Interagency Project Posters

Submitted for the

2017 Flood Risk Management Workshop February 28 – March 3, 2017 St. Louis, Missouri Risk Communication and Education California QR (Quick Response) Codes Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes • Use Quick Response (QR)codes to provide flood •Greater public awareness to flood risk is the first step structure and historical information to increase flood in protecting life and property. awareness. •By walking around Sacramento, tourists and members • The team produced an interactive, web-based tool of the public will immediately learn about Sacramento’s using free, open-source software (ESRI Story Maps) and flood history and risk by using QR codes. a flyer with Quick Response (QR) code to send users to •Use technology to educate local communities and the digital product. allows them to share information with smart phones or •The team also led a walking tour in Sacramento to tablets. showcase the products. Challenges Overcome / Successes/Best Practices Partners and Project Cost Continuing Challenges • Creates community engagement, thus increasing individual’s awareness and preparedness for a •Flood risk awareness among the Agency Investment flood event. general population has remained CA Department of Water $30K In-kind • QR codes help local official explain the need for between 30-40 % Resources CA State Parks $5K In-kind continued attention to flood risk management. • USACE lead interagency coordination with DWR, USACE $34K Cash CA Parks and local government. City of West Sacramento $10 In-kind TOTAL $79K USACE Project Point of Contact Rachael Orellana, PE USACE Sacramento District California Communication of Flood Risk- Multimedia Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes •Developed an informational video product to increase •Reduces future expenditures by encouraging citizens public awareness of flood risk and specific non- to take action to minimize risk, which in turn saves structural actions to manage risk. funds during emergency and recovery. • Videos focus on the specific flood risks in California’s different regions. • Videos are being used in trainings, conferences and are a great way to take the information to other groups during presentations.

Challenges Overcome / Successes/Best Practices Partners and Project Cost Continuing Challenges • Raise the public’s awareness of flood risks. Agency Investment • Reinforce the message that flood •Reaching the over 7 million awareness is everyone’s responsibility and CA Department of $20K In-kind that it is important to be prepared. people that are exposed to Water Resources flood hazards in CA is a • Videos in Spanish targeting Spanish U.S. Army Corps of $94K Cash speaking population. continued challenge, these Engineers videos were very helpful to TOTAL $114K help people be aware of the USACE Project Point of Contact flood risk. Rachael Orellana, PE USACE Sacramento District California Flood Risk Education Project Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • The water management These products are intended computer game and coloring books developed increased to: awareness in students, • Reduce Flood Risk (via especially in STEM-related non-structural) classes, of the importance of • Results in action by others flood risk management and (individuals and families, non-structural measures to reduce flood risk. teachers and students)

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • The parent – child activity in the coloring • Teacher schedules (summer break) USACE $130,000 book was found to be an effective way to get • Developing outreach package for CA Dept of Education $5,000 the flood risk awareness message to parents models Water Ed Foundation $8,000 • High school teachers were enthusiastic Grade level relevance of modules /Project WET • about piloting the SWMM Model and helping • Reaching younger audiences Sac Co. Office of Ed $8,000 their students understand water management • Availability of modelers Green 360 $2,000 trade-offs • Acquisition of appropriate modeling NOAA/NWS $2,000 software CA Dept of Water $8,000 • PAO approval schedule due to existing Resources USACE Project Point of Contact workload TOTAL $314,000 Rhiannon Kucharski USACE Sacramento District Idaho USGS Glenwood Gage Educational Sign Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •An educational sign including flood inundation maps with •Placing relevant flood maps, gaging and alert information, flood located historical flood photos, information on USGS gaging, insurance information, and a high water mark sign together at a schematic of the river and reservoir system, NFIP information, USGS River Gage provides risk and mitigation in context, which and links to various emergency alert service sign-ups. will empower and equip citizens to take action to be prepared, •National Weather Service provided a high water mark sign for aware, and insured. the 1943 flood, as well as projected elevations of the 1% and 0.2% floods at the gage. •County participation brings these issues to the forefront of their •Accompanying website with links to additional relevant thinking and will encourage them to be more proactive in future information, hosted by Ada County. floodplain management and flood planning.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Participation by federal, state, and local agencies •Working out appropriate education USACE $20K together brings a very relevant focus and sign and high water mark placement, USGS $10K in-kind perspective to the information presented. respecting property, easements, etc. USGS $2889.29 Sign •County participation, including web hosting, gives •Website development, hosting, and IDWR $2.5k in-kind more local credibility to an interagency project. creating access links is ongoing. NOAA NWS $2.5k in-kind

IOEM $2.5k in-kind Ada County $2.5k in-kind Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $42.9k Brandon Hobbs, ID SJ Coordinator USACE Walla Walla District IDAHO “So You Are a Floodplain Manager” Training DVD Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •Floodplain officials in Idaho often have other jobs within their •Making local Floodplain Managers aware of their role and local government, or rotate in and out of the position, so that responsibilities increases the likelihood of implementation of knowledge depth may not be developed consistently. effective floodplain management. •DVD includes a professionally produced video to introduce basic •Providing education and references in an easy-to-access format concepts of floodplain management and an organized, empowers experienced and inexperienced floodplain managers searchable library of relevant documents for training and alike to build knowledge depth in their work. reference •Effective floodplain management by engaged and knowledgeable •Messaging focuses on shared responsibility, available resources floodplain managers can reduce future costs and future risk and support, long-term risk reduction, and the importance of through working with developers and citizens to developing and implementing risk-reducing standards.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Creating a fun, engaging video captured the •Making changes to the video required IBHS $2,200 In-kind attention of the target audience. additional studio time beyond the •Engaging the State NFIP Coordinator provided IDWR $3,500 In-kind original plan. insight into what floodplain managers around the •Working with actual practitioners that NOAA NWS $1,200 In-kind state needed for education and contacts. were knowledgeable but not good on NRCS $1,100 In-kind •Delivering video and reference materials camera. USGS $3,500 In-kind electronically via DVD and flash drives ensures •Covering floodplain management easy, wide distribution across the state. USACE $67,450 topics in sufficient detail to encourage proficiency without overwhelming a TOTAL $78,950 Project Point of Contact new or inexperienced floodplain Brandon Hobbs, IDSJ Coordinator manager USACE Walla Walla District Iowa Iowa High Water Mark Signs Project Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits The Iowa High Water Mark Project includes the design of High •The Iowa HWM project provides an ongoing, passive general public outreach to bring attention to flood risk. The signs will be placed in public areas of regular use and will Water Mark signs installed in recreational and public gathering be seen with high frequency for their lifespan with little need for further effort in areas in a variety of Iowa communities. Coupled with this effort will upkeep. The signs will serve to normalize the recognition of flood risk which will be the development of a story map, available on the Iowa Silver encourage risk informed decision making by the general population. Jackets website, which is made up of historic, and recent flooding •The HWM signs directly prompt the public to the SJ website which presents information on building a disaster supply kit, and other risk reduction strategies for photographs connected to Iowa communities. homeowners. Further, the public is brought aware of locations prone to flooding prompting them to avoid using the land in unfit ways. The signs also bring attention to Levees in the area which often go unnoticed. With recognition of these levees, the communities are likely to be more willing to provide maintenance when necessary. The signs will also be included in CRS applications which has the potential to reduce the level of the community, giving a 5% reduction in insurance premiums or about $60-100 per property per year. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Project is currently being initiated USACE $89,200 • Project is currently being initiated IDNR $27,400 IHSEMD $23,900 Local Governments $69,000

