitY" . of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby amended, by deleting Subsection E.( 4). · · 35 ORDINANCE NO. ~~~~~~~~ Page3 EXHIBIT "B" That Chapter 13, "Flood Hazard Protection," Section 4-A, "Designation of Administrator" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby amended, by deleting said section ~d substituting the following: "SECTION 4: ADMINISTRATION. A DESIGNATION OF ADMINISTRATOR The City Engineer shall be the Administrator to implement, administer, and oversee the provisions, terms, and conditions and requirements of this Chapter and shall maintain as his guideline for ·administration the purposes of this Chapter: 36 ....... ORDINANCE NO. _____ _ Page4 · EXHIBIT "C" That Chapter 13 , "Flood Hazard Protection", Section 5-C , "Revision or Amendment of Flood Insurance Study", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby · amended, by replacing , as set out hereafter to read as follows: C. REVISION OR AMENDMENT OR FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY Any revision or amendment to the Flood Insurance Study which is requested by a land owner in the City shall be submitted to the designated Administrator of the Stormwater Management Program in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Bryan/College Station Unifi ect -Design Guidelines, Standard Details, and Technical Specifications . All requests for map amendment or map revision must be approved by the Administrator in writing prior to their . submission to FEMA. If a modification of any watercourse is involved where a total of 300 feet reach or more is channelized or closed within a culvert , an effective Conditional Letter of Map Amendment shall be on fi le with the Administrator prior to any development or issuance of a Development Permit. All submittals to FEMA shall be made at no cost to the City. · 37 ORDINANCE NO. ·~~~~~~~~ Pages EXHIBIT "D" That Chapter 13 , "Flood Hazard Protection", Section 5-E , "Special Provisions for Areas of Special Flood Hazard'', of the Code of Ordinances of th e City of College Station, Texas, is hereby amended, by replacing Section 5-E , as set out hereafter to read as follows: "E. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD In all areas of Special Fiood Hazard the following requi rements shall apply to all public and private developments: · (1) All n~w construction, any substantial improvement to a structure, and appurtenances shall be securely anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement. (Ordinance No. 2950 of January 11 , 2007) (2) All new construction, any substantial improvement to a structure, and appurtenances shall be constructed in such a manner as to minimize flood damage and provide adequate drainage; and, all electrica l, heating , ventilation, pluming, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or located at least one foot above t~e Base Flood Elevation so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating with in the components during conditions of flooding;" (Ordinance No. 3133 of November 5, 2008) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) New and replacement sanitary sewage systems , including but not limited to septic tanks and drain fields, package treatment plants, etc., shall be designed to min imize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system and discharges from the system into flood waters; . . · New and replacement water supply systems including wells , t reatment plants, distribution facilities, etc., shall be designed to prevent infiltration of flood waters in to the system; Solid or liquid waste disposal sites or systems shall be designed and located to avoid contamination from them during flooding and to avoid impairment of their operation during times of flooding ; All new construction or any substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have . the lowest floor, including all utilities, ductwork and any basement, at an elevation atfeast one foot above the Base Flood Elevation. Certification that the applicable standards have been satisfied shall be submitted to the Administrator, said certification shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer or registered professional land surveyor on the form provided by the Administrator; Alf new construction or any substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or other non-residential structure shall either have the lowest floor, including all utilities, · ductwork and basements, elevated at least one foot above the Base Flood elevation, or · the structure with its attendant ut ility, ductwork, basement and sanitary facilities shall be flood-proofed so that the structure and utilities, ductwork, basement and sanitary facilities shall be watertight and impermeable to the intrusion of water in all areas below the Base Flood Elevation, and shall resist the structural loads and buoyancy effects from the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic cond itions. Certification that the applicable standards have been satisfied shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer on the form provided by the Administrator; · 38 ORDINANCE NO. Page6 : I ~~~~~~~~ (8) For all new construction and substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are used solely for parking of vehicles, build i ng access or storage in an area other than a basement and that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters . Designs for meeting th is requirement must either be certified by a registered professional eng ineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria : A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided . The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens , louvers, o r other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters ; (9) In as of special flood hazard where Base Flood Elevations have not been established, se Flood Elevation data shall be generated for subdivis ion proposals and other proposed development, including manufactured home parks, which are greater than 50 lots or 5 acres , whichever is less. {10) In A 0 , AH , and AE Zones [o r areas of special hazard], all recreational vehicles to be p ced on a s ite must (i) be e levated and anchored ; and (ii ) be on the site for less than 80 consecutive days; and (iii) be fully licensed and highway ready. (11) {a) Any new construction , substantial improvement to a structure or fill that encroaches into the Special Flood Hazard Area shall be proh i bited unless it can be demonstrated that -same will have no adverse im acts as set forth below. Certification of this shall be requ ired a approved by the Administrator based upon a submitted engineering report that includes hydrologic and hydrau lic analysis which conform to the requ irements of th is . Chapter and the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines , Standard Details, and Technical Specifications . All submitted information required herein shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer: (1) The engineer ing report shall demonstrate that such construction, improvement or fill creating the encroachment does not, at any time , cause · any of the following upstream, with in, near, adjacent, or downstream of such encroachment: a) An increase in t he Base Flood Elevations. In the event that Base Flood Elevations are not known at the time of submitting the information req"t1ired herein , Base Flood Elevations mt.1st be determined; b) Creation of additional areas of Special Flood Hazard Area ; c) A loss of conveyance capacity to that part of the Special Flood Hazard Area that is not in the floodway and where the velocity of flow in the Base Flood event is greater than one foot per second. This area can also be approximated to be either areas within 100 feet of the boundary of the regulatory floodway or areas where the depth of from the BFE to natural ground is 18 inches or greate r; . d) A loss of Base Flood water storage volume to the part of the Special Flood Hazard Area that is _beyond the floodway and conveyance area where the veloc ity of flow in the Base Flood is equal to and less than one foot per second without acceptable compensation as set forth herein. 39 . .. ~·······--~---··'----.. ---·-··--·-·----···-··-·-·-----···-·~-··········· .... ORDINANCE NO .. ~~~~~----Page 7 Acceptable compensation for the loss of storage volume requires a demonstration of cuts and fills, must be mitigated on-site and must demonstrate no net fill. In general, excavation within the Special Flood . Hazard Area and below the Base Flood Elevation is the only acceptable method of mitigation of fill placed below the Base Flood Elevation in the Special Flood Hazard Area; and e) An increase in Base Flood velocities. In the event the Future Conditions Flood data is known at the time of submittal, then the Future Conditions modeling must be used in lieu of the Base Flood modeling. (2) In meeting the requirements set forth in 11 (a)(1) above, if fill is proposed a Certification of Compaction of fill in accordance with FEMA Technical Bulletin 10-01 must be submitted. (3) The following are exempt from subparagraph {a)(1) above : (a) Lots where the adverse impacts are wholly contained : 1. On the subject property or only impacting the subject property and other property with same ownership, 2. On a property where its owner joins the associated development permit application which causes, quantifies, and outlines the adverse impact defined above, 3 . Within a Private Drainage Easement which is specified to be privately owned and maintained, and is recorded at the Brazos County Court House, or 4. Within public Rights-of-Way provided other requirements for use and encroachments within public Rights-of-Way as set forth elsewhere in this Code of Ordinances are met; or (b) Lots legally platted and recorded at Brazos County Court House prior to the adoption of this ordinance, unless such plat is subsequently replatted, vacated or otherwise altered. However, an amending plat does not remove this exemption. (12) For all new GOnstruction, substantial improvement to a structure, or fill located within Floodways, the. following provisions apply in addition to the requirements of item (11) above: (1) A variance must be granted; However, proposed street and public utility encroachments shall be exempt from the requirement of a variance provided that provision (2) below is satisfied; and (2) It must be demonstrated as certified by a professional engineer that such construction, improvement or fill encroaching the Floodway does not increase the Base Flood Elevation. Such certification shall bear the dated seal and signature of the professional engineer. (13) The following are exempt from both subparagraphs (11) and (12) above: (a) Customary and incidental routine grounds maintenance, landscaping and home gardening provided same (i) does not increasei the .Base Flood 40 ORDINANCE NO. Page 8 (14) ~~~~~~~~- Elevation; (ii) does not create Areas of Special Flood Hazard upstream, within , nearby or downstream; and (iii) does not require a building permit, zone change request, or variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance;· (b) Temporary emergency repairs deemed necessary for the preservation of life, health, or property provided a permanent repair be done as soon as practicable; and provided that to the maximum degree deemed reasonable and prudent by the City such repair is made and maintained so as to minimize increasing water surface elevation and to minimize the creation of additional Areas of Special Flood Hazards. Certification of this shall be required on a form provided by the Administrator based upon a submitted engineering report that includes hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, conforryis to the requirements of this Chapter and the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines, Standard Details, and Technical Specifications. and bears the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer; and (c) Temporary excavation for the purpose of maintaining or repairing any public street, public utility facility including service lines related thereto, or any other public infrastructure provided such area of excavation is returned as soon as practicable to its prior condition or better with respect to meeting the · requirements set forth in this Section . Approved mitigation such as excavation, must be properly approved and occur prior to any approved encroachment or fill is placed in the construction sequencing . 41 ORDINANCE NO. Page9 ~~~~~~~~ EXHIBIT "E" That Chapter 13 , "Flood Hazard Protection", Sect ion 5-F , "Special Provisions for Manufactured ,. Homes in Areas of Special Flood Hazard", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby amended, by replacing Section 5-F, as set out hereafter to read as follows: "F. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES IN AREAS OF · SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD The following provisions are required in all Areas of Speeial Flood Hazard : (1) (2) (3) No manufactured home shall be placed in a floodway ; All manufactured homes shall . be anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral movement and shall meet the following requirements :· (a) (b) (d) (e) (f) . (g) over-the-top ties shall be provided at each of the four corners of the manu- factured homes: on manufactured homes of 50 feet in length or less, one additional over-the-top tie shall be provided approximately at the mid point; on manufactured homes of over 50 feet in length, two additional over-the~top ties · shall be provided at intermediate locations; frame ties shall be provided at each of the four corners of the manufactured home; on manufactured homes of 50 feet in length or' less, four additional f rame .ties shall be provided at intermediate locations ; on manufactured homes of over 50 feet .in length , five additional frarne ties shall be provided at intermediate locations ; . . all components of the anchoring · system for manufactured homes shall be capable of carrying a force of 4800 pounds without sustaining permanent . damage. · For new manufactured home developments; expansions to existing manufactured home developments; existing manufactured home developments where repair, reconstruction, or improvement of the streets, utilities, or building pads exceeds half of the value of the streets, utilities , and building pads before such repair, reconstruction or improvement; and for manufactured homes not placed in a manufactured home development; a registered professional engineer or land surveyor shall certify that the following applicable standards have been satisfied in a manner approved by the Administrator and shall bear the dated seal and signature of such registered professional engineer or land surveyor: .\ 42 ·-------···~--~--··-··~----------· -------·---····--.. . •·· ..... -·-·········-··-·-··-·--·-·······--~-······--·-····---·······--·-···"' ···-······-··---······--········· ........... -----········------····-··----·······----· -· ··········-········ ....... , >'•···--·-··· ·-·-···--·--····-- ORDINANCE NO . _____ _ Page 10 (a) (b) (c) That stands or lots shall be elevated on compacted fill or on pilings such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home will be one foot above the Base Flood Elevation and the elevation of the center of the stand shall be no more than one foot below the Base Flood Elevation . adequate surface drainage and access fo r a hauler shall be provided . if a manufactured home is elevated on pilings : (i) lots shall be large enough to permit ~teps; · {ii) pil i ng foundations shall be placed in stable soil no more than ·ten feet apart;· (iii) reinforcement shall be provided for pilings more than six feet above the existing or finished ground level." · 43 \ ----·--·-----·------... - ORDINANCE NO. Page 11 ~~~~~~~- EXHIBIT "F" That Chapter , 13, "Flood Hazard Protection", Section 5, ''Special Provisions", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby amended, by deleting Section 5-G , "Special Provisions for Floodways" and by adding a new Section 5-G, "Special Provisions for Areas of Shallow Flooding" as set out hereafter to read as follows: "G. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR AREAS OF SHALLOW FLOODING Located within the Areas of Special Flood Hazard established in Section 5-B are areas designated as · Areas of Shallow Flood ing . These areas h.ave special flood hazards associated with base flood depths of 1 to 3 feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist and where the pathway of flood waters is indeterminate and unpredictable; therefore, the following provisions shall be required : (1) Al l new construction or any substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basements , elevated at least one foot above the depth number specified on the community's FIRM . (2) All new construction or any substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or other non-residential structure shall : (~) (a) Have the lowest floor, including basements, elevated at least one foot above the depth number specified on the commun ity 's FIRM ; or (b) The . structure with its attendant utility and sanitary facilities shall be floodproofed · so that the structure and utility and san itary facilities shall be watertight and impermeable to the intrusion of water in all areas below the Base Flood Elevation; , . and shall resist the structural loads and buoyancy effects from hydrostatic and hydrodynamic conditions. A registered professional engineer shall certify that this standard has been satisfied in a manner approved by the Administrator and shall bear the dated seal and signature of such registered professional engineer. Adequate drainage paths to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures shall be provided for all proposed structures on slopes in Zones AH or AO." · 44 • ·.··. •. \. ORDINANCE NO._~~~~~~ Page 12 EXHIBIT "G" That Chapter 13, "Flood Hazard Protection", Section 5, "Special Provisions", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby amended, by deleting Section 5-H, "Special Provisions for Areas of Shallow Flooding". 45 No Adverse Impacts Stakeholder Meeting Monday, April 13 , 2009 11:30 am Staff present: City Engineer Alan Gibbs, Sr. Assistant City Engineer Carol Cotter, Graduate Civil Engineer Erika Bridges, Drainage Inspector Donnie Willis, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Barbara Moore, Director of Capital Projects Chuck Gilman, Greenways Program Manager Venessa Garza, First Assistant City Attorney Mary Ann Powell, Staff Assistants Deborah Grace-Rosier, Brittany Caldwell, and Nicole Padilla City Council Members present: John Crompton and David Ruesink Stakeholders present: Veronica Morgan, Joel Mitchell, Chuck Ellison, Hunter Goodwin, Dale Browne, Fred Paine, Paul Kaspar, Steven Davis, Henry Wittner, Doris Watson, Parviz Vessali, Rebecca Riggs, Danielle Singh, James Batenhorst, Kent Laza, Jeremy Peters, Ani Dutta, Jesse Durden, Chris Harris, Kim Jacobs, Mike Davis, Chris Wilde, Brandon Hilbrich, Ralph Wurbs, Jeff Robertson, and Steve Duncan Presentation by Alan Gibbs discussing primary intent of meeting to hear public feedback on No Adverse Impact draft ordinance as directed by City Council at their March 12th meeting. Mr. Gibbs discussed the five future floodplain initiatives that are under consideration: Speculative Fill Policy, Riparian Buffer/Setback, Increased Free-Board, Future Conditions Modeling, and Parallel Open Space between the creek and developments. Current floodplain management initiatives he mentioned as currently under way include: the Tree Preservation Ordinance, Application to FEMA to become CRS Community, the Greenways Master Plan, Drainage/Floodplain Management in the ETJ, Green College Station, Parks Acquisition/Dedication, the Stormwater Management Plan, the TPDES Committee membership, and FEMA Map Modernization. To preface the discussion about the proposed ordinance, Mr. Gibbs stated that by definition No Adverse Impact seeks to go beyond federal and state minimum requirements and provide a higher level of protection for citizens and prevent increased flooding presently and in the future. He discussed the following changes which are proposed under the draft ordinance: 46 • Restrict activities in the Special Flood Hazard Area so that: Flood Elevation not increased, Special Flood Hazard Area not increased, Conveyance Capacity should not be decreased, Storage Volume should not be decreased, and Velocities should not be increased. Exemptions include if negative impacts are contained on subject property or within Public ROW and grandfathered for tracts platted prior to 120 days after passage of the ordinance. · • Prohibiting removal of trees and vegetation for mitigation of encroachments. • Requirement of Engineer's Certification of Compaction in accordance with FEMA Technical Bulletin. • Mitigation constructed prior to other proposed site improvements. • Clarify that CLOMRs are required for 300-ft channel or culvert modification. • Utilize Future Conditions Floodplain Model, if available, in lieu of BFEs for Elevation Certificates and Minimum Finished Floor Elevations. • Defining what the Future Conditions elevation is and Mannings Roughness Coefficient. • Clarify that the City Engineer is the Flood Ordinance Administrator. Open forum: Initial presentation brought about discussion regarding the wording of the draft ordinance amendment and future conditions. 1. Comment regarding language used for grandfathered properties which were platted 120 days prior to passage of the ordinance. Chuck Ellison suggested that the phrase "prior to" be removed from the draft ordinance if this really refers to tracts platted up to 120 days after the passage of the ordinance. Mr. Gibbs indicated that he would verify the language. 2. Question about encroachment in Future Conditions models. Veronica Morgan expressed concern about the way the draft ordinance is worded. Her understanding is that encroachment would not be permitted on property currently outside the Special Flood Hazard area but included in that area in the Future Conditions model. Mr. Gibbs clarified stating that floodplain encroachment would still be permitted, but would need to follow all ordinance requirements. 47 3. Question if Future Conditions models would account for site specific or regional detention facilities. Fred Paine questioned whether Future Conditions models without construction of flood detention structures accounted for site specific or regional detention. Mr. Gibbs referenced a federal court ruling in which detention was left out of their definition of Future Conditions based on a regional mitigation effort. If there is only a "planned" regional detention facility, you cannot take credit through the model for detention until it is actually built. 4. Question regarding how Future Conditions model would be developed. Rebecca Riggs asked how the City anticipated creating the Future Conditions models for all of the local watersheds. Alan Gibbs responded that it would most likely be done by individual watershed or at least by tributary. He anticipates updating the hydrology for future conditions and using the existing HEC-RAS models. Ms. Morgan replied that hydrology and cross-sections would both need to be updated to reflect current and future conditions since so much development has occurred since they were developed. Mr. Gibbs commented that the City may be able to OP more extensive studies where LOMRs are already being prepared and it wouldn't be much additional work to model the remaining tributary. Mr. Gibbs also mentioned that despite our detention policies, flows within the channels continue to rise. Future Conditions modeling is a way to address some of this increased flow. 5. Concern that increasing floodplain in areas due to Future Conditions modeling, and not accounting for required detention on the site, would in effect be "double dipping." Fred Paine said that most site development requires detention, and it seems like "double dipping'' to increase floodplain on sites but not account for detention. Mr. Gibbs responded that H&H modeling does not typically account for small commercial and residential detention and proposed Future Conditions modeling would be consistent with that practice. Mr. Paine likened this concept to providing site detention under proposed conditions because it is a requirement, but modeling the site without 48 taking it into account because detention may not work. Mr. Gibbs indicated that the City is open to utilizing a more detailed model. 6. Concern that Future Conditions modeling for upstream properties would increase floodplain on unrelated sites downstream which would be "exaction" of property. Chuck Ellison reiterated the concerns of Veronica Morgan and Fred Paine asking why floodplain would be increased in a fully developed model if post-development flows be equal to or less the pre-development flows. He went on to state that increasing the floodplain downstream to account for upstream development would be an illegal exaction of land. Mr. Gibbs responded that in future conditions models, it would not make sense to account for the benefits of regional detention which is not yet built because it may not be built. Furthermore, not all properties require detention and take flows back to pre-development rates. Some properties lie in areas where detention is not required and it becomes a timing issue with the rapid conveyance. 7. Comment that ordinance language should be changed to utilize updated existing conditions rather than future conditions. Veronica Morgan suggested that the language be changed in the ordinance to not include Future Conditions. She said that the ordinance could be reworded to reflect updated Existing Conditions and that would alleviate concerns about how a Future Conditions model should be built. Mr. Gibbs stated that the intent at this point was to collect comments and possibly redraft the language. He also added that this method is being used in communities across the state and nation, so he is comfortable that it was not an exaction issue. Mark Smith stated that the draft ordinance that was presented refers to Future Conditions, but the ordinance would be operating under Existing Conditions until the new model was adopted by Council. He said that there would be separate discussions later regarding Future Conditions design methodology. Mr. Smith indicated that this is only one part of the No Adverse Impacts Toolkit, but it would benefit the community and reduce flood risk. 8. Comment that new ordinance should not be adopted until Future Conditions model is complete. Chuck Ellison suggested that it may be better to amend the Flood Hazard ordinance later after there the Future Conditions model is complete. 