Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
44171317
label
Flood Plain Management [folder 2] [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
44171317
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Flood Plain Management [folder 2] [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Brian Burke's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
44171317
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7367488-20131074S-002-002-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
60513af647803d63
ocrText
2026464060
FEMA SLPS
08/27/93 15:12 P.002
STATES
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEDER
ACERA
Washington, D.C. 20472
AUG 26 1993.
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Federal Coordinating Officers
FEMA-993-DR, FEMA-994-DR, FEMA-995-DR, FEMA-
996-DR, FEMA-997-DR, FEMA-998-DR, FEMA-999-DR,
FEMA-1000-DR, AND FEMA-1001-DR
ATTENTION:
Public Assistance Officers
FROM:
Richard W. Krimm
Deputy Associate Director
State and Local Program and Support
SUBJECT:
Federal Levee Policy
Attached is a memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget
that describes the procedures Federal agencies should follow when
evaluating and reviewing repair and restoration projects for
levees. These procedures require agencies with authority to fund
levee repairs to notify relevant Federal agencies about proposed
levee restoration projects and receive their comments on same.
Further, each agency should consider and present to the applicant
nonstructural alternatives to the extent practical when developing
eligible projects.
More importantly, the procedures are not "intended to deny any
party access to existing programs for levee repair and restoration,
to create unexpected delays, or to force alternatives to repair and
restoration on unwilling participants." We interpret this to mean
that the levee owner must decide which project option to implement.
We have determined that the coordination among relevant agencies
should occur at the Disaster Field Office (DFO). The Washington
level forum, the Interagency Levee Rehabilitation Task Force, which
previously consisted of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and FEMA, will continue
to coordinate headquarter policy and interaction. The FEMA levee
coordinator will facilitate the review process at each DFO. You
are requested to provide space to any agency that wishes to
participate in the levee review process. Currently, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) have indicated they would participate in the
rocess. The DFO team will make all appropriate decisions;
owever, where the team needs additional guidance or issue
resolution, the question should be elevated to the Interagency
Levee Rehabilitation Task Force.
2026464060
FEMA SLPS
08/27/93 15:12
P.003
FEMA, USACE, SCS, EPA and FWS met on Tuesday, August 24, 1993 to
discuss implementation of the new procedures. The respective levee
policies of the FEMA, USACE and SCS, which were shared with you
previously, will remain unchanged. A copy of FEMA's levee policy
is attached. The task force agreed that the initial focus should
be on eligible levees and that levees should be divided into three
categories in priority order: levees that protect life and/or
property of significant economic value (urban levees) ; agricultural
levees that protect rural communities, isolated homes, highways,
railroads, and high value farmlands; and agricultural levees that
protect farmlands. We do not anticipate that relevant agencies
will advance alternatives to repairing levees which protect urban
areas. However, mitigation of the adverse effects of urban levee
repairs should be fully considered. Borrow and disposal sites
should avoid areas of environmental concern, and contaminated
materials must be appropriately handled.
Agricultural levees which protect rural communities and isolated
housing should be considered in the light of elevation or
relocation projects under consideration to meet floodplain
management requirements. Levee options generally should not
consider raising the level of protection to achieve floodplain
management requirements. Review teams should give full
consideration to nonstructural alternatives for agricultural levees
that only protect farmlands. Nonstructural alternatives should
include viable Federal programs, i.e. those with appropriate
uthority and funding, that the levee owner may consider. USACE
has developed specific procedures which will insure that
nonstructural options proposed by other agencies can be presented
to project sponsors. The USACE team member at each DFO will brief
the other agency representatives on this process.
EPA and FWS will provide staff to the DFO as soon as possible so
that proposed work can proceed. You should initiate coordinated
reviews of applications as soon as possible to develop review
procedures with participating agencies. The Interagency Levee
Rehabilitation Task Force will meet again soon to develop further
guidance on implementing the new procedures. We will share any new
information with you as it becomes available.
We appreciate your contributions to the levee task force to date.
If you have questions about these procedures, please call Larry
Zensinger at (202) 646-3684 or James Walke at (202) 646-2751.
Attachments
CC: USACE
SCS
EPA
FWS
2026464060
FEMA SLPS
08/27/93 15:13
P.004
FEMA POLICY FOR LEVEE REPAIR
1.
Levee must be owned by eligible applicant (State or local
government or certain private nonprofit organization).
2.
Levee must be an actively used and maintained facility.
3.
Levee must not be eligible for repair under another
Federal agency's program.
If USACE does not approve repairs under PL 84-99
for levees that do not meet their maintenance
standard, FEMA would also deny assistance for the
same reason.
If USACE does not approve repairs under PL 84-99
because it determines that the level of damage is
considered maintenance, and therefore the
responsibility of the local sponsor, FEMA will not
fund the repair effort.
Levees that do not meet USACE or SCS definition of
a "flood control work" may be considered by FEMA.
4.
condition. Eligible work will be to restore levees to predisaster
5.
Dewatering of areas behind levees by breaching the levees
or pumping is eligible if there was a threat to health
and safety or improved property; or if required to
facilitate a Federal repair project. Breaches would be
eligible for repair.
6.
Removal of flood fight measures placed on the levees can
be eligible if such removal is necessary to eliminate a
health and safety threat, to operate the levees as a
public facility or to repair the facility.
7.
All eligible work must comply with all Federal, State,
and local regulations (e.g., the National Environmental
Policy Act and E.O. 11988).
8.
The cost share will be 75% Federal and 25% nonFederal.
9.
Secondary levees riverward of the primary levees are not
eligible unless they protect human life.
10. Cost effective hazard mitigation measures may be
considered on a cost-shared basis.
August 25, 1993
*2026464060
FEMA SLPS
08/27/93 15:13
P.005
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
THE
OFFICE CF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20503
August 23, 1993
To:
Army Corps of Engineers
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Department of Agriculture
Department of Transportation
Department of Interior
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Environmental Protection Agency
Small Business Administration
Other Relevant Agencies
From:
T.J. Glauthier, Associate Director, Natural Resources,
Energy and Science, Office of Management and Budget
Katie McGinty, Director, White House Office
Environmental Policy
Re:
Procedures for Evaluation and Review of Repair and
Restoration Projects for Levees
The purpose of this guidance is to ensure the proper
consideration of relevant options for repair, reconstruction, and
other alternatives to levee restoration necessitated by flood
damage. It also is intended to ensure that relevant
organizations have the opportunity to comment on project
specifications and suggest appropriate modifications. The
overall goal is to achieve a rapid and effective response to the
damaged flood control system that will minimize risk to life and
property, ensure a cost-effective approach to flood damage
mitigation and floodplain management, and protect important
environmental and natural resource values.
This guidance should be viewed as an opportunity to allow
consideration of alternatives with input from Federal, State, and
local interests. It is not intended to deny any party access to
existing programs for levee repair and restoration, to create
unexpected delays, or to force alternatives to repair and
restoration on unwilling participants. Nor does this contravene
any existing statutory or other requirements.
In acting upon applications for levee repair and restoration
of damages incurred as a result of the Midwest floods of 1993,
responsible Federal agencies shall follow procedures below:
At the time of initiating evaluation of proposals for repair
and restoration of flood-damaged levees, each agency shall
notify the appropriate agencies represented in the Disaster
/
Cat 1 repair immediately - urban levees, Fed & non fed
to mean not in agricultural or FWS
Reven definition of "urban" it could be construed
structures L mile² # of residences or population Tmili
use a density limit might he useful (# of
eg.). Alco, Cultural historical sites
For all structures that do not fit the above category
1. Have Corps ( WES ?) nun a model to determin
100 year floodway based on conveyance and storage
areas and 6 inches in rural/ag. areas
allowing a stage rise of 1 inch in urban
2. all non urban levees outside of the floodway
should be in Category 2 -repin in short term
if Cat. 2 criteria are met.
Non when
3. all levels within the floodway should go
though an options analysis performed
by a Mutti - agency team in Cooperation
with property (this owners work can be done whill Cat. 1 structure
being repaired)
Cat. 2 - repair soon (after Cat. Ilevees & before
tnd of construction season) all non unlan
levees above the modeled floodway in Corps
justification landowners criteria other options, /- 4d as conditional well) provisions
alter cuteria 4 to include a more regorous
2
economic analysis, including the value of the Crozo
under water); the frequency of anticipates flooding
(some bottomland are extremely productive when not
fail due to flooding if levee is repaired to pre-floot
+ % of growing seasons when acrop would
Condition (many ag levels were built to protect land
events I fiee boen Many of these levels were topped w/cond
from ~20 year event of flood during more severe
bags to protect farmland during the flood, average
insurance payments on property protected by level;
annual disaster relief, crop insurance, x flood
& value of adjactnt properties at rish if levels are
not repaired
This analysis could be done during construction
of Cat. 1 levees.
i.e. don irrepair if
more appropriate options can
be instituted
-all non-lirban levees that are within the modeled
Cat 3 - repair only after consideration of all options
100 year floodplain t do not protect historically
subjected to an inter -agency options evaluation
or culturally significant sites should be
in cooperation w/ Condowners. Sites behind
levees should first be ranked based on
/. Economic factors -does value of property at
rish exceed costs of maintaining it 25ee
economic factors above).
2. Environmental factors - how In valuable
710%
3
and brodiversity if returned to PRoodplain / wettland
uses? Consider Conidor value (linking refuges,
proximity to existing wildlife areas), value as
fish Labitat, presence or potential presence of
THE or rared declining species) presence +
restoration potential of rare, declining for
(e.g. bottonland Lardwoods prairies, etc.)
regionally significant biological communities
3. Hydrologic cutered- - importance of area
in reducing flood richs upstream downstream
if returned to floodplain uses.
assign a rating to each Cat3 property
protected by Cat. 3 levees If the Benefit Cost
economic analysis) is low & potential biological
+ hydrological values are high, rate as a
priority for regotiation w/ landowners Develop
xample
a condation between preferred options & ranking
High 1 Priority for regotiation 20 pernchase 40
Highpriority for repair
(base on FACKING
10
50
60
economic
3
biological,
Correlation
Avdrological
criterin)
5
Purchase property
Purchase conservation
Install
Purchase
Options
in fee give FWS to
essements,
overflow
channel
flowage casements,
Repair
rectore
6
without
reconstruct level
behind
w/ spillway
level
level
Options to include in negotiations w/landowners:
/. Full repair or improvement of existing level
2. Full repair of levee, but modefy w/ spillway 07
4
pipes so they can be used to reduce flood Chests
during Major floods but farmed MOOD years.
(Fresh layer of silt deposited by flood could increase
productivity of farmlond d counteract subsidence
3. Repair level w/ Modification + lower elevation
of leveed floodplain due to compaction)
These levels would acovertopped first in large
events & More frequently (cay /in 5 years then
levees under I above Purchase flowage easement
from farmers
4.
Relocate levell level out of floodplar floodway.
Crops during flood years in previously protected
Compensate property Owner for loss of lard
portions of his Pher property
5, Don't reparr level, or significantly lower elevation.
Enroll floodplain property in Wettand
Receive program d restore wittands. Property
Owner retains title
6. Swap flood prop prone property for FMHA
property in upland areas. Don't repair levee-
do restore wellands
7, Transfer FmHA owned property that is flood
prone to the FWS are for use in refuge
8. system, acquire flood-prone land from willing
selvers. Donate to wildlife refuge system
Restore floodplain ecosystem.
Decision hel
(see following pages for explanation)
Does level protect urban Th -
Yes
Cat. 1
repair
distorical or cultural resources?
NO
Does level comply w/ Corps
Is levee w/ in 100 year
NO
justification Criteria +
floodway considering conveyince
conditional provisions
f storage & allown / "Use in
including regorous economic
urband E"rise in rural
onalysis ?
¿cono
No(at3)
yes (Ct2)
Yes (Cat 3)
Colondowner
Rank property behind
behind level
level based on
amonable to
economic, environmental
other getter?
(ES. wetton
Lydrological factors.
yes
reserve program
Present range of options
flowing exsements
etc.
to londowner, indicating
institute
preferences for options
other options
NO
based on canking
as agreet tr
by feds +
Condowners
Repair leve
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
OF DEFENST
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314-1000
ANITED OF AMERICA
C2
00
AUG 1993
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CECW-OE-D (500-1-1b)
MEMORANDUM FOR Deputy Director of Civil Works for the Upper Mississippi River
Basin
SUBJECT: Levee Rehabilitation Program - 1993 Midwest Floods
1. Reference CECW-OE-D memorandum, dated 6 Aug 93, Subject: Levee
Rehabilitation Policy and Guidance - Public Law 84-99.
2. The purpose of this memorandum is to forward policy and guidance as discussed
in paragraph 2 of referenced memorandum. This memorandum will serve as a basic
policy framework for levee rehabilitation under Public Law (PL) 84-99 as the result of
the 1993 Midwest Flood. Field implementation of this guidance should allow for a
logical, flexible approach to expediting the levee repair program while maintaining
important documentation of project eligibility determinations.
3. In some cases, there may be alternatives to rehabilitation which meet all of the
following criteria: 1) they are acceptable to the local sponsor; 2) they do not
represent a substantial increase in Federal costs above the rehabilitation alternative;
3) they provide appropriate flood protection and environmental outputs. In order to
ensure that such alternatives are not overlooked, the Corps will coordinate with
Federal agencies and the project sponsor through processes described in Enclosure 1.
This additional step is not intended to deny any party access to existing programs for
levee rehabilitation, to create unacceptable delays, or to force alternatives to
rehabilitation on unwilling participants. Rather it should be viewed as an opportunity to
allow considerations of alternatives with input from project sponsors, and with their full
consent.
4. Inherent in our assessment process must be an awareness and sensitivity to
opportunities to identify possible applications of Section 1135 of the Water Resource
Development Act of 1986 for fish and wildlife habitat restoration at Federal projects.
5. To address critical needs for immediate closure of breached levees we have
developed a fast track approach to repair breaches in levees where there exists
substantial risk for damages to urban and agricultural properties. Enclosure 2 is a
flow chart and narrative describing the conditions and criteria for the fast track
process. Initial repair would include filling in breaches back to original levee height
without the preparation of a full Rehabilitation Project Report (a short form report is
CECW-OE-D
SUBJECT: Levee Rehabilitation Program - 1993 Midwest Floods
required). Public sponsorship and cost share requirements must also be met.
Decision regarding final repair will follow the normal report preparation procedure.
6.1 PL 84-99 Levee Rehabilitation Policy is affirmed as follows:
a. Environmental Policy. All PL 84-99 Rehabilitation actions will conform to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and applicable environmental regulations.
District Commanders shall also meet the requirements in Chapter 7, paragraph 7-
33.b.(10) of ER 1105-2-100 (Endangered Species Act) to the fullest practical extent.
b. Cost Share. The 80/20 cost share requirement is retained for non-Federal
levee repair. The Corps will allow sponsors to use discretionary funds from other
Federal agencies provided the granting agency confirms in writing that there are no
legal or policy constraints. There is no cost share for repair of Federally constructed
levees.
C. Public Sponsorship. There is no change in the requirement for public
sponsorship for non-Federal levees.
d. Engineering and Maintenance Guidelines. There is no waiver of the
guidelines for non-Federal levees as written in Appendix E of ER 500-1-1. Owners
whose levees were previously determined ineligible will not receive Corps assistance
under PL 84-99.
e. Economic Justification. Qualification criteria and procedures for justification of
initial repair of levee breaches are covered in paragraph 5 and enclosure 2. Economic
justification procedures and other requirements for permanent repairs are as directed
in ER 500-1-1.
f. Deliberate Levee Cuts. Repair of deliberate levee cuts will not be carried out
by the Corps under PL 84-99. An exception will be made for those levees that were
deliberately breached to protect the integrity of the structure and thereby reduced the
overall anticipated damages. In those cases only, repairs may be accomplished under
PL 84-99 if the cut was made in consultation with the Corps of Engineers.
g. Dewatering. Costs associated with dewatering will continue to be borne by
the local interests. Costs associated with dewatering may be eligible for assistance
from FEMA under the Stafford Act.
2
CECW-OE-D
SUBJECT: Levee Rehabilitation Program - 1993 Midwest Floods
h. Repair of Secondary Levees. Secondary levees will not be repaired under
PL 84-99 except as provided in paragraph 5-1.r. of ER 500-1-1 to protect human life.
i. Reconstruction in-Kind versus Betterments. Rehabilitation assistance is
limited to pre-flood conditions. Set backs would be permitted if a new alignment is
less expensive and is environmentally acceptable. Modifications or betterments will
not be considered as a part of emergency repairs.
j. Retention of Flood Fight Measures. Emergency measures conducted under
PL 84-99 flood fight actions are temporary and must be removed by the local sponsor.
Exceptions may be made for measures such as stability or seepage berms if they
contribute to the structural integrity of the unit and are environmentally acceptable.
7. In order to assist in your efforts, a series of definitions has been prepared for your
use (see enclosure 3). If further definitions are required, please advise this office.
8. Your office is developing a levee database for management of this effort, which will
be used as the single source of information by all of us who will be addressing these
issues. Enclosure 4 provides a categorization of levees along with the available
eligibility programs.
9. My point of contact on this action is Mr. Ed Hecker, Chief, Readiness Branch (202)
272-0251.
4 Encls
STANLEY GENEGA
Brigadier General, USA
Director of Civil Works
3
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS - CIVIL WORKS
APPLICATION FOR LEVEE REHABILITATION RECEIVED
Transmit to
Division
District Receives
Commander
Application &
Consider Local Sponsor,
Local Sponsor says
Begins
State and Federal
"Fix Levee, no Other
Assessment
Alternative
Unfavorable
Notify
Agency Inputs
Local
Acceptable"
Report
Sponsor
Transmit to
Division Commander
DFO
Local Sponsor
Desires to Consider
Approves Report
District so
District
(Dist to others)
and Returns to District
Notifies
Other Agency
Completes
for
DFO of Assessment
Alternative
Assessment
24 Hour Clock Begins
Execution
Transmit to
Division
Commander
Division Commander
Signs Report As
Favorable
Eligible for Approval
Interested Federal Agencies
Returns to District to be
Review & Consider
Report
Transmit to
*
Executed Upon
Options Under Their
DFO
Local Sponsor Request
Authority & Funding
(Dist to others)
Finalize and Submit
*
Discussions of Alternatives
Alternative
and Coordination with
Solutions with
*
Upon transmittal from District to DFO Agencies have 24
Local Sponsor
Sponsor's
hours not including Weekends and Fed Holidays to
Recommendations
submit alternatives thru DFO to Division Commander.
Enclosure 1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS - CIVIL WORKS
FAST TRACK LEVEE REHABILITATION PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
yes
Is Levee clearly
yes
Consider Input from
Initial Repairs
District
yes
Is Levee breached?
Fed Agencies and Local
completed.
prepares letter
Urban?
Sponsor Concerning
Further repairs
report. Repairs
Alternatives to Levee
required?
viable?
no
no
yes
Rehab
no
yes
no
Is area protected
Is risk of
Division
rural
yes
flooding > 5% (20 yr.)
no
Review.
District
with urban area?
to Urban Areas
Process Complete
Approval?
prepares letter
report. Repairs
no
yes
viable?
(Agricultural)
no
yes
Construct final
Will land area be
no
repairs.
yes
Are initial
restored before
repairs needed
next planting season
yes
no
to begin land
restoration for crops?
yes
yes
Division
Is cost
yes
Review.
of initial
Approval?
no
repair < $10/acre
yes
no
no
yes
Substantial Residential
no
Risk of flooding
yes
Is cost of
no
Commercial / Business at
crops > 20% (5 yr)?
initial action
risk, flood threat > 10%
< $ 50/acre
(10 yr)
no
no
Construction
yes
End of process
Urban levees are levees which provide a high degree of flood protection
(50 or 100-yr. level of greater) to predominately Urban areas.
Enclosure 2
PROCEDURES FOR JUSTIFICATION
FOR EMERGENCY REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Introduction. The following justification criteria for expedited decisions for closing
levee breaches have been developed to reduce the threat of recurrence of substantial
flood damages to life and property until decisions can be made regarding full
restoration of damaged levees. They have been developed in light of the short time
which may be available in some areas to accomplish construction before the winter
season makes construction activities impossible. THESE PROVISIONS SHOULD
NOT BE USED FOR FULL RESTORATION DECISIONS OR WHERE THERE IS
SUFFICIENT TIME TO PREPARE A FULL REHABILITATION REPORT.
Justification Criteria. The closing of breached levee sections may be undertaken for
the following P.L. 84-99 qualified levees where the conditional provisions are met.
1. Federal and Non-Federal Urban levees where the threat to life and property is
considered greater than was present in the pre-flood condition.
2. Federal and Non-Federal levees which protect predominately agricultural land but
have one or more Urban areas where the risk of flooding in the current condition to
Urban areas is greater than 5 percent (20-yr or more frequent flood event would cause
damages to properties in Urban areas). A determination must be made that in the
breached condition, actual physical damages would be caused in the urban area by
the occurrence of a 5 percent chance flood event.
3. Federal and Non-Federal Agricultural levees which must have the breaches filled to
drain lands and/or initiate land restoration and crop production. There must be
documentation that Department of Agriculture officials familiar with the area believe
that such actions can and will be initiated within the next six months.
4. Federal and Non-Federal Agricultural levees where lands are likely to be returned
to crop production by the next planting season, and,
1) The cost of remedial action is less than $10 per acre, or,
2) The current risk of substantial flooding to residential, commercial, public,
and industrial properties is greater than 10 percent (10-yr or more frequent flood event
would cause damages to developed properties), or,
3) The cost of remedial action is less than $50 per acre protected and the risk
of flooding is greater than 20 percent chance (5-yr or more frequent flood event would
flood croplands). The number of acres protected is the land area behind the levee
which is lower than the pre-flood levee height.
ENCLOSURE 2
Other Conditional Provisions.
1. Appropriate environmental compliance procedures are met
2. An engineering judgement is made that there is reasonable expectation that the
levee could withstand a flood event for the next year below the top of the low point of
the temporarily repaired levee.
3. All breaches in a continuous levee which affect the residual risks and other
conditions specified in the Justification Criteria must be filled and the costs included in
the justification decision.
Note: Risk of flooding as used in the justification criteria pertains to the risk of actual
lands and properties being flooded and not the level of protection afforded by the
breached levee.