Project Point of Contact Total: $209,500 Tony D. Krause, P.E., CFM USACE – Omaha District Kentucky Turn Around Don’t Drown Public Awareness Campaign Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Kentucky has people that die each year from trying to • Many members of the general public who are unaware drive through floodwater. will be impacted by these radio public service announcements. • This project will consist of a public awareness campaign featuring radio ads by Kentucky sports celebrities as well • As more people become aware of the dangers of driving as pamphlets and other promotional materials to be through inundated areas, this should result in a lowered handed out at numerous events in order to raise risk to life safety. awareness and urge people to “Turn Around, Don’t Drown.”

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Utilizing Kentucky celebrities will reach more people than a general advertisement would. • Identification and contacting the right KY Division of Water $10K In-kind Kentucky celebrities for the ad KY Weather $10K In-kind •Successful partnerships between multiple Preparedness campaign has been challenging. Local agencies, and donated air time from the Kentucky Committee media partners have been instrumental Broadcasters Association is a key component of Kentucky Broadcaster $140K donated in assisting with this. this project’s success. Association air time USACE $75K TOTAL: $235K Project Point of Contact Brandon R. Brummett, P.E., PMP USACE Louisville District Outreach Coordinator Maine Coastal High Water Mark (HWM)MAINE Verification, Validation and Re-establishment Communities of Town of York and the City of Portland (HWM - Pilot Project) Project Description Project Benefits • Increased municipal knowledge of historic water levels, flooding, and the Engage the Town of York and the City of Portland in project design in • HWM Initiative. order to meet municipal needs. • Increased public education and outreach capacity, such as potential “High Locate existing HWMs from the February 1978 “100-year” storm in • Water Marks” Tour along municipally owned trails or waterfront. each community. • Additional communities participating in the FEMA HWM Initiative. • Re-establish or translate HWMs to publicly owned and visible • Potentially increased scores for the FEMA Community Rating System infrastructure in conjunction with communities and to support (CRS). community outreach. • Development of a transferable HWM re-establishment and education Aid communities in furthering their outreach and educational • and outreach model for other Maine communities to use. priorities while also meeting requirements of the FEMA HWM • Interdisciplinary multiple agency and municipal partner project team. Initiative. • Tighter integration of federal, state, and local flood resilience tools and Produce maps and flood visualizations to support outreach and • public education resources. awareness. Project Challenges Partners and Project Cost Agency Investment Downtown York, ME Federal Partners: • Locating High Water Marks from 1978 USACE $105K Cash which may have been damaged or USGS $10K in-kind removed. FEMA $10K In-kind NOAA $1.5K In-kind •Surveying and access constraints. State Partners: •Re-establishing or translating marks to Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation. $2.5K In-kind nearby publicly visible infrastructure. & Forestry •Ensuring project outcomes meet federal Maine Geologic Survey $3K In-kind City of Portland, ME and municipal needs. Municipal Partners: Town of York, ME $3K In-kind City of Portland, ME $5K In-kind Project Point of Contact Brian Balukonis, PG Total $139,700 USACE New England District Mississippi Hazard Communication in the Mississippi Delta Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes • During the 2011 flood, it was evident that the various Mississippi state agencies involved in MSJ could use a formal plan for •By performing these exercises we are making the emergency managers communicating during a dam or levee breach. aware of their residual risk of living below a dam or behind a levee. •In response to this need, the MSJ team proposes the development of •This exercise supports an interagency solution by including all the agencies a hazard communication plan for sharing and coordinating in the exercise so all will be situationally aware if there were to be a levee or information during a dam or levee breach. dam breach. •The Hazard Communication Plans were tested by performing a •Reduces future federal obligation by creating a generic hazard tabletop exercise and a functional dam break exercise at Arkabutla communication plan that can be applied to any federal inventory. Dam and a functional levee breach exercise in the northern part of •Gaps and redundancies in the communication flow are recognized at the Mississippi due to an earthquake. exercise so they may be addressed before a disaster. •The State of Mississippi expressed concern for emergency •Allows local and state emergency managers a chance to utilize and communication at USACE dams and the local emergency managers understand the USACE inundation maps and ask questions before an event. had specifically requested more in-depth exercises. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •The state takes an “All Hazard” approach, so going through the communication on a levee breach and dam breach can •Releasing inundation mapping within FEMA $5K In-kind transfer lessons learned to other hazards. USACE guidelines, especially digital NOAA NWS $5K In-kind •State and Local partners had an opportunity to utilize information. USACE inundation maps to support local decisions and USACE $25K •Simulating an earthquake, levee breach evacuations. and dam breach at the same time caused MEMA $25K •Gaps and redundancies in the communication flow are recognized at the exercise so they may be addressed many logistical challenges County Emergency $45K In-kind •Interagency coordination and Managers before a disaster. communication Levee Boards $20K In-kind USACE Project Point of Contact TOTAL $125K Katy Breaux Project Management Vicksburg District Montana Montana High Water Mark Signs Project Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits The Montana High Water Mark Project includes the design of High •The Montana HWM project provides an ongoing, passive general public outreach to bring attention to flood risk. The signs will be placed in public areas of regular use and Water Mark signs installed in recreational and public gathering will be seen with high frequency for their lifespan with little need for further effort in areas in a variety of Montana communities. Coupled with this effort upkeep. The signs will serve to normalize the recognition of flood risk which will will be the development of a story map, available on the Montana encourage risk informed decision making by the general population. Silver Jackets website, which is made up of historic, and recent •The HWM signs directly prompt the public to the SJ website which presents information on building a disaster supply kit, and other risk reduction strategies for flooding photographs connected to Iowa communities. homeowners. Further, the public is brought aware of locations prone to flooding prompting them to avoid using the land in unfit ways. The signs also bring attention to Levees in the area which often go unnoticed. With recognition of these levees, the communities are likely to be more willing to provide maintenance when necessary. The signs will also be included in CRS applications which has the potential to reduce the level of the community, giving a 5% reduction in insurance premiums or about $60-100 per property per year. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Project is currently being initiated USACE $73,483 • Project is currently being initiated Local Communities $106,367

