Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2018-33-Minutes for Meeting November 27,2017 Recorded 1/25/2018
Recorded in Deschutes County Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk CJ2018-33 Commissioners' ,journal 01/25/2018 7:37:55 AM II�II�I� 2018-33 For Recording Stamp Only Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97703-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Allen Conference Room Monday, November 27, 2017 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Phil Henderson. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel, Chris Ogren, Administrative Intern; and Sharon Ross, Board Executive Secretary. Several citizens and several representatives of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. ACTION ITEMS 1. Update from Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center: Dana Martin, OSU Extension and Carol Tollefson, Director of Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center presented the update to the Board. OSU Extension and the Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center are partners for requesting state funding. They are currently working with irrigation districts for a water education program position that would be housed at the research center located in Madras. By way of history, the research center was relocated from Redmond to Madras with a satellite location in Powell Butte. There are two active programs currently at the research center involving plant pathology and soil health & plant nutrition. The research center also provides Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session November 27, 2017 Page 1 of 8 support for the smoke management program and a learning garden that provides field trip experiences for local school children. The Powell Butte location was constructed and then a Brazilian nematode was found on the grounds which prompted Oregon Department of Agriculture to suspend operations on the property. An advisory group was formed to review the possible uses of the location and the best course of action was determined to sell the property. Ms. Tollefson presented a letter from the Dean of Oregon State University that reviewed the issues with the Powell Butte property. The research center is currently out of space and the proceeds would help with expansion. Commissioner Baney inquired if there was opportunity for an education center in Redmond so Deschutes County students didn't have to travel out of county to Madras for the learning garden. Ms. Tollefson noted over the next year the research center will be considering a weed management position. The thought is to hire a researcher on pest management and to educate on eradicating invasive weeds. County Administrator Anderson suggested communications with our Deschutes County Forester to give input on their program. Commissioner DeBone suggested partnerships with education and outreach for that program. 2. Cohesive Strategy Coordinator Discussion: Joe Stutler, Senior Advisor presented the item for discussion. County Administrator Anderson stated this item was requested during the budget process last spring and Mr. Stutler was directed to investigate a partnership with other counties and the Forest Service on funding this position and then bring it back to the Board for consideration. Mr. Stutler thanked the Board for signing the letter of support for the Deschutes National Forest Integrating for Resilient Landscapes Project. Mr. Stutler stressed the need for the Cohesive Strategy Coordinator position. He noted that funding opportunities can be lost if not acted upon timely. By way of example he cited to the recent letter approved by the Board (during the AOC conference) which represents an opportunity to secure funds from a larger three million dollar fire program. Mr. Anderson noted a formal vote should be taken for signature of the letter as it was signed during the Association of Oregon Counties conference in Eugene. HENDERSON: Move approval of signature on the fuels management support letter for The Deschutes National Forest DEBONE: Second Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session November 27, 2017 Page 2 of 8 VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes DEBONE: Yes BANEY: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Mr. Stutler stated he has been looking at options to fund the position for over a year now. He has worked with the Legal Department on forming draft documents of agreement. He stated he has a verbal agreement from Lake County they have committed to the money and explained that Klamath County feels this is a great idea and they want more than just the northern half of their county covered. Mr. Stutler stated he has started conversations with both Crook and Jefferson Counties. Mr. Stutler explained the appropriate budget for the position is $150,000 for start-up for the first year and then $125,000 — $130,000 for following years. Mr. Stutler noted there was a shortfall for funding from the 'feds'. Mr. Stutler noted the calculation of the contracted amount would be to take the $150,000 and divide in half because he thinks he will be able to get $75,000 from the 'feds'. Commissioner Henderson commented he thought the 'feds' changed their minds about their level of contribution. Mr. Stutler responded that is correct and that is what this letter was about. Mr. Stutler stated the cost for Deschutes County would not exceed $34,500 and there would be draft agreements with the other four counties and the 'feds'. A request for proposal/qualifications for a coordinator position would be advertised. Commissioner Baney inquired to whom that person would report. Mr. Stutler responded it would be him and commented on the cohesive strategy steering committee saying it would be like the Project Wildfire position and then his job would be the contracting administrator and he would provide oversight to the steering committee as the new position would need course direction. Commissioner Henderson commented he felt this position was to be a replacement for Mr. Stutler. Mr. Stutler stated he needs to continue the conversation with the other counties and commented we stand the chance of falling further behind and does not see the next fire season being any easier. Commissioner DeBone spoke on the cost of supporting the forest service and the timber industry questioning our investing and spending money and asked where the balance is? He commented on the stewardship contracts managing the forest and the by-products and money put back in this system and there is disconnect and gridlock in the House and Senate. Commissioner DeBone also suggested Mr. Stutler inform County Forester Ed Keith about the position and invite him to be involved in the conversations. Commissioner DeBone is also concerned that Deschutes County would be signing up for a partnership but worries we are signing up for more before we have commitment from the other stakeholders. Mr. Stutler replied he believes there will be additional stakeholders when they see the value. Commissioner Henderson commented this position increases our local ability to get access to funding and doesn't see someone Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session November 27, 2017 Page 3 of 8 coming to do fire prevention with the position but instead will inform us of what is available. Conversation held on the futures of timber harvest. Mr. Stutler stated there is a path to it and you can get lost in the background if looking at timber harvest on the east side verses west side and what this is about is having people understand active forest management and is the conversation and understanding. If we have active forest management and fire adapted communities that is the long term view of this. Commissioner Henderson stated this is about fire protection and the issue is the conflict between the senate bills and the house bills. Commissioner Henderson commented on not wanting to put lives in jeopardy and this is one side of the equation and noted his support and still wants to find clarification on the economics of the position. Mr. Stutler said this position would allow us to help ourselves until something happens legislatively. Mr. Stutler commented on forest health, in terms of national priorities, is a low priority and we need a voice to do this and doesn't have the time to be that voice. Commissioner DeBone commented he would like to see the County Forester invited for this conversation here because it should be a partnership. County Administrator Anderson inquired how this position compares to we have with County Forester Ed Keith, Project Wildfire Coordinator Alison Green, Mr. Stutler's position and the position of Katie Lighthall, Western Region Cohesive Strategy Coordinator? Commissioner Baney noted there should be continuity of conversations also with the Deschutes Forest Collaborative Project and Project Wildfire. Mr. Stutler commented this person would connect all of those groups together by sharing their information and by putting learning labs together. Mr. Stutler stated the work of the County Forester continues on stand-alone projects but we need someone that could be the voice and this position would do that. Commissioner Baney is supportive but wants to make sure we have other partners noting this as important. Commissioner Henderson stated Klamath County started out actually reluctant but Joe went to meet with them and changed their mind and we still expect to have Crook and Jefferson agree. Mr. Stutler stated Crook and Jefferson will agree. Mr. Stutler again stated he feels if we don't move quickly we are going to miss a whole next fire season. The Board commented if the County Forester is supportive of the concept. Commissioner Henderson thinks the Forester is supportive. Commissioner DeBone feels the County Forester should have been involved. Commissioner Baney noted this is a great education piece but doesn't want separate groups giving different messages and there should be a partnership. Mr. Stutler stated this person would be working with the information folks of all agencies. Discussion held on the funding for the position. County Administrator Anderson asked the Board for their direction on the budget once we know Deschutes County's commitment and whether it is a link to the general fund, tourism and business, or lottery funds. The Board inquired who set the salary and where the dollar amount came from for the annual contract for this position. Mr. Stutler stated when looking at the regional cohesive strategy coordinator positions this compares to their contract. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session November 27, 2017 Page 4 of 8 Question raised how the region involving several states could compare to a range of a few counties which is a smaller coverage area. Commissioner Baney commented also on a challenge in finding someone that wants a contract position if the position is only committed for as long as the funds are available. Commission Henderson hopes we are able to make sure we are getting our money worth. Commissioner DeBone requested a regular update of the position's accomplishments. Commissioner DeBone supports the concept of funding through the transient room tax and Commissioner Baney would agree. Commissioner DeBone reiterated the proposed contract and if the position starts at $150,000 and is half funded by the 'feds' at $75,000 and then the remaining $75,000 would be funded by the five counties. Commissioner Baney asked for clarification on the annual costs and the proposed start-up costs asking for clarification on the proposed travel costs. Commissioner Baney feels the annual amount proposed of $13,500 for travel costs is high. She would prefer seeing travel reimbursement rather than a set amount and we should follow per diem because it is a public position. County Administrator Anderson said we are contracting for a service would collect from the agencies and part is our final negotiation. The Board feels they are not prepared to put together a request for proposal for the position until all Counties are in agreement of participation. Commissioner Henderson stated Deschutes County needs to be a leader and inquired on the benefits of this position and asked Mr. Stutler for an estimate of funding this position could bring in. Mr. Stutler commented he believes $10 million. Commissioner DeBone inquired why wouldn't we pay the median wage for a Deschutes County resident for the position. Mr. Stutler stated if someone has the expertise and is willing to do the job then we will hire them at the median wage. Commissioner Henderson stated the wage is higher because we are looking at this as being a federal job. Mr. Stutler said who knows who will apply but he knows of three people that are interested. The Board expressed support for tentative approval of Deschutes County's portion of the Cohesive Strategy Coordinator position as stated in the proposal for funding to not exceed $34,500 with the agreement of participation from Klamath, Crook, Jefferson, and Lake Counties and the U.S. Forest Service. Mr. Stutler will present the concept of the position to Crook and Jefferson Counties. 3. Text Amendment to Modify DCC 1.16.010, 1.17.010, and 22.20.015 Land Use Applications and Code Enforcement Violations Peter Russell, Community Development Department and Adam Smith, Assistant Legal Counsel presented the item for discussion. This item was also audio recorded. Staff Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session November 27, 2017 Page 5 of 8 met with the stakeholders committee on November 15 to review the code related to code enforcement violations. The stakeholders include private citizens and representatives from Central Oregon Landwatch, Central Oregon Realtors Association, and Oregon Land and Water Alliance. County Legal prepared a draft of the code enforcement text amendments. Current language and proposed draft language was presented. After discussion, the Board supported a Work Session with the Planning Commission to review the proposed text amendments and the Planning Department will arrange the meeting. 4. Post Public Hearing Work Session: Flood Plain Zone Amendments Matt Martin, Community Development Department and Adam Smith, Assistant Legal Counsel presented this item in preparation for the upcoming public hearing. This item was also audio recorded. The written record was open until November 15 and the additional testimony was included in the packets. Commissioner Henderson stated this item is complicated and looks for an understanding of the impact and scope of the debate and he is looking for help to analyze. Mr. Martin noted the intent today is to review if additional time or materials are needed. Mr. Martin summarized comments received and included them in the staff report. He noted there were two new items that have come up and new options were added to the amendment. Discussion held and decision made to defer deliberations for a later date. The packet will be sent to the Planning Commission for further refinement of the items listed in Exhibit M for conservation easement and Exhibit 0 for cluster and planned development in riparian areas. OTHER ITEMS: • Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator presented a draft letter addressed to the Peer Supporter to respond to their letter regarding the classification and compensation study. Mr. Kropp will revise the letter to reflect the suggestions from the Board. • Matt Martin and Nick Lelack, Community Development Department asked the Board for clarification on the requested meetings with OLCC, Sheriff's Office, and Water Resources that was suggested at a prior Work Session regarding the marijuana evaluation. Should the format be during a future Work Session or individual meetings with each of the Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session November 27, 2017 Page 6 of 8 Commissioners? A Work Session will be scheduled and held in the Barnes and Sawyer Rooms to accommodate an anticipated larger audience. Discussion held on input received suggesting Deschutes County opting out. This could be placed on a ballot. The question is on how to be mindful of the intent of the legislature and the ability to address all of the impacts. On a code enforcement perspective, these marijuana operations need to allow inspections of their property which should be logical if they want to be treated like a business. In the condition of approval, it is stated they must agree to an annual inspection. The Board feels there is a need for a greater level of support for enforcement. Community Development Department and the Sheriff's Office will be meeting to create a proposal for enforcement for Deschutes County. County Counsel spoke on the option of sending it to the voters. Discussion held on regulations. Commissioner Baney suggested inviting the Department of Agriculture to the Work Session as well. The Board asked County Counsel to review the process of an advisory vote. Commissioner DeBone commented on the Oregon Business Council meeting in Portland on Monday. Both the Business Meeting and Work Session of December 4th will need to be cancelled due to attendance at the event in Portland. The only meeting day next week will be December 6th • Commissioner DeBone inquired if there will be rural well tests done to tests for nitrates as the last results were from 2011. Nick Lelack will coordinate with DEQ. Commissioner Baney noted two tickets were received for the Board for this weekend's Festival of Trees event if anyone was interested and available to attend. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session November 27, 2017 Page 7 of 8 ADJOURN: Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:34 p.m. DATED this Day of Board of Commissioners. ATTES Recording Secretary 20/ for the Deschutes County Tammy Baney, Ch4irV017 Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair 2017 Philip G. He Jerson, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session November 27, 2017 Page 8 of 8 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 PM, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2017 Allen Conference Room - Deschutes Services Building, 2ND Floor — 1300 NW Wall Street — Bend Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be addressed at the meeting. This notice does not limit the ability of the Board to address additional subjects. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. This meeting is open to the public and interested citizens are invited to attend. Work Sessions allow the Board to discuss items in a less formal setting. Citizen comment is not allowed, although it may be permitted at the Board's discretion. If allowed, citizen comments regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing process will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. Work Sessions are not normally video or audio recorded, but written minutes are taken for the record. CALL TO ORDER ACTION ITEMS 1. Update from Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center - Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator 2. Cohesive Strategy Coordinator Discussion - Joe Stutler, Senior Advisor 3. Text Amendment to Modify DCC 1.16.010, 1.17.010, and 22.20.015 Land Use Applications and Code Enforcement Violations - Peter Russell, Senior Planner 4. Post Public Hearing Work Session: Flood Plain Zone Amendments - Matthew Martin, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SESSION At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Monday, November 27, 2017 Page 1 of 2 OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. ADJOURN Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcalendar (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda Monday, November 27, 2017 Page 2 of 2 00 Illy Ln Ln ui hl cu CD N 0 ui LLJ LLI LL uj WLLJ C1 a LLI Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www,deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of November 27, 2017 DATE: November 21, 2017 FROM: Erik Kropp, Administrative Services, 541-388-6584 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Update from Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: N/A ATTENDANCE: Carol Tollefson, Director, Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Oregon State University. SUMMARY: Carol Tollefson will provide an overview and update on the activities of the Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center. See attached slides. M 9 W H z D ui V z O 0 w O a 0 U 4-J E L— Ln Ln W W Fa-- Z O u W O fu T R Q) U) El w z D LU Q h z O LU O U N 0 • � • t � • t t t � rm M �--4h ^ wJ �.J CCS S—+ O ;-4 P., V ct 4� b�A O O 0 r� P-1 7 0 0 0 I �i To 0 U J� 116 9 W D LU Q z O LU ry O 10" Rj 9 za y,r«moi) lam HE Mile ger �1 rf 1A N bjU HE Ln IO ■ U N ■ W w 0 W 0 9 9 W H z w U) z O (7 LU O aA 11 0 a� o 8 0 0 ,d rN 0 0 � N N - ti ua E a,` cn V q (U7 _w .a ��✓ r � s l V �a N �- � ;-• 8 G N s OW S CJ =O N g'—opcNo��m 97gb�LL4 b r -I m i Oregon State University College of Agricultural Sciences 20 October 2017 County Commissioners Crook and Deschutes Counties Dear County Commissioners: Agricultural Administration Oregon State University 430 Strand Agriculture Hall Corvallis, Oregon 97331 P 541-737-2331 F 541-737-4574 agsci@oregonstate.edu I am writing to announce our intent to sell the Powell Butte Experiment Station. As you may be aware, the Station has not been used for agricultural research since 2010, when Giobodera eiiingtoniae, a cyst nematode and potential potato pathogen was discovered on the site. In conjunction with USDA APHIS and ODA, faculty from USDA ARS and OSU have monitored populations of G. eiiingtoniaeon the Station and have conducted trials to determine if it is pathogenic. ODA has concluded G. eiiingtoniae is non- pathogenic. Last spring the college charged a committee of administrators, faculty and stakeholders to review options for use of the station. I have attached a copy of the committee report for your reference. The Powell Butte Committee concluded that the best use of the property would be to sell it and use the proceeds to support the Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center's (COARC's) regional agricultural research activities. This recommendation was based on several factors including potential agricultural uses of the station, costs to reopen and operate the station, and the potential for local or industry support off- setting some of the costs to operate the station. The Committee also recommended cultural practices to further reduce populations of G. eiiingtoniaeon the Station and we have begun implementing those recommendations. My Executive Committee reviewed the Powell Butte Committee report and concurred with the committee's recommendation to sell the property. Under the original Wiley gift agreement that transferred the property to the college, the proceeds from selling the property would be used to support regional agricultural research. The college is committed to providing that support by using the proceeds of the sale to expand research at COARC. If you have questions regarding this decision, please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerely, Dan Arp Dean and Reub Long Professor Encl: Powell Butte Committee Report Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of November 27, 2017 DATE: November 21, 2017 FROM: Joe Stutler, Natural Resources - Forestry, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Cohesive Strategy Coordinator Discussion Joe Stutler, Senior Advisor, will be presenting this item for discussion 11 •X The Value of Investment to Provide Public Safety, Protection of Natural Resources and Maintain a Tourism -Based Economy November 27, 2017 Values to be protected Central Oregon's prosperity is directly tied to the character of its landscape and the ways the communities integrate it into every aspect of life. People are drawn to Central Oregon for its world- class scenery, outstanding recreation opportunities, and abundant wildlife — all within minutes of the urban centers. Survey after survey has found that the region's quality of life is a key driver that attracts the entrepreneurs and modern businesses that are helping to diversify the local economy.' The Deschutes River in Central Oregon provides numerous ecosystem services benefits to the region. A recent study analyzed the market and expressed values to six industries in the region: agriculture, tourism, recreation, hotels, real estate, and commercial salmon fishing. Using revealed preference methodologies to assess ecosystem services benefits to these industries, the study found the river provides a total economic value to the industries of $185.2 million annually, of which $134.7 million is direct revenue to the region, $28.0 million is revenue outside the region, and $22.5 million is the expressed value of products and services that residents receive for free in their market value equivalent. The benefits of the river to these industries create 3,433 full time equivalent jobs for Central Oregon with an estimated value in wages of $73.0 million.2 Based on Oregon Blue Book estimates, the Real Market Value for Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson, Klamath and Lake Counties is in excess of $38 billion. The 2015 Oregon Travel Impacts study, the latest annual study commissioned by Travel Oregon, the state's tourism agency, showed that visitors to the state generated $10.8 billion last year, up $500 million, or 4.8%, from 2014. In Central Oregon, the growth was sharper still, as visitors spent $701 million in the region in 2015, an increase of more than 6% from 2014. Both the state and regional figures set records. Central Oregon is "leading the charge" for tourism growth in 2015. Tourism employed 8,900 people in the region, which included Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson counties. In Deschutes County alone, visitors spent $660.2 million and the Central 1 Oregon's Playground Prepares for the Future: A Greenprint for Deschutes County 2 Value of Natural Resources: Deschutes River Corridor and Its Water 1 Oregon region generated $14.3 million in lodging tax revenues. Crook and Jefferson counties generated $41.8 million and $39.2 million in direct tourism spending in 2015.3 In the fall of 2015, DHM Research conducted a review of existing social and opinion research on behalf of the Deschutes River Conservancy. This review explores the values and beliefs of Central Oregon residences and is intended to inform future opinion research, planning and communications efforts.4 Key findings are: • Central Oregonians are positive about the future. They want to come together to address critical issues we face as a state, but they do not believe this is likely to happen in the next 10 years. • The environment is absolutely essential to Central Oregonians' sense of place. For many, it seems to be the foundation of what they love about the state, and also their communities. • Protecting a beloved natural environment is a top -tier public policy priority, and something for which many Central Oregon residents are willing to pay, make lifestyle changes, or reallocate funds, to maintain the natural environment. • Central Oregonians are divided when it comes to economic growth vs. environmental protection. • In general, Central Oregonians want less tax and fewer regulations. However, some public services resonate deeply with Central Oregonians' values and, depending on the specifics, elicit backing for sustained or increased taxation. Public Safety and Mitigation Each county in Central Oregon (Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson, Klamath and Lake) have All Hazard Disaster Mitigation Plans. Universally, the top two natural hazards are wildland fire and winter storms. By definition, natural hazard mitigation is a method of permanently reducing or alleviating the losses of life, property, and injuries resulting from natural hazards through long and short-term strategies. Both winter storms and wildland fires provide a direct threat to public safety. When comparing the frequency of winter storms and wildland fires, clearly the frequency of wildland fires surpasses winter storms in exponential fashion. In the past decade, wildland fires in Central Oregon average 450 fires, burning in excess of 50,000 acres for all jurisdictions. Preparedness by the public and agencies offer some form of mitigation for both winter storms and wildland fire, but significantly more opportunities to mitigate loss of life, property and injuries exists by reducing risks and hazards from wildland fire. 12015 Oregon Travel Impacts Study 4 DHM Research review 2 The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy The Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act (FLAME) of 2009 directed the US Departments of Agriculture and Interior to develop a cohesive wildland fire management strategy to address the myriad of growing issues surrounding wildland fire (increasing losses to lives, communities, budgets and economies, habitat, forests/landscapes, and watersheds). A collaborative process that included a national scientific anal, culminated in the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. The vision of the Cohesive Strategy is to safely and effectively extinguish fire when needed; use fire where allowable; manage our natural resources, and as a nation, to live with wildland fire. The Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy) is a strategic push to work collaboratively among all stakeholders and across all landscapes, using best science, to make meaningful progress towards the three goals: Restore and maintain resilient landscapes: Landscapes across all jurisdictions are resilient to fire -related disturbances in accordance with management objectives. Create fire -adapted communities: Human populations and infrastructure can withstand a wildfire without loss of life and property. Safe & effective wildland fire response: All jurisdictions participate in making and implementing safe, effective, efficient, risk-based wildfire management decisions. The ultimate success of the Cohesive Strategy effort depends on how strategic direction and national priorities can be translated into the on -the -ground, local actions of agencies, organizations, governments, and individuals with meaningful, cumulative effects. To fully realize the vision of the Cohesive Strategy, stakeholders must understand and accept their risk, and be willing to collectively share that risk through prioritized investment. Stakeholders must also be willing to take on some short-term risk for the long-term gain of resilient landscapes, fire -adapted communities and a safe and effective wildland fire response. The Central Oregon Story In Central Oregon, fire and land managers, cities, counties, Tribes, non-governmental organizations and private citizens have a long and rich history of identifying shared goals and cooperating to accomplish shared outcomes. Here, a culture of strategic alignment, collaborative engagement and programmatic alignment has existed for decades and continues to build. The challenges of an isolated, geographic location, limited budgets and diverse interests helped steer stakeholders to work together under the concept that groups that cooperate and coordinate efforts can achieve far more than one agency or organization alone. When the Cohesive Strategy was framed in the West, it was quickly recognized as an evolution of collaborative strategies and behaviors that already exist and are enjoyed in Central Oregon. With this positive foundation in place, stakeholders in Central Oregon have witnessed much success through current collaborative efforts: • Increased hazardous fuels and restoration treatments on public lands in the WUI through the Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project; • Establishment of a Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network Hub through Project Wildfire; • BLM is working with NRCS on creating resilient landscapes across jurisdictional lines; • Comprehensive Community Wildfire Protection Plans across Deschutes, Jefferson and Crook Counties; • Integrated wildland fire response including mutual aid and cooperating agency agreements; • Local agreements between federal land managers and private landowners to treat lands regardless of ownership; • Consistent engagement and support by local elected officials, County Emergency Management and law enforcement; • Central Oregon Joint Information System for emergency information; • Agreement between Upper Deschutes Coalition and Deschutes National Forest for treatment both on private and public lands to create resilient landscapes and maintain fire -adapted communities; • Natural Resources Conservation Service is working collaboratively with other federal and state agencies to create resilient landscapes on private, non -industrial forests near communities. • Private land owners with critical sage -grouse habitat have completed Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) and are working with federal agencies to complete Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCAs) to protect greater sage grouse while maintaining viable economies and grazing operations. • Project Wildfire, through a collaborative steering committee, established by county ordinance, continues to facilitate and lead hazardous fuels treatments to create and maintain fire adapted communities, treating over 110,000 acres of private lands with the cooperation and participation of private landowners. Even with all these successful efforts, the risk of loss to lives, our natural resources, economies, habitat, and communities is still extreme and there is much work before us. This begs the question: Can stakeholders in Central Oregon continue to use this successful history 4 of coordination and collaboration to achieve greater restoration and reductions of risk on a landscape level, increase the community's understanding and acceptance of risk, and improve the safety and effectiveness of wildfire response, and successfully implement the Cohesive Strategy? The answer is YES. Central Oregon Cohesive Strategy Initiative The Cohesive Strategy provides a solid framework for making meaningful progress towards three goals — Restoring Resilient Landscapes, Fire Adapted Communities and Safe & Effective Wildfire Response. What is the method to achieve that progress? Collaboration... to manage vegetation and fuels; protect homes, communities, and other values at risk; manage human -caused ignitions; and E.isafely, effectively, and efficiently responding to wildfire. Stakeholders in Central Oregon now appreciate a solid platform from which to advance current collaborative philosophies and efforts and integrate them under one umbrella for increased success (the notion of "bigger, better, safer and faster") across jurisdictions. The collective ambition is to bring federal, state, Tribal and local agency stakeholders together with interested non-governmental organizations and private landowners across five counties — Deschutes, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake and Crook — to embark on a collaborative journey to identify shared values and goals, and implement prioritized actions to achieve them. These will achieve meaningful progress towards resilient landscapes, fire adapted communities and a safe and effective wildland fire response using the Cohesive Strategy as guidance to continue successful implementation. More than just successfully implementing the Cohesive Strategy, this coordinated, collaborative multi -county project aims for recognition as a "regional learning laboratory" for others to either replicate and/or utilize valuable lessons learned to create similar successful environments throughout the western United States. This level of integration, coordination and collaboration will require the following: • Share and implement the purpose of our efforts: o To collaboratively implement the Cohesive Strategy through an "all hands —all lands" approach across five counties, and o Provide the "regional learning laboratory" for success for the Pacific Northwest and other areas in the west; • Prioritized landscape treatments across jurisdictions; • Increased, collective investments for these projects; • Continue to identify and leverage resources among all stakeholders. 5 Next Steps: • Create a Steering Committee consisting of senior agency and local government leaders, private land stakeholders and non-governmental leaders. (Completed 10/2015 with ongoing stakeholder additions) • The Steering Committee with the support and contributions of all stakeholders will ensure strategic alignment, collaborative engagement and programmatic alignment as the Cohesive Strategy Initiative is implemented. • The Steering Committee will develop a coordinated approach to the three goals of the Cohesive Strategy. • Develop and implement a robust, inclusive communications strategy to strengthen internal and external support for the collaborative efforts of the Initiative. (Completed 4/2016) • Strengthen capacity to collect, analyze, interpret and integrate all types of data and information, including recognized data gaps, to inform decision-making. (Relying on scientific data and analyses, on the part of all stakeholders provides the best opportunity to restore and maintain landscapes, protect communities from wildfire, and effectively respond to wildfires when they occur. Using science and data analysis to support implementation planning and decision-making will continue). • Utilize performance measures and monitoring information to assess effectiveness and accountability. • Develop capacity and support training and utilization of support tools to better inform decision-making and trade-off analyses at all levels of fire El :and land management. • Document successes and determine common themes of successful projects. Maintain knowledge and information resources that are easily accessible to stakeholders. • Create incentives for all stakeholders to participate and embrace the principles of the Cohesive Strategy. • Continue to foster Cohesive Strategy behaviors to change behaviors and attitudes, and ultimately change cultures. • Continue to identify and engage all stakeholders. • Identify political education and leveraging opportunities. • Identify all current investments/programs/achievement and their value to truly understand values to be protected and measures of achievement. • Develop the concept of this Regional Learning Lab and how others might take advantage of the learning opportunities here. reel The path forward Success in Central Oregon depends on the collective commitment by all stakeholders at all levels to take action toward meaningful reductions in risk in the short- and long-term. Looking ahead, this will require: • Prioritized investment and use of resources. Reducing risk significantly will require that existing resources, including budgetary resources, are used more efficiently. • Acceptance of increased short-term risk. Significantly reducing fuels across broad landscapes will require expanded use of wildland fire to achieve management objectives. Using fire as a tool carries inherent risks that must be considered in the short-term to achieve the longer-term benefits. • Achieve greater collective investment. Even with greater efficiency and acceptance of short-term risk, current levels of investment may be inadequate to achieve the levels of risk reduction desired. All who have a stake in the outcome, from individual property owners to the federal, state, Tribal, and local governments, must share the costs and level of effort necessary to redeem responsibilities for reducing risks posed by wildfire. For the Central Oregon Cohesive Strategy Initiative to realize its full potential, there is an immediate need for a full-time coordinator. A coordinator will be the essential point of contact for all stakeholders, implement the communications strategy, facilitate the implementation of the political leveraging strategy, identify new stakeholders and be the "voice" for Cohesive Strategy implementation. The cost for the coordinator will be approximately $150,000 per year, which includes salary and associated travel, and program costs. It is recommended this be a contracted position and the cost be shared by the five counties. There will be no greater investment in the "values to be protected" in Central Oregon than implementing the Cohesive Strategy. 7 Job description for Coordinator/Community Leader for Central Oregon Cohesive Strategy Initiative The Coordinator/Community Leader* is responsible for the day-to-day business of the Central Oregon Cohesive Strategy Initiative (COCSI) and for the facilitation and implementation of the COCSI Program of Work. The Coordinator works closely with the Steering Committee to accomplish tasks and with COCSI stakeholders to advance the Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy across Deschutes, Jefferson, Crook, Klamath and Lake Counties. The Coordinator is the point of contact and network leader for the broadening network of Cohesive Strategy stakeholders in the counties and `serves as the spokesperson and communications director for the COCSI. Duties: • Facilitate and implement the COCSI Program of Work. • Coordinate in-person and phone meetings of the Steering Committee. • Maintain administrative activities and facilitate the day-to-day business of the COCSL • Attend collaborative meetings in each county that support local Cohesive Strategy implementation efforts, as appropriate. • Participate in the monthlymeetings for the Western Region of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. • Create and maintain a web presence for COCSI information for the Committee as well as the public. • _ Facilitate development of Learning Laboratory to share "how-to", experiences, guidance, success stories and lessons learned. (Quarterly meetings for stakeholders, webinars, web portal, town halls, ways for people to talk about how they implement CS, etc.) • Create and maintain other communications efforts such as Facebook, Twitter, a regular eNewsletter and/or other emerging communications opportunities. • Routine (daily) networking and relationship building with COCSI stakeholders, partners and those agencies and organizations implementing the Cohesive Strategy in the field. • Facilitate grant research and grant writing to support the organization and activities of the COCSI. Document success stories/lessons learned and regularly share with stakeholders and the public. • Facilitate development of performance measures and monitoring information to assess effectiveness and accountability. • Travel for attendance and presentation at appropriate conferences and meetings. • Works under the supervision and direction of the COCSI Steering Committee. Outcomes: While specific outcomes in each county may vary, there are some broad outcomes that will be achieved as a result of the work of the Steering Committee and the duties of the Coordinator outlined above. • Communication between county -level collaboratives and projects is improved. • Understanding is increased about what the Cohesive Strategy is, and how it can, and is being implemented. • The COCSI is the recognized "expert" entity on the Cohesive Strategy and its implementation in Central Oregon. • The pace and scale of Cohesive Strategy implementation by all stakeholders is improved and increased. • Stakeholders in all five counties will understand the concept of wildland fire risk management, including risk sharing and transfer, and successful mitigation of risk, both towards the goals of landscape resiliency and fire • COCSI achieving the with wildlanc the utilization of a Learning Laboratory in changes in attitudes, behaviors and culture thus n vision of the Cohesive Strategy, "learning to live 2 Anticipated expenses for budgeting Expense Calculation Yearly Coordinator contract $400 - 425/day $96,000 —108,000 Travel • Coordinator visits among five counties. Lodging, per diem, mileage $500 per month $6,000 • Travel (air/mileage, lodging, per diem) for Coordinator and/or Steering Committee members to attend/present at appropriate conferences, workshops and meetings. $1,500 each for five events (or five people to one event) $7,500 Communications • Web design, subscription and hosting • Learning Lab portal development to existing site Based on previous web design experience. $15,000 $11,500 Printing collateral materials that cannot be printed in-house. $2,000 Subtotal $138,000 - $150,000 Note: there will be many opportunities for in-kind contributions to the overall budget of the COCSI such as office space, utilities, phone, general mailing, etc. Date: November 27, 2017 Subject: Central OR Cohesive Strategy Initiative Coordinator Discussion Points: Currently have in place: o Staffing paper on "Values to be Protected." o Cost distribution analysis based on values. o Draft MOU between Deschutes County and four adjacent counties. o Draft personal services contract, job description and estimated budget for coordinator. Federal agencies (Deschutes and Ochoco National Forest & Prineville BLM) see great value in the coordinator position assisting those agencies with Cohesive Strategy implementation and are offering partial funding for the foreseeable future. *Important to note that funding can be carried over and accrue saving and is a workload that is currently without staffing. Initially this was believed to be 50% but due to budget shortfalls will be able to contribute $35,000 at this point. We are hopeful that with the recent request for additional funding, this amount will increase. The other four counties (Crook, Jefferson, Klamath and Lake) have been included in the cost distribution analysis and Lake and Klamath counties have approved their share of the position. Likely will have two agreements (MOD's); one with adjacent counties and one with Deschutes National Forest for remaining funding for coordinator position. Decisions by Deschutes County BOCC o Approval of Deschutes County share of Coordinator position. o The initial estimate for the coordinator was a $150,000 investment and likely to be reduced to $135,000 in subsequent years. A new significant investor for the coordinator is now the federal agencies (Forest Service and BLM) have committed to an annual contribution of approximately $35,000, which leaves approximately $75,000 to be covered. That revised total for the coordinator is $110,000 assuming Crook and Jefferson will recognize the value in the coordinator position and commit to their respective funding levels. Based on those percentages, the breakdown is as follows: Crook County, 27% or approximately $20,250. Deschutes County, 46% or approximately $34,500. Jefferson County, 16% or approximately $12,000. Klamath County, 9% or approximately $6,750. Lake County, 3% or approximately $2,250. o "Note, this totals to $75,000. There would be a formal agreement between the counties, which Deschutes would complete. Deschutes is offering to complete the RFP for the coordinator and attend to the contractual issues. o Annual cost will vary depending on "carry over" money from federal agencies but will never exceed $34,500 from Deschutes County. �v�es co Cost Distribution Analysis for the a OregonCentral The Central Oregon Cohesive Strategy Initiative (COCSI) aims to provide public safety, protection of natural resources, and maintain a tourism based economy within Central Oregon including all or parts of Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson, Klamath and Lake Counties. It provides a framework for strategic collaboration using best science to restore resilient landscapes, expand our fire adapted communities, and enhance our safe and effective wildfire response. Success depends on the collective commitment and investment by the counties and stakeholders at all levels. It is recommended that this investment be shared by the five participating counties. The analysis described in this document endeavors to determine the fairest and most equitable approach at sharing this cost. Analysis 1: Comparison of Acres of Forest Canopy Cover Data Source: LANDFIRE https://www.landfire.Zov LANDFIRE creates Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools. It is a shared program between the wildland fire management programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior. Data Used in Analysis: Fuels Database/2014 (LF_140) _Fuel_us_140 Forest Canopy Cover The Forest Canopy Cover (CC) layer describes the percent cover of the tree canopy in a stand. Canopy area data were extracted from the dataset. The delineated tree canopy areas within each county were compared with the total area within the COCSI boundary. Results: 11 Page Acres of Canopy Percentage of County Cover Total Acres Forest Canopy Cover Crook 465,048 20.93% Deschutes 906,202 40.79% Crook` Deschutes Jefferson 379,024 17.06% Jefferson Klamath 342,866 15.43% t Klamath IN Lake 128,254 5.77% Lake 2,221,394 100.00 11 Page Analysis 2: Comparison of Prime Forest and Forest Use Zones Data Source: Oregon Spatial Data Library (http://spatialdata.oregonexpIorer.info/geoportaI/catalog/main/home.page) The Oregon Spatial Data Library is a joint effort between the Department of Administrative Services Geospatial Enterprise Office and Oregon State University that provides public access to reliable and up-to-date spatial data. Currently, hundreds of spatial datasets are accessible from the Oregon Spatial Data Library, including all of the statewide framework data available for Oregon. These datasets serve as base data for a variety of Geographic Information System (GIS) applications that support research, business and public services. Data Used in Analysis: Oregon Zoning (Partial 9/24/2014) Analysis based on data designated as Prime Forest Zone (PF -80). Prime Forest Zone areas were extracted from the zoning data. The delineated areas within each county were compared with the total area within the COCSI boundary. Oregon Zone Code Definition: Prime Forest 80 (PF 80): Higher Productivity Forest Zones Note: Lake County is not in 2014 Statewide Zoning dataset. All of Lake County portion of project boundary is within Deschutes National Forest and zoned F-1 (Forest Use) by Lake County Planning Department. All Lake County acres are included. Lake County Zone Code Definition: Forest Use Zone (F 1): The purpose of this zone is to provide for the orderly management and development of forest land for the sustained production of forest products. Results: County Prime Forest Percent of Total Prime Forest Zone Acres Crook 538,159 23.09% Crook Deschutes 1,019,177 43.73% Deschutes Jefferson 234,684 10.07% Jefferson Klamath 410,284 17.60% Klamath Lake 128,254 5.50% Lake 2,330,558 100.00 2 1 Page Data Source: Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson, Klamath and take Counties Assessors' Offices Data Used in Analysis: 2016 County Assessment Rolls and Parcels The parcel and assessment data from each county was aggregated. The land and structure values (based on the 2016 information) were combined to determine the total Real Market Value for each parcel within the boundary. Values were compared with the total value within the COCSI boundary. Results: County Real Market Value percent of Total Crook $3,276,106,470 8.04% Deschutes $33,970,918,681 83.42% Jefferson $2,812,449,913 6.91% Klamath $547,936,240 1.35% Lake $117,329,795 0.29% $40,724,741,099 100.00 Crook Deschutes Jefferson Klamath Lake 31 Page Data Source: State of Oregon Water Resources Department https://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/wr/wris.aspx The Oregon Water Resources Department is the state agency charged with administration of the laws governing surface and ground water resources. The Department's core functions are to protect existing water rights, facilitate voluntary streamflow restoration, increase the understanding of the demands on the state's water resources, provide accurate and accessible water resource data, and facilitate water supply solutions. Data Used in Analysis: Place of Use Summary Report, Water Right Information Search (WRIS) Primary Surface Water Rights Place of Use Database, calculated by number of water right acres per square mile section of land. Under Oregon law, all water is publicly owned. With some exceptions, cities, farmers, factory owners and other users must obtain a permit or water right from the Water Resources Department to use water from any source. The bulk of surface water rights are used for irrigation and livestock. Results: County Surface Water percent of Total Surface Water Acres Acres Crook 88425.92 41.00% crook i Deschutes 59665.06 27.66% Deschutes Jefferson 65847.8 30.53% Jefferson Klamath 1753.77 0.81%6 Klamath Lake 0 0.00% Lake 215692.55 100.00 41 Pape Data Source: Oregon Spatial Data Library (http://spatialdata.oregonexplorer.info/geoportaI/catalog/main/home.page) The Oregon Spatial Data Library is a joint effort between the Department of Administrative Services Geospatial Enterprise Office and Oregon State University that provides public access to reliable and up-to-date spatial data. Currently, hundreds of spatial datasets are accessible from the Oregon Spatial Data Library, including all of the statewide framework data available for Oregon. These datasets serve as base data for a variety of Geographic Information System (GIS) applications that support research, business and public services. Data Used in Analysis: ORRivers.shp, the GIS element of the Oregon Rivers Database System. Statewide Rivers line features, extracted Deschutes, Little Deschutes and Crooked Rivers from data. Calculated GIS miles of flowing river within county boundaries. A recent study of the Deschutes River analyzed the market and expressed values to six industries in the region: agriculture, tourism, recreation, hotels, real estate, and commercial salmon fishing. The complete study can be viewed at the following link: http://waterwotch. orq/wp-conten t/uploads/2015/07/Value-of-Natural-Resources- Deschutes-River-Cooridor-and-Its-Water-Final-Report-Winal. pdfq. Results: r' 1 Crook Deschutes Jefferson Klamath Lake rMITIVITIM 148 130 53 38 0 368 r . MINIM, 40 35% 14% 10% 0% 100 Crook A Deschutes Jefferson Klamath Lake 51 Page Final Results The final results are based on the average of the five analyses. Total Percentages by County County Forest Canopy Cover Forest Zone % Real Market Value % Surface Water Rights % River Miles % Crook 20.93% 23.09% 8.04% 41.00% 40% Deschutes 40.79% 43.73% 83.42% 27.66% 35% Jefferson 17.06% 10.07% 6.91% 30.53% 14% Klamath 15.43% 17.60% 1.35% 0.81% 10% Lake 5.77% 5.50% 0.29% 0.00% 0% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100% Final Cost Distribution: County Total Average % Funding Distribution at $150K Funding Distribution at $100K Crook 133.23% 26.65% $39,969 $26,646 Deschutes 230.81% 46.16% $69,243 $46,162 Jefferson 78.87% 15.77% $23,661 $15,774 Klamath 45.53% 9.11% $13,659 $9,106 Lake 11.56% 2.31% $3,469 $2,312 500.00% 100.00% $150,000 $100,000 6 1 P a g e 4, " -u< Central Oregon Cohesive Strategy Initiative n Analysis: Comparison of Acres of Forest Canopy Cover Documem PAA N COCSi Final fJaWW[ls..COCS1Simple m.o 71 Page y Central Oregon Cohesive Strategy Initiative Analysis: Comparison of Prime Forest Zone and Forest Use Acres D-jn,P.nl PaM N :CuslomCounlv460CC,COCS1 Final MWMep1,COCS1.FoiesV one Simple m, 81 Page r Central Oregon Cohesive Strategy Initiative Analysis: Comparison of Real Market Values N0 J u� �o ou i i i E_ 4U0 Y Gcogrnphic In%Donation tir•s•Mm Map Prepared by Deschutes Canty Information Technology Department 14 NW Kearney Avenue Bend, OR 97703 WASCO COUNTY LAKE COUNTY QProject Boundary -A Oregon Counties Real Market Value Value High : $556,345,000 Low: 0 wz wz �u MORROW COUNTY I I I o u Date: 4/18/2017 I Esti, HERE, DeLorme, Mapmylndia, C) OpenStreetMap contributors 91 Page z a I x i r - i i i I I I Date: 4/18/2017 I Esti, HERE, DeLorme, Mapmylndia, C) OpenStreetMap contributors 91 Page .;r Central Oregon Cohesive Strategy Initiative Analysis: Comparison of Surface Water Rights Number Acres per Section of Land I'll, VIM i� - LAKE COUNTY y 222 i <z � i 00 h o� I Geogny7Lie h>fnnnatian Srsrem Map Prepared by Deschutes County Information Technology Department 14 NW Kearney Avenue Bend, OR 97703 ©B—d- Surface Water Rights qtr acres BE 0 100000 - 28 000000 2A ow G4 100000 "'- c4 boom - 106 a00mo _.