ENCLOSURE 2
DESIGNATED DEFINITIONS FOR
LEVEE REHABILITATION INFORMATION
Levee: A structure of earth or stone built parallel to a river to protect land from
flooding.
Federal Levee: A levee system constructed by a Federal Agency such as the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Soil Conservation Service, or the Bureau of
Reclamation. Levees actually constructed by non-Federal interests, but incorporated
into a Federal system by specific Congressional action (Law) are also designated as
Federal levees. Previous rehabilitation or reconstruction of a non-Federal levee under
an emergency authority by a Federal agency does not make the levee a Federal
levee.
Non-Federal Levee: Any levee system constructed by other than a Federal agency
which is operated and maintained by a Public Sponsor.
Urban Levee: Levees which provide a high degree of flood protection (50 or 100 year
level or greater) to predominately Urbanized areas.
Urban Areas: Urban areas are cities, towns, or other incorporated or unincorporated
political subdivisions of States that provide general local government for specific
population concentrations, and occupy an essentially continuous area of developed
land containing such structures as residences, public and commercial buildings, and
industrial sites.
Public Sponsor: A legal subdivision of a state or a state government; local unit of
government; qualified Indian Tribe, Alaska Native Corporation or tribal organization; or
a state chartered organization, such as a levee board.
Deliberate Levee Cut: A deliberate cut made in a levee to protect the integrity of the
structure threatened by overtopping from forecasted river stages and to reduce overall
anticipated damages expected to occur to the existing structure by the current flood
event Deliberate levee cuts are made upon judgement by the local interest.
Dewatering Levee Cut: This is an intentional cut in a levee which is considered an
engineering/construction method used to dewater the area immediately behind a levee
where pumping is not feasible or timely
Dike: In most areas of the U.S., an earthen structure built partway across a river for
the purpose of maintaining a navigation channel. In other areas, the term is used
synonymously with levee.
ENCLOSURE 3
DESIGNATED DEFINITIONS FOR
LEVEE REHABILITATION INFORMATION
(Continued)
Flood Plain: The portion of a river valley that has historically been inundated by a
river during floods. The Corps of Engineers encourages local governments to zone
their flood plains against development and thereby avoid property damage and reduce
obstruction to passage of flood waters.
Floodway: Designated land left clear of development for the passage of flood waters.
Flood Stage: The height of a river above which damages begin to occur. Normally
the level at which a river overflows its banks.
Hundred Year Flood: More accurately referred to as a "one percent chance flood," a
flood of a magnitude which, according to historical statistics, has one chance in 100 of
occurring in any given year. (This does not mean that, once such a flood occurs, the
location will not experience another flood for the next 99 years!)
Major Flood: A general term indicating high water that causes extensive inundation
and property damage, usually characterized by evacuation of people and animals and
closure of highways.
Saturation: A condition in soil which all space between soil particles is filled with
water. Such conditions occur after prolonged periods of rainfall, snowmelt and force
any additional rainfall to run off into streams. Saturation also occurs in earthen levees
during extremely long periods in which the flood waters remain above flood stage, a
condition that can cause the levees to weaken.
Work In-Kind: This is the part of the sponsor's cost share that is other than cash.
ENCLOSURE 3
LEVEE CATEGORIES/FUNDING
O&M
PL-99
GENERAL
FEMA
SCS
PRIVATE
FFU
X
FFA
X
FLU
X
FLA
X
LPU
X
LFA
X
LNU
X*
X
X
LNA
X*
X
X
1st LETTER
F = FEDERALLY CONSTRUCTED
L = LOCALLY CONSTRUCTED
2nd LETTER
F = FEDERALLY MAINTAINED
L = LOCALLY MAINTAINED
P = LOCALLY MAINTAINED, ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE
N = LOCALLY MAINTAINED, NOT IN THE CORPS LEVEE
REHABILITATION PROGRAM
3rd LETTER
U = URBAN
A = AGRICULTURE
* MUST BE STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OWNED
ENCLOSURE 4
PL 84-99 Rehabilitation Policy
Environmental Policy
- Conform to NEPA
- Conform to Other Applicable Environmental
Regs (i.e., Endangered Species Act)
Cost Share
- 80/20 Non-Federal Projects
- 100/0 Federal Projects
Engineering and Maintenance Guidelines
- Must be flood control structure
- Must be maintained
1
Deliberate Levee Cuts
-
Not repaired under PL 84-99
-
Exception for cuts which reduced
damages/Corps Recommendation
Dewatering
- Local Interest Cost
-
May be reimbursable by FEMA
Secondary Levees
- Not Eligible
-
Exception for protection of human life
Betterments
-
Not eligible
2
Retention of Flood Fight Measures
- Must be removed
-
Exception for measures that contribute
to structural integrity of unit (i.e.,
seepage berms)
3
REHABILITATION
ALTERNATIVES
Cooperative Effort of Many Federal
Agencies
- EPA
- HUD
- FEMA
- SBA
- DOI
- DOC
- USDA
- DOT
4
Offers Alternatives to Rehab When
- Acceptable to Local Sponsor
- Not Big Increase in Cost
- Provides Flood Protection
- Meets Environmental Concerns
5
DFO COORDINATION PROCESS
Completed Reports Being Provided to
EPA/F&WL Representatives for Immediate
Review
EPA/F&WL Will Be Provided Information on
All Active Projects So That Their Alternative
Review Can Be Initiated
An Interagency Public Affairs Program Is Being
Initiated
6
USACE DFO ACTIVITIES
Active Teams in IL, IA, MO (1-2 people)
POCs for Other States
Corps Projects Listed in DFO Database
Completed Reports Have Been Forwarded to DFO
Teams for Review
7
Sponsor Notification
-
Currently in Process of Notifying
Sponsors
-
Verbal Notification to be Complete by
25 Aug
-
Written Notification to Follow
8
APPLICATION PROCESS
District Office (DO) Receives
Application
- Begins Assessment
- Prepares Report
Concurrently DO Notifies DFO
-
Other agencies consider options
- Discuss with sponsors
9
APPLICATION PROCESS
(Cont'd)
Report Is Unfavorable
- DO Notifies Division Office
- DO Notifies Local Sponsor
- DO Notifies DFO
10
APPLICATION PROCESS (Cont'd)
Report Is Favorable
-
Transmit to Division Office
24
- Transmit to DFO
HOUR
- Other Federal
CLOCK
agencies submit alternative
solutions
11
APPLICATION PROCESS (Cont'd)
Local Sponsor Decides "Fix Levee"
- Division approves report
- District constructs
or
Local Sponsor Decides "Try Alternative"
- Division returns report to DO
- Sponsor works with other agency on
alternative
12
FAST TRACK PROCESS
Fast Track for Breached Levees When
- Substantial Risk to Urban and Agricultural
Properties
13
Fast Track Qualifications
1. Urban Levees
2. Agricultural with Some Urban Area
- Risk of flooding > 5%
3. Agricultural Levees
- Breaches must be filled to restore crop
production
14
Fast Track Qualifications
4. Agricultural Levees
- Lands are to be restored to crop
production by next planting, and
- Cost of repairs < $10/acre, or
- Cost of repairs < $50/acre and
- Risk of flooding > 20%, or
- Risk of flooding > 10%
(with residential/commercial business)
15
SECTION 1135 ALTERNATIVE
Environmental Enhancement of Federal Projects
Annual Appropriation Limit of $25 Million
(per project limit of $5M)
40 Studies Currently in Program
-
1 Construction project completed in 1992
-
5 On-going construction projects
-
4 Projects in P&S phase
-
Several others in review phase
Corps Prepares Report to be Reviewed by ASA-CW
and Submitted to OMB for Approval
16
Rehab Status Report
NCD
MRD
Damaged Levees NCR NCS MRO MRK LMVD Total
Federal
12
1
9
6
12
40
Non-Fed Elig
6 2 26 110 20 164
Total
18 3 34 116 32 204
Reports Complete 8 0 6 2 10 26
Reports Approved 0 0 3 2 10 15
Initial Repairs
Started
00010
1
8/24/93
17
Departme of the Army
/12/93
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Civil Works
Tabulation of Levees
Category
LMS
LMM
NCS
NCR
MRK
MRO
Total
Damaged
Total
Damaged
Total
Damaged
Total
Damaged
Total
Damaged
Total
Damaged
Total
Damaged
Total
Fed Constructed/Fed Maintained
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
8
0
3
0
1
3
15
Fed Constructed/Local Maintain
12
42
0
0
1
32
9
65
6
45
8
30
37
214
Total Federal
12
42
0
3
1
32
12
73
6
48
8
31
40
229
Non-Fed/Local Maintain & Eligible
20
27
0
0
2
83
6
22
110
110
26
26
164
268
Non-Fed not Eligible (See Note 3)
19
20
0
2
0
10
13
163
700
700
147
184
879
1079
Total non-Federal
39
47
0
2
2
93
19
185
810
810
173
210
1043
1347
Total
51
89
0
5
3
125
31
258
816
858
181
241
1083
1576
Notes:
1. "Damaged" levees include those that have breached or were overtopped. There may
be additional levees that were not breached or overtopped that were damaged. These
will require damage surveys to identify.
2. "Non-Fed/Local Maintain & Eligible" levees in the impacted area (within counties
declared a disaster area) that were included in the districts' lists of levees that
met the requirements for assistance under PL 84-99.
3. "Non-Fed not Eligible" levees include: a). those levees that were determined to
be ineligible for assistance under PL 84-99, and b). those levees for which no
application was submitted. The numbers are almost certainly incomplete (the actual
total may be over 2000). Most are privately owned agricultural levees. Some of
these levees may be eligible for assistance from the Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.
4. Current rough estimate of the total length of non-federal eligible levees is 1800
miles and the length of non-federal ineligible levees is 4000 miles.
Numbers in Italic are estimates
POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES TO LEVEE REBUILDING
(August 24, 1993)
The following is a partial list of Federal programs which
may be available as alternatives or additions to levee
reconstruction or repair. The list is not complete and the
agencies should review this list and provide addition, or
deletion recommendations.
Department of Agriculture:
Wetland Reserve Program -- permanent easements.
Conservation Reserve Program -- property easements.
Small Watershed Program (P.L. 566) -- non-structural protection.
FmHA debt restructure easements
FmHA inventory property easements and transfers
Waterbank
Department of Interior:
National Wildlife Refuge System -- purchase land.
Partners for Wildlife -- private lands habitat restoration
program.
Fish and Wildlife Wetland Easement Acquisition Program
Federal Emergency Management Agency:
Section 404 of the Stafford Act -- buy out program, also
available to purchase easements.
Section 1362 of the National Flood Insurance Program -- buy out
insured policy holders who are subject to repeated flooding.
Environmental Protection Agency:
Wetlands Restoration -- grants.
Corps of Engineers:
Section 1135 of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act, the
improvement of the environment at completed Corps projects.
Housing and Urban Development:
Community Development Block Grant Program -- grants.
Section 203 (h), Mortgage Insurance for Disaster Victims --
relocations.
Small Business Administration:
Disaster Loans -- rebuilding.
PUBLIC LAW 99-662-NOV. 17, 1986
SEC. 1135. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ENVIRON-
33 USC 2294
MENT.
*
note.
(a) The Secretary is authorized to review the operation of water
resources projects constructed by the Secretary before the date of
enactment of this Act to determine the need for modifications in the
structures and operations of such projects for the purpose of improv-
ing the quality of the environment in the public interest.
(b) The Secretary is authorized to carry out a
demonstration
program
period
beg
ting
the
of
enactment
of this Act for the purpose of making such modifications in the
structures and operations of water resources projects constructed by
the Secretary
before
enassment
of
this
Act
which
the
Secretary determines (1) are feasible and consistent with the au-
thorized project purposes, and (2) will improve the quality of the
environment in the public interest. The non-Federal share of the
cost of any modifications carried out under this section shall be 25
pe
nt.
The Secretary shall coordinate any actions taken pursuant to
this section with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies.
(d) Not later than two years after the date of enactment of this
Reports.
Act, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the results
of the review conducted under subsection (a) and on the demonstra-
tion program conducted under subsection (b). Such report shall
contain any recommendations of the Secretary concerning modifica-
tion and extension of such program.
(e) There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
$25,000,000 to carry out this section.
* As amended. In addition, there is a $5 million cap on the cost of individual
projects that can be done without further authorization.
SEC1135 24 AUG M93
ITEM
FY 93
FY 94
FY 94
FY 95
APP
BUD
HOUSE
REQ
SECTION 1135
7,500
7,500
7,500
7,500
KISSIMMEE RIVER, FL
8,000
0
5,000
0
YOLO BASIN WETLANDS, CA
1,400
2,063
2,063
4,120
ANACOSTIA RIVER, MD
700
0
700
0
TOTAL
17,600
9,563
15,263
11,620
CEILING
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
BALANCE
7,400
15,437
9,737
13,380
TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1993
Science Times
C1
The New York Times
The High Risks of Denying Rivers Their Flood Plains
development away from the flood plain, pret
Sometimes. he said, this means that devel-
Losing trust in levees,
serving or restoring its ecosystems and let.
oped areas "need to be cleared out so the
ting water flow as freely as possible 50 that
river can flood, as we know It will, without
experts now favor more
natural flood-control mechanisms can work,
damaging property.' In other instances less
Across the country, states and communi,
drastic measures can suffice.
natural flood controls.
ties are exploring alternatives to dikes, le-
One obvious limitation 10 the new strategy
vees and flood walls. They are acquiring
is that many communities have long since
wetlands 10 serve as natural flood basins.
committed themselves to living on the flood
By WILLIAM K. STEVENS
They are sculpturing the plain to create
plain, and with traditional structural meth-
detention areas for flood waters. They are
ods of flood control. "We can't pick Des
OR decades Americans have Insisted
preserving stretches of flood plain in urban
Moines up and put It on a hill," said Harry
areas which, in between periods of high wa-
Kuch, an Army Corps of Engineers official in
F
on settling next 10 rivers and
Washington who handles flood-control plan-
streams, like moths drawn to a
ter, serve as parks, ball fields and green-
flame, just as people have through.
ways. Some communities are discouraging
Continued on Page C8
out history. And to protect their cities and
new development on flood plains by requiring
farms, engineers have tried to ward off the
expensive flood-proufing measures, such as
putting buildings on piers and constructing
Overflow
inevitable flood waters with levees, flood
private detention ponds. One town, Soldiers
wetland
walls, dams, dikes and diversion channels. To
some extent this ambitious attempt to bend
Grove, Wis., has taken the radical step of
nature to human desires has worked.
moving its entire business district to higher
Overflow
But nature still wins often enough, as this
ground
wetland
month's destructive floods in the upper Mis-
been trying to adjust
sissipi valley vividly testify. Even the gains
river needs. and then we wonder
have come at enormous cost 10 the ecology of
why out rivers are messed up and why we
flood plains, some experts say, and in some
continue 10 get flooded; It's not a mystery,"
cases control measures have perversely re-
said Larry Larson, director of the Associa.
submit in worse flooding.
tion of State Floodplain Managers, an organi-
By cutting off the flood plain's waters,
zation of professionals engaged in flood plain
management and flood control.
need
to
levees and diversion channels have de-
stroyed and degraded stream-side habitats
adjust human behavior to river
that contain some of the country's richest
biological resources. They have also prevent.
ed the flood plain from performing one of its
most important natural functions: flood con-
trol By storing and slowing flood waters, the
plann reduces their force and height. Contain-
ing this water in a narrowly corseted chan-
as IS commonly done to protect farms
urban settlements, has the opposite ef.
11 raises both the velocity and the height
he flood and makes it all the more fright-
ening and destructive when = breaks through
defenses, as It has repeatedly done in the
Midwest.
These realizations are leading flood- plain
managers at all levels of government toward
a different approach: cooperating with na
The
ture rather than trying to subdue it. The
overflow
emphasis increasingly is on keeping new
Flood
Channel
fringe
wetlands
Floodway
Wetlands. the most
The natural ways of the river
prominent and familiar
Flooded river under natural conditions apreads
of flood-plain features.
beyond normal channel and Into floodway, where
harbor an especially rich
water slows down. Flood fringe, within which
assembly of plants. animals
there is at least a 1 percent chance of flooding
and microbes. Wellands and
in a given year, marks limit of 100-year flood
the narrow strips of green
plain. When water is squeezed into a
habitat along streams depend
narrow channel by levees or
on occasional flooding and are
floodwalls, its height and velocity
destroyed or degraded when
increase. When pent-up flood
water 18 cut off by levees or
tops or breaches a levee, the
diversion channels
effect can be like that of a
Levee
bursting dam.
Levee
Rivers deprived of wetlands
About 54
percent of the
original 215 million
acres of wetlands in
the 48 contiguous
them
16%
states have been lost
since Curopean
settlement Most of the
loss resulted from
drainage to create farms
Ris
of Denying Rivers Their Floo
lains
Saciele
Passale River
Rever
Wayne
quire wetland habitat The riparian
communities that believe they are
Heckenseck
Rever
Continued From Page CI
zone along rivers IS home to distinct
The burst levees on
protected. Images from the Missis-
assemblages of soils. microbes
sippt basin this past week have grim-
NEW
plants and animals that depend on
ly borne this out. The remaining levee
80
ning in the central United States. The
JERSEY
more natural approach to flood con-
the Mississippi may
high water tables and occasional
system may subsequently prevent
95
flooding.
water from draining back mto the
might seek ILS greatest success
block the return of
development IS poised to
People originally settled along nv-
river. prolonging the flood. The task
ers because they provided water,
force reported that levee or flood-wall
Proposed
NEW
move 0010 the flood plain But partic-
JERSEY
ularty for areas already developed,
the flood waters.
transport and power. That IS no long.
failure is involved in one-third of all
tunnel
TPKE
Mr. Kitch said. vou're going to end
er true, "but now the city is there,
flood disasters.
up with & balance' of structural and
said Mr. Larson. Later. people were
When a river's flow is consuricted,
plan might also prevent some devel-
drawn to flood plains because land
natural methods.
its sediments are no longer deposited
of
the
there was cheaper. By 1991. accord-
to fertilize the flood plain but instead
GARDEN
Flood-contm
dies
future
opment.
Kearma
STATE
likely 10 invoive the tricky air
Critics sav the plan comes down too
ing to an interagency Federal task
may be dropped within the narrow
PKWY
contentious issue of just what balance
little on the side of nature. They favor
force on flood plains that issued a
river channel just outside the levee.
should be struck. A classic example IS
sharply restricting development in
report last year. flood-plain land in
This in time raises the height of the
Newark
Newark
the entire central and upper basin,
17,000 communities occupied more
the long running controversy about
river, and the levee must be height-
Bay
floods along the Passaic River water.
buying out flood plain residents and
than 145,000 acres and included near.
ened in turn. "In general. a river
shed in northern New Jersey. Towns
acquiring far more natural flood stor-
ly 10 million households and $390 bil-
wants to recreate itself as a river
have existed in the watershed's lower
age acreage than the plan now calls
lion in property.
with a flood plain; it's rising in re-
reaches for years. while other parts
for. Critics also raise fears about the
This large-scale development. ac.
sponse to these rising levees," said
of the basin are only now becoming
ecological impact, of a rush of fresh
cording to the task force. has come at
James T.B. Tripp. an expert OD
ripe for development.
flood waters into the marine environ-
"a high price extracted annually in
floods with the Environmental De-
The basin IS one of the most flood-
ment of Newark Bay. Some oppose
deaths, personal injury and suffering.
fense Fund. "River systems have a
The New York Times
prone in the country. Over the past
the construction of the tunnel under
economic loss and damage to or de-
way of adjusting themselves in re-
decades, various portions of it have
any conditions The issue has divided
struction of natural and cultural re-
sponse to human manipulation of the
If the property IS flooded a second
providing wildlife habitat and pro-
been declared Federal disaster areas
politicians and citizens and has be-
sources." Despite extensive and ex-
flood plain in ways that can never be
time and IS still uninsured, owners
moting recreation. The system was
seven times Some flooding occurs
come an issue in the New Jersey
pensive efforts over the years to CON-
entirely foreseen."
are on their own
tested by major floods in 1979 and
almost every year. and the Corps of
Governor's race. Gov. Jim Florio, a
trol floods through public works (the
A better approach, according to the
Engineers estimates that a record
democrat. has reframed from taking
Corps of Engineers has built 10,500
Natural Flood Control a Success
1982 and each ume performed effec-
emerging new wisdom. IS to get the
lively.
flood. like that of 1903, would cause $2
a position for or against the tunnel,
miles of levees and flood walls alone).
river to work for you rather than
The Tulsa system has been tested
The city of Littleton, Colo., estab-
billion BY damages.
pending an environmental impact
inflation-adjusted flood damages per
against you. The new approaches
by storms that would have been ex-
lished a $25-ecre park in its flood
Under a point Federal-state project
study to be completed by the Corps of
capital were almost 2.5 times as great
may be best suited to smaller rivers,
pected to cause serious flooding in
plain to attenuate floods rather than
authorized by Congress but not yet
Engineers in 1995: his Republican
in the period from 1951 to 1985 as
but these spawn most of the flash
earlier years and has passed with
allow the South Platte River to be
finally approved by the state. the
opponent, Christine Todd Whitman, 15
from 1916 through 1950.
floods, and flash floods are responsi-
flying colors, said Jack Page, who
channeled. An the San Francisco
Corps of Engineers has proposed a
against the tunnel arguing that that
Part of this may be attributed to a
ble for three-fourths of all Presiden-
oversees development for the city. He
Bay area community of North Rich-
hybrad solution. The Passaic's flood
buying out flood plain residents would
growing ratio of construction to popu-
ually declared disasters.
mond, citizens successfully brought
waters would be shunted underneath
be less expensive. The corps argues
lation, but levees themselves evident-
After a 1984 flash flood killed 13
about the creation of a naturally me-
developed areas through a $2 billion,
the opposite.
ly contribute to the escalation They
people and caused $180 million in
andering flood channel and restored
mile-long tunnel terminating in
Flood plains, the subject of this and
are the most common type of flood-
property damage in Tulsa, Okla_ for
Rivers have a way of
the stream-side ecosystem in a way
Bay. The idea of the tunnel.
many other disputes across the coun-
control measure, and when they fail,
instance, the city and the Corps of
that would maintain ecological health
corps officials say. 15 to avoid disturb-
try. are among the most productive
as they have many times in the Mis-
Engineers collaborated to create a
ecosystems in the world. When
sissippi basin in recent weeks, they
adjusting themselves
while accommodating once-in-a-cen-
ing the land The plan also calls for
more natural flood-control system.
the state to buy up more than 5,000
make the damage worse. The Fed-
They scooped out a series of perma-
tury floods.
flooded in spring, they become breed-
acres of wetlands on the flood plain to
ing grounds for fish. Most flood plain
eral task force noted that a breached
nent lakes in a greenway corridor set
in response to human
In the end. if Mr. Larson and Mr.
as a catchment to reduce flood
acreage 15 wetlands, and about hall
levee, like a breaking dam, can rea-
aside in Tulsa's Mingo Creek flood
Tripp are right, there simply may be
volume and speed. As a result. the
the country's endangered species re
lease a large wave at high velocity on
plain. Most of the takes are dry, and
manipulation.
no way to protect against the very
when there is no flood the lake box-
worst floods, no matter what strategy
toms are occupied by soccer and
is employed. "We've got to figure out
baseball fields and tennis courts.
sees "more acceptance of 'soft' engi-
some way to help people understand
When there IS a flood. the lakes store
that Mother Nature will reclaim
neering; we're getting away from the
and slow down the water. They are
what's hers from time to time." said
concrete and the pipes and are leav.
connected by a network of "trickle
Mr. Larson. "We must keep that in
ing the channel in a natural state."
trails" that serve as jogging paths in
The Corps of Engineers says it con-
mind when we go to build our commu-
dry times and low-flow flood channels
nities and cities and try to find a way
siders the Tulsa project a model.
in wet ones.