49 Mr. Smith agreed and reiterated that the Future Conditions model design would be debated in the future and the ordinance would operate under the Existing Conditions model. Mr. Gibbs also agreed that the Future Conditions should probably be removed from the Flood Ordinance until the model is ready. 9. Comment about use of Future Conditions model in other cities. Veronica Morgan stated that Future Conditions models in other cities are used as a basis for raising the BFE, etc. but do not preclude development in the floodplain. Mark Smith agreed and stated that the City has used a similar approach as Future Conditions in the past with excess freeboard requirements . He said he could also see using the Future Conditions model in bridge and culvert design. Alan Gibbs mentioned that the City of Plano is an example of a city with a more stringent ordinance. They require that all Future Conditions floodplain areas be dedicated to the City, which is more aggressive than what is being proposed by the City of College Station. He also stated that the City had considered proposing that developers to provide Future Conditions models for the entire basin when a LOMR is being done , but ultimately felt that it was too onerous. 10. Question about permitting removal of vegetation in a case where channel improvements and mitigation are proposed. Veronica Morgan proposed a scenario where a development is proposing a floodplain encroachment but mitigating with upper bank improvements (above the high water mark) and some additional storage volume. As the ordinance reads, Ms. Morgan feels that this would be allowed although she would be removing some vegetation. Mr. Gibbs stated the ordinance was trying to keep people from clear- cutting trees only as means to drop then-value as their sole form of mitigation. He suggested that language be included in the ordinance to allow channel improvements and also stated that the ordinance was not actually prohibiting trees from being removed. Fred Paine mentioned that he submitted a LOMR and FEMA told him reduce the "n" value to reflect the existing conditions on the site. Mr. responded that a separate model could be submitted to the City in which n-values were not reduced. 50 Ms. Morgan questioned how a bridge crossing and associated channel improvements could be accomplished without removing trees. Mark Smith responded that removing vegetation would be fine in that case because you aren't removing the vegetation for the purpose of lowering then-value. Mr. Smith stated that this regulation would go beyond FEMA requirements. The City wants to achieve Zero Rise, but does not want to sacrifice vegetation to do it. He said there are two objectives: to not increase flood rise and less removal of vegetation in greenbelts in College Station. Both objectives are related, but not necessarily hard- wired together. Some trees will have to be removed when doing channel improvements. Fred Paine suggested that some sort of "Tree Protection Line" be required that would prevent removal of trees beyond a certain point. Mr. Gibbs clarified that this was not intended as a complete Tree Ordinance, but currently there was a Tree Ordinance being drafted. He added that there was language included in the ordinance that would exempt rise occurring in the right-of-way. Joel Mitchell commented that the language in the ordinance regarding removal of vegetation to lower n-values was written backwards. He feels that Zero Rise cannot be achieved without channel improvements, but channel improvements cannot occur without removal of vegetation. Mr. Gibbs agreed that the language needed to be clearer in establishing the difference between removals of vegetation for channel improvements and clear-cutting to reduce n -values. Mr. Mitchell offered to aide in revising this language. There seemed to be a consensus that some sort of riparian buffer (either including the entire floodplain or 50-ft off of the centerline of the creek) may be the best option. 11. Question concerning where LOMR would be required. Mike Davis questioned when conditional LOMRs would be required and if this applies to any channel or waterway upstream. Alan Gibbs responded that currently Conditional LOMRs are only required when a watercourse is modified and only applies to FEMA Special Flood Hazard areas. A suggestion was made that more specific wording be added to the ordinance as to where this would be required. Mr. Gibbs stated that this 51 should only apply to Special Flood Hazard areas that should be applied to the entire section of the ordinance without adding additional verbage. Fred Paine asked if the ordinance would apply to areas that are waterways but not currently considered FEMA Special Flood Hazard zones or haven't been studied. Mr. Gibbs said that the ordinance would not apply to those areas as drafted. 12. Concern that incidental effects may occur on adjacent property when altering floodplain. Mike Davis raised the concern that any changes made to the floodplain on one property would cause some sort of effect (i.e. increased velocity or rise) on an adjacent property. What effects on an adjacent property would be permitted? Mr. Gibbs responded that FEMA considers Zero Rise as a 0.02-foot or less rise (since it rounds to zero). The way the language in the ordinance is drafted, the City would be able to use FEMA's interpretation of Zero Rise. 13. Concern that adjacent property owner may not want to plat in order to allow improvements on their site. Veronica Morgan stated that the language to allow purchase or easement on an adjacent property owner's land was not included in the ordinance. She expressed concern that she would have a hard time proceeding with development if she had to get adjacent property owners to plat as well. Could an easement or something be permitted on the adjacent property? Mr. Gibbs stated that language may be able to be added to allow the adjacent property owner to be a co-applicant without triggering the platting requirement. Ultimately, the items that trigger platting would be a legal and planning issue. Mark Smith commented that if easements were granted, it would be preferred that they were granted between property owners rather than from a property owner to the City. Ms. Morgan concurred. 14. Concern about the equitability of the ordinance. Hunter Goodwin commented that the City is the primary developer within the floodplain but would not have to follow the constraints of the Flood Hazard and Tree Ordinances. He added that it would be costly for a developer to remove trees in the floodplain and mitigate, but the City would not incur costs for doing the same. 52 Alan Gibbs responded that the City would hav e to follow the same regulations as the development community. Mark Smith added that the City may have to look at transferring money into the Greenways Fund or something similar to mitigate for its development in the floodplain . Meeting closed 2 :00pm. Enclosures (2) 53 • No Adverse Impact Floodplain Management Association of State Floodplain Managers 2004 Background Al N~ Arlv~~rs~ Imp.ad Flood damages in the United States continue to escalate. From the early 1900's to the year 2000, flood damages in the United States have increased six fold, approaching $6 billion annually. This occurred despite billions of dollars for structural flood control, and other structural and non-structural measures. We continue to intensify development within watersheds and floodplains, and do it in a manner where flood prone or marginally protected structures are suddenly prone to damages because of the actions of others in and around the floodplain. Current national floodplain management standards allow for: floodwater to be diverted onto others; channel and overbank conveyance areas to be reduced; essential valley storage to be filled; or velocities changed with little or no regard as to how these changes impact others in the floodplain and watershed. The net result is that through our actions we are intensifying damage potentials in the nation's floodplains. This current course is one that is not equitable to those whose property is impacted, and is a course that has shown to not be economically sustainable. Over the past 50 years a system has been established that in many locations has substituted local and individual accountability with federal government programs of flood control and disaster assistance of the. While funding for the Corps of Engineers, NRCS and other agencies of the federal government will fluctuate, the pattern of the federal government responding to disasters has become firmly entrenched and will not likely change in the foreseeable future. However, what has changed is how disaster relief impacts other domestic programs. Ten years ago, when Congress was faced with a large disaster, they would fund the disaster with deficit spending. Today, each time Congress passes a bill to provide disaster supplemental funding for disasters, offsetting cuts in domestic programs must be made. Despite investment theories regarding benefits and costs, our problem has become one of cash flow. Each needless incremental increase in flood damage represents a lost opportunity for support of essential domestic programs of the United States. Considering the recent emphasis on domestic security and military buildup, the cash flow problem is only going to get worse. At its broadest level, No Adverse Impact floodplain management is about local government taking " steps to reduce the drain on national resources, as well as local and state resources. These resources can then be applied to domestic programs enhancing the economy, environment, education and defense. In essence, current floodplain management approaches are only sustainable at the expense of other important programs. More directly for local governments, No Adverse Impact floodplain management represents a way to prevent worse flooding in your community- --right now! While some state and local governments may have abdicated their responsibility, most local governments have simply assumed that the federal approaches are an acceptable standard of care, perhaps not realizing these very approaches could induce additional flooding and damage within their community. Instead, No Adverse Impact offers communities an opportunity to promote responsible floodplain development through community-based decision making. Communities will be able to determine better use of federal and state programs to enhance their proactive initiatives and utilize those programs to their advantage as a community. The No Adverse Impact floodplain management initiative empowers the local community (and its citizens) to build stakeholders at the local level. No Adverse Impact floodplain management is a step towards individual accountability by not increasing flood damages to other properties. No Adverse Impact floodplain management is about local communities being proactive in understanding potential impacts and implementing programs of mitigation before the impacts occur. No Adverse Impact Floodplain Management Defined "No Adverse Impact Floodplain Management" is a managing principle that is easy to communicate and from a policy perspective tough to challenge. In essence, No Adverse Impact floodplain management is where the action of one property owner does not adversely impact the rights of other property owners, as measured by increased flood peaks, flood stage, flood velocity, and erosion and sedimentation. No Adverse impact floodplains could become the default management criteria, unless a community has developed and adopted a comprehensive plan to manage development that identifies acceptable levels of impact, appropriate measures to mitigate those adverse impacts and a plan for implementation . No Adverse Impact could be extended to entire watersheds as a means to promote the use of retention/detention or other techniques to mitigate increased runoff from urban areas. While the No Adverse Impact approach will result in reduced damages for the 1 % chance flood event, its true strength is that it virtually ensures that future development actions which impact the floodplain must be part of a locally adopted plan. This removes the mentality that floodplain management is something imposed by FEMA, and promotes local accountability for developing and implementing a comprehensive strategy and plan for the floodplain. Giving locals the flexibility to adopt comprehensive local management plans, which would be recognized by FEMA and other federal .. \.-I .. programs as the acceptable management approach in that community, will provide the community with control and support for innovative approaches. Finally, No Adverse Impact is an approach that makes sense and is the right thing to do. Too often our discussions on development approaches turn into arguments over the range of application and the impact these approaches might have on those who are choosing to encroach into the floodplain. It is time to change and begin managing from the perspective of not inducing additional flood impacts on other properties, giving local communities the ability to manage flood losses through comprehensive local plans. Conclusion This central message---that we are inducing flood damages---has not been communicated effectively, in part due to the floodplain management community as a whole spending too much time debating issues of individual standards while not stepping back and evaluating the broad impact of the range of management approaches throughout the watershed . Current management systems to reduce flood losses are costly and often allow development that fails to evaluate or mitigate adverse impacts on other properties, both now and in the future. No Adverse Impact is an approach that will lead to reduced flood losses throughout the nation while promoting and rewarding strong management and mitigation actions at the local level. Note: For more information the ASFPM can be contacted at (608) 274-0123. Full copies of the ASFPM documents on flood policy, including a published article on No Adverse Impact, the NAI Toolkit and other publications can be downloaded at www.floods.org NAI White Paper 4-29-04 LEGAL QUESTIONS: GOVERNMENT LIABILITY and NO ADVERSE IMPACT FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Prepared by Jon A. Kusler, Esq. for the Association of State Floodplain Managers Preface This question and answer summary concerning legal issues associated with no adverse impact floodplain management was prepared for the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) by Jon Kusler, Esq., Associate Director of the Association of State Wetland Managers. It is based upon a larger paper with extensive case law citations, also prepared by Jon Kusler for the Association: No Adverse Impact Floodplain Management and the Courts. The summary and the larger paper are based upon review of the legal literature as well as Federal and state case law concerning floodplain regulations. Acknowledgements Edward A . Thomas, Esq. provided extensive review to this document. Funding was provided by the McKnight Foundation and the ASFPM Foundation. Opinions expressed in the document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the sponsoring organizations. November 2003, Page 1 of 4 COMMON LEGAL QUESTIONS For No Adverse Impact Floodplain Management INTRODUCTION What is no adverse impact floodplain management? In 2000, the Association of State Floodplain Managers recommended a "no adverse impact" approach or goal for local, State, and Federal floodplain management to help control spiraling flood and erosion losses, new development which increases flood risks and additional flood losses . The "no adverse impact" goal could also potentially be applied to environmental and other impacts , if a community chooses to do so . The "no adverse impact" goal is not intended as a rigid rule of conduct. Rather, it has been suggested as a general guide for landowner and community actions in the watersheds and the floodplains which may adversely impact other properties or communities. It also could be incorporated as an overall performance standard into community and State floodplain regulations . What major legal issues are raised by no adverse impact floodplain management? Two major sets oflegal issues arise with no adverse impact floodplain management. 1) Can no adverse impact floodplain management reduce community liability for flooding and erosion problems? 2) Will a community that is adopting floodplain regulations incorporating a no adverse impact standard be subject to liability for taking private property or be subject to other successful legal challenges? These questions will be discussed individually in the following pages. 1) CAN NO ADVERSE IMPACT FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REDUCE COMMUNITY LIABILTY FOR FLOODING AND EROSION? Legally, no adverse impact floodplain management can reduce community liability for flood and erosion losses . More specific issues pertaining to this overall conclusion include the following : Are successful suits against local governments for increasing flooding and erosion growing more common? When individuals are damaged by flooding or erosion, they often file law suits against governments or other individuals, claiming that the governments have caused the damages, contributed to the damages or, in some instances, failed to prevent or provide adequate warnings of natural hazards. Successful liability suits based upon natural hazards have become increasingly expensive to governments, not only because of the increasing damage awards but because of the attorney and expert witness fees which may exceed the damage award. Successful liability suits of all types have increased in the last two decades for several reasons: A growing propensity to sue on the part of individuals damaged by flooding or erosion (historically , members of society were more willing to accept losses from a broad range of causes). Large damage awards and the willingness of lawyers to initiate suits on a contingent fee basis . Propensity of juries to view governments as having "deep pockets". Expanded concepts ofliability. Abrogation or modification of sovereign immunity in most jurisdictions. Uncertainties with regard to the legal rules of liability and defenses (e.g., "Act of God") due to the evolving nature of the body of law and the site-specific nature of many tort actions. Limitation of the "Act of God" defense because most hazards are now foreseeable. Hazards are now, to a greater or lesser extent, "foreseeable" and failing to take such hazards into account may constitute negligence. See, e.g., Barr v. Game, Fish, and Parks Commission, 497 P .2d 340 (Col., 1972.) Advances in hazard loss reduction measures (e.g., warning systems, elevating structures) create an increasingly high standard of care for reasonable conduct. Advances in natural hazard computer modeling techniques, which can be used to establish causation . Reduction in the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. All levels of government, Federal, State and local, may now be sued for negligence, nuisance, breach of contract or the "taking" of private property without payment of just compensation under certain circumstances , although vulnerability to suit varies. November 2003, Page 2 of 4 In what situations are governmental units liable for increasing flood or erosion damages on private lands? Courts have commonly held governments liable for increasing flood and erosion damages on private property by blocking natural drainage through grading, fill, culverts, bridges or structures; increasing the location and amount of runoff through channelization or drainage works; or constructing flood control works such as levees and dams. Courts have often held governmental units liable for inadequately maintaining or operating culverts, bridge crossings, channelization projects, and dams. Some courts have also held local governments liable for issuing permits and approving subdivisions which increase flood damages on other lands and for inadequate inspections. Courts have held governmental units liable under a variety of legal theories including riparian rights, nuisance, trespass, negligence, strict liability and "taking" private property without payment of just compensation. Can a governmental unit protect itself from liability by arguing "sovereign immunity"? The sovereign immunity defense has been dramatically reduced by the courts and legislatures in most states. In addition, sovereign immunity is not a defense to a "takings" claim . Can a governmental unit protect itself from liability by arguing an "Act of God"? Increasingly, no. To successfully establish an "Act of God" defense, a governmental unit must prove that a hazard event is both large and unpredictable. This is increasingly difficult because hazard events are at least partially foreseeable. Will a governmental unit be protected from liability by following regulatory guidelines or using "standard" engineering approaches for flood and erosion control? Not necessarily. A court may hold that a "standard" approach is not reasonable in the circumstances as technologies improve and the standard of care in floodplain management increases. May a governmental unit be held liable for failing to reasonably operate and maintain flood loss reduction measures such as channels, levees, dikes and warning systems? Yes. Courts often hold governmental units liable for inadequate operation or maintenance. May a governmental unit be held liable for issuing permits for development or approving a subdivision which increases flood or erosion damages on other lands? Yes, in some but not all states. May a governmental unit be held liable for failing to remedy a natural hazard on public lands which damages adjacent private lands? Perhaps. Courts have, with only a few exceptions, not held governmental units and private individuals responsible for naturally occurring hazards on public lands such as stream flooding or bank erosion that damage adjacent lands (e.g., erosion, flooding). However, they are liable if they increase the hazards. In addition, a small number of courts have held that government entities may need to remedy hazards on public lands which threaten adjacent lands. Do governmental units have discretion in determining the degree of flood and erosion protection provided by flood and erosion reduction works? Yes.· Courts have held that the degree of protection provided by hazard reduction measures is discretionary and not subject to liability. However, courts have held governmental units responsible for lack of care in implementing hazard reduction measures once a decision has been made to provide a provide a particular degree of protection . November 2003, Page 3 of 4 .. I • • 2) WlLL FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS INCORPORATING A NO ADVERSE IMPACT STANDARD BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO A "TAKINGS" OR OTHER CONSITUTIONAL CHALLENGE? No. Courts are likely to provide strong support for a no adverse impact regulatory performance standard approach. However, no adverse impact regulations are subject to the same overall U.S . Constitution requirements as other regulations. These include the requirements that regulations be adopted to serve valid goals, be reasonable, not discriminate and not take private property without payment of just compensation . No adverse impact regulations are particularly likely to be supported because they apply a regulatory goal which is well established in common law and in regulatory programs. Will courts support a no adverse impact goal? Yes. Courts have broadly endorsed floodplain management goals and no _adverse impact is an extension of such goals. No adverse impact codifies the maximum which has been broadly endorsed by courts, "Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas," or "so use your own property that you do not injure another's property." See Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis, 107 S. Ct. 1232 (1987) and many cases cited therein. See, for example, Hagge v . Kansas City S. Ry Co., 104 F. 391 (W.D . Mo., 1900) (Court held that damage done to land by occasional overflow of a stream caused by a railroad was a nuisance.) _j/}o Will courts support the reasonableness of no adverse impact standards? ~ Yes. Courts have already supported a variety of more specific standards such as increased freeboard requirements and no rise floodways. May a local government adopt floodplain regulations which exceed State or Federal (FEMA) minimum standards.? Yes. Local governments regulations may exceed both State and Federal regulations. There is no preemption issue. In fact, the FEMA program encourages State and local regulations to exceed Federal standards through the Community Rating System. May governmental units be held liable for uncompensated "takings" if they require that private development be elevated or floodproofed? No. Courts have broadly and universally supported floodplain regulations against "takings" challenges . Courts have broadly held that regulations may substantially reduce property values without "taking" private property . May governmental units be held liable for refusing to issue permits in floodway or high risk erosion areas because proposed activities will damage other lands? No . In general, landowners have no right to make a "nuisance" of themselves. Courts have broadly and consistently upheld regulations which prevent one landowner from causing a nuisance or threatening public safety. What can governments do to reduce the possibility of a successful "takings" challenge to regulations? Local governments can help avoid successful taking challenges in a variety of ways: 1. Apply a no adverse impact floodplain overall performance standard fairly and uniformly to all properties . 2. Include special exception and variance provisions in regulations which allow the regulatory agency to issue a permit where denial will deny a landowner all economic use of his or her entire parcel and the proposed activity will not have nuisance impacts. 