Project Point of Contact Total: $179,850 Tony D. Krause, P.E., CFM USACE – Omaha District Montana Risk Communication Webtool Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits The project is going to develop a website to be used as a • The website will contain pages specifically targeting information on remaining safe • during and after a flood. Human health and life safety are the primary objective of communication tool specific to the State of Montana providing these pages. Accordingly, content on life safety, “turn around, don't drown” and the flood risk and response information to the general public. emotional impact of disasters is highlighted. Additionally, a trifold flyer will be developed containing similar • The vast majority of risk treatment decisions are made at the local or home owner information in a condensed format which can be used by state level. These pages facilitate these decisions in a risk informed context. These pages have been designed to reduce audience inhibition by following the Monroe's and local agencies to further spread the word about flood rise, Motivated Sequence and organizing the message. and direct the public to the website. • The primary action taken will be by local property owners in making risk informed decisions.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Project is currently being initiated USACE $10,000 • Project is currently being initiated MTDNRC $10,000 Local Communities $7,200

Project Point of Contact Total: $27,200 Tony D. Krause, P.E., CFM USACE – Omaha District Nebraska Nebraska High Water Mark Signs Project Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits The Nebraska High Water Mark Project included the design of 23 •The Nebraska HWM project provides an ongoing, passive general public outreach to bring attention to flood risk. The signs are placed in public areas of regular use and will High Water Mark signs installed in recreational and public gathering be seen with high frequency for their lifespan with little need for further effort in areas in a variety of Nebraska communities. Surveys were upkeep. The signs will serve to normalize the recognition of flood risk which will conducted to include physical markers at the actual elevations of encourage risk informed decision making by the general population. the base flood at the sign location. In communities nearby the •The HWM signs directly prompt the public to the SJ website which presents information on building a disaster supply kit, and other risk reduction strategies for Missouri River the 2011 flood elevation was also marked. Coupled homeowners. Further, the public is brought aware of locations prone to flooding with this effort is the development of a story map, available on the prompting them to avoid using the land in unfit ways. The signs also bring attention to Nebraska Silver Jackets website, which is made up of 139 historic, Levees in the area which often go unnoticed. With recognition of these levees, the and recent flooding photographs connected to Nebraska and Iowa communities are likely to be more willing to provide maintenance when necessary. The signs will also be included in CRS applications which has the potential to reduce the cities. level of the community, giving a 5% reduction in insurance premiums or about $60-100 per property per year. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Agency Investment In response to the challenges faced, we decided to shift the Continuing Challenges focus of our signs to stories of floods, rather than primarily USACE Project Budget $58,000 Challenges faced in this project were showcasing the high water marks to maintain relevancy in Combined Local Communities $99,167 locations where, though hazardous, the flood level would not primarily in finding locations where the appear significant to the layman. We also developed the HWM base flood, and high water mark were story map, which is picture dominated and easily navigable for located at an elevation above eye level. public consumption. Further benefits to this project include an Another issue was in finding a form of opened door to a working relationship with the Nebraska State online resource interesting enough to Historical Society, which provided a large library of pictures for use in the story map. attract attention without being seen by the public as dull and ignored. Project Point of Contact Total: $157,167 Tony Krause USACE – Omaha District Nevada Nevada Flood Chronology: Walker River Basin

Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes •Developed flood chronology website based on the Carson • The Walker River Basin was the second basin on the Chronology River Watershed website for the Walker River Watershed. Website and will be used to educate the public on flood risk. •Contains stories, vignettes of various floods in the Walker River Watershed, flood statistics that can be used to •Watershed tour allowed all the local agencies to participate and educate the local communities on the flood hazards and the local tribes. During tour, issues discussed and relationships provide evidence of past floods. formed, resulting in grant application for sedimentation issue which •http://nevada.usgs.gov/crfld/ will help the fish and simultaneously addressing flood risk. •By making this information available, it will help the •As a result of the tour, the Walker River Paiute tribe contacted the community avoid building in locations at high risk for NDEM to ask for help in starting a hazard mitigation plan for the flooding. tribe.