Other localities have moved in this
to live in harmony with nature."
At the So ie time, development in
direction as well, often with corps
To which Mr. Tripp adds: "We can
the flood plain IS strictly regulated.
involvement. As a pioneering alterna-
try and manage these river systems
Developers must build their own de-
tive to dams and levees in the Charles
to some degree, but we've got to be
tention ponds to make up for the
River basin of metropolitan Boston,
prepared to accommodate ourselves
increased flow that paving causes.
for example, the corps purchased or
to the river. If we think we can do
Buildings in harm's way must be
secured easements on 8,500 acres of
chings to rivers so they will never
flood-proofed. usually with raised
wetlands to contain floods while also
flood. we re naive.
piers. One result is that developers
have been discouraged from building
in the flood plain - a counterforce.
possibly, to whatever incentive 10 de-
velopment may be provided by Fed-
eral disaster relief and flood insur-
ance
Only 15 to 30 percent of the nation's
The New York Times
flood-prone structures are actually
Correction: Water Temperature Differences
insured by the supposediv self-financ-
ing National Flood Insurance Pro-
A map in Science Times last Tuesday showing the temperature differences between deep ocean
gram. according to the flood plain
water and surface water misstated them. This is a corrected version.
task force. Disaster relief is available
to an uninsured property only once:
OFFICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
SECURITY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
August 23, 1993
To:
Army Corps of Engineers
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Department of Agriculture
Department of Transportation
Department of Interior
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Environmental Protection Agency
Small Business Administration
Other Relevant Agencies
From:
T.J. Glauthier, Associate Director, Natural Resources,
Energy and Science, Office of Management and Budget
Katie McGinty, Director, White House
Office
Environmental Policy
Re:
Procedures for Evaluation and Review of Repair and
Restoration Projects for Levees
The purpose of this guidance is to ensure the proper
consideration of relevant options for repair, reconstruction, and
other alternatives to levee restoration necessitated by flood
damage. It also is intended to ensure that relevant
organizations have the opportunity to comment on project
specifications and suggest appropriate modifications. The
overall goal is to achieve a rapid and effective response to the
damaged flood control system that will minimize risk to life and
property, ensure a cost-effective approach to flood damage
mitigation and floodplain management, and protect important
environmental and natural resource values.
This guidance should be viewed as an opportunity to allow
consideration of alternatives with input from Federal, State, and
local interests. It is not intended to deny any party access to
existing programs for levee repair and restoration, to create
unexpected delays, or to force alternatives to repair and
restoration on unwilling participants. Nor does this contravene
any existing statutory or other requirements.
In acting upon applications for levee repair and restoration
of damages incurred as a result of the Midwest floods of 1993,
responsible Federal agencies shall follow procedures below:
At the time of initiating evaluation of proposals for repair
and restoration of flood-damaged levees, each agency shall
notify the appropriate agencies represented in the Disaster
Field Office (DFO), so that interested agencies may
contribute to the evaluation process. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency shall provide space at its DFOs for
representatives of relevant agencies.
In evaluating applications for levee repair and restoration
in the region of the Midwest floods of 1993, each agency
shall consider, to the extent practical, nonstructural
alternatives and design modifications that could provide
greater local benefits of flood control, reduction of future
potential flood damages to the applicant and adjacent
upstream and downstream localities, lower long-term cost to
the Federal government, and natural resource protection.
Agencies are encouraged to include other interested agencies
during their evaluation process, to the extent practicable.
Prior to final action on each application, project proposals
shall be made available for review and comment to other
Federal and State agencies and local interests represented
at the applicable DFO for a minimum period of 24 hours
(excluding weekends and holidays). Comments are to be made
available to the projects' applicants. Agencies shall take
these comments into consideration when making final project
decisions.
On a monthly basis, each agency shall report to the Office
of Management and Budget and the Office on Environmental
Policy on the status of levee repair and restoration,
including: applications received, comments received, and
actions taken.
MODEL FOR ACTION -- INTERAGENCY ALTERNATIVE FLOOD CONTROL
COMMITTEE
A)
Interagency Coordination
Change the name of the Levee Reconstruction and Wetlands
Committee to the Alternative Flood Control Committee.
Break up the Alternative Flood Control Committee into five
subcommittees:
1) Economic Analysis
2) Emergency Priorities
3) Alternative Flood Control Science
4) Key Agency Programs and Authorities for Coordination
of Disaster Mitigation Teams
5) Data Needs
(Participation should not be limited to Federal Agencies).
B)
Coordination with NGOs
C)
Coordination with States and State Compacts
We need a Comprehensive River Plan.
AUG 12 '93 11:58AM USFWS COLUMBIA, MO
P.2%
The River Floodway Concept -
A Reasonable and Common Sense Alternative for Flood Control
Prepared by
Jerry L Rasmussen
Large River Fisheries Coordinator
and
Jim Milligan
Fisheries Resources Office Supervisor
Region 3
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Columbia, MO 65293
The lengthy quotation which follows was taken from the: Missouri Basin States Association.
1983. Missouri River Flood Plain Study - Final Report, Billings, MT. It builds a good case for
implementing a floodway on the Missouri River, and elsewhere, in response to the "Great Flood
of 1993". Figure 1, shown below, captures the concept.
"The need for increased levels of flood plain management along the Missouri River has
been recognized by state and federal water resource planners and managers for many
years. Development of the flood plain along 753 river miles, covering nearly 2 million
acres in five states (South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri) has given rise
to a wide varicty of management problems. Of fundamental concern to flood plain
planners and managers, is the slow but continual loss of floodway conveyance capacity
and evidence that river stages are increasing during periods of flooding. This loss has
been attributed to bank stabilization and navigation structures, accretion of land in and
along the channel, construction of agricultural and other private levees within the
floodway, and construction of facilities in the floodway that are related to public,
commercial. or industrial development. The weak, fragmented and inconsistent legal and
administrative framework has been another major concern. Authority for management
of the flood plain is divided vertically among various levels of governments,
geographically by five states, and functionally through various state and federal agencies
which makes it difficult to achieve a coordinated, compatible approach.
Floodway (3000-5000 11. wide)
Federal
leves
Dry Year
8.10 $1000 level
Formlond
Permanent Formland
Farmanent Flsh
Normal Water Level
a wildlife Londs
Natural
Novigation
Levee
Channel
Figure 1. Hypothetical floodway showing various possible land uses. Any mix of the navigation
channel and other land use could occur along any given river reach.
AUG 12 '93 11:59AM USFWS COLUMBIA, MO
P.36
'In the study area, encroachment takes the form of residential, commercial, industrial
and farm structures, transportation and utility systems, levees and river control
structures, and recreational facilities. Throughout the study area, the bank stabilization
project has been the most pervasive improvement which has reduced the carrying
capacity of the channel and floodway. Through it, the overall channel width has been
progressively narrowed, and numerous secondary channels (chutes) have either been
silted in or closed off by successional processes into forested or other wetlands. The
lateral dikes induce increased hydraulic resistance along the banks and have also
narrowed flow width. Furthermore, the channel areas land ward of the protruding dikes
have progressively filled, creating accretion land. This land is then converted to crop
land, which then is often protected by levees.
'Analysis of discharge/stage trends plotted over the past 30 years provide an indication of
the effect of encroachments on the flow characteristics of the channel and adjacent over
bank areas. These curves between Omaha and the mouth indicate rotation, with stages
shifting upward in the higher discharge range. In Reach 2, the Nebraska City gaging
station is illustrative. At normal flows of 30,000 to 40,000 cfs, stages have been constant
over time. At 100,000 cfs, however, there has been a 4 to 5 ft. rise since the 1930's. In
addition. channel capacity has been reduced from 150,000 to about 90,000 cfs. At St.
Joseph in Reach 3 a similar trend was observed, although a channel cutoff does confuse
the situation somewhat. In Reach 4, for conditions near bankful at 200,000 cfs, rises of 2
to 3 ft. are indicated at the Waverly and Boonville gaging stations. At Hermann, while
no clear indication of a rising trend occurs at flows 300,000 cfs or less, a 3 to 4 ft.
increase is indicated at discharges of 400,000 to 500,000 cfs. Near the mouth of the
river, the Missouri River Flood Plain River Stage and Levee Inventory Study did not
analyze stage/discharge trends- or project estimated effects of the 1844 flood onto
today's condition. However, data in the 1974 Baseline (Vol. II) study by the Corps of
Engineers, Kansas City District, indicates that the 1844 flood would now crest about 10
ft. higher at Boonville and 12 ft. higher at Hermann. An unpublished river
stage/discharge study by C.B. Belt, Washington University (1980) provides data at St.
Charles. It was estimated that a 5 ft. stage increase would occur under a bankful
discharge of 200,000 cfs, while a 7 to 8 ft. stage rise would occur at 500,000 cfs.
'Historically the Pick-Sloan plan and the bank stabilization and navigation project have
been the catalyst for development along the Missouri River. They did not, however,
provide a comprehensive approach to flood plain management or development. The
Pick-Sloan Plan was authorized to provide a 3,000-ft. flow way from Sioux City, Iowa to
Kansas City, Missouri and a 5,000-ft. flow way from Kansas City to St. Louis. The
concept was structural in approach as Congress did not contemplate supplemental
regulation. While the plan progressed in the 50's and 60's, it ground to nearly a
standstill in the 70's, largely due to economic considerations and lack of local acceptance
by levee districts and a few landowners along the riverbank who would be adversely
affected. By contrast, the bank stabilization project did not encounter difficulties and
was completed in 1980.
'As an operational flood plain management tool, the Pick-Sloan Plan is no longer
considered viable because: (1) adequate returns in terms of flood loss savings do not
2
AUG 12 '93 12:00PM USFWS COLUMBIAW MO
F.476
exist for structural measures, and (2) the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program)
approach, nonstructurally oriented, is now being emphasized. The Pick-Sloan Plan
utilized the concept of equal and opposite levee setback for flow way encroachment, or
the idea that equal amounts of land on opposite sides of the river would be dedicated to
flow way purposes. Under this concept, the property owners can easily determine how
far they can encroach into the flood plain as a levee defines the floodway border. The
bank stabilization project was not conceived to provide either flood plain management or
flood control benefits. However, it did stabilize the banks, prevented the destruction of
considerable development from bank erosion, and has made the flood plain appear a
safer place for development"
The Pick Sloan Plan which created the large Missouri River reservoirs in the Dakotas and
Montana thus also authorized a floodway from Sioux City, IA to the mouth at St. Louis, MO.
As stated in the above quotation from the Missouri Basin States Association, this floodway was
not completed, in large part, because of landowner opposition. These same landowners will now
(in 1993), undoubtedly look to the government to assist in the recovery of private lands and
property that perhaps could have been protected had the proposed Pick-Sloan floodway been
implemented.
The following questions thus beg to be answered:
(1) Should society pay flood damages to landowners who are reported (by the Missouri
Basin States Association) to have prevented completion of the Pick-Sloan floodway?
(2) Should the Pick-Sloan floodway be implemented now to prevent future losses?
The latter seems to be the "common sense approach" to future flood damage reduction. Large
portions of the Missouri River floodplain between Sioux City and St. Louis experienced
extensive flooding in 1951, 1952, 1973, 1984, and 1986; and now again in 1993. When is enough,
enough!
Pick-Sloan should thus be re-evaluated in light of the current flood, environmental
considerations, increasing flood stages, and escalating damage claims. Implementation of the
Pick-Sloan floodway would not only provide flood control benefits, but significant benefits to
fish and wildlife species; possibly even heading off the impending listing of endangered species.
The floodway (Figure 1) authorized by Pick-Sloan between Sioux City, Iowa and Kansas City,
Missouri was 3000 ft. wide. Average width of the Missouri River channel in that reach is 700
ft., leaving 2300 additional feet needed to complete the authorized floodway (in theory 1150 feet
on each side of the river). This corridor, stretched over the 383 mile reach in question totals
106,857 acres in area. Pick-Sloan authorized a 5,000 ft. flood way from Kansas City to the
mouth at St. Louis. Average width of the River channel in this reach is 1200 ft., leaving an
additional 3800 feet needed to create the authorized floodway (in theory 1900 feet on each side
of the river). This corridor stretched over the 367 mile reach in question totals 169,042 acres in
area. Total acreage authorized for a floodway from the head of navigation, just above Sioux
City, Iowa to the mouth is thus 275,899 acres. This would provide a significant amount of flood
storage capacity.
3
AUG 12 '93 12:00PM USFWS COLUMBIA, MO
P.5 E.
Missouri River bank stabilization and navigation projects have caused the direct loss of 100,300
acres of aquatic and 374,300 acres of terrestrial habitat in the floodplain between Sioux City and
St. Louis. Those losses have occurred in the 300,000 acres formerly covered by the natural river
and an adjacent 364,000 acres of active floodplain erosion zone.
Channelization has also shortened this reach by approximately 127 miles (1980 USFWS
Coordination Act Report). Much of this loss is attributable to accretion of land in formerly
diverse floodplain habitat and its subsequent conversion to private land and intensive
agriculture. The vast majority of this land is now also protected by levees which contribute to
further floodplain encroachment, development and habitat losses.
Aquatic riverine habitat losses have directly impacted native Missouri River fishes. The pallid
sturgeon is federally-listed as endangered and five other species (lake sturgeon, paddlefish,
sicklefin chub, sturgeon chub and blue sucker) are C-2 candidates under review for listing.
Many other native Missouri River fish stocks are severely depleted.
River biologists generally equate the current threatened status of these fish stocks to losses in
quantity and quality of habitats such as sloughs, chutes, backwaters, braided channels, wetlands,
etc. Isolation of the river from its floodplain through levee and dike encroachment and flow
modification to eliminate the natural hydrograph (periodic seasonal flood pulses) have reduced
nutrient and carbon inputs, while restricting access to seasonally flooded spawning and nursery
habitat. The result is an expanding list of endangered, threatened and depleted fishes.
There are two essential elements to achieve optimum restoration and recovery of Missouri River
fish stocks. The first of these is re-establishing some measure of the natural hydrograph which
includes a spring flood pulse. The Corps of Engineers Master Manual review (currently
underway) is looking at a large number of Missouri River operating alternatives. Some of these
are environmental quality (EQ) alternatives which require implementation of a modified natural
hydrograph.
The second essential element is to restore and re-create quantity and diversity of riverine
habitats and insure access to seasonal habitats and nutrient inputs through overbank flooding.
This can best be accomplished through implementation of a floodway concept (Figure 1)
involving setback levees to provide floodway capacity as envisioned in the original Pick-Sloan
Plan.
The estimated costs of implementing the floodway concept are great, but shrink quickly in
comparison to the estimated $12 billion dollars [reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (8-6-
93)] needed for damage recovery from the 1993 flood, and to the $25 billion [reported by the
Kansas City Star (7-17-93)] spent by the Corps of Engineers since 1927 to build the existing
levees, dams, and channels along the Missouri River, Mississippi River and their tributaries.
Fee title acquisition of the entire Missouri River floodway would involve 275,899 acres at an
estimated cost of $231,755,160. Flood easements could be used in lieu of acquisition on some
lands, thereby allowing it to remain in agriculture, but subject to periodic flood losses.
Additional costs may be incurred for levee construction at the limits of the designated floodway.
4
AUG 12 '93 12:01PM USFWS COLUMBIA, MO
P.6/6
Cost estimates are based upon recent acquisitions of $1,100/acre for levee protected cropland,
$600/acre for unprotected cropland and $300/acre for forest, wetland and shrub land. It is
further assumed that approximately 60% of the acreage is in levee protected cropland, 20% is
unprotected cropland and 20% is forest, wetland, shrub, etc.
A quarter of a billion dollar investment in such a floodway is thus a rather reasonable and
insignificant one-time cost for future protection against repeating the estimated billions lost to
this flood. The "Great Flood of 93" can provides a rare opportunity to serve the national
interest by re-evaluating and pursuing the long overdue floodway alternative on the Missouri
and other large rivers, while avoiding future human and economic loss. Many costly and
pervasive problems could be resolved in this single, all-encompassing action.
Recurrent flood damages, economic losses and government disaster relief costs would be greatly
reduced or eliminated. Many natural resource and endangered species issues could be resolved
without the great expense and controversy of listing. Most of the economic values associated
with the river such as recreation, water supply and hydropower would be unaffected or
enhanced. Flood control would be enhanced, but there would be some loss of navigation
benefits and agricultural production within the floodway. Some of this could likely be mitigated
by providing for agricultural farming leases in dry years when water in the system does not
occupy the entire floodway.
Implementation of the floodway concept also provides a grand opportunity to implement
national objectives for biodiversity and ecosystem based management, while avoiding another of
the costly, divisive and controversial "train wrecks" Interior Secretary Babbitt has referred to in
reference to the spotted owl/developmental issue in the Northwest.
The current flood was, without a doubt a great human and economic disaster, however, if our
leaders chose, the flood can also provide the stimulus necessary to focus public attention on an
opportunity to get out in front of the flooding problem, and address many controversial issues at
one time. Implementation of some form of the floodway can do just that. Strong, decisive
leadership at state, local, and federal levels will be needed to make this happen!
5
8/24/78
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) Addressing
Long-Term Recovery from the Great Flood of '93
INTRODUCTION: There exists a requirement for a dual track
process to address both the emergency rehabilitation of some 500
levees along the Mississippi/Missouri River system that were
breached or otherwise damaged as a result of the 1993 midwest
floods and a collateral effort to review the situation affecting
the remaining 1000 - 1200 levees in the longer term. The
Disaster Field Office (DFO) coordination and approval process,
established by the Office of Environmental Policy/Office of
Management and Budget (OEP/OMB), installed "on-the-ground"
decision-making authority and dispute resolution elevation
mechanisms for the emergency mode which has been agreed upon and
implemented among the appropriate governmental bodies. This
paper outlines a parallel track based upon the recognized process
of programmatic environmental impact statements (PEIS). This
dual process offers both dispute resolution and intergovernmental
coordination for the longer term issues while allowing the
immediate emergency levee rehabilitation work to proceed at a
timely pace.
PURPOSE: The PEIS would serve as a catalyst bringing the federal
agencies together with local sponsors and local, state, and
Tribal governments to develop a programmatic-level, comprehensive
approach to coordinated long-term recovery and subsequent
management of the greater Mississippi River System (including the
Missouri River) floodplain and watershed impacted by or
contributing to the flood. The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process, generally understood by the federal agencies, and
recognized by the public as a coordination tool, provides a
mechanism to assess the broad alternatives available.
The PEIS would address working within the current system of
federal policies, practices and programs and it would look to
revise those policies, practices and programs through legislative
changes or changes within agency purview and, thereby, serve to
unify the federal and states' floodplain management policies with
each other and with other national goals (e.g., address wetlands
losses). It would serve as a mechanism to address avoidance and
minimization of flood damages from repeat flood disasters while
enhancing potential ecological values. It would also serve to
address flood impact minimization to landowners formerly
protected by levees that are not receiving federal rehabilitation
assistance. It would guide development of site-specific options.
Its analyses would be at a programmatic level.
The simultaneous goals of the PEIS effort would be:
To reduce repeated flood loss damages and thereby reduce
the cost of the flood events to individuals and publicly
sponsored works (e.g., roads, sewage treatment plants, levees)
To restore the natural and beneficial functions and
values of the Upper Mississippi and Missouri River floodplains
DRAFT
and watersheds, and
To coordinate federal actions and responsibilities and
coordinate these with state, tribal and local responsibilities
and actions.
MANAGEMENT OF THE PEIS: We would recommend that the Corps of
Engineers be the Lead Agency responsible for preparation of the
PEIS due to its in-house planning and engineering expertise and
experience with implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The OEP/OMB would provide oversight. While the Corps
is nominally the lead, the nature of the proposal requires
conferring upon FEMA, USDA, EPA, HUD, DOI, and DOT full and
active involvement as the Cooperating Agencies. The Cooperating
Agencies would assist by identifying alternatives, performing
research and analysis necessary to frame the alternatives and
their impacts, and in writing sections of the PEIS. Other
agencies may also wish to become involved as Cooperating
Agencies.
An Interagency PEIS Planning Team, with the Corps
representative being the Project and Team Manager, is suggested.
The Interagency PEIS Planning Team would be composed of 2
representatives (one from headquarters and one from the field or
regional office) knowledgeable of their agencies' issues,
programs, and capabilities. The agency representatives would be
responsible for coordinating PEIS support activities with the
remainder of their agency.
There may also be a need for a non-governmental body, i.e.,
independent panel, to review data and models used in PEIS
analyses.
ISSUE RESOLUTION: The unique interagency character of this
proposal requires that a mechanism be established at the outset
of this effort to raise and resolve interagency disputes. Issues
unable to be resolved via consensus by the Interagency PEIS
Planning Team could be raised by any Team Member to its
counterpart member of the Office of Environmental Policy/Office
of Management and Budget Long-Term Recovery Task Force for
consideration and resolution. Where resolution is not possible,
that issue will be identified in the draft PEIS for public
comment.