3. Adopt large lot zoning for floodplain areas which permits some economic use (e .g., residential use) on the upland portion of each lot. 4. Allow for the transfer of development rights from floodplain to non-floodplain parcels. ~-Reduce property taxes and sewer and water levees on regulated floodplains. November 2003, Page 4 of 4 Floodplain Management Best Management Practices C ity Cou ncil June 25 , 2009 Timeline (cont.) City Counci l (November 2008) -Narrow Zero-Rise Ordinance Considered (Wll:h a Public Hearing) -Council directed: • Sta tr to bring back a broader No Adverse lrrpacts Ordinance • In Draft Ordinance form if possible City Council (March 2009) -Zero-Rise Ordinance Draft was expanded to No Adi.ierse Impacts Ordinance (With a Public Hearing) • Tentative Council Support of Draft No Adverse llTJ)Bct Ordinance • Request for Stakeholder Input -Addit io nal number of lnitiatiws Topics • Council directed staff to bring back selected lnitiaNves tor further discussion Stakeholder Input -Session #3 No Ad verse Impact (~) City Council(~) -No Adwrse Impacts Ordllance (With a Publ ic HearT!g) [Regular Mtg) • Incorporated stakeholder Session #3 Input -Council Se lected lnitiatiws "Best Management Practices" [Workshop] Timeline City Counc il directed Staff for Draft Ordinance (MlrL2Q.Q§) Stall sought further clarification from Council (~) Council directed: -Staff to proceed fi rst on Zero-Rise to Floodpla ins w/ Stakeholder Input -Staff to later bring d iscussion of "No Adverse Impacts" Stall drafting Ordinance (w ith CS Legal & State for FEMA) Stall sought Stakeholder Input -#1 ASCEITS PE Meeting (Septembe r 18th) -#2 Public Meeting (September 30th) P lanning and Zoning Commission !October 2008) Initiatives 1. ET J -Drai nage, Detention, a nd Flood plain Ma nagement 2. Speculat ive Fill Policy Clarification 3. Increased Free board 4. Req uire or lnce nt leaving parallel open space between creek and st reet 5. Regional Detention Ponds or other Mitigation 1 Initiative #1 Increasing ET J Oversight Current Reg ulat ions: -Ch . 13 Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance -Ch . 12 Unified Oewlopment Ordinance -BCS Drainage Guidelines -CS / BC lnterlocal Agreement (ILA) • Regulations need to be updated for consistency and clarity • Very Minimal City Inspection of Drainage Facilities Seeking Co uncil direction on increasing Standards and Oversight: a) Engi'leering Rev;ew? b) lnspedion? • Note, likely would require additional staff c) Direct Staff to meet with Brazos Co unty to coordinate? d) Wont on regu lations update for consistency and clarty? Initiative #2 Speculati ve Clearing & Fill Policy Ch. 13 Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance -Section 4 "E . COND!TlONS OF APPROVAL Approval or denial of a development permit by the Ad·ministrator W I be bHed on al of the pro'lilk>ns of this chapter and the fo~ relewnt factors: (1) The danger to life or property due to l'tooding or erosion dama~; (2) The susc.ptibility of the propowd faciity and its contents to ftood damage uld the effect of such damage on the ntMdual owner; (3) The danger that materills may be ~pl onto other lands to the injury of others; (4 ) The compattb!Uty of ttM propoHd use w ith exlsttng and anttclpated develo pm ent; (5) The costs of proW:lr.g governmental services dtK-ing and .rter ftood conditions, including meirrre-Ninee and rep11 ir of slrHts and bridges, and pub-ic utiitiH and facilities such H sewer. gas. •Metrical, and.....ater systems. (6) The expect.d heights, velocity, duration. rate of rise and sediment transport of the ftood .....alllrs and the effects of ....ave action, if applicable , H"f>9cted al the site : (7) The necasaity to the faciity of a .....aterfront ~tion. where appbbl9: (8) The avabbil ity of alternative locations, not subject to llooding or erosion damage. for the proposed ... , (9) The re~tto ns hl p of the pro posed use to the com -prehenslve site plain t or tha t area." Initiative #2 Speculative Clearing & Fill Policy Current Ordin ance and previous ge neral Councils' Directi on ha ve yielded the fo ll owing interpretation : - A Oewlopment Permit for Tree Clearing and Grading (F•I) will Il21 be issued where : Floodplain or ·Greenways• are involved: -(Specula tiw) Ahead of a co mpl ete, approlJed site plan -Beyo nd the~ of the appro\'ed site plan General construction of Public Infrastructure for Pfatting: -Beyond the 1iIJ.b of the appro\'ed public infrastructure -Bception, Single Family Residential SutxHlo'isions , often dear lots Ahead of Land being zoned for the foreseen or indicated Use -E.iemptions not requiring a Deve lopme nt Permit Less than a 3 inch caliper tree and underbrush Incidental grounds maintenance Homeo'Mler i"llfC)vements outside f1oodplain Bona ffde a(.Tkult/1'8/ purposes (no deffned parameters) Does this reflect the Will of t he Council? Should staff work to revise Ordinance for cha nges or clarity? Initiative #3 Addi tional Freeboard r Specia l Flood Hcuard Area -J ..... -...... ...... .1.u--w..r_.. h ~@ .~u ...... ____, 2 Initiative #3 Additional Freeboard College Station currently has 1 foot Freeboard Texas Floodplain Managers Association -2008 Freeboard Survey: -159 Texas Cities and Counties responded: 12 (7 .5%) -1.5 Feet orFreeboard 29 (18.2%) -2 Feet of Freeboar<I (3%) - 3 Feet of Freeboard Total of 46 (29%) haw Freeboard eJCeediog 1 Foot How would Council direct Staff to proceed on this Initiative? Initiative #4 Parallel Open Space Regulations from City of Plano Subdivision Regulations: -\/Vhere the cly has designated flo<Xtplain as part of the park system, the followflg shall be provided : Parallel Streets fronting the Parl< Culdesacs and Loop Streets providing access fronting the Parle Vvtiere physically feasible , parlcs should be bounded by streets or other public uses (e .g., school, library, recreation center) Streets abutting Park shall be constructed to Collector wkith to ensure access and prevent tramc congestion -City Participates at 50% of increased costs -P&Z Commission may prohibit dewlopment of any property in Floodplain. if deemed necessary for health , safety, or welfare -No portion of a Drainage or Floodway Easement shall be contained within a Single Fam~y resKtential lot -this land shall be dedicated as a single lot to the city or an HOA How would Council direct Staff to proceed on this Initiative? Initiative #4 Parallel Open Space Exhibit from City of Plano Subdivision Ordinance: I Initiative #5 Regional Detention I Mitigation Definition: Mitigation of development's increased flow by a facility that serves multiple tracts of land Benefits: -Increase Efficiency -Encourage Oewlopment -Tend toward In creased Maintenance -Amenity -Environmentally (Potential} Built either: -Private Oe....e lopment (currently allowed and encouraged in BCS Drainage GuKtelines) -Publically (e.g. by City) 3 Initiative #5 Regional Detention I Mitigation Hurdles : -Private Dewlopment Requires a ·Master Planned" effort Requires a Developer wffh a large interest in land, or Multiple land owners collaborating Offen form an HOA or POA to own and maintain the facil;ty -Publically (e .g . by City) City have to invest funds to study, acquire land, and construct Anticipate: -High growth areas: reitriJursement of expended funds -Development buildout; desirable layout Examples : -Crowley Pond -adjacent to Arrington I Decatur (Private) -Crescent Pointe Pond · adjacent to Copperfield Dr. (Private) -TAMU Pond -adjacent to Bonfire Memorial (Public) How would Council direct Staff to proceed on this Initiative? Proposed Ordinance 1. Restrict actjvities in Special Flood Hazard Area where : -The flood elevation is increased , -The Special Flood Hazard Area is increased , -The conwyance capacly is decreased, -The storage volume is decreased , -The wlocities are increased , and 2. ~to th e abow: -Impacts wholly contailed on : Subject Property Adjacent Property, where Adjacent Owner. -Joins Application -Dedicates a PriYllte Drainage Euiement Public Right-of-Way -120 day delayed EffecWe Date of entire ordinance amendment Plats r~ed prior to Effectiw Date • All subsequent perrnls e>cempted What is Zero-Rise? Spe<iol Flood Hcaord ...,.ea --...1 Plan View .... @-n...1 1..._ ..... ._ ~©--®·"'""t ....... ~ Cross Section Proposed Ordinance 3. Require milirJatio n to be in place frst before encroachment 4. Requi"e Engineer's Certification of Compaction of fill n accordance with FEMA. 5. Clarify FEMA Conditional Letters of Map Revision CLOMR are required a 300 feet channel or culwrt modification 6 . City Engineer is the Flood Ordinance Admin istrator 4 Stakeholder Feedback Topics 1. Tree Ordinance 2. Detention 3. No Adverse Impact Toolkit 4. Environment 5. Land Use -Floodplain & Streams 6. Gre enways 7 . Compensation 8. Counci l Directi on 9 . Change in Processes 10 . Imminent Destruction Zero-Rise applied to Floodplain Benefits -Provides Add itional Flood Level Safety • Benefi t -no negative offsite impacts -Discourages "full" development of Fringe • Likely co uld not mitiga te and achieve Zero-Rise -Applies to SFH A • Not FEMA Zone X, etc . Note -Concern from Development Community Increa sed Deve lopment Stand ards (Cost and Land ) • Effecti ve date and vestin g Stakeholder Feedback Topics 11.ETJ 12 .Vesti ng 13. Future De velopment 14. Staff Discretion 15 . City Proj ects 16 . Un inte nded Consequences 17. Conta in ed on Developer's Property 18. Safety 19 . Council's Motivation 20 . Effecti ve Date 21 . Not Needed 5 Council Action I Direction Cons ider Zero-Rise to Floodplains Ordinance Amendment -Effective Da te -Contained on Developer's Property No Adverse Impact Toolkit -Init ial Council Workshop Presentation • Exhaustive Options • Recommended Options -Sta keholder Input 1 • Recomme nd ed Options • Listening Session -Stakeholder Input 2 • Recommended language • Li.stening Session Current Mitigation • Mitigation for Increased Runoff -Detention (most common) -Rapid conveyance (lower reaches) -Cha nnel Improvements • Elevation Certificates -Slabs Minimum 1 foot above BFE • Floodplain Reg Encroachments : -Fringe : Fill Allowed without study (1 ft . Max Rise) -Floodway: Study demonstrating Zero-Rise Stakeholder Input 6 7 , •• ~~~:;::ti.i:tii:j:j~~ii:tl!-!~-+z~:~ H· I!: lflr .... oe -ti H-1 • Hh+ II H : , . I l t r _! ·:,, . t : I ~ • 1 · j -~ 1---< t .. -1""+·1·~,_...__,~...., Additional Local Regs Exceeding FEMA • ZBA Variance for Floodway Encroachment • Zoning and Land Use Regulations · Council "Discretion " vs Minimum FEMA Regs -Zoning requirements more strict than FEMA • Delineation broader than FEMA floodplain 8 Per Zoning and Land Use Example : -Annexed -All enter as A-0 Zoning -Land Use -Portion Floodplain and Streams -Developer proposes a development 1 Encroachment in Fringe Typically Permittable by definition -Ensures not > 1 Ft Rise FF 1 Ft above BFE -Elevation Certificate 2 Encroachment in Floodwav Not Permitted w/o Variance Variance Requirements: -ZBA Variance -Zero-Rise Study FF 1 Ft above BFE -Elevation Certificate Per Zoning and Land Use Require Steps to be permitted : 1) Amend the Land Use Plan -F&S to SF Residential 2) Rezoning -A-0 to R-1 Residential 3) Plat and Permit according to Flood Ordinance 9 Gaps • Already Zoned • Mapp ing Challenges Issues/Opportunities Outdated Plans Mapping Gaps Li mited Financial Resources Urban vs Rura l Areas ETJ FEMA Map Modernization Efforts Mitigation Analysis/Requirements Some Impact Permitted by Ordinance Interactions Planning -Greenways , Floodplain Management, Alternative Transportation, Utilities , Parks & Recreation, Ph ase II Regs Protection -Easements , Parkland Dedication , Donations, Zo ning Acquisition -GIP/Bond, Greenways Program , Donations Uses -Parks , Flood Control, Wildlife Corridors , Bike/Ped Routes , Utilrty Routes 10 ... Scale = 1: 38 (Feet) 1 S 47 ° 31' 40" E 100 .00 2 s 41 ° 29' 15" w 120.00 3 N 47° 31' 40" W 100 .00 4 N 41 ° 29' 15" E 120 .00 4 3 CHAPTER 13 FLOOD HAZARD PROTECTION SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY A. AUTHORITY This chapter is adopted under the authority of the constitution and laws of the State of Texas , including particularly Chapter 231 , Acts of the 40th Leg islature , Regular Session , as heretofore or hereafter amended , compiled as Article 974a , V.A.C .S ., the provisions of Section 4 of the Municipal Annexation Act as heretofore or hereafter amended , compiled as Article 970a , V.A.C .S ., and in Article 1175 , V.A.C .S ., as heretofore or hereafter amended , and pursuant to the provisions of the Charter of the City of College Station , Texas . (Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22, 1987) B. PURPOSE It is the purpose of this chapter to protect , maintain , and enhance the public health , safety, and general welfare by establishing minimum requirements and procedures to control the adverse impacts associated with the increased stormwater flows generated by development. It is also the purpose of this chapter to enhance the public health , safety and welfare by furthering the goals and objectives of the City of College Station Comprehensive Plan and all of its elements . The following objectives will minimize public and private losses due to flooding , erosion , and sedimentation . (1) To protect human life and health ; (2) To minimize the expenditure of public money for costly flood and erosion control projects ; (3) To minimize the need for relief and rescue efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public ; (4) To minimize the damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and sewer lines , streets , and drainage structures ; (5) To help maintain a stable tax base for the City by providing for the sound use and development of all areas in such a manner as to minimize future areas of flooding ; (Ordinande No. 2277 of November 13 , 1997) (6) To establish review , approval , and permit procedures for the methods of handling , conveying , and disposing of stormwater flows within the corporate limits and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City , and insure the review by the appropriate authority of the design , analysis , construction and maintenance of all drainage facilities according to the provisions of this ordinance and the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines , Standard Details , and Technical Specifications ; (Ordinance No . 2950 of January 11 , 2007) (7) To restrict or prohibit development which is dangerous to health , safety , or property during flooding conditions , or causes unacceptable increases in water surface elevations or velocities ; (8) To require that uses vulnerable to floods, or flooding, including public and private facilities which serve such uses , be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction ; 13-1 Rev . 02/07 (9) To provide authoritative guidance in the alteration of any natural stream course , flood plain, or their associated protective barriers which are involved in the accommodation of floodwaters ; (1 O) To prevent the construction of barriers which will divert stormwater flows and subject other lands to increased flood hazard ; (11) To provide authoritative guidance in the modification of ground cover to minimize erosion and sedimentation ; (12) To e'nsure that potential property owners are notified if the property is included in an area of special flood hazard ; (13) To control filling , grading , dredging , and other development which may increase flood damage . (Ordinande No. 2277 of November 13 , 1997) 13-2 Rev . 02/07 SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS ACCELERATED SOIL EROSION -means the erosion that results from increased slope and/or exposure of the land surface that occurs as a result of man's activities . ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT -means full potential urbanization of the contributing watershed in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the reasonable assumption that in considering the effects of a proposed development in a floodplain area that there will be an equal degree of encroachment extending for a significant reach on both sides of the stream or water course. APPEAL -means a request for a review of the Administrator's interpretation of any provisions of this ordinance or a request for a variance . AREA OF SHALLOW FLOODING -means a designated AO, AH , or VO Zone on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) with a one percent or greater chance of flooding to an average depth of one to three feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist , where the path of flooding is unpredictable and where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow. AREA OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD -is the land adjacent to a clearly defined channel within a community subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. The area may be designated as Zone A on the Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM). After detailed ratemak ing has been completed in preparation for publication of the FIRM , Zone A usually is refined into Zones A , AE , AH , AO , Al-99 , VO , V1-30 , VE , or V . BASE FLOOD -means the flood having a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year ("The 100 Year Flood"). "BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) -shall mean the elevation shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and found in the accompanying Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Zones A , AE , AH , A 1-A30 , AR , V1-V30 , or VE that indicates the water surface elevation resulting from the flood that has a 1 % chance of equaling or exceeding that level in any given year -also called the Base Flood . (Ordinance No . 3133 of November 5, 2008) CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE -means a letter signed by the Adm inistrator ind icating compliance with all plans and specifications applicable to the subject project and completion of all stormwater management and soil erosion protection measures . CITY -refers to the municipal corporation , City of College Station , Texas . CITY ATTORNEY -means the person employed as City Attorney of the City of College Station , Texas . CITY COUNCIL -shall mean the duly and constitutionally elected governing body of the City of College Station , Texas . CITY ENGINEER -means the person employed as City Engineer of the City of College Stat ion , Texas , or his assign . CONSTRUCTION PLANS -means the construction documents required to accompany the final plat according to the Subdivision Control Ordinance of the City of College Station , or the building and site plans required for the issuance of a building permit by the City of College Station . CRITICAL FEATURE -means an integral and readily identifiable part of a flood protection system , without wh ich the flood protection provided by the entire system would be compromised. DETENTION -the temporary storage and controlled release of stormwater flows . 13-3 Rev . 02/07 DETENTION FACILITY -means a permanent facility for the temporary storage of stormwater flows which is designed so as not to create a permanent pool of water . (Ordinance No . 1728 of October 22, 1987) DEVELOPMENT -means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures , mining , dredging, filling, grading , paving , excavation , clearing , or drilling operations . (Ordinance No . 1740 of February 25 , 1988) DRAINAGE AREA -means that area , measured in a horizontal plane , which contributes stormwater flows by gravity flow along natural or man-made pathways to a single designated point along a pathway . DRAINAGE EASEMENT -means an interest in land granted to the City for maintenance of a drainage facility, on which certain uses are prohibited ; and providing for the entry and operation of machinery and vehicles for maintenance . (Ordinance No . 1728 of October 22, 1987) DRAINAGE FACILITY -means any element necessary to convey stormwater flows from its initial contact with earth to its disposition in an existing watercourse; said drainage facilities shall consist of both public and private storm sewers (closed conduits), streets , improved channels constructed in conformity with the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines , Standard Details , and Technical Specifications , unimproved dra inageways left in their natural condition , areas covered by drainage easements for the purpose of providing concentrated or overland sheet flow , and all appurtenances to the foregoing , including inlets , manholes , junction boxes , headwalls , energy dissipaters , culverts , etc. (Ordinance No. 2950 of January 11 , 2007) DRAINAGE RIGHT-OF-WAY -means an area of land dedicated to the City for the purposes of carrying and containing stormwater flows, constructing drainage facilities , and/or allowing entry or operation of maintenance equipment. EARTH CHANGE -means a man-made change in the natural cover or topography of land , including cutting or filling activities, which may result in or contribute to soil erosion or sedimentation . EASEMENT -means a grant of reservation by the owner of land for the use of such land by others for a specific purpose or purposes , and which must be included in the conveyance of land affected by such easement. (Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22 , 1987) ELEVATED BUILDING -means a non-basement building (i) built , in the case of a building in Zones Al-A30, AE, A , A99 , AO , AH , B, C , X and D , to have the top of the elevated floor, or in the cases of a building in Zones V1-30, VE or V , to have the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the elevated floor elevated above the ground level by means of pilings , columns (posts and piers), or shear wall parallel to the flow of the water and (ii) adequately anchored so as not to impair the structural integrity of the building during a flood of up to the magnitude of the base flood . In the case of Zones Al-A30, AE , A , A99 , AO, AH , B, C, X and D, "elevated building" also includes a building elevated by means of fill or solid foundation perimeter walls with openings sufficient to facilitate the unimpeded movement of floodwaters . In the case of Zones V1-30, VE , or V, "elevated building" also includes a building otherwise meeting the definition of "elevated building", even though the lower area is enclosed by means of breakaway walls if the breakaway walls meet the applicable standards of the National Flood Insurance Program regulations . (Ordinance No . 1740 of February 25 , 1988) ELEVATION -means the vertical distance from a datum , usually the NGVD , to a point or object. If the elevation of point A is 802.46 ft ., the point is 802.46 ft., above some datum . 13-4 Rev . 02/0 7 ENCROACHMENT -means an intrusion , obstruction , or other infringement on an area reserved for a specific purpose such as an easement or floodway . EROSION -means the process whereby the surface of the earth is broken up and carried away by the action of wind , water, gravity , ice , or a combination thereof. EXCAVATION -means any act by which soil or rock is cut into, dug, quarried , uncovered , removed , displaced , or relocated purposely by man and shall be taken to include the conditions resulting therefrom . EXISTING CONSTRUCTION -means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced before the effective date of the FIRM . "Existing construction" may also be referred to as "existing structures". EXISTING DEVELOPMENT -means any development as defined above which existed or was permitted prior to the date on which this ordinance became effective . EXISTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION -means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including , at a minimum , the installation of utilities , the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the effective date of the floodplain management regulations adopted by a community. (Ordinance No. 3133 of November 5, 2008) EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION -means the preparation of additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities , the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads). (Ordinance No. 3133 of November 5, 2008) EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION -within the terms of the Texas Municipal Annexation Act , means the unincorporated area , not a part of any other city, which is contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of College Station, the outer boundaries of which are measured from the extremities of the corporate limits of the city , outward for such distances as may be stipulated in the Texas Municipal Annexation Act , in which area , within the terms of the act , the City may enjoin the violation of its subdivision control ordinance . FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) -is an agency of the Federal Insurance Administration which administers the National Flood Insurance Program. FLOOD OR FLOODING - a temporary rise in the level of water which results in inundation of areas not ordinarily covered by water from : (1) the overflow of inland or tidal waters . (2) the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source . FLOOD FREQUENCY -means the statistically determined average for how often a specific flood level or discharge may be equalled or exceeded . FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY MAP (FHBM) -means an official map of a community , issued by the Federal Insurance Administration , where the areas within the boundaries of special flood hazards have been designated . FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM) -means an official map of a community , on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium zones applicable to the community . 13-5 Rev . 