Challenges Overcome Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Agency Investment •From the field trip taken by many agencies, the • Government Shutdown threw the USACE $100K Tribes developed a working relationship with the project off schedule, but project was NV DWR, NV DEM $20K In-kind NV State Hazard Mitigation Officer and found out completed. Lyon County, City of Yerington, $50K In- there were funds available to help develop a • Keeping track of the different photos, Mono County , Western NV Agency Kind of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, tribal mitigation plan. photo releases and interview logs. Yerington and Walker River Paiute Website hits were tracked as a measure of use Tribes, Walker River Irrigation • District, NV Tribal-State • Use of historical information summarized past Environmental Liaison Office, NDW, floods and damages. Walker Basin Restoration Program, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, NDOT, USGS USACE Project Point of Contact TOTAL $170K Rachael Orellana USACE Sacramento District Nevada Communication of Nevada’s Flood Risk- Multimedia Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes •Create PSAs in English and Spanish to promote flood •Sharing information increases individual flood awareness risk awareness in Nevada. which in turn increases preparedness to reduce future expenditures from catastrophic events. •Provides videos which can assist local Nevada communities with flood risk awareness outreach. • Videos help local officials explain the need for continued attention to flood risk management.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Reached the target audience and brought • Promoting flood risk awareness in awareness of flood risks. a time of drought. Nevada $20K In-kind • The video format of 30 second Public Service • Helping the general public Department of Announcements was most effective at reaching understand their risk for flooding Water Resources the largest audience Having PSAs in both English and Spanish was very U.S. Army Crops $94K Cash • by going to NevadaFloods.org to helpful in reaching a wide audience. look up their address of Engineers • Helping the public know what TOTAL $114K USACE Project Point of Contact they can do to prepare for floods Rachael Orellana, PE USACE Sacramento District NEVADA Nevada Flood Risk Awareness Project Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •The Corps participated in several Nevada Flood Awareness •By making information publicly week events and provided educational outreach materials available, people are more aware for public dissemination. of the effects of their actions in the •Nonstructural flood proofing techniques were presented at watershed. Local outreach was conducted to workshops in Reno and Minden, NV. • inform and educate the public on •Stories, photos, maps and vignettes of past flooding on the local flood risks so that they can Humboldt River were posted to the NV Silver Jackets make informed decisions about website as part of the Nevada flood chronology project. threats to life and property. Humbolt River Bridge

Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Management Practices •Information and examples provided can be used by Agency Investment local communities to avoid impacts to the watershed. USACE $140K •When citizens know their flood risk, they can make NV Department of $40K in-kind informed decisions to minimize their risk and the costs Water Resources associated with emergency response during flood events. U.S. Geological $40K In-kind •Public outreach during Flood Awareness Week will Service help agencies and communities work together to National Weather $20K In-kind spread the word on flood risks. Service Total Cost: $240,000 Project Point of Contact Humbolt River flowing through Carlin Margaret Engesser Canyon USACE Sacramento District NEVADA Nevada Multimedia Continuation – Flood Fighter Video Game Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • This project continued the work of a 2015 Silver • Video gaming is a highly effective outreach technique, and the state Jackets project in California, which was created intends to involve educators and children in educational activities, computer games promoting critical thinking. The using these tools. When children bring the information home, it team explained the risk associated with flooding sparks dialogue between them and their parents, and the parents in Nevada, and produced an enhanced video game simulation with Graphical User Interface learn more about flood risk. (GUI), illustrating and engaging the player in • Players are educated on the challenges of water management, the reservoir operations, levee maintenance and existence of flood risk, and the need to take personal actions. The repair, and flood risk management. The game will game provides links to more information on how to take action. be available for free download and will assist flood risk managers in educating the public, • Provides an additional tool to help the public understand the need especially students, to the complexities of water for continued attention to flood risk management. management.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Flood risk awareness was raised through video game itself and through the short films on dam USACE $170K safety within the game. • Public outreach of the tool will be NV Div. of Water Resources $50K In-kind • Explaining the aspects the next step to get the game out NV Dept. of C&NR $30K of water management to the public. The project partners NV EPA $30K and flood risk to the TOTAL $280K developers actually and potential future Silver Jackets improved our own projects can work on this. communication abilities. • Future funding would be needed for game updates, fixes, or patches. Project Point of Contact Hunter Merritt USACE Sacramento District Ohio State of Ohio Flood Awareness Campaign Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Participate in a flood awareness campaign in the State of Ohio. •Citizens and communities in Ohio would have a better •The campaign will describe flood risk and bring general flood understanding about the dangers of flooding and how to risk awareness to vulnerable populations throughout the state. protect life safety. • There would be multiple agency and group participation • As vulnerable populations are made aware of flood risk, including the Ohio Silver Jackets team. Each agency/group will they will ultimately take action. For instance, increased have a specific target audience to ensure a variety of audiences knowledge about the dangers of flood waters would prompt are reached through this effort. vulnerable populations to avoid driving/wading through flood •The goal of this proposal is to re-establish a flood awareness waters. campaign and to make this an annual event to ensure flood risk •Life safety would be improved as communities would have awareness is prioritized in communities the knowledge of flood risk. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Coordinating with the Ohio • Determining the scope USACE $40,000 Committee for Severe Weather required for an effective OEMA $2,000 In-kind Awareness to partner with multiple campaign. ODNR $4,000 In-kind agencies in an effort to reach a variety • Timeframe of Flood Awareness NWS $15,000 In-kind of audiences and leverage resources. Campaign FEMA $2,000 In-kind •How Silver Jackets will contribute effectively to the TOTAL: $63,000 Project Point of Contact campaign. Ashley Stephens and JoAnn Combs USACE Huntington District Tennessee Tennessee Real Estate Flood Preparedness Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Educational information for the real estate community about •Making the real estate community more aware of flood risk will flood risk reduce the demand for development in the floodplain and •Enable parties to communicate flood risk to their clients when encourage developers to build in a more resilient manner. purchasing homes, business or land in flood-prone areas •Being aware of the risk and cost associated with living in •Many home and business owners in Tennessee knowingly or floodplains, will deter some buyers from purchasing in flood- unknowingly buy property within a floodplain without fully prone areas resulting in a reduction of those exposed to flooding, understanding the risk. Uniformed and misinformed decisions and therefore, a reduction in loss of life. can result in property damage, displacement, temporary or permanent closing of business and even fatalities.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Tennesseans making more informed decisions in •This is a new pilot project that has not TN NFIP $10K In-kind regards to real estate in the floodplain yet begun TEMA $30K In-kind •Challenges may include real estate FEMA $5K In-kind professionals wanting to deter purchases in the floodplain, which may HUD $2k In-kind take away from their own profits. TNECD $2K In-kind TVA $2k In-kind Metro Water Services $2K In-kind Lacey Thomason - TOTAL: $235K Nashville District, USACE Chris Cunningham - TEMA Virginia Richmond High Water Mark Initiative Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits On June 23, 1972, precipitation from •Promotes Flood Risk -The HWM campaign is an element within Hurricane Agnes devastated the city of the city of Richmond’s new established CRS status. Richmond. On the 44th anniversary of the •HWM signs promote citizen awareness of flood risk to promote historic flood, the team unveiled a high better informed decisions regarding actions prior to and during a water mark 13 feet above the flood. parking lot, a striking reminder of what can •Reduces/Manages Flood Risk - Better and has happened. Awareness can Empower citizens to make better informed decisions about residual risk.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •A passionate local sponsor motivated the team. •Challenges FEMA $20K In-kind •A concurrent SJ Nonstructural project provided *Private vs. Public Property – Team NOAA NWS $10K In-kind information about historic water levels. selected public property to reduce •Anniversary of historic event as unveiling. negotiating with property owners. USACE $35K * Local Ordinances – Can mold signage USGS $30K match design and content. Attended board VDEM $10K In-kind meetings with sponsors to present a VDCR $10K in-kind coordinated effort and the benefits of signage. City of Richmond $30K In-kind Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $145K Michelle Hamor, Chief, FPMS USACE Norfolk District Emergency Preparedness/Response/Action Plans and Processes Louisiana Jean Lafitte Emergency Preparedness/Communication Plan Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Provide the town of Jean Lafitte with an updated Emergency • Updates to EPP will identify current flood risks and lower Preparedness Plan (EPP) to identify flood hazards and evacuation times for future events vulnerabilities, while prioritizing responses • Updated design guidelines and ordinances will reduce risk by • Update Elevation Design Guidelines and Coastal eliminating flooding caused by mounding Development Standards (ordinances) to improve on site water • Future implementation of design guidelines and ordinances management will help to decrease flood insurance premiums for Jean Lafitte residents