PUBLIC COORDINATION: Involvement of national and local elected
representatives including tribal, state, and local governments,
non-governmental organizations and the general public is critical
to the success of the PEIS to address coordinated and
comprehensive approach to long-term recovery of the impacted
ares. Public coordination and consultation would occur
throughout the PEIS planning effort. Beyond normal NEPA scoping
procedures, regional workshops are recommended.
2
DRAFT
TIME FRAME: It is anticipated that with full interagency support
the PEIS process could be completed in ten (10) months. To meet
this admittedly optimistic timeframe will require expeditious
handling of issues, activities, mobilization of federal research
laboratories, dedication of a large number of staff, and
contractor assistance. A rough breakdown of the actions follows:
Scoping (Sept 1 - Oct 31)
Analysis/Modeling (Sept 1 - Dec 15)
Draft EIS preparation (Sept 1 - Jan 31 (Notice of
Availability)
Public Review (45 days, ends March 15)
Final PEIS preparation (March 15 - April 30)
Public Review (30 days, ends June 1)
Record of Decision (June 30)
Public coordination and consultation would occur throughout the
PEIS planning effort.
ATTACHMENTS: A Management Heirarchy Schematic and a descriptive
framework for the PEIS are attached.
3
DRAFT
RECOVERY PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENT
IMPACT STATEMENT
Schematic representation of
Management Heirarchy
LEAD AGENCY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
EPA
DOT
COOPERATIVE
AGENCIES
DOI
FEMA
HUD
USDA
others?
POTENTIAL LOCAL SPONSERS
AND STAKEHOLDERS
SPORTING AND
LEVEE DISTRICTS
LANDOWNERS
RECREATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS
STATE FLOOD PLAIN
MANAGERS
TRIBES
ENVIRONMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS
STATE RESOURCE
AGENCIES
STATE WETLAND
MANAGERS
DRAFT
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on
the Long-Term Recovery and Management of the
Upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers Watersheds
NOTE: This proposed draft outline provides the basic structure
for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and
examples of some of the issues that could be addressed in the
PEIS. The examples are not intended to be a comprehensive list
of all the issues, policy questions and environmental values that
would be addressed in the PEIS.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Summary of key conclusions and findings including unavoidable
impacts, irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources,
relationship between short-term and long-term uses of resources,
site-specific versus policy questions, maintenance of long-term
productivity, and impacts of the no-action alternative. It
identifies areas of controversy and unresolved issues. the
Executive Summary summarizes how environmental laws (e.g., the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Clean Water Act,
Endangered Species Act, Farmland Protection and Policy Act,
Stafford Disaster Assistance Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, National Historical Preservation Act, etc.), executive
orders (E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and E.O. 11988,
Floodplain Management), and other policies were considered.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PEIS
A PEIS would be an appropriate vehicle to serve as a
catalyst bringing the federal agencies together with
state resource, planning and regulatory agencies,
Tribal governments and other potential local sponsors
to develop a comprehensive approach to long-term
recovery and subsequent operation and management of the
greater Mississippi River System (including the
Missouri River). The process, generally understood by
the federal agencies and recognized by the public as a
coordination tool, provides a mechanism to assess the
broad alternatives available. It would address working
within the current system of federal policies,
1
DRAFT
practices and programs and it could look at options to
revise those policies, practices and programs through
legislative changes or changes within agency purview
and, thereby, serve to unify the federal and states'
floodplain management policies and other national goals
(e.g., address wetlands losses). It could also serve
to develop a process for developing site-specific
options.
The simultaneous goals of this effort are:
To reduce repeat flood loss damages and thereby
reduce the cost of the flood events to individuals and
publicly sponsored works (e.g., roads, sewage treatment
plants, levees)
To restore the natural and beneficial functions
and values of the Upper Mississippi and Missouri
River floodplains and watersheds, and
To coordinate responsibilities between federal
agencies and with state, Tribal and local agencies
or entities.
1.2 FUNCTION AND SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT
This section describes the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) including
$1501.2 which directs agencies to "integrate the NEPA
process with other planning at the earliest possible time to
ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental
values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to head
off potential conflicts." The scope of the proposed PEIS
will be based on, but not unduly limited by, programmatic
issues raised by federal, state and local agencies and the
public (including landowners, environmental groups and
businesses) throughout the process of developing the PEIS.
This PEIS addresses a programmatic coordinated,
comprehensive approach to long-term recovery with greater
levels of coordinated management of the watershed to take
advantage of its natural and beneficial values. The level
of detail would be consistent with a programmatic analysis.
1.3 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
1.4 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
1.5 REGULATORY, POLICY AND ASSISTANCE FRAMEWORK
1.6 RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS AND ONGOING NEPA ACTIONS (e.g.,
Corps' Upper Missouri River Master Manual, Lock and Dam 26
2
DRAFT
activities, Mississippi River Fish and Wildlife Restoration
activities) The relationship of this PEIS to ongoing
studies and NEPA actions would be explained in this section.
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
This section describes the current situation (no action
alternative) and the proposed alternatives to it.
2.1 PROPOSED ACTION: TO BE DEVELOPED
This section describes the establishment of a unified
federal policy regarding the recovery and subsequent
management of the floodplains of the Upper Mississippi and
Missouri Rivers.
2.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE: PRE-FLOOD POLICIES AND PRE-FLOOD
AND POST-FLOOD CONDITIONS
This section establishes the basis for comparing the impacts
of proposed alternatives. It discusses the probable events
and environmental impacts that will occur under existing
plans and policies.
2.3 ALTERNATIVES: Any number of alternatives that are
reasonable and serve to sharply define the programmatic
issues. This section describes the wide variety of federal
environmental and financial policy and program options that
should be examined and possibly pursued. Issues meriting
discussion within the context of one or more alternatives
include:
actions that reduce the rate of inflow from the
watershed (e.g., restoration of wetlands, improved soil
and water retention practices)
siting and design of federal, state, and local
government and other publicly owned or sponsored
facilities with natural flood control and non-
structural flood risk minimization measures
utilization of and targeting federal programs that
would assist floodplain management and flood loss
reduction (e.g.,
the Corps' Pick-Sloan authorization to secure
3000 ft. to 5000 ft of the width of Missouri
floodway;
the DOI's Partners of Wildlife effort [Fish and
Wildlife Act of 1956], North American Waterfowl
Management Plan program [North American Wetlands
Conservation Act of 1989], and targeting National
Wildlife Refuge System acquisitions;
the USDA's Wetlands Reserve Program and Farmers
Home Administration wetland easement and land
transfers for conservation purposes [Agricultural
Credit Act of 1987];
the FEMA's programs of relocation and buy out of
property; and
3
DRAFT
sales by the Resolution Trust Corporation).
strengthening and reinforcing levees and dikes in
urban and industrial areas
alternative levee design and construction methods
relocation of floodplain structures through new and
existing incentive programs
putting incentive programs on an even keel with
rebuild to pre-flood options
flood proofing floodplain dependent structures (e.g.,
waste water treatment plants, drinking water treatment
facilities, existing toxic/hazardous waste sites and
solid waste landfills)
requirements that runoff and flood storage capacity
be built into projects qualifying for federal
assistance, permits, or licenses.
using wetlands as natural flood retention basins
exploring the true costs of federal payments
associated with current operations along the river
(e.g., crop insurance VS. levee rehabilitation;
improved water quality vs. drinking water treatment
costs)
federal, state and local acquisition of wetlands in
higher order streams to assist continued functions
obtaining commitments on floodplain management from
local governments
identifying areas suitable for greenways (floodways
in urban areas that serve recreation and other natural
and beneficial uses)
coordinated authority for floodplain activities
(e.g., a floodplain management act similar to the
Coastal Zone Management Act)
moving businesses and residences to higher grounds
(relocation program of Upton-Jones Act)
flood proofing residences and businesses
providing additional storm water retention ponds in
urbanized and sub-urbanized areas to assist addressing
non-point source water quality issues and
asynchronization of flood peaks
coordinated federal position on farming/crop
insurance in areas between federal levees
coordination on river flows management
flexibility to manage rivers to allow for periodic
low flow flood events (e.g., allowing predictable 5-
year flood events to benefit endangered species
habitat)
sewage treatment plant construction and enhancement
priorities and opportunities
solid and hazardous waste monitoring, management or
removal
2.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
This section compares in brief the environmental effects of
4
DRAFT
the alternatives. The impacts of long-term recovery efforts
would look at the relationship of reconstruction activities
to flood peaks, duration, and associated flood damages
encountered in areas with high expected economic value,
areas with significant risk to human health and safety, or
areas with significant cultural or historic sites. It
would focus on both the economic and environmental
feasibility of incorporating alternative approaches to
reducing flood risk, flood damages, and federal payments
associated with natural disaster events (such as flood and
drought).
2.4.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES - OVERVIEW
2.4.2 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
ALTERNATIVES
A comparative summary of the impact analyses presented
in Chapter 5. It includes impacts to environmental
values, floodplains, wetlands, sediment/soil impacts,
natural systems, reconstruction integrating pollution
prevention and energy efficient values into its
planning and recovery efforts, and environmental
equity.
3.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
This section describes the way in which the scope of the
document was developed, the level and type of interagency
and intergovernmental coordination during preparation of the
document, and further stages of public participation that
will occur.
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This section identifies the pre-flood, current and
reasonably foreseeable future conditions of the environment
that might be impacted by alternatives proposed in the PEIS.
It will focus primarily on the upper Mississippi and
Missouri Rivers' watersheds, floodplains, and aquatic
habitat (only where significant potential impacts have and
may again occur).
4.1 Geology/Soils/Sediment/Hydrolog; (e.g., data on
watersheds' soil types, erosion, flood risk, flood peaks and
duration, floodplain storage)
4.2 Land use (includes identification of Prime and
Unique farmlands)
4.3 Socioeconomics
4.3.1 Demographic Characteristics
4.3.2 Employment and Income
4.3.3 Agricultural Characteristics
4.3.4 Economic Diversification
4.3.5 Insurance Programs
4.3.5.1 Flood Insurance
5
DRAFT
4.3.5.2 Crop Insurance
4.3.6 Commercial Shipping
4.3.7 Recreational Uses
4.4 Biological Resources
4.4.1 Terrestrial Habitats/Ecosystems (including
Endangered and Special Status Species)
4.4.2 Aquatic Habitats/Ecosystems (including
Endangered and Special Status Species)
4.5 Transportation
4.5.1 River (i.e., navigation issues)
4.5.2 Surface (e.g., road, rail, including bridges)
4.5.3 Pipeline
4.5.4 Air (i.e., commercial and general aviation
airports)
4.6 Hazardous/Municipal Waste and Toxic Chemicals
4.6.1 Control of Hazardous Chemicals
4.6.2 Municipal Solid Waste
4.6.3 Emergency Response Procedures
4.7 Air Quality
4.8 Water Quality
4.8.1 Drinking Water
4.8.1.1 Private Wells
4.8.1.2 Treatment facilities
4.8.2 Sewage Treatment
4.8.3 Instream Water Quality
4.8.4 Sediment Quality
4.9 Human Health and Safety
4.10 Cultural Resources
4.11 Visual resources
4.12 Recreation Resources
4.13 Others
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
This section discusses the direct, indirect and cumulative
impacts of each alternative.
5.1 ANALYTICAL METHODS
This section describes the methodology and procedures for
analyzing potential environmental impacts for elements
defined in 4.1 through 4.12, above.
5.2 ALTERNATIVE 1: PROPOSED ACTION
5.2.1 Geology/Soils/Sediment/Hydrology
Impacts to soil characteristics (nutrient,
erosion, compaction, etc.)
Stream erosion and deposition patterns
Flood storage impacts
Hydrograph impacts
5.2.2 Land use (includes identification of Prime
and Unique farmlands)
Impacts of varying levels of flood protection
6
DRAFT
on land use
Impacts of alternative recovery measures on
land use
Floodplain management
5.2.3
Socioeconomic
Shifts in population due to shifts in policy,
levels of protection
Impacts of relocation
Shifts in employment opportunities and income
Shifts in agricultural production (crops,
values)
Shifts in recreation opportunities
Federal savings from policy/program changes
5.2.4
Biological Resources
Effects on special habitats and species
Watershed planning benefits to habitat, water
quality, etc.
Flood storage capacity of natural areas
Hydrological impacts on biological resources
5.2.5
Transportation
Effects on availability, cost, choices, siting
Speed requirements
Siting of airport facilities
5.2.6 Hazardous /Municipal Waste and Toxic
Chemicals
Current practices/situation
Siting effects
Changes in quantity/character of waste in flood
zone
Changes in probability of incidents
5.2.7
Air Quality
Air quality impacts of open burning
Traffic flow impacts
Indoor air quality
5.2.8
Water Quality/Quantity
Effects of policies on drinking and wastewater
treatment plant location and technology
Effects on ground water quality and quantity
Effects on river water quality and quantity
Effects on river sediment quality
Cost savings from increased water quality (lower
treatment costs)
5.2.9 Human Health and Safety
Effects of floods of various levels on life,
injury, property safety
Effects on disease vectors
5.2.10 Cultural Resources
Effects on historical, tribal, architectural
and other cultural resources
5.2.11 Visual resources
Changes in visual quality
5.2.12 Recreation Resources
7
DRAFT
Changes in recreational opportunities, access,
quality
5.2.13 Others
5.3 ALTERNATIVE 2: NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Effects of continuing the status quo regarding policies,
priorities, procedures, projects, and reports on the status
of short-term recovery efforts. This analysis includes the
same elements as Alternative 1, above.
5.4 ALTERNATIVE 3 (and all other alternatives) : This
analysis includes the same elements as Alternative 1, above.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
This section pulls together and describes all commitments to
avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects.
7.0 REFERENCES
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
This section identifies the people and agencies that will
have substantial input in the preparation of the document
primarily by providing data, coordination or review.
9.0 INDEX
10.0 APPENDIXES (as necessary)
8
DRAFT
Table of Contents for August 25, 1993 Meeting Materials
Statement of Principles
1
Disaster Field Office Coordination
2
Suggested Alternatives to Levee Reconstruction
5
Appendix
DOI Programs and Capabilities
A-1
Statutory Authorities
A-8
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALTERNATIVE FLOOD CONTROL STRATEGIES
Statement of Principles
The Federal response to the 1993 flood should focus on both the restoration
of traditional flood risk protections (i.e., levees, drainage and diversion
facilities) and the use of alternative flood control measures.
Reconstruction priority should be placed on residential, industrial or
commercial lands, areas with significant risk to human health or safety, or
areas with cultural or historic sites.
Reconstruction in other areas must be proceeded by a careful assessment of:
the relationship of reconstruction activities to flood peaks, duration,
and associated flood problems encountered in residential, industrial or
commercial lands, areas with significant risk to human health or safety,
or areas with cultural or historic sites; and
the economic and environmental feasibility of incorporating alternative
approaches to reducing flood risk into the flood control system for the
area (e.g., floodplain floodwater storage, increasing flood water
retention, and wetland restoration in the watershed). Economic analysis
should include an evaluation of all costs and benefits over time
associated with the alternative.
Efforts to address flood control systems should include actions to reduce the
rate of inflow from the watershed (e.g., restoration of wetlands and improved
soil and water retention practices). The entire watershed should be
considered when determining where reconstruction and alternative flood control
measures will be implemented.
Reconstruction efforts should emphasize local cost-sharing as reflected in the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986. Waivers of cost-share provisions
should be considered if such waivers promote alternative flood control
strategies.
Repairs to Department of the Interior facilities and lands must conform to
these principles, and should be designed with natural flood control and
floodplain compatible management strategies as a primary consideration.
Using its existing authorities and capabilities, DOI will work with other
Federal agencies to reduce or eliminate, to the extent possible, the potential
for future flood-related problems and/or associated disaster payment outlays.
1
Disaster Field Office Coordination
Prepared by: DOI Alternative Flood Control Strategies Workgroup
The Department encourages a "Unified Federal Response" to develop and
implement a comprehensive river management program. Using our combined
resources, the agencies of the Federal government have the ability to create a
master plan for the river basin that accommodates economic, environmental and
cultural concerns.
The Department of the Interior will continue to work with the Disaster Field
Offices. Currently, Department representatives are working with the Corps of
Engineers reviewing individual levee repair proposals. In addition, the
Department is making staff available to participate as members of the
interagency hazard mitigation teams as well as to participate as appropriate
during the review of alternative approaches to levee reconstruction.
To facilitate rapid response and information transfer, the Department of the
Interior has designated a point-of-contact (see attached list) in each flooded
state to work with the Disaster Field Offices. These contacts will coordinate
the review of levee reconstruction proposals authorized, funded or carried out
by the Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service or the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. In the most heavily impacted states (Iowa, Illinois,
Missouri) the Department of the Interior contacts will be co-located with the
Disaster Field Offices.
Using its existing authorities and capabilities, DOI will work with other
Federal agencies to reduce or eliminate, to the extent possible, the potential
for future flood-related problems and/or associated disaster payment outlays.
2
8/19/93
Department of the Interior
Flood Response Contacts
State
Name
Address
North Dakota
Al Sapa
North Dakota State Office
1500 Capitol Avenue
Bismarck, ND 58501
701/250-4481
701/250-4400 FAX
South Dakota
Stan Zschombler
South Dakota State Office
420 So. Garfield Avenue
Pierre, SD 57501-4408
605/224-8693
605/224-9974 FAX
Kansas
Bill Gill
Kansas State Office
315 Houston, Suite E
Manhattan, KS 66502
913/539-3474
913/539-8567 FAX
Nebraska
Steve Anschutz
Field Supervisor-NE/KS
203 W. 2nd Street, 2nd Floor
Grand Island, NE 68801
308/381-5571
308/381-5512 FAX
Iowa
Jim Munsen
Walnut Creek NWR
P.O. Box 399
Prarie City, IA 50228
515/994-2415
515/994-2104 FAX
Illinois
Rick Nelson
Rock Island Field Office
4469 48th Avenue Court
Rock Island, IL 61201
309/793-5800
309/793-5804 FAX
Minnesota
Jim Fisher
Upper Mississippi NWR
51 East 4th Street
Room 101
Winona, MN 55987
507/452-4232
507/452-0851 FAX
Wisconsin
Eldon McLaury
US Fish and Wildlife Service
700 Rayovac Drive
Madison, WI 53711
608/264-5469
608/264-5472 FAX
Missouri
Jerry Rasmussen
Columbia Field Office
608 East Cherry Street
Columbia, MO 65201
314/876-1911
314/876-1914 FAX
Suggested Alternatives to Levee Reconstruction
The following is a list of Federal programs that should be considered as
alternatives to levee reconstruction or repair. This list was generated in
response to the August 20, 1993 memorandum from T.J. Glauthier and K. McGinty.
Corps of Engineers
The Floodway on the Missouri River authorized by the Pick-Sloan Plan which was
never implemented should be revisited. The floodway concept addresses the
issues of recurrent flood damages, personal and economic losses, government
disaster relief costs, natural resource and endangered species issues, and
National objectives for biodiversity and ecosystem based management, while
avoiding recurring costly, divisive and controversial developmental and
environmental conflicts. Evaluate the potential for implementation of the
floodway concept on other major river systems as well.
Revise Corps of Engineers policy to reflect the recognition by Upper
Mississippi and Illinois River management agencies that there needs to be a
balance between flood control and navigation and natural resources management
missions. The Corps of Engineers 9-foot navigation channel authority
dominates all other agencies and authorities such that wetlands protection and
restoration, fish and wildlife, recreation, and water quality are secondary
project purposes and suffer as a result.
Evaluate and recommend changes to current Corps of Engineers Policy relative
to federal flood reduction strategies and the possibility of ecosystem
management on the Upper Mississippi River.
Priorities for reconstruction, Each agency shall consider, to the extent
practical, nonstructural altenatives and design modifications that could
provide greater local benefits of flood control, reduction of future potential
flood damages to the applicant and adjacent upstream and downstream
localities, lower long-term cost to the Federal government, and natural
resource protection.
Based on the analysis of hydrology, topography and economic benefits, the
Corps of Engineers should consider levee realignment in conjunction with
floodplain management.
Each reconstruction project should be analyzed for its potential contribution
to downstream flooding, erosion, and sediment deposition. Economic analysis
should include an evaluation of all costs and benefits over time associated
with the project.
Reduce the rate of inflow from the watershed via water delaying techniques
such as restoration of wetlands and improved soil and water retention
practices. The entire watershed should be analyzed when determining where
reconstruction and alternative flood control measures will be implemented.
5
Emphasize Section 1135 of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act which
authorizes the improvement of the environment at completed Corps projects.
Department of the Interior
Partners for Wildlife Program -- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
administers the Partners for Wildlife program which provides financial and
technical assistance to private landowners willing to restore wetlands and
riparian habitat. In the disaster area alone, almost 2,000 landowners have
been assisted in restoring over 65,000 acres of small wetlands. In FY93 and
FY94 an additional 4,000-5,000 acres of restoration will occur each year.
With over 21,000,000 acres of drained wetlands in the watershed a larger scale
restoration program is needed for the rapid rate of runoff to be reduced. Our
goal should be for every landowner in the watershed to be able to receive, on
a voluntary request basis, technical and financial assistance to restore as
many of the 21,000,000 acres of drained wetlands in the watershed as possible.
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Acquisition Program -- The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Park Service have the authorities to
purchase lands for inclusion in the National Fish and Wildlife Refuge and Park
Systems. These bureaus may wish to explore the possibility of acquiring from
willing sellers lands that reduce future flood risk. Such risk reduction
could be via acquisition of flood-prone lands or lands that have potential for
wetland restoration.
Fish and Wildlife Wetland Easement Acquisition Program -- Consider
acquisition, through purchase or lease, aquatic and wetland habitats created
by the flood; realign any levee reconstruction to keep these habitats within
the unprotected floodplain, thus enhancing flood storage capability; and place
any such sites of extraordinary ecological value in the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
Multi-objective River Management Program -- The National Park Service has
prepared a report on Multi-Objective River Corridor Management in cooperation
with the Association of State Wetland Managers and the Association of State
Floodplain Managers. This study, in looking at eight case examples,
illustrates innovative and successful strategies for multi-objective river
corridor planning and management. A key feature of these case studies is the
development of cooperative public and private partnerships. The National Park
Service is entering into a cooperative agreement with the Association of State
Floodplain Managers, Inc. to develop materials for Multi-Objective River
Corridor Management, pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
National River Corridors Program -- Consider establishing Missouri and
Mississippi River floodways as National River Corridors which serve both
environmental (native species preservation, biodiversity, and recreation) and
economic (water supply, navigation, and compatible agriculture) interests,
using a variety of existing authorities.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan -- The Plan is being implemented
through innovative Federal-state-private partnerships to restore, enhance and
6
protect wetlands. Through the Draft Upper Mississippi-Great Lakes Joint
Venture implementation plan, priority wetlands conservation strategies and
locations in the floodplain area have been identified. Wetland projects
reduce flood risk by retaining water on the land.