02/07 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY -is the official report provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency . The report contains flood profiles , the water surface elevation of the base flood , as well as the Flood Hazard Boundary Floodway Map . FLOODPLAIN OR FLOOD-PRONE AREA -means any land susceptible to being inundated by water from any source (see definition of flooding). FLOODPROOFING -means any combination of structural and non-structural additions , changes , or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property , water and sanitary facilities , structures and their contents . (Ordinance No. 3133 of November 5, 2008) FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM -means those physical structural works for which funds have been authorized, appropriated , and expended and which have been constructed specifically to modify flooding in order to reduce the extent of the areas within a community subject to "special flood hazard" and the extent of the depths of associated flooding . Such systems typically include hurricane tidal barriers , dams , reservoirs , levees or dikes . These specialized flood modifying works are those constructed in conformance with sound engineering standards . FLOODWAY -means 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 one foot. FLOODWAY FRINGE -means that part of the base floodplain outs ide the floodway . FUNCTIONALLY DEPENDENT USE -means a use wh ich cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is located or carried out in close proximity to water . The term includes only docking facilities , port facilities that are necessary for the loading or unloading of cargo or passengers, and ship building and ship repair facilities , but does not include long-term storage or related manufacturing facilities. GRADING -means any act by which soil is cleared , stripped , stockpiled , excavated , scarified , filled or any combination thereof . HIGHEST ADJACENT GRADE -means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls of a structure . HISTORIC STRUCTURE -means any structure that is : (1) Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register ; (2) Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determ ined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district ; (3) Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior; or (4) Individually listed on a local inventory or historic places in communities with historic preservation programs that have been certified either: (a) By an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior or; (b) Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs ." (Ordinance No. 3133 of November 5, 2008) LAND USE -a use of land which may result in an earth change , including , but not limited to , subdivis ion , residential , commercial , industrial , recreational , or other development, private and public highway, road and street construction , drainage construction , logging operations , agricultural practices , oil and gas exploration , exploitation , extraction and mining . LEVEE -means a man-made structure , usually an earthen embankment , designed and con- structed in accordance with sound eng ineering practices to contain , control , or divert the flow of water so as to provide protection from temporary flooding . 13-6 Rev . 02 /07 LEVEE SYSTEM -means a flood protection system which consists of a levee , or levees , and associated structures , such as closure and drainage devices, which are constructed and operated in accordance with sound engineering practice . LOT -means a tract or parcel of land which is physically and legally undivided and is shown on a duly recorded plat. LOWEST FLOOR -means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure , usable solely for parking of vehicles , building access or storage , in an area other than a basement area , is not considered a building's lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of this ordinance . MANUFACTURED HOME -means a structure, transportable in one or more sections , wh ich is built on a permanent chassis designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities . For floodplain management purposes the term "manufactured home" also includes park trailers , travel trailers , and other similar vehicles placed on a site for greater than 180 consecutive days . For insurance purposes, the term "manufactured home" does not include park trailers , travel trailers, and other similar vehicles . MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION -means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or for sale . MEAN SEA LEVEL -means the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 or other datum , to which the base flood elevations shown on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map are referenced. NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM (NGVD) -means the nationwide reference surface for elevations throughout the United States made available to local surveyors by the National Geodetic Survey with the establishment of thousands of benchmarks throughout the continent. It was obtained through a least-squares adjustment in 1929 of all first-order leveling in the United States and Canada . The adjustment included the 26 tide stations , and thus referenced the NGVD to MSL. NATURAL -the cover and topography of land before any manmade changes , or in areas where there have already been manmade modifications, the state of the area and topography of land at the date of the adoption of this ordinance. NEW CONSTRUCTION -means , for floodplain management purposes , structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a community. PERSON -an individual , firm, corporation , partnership , or association . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION -means the duly appointed Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of College Station , Texas . PLAT -the final plat as described in the Subdivision Control Ordinance of the City of College Station . (Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22, 1987) PRIMARY DRAINAGE SYSTEM -means the system of natural watercourses , improved or channelized watercourses ; and all closed conduits , culverts , bridges , detention facilities , and retention facilities associated with the watercourses ; all of which are shown or indicated in the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines , Standard Details , and Technical Specifications . (Ordinance No. 2950 of January 11 , 2007) RECREATIONAL VEHICLE -means a vehicle which is (i) built on a single chassis ; (ii) 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projections ; (ii i) designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and (iv) designed primarily not for use as a 13-7 Rev. 02/07 permanent dwelling but as temporary li ving quarters for recreational , camping , travel , o r seasonal use . (Ordinance No . 3133 of November 5, 2008) REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER - a person duly authorized and licensed under the provis ions of the Texas Eng ineering Practice Act , to practice the profession of engineering . RETENTION -means the storage of stormwater flows in a facility wh ich has a permanent pool of water. RETENTION FACILITY -means a facility that provides for the storage of stormwater flows by means of a permanent pool of water or permanent pool in conjunction with a temporary storage component. SECONDARY DRAINAGE SYSTEM -means the system of conveyance of rainfall from the point that it becomes concentrated flow to the po int where it reaches the primary dra inage system . This system includes all swales , ditches , m inor channels , streets, gutters , inlets , culverts , detention or retention facilities , or other means of conveyance of stormwater flows . SEDIMENT -means soils or other surficial materials t ransported or deposited by the act ion of wind , ice , or gravity as a product of erosion . SITE PLAN -a site development plan submitted for approval as described in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of College Station . START OF CONSTRUCTION -includes substantia l improvement , and means the date the building permit was issued , provided the actual start of construction, repair , reconstruction , placement , or other improvement was with in 180 days of the permit date . The actual start means the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site , such as the pouring of a slab o r footings , the installation of piles , the construct ion of columns , or any work beyond the stage of excavation , or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundat ion . Permanent construct ion does not include land preparation , such as clearing , grading , and filling ; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways ; nor does it include excavation for basement, foot ings , piers , or foundations or the erection of temporary forms ; nor does it include the in - stallation on the property of accessory buildings , such as garages or sheds not occup ied as a dwelling un it and not part of the main structure. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT -includes all ordinances , standards , plans , and studies to insure the timely and effective construction of: (1) a system of vegetative and structural measures that control the increased volume and rate of surface runoff caused by man-made changes to the land ; and (2) a system of vegetative , structural , and other measures that reduce or e li m inate pollutants that might otherwise be carried by surface runoff. "~ p:i1At S6\-Ul..Ll'...-'---+r P" 1 lu:1 l\fh,1 ~. STRIPPING -any activity which removes or significantly disturbs the vegetative surface cover , including clearing and grubbing operations . STRUCTURE -means a walled and roofed building , including a gas or liquid storage tank , that is principally above ground , as well as a manufactured home. SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCE -means that chapter of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station entitled or pertaining to "Subdivisions". SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE -means damage of any origin susta ined by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition wo uld equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred . (Ord i nance No. 3133 of November 5, 2008) 13-8 Rev. 02/07 SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT -means any repa ir , reconstruct ion , or improvement of a structure , the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure either: (I ) before the improvement or repa ir is started , or (2) if the structure has been damaged and is being restored , before the damage occurred . For the purposes of this definition , "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall , ceiling , floor , or other structural part of the building commences , whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure . The term does not , however, include e ither : (I ) any projects for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health , sanitary , or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions , or (2) any alterations of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places . VARIANCE -means the modification of the minimum stormwater management requirements for specific circumstances such that strict adherence to the requirements would : (I ) result in unnecessary hardship and (2) not fulfill the intent of the Ordinance . VIOLATION -means the failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the community's floodplain management regulat ions . A structure or other development without the elevation certificate , other certifications , o r other evidence of compl iance requ ired by th is chapter is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided . WATER SURFACE ELEVATION -means the height , in relation to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 (or other datum if specified), of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in the floodplains of coastal or riverine areas . WATERCOURSE -means any natural or artificial stream , river , creek , ditch , channel , canal , conduit , culvert , drain , waterway , gully , ravine , or wash , in and includ ing any area adjacent thereto which is subject to inundation by reason of overflow of flood water. ZONING -means a method of land use control requ ir ing the categorization of land use of every tract of land within a particular jurisdiction according to a zoning o rdinance or code and usually in accordance with a land use plan which is intended to preserve the quality of life and orderly development of that jurisdiction. ZONING ORDINANCE -refers to the duly enacted Zoning Ord inance of the City of College Station , Texas , adopted by reference in the Code of Ordinances. 13-9 Rev . 02/07 SECTION 3: GENERAL PROVISIONS AND APPLICABILITY A. LANDS TO WHICH THIS CHAPTER APPLIES This chapter shall apply to all lands within the corporate limits and the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of College Station , Texas as adjusted from time to time by the action of the City Council. (Ordinance No . 1728 of October 22 , 1987) B . ESTABLISHMENT OF BRYAN/COLLEGE STATION UNIFIED DESIGN GUIDELINES , STANDARD DETAILS . AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS All design, construction plans , as-built construction plans , plats , zoning change requests, site plans , building permit applications , and all items relating to stormwater flows shall be in accordance with the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines , Standard Details , and _ Technical Specifications. This document shall be ava ilable at the office of the Administrator and W-t11 A~ shall be maintained by him as a single document. C"--t F~'-'\ v v :J (Ordinance No. 2950 of January 11 , 2007) V A!"~(S, (V\ cvJ c:lJ,__t~ v "'-' LL C-4 . C. ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 1 Issuance of a duly approved development permit shall be requ ired prior to any development , as defined herein , to insure conformance to the provisions and requirements of this chapter . (Ordinance No . 1728 of October 22, 1987 (1) Exception -The following uses shall be exempt from the permitting requirements of the ordinance but must otherwise meet all of the requirements of the ord inance and the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidel ines , Standard Details , and Technical Specifications :. (a) Customary and incidental grounds maintenance , landscaping , and gardening . (b) Improvements by a homeowner on property used as their principal residence where that property lies outs ide of the designated Area of Special Flood Hazard . (c) Uses by a landowner of the ir property for bona fide agricultural purposes where that property lies outside of the designated Area of Special Flood Hazard . (Ordinance No. 29 ~0 of January 11 , 2007) D. S uld any section or provision of this chapter be declared by the courts to be unconstitutional or ,2 alid , such decision shall not affect the validity of the chapter as a whole , or any part thereof, (ther than the part so declared to be unconstitutional or invalid . (Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22 , 1987) E. COMPLIANCE No structure , permanent or otherwise , or land , shall hereafter be located , substantially improved , platted , replatted , subdivided , have its use changed , or have its drainage pattern changed , without full compliance with the terms and provisions of this chapter, the Bryan/College Stat ion Unified Design Guidelines , Standard Details , and Technical Specifications , and other applicable regulat ions . The provisions of this chapter shall apply to and be binding on any and all persons , firms , or corporations who singly or jointly seek to develop, redevelop , grade , regrade , excavate , landfill , berm , dike , or otherwise change existing land within the corporate limit of the C ity , or its extraterritorial jurisdiction . 13-10 Rev . 02/07 (1) Interpretation . In the interpretation and appl ication of this chapter , all provisions shall be : (I ) considered as minimum requirements ; (2 ) liberally constructed in favor of the governing body , health , and safety , and (3 ) deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under State statutes . The Administrator shall interpret and apply this chapter . If the Administrator determines that the meaning of a word , provision , or requirement is unclear , or that its application to a particular circumstance is uncertain , or upon written request for an interpretation by any interested party , the Administrator shall prepare a written interpretation or determ ination , sett ing forth the reasons , explanat ions , and conclusions regarding the interpretation . Appeals of interpretations made under this section shall be made in accordance with Section 4 of this chapter . (2) Abrogation and Greater Restriction . This chapter is not intended to repeal , abrogate , or impair any existing easements , covenants , or deed restrictions ; however, where this chapter and another conflict , o r overlap , whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions , under the interpretation of the Administrator , and subject to the prov isions of interpretation defined above , shall apply . (3) Warning and Disclaimer of Liability . The degree of flood protect ion accorded by the requirements of this chapter is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations which are cons istent with accepted engineering principles and pract ice. Floods from stormwater flows can and will occur which are greater than those indicated or referenced under this chapter , and water surface elevations may be increased by man-made or natural causes beyond the scope of this chapter . Th is chapter does not imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazard, or uses permitted within such areas w ill be free or protected from flooding or flood damages . This chapter shall not be construed as warranting any such protection or freedom . This chapter shall not create liab ility on the part of the C ity , the Adm inistrator of this chapter , or any office or employee of the City , or for any flood damages resulting from reliance on or compliance with the provisions and requirements of th is chapter or any administrative dec ision lawfully made thereunder. (4) Exception . Any development in an approval process prior to adoption of this chapter shall be excepted from the provisions and requirements of this chapter ; however, said development shall be required to comply with all applicable provisions and requ irements , and all appl icable ordinances and regulations in effect prior to adoption of this chapter . Developments shall be conside red in an approval process given one or more of the following conditions apply : (a) An acceptable application for building permit has been filed with all requirements for that application having been met within ninety (90) days of the date of adoption of this ordinance ; (b) An acceptable f inal plat , with all construction drawings , has been submitted , subject to the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance , within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date of adoption of this ordinance ; (c) An acceptable site plan has been submitted, subj ect to the requirements of the Zon ing Ordinance , within ninety (90) days of the date of adoption of th is ord inance . (Ordinance No . 2950 of January 11 , 2007) Rev. 02/07 SECTION 4 : ADMINISTRATION A. DESIGNATION OF ADMINISTRATOR The City Engineer shall implement , adm inister, and oversee the provisions , terms , cond it ions and requirements of this chapter and shall maintain as his guideline for administration the purposes of this chapter . B . DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR The duties and responsibilities of the Administrator shall include but not be lim ited to the following : (1) maintain and hold open for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this chapter ; (2) review , and approve or deny all applications for development permits , as required by this chapter , for compliance with the terms and provisions of th is chapter ; (3) assure that adequate inspection of construction permitted under the terms and provisions of this chapter are carried out in accordance with the permitted plan; (Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22 , 1987) (4) maintain , update , and provide to interested parties at a reasonable cost the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines , Standard Details , and Technical Specifications ," (Ordinance No.2950 of January 11 , 2007) (5) assure that adequate maintenance of drainage pathways , including altered or relocated waterways , is provided such that capacity for carrying stormwater flows is ma intained ; (Ordinance No. 1740 of February 25 , 1988) (6) provide interpretation , where requ ired , of boundaries of Areas of Special Flood Hazard , location of floodway , and water surface elevat ions , when disputes arise during review . (The initial determination of the above is the responsibility of the engineer working on the particular project.) (Ordinance No . 1728 of October 22 , 1987) (7) provide information to the Zoning Board of Adjustments , Municipal Court , or City Council , as applicable on all variance requests , admin istrative appeals , enforcement actions , and proposed amendments to the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines , Standard Details , and Technical Specifications as required . (8) review and utilize any acceptable new flood study data in accordance with the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines, Standard Deta ils , and Technical Specifications . (Ordinance No. 2950 of January 11 , 2007) (9) notify adjacent communities and the Texas Water Comm ission prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse , and submit evidence of notification to the Federal Insurance Administration ; (Ordinance No . 1740 of February 25 , 1988) (10) interpret the terms and provisions of this chapter, as required , as they apply to each project, in accordance with the stated purpose of this chapter ; and 13-12 Rev . 02107 (11) review permits for proposed development to assure that all necessary permits have been obtained from those Federal, State , or local governmental agencies (including Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 , 33 U.S .C . 1334) from which prior approval is required . C. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS All rulings , requirements, and interpretations of the Adm inistrator shall be final and binding on the parties thereto unless said rulings , requirements , and interpretations are appealed to the Municipal Court . Any person aggrieved thereby shall submit a formal appeal by filing a written notice of appeal with the Administrator with in ten working days of the action prompting the appeal. The notice of appeal shall specify all rulings being appealed, and shall include the following : (1) specific sections of this chapter related to the appealed ruling or pertinent thereto ; (2) a brief summary of all facts material to the appeal ; (3) grounds for the appeal. A hearing by the Municipal Court on the appeal shall take place at a regularly scheduled court meeting . The ruling of the Municipal Court shall be finally binding upon all parties involved . Any party aggrieved by said final ruling may seek relief in a court of competent jurisdiction . The appeal of a ruling or requirement shall stay the enforcement of said ruling or requirement unless the Administrator certifies to the Court that by reason of fact a stay would , in his opinion , cause an immediate public hazard or impair life or property . In such case enforcement shall not be stayed other than by a restraining order from a court of competent jurisdiction. D. PERMIT PROCEDURES Prior to the issuance of a development permit , the following requirements shall be met: (1) A preliminary conference shall be held with the Administrator or his designated rep- resentative . (Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22 , 1987) (2) An application for a Development Permit shall be presented to the Administrator , on forms available in his office, and shall include one or more of the following : construction plans , drainage plan , erosion and sediment control plan, engineering drainage design and analysis documentation , drainage report , and location of the foregoing in relation to Areas of Special Flood Hazard ; each of which shall conform to the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines , Standard Details , and Technical Specifications . (Ordinance No. 2950 of January 11, 2007) (3) The Administrator shall review the required information and application form and shall take one of the following actions : Rev . 02/07 (a) approve the development permit, (b) disapprove the development permit, (c) require additional information or an engineering conference with the applicant or his engineer. The applicant shall be notified in writing of the action prescribed above . If the development permit has been disapproved , the specific reasons for disapproval shall be indicated in the notification . If additional information is required of the applicant , the specific requirements shall be indicated in the notification . A final determination of the 13-13 approval or disapproval of the development permit , considering the additional information , shall be made and written notification to the applicant given within ten working days after receipt of said additional information . (Ordinance No . 1728 of October 22 , 1987) (4) Any proposal which alters the floodways of the following special drainage areas : • The entirety of Carter's Creek , • The main channel and south fork of Lick Creek , • Wolf Pen Creek from SH 6 By-Pass to the confluence with Carter's Creek and The Brazos River shall receive written notice of approval or disapproval of the development permit from the Floodplain Administrator within sixty (60) working days after receipt of the proposal. (Ordinance No. 2277 of November 13, 1997) E . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Approval or denial of a development permit by the Administrator shall be based on all of the provisions of this chapter and the following relevant factors: (1) The danger to life or property due to flooding or erosion damage ; (2) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; (3) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others ; (4) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and ant ic ipated development; (5) The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions , including maintenance and repair of streets and bridges , and public utilities and facilities such as sewer , gas , electrical , and water systems. (6) The expected heights , velocity , duration , rate of rise and sediment transport of the flood waters and the effects of wave action , if applicable , expected at the site ; (7) The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location , where applicable ; (8) The availability of alternative locations , not subject to flooding or erosion damage , for the proposed use ; (9) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive site plan for that area . 4 p 13-14 Rev . 02/07 SECTION 5: SPECIAL PROVISIONS A. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a federal program enabling property owners to purchase flood insurance. This program is based on an agreement between local communities and the federal government that if a community will implement programs to reduce future flood damages , the federal government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses . The United States Congress established the NFIP with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and later modified and broadened the program. The NFIP is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The following provisions are in accordance with the requirements for participation in the NFIP . B . ESTABLISHMENT OF AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD "The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the current effective scientific and engineering report entitled , "The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Brazos County, Texas and Incorporated Areas , dated February 9 , 2000, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps and/or Flood Boundary-Floodway Maps (FIRM and/or FBFM) dated February 9 , 2000 , and any revisions thereto are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance ." (Ordinance No. 3133 of November 5, 2008) C. REVISION OR AMENDMENT OF FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY Any revision or amendment to the Flood Insurance Study which is requested by a land owner in the City shall be submitted to the designated Administrator of the Stormwater Management Program in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines , Standard Details , and Technical Specifications. All requests for map amendment or map revision must be approved by the Administrator in writing prior to their submission to FEMA. If modification of any watercourse is involved , an effective Conditional Letter of Map Amendment shall be on file with the Administrator prior to any development. All submittals to FEMA shall be made at no cost to the City . D. METHODS OF REDUCING FLOOD DAMAGE In order that the purposes of this chapter shall be accomplished in accordance with Section 1, the following methods , measures , requirements, and practices mn Be utilized by the Administrator in accordance with the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines , Standard Details , and Technical Specifications : (1) Limit peak stormwater flows after development to that which existed before development ; (2) Limit, control , or prevent changes in the path of stormwater flows across or away from a site or development ; (3) Limit , control , or prevent alterations to existing watercourses and drainage facilities either inside or outside existing Areas of Special Flood Hazard ; (4) Limit, control , or prevent the alteration of natural or developed Areas of Special Flood Hazard , channels , or protective barriers which are necessary to accommodate flood waters ; (5) Limit, control , or prevent the use of existing or proposed drainage easements such that the easement remains useful for its intended purpose; (6) Limit , control , or prevent the construction of barriers which may increase flood hazards to other lands or facilities ; 13-15 Rev . 02/07 (7) Establish or cause to be established adequate drainage easements and/or rights of way to control development and limit potential flood damage and protect existing or proposed drainage facilities ; (8) Limit, control , or prevent dumping of refuse , fill , garbage , grass clippings , brush , waste concrete , or other materials in existing drainage facilities including swales , streets , inlets , ditches , storm sewers , culverts , etc.; (9) Limit, control , or prevent filling , grading , clearing , dredging , paving , berming, or other earthwork which may increase stormwater flows , change drainage pathways , increase erosion and sedimentation , or increase flood hazard or damage from flooding ; (10) Limit, control , or prevent development which is dangerous to health , safety , or property by causing increases in water surface elevations , velocities , or flowrates which exist prior to such development ; (11) Limit, control , or prevent development which is vulnerable to flood damage or require that said development shall be adequately protected against said flood damage at the time of construction ; (12) Require adequate maintenance of drainage facilities such that they retain their capacity for conveyance of stormwater flows . (Ordinance No . ~950 of January-11-;-ioo1i----------- E . SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD In a I are o-f-specialFloo azard where base oo e evations have been determined in accordance with this chapter , the following provisions shall apply : (1) All new construction , any substantial improvement to a structure, and appurtenances shall be securely anchored to prevent flotation , collapse or lateral movement. (Ordinance No. 2950 of January 11 , 2007) (2) All new construction, any substantial improvement to a structure , and appurtenances shall be constructed in such a manner as to minimize flood damage and provide adequate drainage; and , all electrical , heating , ventilation , pluming , and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding ;" (Ordinance No. 3133 of November 5, 2008) (3) New and replacement sanitary sewage systems , including but not limited to septic tanks and drain fields , package treatment plants , etc., shall be designed to m inimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system and discharges from the system into flood waters ; (4) New and replacement water supply systems including wells , treatment plants , distribution facilities, etc ., shall be designed to prevent infiltration of flood waters into the system ; (5) Solid or liquid waste disposal sites or systems shall be designed and located to avoid contamination from them during flooding and to avoid impairment of their operation during times of flooding; (6) All new construction or any substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor , including any basement, at an elevation at least one foot above the base flood elevation , and certification that this standard has been satisfied shall be submitted to the Administrator, said certification shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer or registered public surveyor on the form provided by the Administrator ; 13-16 Rev . 02/07 (7) All new construction or any substantial improvement of any commercial , industrial , or other non-residential structure shall either have the lowest floor , including basements , elevated at least one foot above the base flood elevation or the structure with its attendant utility and sanitary facilities shall be floodproofed so that the structure and utility and sanitary facilities shall be watertight and impermeable to the intrusion of water in all areas below the base flood elevation , and shall resist the structural loads and buoyancy effects from the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic conditions . Certification that this standard has been satisfied shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer on the form provided by the Administrator; (8) For all new construction and substantial improvements , fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are used solely for parking of vehicles , building access or storage in an area other than a basement and that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters . Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided . The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Open ings may be equipped w ith screens , louvers , or other coverings or devices provided that they perm it the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters ;" (Ordinance No. 3133 of November 5, 2008) (9) In areas of special flood hazard where base flood elevations have not been established , base flood elevation data shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed development, including manufactured home parks and subdivisions which are greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is less . (Ordinance No. 1740 of February 25 , 1988) (1 0) In A 1-30 , AH , and AE Zones [or areas of special hazard], all recreational veh icles to be p laced on a s ite must (i) be elevated and anchored ; and (ii) be on the site for less than 180 consecutive days ; and (iii) be fu ll y licensed and highway ready ." (Ordinance No. 3133 of November 5, 2008) F . SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES IN AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD The following provisions are required in all Areas of Special Flood Hazard where base flood elevations have been determined : (1) (2) Rev . 02/07 All manufactured homes shall be anchored to resist flotation , collapse , or lateral movement and shall meet the following requi rements : (a ) (b) (c) (d) over-the-top ties shall be provided at each of the four corners of t he manu - factured homes : on manufactured homes of 50 feet in length or less , one additional over-the-top tie shall be provided approximately at the mid point; on manufactured homes of over 50 feet in length , two additional over-the-top ties shall be provided at intermediate locations ; frame ties shall be provided at each of the four corners of the manufactured home ; 13-17 (e) on manufactured homes of 50 feet in length or less , four add itional frame ties shall be provided at intermediate locations ; (f) on manufactured homes of over 50 feet in length , five additional frame ties shall be provided at intermediate locations ; (g) all components of the anchoring system for manufactured homes shall be capable of carrying a force of 4800 pounds without sustaining permanent damage . (3) For new manufactured home developments ; expansions to existing manufactured home developments ; existing manufactured home developments where repair , reconstruction , or improvement of the streets , utilities , or building pads in which the cost of repa ir , reconstruction , or improvement exceeds half of the value of the streets , utilities , and bui lding pads before the repair , etc. has commenced ; and for manufactured homes not placed in a manufactured home development, the following are required : (a) stands or lots shall be elevated on compacted fill or on pilings such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home will be above the base f lood elevation and the elevation of the center of the stand shall be no more than one foot below the base flood elevation . Certification that this standard has been satisfied shall be submitted to the Administrator; said certification shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer or registered public surveyor on the form provided by the Administrator. (b ) adequate surface drainage and access for a hauler shall be provided. I (c ) if a manufactured home is elevated on pilings : (i) lots shall be large enough to permit steps ; (ii) (iii) piling foundations shall be placed in stab le soil no more than ten feet apart ; reinforcement shall be provided for pilings more than s ix feet above the existing or finished ground leve l. G . SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR FLOODWAYS Located within Areas of Special Flood Hazard established in Section 5-8 are areas designated as floodways . The floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris , potential projectiles , and the potential for erosion ; therefore , the following provisions shall be required : (Ordinance No . 1728 of October 22 , 1987) (1) Encroachments shall be prohibited , including fill , new construction , substantial improvements of existing construction , structures, manufactured homes , or other development. Variances requested on this standard shall be accompanied by a complete eng ineering report fully demonstrating that the encroachments shall not result in any increase in water surface elevation or flood hazard upstream , within , or downstream of the encroachment location . The engineering report shall conform to the requ irements of the Bryan/Colleg~ Station Unified Design Guidelines, Standard Deta ils , and Technical Specifications and shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer. (Ordinance No . 2950 of January 11 , 2007) (2) Exemptions for the requ irements of Section 5-G may be made in the following cases : (a) Rev. 02/07 Customary and incidental routine grounds maintenance , landscaping and home gardening which does not require a building permit , zone change request , or variance from the provisions of the Zon ing Ordinance ; 13-18 Rev . 02/07 (b) Emergency repairs of a temporary nature made on public or private property which are deemed necessary for the preservation of life , health , or property, and which are made under such circumstances where it would be impossible or impracticable to obtain a development permit. 13-19 (c ) Temporary excavation for the purpose of mainta ining , or repairing any public street, public utility facility , or any service lines related thereto ; (Ordinance No . 1740 of February 25 , 1988) (d) Proposed street and public utility encroachments shall be exempt from the requ irement of a variance provided that the proposal is accompan ied by a complete engineering report fully demonstrating that the encroachments shall not result in any increase in water surface elevation or flood hazard upstream , within , or downstream of the encroachment location. The engineering report shall conform to the requirements of the Drainage Pol icy and Des ign Standards and shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer. (Ordinance No . 2939 of November 20 , 2006) (3) All new construction or substantial improvements of existing construction shall be subject to the methods of flood hazard reduction outlined in Section 5. (Ordinance No . 1728 of October 22 , 1987) (4) When a regulatory floodway has not been des ignated , no new construction , substantial improvements , or other development , including fill, shall be permitted within zones designated Al -A30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the c umulative effect of the proposed development , when combined with all other ex isting and anticipated development , will not increase the water surface elevation of the base fl ood more than one foot at any point within the community. (Ordinance No. 1740 of February 25 , 1988) H. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR AREAS OF SHALLOW FLOODING Located w ith in the Areas of Special Flood Hazard established in Section 5-8 are areas designated as Areas of Shallow Flooding . These areas have special flood hazards associated with base flood depths of 1 to 3 feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist and where the pathway of flood waters is indeterminate and unpredictable ; therefore , the following provisions shall be required : (Ordinance No . 1728 of October 22 , 1987) (1) All new construction or any substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor , including basements , elevated at least one foot above the depth number specified on the community's FIRM . (Ordinance No . 1740 of February 25 , 1988) (2) All new construction or any substantial improvement of any commercial , industrial, or other non-residential structure shall either: (Ordinance No . 1728 of October 22 , 1987) (a) Have the lowest floor , includ ing basements, elevated at least one foot above the depth number specified on the commun ity's FIRM ; or (Ordinance No . 1740 of February 25 , 1988) Rev . 02/07 (b) the structure with its attendant util ity and sanitary fac ilities shall be floodproofed so that the structure and utility and sanitary fac ilities shall be watertight and impermeable to the intrusion of water in all areas below the base flood elevation , and shall resist the structural loads and buoyancy effects from the hydrostatic and 13-20 hydrodynamic conditions. Certification that this standard has been satisfied shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer on the form provided by the Administrator. (Ordinance No. 1728 of October 22, 1987) (3) Adequate drainage paths to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures shall be provided for all proposed structures on slopes in Zones AH or AO. (Ordinance No. 1740 of February 25, 1988) 13-21 Rev . 02/07 SECTION 6 : VARIANCES A. GENERAL The Zoning Board of Adjustments may authorize a var iance to the provisions and requirements of this chapter when , in their opinion , undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements , and when either of the following criteria are met: (1) There are special circumstances or condition affecting the land involved such that strict compliance w ith the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land ; or, (2) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; or , (3) Variances may be issued for the reconstruction , rehabilitation , or restoration of st ructures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic Places , w ithout regard to the procedures set forth in the remainder of this section . (Ordinance No. 2277 of November 13, 1997) B . PREREQUISITES FOR GRANTING OF VARIANCES Upon cons ideration of the factors noted above , the specific prov isions and requirements of this chapter , and the intent of this chapter , the Board may grant variances subject to the following prerequisites : (1) A variance shall only be granted upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary , considering the flood hazard, or potential flood damage, to afford rel ief to the applicant ; (2) The effect of the variance will not be detrimental to the publ ic health , safety , or welfare , or injurious to other property in the City ; (3) The effect of the variance will not increase water surface elevations , flow veloc ities , or alter drainage pathways to the extent that there will be any threat to public safety , extraordinary public expense , increase in nuisance flood ing , or be detrimental to othe r portions of the major or minor drainage systems ; (4) The effect of the variance will not prevent the orderly subdivision of other land , upstream or downstream of the subject property , in the City , and ; (5) No variance shall be allowed within any designated floodway if any increase in water surface elevation would occur during the base flood discharge . (6) Variances may be issued for new construction and substantial improvements and for other development necessary for the conduct of a functionally dependent use provided that (i) the criteria and procedures outlined in this Section for obtain ing a variance are met , and (ii) the structure or other development is protected by methods that minim ize f lood damage during the base flood and create no additiona l threats to publ ic safety . C . VARIANCE PROCEDURES The granting of variances shall be subject to and in conformance with the following procedures and requirements : (1) The Zoning Board of Adjustments shall hear and render judgment on any requests for variances from the requ irements of this chapter . 13-22 Rev . 02107 (2) The Administrator shall maintain a record of all actions involving appeals, and variance requests , and shall report all variances to the requirements of this chapter to the Federal Insurance Administration upon request. (3) Upon consideration of the above criteria, and prerequisites , and the intent of this chapter , the Board may attach such conditions to the granting of any variance as it deems necessary to further the purpose and objectives of this chapter . (4) All requests for variance shall be judged solely on the merits and special conditions of the case . The granting of a variance based upon the facts and evidence of one request for variance shall have no bearing on the consideration of any other request for variance. (5) Before consideration by the Board , a formal request for variance shall be submitted to the office of the Administrator. The request shall contain sufficient information to : (a) define specifically which provision or requirement according to this chapter that allegedly causes the undue hardship; (b) detail specifically what measures shall be taken to obtain the minimum relief from said hardship ; (c) define specifically the effects of the variance in terms of water surface elevations , flood velocities, etc. which pertain to the prerequisites required by this chapter ; and (d) identify any special conditions which should be considered as criteria for granting said variance . After review of the request, the Administrator may require additional information which he/she deems necessary to fully document the prerequisites required by this chapter for the granting of a variance . This information shall be provided by the applicant prior to placement of the variance request on the agenda for consideration by the Board . (6) Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that the structure will be permitted to be built with a lowest floor elevation no more than 3 feet below the base flood elevation , and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest floor elevation . (7) Any person or persons aggrieved by the decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustments may appeal such decision to the courts of competent jurisdiction. 13-23 Rev . 02/07 . ~ SECTION 7: ENFORCEMENT AND PENAL TIES A. NOTIFICATION OF NONCOMPLIANCE If at any time development , as defined by this chapter , takes place for which an approved development permit has not been issued , or development occurs which does not conform to the plans and specifications upon which the issued development permit was based, the Administrator shall issue a written Notice of Noncompliance to the owner . The notice shall include a description of the nature and location of each alleged violation of this chapter , and, if readily apparent , the measures required to bring the development into compliance with the provisions and requirements of this chapter. The notice shall give a specific time allowance to the owner during which he must take one of the following steps to bring the development into compliance with this chapter: (1) An acceptable application for a development permit must be filed with the office of the Administrator for the entire scope of development taking place or proposed for the site ; (2) The item or items which are not in compliance with the terms , conditions , and prov isions of this chapter shall be corrected , added , or improved until they are in compliance with th is chapter, at which time the owner shall request , in writing , a reinspection by the Administrator ; (3) Modified construction plans shall be submitted to the Administrator which detail , in an acceptable manner, the remedial , additional , or corrective measures which must be taken to bring the development within the provisions and requirements of this chapter ; or (4) An acceptable variance request , subject to the provisions of this chapter , shall be submitted to the office of the Administrator which shall have the effect, if granted, of removing the requirements for which the development was determined to be in noncompliance . The time allotment for these actions shall be reasonable , and shall be determined according to the number, nature , and severity of the noncomplying items . In no case shall that time period exceed thirty (30) calendar days from the date of not ification . If, in the opinion of the Administrator, a condition exists which is hazardous to the immediate safety of the public , he may seek remedies outside the scope of this section . B. REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Upon expiration of the time allotment for remedial or corrective measures, the Administrator shall take one of the following courses of action; (1) If, in the opinion of the Administrator , the owner has made , or is making , a good faith effort to remedy the offending situation , the Administrator may extend the time allotment previously granted if such extension is requested by the owner , or (2) Where an approved development permit has been issued for the development, the Administrator shall suspend the development permit. Written notice of said suspension, along with the terms and requirements for reinstating the development permit , shall be delivered to the owner. Upon suspension of a development permit , all portions of the work being done on the property that are regulated by this chapter shall cease . These activities include, but are not limited to grading , excavation, fill , berming, stripping , clearing , paving, placement of any storm sewer , drainage structure, inlet, or appurtenance thereto; any work within a defined Area of Special Flood Hazard , or placement of any structure , temporary or permanent, or any obstruction within the Area of Special Flood Hazard. Upon finding no approved development permit exists for the work or property in question or suspending an existing approved development permit, the Administrator shall issue a stop work 13-24 Rev . 02/07 . . order for all items of work on the subject property covered by this or other ordinances , any work permitted , licensed , or otherwise regulated by the City , or any work subject to inspection or approval by the City . The Administrator may enter property to inspect and verify that the requirements of this ordinance are being met. All notices required by this section shall be served upon the parties concerned e ither personally or by certified mail , addressed to the individual contracting parties, or permit holder, at the address given on the permit application . (Ordinance No . 1728 of October 22 , 1987) C . PENAL TY IMPOSED Upon the finding of a violation of this ord inance, the Administrator may file a complaint in the Municipal Court of the City of College Station against any person , firm , corporation , or other legal entity . In the event that the juoge finds any person , firm , corporation , or other legal entity to be in violation of the terms , conditions , or requirements of this chapter , or provisions or conditions pursuant thereto , he shall find said person firm , corporation , or other legal entity guilty of a misdemeanor; and upon conviction shall impose a fine pursuant to the General Penalty set out in Chapter 1, Section 5, of this Code of Ordinances . Prosecution under this provision shall not be a bar to any other relief for violation of this chapter. (Ordinance No. 2030 of September 9, 1993) D. FINE NOT EXCLUSIVE PENAL TY In addition to a fine , the City may institute appropriate actions or proceedings at law or equity for the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter or Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines , Standard Details , and Technical Specifications , or to correct violations thereof, and , if applicable , appropriate actions or proceedings at law or equity against any surety company , escrow holder, or any third party who has affirmatively acted as surety or guarantor for the faithful performance of the permit holder's work . (Ordinance No. 2950 of January 11 , 2007) 13-25 Rev. 02/07 -Clt<.