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges • Updated EPP makes decision makers aware of Elevation Design Guidelines current risks and provides guidelines on how to Agency Investment • Current elevation requirements are outdated manage this risk during emergency situations • Structure elevation primarily achieved by Town of Jean Lafitte $75K In-kind • Outreach has allowed State, Federal, and bringing in fill ; often leads to flooding of other State of LA $15K In-kind structures. Local Agencies to work together to • Guidelines will develop regulations for USACE $110k communicate current risk to residents structures to abide by to be resilient to flooding TOTAL $200K Resistance to Change • Challenge for community to embrace updated Project Point of Contact guidelines/ordinances Nick Sims, PM, SJ Coordinator USACE New Orleans District KANSAS Emergency Action Plans for Watershed Districts Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes (ongoing)

•The Obstructions in Streams Act (KAR 5-40-73) required EAPs for all Class C •Satisfies completion of state hazard mitigation plan goal: Complete (high hazard) dams since 1983. As of May 18, 2007, all Class B (significant emergency action plans for most critical high hazard dams as identified by hazard) dams must have an EAP. This applies to all NRCS funded dams also. KDA-DWR and NRCS. •This project teams USACE NWK and SWL with KS Dept of Ag-Division of •Reduces potential damage to property and loss of life potential Water Resources and NRCS to develop EAPs for several identified High •These EAPs will enhance agency collaboration and bolster situational Hazard dams and to establish an emergency action plan template. Of 830 awareness. federally funded dams in KS, 128 are high hazard; only 51 EAPs have been •These EAPs will greatly assist in the preparation phase of the flood risk completed. management life-cycle. •NRCS and DWR collaborating on between 10 and 20 of these for this project.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Involved emergency managements specialists in the district USACE $100K •Clarification that this is not a USACE action •Combined template from NRCS and state agency, created or requirement NRCS EAPs $40K In-kind template for creation process and document. •Variety of emergency preparedness plans, •Clarified the work by USACE, including roles and NRCS EAP training $14K In-kind emergency action plans, flood fighting plans, responsibilities of the watershed joint districts with a and operation plans that sometimes overlap NRCS Dam Watch $700K In-kind letter to each or have similarities NRCS Coordination $5K In-kind •Need for a strong and standardized template KDA DWR $8K In-kind •Coordination between agencies, districts to TOTAL $867k complete the remaining 5 EAPs. USACE Project Point of Contacts Brian Rast / Jud Kneuvean, Kansas City District Bill Smiley, Tulsa District Kentucky Louisville Enhanced Emergency Response Plan Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • The Kentucky Silver Jackets Team worked with the • Utilizing this tool will provide improve response times in Louisville Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District emergencies to offer technical assistance to the emergency response • Will enable local, federal, and state officials, emergency plan based on an potential failure at the point of highest managers, and members of the general public to take risk within Louisville’s flood protection system action to protect lives • Analysis utilized data developed as part of the Levee • Current Response Plan is being updated and improved from this project System Evaluation performed by the Louisville District on a reimbursable basis.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Utilization of $755K in HUD funding for LSE • Internal policy disagreements Louisville-Jefferson $2.5M to provide data delayed signing of the MOA for the County MSD (cost of upgrades • Energetic and Supportive Local and State to levee system) Levee System Evaluation (LSE). Government FEMA/KY/MSD $856K Eventually an agreement was (response plan •Project has spawned a tabletop exercise as reached and MOA was signed. development) well as development of a Catastrophic urban MSD/HUD for LSE $755K (for LSE) flood plan for Louisville • Harsh winter weather delayed the start of field data collection. USACE $75,000 Project Point of Contact Total Cost: $4.186M Brandon R. Brummett, P.E., PMP USACE Louisville District Town of Charlemont Project Point of Contact MASSACHUSETTS Brian Balukonis, PG Flood Risk Action & Evacuation Plans USACE New England District Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •A Flood Risk Action Plan and updated Evacuation Plan will be •Emergency managers use updated produced with and for the Town documents to coordinate evacuation, •Town experienced tremendous road closures and the certified shelters flooding during Tropical Storm Irene •Local outreach conducted to inform in 2011 and educate the public on how to use •Documents produced will help the the information to make informed Town and provide education and decisions about threat to life and outreach to the community property, as well as future development decisions regarding economic opportunity and town expansion