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Act -- This Act has authorized
$5 million annually to match non-Federal contributions for land acquisition.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Land Acquisition and Leasing Programs -- Numerous
statutory authorities provide for the acquisition, disposal, and leasing of
Indian lands for various purposes.
Department of Agriculture
Wetland Reserve Program -- Increase emphasis on the Wetland Reserve Program
that authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase permanent
conservation easements on wetlands and converted wetlands with a cropping
history and to fund restoration on the easement lands.
Conservation Reserve Program -- Provides for 10 year conservation easements on
Highly Erodible Soil.
Waterbank -- Pays landowners to hold water on a portion of their property to
enhance spring and summer habitat for migratory birds.
Soil Conservation Service Small Watershed Program (P.L. 566) -- This program
should be reviewed to determine how it could better contribute to on-farm soil
and water retention in the upper watershed areas. The thrust would be to
institute projects, jointly supported by USDA and DOI, that include wetland,
prairie, and riparian restoration efforts as major aspects in addition to
providing for additional temporary floodwater storage. There should be no
stream channelization or modification associated with these projects.
Inventory Property Disposal Program -- The Farmers Home Administration review
of inventory properties should involve careful screening of lands for transfer
to state or Federal agencies for conservation purposes; placing restrictions
on properties being resold so as to avoid high flood risk activities; and
possibly instituting a land exchange process where landowners in high risk
areas could exchange land for other less flood prone inventory lands.
Debt Restructure Program -- The Farmers Home Administration should emphasize
the Debt Restructure program that allows loan holders to reduce their debt by
offering long-term conservation easements on their properties.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Section 1362 of the National Flood Insurance Program -- should buy out insured
policy holders who are subject to repeated flooding.
7
Environmental Protection Agency
Clean Water Act Program -- should evaluate and recommend needed changes to the
Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water Act implementation (Section 401)
on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers to ensure full application of
protection mechanisms when developing Federal flood control strategies as well
as future Federal ecosystem management strategies.
EPA Grant Programs -- should increase wetland restoration grants.
Housing and Urban Development
Community Development Block Grant Program -- discourage new development grants
in flood-prone areas.
Section 203(h), Mortgage Insurance for disaster victims -- focus on
relocation.
Small Business Administration
Disaster Loans -- Encourage rebuilding outside the flooded area, where
feasible.
Resolution Trust Corporation
The land disposal actions of the Resolution Trust Corporation and Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation should be reviewed to determine the extent to
which they can contribute to reducing future high risk land uses in flood
prone areas.
Multi-Agency Recommendations
Evaluation of Alternatives - (DOI, COE, USDA) Prior to implementing
alternative flood control strategies, information should be compiled from the
Geological Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, Environmental
Management Technical Center, and Soil Conservation Service for the purpose of
preparing a synthesis of available hydrologic data and model technology for
the purpose of determining flood stage and duration (a) under alternative
levee configurations, (b) using floodplains for natural floodwater storage and
passage, and (c) under various projections of upstream wetland
restoration/floodwater retention. The project should be a cooperative effort
involving all agencies having expertise in this area.
Floodplain Management -- Focus Federal involvement in floodplain management on
multi-dimensional (structural and non-structural) approaches. Where cost
effective, focus flood control measures on more natural, less costly,
non-structural solutions, utilizing administrative measures and natural
environmental and landscape features.
8
Executive Order 11988 -- Implement Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain
Management to more effectively reduce or eliminate Federal agency actions that
directly or indirectly induce future floodplain development. To achieve this
goal consideration should be given to: (1) limiting emergency actions of
federal agencies to those actions taken to avoid the "imminent loss of life"
(e.g. maintenance of water supplies), or are an immediate threat to national
security (e.g. failure of a bridge or navigation lock); and (2) ensuring that
all other actions are completed in full compliance with NEPA, and other
appropriate authorities such as the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
Runoff storage (USDA, COE) -- Require that runoff storage capacity be built
into any upland or protected floodplain project qualifying for federal loans
or licenses. These would include levee and drainage districts, which
currently provide no flood storage capacity and are allowed to pump interior
drainage water into rivers, even during major flood events.
Policies and statutes -- Revise Federal agency policies and statutes to
recognize natural flood storage and conservation/restoration of natural
floodplain functions as major considerations.
Federal land demonstration projects -- Federal lands should be screened for
their potential to include additional wetland-restoration-based floodwater
retention projects/activities in their management/development plans where such
would not conflict with the purpose for which the lands were acquired. These
lands could also be utilized to test or demonstrate the potential benefits
from such projects.
Disaster Assistance Programs -- Encourage relocation of flood plain structures
through an incentive program (i.e. increased one-time disaster assistance
payment). Flood-proof "water dependent" activities, sewage treatment plants,
existing toxic waste sites, cultural sites, and natural heritage sites.
Current federal water management programs, for example those of the USDA and
Corps of Engineers, need to be revised in the Upper Mississippi River basin,
because they are at cross purposes, which results in net negative impacts to
fish and wildlife resources and high taxpayer costs. For example, USDA
continues to subsidize crop production in levee and drainage districts which
are intended to move water quickly out of those areas, while the Corps of
Engineers designs and builds flood control projects in the floodplain to
compensate for the loss of natural flood storage. In addition, USDA programs
encourage commodity crop practices that increase non-point source pollution
impacts (chemicals and sediment) to DOI and state trustee fish and wildlife
resources. Additional federal dollars area then spent by the Corps of
Engineers, EPA, and the Fish and Wildlife Service to attempt to rectify
pollution impacts to people and fish and wildlife.
Prepared by: DOI Alternative Flood Control Strategies Workgroup
9
DOI Programs and Capabilities to Assist in Flood Response
Department of the Interior (DOI) programs, capabilities and technical
expertise are extensive and should be used in any post-flood action plan. The
skills and information housed in the Department are available to the flood
response agencies.
DOI bureaus have an extensive network of data gathering capabilities for
providing the information necessary for enlightened decision-making. This
includes data and interpretation on flood risk, flood peaks and duration,
floodplain storage and other water retention techniques, water quality,
detailed mapping of topography, soil types, erosion and other physical
changes, and status of fish and wildlife quantity and quality and other
aspects of the ecosystem. With proper funding this suite of physical and
biological information can guide the decisions affecting the entire
Mississippi River drainage area and specific areas within the system.
Resource Inventory and Analysis
(Mapping, monitoring, surveying, water quality, GIS, hydrology)
The National Wetland Inventory, under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of
1986 (P.L. 99-645), has prepared detailed wetland habitat maps, at the
scale of 1:24,000 for the entire Upper Mid-West. A portion of the maps
have been digitized. This digital data can be used in conjunction with
other data in the geographic information system (GIS) to develop
alternative flood control strategies. A report to Congress entitled
"Wetlands, Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's" documents
wetland losses by state that have occurred over the last 200 years.
Restoring these wetlands would provide flood storage during future
floods.
Environmental Contaminants Program (USFWS), comprised of a network of field
biologist and support personnel within Ecological Services, who apply
toxicological information, bioassessment tools and techniques, and
related technical assistance to address the myriad of contaminants
problems confronting fish and wildlife and their habitat. The
contaminants program coordinates with other Service programs, other
Federal agencies, State agencies, non-government organizations, and the
private sector as a means of sharing expertise, economizing, and
developing the most effective solutions toward protecting environmental
quality.
Geological Survey (USGS) USGS expertise includes: Data collection, analysis,
and interpretation (including modeling) of environmental factors on
earth science processes. Applicable expertise includes: geology,
watershed runoff, geomorphology, streamgaging, sediment transport, water
quality, toxic contaminants, ground water resources, mapping, and remote
sensing. USGS also coordinates the preparation and dissemination of
topographic maps, digital cartographic data, aerial photography and
satellite imagery to support land resource planning and decision-making
A-1
at all levels of government. The USGS maintains an inventory of
available maps and data to support Federal and State emergency response
planning and disaster mitigation.
National Biological Survey. The National Biological Survey, a new bureau at
the Department of the Interior effective at the start of Fiscal Year
1994, brings biological research, inventory and monitoring and
information transfer capabilities to Federal alternative flood control
efforts. The NBS will have the capability to undertake long and short
term biological research - both applied and basic - as well as
inventorying and monitoring fish and wildlife resources. Because the
NBS is being created by combining the biological expertise of scientists
from several Interior bureaus, it can offer the skills of biological
scientists and technicians, veterinary medical scientists, physical
scientists, mathematicians and statisticians, social scientists and
museum specialists.
The NBS will focus on providing ecosystem information to resource
managers, which could be of particular value to agencies involved in
alternative flood control. Specifically, the NBS's National Fisheries
Contaminants Research Center in Columbia, Missouri, and the NBS's Large
Rivers and Aquatic Systems program are valuable resources in
understanding the biota of the Mississippi in support of reconstruction.
Environmental Management Technical Center, Onalaska, Wisconsin. Congress
authorized the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) for the
Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS) via the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986. The Long Term Resource Management Plan is
being implemented by the Environmental Management Technical Center
located in Onalaska, Wisconsin.
Capabilities and Specialties include: technical expertise in physical,
biological and chemical science providing sophisticated data collection,
analysis and research on ecological issues; aerial photography using
flight planning software and a high resolution camera equipment; use of
satellite imagery for production and classifying scenes of land cover
for the floodplain of the UMRS; digitizing data for inclusion in a
spatial data base and for subsequent evaluation; use of global
positioning systems to locate field study sites; computer analysis of
spatial data using Geographic Information System software and technical
staff; and production of cartographic products, technical reports,
graphic designs and other documents.
Bureau of Reclamation (surveying). Reclamation has the capability to provide
surveying staff and maintains state- of-the-art surveying equipment and
technology. Reclamation also has computer-assisted capabilities for
generating area-capacity data. The Great Plains Region maintains an
indefinite quantities contract with a private surveying firm.
(hydrology) Reclamation can provide assistance with respect to flood
hydrology and general surface hydrology. (water quality) Laboratory
capabilities include inorganic and organic analysis of water samples for
A-2
chemical, biological, and physical parameters of water samples.
Reclamation has considerable aquatic sampling equipment including nets,
electro-fishing boats, and other limnological sampling gear.
Reclamation is currently providing technical support to the Corps of
Engineers in response to the flood.
National Park Service. The National Park Service has personnel and facilities
available through the Water Resources Division in Denver that can
provide watershed management, hydrology expertise, floodplain
delineation, wetlands delineation and rehabilitation, and have extensive
GIS capabilities for accomplishing this. The Denver Service Center has
extensive personnel and capabilities to plan, design, develop, restore
and rehab facilities. In addition, the NPS has extensive inventories of
cultural and historic sites in the flood area.
Interagency Support
Contracting and Construction Oversight
Reclamation Regional Offices can provide procurement and contracting services
and construction oversight assistance for a wide range of related activities.
Reclamation is currently providing technical support regarding damage
assessment.
Procedural
Endangered Species Act; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; Clean Water Act;
and National Environmental Policy Act technical assistance is being provided
by the Fish and wildlife Service to assist with the primary flood response.
The FWS is mobilizing staff in their Ecological Services Field Offices in St.
Paul, MN, Rock Island, Marion, IL, and Columbia, MO, to assist the primary
flood response agencies (Corps of Engineers, SCS, FEMA). Other Field Offices
in Bismarck, ND, Pierre, SD, Grand Island, NB and Manhattan, KS, are also
capable of assisting.
Fish and Wildlife Service biologists are prepared to assist Corps and SCS
engineers with damage assessment surveys and reporting, environmental impact
evaluation, and the development of measures to minimize the impacts to fish
and wildlife resources from flood response actions.
FWS biologists will review and comment on environmental documentation prepared
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); on Corps civil works
projects and permit applications (Section 10/404, Clean Water Act) as well as
remedial efforts under SCS Emergency Watershed Protection Program; and conduct
evaluations and prepare recommendations pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (FWCA).
A-3
FWS biologists will conduct interagency consultations under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act to assist the primary agencies in their compliance with
that Act during the flood response while minimizing adverse effects on
endangered or threatened species. FWS biologists will help the States develop
and fund projects to restore habitats for endangered and threatened species
that have been damaged by the floods.
Fishery Assistance: The Service's Fishery Resource Offices in Winona,
Minnesota; Carterville, Illinois; and Columbia, Missouri manage fishery
resources on Service lands throughout the Mississippi River Wildlife and Fish
Refuge and the Mark Twain National wildlife Refuge. The Fishery Offices also
provide technical assistance to tribal fisheries management on the upper
Missouri River, management expertise for inter-jurisdictional fisheries,
monitoring of non-indigenous species such as zebra mussels, and assistance for
listing and recovery of threatened and endangered fish such as pallid sturgeon
and paddlefish on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.
1990 Farm Bill and Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. Technical assistance is
being provided to the USDA and to private landowners. Major activities
include: swampbuster, wetlands reserve, Farmers Home Administration wetland
easement identification and FmHA land transfers for conservation purposes.
USDA will be making wetland determinations and will be reviewing on-site
recovery actions in the disaster area so that farmers can begin repairs in a
manner that does not conflict with the swampbuster statute. The Fish and
Wildlife Service is prepared to assist, pursuant to statute, in these
activities.
As the wetlands reserve program is implemented, either via normal
appropriations or through disaster funds, the Service will provide assistance
in site selection and will participate in the formulation of restoration
plans.
When FmHA disposes of inventory property the Service is the technical agency
charged with the identification of wetlands and restorable wetlands that need
to be placed under permanent easement. In most cases the Service also
implements the wetlands restoration actions that may be necessary and assumes
easement administration responsibility. The amount of inventory property in
the disaster area will increase and the Service will provide the added
technical assistance support effort needed.
Under the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 property is, subject to USDA
determination and agreement, transferred from the FmHA inventory to state or
Federal agencies for conservation purposes. Following the disaster it is
likely that added interest in the transfer of high risk properties will occur.
The Service is prepared to assist with identification of such property for
transfer and is willing to assume administration or assist states in securing
administration of such lands. The conservation use of such properties is
compatible with flooding.
A-4
Incident Management
National Park Service, Ranger Activities Division, has two Type I All Risk
Management teams (ARM) that respond to national disasters affecting NPS areas
with skilled maintenance and technical personnel organized under the Incident
Command System (recent deployment was for Hurricane Andrew in Florida).
Wetland Restoration
The Partners for Wildlife effort (under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956), is
a private lands based restoration program based on voluntary landowner
participation. Funds are appropriated to the "Trust Species Habitats -
Technical Assistance and Habitat Restoration" component of the Fish and
Wildlife Enhancement subactivity. Over the last 7 years approximately
10,900 landowners nationwide have participated in the restoration of
over 200,000 acres of wetlands. In the disaster area alone, almost
2,000 landowners have been assisted in restoring over 65,000 acres of
small wetlands. In FY93 and FY94 an additional 4,000-5,000 acres of
restoration will occur each year. With additional availability of
funding (i.e., $6,000,000) the annual restoration target could be 25,000
acres under this cooperative program. With over 21,000,000 acres of
drained wetlands in the watershed a larger scale restoration program is
needed for the rapid rate of runoff to be reduced. This is one
available tool.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) (implemented through the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989) has as its goal
protecting more than 6 million acres of existing wetland habitat in the
United States by the year 2000. Under the plan, several million
additional acres of wetlands will be restored and enhanced for migratory
birds in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. The primary goal of the NAWMP is,
"To enhance and protect high quality wetland habitat in North America
that supports a variety of wetland-dependent wildlife and recreational
uses." The NAWMP is being implemented through innovative Federal-state-
private partnerships within and between states and provinces, including
the Services Partners for Wildlife Program. Through the Upper
Mississippi-Great Lakes Joint Venture implementation plan, priority
wetlands conservation strategies and locations in the watershed have
been identified. In six major sub-watersheds of the Mississippi River,
a total of 1.3 million acres are proposed for restoration (675,000 acres
at an average cost of $500/acre) or acquisition (458,000 acres at an
average cost of $1000/acre).
To date in the Upper Mississippi and Missouri Drainage Basins, through
the North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989, the Plan has
affected 117,000 acres in $39.5 million in projects of which two-thirds
of the funding is in non-federal matching dollars.
A-5
Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation personnel possess significant knowledge
and expertise in aquatic, wetland and riparian ecology. Much of this
experience is derived from wetland restoration projects. Capabilities
include function, design, and modeling of wetlands and riparian systems
for multiple use such as recreation, water quality improvement, fish and
wildlife, erosion control, and salinity control.
Geological Survey. USGS is providing a watershed perspective to wetland
restoration, i.e., put wetland restoration efforts in context with the
topography and hydrology. USGS can provide existing photo-imagery to
support flood mitigation efforts, and can perform satellite image
analysis of flood, changes in stream pattern, changes in crop cover and
other vegetative characteristics, land use, and land cover change. USGS
has extensive capabilities for geographic information systems (GIS) for
computer integration of earth science data, digital map and elevation
data, and digital imagery to model natural phenomena, such as floods, in
support of Federal and State planning and resource management decision-
making.
Environmental Contaminants Program (USFWS), has conducted numerous natural
resource damage assessments intended to support response and remedial
activity. Evaluation of data/information during a natural resource
damage assessment requires technical biological expertise centered
around the resource and site specific restoration plans to restore
injured habitats. The program has expertise in preparing response
contingency plans, identifying remediation techniques, determining
protective levels of contaminants, identifying restoration techniques,
planning and implementation of habitat restoration, as well as
coordination with other Federal, State and non-government agencies in
these activities.
Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Agreement (MICRA). The Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation are signatories to MICRA.
MICRA encourages cooperative management of inter-jurisdictional fishery
resources and was signed by the 28 Mississippi River basin states. The
goal of the Agreement is to improve the conservation, development,
management, and utilization of inter-jurisdictional fishery resources in
the Mississippi River Basin through improved coordination and
communication among management entities. Through cooperative programs,
MICRA will consider the needs of both commerce and fisheries management
on an ecosystem-wide basis.
Land Acquisition/Management
National Wildlife Refuge System lands in the floodplain of the disaster area
cover approximately 265,000 acres. Management activities on these lands
allow for implementation of alternative flood control strategies which
are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge areas are
established. The Fish and Wildlife Service has six proposed FY 1994
A-6
refuge acquisition projects in the floodplain (totaling 26,116 acres and
$12,200,000). When completed these six projects are expected to cover
331,149 acres and cost approximately $178,000,000 at FY 1994 land
values. The acquisition process, based on funding limitations will span
many years. With added funding the process could be expedited.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has several additional land acquisition
projects in the planning stage on the Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers. These proposals are primarily to protect remaining
wildlife habitats along these rivers but can be expanded considerably to
consider other purposes such as preserving natural flood storage areas.
In addition there are other proposals in the watersheds of these big
river systems that can be expanded to significantly store water in the
upper reaches of these river watersheds and slow the flow rate by
converting the land use from agriculture row crops to natural wildlife
habitat.
National Park Service Land Resources Division provides mapping, appraisal,
acquisition and land exchange services. Nine park units are located in
the flood area.
Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Secretary of the Interior has the trust lead
role for the Federal relationship with Indian Tribes. There are 89
Indian Tribes located within the 9 state flood designated region. Nine
(9) of these Tribes have received flood damage to houses, schools,
roads, farmland, ad conservation structures: i.e, the Menominee in
Wisconsin; the Iowa, Kickapoo, Prairie Band of Potawatomi, and Sac &
Fox of Kansas and Nebraska; and the Kaw, Otoe-Missouria, Tonkawa, and
Ponca of Oklahoma. In addition, there are numerous Statutory
authorities which provide for the acquisition, disposal and leasing of
Indian lands for various purposes.
A-7
Federal Statutes Pertinent to DOI Involvement
In The Flood Response
1.
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1534), as amended. The
Endangered Species Act mandates that all federal agencies use their
authorities to ensure that their activities do not jeopardize the
continued existence of a threatened or endangered species. In addition
federal agencies are to promote the protection and recovery of these
species. All federal agencies must consult with the Fish and Wildlife
Service to ensure compliance with ESA.
2.
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742A-742J) as amended. Under
this authority the FWS carries out the voluntary private-lands-based
habitat restoration program, commonly referred to as "Partners for
Wildlife." The Act authorizes the Service to engage in activities that
will promote " the development, management, advancement, conservation,
and protection of wildlife resources
"
3.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, (16 U.S.C. 661-117) as
amended. The Act requires consultation with the Fish and Wildlife
Service before U.S. waters are impounded, diverted, or otherwise
controlled or modified to ensure wildlife receives equal consideration.
In the category of water-related activities for which federal permits
are required, wildlife agencies can make recommendations with respect to
wildlife conservation and enhancement.
4.
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. The FACT Act
amends the Food Security Act of 1985. The Act requires Department of
Agriculture agencies (e.g., Farmers Home Administration, Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, and Soil Conservation Service)
to consult with the FWS to ensure conservation of important resources,
especially wetlands. The Act authorizes Farmers Home Administration to
(1) place conservation easements on properties held in their inventory,
and (2) trade conservation easements for debt forgiveness. Under the
"Swampbuster" provisions of the Act, wetlands cannot be converted to
agriculture for the purpose of commodity crop production. USDA must
consult with the FWS on "Swampbuster" issues. The Act authorizes the
Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to establish the Wetland Reserve Program
to acquire permanent easements from willing landowners for the
restoration and protection of wetlands. Easements on existing and
former wetlands now in crop production will be acquired and the wetlands
restored.
5.
Upper Mississippi Wild Life and Fish Refuge Act of 1924. This Act
authorizes the acquisition and establishment of the Upper Mississippi
National Wildlife Refuge with the protection of wildlife as the primary
purpose. The Refuge was established as mitigation for the navigation
channel and set the precedent and is a classic example of a refuge
preserving a floodplain in a natural condition. Structures on the
A-8
refuge counteract the sediment input caused by other
structures/activities.