[ 101 SOOODt 144 16(K000 144 760001 145 350,100 1953`0001-259 700000 2'A 300001 g2=. 000x001, 125 000001. 412 090000 Y 0 I � 412 080001 512 400000 - - 512 4N)W1 - 6" SOWN ('SSS Date: 4/17/2017 4� I Esri. HERE. DeLorme, Mapmylndia. n OpenStr,eetMap contributors 101 Page Central Oregon Cohesive Strategy Initiative Analysis: Comparison of River Miles Deschutes, Little Deschutes & Crooked Rivers 111 Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of November 27, 2017 DATE: November 20, 2017 FROM: Peter Russell, Community Development, 541-383-6718 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Text Amendment to Modify DCC 1.16.010, 1.17.010, and 22.20.015 Land Use Applications and Code Enforcement Violations RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Board to provide direction on whether staff should initiate a text amendment to modify Deschutes County Code (DCC) 1.16.010, 1.17.010, and 22.20.015 dealing with land use applications and code enforcement violations. ATTENDANCE: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner SUMMARY: At the Oct. 25, 2017, Board work session, staff had provided a recap of an Oct. 3, 2017, meeting of the stakeholders committee on code enforcement and land use applications. The Board directed staff to convene another meeting of the stakeholders committee, which occurred on Nov. 15, to see if the group could reach consensus. Prior to the Nov. 15 stakeholders meeting, staff presented draft code for 1.16.010, 1.17.010, and 22.20.015, which incorporated input from the committee. The draft of DCC 22.20.015 had a full spectrum of options from approving a land use with pre-existing code violations that would remain uncured by the land use to approving a land use application that either cured the violation immediately or within a set time frame to pausing the land use process while a subsequent code enforcement hearing was held to denial of the land use application. The stakeholders committee adamantly opposed the option of approving a land use application that did not cure the code violation. They supported the remaining options after a long discussion. Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www,co,deschutes.or,us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: November 20, 2017 MEETING: November 27, 2017 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner RE: Work session recapping November 15 meeting of code enforcement stakeholders group regarding potentially amending Deschutes County Code (DCC) 1.16.010 (Violations), 1.17.010 (Applicability), and 22.20.015 (Code Enforcement and Land Use) The Board is weighing whether to amend Deschutes County code as it relates to the intertwining of code enforcement and land use applications. The Community Development Department (CDD) followed the Board's direction to reconvene the stakeholders' group from the 2015 text amendments to DCC 1.16.010 and 22.20.015. The stakeholders committee met with Planning and Legal staff on November 15. Attendees included private citizens and representatives from Central Oregon Land Watch (COLW), Central Oregon Realtors Association (CORA), and Oregon Land and Water Alliance (OLAWA). BACKGROUND Staff had met with the stakeholders committee on October 3 and reported the results of that meeting at a Board work session on October 25. The Board directed staff to hold one more meeting with the stakeholders committee. ISSUES DISCUSSED AT NOV. 15 STAKEHOLDERS COMMITTEE MEETING County legal staff prepared a draft of DCC 1.16.010 and 22.20.015, which was distributed to the group. The main difference with this version is that it gave a full menu of options when a land use application concerns a property upon which there are code violations. The options are described as: • Approve the land use application; • Approve the land use application if the permit cures the violations; • Deny the land use application due to prior adjudicated violations that remain unresolved; • Deny the land use application based on new findings that violations exist on the property; • Continue the land use hearing to allow a code enforcement hearing to occur; Quality Services Iaer fibrrned 7vith Pride • Conditionally approve the land use application as long as violations, pre-existing or newly adjudicated, are resolved within a specified time frame. The stakeholders adamantly opposed the option of approving a land use application that did not correct the pre-existing violation. The stakeholders supported the other options. The group also agreed to delete references to the federal, state, and local laws, albeit with reservations by one member. The rationale for the removal is the County only has authority over its own code provisions, but does include conditions of approval that require the applicant to obtain federal and state permits. These ensure compliance with federal and state rules and regulations as the various agencies must comply with their own rules and regulations. Typical federal examples are proof of legal access from United States Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), or permits related to wetlands from Army Corps of Engineers. Typical state permits are approach road permits from Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) or compliance with State Scenic River requirements for Oregon State Parks Department (OSPD). As the County is the local authority, a reference to local rules is redundant. The group also discussed whether to remove references to building permits as those follow a separate process than land use and have a separate body of case law. Ultimately, the group agreed to removing building permits as a "trigger" invoking DCC 22.20.015, but leaving building permits as a negative outcome if a property owner has violations. Thereby, building code violations do not result in a denied land use permit, but a land use violation can still result in a denied building permit. NEXT STEPS Staff will discuss this memo and seek direction from the Board whether to initiate a text amendment to DCC 1.16.010 and 22.20.015. Legal staff correctly pointed out DCC 1.17 may need some revisions as well to be consistent with any changes to DCC 22.20.015. Enclosures: Current code for DCC 1. 16.010 Current code for DCC 1.17.010 Current code for DCC 22.20.015 Nov. 15t", 2017, version of proposed changes to DCC 1.16.030, 1.17.030, and 22.20.015 CURRENT LANGUAGE FOR DCC 1.16.010, 1.17.010, and 22.20.015 1.16.010. Violations Deemed Class A or B Classification -Penalties. A. Violation of a county ordinance shall be punishable, upon conviction, by fine or by the specific remedies specified within the County Code. B. Each county ordinance specifying a county offense shall classify the ordinance violation as a Class A or Class B violation. C. A sentence to pay a fine for a violation of a county ordinance shall be a sentence to pay an amount not exceeding the Maximum Fines provided in ORS 153.018. D. Notwithstanding this section and DCC 1.16.030, for violations of Chapters 13.04, 13.08, 13.36, 15.04 and 15.10 and Titles 17 18 and 19, the Presumptive and Minimum fine amount shall be the Maximum Fine amount described in DCC 1.16.010(C). E. For violations of County Code provisions not listed in DCC 1.16.010(D), the Presumptive and Minimum Fine amounts shall be as provided in ORS Chapter 153. F. A land use application for a property with an existing code violation will be accepted, but not processed by the County based on DCC 22.20.015. G. Notwithstanding DCC 1.16.010(D), the court or the hearings officer may impose a fine lower than the fine provided in those two sections, upon a finding of mitigating factors including, but not limited to, indigence of the defendant, severity of the violation, number of times the defendant has been previously cited for Deschutes County Code violations; length of time the violation has existed; and reason(s) the violation has not been cured. (Ord. 2015-020, §1, 2015; Ord. 2014-003, §1, 2014; Ord. 2013-015, §1, 2013; Ord. 2008-026, §1, 2008; Ord. 2003-021 §3, 2003; Ord. 2002-016 §9, 2002; 86-076 §1, 1986) 1.17.010. Applicability, exception. A. Unless another procedure is expressly provided for, this chapter governs the procedure for the assessment of civil penalties authorized by the code. B. In all cases, a civil penalty is in addition to any other legal remedy available to redress violations of the code. C. This chapter does not apply to proceedings before and civil penalties imposed by the Animal Control Board of Supervisors. (Ord 2011-023 §2, 2011) Chapter 22.20.015 Code Enforcement and Land Use A. Except as described in (D) below, if any property is in violation of applicable land use regulations, and/or the conditions of approval of any previous land use decisions or building permits previously issued by the County, the County shall not: 1. Approve any application for land use development; 2. Make any other land use decision, including land divisions and/or property line adjustments; 3. Issue a building permit. B. As part of the application process, the applicant shall certify: 1. That to the best of the applicant' s knowledge, the property in question, including any prior development phases of the property, is currently in compliance with both the Deschutes County Code and any prior land use approvals for the development of the property; or 2. That the application is for the purpose of bringing the property into compliance with the Deschutes County land use regulations and/or prior land use approvals. C. A violation means the property has been determined to not be in compliance either through a prior decision by the County or other tribunal, or through the review process of the current application, or through an acknowledgement by the alleged violator in a signed voluntary compliance agreement "VCA"). D. A permit or other approval, including building permit applications, may be authorized if: 1. It results in the property coming into full compliance with all applicable provisions of the federal, state, or local laws, and Deschutes County Code, including sequencing of permits or other approvals as part of a voluntary compliance agreement; 2. It is necessary to protect the public health or safety; 3. It is for work related to and within a valid easement over, on, or under the affected property; or 4. It is for emergency repairs to make a structure habitable or a road or bridge to bear traffic. E. Public Health and Safety. 1. For the purposes of this section, public health and safety means the actions authorized by the permit would cause abatement of conditions found to exist on the property that endanger life, health, personal property, or safety of the residents of the property or the public. 2. Examples of that situation include, but are not limited to issuance of permits to replace faulty electrical wiring, repair or install furnace equipment; roof repairs; replace or repair compromised utility infrastructure for water, sewer, fuel or power; and actions necessary to stop earth slope failure. (Ord. 2015-019, §1, 2015) Staff Draft — Code Enforcement Text Amendment 11/17/17 1.16.010. Violations Deemed Class A or B Classification -Penalties. A. Violation of a county ordinance shall be punishable, upon conviction, by fine or by the specific remedies specified within the County Code. B. Each county ordinance specifying a county offense shall classify the ordinance violation as a Class A or Class B violation. C. A sentence to pay a fine for a violation of a county ordinance shall be a sentence to pay an amount not exceeding the Maximum Fines provided in ORS 153.018. D. Notwithstanding this section and DCC 1.16.030, for violations of Chapters 13.04, 13.08, 13.36, 15.04 and 15.10 and Titles 17 18 and 19, the Presumptive and Minimum fine amount shall be the Maximum Fine amount described in DCC 1. 16.01 O(C). E. For violations of County Code provisions not listed in DCC 1.16.010(D), the Presumptive and Minimum Fine amounts shall be as provided in ORS Chapter 153. F. A land use application for a property with an existing code violation will be aeGepted, processed by the County pui_suant to ased DCC 22.20.015 in which .case QCC 1. 16.030 and DCC Cjaptq 1.17 shall not apply. G. Notwithstanding DCC 1.16.01 O(D), the court or the hearings officer may impose a fine lower than the fine provided in those two sections, upon a finding of mitigating factors including, but not limited to, indigence of the defendant, severity of the violation, number of times the defendant has been previously cited for Deschutes County Code violations; length of time the violation has existed; and reason(s) the violation has not been cured. (Ord. 2017 -XXX, §X, 2017; Ord. 2015-020, §1, 2015; Ord. 2014-003, §1, 2014; Ord. 2013-015, §1, 2013; Ord. 2008-026, §1, 2008; Ord. 2003-021 §3,2003; Ord. 2002-016 §9, 2002; 86-076 §1, 1986) 1.17.010. Applicability, exception. A. Unless another procedure is expressly provided for, this chapter governs the procedure for the assessment of civil penalties authorized by the code. B. In all cases, a civil penalty is in addition to any other legal remedy available to redress violations of the code. C. This chapter does not apply to proceedings before and civil penalties imposed by the Animal Control Board of Supervisors. D. This chapter does_ nottaappto land, us_olication 0roceedings for a_property with an existi�lgcode violation pr-occssed� the Cou tty�)u—r-suint to DCC 22.20.015. (Orsi._,%O1% _�Y, 'X. 017iOrd 2011-023 §2, 2011) #LSC8SNTH0D10L0v1 X22.20.015 Code Enforcement and Land Use A. ilf any property is in violation of applicable land use regulations, and/or the conditions of approval of any previous land use decisions or-bt�i4di4igperinit-s frevious4y-issued by the County, the County shall, based on the severity of the violation and other zniti atin o"gayati� g,facts and , circumstances, take one of the followina actions concerning. a pedin 7 apj2lication for land use develo menu a)lication for a building -permit, or other land use decision including land division and/or property line ad�ustiai_nt tet: 1. Denv thepennitor decision; 2. Continue a hearing concerninR_the vennit of decision until after the Occurrence, of a separate code enforcement hearing before a hearings officer designated to adjudicate civ_iloenaltyceedings following procedurees dictated by DC,C C1lapter_1,17 3, Approve theenlui or decision conditioned on theg�into full compliance witlain_a spccified�etiod of tim with all applicable proyisions of the Deschutes County Coode,_and the issue is referred to Deschutes CountyCode Enforcement for further action including trtiackin compliance with said condition; _lip r_oye the_ tor decision resulting ill _the opy conning into full _complianc,e with all applicahle royisions of the_Deschutes County_ Code, including sequencin of perk- is or_otller upt.ov_als as Part of avoluntary con Bance a eement� __ l p _ve the permit or decision if necessal_to_protect the public health _or_sa fett)�; Cr_CA�-,_provc the, permit or_decisicn if authorizipg KLarkgelated to and within, a valid_easenlent over—on or under the e, affectedroe; 7. !1 ?pr_ove the permit or decision if author_izinng-eip ecy retlairs to make a structurc_l7abitable or a road or_brid to bear_traffic, or 8.Mmove the t)crmit or decision. P-Ma - aipfe -1-+el' lai34we-ire-€Nion ' F l di�i�1 nd di'v isi nim nr� � �Iopb zLy'-line-a`r1 w tlnents I--lssue - a- -buil-,—Wml4 B. As part of the application process, the applicant shall certify: That to the best of the applicant's knowledge, the property in question, including any prior development phases of the property, is currently in compliance with both the Deschutes County Code and any prior land use approvals for the development of the property; or 2. That the application is for the purpose of bringing the property into compliance with the Deschutes County land use regulations and/or prior land use approvals. C. For_purposes of this section, Aa violation means the property has been determined to not be in compliance either through a prior decision by the County or other tribunal, or through a determination by a_hearings officer or the Board of County Commissioners during the review process of the current application, or through an acknowledgement by the alleged violator in a signed voluntary compliance agreement ("VCA"). 4---A-permit- o l appro-v�l ins &� it inti peva t Yicati ; ��a�b an n i c1 i _._--�---�su}ts-i�,-tpr-.spec-onto-fug-�ampl����,e ;with al�ppli�-able-prey-iii-of-tae-fed��-al, __ state Deal hews a��d esel�udes Ci t C,od ;-htcludirr s i permits-o§-other ----approva ls�s—part-of-a �r�ary-cox�i i ance,-a��r�r�t ; tLSC8SNTHODIOLQv1 ED.. Public Health and Safety. 1. For the purposes of this section, public health and safety means the actions authorized by the permit would cause abatement of conditions found to exist on the property that endanger life, health, personal property, or safety of the residents of the property or the public. 2. Examples of that situation include, but are not limited to issuance of permits to replace faulty electrical wiring, repair or install furnace equipment; roof repairs; replace or repair compromised utility infrastructure for water, sewer, fuel or power; and actions necessary to stop earth slope failure. (Ord. 2017 -XXX, §X, 2017; Ord. 2015-019, §1, 2015) #LSC8SNJ'HODIOLOv1 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 — Fax (541) 385-3202 — https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of November 27, 2017 DATE: November 21, 2017 FROM: Matthew Martin, Community Development, 541-330-4620 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Preparations for Deliberations: Flood Plain Zone Amendments ATTENDANCE: Matthew Martin, Senior Planner SUMMARY: The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) conducted a public hearing on November 8, 2017, to receive testimony on proposed amendments related to the Flood Plain Zone. The Board will deliberate on December 6 at 10:00 a.m. This work session is to discuss the primary issues associated with the proposed amendments in preparation for deliberations. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541) 388-6575 Fax(541)385-;764 http:.//wwl,v.deschutes.org/cd ASdiire] 1.7a\►1 b111 iFJ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Matthew Martin, AICP, Senior Planner November 20, 2017 Post Public Hearing Work Session: County Land Use File Nos. 247-17-000140-ZC/141-PA/142-TA — Flood Plain Zone Amendments The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) conducted a public hearing on November 8, 2017. The oral record was closed that day and the written record remained open until Wednesday, November 15, at 5:00 p.m. The Board will conduct a work session on November 27 at 1:30 p.m. 1. ADDITIONAL WRITTEN TESTIMONY Since the public hearing, staff received additional written testimony. It is organized alphabetically (Attachment). • Conway • Lewis • Phillips • Ramis The testimony was directed generally at the review process, wildlife habitat protections, conservation easements, cluster developments, and planned developments. 11. PRIMARY ISSUES Public testimony addressed many elements of this comprehensive package of amendments. Staff believes there is general support for the proposed conversion to a combining zone, the technical upgrades to the code, and the new opportunities for land divisions by eliminating split zoning. With that said, there are several prominent, substantive issues raised for the Board to consider and address. They are identified in the following table. Staff will be prepared to provide additional details during the work session. Table 1. Prominent Issues Quality Services Performed with Prime ISSUE ' PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY BOARD OPTIONS • Conservation easement and cluster/planned Deliberate or consider Review Process development amendments were introduced at referring back to Planning Planning Commission deliberations with no Commission for additional opportunity for public input, testimony, analysis and possibly refinement. • Upland development and cluster/planned developments that include designated flood plain as open space constitute a conflicting use in the Deliberate or consider flood plain zone. referring back to Planning Conflicting Use . An Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy Commission for additional (ESEE) analysis is required if flood plain zoned lands testimony, analysis and are as counted open space and calculated for possibly refinement. density bonuses associated with cluster and planned developments. • Significant change from current requirement of 10 Deliberate or consider feet. referring back to Planning Conservation Easement ` • Expanded easement exaction constitutes a Commission for further regulatory taking of private property without just testimony, analysis and compensation and exposes the County to takings possibly refinement. liability. • Additional rural residential development near designated flood plain erodes protections for Goal 5 Deliberate or consider Cluster wildlife resources. referring back to Planning Development/Planned • Counting flood plain designated areas Commission for further Development (undevelopable) toward open space are an testimony, analysis and inappropriate for a density transfer. possibly refinement. • Riparian Area Plan requirements are too expansive. • Comprehensive plan and zone purpose statement Deliberate or Consider Flood Plain Zone should include language regarding conservation of referring back to Planning' Purpose Statements riparian areas along rivers and streams for fish and Commission for further wildlife resources testimony, analysis and possibly refinement. III. BOARD OPTIONS Staff provides the following options for the Board's consideration: • Option 1 — Deliberate a regular business meeting on December 6, 2017 and request an ordinance and updated findings for consideration of first and second reading at a subsequent meeting; • Option 2 — Refer all amendments back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on December 14; -2- Option 3 - Refer items identified in Table 1 back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on December 14; or • Option 4 — Other as determined by the Board. Attachment Written testimony -3- Matt Martin From: Myles A. Conway <mconway@martenlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:46 PM To: Matt Martin Subject: Written Comments- Flood Plain Combining Zone (Ordinance 2017-004) Attachments: 2017-11-14 Ltr to Deschutes County Commissioners - FP Combining Zone (0052212lxA9955).pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Matt- please enter the letter attached above into the hearings record in connection with the proposed amendments to the Flood Plain Zone. Thank you for all of your efforts with this project. Myles Myles A. Conway P.irtncr D - 541. 408. 9291 C - 541. 480. 0811 E - mconwavnmartenlaw.com martenlaw.com 404 SW Columbia St, Suite 212 Bend, OR 97702 MARTEN LAIN This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged information and is sent for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To the extent that this message or any attachment concerns tax matters, it is not intended to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by law. nl_om MARTEN LAW November 14, 2017 Via Email (matt.martin@deschutes.org) Deschutes County Commissioners c/o Matthew Martin Senior Planner Deschutes County Community Development RE: Flood Plain Zone Amendment Project (Proposed Ordinance 2017-004) County File Nos/ 247-17-000140ZC/141-PA/142-TA Dear Commissioners: Our office represents James Young, K Bar J Ranch LLC and Paulina Meadows LLC (collectively "Young"), the owners of several large ranch properties in southern Deschutes County. The various Young properties are bisected by the Little Deschutes River, Paulina Creek and Long Prairie Slough. We are writing in support of ongoing County efforts to convert the current Flood Plain (FP) zone into a combining (overlay) zone. This letter is intended as a supplement to the testimony provided at the Commission Hearing on November 8, 2017. The comments contained in this letter are focused primarily on the Young ranch but can be more generally applied to other Deschutes County properties that contain areas of both Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and Flood Plain (FP) zoning. Adoption of a Combining Zone Evidence and testimony from the November 8, 2017 Board hearing illustrated that nearly all Oregon counties utilize an overlay zoning designation for the regulation of properties within the flood plain. The use of a stand-alone flood plain zone appears unique to Deschutes County. In fact, Deschutes County implemented its FP zone as an overlay for many years until the issuance of a hearings officer decision in 2015. The pending County conversion of the FP zone to a combining zone is consistent with both other areas of the state and the longstanding past practice of Deschutes County. The use of a stand -along FP zone has a detrimental impact on agricultural properties in Deschutes County. All EFU zoned properties adjacent to rivers and streams also include areas of FP zoning. Both the EFU zone and the FP zone contain an 8o -acre minimum lot size requirement. County planning has interpreted the applicable "Dimensional Standards" to require that any split zoned lot contain 8o -acres of both EFU and FP zoning (effectively creating a 16o -acre minimum lot size requirement for split zoned EFU properties). In most cases, existing lots do not and cannot satisfy this requirement because FP zoning is confined to areas immediately adjacent and parallel to the watercourse. This effectively prohibits a landowner from proceeding with even a simple lot line adjustment of a farm parcel. The use of an overlay zone will entirely remedy this {00522089.DOCX /11 D - 541 . 408 . 9291 1 E - mconway@martenlaw.com 1 404 SW Columbia St, Suite 212, Bend, OR 97702 Deschutes County Commissioners November 14, 2017 Page 2 issue, making the minimum lot size requirement dependent upon the requirements of the underlying zone. The proposed FP Combining Zone will work to facilitate the efficient management of split zoned agricultural parcels and we urge the Board to move forward with its adoption. At the November 8, 2017 hearing, the Board heard testimony regarding the need to preserve an 8o -acre minimum lot size requirement in the flood plain to protect area fish, wildlife and other Goal 5 resources (a requirement that is consistent with the EFU Zone), No testimony (either oral or written) provided any factual or legal support to justify the need for a 16o -acre minimum lot size requirement on split zoned EFU parcels. In the event the Board elects to incorporate an 8o -acre minimum lot size requirement into the FP Combining Zone, code language should specify that lot area and dimensional requirements can be satisfied based on the overall acreage of the parcel, without regard to areas of split zoning. Proposed Conservation Easement Reauirements While Mr. Young supports the adoption of a Flood Plain Combining Zone, he remains concerned with the addition of the "Conservation Easement" requirements set forth in revised DCC Section 18.116.220(B). This proposed code section would requires a property owner to convey a conservation easement to the County in connection with any land division affecting property in the FP Combining Zone. The required Conservation Easement would include all "Riparian Areas," which are defined to include: (1) the bed or banks of any stream or river; (2) the first loo feet measured at right angles from the ordinary high water mark of the stream or river; (3) all special flood hazard areas; and (4) all areas of wetland shown on the National Wetland Inventory map. The code defines a "Conservation Easement" as: "a nonpossessory interest in real property conveyed by the property owner to the County, imposing limitations or affirmative obligations concerning the use of the property. The purposes of a conservation easement include, but are not limited to, retaining or protecting natural, scenic or open space values, public access, protecting natural resources, or maintaining or enhancing air and water quality and preserving the historical, archeological or cultural aspects of the property." DCC 18.04.030 As discussed at the November 8 hearing, this additional code requirement was added to the overlay zoning text at the conclusion of the Planning Commission process, without any opportunity for public input or discussion. The newly added language represents a significant departure from the current code that requires only a 10 -foot wide conservation easement (measured from the ordinary high water mark of the river or stream) with no requirement to convey an interest in all designated areas of wetland. Proposed DCC Section 18.116.220(B) would require a property owner to convey an interest in real property to the County as a condition of any proposed division of land, regardless of whether additional development is authorized and without analysis of the impact of the proposal on County resources and infrastructure. As such, the expanded conservation easement exaction would constitute a taking of private property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment and expose Deschutes County to takings liability. See Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1987), Koontz v. St. Johns River Management District, 570 U.S. {00522089.DOCX /1} Deschutes County Commissioners November 14, 2017 Page 3 (2013). The very limited development potential available in the EFU Zone and FP Combining Zone would make it very difficult for the County to justify an exaction of this magnitude. Adoption of the FP Combining Zone will not facilitate significant additional development of agricultural zoned lands in Deschutes County. For the Young property, adoption of a combining zone will enable a limited number of agricultural land divisions and associated lot line adjustments. The conveyance of large areas of conservation easement in this context would work to the detriment of the natural resource values sought to be protected by the ordinance. The Young ranch extends along both sides of the Little Deschutes River and Paulina Creek, with significant areas of wetland that provide valuable habitat to a number of species. There are no planned or existing trails along either water course. A conservation easement that included the provision of public access (See definition of DCC 18.04.03o above) would adversely affect and degrade sensitive areas of the river corridor and associated wetlands. Large agriculturally zoned properties are currently subject to a broad range of governmental regulation that significantly constrain development potential and insure the protection of wetland and riparian areas. The expanded conservation easement requirements contained in proposed DCC Section 18.116.220(B) cannot be justifiably imposed with respect to EFU zoned property. For the reasons set forth above, we ask that the Commission move forward with the adoption of the proposed FP Combining Zone, omitting the language contained in Section 18.116.22o(B). Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment. Sincerely, r � r ,y r` f Myles A. Conway cc: James Young, Larry Keith {00522089.DOCX /11 Matt Martin From: Lewis, Tia M. <TLewis@SCHWABE.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 12:16 PM To: Matt Martin Cc: Peter Gutowsky; William Groves Subject: FP Amendments Attachments: frm_zna.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged HI Matt: We would like to include the attached FEMA Guidelines for managing Flood Plain properties into the record for the Flood Plain Zone amendments. I believe parts of this are already in the record or referenced in the record but we wanted to submit it in complete form for the Board's consideration when addressing the amendments. Thank you, Tia. Schwabe 10%!Hiarnson & Wyatt Tia M. Lewis Shareholder Direct: 541-749-4048 Cell: 541-788-7363 tlewis@schwabe.com Ideas fuel industries. Learn more at: www,schwabe.com NOTICE: This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FEMA 265/JULY 1995 MANAGING FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT IN APPR OXIMA TE ZONE A AREAS A GUIDE FOR OBTAINING AND DEVELOPING BASE (100 -YEAR) FLOOD ELEVATIONS APRIL 1995 FOREWORD This guide was developed for use by community officials, property owners, developers, surveyors, and engineers who may need to determine Base (100 -year) Flood Elevations (BFEs) in special flood hazard areas designated as approximate Zone A on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Maps published as part of the National Flood Insurance Program. one of the primary goals of this document is to provide a means of determining BFEs at a minimal cost. The guidance provided herein is primarily intended for use in riverine and lake areas where flow conditions are fairly uniform, and do not involve unusual flow regimes (rapidly varying flow, two- dimensional flow, supercritical flow, hydraulic jumps, etc.). This guide is not to be used for areas that experience alluvial fan flooding or areas that contain characteristics of alluvial fan flooding. In addition, this guide is not to be used in Zone V (velocity) areas or coastal Zone A areas that are subject to flooding due to storm surge from hurricanes and other coastal storms. Furthermore, guidance on determining regulatory floodways is not provided in this guide. Notes on the .PDF version of the Zone A Manual Appendices 8 and 9 (hand calculations) were not included in the .PDF (Internet) version of this Manual. The information was not in a text format. The scanned images of Appendices 8 & 9 would have made the file size of this document much larger. To keep the file size down they were omitted. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION .............. ............... ............. I-1 II. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM BACKGROUND ........... IT -1 III. APPLICABLE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS IN APPROXIMATE ZONE A AREAS ..III -1 Requirements for Obtaining Base (100 -year) Flood Elevation Data ............. ................ III -1 Requirements for Developing Base (100 -year) Flood Elevation Data .............................III -2 Use of Draft or Preliminary Flood Insurance Study Data .......................................III -7 Advantages of Developing Base (100 -year) Flood Elevation Data .............................III -8 IV. OBTAINING EXISTING BASE (100 -YEAR) FLOOD ELEVATIONS ...IV -1 Federal Emergency Management Agency .................IV -1 Other Federal Agencies..............................IV-3 Other State and Local Agencies .....................IV -4 V. DEVELOPING BASE (100 -YEAR) FLOOD ELEVATIONS ............V-1 Simplified Methods..................................V-1 Contour Interpolation.............................V-2 Data Extrapolation................................V-7 Detailed Methods .................. ................. V-1.1 Topography.......................................V-11 Existing Topographic Maps ...................V-11 Datum Requirements for Field Surveys ........V-12 Number of Cross Sections Required ...........V-13 Proper Location of Cross Sections ...........V-13 Hydrology.........................................V-15 Discharge -Drainage Area Relationships ........V-16 Regression Equations ..................... .... V-19 TR -55 ........................................V-20 Rational Formula .............. ............... V-20 Other Hydrograph Methods .....................V-21 Hydraulics ............................... ........ V-22 Normal Depth ...... ..... .......... ........... V-23 Critical Depth...............................V-26 Step -Backwater Analysis ........... ........... V-28 Hydraulic Structures ........................V-28 VI. OBTAINING LETTERS OF MAP CHANGE ........ ......... ...... .VI -1 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) FIGURES Paae Figure 1 - Flood Hazard Boundary Map .......................II -2 Figure 2 - Flood Insurance Rate Map ........................II -3 Figure 3 - Proposed 76 -Lot Subdivision ....................III -2 Figure 4 - Proposed 6.7 -Acre Subdivision ..................III -3 Figure 5 - Proposed 76 -Lot Subdivision ..... ............... III -4 Figure 6 - Proposed 5.6 -Acre Subdivision ..................III -4 Figure 7 - Proposed 6.7 -Acre Subdivision ..................III -5 Figure 8 - Contour Interpolation Method - Riverine Flooding Example 1 ......................V-4 Figure 9 - Contour Interpolation Method - Riverine Flooding Example 2 ....... Figure 10 - Contour Interpolation Method - Lacustrine Flooding Example 3 ....................V-6 Figure 11 - Data Extrapolation Method - Profile ..............V-8 Figure 12 - Data Extrapolation Method - Plan View ............V-8 Figure 13 - Data Extrapolation Method - Profile ..............V-9 Figure 14 - Data Extrapolation Method - Plan View ............V-9 Figure 15 - Data Extrapolation Method - Profile .............V-10 Figure 16 - Cross Section Orientation .......................V-14 Figure 17 - Locate Cross Sections at Points of Flood Discharge Changes...............................V-14 Figure 18 - Cross Section Locations at Structures ...........V-15 Figure 19 - Wendy Run Drainage Basin ........................V-18 Figure 20 - Discharge -Drainage Area Plot ....................V-18 Figure 21 - 100 -Year Discharge Estimates for Site A and Site B......................................V-19 Figure 22 - Channel Bank Stations .....................V-25 Figure 23 - Weir Flow - Embankment Profile is Not Horizontal ............................. ......... V-30 Figure 24 - Weir Flow Over Road.............................V-31 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) APPENDICES Page Appendix 1 - Glossary of Floodplain Analysis Terms .........Al -1 Appendix 2 - Flood Insurance Study Data Request Form .......A2-1 Appendix 3 - Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies ..........A3-1 Appendix 4 - State Hydrology Reports .......................A4-1 Appendix 5 - Manning's "n" Values ..........................A5-1 Appendix 6 - QUICK -2 Computer Program Manual ...............A6-1 Appendix 7 - Hydraulic Computer Manuals ....................A7-1 Appendix 8 - Normal Depth Hand Calculations ................A8-1 Appendix 9 - Weir Flora Hand Calculations .... ............... A9--1 Appendix 10 - Worksheet ...................... .............. A10-1 iv Guide for Approximate Zone A Areas Introduction 0�1� a7�A06"Cipk7 This guide is primarily intended to assist local community officials in administering and enforcing the floodplain management requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This document provides guidance for determining Base (100 -year) Flood Elevations (BFEs) in special flood hazard areas that have been identified and designated as approximate Zone A on a community's NFIP maps. Zone A identifies an approximately studied special flood hazard area for which no BFEs have been provided. Although BFEs are not provided, the community is still responsible for ensuring that new development within approximate Zone A areas is constructed using methods that will minimize flood damages. This often requires obtaining or calculating BFEs at a development site. Developers, property owners, engineers, surveyors, and others at the local level who may be required to develop BFEs for use in approximate Zone A areas should also find this guide useful. Included in this guide are methodologies that can be used to develop BFEs, which can be used to determine the elevation or floodproofing requirements for buildings. The detailed methodologies described in this guide can also be used to develop the BFE information necessary to obtain a Letter of Map Amendment or a Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to remove a legally defined property or structure from a special flood hazard area. In addition, Letter of Map Revision requestors may use the detailed methods in this document to develop the BFE information that must be submitted to FEMA to demonstrate that an area will not be flooded during the 100 - year flood. I-1 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas NFIP Background II. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM BACKGROUND In 1968, the United States Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act, which created the NFIP. Congress recognized that the success of this program required that community participation be widespread, that studies be conducted to accurately assess the flood risk within each participating flood -prone community, and that insurance premium rates be established based on the risks involved and accepted actuarial principles. To meet these objectives, the 1968 Act called for: 1) the identification and publication of information within five years for all floodplain areas that have special flood hazards; and 2) the establishment of flood -risk zones in all such areas to be completed over a 15 -year period following the passage of the act. Within the first year of NFIP operation, it became evident that the time required to complete the detailed flood insurance studies would markedly delay implementation in many flood -prone communities. As a result, an interim means for more rapid community participation in the NFIP had to be provided. The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1969 expanded participation by authorizing an Emergency Program under which insurance coverage could be provided at non- actuarial, federally -subsidized rates in limited amounts during the period prior to completion of a community's flood insurance study. Until engineering studies could be conducted for these communities, Flood Hazard Boundary Maps, such as the one shown in Figure 1, "Flood Hazard Boundary Map," which delineated the boundaries of the community's special flood hazard areas, were prepared using available data or approximate methods. The Flood Hazard Boundary Maps identified, on an approximate basis, the areas within a community subject to inundation by the 100 -year flood (i.e., zone A). The 100 -year flood has a one -percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year. The Flood Hazard Boundary Map was intended to assist communities in managing floodplain development, and insurance agents and property owners in identifying those areas where the purchase of flood insurance was advisable. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, which also amended the 1968 Act, required that flood -prone communities be notified of their flood hazards to encourage program participation. This notification was accomplished through the publication of Flood Hazard Boundary Maps for all communities that were identified as containing flood hazard areas. In addition, the 1973 Act required the purchase of flood insurance by property owners who were being assisted by Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas NFIP Background Figure 1 - Flood Hazard Boundary Map Federal programs, or by Federally supervised, regulated, or insured agencies or institutions, in the acquisition or improvement of land or facilities located, or to be located, in special. flood hazard areas. This act also severely limited Federal financial assistance in the flood hazard areas of communities which did not join the NFIP. The initial Flood Hazard Boundary Maps for communities identified as having flood hazards were prepared using available floodplain data contained in reports developed by a variety of Federal, State, and local sources. For those communities that had no available flood information, approximate hydrologic and hydraulic methods or historical flood data were used to determine the extent of the special flood hazard areas. Flood Insurance Studies that used detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analyses to develop BFEs and designate floodways and risk zones were subsequently developed for most NFIP communities. The results of a Flood Insurance Study were 11-2 \ ry ZONE !fJ .( 10 YgNfG �'� I 1 ZONEA 12 ?�..• . ^rtk Ay'i5 9p \w \ ZOO \. -1h tz-^•,ii_ \IONEC �>Z z i T � T $� 13 ZONEA \ c J /•� ` v (" r 1.r• . ��? \ ce kAVOU iF3 27 ZONE(: 28 pry, 4,3A \j \ fONFA 1 J O zn ZUNEC \i3j E A 3 �_3p l `I \ apt 1 } ZONEC W MAP 01 Figure 1 - Flood Hazard Boundary Map Federal programs, or by Federally supervised, regulated, or insured agencies or institutions, in the acquisition or improvement of land or facilities located, or to be located, in special. flood hazard areas. This act also severely limited Federal financial assistance in the flood hazard areas of communities which did not join the NFIP. The initial Flood Hazard Boundary Maps for communities identified as having flood hazards were prepared using available floodplain data contained in reports developed by a variety of Federal, State, and local sources. For those communities that had no available flood information, approximate hydrologic and hydraulic methods or historical flood data were used to determine the extent of the special flood hazard areas. Flood Insurance Studies that used detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analyses to develop BFEs and designate floodways and risk zones were subsequently developed for most NFIP communities. The results of a Flood Insurance Study were 11-2 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas NFIP Background issued to the community in the form of a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), such as the one shown in Figure 2, "Flood Insurance Rate Map," and, in most cases, a Flood Boundary and Floodway Map and a Flood Insurance Study report. Once more detailed risk data were provided, the community could enter the Regular Program whereby more comprehensive floodplain management requirements were imposed and higher amounts of insurance could be purchased by owners of structures. Figure 2 - Flood Insurance Rate Map As early as 1976, FEMA recognized that some communities did not require a detailed Flood Insurance Study because there were few existing buildings in the floodplain and minimal development pressure. Shortly thereafter, FEMA began utilizing a special conversion process whereby communities II -3 32 ZONE A DETA1 EIDSTUDY M. ZONE AE unntTOF 40 Ro. DETAILECISTUDY k36 N� _ ZONE Acv rORPORATE LIMITS FIRM urt wv was i �s. Figure 2 - Flood Insurance Rate Map As early as 1976, FEMA recognized that some communities did not require a detailed Flood Insurance Study because there were few existing buildings in the floodplain and minimal development pressure. Shortly thereafter, FEMA began utilizing a special conversion process whereby communities II -3 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas NFIP Background were converted to the Regular Program without a Flood Insurance Study. Consequently, these communities were converted using FIRMs in which all of the special flood hazard areas were designated as approximate Zone A, without BFEs. Although over 10,000 communities have now been provided detailed Flood Insurance Studies and issued FIRMS that include BFEs, many floodplains are still designated as approximate Zone A without BFEs. Due to the costs of developing detailed risk data, areas not subject to development pressure are studied using approximate methodologies and continue to be shown on the FIRM as approximate Zone A areas. FEMA only provides BFEs for the floodplains of those flooding sources that are currently subject to development pressure or are projected at the initiation of a Flood Insurance Study or Flood Insurance Study restudy to be subject to development pressure during the immediate future. Generally, a planning period of approximately five years is used. Even in these cases, BFEs are provided on a priority basis due to funding constraints. The community plays a major part in the determination of the level of detail required in the study of selected streams. As a result, most communities will have FIRMs that include special flood hazard areas for flooding sources that have been studied in detail with BFEs and special flood hazard areas for flooding sources that have been studied using approximate methods, and have been designated as approximate Zone A. II -4 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Floodplain Management III.APPLICABLE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS IN APPROXIMATE ZONE A AREAS The primary requirement for community participation in the NFIP is the adoption and enforcement of floodplain management regulations that meet the minimum standards of the NFIP regulations in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 60.3. These minimum standards vary depending on the type of flood risk data provided to the community by FEMA.. The intent of floodplain management regulations is to minimize the potential for flood damages to new construction and to avoid aggravating existing flood hazard conditions that could increase potential flood damages to existing structures. To protect structures in riverine and lacustrine areas, the NFIP regulations require that the lowest floor (including basement) of all new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures be elevated to or above the BFE. New or substantially improved non-residential structures in riverine areas must either_ be elevated or floodproofed (made watertight) to or above the BFE. Requirements for Obtaining BFE Data In areas designated as approximate Zone A, where BFEs have not been provided by FEMA, communities must apply the provisions of Paragraph 60.3(b) of the NFIP regulations. Subparagraph 60.3(b)(4) requires that communities: Obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a Federal, State, or other source... [ 44 CFR 60.3 (b)(4) I Section IV describes the sources from which BFE data may be obtained. These data are to be used as criteria for requiring that new construction, substantial improvements, and other development within all approximate Zone A areas meet the applicable requirements in Paragraphs 60.3(c) and (d) of the NFIP regulations, including the requirement that structures have their lowest floors elevated to or above the BFE (or floodproofed to or above the BFE for non-residential structures). These data should be used as long as they reasonably reflect flooding conditions expected during the base (100 -year) flood, are not known to be scientifically or technically incorrect, and represent the best data available. Communities should consider formally adopting these data by reference as part of their floodplain management regulations. Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Floodplain Management Requirements for Developing BEE Data Under Subparagraph 60.3(b)(3) of the NFIP regulations, communities must also: Require that all new subdivision proposals and other proposed development (including proposals for manufactured home parks and subdivisions) greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is the lesser, include within such proposals base flood elevation data; [ 44 CFR 60.3 (b) (3) This means that any subdivision which meets this threshold must be evaluated to determine if the subdivision proposal is affected by an approximate Zone A area and whether BFE data are required. BFE data are required for the affected lots in the subdivisions shown in Figure 3, "Proposed 76 -Lot Subdivision," and Figure 4, "Proposed 6.7 -Acre Subdivision." Figure 3 clearly shows a 76 -lot subdivision with several lots affected by an approximate Zone A area. The subdivision depicted in Figure 4 is only 12 lots, but because the subdivision is greater than 5 acres and clearly shows buildable sites affected by an approximate Zone A area, BFE data are required. Figure 3 - Proposed 76 -Lot Subdivision I1I 2 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Floodplain Management ti Figure 4 Proposed 6.7 -Acre Subdivision communities are encouraged to address the flood hazards at the earliest stages of subdivision planning rather than at the actual placement of individual structures. If a community can work with the developer and others when land is being subdivided, many long-term floodplain management benefits can be achieved, particularly if the floodplain is avoided altogether. In Figure 5, "Proposed 76 -Lot Subdivision," the entire approximate Zone A area is to be dedicated as open space. Tf the planned subdivision shows the floodplain is contained entirely within an open space lot, it may not be necessary to conduct a detailed engineering analysis to develop BFE data. Also, it may not be necessary to develop detailed BFE data in large -lot subdivisions or single -lot subdivisions that are within the thresholds under Subparagraph 60.3(b)(3) of the NFIP regulations when the actual building sites are clearly outside of the Zone A area. In Figure 6, "Proposed 5.6 -Acre Subdivision," it is evident from the topographic features of this 5.6 -acre subdivision that the building sites would be clearly out of the floodplain since the proposal indicates a steep grade between the approximate Zone A area and the building sites which are located on natural high ground. III -3 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Floodplain Management Do Open Space Lot Figure 5 - Proposed 76 -Lot Subdivision Building Site Figure 6 - Proposed 5.6 -Acre Subdivision Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Floodplain Management If the grade between the approximate Zone A area relatively gradual, asshown Subdivision," the floodplain on the Flood Insurance Rate P could affect the building sit be conducted to determinE floodplain and the BFE. actual building sites and the of the proposed subdivision is in Figure 7, "Proposed 6.7 -Acre could extend beyond what is shown ap. It is very likely that flooding es.In this case, an analysis should the location of the 100 -year 280 Figure 7 - Proposed 6.7 Acre Subdivision For developments that exceed the thresholds identified in NFIP regulations Subparagraph 60.3(b)(3), BFEs must be either obtained from other sources or developed using detailed methodologies comparable to those contained in a Flood Insurance Study. Section V describes some of the detailed methodologies available that can be used to develop BFE data when none are available from the sources listed in Section IV. If the size of the new subdivision or other proposed development falls below the thresholds specified in NFIP regulations Subparagraph 60.3 (b) (3) and no BFE data are available from the sources listed in Section IV, the community must still apply, at a minimum, the requirements of Subparagraph 60.3(a)(3) to proposed structures or Subparagraph 60.3(a)(4) to subdivisions and other developments within approximate Zone A areas. These paragraphs require that permit officials: Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Floodplain Management Review all permit applications to determine whether proposed building sites will be reasonably safe from flooding. If a proposed building site is in a flood - prone area, all new construction and substantial improvements shall (i) be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent floatation, collapse, or lateral movement..., (ii) be constructed with materials resistant to flood damage, (iii) be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damages, and (iv) be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. [44 CFR 60.3(a)(3)] Review subdivision proposals ... including manufactured home parks or subdivisions ... to assure that (i) all such proposals are consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within the flood -prone area, (ii) all public utilities and facilities ... are located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage, and (iii) adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards; [44 CFR 60.3 (a) (4) ] One way that communities can ensure that building sites will be reasonably safe from flooding for proposed developments that fall below the thresholds in Subparagraph 60 .3 (b) (3 ) is to use the simplified methods outlined in Section V for estimating a BFE. Another approach to ensure that a building site is reasonably safe from flooding is to require the structure to be elevated above the highest adjacent grade by a specified number of feet based on the local official's knowledge of flood conditions in the area. In the absense of available BFE data from other sources, the community may require the permit applicant to elevate the structure two or more feet above the highest adjacant grade which qualifies the structure for reduced flood insurance rates. Elevation of the structure to four feet above the highest adjacant grade will enable the structure to qualify for substantially reduced flood insurance rates. However, some states and communities require that BFE data be developed for all subdivisions and/or floodplain development within approximate Zone A areas, not just those subdivisions Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Floodplain Management which meet the 50 -lot or 5 -acre threshold. A community may, at its discretion, require the use of detailed methods for such development. While this requirement is more restrictive than NFIP minimum requirements, the NFIP regulations specifically recognize and encourage states and communities to adopt and enforce more restrictive floodplain management regulations in those instances where the state or community believes that it is in the best interest of its citizens. No matter what the size of the subdivision or other development proposal, requests to revise or amend effective Flood Insurance Study information through the procedures outlined in Part 65 and Part 70 of the NFIP regulations must be based on detailed methodologies presented in Section V or other methodologies comparable to those found in a Flood Insurance Study. The analysis used to develop the BFEs must be certified by a registered professional engineer or licensed land surveyor, as appropriate, if the BFEs are to be used to revise or amend an NFIP map. Use of Draft or Preliminary Flood Insurance Study Data The data from a draft or preliminary flood insurance study constitutes "available data" under Subparagraph 60.3(b)(4). Communities must reasonably utilize the draft or preliminary flood insurance study data under the section of their ordinance that requires the use of other base flood data when detailed BFE data has not been published in a flood insurance study. Communities are given discretion in using draft or preliminary flood insurance study data only to the extent that the technical or scientific validity of the proposed flood elevation data is questioned. If a community decides not to use the draft or preliminary flood insurance data in a FIS because it is questioning the data through a valid appeal, the community must still assure that buildings are constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damages in accordance with the requirements under Subparagraphs 60.3(a)(3) and (4). When all appeals have been resolved and a notice of final flood elevations has been provided by FEMA, communities are required to use the data from the flood insurance study for regulating floodplain development in accordance with Subparagraph 60.3(b)(4) since the data represents the best data available. Communities must regulate floodplain development using the flood insurance study data under Subparagraph 60.3(b)(4) until such time as the community has adopted the effective FIRM and flood insurance study. III -7 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Floodplain Management Advantages of Developing BFE Data While the NFIP regulations do not require that communities develop BFE data in approximate Zone A areas when proposed development is below the thresholds in NFIP regulations Subparagraph 60.3(b)(3), there are significant advantages and financial benefits for communities and individual property owners that develop BFE data. These advantages and benefits include: • protecting structures up to the BFE will minimize and reduce future flood losses, resulting in long-term savings to the individual, the community, and the National Flood Insurance Fund; • flood insurance policies in approximate Zone A areas that are rated using a BFE will often qualify for significantly lower insurance rates than policies that are rated without a BFE. The difference in flood insurance premiums could be substantial; • less burden will be placed on the permit official because he or she can require protection to a specified elevation. Without a BFE, the permit official must make judgements as to what constitutes "reasonably safe from flooding" and "constructed with materials and practices that minimize flood damages"; • the NFIP's Community Rating System establishes flood insurance premium discounts of up to 45 percent for policy holders within communities that have a floodplain management program that exceeds NFIP minimum requirements. Sizable Community Rating System credits are available for Community Rating System communities that develop BFEs for areas designated as approximate Zone A on their Flood Hazard Boundary Map or FIRM, or that require site-specific engineering analyses for development proposals; and • by specifying a BFE in an approximate Zone A area, a building or property can, in some circumstances, be removed from the floodplain by issuance of a Letter of Map Amendment or Letter of Map Revision in accordance with Part 65 and Part 70 of the NFIP regulations. While these procedures eliminate the requirement that flood insurance be purchased as a condition of obtaining a loan from a Federally insured or regulated lender, a lending institution may, at its discretion, require the purchase of flood insurance. Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Obtaining BFEs IV. OBTAINING EXISTING BASE (100 -YEAR) FLOOD ELEVATIONS The NFIP Regulations at 44 CFR 60.3 require that structures be elevated or floodproofed (non-residential structures only) to provide protection from flood damage. A BFE must be established before such flood protection measures can be used. There are a variety of computational methods that can be employed to determine BFEs. However, these methods can be costly. Before computational methods are used, every attempt should be made to obtain information, in the form of floodplain studies or computations, from Federal, State, or local agencies. Data obtained from these agencies may be adequate to determine BFEs with little or no additional research, computation, or cost. Local. officials who obtain BFE data should maintain the information for future reference. Local officials should also consider making a search for BFE data for the entire community. By doing so, the local officials may not have to conduct a search each time a floodplain development permit is requested. If the data reasonably reflect flooding conditions, a community should consider adopting the information into its floodplain management ordinance. Provided below are a list of agencies that can be contacted to determine if any BFE data have already been developed. When obtained, these data should be evaluated to ensure that they reasonably reflect flooding conditions expected at the site during the 100 -year flood, are scientifically or technically correct, and represent the best data available. Three major sources of existing data are highlighted in this section: FEMA, other Federal agencies, and State and local agencies. FEMA FEMA's technical evaluation contractors maintain libraries that contain technical and administrative data developed during the preparation of Flood Insurance Studies, as well as the resulting Flood Insurance Study reports and NFIP maps. FEMA can be contacted to determine whether or not sufficient information exists in the back-up data to calculate BFEs. For some flooding sources that are designated as approximate Zone A, FEMA may have detailed flooding information that has not yet been incorporated into the community's Flood Insurance Study. FEMA can be contacted to obtain this information where it exists. IV -1 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Obtaining BFEs FEMA regularly conducts restudies of flood hazards in an effort to keep Flood Insurance Studies accurate and up-to-date. As part of these restudies, detailed BFE data for approximate Zone A areas may be developed. During the time that elapses between FEMA obtaining restudy data and the incorporation of BFE data areas into a revised Flood Insurance Study, a community may reasonably use the BFE data from the restudy in approximate Zone A areas in accordance with Subparagraph 60.3(b)(4). In addition, flooding sources restudied by FEMA may often impact several communities. FEMA may be unable to immediately update the Flood Insurance Study for every community impacted due to funding constraints. Therefore, BFEs may have been developed for streams within a community that have not yet been incorporated into the Flood Insurance Study. It is also possible that a previous request to revise flood hazards along a stream or lake may be on file with FEMA, and that BFEs, which may be applicable to other areas of the same stream or lake, may have been computed for that request. FEMA data should be sought when trying to obtain or determine BFEs for an approximate Zone A area, so that if BFEs have already been determined for an approximate Zone A area, then other BFE determinations in the same area can be based on the same methodology. However, if it is determined that a more scientifically or technically accurate determination than that which is available in FEMA's back-up data is warranted, then a more detailed methodology, such as those described in Section V, should be utilized. Data requests should be directed to the appropriate FEMA technical evaluation contractor at the address listed on the following page: IV --2 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas FEMA Regions I-V (States East of the Mississippi River and Minnesota) Flood Insurance Information Specialist c/o Dewberry & Davis 2953 Prosperity Avenue Fairfax, Virginia 22031 FAX: (703) 876-0073 Phone: (703) 876-0148 FEMA Regions VI -X (States West of the Mississippi River) FEMA Project Library c/o Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. 3601 Eisenhower Avenue Suite 600 Alexandria, Virginia 22304 FAX: (703) 960-9125 Phone: (703) 960-8800 Obtaining BFEs An instruction sheet entitled Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Data Requests is provided in Appendix 2. This sheet contains pertinent information and instructions for requesting Flood Insurance Study data. A fee is charged for locating, retrieving, copying, and mailing Flood Insurance Study back-up data based on the cost of materials and a standard hourly rate for time spent to fill the request. FEMA will inform the requestor if the requested data are available and of the required fee. The requestor should allow two to four weeks for the request to be processed. Other Federal Agencies Information regarding BFEs may be obtained from other Federal agencies involved in floodplain management. A fee may be required to obtain some of the products or services available through these agencies. The following is a list of some of the Federal Agencies involved in floodplain management and the information, which may be useful in obtaining and determining BFEs, that they produce. IV -3 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Obtaining BFEs AGENCY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information, Service Tennessee Valley Authority Other State and Local Agencies PRODUCT Floodplain Information Reports Technical Manuals Computer Programs Computational Assistance Topographic Maps Water Resource Investigations Technical Bulletins Water Supply Papers Computer Programs Watershed Studies Technical Releases Computer Programs Floodplain Studies Design Manuals Computer Programs Design Manuals Computer Programs Floodplain Studies If back-up data from Federal agencies are unavailable or are not useful, information regarding BFEs may be obtained from State or local agencies involved in floodplain. management. On the following page is a list of State and local agencies involved in floodplain management that may be contacted to obtain BFE information. Again, fees may be applicable for this information. For example, some state agencies, such as a Department of Natural Resources or a Geological Survey, may conduct floodplain studies using state funds. In some states, these agencies may maintain a repository for flood data. The NFIP state coordinating agency can also be contacted. A list of the State coordinating agencies is provided in Appendix 3. Other state agencies, such as a Department of Transportation, do engineering for specific types of projects, such as road and bridge construction, in which BFE data may have been developed for these projects. In general, when calling these agencies, the IV --4 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Obtaining BFEs caller should ask for a copy of any back-up data (reports, computations, computer models, maps) associated with a FLOODPLAIN STUDY or DRAINAGE STUDY, for the area of the particular stream of interest. In addition, some state agencies, such as a Department of Natural Resources, may maintain historic lake level data. The local public works department or the local transportation department may have developed flood data in designing sewer and storm drainage systems and local roads. For example, plans for a sanitary sewer line which runs parallel to the stream and area of interest may have 100 -year flood elevations on the profile of the sanitary sewer. Also, if there are culverts or bridges which cross the same stream within 1,000 feet of the area of interest, there may be hydrologic and hydraulic information pertaining to the 100 -year flood discharge and elevation which may be pertinent to the site. Finally, if there are any nearby residential or commercial developments along the same stream, the development (site) plans for these projects may also include information about the 100 -year flood. Other possible sources of data include regional organizations, such as Flood Control Districts, Levee Improvement Districts, Watershed Districts, or Soil and Water Conservation Districts. These organizations may have developed flood profiles for smaller streams or for reaches of streams impacted by flood control or drainage projects. State Agencies: Departments of Environmental Conservation Departments of Environmental Protection Departments of Floodplain Management Departments of Natural Resources Departments of Transportation Departments of Water Resources Geological Survey Local or Regional Agencies: Flood Control Districts Levee Improvement Districts Local Planning Commissions Local Public Works Departments Municipal Utility Districts River Basin Commissions Water Control Boards A partial list of Federal and State agencies is provided in Appendix 3. Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs V. DEVELOPING BASE (100 -YEAR) FLOOD ELEVATIONS If sufficient BFE information. cannot be obtained from the sources described in Section IV, then the community should consider conducting, or requiring the applicant to conduct, a site specific engineering analysis to determine a BFE. This section describes several simplified and detailed methods for estimating or developing BFE data, and provides guidance for using them. As noted in Section III, a detailed method is required under Subparagraph 60.3(b)(3) of the NFIP regulations for proposed development greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is the lesser. If the BFEs developed will be used to revise or amend NFIP maps, they must be developed using the detailed methodologies described in this section or other methods comparable to those in a Flood Insurance Study. If no BFE data are available and the proposed development is below the thresholds specified in Subparagraph 60.3(b)(3) of the NFIP regulations, the simplified methods for estimating BFEs described in the following section may be used. Simplified methods are less expensive and less time consuming than the detailed methods described later in this section. However, communities have the discretion to determine which method should be used when a proposed development is below the aforementioned thresholds. Simplified Methods There are situations in which a simplified approach for estimating the BFE may yield an acceptable level of accuracy. For simplified methods to be used, very specific conditions must be met as discussed below. Simplified methods are appropriate for floodplain management purposes only. These methods may be used for the purpose of meeting the requirements of NFIP regulations Subparagraphs 60.3(a)(3) and 60.3(a)(4) for developments, such as isolated small subdivisions in rural areas which are below the threshold in Subparagraph 60.3(b)(3), or single lots. Subparagraphs 60.3(a)(3) and 60.3(x)(4) require the community to determine whether proposed building sites are reasonably safe from flooding and ensuring that subdivision proposals are consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within flood -prone areas. V-1 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs simplified methods may not be used by the community to complete an Elevation Certificate used for flood insurance rating. Commun ties must use ,the __detailed methodologies described in this section or other methods_ comparable to those in a Flood Insurance Study ,,for comr�leting. the Elevation Certificate. A flood insurance policy for a structure for which a simplified method is used may be rated without an elevation certificate. However, the flood insurance rate may be higher than if the structure is rated using an Elevation Certificate. Contour Interpolation Contour interpolation involves superimposing approximate Zone A boundaries onto a topographic map in order to estimate a BFE. BFEs obtained by this method can only be assumed to be as accurate as one-half of the contour interval of the topographic map that is used. Therefore, the smaller the contour interval of the topographic map, the higher the accuracy of the BFE determined from the map. The procedures for using this method are outlined below. Steps 1 through 5 are the same for both riverine and lacustrine (lake) flooding sources. ,Step 1 - obtain a topographic map showing the site being analyzed Step 2 - Reduce or enlarge the FIRM or topographic map as necessary so that the two are at the same scale Step 3 - Superimpose the approximate Zone A (100 -year) floodplain boundary from the FIRM onto the topographic map Step 4 - Determine if this method is within the acceptable accu�i-acy 1 --i mi L s . The floodplain boundary mu s generally col-IFO M with the contour liner along the flooding rour:cr i_r) quest -ion. The difference between the water-„ui:'Face -'leve-ations det.ermi.ned on the right ovet-ba.nl, and tl)e left ovcn:banlc mList be withiri one-half of Life map i..iterval., For lacustrine f1o�_�ding sources the difference between tYte highest and lowest. det:ermi r��_sd wate_a_ -,: S <Ace elevat ioTis aro�.ind the flooding source must be within one-half of the map contour interval. otherwise, this method is not acceptable. Step 5 - If the method is acceptable, then determine the BFE. Detailed guidance for determining the BFE is provided below. V - J 2 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs Determining BFEs for Riverine flooding: on each side of the stream in the vicinity of the site, determine the ground elevation at which the superimposed Zone A boundary lies by interpolating between two contour lines. Add one-half of the map contour interval to the lower of the two interpolated elevations. This is the approximate BFE for the site (be sure to perform this method at each structure location). By adding one-half of the contour interval to the lowest interpolated water -surface elevation, two things are achieved: 1) the final BFE is within one-half of the contour interval of both interpolated water -surface elevations and, therefore, is still within the acceptable tolerance of the topographic map (generally regarded as ± one-half of the map contour interval); 2) it is a conservative estimate of the BFE. If the BFE determined under this procedure seems too high, then a detailed analysis may be performed to justify lowering it. Example 1 Using a county topographic map with a contour interval of 5 feet, the approximate Zone A boundary crosses contour elevations on the left and right bank at 323 and 325 feet, respectively, as shown in Figure 8, "Contour Interpolation Method - Riverine Flooding Example 1." The difference between these two water -surface elevations is 2 feet, which is less than one-half of the contour interval or 2.5 feet. Therefore, this method is acceptable for use on this portion of the stream. Add 323 feet (lowest interpolated water -surface elevation) plus 2.5 feet (one-half of the contour interval), which yields a BFE of 325.5. V. Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs -.-�."��_��_��..�_.,, VA 77' Figure 8 - Contour Interpolation Method - Riverine Flooding Example 1 Example 2 1 y _ Using a U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle map with a contour interval of 10 feet, the approximate Zone A boundary crosses contour elevations on the left and right bank of 422 and 430 feet, respectively, as shown in Figure 9, "Contour Interpolation Method - Ri-verine Flooding Example 2." The difference between these two water -surface elevations is 8 feet, which is greater than one-half of the contour interval or 5 feet. Therefore, this method is not acceptable for use on this portion of the stream, and another method must be used to determine the BFE. V 4 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs Figure 9 - Contour Interpolation Method Riverine Flooding Example 2 Determining BFEs for Lacustrine (Lake) flooding: Determine the contour elevations that the approximate Zone A boundary crosses (i.e. the BFE) around the perimeter of the lake or ponding area. Assuming that the highest and lowest determined water -surface elevations are within one-half of the map contour interval of each other, add one-half of the map contour interval to the lowest water -surface elevation to determine the BFE for the site. Example 3 Using a U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle map with a contour interval of 10 feet, the approximate Zone A boundary crosses low and high determined water -surface elevations along the perimeter of the ponding area of 280 and 283 feet, respectively, as shown in Figure 10, "Contour Interpolation Method - Lacustrine Flooding Example 3." The difference between these two water -surface elevations is 3 feet, which is less than one-half of the contour interval or 5 feet. Therefore, this method is acceptable for use on this ponding area. Add 280 feet (lowest water -surface elevation) and 5 feet (one-half of the contour interval), which yields a BFE of 285 feet. V-5 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs Pro sed Structure Figure 10 - Contour Interpolation Method - Lacustrine Flooding Example 3 V- 6 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs Data Extrapolation If a site is within 500 feet upstream of a stream reach for which a 100 -year flood profile has been computed by detailed methods, and the floodplain and channel bottom slope characteristics are relatively similar to the downstream reaches, data extrapolation may be used to determine the BFE. The stream in the vicinity of the site, however, must be free of backwater effects from downstream hydraulic structures. The procedure for using this method is outlined below. Step 1 - Determine the location of the site on the flood profile for the detailed study stream Step 2 - Extrapolate the last segment of the 100 -year flood profile that has a constant water -surface slope to the location of the site. The BFE at the site can then be obtained directly from the profile Figures 11-12 on the following pages depict situations (i.e., properties "Y" and "Z"'), in which the data extrapolation method may and may not be used. Figures 13-14 depict a situation in which the data extrapolation method may not be used because the highway may have an effect on the 100 -year water -surface elevations. If the 100 -year flood profile changes just prior to the limit of detailed study, as shown in Figure 15, the data extrapolation method should not be used. V-7 Guide For ARxaxi_mate_ Zone A Areas _ Develoning HFEs 40 0 35 C'3 z W w w tL z 30 z O a w J LU 25 20 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 iUuu euuu "LNU STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE THE CORPORATE LIMITS Figure 11 -- Data Extrapolation Method - Profile Figure 12 - Data Extrapolation Method - Plan View V-8 -Property Y is approximately 370' upstream of the limit of detailed study (as measured along the streamline). Using the profile below. we can extrapolate the 100 -year flood profile to determine that the BFL for property Y is egUal to 33'. -Property Z is approximately 700' upstream ofthe limit of detailed study (as measured along the streamline), and is therefore beyond the limit ofdam extrapolation. ZONE A OZONE AE -to ^ ' < 63 y cn � r o W w J � Q a 'a 1"=400'p ; L LL 'O O 'r � � J J � Figure 12 - Data Extrapolation Method - Plan View V-8 -Property Y is approximately 370' upstream of the limit of detailed study (as measured along the streamline). Using the profile below. we can extrapolate the 100 -year flood profile to determine that the BFL for property Y is egUal to 33'. -Property Z is approximately 700' upstream ofthe limit of detailed study (as measured along the streamline), and is therefore beyond the limit ofdam extrapolation. Guide,-- For __.Anvroximate Zone A Areas _ Developing BFEs 100 0 95 c� z 1- w LU tL z 90 z 0 w w 85 80 1500 J 1"=1000' 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE THE CORPORATE LIMITS Figure 13 - Data Extrapolation Method - Profile ((' ZONE AE S f e i Figure 14 - Data Extrapolation Method - Plan View O / L- R 0 n N U J LL Q LC O Qy Uj co J L1 V-9 ZONE A 100 95 90 85 5000 -State Route 27 may have an effect on the 100 -year water -surface elevations. Therefore. data extrapolation should not be used to obtain a 13FE for property R. Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFES 215 0 210 0 z w w LL _z 205 z 0 a w w 200 195 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 STREAM DISTANCE IN HUNDREDS OF FEET ABOVE THE CORPORATE LIMITS Figure 15 - Data Extrapolation Method - Profile V-10 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs Detailed Methods Three essential factors must be determined either by hand calculations or by computer model to determine a BFE by detailed methods. These factors are: 1) floodplain geometry (topography); 2) flood discharge and/or volume (hydrology); and 3) flood height (hydraulics). Topography involves the measurement of the geometry of a cross section(s) of the floodplain, which includes horizontal and vertical coordinates. The vertical coordinate, or elevation, is related to a vertical datum, such as the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 or North American Vertical Datum of 1988. The horizontal coordinate, or station, is measured from a reference point along the cross section to establish actual ground points. Hydrology for the particular location along a stream involves the determination of the peak rate of stream flow [usually measured in cubic feet per second (cfs) ] that will occur during a flood (for purposes of determining the BFE, the 100 -year flood.). When determining lake or pond elevations, a 100 -year flood hydrograph is required to determine the BFE. Hydraulics involves the determination of the water -surface elevation that will occur during a flood (for purposes of determining the BFE, the 100 -year flood), the selection of a method to relate the flood discharge to a flood depth, and the selection of Manning's roughness coefficients or "n" values. These "n" values vary depending on the type of materials; degree of irregularity; variation of shape, obstructions, and vegetation; and degree of meandering related to the channel and the floodplain of a stream. The following sections discuss various methods for determining the topography, hydrology, and hydraulics for a particular location in order to determine a BFE. Existing Topographic Maps Before initiating field surveys, determine if there is existing detailed topographic mapping that can be used to generate cross- section data. To adequately describe a floodplain and for use with a hydraulic method to calculate a BFE, topographic map scales and contour intervals must be the same as, or more detailed than, those used to prepare the V-11 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs community's Flood Insurance Study. The greater the level of detail on the topographic map, the more accurate the BFE determination. If the community does not have a Flood Insurance Study, an existing topographic survey should, at a minimum, be as detailed as the U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle map for the area. Regardless of the level of detail of the existing topographic map used, it is suggested that the geometry of the actual stream channel be obtained by a site visit if the cross sections are to be used for hydraulic analyses. Datum Requirements for Field Surveys If a greater level of detail is desired than is available from existing topographic mapping, then a field survey should be performed. If it is necessary to establish a BFE for insurance purposes or to meet the requirements of 60.3 of the NFIP Regulations, the survey must be referenced to the same datum that is used to produce the FIRM, which is usually the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 or the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. Reference marks giving elevations to this datum are given in the published Flood Insurance Studies. If the reference marks cannot be located in the field, or are simply too far away, additional reference mark information may be obtained from the State's U.S. Geological Survey or Transportation office. Local surveyors are generally familiar with nearby reference marks. In approximate Zone A areas, if it is not economically feasible to reference survey information to a known reference mark, an assumed datum may be used, provided that the BFE, structure, and lot elevations are referenced to the same assumed datum; however, data developed using such an assumed datum may not be sufficient to revise a FIRM. All surveys must be certified by a registered professional engineer or land surveyor. If the sole purpose of determining relative flood heights is to meet the requirements set forth in Section 60.3(a) of the NFIP regulations, any assumed datum may be used. In this instance, a depth of flooding can be established at a particular location without having to reference it to a datum (i.e., National Geodetic Vertical Datum). However, in order for an insurable structure to be eligible for a lower insurance rate based on the BFE, the survey may need to be referenced to the same datum that was used for the FIRM (i.e., National Geodetic Vertical Datum or North American Vertical Datum). V-12 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs Number of Cross Sections Required If the determination of the BFE is for only one "lot, one cross section is required across the 100 -year floodplain through the property in question. For large parcels and multi -lot subdivisions, at least one cross section is .required at each end of the parcel or subdivision. Additional cross sections must be added if the difference in the computed 100 -year water -surface elevations at the two cross sections is more than one foot and the distance between the cross sections is greater than 500 feet. Proper Location of Cross Sections The following guidelines should be used to determine the proper location for cross sections: Flow Path: Cross sections must be oriented perpendicular to the anticipated flow path of the 100 -year flood, as shown in Figure 16, "Cross Section Orientation." Channel Characteristics: Cross sections should be located where changes in channel characteristics, such as slope, shape, and roughness, occur. Discharge: Cross sections should be located at points along a stream where changes in flood discharge occur, such as upstream of tributaries, as shown in Figure 17, "Locate Cross Sections at Points of Flood Discharge Changes." Structures: A minimum of two cross sections are required to compute a BFE at or near a structure, such as a bridge or dam. If the floodplain configurations upstream and downstream of the structure are similar, two cross sections may be used. One cross section should represent the structure profile including the profile of the road or embankment. When obtaining the structure profile in the field, measurements of the structure opening, if there is one, and any piers should also be obtained. The other cross section should represent the natural valley cross section downstream of the structure and should not include any part of the structure or embankment. The natural valley cross section should be located at a distance equal to the width of the structure opening, W, measured from the downstream foot of the embankment or wing walls, as shown in Figure 18, "Cross Section Locations at Structures." V-13 wide —Y p�rA PKg—ximate ZP—ncA -Are—as--- DeveigpiAg _BF9.4 Figure 16 - Cross Section Orientation Drainage area boundary Contours Figure 17 - Locate Cross Sections at Points of Flood Discharge Changes V -- 14 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs Water's Edge W Flow Roadway I Embankment f� W Bridge Roadway Embankment _____ Water's Edge ____ Flow �._______ Figure 18 - Cross Section Locations at Structures If the floodplain configurations upstream and downstream of the structure are different and the structure is a bridge, an additional cross section should be used upstream of the structure. The cross section should be located at a distance equal to the width of the structure opening upstream of the structure as measured from the foot of the embankment or wing walls. The stations and elevations for cross section ground points outside of the stream channel may be obtained from a topographic map. The size of the structure opening, piers, and channel geometry, however, should be obtained by field survey. Hydrology There are a number of methodologies that may be used to develop flood discharges for approximate Zone A areas. The methods discussed below were selected because they are fairly simple to use, require information that is easily obtainable, and provide reasonable discharge estimates for streams where more detailed hydrologic analyses have not been performed. These methods, which have been ordered based on ease of use and expected level of accuracy, include discharge -drainage area relationships, regression equations, the NRCS TR -55 graphical peak discharge and tabular hydrograph methods, V__15 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs and the rational formula. Other hydrograph methods will also be noted but not described in detail due to their complexity. Discharge -Drainage Area Relationships This method is suggested for approximate Zone A areas because it is straightforward and the only data needed are drainage areas and corresponding 100 -year flood discharges. These data can be obtained from the Summary of Discharges table in a Flood Insurance Study report. The relationship between drainage area and discharge is non- linear in most cases; therefore, the drainage areas and corresponding 100 -year flood discharges from the Flood Insurance Study should be plotted on log -log paper as shown in Figure 20 from the example which begins on the following page. The streams plotted may have varying drainage areas; however, other watershed characteristics should be similar. A straight line should be drawn through the plotted points as shown in Figure 21. The 100 -year flood discharge for a particular location can then be estimated based on the drainage area at the location as shown in Figure 21 from the example. Limitations - If the relationship of plotted points cannot be approximated by a straight line, then this method should not be used. In addition, this method is not appropriate when the stream along which the site is located is regulated by dams, detention ponds, canals, or other flow control structures or diversions. V-16 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs EXAMPLE: DISCHARGE -DRAINAGE AREA RELATIONSHIPS The following is a Summary of Discharges table from a Flood Insurance Study report. TABLE 1. i SUMMARY Or _DISCIARGES FLOODING SOURCE DRAINAGE AREAPEAK DISCHARGESrfs) AND LOCATION ., __(sc�=miles„j10-YEAR 50 -YEAR 100 -YEAR 500 -YEAR PINE CREEK At confluence with Saddle River 20.39 2,220 4,165 5,310 9,010 At Calvin Street 16.3 1, 907 3,617 4,612 7, 300 At Caitlin Avenue 14.9 1,860 3,285 4,090 6,570 ROCK RUN Downstream of confluence of Ramsey Brook 12.6 1,640 2, 895 3,605 5, 795 Upstream of confluence of Ramsey Brook 10.1 1, 390 2,455 3, 055 4, 910 GOOSE CREEK Downstream of confluence of Valentine Brook 9.1 1, 285 2,270 2,825 4,540 Upstream of confluence of Valentine Brook 6.2 965 1,700 2,120 3,405 COON CREEK Downstream of confluence of Allendale Brook 14.3 1, 805 3, 185 3,965 6,370 Upstream of confluence of Allendale Brook 12 .9 1,670 2, 950 3,670 5, 900 Assume that Wendy Run is a stream within the same community as the streams listed in the table, and that the Wendy Run drainage basin, shown in Figure 19, has similar characteristics to the stream basins from the table. First, plot the drainage areas and corresponding 100 -year discharges on log -log paper as shown in Figure 20 on the following page. Then draw a straight line through the plotted points as shown in Figure 21. At Property A, the drainage area for Wendy Run is 8.5 square miles. Using the drainage area curve created from the Flood Insurance Study Summary of Discharges table, the 100 -year discharge at Property A is estimated to be 2,750 cfs, as shown on Figure 21. At Property B, with a drainage area of 12.0 square miles, an estimated 100 -year discharge of 3,600 is obtained, as shown on Figure 21. V-17 Guide -,.p For Ap R�oximate Zone A Areas Develo ina BFES Drainage area boundary Contours Figure 19 - Wendy Run Drainage Basin 10( Drainage Area (Square Miles) Figure 20 Discharge -Drainage Area Plot V-18 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs Discharge -Drainage Area Curve Drainage Area (Square Miles) )0 Figure 21 - 100 -year Discharge Estimates for Site A and Site B Regression Equations Another methodology that can be used for determining discharges for approximate Zone A areas is the application of the appropriate regression equation found in a U.S. Geological Survey publication (Water Resources Investigation or Open File report). A list of these publications applicable to each State is in Appendix 4. The U.S. Geological Survey has also released Version 1.1 of the National Flood Frequency Computer Program. The National Flood Frequency Program contains the regression equations for all of the continental United States. The use of regression equations involves the determination of specific variables for a watershed (drainage area, mean annual precipitation, forest cover, stream slope, etc.). Regression equations are based on actual stream gage data and are usually developed to determine discharges for the 2 -year event up to the 100 -year event (for purposes of determining the BFE, determine the 100 -year discharge). V-19 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs The general form of these regression equations is: Q = K * A" * 13Y * C where: Q - discharge (cfs) K - regression equation constant A,B, and C = watershed variables X,Y, and Z = exponents Watershed variables may include parameters such as drainage area (in square miles), stream slope (in feet/mile), and impervious area (in percent) Limitations - Care must be taken when using these publications because restrictions generally apply when the watershed is heavily urbanized (i.e., high percentage of impervious land), or where the runoff is regulated by the use of dams, detention ponds, canals and other flow diversions. Other restrictions based on the physical parameters of the watershed, such as drainage area or stream slope, may also apply. Limitations of these equations are normally stated in each report and should be examined closely. TR -55 The NRCS TR -55 "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds" contains two methods for computing flood discharges: the Graphical Peak Discharge method and the Tabular Hydrograph method. TR -55 is straightforward in its approach and method of computation. TR - 55 takes into account the effects of urbanization, rainfall distribution, soil types and conditions, ground cover types, and other watershed characteristics. A method for estimating the effects of storage on peak flood discharges is also included in TR -55. Limitations - In general, TR -55 should not be used in areas where flow is divided between closed storm sewer systems and overland conveyance areas, or where drainage areas exceed 2,000 acres. More specific limitations for using TR -55 are contained in Chapters 2 through 6 of the NRCS TR -55 manual. Rational Formula This method estimates peak discharge rates for small watershed areas not covered by regression equations and for areas where the NRCS TR -55 method is not applicable. The Rational Formula V-20 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs is based on the drainage area, rainfall intensity, watershed time of concentration, and a runoff coefficient. The generalized equation is: Q = C * I * A where: Q = discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient I = rainfall intensity (inches/hour) A = drainage area (acres) The runoff coefficient, C, varies with soil type, land use, and terrain slope and can be obtained from text books on hydrology. The intensity of rainfall, 1, is determined based on the total rainfall for a selected exceedence probability and a duration equal to the time of concentration for the watershed. The time of concentration for the watershed can be computed using the method described in the NRCS TR -55 manual or methods described in hydrology text books. For approximate Zone A areas, the exceedence probability is equal to 1 percent (100 -year storm frequency). The 1 percent exceedence probability total rainfall (100 -year rainfall) for the computed duration can be obtained from Technical Paper No. 40, Hydro 35, and precipitation -- frequency atlases published by the National Weather Service. Dividing the total rainfall by the computed duration will yield the intensity of rainfall. Limitations - This method must not be used where the runoff is regulated by the use of dams, detention ponds, canals and other flow diversions. Also, this method is not recommended for drainage areas greater than 200 acres, but can be used with caution for drainage areas up to 640 acres (one square mile). Other Hydrograph Methods There are numerous other methods that can be used to determine flood discharges based on rainfall -runoff relationships. The following hydrograph methods are described in detail within their respective technical reports and, therefore, will not be described in detail within this guide. These methodologies in general are good for any size watershed, and most of the methods include computations that take into consideration areas where the runoff is regulated by the use of dams, detention ponds, canals and other flow diversions. 