Partners and Project Cost

Agency Investment Challenges Overcome / USACE $150K Continuing Challenges USGS $205K in-kind •Town is small with very limited resources MA DCR $4.2K In-kind •No zoning criteria •Limited routes to enter and exit the Town for MA MEMA $6.7K In-kind Successes/Best Practices evacuation Town of •Lack of certified shelters for evacuation •Multiple agencies along with the local Town officials bring Charlemont, MA $5K In-kind •Town’s emergency apparatus is in the diverse knowledge, expertise and determination. floodplain Total $370,900 •Outreach will continue to be an important component Montana Miles City Emergency Action Plan and Tabletop Exercise Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • The Montana Silver Jackets Emergency Action Plan (EAP) project • Emergency preparedness plans are intended to provide a clear and effective successfully developed breach inundation mapping and levee EAP structure with which to manage an emergency. For levee systems, materials for the City of Miles City. Emergency preparedness plans are emergency preparedness plans focus on actions that may be considered during a flooding event. The community participated as a whole to exercise intended to provide a clear and effective structure with which to the plan. A plan developed for a flood response is not sufficient unless it has manage an emergency. For levee systems, emergency preparedness been practiced and communicated to those who will execute the plan’s plans focus on actions that may be considered during a flooding event. procedures. Training and exercises also inform personnel about the time and A plan developed for a flood response is not sufficient unless it has resources necessary to complete certain tasks. Important practical been practiced and communicated to those who will execute the plan’s considerations and physical limitations that could be easily overlooked in a procedures. These materials were presented to the community plan are often identified during an exercise. officials through a tabletop exercise on 6 November 2016 and the public • One of the project's outcomes is to reduce the Flood Insurance Rates on 26 April 2016. through the Community Rating System (CRS)

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment The Miles City EAP had three primary outcomes: USACE Project Budget $64,360 • Development of the individual levee • Develop and test an Emergency Action Plan for the State and Local (In-Kind) $39,600 EAPs requires understanding levee failure Miles City Levee scenarios, overtopping, and breach • Protect the lives and property through response scenarios in order to develop mapping for actions inundation areas, evacuation areas, travel • Reduce Flood Insurance Rates through the times to key locations, estimates of flood Community Rating System (CRS) depth and velocity of flow, and a characterization and count of insurable structures within the inundation area. Project Point of Contact Total: $103,960 Tony D. Krause, P.E., CFM USACE – Omaha District Pennsylvania Flood Damage Assessment Process Improvement Plan Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Bring together a group of subject experts from the •Improve recovery support and expedite recovery of local, state and federal level to improve process of flood disaster-impacted individuals, families, businesses and damage assessments following a flood disaster communities •Current process is cumbersome and often involves •Help to restore, redevelop and revitalize the health, duplication of effort by different levels of government social, economic, natural and environmental fabric of the •Group coordination of all affected parties will reduce area subject to flooding and build a more resilient delays in recovery efforts and mitigation actions community

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Project is just being initiated FEMA $4K In-kind •This project is complex, in terms of the PEMA/PA DCED/PA DEP/PA $20K In-kind amount of people involved and the Dept. of Ag./PA SHPO number and types of data collected USACE $39K after a flood disaster. We need to make Lycoming County $4K In-kind sure the team develops a focused and Susquehanna River Basin $4K In-kind attainable goal for the project. Commission PAFPM $4K In-kind Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $75K Jason Stick USACE Baltimore District Texas LifeSim Model and Update to the Dallas Floodway Emergency Action Plan Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Development of LifeSim model to improve City of Dallas Emergency Action Plan (EAP) response to • Improvement of the EAP should assist general public riverine and interior flooding associated with the and emergency responders in reducing loss of life if the Trinity River. levees do not perform as designed and, minimally, • The flooding scenarios modeled will inform plans to should provide enough lead time to reduce flood maximize lead times based on depths of flooding, damage, at least to structure content and vehicles. evacuation route availability, and location of structures.

Challenges Overcome / Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Partners and Project Cost • Use of existing H&H modeling has reduced level • Determining flooding scenarios that of effort and reduced overall project timelines Agency Investment best inform EAP • Building LifeSim modeling scenarios within • Establishing and maintaining City of Dallas $350K In-kind context of EAP flooding scenarios Continued engagement with partners and timelines between resources and USACE $200K • working toward addressing flooding priorities partners TOTAL: $550K • Communication of risks to the population within protected area of the levee system USACE Project Point of Contact Jon Loxley, PGM Program Management/Fort Worth, TX Flood Mapping ALASKA Willow Creek High Water Scenario Inundation Mapping Interagency Project Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •Perform high water scenario modeling and mapping of •Creates a tool for Emergency Managers to use in coordinating Willow Creek by augmenting recently released FEMA evacuations and road closures, directly impacting damage maps. Map results will be used by NWS flood mitigation and community resilience forecasting to specify impact; evacuation and future •Provides expected extent of flooding relative to select development planning by DHS&EM and Borough. stages/flows at the USGS stream gage and associated flood •The Alaska Railroad Corporation will utilize maps to depth •Establishes outreach opportunity to engage and educate the ensure appropriate infrastructure design. public on how to use this data to make informed decisions about •Map library will be displayed digitally on various map threat to life and property. Specifically elevate valuables, move viewer websites vehicles, prepare to evacuate and other preparations.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Multiple agencies will bring diverse knowledge, •Working with new Partners to Silver USACE $60K expertise and resources Jackets USGS $45K In-kind •Bringing in new Silver Jackets Partners from the •Deciding how to display maps and what Private Sector (Alaska Railroad Corp) and the NOAA/NWS $20K In-kind platform to use; funding for viewer State (AK DOT&PF) •Working with local government and State DHS&EM $20K In-kind •Relevant, timely project for area public to explain the application of FEMA Local Borough $20K In-kind maps and high water scenario maps; AKRRC $30K In-kind ensuring public is aware of risks and Project Point of Contact understands limitations and purpose of Total $195,000 scenario maps. Wendy Shaw USACE Alaska District DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Potomac and Anacostia Rivers FIM Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •Inundation maps provide critical, timely information about the expected • Flood inundation mapping tool was developed for the Potomac extent and depth of flooding. Maps assist in better communicating the risk to River (riverine and tidal flooding) and the Anacostia River (tidal the general public, and inform local official and emergency manager decisions flooding) in and around D.C. •Using information provided by the maps, the general public will be able to •Map layers are tied to 3 USGS stream gages elevate or move possessions, reducing damages and reducing claims to the •A map library has been developed and is accessible through NFIP. NWS AHPS site; will be accessible on USGS mapviewer in future •Local officials will also be able to take actions to reduce damages and •Maps more effectively communicate flood risk to the general improve life safety, such as shutting down power grids, setting up evacuation public, local officials, and emergency managers routes, moving critical assets to higher ground •The new maps are being incorporated into the revised Flood Emergency Manual, which will guide actions if a flood occurs