~~ RtfJ<YDts - ~ f · 2 S -~~-. ~Q3 Lo~R . l~J-~;ILi~~~ff:&..s . ~ p.li -p~ -* p. t3 <a-DCSUY\1~.~--P () CONSIDERATION OF "0-RIS E " CRITERIA CITY OF COLLEGE STATION CURRENT STATUS: • Drainage Ordinance Follows FEMA Flood Insurance Requirements Fi ll Allowed in Flood Fringe Up To 1' Rise in 100 Year B ase F lood Elevation Based on Current D evelopment Conditions No Increase in Peak Runoff Caused by Development-D etention normally Required Finished Floor Elevation Required to be 1' Above the 100 Year Base Flood Elevation and up to 4' in Some Areas No D evelopment Allowed in Floodway Unl ess no Increase in 100 Year Base Flood Elevati on (Variance Required) Mapping and Modeling based on 2' Topographic Maps Prepared using 1970-1980 technology (Accuracy +/-15%) • 1997 Comprehensive Plan Estimates 2264 Acres of FEMA 100 Year Floodplain Within the City Limits; It is Estimated that 1/3 of This Area is F lood Fringe Which Can be Filled In Under the Current Drainage Ordinance • College Station Experienced a 100 Year+ F lood in October 1994 With Approximately 13" of Rainfall in a 24 Hour Period. The Area Upstream of Texas Avenue on Wolf Pen Creek Experienced the Worst F looding. City Wide About 30 Occupied Dwellings Were Damaged by Rising Water up to a Maximum Depth of 2.5'. PROPOSED Implement the Greenway Master Plan Criteria Adopted by the College Station City Counci l on May 27 , 1999 • Urban Greenways-Reserve the F loodway Plus as Much Buffer Area as Can Reasonably be Obtained; D etention Required For All New Development • Suburban Greenways -Reserve the Full 100 Year Floodplain; No D etention Except for Localized Co nditions on Secondary Streams • Rural Green ways-Reserve the Full 100 Year Floodplain Plus Buffer Areas on Each Side if Possible; No Detention • No Channel Modifications without City Engineer's Approval ; Limit Maximum Velocities; Require Compensation Storage • Remodel/Remap entire City with Latest Technology and Based on Ultimate Development Per Approved Land Use Plan. ,,I - IMPACT • Estimate Remodeling Based on Ultimate Development Will Result in Approximately 1' Increase in 100 Year Base Flood Elevation. Estimate Change Due to Latest Mapping Technology to be+/-1 '.Net Change Could be +2' to O'. • l' Increase in 100 Year Base Floodplain Elevation Will Increase Total Floodplain Acreage in City by Approximately 375 Acres • Since the Urban Greenways Along Wolf Pen Creek and Bee Creek are Mostly Developed the Total Flood Fringe Area to be Reserved From Development is Approximately 900 Acres. Of This Amount About 200 Acres Has Voluntarily Been Reserved Along Lick Creek and Spring Creek by Recent and Ongoing Developments. • If the Current Criteria Remains in Effect We Can Expect Increases in the 100 Year Base Flood Elevation as Development of Pervious Open Space Occurs and Possible Flood Damage to Existing Structures That Have Not Experienced Flooding in the Past • Texas A&M University has Committed to Detention on Tributary C of Wolf Pen Creek. This Work Should be Completed in the Next Couple of Years and Will Reduce the Peak Flow Rate of Wolf Pen Creek Just Upstream of Texas Avenue by 20% Greatly Reducing the Flooding in This Area. Financial Impacts • Lost of Value of Developable Acres in the 100 Year Floodplain • Savings to Developer of Cost to Fill And Compact Area in Floodplain-$20 ,000 / Acre • Cost to City to Remap and Remodel-$1 ,000,000 • No Detention- • No Flood Insurance • Increased Value of Property Adjacent to Natural Floodplain First Draft--01 /29 /02-TDM CITY O F COLLEGE S TATIO N 1101 Texas Avenue South , P .O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 I Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 6 , 2008 TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Gibbs , P .E ., City Engineer SUBJECT: Zero-Rise in Floodplain Development At the May 22 , 2008 Council Workshop Meeting, City Council voted unanimously request ing staff to bring this subject item to the :June 26th Council Meeting. Currently, the City of College Station Code of Ordinances, Ch . 13: Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance, Section 5.G. (attached) prohibits encroachments into Floodways unless an engineering report is provided demonstrating no increase in water surface elevation (zero-rise). In addition to this minimum requirement set out by FEMA, College Station requires that the Zoning Board of Adjustments considers specific criteria and prerequisites before granting this associated variance . This item cliscusses applying these regulations to the Floodplain or more specifically the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) which is commonly Zones AE and A as depicted on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). No form al action from the Planning and Zoning Commission is required. Attached Ch . 13 : Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance , Section 5.G . Special Provisions for Floodways Ch. 13: Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance Section 5: Special Provisions G. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR FLOODWAYS Located within Areas of Special Flood Hazard established in Section 5-B are areas designated as floodways. The floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris, potential projectiles, and the potential for erosion; therefore, the following provisions shall be required: (Ordinance No . 1728 of October 22, 1987) (1) (2) Encroachments shall be prohibitea, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements of existing construction, structures , manufactured homes, or other development. ~ariances requested on this standard shall be accompanied by a complete engineering report fully demonstrating that the encroachments shall.t ot result in any increase in water surface elevation or flood hazard upstream, within, or downstream of the encroachment location. The engineering_ report shall conform to the requirements of the B_ryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines Standard Details, and Technical Specifications and shall 5ear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional engineer. Exemptions for the requirements of Section 5-G may be made in the following cases: (a) (b) (c) Customaty and incidental routine grounds maintenance, landscaping and home gardening which does not require a building 12.erryiit, zon~ change request, or variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; Emergency repairs of a temporary nature made on public or private proP.efty whicli are deemed necessary for the preservation of life, health, or proP.erty, and which are made under such circumstances where it would oe impossible or impracticable to obtain a de- velopment permit. Temporary excavation for the P.Urpose of maintaining, or repairing any public street, public utility facility, or any service lines relatea thereto; (Ordinance No . 1740 of February 25, 1988) (d) Proposed street and public utility encroachments shall be exempt from the requirement of a variance P.rovided that the proposal 1s accompanied by a complete engineering report fully demonstrating that the encroachments shall not result in any increase in water surface elevation or flood hazard URstream, within, or downstream of the encroachment location. The engineering report shall conform to the requirements of the Drainage Policy and Design Standards and shall bear the dated sear and signature of a registered professional engineer. (Ordinance No. 2939 of November 20, 2006) (3) All new construction or substantial improvements of existing construction shall be subject to the methods of flood hazard reduction outlined in Sec- tion 5. (Ordinan ce No. 1728 of October 22 , 1987) (4) When a regulatory floodway has not been designated , no new construction , substantial improvements , or other developmentA including fill , shall be _germitted within zones designated Al-A30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrafed that the cumulative effect of the proposed development 1 when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community. (Ord i nance No . 1740 of February 25 , 1988) \ I ~J ' Texas Floodplain Management Association http ://www.tfma.org 2002 l ............. About This Guide 2 8 ........... What is the Elevation Certificate and How is it Used? 2 ............. Introduction 29 ........... Completing the Elevation Certificate 3 ............. Texas Floodplain Facts 30 ........... Paperwork is Important -for You and Your Community 4 ............. Flood Insurance: Property Owner's Best Protection 31 ........... Floodplain Fill Con Make Things Worse 5 ............. Be Flood Safe -Don't Drive Through Flooded Roods 3 2 ........... Recommended Flaodwoy "No Rise " Certification 6 ............. Why Do We Regulate the Floodplain? 3 3 ........... How to Elevate Your Floodplain Building (A Zone) 7 ............. Community Responsibilities 34 ........... Compaction of Floodplain Fill (A Zone) 8 ............. Looking for Floodplain Information? 35 ........... Basements ore Unsafe 9 ............. Understanding the Riverine Floodplain 36 ........... Manufactured Homes Deserve Special Attention l 0 ........... Understanding the Flood way 37 ........... Enclosures Below the BFE (A Zone Only) l l ........... New Format Flood Insurance Rote Mop (Riverine) 38 ........... Typical Elevation Methods for Coastal Buildings 12 ........... The Flood Insurance Rote Mop (Riverine) 39 ........... Coastal Houses Must Resist Wind and Water Forces l 3 ........... The Flood Boundary and Floodwoy Mop (Riverine) 4 0 ........... The V Zone Certificate (Sample) 14 ........... Use the Riverine Flood Profile to Determine BFEs 41 ........... Enclosures Below V Zone Building 15 ........... Approximate Flood Zones or Unnumbered A Zones 42 ........... Utility Service Outside Buildings 16 ........... Understanding the Coastal Floodplain 43 ........... Utility Service Inside Enclosures 17 ........... The Flood Insurance Rote Mop (Coastal) 4 4 ........... Accessory (Appurtenant) Structures l 8 ........... Flood Mop Revisions Issued by FEMA 45 ........... Recreational Vehicles 19 ........... Activities Requiring Permits 4 6 ........... Planning to Improve Your Floodplain Building? 20 ........... Safe Uses of the Floodplain 4 7 ........... What About After Damages? 21 ........... Is Your Building Site Higher than the BFE? 4 8 ........... Elevating a Pre-FIRM Building 22 ........... What is Meant by Pre-FIRM and Post-FIRM? 4 9 ........... Some Flood Protection for Older Homes is Easy and Low Cost 23 ........... Nature Doesn 't Read Mops 5 0 ........... Small Levees and Floodwalls Con Protect Some Older Homes 24 ........... Think Carefully Before You Seek a Variance 51 ........... Some Flood Mitigation Projects are More Costly 25 ........... Some Key Permit Review Steps 52 ........... Useful Resources and Common Acronyms 26 ........... Carefully Complete the Permit Application 5 3 ........... Wont to Learn More? 2 7 ........... Freeboard: Go the Extra Foot! TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Prepared by RCOQ 1N ON ULTING. I C. www.rcquinncon sul ting .com TEXAS QUICK GUIDE This Quick Guide will help you understand more about why and how communities in the State of Texas manage floodplains to protect people and property. Flood-prone communities adopt ordinances that detail the rules and requirements . In case of conflict, that ordinance and not this publication , must be followed . If you have questions, be sure to talk with your local planning, permit, engineering or floodplain management office. Questions and comments on the Quick Guide can be directed to the Texas Floodplain Management Association (TFMA) at http://www.tfma.org . To learn more about preparing for floods and cleaning up afterward, see the list of useful resources on page 53. The Texas Floodpla in Management Association (TFMA) is pleased to provide this Quick Guide to help inform citizens whose properties are located within Aoodplains. Communities regulate the floodplain to: • Protect people and property • Ensure that Federal Rood insurance and disaster assistance are available • Save tax dollars • Reduce future Rood losses Floods have been, and continue to be, the most destructive natural disaster in terms of economic loss to the citizens of Texas. More than 12% of the state 's land area is subject to Hooding. Since 1978, Texas Rood insurance policy holders have received over $1 .4 billion in claim payments. Even though that represents many insurance payments, most flood-prone Texans don't have Rood insurance. 2 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Presidential Disaster Declarations Number of Declarations By County (1965-2001) 10 or more -7 to 9 4 to 6 to 3 0 • Flood-prone areas have been identified in most counties, cities and towns in Texas. • Millions of buildings and structures are located in mapped Rood- prone areas. • Since 1986, 376 people have died in Rood-related incidents and over $4 billion in damage has occurred. • About 12% of the state's land area is mapped Roodplain . Many waterways have not been mapped . Not all Rood events are declared major disasters. Many Roods are local, affecting only small areas or a few watersheds. Not all Rood events are declared major disasters. 3 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Who needs Rood insurance? EVERYONE! Every homeowner, business owner, and renter in Texas communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program may purchase a Rood insurance policy -regardless of the location of the building. Unfortunately, it's often after a Rood that many people discover that their homeowner or business property insurance policies do not cover Rood damages . Approximately 25 % of all Rood damages occu r in low risk zones, commonly described as being "outside the mapped flood zone." NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 4 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE The Texas Floodplain Management Association and the State of Texas urge YOU to protect your financial future by getting a Rood insurance policy. To purchase a policy, call your insurance agent. To get the name of an agent in your community, call the NFIP's toll free number 1 (888) FLOOD29 . Flood Hazard Chart for Cars o_,_~ ....... ,~~--~--~~--~~,~~--~---~---1 0 .00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14 .00 16.00 WATER VELOCITY (fps) SOURCE: USBR, 'Downstroom Hozord Clouificotton Gvicielines, • 1988 • Flooded roads may be washed out. • Passenger cars may float in only 18-24 inches of water. • Floating cars easily get swept downstream, making rescues difficult and dangerous . • Hundreds of people have died in floods in Texas -many were trapped in cars . Flash floods are dangerous! Do not try to walk or drive through fast-moving water. 5 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE • To protect people and property. Floodplain management is about building smart. It makes good sense . If we know part of our land will flood from time to time, we should make reasonable decisions to help protect our families, homes, and businesses . • To make sure that federal flood insurance and disaster assistance are available. If your home or business is in the floodplain, and federal flood insurance isn't available, then you can't get some types of federal financial assistance. Home mortgages will be hard to find, and you won 't be able to get some types of state and federal loans and grants. • To save tax dollars. Every flood disaster affects your community's budget. If we build smarter, we'll have fewer problems the next time the river rises . Remember, fede ral disaster assistance isn't available for all floods . And even when the President declares a disaster, your co mm unity still has to pay a portion of the costs of evacuation , temporary housing, repair, and clean-up. • To avoid liability and law suits. If we know an area is mapped as floodplain and likely to flood, if we know people could be in danger, and if we know that bu i ld in gs could be damaged, it makes sense to take reasonable p rotective steps when we develop and build . • To reduce future flood losses in Texas. State legislation was amended in 1999 to require all cities and counties to adopt ordinances or orders, as appropriate, to participate in the NFIP. In 2001, the authority was amended again to allow communities to require compliance with stricter local floodplain management requirements . 6 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE To participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, your community agrees to: • Adopt and enforce a Rood damage p revention o rdinance • Require permits for all types of development in the floodplain (see page 19) • Assure that building sites are reasonably safe from Hooding • Estimate Rood elevations that were not determined by FEMA • Require new or improved homes and manufactured homes to be elevated above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) • Require other bu i ldings to be elevated or Aoodp roofed • Conduct field inspections and cite violations • Require Elevation Certificates to document compl ia nce (see pages 28 and 29 ) • Carefully consider requests for variances • Resolve non-compliance and violations • Advise FEMA when updates to Rood maps are needed 7 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM Enter the FEMA Flood Map Store at http:// web l .msc.fema.gov /stores/MSC/. Digital scans of Rood maps can be downloaded or hardcopy maps can be ordered. Reach the Map Store by calling (800) 358-9616 . For a charge , FEMA map information is available from the Texas Natural Resource Information System at (51 2) 463-8331 . ----- .iu 11u "·"' uwu rttc•u 8 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE • FEMA prepares Flood Insurance Studies and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for communities in Texas . • Most FIRMs show Special Flood Hazard Areas and floodways. Some FIRMs show floodplains delineated using approximation ana lyses (see page 15 ). • Not all waterways have designated Roodplains -but all waterways will Rood , even though a Roodplain study may not have been prepared. • In coastal communities, FIRMs show Special Flood Hazard Areas, including areas subject to wave action (see page 17). Need a fast answer? Visit your community's planning or permit office where flood maps are available for viewing by the public. 100-Year Floodplain i-------Floodway ------Fringe Fringe Stream Channel ~Terms and -~ t-• ~The Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is that portion of the floodplain subject to inundation by the base Hood and/ or Hood-related erosion hazards. SFHAs are shown on FHBMs or FIRMs as Zones A, AE,Al-A30,AH,AO,AR, V, VE, and Vl -V30 . See page 10 to learn about the Hoodway, the area of the Hoodplain where Hoodwaters usually How faster and deeper. For floodplains with Base Flood Elevations, check the Flood Insurance Study to find the Flood Profile which shows water surface elevations for different frequency Hoods (see page 14 ). 9 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Fload Fringe Simu la ted Encroachment Area of Aood p la in that could be Stream Channel Flood Fringe used for development by raising ground line @-@ -Flood Elevation Before Encroachment Line @-@ -Flood Elevation Aker Encroachment ~Terms and ,~ t-• The Floodway is the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to pass the base Rood discharge without increasing Rood depths. •surcharge not to exceed 1 .0 foot [FEMA requirement] c:::::J Simulated Encroachment Computer models of the Aoodplain are used to sim ulate "encroachment'' or fill in the Rood fringe in order to predict where and how much the base Rood elevation would increase if the Aoodplain is allowed to be filled . For any proposed Aoodway development, before a local Aoodplain permit can be issued, the applicant must provide evidence that "no rise" will occur {see page 32 ). You may need a qualified engineer to make sure your proposed project won't increase Hooding on other properties. 1 0 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Return to p.9 Understanding the Riverine Floodplain Return to p.50 Small Levees and Floodwalls 1 1 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Zone A (unnumbered) is flood hazard areas without BFEs . Cross Section location (see page 14). fllllllrti--l~n Zone X (unshaded) is all other areas considered low risk (formerly Zone C). Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Water surface elevation of the base flood at specific locations. ~..--i Zone AE is the 100-year (1% annual chance) floodplain (also called Zone A, A l-A30). • The Floodway is the "cross-hatched" area. Zone X (shaded) shows low risk areas affected by the 500-year flood (0 .2% annual chance) floodplain (also called Zone B). - FLOOD HAZARD ZONES Zone C (or Zone X) is all other areas , considered to be low-risk . Zone B (or shaded Zone X) is subject to flooding by the 500-year flood (0 .2% annual chance), and is a moderate risk area . Zone A, Zones A 1-A30 and Zone AE are subject to flooding by the base or 100-year flood ( 1 % annual chance), and are considered high-risk areas . Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Water surface elevation of the base flood at specific locations . FEMA prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) to show areas that are at high risk of Hooding after intense or major storms . Many FIRMs show the Rood elevation (how high the water may rise), called the Base Flood Elevation . 1 2 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Return to p.13 The Flood Boundary and Floadway Map (Riverine) Floodway maps do not show Hood zones or BFEs . Check the companion FIRM for that information . Page 12 shows the FIRM that matches the map clip to the left. The Floodway is the "white" area along the waterway. Cross Section location, where ground surveys determined the shape of the land and how constrictions such as bridges and culverts affect the flow of floodwater. FEMA prepares Floodway maps as companions to many FIRMs. You should check to see if your project will be in the Floodway because additional en g ineering may be required (see page 32). 1 3 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE L EGEND 500-YEAR F LO OD 100-YEAR FLOOD 50 -YEAR FLOOD 10-Y EA R FLOOD ST REAM BE D CROSS SEC TION LOCATION 14 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE 7 .8 0 8 .0 STREAM OISTANCE IN MI LES ABOVE CONFLUENCE Flood profiles can be used to determine the BFE at a specific site. Profiles also show esti mated water surface elevations for Roods other than the l 00-year Rood . On the effective flood map, locate your site by measuring the distance, along the center line of the st ream channel, from a road or cross section, for example, © or ©. Scale that distance on the Flood Profile and read up to the profile of interest, then across to determine the elevation . Return to P. 9 Understanding the Riverine Floodolain Return lop. 11 New Format Flood Insurance Rate Map (Riverine) Topographic maps can be used to estimate the Base Flood Elevation if the FIRM shows approximate or unnumbered A Zones . 1 5 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE ROAO If you need help determining the BFE, check with your community permit office . FEMA publication Managing Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A Areas (FEMA 265) is useful for engineers. Return to p.8 Looking for Floodplain Information? VZONE Wave Height~ 3 ft 0 Properly Elevated Building COASTAL A ZONE Wave Height < 3 ft BFE Including] Wave Effects 100-Year -...L--Fii'=ii='*----.. St illwater Elevation } --6ci~~-------------- (e .g. NGVD, NAVD) ..---__._........._...__-T-~7--:--:--:77""--~~L--_., Unelevated Building .- Constructed Before Commun ity Entered the NFIP .1 Shoreline Sand Beach Buildings Overland Wind Fetch Vegetated Reg ion Limit of 100-Year Flooding and Waves Coastal graphics from Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA 55CD). 1 6 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE ~Terms and -~ ·-. ~he Coastal High Hazard Area (V Zone) is the area of special Rood hazard that extends from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity wave action . The area is designated on the FIRM as Zone Vl -V30 , VE, or V. The term Coastal A Zone means the portion of the SFHA landward of the V Zone or landward of a shoreline that does not have a mapped V Zone . The principle sources of Rooding are associated with astronomical tides, storm surges, seiches or tsunamis . Coastal A Zones max be subject to wave effects, velocity Rows , erosion , scour, or combinations of these forces and may be treated as V Zones . UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS ~EZJ~ Identified Identified Otherwise 1983 1990 Protected Areas 1 7 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE COASTAL FLOOD HAZARD ZONES. Zone A, Zones Al·A30, and Zone AE are subject to flooding by the base or 100-year flood (1 % annual chance), and waves less than 3 feet . Zone X is all other areas . Shaded Zone X (or Zone B) is su~ject to flooding by the 500-year flood (0 .2% annual chance). · Zone V, Zones Vl -V30, and Zone VE are where waves are expected to be 3 feet or more. Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Water surface elevation (i n feet above datum). In undeveloped Coastal Barrier Resource Areas (COBRA), NFIP insurance is not available for new or substantially improved structures built after November 16, 1990. Return to p.8 Looking for Floodplain Information? II II II letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) is an official amendment to an effective FIRM that may be issued when a property owner provides additional technical information , such as ground elevation relative to the BFE, SFHA, and the building. Lenders may waive the Rood insurance requirement if the LOMA documents that a building is on ground above mapped Roodplain. letter of Map Revision (LOMR) is an official revision to an effective FIRM that may be issued to change Rood insurance risk zones , floodplain and Aoodway boundary delineations , BFEs and/ or other map features . Lenders may waive the insurance requirement if the approved map revision shows buildings to be outs ide of the SFHA. letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F ) is an official revision to an effective FIRM that is i ssued to document FEMA's dete r mination that a structure or parcel of land has been elevated by fill above the BFE , and therefore is no longer in the SFHA. Lenders may waive the insurance requiremen t if the LOMR-F shows that a building on fill is above the BFE. Physical Map Revision (LOMR PMR) may be issued fo r major floodplain changes that require engineering analyses , such as bridges , culverts, channel changes, fl ood control measures, and large fills that change the BFE or Floodway. Physical map revisions are also issued when a new study updates or improves the FIRM . Check FEMA's Flood Hazard Mapping Web Site for more information about map rev1s1ons concerning Homeowners and Engineers/ Surveyors . www.fema.gov/ mit/tsd Requests for map revisions must be coordinated through your community 1 8 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Return to o.21 Is Your Building Site Higher than the BFE? Return to p.28 What is the Elevation Certificate2 • Constructing new buildings • Additions to existing buildings • Substantially improving existing buildings • Placing manufactured (mobile) homes • Subdivision of land • Temporary buildings and accessory structures . • Agricultural buildings • Parking or storage of recreational vehicles • Storing materials, including gas/liquid tanks • Roads , bridges, and culverts • Fill , grading , excavation, mining , and dredging • Altering stream channels YOU NEED PERMITS FOR ALL OF THESE ACTIVITIES. 1 9 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Return to o.7 Community Responsibilities I 1---- All land subdivided into lots , some homesites and lots partially or entirely in the floodplain . NOT RECOMMENDED All land subdivided into lots , some lots partially in the floodplain , setbacks modified to keep homes ites on high ground . RECOMMENDED I L---- Floodplain land put into public/ common open space, net density remains, lot sizes reduced and setbacks modified to keep homesites on high ground . RECOMMENDED Let the floodplain do its job -if possible, keep it natural open space. Other low damage uses : recreational a reas, playgrounds, reforestation, parking, gardens , pasture, accessory structures, created wetlands. 20 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Sealed Signature BFE LOWEST NATURA L GROU N D NEXT TO BU ILD ING If your land is shown on the map as "in " the floodplain, but your building site is higher than the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) ... get a surveyor or engin eer to complete a FEMA Elevation Certificate (EC). Submit the EC with an application to FEMA and a Letter of Map Amendment may be issued. This is the ONLY way to remove the re quirement to buy Rood insurance . Keep the certificate with you r deed, it will he lp future buyers. 21 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Return to p.28 What is the Elevation Certificate? Pre-FIRM {Older Buildings usually are not elevated) I I I I ;:_·-~2 FIRST FLOOR AND LOWEST FLOOR I I I I ·-..... ·---· BFE t Post-FIRM {Newer buildings are elevated) I I I I I i-'-.L-, -----· FIRST FLOOR AND LOWEST FLOOR I I I I I I ~==~=: I I I _l.l_. !,. ____ • A building is Pre-FIRM if it was built before the date of your community's first FIRM. If built after that date, a building is Post-FIRM. Improvements or repairs to Pre-FIRM buildings may require permits (see pages 46 and 47). 22 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE .. . . •>•. . ... ~ ·. ~.. . . . . · ·.··.·.· ..... .. . .. .·.· .. ..... ·:.:.·.· .. . . . · ... ·_:.; ·:.::.·_:·. . .. ·.·.·.· .. :· 500-year elevation .. ·······<·.·· . . · .. . . . . . . . . · .. · ... : ...... .. 100-year elevation 10-year elevation Many people don 't understand just how risky the floodplain can be . There is a 26 % chance that a non- elevated home in the floodplain will be damaged during a 30-year mortgage period . The chance that a major fire will occur during the same period is on ly 1%! CAUTION! Nature doesn't read the Rood map! Major storms and flash Roods can cause Rooding that rises higher than the 100-year elevation (BFE). Consider safety -protect your home or business by building higher. See page 27 to see how this will save you money on insurance. 23 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE BFE LOWEST FLOOR BELOW BFE Insurance $3,000+/year Very specific conditions must be satisfied to justify a variance: • Good and sufficient cause • Unique site conditions • Individual non-economic hardship • If in the Roodway, no increase in Rood level A variance that allows construction below the BFE does not waive your lender's Rood insurance requirement. Flood insurance will be very expensive -perhaps more than $3,000 per year (see page 27)! Think carefully about seeking a variance to build below the Base Flood Elevation . Not only will your property be more likely to get damaged, but insurance will be very costly. If your community has a pattern of inconsistent variances, sanctions can be imposed -costing you even more! 24 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE The Permit Reviewer has to Check Many Things. Some of the Key Questions are: • Is the site in the mapped Aoodpla in? • Is the site in the mapped Aoodway? • Have other state and federal permits been obtained? • Is the site reasonably safe from Hooding? • Does the site plan show the Base Flood Elevation? • Is substantial improvement of an older bu ilding proposed? • Is an addition proposed? • W ill new buildings and utilities be elevated properly? • Will manufactured homes be properly elevated and an chored? • Do the plans show an appropriate and safe foundat io n? • Has the owner submitted an Elevation Certificate? 25 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Re"· "''ew Ch llf Floodp/ . eck/ist kg am Floodway l!B V Zone ry[BFE f!(Newc onstruction Elevated Elevat· ~ •on Certif," L.!JJ lss •cote ue Permit Reieeetl .D • I\ et,Lfetf/el' ------ FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (partial) OWNER t/Avll? c4--0AL.-L.-'( JONB-0 ADDRESS 7!71 P"JBBt/ -0IP'JBBI PRO.JECT DESCRIPTION )l Single Family Residential _ Multi-Family Residential _Manufactured (Mobile) Home Non-Residential Y._ New Construction _Substantial Improvement (>50%) _Im provement (<50%) Rehabilitation Channeli zation :K'Fill _B ridge/Culvert Levee You must get a permit before you do work in a Aoodplain _Other/E xplanation ---------------------r---~~~ ..... --,..,""""2~~----~ FLOOD HAZARD DATA Watercourse Name _t/~fi~'(~~fl~lv_B_fi~-------..,.------- The project is propo ed in the Floodway _j(_ F loodway Fringe Base (100-year) flood e levation(s) at proj ct site _12~~~-~2. _____ _ Elevation require d for L owest F loor Ce0.2. /Floodproofing ___ _ Reieeea R (!,(HW'*' 4/2./2.002. Floodplain Administrator's Signature Date Good information will lead to better construction and less exposure to future Rood damage. 26 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE .. Want to save some money and have peace of mind at the same time? Then add Freeboard to build higher than the minimum elevation requirement! Freeboard is a factor of safety, usually one or two feet above the BFE . II.I II. m 0 - -2 --.tr-House A on pilings Post-FIRM in V Zone $250,000 insurance on the building $85 ,000 insurance on contents --e-House B on vented crawlspace Post-FIRM in A Zone with BFE $250,000 insu rance on the building $85 ,000 insurance on contents --1--;-----;---;.--+----+---:-t -----House C on vented crawlspace Post-FIRM in A Zone with 8FE $100,000 insurance on the build in g $40,000 insurance on contents -.Ar-House D MFH on reinforced pilings Post-FIRM in A Zone with BFE I I I I $1 ,000 $2,000 $3 ,000 $4,000 $5 ,000 Annual Flood Insurance Cost $40,000 insura nce on un it $20,000 insurance on contents $6,000 SUBMIT TO FEMA IF 2 OR MORE FEET BELOW BFE 27 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE NOTE: Flood insurance rates and various fees change from time to time . Rather than specific costs for insurance , this figure gives a feel for how much difference just a foot or two can make . Building owners will save insurance money if they elevate above the BFE. But more impressive is how the cost of insurance can more than double if the building is only one foot below the BFE . Remember! The community may be able to grant a variance , but the owner will probably still be required to buy insurance . Imagine trying to sell a house if the bank requires insurance that costs over $2,000 a year! Return to o.23 Nature Doesn 't Read Maps Re turn to p .24 Think Carefully Before You Seek a Variance • The Elevation Certificate (EC) is a FEMA form, download a copy from http://www.fema.gov/library/ elvcert.pdf • The EC must be completed and sealed by a registered surveyor or engineer when the Aoodplain has BFEs. FEOet..i. "'-c"'~ MAJ• ><Tio, L F l.Qo NAGE.'1£N-r CliNcy D INS!Jltou'<C£ t>.-~ _ • "'-'GJIA,\f • A community official may complete the EC for sites in approximate Rood zones . Elevatio n Cerl';l': "'-uca te and • It can be used to show that sites are natural ground above the Base Flood Elevation (see page 21 ). • It is used to verify that buildings are elevated properly (see page 30). • Insurance agents use the EC to write flood insurance policies. By itself, the EC cannot be used to waive the requirement to get flood insurance. See page 18 to learn about Letters of Map Amendment. 28 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE In 1J11 tions -----· ;.:.:::: . --=~-== ·-- ~ ............... ........._ _ ___, -~-==...--=--·::=::. -=----===--.. -------·-·--.. -----~~~- ----- Return to p.7 Community Responsibilities , .. ELEVATION CERTIFICATE {partial) Im portant: Read the instnJctlons on pages 1-7 SECTI ON C ·BUILDING ELEVATION INFORMATION (SURVEY REQUI RED) Elevation reference mark used fllv1ffe ?. Does the elevation reference mal1c used appear on lhe FIRM? 0 a) Top of bottom tloor (llldoding basemen! or enclosure) 2.e>&.. £11.(m) O b)Topof~highertloor ~._11.(m) .l! 0 c) Bottom of lowest horizontal structural member 0.f zones onlY) J:JIA_. _ft.(m) ) ~ d) Attached garage (top of slab) 2£72. . .2_11.(m) ~ ~ e) Lo.vest elevation of madVneiy and/or equipment A ~~- seMcing the building 2.e>&. . .£_11.(m) §;; 0 f) Lowest ad'iacent grade (LAG) 2.!72. . .2_11.(m) z ~ 0 g) Highest acfj3Cetll grade (HAG) 2£7&. . £_11.(m) e 0 h) No. cl pennanent openings (flood vents) within 1 fl. above adjacent grade [Ji[fJfL ~ ~Total area of aJl.pennanent openings (flood vents) in C3h ~sq . In . (sq . cm) In this example , the BFE is 285. The slab -on -grade house was elevated on fill l ' above the BFE, and the vented garage is 2.5' below the BFE . Yes 0 No Elevation Certificate (partial) ELE CTRIC A L BOX W IRED FROM CEILING You will get a blank Elevation Certificate form when you get your permit. You must have a surveyor or engineer fill it out and seal it. The Elevation Certificate includes diagrams for eight building types. Several points must be surveyed . 29 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Return to p.7 Community Responsibilities . ··.·· .. : .: . : :·-· .. · .. lowest Floor means the lowest Aoor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or Aood res istant enclosure (that is not a basement) is not the lowest Aoor if the enclosure is built as required in the local ordinance (see page 37), wh ich includes limited uses . · COMPACTED FILL OR . OTHER ELEVATION METHOD ··. · .· · :· .. ... . . If you get a permit to build in the Aoodplain, you will be given an Elevation Certificate form . As soon as your lowest Aoor is set, get the form filled out and sealed by a surveyor or engineer. This form is important! It proves that you built correctly, and it can be used to get the lowest cost Rood insurance. 30 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Return to p.28 Whot is the Elevation Certificate? Floodplains are supposed to store floodwater. If storage space is filled with dirt and other fill, future Hooding may be worsened . Your community may require an engineering analysis ("no rise" certificate) to show how floodplain fill will alter Hooding. Floodplain fill can alter valuable Roodplain functions, including wildlife habitat and wetlands . Make sure your Roodplain fill project won't harm your neighbors . Floodway fill is allowed only if an engineering evaluation demonstrates that "no-rise" in Rood level will occur (see page 32 ). 3 1 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Return to p.50 Smell Levees ond Floodwolls Con Protect Some Older Homes • Floodways can be dangerous because water may Row very fast • Development is not allowed unless "no rise" in Rood levels is certified • An engineer must evaluate the hydraulic impact of proposed development • A "no rise" certification is recommended and must be signed, sealed, and dated by a registered professional engineer ENGINEERING "NO-RISE" CERTIFICATION (exam ple) BE NATIONAL This is to certify that I am a duly qualified eng ineer FLOOD FLOOD licensed to practice in the State of Texas . It is ALERT INSURANCE to further certify that the attached technica l data ~~ PROGRAM -supports the fact that proposed (Name of Development) will not impact the Base Flood Elevations (100-year flood), floodway elevations and the floodway widths on (Name of Stream). S igna ture Sea l • Check with your community for guidance before you decide to work in a floodway The engineering analysis must be based on technical data obtained from FEMA. Save time and money -don't build in the Roodway! 32 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Return to p.10 Understanding the Floodwoy Return to p.13 The Flood Boundary Mop !Riverine) Return to p.31 Floodplain Fill Return to p.50 Small Levees and Floodwolls ': SERV ICE EQUIPMENT SUCH AS UTILITIES AND ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS, ABOVE FLOOD LEVEL OPENINGS IN WALLS ALLOW WATER TO FLOW IN AND DRAIN OUT ENCLOSED AREA USED ONLY FOR PARKING , ACCESS , OR LIMITED STORAGE BFE Elevate on,, Fm ·. . .. SERVICE EQUIPMENT SUCH AS UTILITIES AND ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS RECOMMENDED 10' -15' BEYOND HOUSE CAUTION! Enclosures {including crawlspaces) have some special requirements, see page 37-Note: When the walking surface of the lowest Aoor is at the minimum elevation, under-Aoor utilities are not allowed. Fill used to elevate buildings must be placed prope~y (see page 34). See page 38 to learn about elevating buildings in V Zones. 33 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Earthen fill used to raise the ground above the Rood elevation must be placed properly so that it does not erode or slump when water rises. For safety and to meet Roodplain requirements, Roodplain fill should : • Be good clean soil, free of large rocks, construction debris, and woody material (stumps, roots) • Be machine compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density (determined by design professional) • Have graded side slopes that are not steeper than 1 : 1 .5 (one foot vertical rise for every 1 .5 feet horizontal extent) • Have slopes protected against erosion (vegetation for "low" velocities, durable materials for "high" velocities - determined by design professional) Note: Fill may not be used to elevate a building in V Zones! BFE t ·-:·. Your community may ask for certification of the elevation, compaction, slope, and slope protection materials. Your engineer or design professional can find more information in FEMA's technical guidance (MT-1 ). 34 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Return to p.33 How to Elevate Your Floodplain Building FIRST FLOOR DOOR FIRST FLOOR DOOR FILL LEVEL LIVING AREA L BASEMENT WINDOW LIVING AREA SUBGRADE BASEMENT 35 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE ----+•-- SATURATED GROUND /FILL Basements below the BFE are not allowed in new development and flood insurance coverage is very limited in existing basements for a very good reason. It only takes an inch of water over the sill and the entire basement fills up! Excavating a basement into Fill doesn't always make it safe because saturated groundwater can damage the walls . SECURED TO BUILT-IN FRAME ANCHORS BFE__) ELEVATED UTILITY PLATFORM Manufactured homes must be anchored to resist Rotation, collapse, or lateral movement by being tied down in accordance with your community's ordinance or the manufacturers' installation specifications. 36 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Experience shows that manufactured homes are easily damaged . As little as one foot of water can cause substantial damage. Dry stacked blocks are not acceptable -they will NOT withstand a Hood. CONCRETE FILLED BLOCK #5 METAL DOWELS CO NC RE TE FOO TER BELOW FROST LIN E •• •• •• •• •• I •• I :· I ... I I I I I I I I B" MIN . Return to p.45 Recreational Vehicles NOTE: • AREA OF ALL TOTAL OPENINGS IS l SQ, IN . PER SQ . FT. OF ENCLOSED AREA • A 25' X 45' BUILDING NEEDS 1125 SQ . INCHES OF OPENINGS • STANDARD VENTILATION UNITS USED IN BLOCK FOUNDATION WALLS MUST BE DISABLED IN THE OPEN POSITION TO ALLOW WATER TO FLOW IN AND OUT • A STANDARD VENTILATION UNIT, WITH SCREEN , PROVIDES 42 SQ . INCHES OF OPENING AT LEAST TWO FLOOD OPENINGS------- ON DIFF ERENT SIDES CRAWLSPACE BUILDING - 8 8 LOWEST FLOOR INTERIOR GROUND j LEVEL AT OR ABOVE BFE OUTS IDE GRADE Solid perimeter wall foundations can enclose Aood-prone space. A crawlspace is a good way to elevate just a couple of feet. In all cases, the following ore required: openings/vents, elevated utilities, Aood resistant materials, and limitations on use. 37 TEX A S Q UICK GUIDE Return to p.30 Paperwork is Important -for You and Your Community Return to p.33 How to Elevate Your Floodplain Buildin g UTILITIES ON PLATFORM ///~ tr tf tr tf Wood or Metal Piles Installed to Proper Depth See details on page 39 BFE LOWEST FLOOR ...._______~ Reinforced Masonry or Concrete Columns on Spread Footers In V Zones the design specifics will be determined by your architect or engineer based on your site, including how your building will be elevated and how deep in the ground the foundation elements will extend. Your community will require certified or sealed building designs and plans (see page 40). 38 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Return to p.33 How to Elevate Your Floodplain Building ,, .... ,, .... n n n n Coastal buildings may be exposed to both hu rricane winds and Aoodwater, so they must be built to hold together du ring storms . These detai ls are o nly examples . Your architect or engineer will decide the type of clips and straps to keep the roof and building connected to the foundation. 39 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Return to p.38 Typical Elevation Methods for Coastal Buildings V Zo ne Building Design and Performance Cert ificate (partial) Section 2: Elevation Information 1. Elevation of the Bottom of the Lowest Horizontal Structural Member ........... . 17 fee t 2. Base Flood Elevation (BFE)... .. . ... ... . .. ... . .. .. . ... . .. ... . .. .. . ... ... . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . ... . 11'.P fee t 3. Elevation of Lowest Adjacent Grade (LAG)............................................. (p fe et 4 . Foundation type : Poling ~/ Post _/ Pier _I Column _I Ftll _/ Shea r Wall _/ Enclosed Wall _/ Foundation De scription : t/f)IVBN \VOOt/ PIL..-B.i?, NO Ot:i.i?if)U?llON.i? B }C?BPI OPBN <?!Alf)<? 5. Appro.>dmate depth of scourterosion used for fou ndation design ................. . !? fe et 6 . Embedment de pth of pilings or foundation below LAG ............................ . 11'.P fe el A Registered Professional Engineer or Architect must review or prepare your building design and provide a signed and sealed statement that the design meets minimum design and construction requirements. Resource: Coastal Construdion Manual (FEMA 55CD). Revised in 2000, th is interactive CD i s a useful tool for engineers and architects who design buildings in V zones. 40 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Return to p.38 Typical Elevation Methods for Coastal Buildings ( BREAKAWAY WALL~ f FLOOR SUPPORT BEAM BREAKAWAY WALL f VERTICAL FOUNDATION MEMBER Do not modify an enclosure below an elevated V Zone building (or any zone for that matter)! It is a violation of your community's regulations, and you may have increased damage when it Roods. Plus, your Rood insurance policy will cost a lot more! 4 1 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Avoid building an enclosure under your V Zone building. If you must enclose a small area, your community will require: • Walls must be designed to collapse or "breakaway'' under storm and Rood conditions • Flood resisitant materials • Utility wires and pipes should not go through or be attached to the breakaway walls • Enclosed area is to be used only for parking, building access, or storage • No bathrooms, utility rooms, or electric service below BFE • Size limited to 300 square feet in some communities • Heat Pump or A/C on Platform II ::·· ·:: ! : : :· .. . . BFE Fuel or Propane Tank Anchored on Platform ::: ·: :-: : : : . . . Fuel and propane tanks may cause explosion and pollution risks during flood conditions! Even shallow water can create large buoyant force on tanks , so extra care must be taken to ensure that all tanks are anchored. Fuel or Propane Tank Anchored to Prevent Flotation Whether inside an attached garage or outside the building, all utilities, appliances and equipment must be elevated above the BFE or protected against Rood damage. Utilities include plumbing, electrical, gas lines, fuel tanks, and heating and air conditioning equipment. 42 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE HOT WATER HEATER AND FURNACE ELEVATED ON A PLATFORM 43 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE FLOOD OPENING .·• .... ~~T WATER ··~E~T~~ ·•••.·· ELEVATED ON A PLATFORM All utilities, appliances , and equipment must be elevated above the BFE or protected . Utilities include plumbing , electrical, gas lines, heating, and air conditioning . ... • • • • • • • • Not habitable Anchored to resist Rooting Flood openings/vents Built of Rood resistant materials Elevated utilities Used only for storage or parking Cannot be modified for different use in the future Document Aoor elevation Even small buildings are "development'' and permits or variances with noted conditions are required. They must be elevated or anchored and built to withstand Rood damage. Caution! Remember, everything inside is likely to get wet when Hooding occurs . 44 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE ~Terms and ,~ ,_ . Accessory (Appurtenant) Structure means a structure that is located on the same parcel of land as a principle structure and whose use is incidental to the use of the principle structure . Accessory structures should be no more than a minimal initial investment , may not be used for human habitation , and must be designed to minimize flood damage . Examples: detached garages, carports, storage sheds , pole barns , and hay sheds . In a flood hazard area, an RV must: • Be licensed and titled as an RY or park model (not as a permanent residence) • Be built on a single chassis • Have inflated wheels and be self-propelled or towable by light truck • Have no attached deck, porch, shed • Be used for temporary recreational , camping, travel, or seasonal use (no more than 180 days) •• ~(iii)~ • Be less than 400 sq ft in area (measured at largest horizontal projection) :;:: ~ ~ Important Information • Have quick-disconnect sewage, water, and electrical connectors Camping near the water? Ask the campground or RY park operator about flood warnings and plans for safe evacuations. RVs that do not meet these conditions must be installed and elevated like Manufactured Homes, including permanent foundations and tie-downs (see page 36). 45 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE ... Before Improvements Building Market Value = $110,000 t.:j') Terms and WHOLE HOUSE ON ELEVATED 1----1=1---t---i CRAWLSPACE After Improvements Cost of Improvements= $68,500 I~·-. ~Substantial improvement means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the start of construction of the improvement. This term includes structures wh ich have incurred substantial damage, regardless of the actual repair work performed (see page 47). 46 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE ~(iii)~ :;:: ~:::: Important Information Floodplain buildings can be improved or altered , but special ru les may apply! If the cost of an addition to a Pre-FIRM structure is less than 50% of its market value , only the addition is r~uired to be built above the BFE. Check with your local permit office . The cost to correct previously cited violations of state or local health , sanitary, or safety code to provide safe living conditions can be excluded . Alteration of a registered historic structure is allowed , as long as it will continue to meet the criteria for listing as a historic structure . Return to p .22 What is Meant by Pre-FIRM and Post-FIRM2 D Pre-Damage Building Market Value= $60,500 Repair= 62% Permit/Elevation Required A permit is required to repair substantial damage from any cause -fire, Rood, wind, or even a truck running into a building. Check with your community permit office to be sure. You will be asked to provide a detailed cost estimate for repairs . See page 48 for more information about elevating an existing building on a crawlspace. 47 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Return to p.22 What is Meant by Pre -FIRM and Post-FIRM2 Return to p .46 Planning to Improve Your Floodplain Building? JACK AFTER OPENINGS ARE MADE INTHE FOUNDATION WAW, STEEL I-BEAMS ARE INSTAWD BELOW THE FLOOR JOISTS NEW PERMANENT OPENINGS _,--- FOR FLOODWATERS EXISTING FLOOR I-BEAM OPENINGS FILLED WITH CONCRETE BLOCK THE FOUNDATION WALLS ARE EXTENDED AS THE HOUSE IS RAISED, AND PERMANENT OPENINGS FOR FLOODWATER ARE CREATED BFE THE FINISHED PROJECT ABOVE BFE DEPENDING ON FINAL HEIGHT OF EXTENDED FOUNDATION , AREA UNDER HOUSE MAY BE USED FOR PARKING , STORAGE , OR ACCESS This is one way to elevate an existing building to comp ly with Aoodplain regulations. If your insured building is damaged by Rood, you may be eligible for an Increased Cost of Construct ion payment. The state and FEMA can help with more information and options . 48 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Return to p.47 What About After Damages? LIVING AREA I FURNACE AND OTHER UTILITIES RELOCATED "'-''-"'--"-_,,-.._~..._,,."""'./'--"-"--"'-" .......... -""-'.,.._.."