'These methods are recommended for determining BFEs for ponds or lakes that are designated as approximate Zone A. Besides TR -55, two of the more widely used hydrograph methods are the NRCS' TR -20 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' HEC -1 computer programs. V 21 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs TR -20 and HEC -1 provide a very detailed calculation of discharge through the generation, addition, grid 1c;11tin.9 of runoff hydrographs . The effect on pe,:rk f �.00d di:,chr.irges due to dams, road crossings, and large floodplain Storage areas is more accurately assessed with these programs. These models require experience on the part of the user :i.f they are to produce realistic determinations of peak discharge. Limitations - The limitations of these methods are thoroughly described in their manuals. Because these methods involve many variables and assumptions, the potential for error is great. The users of these models must be thoroughly versed in the limitations and assumptions of the computational methods contained in these models. As with any synthetic model depicting rainfall -runoff relationships, extreme care needs to be taken to ensure that the results of the model are reasonable. it is highly recommended that the discharges produced by these hydrograph methods be compared to discharges produced by another hydrologic method of equal accuracy or by calibrating the model to an actual storm event. Hydraulics There are various hydraulic methods that may be used to determine BFEs along riverine flooding sources. The appropriate method to use depends on flow conditions and the size of the area that is being analyzed. For developments of equal to or less than 50 lots or 5 acres, the normal depth method, which is described in greater detail below, is usually adequate for determining BFEs. After normal depth has been computed, flow conditions should be analyzed. If flow is classified as subcritical (i.e., normal depth is greater than critical depth), normal depth is used as the BFE. If flow is classified as supercritical (i.e., normal depth is less than critical depth), then critical depth is used as the BFE for natural channels. For engineered channels, supercritical (normal) depth may be used for the BFE, provided that the backwater from the normal depth of the downstream cross section is considered properly. If more than one cross section is required, step -backwater computations should be used to determine BFEs along riverine flooding sources. The procedures for computing normal depth, critical depth, and step -backwater by hand are outlined below. As an alternative to hand calculations, the QUICK -2 computer program may be used. V-2.2 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs QUICK -2 is a user-friendly computer program developed by FEMA that may be used for normal depth, critical depth, or step - backwater computations for regular or irregular shaped cross sections. To aid the users of this guide in computing BFEs, the QUICK -2 computer program and user's manual are located in Appendix 6. The user's manual contains a tutorial section which leads a new user through the calculation process using "real life" examples. For those not using the QUICK -2 program, the following sections on Normal Depth and Critical Depth illustrate how to compute these depths by hand (see Appendix 8 for an example of a Normal Depth hand calculation). Normal Depth Normal depth is the depth expected for a stream when the flow is uniform, steady, one-dimensional, and is not affected by downstream obstructions or flow changes. For uniform flow, the channel bottom slope, water -surface slope, and energy slope are parallel and are, therefore, equal. For normal depth computations, the flow is considered steady because the discharge is assumed to be constant; therefore, the depth of flow does not change during the time interval under consideration. Normal depth calculations (also called the "slope/area method") compute BFEs at a cross section. The standard formula for determining normal depth at a cross section is Manning's formula. The standard Manning's equation is: Q= 1.486 x A x (R 667) x S' / n where: Q = discharge (cfs) A = cross section area (ft') R = hydraulic radius (ft) = A/WP WP = wetted perimeter (ft) S = energy slope (ft/ft) n = Manning's roughness coefficient The cross section area refers to the area below the water - surface elevation, and the wetted perimeter refers to the length of the ground surface along the cross section below the water - surface elevation. The channel bottom slope is used in lieu of the energy slope. As noted earlier, Manning's "n" values vary depending on the physical features of the stream channel and the channel overbanks. The results of normal depth calculations can differ V- 23 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs significantly depending on the Manning's "n" values used; therefore, care should be taken to ensure that the Manning's "n" values selected accurately reflect conditions at the site being analyzed. Manning's "n" values should be selected based on field inspection, field photographs, and topographic mapping. A list of accepted Manning's "n" values has been included in Appendix 5. Various methods for computing normal depth are described below. Cc�ml�l.it:e�:' Proyrams for Conipul.ing Normal la��l�t.l1 In addition to QUICK -2, the following Federal Government computer programs have the capability to perform normal depth computations: Compu t e x' P ro�.�r_ am 11EC'- 2 1411.1C -RAS W. 3 PRO W_, P2 SFD P S t_, PRC? Agency U.S. Army Corps U.S. Army Corps U.S. Geological NR.CS FEMA FEMA of Engineers of Engineers Survey Please note that HEC -RAS is still being tested and had not yet been released to the general public when this guide was published. Furthermore, FEMA has not yet approved the model for requests to revise NFIP maps. Please contact our Headquarters office to determine the current status of HEC -RAS. In addition to the above -referenced programs, there are other engineering computer programs and models, which perform normal depth calculations, that are available through various commercial vendors. References for the hydraulic computer programs listed above are in Appendix 7. Normal Depth Hand Calculations If a computer is not available, it is possible to perform hand computations to calculate normal depth for the 100 -year flood at a cross section by following steps 1-11 listed below. Step I - Obtain a topographic map or conduct a field survey to obtain a cross section at the site where normal depth should be determined. If a topographic map is used, the channel geometry should be obtained from measurements taken in the field. The cross section should be oriented perpendicular to the expected 100 - year floodplain. V-24 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs Step 2 Compute the 100 --year discharge by applying one of the methods described in the hydrology section of this guide. Step 3 -- Plot the cross section on graph paper with the stations and the corresponding elevations. (The stations and elevations are obtained from the topographic map and/or from field survey). Step 4 Select the left and right channel bank stations. The channel bank stations are those stations where the ground slope becomes flatter moving away from the channel bottom as shown in Figure 22, "Channel Bank Stations." Photographs taken in the field and the contours on the topographic maps are also helpful when defining the channel bank stations. Do not place the channel bank stations at the bottom of the channel. CHANNEL BANKS a Figure 22 - Channel Bank Stations Step 5 - Select appropriate Manning's roughness coefficients for the left overbank, channel, and right overbank from the "n" values given in Appendix 5. These values should be determined by reviewing the field photographs and visiting the site. Step 6 - Compute the cross section area, wetted perimeter, hydraulic radius, and conveyance for each segment (i.e., left overbank, channel, and right overbank) for at least three elevations. The conveyance, K, of a segment is given as: K = (1.486/n) x A x R` `'" where: A cross section area (ft`) R - hydraulic radius (ft) WP wetted perimeter (ft) R _ A/WP V 2 1.:i Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs Step 7 - Compute the channel bottom slope, S, from the topographic map or from field survey. Step 8 Compute the discharge, Q, for each segment of the cross section at each elevationby multiplying K by S° Step 9 - Add the discharges from each segment at the same elevation to obtain the total discharge. Step 10 - Plot the total discharges and the corresponding elevations on graph paper. Step 11 The BFE can be determined from this graph for the 100 - year flood discharge computed in Step 2. An example of a normal depth hand calculation is included in Appendix 8. Critical Depth After computing normal depth, the type of flow should be checked. If the velocity head from the normal depth computation is equal to or more than half the hydraulic depth, the flow is supercritical and the critical depth should be used to establish the BFE. The velocity head, HV, for an irregular cross section is computed using the following equation: HV = aV2/2g where: a = velocity coefficient V = mean velocity = Qr / A,. (fps) Ql, = total discharge (cfs) AT = total flow area (ft2 g = acceleration due to gravity = 32.2 ft/secs The velocity coefficient, a, is determined using the following equation: K,' /A, V-26 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs where: Kt,, K,�, KR, Kr - conveyance for left overbank, channel, right overbank, and total conveyance, respectively AL, A,, Az, A - flow area for left overbank, channel, right overbank, and total flow area, respectively Hydraulic depth, h, is computed by using the following relationship: h = AT / T where: T = top water -surface width at the normal depth Ar = Total Flow Area If the velocity head is greater than or equal to one-half the hydraulic depth, the flow is supercritical.. For prismatic channels, the following equation can be used to determine the critical depth: Q= A' o r Q- �gA T g T For a series (3 or more) of water -surface elevations, compute the corresponding total area, A, water -surface topwidth, T, and the critical discharge, Q, using Q = IgA' / T. Compute the value of right hand side of the above equation. Plot the water - surface elevations and the corresponding discharge values on graph paper. The critical water -surface elevation and, therefore, critical depth, can be determined from this graph for a range of discharge values. For rectangular channels, critical depth can be computed directly from the above equation and is expressed in the following relationship: T 6G7 11 = { Q / (5.67 T) }" The energy is minimum at the critical depth. For irregular cross sections, critical depth is determined from the relationship between the water -surface elevation and the energy. The energy is computed by adding the water -surface elevation and the corresponding velocity head (or energy grade elevation). For irregular cross sections, the velocity coefficient, a(a), must be considered when computing velocity head (HV). Several water -surface elevations should be assumed and corresponding energy grade elevations computed. These values are then plotted V 27 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs on a graph of water -surface elevation versus energy grade elevation. The critical water -surface elevation and, therefore, critical depth, can be determined from this graph where the energy (i.e., energy grade elevation) is minimum. Step -Backwater Analysis Step -backwater computations are based on. the principle of conservation of energy, which states that the energy at the upstream cross section is equal to the energy at the downstream cross section plus the losses between the two cross sections. The losses considered in the step -backwater analysis are the friction loss and the transition loss. The equations and the procedure used in the step -backwater analysis are explained in the QUICK -2 user's manual in Appendix 6. Although hand computations can be done to perform the step - backwater analysis, it is advisable to use the QUICK -2 program or other Federally approved programs for ease of computation. The QUICK -2 program currently does not model the effects of bridges or culverts or supercritical flow. The QUICK --2 program uses the default friction slope method, which is the average conveyance method, from the HEC -2 program to compute friction losses. For transition losses, a contraction coefficient of 0.1 and an expansion coefficient of 0.3 should be used in the computations. The reach lengths between the two cross sections for the left overbank, channel, and right overbank are required for step - backwater computations. The distance for the left overbank should be measured between the center of the floodplains of the left overbank at each cross section. The same is true for the right overbank. The channel distance should be measured along the streambed, and therefore will account for the meandering of the stream channel. In general, starting water -surface elevations are obtained from normal depth computations (slope/area method) at the first cross section. If there is a structure downstream of the study area, the backwater effects of the structure must be considered in determining the starting water -surface elevation. If there is a known 100 -year water -surface elevation at the downstream end of the study area, that water -surface elevation should be used as the starting water -surface elevation. V-28 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs Hydraulic Structures As stated earlier, normal depth is the depth expected for a stream when the flow is uniform, steady, one-dimensional, and is not affected by downstream obstructions or flow changes. However, there are situations in which a physical structure located downstream of a particular site will cause an obstruction or alteration of the flow, resulting in a flood depth at the site higher than the normal depth. The discussion below describes the appropriate methods for determining BFEs for reaches that include hydraulic structures. Hydraulic structures that are common in approximate Zone A areas include road and railroad crossings, including embankments, dams, bridges and culverts, and canal crossings. The flow over the road, railroad, embankment, dam or canal can be described as weir flow. Weir flow can be calculated by hand or by computer program in order to determine the BFE. When flow passes through a bridge or culvert, the BFE can be determined through the use of nomographs or computer programs. The BFE at a structure where flow travels through a bridge or culvert and over the crossing can be determined by nomographs, but is more easily determined with a computer program. Weir Flow Determination of the water -surface elevation for weir flow requires at least two cross sections. The first cross section represents the natural valley section downstream of the structure, and the second cross section represents the road profile and the opening of the structure (refer to Figure 18, "Cross Section Locations at Structures." If the approach velocity head is to be considered, then a third cross section is required that represents the natural valley section upstream of the structure. In most situations, however, the velocity head can be assumed to be negligible, and a third cross section is not necessary. The water -surface elevation downstream of the structure should be determined by using normal depth computations at the first cross section, provided there are no structures further downstream that can create backwater effects (refer to the methods for determining normal depth described previously). The second cross section, which represents the profile along the top of the structure including the road or the embankment, should be used to determine the weir length for use in the equation for weir flow, as shown on the following page. V 29 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs Q=@ x C x L X H"' where: Q = discharge (cfs) @ = submergence factor C" = weir coefficient, varies from 2.6 to 3.0 and can be obtained from hydraulic text books I, __ weir length (ft) H -- available head (ft) , measured from top of weir to the selected energy grade elevation Several values for H should be selected and the corresponding discharge computed until the total weir flow is larger than the 100 -year flood discharge. Plot the discharges and the corresponding energy grade elevations on graph paper. The 100 - year flood energy grade elevation can be determined from this graph. For an approximate analysis, the computed energy gradient elevation can be considered the BFE. If the structure profile is not horizontal, as shown in Figure 23, "Weir Flow - Embankment Profile is Not Horizontal," several structure segments should be used and an average energy depth, H, for that segment should be determined for use in the above equation for selected energy grade elevations. The sum of the weir flow from each segment will then be equal to the total weir flow for the selected energy grade elevation. ROAD OR EMBANKMENT PROFILE ENERGY GRADE LINE HAVGO) iiAVG(2)� HAVG(3) + @ "1�, .; (@1C., T411. )+ (@ CLsjl Figure 23 - Weir Flow - Embankment Profile is Not Horizontal V-30 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs If the downstream water -surface elevation is higher than the minimum road elevation, a submergence factor may be considered in the weir flow computation. The submergence factor is dependent upon the D/H ratio, where D is the downstream depth. of water above the road and H is the upstream energy grade depth above the road, as shown in Figure 24, "Weir Flow Over Road." The submergence factor must be considered when the D/H ratio is more than 0.79. For a non -horizontal road profile, the D/H ratio must be computed for each road segment. The submergence factor, @, can be determined from the curve in "Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways" (Reference 1, Figure 24) and some typical values are given in the table below. Figure 24 - Weir Flow Over Road D/H - - @ D/H - @ 0.998 0.30 0.944 0.80 0.992 0.40 0.932 0.85 0.986 0.50 0.915 0.90 0.976 0.60 0.889 --0.95 0.962 0.70 0.700 1.00 Other procedures used in Federal agency backwater computer programs can also be used to determine the submergence factor. A third cross section may be used to determine a more accurate water - surface elevation upstream of the structure. This may be done by assuming water -surface elevations and calculating the corresponding velocity heads (HV) until an assumed water -surface elevation plus its velocity head at that elevation equal the same energy gradient elevation obtained from the weir flow equation. The velocity head, HV, can be calculated using the following equation: 11V = a (Q/A) `/2g V-31 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs where: a = velocity coefficient Q = 100 -year flood discharge (cfs) A = cross section area (ft2) at the assumed water -surface elevation g - Acceleration due to gravity = 32.2 ft/sec' An. example of a weir flow computation is included in Appendix 9. Flow Throuqh Structures Culverts At least two cross sections are required to determine the water - surface elevation upstream of a culvert. The first cross section should represent the natural valley cross section downstream of the culvert, and the second cross section should represent the top of the embankment profile and the opening of the structure (refer to Figure 13, "Cross Section Locations at Structures"). The size, type, length, and upstream and downstream invert elevations of the culvert should be obtained by field survey. The wing wall angle and the entrance opening configuration, such as sharp edge or rounded edge, should also be determined from a field survey. The Federal Highway Administration publication "Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts" (Reference 2) should be referenced before going to the field so that all the necessary information for culvert flow computations can be collected during one field survey. Water -surface elevations upstream of the culvert can then be computed using the nomographs contained in the above-mentioned publication and the procedures outlined below. The first cross section should be used to determine the normal depth downstream of the culvert, which will be considered as the tailwater (refer to section on normal depth computations). Two computations are required to determine the headwater when using Federal Highway Administration nomographs. One computation is for inlet control, and the other computation is for outlet control. The headwater elevations from the two computations are then compared. The higher of the two should be selected as the upstream headwater elevation. If this headwater elevation is higher than the top of embankment profile, weir flow will occur. Perform at least three weir flow computations for headwater elevations between the headwater that assumes that all the flow is culvert flow (the first computation) and the minimum top of embankment elevation. For each selected headwater elevation, compute the culvert flow using Federal Highway Administration nomographs. Combine the weir flow and culvert flow for each selected headwater elevation and plot on graph paper. The BFE for the 100 -year flood discharge can then be obtained from this graph.. V-32 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs If the site in question is not located immediately upstream of a structure, a normal depth should be computed at the site. The 100 - year water -surface elevation at the site should be the higher of the two elevations from the culvert computation and the normal depth computation. Federal Highway Administration nomographs predict only the energy grade elevation upstream of the culverts. In most applications, the velocity head is assumed to be negligible and, therefore, the energy grade elevation approximates the actual water -surface elevation. If a more accurate water -surface elevation is desired, a hydraulic computer model, such as HEC -2, should be used to determine the BFE. The procedure outlined in the weir flow section to compute a water - surface elevation that corresponds to a certain energy grade elevation may also be used to determine a BFE upstream of a culvert. Br.i dges Although hand computations can be performed by following the procedures for bridge routines in Federal agency computer models, it is recommended that the water -surface elevation upstream of bridges be determined using a computer model. The number of cross sections required at the structure depends upon the type of bridge routine used. Four cross sections are required if the special bridge routine in the HEC -2 program is used, and six cross sections are required if the normal bridge routine in the HEC -2 program is used. Three cross sections are required if the bridge routines in the WSPRO program and the WSP2 program are used. A step -backwater analysis is also required to compute the water -surface elevations with these bridge routines. The following programs are recommended to compute the water -surface elevation upstream of a bridge: Computer_Program Agency HEC -2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers *HEC -RAS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WSPRO U.S. Geological Survey WSP2 NRCS *Not available for general use when this guide was published; please contact our Headquarters office for current status. V-33 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Developing BFEs REFERENCE 1, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Hydraulics of Bridge Waterways, Washington, D.C., March 1978. 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, lly(.-.Ir- ulic Design of I-LI.C111wav Culverts, Washington, D.C., September 1985. V-34 Guide For Approximate Zone A Areas Letters of Map Change VI. OBTAINING LETTERS OF MAP CHANGE Once detailed methods have been applied to develop BFE data, these data may be suitable for revising an NFIP map via a Letter of Map Correction. On October 1, 1992, FEMA implemented the use of detailed application and certification forms for requesting revisions to NFIP maps. Therefore, if a map revision is requested, the appropriate forms should be submitted. FEMA has implemented a procedure to recover costs associated with reviewing and processing requests for modifications to published flood information and maps. Specific information about these fees is presented in the application and certification forms. These forms, along with other useful documents pertaining to the NFIP, may be obtained from our technical evaluation contractors at the addresses listed below: FEMA Regions I-V Dewberry & Davis Management Engineering and Technical Services Division 8401 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, Virginia 22031 FAX: (703) 876-0073 FEMA Regions VI -X Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. 3601 Eisenhower Avenue Suite 600 Alexandria, Virginia 22304 FAX: (703) 960-9125 This information is also available through the FEMA Regional Offices listed in Appendix 3. To provide additional assistance to those who develop BFE data, a worksheet that synopsizes the procedures detailed in this guide is found in Appendix 10. VI -1 Appendix 1 Glossary of Floodplain Analysis Terms 1 -Percent Annual Chance Flood: the flood that has a one -percent chance of being equaled or exceeded on the average in any given year; equivalent to the 100 -year flood. 100 -Year Flood: the flood. that is equaled or exceeded once in 100 years on the average; equivalent to the one percent annual chance flood. Alluvial Stream: a stream that has formed its channel by the process of aggradation. The sediment in the stream is similar_ to the material in the bed and banks. Base Flood: the flood having a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year (the 100 -year flood). Base Flood Elevation (BFE): the water -surface elevation associated with the base flood. Conveyance: a. measure of the carrying capacity of the channel section. Flow (Discharge (Q)) is directly proportional to conveyance (K). The proportional factor is the square root of the energy slope; expressed as Q = K * S'. Cross Section: a vertical profile of the ground surface taken perpendicular to the direction of flood flow. The profile is defined by coordinates of ground elevation and horizontal distance (station). Discharge: a measure of flow volume per unit of time. In hydrology, units of flow are usually cubic feet per second (cfs). Exceedence Frequency: the frequency that a flood of a certain discharge will be equaled or exceeded in any given year; equal to the inverse of the recurrence interval. Flood: (a) a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: (1) the overflow of inland or tidal waters; (2) the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source; (3) mudslides (i.e., mudflows), which are proximately caused by flooding as defined in (a)(2) above and are akin to a river of liquid and flowing mud on the surfaces of normally dry land areas, as when earth is carried by a current of water and deposited along the path of the current. (b) The collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an unusually high water level in a natural body of water, accompanied by a severe storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature, such as flash flood or abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable event, which results in flooding as defined in (a) (1) above. Flood Crest: the maximum height of a flood, usually measured as an elevation or depth. Flood Hazard: the potential for inundation that involves the risk to life, health, property, and natural floodplain values. Al -1 Appendix 1 - continued Glossary of Floodplain Analysis Terms Floodplain: any land area, such as the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters, susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. Floodway: the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water -surface elevation more than a designated height. The base flood is defined as the one -percent chance flood and the designated height is usually one foot above the base flood elevation; however, this height may vary (but is not more than one foot) depending on what the State has adopted. Floodway Fringe: the area between the floodway boundary and the 100 -year floodplain boundary. Flow: equivalent to discharge. Flow Area: the cross section (see discharge) area of the floodplain below a given water -surface elevation. Hazardous Flow: conditions that exist when the product of the depth of flow and its corresponding velocity are greater than ten (10). For example a flow depth of 3 feet and a flow velocity of 4 feet per second (3 x 4 - 12) would be considered hazardous flow. Hydraulic Depth: an average depth computed as the Flow Area divided by the top width of the floodplain for a given water -surface elevation. Lacustrine Flooding: Flooding produced by a lake or pond. Peak Discharge: the maximum instantaneous discharge of a flood at a given location. Recurrence Interval: the average interval of time required for a flood of a specific discharge to occur or be exceeded; equal to the inverse of the exceedence frequency. Riverine Flooding: Flooding produced by a river or stream. Shallow Flooding: a designated AO, AH, or VO zone on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map with a one percent or greater annual chance of flooding to an average depth of one to three feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist, the path of flooding is unpredictable, and velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow. Slope (Energy): the rate of energy loss of a watercourse. Slope (Ground): the change in vertical ground elevation over a horizontal distance, usually based on. the change in the vertical elevation of the stream bottom. Steady Flow: state of flow where the depth of flow does not change with time. Subcritical Flow: state of flow where the gravitational forces are more pronounced than the inertial forces. The flow tends to have a low velocity. In general, in this flow regime, the hydraulic depth is more than twice the velocity head. Supercritical Flow: state of flow where the inertial forces become dominant. `I'he flow tends to have a high velocity. In general, in this flow regime, the velocity head :is equal to or more than half the hydraulic depth. Al -2 Appendix 1 - continued Glossary of Floodplain Analysis Terms Unsteady Flow: state of flow where the depth of flow changes with time. Uniform Flow: depth is constant over channel length, and the channel shape, slope and boundary roughness are constant over the channel length. Varied Flow: depth of flow changes along the channel length. Gradually Varied Flow: depth of flow changes gradually over the channel length. Rapidly Varied Flow: depth changes abruptly over a short channel length. Velocity: a rate of movement (i.e., distance divided by time). For water, the rate is expressed in feet per second. Because water in a channel does not all move at the same velocity at every point, an average value is used to described flow velocity. This average velocity equals the discharge divided by the flow area (Q/A). Velocity Head: the kinetic energy term (a V' / 2g), in the total energy of flow. The velocity coefficient (a) is used to adjust for the distribution of velocity in a cross section of differing roughness. Al -3 Appendix 2 Flood Insurance Study Data Request Form FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY (FIS) DATA REQUESTS Requests for FIS data should be made in writing to: Regions I-V Regions V.1 -X Flood Insurance Information Specialist FEMA Project Library c/o Dewberry & Davis c/o Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. 2953 Prosperity Avenue 3601 Eisenhower Avenue Fairfax, Virginia 22031 Suite 600 FAX: (703) 876-0073 Alexandria, Virginia 22304 FAX: (703) 960-9125 The following information should be included in your written request: Complete community name (including county) Community Identification Number Name(s) of flooding source(s) and specific location(s) for which data are needed Specific data needed: HEC -2 input and output files Topographic data etc. Effective date of FIRM/FBFM for which data are requested (enclose an annotated copy of FIRM/FBFM if available identifying area of interest) Agreement to pay costs associated with processing the request Fee limit after which authorization is needed Contact person's name, address, and phone number The average request takes approximately 2 to 4 weeks to fill and may cost between $100 to $200. You will. be contacted after we have determined if the data are available and the cost to fill the request has been determined. Do not include payment with your request letter. Checks or money orders should be made payable to the National Flood Insurance Program and sent to: Federal Emergency Management Agency Fee Collection System P.O. Box 398 Merrifield, Virginia 22116 Data will be released upon receipt of payment. A2- Appendix 3 Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices HEADQUARTERS 500 C Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20472 (202) 646-3680 FAX: (202) 646-4596 REGION I (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island & Vermont) J.W. McCormack Post Office & Courthouse Building, Room 462 Boston, MA 02109 (617) 223-9561 FAX: (617) 223-9574 REGION II (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands) 26 Federal Plaza, Room 7.349 New York, NY 10278 (212) 225-7200 FAX: (212) 225-7262 REGION III (Delaware, District of. Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia & West Virginia) Liberty Square Building, Second Floor 105 South Seventh Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 931-5512 FAX: (215) 931-5501 REGION IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina & Tennessee) 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 700 Atlanta, GA 30309 (404) 853-4400 FAX: (404) 853-4440 REGION V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio & Wisconsin) 175 West Jackson Boulevard Fourth Floor Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 408-5552 FAX: (312) 408-5551 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices (continued) REGION VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma & Texas) Federal Regional Center 800 North Loop 288 Denton, TX 76201-3698 (817) 898-5165 FAX: (817) 898-5195 REGION VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri & Nebraska) Federal Office Building, Room 300 911 Walnut Street Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 283-7002 FAX: (816) 283-7018 REGION VIII (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah & Wyoming) Denver Federal Center, Bldg. 710 P.O. Box 25267 Denver, CO 80225-0267 (303) 235-4830 FAX: (303) 235-4849 REGION IX (Arizona, California, Hawaii & Nevada) Presidio of San Francisco Building 105 San Francisco, CA 94129 (415) 923-7100 FAX: (415) 923-7147 REGION X (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon & Washington) Federal Regional Center 130 - 228th Street, SW Bothell, WA 98021-9796 (206) 487-4678 FAX: (206) 487-4613 A3-2 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies other Federal and State Agencies ALABAMA U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Alabama Department of Economics Service and Community Affairs 949 East 36th Avenue State Planning Division Suite 400 401 Adams Avenue Anchorage, AK 99504 Montgomery, AL 36103 (907) 271-2424 (205) 242-5442 NFIP State Coordinator U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 520 19th Avenue Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 (205) 752-8104 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural" Resources Conservation Service 665 Opelika Rd. P.O. Box 311 Auburn, AL 36830 (205) 887-4506 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Gene Anderson Director, Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs P.O. Box 5690 401 Adams Avenue Montgomery, AL 36103-5690 (205) 242-5499 ALASKA Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Municipal and Regional Assistance Division 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 269-4500 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 4230 University Drive, Suite 201 Anchorage, AK 99508-4138 (907) 786-7100 A3-3 Mr. Bob Walsh municipal and Regional Assistance Division 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 220 Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 269-4500 ARIZONA Arizona Department of Water Resources 15 South 15th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 242-1553 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 375 South Euclid Tucson, AZ 85719 (602) 670-667:1 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 3008 Federal Building 230 N. 1st Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85025 (602) 261-6711 NF' P_St_ate Coordinator Ms. Elizabeth A. Rieke Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources 15 South 15th Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85007 (602) 542-1540 ARKANSAS Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission 1 Capitol Mall, Suite 2D Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-1611 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies Other Federal and State Agencies U.S. Geological Survey COLORADO Water Resources Division 401 Hardin Road Urban Drainage and Flood Control Little Rock, AR 72211 District (501) 228-3600 2480 West 26th Avenue Suite 156B U.S. Department of Agriculture Denver, CO 8021.1. Natural Resources Conservation Service Colorado Water Conservation Board Federal Office Bldg. State Centennial Building, Room 721 700 West Capitol 1313 Sherman Street P.O. Box 2323 Denver, CO 80203 Little Rock, AR 72203 (303) 866-3441. (501) 324-6335 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Randy Young Director Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission 101. East Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-16.11 CALIFORNIA California Department of Water Resources P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 (916) 653-5791 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division Federal Building, Room W-2233 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 978-4633 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 2121 C 2nd Street Davis, CA 95616 (916) 757-8200 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. David Kennedy, Director California Department of Water Resources P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 942.36-0001. (916) 653-7007 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division Denver Federal Center, Building 53 Box 25046 (Mail Stop 415) Lakewood, CO 80225-0046 (303) 236-4882 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 655 Parfait Street Room E200C Lakewood, CO 80215 (303) 236-2886 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Daries C. Lile, P.E. Director, Colorado Water Conservation Board State Centennial Building 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CC 80203 (303) 866-3441 CONNECTICUT State Department of Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street, 3rd Floor Hartford, CT 06106 (203) 424-3706 U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologist -in -Charge Connecticut Office Water Resources Division Abraham A. R.ibicoff Federal Building, Room 525 450 Main Street Hartford, CT 06103 (203) 240-3060 A's -4 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies Other Federal and State Agencies U.S. Department of Agriculture DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Natural Resources Conservation Service Department of Consumer 16 Professional Park Road Regulatory Affairs Storrs, CT 06268 614 H Street Northwest (203) 429-9361 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 727-7170 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Timothy Keeney, Commissioner State Department of Environmental Protection 165 Capitol Avenue State Office Building Hartford, CT 061.06 (203) 566-2110 DELAWARE Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Division of Soil and Water Conservation P.O. Box 1.401 89 Kings Highway Dover, DE 19903 (302) 739-4403 U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologist -in -Charge Delaware Office Water Resources Division Federal Building, Room 1201 300 South New Street Dover, DE 19904 (302) 734-2506 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 3500 South DuPont Highway Dover, DE 19901 (302) 697-6176 NFIP State Coordinator Mr, John A. Hughes, Director Delaware Department of Natural & Environmental Control Richardson and Robbins Building P.O, Box 1401 Dover, DE 19903 (301) 736-4411 A3-5 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 208 Carroll Building 8600 La Salle Road Towson, MD 21286 (410) 828-1535 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Donald G. Murray, Director Department of Consumer Regulatory Affairs Office of the Director 614 H Street, NW., Suite 1120 Washington, D.C. 20001. (202) 727-7170 FLORIDA Department of Community Affairs East Howard Building 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 (904) 488-8466 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 3015 Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 942-9500 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service P.O. Box 141510 Gainesville, FL 32614 (904) 338-9500 NFIP State Coordinator Ms. Linda Lomis Shelley, Secretary Florida Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 (904) 488-8466 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies Other Federal and State Agencies GEORGIA Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Floyd Towers East, Suite 1.252 205 Butler Street Southeast Atlanta, GA 30334 (404) 656-4713 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 3039 Amwiler Road, Suite 130 Atlanta, GA 30360 (404) 447-9803 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Federal Building 35S East Hancock Avenue P.O. Box 832 Athens, GA 30613 (404) 546-2272 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Joe D. Tanner, Commissioner Georgia Department of Natural Resources 205 Butler Street, S.E. Floyd Towers East, Suite 1252 Atlanta, GA 30334 (404) 656-3500 HAWAII Hawaii Board of Land and Natural Resources 1151 Punchbowl Road, Room 220 Honolulu, HI 96813 (808) 587-0446 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 677 Ala Moana Boulevard, Suite 415 Honolulu, HI 96813 (808) 522-8290 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 300 Ala Moana Boulevard P.O. Box 50004 Honolulu, HI 96850 (808) 546-3165 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. William W. Paty, Chairperson Commission on Water Resource Management and Board of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawaii P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, HI 96809 (808) 587--0401 IDAHO Department of Water Resources State House 1301 North Orchard Street Boise, ID 83706 (208) 327-7900 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 230 Collins Road Boise, ID 83702 (208) 387-1300 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 3244 Elder Street Room 124 Boise, ID 83705 (208) 334-1601 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. R. Keith Higginson, Director Idaho Department of Water Resources 1301 N. Orchard Boise, ID 83706 (208) 327-7900 ILLINOIS Illinois Department of Transportation Local Flood Plains Programs 310 South Michigan, Room 1606 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 793--3123 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division Champaign County Bank Plaza 102 East Main Street Fourth Floor Urbana, IL 61801 (277) 398-5353 A.3 6 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and other Federal and State Agencies Other Federal and State Aqencies U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Federal Building 2110 West Park Court Suite C Champaign, IL 61821 (21.7) 398-5212 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Michael Lene, Secretary Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 S. Dirksen Parkway Springfield, IL 62764 (217) 728-5597 INDIANA Department of Natural Resources 608 State Office Building W-256 402 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204-2748 (317) 232-4020 U.S. Geological. Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 5957 Lakeside Boulevard Indianapolis, IN 46278 (317) 290-3333 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 6013 Lakeside Boulevard Indianapolis, IN 46275 (317) 290-3030 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. James B. Ridenour, Director Indiana Department of Natural Resources 608 State Office Building Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 232-4020 IOWA Iowa Department of Natural Resources Wallace State Office Building Des Moines, IA 50319-0034 (515) 281-5385 U,S. Geological Survey District Chief Water_ Resources Division P.O. Box 1230 Iowa City, IA 52244-1230 (Street Address: Federal Building, Room 269 400 South Clinton Street) (319) 337-4191 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Wallace Building Des Moines, IA 50319 (515) 284-5851 NFIP State Coordinator A3-7 Mr. Larry Wilson, Director Iowa Department of Natural Resources Wallace State office Building Des Moines, IA 50319 (515) 281-5385 KANSAS Division of Water Resources Kansas State Board of Agriculture 901 South Kansas Avenue, 2nd Floor Topeka, KS 66612-1283 (913) 296-3717 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 4821 Quail Crest Place Lawrence, KS 66049 (913) 842-9901 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service P.O. Box 600 760 South Broadway Salina, KS 67401 (91.3) 823-4500 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. David L. Pope, P.E. Chief Engineer & Director Kansas State Board of Agriculture Division of Water. Resources 901 S. Kansas, 2nd Floor Topeka, KS 66612-1283 (913) 296-3717 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies Other Federal and State Aaencies KENTUCKY Kentucky Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Fort Boone Plaza 14 Reilly Road Frankfort, KY 40601 (502) 564-3410 U.S. Geological. Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 2301 Bradley Avenue Louisville, KY 40217 (502) 582-5241 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 110 Lexington, KY 40503 (606) 22.4-7350 FTS 355-2749 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Jack Wilson, Director Kentucky Division of Water 18 Reilly Road Fort Boone Plaza Frankfort, KY 40601 (502) 564-3410 LOUISIANA Louisiana Department of Urban and Community Affairs P.O. Box 94455, Capitol Station Baton Rouge, LA 70804 (504) 342-9794 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division P.O. Box 66492 Baton Rouge, LA "70896 (Street Address: 6554 Florida Boulevard Baton Rouge, LA 70806) (504) 389-0281. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 3636 Government Street. Alexandria, LA 71301 (318) 487-8094 NFIP State Coordinator General Jude W. P. Patlin, Secretary Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development P.O. Box 94245 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9245 (504) 379-1200 Maine State Planning Office State House Station 38 184 State Street Augusta, ME 04333 (207) 287-3261 U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologist -in -Charge Maine Office Water Resources Division 26 Ganneston Drive Augusta, ME 04330 (207) 622-8208 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service USDA Building University of Maine 5 Godfrey Drive Orono, ME 04473 (207) 866-7241 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Michael W. Aube, Commissioner Department of Economic and Community Development State House Station 59 State Street Augusta, ME 04333 (207) 287-2656 MARYLAND Maryland State Resources Administration Tawes State Office Buil-ding, D-2 501 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, MD 21401 (41.0) 974-3041 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 208 Carroll Building 8600 La Salle Road Towson, MD 212.86 (410) 826-1535 A3-8 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies Other Federal and State Agencies U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 339 Busch's Frontage Road Suite 301 Annapolis, MD 21401-5534 (410) 757-0861- NFIP 57-0861 NFIP State Coordinator Ms. Catherine Pieper Stevenson Director, Maryland Water Resources Administration Tawes State Office Building D-2 Annapolis, MD 21401 (301) 974-3896 MASSACHUSETTS Massachusetts Water Resources Commission State Office Building 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 (617) 72-7-3267 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief [dater Resources Division 28 Lord Road Marlborough, MA 01752 (508) 485-6360 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 451 West Street Amherst, MA 01002 (413) 253-4350 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Peter C. Webber, Commissioner Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management State Office Building 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 (617) 727-3180 x600 MICHIGAN Engineering Water Management Commission Michigan Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 373-3930 A3-9 U.S. Geological Survey Di -strict Chief Water Resources Division 6520 Mercantile Way, Suite 5 Lansing, MI 48910 (517) 887-8903 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Room 101 1405 S. Harrison Road East Lansing, MI 4882.3 (517) 337-6701 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Roland Harms, Director Michigan Department of Natural Resources Land and Water Management Division P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 373-3930 MINNESOTA Flood Plains/Shoreline Management Section Division of Waters Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 30 St. Paul, MN 55515-4032 (612) 297-2405 U.S. Geological. Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 2280 Woodal.e Road Moundsville, MN 55112 (612) 783-3100 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 600 Farm Credit Building 375 Jackson Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 290-3675 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Ronald Nargang, Director Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Water 500 LaFayette Road, Box 32 St. Paul, MN 55515-0432 (612) 296-4800 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies Other Federal and State Agencies MISSISSIPPI Mississippi Research and Development Center 3825 Ridgewood Road Jackson, MI 39211 (601) 982-6376 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division Federal Office Building, Suite 710 100 West Capitol Street Jackson, MS 39269 (601) 965-4600 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 100 W. Capitol Suite 1321 Federal Building Jackson, MS 39269 (601) 969-5205 NFTP State Coordinator Mr. J. E. Maher, Director Mississippi Emergency Management Agency 1410 Riverside Drive P.O. Box 4501 Jackson, MS 39216 (601) 352-9100 MISSOURI Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 176 205 Jefferson Street Jefferson City, MO 651.02. (314) 751-4422. U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 1400 Independence Road, (Mail_ Stop) 200 Rolla, MO 65401 (314) 341-0824 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 601 Business Loop 70 West Parkdal.e Center, Suite 250 Columbia, MO 65202 (314) 876-0903 NFIP State Coordinator Director Missouri Department of Natural Resources 101 N. Jefferson Street P.O. Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102 (314) 751-4422 MONTANA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 1520 East Sixth Avenue Helena, MT 59620 (406) 444-6646 U.S. Geological Survey Federal Building, Room 428 Drawer 10076 301 South Park Avenue Helena, MT 59626-0076 (406) 449-5302 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 10 E. Babcock Room 443 Bozeman, MT 5971.5 (406) 587-6811 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Mark Simoni.ch, Director Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 1520 East 6t.h Ave. Helena, MT 59620 (406) 444-6699 NEBRASKA Nebraska Natural Resources Commission P.O. Box 94876 Lincoln, NE 68509-4876 (402) 471-2081 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division Federal Building, Room 406 100 Centennial Mall North Lincoln, NE 68508 (402) 437-5082 A3-10 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies Other Federal and State Agencies U.S. Department of Agriculture NEW HAMPSHIRE Natural Resources Conservation Office of Emergency Management Service Federal Building, Rm. 345 State Office Park South U.S. Courthouse 107 Pleasant Street 100 Centennial Mall, North Concord, NH 03301 P.O. Box 82502 (603) 271-2231 Lincoln, NE 68508-3866 U.S. Geological Survey (402) 437-5300 Hydrologist-in-Charge NFIP State Coordinator New Hampshire Office Water Resources Division Mr. Dayle Williamson, Director 525 Clinton Street, RFD 2 Nebraska Natural Resources Bow, NH 03304 (702) 885-4240 (603) 225-4681 Commission (609) 292-2296 P.O. Box 94876 U.S. Department of Agriculture Lincoln, NE 68509 Natural Resources Conservation (402) 471-2081 Service Federal Building NEVADA 2 Madbury Road Division of Emergency Management Durham, NH 03824 State of Nevada (603) 868-7581 Capitol Complex D1FIP State Coordinator Carson City, NV 89710 (702) 885-4240 Col. George L. Iverson, Director U.S. Geological Survey Governor's Office of Hydrologist-in-Charge Emergency Management Nevada Office State Office Park South Water Resources Division 107 Pleasant Street Federal Building, Room 224 Concord, NH 03301 705 North Plaza Street (603) 271-2231 Carson City, NV 89701 (702) 882-1388 NEW JERSEY U.S. Department of Agriculture New Jersey Department of and Energy Natural Resources Conservation Environmental Protection Flood Plain Management Section Service CN 419 5301 Longway Lane Building F, Suite 201 Trenton, NJ 08625-0419 Reno, NV 8951.1- (609) 292.-2296 (702.) 