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •To better assess the risk, the team was able to •Two sets of maps needed to be developed for extend the study reach an additional 4 miles down USACE $122,000 rd the Potomac River for each gage, one for the Potomac River to include a 3 USGS stream riverine and one for tidal flooding. New USGS $48,200 gage (now that it has been added as a NWS process for NWS/USGS forecast point). •Working in tidal area caused additional NWS $30,000 •Multiple agencies on team to ensure accuracy of challenges during modeling and mapping maps •Developing mapping for 3 gages more FEMA $68,000 •Held webinars as part of outreach effort challenging than 1 gage DDOE $38,000 •Mapping complex area with many bridges and FRM projects NPS/NCPC $12,000 Project Point of Contact TOTAL $318,200 Stacey Underwood USACE Baltimore District Georgia Ocmulgee River Flood Forecast Inundation Mapping (FFIM) Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes The Georgia Silver Jackets team has made flood forecast • Reduces/Manages Flood Risk: Flood risks are better known and inundation maps readily available and easily accessible communicated to the public before and during flood events. • Reduces Future Expenditures: The FFIMs will promote a more effective on NOAA’s Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service response to get expensive property items to higher ground and eliminate website for public officials, emergency managers, and unneeded emergency management and mitigation expenditures. the public. The mapping tool displays the area and • Results in Action by Others: This project has built relationships amongst depth of flooding along the 22 mile stretch of the different federal, state and local agencies. The City of Macon/Bibb County said that this information supports their efforts in emergency management, Ocmulgee River, including the 5.8 mile Macon Levee, local hazard mitigation planning, and assists them in making evacuation referenced to the forecast point gage on the Ocmulgee planning more effective and efficient to minimize risks to property damage River in the City of Macon, Georgia. and loss of life. The public was informed and the web address is listed below. http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/inundation/index.php?gage=macg1 Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Knowledge about flood inundation GEMA $10K In-kind referenced to the forecast point gage is now • Schedule delays for the LiDAR GDNR $10K In-kind readily available and easily accessible to all collection and DEM preparation delayed USGS $50K In-kind • The level of protection of the Macon Levee the overall schedule FEMA $50K In-kind is now known • The most important factor that contributed • Loss of a vital team member at a FHWA $50K In-kind to success was collaboration with all entities critical point of the project also delayed NOAA $90K In-kind the completion date USACE $100K USACE Project Point(s) of Contact TOTAL $360K Jeff Morris and Brian Choate USACE Savannah District IDAHO Remapping the Floodplain after the 1976 Teton Dam Failure Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes • The project involved a detailed flood insurance study, • Accurate floodplain maps are vital so citizens can take incorporating recent LiDAR and updated survey data, for a actions to protect life and property. 6-mile reach of the South Fork Teton River in Rexburg, • Accurate floodplain maps will guide smart development Idaho, located downstream of the former Teton Dam site. resulting in reduced future flood losses. • Current 1991 Floodplain Insurance Rate Maps are • Community is using information to update regulatory inaccurate, having been based on a USACE Special Flood floodplain maps and its County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Hazard Study developed shortly after dam failure in 1977. • Significant river channel migration is suspected since the • More accurate flood risk information will allow the 1976 Teton Dam failure. community to take more effective risk mitigation actions.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Mapping was coordinated with FEMA Risk MAP program. • Contractor survey costs were USACE $128 K significantly greater than estimated, • Hydrology work reviewed by FEMA and used for 18 requiring project rescoping and request FEMA $ 10 K additional miles of Teton River floodplain mapping. for additional funds to IWR. Hydrology ID Bureau of $ 5 K • Project management plan and study scope developed was removed from study scope and Homeland Security in coordination with local community floodplain performed under FPMS. managers to ensure local support and commitment to • New hydrology developed now being Madison County $ 25 K submit updated maps to FEMA for LOMR. applied to longer reach of Teton River and City of Rexburg $ 7.8 K maps blended. USACE Project Point of Contact Total Cost: $175.8 K • FEMA funding USACE to blend this work Ellen Berggren, Deputy, Silver Jackets Program with upstream maps, leading to a LOMR. USACE IWR Idaho Stanley, Idaho, Custer County Floodplain Mapping Project Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits The City of Stanley participates in the NFIP, but only has approximate mapping for The completion of this project will lead to the following benefits: rivers and tributaries within the urban growth area. This project will create detailed • Increased flood risk awareness for: City Government (Stanley), County studies for the entire urban growth area. Stanley is becoming a high mountain resort Government (Custer), State Government, Federal Government community that is experiencing development pressure, and now needs a better study (FEMA/USACE), Private Citizens to protect lives and property through higher standards. This area is at high risk from • City will submit a LOMR flood and fire hazards and an interagency approach to managing flood risk is • City has floodplain ordinances that will take effect with adoption of new necessary. The absence of an identified flood hazard severely limits the community’s floodplain maps. ability to implement a community vision for flood risk management. This project proposal is to: • City floodplain administrator/City Council now will be able to better • Acquire about 15 square miles of LiDAR regulate growth out of flood prone areas. • Leverage the existing engineering surveys and updated hydrology • Development will be focused in areas with lower flood risk. • Develop flood hazard AE zone mapping on Valley Creek, Salmon River, Meadow • Response agencies will benefit from reduced development in high risk Creek and Goat Creek. areas

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Encouraging communities to be pro-active in responsibly managing development to reduce flood risk. •The USACE Surveying and Mapping group has FEMA $8K In-kind •Coordinating with partner agencies for uniform lost their survey contract writer resulting in a USACE (existing Work) $57K In-kind messaging. potential delay to the project if not filled by •Providing emergency responders with the risk awareness USACE (new work) $93K Cash March. May look to other options. for preparedness and response activities. Idaho Office of Emergency $3K In-kind Management Idaho Department of $2K In-kind Water Resources