-''-"',_,.. Heating Oil LEGS OF TANK SECURELY ANCHORED IN SLAB Move your hot water heater and furnace out of the basement, or build small platforms for them. If the Hood depth is less than 2 feet, build Hoodwalls or anchor the tanks. Do not store valuables in a Hood-prone basement. Use water-resistant materials when you repair. 49 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE ·c:::,.o · - Riverside Trail.·· '""'9 NeldYear open'" But Give You More Protection 11234 1 ----------~~~~~-------------- D After Roods, some communities buy out and demolish homes that were severely damaged. The acquired land is dedicated to open space and can be used for recreation or to help restore wildlife habitat and wetlands. Homes have been raised up on higher founda ti ons , and others have been moved to safer high ground . S 1 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE • Useful Resources Common Acronyms • Family disaster planning: http://www.redcross.org/services/disaster • BFE =Base Flood Elevation • Avoiding Flood Damage: A Checklist for Homeowners, FEMA : http:ILwww.fema.gov/library/flddam.pdf • The "How To" Series, FEMA : http://www.fema.gov/mit/how2.htm • Information for flood victims: http://www.fema.gov/dizvictims.htm • Repairing Your Flooded Home , American Red Cross and FEMA : http://www.fema.gov/library/repfhm.pdf • Texas Floodplain Management Association: http://www.tfma.org • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us • Texas Department of Insurance: http://tdi.state.tx.us • Texas General Land Office: http://www.glo.state.tx.us 52 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE • • • • • • • • EC = Elevation Certificate FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM= Flood Insurance Rate Map MFH = Manufactured Housing Unit NFIP = National Flood Insurance Program SFHA = Special Flood Haza rd Area TCEQ = Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TFMA =Texas Floodplain Management Association • • For advice on Rood information and permits, call your community's building permit office or planning department. • To order Flood maps, call FEMA's Map Service Center-1 (800) 358-9616 or order on -line at http://web1.msc.fema.gov/stores/MSC/ • Learn more about Rood maps and check the Status of Map Change Requests at http://www.fema.gov/mit/tsd • You can order printed copies of FEMA publications from the FEMA Distribution Center. To place an order, call 1 (800) 480-2520 . • FEMA's on-line publications can be found in the FEMA Virtual Library. Many are posted in the Portable Document Format (PDF). Go to http://www.fema.gov/library/publicat.htm for more information. • To learn about Rood insurance, call your insurance agent. Most insurance companies can write an NFIP policy for you. If you need more help, call the National Flood Insurance Program's toll free number to get the name of an agent in your area who does write Rood insurance. The number is 1 (888) FLOOD29 . • To get the best rates for flood insurance, call a local surveyor to complete an Elevation Certificate. • To access FEMA's Surveyor's Guide to the Elevation Certificate, click on the surveyor button at http://www.fema.gov/nfip 53 TEXAS QUICK GUIDE Return lo p. 1 About Th is Guide Floodplain & Greenways Objectives of Presentation: Provide overview of what we do currently to protect greenways and manage floodplains Aid in understanding where our practices exceed "normal practices " and where they may fall short of "best practices " Determine if Council would like to see more done to protect greenways and manage our floodplains Make recommendations should Council seek further action Floodplains & Greenways Structure of Presentation Greenways -What they are and how we protect/use them Floodplain -What they are and how we protect and manage them Interaction between floodplain management/greenways/parks and recreation Issues/Opportunities Actions? .J~IV 1 \ .. Greenways Plan -"Comprehens ive Plan -1997" and "A Network of Greenways for College Station -1999" Protect -Easements , Parkland Dedication , Donations , Zoning Acquire -CIP/Bond , Greenways Program , Donations Use -Parks , Flood Control , Wildlife Corridors , Bike/Ped Routes Greenways Corridors that follow natural features like floodplains or man-made features such as utility corridors Greenways help improve water quality, reduce impacts of flooding, provide transportation ~l>.; offer recreation opportunities, anolncrease property values 2 3 / /,,.....,..,. '· \.7~ ., A~RI NG TO N ';,,o a~ NOl ~rn" i J: .,_ 9 L Floodplain Protection & Management Plan- Protect - Acquire - Use- "Comprehensive Plan -1997" "Flood Insurance Rate Maps ", vari ous flood studies Zoning , Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance , Mitigation CIP/Bond , Greenways Program , Donations Parks , Flood Control , Wildlife Corridors , Bike/Ped Routes 8 6 VV\13:1 sA 6u1uoz .-.. ok.YffldiM!O ... ~ •• ..,,~, ..... .-.. .... '9\lt"°"""""JllM!~-@-Q) .... ---1 .... J'°--'ll""'ll " ~-~ ..... ..... ~ ... ,..._.,..... ..... .. ..-..... ,.....,,,...., .aw,..j .. ~. '"IJ ~f>"IJ 1-.. ,v P'"'"H p<>o 1J 1•1»ds -1 Per FEMA "I 2 1 Encroachment in Fringe · • Typically Permittable by definition -Ensures not > 1 Ft Rise • FF 1 Ft above BFE -Elevation Certificate 10 Per FEMA 2 Encroachment in Floodway • Not Permitted w/o Variance • Variance Requirements: -ZBA Variance -Zero-Rise Study • FF 1 Ft above BFE -Elevation Certificate Local Regs exceeding FEMA • ZBA Variance for Floodway Encroachment • Elevation Certificates -Residential -Non-residential -Certain Creek Reaches 11 Per Zoning and Land Use Benefits -City Council "Discretion" -Delineation broader than FEMA floodplain -Zoning requirements more strict than NFIP Per Zoning and Land Use Example: -Annexed -All enter as A-0 Zoning -Land Use -Portion Floodplain and Stream s -Developer proposes a development 12 Per Zoning and Land Use Require Steps to be permitted: 1) Amend the Land Use Plan - F &S to SF Residential 2) R ezoning -A -0 to R-1 Residential 3) Plat and Permit according to Flood Ordinance Mitigation • Mitigation for Increased Runoff -Detention -Rap id conveyance (general lower reaches ) -Channel Improvements • Elevation Certificates - 1 foot above BFE -Prepared by Engineer or Surveyor • Regulations concerning developing: -Fringe -Floodway 13 Gaps • Already Zoned • Mapping Challenges \. Interactions Planning -Greenways , Floodplain Management, Alternative Transportat ion , Utilities , Parks & Recreation , Phase II Regs Protection -Easements , Parkland Dedication , Donations , Zoning Acquisition -GIP/Bond , Greenways Program , Donations Uses-Parks , Flood Control , W ildlife Corridors , Bike/Ped Routes , Utility Routes "· 0 14 Issues/Opportunities Outdated Plans Mapping Gaps Limited Financial Resources Urban vs Rural Areas ETJ FEMA Map Modernization Efforts Mitigation Analysis/Requirements Some Impact Permitted by Ordinance Action? Increase greenway protection/acquisition? Increase floodplain protection? 15 Action? If yes , Staff recommends : Inclusion in Comprehensive Plan update Engage Community & Stakeholders Additional resources toward acquisition UDO Amendments -Greenway/Stream buffer Ordinances No Adverse Impacts 16 STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Alan Gibbs, P.E., Senior Asst. City Engineer Email: agibbs@cstx.go Report Date: September 22, 2006 Project Number: 06-00500199 Meeting Date: October 3, 2006 APPLICANT: Kevin Gaskey, P.E ., Kimley-Horn REQUEST: Floodway Variance from Section G(1) of the Flood Protection Ordinance prohibit ing encroachment into designated floodways. LOCATION: 1725 HARVEY MITCHELL PKWY S PURPOSE: To construct a private access drive with creek crossing cons isting of a 60 foo t bridge crossing . GENERAL INFORMATION Property Owner: The Dovetail Companies Applicable Ordinance Section: Chapter 13 , Section 5.G -Spec ial Provisions for Floodways G. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR FLOODWAYS Located within Areas of Special Flood Hazard established in Section 5-B are areas designated as floodways . The floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of flood waters which carry debris , potential project iles , and the potential for erosion ; therefore, the following provisions shall be required : (1) Encroachments shall be prohibited , including fill, new construction , substantial improvements of existi ng construction , structures , manufactured homes , or other development. Variances requested on this standard shall be accompanied by a complete engineering report fully demonstrating that the encroachments shall not result in any increase in water surface elevation or flood hazard upstream , within , or downstream of the encroachment location. The engineering report shall conform to the requirements of the Drainage Policy and Design Standards and shall bear the dated seal and signature of a registered professional eng ineer; PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Zoning and Land Use • Subject Property: Zoned R-4 Multifam ily and C-1 General Commercial. • North: Apartments fronting on Southwest Pkwy (zoned R-6 Multifam ily) are to the north of site. • West: Wellborn Road is to the west of site . • East: R-1 Single Family Residential developed as A&M Consolidated High School is to the east of the site . • South: Harvey Mitchell Pkwy is to the south of the site . .. Frontage and Access: As noted, this site fronts on Southwest Parkway, Wellborn Road, and Harvey Mitchell Parkway. Additionally, there is temporary, secondary fire access through an existing , adjacent apartment complex to Southwest Parkway. This secondary access will cease upon completion of the subject drive connection to Harvey Mitchell Parkway. Topography & Vegetation: This site has previously been undeveloped , though largely open pasture and is not heavily wooded . The site is traversed by a Bee Creek Tributary B. A tree line exists following the creek . The tract has gentle slopes draining to the creek . The "rear" portion is currently being developed as apartments and the "frontage " is anticipated as commercial as zoned . Flood Plain: Special Flood Hazard Area as defined by FEMA is present on the subject site with both base flood elevations and floodway designations. VARIANCE INFORMATION Background: To participate in the National Flood Insurance Program so that our citizens can have subsidized flood insurance, the City has adopted the Flood Protection Ordinance in accordance the associated Code of Federal Regulations for FEMA. The City has opted to increase the regulations in regard to floodway encroachments . The minimum requirements federal state that encroachments into the floodway are permissible with a zero rise study . The City's regulations require a variance with the attached criteria as well . The federal code generally defines the floodway as 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 (1 foot). The proposed drive and waterline creek crossing clearly encroaches into the associated floodway . The applicant has addressed each of the criteria as well as provided a drainage analysis which depicts the water surface will not increase above the allowable floodway elevation. ANALYSIS Special Conditions: "The developer is requesting this variance to allow for the construction of a bridge crossing to provide site access to the multifamily site. This second point of access is needed for fire safety and circulation needs of the project." Hardships: "Section 5 G. (1) of the Flood Hazard Protection Ordinance for the City of College Station states that encroachment on the floodway is not permitted unless an engineering report can document that there are no rises in the floodplain elevation. Enrcroachment on the floodway is necessary for this project to allow an access road to be constructed connecting the proposed development to Harvey Mitchell Parkway. This drive is required to provided proper access and avoids an undue hardship on the property. Without the access drive , the property owner would be denied reasonable use of the land . Alternatives: There are no other alternatives if the apartment complex is to access Harvey Mitchell Parkway as the surrounding properties are developed and the fire code requires a permanent second remote fire access. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. .... SPECIAL INFORMATION Ordinance Intent: Chapter 13, Section B states : "It is the purpose of this chapter to protect, maintain, and enhance the public health, safety, and general welfare by establishing minimum requirements and procedures to control the adverse impacts associated with the increased storm water flows generated by development. It is also the purpose of this chapter to enhance the public health , safety and welfare by furthering the goals and objectives of the City of College Station Comprehensive Plan and all of its elements." Unmitigated encroachments into designated floodways are known to cause increases in flood levels and the potential for damage from flooding events . As such they are specifically prohibited. It is clearly the intent of the Ordinance to prohibit encroachments into the areas reserved for flood waters. It does not appear that the intent was to prohibit encroachment into areas that may be above a reasonable flood event, even though the encroachment would be within the regulatory limits of the floodway. Number of Property Owners Notified: 8 Responses Received: No responses were received. ATTACHMENTS 1. Small Area Map and Aerial Map 2. Application 3. Sign Description 4. Site Plan (provided in packet) l CONSIDERATION OF "0-RISE" CRITERIA CITY OF COLLEGE STATION CURRENT STATUS : • Drainage Ordinance Follows FEMA Flood Insurance Requirements Fill Allowed in Flood Fringe Up To l ' Rise in 100 Year Base Flood Elevation Based on Current Development Conditions No Increase in Peak Runoff Caused by Development-Detention normally Required Finished Floor Elevation Required to be l' Above the 100 Year Base Flood Elevation and up to 4' in Some Areas No Development Allowed in Floodway Unless no Increase in 100 Year Base Flood Elevation (Variance Required) Mapping and Modeling based on 2' Topographic Maps Prepared using 1970-1980 technology (Accuracy +/-15%) • 1997 Comprehensive Plan Estimates 2264 Acres ofFEMA 100 Year Floodplain Within the City Limits ; It is Estimated that 1/3 of This Area is Flood Fringe Which Can be Filled In Under the Current Drainage Ordinance • College Station Experienced a 100 Year + Flood in October 1994 With Approximately 13" of Rainfall in a 24 Hour Period . The Area Upstream of Texas Avenue on Wolf Pen Creek Experienced the Worst Flooding. City Wide About 30 Occupied Dwellings Were Damaged by Rising Water up to a Maximum Depth of 2 .5'. PROPOSED Implement the Greenway Master Plan Criteria Adopted by the College Station City Council on May 27 , 1999 • Urban Greenways-Reserve the Floodway Plus as Much Buffer Area as Can Reasonably be Obtained ; Detention Required For All New Development • Suburban Greenways-Reserve the Full 100 Year Floodplain; No Detention Except for Localized Conditions on Secondary Streams • Rural Greenways-Reserve the Full 100 Year Floodplain Plus Buffer Areas on Each Side if Possible ; No Detention • No Channel Modifications without City Engineer's Approval ; Limit Maximum Velocities ; Require Compensation Storage • Remodel/Remap entire City with Latest Technology and Based on Ultimate Development Per Approved Land Use Plan . , , IMPACT • Estimate Remodeling Based on Ultimate Development Will Result in Approximately l' Increase in 100 Year Base Flood Elevation. Estimate Change Due to Latest Mapping Technology to be+/-l '. Net Change Could be +2' to O'. • l' Increase in 100 Year Base Floodplain Elevation Will Increase Total Floodplain Acreage in City by Approximately 375 Acres • Since the Urban Greenways Along Wolf Pen Creek and Bee Creek are Mostly Developed the Total Flood Fringe Area to be Reserved From Development is Approximately 900 Acres . Of This Amount About 200 Acres Has Voluntarily Been Reserved Along Lick Creek and Spring Creek by Recent and Ongoing Developments . • If the Current Criteria Remains in Effect We Can Expect Increases in the 100 Year Base Flood Elevation as Development of Pervious Open Space Occurs and Possible Flood Damage to Existing Structures That Have Not Experienced Flooding in the Past • Texas A&M University has Committed to Detention on Tributary C of Wolf Pen Creek. This Work Should be Completed in the Next Couple of Years and Will Reduce the Peak Flow Rate of Wolf Pen Creek Just Upstream of Texas Avenue by 20% Greatly Reducing the Flooding in This Area. Financial Impacts • Lost of Value ofDevelopable Acres in the 100 Year Floodplain • Savings to Developer of Cost to Fill And Compact Area in Floodplain-$20 ,000/Acre • Cost to City to Remap and Remodel-$1 ,000,000 • No Detention- • No Flood Insurance • Increased Value of Property Adjacent to Natural Floodplain First Draft--01/29/02-TDM ,& CSISO S 0011 • Coll911• . Gre.enw . • College S1 · p,jt<' • C ISO f>r0p0r1y Easle!Wood A1rpor TelCSS A&l\A University College S1 Ci l Co ll ege S1 S ntde ETJ .A 0 0.45 9 M ',I ~ A lER CREEK, SPRING K-CITY-OWNED '~ I ,, '" .. ' ~ I I'"' ~ 1-' '•. "' / .. ! I DRAFT REGIONAL D ETE NTION ANALYSIS STORMWATER MANAGE Watearth, Inc. 22-Sep-1 0 City Hydrology Owned Targeted Fl Pa r k Fix Ex i st. Model Total Watershed Site Land Watershed Pe Amenity Problems Available Score Ranking Criteria 0 No No Po No Park Amenity None No Su m of 1 Lease d 'Ian Sma ll/Poor Location Small All 2 ~n Moder ate M o derate Categ o ries 3 Yes Yes Large/Good Location Significant Yes Potential Regional Stormwater Management S 0 3 2 0 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 3 2 0 3 1 3 3 0 0 3 3 2 0 0 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 Spr ing Creek S-2 3 3 2 0 3 28 Spr i ng Cr eek S-1 3 3 3 1 3 26 W olf Pen Creek WP -1/2 3 3 3 3 3 33 Wolf Pen Creek WP -Parks 3 3 3 1 3 24 NOT E: CITY INPUT REQUEST ED ON PEACH-SHADED COLUMNS AND FE Brig ht blue sh aded sites are recom m end ed for co nceptual detention an SPRING CREEK -undev., non-ag (putty- colored), S-3, S-4, or S-5/6 -~·· lliJa ~· · ~'°"''-'\Qln..co e>~ llllllil v ·:-· lliil.a .r t •~- -=-~· C3- .. -P.a. -03-F.-r -04 -\oe •· -I -Resident " S i -IE2 - LICK CREEK {L4 -L9) BEE CREEK -<a -~· flood tta1.1 rd An• ~a...: ;;t=U>O:J ,_., ~A -·ti.o:i n !li;a: ft r1ztl AiS .... ::.n i:l:l:.c;t •· C3 -Vacant Platted Lots Outside the c · L . • D1 -Ranch Land-Acreage Qualified for A g I 03-Farmland-Acreage Qualified for Ag 04-Undeveloped A creage -Not Qualified for E1 -Residential Single Fa miy l -Fa rm and Ra -(B-4, B-5/6, B-7) ALUM CREEK -(Al and A2) Hydro.fogv/Hydraulics and Sustainable Water Resources Watershed/Site Location Non-ag land , d/s of William D. Fitch, between Rock Prairie Rd, Spring Creek, and Alum Creek L -7 Ranch/ag, adjacent to William D Fitch and Rock Prairie Rd L-8 Ranch/ag, just dis SH 6 L-9 Non-ag land , Trib. 13 , u/s SH 6 Spring Creek S-1 or S-2 City-Owned south of SH 6 S-3 Undeveloped between William D. Fitch, SC, and Trib 5 , not City- Owned S-4 Privately owned, ranch/non-ag l and on Spring Creek, no frontage S-5 16 Privately owned , ranch/non-ag land on Spring Creek, frontage William D. Fitch Pkwy Wolf Pen Creek WP-1/2 City-owned land , downstream of confluence of Wolf Pen and Trib. A and u/s SH 6 WP-3/4 City-owned land, near confl uence of Wolf Pen and Trib. A WP-5 Upstream end of Trib. B , City-owne d land 5. Input Needed • Include Whites Creek in Timing Analysis? • Storm water Quality and Multi-Use Components • Input on current Table B-1 in Appendix B of Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines • On-site strategies for sites not requiring d etention • Detailed analysis of selected regional d etentio n facilities • Outlines for Watershed Timing memorandum or R egional Detention l etter report • Downstream impacts review and a nal ysis guidance 6. Administrative Items • Future Meetings • Sched ul e Update -Report Submittal and Completion -J Enhancing Stormwater Management Practices and Policies for College Station 3 v Hydrologv/Hydraulics and Sustainable Water Resources GOAL OF REGIONAL D ETENTION Based on input from City staff, there is not currently a significant need to provide flood damage reduction as there are no repetitive losses and no struct ural flooding to be mitigated. Therefore, the primary goal of regional detention is to consolidate detention operations and provide multiple cost-effective benefits withi n regional flood control facilities. As such , potential regional detention sites wi ll be evaluated based on a combination of the following, which are roughly in order of p riority and may be weighted, depending on number of sites, performance , etc.: a. Stormwater quality benefits (TMDL limits for bacteria anticipated for Burton Creek and Carters Creek) b. Detention mitigation for City projects c. Detention mitigation for private development projects d. Consolidating and reducing operation and maintenance requirements e. Preservation of green/open space f. Wetlands mitigation facilities and banking g . Recreational benefits h. Infiltration within regional detention facilities to address additional runoff volume associated with development While capacity to sell to mi tigate private projects may be beneficial for the community , using regional detention capacity solely to mitigate City projects i s also an acceptable approach. Another important consideration is retro-fits to existing detention basins to reduce maintenance, improve stormwater quality performance, and to modify outlet structures to more effectively mitigate a range of rainfall events. These type of hydromodifications address frequent rainfall events (i.e., 50% event and more frequent) and associated stream erosion when discharge is not limited . Based on local hydrologic/hydraulic conditions and anticipated bacteria and/or TSS TMDL requirements, the following stormwater quality and multi-use features were identified for possible use within regional detention facilities in the City of College Station: Enhancing Storm water Management Practices and Policies for College Station 4 Hydra!agvlHydraufi.~s and Sustainable WatPr Resources STORMWATER QUALITY AND MULTI-USE FACILITIES Water Quality and Stormwater Features • Wet bottom ponds (i.e., retention water quality features) • Wetlands (i.e., stormwater treatment wetland s, wetlands mitigation facilities, and possibly wetlands banking) • Wetland-bottom ponds (i.e., wetlands combined with wet ponds) • Stormwater Treatment Train (i.e., multiple interconnected detention and/or wetland areas in series) • Native vegetation/grasses to improve stormwater quality and reduce maintenance requirements • Infiltration enhancements to address additional runoff volume associated with development • Low Impact Development (LID) features within regional detention sites (i.e., bioretention, rain gardens, vegetated filter strips, vegetated swales, etc.) to enh ance stormwater quality and reduce runoff vo lume Recreational Features • Soccer or baseball fields in dry b asin bottoms • Walking/jogging trails alongside detention facilities and possibly connected to other greenway trails Enhancing Storm water Management Practices and Policies for College Station 5 H:.'drology/Hydraul:cs and Sustainable \IVater Resources MEETING AGENDA Project: Regional D etention Feasibility Study and Watershed Timing Assessment Client: City of College Station Date: 8/10/2010 Purpose: Site Reconnai ss ance Meeting 1. Brief Project Status • D ata/Mode l Evaluation s/Key Hydrograph Locations • Move into Detention Screening • Watershed Impacts Details • Draft Letter Reports 2. Goal of R egional D etenti on (Multi-Functional with SWQ, R ecreational, etc.) 3 . Targeted Watersheds for Regional D etention (up to 5) • Large consolidated areas with likely changes in land u se • Avai labl e H&H models • Available City land or other targeted sites in mid-to upper portions watershed • City input Watershed Target? Comments Alum Creek No No mode l s available, but recommend consider acquirin g large tract in upp er portion to mitigate future d ev elopment Bee Creek Yes Some und eveloped area adjacent to B ee Creek and tributary In middle portion of stream planned for devel opment in future land u se conditions, City-owned sites that mi ght work well for region al mitigation Burton Creek N o Mainly outsid e of City limits and significantly deve loped Burton Creek Yes No significant d evelopment planned , but City-owned site Trib. C loc ated in good proximity to planned redevelopment Carters Creek Yes Mos tly d evelope d within City limits, significant areas und eveloped planned for development in futur e l and u se outside City limits to east, one large City-owned site(s) id entified in upper portion watershed Foxfire Creek N o N o per City input and no models available · Lick Creek Yes Significant areas undeveloped planned for developme nt in Enhancing Storm water Management Practices and Policies for College Station 1 Hydrnlogy'Hydraulics and Sustainable Water RDsaurces Watershed Target? Comments future land use, multipl e City-owned sites identified Peach Creek No No models avai labl e, but recommend consider acquiring large tract in upp er portion to miti gate future development Spring Creek Yes Significant areas und eveloped pl ann ed for developmc;:nt in fut ure land use, City-owned sites identified in lower portions of watershed may not be as effective for detention Whites Creek No Primarily located in TAMU limits and no si tes identified by City or as City-owned land Wolf Pen Creek Yes Minimal area s in do wnstream end currently und eveloped and planned for developme nt in future land use, City- owned sites identified 4. Potential Sites (10 for Reconnais sa nce and 5 for Testing in Hydrologic Model) .. " Watershed/Site Location Bee Creek B-11 2 City-owned land, goo d location to mitigate future mid-watershed development Bee Creek B-3 City-owned land just di s ofTAMU, may work for downstream mitigation Bee Creek B-4 Ranch land in upp er portion Trib. B-3/B.3.1 (may not have hydrolo gy model for Trib. B or B-3) Bee Creek B -51617 Ranch/non -ag . Land just upstream of SH 6 and near confl uence with Trib. A Burton Creek BTC-1 Trib . C Between College & Texas Ave. Carters Creek C -8/9 (79.35 ac) South of Harvey, East of Earl Rudder Lick Creek L-1 or L-2 City-owned land , up stream of confluence with Spring Creek, betw een SH 6 and Rock Prairie Rd L-3 City-owned land at Graham Rd , near u/s end of Lick Creek L-4 Non-ag land , bet ween Lick Creek and Spring Creek, dis of SH 6 L-5 Non-ag land, b etwe e n SH 6, Rock Prairie Rd, and William D . Fitch Pkwy . L-6 Enhancing Storm water Management Practic es and Policies for College Station 2