784-5863 New Jersey Department of NFIP State Coordinator Environmental Protection and Energy Division of Natural and Historic Mr. Dava.d McNinch Resources Engineering and Nevada Division of Emergency Construction Management Element Floodplain Management Section 2525 S. Carson Capitol Complex Station Plaza 5 Carson City, NV 89710 501 East. State Street, 1st Floor (702) 885-4240 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0419 (609) 292-2296 A 3 a.1 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies Other Federal and State Agencies U.S. Geological Survey NEW YORK District Chief Water Resources Division Flood Protection Bureau Mountain View Office Park, New York Department of Suite 206 Environmental. Conservation 810 Bear Tavern Road 50 Wolf Road West Trenton, NJ 08628 Albany, NY 12233-3507 (609) 771-0065 (518) 457-3157 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 1370 Hamilton Street Somerset, NJ 08873 (908) 725-3848 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Scott A. Weiner, Commissioner New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy CN 402 Trenton, NJ 08625 (609) 292-2885 NEW MEXICO New Mexico State Engineer's Office Bataan Memorial Building P.O. Box 25102 Santa Fe, NM 87504-5102 (505) 827-6091 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 4501 Indian School Road, NE Suite 200 Albuquerque, NM 87110 (505) 262-5300 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service P.O. Box 2007 517 Gold Avenue, SW., Rm. 301 Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 766-3277 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Keith Lough Office of Emergency and Coordination Department of Public P.O. Box 1-628 Santa Fe, NM 87503 (505) 827-6091 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 445 Broadway, Room 343 Albany, NY 12201 (518) 472-3107 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 441 South Salina Street 5th floor, Suite 354 Syracuse, NY 13202 (315) 477-6508 FTS 950-5521 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. James F. Kelly, Director Flood Protection Bureau New York State Department of Environmental. Conservation 50 Wolf Road, Room 330 Albany, NY 12233-3507 (518) 457-3157 NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety Division of Emergency Management 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603 (919) 733-3867 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division P.O. Box 30728 3916 Sunset Ridge Road Raleigh, NC 2762.2 (919) 856-4510 Planning U.S. Department. of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Safety Service 4:405 Bland Avenue Suite 205 Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 790-2.888 A3-12 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies Other Federal and state Agencies NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Joseph F. Myers, Director North Carolina Division of Emergency Management 116 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603 (91.9) 733-3867 NORTH DAKOTA State Water Commission 90o East Boulevard Bismarck, ND 58505 (701) 224-2750 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 821 East Interstate Avenue Bismarck, ND 58501 (701) 250-4601 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Federal Building, Rm. 270 Rosser Ave. & Third St. P.O. Box 1458 Bismarck, ND 58502 (701) 250-4435 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. David A. Sprycnzynatyk State Engineer North Dakota State Water 90o E. Boulevard Bismark, ND 58505 (701) 224-4940 OHIO U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Room 522 Federal Building 200 North High Street Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 469-6962 NFIP State Coordinator Mrs. Frances S. Buchholzer, Director Ohio Department of Natural Resources Fountain Square Columbus, OH 43224 (614) 264-6875 OKLAHOMA Oklahoma Water Resources Board 600 North Harvey Avenue P.O. Box 150 Oklahoma City, OK 73101-0150 (405) 231-2500 J.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 202 NW Sixty Sixth, Building 7 Oklahoma City, OK 73116 (405) 843-7570 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Commission 100 USDA Suite 203 Stillwater, OK 74074 (405) 742-1200 Ohio Department of Natural Resources Flood Plain Planning Unit Division of Water 1939 Fountain Square Columbus, OH 43224 (614) 265-6750 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 97S West Third Avenue Columbus, OH 43212 (614) 469-5553 .A 3 .. 1 :> Mrs. Patricia P. Eaton Executive Director. Oklahoma Water Resources Board 600 N. Harvey Oklahoma City, OK 73101 (405) 231-2500 OREGON Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street Northeast Salem, OR 97310 (503) 373-0050 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies Other Federal and State Aaencies U.S. Geological Survey (717) 782-2202 Hydrologist -in -Charge FTS 590-2202 Oregon Office Water Resources Division PUERTO RICO 847 Northeast 19th Avenue, Suite 300 Puerto Rico Planning Board Portland, OR 97323 1492 Ponce De Leon Avenue, Suite 417 (503) 251-3200 Santurce, Puerto Rico 00907 (809) 729--6920 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 2115 SE Morrison Portland, OR 97214 (503) 231-2270 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Richard Benner Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street, N,E. Salem, OR 97310 (503) 378-4928 PENNSYLVANIA Department of Community Affairs 317 Forum Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717) 787-7160 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 840 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17043-1586 (717) 730-6900 Ms. Karen A. Miller, Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs P.O. Box 155 317 Forum Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717) 787-7160 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service One Credit Union Place Suite 340 Harrisburg, PA 17110-2993 NFIP State Coordinator Federal Building U.S. Courthouse 805 985 Federal Square Station Harrisburg, PA 17108 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division GPO Box 4424 San Juan, PR 00936 (Street Address: GSA Center, Building 652 Highway 28, Pueblo Viejo) (809) 783-4660 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Federal Building, Rm. 639 Chardon Avenue GPO Box 4868 San Juan, PR 00936 (809) 753-42.06 NFIP State Coordinator_ Ms. Norma N. Burgos, President Puerto Pico Planning Board P.O. Box 41119 San Juan, PR 00940-9985 (809) 727-4444 RHODE ISLAND Statewide Planning Program Rhode Island Office of State Planning 1 Capitol Hill Providence, RI 02908 (401) 277-2656 U.S. Geological Survey Hydro Ioaist'-in-Charge Rhode Island Office Water Resources Division 275 Promanade S,.reet, Suite 1.50 Providence, RI 02908 (401) 331-9050 A3-14 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies Other Federal and State Agencies U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Geological Survey Natural Resources Conservation District Chief Service Water Resources Division 40 Quaker Lane, Suite 46 Federal Building, Room 317 West Warwick, RI 02886 200 Fourth Street Southwest (401) 828-1300 Huron, SD 57350-2469 (605) 353-7176 NFTP State Coordinator Mr. Daniel W. Varin Associate Director Department of Transportation office of Systems Pl-anning 1 Capitol Hill Providence, RI 02908-5872 (401) 277-6578 SOUTH CAROLINA South Carolina Water and Natural Resources Commission 1201 Main Street, Suite 1100 Columbia, SC 29201 (803) 73.7-0800 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division Stevenson Center, Suite 12.9 720 Gracern Road Columbia, SC 29210-7651 (803) 750-6100 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Federal Bldg., Rm, 950 1-835 Assembly St. Columbia, SC 29201 (803) 765-5681 NFIP st.at.e. Coordinator Mr. Danny Johnson, Director. Surface Water Division South Carolina Water Resources Commission 1201 Main Street, Suite 11.00 Columbia, SC 29201 (803) 737-0800 SOUTH DAKOTA Disaster Assistance Programs Emergency and Management Services 500 East Capitol Pierre, SD 57501 (605) 773-3231 A3-15 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Federal Building, Rm. 203 200 4th Street, SW Huron, SD 57350 (605) 353-1092 NFTP State Coordinator Mr. Gary N. Whitney, Director South Dakota Department of Military and Veteran Affairs Division of Emergency and Disaster Services 500 E. Capitol Pierre, SD 57501 (605) 773-3231 TENNESSEE Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development Division of Community Development 320 Sixth Avenue North, Sixth Floor Nashville, TN 37243-0405 (615) `741-1888 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 810 Broadway, Suite 500 Nashville, TN 37203 (615) 736-5424 U.S. Department of Agri. culture Natural- Resources Conservation Service U.S. Courthouse, Rm. 675 801 Broadway Street Nashville, TN 37203 (615) 736-5471 FTS 852-5471 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency offices and Other Federal and State Agencies Other Federal and State Agencies NFIP State Coordinator U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Mr. Michael McGuire Assistant Commissioner Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development 320 Sixth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37219-5408 (615) 741-2211 TEXAS Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission P.O. Box 13087 Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711-3087 (512) 239-1000 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 8011 Cameron Road Austin, TX 78754 (512) 873-3000 J.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Federal Bldg. 101 S. Main Street Temple, TX 76501 (817) 774-1214 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Jesus Galza Executive Director Texas Water Commission P.O. Box 13087 Capitol Station Austin, TX '78711-3087 (512) 463-7791 UTAH Office of Comprehensive Emergency Management State Office Building, Room Salt Lake City, UT 84114 (801) 538-3400 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 2363 Foothill Drive Salt Lake City, UT 84109 (801) 467-7970 Service Federal. Building 125 S, State Street P.O. Box 11.350 Salt Lake City, UT 84147 (801) 524-5068 NFIP State Coordinator Ms. Lorayne Frank, Director Department of Public Safety Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management State Office Building, Room 1110 450 North Main Salt Lake City, UT 84114 (801) 538-3400 VERMONT Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation Water Quality Division 103 South Main Street - 10N Waterbury, VT 05671-0408 (8 02) 241.-3777 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division P.O. Box 628 Montpelier, VT 05602 (802) 828-44V9 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 69 Union Street Winooski., VT 05404 (802) 951-6795 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Chuck Clarde, Secretary Agency of Natural Resources 1110 Center Building 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT 05671-0301 (802) 244-7347 A3-1.6 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and other Federal and State Agencies Other Federal and State Actencies VIRGIN ISLANDS Virgin Islands of the U.S. Virgin Islands Planning Department and Natural Resources Charlotte Amalie Nisky Center, Suite 231 St, Thomas, VI 00802 (809) 774-3320 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division GPC Box 4424 San Juan, PR 00936 (Street Address: GSA Center, Building 652 Highway 28, Pueblo Viejo) (809) 783-4660 NFIP State jCoordjnator Mr. Roy E. Adams, Commissioner Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources Suite 231, N:i.sky Center Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, VI 00802 (809) 774-3320 VIRGINIA Virginia State Department of Environmental Quality 4900 Cot Road Glen Allen, VA 23060 (804) 527-5000 U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologist -in -Charge Virginia Office Water Resources Division 3600 West Broad Street Room 606 Richmond, VA 2.3230 (804) 771.-2427 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 1606 Santa Rosa Road Suite 209 Richmond, VA 23229 (804) 287-1689 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Roland B. Geddes, Director Department of Conservation and Historic Resources 203 Governor Street, Suite 206 Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 786-4356 WASHINGTON Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 (206) 407-6000 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 600 Tacoma, WA 98402 (206) 593-6510 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation. Service 316 Boone Avenue Suite 456 Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 353-2336 NFIP State Coordinator A3-77 Mr. Chuck Clark Washington Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 (206) 459-6168 WEST VIRGINIA West Virginia Office of Emergency Services Room EB -80, Capitol Building Charleston, WV 25305 (304) 348-5380 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division 11 Dunbar Street Charleston, WV 25301 (304) 347-51.30 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural. Resources Conservation Service 75 High Street, Rm. 301 Morgantown, WV 2.6505 (304) 291-4151 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies other Federal and State Agencies NFIP State Coordinator U.S. Department of Agriculture Mr. Carl Bradford, Director Natural Resources Conservation West Virginia Office of Service Emergency Services Federal Office Building Room EBI -80 100 East "B" Street Capitol Building Casper, WY 82601 Charleston, WV 25305 (307) 261-5231 (304) 348-5380 NFIP State Coordinator WISCONSIN Mr. Joe Daly, Coordinator Department of Natural Resources Wyoming Emergency Management Dam Safety/Floodplain Agency Management Section P.O. Box 1709 P.O. Box 7921 Cheyenne, WY 82003 Madison, WI 53707 (307) 777-7566 (608) 266-2621 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Center University of Wisconsin/Madison 1975 Willard Drive Madison, WI 53706-4042 (608) 262-3577 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 6515 Watts Road Suite 200 Madison, WI 53719 (608) 264-5341 NFIP State Coordinator Mr. Carroll D. Besandy, Secretary Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707 (608) 266-2121 WYOMING Wyoming Emergency Management Agency P.O. Box 1709 Cheyenne, WY 82003-1709 (307) 777-4900 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Water Resources Division P.O. Box 1125 Cheyenne, WY 82003 (Street Address: 2617 East Lincoln Way Cheyenne, WY 82001 (307) '772-2153 A3- 1 8 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters Omaha District 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW 2.15 North 17th Street Washington, D.C. 20314-1000 Omaha, NE 68102-4978 Attn: CECW-PF Attn: CEMRO-PD-F 202/272-0169 402/221-4596 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lower Miss. Valley Division North Atlantic Division P.O. Box 80 90 Church Street Vicksburg, MS 39181-0080 New York, NY 10007-2979 Attn: CELMV-PD-CM Attn: CENAD-PL-FP 601/634-5827 212/264-7482. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Memphis District Baltimore District 167 North Main Street, B-202 Supervisor of Baltimore Harbor Memphis, TN 38103-1894 P.O. Box 1715 Attn: CELMM-PD-M Baltimore, MD 21201-1715 901/544-3968 Attn: CENAB-PL-B 410/962-7608 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans District New York District, Planning Division, P.O. Box 60267 New Orleans, LA 70160-0267 Floodplain Management Section Attn: CELMN-PD-FG 26 Federal Plaza 504/865-1121 New York, NY 10278 Attn: CENAN-PL-FP U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 212/264-8870 St. Louis District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1222 Spruce Street Norfolk District St. Louis, MO Supervisor of Norfolk Harbor 63103-2833 Attn: CELMS-PD-M 803 Front Street 314/331-8483 Norfolk, VA 23510-1096 Attn: CENAO-PL-FP U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 804/441-7779 Vicksburg District Road U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2101 North Frontage Philadelphia District Vicksburg, MS 391.80-0060 Attn: CELMK-PD-FS U.S. Customs House 601/631-5416 2nd & Chestnut Streets Philadelphia, PA 19106-2991 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attn; CENAP-PL-F Missouri River Division 215/656-6516 12565 West Center. Road U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha, NE 68104-3869 Attn: CEMRD-PD-F North Central Division 402/221-7273 111 North Canal Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attn! CENCD-PD-FP Kansas City District 312/353-1279 700 Federal Building Kansas City, MO 64106-2896 Attn: CEMRK-PD-P 816/426-3674 A3-19 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District, Planning Division, Portland District Floodplain Management Section P.O. Box 2946 1776 Niagara Street Portland, OR 97208-2946 Buffalo, NY 14207-3199 Attn: CENPP-PL-CF Attn: CENCB-PD-FP 503/326-6411 716/879-4104 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Chicago District P.O. Box 3755 111 North Canal Street Seattle, WA 98124-2255 14th Floor Attn: CENPS-EN-HH Chicago, IL 60606 206/764-3660 Attn: CENCC-PD-R 312/353-6400 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Bldg. 602 City -County Airport Detroit District Walla Walla, WA 99362-9265 477 Michigan Avenue Attn: CENPW-PL-FP Detroit, MI 48226 509/522-6589 Attn: CENCE-PD-PF 313/226-6773 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ohio River Division U.S. Army Corps of. Engineers P.O. Box 59 Rock Island District Louisville, KY 40201-0059 P.O. Box 2004 Attn: CEORD-PD-J Clock Tower Building 502/582-5782 Rock Island, IL 61204-2004 Attn: CENCR-PD-F U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 309/788-4750 Huntington District 502 8th Street U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Huntington,WV 25701-2070 St. Paul District Attn: CEORH-PD-S 190 Phipps Street East 304/529-5644 St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 Attn: CENCS-PD-FS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 612/290-5200 Louisville District P.O. Box 59 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Louisville, KY 40201-0059 New England Division Attn: CEORL-PD-S 424 Trapelo Road 502/582-5742 Waltham, MA 02254-9149 Attn: CENED-PL-B U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 617/647--811.1 Nashville District P.O. Box 1070 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nashville, IN 37202-1070 North Pacific Division Attn: CEORN-ED-P 333 Southwest 1st Avenue 615/736-5055 Portland, OR 97204 Attn: CENPD-PL-FS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 503/326-6021 Pittsburgh District William S. Moorehead Fed. Bldg. U.S. Army Corps of Er:y:ineers 1000 Liberty Avenue Alaska District Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4186 P.O. Box 898 Attn: CEORP-PD-J Anchorage, AK 99506-0898 412/644-6924 Attn: CENPA-EN-PL-FP 907/753-2504 A3-20 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and other Federal and State Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pacific Ocean Division Sacramento District Ft. Shafter, HS 96858-5440 1325 G Street Attn: CEPOD-ED-PH Sacramento, CA 95814-4794 808/438-7009 Attn: CESPK-PD-F 916/557-6700 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District, P.O. Box 919 Charleston, SC 29402-0919 Attn: CESAC-EN-PH 803/727-4263 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers South Atlantic Division 611 South Cobb Drive Marietta, GA 30060 Attn: CESAD-PD-A 404/421-5296 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District P.O. Box 4970 Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019 Attn: CESAJ-PD-FP 904/232-2234 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mobile District P.O. Box 2288 Mobile, AL 36628-0001 Attn: CESAM-PD-P 205/694-3879 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Savannah District P.O. Box 889 Savannah, GA 31407.-0889 Attn: CESAS-PD-F 912/652-5822 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District P.O. Box 1B90 Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 Attn: CESAW-PD-F 910/2.51-482.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division, Room 72.0 630 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-2206 Attn: CFSPD-PD-P 41S/705-2.427 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District P.O. Box 271.1 Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 AL'tn: CESPI,-PD-WF 213/894-5450 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District 211 Main Street San Francisco, CA 941OS-1905 Attn: CESPN-PE-W 415/744-3029 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Southwestern Division 1114 Commerce Street Dallas, TX 75242-0216 Attn: CESWD-PL-M 214/767-2310 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Albuquerque District P.O. Box 1580 Albuquerque, NM 87103-1580 Attn: CESWA-ED-PH 505/766-2.635 A3-21 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Worth District P.O. Box 17300 Fort Worth, TX 76102-0300 Attn: CESWF-PL-F 817/334-3207 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District P.O. Box 3.229 Galveston, TX 77553-1229 Attn: CESWG-PL-P 409/766-3023 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Little Rock District P.O. Box 867 Little Rock, AR 72203-0867 Attn: CESWL-PL-F 501/378-5611 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tulsa District P.O. Box 61 Tulsa, OK 74121 0061 Attn: CESWT-PL-GF 918/581-7896 Appendix 3 - continued Federal Emergency Management Agency Offices and Other Federal and State Agencies RIAnno-Pasir Commissions Delaware River Basin Commission 25 State Police Drive Box '/360 West Trenton, NJ 08628 609/883-9500 Susquehanna River Basin Commission 1721 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 717/238-0422 A3-22 Appendix 4 State Hydrology Reports ALABAMA Olin, D.A. and Bingham, R.H., 1982, Synthesized flood frequency of urban streams in Alabama: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 82-683. Olin, D.A., 1984, Magnitude and frequency of floods in Alabama: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 84-4191. ALASKA Lamke, R.D., 1978, Flood characteristics of Alaskan streams: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 78-129. ARIZONA Eychaner., J.H., 1984, Estimation of magnitude and frequency of floods in Pima County, Arizona, with comparisons of alternative methods: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 84-4142. ARKANSAS Neely, B.L., Jr., 1986, Magnitude and frequency of floods in Arkansas: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 86-4335. CALIFORNIA Waananen, A.O., and Crippen, J.R., 1977, Magnitude and frequency of floods in California: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 77-21 (PB -272 510/AS), COLORADO Hedman, F.R., Moore, D.O. and Livingston, R.K., 1972, Selected streamflow characteristics as related to channel geometry of perennial streams in Colorado: U.S. Geological. Survey Open -File Report. Kircher, J.E., Choquette, A.F., and Richter, B.D., 1985, Estimation of natural streamflow characteristics in Western Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Water - Resources Investigations 85-4086. Livingston, R.K., 1980, Rainfall -runoff modeling and preliminary regional flood characteristics of small rural watersheds in the Arkansas River Basin in Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 80-112 (NTIS). Livingston, R.K., and Minges, D.R., 1987, Techniques for estimating regional flood characteristics of small rural watersheds in the plains regions of eastern Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 87-4094. McCain, J.R., and Jarrett, R.D., 1976, Manual for estimating flood characteristics of natural flow streams in Colorado: Colorado Water Conservation Board, Technical Manual No. 1.. A4-1 Appendix 4 - continued State Hydrology Reports CONNECTICUT Weiss, L.A., 1975, Flood flow formula for urbanized and non -urbanized areas of Connecticut: Watershed Management Symposium of ASCE Irrigation and Drainage Division, August 11-13, 1975, pp. 658-675. DELAWARE Simmons, R.H., and Carpenter, D.H., 1978, Technique for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods in Delaware: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Open -File Report 78-93. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA None listed FLORIDA Bridges, W.C., 1982, Technique for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods on natural -flow streams in Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Open -File Report 82-4012. Franklin, M.A., 1984, Magnitude and frequency of floods from urban streams in Leon County, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 84-4004. Lopez, M.A., and Woodham, W.M., 1982, Magnitude and frequency of floods on small urban watersheds in the Tampa Bay area, west -central Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations B2-42. GEORGIA Inman, E.J., 1983, Flood -frequency relations for urban streams in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 83-4203, Price, M., 1979, Floods in Georgia, magnitude and frequency: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 78-137 (PB -80 146 244). HAWAII Matsuoka, I., 1978, Flow characteristics of streams in Tutuila, American Somoa: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 78-103. Nakahara, R.H., 1980, An analysis of the magnitude and frequency of floods on Oahu, Hawaii: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 80-45 (PB -81. 109 902). A4..2 Appendix 4 - continued State Hydrology Reports IDAHO Harenberg, W.A., 1980, Using channel geometry to estimate flood flows at unpaged sites in Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 80-32 (PB -81 153 736). KjeIstrom, L.C., and Moffatt, R.L., 1981, Method of estimating flood -frequency parameters for streams in Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 81-909. Thomas, C.A., Harenburg, W.A., and Anderson, J.M., 1973, Magnitude and frequency of floods in small drainage basins in Idaho: U.S. Geological Survey Water - Resources Investigations 7-73 (PB -222 409). ILLINOIS Allen, H.E., Jr., and Bejcek, R.M., 1979, Effects of urbanization on the magnitude and frequency of floods in northeastern Illinois: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 79-36 (PB -299 065/AS). Curtis, G.W., 1987, Technique for estimating flood -peak discharges and frequencies on rural streams in Illinois: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 87-4207. INDIANA Glatfelter, D.R., 1984, Technique for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods in Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 84-4134, IOWA Dara, O., 1978, Effects of urban development on the flood flow characteristics of Walnut Creek basin, Des Moines metropolitan area, Iowa: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 78-11 (PB -284 093/AS). KANSAS Clement, R.W., 1987, Floods in Kansas and techniques for estimating their magnitude and frequency: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 87-4008. Hedman, E.R., Kastner, W.M., and Hejl, H.R., 1974, Selected streamflow characteristics as related to active -channel geometry of streams in Kansas: Kansas Water Resources Board Technical Report No. 10. Peek, C.O., and Jordan, P.R., 1978, Determination of peak discharge from rainfall relations for urbanized basins, Wichita, Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 78-974. KENTUCKY Choquette, A.F., 1987, Regionalization of peak discharges for streams in Kentucky: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 87-4029. A4 - Appendix 4 - continued State Hydrology Reports LOUISIANA Lee, F.N., 1985, Floods in Louisiana, Magnitude and Frequency, Fourth Edition: Department of Transportation and Development, Water Resources Technical Report No. 36. Lowe, A.S., 1979, Magnitude and frequency of floods in small watersheds in Louisiana: Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Office of Highways, Research Study No. 65-2H. MAINE Morrill, R.A., 1975, A technique for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods in Maine: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report. MARYLAND Carpenter, D.H., 1980, Technique for estimating magnitude and frequency of floods in Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Open -File Report 80-1016. MASSACHUSETTS Wandle, S.W., 1983, Estimating peak discharges and frequencies of small rural streams in Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 2214. MICHIGAN Holtschlag, D.J., and Croskey, H.M., 1984, Statistical models for estimating flow characteristics of Michigan streams: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 84-4270. MINNESOTA Jacques, J.E., and Lorenz, D.L., 1987, Techniques for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods in Minnesota: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 87-4170. MISSISSIPPI Colson, B.E., and Hudson, J.W., 1976, Flood frequency of Mississippi streams: Mississippi State Highway Department. MISSOURI Becker, L.D., 1986, Techniques for estimating flood -peak discharges for urban streams in Missouri: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 86-4322. Hauth, L.D., 1974, A technique for estimating the magnitude and frequency of Missouri floods: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report. A4-4 Appendix 4 - continued State Hydrology Reports MISSOURI continued Spencer, D.W., and Alexander, T.W., 1978, Techniques for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods in St. Louis County, Missouri: U.S. Geological. Survey Water -Resources Investigations 78-139 (PB --298 245/AS). MONTANA Omang, R.J., 1983, Mean annual runoff and peak flow estimates based on channel geometry of streams in southeastern Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Water - Resources Investigations Report 82-4092. Omang, R.J., Parrett, C., and Hull, J.A., 1986, Methods of estimating magnitude and frequency of floods in Montana based on data through 1983: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 86-4027. Parrett, C., 1983, Mean annual runoff and peak flow estimates based on channel geometry of streams in northeastern and western Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 83-4046. Parrett, C., Hull, J.A., and Omang, R.J., 1.987, Revised techniques for estimating peak discharges from channel width in Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Water - Resources Investigations 87-41.21. NEBRASKA Beckman, E.W., 1976, Magnitude and frequency of floods in Nebraska: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations '76-109 (PB -260 842/AS). NEVADA Moore, D.O., 1974, Estimating flood discharges in Nevada using channel -geometry measurements: Nevada State Highway Department Hydrologic Report No. 1. Moore, D.O., 1976, Estimating peak discharges from small drainages in Nevada according to basin areas within elevation zones: Nevada State Highway Department Hydrologic Report No_ 3. NEW HAMPSHIRE LeBlanc, D.R., 1978, Progress report on hydrologic investigations of small drainage areas in New Hampshire --Preliminary relations for estimating peak discharges on rural, unregulated streams: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 78-47 (PB -284 127/AS). NEW JERSEY Stankowski, S.J., 1974, Magnitude and frequency of floods in New Jersey with effects of urbanization: New Jersey Department. of Environmental Protection Special Report 38. Velnick, Anthony J. and Laskowski, Stanley L., 1979, Technique for estimating depth of 100 -year flood in New Jersey: Open -File Report 79-419. A4 -5 Appendix 4 - continued State Hydrology Reports NEW MEXICO Hejl, H.R., Jr., 1984, Use of selected basin characteristics to estimate mean annual runoff and peak discharges for ungaged streams in drainage basins containing strippable coal resources, northwestern New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 84-4264. Scott, A.G., and Kunkler, J.L., 1976, Flood discharges of streams in New Mexico as related to channel geometry: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report. Waltmeyer, S.D., 1986, Techniques for estimating flood -flow frequency for unregulated streams in New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 86-4104. NEW YORK Lomia, Richard, 1991, Regionalization of streams in New York, excluding Long Resources Investigations Report 90-4197. NORTH CAROLINA flood discharges for rural, unregulated Island: U.S. Geological Survey Water - Gunter, H.C., Mason, R.R., and Stamey, T.C., 1987, Magnitude and frequency of floods in rural and urban basins of North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Water - Resources Investigations 87-4096. Martens, L.S., 1968, Flood inundation and effects of urbanization in metropolitan Charlotte, North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 1591-C. Putnam, A.L., 1972, Effect of urban development on floods in the Piedmont province of North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report. NORTH DAKOTA Crosby, O.A., 1975, Magnitude and frequency of floods in small drainage basins of North Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 19-75 (PB -248 480/AS). OHIO Roth, D.K., 1985, Estimation of flood peaks from channel characteristics in Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 85-4175. Sherwood, J.M., 1986, Estimating peak discharges, flood volumes, and hydrograph stages of small urban streams in Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 86-4197. Webber, E.E., and Bartlett, W.P., Jr., 1977, Floods in Ohio magnitude and frequency: State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Bulletin 45. Webber, E.E., and Roberts, J,W., 1981, Floodflow characteristics related to channel geometry in Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 81-1105. A4-6 Appendix 4 - continued State Hydrology Reports OKLAHOMA Sauer, V.B., 1974, An approach to estimating flood frequency for urban areas in Oklahoma: U.S. Geological Survey Water --Resources Investigations 23-74 (PB -235 307/AS). Tortorelli, R.L., and Bergman, D.L., 1984, Techniques for estimating flood peak discharge for unregulated streams and streams regulated by small floodwater retarding structures in Oklahoma: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 84-4358. OREGON Harris, D.D., and Hubbard, L.E., 1982, Magnitude and frequency of floods in eastern Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 82-4078. Harris, D.D., Hubbard, L.E., and Hubbard, L.L., 1979, Magnitude and frequency of floods in western Oregon: U,S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 79-553. Laenen, Antonius, 1980, Storm runoff as related to urbanization in the Portland, Oregon -Vancouver, Washington, area: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Open -File Report 80-689. PENNSYLVANIA Bailey, J.F., Thomas, W.O., Jr., Wetzel, K.L., and Ross, T.J., 1987, Estimation of flood -frequency characteristics and the effects of urbanization for streams in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, area: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 87-4194. Flippo, H.N., Jr., 1977, Floods in Pennsylvania: A manual for estimation of their magnitude and frequency: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Bulletin No. 13. PUERTO RICO Lopez, M.A., Colon-Dieppa, E., and Cobb, E.D., 1978, Floods in Puerto Rico: magnitude and frequency: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 78-141 (PB -300 855/AS). RHODE ISLAND Johnson, C.G., and Laraway, G.A., 1976, Flood magnitude and frequency of small Rhode Island streams --Preliminary estimating relations: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report. SOUTH CAROLINA Whetstone, B.H., 1982, Floods in South Carolina --Techniques for estimating magnitude and frequency of floods with compilation of flood data: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 82-1. A4-7 Appendix 4 - continued State Hydrology Reports SOUTH DAKOTA Becker, L.D., 1974, A method for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods in South Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 35-74 (PB -239 831/AS). Becker, L.D., 1980, Techniques for estimating flood peaks, volumes, and hydrographs on small streams in South Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Water - Resources Investigations 80-80 (PB -81 136 145). TENNESSEE Neely, B.L., Jr., 1984, Flood frequency and storm runoff of urban areas of Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 84-4110. Randolph, W.J., and Gamble, C.R., 1976, A technique for estimating magnitude and frequency of floods in Tennessee: Tennessee Department of Transportation. Robbins, C.H., 1984, Synthesized flood frequency of small urban streams in Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 84-4182. Wibben, H.C., 1976, Effects of urbanization on flood characteristics in Nashville -Davidson County, Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 76-121 (PB -266 654/AS). TEXAS Land, L.F., Schroeder, E.E., and Hampton, B.B., 1982, Techniques for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods in the Dallas -Fort Worth Metropolitan Area, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 82-18. Liscum, F., and Massey, B.C., 1980, Techniques for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods in the Houston, Texas metropolitan area: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 80-17 (ADA -089 495). Schroeder, E.E., and Massey, B.C., 1977, Techniques for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods in Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Open -File Report 77-110. Veenhuis, J.E., and Garrett, D,G., 1986, The effects of urbanization on floods in the Austin metropolitan area, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 86-4069. UTAH Fields, F.K., 1974, Estimating streamflow characteristics for streams in Utah using selected channel -geometry parameters: U.S. Geol-ogical Survey Water - Resources Investigations 34-74 (PB -241 541./AS). Thomas, B.E., and Lindskov, K.L., 1983, Methods for estimating peak discharges and flood boundaries of streams in Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 83-4129. A4-8 Appendix 4 - continued State Hydrology Reports VERMONT Johnson, C.G., and Tasker, G.D., 1974, Flood magnitude and frequency of Vermont Streams: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 74-130. VIRGIN ISLANDS None listed VIRGINIA Anderson, D.G., 1970, Effects of urban development on floods in Northern Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 2001-C. Miller, E.M., 1978, Technique for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods in Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Open - File Report 78-5. WASHINGTON Cummans, J.E., Collins, M.R., and Nassar, E.G., 1974, Magnitude and frequency of floods in Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 74-336. Haushild, W.L., 1978, Estimation of floods of various frequencies for the small ephemeral streams in eastern Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 79-81. WEST VIRGINIA Runner, G.S., 1980, Technique for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods in West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 80-1218. WISCONSIN Conger, D.H., 1980, Techniques for estimating magnitude and frequency of floods for Wisconsin streams: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Open -File Report 80-1214. Conger, D.H., 1986, Estimating magnitude and frequency of floods for ungaged urban streams in Wisconsin: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 86-4005. WYOMING Craig, G.S., Jr., and Rankl-, J.G., 1977, Analysis of runoff from small drainage basins in Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 2056. Lowham, H.W., 1976, Techniques for estimating flow characteristics of Wyoming streams: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations 76-112 (PB -264 224/AS). A4-9 Appendix 5 Manning's "n" Values The value of "n" may be computed by n=(110+nI +n2+113+n4)rn5 where: no = basic "n" value for a straight, uniform, smooth channel ni - value added to correct for the effect of surface irregularities 112 = value added for variation in the shape and size of the channel cross section n3 value added for obstructions n4 - value added for vegetation and flow conditions M5 — correction factor for meandering of the channel Proper values of no to n4 and m5 may be selected from the following table according to the given conditions: Channel Conditions Values Earth 0.020 Material Rock cut 0.025 involved Fine gravel no 0.024 Coarse gavel 0.028 Smooth 0.000 Degree of Minor 0.005 irregularity Moderate ni 0.010 Severe 0.020 Variations of Gradual 0.000 channel cross Alternating occasionally nb 0.005 section Alternating frequently 0.010-0.015 Negligible 0.000 Relative Minor 0.010-0.015 effect of Appreciable 113 0.020-0.030 obstructions Severe 0.040-0.060 Low 0.005-0.010 Vegetation Medium 0.010-0.025 1-1igh 114 0.025-0.050 Very HiF_h 0.050-0.100 Minor 1.000 Degree of Appreciable m5 1.150 Meandering Severe 1.300 REFERENCE 1. Chow, Ven Te, Ph.D.: "Open -Channel Hydraulics," McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1959, pp. 106-114. The computed "n" values should be compared with the typical "n" values from the following pages, or with those in the U.S. Geological Survey Report (Reference 2) or the Federal Highway Administration Report (Reference 3). A5-1 Appendix 5 - continued Mannings "n" Values `1'ype of channel and descrynion Minimum Normal Maximum A, Closed Conduits Flowing Partly Full A-1. Metal a. Brass, smooth 0.009 0.010 0.013 b. Steel 1. Lockbar and welded 0.010 0.012 0.014 2, Riveted and spiral 0.013 0.016 0.017 c. Cast iron 1. Coated 0.010 0,013 0.014 2. Uncoated 0.011 0.014 0.016 d. Wrought iron 1. Black 0.012 0.014 0.015 2, Galvanized 0.013 0.016 0.017 e. Corrugated metal 1, Subdrain 0.017 0.019 0.021 2. Storm drain 0.021 0.024 0.030 A-2. Nonmetal a. Lucite 0.008 0.009 0.010 b. G lass 0.009 0.010 0.013 C. Cement 1. Neat, surface 0.010 0.011 0.013 2. Mortar 0.011 0.013 0.015 d. Concrete 1. Culvert, straight and free of 0.010 0.011 0.013 debris 2. Culvert with bends, connections, 0.011 0.013 0.014 and some debris 3. Finished 0.011 0.012 0.014 4. Sewer with manholes, inlet, etc., 0.013 0.015 0.017 straight 5. Unfinished, steel form 0,012 0.013 0.014 6. Unfinished, smooth wood form 0.012 0.014 0.016 7. Unfinished, rough wood form 0.015 0.017 0.020 e. Wood 1. Stave 0.010 0.012 0.014 2. Laminated, treated 0.015 0.017 0.020 f. Clay 1. Common drainage the 0.011 0.013 0.017 2. Vitrified sewer 0.011 0.014 0.017 3. Vitrified sewer with manholes, 0.013 0.015 0.017 inlet, etc. 4. Vitrified subdrain with open joint 0.014 0.016 0.018 g. Brickwork 1. Glazed 0.011 0.013 0.015 2. Lined with cement mortar 0.012 0.015 0.017 h. Sanitary sewers coated with sewage 0.012 0.013 0.016 slimes, with bends and connections i. Paved invert, sewer, smooth bottom 0.016 0.019 0.020 j. Rubble masonry, cemented 0.018 0.025 0.030 A5-2 Appendix 5 - continued Manning's "n" Values Type of channel and descri}�tiun Minimum Normal Maximum B. Lined or Built-up Channels B-1. Metal a. Smooth steel surface 1. Unpainted 0.011 0.012 0.014 2. Painted 0.012 0.013 0.017 b. Corrugated 0.021 0.025 0.030 B-2. Nonmetal a. Cement 1. Neat, surface 0.010 0.011 0.013 2. Mortar 0.011 0.013 0.015 b. Wood 1. Planed, untreated 0.010 0.012 0.014 2. Planed, creosoted 0.011 0.012 0.015 3. Unplaned 0.011 0.013 0.015 4. Plank with battens 0.012 0.015 0.018 5. Lined with roofing paper 0.010 0.014 0.017 c. Concrete 1. Trowel finish 0.011 0.013 0.015 2. Float finish 0.013 0.015 0.016 3. Finished, with gravel on bottom 0.015 0.017 0.020 4. Unfinished 0.014 0.017 0.020 5. Gunite, good section 0.016 0.019 0.023 6. Gunite, wavy section 0.018 0.022 0.025 7. On good excavated rock 0.017 0.020 8. On irregular excavated rock 0.022 0.027 d. Concrete bottom float finished with sides of 1. Dressed stone in mortar 0.015 0.017 0.020 2. Random stone in mortar 0.017 0.020 0.024 3. Cement rubble masonry, plastered 0.016 0.020 0.024 4. Cement rubble masonry 0.020 0.025 0.030 5. Dry rubble or riprap 0.020 0.030 0.035 e. Gravel bottom with sides of 1. Formed concrete 0.017 0.020 0.02.5 2. Random stone in mortar 0.020 0,023 0.026 3. Dry rubble or riprap 0.023 0.033 0.036 f. Brick 1. Glazed 0,011 0.013 0.015 2. In cement mortar 0.012 0.015 0.018 g. Masonry 1. Cemented rubble 0.017 0.025 0.030 2. Dry rubble 0.023 0.032 0.035 h. Dressed ashlar 0.013 0.015 0.017 i. Asphalt 1. Smooth 0.013 0.013 2. Rough 0.016 0.016 j. Veg..etai lining 0.030 0.500 A5-3 Appendix 5 - continued Manning's "n" Values "fvpe of channel and description 1 Minimum Normal Maximum _ C. Excavated or Dredged a. Earth, straight and uniform 1. Clean, recently completed 0.016 0.018 0.020 2. Clean, after weathering 0.018 0.022 0.025 3. Gravel, uniform section, clean 0.022 0.025 0.030 4. With short grass, few weeds 0.022 0.027 0.033 b. Earth, winding and sluggish 1. No vegetation 0.023 0.025 0.030 2. Grass, some weeds 0.025 0.030 0.033 3. Dense weeds or aquatic plants in 0.030 0.035 0.040 deep channels 4. Earth bottom and rubble sides 0.028 0.030 0.035 5. Stony bottom and weedy banks 0,025 0.035 0.040 6. Cobble bottom and clean sides 0.030 0.040 0.050 c. Dragline-excavated or dredged L. No vegetation 0.025 0.028 0.033 2. Light brush on banks 0.035 0.050 0.060 d. Rock cuts 1. Smooth and uniform 0.025 0.035 0.040 2. Jagged and irregular 0.035 0.040 0.050 e. Channels not maintained, weeds and brush uncut 1. Dense weeds, high as flow depth 0.050 0.080 0.120 2. Clean bottom, brush on sides 0.040 0.050 0.080 3. Same, highest stage of flow 0.045 0.070 0.110 4. Dense brush, high stage 0.080 0.100 0.140 D. Natural Streams D-1. Minor streams (top width at flood stage <100 ft) a. Streams on plain 1. Clean, straight, full stage, no rifts 0.025 0.030 0.033 or deep pods 2. Same as above, but more stones 0.030 0.035 0.040 and weeds 3. Clean, winding, some pools and 0.033 0.040 0.045 shoals 4. Same as above, but some weeds 0,035 0.045 0.050 and stones 5. Same as above, lower stages, 0.040 0.048 0.055 more ineffective slopes and sections 6. Same as 4, but more stones 0.045 0.050 0.060 7. Sluggish reaches, weedy, deep 0.050 0.070 0.080 pools 8. Very weedy reaches, deep pools, 0.075 0.100 0.150 or floodways with heavy stand of timber and underbrush A5-4 Appendix 5 - continued Manning's "n" Values a 'T'ype of channel and description Minimum Normal Maximum _ b. Mountain streams, no vegetation in channel, banks usually steep, trees and brush along batiks submerged at high stages I. Bottom: gravels, cobbles, and 0.030 0.040 0.050 few boulders 2. Bottom: cobbles with large 0.040 0.050 0.070 boulders D-2. Floodplains a. Pasture, no brush 1. Short grass 0.025 0.030 0.035 2. High grass 0.030 0.035 0.050 b. Cultivated areas 1. No crop 0.020 0.030 0.040 2. Mature row crops 0.025 0.035 0.045 3. Mature field crops 0.030 0.040 0.050 c. Brush 1. Scattered brush, heavy weeds 0.035 0.050 0.070 2. Light brush and trees, in winter 0.035 0.050 0.060 3. Light brush and trees, in summer 0.040 0.060 0.080 4. Medium to dense brush, in winter 0.045 0.070 0.1 10 5. Medium to dense brush, in 0.070 0.100 0.160 summer d. Trees 1. Dense willows, summer, straight 0.110 0.150 0.200 2. Cleared land with tree stumps, no 0.030 0.040 0.050 sprouts 3. Same as above, but with heavy 0.050 0.060 0.080 growth of sprouts 4. Heavy stand of timber, a few 0.080 0.100 0.120 down trees, little undergrowth, flood stage below branches 5. Same as above, but with flood 0.100 0.120 0.160 stage below branches D-3. Major streams (top width at flood stage >100 ft). The n value is less than that for minor streams of similar description, because banks offer less effective resistance. a. Regular section with no boulders or 0.025 ... , . 0.060 brush b. Inegular and roug-h section 0.035 0.100 REFERENCES I. Chow, Ven Te, Ph.D.: "Open -Channel Hydraulics," McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1959, pp. 106-114. 2. Geological Survey, Roughness Characteristics of Natural Channels, Water -Supply Paper 1849, Washington, D.C., 1967, 3. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Guide for Selectint?_Mann_inv's Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodnlains, Report No. FHWA-'I'S-84-204. McLean, Virginia, /April 1984. A5-5 Appendix 6 QUICK -2 Computer Program Manual A6-1 Computer Program COMPUTATION OF WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS IN OPEN CHANNELS VERSION 1.0 JANUARY 1995 QUICK -2 Computation of Water Surface Elevations in open Channels User's Guide Federal Emergency Management Agency 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 1 Chapter 2: OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 1 Chapter 3: GETTING STARTED . . . . . . . 3- 1 Chapter 4: TUTORIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 1 Normal Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 2 Changing Variables . . . . . .. . . . . . 4- 6 Step -Backwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4- 9 Running HEC -2 with QUICK -2 Files . . .. . 4-18 Rerunning Using Saved Cross -Section Files 4-19 Channel Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4-21 Rating Curve Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22 .. . . . . . . . . PLOT -24-23 ProfilePlot 4-23 Cross -Section Plot . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24 Chapter 5: FORMULAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 1 Critical Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 2 Channel Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 4 Normal Depth . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 5 Step -Backwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 6 Appendix 1: DEFINITION OF VARIABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . A- 1 QUICK -2 User's Guide Introduction Chapter 1: Introduction QUICK -2 is a user friendly program that assists in the computation of flood Water Surface Elevations (WSEs) in open channels of all types. It is much easier to use than the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) HEC -2 program. However, a QUICK -2 step -backwater file can also be used, as is, with the HEC -2 program, which is also included in the QUICK -2 package of programs. Therefore a HEC -2 output file can be generated with a QUICK -2 input data file, without ever leaving the QUICK -2 environment; and, without having to know how to set-up and run the HEC -2 program. This version of QUICK -2 (Version 1.0) however, does not perform hydraulic calculations through bridges or culverts. QUICK -2 was primarily developed to accompany the FEMA technical guidance manual titled, "MANAGING FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT IN ZONE A AREAS - A GUIDE FOR OBTAINING AND DEVELOPING BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS." That manual is intended to assist local community officials who are responsible for administering and enforcing the floodplain management requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The purpose of that manual is to provide guidance for obtaining and developing base flood (100 -year) elevations (BFEs) where Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) on a community's Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) or Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) have been identified and designated as Zone A. QUICK -2 will also be useful to community engineers, architect/engineer firms, developers, builders and others at the local level who may be required to develop BFEs for use in Special Flood Hazard Areas. This manual includes four other chapters: overview, Getting Started, Tutorials and Formulas. The Formulas section describes the "complex" equations and methodologies used in the development of the program. An Appendix is also included that contains a list of Definitions of the variables shown on the screen and on the printouts. To get started as quickly as possible in using QUICK -2 we recommend that the user read the Overview and Getting Started chapters; and then work through the Tutorials. MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS Random Access Memory (RAM) 512K Hard disk storage 800K Monitor - Color or Monotone Printer (prints to LPTI) Dot-matrix to LaserJet Disk Operating System (DOS) - Version 3.0 or higher 1-1 QUICK -2 User's Guide Overview Chapter 2: Overview 4 FOUR OPTIONS This user friendly program computes: • Critical Depth, • Cross Section Capacity (Rating Curves), • Normal Depth, and • Step -Backwater Analysis (similar to the USACE HEC -2 program) CRITICAL DEPTH: This option should be used to determine a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) if a previous calculation using the Normal Depth option computed a depth that was determined to be SUPERCRITICAL. Super Critical depths are generally not accepted for use as BFEs. CHANNEL CAPACITY: This option is used to determine a rating curve for a cross section. The program computes a discharge based on the entered depth. Repeating with other depths produces a rating curve. A BFE may be determined by interpolation with the correct discharge. NORMAL DEPTH: This is the usual option to use in determining BFEs. The user should watch the "Flow Type" message to mace sure that the calculation is CRITICAL or SUBCRITICAL. Use Option 1 if SUPERCRITICAL. STEP -BACKWATER: This option should be used to calculate BFEs if more than one cross-section is warranted to cover the extent of the property. Generally if the property parallels more than 500 feet of a flooding source this option should be used. V HANDLES "REGULAR" AND "IRREGULAR" SHAPED CROSS SECTIONS The REGULAR shape cross-sections include: • V-shape, • Trapezoidal, • Rectangular, and • Circular 2-1 QUICK -2 User's Guide overview For IRREGULAR cross-sections: up to 40 points can be input to describe the ground points Ground points are easily modified using the Insert or Delete Keys - Encroachments or other changes in the floodplain are easily modeled An unlimited number of cross sections may be modeled In addition, ground points and other input variables for the irregular shape cross-sections can be saved to a file, for later use. V SINGLE SCREEN DATA INPUT, COMPUTATION AND OUTPUT One of the most user-friendly aspects of this program that sets it apart from many other computational programs is that all of the data input, the computation, and the printing or plotting, is performed from the same screen. You will not get lost in a maze of menus. 