6.
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, (16 U.S.C. 669-669i) as
amended. More commonly known at the Pittman-Robertson Act, serves as
the principal mechanism for providing federal assistance to states for
the acquisition, restoration, and maintenance of wildlife habitat; for
the management of wildlife areas and resources; and for research into
problems of wildlife management.
7.
Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act of 1950, (16 U.S.C. 777-777k) as
amended. More commonly known as the Dingell-Johnson Act, is essentially
identical to the Pittman-Robertson Act, except that it provides federal
assistance to states for projects pertaining to fish.
8.
Water Resources Development Act of 1986. The Act authorizes the Long
Term Resource Monitoring Program for the Upper Mississippi River System.
The monitoring is being implemented by the FWS Environmental Management
Technical Center in Onalaska, Wisconsin in cooperation with the five
Upper Mississippi River Basin States; Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri and Wisconsin. The mission of the program is to provide high
quality scientific and technical support in a timely and cost-effective
manner.
9.
North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 4401-4413)
This Act provides for a matching grant program with private partners to
support wetland conservation projects.
10.
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715-715d, 715e, 715f-
715r) as amended. This Act authorizes the FWS to acquire wetlands
habitat for the conservation of North American waterfowl from the
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (a dedicated Fund containing deposits
from Duck Stamp sales as well as other fees).
11.
Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes
Act. This Act as amended provides that Federal surplus lands can be
transferred to the Secretary of the Interior without reimbursement.
12.
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. This Act authorizes the Farmers Home
Administration to transfer properties held in their inventory to Federal
and state agencies for conservation purposes.
13.
Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901-3931). This Act
authorizes the purchase of wetlands or interests in wetlands, which are
not acquired under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act,
consistent with National and Regional priority conservation plans and
state concept plans using Land and Water Conservation Fund monies.
14.
Water Bank Act of 1970, as amended. The Act provides that the
Department of Agriculture will coordinate with the Department of the
A-9
Interior when entering into contracts with landowners to protect
wetlands and retire adjoining agricultural lands.
15.
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended.
The Act allows for management practices on refuges which support the
policy goals if they are consistent with the purposes for which the
refuges are established.
16. The Reclamation Act of 1902. The Act restricts the Bureau of
Reclamation's water resource activities to the 17 Western States. BR,
however, can provide technical assistance to other agencies and outside
parties in other geographical areas on a cost-reimbursable basis.
17. Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, (Public
Law 93 - 288) as amended. The Bureau of Reclamation may provide public
works and engineering support to assist State(s) and local areas in
needs related to lifesaving or life protection following a major
disaster.
18.
Public Law 84-99 gives the Bureau of Reclamation authority to assist the
COE in activities after a catastrophic event has occurred. These
activities may include participation in levee rehabilitation inspection
teams, survey teams, and construction inspection.
19.
National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1). This Act gives
the National Park Service the authority to manage over 360 natural and
cultural areas.
20.
Historic Sites Act. Expands the National Register of Historic Places
and established a guaranteed loan program to direct grants for
properties listed on the National Register, and a grants-in-aid program
to the States and the National Trust for Historic Preservation for
acquisition, restoration and preservation of historic properties.
21.
Archeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974. Authorizes the
National Park Service to conduct a variety of activities to assist
Federal agencies in identifying, evaluating, preserving, and/or
salvaging architectural and archeological resources.
22. National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978. Created the Urban Park and
Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) which provides grants to local
governments to rehabilitate existing indoor and outdoor recreation
facilities.
23.
Snyder Act 1921. (42 Stat. 208; 25 U.S.C. 13) This Act authorizes
appropriations and expenditures for the administration of Indian
Affairs, and for other purposes.
24.
Protection of Indians and Conservation of Resources Act of 1934. (48
Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 461). This Act provides for the protection and
A-10
management of Indian natural resources from deterioration, to prevent
soil erosion, assure full utilization, and like purposes.
25. Geological Survey Organic Act of 1879 (20 Stat. 394; U.S.C. 31). This
Act established the Geological Survey and provides for "the
classification of the public lands, examination of geological structure,
mineral resources, and products of the national domain." The USGS is
authorized to perform surveys, investigations, and research covering
topography, geology, hydrology, and the mineral and water resources of
the United States and its Territories. These provide for the gaging of
streams and determining the water supply of the United States, including
the investigation of underground resources.
26. Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge Act. This Act is a classic
example of preserving a natural flood plain in an urban situation.
Congress established the refuge for wildlife, education and recreation.
A-11
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Assistant Director of Civil Works
CECW-ZW (NPD,SPD,MRD,POD)
Date: 20 August 1993
To: Mr. Brian Burke, Domestic Policy Council
Subject: Floodplain management briefing
General Genega asked me to fax over to you a copy of our
briefing.
Each graphic is followed by explanatory text.
Also included are some example projects that provide a lot more
detail than you probably want, but they may prove useful.
Please let me know at phone (202) 272-0108 or 0107 when received
and if I can provide anything further
Jeffre
Joff Stasu B. Stash Staser
LTC EN
FAX TO 202 456 7028, ATTN:BRIAN BURKE
090/100
0
CECW-Z
8992 272 202
90:0T
08/20/93
002/060
Flood Control System
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wetland
Reservoirs
Channelization Project
Village
##
#
#
Reservoir
CECW-Z
Town
Ag Levees
Ag Levees
Small
City
Diversion
Major City
Channel
08/20/93 10:07 202 272 8992
Wetlands
Floodwall/
Levee
Ponding Area
Project
003/060
Flood Plain Areas
US Army Corps
of Engineers
C
B
A
CECW-Z
Channel
A Floodway includes channel and surrounding lowlands expected to flood often.
Reserved for non-structural uses including wildlife preserves.
08/20/93 10:07 6202 272 8992
B Flood fringe extends plain to 100-year limit with 1% chance of flood each
year. Structures locally regulated.
C 500-year floodplain extends to areas with 1/5 of 1% chance of flooding.
CONCEPT
OF
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT:
o
It is a decision making process used to solve problems
resulting from all magnitudes of floods.
Its goal is to achieve the most appropriate use of
lands and waters subject to flooding by considering
the best mix of techniques to reduce flood damages and
to protect and restore the natural and cultural
resources of the flood plain.
.
Flood damage reduction is achieved by using a
combination of structural and non-structural
techniques.
For planning purposes, this systematic approach to
resolving flood problems is classified into four basic
techniques for Flood Plain Management.
090/190
CECTIZ
8992 277 202
10:0T
08/20/93
005/080
HAH
Techniques for Flood
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Plain Management
Modify the flood
Modify structures and development in
the flood plain
CECW-Z
Modify the adverse impacts of flooding
Restore and preserve the natural and
cultural resources of flood plains
08/20/93 10:08 6202 272 8992
TECHNIQUES FOR FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT
O MODIFY THE FLOOD BY THE USE OF STRUCTURAL MEASURES
O MODIFY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND NEW DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED
IN THE FLOOD PLAIN TO REDUCE THEIR SUSCEPTIBILITY TO BEING
DAMAGED (NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES)
O MODIFY THE IMPACTS WHEN FLOODING OCCURS BY TAKING ACTIONS
THAT AID IN RECOVERY (ALSO CONSIDERED NON-STRUCTURAL
MEASURES)
O PRESERVE AND RESTORE THE NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES OF
THE FLOOD PLAIN
090/900
71
CECW-Z
'202 272 8992
60:01
08/20/93
1007/060
Modify the Flood
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Techniques that modify the flood
are commonly called "Structural
Measures." They include:
CECW-Z
Reservoirs
Diversions/cut-offs
Channel alterations
08/20/93 10:09 T202 272 8992
Levees/floodwalls
TECHNIQUES USED TO MODIFY THE FLOOD
(STRUCTURAL MEASURES)
Techniques that modify the flood are commonly referred to
as "Structural Measures." They include:
Reservoirs
Diversions/Cut-Offs
Channel Alterations
Levees/Floodwalls
NOTE: These techniques are discussed in detail on the
following pages.
090/800
CECT-2
8992 272 2022
60:01
08/20/93
009/060
Reservoir
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Stores flood volume which is then released in
downstream channel over longer period of time
Dam
CECW-Z
Upstream
Downstream
Water
Stored
08/20/93 10:09 202 272 8992
Flow
010/060
name
Flood Control Dam
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Top of Dam
Top of Flood Pool
Spillway Crest
CECW-Z
Flood Storage
Reservon Level
River
08/20/93 10:09 6202 272 8992
TECHNIQUES USED TO MODIFY THE FLOOD (CON'T)
RESERVOIRS
The basic components of a reservoir are the dam, the
spillway, the outlet works, and the water storage
area upstream of the dam.
There are two basic types of flood control reservoirs:
Those that do not have a permanent pool in the
water storage area and that only back up water
during a flood event, and
Those that maintain a permanent pool for purposes
other than flood control such as water supply or
recreation. Dry storage space above this permanent
pool is retained (by law) and available to store
flood waters.
When a flood comes, water that would otherwise
continue downstream and cause damage is stored in the
upstream pool. A low-level gated outlet works through
the dam releases water at a rate that maintains the
normal non-flood flow downstream from the dam.
Sometimes a flood is so large that the storage area
upstream from the dam cannot hold all of it. In these
cases, the outlet works gates are opened wider to let
more flow out, and the downstream river may begin to
flood over its banks.
If an extremely large flood occurs, the outlet works,
even with all its gates open, cannot release the water
from the pool as fast as it comes into the pool, and
the water rises and flows over the spillway. In this
situation, the operator of the dam is said to "lose
control" of the flood, since an ungated spillway has
no means to control the water flow, and extreme
flooding can result downstream even though the water
passes through a "flood control" reservoir.
09/1/09
CECIM-2
8992 277 2022
10:10
08/20/93
012/060
Diversion
US Army Corps
Reduces peak flow rate downstream
of Engineers
Urban Area
Control Structure
CECW-Z
Cut Off
Urban Area
08/20/93 10:11 6202 272 8992
Control Structure
During flood, flow bypasses main channel
TECHNIQUES USED TO MODIFY THE FLOOD (CON'T)
O
DIVERSIONS/CUT-OFF CHANNELS
Additional areas for the river to flow in during
flood are referred to as diversions. Sometimes
this amounts to only a high flow area across a
meander loop in the stream; sometimes this is a
vast floodway (e.g., the Bird's Point/New Madrid
Floodway). In any case, the flow cross-sectional
area is increased, and the flood water surface
elevation is decreased.
09/090
8992 272 202
10:11
08/20/93
]014/060
HAH
Channel Alteration
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Reduces flood depths by making channel more efficient
Without Channel Improvement
CECW-Z
With Improvement
Enlarging channel increases flow capacity.
Clearing channel of vegetation/debris increases natural capacity.
08/20/93 10:11 6202 272 8992
TECHNIQUES USED TO MODIFY THE FLOOD (CON'T)
O
CHANNEL ALTERATIONS
O
Excavating a bigger river channel causes the water
in the channel to flow at a lower elevation and
thus reduces flood heights. Since the river is
usually carrying material with it as it flows, we
have to be careful when designing a channel
alteration that this excavation is not filled back
in by the river before the flood comes or,
sometimes, during the flood.
015/080
V
CECIM-20
8992 277 202
10:12
08/20/93
016/060
Levee
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Feet Above Flood Stage
CECW-Z
Flood Stage
08/20/93 10:12 6202 272 8992
Normal River Channel
017/060
Levees/Floodwalls
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Blocks water from spreading over flood plain
CECW-Z
With Levee
Without Levee
With levee, flow is restricted but depth of water is greater between levees
Without levee, flow spreads out over flood plain at a lesser depth but
causes damages
08/20/93 10:13 '202 272 8992
018/060
HAH
Levee Failure (Example)
US Army Corps
Elevations
of Engineers
(Chester Gage)
Design Water 46.6 (50 Yr.)
Top of Levee
48.6
Actual Water
47.4
CECW-Z
- we
<<< #20
Impervious
Emergency
Ring Dike
and 2003
Boils
23.16
08/20/93 10:13 T202 272 8992
Seepage
and
Piping
019/060
Typical Levees
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Engineered Levee
CECW-Z
Non-Engineered
08/20/93 10:13 272 8992
Levee
TECHNIQUES USED TO MODIFY THE FLOOD (CON'T)
O
LEVEES/FLOODWALLS
Building levees/floodwalls alongside the river
channel allows the water to rise higher than the
natural river bank but keeps it off out of areas
landward of the levee/floodwall. Levees are
composed of earth, usually, but not always, with a
relatively impervious central core surrounded by a
more coarse, erosion-resistant shell. Concrete
flood walls are built in urban areas where space
for levees is not available. Unlike reservoirs,
which store flood waters and reduce flows
downstream, levees prevent water from going over
the river's bank and into "natural" storage
reservoirs which would be, unfortunately, flooded
farms and towns. Levees/floodwalls have the
opposite effect of storage reservoirs in that they
tend to increase downstream flooding.
020/090
"202 272 8992
10:15
08/20/93
021/060
HAM
Typical Flood Wall
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Ecet Above Blood Stage
CECW-Z
Flood Stage
ID
4:00
08/20/93 10:15 202 T202 272 8992
Normal River Channel
TECHNIQUES USED TO MODIFY THE FLOOD (CON'T)
o
COMBINATIONS OF TECHNIQUES IS OFTEN THE BEST SOLUTION
022/080
71
CECIM-20
20202 8992 272
10:15
OT
08/20/93
023/060
Combination of Reservoir
US Army Corps
With Downstream Levee
of Engineers
Tributaries
Urban
Area
CECW-Z
1
+
Levees
Reservour
Urban
+
Area
Dam
08/20/93 10:16 6202 272 8992
TECHNIQUES USED
TO MODIFY STRUCTURES AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOOD PLAIN
(NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES)
FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS
Used by states and local governments to control use
and development in flood prone areas. In the form of:
Zoning Ordinances,
Building/Housing Codes, and
Subdivision Regulations.
FLOOD PROOFING
Alters design or construction of individual buildings
to reduce flood damage by:
Raising or moving the structure,
Building barriers between the flood and structure,
Sealing the building and/or raising its contents.
(NOTE: MORE INFORMATION ON THE NEXT PAGE)
FLOOD WARNING AND PREPAREDNESS
Provides first alert and advance warning of impending
flooding for early or immediate implementation of
predetermined plans that:
Evacuate people/property about to be flooded, and
Protect and/or reduce damage to unmovable property.
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
Long range, extensive preparedness actives including:
Development of plans for mitigation, warning, and
emergency operations,
Training for plan implementation,
Exercises to test plans and evaluate readiness,
Review and coordination of disaster programs, and
Public information activities.
DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES
To avoid inappropriate development and redevelopment
in the flood plain, all levels of government use
policies and programs that address:
Design and location of services and utilities,
Land acquisition and open space, and
Permanent evacuation.
024/090
CECT-2
202 272 8992
10:18
08/20/93
025/060
Modify Structures and
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Devlopment in the
Flood Plain
Flood plain regulations
CECW-Z
Flood proofing
Flood warning and preparedness
Disaster preparedness
Development/redevelopment policies
08/20/93 10:16 6202 272 8992
TECHNIQUES USED
TO MODIFY STRUCTURES AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOOD PLAIN (CON'T)
O
FLOOD PROOFING
Becoming a very effective tool.
Often is economically feasible alternative.
RAISING OR MOVING THE STRUCTURE
09/9090
CECIM-20
202 272 8992
10:17
oT
08/20/93
027/060
Raising
When raised 8 feet or
more, a new story
is created
Utilities and electrical
US Army Corps
circuits moved above
of Engineers
flood level
Openings on each wall
Lightweight or mobile items
ensure entry of water to
can be stored under the house
prevent hydrostatic load
and moved after the flood
warning
Relocation
Brick fireplaces are
braced or taken down
CECW-Z
Larger additions or wings
may have to be moved
separately
Some contractors remove
brick facing for the move
Main structure disconnected
08/20/93 10:17 6202 272 8992
Old foundation torn out
from foundation
Relocation is an appropriate measure in high hazard areas where continued
occupancy is unsafe, where owners want to be free from flood worries,
or where communities have determined that the open space gained could
be used for more appropriate flood plain activities.
TECHNIQUES USED
TO MODIFY STRUCTURES AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOOD PLAIN (CON'T)
O
FLOOD PROOFING (CON'T)
o
Sealing the building and/or raising its contents.
028/060
D
CECW-Z
8992 277 2022
10:18
OT
08/20/93
029/060
HAH
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Flood proofing
Prevents damages of building interiors
Second Floor
CECW-Z
Alter duct
work, plumbing,
First Floor
Anchor
First Floor
electrical, wiring
tanks to
as required
prevent
flotation
Basement
Raise and relocate merchandise and
anchor floatable items
08/20/93 10:18 202 272 8992
Raise furnace, water heater, washer
dryer to first floor
Flood proofing reduces vulnerability of exisiting development.
TECHNIQUES USED TO MODIFY THE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF FLOODING
(NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES)
O
INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
Activities for flood plain management have expanded
dramatically since 1960, thus increasing the level of
knowledge of both public officials and the general public.
Thus, a variety of material is now available and additional
work could be performed to further assist local governments
and the general public on issues relating to human behavior
and flood recovery actions.
O
FLOOD INSURANCE
This has been available since 1969 through the National
Flood Insurance Program. Insurance payments partially
offset the cost of damages caused by floods. Premiums are
based on the location of a structure within the flood
plain. Unfortunately, not all floodprone structures are
normally insured.
o
TAX ADJUSTMENTS
Includes a variety of temporary tax reliefs for individuals
and businesses that were damaged. This is done primarily
at the state and local government level. Also, deductions
on income taxes provide some measure of relief.
o
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. These activities
are carried out 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; search and rescue operations;
and residents. other steps to protect the health and safety of
O
POST FLOOD RECOVERY
Many types of disaster assistance are available and are
effective at restoring flood-damaged communities and
individual properties to their preflood condition.
Delaying reconstruction until new guidance to avoid future
flood damages is promulgated is best done immediately after
the flood event.
090/000
CECIM-2
8992 272 202
10:18
08/20/93
031/060
HAH
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Modify The Adverse Impacts of Flooding
CECW-Z
Information and Education
Flood Insurance
Tax Adjustments
Flood Emergency Measures
Post Flood Recovery
08/20/93 10:18 6202 272 8992
TECHNIQUES USED TO RESTORE AND PRESERVE
THE NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES OF FLOOD PLAINS
REGULATIONS
Regulatory measures are very effective in dealing
with Natural and Cultural Resources. Measures that
can be applied at all levels of government include:
Federal regulations
State regulations, and
Local regulations (zoning, building codes, etc.)
DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Policies by all levels of government have full
impact on where development occurs. These include:
Design and location of services and utilities;
Land rights, acquisition, and open space;
Redevelopment; and
Permanent Evacuation in Wildlife sensitive areas.
INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
Technical information and Public education about the
value of natural and cultural resources can result
in developing a positive attitude by the public to
support activities that restore and preserve natural
and cultural resources.
TAX ADJUSTMENTS
Tax adjustments can provide financial incentives.
These are:
Federal Tax benefits,
Estate Tax benefits, and
Donations of land or easements.
ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES
Administrative procedures by local authorities can
have a major impact on natural resources. They
are:
Restrictions on Contracts,
Restrictions on Loans,
Restrictions on Permits and Licenses,
Comprehensive Planning, and
Classification of Wetlands.
032/060
CECIM-20
8992 272 202
10:19
08/20/93
HAH
Restore and Preserve the
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Natural and Cultural
Resources of Flood Plains
20202 08/20/93 10:19 272 8992
Regulations
Development and redevlopment poilicies
Information and education
CECW-Z
Tax adjustment
Administrative measures
033/080
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT
AND THE
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
!
034/09
D
CECM-2
8992 277 2020
10:19 08/02/93
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A PRIMER ON FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT (TAB 1)
EXAMPLES OF FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT AS UTILIZED BY THE CORPS (TAB 2)
Flood Warning System at Hot Springs, SD
Relocation Project at Prairie du Chien, WI
Levee at Bettendorf, IA
Flood Wall and Levees at St. Louis, MO
Harry S. Truman Dam & Reservoir, MO
Flood Proofing along Dry Creek, TN
Flood Diversion at Bonnet Carre Spillway, LA
Channel Improvements/River Walk on the San Antonio River, TX
Levee and Channel Improvements along the Trinity River, TX
Greenbelt Floodway on Indian Bend Wash, AZ
035/080
P
CECM-2
202 272 8992
10:19
08/20/93
A PRIMER ON
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT
FLOOD PLAINS are -- the lowlands adjoining the channels of
rivers, streams, or other watercourses, or the shoreline of oceans,
lakes, or other bodies of standing water, which have been or may be
inundated by flood waters. The "100-year flood plain" is the area
that would be inundated by a flood expected to occur once in 100
years.
Approximately 7% of the total area of the United States, or
178.8 million acres, is within the 100-year flood plain. Almost
all major cities are located on a river or at the mouth of a river.
Most smaller communities have at least one stream within their
boundaries.
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT is -- a decision making process that
aims to make the most appropriate use of the lands and water
subject to flooding. The challenge of flood plain management is to
balance the need to minimize the loss of life and reduce the damage
to property from flooding while also preserving and restoring the
natural and cultural functions as much as possible.
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES include both structural and
non-structural methods.
Structural Methods:
Levees
Flood walls
Dams
Flood diversion channels
Channel improvements
Detention Basins
Non-structural Methods:
Flood proofing of existing structures
Flood plain regulations to control use
Relocation of neighborhoods or communities
Flood warning and preparedness systems
Evacuation plans
Development of greenbelt facilities not susceptible
to damage from flooding
Redevelopment policies
090/900
CECW-Z
'202 272 8992
10:19
08/20/93
By selecting the best mix of proven techniques, flood plain
managers can tailor an approach that is practical, affordable, and
likely to be successful at meeting the competing needs.
Compatibility with the risk to natural and cultural functions
is achieved by modifying:
- the susceptibility of those functions to human
activity,
- the impact of human activity, or
- the flooding
Compatibility with the risk to human life and property is
achieved by modifying:
- human susceptibility to flood damage and disruption,
- the impact of flooding on individuals and the
community, or
- the flooding.