4 GRAPHICS • Cross -Section Plots, • Water Surface Elevation Profiles, and • Rating Curve Plots Cross section plots and water surface elevation profiles from QUICK -21s step - backwater analysis can be viewed on the screen using the USACE PLOT -2 program that comes with the QUICK -2 package of programs. The channel capacity option of QUICK -2 can be used to generate rating curve plots of individual cross sections that can be viewed on screen and printed. AUTOMATIC ERROR CHECKING This software is designed to virtually eliminate the need for user's manuals. The program incorporates error -checking routines and warning messages to alert the user to incorrect input data or potentially incorrect output data. The program prompts the user for the required input data so that there is no need to worry about which columns to put data in; whether or not it needs to be left -justified, or right- justified, etc. 2-2 QUICK -2 User's Guide Overview SPECIAL FEATURES OF QUICK -2 »» Critical Depth, Channel Capacity, and Normal Depth Options «« EASY VIEW: All of the input data is viewed on the same screen (and changes can be made) before starting the computations EASY CHANGE: After an initial calculation, the following parameters can be changed, and the above options can be re -calculated in seconds: Discharge Channel Slope Manning's N Base width or Diameter Channel Side Slope Ground Points Channel Stations AUTO -SAVE: For irregular channels the program automatically stores all the input variables to a file designated as "TEMP.XSC", which is stored in the C:\QUICK2\DATA Directory. RATING CURVES: A special feature of the Channel Capacity Option for irregular channels is the Rating Curve Print Option. A rating curve plot can be automatically generated with 20 computations of water surface elevation versus discharge. The maximum elevation of the rating curve will be just lower than the channel depth specified by the user. The rating curve can be viewed on the screen and/or printed. »» Step -Backwater Option «« EASY VIEW: All of the input data is viewed on the same screen (and changes can be made) before starting the computations PRECISE: Balances the energy equation to within .01 foot. COMPUTES CRITICAL DEPTH AUTOMATICALLY: After up to 40 energy balance trials (without a balance) the program automatically computes critical depth. OUTPUT OPTIONS: Detailed and Summary printouts are available AUTO -SAVE: The program automatically saves the first cross-section into a file designated as TO.XSC, and subsequent cross-sections are saved adding the Channel distance (XLCH) to the previous cross -section's file name. Therefore, if we run 3 cross-sections that are 200 feet apart their filenames will be: TO.XSC, T200.XSC, and T400.XSC. These files are automatically stored in a directory named C:\QUICK2\DATA. HEC -2 RUNS WITH QUICK -2 FILES: The backwater option also automatically saves all of the cross-sections into a HEC -2 compatible file called HEC2.DAT, which is stored in the C:\QUICK2 Directory. The QUICK -2 program is linked with the USACE HEC -2 program such that any backwater computation that is run using QUICK -2 can also be run using the HEC -2 program within the QUICK -2 environment. The user does not need to have any previous experience in running the HEC -2 model. 2-3 QUICK -2 User's Guide Overview AUTOMATIC ERROR CHECKS AND WARNING MESSAGES ERROR CHECKS Error checks prevent the user from continuing by re -prompting the user for correct input data. The following are error checks performed automatically by the program: - Ground Point (GR) stations should be increasing - Stations of the left and right bank should match a GR point WARNING MESSAGES Warning messages instruct the user that the program has had to modify the input data in order to complete a calculation, or that the completed calculation may not be valid. The following are warning messages performed by the program: Extended Cross Section The computed water surface elevation is higher than one or both ends of the cross-section, and the program automatically extended the end(s) of the cross-section vertically to complete the computation. Divided Flow There is a ground point(s) within the computed water surface elevation which section. cross-section which is higher than the is dividing the flow within the cross - No Enc_l ay Balance ... C -1Q 7�7uting Critical Depth The program attempted up to 40 trial computations and could not arrive at an energy balance; and therefore, critical depth is assumed to occur at this cross-section. Compt.zting Criti.ra? Depth ... Critical 17e_:pth Assumed Either the initial Starting Water Surface Elevation or an energy balance between two cross sections occurred at an elevation for which the froude number or the index froude number was equal to or greater than 1. Thus, the computed water surface elevation is suspected of being below the critical depth. Therefore the critical depth is computed and compared to the previous calculated water surface elevation. In this case the critical depth elevation was higher, and thus Critical Depth is Assumed. Computin CrJ_tic,�l De1�th ... Critical Depth Not Assumed Same as above except, the critical depth is computed and compared to the previous calculated water surface elevation; and, in this case the critical depth elevation was lower, and thus Critical Depth is Not Assumed. 2-4 QUICK -2 User's Guide Getting Started Chapter 3: Getting Started This section provides you with convenient installation and run procedures that will enable you to run the program from the hard disk drive or the floppy disk drive. HARD DISK INSTALLATION AND RUN PROCEDURE To install and run QUICK -2 simply place the floppy disk in either your "A" disk drive or your "B" disk drive. For "A" Drive users: Type A:\AQ2 and Press <Enter> For "B" Drive users: Type B:\BQ2 and Press <Enter> Follow the screen message to start the program. That's it! The program resides in a C:\QUICK2 directory. To run the program in the future, just change to that directory and type Q2 and press <Enter>. FLOPPY DISK INSTALLATION AND RUN PROCEDURE To install and run QUICK -2 from the floppy disk drive simply place the floppy disk in either your "A" disk drive or your "B" disk drive. For "A" Drive users: Type A:\FAQ2 and Press <Enter> For "B" Drive users: Type B:\FBQ2 and Press <Enter> Follow the screen message to start the program. That's it! To run the program in the future, just place the disk in your floppy drive, change to that directory and type Q2 and press <Enter>. Although the program will run from the floppy disk drive it will run much faster if installed and run on the hard disk drive. REMINDER: Entering and editing data, as well as moving around within the input screens is performed using the Function keys, the Backspace Key and the Enter Key. DO NOT USE THE CURSOR CONTROL KEYS (ARROW KEYS) FOR ENTERING, DELETING, OR EDITING DATA. 3-1 Chapter 4: TUTORIALS Normal Depth Step -Backwater Channel Capacity PLOT - 2 {TIME REQUIRED TO COMPLETE ALL THE TUTORIALS IS ABOUT ONE HOUR) 4-1 QUICK -2 User's Guide Normal Depth Tutorial NORMAL DEPTH { Tutorial Time: 5 to 10 minutes) After pressing Q2 and <Enter> to start the program you will come to the Main Menu screen of QUICK -2 as shown below. 4vlcr. - 2 4 MAIN MENU Press (� Critical Depth 1 (� Channc;. Capacity 2 Normal Depth .3 step -Backwater 4 Help IM (.—._._..__..-_._.._J FM 1. Press 3 and then press <Enter> to start the Normal Depth Option. Next you will see the Shape of Cross Section screen: rAP[ H V)i,' t iJQN p v idle- v ztecCru:yai.a �' I;o-vlael R Oji il�2� tea nnci �� Irregular Channei I Let's try the Trapezoidal Channel option. 2. Press T and then press <Enter> to perform a Normal Depth calculation for a trapezoidal channel. 4-2 QUICK -2 User's Guide Normal Depth Tutorial The next screen you will see is the Input / Output screen: I NORMAL 1 CPTH `R7 PGZOIDAL CHANNEL } INPUT VARIABLES, t, silk siope (A:V) ., R :,ide. <aope .H:;) rl. a I)ot: Com iaidth (i_C) ma nn nq's T r ?i.schc,1.-yc (C-!30 Depth ift) II Slope {ft/IC) OU7TUI VAk AdLES I� Area (sq ft) Wet Perimeter (£t) (I� II Velocity (ft/s) Hyd Radius I� Top Width (ft) i,roude fl II t)ow Type II■ Enter Left Side Slooe and Preos <Enter> :11� I < Sack Tab .1,2> Main Menu cP7> C The program is currently prompting you to enter the Left Side Slope (in terms of the Number of Horizontal feet (H) to every 1 foot Vertical (H 1). Let's say our left side slope is 3 to 1 (3:1). 3. Enter 3 and then Press <Enter>. The next screen you will see is the Input / Output screen with a new prompt: NORMAL LlG;P7'!'i IN TTIAPEZOI )AL CHANN^IL II■ II■ II 'INPUT VARINBJ,Ca N■ side "lop Ui:V) 3.0,7. R Side Slope (HIV) .1 I� Bottom Y'idU f.a Manning's n la scha rye (,,1�, Uepth (ft,'� IM -_.. ...-. OUTPUT VARIABLES IM --- I■ II Area (sc ft) Wet Pcrima;xer (ft) III■ 'I Velocity if,. JsJ Hyd Paid us IIM Sop F7iacti (IC) 1'roude'I I� [ lc;, T,pc im it Enter Right Side Slope and Pre— cEnter, :1 � II ll■ 11 c- Back Tab <P2> Main Meme <F7> Jim Notice that the 3 has been entered to the right of "L Side Slope (H:V)" The program is currently prompting you to enter the Right Side Slope (in terms of the Number of Horizontal feet (H) to every 1 foot Vertical (H 1). Let's say our right side slope is 2 to 1 (2:1). 4. Enter 2 and then Press <Enter>. 4-3 QUICK -2 User's Guide Normal Depth Tutorial The program will continue to prompt you for input data. Let's say our channel is 10 feet wide, with a Manning's n value of 0.035, the discharge is 300 cfs, and the channel slope is .005 ft/ft. SCREEN PROMPT - "Enter Bottom Width and Press <Enter>" 5. Enter 10 and then Press <Enter>. SCREEN PROMPT - "Enter Manning's n and Press <Enter>" 6. Enter .035 and then Press <Enter>. SCREEN PROMPT - "Enter Discharge and Press <Enter>" 7. Enter 300 and then Press <Enter>. SCREEN PROMPT - "Enter Slope and Press <Enter>" 8. Enter .005 and then Press <Enter>. NORMAL DEPTH 10 i'RAPEZ.OIDP.L, cHANNi:;h IN ii NO M.'AL DEPTH II® TRAi`BZOIDAL CHANNEL I� l la II. L Side Slope W: V) INPUT 'VARIABLES 2.0.1 ON i 7.0.0 Manning's n Ila 11 L >ide Sop, (H: V) 3.(1;1 R Side S)opc (H:V) 2.0,1 JIM j B(Ittom w_dth (£t) Manni.ng's n ;.�� ' Di.schargc (cfs) Depth (ft) I� Slope L':tj1a) IM f-. - -- -- -- IN l� OUTPUT VARIABLES If j� Area (sq ft) Viet. Perimeter (ft) Wet= P—iteter (ft) Velocity (ttls) Hyd Radius Vc- 1 lit.; `;i j) 'Pop Wroth (ft.) Frmld9 it ...... Flow Type �I Enter °.............." and Prese <Enter> "low Type <- Back Tab <F2> Main Menu <Fi> JIM The program will continue to prompt you for input data. Let's say our channel is 10 feet wide, with a Manning's n value of 0.035, the discharge is 300 cfs, and the channel slope is .005 ft/ft. SCREEN PROMPT - "Enter Bottom Width and Press <Enter>" 5. Enter 10 and then Press <Enter>. SCREEN PROMPT - "Enter Manning's n and Press <Enter>" 6. Enter .035 and then Press <Enter>. SCREEN PROMPT - "Enter Discharge and Press <Enter>" 7. Enter 300 and then Press <Enter>. SCREEN PROMPT - "Enter Slope and Press <Enter>" 8. Enter .005 and then Press <Enter>. NORMAL DEPTH 10 i'RAPEZ.OIDP.L, cHANNi:;h IN ii II® INPUT VAR1sg31,C3S Ila l Ila L Side Slope W: V) 3.0:1. R Side Slope (H:V) 2.0.1 ON DotCom Width (F[) 7.0.0 Manning's n 0.0350 JIM Dischar_7c (cfs) 300 Depth (ft) 0.00 I10 Siope (tGJft:) 0.0050 Ila OUTPUT VARIA111,ES Isar Ila tl i... ... Wet= P—iteter (ft) Iia Vc- 1 lit.; `;i tlyd Radius Jim , ... Fcoude li IIS "low Type �N I Begin Caleulati.ons <Enter> !IN IN <- B-ck. Tai; ,-v2, ma Ir M-zu '. r� 4-4 After all the data is input your screen should look like this QUICK -2 User's Guide Normal Depth Tutorial To begin the calculation simply ... 9. Press <Enter>. After a split second the screen should look like this: NORMAL DEPTH JIM TRAPEZOIDAL CHAIINEL IIE II■ INPUT VARIABLES Il� II �■ L Side Slope (11N) 3.0:1 R Side Slope (H:V) 2.0:1 II® Bottom Width (ft) 10.0 Mannings n 0.0350 ll® l Discharge (C£s) 300 Depth (ft) 3.27 ll® Slope (ft/ft) 0.0050 mill■ - LL��+OUTPUT VARIATiiPS 14� �■ ll Area (sq fti 59.6 Wet Perimeter (ft) 27.7 Il® I!: Velocity (fC/s) 5.0 Hyd Radius 2.2 ll■ I!, Tcp Widtii (ft) 26.4 Froude # 0.6 IN �l Flow Type SUBCRITICAL JIM _—Ilr ll Begin CalcudaLloils Enter. JIM Print P5, !IN Fact Tab F2, Main Menu F7, 1� Notice that the Depth is no longer 0.00, but equals 3.27 feet, which is the Normal Depth for this particular Trapezoidal cross-section. If 300 cfs represents the 100 -year discharge, then the 100 -year flood depth would equal 3.27 feet. All of the output variables have also been computed and listed. 10. To print the output simply Press the ¢F5> Function key. The printed output is shown below. QUICK - 2 NORMAL DEPTH Trapezoidal Channel INPUT VARIABLES 1� \ n = 0.035 % Depth ( \ I 3 0 \ / V \ / Base Width = 10.0 Slope = 0.0050 OUTPUT VARIABLES Depth (ft) 3.27 Il Discharge (cfs) 300.0 Velocity (ft/s) 5.04 2.0 Top Width (ft) 26.4 Froude No. 0.59 Flow Type: SUBCRITICAL 4-5 QUICK -2 User's Guide Normal Depth Tutorial CHANGING THE VARIABLES NORMAL DEPTH !� R TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL (i JIM II INPUT VARIABLES (I■ II .I■ Side Slope iH:V) 3.0:1 R Side Slope (H:V) 2.0:1 JIM II Bottom Width ;ft) 10.0 Mannings n 0.0350 II® II Discharge (cfs) 300 Depth (ft) 3.27 JIM i Slope ;ft/t) 0.0050 I■ �_ OUTPUT VARIABLES N Jim Ji■ II Area (sq ft) 59.6 wet Perimeter (ft) 27.7 JIM Velocity (ft/s) 5.0 Hyd Radius 2.2 n® `rop Width (ft) 26.4 Froude 11 0.6 II■ II Flow Type SUBCRITICAL I■ _ _II■ He in Calculations .Enter> II� II Print -F5, IN II <D,,cR -1,,:n <F2> Main Menu F7 JIM Let's say we want to run this calculation again but with. a discharge of 500 cfs instead of 300 cfs. 1. Press the Function Key <F2> NORMAL DEPTH JIM TRAPEZ,O':DAL CHANNEL JIM li !I■ INPUT VARTABLBS *I: II L Side Slope (H:V) 3.0:1 R Side slope (H:V) 2.0:1 JIM II BOti.Of11 Width ,ft) 10.0 Mannings n 0.0350 JIM Discharge (cfs) 300 Depth (ft) 3.27 JIM j slope (ftlt t) 0.0050 JIM OUTPUT VARIABLES IN Area (sq ft) 59.6 Wet Perimeter (ft) 27.7 JIM I Vcloc;.ty (ft/s) 5.0 Hyd Radius 2.2 JIM Ii Top Width (ft) 26.4 Froude 0 0.6 II■ Flow Type SUBCRITICAL 1,M 'j Enter Slope and Press <Enter> ■ ISII <- Back Tab <F2> Main Menu -P7> I: The above screen is what you should be looking at. The <F2> key will move the prompt backwards through all the variables. Note that since we want to change the Discharge (from 300 to 500), we will need to Press <F2> again to come to the Enter Discharge prompt. Follow the steps as shown on the following page to rerun this calculation with a new discharge. QUICK -2 User's Guide Normal Depth Tutorial SCREEN PROMPT - "Enter Slope and Press <Enter>" 2. Press <F2>. SCREEN PROMPT - "Enter Discharge and Press <Enter>" 3. Enter 500 and then Press <Enter>. SCREEN PROMPT - "Enter Slope and Press <Enter>" 4. Press <Enter>. After all of the data is input your screen should look like this: »— NORMAL DEPTH JIM I� TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL II■ INPUT VARIABLES JM IM f L side Slope (H:V) 3.0:1 R Side Slope (H:V) 2.0:1 i® P, Bottom Width (ft) 10.0 Manning's n 0.0350 (I® I Discharge (cfs) 500 Depth (ft) 3.27 JI® !I slope (ft/ft) 0.0050 Jim �I-- IIM OUTPUT VARIABLES IN II I II Area (sq ft) 59.6 Net Perimeter (ft) 27.7 11IN Velocity (ft/s) 5.0 Hyd Radius 2.2 IN II Top Width (it) 26.4 Froude 4 0.6 IM ii Flow Type SUBCRITICAL 00. if Begin Calculations <Ente— JIM JIM _M < Back Tab<F2> Main Menu <F'7>IN 4-7 QUICK -2 User's Guide Normal Depth Tutorial 5. Press <Enter> to begin the calculation. After a split second the screen should look like this: NORMAL DEPTH Ji® TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL (I® ii® x INPUT VARIABLES ii® L Side Slope (H;V) 3.0:1 R Side Slope (H:V) 2.0:1 Bottom Width (ft) 10.0 Manning's n 0.0350 p® Discharge (cfs) 500 Depth (ft) 4.22 Jai O Slope (ft/ft) 0.0050 JI® OUTPUT VARIABLES Area (sq ft) 86.7 Wet Perimeter (ft) 32.8 JI® Velocity (ft/,q) 5.8 Hyd Radius 2.6 JIM Tp Width (ft) 31.1 Froude J' 0.6 JIM i Plow Type SUBCRITICAL IM j} Begin Calculations <Enter, Print <F5> <- Back Tab <P2> Main Menu <117>� Let's return to the Main Menu... Just Press the <F7> Function Key QUICK - 2 �) MAIN MENU �� Press Critical Depth 1 Channel Capacity i� Normal Depth J Step -Backwater. .. R QUIT J<F- Help 10 L. ,.._-_.__i MMMMMMM <Flo> i If you want to continue and to perform the Step -Backwater Tutorial, then turn to the next page. -- y 111�1 i ➢ i� if you want to exit out of the program for now, Press <FlO>. � 4-8 QUICK -2 User's Guide Step -Backwater Tutorial STEP -BACKWATER {Tutorial Time: 20 to 25 minutes} Let's say that we have a piece of property located in an unnumbered Zone A, and we need to determine if our property is really in or out of the floodplain. We will be referring to Figure 1 on the next page which represents a plan view of our proposed floodplain study (step -backwater analysis). We have field surveyed 3 cross-sections to use in the step - backwater analysis. The next page lists all of the data from the field surveyed cross-sections. If you have continued from the previous Normal Depth Tutorial you should see the screen below. If you are just starting the program, you will see the screen below after pressing Q2 and <Enter>. QUICK - z its MAIN MENU press II !I■ Critical Depth 1 �) Channel Capacity 2 �INormal Depth: 3 Step -Backwater 4 11 QUIT 'P10> 01 INN I FI, - Help IN 1. Press 4 and then press <Enter> to start the Step -Backwater Option. Next you will see the Starting Water Surface Elevation Method screen: Starting water Surface Elevation Method RE p InputIN Q� e� I� NORMAL DEPTH (Slope -Area) V� Enter the S]ope in Pt/Ft (for ex. .0025) �IN OR H ■ KNOWN WATER SURFACE E-L,EVATION (55C.78) � Q Enter the known {4S Elevation (for.- ex. { Enter a Slope or an Elevation: Let's say that we do not have any previous information about flood elevations for our sample stream. Thus we need to start the step -backwater analysis assuming that the flow in our first cross-section is at Normal Depth. (This assumes that the channel slope downstream of our first cross- section will approximate the slope of the energy grade at the first cross- section of our study.) Let's assume that our calculated downstream channel slope is .0029 ft/ft. 2. Type .0029 and then press <Enter>. 4-9 QUICK -2 User's Guide Step -Backwater Tutorial CROSS SECTION INFORMATION Cross -Section 1 I Crass -Section 2 Cross -Section 3 GROUND POINTS Station Elevation Station Elevation Station Elevation 362 505.0 0 510.0 0 515.0 425 499.1 150 504.8 433 510.1 509 498.0 I 233 502.2 600 506.3 512 496.9 I 236 500.9 614 504.9 602 496.9 331 500.9 701 504.8 605 498.2 I 334 501.8 725 506.5 732 500.1 ( 402 505.5 866 511.1 1020 504.7 591 510.1 1240 514.6 CHANNEL BANK STATIONS Left 509 Right 605 Left 233 Right 334 Left 600 Right 725 MANNING'S N VALUES Left .065 Left .055 I Left .065 Channel .040 I Channel .040 Channel .040 Right .060 Right .060 I Right .060 CHANNEL REACH LENGTHS Left -- Left 450 Left 490 Channel - Channel 450 Channel 490 Right --- Right 450 I Right 490 iDLII Ell Cont --- ExTlan Cont 0.1 Expan 0.3 Cont 0.1 Expan 0.3 100.YEAR QISC11ARQE'', 3000 3000 3000 FIGURE 1 1 2 3 4-10 QUICK -2 User's Guide Step -Backwater Tutorial The next screen you will see is the Input / Output screen as shown: XSEC ID: 0 STEP - BACKWATER « GROUND POINTS STAT EhEV STAT ELEV STAT JLEV STAT I�II.EV C}1ANIN i BANK STATIONS; Left Right MANNING'S N VALVES: Left P:ght CIIANN.., REACH LENGTHS. Left Channel Right. LOSS COEFFICIENTS: Contractn Expansn :Dschrg WS PI EVDepth 'fop Wi.d Kratia EG DLEV Flow Regime chan\e7. Froudll I� IIIF2)< Back Tali FS)List Files F6}Retrieve File F7}Main Menu F10}Ed/Ex GrPtJ 111 F3}insert GrPt F4)Delete GrPt F1 }HELP I Before we go on let's read about how data is to be input for this screen. 3. Press <Fl> to access the Help screen. 4. When you are finished reading the Help screen just Press <Enter>. If you refer to the previous page, you will see a tabulation of the Ground Points for the first field surveyed cross-section listed by Station and Elevation. You will also see the Channel Bank Stations, Manning's N values, and Discharge. 5. Following the method explained in the Help Screen, enter the Ground Points one at a time, by their respective Station and Elevation. Be sure to Press <Enter> after you have typed in each correct number. Once you have entered all of the Ground Points correctly ... 6. Press <F10> to Exit from entering Ground Point data NOTE: The <Fl0> Key will EXIT you from the top of the screen, or it will RETURN you to the top of the screen if you need to go back to EDIT the Ground Points. 4-11 QUICK -2 User's Guide Step -Backwater Tutorial Your screen should now look like this: iXSEC ID: " STAT ELEV 1362 505.0 1602 496-9 STEP - BACKWATER <� STAT ELEV STAT ELEV 425 499.1 509 498. 605 498.2 732 500. GROUND POINTS SPAT ELEV 0 512 496.91 1 1.020 504.71 I CHANNEL BANK STATIONS: Left Ricghl II MANNING'S N VALUES: Left Channel Right II II CIIANNEL REACH LENGTHS: Left Channel Right LOSS COEFFICIENTS: Contract. Expansn :Dschrg WS ELEV Depth 'top Wid ]<ratio EG ELEV Flow Regime ch—Vel Froud#t II III F2)<- Back Tab FS)PRINT F6}SAVE F7}Main Menu FS)New XSEC F10)Ed/Ex GrPtII I III Enter LEFT Channel Hank Station and Preen <Enter> 'I The program is currently prompting you to enter the Left Channel Bank Station. Using the information. contained on the previous page, we know that our Left Channel Bank Station is 509. Therefore ... 7. Enter 509 and then Press <Enter>. (Notice that the 509 has been entered to the right of "CHANNEL BANK STATIONS:- Left".) Next you will see the Input / Output screen with a new prompt: SCREEN PROMPT -- "Enter RIGHT Channel Bank Station and Press <Enter>" Using the information for Cross-section 1, simply follow the screen prompts to input the required data, as follows: SCREEN PROMPT - "Enter RIGHT Channel Bank Station and Press <Enter>" 8. Type 605 and then Press <Enter>. SCREEN PROMPT - "Enter LEFT Manning's n Value and Press <Enter>" 9. Type .065 and then Press <Enter>. SCREEN PROMPT - "Enter CHANNEL Manning's n Value and Press <Enter>" 10. Type .040 and then Press <Enter>. SCREEN PROMPT - "Enter RIGHT Manning's n Value and Press <Enter>" 11. Type .060 and then Press <Enter>. SCREEN PROMPT - "Enter Discharge and Press <Enter>" 12. Type 3000 and then Press <Enter>. 4-12 QUICK -2 User's Guide Step -Backwater Tutorial Your screen should now look like this: IS" ID: 0 » STEP - BACKWATER « GROUND POINTS STAT ELEV STAT ELEV STAT ELCV STAT 1111,1" 1 1362 505.0 425 499.1 509 498.0 512 496.9 1602 496.9 605 498.2 732 500.1 1020 504.7 III CHANNEL BANK STATIONS: Left 509.0 Right 605.0 Q MANNING'S N VALUES: Left 0.0650 Channel 0.0400 Right 0.0600 Ir h CHANNEL REACH LENGTHS: Left Channel Right i) Ifl LOSS COEFFICIENTS: Contractn Expansn :DSchsg 3000 11 IN WS ELEV Depth Top Wid Xratio I§ EG ELEV Flow Regime ChanVel Frouc III F2)<- Back Tab F5}PRINT F6}SAVE F7}Main Menn F8}New XSEC F10}Ed/Ex GrPtjI I I TO BEGIN CALCULATIONS Press <Enter> The program is now ready to begin the calculations since all of the required data has been entered for the ist cross-section of our step - backwater analysis. Note that even at this point, if any of the data on the screen has been typed in incorrectly, the user can simply press the <F2> key to toggle backwards through all of the input data, even back to the Ground Points. Remember that you can instantly go back to the Ground Points by pressing <F10>, also. 13. Press <Enter> to Begin the Calculations. Your screen should now look like this: .E[.` ID: 0 » STEP - BACKWATER « GROUND POINTS STAT ELEV STAT ELEV S'rAT ELEV STAT ),I).xV 1 1362 505.0 425 499.1 509 498.0 512 496.91 1602 496.9 605 498.2 732 500.1 1020 504.71 III CIIANNEI, BANK STATIONS: Left 509.0 Right 605.0 I I III MTVNING'S N VAL13ES: Left 0.0650 Channel 0.0400 Right 0.0600 I I III CHANNEL REACH LENGTHS: Left Channel Riqht III LOSS COEFFICIENTS: Contractn. Expansn :Dachrg 3000 I I III WS E;..EV 501.03 Depth 4.13 Top Wid 385 1(ratio 1.00 Q I III EG ELEV 501.32 PI_ow Regime 14-1 ChanVel. 5.10 V,oudN 0.50 II II 112)<- Back Tab F5}PRINT F6)SAVE F7)Main Menu F8}New XSE(7 E10)EA/Ex GrPtII As you can see from the screen, the (100 -year) Water Surface Elevation (WS ELEV) has been computed (501.03), with other variables. 4-13 QUICK -2 User's Guide Step -Backwater Tutorial Before we move on to enter the data for the next cross-section let's obtain a printout of this first calculation. Press <F5>. The screen prompt will be ... PRINT: Summary or Detailed? Press S or D and <Enter> Let's obtain a Detailed Printout ... Therefore ... Press D and then Press <Enter>. Assuming your printer is turned on, the detailed printout will look like this: Cross Section: 0 XLOB: 0 XLCH: 0 XROB: 0 CC: 0 CE: 0 NLOB: .065 STCHL: 509 NCHL: .04 STCHR: 605 NROB: .06 X - STAT ELEV STAT ELEV STAT ELEV STAT ELEV X•1. 362.00 505.00 425.00 499.10 509.00 498.00 512.00 496.90 602.00 496.90 605.00 498.20 732.00 500.10 1020.00 504.70 CWSEL EG ELMIN QLOB QCH QROB Chan Vel HV KRATIO ALOB ACH AROB Depth HL Top Width STAT -L ST-MIDCH STAT -R Discharge OL Froude # CH -Slope EG -Slope FlowRegim 501.03 501.317 496.90 493505 2003 ... 5.10 0.29 1.00 228 392 265 4.13 0.00 385 404.4 557.0 789.9 3000 0.00 0.50 0.0000 0.0029 --- if any of the above variables are unfamiliar, a description of each is provided in Appendix 1. If you want to save the cross-section data to a different name and/or directory, before pressing <F8>, you can Press <F6>, (F6)SAVE) to perform this. Now we need to enter the data for the 2nd cross-section. Since we are entering a new cross-section (New XSEC), we need to ... Press <F8>. Before the Screen changes you will notice that at the bottom of the screen a message will briefly appear ... SAVING TEMPORARY FILE C:\QUICK2\DATA\TO.XSC This alerts you that your cross-section data has been saved to a file called TO.XSC, which is located in your C:\QUICK2\DATA directory. 4-14 QUICK -2 User's Guide Step -Backwater Tutorial Your screen should be blank again as shown below: };SEC ID: CI .> STEP - BACKWATER — (-3'P2GUND I'0IN`1S 6'PAR' BLEV STAT ELRV STAT ELEV ELEV Following the method used before, for the 1st cross-section, enter the Ground Points one at a time, by their respective Station and Elevation for the 2nd cross-section using the data provided. Be sure to Press <Enter> after you have typed in each correct number. Once you have entered all of the Ground Points correctly, remember to Press <F10> to Exit from entering Ground Point data . Follow the on screen prompts to enter all of the other data. Remember that if any of the data on the screen has been typed in incorrectly, the user can simply press the <F2> key to toggle backwards through all of the input data, even back to the Ground Points. (You can also Press <F10> to go back to the Ground Points immediately for editing). After entering all the data your screen should now look like this: (XSEC ID: 450 » STEP - BACKWATER « GROUND POINTS � STAT ELBV STAT ELEV STA't CLEV STAT ELEV 0 510.0 150 504.8 2.33 502.2 236 500.9 1331 500.9 334 501.8 402 505.5 591 510.11 CIIANNF.J. BANK STATIONS: Left 233.0 Right 334.0 IIIANNING'S N VALUES: Left 0.0550 Channel. 0.0400 Righr 0.0600 O CHANNEL REACH LENGG'HS; Left 450 Charm.' 450 Right 450 0.1 E:xpansn 0.3 1) chrg 3000 : ELEV L F , 1Top Wid Krat io Chanve.1 f r."df F2)<- Back Tab F5)PRIN'I' F6)SAVE F7)Main Menu F8)New XSEC: F10)i:d/Er. GrPLII ju TO BEGIN CALCULATIONS Press <Enter> 11 4-15 11 CHANNEL BANK STATIONS: Left Right MANNING'S N VALUES: Left Charm,' Right CHANNEL REACH LENGTHS: Loft CliarmeI Right LOSS COEFFICIENTS. Contiractn 'q)a ,;n :DSchrg II WS ELEV Depth 'Ip &id Kratio II EG ELEV Flow Regime ChA" cl Froud# - IIIF2)a-Back Tab F5)List Files F6}Retrieve File F7)Mai❑ Menu FIO)Ed/Ex GrPtII 0 F3)Insert GrPt F4)Delete GTPL F1 )HELP Following the method used before, for the 1st cross-section, enter the Ground Points one at a time, by their respective Station and Elevation for the 2nd cross-section using the data provided. Be sure to Press <Enter> after you have typed in each correct number. Once you have entered all of the Ground Points correctly, remember to Press <F10> to Exit from entering Ground Point data . Follow the on screen prompts to enter all of the other data. Remember that if any of the data on the screen has been typed in incorrectly, the user can simply press the <F2> key to toggle backwards through all of the input data, even back to the Ground Points. (You can also Press <F10> to go back to the Ground Points immediately for editing). After entering all the data your screen should now look like this: (XSEC ID: 450 » STEP - BACKWATER « GROUND POINTS � STAT ELBV STAT ELEV STA't CLEV STAT ELEV 0 510.0 150 504.8 2.33 502.2 236 500.9 1331 500.9 334 501.8 402 505.5 591 510.11 CIIANNF.J. BANK STATIONS: Left 233.0 Right 334.0 IIIANNING'S N VALUES: Left 0.0550 Channel. 0.0400 Righr 0.0600 O CHANNEL REACH LENGG'HS; Left 450 Charm.' 450 Right 450 0.1 E:xpansn 0.3 1) chrg 3000 : ELEV L F , 1Top Wid Krat io Chanve.1 f r."df F2)<- Back Tab F5)PRIN'I' F6)SAVE F7)Main Menu F8)New XSEC: F10)i:d/Er. GrPLII ju TO BEGIN CALCULATIONS Press <Enter> 11 4-15 QUICK -2 User's Guide Step -Backwater Tutorial The program is now ready to begin the calculations since all of the required data has been entered for the 2nd cross-section of our step - backwater analysis. Press <Enter> to Begin the Calculations. Once the calculation is finished you may ... Press <F5> to obtain a printout Press <F6> to save the data to another name and/or directory Finally, to finish our analysis we need to enter in the data for the 3rd cross-section. Press <F8> Before the Screen changes you will notice that at the bottom of the screen a message will briefly appear ... SAVING TEMPORARY FILE C:QUICK2\DATA\T450.XSC This alerts you that your 2nd cross-section data has been saved to a file called T450.XSC, which is located in your C:\QUICK2\DATA directory. Notice that the 450, represents the channel distance between the 1st and 2nd cross-sections. Following the method used before for the other cross-sections, enter the Ground Points one at a time, by their respective Station and Elevation for the 3rd cross-section using the data provided. Be sure to Press <Enter> after you have typed in each correct number. Once you have entered all of the Ground Points correctly, remember to Press <F10> to Exit from entering Ground Point data . _ Follow the on screen prompts to enter all of the other data. After entering all the data for the 3rd cross-section ... Press <Enter> to Begin the Calculations. Once the calculation is finished you may ... Press <F5> to obtain a printout Press <F6> to save the data to another name and/or directory TO EXIT OUT OF THIS SCREEN NOW THAT OUR ANALYSIS IS COMPLETED .. Press <F7> 4-16 QUICK -2 User's Guide Step -Backwater Tutorial You will see a screen prompt at the bottom ... SUMMARY PRINTOUT: Press <F5>, otherwise Press <Enter> To print a summary of the output for all 3 cross-sections then ... Press <F5>, otherwise just Press <Enter> The on screen Summary or the printed summary will look like this: SECNO Q XLCH CWSEL FR# ELMIN AVG.VEL. AREA TOPWID 0 3000.0 0 501.03 0.50 496.90 3.39 885.0 385.5 450 3000.0 450 503.96 1.06 500.90 7.54 398.1 196.9 940 3000.0 490 508.54 0.71 504.80 4.95 606.5 286.2 11 if we carefully compare the Computed Water Surface Elevations I� (CWSELs) at each cross-section, to the topographic contours on Figure 1, we will see that the property is clearly higher than 0� the CWSEL at every cross-section. Therefore this analysis with �I more detailed cross-section data has proven that the property (� has been inadvertently included in an unnumbered Zone A Special Flood Hazard Area. Turn to the next page to continue -._y y, y' y 4-17 QUICK -2 User's Guide Step -Backwater Tutorial RUNNING HEC -2 USING QUICK -2 FILES (Tutorial Time: 5 minutes) You will be prompted one more time to Press <Enter>. The next prompt will ask you a question concerning running the HEC -2 or PLOT -2 programs. Press Y and <Enter> to rerun w/HEC-2 or PLOT -2: If NO Press <Enter> For purposes of this tutorial let's answer "Y" , (and Press <Enter>) to run the HEC -2 program. The next screen that will appear will include the following: To Run Type QUICK -2 Q2 HEC -2 H2 AUTOHEC-2 AH2 PLOT -2 P2 VIEW/PRINT LIST Type AH2 and Press <Enter>, Once the HEC -2 run is complete it will return you to the above-mentioned screen. NOTE: Typing AH2 runs the HEC -2 program automatically using the QUICK -2 generated HEC2.DAT, HEC -2 data file. If you are using a HEC -2 data file other than HEC2.DAT, then Type H2 and Press <Enter>. Follow the directions on the screen for naming the Input, Output and Tape95 files; pressing <Enter> after each filename is typed in. _ Type LIST and Press <Enter>, and then enter your output filename, (Default is HEC2.OUT), to view the results. Note that you move up, down and across the screen using the <Page UP>,<Page Down>, the cursor keys, etc. To Print the data that appears on the screen simply Press P. To Exit from the screen simply Press X or the Escape key. If you would like to complete the next tutorial example, then Type Q2 and Press <Enter>; and, turn to the next page. y YS -y 4-18 QUICK -2 User's Guide Step -Backwater Tutorial RERUNNING USING SAVED CROSS-SECTION FILES {Tutorial Time: 5 minutes) Let's say that in the analysis that was performed in the previous tutorial, we want to change the discharge from 3000 to 5000, and run the step - backwater option again with the same cross-sections. This is quite easily done. Just follow the steps as shown below. 1. At the Main Menu Screen Type 4 and Press <Enter> 2, At the Starting Water Surface Elevation Method Screen Type .0029 and Press <Enter> 3. At the Input/Output Screen Press <F6> to retrieve a saved cross- section file Assuming your 1st cross-section file is stored as C:\QUICK2\DATA\TO.XSC Type C and Press <Enter> when prompted for the directory Type QUICK2\DATA & Press <Enter> when prompted for the subdirectory Type TO and Press <Enter> when prompted for the filename 4. Press <F2> to toggle back to the "Enter Discharge" prompt 5. Type 5000 and Press <Enter> to enter the new discharge 6. Press <Enter> to Begin the Calculations 7. Press <F8> to input another cross-section Press <F6> to retrieve a saved cross-section file Assuming your 2nd cross-section file is stored as C:\QUICK2\DATA\T450.XSC Type C and Press <Enter> when prompted for the directory Type QUICK2\DATA & Press <Enter> when prompted for the subdirectory Type T450 and Press <Enter> when prompted for the filename 8. Press <F2> to toggle back to the "Enter Discharge" prompt 9. Type 5000 and Press <Enter> to enter the new discharge 10. Press <Enter> to Begin the Calculations 4-19 QUICK -2 User's Guide Step -Backwater Tutorial 11. Press <F8> to input another cross-section Press <F6> to retrieve a saved cross-section file Assuming your 3rd cross-section file is stored as C:\QUICK2\DATA\T940.XSC Type C and Press <Enter> when prompted for the directory Type QUICK2\DATA & Press <Enter> when prompted for the subdirectory Type T940 and Press <Enter> when prompted for the filename 12. Press <F2> to toggle back to the "Enter Discharge" prompt 13. Type 5000 and Press <Enter> to enter the new discharge 14. Press <Enter> to Begin the Calculations Press <F7> to Exit out of the screen Press <F5> to obtain a summary printout Press <Enter> twice to get back to the main menu Press <F10> to leave the program Q.E.D. 4-20 QUICK -2 User's Guide Channel Capacity Tutorial CHANNEL CAPACITY OPTION WITH THE RATING CURVE PLOT {Tutorial Time: 5 to 10 minutes) Let's say that we need to determine a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) for the property shown in Figure 1. We do not want to exempt the entire property from the flood plain, only a structure which is located in the middle of the property. Therefore, we can use one cross-section (the 2nd cross- section (T450.XSC) from our previous tutorial and shown on Figure 1), to compute a BFE. Let's assume that we know the discharge is between 3000 cfs and 4000 cfs based on our best estimates. Let's assume our structure does not have a basement; the lowest adjacent grade (LAG) to the house is at elevation 510 NGVD; and the first floor elevation (FFE) is 510.5 NGVD. Let's determine the maximum carrying capacity of the floodplain using a depth equal to the lowest adjacent grade (510.0) minus the minimum stream elevation (500.9). For purposes of this example we'll use a depth of 9 feet (510-501). To perform a channel capacity calculation we also need to know the downstream slope, which in this case is easy to compute from the information on page 15. Slope = 500.9 - 496.9 j 450 = .0089. The graphic below sums up our situation so far: Follow the steps as shown on the next page to compute the rating curve _y➢y 4-21 QUICK -2 User's Guide Channel Capacity Tutorial 1. At the Main Menu Screen Type 2 and Press <Enter> 2. At the Shape of Cross Section Screen Type I and Press <Enter> 3. At the Input/Output Screen Press <F6> We are using the 2nd cross-section file stored as C:\QUICK2\DATA\T450.XSC Type C and Press <Enter> when prompted for the directory Type QUICK2\DATA & Press <Enter> when prompted for the subdirectory Type T450 and Press <Enter> when prompted for the filename 4. Type .0089 and Press <Enter> to enter the slope 5. Type 9 and Press <Enter> to enter the depth 6. Press <Enter> to Begin the Calculations 7. Press <F4> to Plot to screen .... Press <F5> to Print Looking at the rating curve plot we can see that for a discharge range of between 3000cfs - 4000cfs the BFE ranges from about 504.3 to 504.8. Since our lowest adjacent grade and first floor elevation are at or above 510, it is clear that this structure is above the BFE. 8. Press <Enter> to continue < FFE = 510.5 %—J<-- LAG = 510.0 T 9.1' 1 Stream Invert = 500.9 9. Press <F7> to go back to the Main Menu 10. Press <F10> to Exit the program 4-22 QUICK -2 User's Guide PLOT -2 Tutorial PLOT -2 In general PLOT -2 will only work on QUICK -2 files that have been converted into HEC -2 format using QUICK -21s Step -Backwater option. Profile plots from PLOT -2 will work only if the QUICK -2 generated data file (HEC2.DAT) is also run using the HEC -2 program (see Running HEC -2 Using QUICK -2 Files, page 4-18), since a IIEC2.T95 file needs to be generated by the HEC -2 program for use by PLOT -2. PLOT -2 Cross-section plots can be generated using the QUICK -2 generated data file (HEC2.DAT) even if it is not run with HEC -2. However, the Cross-section plot will not show the computed water surface elevation (CWSEL) unless the QUICK -2 HEC2.DAT file is run with HEC -2, since the CWSEL is found on the HEC2.T95 file. Note that the user can compute a normal depth elevation for only one cross-section and have that cross-section plotted by choosing the Step -Backwater option and the Normal Depth starting water surface elevation method. Once the computation is finished, the user simply exits (Presses <F7>), and the QUICK -2 program automatically creates the HEC2.DAT file for that one cross-section, which can be used by the PLOT -2 program. Let's say that we want to view the water surface elevation profile and the cross-section plots from our previous tutorial on the Step -Backwater option. From the QUICK -2 Title screen Press P2 You are now into the PLOT -2 program, Press <Enter> to continue PROFILE PLOT (Tutorial Time. 5 to 10 minutes) 1. Let's view the profile first. Press 1 from the PLOT -2 main menu selection 2. Cursor to the HEC2 Tape95 file name entry and Type ? This will list all of the data files in the QUICK -2 directory. T95 files are designated with the 3 letter extension T95 . Therefore cursor over to highlight that file (HEC2.T95) and Press <Enter>. 3. Move up to highlight the Plot profiles entry and Press <Enter>. 4. Your profile is now plotted. Pressing <Enter> moves you back to the Profile plots main menu screen. You can explore the different Profile and Plotting options and replot the profile if you wish. 5. When you are finished plotting, highlight the Return to main menu message and Press <Enter> 4-23 QUICK -2 User's Guide PLOT -2 Tutorial CROSS-SECTION PLOT (Tutorial Time: 5 to 10 minutes) 1. From the PLOT -2 main menu Press 2 from the menu selection. 2. Cursor down to the HEC2 input file name entry and Type ? This will list all of the data files in the QUICK -2 directory. Input files are designated with the 3 letter extension DAT . Therefore cursor over to highlight that file (HEC2.DAT) and Press <Enter>. If we want to view a different data file than that of the profile we previously viewed, we would have to specify a different file here before proceeding. 3. Cursor down to the HEC2 Tape95 file name entry Note that we do not have to re-enter this file since we have already entered it previously. If we want to view a different Tape95 file than that of the profile we previously viewed, we would have to Type ?, and then specify a different file here before proceeding. 4. Move up to highlight the Plot cross sections entry and Press <Enter>. 5. You now have the option of printing all or selected cross sections from your data file. Press Y for plotting all, or N for plotting selected cross sections. Your first cross-section is now plotted. Pressing <Enter> moves you back to the Cross-section plots main menu screen or plots additional cross-sections depending on how many cross-section plots you have. You can explore the different Cross-section and Plotting options if you wish. 6. Highlight the Return to main menu message and Press <Enter> Pressing 4 at the PLOT -2 main menu exits you from PLOT -2 and back to the QUICK -2 title screen. Note: To use PLOT -2 and to access data files that are in another directory (i.e., they are not in the C:\QUICK2 directory), just change to that data directory (i.e., CD\dirname) and access PLOT -2 by typing C:\QUICK2\PLOT2 (or A:\PLOT2 if using the program from the floppy drive) from that data directory. 4-24 Chapter 5: FORMULAS Critical Depth Channel Capacity Normal Depth Step -Backwater 5-1 QUICK -2 User's Guide Critical Depth Formulas IWI In every cross-section for a given discharge there exists a critical depth, where the energy grade (depth of water plus velocity head - V'/2G) is at a minimum. Increasing the discharge above this given discharge will force the flow into the super -critical regime. Discharges below the given discharge will remain in the sub -critical regime. Super -critical depths will be lower than the critical depth, and sub -critical depths will be above the critical. depth. Super -critical flow is characterized by small water depths with large velocity heads; while, sub -critical flow is characterized by large water depths with small velocity heads. A rule of thumb used to determine critical depth is that when the velocity Head equals 1/2 the hydraulic depth (Area/T'opwidth) critical flow is probable. A formula which can be used to approximate critical depth (D�) is given below. QC' / g = A' / T Where Qc is the discharge (in cfs) based on critical depth, g is the gravitational constant (32.15 feet/second squared), A is the cross-section area (in square feet), and T is the top width of the water surface (in feet). Note: for rectangular channels the above equation can be reduced so that D, _ (Qc/5.67 T) "' The more exact way to compute critical depth (minimum specific energy) is to find a specific depth of water within a cross-section for a given discharge which produces the lowest energy grade. The following represents the process that the Critical Depth option of QUICK -2 goes through to calculate critical depth. After the cross-section information (ground points, channel stations, etc.) has been input the program starts computing the water surface elevation (WSE) and corresponding energy grade elevation (EG) at a depth of 0.1 foot above the lowest elevation in the cross-section. It continues to calculate WSE and EG at intervals of 0.5 foot. As the depth of water in the cross-section increases the EG will decrease. At one point the EG will begin to increase. This means that between the last 0.5 foot interval there exists a minimum energy grade. Once this has occurred the program decreases the WSE in intervals of .02 foot. As the depth of water decreases in the cross-section the EG will also decrease as it approaches the minimum specific energy. At one point the EG will begin. to increase again. This means that between the last. .02 foot interval critical depth exists. At this point the screen will display the actual critical water surface elevation (along with other variables) by assuming that the next to the last iteration was the critical depth. The calculations performed by the program for a given cross-section are listed on the next page. The calculations include the iterations that the program goes through to arrive at critical depth. 5-2 QUICK -2 User's Guide Critical Depth Formulas ELMTN = 92.5 Qc= 306.5006 Q= 260 EG=96.14179 - EG Decreasing WSE = 92.6 Qc= 6.02.6845F-02 Q= 260 EG=466080.8 EG Decreasing WSE= 93.1 Qc= 5.314738 Q= 260 EG=452.6406 - WSE= 93.6 Qc= 24.18726 Q- 260 EG=125.4259 - WSE= 94.1 Qc= 61.71717 Q= 260 EG=1.01..21 - WSE= 94.6 Qc= 121.451 Q= 260 EG=96.99928 283.737 WSE= 95.1 Qc= _204.A4 8 8 Q= 260 EG=96. 14474 - v WSE= 95.6 Qc= 311.15 Q-- 260 EG=96.14897 + EG Increasing Therefore Minimum Specific Energy is between WSE's of 95.1 and 95.6. Note also that the Discharge (Q = 260) is also within the computed Critical Discharge (Qc) range of 204 - 311. WSE= 95.58 Qc= 306.5006 Q= 260 EG=96.14179 - EG Decreasing WSE= 95.56 Qc= 301.8821 Q= 260 EG=96.13499 - WSE= 95.54 Qc= 297.2962 Q= 260 EG=96.12863 - WSE= 95.52 Qc= 292.7447 Q= 260 EG=96.12271 - WSE= 95.50 Qc= 288.2256 Q= 260 EG=96.11724 - WSE= 95.48 Qc= 283.737 Q= 260 EG=96.11225 - WSE= 95.46 Qc= 279.2825 Q= 260 EG=96.10776 WSE= 95.44 Qc= 274.8583 Q= 260 EG=96.1038 v WSE= 95.42 Qc= 270.4678 Q= 260 EG=96.10038 - WSE= 95.40 Qc= 266.1075 Q= 260 EG=96.09752 WSE= 95.38 Qc= 261.7806 Q= 260 EG=96.09525 - WSE= 95.36 Qc= 2.57.4854 Q= 260 EG=96.09361 - WSE= 95.34 Qc= 253.22 Q= 260 EG=96.09262 - WSE= 95.32 Qc= 248.986 Q= 260 EG=96.09199 minimum v WSE= 95.30 Qc= 244.'76 Q= 260 EG=96.09271 + EG Increasing We assume that ... Critical Depth = 95.321, Minimum Specific Energy = 96.09199' The Froude number would be, Q / Qc, or 260 / 248.986 = 1.04. It is not unusual for the Froude number to not equal exactly 1.0, since the calculation of critical discharge using the formula Qc' / g = A' / T, does not always yield a WSE that is exactly at the True minimum specific energy. You should notice from the above tabulation, that as you approach critical depth (minimum specific energy), for very small changes in EG there are large jumps in the water surface elevation. The EG is only changing by .001' to 003' while the WSE changes by .02'. A 0.01' difference in EG can cause a 0.10' change in WSE. 5-3 QUICK -2 User's Guide Channel Capacity Formulas 2. CHANNEL CAPACITY In this option, a Normal. Depth elevation (see 3. NORMAL DEPTH) is input and the program com*utes the corresponding discharge. (In the Normal Depth option, the discharge is input and the program computes a normal depth elevation). The Manning's equation is used as the formula for determining the (normal) discharge. Q = 1.486 A (R'"') S" / N Where Q is the discharge (in efs), A is the cross-section area (in square feet), R is the hydraulic radius (in feet), S is the energy slope (in feet./feet), and N is the Manning's roughness value. After the cross --section information (ground points, channel stations, streambed slope, normal depth elevation(s), etc.) has been input, the program simply solves for the area (A) and hydraulic radius (R) below the normal depth elevation (specified by the user) and computes the (normal) discharge directly using the Manning's equation. This is not an iterative process. The screen will display the (normal) discharge (which represents the channel capacity) along with other variables. 5-4 QUICK -2 User's Guide Normal Depth Formulas 3. NORMAL DEPTH The standard formula for determining normal depth in a cross-section is the Manning's formula. Water is flowing at normal depth when the energy grade and the hydraulic grade (water surface) slopes are the same as the stream bed slope. Normal depth profiles occur, in general, when the flow is uniform, steady, one-dimensional, and is riot affected by downstream obstructions or flow changes. The standard Manning's equation is: Q = 1.486 A (R'"') S'S /N Where Q is the discharge (in cfs), A is the cross-section area (in square feet), R is the hydraulic radius (in feet), S is the energy slope (in feet/feet), and N is the Manning's roughness value. The exact method for computing normal depth for a given discharge at a particular cross-section, is to assume that S is equal to the downstream streambed slope and to solve iteratively for the depth (this obviously assumes N is known). The following represents the process that the Normal Depth option of QUICK -2 goes through to calculate normal depth. After the cross-section information (ground points, channel stations, discharge, streambed slope, etc.) has been input, the program starts computing discharge using the Manning's equation at an initial depth of 0.1 foot above the lowest point in the cross-section, and from that point in 0.5 foot. intervals. At some point, the computed discharge will exceed the given target discharge. The program then uses a converging technique to compute a discharge (with a corresponding normal depth) that is within to of the given discharge. At this point the screen will display the actual normal depth water surface elevation (along with other variables). The calculations performed by the program for a given cross-section are listed below. The calculations include the iterations that the program goes through to arrive at normal. depth. ELMIN= 92.5 WSE = 92.6 Q- 260 Computed Q= .023579 below target Q WSE= 93.1 Q- 260 Computed Q= 2.803083 below WSE= 93.6 Q= 260 Computed Q= 14.11313 below WSE= 94.1 Q= 2.60 Computed Q= 38.33264 below WSE= 94.6 Q= 260 Computed Q= 80.01.045 below WSE= 95.1 Q= 260 Computed Q= 146.9773 below WSE= 95.6 Q= 2.60 Computed Q= 245.9516 below WSE= 96.1 Q= 26o Computed Q= 369.2461 above target Q WSE= 95.65697 Q= 260 Computed Q= 258.7531 within to We assume that ... Normal depth = 95.66 for a Discharge (Q) of 260 efs 5-5 QUICK -2 User's Guide Step -Backwater Formulas 4. STEP - BACKWATER The Energy Equation which represents one-dimensional, uniform, and steady flow in open channels is shown below. (1) WSEd + HV, = WSEu + HV„ + HL + OL Where WSE,, is the water surface elevation at the downstream cross-section, HV„ is the velocity head at the downstream cross-section, WSE is the water surface elevation at the upstream cross-section, HV is the velocity head at the upstream cross-section, HL is the friction loss between the two cross-sections, and OL is the eddy (contraction or expansion) loss between the two cross-sections. Velocity Head, HV, is calculated as follows: HV = (a) V' / 2g Where (a) is alpha the velocity coefficient, V is velocity (Q/A), and g is the gravitational constant. Alpha (a) is calculated as follows: (A') K1' Kc' Kr' (a) - ---- --- + --- + --- W) A1' Ac' Ar' f Where A and K are the total area and conveyance below the water surface, respectively; and K1, Kc, Kr and Al., Ac, Ar, are the conveyance and area in the left overbank, channel, and right overbank, respectively. Friction Loss, HL, is calculated as follows: HL = Lw ( Qd + Q� )' / ( Ka + K„ )' Where Lw is the discharge weighted reach length between cross- sections, Q, is the discharge at the downstream cross-section, Q, is the discharge at the upstream cross section, K. is the conveyance at the downstream cross-section, and K is the conveyance at the upstream cross-section. This is derived from the Average Conveyance Friction slope equation. The Discharge Weighted Reach Length, Lw, is calculated as follows: Lw = f(L1 * Ql) + (Lc * Qc) + (Lr * Qr)) / Qa Where Qa is the average total discharge between cross-sections; and, Ll, Lc, Lr, and Ql, Qc, Qr, represent the reach length and average discharge between cross-sections for the left overbank, channel, and right_ overbank, respectively. Eddy Loss, OL, is calculated as follows: OL = ( Ce or Cc) * ABS JHV, - HV„ Where Ce is t:he expansion coefficient, Cc is the contraction coefficient, HV„ is the velocity head at the downstream cross - section, and HV, is the velocity head at the upstream cross-section. When HV„ is greater than HV„ Ce is utilized. When IJV„ is great.e:r than or equal to HV,; Cc is utilized. 