The Corps of Engineers is a member of The Federal Interagency
Floodplain Management Task Force and works with the other agencies
to coordinate all Federal activities within the flood plain. An
Assessment Report on flood plain management in the United States,
prepared for that Task Force, is included with this primer.
At Tab 2 are ten examples of Corps of Engineers flood control
projects that incorporate various flood plain management
techniques, both structural and non-structural.
037/060
CECT-2
202 272 8992
10:20
08/02/93
)
038/060
SITES OF FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT EXAMPLES
1. Hot Springs, SD
2. Prairie du Chien, WI
3. Bettendorf, IA
CECW-Z
4. St. Louis, MO
5. Harry S. Truman Dam, MO
6. , Dry Creek, TN
10. Indian Bend Wash, AZ
08/20/93 10:20 202 272 8992
9. Trinity River, TX
7. Bonnet Carre Spillway, LA
8. San Antonio River, TX
SUMMARY PAPER
1. Project: Hot Springs Flood Warning System, Cold Brook Dam
Unit, Fall River Basin Project, Fall River, South Dakota
2.
Purpose: Flood Warning
3.
Location: Cold Brook Reservoir near Hot Springs, South Dakota
4.
Authority: Flood Control Act of 1941
5.
Date of Implementation: July 1990
6. Project Description: The project consists of one gage that
sits at the reservoir of an existing Corps project (Cold Brook Dam)
7. Challenge and Solution: There was a concern that if the
reservoir was very full and the outflow of the spillway was at its
maximum, the community located downstream of the dam (Hot Springs,
South Dakota) could be flooded. The flood warning system would
allow local officials warning time to evacuate areas downstream of
the dam if needed.
Utilized Omaha District developed technology which reduced
the cost and provided a reliable product. A patent request for
this product has been requested. ASCE Civil Engineering June 1992
describes the flood warning system.
The system has been designed so local officials can perform
O&M with limited technical training.
The system uses phone lines to automatically transmit the
warning to a maximum of eight people simultaneously. Spare parts
for maintenance are easily obtainable through commercial resources
available in any medium sized city.
8. Implementation Costs and Benefits: (1990 price levels): The
system was installed for a total project cost of $7,000, of which
$1,500 is the cost of the hardware.
Cost Sharing: 100% Federal cost (O&M funds)
Benefits: Not available at this time.
9. History of Project Performance: To date, the flood warning
system has not been activated. Currently, the lake level is within
1 foot of triggering the system. Similar designs have been
implemented at other projects and have performed successfully when
tested this spring and summer. The five flood warning systems,
other than the one at Cold Brook Dam, have been tested this year
and have performed as designed.
090/600
CECW-Z
202 272 8992
10:20
08/20/93
39
N
Lake Oshe
CHEYENNE RIVER
Pierre
SOUTH
DAKOT
A
Lake
Sharpe
FALL RIVER BASIN
Lake
HOT SPRINGS
Francis Case
MISSOURI RIVER
1
Lewis and
Clark Lake
LOCATION MAP
TO CUSTER
TO U.S. HWY. 16
TO RAPID CITY
N
87
WIND CAVE
NATIONAL
Pringle
385
PARK
79
S
U
T
H
Cold
89
BLACK HILLS
NATIONAL
Buffalo Gap
FOREST
CUSTER CO.
FALL RIVER CO.
COLD BROOK LAKE
COTTONWOOD SPRINGS
LAKE
TO EDGEMONT 10 U.S. HWV. 18
HOT SPRINGS
&
&
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT
RAVE
HOT SPRINGS
Minnekahta
Har
D
K
O
T
18
18
Oral
Evans
CHEYENNE
71
Angosture Rea.
385
TO STATE LINE
TO STATE LINE
SCALE IN MILES
2
D
2
4
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
FALL RIVER BASIN
SOUTH DAKOTA
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT. OMAHA
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
OMAMA, NEBRASKA
30 SEPT 1977
090/010
2
CECW-Z
202 272 8992
10:21 08/02/93
SUMMARY PAPER
1. Project: Praire du Chien, Wisconsin
2. Purpose: Provide appropriate flood control - local
protection measures to St. Feriole Island and low-lying mainland
portions of the city subject to frequent flooding as a result of
the 1965 flood of record, causing estimated damages of $2.5
million.
3. Location: The city of Praire du Chien, Wisconsin is located
in southwest Wisconsin on the Mississippi River.
4. Authority: The Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (P.L.
91-646) provided for evacuation and flood proofing of structures.
5. Date of Implementation: 1986
6. Project Description: The project included: acquisition of
122 residences and 2 commercial properties, flood proofing of 4
residences (raised-in-place); relocation assistance to all
residential and commercial business property owners affected by
acquisition; and floodplain regulation of approximately 175
structures remaining in the regulatory floodplain. The local
sponsor of the project was the city of Praire du Chien, which
made available, at cost, improved lots within the city limits for
relocatees to move their residences or construct a new dwelling.
7. Challenge and Solution: The original plan was to acquire all
residences in the 10 year floodplain, which included all of St.
Feriole Island, and raise all residential structures in the 10 to
100 year floodplain, which would have included more than 200
structures. However, due to cost-sharing policy problems that
occurred during implementation of the raisings portion of the
project, this element of the project was abandoned after 4
residential structures were raised-in-place. As a result, all
residential structures on St. Feriole Island were aquired and
demolished, as well as 2 commercial structures, and relocation
assistance was provided to affected property owners (as
previously described) in accordance with P.L.91-646. The island
is now a significant recreational and historical resource, and
the businesses remaining on the island are primarily recreation
and tourism related.
8. Implementation Costs and Benefits: (Sep 1983 price levels)
Cost Sharing
Federal
$ 3,685,000
Non-Federal
$ 920,000
Total
$ 4,605,000
Benefits
$ 7,368,000
041/090
CECC-2
202 272 8992
10:21
08/20/93
9. History of Project Performance: Project is performing as
expected. As a result of the current 1993 flood event, it is
estimated that $800,000 in damages have been prevented from this
single event thus far.
042/090
CECM-2
202 272 8992
10:21
08/20/93
043/060
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
U.S. ARMY
278
4
TOE OF BLUFF
PROJECT
LOCATION
NJ
N
W
C
O
N
S
VICINITY MAP
8
133
-
STALE was
27
CRAWFORD
18
CORPORATE LIMITS
35
COUNTY
C/ML
PRAIRTE
DU
CECW-Z
WA
ASHING
H
B BLACKHAWK
1965 FLOOD OU LINE
s)
O
SEWAGE
MAIN
SMALL BOAT
TREATMENT
EYE
SLOUGH
PLAN
HARBOR.,
PIG
S
DE
CHALLIFAUS
is
FRIOL
ST
STORIOL
PROJECT AREA
ISLAND
1965 (REGULATORY) FLOODPLAIN
08/20/93 10:22 202 272 8992
BOLVIN
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATION
FLOOD INSURANCE
LOUIS RD
OPTIONAL FLOOOPROOFING
A.
10 YEAR FLOODPLAIN IEL. 625')
COMMERCIAL
EVACUATION AND RELOCATION
HARBOR
CHANNEL
LAKE McGREGOR
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
PRAIRIE DU CHIEN, WISCONSIN
SCALE AS SHOWN
CORPS OF ENGINEERS U.S.
1
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT El
ER
800
o
800
1600
livited
ST. PAUL DISTRICT
ST. PAUL,MINN.
SCALE IN FEET
30 SEPTEMBER
SUMMARY PAPER
1. Project: Bettendorf, Iowa
2. Purpose: Provide appropriate flood control - local
protection measures to the Bettendorf, Iowa metropolitan area,
subject to frequent flooding as a result of the 1965 flood of
record, causing estimated damages of $1.3 million.
3. Location: The city of Bettendorf, Iowa is located on the
right bank of the Mississippi River in Scott County, Iowa, and is
one of the Quad Cities, along with Davenport, Iowa, and East
Moline, Moline, and Rock Island, Illinois.
4. Authority: Flood Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483)
5. Date of Implementation: 1987
6. Project Description: The project consists of approximately
three miles of levee, 2,200 feet of concrete floodwall, two pump
stations, two new railroad bridges across Duck creek, eight
gatewells and two ponding areas, together with an early warning
system for the entire project.
7. Challenge and Solution: The project was constructed under
five major contracts commencing in July 1982. The last and most
significant construction contract for the project was awarded to
Foley Construction Company in September 1985, and included the
area from I-74 downstream to and including the 10th Street tie-
off. This was a unique area in that it involved close
coordination between the City and Park Board on several items of
the City's Master Plan for the River Front Park Area. This reach
also involved coordination of a unique section of concrete
folding wall.
8. Implementation Costs and Benefits: (Jan 1986 price levels)
Cost Sharing
Federal
$ 14,500,000
Non-Federal
$ 1,510,000
Total
$ 16,010,000
Benefits
$ 36,823,000
9. History of Project Performance: The project is performing as
expected in providing a high degree of protection against floods
on the Mississippi River and Duck Creek for Bettendorf.
Estimated damages prevented since completion of the project total
approximately $8.6 million. Additional estimated damages
prevented as a result of the current 1993 flood event total
approximately $11.7 million thus far.
044/090
CECM-2
8992 277 2022
10:22
08/20/93
NOTE: The city of Davenport, Iowa, located immediately
downstream of Bettendorf, was also provided an opportunity to
participate in a flood protection project. However, in October
1984, the city of Davenport indicated that would be unable to
participate in the proposed project for financial reasons.
09/5/09
CECM-2
8992 277 2020
10:23
08/20/93
046/060
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
U.S. ARMY
73
SOUTH
DAKOTA
MINNESOTA
N
WIS.
IOWA
G
DUEUQUE
CASA
MISSOURI
OPW A
CLINTON
BETTENDORF
DE 1 MOINES)
NEBRASKA
MOCH
NOMANAC
COUNCIL
ISLAND
BLUES
PROJECT
V WALL
LOCATION
LIMITS OF 200 YEAR
5
BETTENDORF
FLOOD
NIVER
NEGRUM
2 NEW
OTH ST
5
A.R. BRIDGES
MISSOURI
QUINCY
ILLINOIS
ST
ST.
KANSAS
ISSANI
12
STREET
II
LIMIT
STREET
VICINITY MAP
STATE
CREEK
25 0 " 10 "
1.00
C
4
SCALE IN WILLS
as
>M
e
CASE 8
10
A
un
STREET
G
G
AST-
@
CARD
@
UNE
on
C
C
CECW-Z
B
G
SHEET PILE
I-WALL
CELLULAR WALL
C
FUMP
PUMP
STATION
STATION
MISSISSIPPI
RIVER
LEGEND
74
ARSENAL
asms
....
NEW LEVEE
202 272 8992
ISLAND
EXISTING LEVEE TO BE IMPROVED
C
CLOSURE STRUCTURE
M
O
L
I
N
E
5
SANDBAG CLOSURE
C
GATEWELL
100 0
300
1000
1500
SCALE IN FEET
ILLINOIS
PONDING ARCA
NOTES:
I EXISTING GOVERNMENT INTERCEPOR
BASE LINE
BOX SEWER FROM WEST BORGER 10
WARIS
28 THE STREET, LANDWARD OF LEVEL
HED
2 [KISTING SAMITARY INTERCEPTOR
10:23
MID
10'
SEWER LENGTH OF PROJECT, ANDWARD
LAMDSIDE
RANDCAM
LANDSIDE
ADVERSIDE
BASE LINE
VARIES
10"
AIVERSIDE
OF LIME or PROTECTION
FILL
12
14
IV' RIPRAP
LUISTING CROUND
$1
" BEDDING
y
=
25
AREA
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
COMPACTED
18" REPEAR
# SERIPTING
IMPERVIDUS FILL
" BEDDING
ERISTING ROC A LINE
COMPACTED IMPERVIOUS FILL
EXISTING
TAX
BETTENDORF. IOWA
GROUND
0" STRIPPING
ROCK FILL
08/20/93
COVERNMENT SEWIR
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B
SCALE AS SHOWN
TYPICAL LEVEE SECTIONS
ROCK ISLAND DISTRICT
NO SCALE
30 JANUARY 1986
R5659
SUMMARY PAPER
1. Project: Mississippi River at St. Louis, Missouri (St. Louis
Floodwall).
2. Purpose: To provide flood protection to the city of St. Louis.
3. Location: St. Louis, Missouri.
4. Authority: Public Law 256, dated 9 August 1955.
5. Date of Implementation: Project completed in August 1963.
6. Project Description: Project consists of 21,200 feet of earth
levee, 34,000 feet of reinforced concrete floodwall, closure
structures, seepage control measures, 28 pumping stations,
alterations to 44 sewer systems and crushed stone road surfacing
for the earth levee portion.
7. Challenges and Solutions: The challenge was to provide
adequate flood protection to an urban area consisting of 3,160
acres of commercial and industrial development within the City of
St. Louis. Solution was to provide levees and a floodwall in an
unobtrusive manner.
8. Implementation Cost and Benefits: The total cost of the
project was $79,505,200 which includes a $1,832,500 non-Federal
contribution. The project was economically justified at 3 1/4%.
9. History of Project Performance: The project has performed to
expectations. There has been no failure or overtopping of the
project.
0477090
CECOM-2
202 272 8992
10:23
08/20/93
048/060
U. S. ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
272
ILLIMINE
INTER
pares
-
there
USEN
(a)
D
had legs Head
a
Aud Craps -
MISSOURI
road
n Lohe
-
-
NAME
lives
TENTA
Mrs -
M
.
-
OF
-- busing
CARTH FILL SECTION
-
:
SCALE (IF SECTIONS
KNR - ....
"1" TYPE FLOODWALL
0
was
VICENIFY MAP
KILL " Matt
1
39'47
WW
are
2
in
THE
" about
INCHARD a .. name SINCARE
INVOICE " a subject
M'
LIMIT OF PROJECT
1 DOWN suching
above -
ILLINOIS
WERE
a -
they
13
CECW-Z
HOW
PCMI STATE
THE
LEWIS
1
THE
/
HEAVE govern
to THE
is
ARIOGE of COPUL Bk. DUE
/
WITH CIGNTE
- or
RWLL
-
- MII BOY 11490
I
KELL
16'10'
PI use
I
NW
N PAYMENT 11"1"
DAM "
INTERNET LOVER
THE
/
11.
REGISTRAT
as DIRECTOR your -
10
NEAL
require - trute
NIGHT DONE THUCKED
100ms "
IIM
I
-
-
19 complex FOR -
PW PAYMENT
- NEW
221
NUEL
-
Rain Works
fatting
110
202 272 8992
RAVE
$ 1
- STRUCTURE
M GOBIN LEWILL
LIMIT OF PROJECT
ST LOUIS
ST LOUIS COUNTY
MAINE stores
BE
95"14'
...... NO. hav
PRODUCT GONE Feveral
19 100
PLEASE street
10:24
-
-
- - and - - use New
7
-
-
again
.
Most
-
1
MISSOURI
$
BILK
-
10'16"
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
:
M'00'
I
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
Holf
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
Surpage relet will
08/20/93
" instituted in Beach 3
AT ST. LOUIS. MISSOURI
LEGEND
57 instited in Heah 4
scoll - was
ANNI Box protection registed (53) gate)
-
.
" $ APMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SP. LOUIS
Drived FITE red on Irver
CORPS or ENGINEERS
" LOUIS MISSOURI
Gase mins " UNIT in y (PIR sur
MUNE 10. 1921
JULY 26,1993 $2.95
Science BORN GAY BORN Link
DC
OF
THE
PRE
LIBI
Ro
LOB
DC
00
SPECIAL REPORT
93
Missy and Tony Evers
of Cedar City, Missouri
30
10090
WEAT
.OOD,
SWEAT
EAT
DISASTERS
The roof of roof of a barns
pokes. for pokes:forlornly,above, above)
flooded aim low 1-80 im low floodedil-80imlowa loward
THE
NORTH
AND
A backache about to
happen: filling sandbags
Photograph-for ME.by.Ron
in Quincy, Missouri
By GEORGE J. CHURCH
HE WORST IS SUPPOSED TO BE OVER THIS WEEKEND. THE FLOOD CREST ON THE MIS-
T
sissippi, 46 ft. above normal (and 3 ft. above the highest ever recorded before),
was scheduled to pass St. Louis, Missouri, on Monday. It should roll by Cairo,
Illinois, about 180 miles to the south, by Friday. There, the Ohio joins the Mis-
sissippi, which moves into a broader, deeper channel that should be able to car-
ry all the water pouring in from upstream without overflowing the levees, dikes and
dams south of Cairo. The people, businesses and farms lining the Father of Waters for
the roughly 600 miles south to New Orleans should be safe. Upstream, houses, roads
and fields should begin to resurface above the new lakes and inland seas covering
parts of nine states inundated by the Mis-
sissippi, the Missouri and tributary rivers,
streams and creeks that nobody outside
the immediate area had ever heard of be-
fore last week.
FAA
DIANA WALKER FOR TIME
If. But. Only.
If
sunshine finally puts an end to
the rains that have been lashing the upper
Midwest and swelling the rivers for the
past three months, in amounts often
difficult to believe (an inch in only six min-
utes last week at Papillion, Nebraska).
Otherwise the crest could be even higher
than predicted: continued rain caused
forecasts of the expected maximum height
at St. Louis to be raised a full foot within
two days late last week. On Saturday,
thunderstorms dropped an additional 5 in.
of rain on central Iowa. A dangerous sec-
ond crest could chase the big one down the
Mississippi. and secondary rivers could
burst their banks in areas SO far spared.
That happened last Thursday night in Far-
go, North Dakota. The Red River, en-
gorged by a daylong deluge, rose 4 ft. in six
hours, rampaging into town and causing
sewage to back up into homes and Dakota
Hospital.
Another if: more levees, soaked and
pounded by rushing waters for weeks,
could give way as the crest approaches or
even after it passes. Early last Friday
morning the Missouri River poured over
COMFORT: President Clinton consoles Christina Hein in flood-ravaged Des Moines
the top of a railroad embankment being
used as a levee in St. Charles County, Mis-
worst of all in the U.S. by many measures:
floods and above all the fact that over the
souri, northwest of St. Louis. Its waters
height of flood crest, area inundated (close
years most population centers have been
mingled with those swirling south from
to 17,000 sq. mi., vs. 12,700 in the awe-
protected by levees and dams built high
the Mississippi 20 miles sooner than usu-
some flood of 1937 along many of the same
and strong enough to hold against the
al, forcing several hundred people to join
rivers) and property damage. Government
pounding of a once-in-a-century flood.
the 7,000 who had already evacuated.
estimates skyrocketed in little more than
Hold they did: with few exceptions, the cit-
Then, Friday night, the Mississippi broke
a week from $500 million to as much as
ies flooded were those protected only by
though a sand levee at West Quincy, Mis-
$8 billion, and the final tally might be
privately built levees that were not well
souri, forcing closing of the Bayview
higher still.
constructed. The waters that flooded agri-
Bridge about a quarter-mile away-the last
The big exception: the death toll, 26
cultural land mostly broke through or
span that was open over a 200-mile stretch
late last week, was only a hair above the 23
swept over levees not as tall as those
of the river where it flows between Mis-
killed by the mammoth flood of 1973 in
guarding the cities.
souri and Illinois. The bridge will be
many of the same areas, and only a tenth
Only
statistics, and even the view
closed for weeks, whatever happens, an
of the 250 who perished in the 1937 flood-
from rooftop level, give little idea of the
indication that worse may yet come before
to say nothing of the record 2,100 drowned
sheer extent of inundation. That can really
the worst is over.
on the single day of May 31, 1889, in
be glimpsed only from the air, as by the
But
even with few or no additions,
Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Main reasons:
crew of a U.S. Coast Guard Dolphin heli-
the Great Flood of '93 is already one of the
abundant warnings, evacuation plans well
copter that flew over the St. Louis area last
all-time monsters. It might go down as the
worked out in advance. the lack of flash
week to survey the damage and scout
TIME. JULY 26. 1993
27
places where it might later land to evacu-
will be mixed with the debris. And of
ate flood victims. The seemingly endless
course, mud-tons and tons and tons
THE EXTENT
expanse of water made visual navigation
of mud.
difficult by submerging the landmarks pi-
While throwing sandbag on top of
OF THE DAMAGE
N
lots usually look for. Long stretches of
sandbag on top of sandbag to erect make-
highway and railroad tracks were invisi-
shift barriers against the water, some peo-
Key
ble; river islands had disappeared: the riv-
ple nonetheless wondered what could be
er channels themselves could not be dis-
done with all that sand-or, for that mat-
Flood
tinguished from the water that had spread
ter. the bags-once the waters subside.
Official
peak
onto once dry land. Mountains of strip-
The Army Corps of Engineers calculates
flood
Area affected
mined coal that usually glisten in the sun
that it has distributed 26.5 million bags
level
by flooding
south of St. Louis poked only their very
through the flood area. and each has been
Between 1 ft. and
tips above the water. At the Kirkwood Ath-
filled with roughly 35 lbs. of sand; they
1.5 ft. of rain from
letic Association complex in Kirkwood,
can't just be left in piles all over the place.
April 1 to July 15
Missouri, only the dugout roofs could be
Piling up the bags has been good thera-
seen above the water covering baseball di-
py for people eager to do something to
Between 1.5 ft.
and 2 ft.
amonds, and a nearby golf course looked
combat the floods while keeping their
Flooded
like a series of small green islands lost in a
minds off their losses. "All we can do is
Over 2 ft.
river
sea. At the Shrine of Our Lady of the
sandbag," said John Boerding, 50, who fig-
Rivers in St. Charles County, a statue of
ured that more than half his 2,000-acre
TIME Map by Paul J. Pugliese and Joe Lertola
crop of soybeans, corn and
TIME
wheat in St. Charles County had
The flood has killed at least 26
already been destroyed by late
people, caused an estimated
last week, and was worried that
$8 billion in damage and
STEVE
his home would sink as well.
covered over 10 million acres.
"What else can we do? Most
people in this area don't even
Clinton declared more than
have flood insurance." But even
200 counties federal disaster
if there are no outbreaks of dis-
areas, including all 99
ease because of the filth in the
counties in Iowa.
waters, the Midwest will shortly
be suffering one of the world's
worst collective backaches from
the unaccustomed labor of fill-
The Mississippi River
ing the bags and muscling them
drainage basin covers over
into place.