5-6 QUICK -2 User's Guide Step -Backwater Formulas After the cross-section information for the first cross-section has been input, either a known water surface elevation is input to start the calculations or the water surface elevat.i.on could have been determined by the Normal or Critical Depth options or by another source or method. The program then computes all pertinent variables for the first cross-section that will be needed for an energy balance with the next upstream cross-section. After this the user must put in the appropriate information for the next cross-section (i.e., ground points, channel stations, reach lengths, contraction and expansion coefficients, etc.). once this is done the program performs a series of trial iterations to make sure that the Energy Equation (1) listed previously will balance to within .014 foot. The sequence of trial elevations is listed below. 1ST TRIAL: Uses the depth of water (DP) of the previous cross-section added to the lowest elevation (ELMIN) within the current cross-section. If DPELMIN is less than the previous WSE (i.e., adverse slope condition) then the program uses the previous WSE for the 1st trial at the current cross-section. 2ND TRIAL: Uses the average of the computed WSE and the WSE assumed in Trial number 1. 3RD TRIAL AND oN .... Uses a formula designed to help converge quickly to balance the energy equation as shown below: Trial WSE = WSE- (WSE+HV-DG-HL-OL)/(1-((Q/QC)')+((1.5*HL)/(A/W))) Where WSE, AV, HL, OL, QC, A, and W are the latest computations of water surface elevation, velocity head, friction loss, eddy loss, critical discharge, total area, and total wetted perimeter, respectively; and, DG is the computed energy grade elevation from the previous cross-section; and, Q is the discharge at the current cross-section. For most energy balances between cross-sections that are not at or near critical flow, the program will balance the energy equation within 5 trials. The calculations performed by the program for an energy balance between two cross-sections are listed below. The calculations include the iterations that the program goes through to arrive at the energy balance. WSE WSE Assumed Calculated Difference Trial # 98.75 98.32489 +.4251099 1 98.53744 98.32472 +.2127228 2 98.32476 98.32513 -.00037 3 We assume that the correct WSE = 98.32 Note: Energy balance in this case was accurate to .00037 foot. 5-7 QUICK -2 User's Guide Definition of Variables Appendix 1: Definition of Variables ACH - Area within the specified channel below the water surface elevation ALOB - Area within the specified left overbank below the water surface elevation AROB - Area within the specified right overbank below the water surface elevation ALPHA - Velocity head coefficient AREA or Area - Total area within the cross-section below the water surface elevation AVG.VEL or Velocity - Average Velocity within the entire cross-section Base Width - Channel bottom width of a trapezoidal or rectangular cross-section Bottom Width - Channel bottom width of a trapezoidal or rectangular cross-section CC - Contraction Coefficient CE - Expansion Coefficient CH -SLOPE - Slope of the streambed, Channel Slope CHAN-VEL or ChanVel - Velocity within the main channel of cross-section Critical Slope - Slope of the Energy Grade line at Critical Flow CWSEL - Computed water surface elevation. within a cross-section Depth - Max depth of water in the cross -sect as measured below the water surface elevation Diameter - Width or Height of a circular pipe Discharge - The rate of the flow of a volume of water within a cross-section, usually expressed :in cubic feet per second (cfs) EG or. EG ELEV - Energy grade elevation, expressed as, WSE + HV EG -Slope - Energy grade slope ELEV - Elev of a ground pt of a cross -sect, as ref to some datum (i.e., NGVD, NAVD, etc.) ELMIN - Lowest elevation in a cross section Flow Regime - Type of water surface profile (Supercritical regimes are not computed) M1: EG -Slope <= Ch -Slope and FR# < .8 M2: EG -Slope > Ch -Slope and FR# < .8 Cl: EG -Slope <= Ch -Slope and FR# >= .8 C3: EG -Slope > Ch -Slope and FR# >= .8 Flow Type - either, Supercritical, Critical or Subcriti.cal Froude#, Froude No., Froud# or FR# - Froude number, used to determine the flow type (i.e., sub- (FR# < 1), critical (FR# = 1) or super -critical (FR# > 1) flow) HL - Friction loss between cross sections HV - Velocity head Hyd Radius or Hyd R - Hydraulic Radius: equal to (Area / Wet Perimeter) A-1 QUICK -2 User's Guide Definition of Variables KRATIO - natio of upstream total conveyance to downstream total. conveyance L Side Slope - Ratio of the slope of the left side of a channel in terms of Horizontal distance in feet to 1 foot Vertical. Manning's n - Coefficient used to account for the friction caused by earthen, vegetative, and/or man-made surfaces within a floodplain cross-section. Max Discharge - The maximum flow possible within a circular pipe, (usually occurring at .94 * Diameter). NCHL, NLOB, NROB - Manning's "N" value for the specified channel, left overbank, and right overbank, respectively. OL - Expansion/contraction loss Q - Total discharge in the cross-section QC - Critical discharge within entire cross-section for a specific water surface elevation QCH - Discharge within the specified channel of a cross-section QIC - Critical discharge within the entire cross-section for a specific water surface elevation, assuming that critical flow is limited to the channel, even if flow i.s occurring in the overbanks QLOB, QROB - Discharge within the specified left overbank, and right overbank, respectively, of a cross-section R Side Slope - Ratio of the slope of the right side of a channel in terms of Horizontal distance in feet to 1 foot Vertical. SECNO - Cross section number or identifier Slope or EG -Slope - Energy grade slope STAT -L, STAT -R - Station, within a cross-section, of the left edge, and right edge, respectively, of the water surface STAT - Station of a ground point of a cross-section STCHL, STCHR, ST-MIDCH - Station of the left bank, .right bank, and mid -point, respectively, of a cross-section Top Width or Top Wid - Top width of the water surface within a cross-section Velocity - Average Velocity within the entire cross-section Wet Perimeter or Wet Per - actual width of ground within a cross-section below the water surface elevation. WS ELEV or CWSEL - Water surface elevation within a crass -section XLCH, XLOB, XROB - Distance between cross-sections as measured along the channel, left overbank, and right overbank, respectively. A-2 Appendix 7 Hydraulic Computer Manuals HEC -2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), "Water Surface Profiles, HEC -2, User's Manual," Davis, California, 1991. HEC -RAS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydraulic Engineering Center (HEC), "HEC -RAS, River Analysis System, User's Manual - Draft," BETA 2 Test Version, Davis, California, February 1995. PSUPRO Federal Emergency Management Agency, "PSUPRO Encroachment Analysis User's Manual", Washington, D.C., 1989. SFD Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Simplified Floodway Determination Computer Program User's Manual", Washington, D.C., 1989. WSPRO U.S. Geological Survey, "Water Surface PROfiles, WSPRO, User's Manual, Reston, Virginia, 1990. WSP2 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, "WSP2 Computer Program User's Manual", Technical Release No. 61, Washington, D.C., 1976. A7-1 Appendix 8 Normal Depth Hand Calculation A8-1 Appendix 8 - continued Normal Depth Hand Calculation A8-2 Appendix 8 - continued Normal Depth Hand Calculation A8 3 Appendix 9 Weir Flow Hand Calculations A9-1 Appendix 9 - continued Weir Flow Hand Calculations A9-2 Appendix 9 - continued Weir Flow Hand Calculations A9-3 Appendix 9 - continued Weir Flow Hand Calculations A9-4 Appendix 10 Worksheet Base Flood Elevations in Zone A Areas Community Name: State: Community ID# Panel #: FIRM Date! Project Identifier ---------- I I__ ------- -------- This request is for: Existing Proposed <5 acres >5 acres Single Lot Multi -Lot <50 lots L >50 lots Other --------APPROACH USED TO DEVELOP THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) ----------------- EXISTING DATA Available Not Available Did Not Check FEMA Federal Other SIMPLIFIED Contour Interpolation Data Extrapolation DETAILED Hydraulics Normal Depth Weir Flow E J Culvert Flow Other Hydrology Regression Equations Rational Formula Discharge -Drainage TR -55 Other Topography Topographic map or Field Survey Map Scale: I" = I Contour, Interval: Field Survey tied to Datum? YES NO N/A Datum: NGVD 1929 Other # Cross -Sections Length of Stream ft- -------------------------------------------- RESULTS ---------------------------------------------- PFE or Depth of 100 -year Flood -------------- - First Floor Elevation or Depth Lowest Adjacent Grade to Structure Lowest Grade on entire Property N/A Matt Martin From: Lewis, Tia M. <TLewis@SCHWABE.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:30 AM To: Matt Martin Subject: Daniels FP Amendments Attachments: Deschutes County Flood Insurance Study part 1.pdf; Deschutes County Flood Insurance Study part 2.pdf HI Matt: We would like to include the attached Flood Insurance Study for Deschutes County (revised 2007) into the record for the Flood Plain Zone amendments. I believe parts of this are already in the record or referenced in the record but we wanted to submit it in complete form for the Board's consideration when addressing the amendments. Thank you, Tia. Schwabe I.Alffliannson & Vilyatt Tia M. Lewis Shareholder Direct: 541-749-4048 Cell: 541-788-7363 tlewis@schwabe.com Ideas fuel industries. Learn more at: www.schwabe.com NOTICE: This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. FLO INSI STU DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER BEND, CITY OF 410056 LA PINE, CITY OF 410057 DESCHUTES COUNTY. UNINCORPORATED AREAS 411105' *REDMOND, CITY OF 410015 SISTERS, CITY OF 410058 * NON -FLOOD PRONE REVISED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Study Number 41017CV000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for the community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways, cross sections). In addition, former flood hazard zone designations have been changed as follows: Old Zone New Zone Al through A30 AE VI through V30 VE B X C X Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS may be revised by a Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. This publication incorporates revisions to the original Flood Insurance Study. These revisions are presented in Section 10.0. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: August 16, 1988 Revised Countywide FIS Dates: June 8, 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS i Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose of Study 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgements 1 1.3 Coordination 1 2.0 AREA STUDIED 2 2.1 Scope of Study 2 2.2 Community Description 3 2.3 Principal Flood Problems 4 2.4 Flood Protection Measures 8 3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS 8 3.1 Hydrologic Analyses 9 3.2 Hydraulic Analyses 12 3.3 Vertical Datum 15 4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 16 4.1 Floodplain Boundaries 17 4.2 Floodways 18 5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATION 31 6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 32 7.0 OTHER STUDIES 32 8.0 LOCATION OF DATA 34 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES 34 10.0 REVISIONS 36 10.1 First Revision 36 10.2 Second Revision 37 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) FIGURES Figure 1 - Floodway Schematic 31 TABLES Table 1 - Summary of Elevations Table 2 - Summary of Discharges Table 3 - Datum Conversion Factors Table 4 - Floodway Data Table S - Community Map History 7 13 16 19-30 33 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Flood Profiles Deschutes River Little Deschutes River Whychus Creek Panels OIP-16P Panels 17P -23P Panels 24P -31P PUBLISHED SEPARATELY Flood Insurance Rate Map Index Flood Insurance Rate Map 11 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON AND INCORPORATED AREAS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Study This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) investigates the existence and severity of flood hazards in the geographic area of Deschutes County, Oregon, including the incorporated Cities of Bend, LaPine, Redmond, and Sisters and the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County (hereinafter referred to collectively as Deschutes County), and aids in the administration of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This study has developed flood risk data for various areas of the community that will be used to establish actuarial flood insurance rates and to assist the community in its efforts to promote sound floodplain management. Minimum floodplain management requirements for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations at 44 CFR, 60.3. Please note that the City of Redmond is noir floodprone. In some states or communities, floodplain management criteria or regulations may exist that are more restrictive or comprehensive than the minimum Federal requirements. In such cases, the more restrictive criteria take precedence; and the State (or other jurisdictional agency) will be able to explain them. 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgements The sources of authority for this FIS are the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for this study were performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Portland District, for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under Interagency Agreement No. IAA-EMW-E- 1153, Project Order No. 1, Amendment No. 29. This study was completed in July 1985. 1.3 Coordination The initial coordination and precontract meeting was held on July 11, 1983, for the incorporated areas of Deschutes County. The meeting was attended by representatives from FEMA, the COE's Portland District, and the County. The intent of the meeting was: first, to inform the county of their status in the NFIP, second, to gather all available pertinent data on flooding in the county and finally, to reach an agreement on areas to be studied. On November 14, 1983, public announcements of the proposed Flood Insurance Study were made available to the local news agencies and the communities in Deschutes County. The announcements informed residents of the study, and requested information that would help identify flood hazard areas and possible high water marks. Coordination continued throughout the processing of this study. In November and December 1983, letters were sent to the Department of Interior -U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Oregon Water Resources Department, Oregon Department of Transportation, and the State Director of the Bureau of Land Management in order to gather available flood information and pertinent flood data. On February 27, 1986, an Intermediate Coordination Meeting was held in the courthouse annex; county planning personnel, representatives of the COE's Portland District, and FEMA officials were present. The work maps showing flooded areas, floodways, and base flood elevations were reviewed by the county. On July 27, 1987, the results of the study were reviewed at the final meeting attended by representatives of the community, FEMA, and the study contractor. The study was acceptable to the community. The results of this new county wide study were reviewed at the final CCO meeting held on December 12, 2006, and attended by representatives of Deschutes County, the City of Sisters, Oregon State Department of Land Conservation and Development, and FEMA. All problems raised at that meeting have been addressed in this study. 2.0 AREA STUDIED 2.1 Scope of Study This FIS covers the geographic area of Deschutes County, Oregon, including the incorporated communities listed in Section 1.l. The following streams were studied by detailed methods and were selected with priority given to all known flood hazard areas and areas of projected development or proposed construction through July 1990: 1. Deschutes River in four separate reaches (25.27 miles) a. Vicinity of Tumalo, River Mile (RM) 156 to 158 (2 miles) b. Vicinity of Bend, RM 162 to 169.5 (7.5 miles) c. Vicinity of Sunriver, RM 185.57 to 195.24 (9.67 miles) d. Vicinity of D.R. Recreational Homesites, RM 201 to 207.1 (6.1 miles) 2. Little Deschutes River (45.2 miles) From its confluence with Deschutes River to the Klamath County line. 3. Whychus Creek (18.6 miles) From the Jefferson County Line upstream to the USGS stream gage at RM 26.6. Portions of some of the above-mentioned reaches lie within the corporate limits of Bend and Sisters. 2 Approximate analyses were used to study the following streams having a low development potential or minimal flood hazards: 1. Deschutes River in four separate reaches (14.3 miles total) a. Between Tumalo and Bend, RM 158-162 (4 miles) b. Upstream of Bend to Meadow Camp Ground, RM 169.5-173.7 (4.2 miles) c. Vicinity of General Patch Bridge, RM 195.5-201 (5.5 miles) d. Vicinity of Pringle Falls (0.6 miles) 2. Paulina Creek from its confluence with Little Deschutes River upstream (6.2 miles) 3. Spring River from its confluence with Deschutes River upstream (1.1 miles) 4. Tributary to Little Deschutes at La Pine from confluence upstream (1.5 miles) An additional flood hazard was identified as a result of the potential Moraine Dam failure of Carver Lake near Sisters, Oregon, based on the USGS report entitled "Hydrologic Hazards along Squaw Creek from a Hypothetical Failure of the Glacier Moraine Impounding Carver Lake near Sister, Oregon" (Reference 2). This information was incorporated for advisory purposes only because of the high, but uncertain, estimate of failure probability for this natural dam. The scope and methods of study were proposed to and agreed upon by representatives FEMA and Deschutes County. 2.2 Community Description Deschutes County is located in central Oregon with Jefferson County bordering the north; Crook County bordering the east; Lake and Klamath Counties bordering the south; the Cascade Mountain Range, Lane, and Linn Counties bordering the west. Located in the heart of the state, Deschutes County encompasses the snow-capped Cascades and the fertile valley, range, and forest lands of the "high country" — or central Oregon plateau. It experienced the most rapid growth of any county in the state during the mid-1970s to mid-1980s, mostly due to its invigorating climate (Reference 3). The county was established December 13, 1916, from a part of Crook County and covers a total area of 3,055 square miles. The Cities of Bend, Sisters, and Redmond are the only incorporated communities in Deschutes County. The City of Bend is located near the center, the City of Sisters is located in the northwestern portion, and the City of Redmond is located in the northeastern portion of the county. The population of Deschutes County in 2004 was 134,479, which was an increase of 16.57% from the 2000 census (Reference 24). In 2003 3 the populations for the Cities of Bend, Sisters, and Redmond were 59,779, 16,822, and 1,156, respectively (Reference 24). The climate is mild with an average January temperature of 31° F and an average July temperature of 63° F at Bend. The annual precipitation is 11.5 inches at Bend (Reference 3), but varies greatly across the county, exceeding 100 inches at the western edge near the Three Sisters Mountains and is less than 10 inches at Redmond, about 16 miles northeast of Bend (Reference 4). The southwestern part of the county, delineated by a line running northwest to southeast through Sisters and just south of Bend, contains pumice sand underlain by highly permeable basalt. These very porous soils of volcanic origin contain a very large volume of water in subsurface storage. The area to the northeast of that imaginary line is not quite as porous but still holds a moderate to large volume of water in subsurface storage (Reference 5). This large amount of subsurface storage has a dampening effect on floodflows, and Deschutes River in Deschutes County has some of the lowest discharge rates per square mile of any comparable size basin in the state. The Cascade Mountain Range lies along the western edge of the county and is covered with evergreen forests consisting of Douglas fir at the higher elevations changing to Ponderosa pine and Lodgepole pine at the lower elevations as one moves eastward. Of the nearly 2 million acres in Deschutes County, 1.75 million acres are in the Deschutes River Basin; and of that amount, just under 340,000 acres are in farm or ranch land with over 80 percent of it being pasture land (Reference 5). Irrigation forms the largest water use in the basin with the majority of the irrigation rights held by irrigation districts in the area encompassing Bend, Redmond, and Sisters. These districts receive water from the direct flow of Deschutes River, Tumalo Creek, and Whychus Creek and from storage in Crescent Lake, Crane Prairie Reservoir and Wickiup Reservoir (Reference 5). 2.3 Principal Flood Problems Obstructions to floodflows increase flood heights, causing more extensive flooding than would otherwise occur. Natural obstructions include trees, brush, or other vegetation growing along the streambanks in the floodway areas. Ice jams are also a potential obstruction to floodflows along the streams. Manmade obstructions include diversion dams, bridges, and road embankments. Floods in the study area may occur several times during a single flood season. Snowmelt floods occur in the spring and early summer when temperatures rise rapidly, causing rapid melting of accumulated snow. During the winter, storms move inland from the Pacific Ocean bringing periods of intense rainfall over the Pacific Northwest. Winter flood are usually caused when the weather suddenly warms while the ground is still frozen, and rainfall melts the snowpack. When flooding occurs during a winter thaw, ice may obstruct floodflows by lodging against bridges or other obstructions along the streams. 4 The canyon reach ipstream of the former log pond formed by Shevlin Dam is conducive to forming frazil ice, which is generated in turbulent open -water areas of a river during critical temperature and velocity conditions. This frazil ice has caused some flooding problems downstream in Bend in the vicinity of Mirror Pond several times since 1973, when the stored logs were removed. Presumably, frazil ice and ice -jams formed upstream of the log pond prior to 1973 but were prevented from moving downstream by the stored logs. The annual flood season for the Deschutes River extends from November through July, with a majority of the larger floods downstream from Little Deschutes River occurring in November and December. Some high water levels result from snowmelt that occurs in late spring or from irrigation releases that occur in June and July. Floods are a possibility whenever the rainfall is abnormally intense or prolonged, especially if the rain falls on an existing snowpack in the surrounding mountains. The flood of record (recorded since June 1938) on the Deschutes River above the Little Deschutes River occurred July 30, 1956. This was a regulated release from Wickiup Reservoir of 2,280 cubic feet per second (cfs) (approximately a 40 -year event). The flood of record on Deschutes River below the Little Deschutes River confluence occurred November 27, 1909, with a discharge of 5,000 cfs at the Benham Falls Stream gage and of 4,820 cfs at the gage below Bend. A natural frequency curve has not been developed for the Deschutes main stem because of the operations of Crane Prairie Reservoir, Crescent Lake, and Wickiup Reservoir, which began in 1922 and 1942, respectively; therefore, no frequency has been assigned to the November 27, 1909, flood. Since 1909 the largest flood below the Little Deschutes River occurred in December 1964, with a discharge of 3,470 cfs at the gage near Benham Falls (RM 181.4). This was approximately a 175 -year flood event. The most significant high water discharge on Deschutes River in the past 15 years upstream of the irrigation diversion dam at RM 164.8 occurred July 23-24, 1976. The release from Wickiup Reservoir (RM 226.8) was 2,140 cfs, and the Benham Falls gage (RM 181.4) recorded 2,780 cfs. The Wickiup Reservoir release was approximately a 7 -year frequency discharge, and the Benham Falls discharge was approximately a 3 -year frequency discharge. The most significant high water in the past 15 years downstream of Bend, Oregon, was 1,820 cfs at RM 164.4 (the Deschutes River below Bend gage station). It occurred March 20, 1972, and was approximately an 8 -year flood. The annual flood season for the Little Deschutes River extends from October through June, with a majority of the floods occurring during the period from April through June. Little Deschutes River generally remains above bankfull stage for 2 to 3 days during winter flood and 6 to 7 days during spring snowmelt floods. The largest flood known to have occurred on Little Deschutes River was that of December 1964, with a peak discharge of 3,660 cfs at the gaging station at RM 28.1, about 1.5 miles north of La Pine. That flood caused considerable nuisance flooding to the ranches along the floodplain and damaged the Stearns Ranch 5 Bridge at RM 28.1. It should be noted that this event was greater than a 0.2 - percent -annual -chance flood. The next two largest floods on Little Deschutes River occurred in June 1950 and May 1956, with discharges of 1,320 cfs, which have an average recurrence interval of 25 years. Both floods peaked about 0.7 feet lower than the December 1964 flood at the gaging station near La Pine. Flood damages from those floods, including the severe December 1964 flood, were minor due to the undeveloped character of the Little Deschutes River floodplain. There are 10 bridges crossing Little Deschutes River in the study reach in Deschutes County. Pertinent information on the under -clearance of those bridges indicates that the only bridge in the study reach that would be overtopped by the 1 -percent -annual -chance flood is the Ranch Bridge at RM 15.1. A 0.2 -percent - annual -chance flood, however, would overtop the Vandervert Ranch Bridge at RM 3.1, Lazy River South Ranch Bridge at RM 16.6, Stearns Ranch Bridge at RM 28.1, and the Masten Bridge at RM 39.9. The approaches to those bridges may also be subject to flooding during periods of high water. The annual flood season for Whychus Creek extends from November through April, with all of the larger floods occurring in November and December. The largest flood known to have occurred on Whychus Creek since records have been kept caused considerable flooding in the study area and occurred December 25, 1980, with a discharge of 2,000 cfs at the USGS stream gage station at RM 26.6. The return interval for the flood was 80 years. The next largest food known to have occurred on Whychus Creek was that of December 1964, with a peak discharge of 1,980 cfs. This flood also had an average recurrence interval of 80 years. Debris deposition on agricultural land damaged irrigation diversion works; the flood also caused extensive personal property damage in Sisters and extensive bank erosion. The third largest flood on Whychus Creek occurred in November 1968, with a peak discharge of 1,840 cfs and an average recurrence interval of 60 years. There are 12 bridges crossing Whychus Creek in the study reach. The only bridges in the study reach that would be overtopped by the 1 -percent -annual - chance flood are the Ranch Bridge at RM 16.3 and the Elm Street Bridge in Sisters at RM 21.8. A 0.2-percent-annu6chance Ilood, however, would also overtop the Ranch Bridges at RM 19.3 and RM 19.4. The approaches to all the bridges in the study reach are subject to overtopping. The Whychus Creek study reach also contains four irrigation diversion structures; three of which are presently in use. They are located at RM 21.7, RM 23.0, and RM 24.8. High velocity channel flow can deposit heavy accumulations of debris, gravel, and cobbles against these structures prior to a flood crest. This sudden partial blockage of the floodflow could result in increased water levels as far as 1,500 feet upstream of the structure. In the stream corridor of Whychus Creek, obstructions to floodflows present an additional hazard. The unconsolidated volcanic deposits that make up the streambed and its banks offer little resistance to erosion. During flooding, any Nil large debris accumulation in the channel can divert the flow sufficiently to erode one or both streambanks. If the areas beyond the streambanks are at the same or lower elevations than the streambank, much larger areas become susceptible to flooding. An additional flood hazard along Whychus Creek results from the potential Moraine Dam failure of Carver Lake near Sisters, Oregon. As compared to other lakes in the Three Sister area in Central Oregon, Carver Lake is large and deep, and contains approximately 740 acre feet of water. Carver Lake Moraine Dam failure can occur in numerous ways, such as avalanches of rock and ice that could cause the lake to overtop; the material in the Carver Lake Moraine Dam generally consists of sand and gravel size particles that are loosely consolidated and thus unstable; and the possibility of seismic activities exists, which increases the probability for avalanches to occur. Three Carver Lake Moraine Dam failures have been observed in the Three Sisters area during the last 50 years. The Summary of Elevations for the Carver Lake Moraine Dam Failure is described in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of Elevations Carver Lake Moraine Dam Failure FIS Cross Sections' Distance2 Elevations' (Miles) (Feet NAVD) G 9.8 2,675 S 14.0 2,856 Al 18.8 3,073 AP 20.1 3,129 AR 20.8 3,157 AT 21.3 3,180 AV 21.5 3,188 AY 22.0 3,207 BC 22.8 3,253 BD 23.0 3,262 BL 24.8 3,382 BM 24.9 3,393 BQ 26.6 3,517 'Cross section lettering corresponds to that shown in the Floodway Data Table (Table 4) for Whychus Creek 2Stream distance in miles above mouth 3Elevations due to possible Carver Lake Moraine Dam failure. For the stream studied by approximate methods, only the 1 -percent -annual chance floodplain boundary is shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). 7 2.4 Flood Protection Measures There are three water storage reservoirs in the upper Deschutes basin (i.e., Crane Prairie, Wickiup, and Crescent Lake) that are operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Although there is no flood control storage authorized for these three reservoirs, the large amount of irrigation storage available does, in fact, reduce winter and spring flows downstream. There are a series of irrigation diversion structures located on the Deschutes River and Whychus Creek. The structures are used to divert some of the flow for irrigation purposes. Although the total flow is reduced, they are not considered to be recognized flood control devices. In November 1984, the City of Bend built a log and chain ice boom across the Deschutes River about 300 feet upstream of the Colorado Avenue Bridge and Shevlin Dam, near RM 167.62. The purpose was to intercept and hold frazil ice floes, preventing them from reaching Mirror Pond downstream of Shevlin Dam where they could form an ice jam and cause significant overbank flooding in residential areas as occurred in December 1983. The COE has determined that this log and chain ice boom would be structurally inadequate to resist the estimated force from a major ice jam and consequently recommended, under its small project authority, the construction of a stronger ice boom at RM 168.15, about 0.5 miles upstream of the city's log boom. Construction was completed in December 1987. The maps and profiles show the floodplain boundaries and elevations expected with the ice boom in place and functioning. There are no existing levees or other flood control projects which would reduce flooding on Deschutes River, little Deschutes River, or Whychus Creek. Nonstructural measures, however, are being used to aid in the prevention of future flood damage. These are in the form of an ordinance (Number Plr 15) adopted by the County in May 1979, authorizing the County to cortrol future development or redevelopment within the flood hazard zone outside the urban growth area (UGA) of all incorporated jurisdictions. Each city has its own UGA ordinance that the County administers. The County requires building permits for constnution and reviews those permits to assure that sites are reasonably safe from flooding. 3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS For all the flooding sources studied by detailed methods in the community, standard hydrologic and hydraulic study methods were used to determine the flood hazard data required for this study. Flood events of a magnitude which are expected to be equaled or exceeded once on the average during any 10-, 50-, 100 - or 500 -year period (recurrence interval) have been selected as having special significance for floodplain management and for flood insurance rates. These events, commonly termed the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500 -year floods, have a 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2 -percent chance, respectively, of being equaled or exceeded during any year. Although the recurrence interval represents the long-term average period between floods of a specific magnitude, rare floods could occur at short intervals or even within the same year. The risk of experiencing a rare flood increases when periods greater than 1 year are considered. For example, the risk of having a flood which equals or exceeds the 100 -year flood (1 -percent -chance of annual exceedence) in any 50 -year period is approximately 40 percent (4 in 10), and for any 90 -year period, the risk increases to approximately 60 percent (6 in 10). The analyses reported herein reflect flooding potentials based on conditions existing in the community at the time of completion of this study. Maps and flood elevations will be amended periodically to reflect future changes. 3.1 Hydrologic Analyses Hydrologic analyses were carried out to establish peak discharge -frequency relationships for each flooding source studied by detailed methods affecting the community. The upper Deschutes sub -basin, including all of the Deschutes watershed above the stream gage below Bend, contains 1,899 square miles, which is about 18 percent of the total area of the Deschutes Basin. The sub -basin is bounded on the west by the Cascade Range, on the south by the divide between the Deschutes and Klamath Basins, on the east by the Walker Rim, Crater Buttes, and Paulina Mountains, and on the north by the arbitrary divide which extends from the Paulina Mountains through Bend to the Three Sisters in the Cascades (Reference 5). In general, the Deschutes River is subject to high water levels due to spring snowmelt. In only two years, 1944 and 1964, out of the 42 years since the river has been regulated by all three storage projects (Wickiup [1942], Crane Prairie [1922], and Crescent Lake [1922]), was the peak discharge caused primarily by rainfall. Because there were only two significant rain -on -snow events, it was determined that a reliable rain -on -snow discharge -frequency curve could not be derived. The three reservoirs regulate approximately 540 square miles, or 33 percent, of the area of the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers above their confluence (Reference 6). For this reason and because of numerous irrigation withdrawals, it was determined that frequency curves based on observed data best represent present-day conditions. These curves were developed in May 1984 using the "Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency" (Reference 7) and computed probability, unless otherwise described herein. For the Deschutes River area downstream of Wickiup Dam, an irrigation water - storage reservoir operating since 1943, analysis of the outflow from Wickiup Dam revealed only non -winter annual peak flood events. A frequency curve was plotted (by using Weibull plotting position method). The 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2 - percent -annual -chance discharges at Wickiup Dam outflow were used for the Deschutes River reach downstream to the confluence with Fall River. No adjustment for increased drainage area was made since these are irrigation releases and not discharges from storm events. [7 For Deschutes River in the vicinity of Deschutes River Recreation Homesites (above Little Deschutes River and below Fall Creek) Wickiup Reservoir releases were amplified by mean daily flow in Fall Creek. RM 204.7 is the confluence point between the Deschutes and Fall Rivers (D.A. = 45.1). The discharges used downstream of this confluence were determined from a frequency curve developed by using the Wickiup Dam outflow frequency curve and adding the mean daily flow from Fall River for each of the days of the six largest observed peaks from Wickiup Dam. A graphical analysis was used to draw the frequency curve through these points. Because only 10- to 0.2-percent-annual-chance discharges were of interest, only observed peaks greater than the 12.5-percent- annual chance (8-year) discharge frequency were used. These discharges were used throughout the reach of RM 204.7 to RM 192.5, the confluence with Little Deschutes River. For Deschutes River downstream of the Little Deschutes River to RM 164.8, frequency discharges from the USGS stream gage station near Benham Falls were used. The frequency curve for the Benham Falls gage was developed in February 1978 for Flood Plain Information purposes using U.S. Water Resources Council Bulletin No. 17, "Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency," published in March 1976 (Reference 8). It was observed that the 1978 curve is still an accurate representation of the flows at Benham Falls when it was compared to a new curve developed for all the flows through 1982. Three major irrigation diversions are located at RM 164.8 in Bend. Therefore, the discharges used as the frequency flows for the reach from RM 164.8 to RM 162, were determined from the USGS stream gage (RM 164.4) on the Deschutes River below Bend. For the reach of Deschutes River downstream of the City of Bend, and Tumalo Creek, the frequency curve was developed first, by using USGS stream gage data for the Deschutes River below Bend, to develop a frequency curve (of regulated flows), and second, by taking the five highest peak discharges at Bend and adding the mean daily flow in Tumalo Creek for each of those days. Graphical analysis was used to scribe a curve through the points to develop the frequency curve. Only observed peaks of greater than 12.5-percent- annual- chance (8-year) discharge frequency were used, because of interest only in the 10- to 0.2-percent- annual-chance discharges. The peak flows for Little Deschutes River were developed in August and November 1976 from a statistical analysis of streamflow, precipitation records, and runoff characteristics for the general region of the study area (Reference 8). Fifty years of continuous streamflow records on Little Deschutes River near La Pine (1925-1974) were used to accomplish this analysis. Hydrologic analysis for Whychus Creek was carried out in December 1976 to establish peak discharge-frequency relationships for the USGS Gage No. 14075000, Whychus Creek near Sisters, Oregon. The period of record from 1926 to 1975 (50 years) was used in the derivations of a fall and winter curve and a 10 spring and summer curve (Reference 8). Data from 1906 to 1920 were available but not used due to the uncertainty and discontinuity of these data. Frequencies for these discharges were taken from the fall and winter discharge - frequency curve. The largest floods occur during the fall and winter period. The probability of failure for Carver Lake was estimated by the USGS to be 1 to 5 percent for any given year and would be expected to occur from June to October (Reference 2). A dam -break computer model was used to simulate a hypothetical failure of the Carver Lake Moraine Dam. In the most extreme case, an initial peak discharge of 180,000 cfs would result from total displacement of the lake water by avalanche material. For the hypothetical scenario, it was assumed that the flow would bulk up to a sediment concentration of 50 percent by volume (hyperconcentration) in the section between the breach and the end of the steeply sloping canyons, a distance of 8 miles. Debulking of the flood was assumed to occur in overflow sections of valley and debris -fan segments. Initial flood hydrographs were routed downstream using a one-dimensional unstead)4state streamflow model that incorporated field determinations of Manning's "n" coefficients to allow for hyperconcentrated flow. In the vicinity of the USGS gage (15.4 miles downstream from the take), routing of the scenarios simulated estimated flood peak discharge of 21,000 cfs. In comparison all simulated flood peak discharges were greater than that of a 1 -percent -annual -chance flood from high precipitation or snowmelt. The 1 -percent -annual -chance flood is used for comparison of peak magnitude only; the probability of occurrence is from a different statistical population. Three potential channels of flow were defined for the alluvial fan where the community of Sisters is located. Flow could occur almost anywhere on the alluvial fan because of channel shifting that accompanies local scour and damming. It was assumed fiat about 75 percent of the total flow would be diverted in the main channel of Whychus Creek towards Sisters. The hypothetical -flood scenario resulted in estimated discharges of 9,800 cfs, at RM 20.5 in Sisters along the main channel. In the remaining channels about 3,000 and 1,000 cfs respectively, would start to flow down Whychus Creek Ditch, an abandoned channel (now used as a ditch), and down Whychus Creek Canal; but these flows probably would attenuate rapidly. The community of Sisters would begin lo experience rising flood water about 1.8 hours after the dam breach; the flood peak would arrive about 30 minutes later. In Sisters, locally high velocities, damming, erosion, and sediment deposition could cause considerable property damage and possible loss of life. The stream would be especially dangerous at road crossings where bridges may fail or sections wash away. Frazil ice, which has caused flooding problems on Deschutes River, is generated in turbulent open -water areas of a river having velocities in excess of 2.0 to 2.5 feet per second, when water temperatures are a few hundredths of a degree below the freezing point. Prolonged cold spells of below 0° temperatures, low relative 11 humidity, and high wind velocity can supercool water to below its feezing point. Frazil ice consists of small discoid shaped crystals of ice which are adhesive and readily attach to objects in the channel such as rocks and logs. Frazil ice that does not become attached to objects flocculates and rises to the surface. In slower moving reaches and the calm water of ponds, these "flocs" freeze together and form clumps of slush ice which then form ice pans. These ice pans grow large enough to be considered as ice floes. This moving layer of the mixture of floes, slush, and water may develop into a continuous ice cover if initiated by the formation of an ice bridge at an artificial obstacle such as a dam or an ice boom. The water will continue to move beneath the ice cover until the leading edge progresses upstream to a point where the channel becomes shallow enough and the velocity fast enough that the incoming ice floes are forced under the ice cover. This "thickening" of the ice cover can continue until an ice jam occurs. Elevations from the December 1983 ice jam flood on Deschutes River were used to help determine which flow rate to use for ice jam flooding. Pictures and level surveys in the right overbank at approximate RM 167.4 indicated an elevation of 3,603.1 feet North American Vertical Datum (N AVD) for the 1983 ice jam flood. Mean monthly flows for December and January at Benham Falls, the nearest gage upstream from Bend, have ranged between 560 and 1,540 cfs for the past 12 years. It was thought that flows in Deschutes River during the December 1983 ice jam flood were about 1,000 cfs. However, this flow rate gave a flood elevation lower than the 1983 event. The flow rate of 1,540 cfs, therefore, was used to determine the level of ice at the time of ice jam formation, then was used again to determine the level of floodwater over the ice cover for an assumed jammed condition. This produced an elevation at RM 167.44 within 0.1 foot of the 1983 high water mark. Both a lack of records on ice jam flooding, other than the December 1983 event, and limited stream gage records of ice jam formation (12 years) make the assigning of a frequency to icing conditions impractical. Peak discharge -drainage area relationships for the 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2 -percent - annual -chance floods of each flooding source studied by detailed methods in the community are shown in Table 2. 3.2 Hydraulic Analyses Analyses of the hydraulic characteristics of flooding from the sources studied were carried out to provide estimates of the elevations of floods of the selected exceedance probabilities. Users should be aware that flood elevations shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) represent rounded whole -foot elevations and may not exactly reflect the elevations shown on the Flood Profiles or in the Floodway Data tables in the FIS report. Flood elevations shown on the FIRM are primarily intended for flood insurance ratings purposes. For construction and/or floodplain purposes, users are cautioned to use the flood elevation data presented in this FIS in conjunction with the data shown on the FIRM. Locations of selected cross sections used in the hydraulic analyses are shown on the Flood Profiles (Exhibit 1). For stream segments where a floodway was 12 c as u O O p 0 O O O O O O 0000 i. d v1 O N N N N r O �o 0 M C l° 00 O c1' O Q, .-• 00 M N C M M M N N N V M M Nr- \0 M M C C � C Q o n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G O 00 p O 0 00 N m O N M O 00 N N u m p„ .G w � C a 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 V1 V1 O 0 0 0 0 M v1 h 0 0 8 0 O 00 O t� m L N N M N N N N N^ - A � N 0. y V w i V O O O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 ve N t- O O O N m Q, t-- C' Kl M N ^ O C N M N N N r- .; � N �" .� C3 ffi •d Opp pia O� 00 �D CC vm1 U kn cq 0 O� Vl 7 L � Q d O �r) V1 tl tl O It— N M 00 00 10 L. N U O O p kn N N pN N N N a) a� N L Q Cd � U a o 13 Aw Cyr Ay w w y w° ° o >° o C ; p° o o H CC Z x W ti 4 Z S N b A +°. o o p W 33 o o sa 3 b v b on ox q Q saQ91. A o b A ai y b cn �O U>xQQ�� ,o a w A 3 computed (Section 4.2), selected cross section locations are also shown on the FIRM. Orthophoto topographic maps were developed from aerial photography and field control. Cross sections of the channel and overbank areas for all the streams were determined by a combination of field survey and photogrammetry methods. Field surveys were taken of the channel area and at least fifty feet to each side of the channel. These field surveys were conducted in November 1975 for Little Deschutes River, with some supplemental bridge surveys taken in February 1977. Cross sections for Deschutes River were surveyed in July and August 1984. Cross sections for Whychus Creek were surveyed in November 1976 and were extended 100 feet to each side of the channel. Bridges and dams were field surveyed where no "as built" drawings existed. Where `as built" drawings were available, their elevation datum was checked by field survey. The approximate analyses were done using Normal Depth Calculation with cross sections spaced farther apart than detailed cross sections. Hydraulic analyses for Deschutes River, Little Deschutes River, and Whychus Creek were performed using the COE HEC -2 step -backwater computer program (References 9). The models were calibrated using engineering judgment and information about past flooding events from local officials and residents along the three streams. Roughness factors (Mannings "n") used in the hydraulic computations were chosen by engineering judgment and field observations of the stream and floodplain areas. Roughness values for the main channel of Whychus Creek ranged from 0.037 to 0.048, while the floodplain roughness values ranged from 0.05 to 0.12 for all floods. For Little Deschutes River, those "n" values varied from 0.030 to 0.055 for the channel and 0.042 to 0.15 for the overbanks. The "n" values generally increase going upstream. For Deschutes River, a channel roughness coefficient of 0.043 was generally used, while most overbank areas were assigned a value of 0.12 due to heavy brush or existing structures. In the Deschutes River Recreation Homesites area, the channel "n" was increased to 0.048 due to the pronounced and more severe meanders. Starting water -surface elevations were determined by slope area method where the starting slope was estimated from a combination of field notes, topographical maps, and the use of dummy cross sections downstream of the first surveyed cross section. For Little Deschutes River, three dummy cross sections with the same configurations as the first surveyed section and set on a slope equal to that between the first two surveyed sections were used. The starting water -surface elevation was considered satisfactory when the water depths for the various floods were the same at the first surveyed sections as for the dummy sections. Since it was probable that the ice boom proposed by the COE would be constructed within 12 months after the submission of this study, the effect of that ice boom was considered in determining the flood elevations upstream of its 14 location at RM 168.15. The discharge of 1,540 cfs estimated for the December 1983 ice jam condition (see Section 3.1) was used to first calculate the water level during icing conditions and then to determine the flood water level on top of an ice cover after the ice jam forms farther upstream, assumed to occur at about RM 169.4. The hydraulic analysis for the Carver Lake Moraine Dam failure was based on the most extreme failure scenario simulated by the USGS using a dam break computer model (Reference 2). The proposed dam failure flood profile and floodplain boundary delineations along Whychus Creek are provided for advisory purposes only; no additional flood insurance or floodplain management measures are associated with this information. With the experience of ice jam flooding on Deschutes River, the hydraulic analyses for this study were based on unobstructed flow. The flood elevations shown on the Flood Profiles (Exhibit 1) are thus considered valid only if hydraulic structures remain unobstructed, operate properly, and do not fail. 3.3 Vertical Datum All FIS reports and FIRMs are referenced to a specific vertical datum. The vertical datum provides a starting point against which flood, ground, and structure elevations can be referenced and compared. Until recently, the standard vertical datum used for newly created or revised FIS reports and FIRMS was the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). With the completion of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), many FIS reports and FIRMS are now prepared using NAVD88 as the referenced vertical datum. To accurately convert flood elevations for Deschutes River, Little Deschutes River, and Whychus Creek from the current NGVD29 datum to the newer NAVD88 datum, the following procedure was implemented. Locations at the upstream and downstream ends of each flooding source, as well as at an intermediate location between these two end points, were evaluated using the COE CORPSCON (Reference 23) vertical datum conversion software. At each of the three points CORPSCON calculated the difference between the NGVD29 and NAVD88 elevations. These three conversion factors were averaged to develop an average conversion factor for each flooding source. The final NAVD88 elevations reported herein were computed by adding the calculated average conversion factor to the existing NGVD29 data (Reference 23). Table 3 shows the conversion factor for each stream studied in detail. 15 Table 3. Datum Conversion Factors Conversion from NGVD29 to NAVD88 (ft) Minimum Maximum Average Maximtun Stream Name Conversion Conversion Conversion' Offset Deschutes River 3.79 3.99 3.90 0.11 Little Deschutes River 3.92 4.08 4.01 0.09 Whychus Creek 3.66 3.88 3.76 0.12 1 Used to convert elevation data from NGVD29 to NAVD88 Flood elevations shown in this FIS report and on the FIRM are referenced to the NAVD88. These flood elevations must be compared to structure and ground elevations referenced to the same vertical datum. For information regarding conversion between the NGVD29 and NAVD88, visit the National Geodetic Survey website at www.nas.noaa.gov, or contact the National Geodetic Survey at the following address: NGS Information Services NOAH, N/NGS 12 National Geodetic Survey SSMC -3, #9202 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3282 (301) 713-3242 (301) 713-4172 (fax) Temporary vertical monuments are often established during the preparation of a flood hazard analysis for the purpose of establishing local vertical control. Although these monuments are not shown on the FIRM, they may be found in the Technical Support Data Notebook associated with the FIS report and FIRM for this community. Interested individuals may contact FEMA to access these data. To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for benchmarks shown on this map, please contact the Information Services Branch of the NGS at (301) 71.3-3242, or visit their website at wuv�v.n,g_s,noaa.aov. 4.0 FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS The NFIP encourages state and local governments to adopt sound floodplain management programs. To assist in this endeavor, each FIS report provides I- percent- ann ual-chance floodplain data, which may include a combination of the following: 10-, 2-, 1, and 0.2-percent-annual-cliance flood elevations; delineations of the 1- and 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floodplains; and a 1 -percent -annual - chance floodway. This information is presented on the FIRM and in many components of the FIS report, including Flood Profiles and Floodway Data tables. Users should reference the data presented in the FIS report as well as additional 16 information that may be available at the local community map repository before making flood elevation and/or floodplain boundary determinations. 4.1 Floodplain Boundaries To provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the 1-percent- annu6chance flood was been adopted by FEMA as the base flood for floodplain management purposes. The 0.2 -percent -annual -chance flood is employed to indicate additional areas of flood risk in the community. For each stream studied by detailed methods, the 1- and 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floodplain boundaries have been delineated using the flood elevations determined at each cross section. Between cross sections, the boundaries for Deschutes River were interpolated using FIS work maps at a scale of 1:4,800, with a contour interval of 4 feet, except in the City of Bend. For the Deschutes River in the City of Bend, the boundaries of the 1 -percent -chance -flood were redelineated using contours at a scale of 1:1,200 and an interval of 2 feet. For Little Deschutes River and Whychus Creek, the boundaries were interpolated using orthophoto topographic maps at a scale of 1:6,000, with a contour interval of 5 feet (References 10, 11, and 12). The cross sections for approximate flooding were interpolated using topographic maps at a scale of 1:24,000 prepared from the same aerial photography (Reference 13). The 1- and 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floodplain boundaries are shown on the FIRM. On this map, the 1 -percent -annual -chance floodplain boundary corresponds to the boundary of the areas of special flood hazards (Zones A and AE); and the 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floodplain boundary corresponds to the boundary of areas of moderate flood hazards. In cases where the 1- and 0.2 - percent -annual -chance floodplain boundaries are close together, only the 1 - percent -annual -chance floodplain boundary has been shown. Small areas within the floodplain boundaries may lie above the flood elevations but cannot be shown due to limitations of the map scale and/or lack of detailed topographic data. For the streams studied by approximate methods, only the 1 -percent -annual - chance floodplain boundary is shown on the FIRM. The floodplain boundary delineations representing the proposed Carver Lake Moraine Dam failure along Whychus Creek were based on the USGS open file report 87-41 (Reference 2) and orthophoto topographic maps at a scale of 1:6,000, with a contour interval of 5 feet (Reference 12). The RM stations and corresponding elevations as shown in Table 1 identified in the USGS report were correlated to the appropriate cross sections from the detailed study of Whychus Creek. Between cross sections, the Carver Lake Moraine Dam failure delineations were interpolated using the above -referenced orthophoto topography maps. In areas where the Carver Lake Moraine Dam failure delineation corresponded to either the 1- or 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floodplain boundaries, only the 1-percent-annu6chance floodplain boundaries were shown. 17 4.2 Floodways Encroachment on floodplains, such as structures and fill, reduces flood -carrying capacity, increases flood heights and velocities, and increases flood hazards in areas beyond the encroachment itself. One aspect of floodplain management involves balancing the economic gain from floodplain development against the resulting increase in flood hazard. For purposes of the NFIP, a floodway is used as a tool to assist Iocal communities in this aspect of floodplain management. Under this concept, the area of the I -percent -annus -chance floodplain is divided into a floodway and a floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a stream, plus any adjacent floodplain areas, that must be kept free of encroachment so that the base flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. Minimum Federal standards limit such increases to 1.0 foot, provided that hazardous velocities are not produced. The floodways in this study are presented to local agencies as minimum standards that can be adopted directly or that can be used as a basis for additional floodway studies. The floodways presented in this study were computed for certain stream segments on the basis of equal conveyance reduction from each side of the floodplain. Floodway widths were computed at cross sections. Between cross sections, the floodway boundaries were interpolated. The results of the floodway computations are tabulated at selected cross sections (Table 4). The large number of cross sections on Deschutes River with a zero or small rise in water surface is caused by several factors. In the reaches downstream (just north) of and upstream (just south) of Bend, the 1-percent-annua) chance floodplain is narrow, and the floodway limits are at the tops of banks which generally do not exceed the I- percent- annual- chance floodplain width. This is also the situation at the downstream part of the Tumalo reach. In the reach at Deschutes River Recreation Homesites area, the floodway was not restricted any more in order to maintain efficient flow lines between the outside of channel's meander lines. This was based upon engineering judgment. For Whychus Creek, the many cross sections with zero or small rise in water surface, sometimes alternating with large rises, resulted because critical or supercritical depth occurred, and the energy grade line was used as the limiting factor. In cases where the floodway and 1 -percent -annual chance floodplain boundaries are either close together or collinear, only the floodway boundary has been shown. In some areas along the Deschutes River, Little Deschutes River, or Whychus Creek the stream has moved significantly, causing the existing floodplain boundary configuration to no longer fit the stream location as shown on 2005 ortho imagery. In these areas the existing floodway boundaries were adjusted to fit the current stream. The regulatory floodway boundary configuration relative to the current stream data was maintained, wherever possible. In this manner, the regulatory floodway contains the current stream. 18 W O Cn U7 r 0 0� n 0 to O O O N N O O O tWY tLL O O O O O O O O r 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O U 0 0 0 U Z D OF a ° ui Q to to CA O t0 q I� M r 0 f� ti to O CO r M ci Q Z } Z O N OO 00 O r V i� M O — M to m n W N �' O O r tY fM CO '� V' � O to f0 OD l0 OO O !- � n n n h I� ao ao ao tS) ao W N M p (p M W? O W r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r M M i J J W U W � LL J W QQ LL Z� a� D � Q �"' W 1— � O 2 O N OCi O r 1� OO 6i M `7 � tp N OM to O r w co w c� 000 t� n r � � r- ao ao ao 0 ao �i tai chi 4 w D_� Z W _ F. O h r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r M M M Q' W 1-- O W c6 t+i M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M > }Q W ~ W a 7 G m S O CA FO Q 00 � O (O f`� O N 00 O N r OD h O V (O r h 1-- M a0 00 . Z �(�pOp t�) v to CO CCI to pp �j N M CO (D OO CO t0 CO tD h f� � � � W to � N � LL W .�- fh �'t d' st M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Cr) � tom. ~ W Z a U N W C-4 -T to OD Cl) M V V to O ap M O to O DD tf'l N to W N O CO r r O O W O h � OD �]' ti � �' � � tf') o'a tC) � � V' tC) t0 Co tf) C O � � W W > tWi Q LLJ � Q W W ^�� m �p C39 O to tf7 r M M N M� CO (r) r- M h O r V� N to M m N m V N V O RC1 N CO O LL W a _O O (p CO OD O) p N N Cl) co Cl) (o (D N� t17 OV 47 Ot r til CO �f co co N N N M N N N 0 O M N LL 2 p W V M O � N� O �' n� r� M O �!' � to O to N M n CO O M O M r` O r 0�V M M W LL r r r r r r r N N r r r U 2 O uj a N � z L z 4 Z 'ITm a � O � N � tit � � � � A uj st tM9, ONO V: � W W co Lo 0 Co Co 10 Co � F-- � n n h N I, O�pp CV GV fV fV CV M to to to to tt� tp m to to tD to t0 (� CO OO t0 CO CO r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r �- r V It cn C.) s o U a O Z, W Ir N W w z W 2 0 J a pN �¢mUowLLC9=--�Y �2zOaCiwu�►-»�x>-ri CO) LL D ° E o W LL N m aNi TABLE 4 cn = U O U W i W y W W O O O O ti O r r N N 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U � 0 0 tO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O? 0 0 0 000 t3 0 0 0 0 Z Q 0 Z lJL 0 Q Lfl CD V' V tq M N M C N 0 CD h O N M CO q� � tp OD O n O CV (V N � 00 d" C et' � OG � CV N W OD � � Qf QW � O f-- � V v Q OV � � �n to 1r0 ClN7 uNi � s s � 8 s urs [� � N � u0'� u07 0 = J W � W cM M M ri M CM M M M cM t7 M c+S M CM M M M M M M M M M M M U W W U-tL J Q U � LL Q� �� J h CO O 01 W N co N O O N r� 0 CO Q W � a� Z U Z S � O � O m co O CD t� O N co ��pp 0 0) el' I� pp t� O �� N� a0 � M '�t N N W M. 0 p1 CD 1� to fA 0 0 0 N N N � � � O W t� co O O) O) W O 01 �_ W Q� 1- p W v_ v_ a V' d: � �fi N N u) t[1 � 0 q L[) Ct) tp to O to � t0 u7 to U7 CC) M M M M M M M M' M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M CM 0 :W.i a• > LUJ L UJ � } T O O U I� c0 O N a0 N O Cp N r at V fD O M V: OD O (p n O N M ms O O J W e p �Mt n OD W� O O� � r N N N c0 ��� CMD r OND OND OMi (01)) CM) LL � W � � � � � � � � tt�� �A t0 i[1 Cn CD � uD Cn M M M M Cl) Cl) C7 M CO M M M M ['7 M M M M M M M Cl) M Cl) M M Cl) � LL U Z W U Cn - N r 1� tf1 � CV tP V' N tf1 O I- r M M r O� N r CD M M S f� fUJ W N � In ti 1fJ � r. lC1 Ch � Q1 to CV Cry Q� r r r (*j W U W W O M CD 1�- O t� tCJ Q O � � � V' N � to � 001 00 M N ti CD V r 0 M � M O 0 W Q C7 d) O M O � M to (D CO � O N N V' M CD N Cn (D O N N W N lV r r M CO r (V N r r N N J CO N LL O W R ltj � t� � coOA N N LLN7 t00 � '�O' N M N r M C rLU M Q > O Z z Q ` z rr W ui 2 w Z a U Z _ _ N t� N N M M O M M f+ tq N M M CA r W 0 O N M to CO 1� M r M 0) M �T W ¢ F— M M M M M M M �' s{ V' 'sf d' tt) tri tp � �D 1A t0 W O CD CO Cp CO O t0 O CD CD tD O � CO � O CD CO O CD CO CD O rfl CO cD t0 O CD (p zoo CO r r r r r r r r r r r r r N a O z N � U z W Z O O F � w m W = O a w U o w LL -5 J g z o a C3 a m i>>? >- N LL y = E Lu O LL U w TABLE 4 i E o w W W O O O O O O O O O r O O er MV� M M M N N U LL O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z O O Oz LL O W F } O Q V 00 1� Q1 ti 0 N 0 O N Q) r V N C7 m O r N V 0� 0p r ch tq U � Sa}y F- O 2 O F m Ln u> �n w � 0 0 0 uLU ) �n � uO1i � � � � m m c0D m cD co m cD � � C6 C6 c'i c7 c'i ri co co ri M v v v = W U W +L LL c6 c�i ri ri c-i M c+i s{ v" Vi v v v vt JW QU B LL Z N j I V00hD1f`00NCOr(nrMN6l01 tt7 1� D) O NO a F w Z0 OOrtVCM O In.o��pp��ppS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 �_ ~ O W 0 to In to 1() � � � CO � � � r �- �- r r r r r WH � - - - � Q�� c} �? � � a W a O � y S U CO fpm h OD N V; M co r M Lppp�� mil) . CO � (3 � (O :- ttl i- Cn J N g Z pm p�p� pN� �Op O O O O O r r N CV M M t` r LL W O O W (O CO CD (D CO CO CO m f0 � (O CO CND_ r r r r r r r r M M M CM M C`7 M M M M M M M M M M� � LL C1 Z w � W W M M N (V r .- M -/' r r - CV CV r r > LL E a O Z F O Q W F W w _ h O OD e} O N Ln OD 14- O tt) V U m rn o O O r � � CN � � O � CO � M In OD 0- 07 m m m m m m m 0] m m m m m m 0] m m m m m m m m 5 LJ1. O W Q w � -7 N r r r r r r N N N CV r N N N J y d (A p � U. v' i 0 pp �p �j M Cl) O O to -Na 8 P C C O U E R _p w N VW' M � o M N� O r� N3 Cl) N N 000 tND N c Z E N LUW `0^ T F [r w r f UJ Z a U Z _ N M tf) t- O M O I� M N 00 N CCpp 1_ N M O i� oo N n huj O r M� O n 0 0 N V' CO 0 O N V tp 0� a1 r� W = O F O N Cn h � CrD C~D (~D CSD C~p m C0D 0� OD Of) 00 6> � � 01 4C1 tf) � CO CO t0 f- I- � n CO CD CD CO CD (O (D CD OJ 0 0D CO 00 0 0 0 0 CD I 2 O VM r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r _ a U N a W W o m I- V W O c w Z 4 O � W = O O H W W Q m U � W LL (� 2 m� Y J� Z O d C7 X (n 1- D V Q w ' W ° W = m LL Q TABLE 4 E o �X} N t 07 m m m m m m m 0] m m m m m m 0] m m m m m m m m 5 LJ1. � = U U (A p � i W Q W W w LL T .- r N N r N N N N N N M N et � � V' V CU t!) (O to tp O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 O O OZ LJi O w a Ci Q � o m rn v ao �n rn N co OV Ln n m co ao cd � � C O r M � O Z � O N CV (V fM cM M v sr v ui � ui � co �_ m co m m co cp co _m co m co co m co ca cp 0 W =W vvv�rvvvv vv`vvvvcvvv vvvvvvvv' W J aQ � LL Q�Mr-. D ' O V: f- N N to I- rn T m fp O N In h Oi T if1 Q W � W O Z � 00 Ih f- aD np mm O � r N N cV hl fV M cd M M iti ui (O f0 CO fD fD (O CO (O CO fD (O CO (O co D a 7� ~ � D O = V O 2 1� N N S 1� Ohm r to O J N g � IM'- M � � � � p tV CV N CV N C7 cn c7 M Lt7 t[) c0 CO (O fA CO CO tp (Q O O � r W W D J W r r r T T r r r T T r r r r r r T r r r r r V' V' a V C d v U M = 2 W Q F= t� (O 00 co tl: N (- d' � M d' V' N O) W I- O M O N O O r 0 01 V � U W W O W r CV CV r r (y fV CV CV N [V (V tV r r r CV r (y CV r [V (V (V r r a z F Q O `Q W W � lL � CQCO N to1- r N pp � to N aD N c0 M N tl') a0 1� M M � �' OD h� s}' M� CO O N O) M N m M O N O O M UA 1� co O OD O M tttAAA M h t� � O W Q Q M � M N N N st OD M N r T r r r T r r N r r T r T r r r T �^ r J M N LL x h W D W M � O t0 O N S pp W M �p W O O> O O V Lf) t- V r N I� V OD LO V' N M N N M r N M N V N T N N N r r T (p r W � N r r r r r r r T r N z O 2 a � � z z Z Q Z LO O M cOD c0 0) Cl) M� � 6^i N (00, n O M n O M OD O N V 00 uj D Q F- co 00 N GO � 67 O O o p r fV fV tV fM M M tt V d' to tri � to OD co 00 OD OD GO O M Q1 W W O O O O O O O O W O 01 O O O O Z O F U(n r r r r T T r r r T r T r r T r T r r T T r T r r r �v< tq a Z W W o w H 0 z 0 W W =' O J U w y W amUowLLc,7x -�Y.�gzO�Ci�(nf-M?yX>-N H U U U U U U U U U U UUU U U U U U U U U U U U U t 5 V/ Z W V� a LL () W LL Q 0 m MTABLE n M = m U � U W W O w CD w w 0 0 0 m n rn o 0 o rn rn rn rn rn ao 0o ao co ro m m m m �n �n �n � LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci o 0 U Z ❑ O OJ U. F p W Q = }y Q M t0 T In Q7 M n 0 O O N ;r Lo O T M O n N N st t0 00 m O M ; 66 � of O O lO O O r r r r til CV n. Z W O F cfl m m c0 co co co to co ca co m co co n n n n n n n n n n n r T T r r T T T T T T r T T ----------- W W LL LL J Q Q � L L O GO T Cp O N C n M M T M In (O O M LL] n r N t0 W O N V HCl a0 Q LU W Q U O �� It7 !� n I� n n ao ao ao ao M O O O O O O O �_ Z 13 CO f0 CO t0 (O (O CO (O (O CO (D f0 (O (O Cfl t0 (O n n n n n n n n n W h O M r T r r r T T T T r r T T r r T T T T r T T T T r r W H �� W v v v v v� v a� v R V7 -i V7 Vv v v v v v Y V <t � S W LL LL LU a } O = V � e Q 00 CO W N C; n O M r M W CO O M tfY n r N (O OD O N V0 CSD O J W ui � n n: r� r: ao ai of of of o 0 0 (=i T co c� c� c� co m co co co m co LL G W T T T T T r T T T T T T r T T r r r r r r T r T r T V' V' v V � et C' V �t V' moi' �Y moi' V �Y �I' d' v � �Y � LL U Z w !h O t0 O M oD W CO n a0 O 1� M (O N tp T I� fh rn T rn n 01 OD aD m (O �U {= W r fV r e= r r T r (y W LL 'S O Q w � �� m L.O. M n°'. uNi ��� � �' �� � 0 � W Iwt. Ir v In Cl) O� M V to rt N tf7 m CO � ti N 1q M M N V In � r M n N WQ (J+ r r N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r T r O N LL >�Xrni fX- W O tf3 O s} N tq O �' n n 07 n rn a0 to O WY) � n n O N N p W j LL CO N�V CO (o O V C N r t0 (p r T N r T r T r T r N r T N T r r r r r r N O (p O T Up U 2 Q` LLJN U U U 2 rr f Z w ❑ w z tq tC} M N� V O d' �' N O M M n r 0V � N O n N to n M '7 Q LLI N W N CO O� n r r N CO n r M CU O 07 O M S tp O N T O CD CO n n ap co ap m O9�� O> O O O O O r � r r N fV Cl) Q W F<- � m m W °� ��� � m N N N N N N N N N N N N N W r TTM � ❑ U V/ IL W W w N IZ Lu z 0 0 x p O v U) QmU❑wwC�=zO�D Q¢� '=A N Q W °W LL ° ELL n TABLE 4 >�Xrni U � U U U w ❑ W W W � LL O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 O OZ LL O >' O wF ¢% LO 00 O N cr � CO OD r M (O h N M� r t(1 h �; ri of ai v �r v v v ui ui tL O W Lo* ui = J W 0 W W LL LL J Q U M LL p }� �- n r n r co CO In (fl O r i In O N <f O M t!} Q W Q 47 F Z ¢ O 0 z O�h-- fV fV M M � V' � `� V' V' tp � � Cp O (� � n n n n r� n � n h_ n� n ui � W _h _n V' V V � V C � V 0 LL LL 4c ul W a � � o O o x ¢ r n r^ r M M N w O r �{ to O N v rn M t[') o J � z CV CV M M tCJ to t(I tD fD f0 (O n n n n n n h n LL LU O w v v v c v v c v v v sf v v v v v v v v LU � U z w d O � LL� G1 O CD 06 n h ao M a6 O m h CO N N tq V� tq W r O O O O O O — O r r (y N lV CV W > LL � z F O¢ W F A LLW� M n O M M M N CO � 6) O_ 0 0 0 0 OD � p O W ¢ i7 W 0 M N M M M M M r lh N r O O N N O J M N r r LL F' D W M� 006 Co ti � M 0 UO U) M� �n n n O N O r N r In V7 r M M (h N �" M M r- m �= h N r r h (p r� r r Up z LU 4 2 W w W 'F Q zW �p �p ee�� � 000 O tOA � � N� tt CO O N N Cl) 7 tf� 00 0 r uj O ¢ F- M m v v v u'i �.ti ui ui ui co t0 co co � co I-- 0 h O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O O LLJ O W O 5 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U a N a z w Ix z O � w = cl O H w w �mUowLLC�=-�x�gzOn.CJ�cn W t U z a � w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w � LU N LJL � _ w W U U LL Q LL' U w O TABLE 4 W Q W W � LL _ M N O V M T T tp O M m h n tt7 er lA mui V T r r r r r 0 O C7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O d 0 0 0 Z O O Oz tJi 0 �O h M m to h n 0 OD m N N tfi m M M N� 0 m N r m aD O O m U Q F o Q z O �o f- Oi 0 O CV fM V N I� 00 O fV M � Lf) fp 0D � CV (V mmmmmmmm nnnhhnhmoDao maoaumaurnrnrn =J W r v v s{ v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v sf U W U- w J W U Q W LL a�� � Q F � vrrnrvcornMnncoaornaomnmm�nvahhrnrnw O F 0' S p m m m m t0 m m m m h h n n n n n OD a0 CO CO (lD OD CO O Q N ~ O O r r r r r �- T T r r r r T r T r r r r r r r r r r r W W H O w vvvvV�vvvvvvt�a"sFvvvvvvvvv-vvvv H � � � U r O W Om. Z M n n . CD m 00 rn h CO m �n v o n h rn rn ap D W g~ �rj M C+S LL) ti CP lA N M � m n Oi r (V ui aci CA (V mmmmc�mc°Smmr�hnnnnnmao�m�$aoao8irnrn LL r T r T r r r r r r a" T r T T r r T r r r T r T r r L`J r Ix J U Z w Q U O h 0 O r M In N OD M N h T r Cp V M N O OJ O N O N N T eY � w W Q Z � O W W po �p o M � 00 OMD � O N � lA M 00 � �t Q L'J � � V �{ O m N M � CO OD w � � 4n O In O M � CV N T N N N N O w M to N r N T r N N N N N r J LL � w � Ln (LOO COO m n to � � CnD � N COD aD 1.f) O f0 M 9 uai W C r� In m m� aD !D (N Lf) r� u� st M n r to to m N to m N > U O o: z 5 w t z w LU Z Q Z v m 117 n M OD O co co I,n N m t� O M �f) h O� N W M O 00 O a0 O n tcy N � tCJ M O n st O O M r 0 m r OD (p T N4r) ❑ L ku 'u = w W la- co O O r T CO M a' tl) to m t� aD ao to O O CV CV � � m � CO C) O> r T T r �- �- 8 c U� U � O c a J UziW a W vOi ; > U t9 Z B Lu Z w O � w O W � W Q m U D W IL (9 J �S Z O Q. C3 �' to I— O .'� E o � y a U. O C W LL d C2 TABLE 4 Tn v � d S N O W U J � J J d W co W W N N N V O m U1 et to M M M et O (O f0 tO CO O V r r r r r N Z O O Oz LLO W F U Q a > z}r eQ( F p Z b y ao ap r 0) M td ov so O th (O 0— M V R M O� Cp h m V 'd' 0 to (O ad O Crl � f0 h 0p O W d' CO N � � 62, Q W� O W O O r r N N N CO M V' tt si' to to N N N N N N = J W � W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N sf R V tf et � V Vt eY � moi' W LL LL J Qa � LL w Q� p Q lA N (O d' In O O M h O Cfl � t27 N GO V 01 O O l(') (O N N � ~� O Z z p to . ti O tVaD Oi O fV 00 M ttj OD (M tom- CV � th O CV � O O (A O O O O O O O O r r N N N N m M st st �! O t!') Q w :ZWi Q H O W LU r N N N N N N N CN! N N N N N N N N N N N N N V V '7 d� C � V d' V' v � R V �! � tt 'ch IT V' V' v V � V p Ix LL Q = W a DtVil } p O w 0 O > Z �A N f0 �t iq O 00 r O r m h O) (D V to 00 W V F W O O O N N 0 LU t!') Op M t� (V N I� 02 O O O O O r r LL � W N N N N M M tr V' V' 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W st �t 'V <t <t v st v V v �t 7 v LL ..I U QZ W O O) 0 N O N N r0 M N r M to r t1) �t � O) N M V r � J W ?a z 7. O O Q W F � h to O M m O (O Cn M N r to a— h 00 1p to 0 O U LL Q� 00 (O f0 CO 0 0 r In QD OD O p1 V h r� M to to �� r N N � N 0 CV � O� h O J y N r r — r r r �-- — r r r r r LL H W p p O to V OJ M h N 0 0 0 �p 00 V h M O O h� co O st aD Oh � (O h h CO a0 O h h d0 h 00 OD M N � � � 0— r r M coW(NO � V O Z W Q � Q L U W W p uj Q QU to M �A 0 N M h 00 O CQ CD N O � h co h O M M O 00 O O h W M O) 00 h CO h N w � LU D W U � CJ r (y Cl) �' to (O 00 OC! 07 O [M w 00 QI O CV cM N N N N N N N N N N M M Cl) m M Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) m M V V' � V � p m to a O 8 z W W � O c 0 w ~ Lu Z W = � N w > d� ¢ a °¢ a ¢ ¢ ¢ a ¢ a a a a 0 a 0¢ a ¢ ¢ ¢ a J 0 W a LL Cl) iE LU W co W � m LL Q U � E TABLE 4 J d — � W W LLJ � N O LL O O O U Z D O 0 Z U. O Q W F u� M M U Q FZ- p z ori of cv O F- N N co WO� W v v v W LL J QU w Q O to ' O tfi O CV Q y wm Z N N N p w Z W O I— W v v v Q. a '§ tL iL W a V D O � U� Q m U O w LL o r0 ¢ C — M � O G O w g Z Lf) J � LL J h N N rJ LLJ r J U z w u� O t��— 0D 0LU 0 04 � W W N '- � LL a z F O 4 W � � V N o OO w a�— J M M LL LU po�� °r° 0 W W r N Up K Z uj a U d F Z W O h � L Q Q N a a W � C � v 0 $ IL Z W R O N > H m S Lu Z Z O n ay w = O E V Z o N Q g W LL TABLE 4 — � D O w U� Q m U M W; m m m LL � O w U J � J W W W O n o tp O tp n OD x 0 0 00 0 0 0 V O v m 0 O m 0 m N Z O OZ _ LLO o (JJ I-- m V M M O n n m 2 <>> ~o M 0 O n m M v 0 0 V m O N m n m m 0 0) MldmCIJ N, M- O 0r O N ONM WW iI� ONaNDpum m m m (O (O n n W OD com�Q Nm m m -J W N N N N N N C, N N N N N N N N N CV N CV N N N N N N Nw (ZQ_) LL J U as LL QU) j Q N n M n 0 �- O O N m m n m M V t0 r V' N r n m 0) m M m w ' Z M m O O L r Lo an CID eY co N r �p ri CV _O tp CTi Cp C) h (_� CO O to 0. m O N M Q 0 n m O N M Lq m m t0 LD r- r Q UJ !- O W �! m m C0 CO m CO On n n n n n n m m m m m m m 0 m C) m U d CV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CV N N N N N N N N N N V W} LL LL 9 Q CO) CL Q r O V Q m n tr) n 0 O t� C� M 'R 0 r to r n m m m M m Op N (O O w O pmt O N M M ti 2 O N M Cn0 OND N M M M W- N v tl0i N CO W co m m CO (D n n n n n n h U. W LL m m m m m m m m m m m N CN N N N N NN N N N NN N N NN N N N N (V N N N N U Za W W O H OD m m m m r"t m N CO m N `- V n 0 0 0 0 t0 N n m O N 0 wr; tci v co ao aD ai ai Lri ad (� xi Lf) t- 0 rl Lo co tri co Lo co ti LU W > LL ¢ Z F O d U ir LL NOON M M vOM� 0 OD 0 r- 0 � N 0 M 0 V 0 0OM¢ m It m m n V m 0 m m m m m n m m m nO J LL 2 ~ W LL n n rr A N CMO S O ey m n r m r N l0 N- N r 0 n 3 r r0 N r .N- r N r r { N N N ry r LL Up W Q CO) Z aw Z �p N to m M n V' m O 0 m M N o �n n M O N 0 m O M t0 O N m r Cm N m m N to LU S O Q W OD CID OD m 0) CD (1) O O O r r r CV N N Cl) cM M eY <I t[) Lo tri (D Cp r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r I♦ 0� V � O N a Z v00 w W Y F O U O O tY OZ = o O J w (f) m0OW LL Z00_aF->>X> � V a N LL o E LU G ui m LL 0 U � � f rTABLE 4 d W CO W W CO CO V; 0 M N b O m M N O M 0 t� h� O r O M N O O lA 0 U LL 0 0 0 0 C? CO x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 f3 O O Z d OZ LJL O UJ F= 3 QC; V M r r U ; � 0 Z O O tf> CV � OD O) CV CV Cl)* Ih O � f0 � 0 W V' 00 t!j 00 'a M Cil CD 0 O p rI� 0 (A O O r N N M ll) (p h 1- (D O O O r Q W � W 01 W O O 0 0 0 r r r T r r r r r r r r N N N N M = W � W fV 6 ri M M CM C+h M c7 M M eM M (*] Cq M ro C'M M Ch M CY1 c+i M CLL W LJ- J U Q U. Z Q� j� Q CO N M M O V 1� n 0 r CO n O ar tf) f� 0 0 0 n M M 'T M N r F (Z: O Z 2 � l[) Cp r r CM pp CA N r M f� O cM CO v Ih Oj OD tt') 00 ef' CM � to (p CO O O r N Mv O n [O O O O T N N M 00 Q W Z (j� W � O E- O O O O O O O O O O O r r N N N M M U F � W N N CM M M M ('o M C'7 M CO M M M M M CM M M M M l'O M M > W IL T � _ (Y O O Z [O N M M to V h i- Op r Cp (- O of 0 ti O O (O h M M V M N r S to to r M pp CV C'7 I- (A � 110 �} M r �Ij Cp (C) O O r N M� Cp I� t1p (A M li'1 Cp fes. � 0p O O O LL 3 W � O YA O O O O O O O r r T r r r r N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Cl) /Y U w U CA t,0 (O I- to u7 O 0 CA LO 0 er � W � O n C C� 1- !n m�� V O M��V 0 O n O (O CA (O m CO O � 7 � � w WCe) o � [� p � C,4 � M n V OO W Q O CNO ONO 000 (00 CTO 000 tN tN0 co0 Cl) r- CO T CO O CA I� (A v 1- v i- CA N M M N N N N N CO N J 0 to T T LL S H O w 0 lA (� to _ OCCpppp 0 M pppppppp 0 ppp M h N LO � CA rM Cl) � M r � N N� � N N C-4 N� � N� � t0 �Y � 1� LL U 0 Z Q > Q F W � W _ cA�»ni s ¢¢ Q¢ Q Q d d d Q Q¢ Q Q Q Q¢ Q Q d ¢ Q¢ Q d '5 Q Q 000 O � M Co � N �0f'1 � � M Vb' � � � O 'V' ti � N M A ti � O) � ^�^ J W N f0 � d7 O O O : r r r r r r Cy r r r r r r r r r r r r r T r N N N N N N N N N N N � �v� � O M O Y N o LU Lu Z Z 25 O w W 2 Q 0 U U m U 0 W LL (� _ -� Y J ¢¢ �zOaCJcn W QJ W N Q W W LL O TABLE 4 d � � _ cA�»ni s ¢¢ Q¢ Q Q d d d Q Q¢ Q Q Q Q¢ Q Q d ¢ Q¢ Q d '5 O U U � � The area between the floodway and 1 -percent -annual -chance floodplain boundaries is termed the floodway fringe. The floodway fringe encompasses the portion of the floodplain that could be completely obstructed without increasing the water -surface elevation of the 1 -percent -annual -chance flood more than 1.0 foot at any point. Typical relationships between the floodway and the floodway fringe and their significance to floodplain development are shown in Figure 1. Approximate 1 -percent -annual -chance floodplain boundaries in some portions of the study area were taken directly from the Flood Hazard Boundary Map (Reference 14). �-- 14PEROW-ANNUAL-CHANCEPLODOPLAM '"I FWWWAY r- PLOODWAY WODWAY FRINGE FR 41 FnWAM r 04ANNE11. FLOOD ELEVATION WHEN WNFINED WITHIN FLOODWAY AREA OFFLOOOPWNTHAT COULD BEUSED FOR %-----0'FLOODELEVATIDN6�EFORE DEVELOPMENT BY RAKING GROUND ENCROACHMENT ON FLOODPLAIN LINE AS K THE FLOOD ELEVATION BEFORE ENCROACHMENT. LRa /:D K THE FLOOD ELEVATION AFTER ENCROACHMENT. 'SLMCwoKNOTTOEi=T.0FOOT(AARlwjnkwnORLESSERAMOUNTIFSPECIFIEDBYSTATE. Figure 1. Floodway Schematic 5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATION For flood insurance rating purposes, flood insurance zone designations are assigned to a community based on the results of the engineering analyses. These zones are as follows: Zone A Zone A is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1 -percent -annual - chance floodplains that are determined in the FIS by approximate methods. Because detailed hydraulic analyses are not performed for such areas, no base (1 - percent -annual -chance) flood elevations (BFEs) or depths are shown within this zone. This approximate flood zone is present in the City of Bend and the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. Zone AE Zone AE is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1 -percent - annual -chance floodplains that are determined in the FIS by detailed methods. 31 Whole -foot BFEs derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone. This flood zone is present in the Cities of Bend and Sisters and the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. Zone X Zone X is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to areas outside the 0.2 - percent -annual -chance floodplain, areas within the 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floodplain, areas of 1 -percent -annual -chance flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1 -percent -annual -chance flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, and areas protected from the 1 -percent - annual -chance flood by levees. No BFEs or depths are shown within this zone. This flood zone is present in the Cities of Bend and Sisters and the unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. 6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP The FIRM is designed for flood insurance and floodplain management applications. For flood insurance applications, the map designates flood insurance rate zones as described in Section 5.0 and, in the 1 -percent -annual -chance floodplains that were studied by detailed methods, shows selected whole -foot base flood elevations or average depths. Insurance agents use the zones and base flood elevations in conjunction with information on structures and their contents to assign premium rates for flood insurance policies. For floodplain management applications, the map shows by tints, screens, and symbols the I- and 0.2 -percent -annual -chance floodplains, floodways, and the locations of selected cross sections used in the hydraulic analyses and floodway computations. The countywide FIRM presents flooding information for the entire geographic area of Deschutes County. Previously, FIRMs were prepared for each incorporated community and the unincorporated areas of the County identified as flood -prone. This countywide FIRM also includes flood -hazard information that was presented separately on Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (FBFMs), where applicable. Historical data relating to the maps prepared for each community are presented in Table 5, "Community Map History." 7.0 OTHER STUDIES The COE prepared Flood Insurance Studies for Crook and Jefferson Counties, which border Deschutes County on the east and north, respectively (References 15 and 16). The results of this study are in agreement with those Flood Insurance Studies. This study incorporates the Flood Insurance Study of the Cities of Sisters and Bend (References 1 and 17). 32 LU Z EL w co co Do rn ori Z LU Z C6 09 O � LL O H W 2 0 LU baa p � � co °° ILLU41 Q � W ZEW.. Q Z N Q rn � a � o i>-- E a Z u, z W O W N y Z Q m LL v1 Q Z � �@ � G m N <W NVQ � � co p p 0 y Z N Z .n 5 LO 9i.maW, cm CL ¢ t ¢ in Z O V LL W a O W N Z ,p E Z m N p � Z Z a � o W V U F a W (� 2 Q Lo W W D Q W W TABLES a � o z W Z m o Q Z � o � m N The results of two Portland District Flood Plain Information Reports for Little Deschutes River and Whychus Creek were used in this FIS, including water - surface profiles and floodplain areas (References 18 and 19). The reaches of Little Deschutes River and Whychus Creek, covered in those reports, were also shown on COE orthophoto plan -profile sheets (References 12 and 20). The advisory data presented for the Carver Lake Moraine Dam failure, in Sisters, Oregon, including water -surface profiles, Summary of Elevation (Table 1), and floodplain delineations, were taken from USGS open file report 87-41 (Reference 20). This FIS report either supersedes or is compatible with all previous studies published on streams studied in this report and should be considered authoritative for the purposes of the NFIP. 8.0 LOCATION OF DATA Information concerning the pertinent data used in the preparation of this study can be obtained by contacting Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division, FEMA Region X, Federal Regional Center, 130 228th Street, SW, Bothell, Washington 98021-9796. 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES 1. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Insurance Study City of Bend Oregon June 8, 1988. 2. U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Hazards Along Squaw Creek from a Hypothetical Failure of the Glacial Moraine Impounding Carver Lake Near Sisters, Oregon, Open File Report 87-41, 1987. 3. Barbara Roberts, Secretary of State, Oregon Blue Book, 1985-86, March 1985. 4. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, Climatological Handbook Columbia Basin States Precipitation Volume 2, September 1969. 5. State Water Resources Board, Deschutes River Basin, January 1961. 6. Columbia Bain Interagency Committee, River Mile Index Deschutes River, June 1963. Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, Hydrology Subcommittee, "Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency," Bulletin 17A, revised November 1977. 8. U.S. Water Resources Council, "Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency," Bulletin 17, March 1976. 9. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC -2 Water -Surface Profiles Generalized Computer Program Davis, California, November 1976, updated May 1982. 34 10. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Flood Insurance Study Work Maps — Deschutes River Contour Interval 4 feet, Scale 1:4,800. Date of Photography July 27, 1984, Sheets 2 to 3 and 5 to 9 of 10. 11. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Orthophoto Topography Maps, Little Deschutes River Vicinity of LaPine, Oregon, Scale 1:6,000, Contour Interval 5 feet, October 1975. 12. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Flood Plain Information, Orthophotographic Topography, Squaw Creek Oregon Scale 1:6,000, Contour Interval 5 feet, November 1976. 13. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Flood Insurance Study Work Mans — Deschutes River and Little Deschutes River, Scale I"=2,000'. Dates of Photography July 27, 1984 and October 1975, Sheet 10 of 10. 14. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Hazard Boundary Maps, Deschutes County Oregon (Unincorporated Areas), Scale 1:24,000, revised September 6, 1977, 15. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Insurance Study, Crook County Oregon, July 17, 1989. 16. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Insurance Study Jefferson County Oregoq July 17, 1989. 17. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Insurance Study, City of Sisters, Oregon, September 29, 1986. 18. U.S. Department of the Army, Cones of Engineers, Portland District, Flood Plain Information, Little Deschutes River, LaPine, Oregon December 1977. 19. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Flood Plain Information, Squaw Creek, Sisters, Oregon August 1978. 20. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Flood Plain Information, Little Deschutes River at LaPine, Oregon Flooded Areas and Water -Surface Profiles, December 1977. 21. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC -2 Water -Surface Profiles, Generalized Computer Program, Davis, California, September 1990, 22. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Insurance Study, Deschutes County Oregon and Incorporated Areas, August 16, 1988. 35 1.0.0 23. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Center, CORPSCON-Coordinate www.erdc.usace.army.mil. Engineer Research and Development Conversion Software, Version 5.11, 24. E-Podunk web site, Deschutes County, OR County Profile, htta://www.ei)odunk-.con�, 2006. REVISION DESCRIPTIONS This section has been added to provide information regarding significant revisions made since the original Flood Insurance Study was printed. Future revisions may be made that do not result in the republishing of the Flood Insurance Study report. To ensure that any user is aware of all revisions, it is advisable to contact the community repository of flood hazard data located at the Deschutes County Planning Section, 1130 Northwest Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701. 10.1 First Revision This study was revised in January 1996 to study by detailed methods the unincorporated areas of Sunriver in Deschutes County, Oregon, located between RMs 195.2 and 200.9 on the Deschutes River. For the restudy, the initial Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) meeting was held on August 17, 1994, with representatives of the Deschutes County Planning Department, FEMA, and the study contractor. The Deschutes County Water Resources Department and the Bureau of Land Reclamation were also contacted for historical data. The results of the study were reviewed at the final CCO meeting held on April 10, 1997,.and attended by representatives of FEMA, Deschutes County, and the study contractor. All problems raised at that meeting have been addressed in this study. The effective hydrology was used for this restudy. The hydraulic analysis used in this revision was performed by Ogden Beeman & Associates, Inc., under Contract No. EMW-95-C-4729. This update combined the FIRMs and FIS reports for Deschutes County and incorporated communities into the countywide format. Under the countywide format, FIRM panels have been produced using a single - layout format for the entire area within the County instead of separate layout formats for each community. The single -layout format facilitates the matching of adjacent panels and depicts the flood -hazard area within the entire panel border, even in areas beyond a community's corporate boundary line. In addition, under the countywide format, this single FIS report provides all FIS information and data for the entire County area. Cross sections were developed for the reach of the Deschutes River by studying aerial photographs and determining the appropriate spacing to 36 represent the meanders in the river. The surveying of the cross sections was performed by David Evans & Associates, Inc. The exceptions are the furthest downstream section, 195.24, and the furthest upstream section, 200.94, which were not resurveyed but rather taken from the survey data of the previous study. The dimensions of the two bridges in the reach, the General Patch Bridge and the pedestrian footbridge, were both surveyed by David Evans & Associates, Inc. For the Deschutes River (General Patch) bridge section, State of Oregon, Department of Transportation, State Highway Division, plans were also referenced. Channel roughness factors (Manning's "n") were 0.120 for the overbanks and 0.048 for the channel based on the field observations. In addition, the roughness values selected correspond to the values used in the effective study in the upstream reach. The hydraulic analysis for the Deschutes River was performed using the COE HEC -2 computer program (Reference 21) to provide the water - surface elevations along the study reach. The starting water -surface elevation was taken from the downstream study's results for section 195.24. The survey data is referenced to the NGVD of 1929/1947. The floodways presented in this restudy were computed on the basis of equal -conveyance reduction from each side of the floodplain. The results of these computations were tabulated at selected cross sections for each stream segment for which a floodway was computed and are presented in Table 4, "Floodway Data." In addition, in reviewing the effective downstream study (Reference 22) for the initial starting water -surface elevations, a problem was noted. In the floodway run, the flows were not adjusted from the storm events run at section 192.72. Consequently, the 1 -percent -annual -chance flood base condition was assigned the 10 -percent -annual -chance flood flow and the 1 -percent -annual -chance floodway was given the 2 -percent -annual -chance flood flow. The study contractor re -ran the HEC -2 model for the downstream floodway conditions with the corrected discharges. The results indicated that overall, seven sections (CR through CX) had elevation increases on the order of 0.1 to 0.2 foot; however, no floodway rises were greater than the 1 -foot limit. The minor changes in elevation do not affect the plotted floodway boundaries on the effective maps. 10.2 Second Revision Squaw Creek was renamed to Whychus Creek in 2005. All mention of Squaw Creek has been changed to Whychus Creek in this FIS report and on the FIRM panels. References to Squaw Creek in the section 9.0 remain unchanged. 37 The City of Bend provided contour data in digital format. The files were compiled at a scale of 1:1,200 from aerial photographs dated 2004. This information was used to redelineate the existing Zone AE boundaries in the City of Bend. The County of Deschutes provided 1 -meter resolution ortho imagery from the National Agriculture Imagery Program for use as the FIRM base map. The imagery was published in 2005. The mapping for the countywide conversion has been prepared using digital data. Previously published FIRM data produced manually have been converted to vector digital data by a digitizing process. These vector data were fit to raster digital images of the USGS quadrangle maps of the County area to provide horizontal positioning. All vertical datum elevations in this report have been converted from NGVD29 to NAVD88. Refer to section 3.3 for a more specific explanation about the datum conversion for Deschutes County. 38 2AIAN S31nHOS3(l Sb3dV (MV' i0d803N1 GNd 2i0 '.11Nnoo S31f1HOS30 \I S l 1lj o a d Q o M i AON3OV 1N3W3OVNVW AON3O63W3 IV83033 (D 0 00 0 0 0 0 T OD f- l0 4l V M IN 11 i I 0 o AOn ` On vl�q w w V O z ll.J 1 ' ON I4NJAICO ' ilI 11 �11 171 I , .y I i III III y, I�. I i. ,. '•I s3 P a 0� l ' I Ii j i ,I , ��� It { i � +J �♦ �; , Ad15 jO 11W[ , If` I , i � 1 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lo 0 m ti n v M M M M M M M M M (88 OAVN) 1333 NI NOUVA313 T co N o 0 r 0 m o Q Ii, w J z m to W v Lr)z a cn O o Q L w ID 1.0 0 IL Ln OD Lr) L H3AIN S31f1HOSK Sd32Jd 431VHOdNODNI aNV C ,,II J d0 `J.1N(100 S3inHOS34 cv S 3 IIJ Q a d Q Qr 1 J AON30V 1N3W39VNVY4 AON3083Y43 1V83033 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m w r Lo to 'q - In M M M M M M M M M M M M M N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ti t0 to v M M V M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M (88 OAVN) 1333 NI NOIIVA3�3 M M O M N lD N it i II is I i t I it II I I I t 11' �\ Ill fl Am 0it�M�S b ' '•v I i '4 , 1 1 I t. I II 777 1 , II�d 1l, (� I' ,AIN \V' Aarhl livi ��� 1 j I t I I I ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ti t0 to v M M V M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M (88 OAVN) 1333 NI NOIIVA3�3 M M O M N lD N d3nld S31f1HOS3a SV]HV G]lVdOddOONI (INV 0- d0 `J,iNfl0O siinHOS30 r7 S 3� l j o d d 0 0 M J AON30V 1N3W3JVNVN AON39d3W3 1V83033 0 o O o 0 o O o 0 M N o m W r io Ln un In ,n v v v' v w M M M M M M M M ) O to J M M M rL O O Z O v M V M N M W U ) o 1S�A � a�Ka� I, J 3 , N �Z > JII co yy �o � 1 Oj I III O O O O I� lD ul Q O v V V M M M M N O O O O O Q Q Q V M M M M M M (88 OAVN) 1333 NI NOI1VA313 d3APJ S3inHOS3a SVIHV a31b�lO&JOONI aNv \\'' X10 `.l1Nno:) S31nHOS3G d S]� I A O a d Q Q M J AON30V 1N3VU0VNVY4 AON30?J3VG 1V83033 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 00 ti O u) VT M N Ln In u) to u) u) m Ln O O O O O O O O O co f-- t0 u7 Q M N O N N u> in ui in in Lr) M M M Mn M M M M O O O O O O O O O w to Q M N O of c0 O O O O ID V1 V M In LO u u M M M M O O O O O N O O co M M M M M (99 OAVN) 1333 NI NOI1VA313 2J3APJ S3inHOS3a SV3dV (MVV JOddOONI aNb \\'' X10 'J,iNf10O S31(1HOS3a Ln S 3� i j o o a Q o o� j AON30V 1N3Y130VNVW ADN3063M 1V83033 O n O o Ln 0 Ln o O p Ol Q1 cp LD l0 l9 tD r 49 p Lo O lo lo lo w M M M M M M O O O O O O N O M a0 r 00 LO N ti �n 0 D 0 w 0 m O Q U) p w :n in tf1 J M M M :5 O O 0 Z �Q to v Lr) Ln Ln oo h M M M M M M M M toU , 1 p et�I.� o J a ;111;1 1�rj Ily,ti' LO o �m o W , , 144, ! 1133a1S -77�I ,4da0100 V ; 311tslRl n o 111loi , 3 tae � -! � I WV,O 11 10 , �' _7 I I I ! i 33�ia0 , ln4 (, I 1 (� + m It it i I I 1 II + 1i' ! I jJ o , 77 I 3 VYI�Y� v r�r a,t 0 Ln O 1 1 p m o. Lo O lo lo lo w M M M M M M O O O O O O N O M a0 r 00 LO N ti �n 0 D 0 w 0 m O Q U) p w :n in tf1 J M M M :5 O O 0 Z �Q to v Lr) Ln Ln oo h M M M M M M M M toU , 1 p et�I.� LO , , ! I , 3 tae � I I WV,O 11 10 �' 391 3A la0dM3N , It it i I I 1 II + 1i' ! I o , 3 VYI�Y� v r�r a,t i l a 1 1 I l l Ll 11 I l� a , , ' co p b3 I , it i 0 0 0 0 NO Qi LO �0 Lo U) M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 N I— w to V Ln In In tf1 In M M M M M (88 OAVN) 1333 NI NOIIVA313 2J3AIa S31f1HOS34 Sb3aV G31V�]OdaODNI (INV X10 `)11Nf100 S31nH0S3(l � S l 1 l j o�l d Q 0 01 J AON30d 1NWOOVNVY4 AON3083n3 -IV83433 O o Ln Oo Ln o Ln M N N � O O Q, LO ID O LO w ID N M M M M M M M M O In O N O In O m O 2 O O Qt Q" O O ID In M M M M M M M M M (88 (JAVN) 1333 NI NOI1VA313 ol O 2 O D O m � w O m v Q a (/J � w z_ N w ol v � z Q U) 0 o � (31 <( w Of F- U) 00 00 v ai N W O CO O HIA18 S3inHOS3a S`d3W a3iVdOdaODN1 aMd � ``,, 210 `J,1Nno:) S3inHOa S3I� S 3� I J O d d Q 0 M J AON30V 1NYGOVNIM ADN3083W3 1V8343J O O u, o L„ o U, w to Ln V M co Q V V v O O N O ao h- f� tO O to I'lal f ;I ` x;111} �(1:� ��v) VN o>�� I 0 ti 00} W Ir w z 00 I i Lo W a ;'ll { j O }, co I Hill I ! CD Ln Y13Itl13�a�3� 1 _y,�I, 1'I . I1 �I m w p o f� N O lD l0 to O lIl O V Q � V Q Q V Q V V Q v (88 OAVN) 1333 NI NOIIVA313 �J3AId S31nHOS3C] S`d32id 03iVaOddOONI (INV a_ VV aO '�1N(l0O S3inHOS3a 00 S 3 11J Q a d Q O O� J kON30V 1N3VG0VNM ADN3083W3 1VN3033 0 O in O in O n un Ln P P P P P P P P P (88 OAVN) 1333 NI NOIIVA313 0 T N O 0) O O m ol OD O Q) S H P 0 O Q� W i O m N Q (n e0 W _J Z O W m U � Z Q H O m co Q W ry F— V) V) O P N W O w co r- 00 Matt Martin From: Darlene Ferretti <Darlene.Ferretti@jordanramis.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 4:15 PM To: Matt Martin Subject: Additional Testimony / Proposed Ord. No. 2017-004 [IWOV-Worksite.FID1856672] Attachments: Lt re Additional Testimony.pdf Hi Matt, Tim Ramis asked me to send you the attached letter of today's date. Thank you. Darlene EDARLENE FERRETTI Legal Assistant Jordan Ramis PC Attorneys at Law Direct: 503-598-5551 Main: 503-598-7070 Portland OR Vancouver WA Bend OR www.jordanramis.com E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or this message has been addressed to you in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. You are further notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. 1 November 15, 2017 Lake Oswego Vancouver Bend Two Centerpointe Dr., 6th Floor 1499 SE Tech Center PI., #380 360 SW Bond St., Suite 510 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Vancouver, WA 98683 Bend, OR 97702 503-598-7070 360-567-3900 541-550-7900 www.jordanramis.com Matthew Martin, AICP Deschutes County Planning 117 NW Lafayette Ave Bend OR 97701 Re: Additional Testimony Regarding Proposed Ordinance No. 2017-004 Our File No. 53016-74461 Dear Commissioners: On behalf of Calfa Holdings One, LLC, we are providing this additional testimony regarding the proposed changes to the Deschutes County Development Code ("DCC') and the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") set forth in proposed ordinance 2017-004 (the "Ordinance") specifically relating to the creation of a "Flood Plain Combining Zone." While Calfa is supportive of many of the technical upgrades to the regulations, it asks that the Commission reject changes that reduce protections for inventoried resources. We ask the Board to: 1. Exclude areas in the "Flood Plain Combining Zone" from being eligible to satisfy the open space requirements for Clustered Development and Planned Development found in DCC 18.128.200 and 18.128.210, respectively; 2. Revise the proposed purpose statement for the Flood Plain Combining Zone, for section 2.5 of the Plan, as well as the definition "Flood Plain Combining Zone", in the Tumalo and Newberry sections of the Plan, to include conservation and riparian habitat protection to maintain fish and wildlife resources, in order to avoid inconsistencies and confusion; and 3. Maintain the 100 foot setbacks recommended by the Planning Commission. This letter addresses issues that arose during the November 8, 2017 hearing. JORDAN RAIv1 I S Pc ATTORNEYS AT LA\Y November 15, 2017 Page 2 History Of Failure To Properly Apply Acknowledged Code Provisions Does Not Relieve The County Of Goal 5 Compliance Obligations The Board should reject the claim that adding a floodplain "density bonus" is simply a return to your past Goal 5 protection policy. This "density bonus" was never a part of the County's Goal 5 Protection Program. There is apparently a history of allowing such a bonus because for several years the County failed to implement the code prohibition on such a bonus. Staff pointed out that the "density bonus" was allowed in several past cases but that it ended with Hearings Officer Green's September 11, 2015, decision on Lower Bridge, which underscores the code prohibition on Planned Development in the Flood Plain Zone. This ruling correctly put an end to the incorrect practice of allowing a floodplain "density bonus". Staff's characterization of the "density bonus" proposal as simply a return to the historic policy, not a change to a new policy, is not defensible because the acknowledged code text historically prohibited that practice. Moreover, the County's comprehensive plan and zoning code, including its Goal 5 Program, obtained acknowledgement from the State of Oregon based on the County's representation that resource protection would be provided by prohibiting a "density bonus." The County's failure, at times, to properly apply the acknowledged prohibition does not support the argument that a "density bonus" is today lawful under Goal 5 or consistent with existing comprehensive plan policies. Allowing Increased Density Does Not Benefit Protected Resources The County has previously determined that allowing rural residential housing conflicts with inventoried Goal 5 resources and has limited that conflict by limiting rural residential development. The County should therefore reject the claim adding more rural residential density somehow protects resources. It has been argued that resources could be provided by further limiting allowed uses in the riparian area through imposition of a management plan requirement. Proponents seek to allow a "density bonus" in trade for a master plan requirement. This is plainly unnecessary. If the Board is convinced that imposing the management requirement on riparian areas is a good idea, it can do so without allowing an increase in rural residential development density. Adding greater density is not a legal prerequisite to requiring a management plan. The fact remains that tightening control on the uses allowed in the floodplain, through management plans or easement dedications, does not limit conflicting uses located outside of the floodplain but adjacent to it. Reducing The Proposed Setbacks From 100 Feet To 50 Feet Has Not Been Shown To Reduce The Impact Of Conflicting Residential Use. The proposed setback additions are the sole provisions in the package that aim at limiting the impact of conflicting rural residential development. The suggestion that setback protection be reduced by 50%, heard at the recent Board meeting, is unsupported by any evidence supporting its effectiveness at protecting inventoried resources and it should therefore be rejected. The Planning Commission discussion of increased setbacks indicates that the Commission saw increased setbacks as a tool to limit impact on riparian areas. To reduce that protection for the 2854467_ 2�DRF/11/15/2017 J O RDAN RAM I S PC ATTORNEYS AT LAW November 15, 2017 Page 3 purpose of enhancing the views from rural houses does not begin to address Goal 5 requirements. We thank you for your consideration of our testimony. Sincerely, JORDAN RAMIS PC Ti by V. Ramis Admitted in Oregon tim.ramis@jordanramis.com OR Direct Dial (503) 598-5573 cc: Calfa Holdings One, LLC 2854467 2\DRF/11/1512017 Matt Martin From: K.J.Phillips <rrconstdev@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 5:00 PM To: Matt Martin Subject: Ord.2017-004 Floodplain/growth management TO: BOCC RE: Floodplain Combining/Comp Plan Amend. County Commissioners, I urge you to not go forward on above Ord 2017-004, due to lack of Notice to all persons who will be affected, and, because the Planning Director should not, in the future, determine properties in a floodplain,...as those persons have not been Noticed and do not know the effects of your planned actions. Sincerely, K.J.Phillips **DRAFT** A Peer Supporter P.O. Box 7456 Bend, OR 97708 Dear Peer Supporter: Board of County Commissioners PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 TEL (541) 388-6570 • FAX (541) 385-3202 -� www.deschutes.org -� Tammy Baney Anthony DeBone Philip G. Henderson The Board of Commissioners received your letter regarding Peer Support Specialists and the classification/compensation study. The Board continues to work through decision points of the classification/compensation study with staff and expect to wrap up the study soon. Although we may disagree on several points in your letter, we do agree that Peer Support Specialists provide important services to our clients and are valuable staff members of our Health Services Department. Tammy Baney Anthony DeBone Philip G. Henderson Chair Vice Chair Commissioner