Elizabeth Smith, assistant
1,250,000 sq. mi., collects
professor of psychiatry at
water from 40% of the
Washington University in St.
contiguous U.S. and dumps
Louis, who has done extensive
100 trillion gal. of water into
research into the psychological
the Gulf of Mexico.
effects of disasters, expects
0
emotional as well as physical
0
pain among flood survivors.
A
Many, she notes, have been un-
EVACUATION: Fleeing the flood in Cedar City, Missouri
der stress for weeks, since
flooding started in some areas
the Virgin Mary appeared to be dancing on
as far back as April. People who go
River
the waves.
through that, Smith notes, react in a dif-
Even if the rain and flooding stop com-
ferent way from those who survive one-
River
pletely now. it may take a month in some
shot traumas like fires or plane crashes:
St. Charles
Missouri
MO.
ILL.
areas for all that water to flow back into
they do not experience flashbacks to the
the rivers, through the levees it came
disaster or extreme jumpiness but instead
around or over. (Yes. through. The water
suffer prolonged "depression, sadness
might go back through holes eroded in the
and feelings of hopelessness." She adds
St. Louis
levees or through gravity drains that are
that even people who were only near, not
River
closed during floods but reopened to allow
in. the floods may feel a new sense of
a backflow into the river.) Then comes the
vulnerability.
Missions
0
4 mi,
monumental task of cleanup. The reced-
Perhaps. but in the middle of the disas-
ing waters will leave behind all manner of
ter Midwesterners showed a stunning
wreckage. Examples: the floating chicken
good humor, resilience and neighborly
coops and broken tree branches Paul Rice
spirit. It was especially notable in the lowa
The Missouri River broke
has to steer his flat-bottomed boat past to
capital. Des Moines, which was hit possi-
through a levee near St.
reach his submerged home in St. Charles
bly harder than any other big city. A flood
Charles on July 16.
County. Or the lumber. three ice chests
along the Raccoon River at the beginning
Floodwaters surged
and four plastic garbage cans he has
of last week knocked out the city's water-
plucked from the waters around his house
treatment plant. Officials expect to send
northward, merging with
and placed on his roof-still a foot above
water for bathing and flushing toilets
Mississippi backwaters 20
the waterline. In some areas. agricultural
coursing through the pipes again this
miles upstream from their
chemicals and human and animal wastes
week. but there will be no running water
normal confluence.
28
TIME. JULY 26. 1993
Source National Weatner Service mare Analysis Center NOAA
N. DAK.
Lake
Superior
1
d
MINNESOTA
MICHIGAN
ed
10
IN
St. Croix River
St. Paul
June 26
19.2 ft.
26
S. DAK.
14 ft
Minneapolis
4
a
WISCONSIN
Minnesota River
St.
S.
<>
Paul
River Winona &
Prairie
du Chien
June 30
Estherville
21.9
ft.
Lake Michigan
MICHIGAN
June 30
15.3 ft.
7 ft.
Estherville
Prairie
River River Racecon Moines Des
Wisconsin 16 ft. Rivers
Rockton
June 30
du Chien
12.4 ft.
0
Sioux
City
IOWA
Cedar Dubuque River
10ft.
Dubuque
July 6
B
Rockton
1
0
Iowa River
22.7 ft.
a
17 #
D
NEB.
Missouri River
Des Moines
Rock River
Chicago
Davenport
2
E
Omaha
Van Meter
Des Moines
0
Davenport
Rock
July 11
5
A
July 9
34.3 ft.
Island
Ottumwa
N
22.6 ft.
N
Nebraska
23 ft.
15 It."
2
City
8
Kansas City
INDIANA
Nebraska
July 16
0
City
36.8 ft.
Quincy
0
July 14
July 13
ILL.
32 ft.
Quincy
23.5 ft.
32.2 ft.
Hannibal
N
as
ILLINOIS
18 R.
8
17 ft.
B Area of
detail
$
KANSAS
Kansas City
8
St. Louis
4 mi.
Jefferson City
1
0
St. Louis
g
July 19
46 ft.
Ohio River
30 ft
MISSOURI
KENTUCKY
Cairo
OKLAHOMA
ARKANSAS
safe to drink for an additional three weeks
or SO. Meanwhile, residents seeking water
LEVEES: DO THEY WORK TOO WELL?
for any purpose last week had to line up
for supplies trucked in from outside and
A RIVER VIEW IS A PRICELESS ASSET, OR so THE RESIDENTS OF DAVENPORT,
dispensed at 100 different locations (limit:
Iowa, believed. Now, however, they are realizing that their postcard vistas
2 gal. to a customer); they were forbidden
came at a price. Two weeks ago, the town, which had chosen not to build a le-
to enter office buildings because sprinkler
vee, was swamped by millions of gallons of murky water. Yet while Davenport
systems could not protect them from fire.
flooded, the business district of nearby Rock Island, Illinois, barely got its feet
Downtown at times looked like a city un-
wet. Reason: in 1971 Rock Island decided to build a rock-and-clay floodwall.
der military occupation: deserted except
In spite of the impression created by images of levees and houses being over-
for National Guardsmen who patrolled the
run by rising waters, the mounds of earth and rock built to contain the Mississippi
streets while helicopters buzzed over-
around population centers have by and large worked. At week's end, along 600
head. President Clinton, who toured
miles of swollen, surging river, most major levees continued to hold.
flooded areas many times during his 12
The problem, ironically, is that the enormous system of levees built up over
years as Governor of Arkansas, flew in
more than 200 years may be working too well. As the flood recedes and cities
Wednesday and declared, "I've never seen
like Davenport begin the dismal task of cleaning up, sharp questions are being
anything on this scale before."
raised about the wisdom of the nation's approach to flood control, and the cost,
Yet as a chain of about 100 people
both financial and environmental, of a program that relies on man-made struc-
heaved sandbags to protect the water-
tures to contain the mighty river. Over the past seven decades, the U.S. Army
treatment plant in West Des Moines from
Corps of Engineers has spent billions of dollars constructing an elaborate
further flooding, the atmosphere was
flood-control network, including 7,000 miles of levees, along the Mississippi
downright festive. Jokes flew (most popu-
and the rivers that feed it. The system was intended to protect the communi-
lar: the state motto, "lowa-A Place to
ties that sprang up on the river's edge, and most of the time it has. But many
Grow," should be changed to "lowa-A
environmentalists believe that, over the years, the corps's attempts to control
Place to Row"). Valerie Kenworthy, 15, ex-
the Mississippi have backfired. Left to its own devices, a flooding river spreads
plained her presence: the scene "looked
horizontally, filling its natural flood-
cool on TV SO I came
plain and enriching it with fertile,
down." At Iowa Methodist
alluvial soil. Along the Mississippi,
Medical Center, the only
however, this pattern of natural flow
designated trauma center
has been increasingly blocked by a
serving the city, president
patchwork of levees.
1. Forced by levees
into a narrow channel,
David Ramsey explained
The effect is that an increasingly
the river backs up,
why trauma cases are ac-
pent-up river rises higher, moves
pushing water
tually down: "People are
faster downstream, and is more
upstream.
helping out and are not out
prone to back up like a clogged
on motorcycles drinking
drain, increasing the pressure on
beer and acting crazy."
unfortified areas. "The water has to
Hospital workers were
go somewhere," says aquatic ecolo-
busy carrying buckets of
gist Richard Sparks of the Illinois
water for patients. "Our
Natural History Survey, "and if we
arms are six inches long-
don't allow it to spread out, the only
2
er," joked emergency-
direction it can go is up."
room manager Linda
Nowhere are these effects more
Shoemaker. "We carry
dramatic than in the Mississippi
2. Between the levees,
buckets here and go home
Delta, which used to be replenished
the river rises higher and
and carry more." Lining
every year with rich alluvial depos-
faster, increasing the impact
up for water at a Des
its. Now the soil, laden with nutri-
downstream.
TIME Graphic by Steve Hart
Moines parking lot, Donna
ents, is carried by the river, bypass-
Bailey was upbeat in de-
es the Delta and falls into the Gulf of
scribing her family's cop-
Mexico, where it is contributing to algae blooms and threatening the fisheries.
ing strategy: "Every surface is covered
The Delta is sinking, with the result that the levees keeping the river at bay
with bowls of water. And we flush the toi-
have to be periodically raised.
lets with rainwater we keep in the bath-
But it is ordinary human activity-not just the Corps of Engineers-that
tub." Doug Riggs, on vacation from his job
has robbed the Mississippi basin of its most precious resource: the wetlands
as a social worker in Marshalltown, drove
and riparian forests that once absorbed excess rainwater like so many giant
75 miles into Des Moines to help out and
sponges. In fact, the displacement of this natural flood-control system by an ar-
found himself managing a shelter at Shep-
tificial one may, over time, increase the number of record-busting floods.
herd of the Valley Lutheran Church. But
Even critics of the corps concede that protecting existing cities and towns
at week's end only 25 flooded-out people
is appropriate. Hannibal, Missouri, can only be thankful that it has just com-
had arrived; many more had found family,
pleted construction of a new $8 million floodwall, without which the Mark
friends or neighbors to take them in.
Twain home and museum would now be underwater. But absolutely critical to
Downriver the story was the same.
stemming future flood losses, a federal task force concluded last year, is pro-
Mayor Chuck Scholz of Quincy, Illinois,
tection of riverine floodplains from further development. In some cases it may
was startled and touched to find two girls
even prove cost effective to relocate entire flood-prone communities. "We
who looked to be a mere eight to 10 years
need to start giving land back to the river," says Larry Larson, head of Wiscon-
old clutching shovels and waiting to board
sin's floodplain program. "If we don't, sooner or later the river will take
a bus carrying volunteers to work at a
it back."
-By J. Madeleine Nash/Chicago
nearby sandbagging site. At Ste. Gene-
vieve, Missouri, south of St. Louis, volun-
teer inmates from the Farmington Correc-
30
TIME. JULY 26. 1993
FOR
TIME
tional Center heaved sandbags side by side
Bronco; Mike sleeps on the roof. Nearby,
SANDBAGS AWAY! Army helicopter crew
with people from the neighborhood. "Man,
the roof of the family's second car, a 1977
helps build levee for Des Moines
these guys can throw sandbags like you
Cutlass, is barely visible above the water.
wouldn't believe!" marveled Gerald
"It's a goner," says Mike.
of St. Charles who sat high and, SO far, dry
Basler. a highway-maintenance worker.
The Rooney brothers live only a few
on elevated land.
"Some of these guys can catch them in
dozen yards away from each other in St.
But-there always seems to be a but-
midair with one hand!" Ken Novak. who is
Charles County, but the Great Flood is
much of the drowned farmland is normally
serving eight years for first-degree as-
treating them quite differently. Walter
among the most fertile acreage on earth,
sault, showed a reciprocal friendliness.
Rooney's three-story house sits in 11 ft. of
and prospective crop losses are spectacu-
"We had one lady who had tears in her
water, yet Rooney, 64. is able to pop a cold
lar: $1.5 billion worth of soybeans in Illi-
eyes, she was SO happy to see guys from
beer from the fridge, kick back in his air-
nois; $1 billion of corn in lowa. "There
prison coming to help." Novak related. "I
conditioned second-story sitting room and
is still time to recover," says Victor
told her my shoulder was clean and I'd
listen to music. all thanks to a power line
Lespinasse. a Dean Witter grain analyst in
give it to her to cry on."
that hasn't been turned off. His brother
Chicago. "But none of us is ever going to
There will be more tears later, and not
Ray, 60, isn't so fortunate. "That's my
forget how the rains came in the summer
of joy or friendliness. as the damages
house over there." he says, pointing to a
for the first time, out of nowhere. And we
mount. Already, amid the determined
blue roof just above the waterline. "I left
will never feel the same about our place on
good cheer, there are those like Mike
my house in the 1973 flood, and they stole
earth." He is referring to the flood's menac-
Johnson who curse the river, the skies, the
everything I had. There's no way I'm leav-
ing peculiarity. It is an anomaly in the Mis-
dams and levees upstream (for holding al-
ing this time." So he sits on Walter's sec-
sissippi basin that it came in July, giving
together too well and increasing pressure
ond-story porch, just 1 ft. above the Missis-
farmers less time to recover than previous
downriver). and the government. Mike, an
sippi. and watches debris from Minnesota
inundations, which almost always came in
out-of-work machine operator, and his
and Wisconsin, lowa and Illinois float by.
late winter or early spring. Summers in the
wife Roberta and three children were or-
"If it looks interesting, I'll grab it,"
area are usually noted for searing heat and
dered out of their two-story brick house in
he says.
Saharan drought rather than for rains on
the St. Louis suburb of Lemay on July 9 at
Despite stunning TV pictures of flooded
which Noah's ark might float.
3:30 a.m. Every day since, Mike has re-
city streets, though, most of the inundation
Suffering and losses may be eased this
turned to the house in a neighbor's boat to
has affected thinly populated farmland. For
time because the Federal Emergency Man-
inspect it: late last week 6 ft. of water
example, the 7,000 people evacuated last
agement Agency is moving with unchar-
sloshed around the living room. The fam-
week from the 40% of St. Charles County
acteristic speed and vigor. From its
ily. plus two Chow show dogs and two Per-
that was expected to be underwater shortly
creation 14 years ago right through Hurri-
sian cats. is living in Mike's blue 1992
contrasted with 55,000 residents of the city
cane Andrew in Florida last summer,
TIME. JULY 26. 1993
31
FEMA built a reputation for bumble-footed
AFTER THE DELUGE: HEALTH HAZARDS
sluggishness. Democratic Senator Ernest
Hollings once called its officials "the sorri-
est bunch of bureaucratic jackasses." Un-
IF HURRICANES ARE MOTHER NATURE'S BARROOM BRAWLERS, SWIFTLY FINISH-
der a new administrator, James Lee Witt,
ing their business and heading for the door, floods tend to behave more like
however, FEMA has moved quickly to set
unwanted houseguests: they park themselves in the living room, tear up the
up offices in at least eight flooded states.
furniture, and generally make a nuisance of themselves for weeks or months
Regional staffs actually went into some ar-
before finally having the decency to pack up and hit the road. That's not good
eas before flooding became serious to help
news for residents of the Mississippi River Valley, who long after floodwaters
state officials apply for disaster assis-
have crested will play host to a chocolate-colored inland sea sprawling across
tance. Witt has since started a daily morn-
the spine of the Midwest-a stagnant, festering stew of industrial waste, agri-
ing conference call with state emergency
cultural pesticides and raw sewage that laminates buildings in goo and pro-
managers and directed FEMA workers to
vides a superb growing environment for bacteria. The entire floodplain, says
respond immediately to state requests-
Anita Walker in Des Moines, Iowa, will be a "muddy, stinky, awful mess to
indeed, not to wait until asked but to ap-
clean up."
proach state officials with lists of things
As the Great Flood of '93 recedes, it is likely to leave in its wake a rash of
that the agency thinks might be needed
health problems ranging from disease to chemical pollution. A variety of infec-
and that it can supply, such as the water-
tions related to sanitation and hygiene, all spread by floodwater, are already
purification equipment that was delivered
giving health officials headaches. Thanks to at least 18 breached sewage
to a hospital in Des Moines within 24
plants, microbes have penetrated the nearly 800 miles of piping that keeps the
hours.
Des Moines area's 250,000 residents supplied with drinking water; it will take
Bill Clinton has also been trying to
a month to disinfect the system. Tetanus is another concern, especially for
move fast. Last Wednesday he cut short a
sandbaggers and rescuers slogging through the slimy silt and sewage-
Hawaiian vacation to fly to Des Moines,
invested waters. And then there is encephalitis, a viral disease that inflames
where someone along his motorcade route
the spinal cord and brain and can produce a combination of low-grade fever,
held up a sign reading ALOHA, BILL. WEL-
seizures and even coma. It is
COME TO THE OTHER BIG ISLAND. The Pres-
transmitted by mosquitoes,
ident announced that he will ask Congress
whose numbers are expect-
to put up an additional $2.5 billion for
ed to explode along the satu-
flood relief, which will have to be bor-
rated bottomlands in the
rowed and will add to the budget deficit.
coming weeks.
On Saturday, he returned to the area with
So far, there have been
nearly half his Cabinet to talk about the re-
FOR TIME
no major outbreaks of ill-
gion's needs, and promised to send federal
ness. Health officials say
troops if necessary. Clinton is determined
such traditional scourges as
not to get caught in the same bind as
cholera and typhoid are un-
George Bush, who reacted slowly to hurri-
likely to pose a significant
canes in Florida, Hawaii and South Caroli-
threat, and authorities in-
na and got himself blamed not only for fail-
sist that clean water and un-
ing to relieve suffering but also for slowing
contaminated food-which
economic recovery in those areas. But the
SO far have been available in
President and his aides insisted that
most areas-will ensure that
Washington could not make up flood
a full-scale epidemic doesn't
losses dollar for dollar: states, local gov-
take place. "There's a mis-
ernments, private charities and the vic-
perception that every time
tims themselves will have to bear much of
NOT A DROP TO DRINK: Des Moines residents
there is a disaster, people
the cost. Said Chris Edley Jr., a program
fill jugs from water trucked into the city
are at risk," says Mitchell
associate director for the Office of Man-
Cohen of the Centers for Dis-
agement and Budget: "For farmers, the
ease Control and Prevention. "The key elements are providing safe water and
point is to make sure that it's not a disas-
safe food. Health authorities know this controls any infectious-disease
trous year. The object is to get them
problem."
through the crisis, not make them whole."
Less predictable, however, are the effects of the farm pesticides and in-
Even before the rains stopped and the
dustrial chemicals churning in the silt-encrusted swamps and ponds ma-
rivers crested, a debate was breaking out
rooned by subsiding rivers. While hydrologists anticipate that the sheer vol-
about how to handle the next flood. "There
ume of water will dilute and neutralize any toxicity, no one knows what
are two extremes," observed Brigadier
dangers, if any, are posed by toxic runoff from hundreds of submerged fac-
General Stanley Genega, director of civil
tories, fuel-storage facilities and waste dumps. "Think of all this stuff mak-
works for the Corps of Engineers. "There
ing a witches' brew of new compounds," says Kevin Coyle, president of
are the folks who say we ought to remove
American Rivers, an environmental group in Washington. "We have no
everything from the banks of the rivers and
precedent."
let nature take its course. On the other ex-
There is, however, plenty of precedent for the nightmare that awaits resi-
treme are folks who urge us to line the riv-
dents when the waters finally recede. Denizens of the river valley who have en-
er with levees and control the whole thing.
dured previous temper tantrums of the Mississippi are all too well acquainted
The real answer is, there has to be some
with the thick, claylike layers of earth that will coat the inside of houses, barns
balance." An unexceptionable sentiment,
and machinery, delaying repairs and driving up the cost of recovery. Farmers
no doubt-but where to strike that balance?
have an appropriate term for the stuff: they call it gumbo.
-By Kevin Fedarko.
Should the levees that gave way be rebuilt
Reported by Marc Hequet/St. Paul and David Seideman/New York
and made higher? Or should they be left
alone, on the assumption that they give
people living behind them a false sense of
32
TIME. JULY 26. 1993
Con
Agra
to
ALTON
S.
p
in
-
67
y
STOP
(S
d
d
4
a
r
RON HAVIV-SABA FOR TIME
A child clutches her father in fear as water
er Nature-a futile endeavor, as evidenced
book, A Treasury of Mississippi River Folk-
d
rises toward an ironic sign
by the wild unlikelihood of devastating
lore, quotes an obscure orator. one S.S.
S
rain in July, which nonetheless happened.
Prentiss, as saying, "When God made the
security, and emphasis be shifted to water-
The consistent pattern of late 20th century
world, He had a large amount of surplus
proofing buildings and moving them to
flooding in the U.S. has been a decline in
water which he turned loose and told to go
higher ground? In theory, it might be ad-
deaths proportionate to the area inundat-
where it pleased: it has been going where
visable to try to discourage people from
ed. but a startling rise in property damage,
it pleased ever since and that is the Missis-
e
building or farming on floodplains-but
due to increased building and farming on
sippi River." No doubt it will continue to
how, given that they are very fertile and
the floodplains and inflation in dollar val-
go pretty much where it pleases for centu-
d
scenic?
ues. Beyond that, all is as uncertain as the
ries to come.
-Reported by Jon D. Hull/St.
The debate is all the more vexing be-
exact height of the flood crest and the pre-
Charles, Staci D. Kramer/St. Louis, J. Madeleine
cause it involves trying to outguess Moth-
cise time it will pass St. Louis. A 1955
Nash/Chicago and Elizabeth Taylor/Des Moines
IF YOU THINK THE WEATHER IS BAD
tions, and stayed there for tens or hundreds of years before
recovering. And the changes happened not over centuries, as
S-
scientists would have predicted, but in as little as a decade.
WEATHER IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT MORE THAN A
The tranquillity of recent centuries may be a climatic fluke.
week or two in advance. But when it comes to climate-the
The discovery, says British scientist David Peel, co-
long-term weather averages that make the U.S. temperate
author of one of the reports, is "staggering." Worldwide tem-
it
and the tropics torrid-scientists are confident that they un-
perature shifts of a few degrees over half a century-the kind
derstand the overall pattern. Over the past million years or
envisioned in theories of global warming-would disrupt
:
so, the planet has swung between ice ages lasting on the or-
weather patterns, change sea levels and be difficult for ani-
der of 100,000 years and interglacial periods of about 10,000.
mal and plant life to adjust to. The changes Peel measured,
During each phase, the climate is pretty steady. It's the sta-
though, are roughly three times as severe and rapid.
bility of the current interglacial epoch, which began 10,000
One ominous sign: normal temperatures during the last
years ago, that made the invention of agriculture, and thus
interglacial epoch were about 4°F warmer than they are this
the rise of civilization, possible.
time around, and levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
Now it looks as though the concept of long-term stability
were significantly As humans pump more and more
may be wrong. According to two articles in last week's Na-
CO2 into the air and temperatures rise, the planet will ap-
ture, deep holes drilled into the ancient ice of Greenland have
proach the state it was in back then. And if those conditions
brought up evidence of sudden. dramatic swings in climate
tend to be inherently unstable-an idea scientists consider
during the last interglacial period, about 120,000 years ago.
plausible-people may someday look back on the early 1990s
Several times, average global temperatures dropped as
as an idyllic time when the weather was benign.
much as 25°F. plunging the planet back into ice-age condi-
-By Michael D. Lemonick. Reported by Barry Hillenbrand/London
TIME. 20. 1993
33