TOTAL: $163K Project Point of Contact Tracy Schwarz, FRM/FPMS Program Manager USACE/Walla Walla District/H&H Branch Kentucky LiDAR Data Assessment for Non-Levee Embankments in Daviess County, KY Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • The Kentucky and Indiana Silver Jackets Teams will • Utilizing this tool will enable the Commonwealth of utilize LiDAR data and GIS technology to identify non- Kentucky and Daviess County officials to be more levee embankments in Daviess County, KY informed of previously unidentified risks within the County • This type of analysis has previously been done by • Results can also be used to enhance the state and local portions of the National Levee Database Indiana University-Purdue University of Indianapolis This project will also lead to similar efforts throughout (IUPUI). IUPUI personnel will train USACE personnel on • the Commonwealth. these methods as part of the project.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Indiana has been utilizing this practice to • Execution of the Indiana $638,000 identify non-levee embankments in (Previous process Intergovernmental Personnel Act development) numerous counties over the past 2-3 years. Agreement has taken much longer Indiana $849,000 This project will leverage that knowledge than anticipated. (LiDAR collected and allow personnel from USACE and the previously) Commonwealth of Kentucky to be trained NRCS / $167,000 on these methods. Commonwealth of (LiDAR collected KY previously) Project Point of Contact USACE $80,000 Brandon R. Brummett, P.E., PMP Total Cost: $1.734M USACE Louisville District Kentucky Falmouth Flood Inundation Map Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •The Kentucky Silver Jackets team worked with local officials to •This project raised flood risk awareness by having a flood inundation map develop a flood inundation map for the City of Falmouth, KY. site accessible to not only local officials and emergency managers, but also the general public. A successful public rollout/media event was held in Falmouth is located in Pendleton County, Kentucky at the November in order to showcase the maps to the general public and allow confluence of the Licking River and the South Fork of the Licking them a chance to use the maps and ask questions of the Silver Jackets Team. River. Falmouth has been plagued by flooding in the past, and has •Seeing the damages presented in a graphical map based format better been the subject of multiple flood risk management studies. In prompts action by community officials, and the public. Use of these maps March of 1997 a 0.2% chance (500 year) flooding event occurred, allow citizens to be more responsive to flooding by allowing them to and 70% of the City of Falmouth was inundated and. 5 people died, evacuate or move valuables out of harms way. One local business owner and 575 homes and businesses were damaged yielding over $50M. stated that if he would have had the warning time this tool will give he could have saved hundreds of thousands by moving his inventory prior to the flood of 1997.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Building on other successes in the area such as the Emergency USACE Project Budget $75,000 Operations Center built as part of a previous Section 205 •Since flooding comes from both the Project was a great success. Data from that study as well as USACE Sec. 205 (Leveraged) $952,000 Licking River and the South Fork, process improvements learned from previous FIM efforts were additional gaging, mapping, and modeling Pendleton County (leveraged) $361,000 incorporated into the project. The local government was very energetic throughout this USGS $33,700 • was necessary which took more time. project, and helped bring other partners to the table. In KY (leveraged LIDAR) $146,750 addition, the State government was very supportive of both Additionally project personnel changes KY - Dept for Local Government $26,000 the team's efforts, and the efforts of the local government. due to retirements made some coordination difficult. Project Point of Contact Total: $1,594,450 Brandon R. Brummett, P.E., PMP USACE Louisville District Outreach Coordinator Kentucky Frankfort Flood Inundation Mapping Enhancement Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • The Kentucky Silver Jackets Team developed a flood • Utilizing this tool will provide advanced flood warning to the inundation map library utilizing existing dam and levee community, thereby reducing the risk of loss of life • Tool will be used by local officials to better position resources failure analyses for the Kentucky River in and near for flooding and to better plan for evacuations and road Frankfort. closures. • Existing failure analysis prepared as part of the ICW • Updated dam breach analysis has armed local officials to program was used to enhance map, and flood better combat mis-information spread by some local citizens inundation maps were developed for breach of the Dix concerning the dam Dam (owned and operated by Kentucky Utilities) • Products will be used to update local emergency management plans and hazard mitigation plan

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices • Coordination with Kentucky Utilities was Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Kentucky Utilities was reluctant paramount City of Frankfort $13,500 to partner in the project. • Energetic and Supportive Local and State Ultimately Flood Inundation Maps Franklin County $13,500 Government for dam breach were provided to Commonwealth $27,500 • Building on previous successes and efforts of KY/HUD local officials only in the area USGS $55,000 • Existing dam failure models were USACE $75,000 not done in HEC RAS, and needed Total Cost: $184,500 Project Point of Contact to be updated Brandon R. Brummett, P.E., PMP USACE Louisville District Kentucky Hazard Flood Inundation Mapping Interagency Project Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • The Kentucky Silver Jackets Team will develop a flood • Utilizing this tool will provide advanced flood warning to inundation map library for Hazard, KY the community, thereby reducing the risk of loss of life • Hazard is located in Perry County, KY along the North • Tool will be used by local officials to better position fork of the Licking River and is flooded frequently. resources for flooding and to better plan for evacuations • Map library will be available through the internet for and road closures. use by members of the general public as well as local • Outreach will allow citizens to take personal emergency managers. responsibility allowing them to evacuate or move valuables out of harms way.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Supportive State and Local Government • Not enough stream gages in Commonwealth of $60,000 area; gages had to be added and KY, Hazard, and Perry • Building on previous successes in the area Co. rating developed for those gages. (LiDAR) Commonwealth of KY $120,000 • Great partnership between Federal agencies, • Weather caused some delays to / NRCS State agencies, and local government the project USGS $15,000 USACE $55,000 Project Point of Contact Total Cost: $250,000 Brandon R. Brummett, P.E., PMP USACE Louisville District Missouri Flood Inundation Mapping for Lower Meramec River Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • The Meramec River flows through east central Missouri and has been a source of Benefits of FIM to State agencies: flood damage for many years. Flooding in the Meramec River watershed has • SEMA can better focus state flood response and recovery resources caused millions of dollars of damage. • MoDOT can quickly assess potential road/bridge damage • Industries and residents have to make quick and expensive decisions regarding • State health departments can focus resources on special populations and facilities evacuation and removal of equipment and property. • State environmental agencies can determine where pollutant impacts may occur • This project will create Flood Inundation Maps (FIM) for the lower Meramec River from infrastructure damage basin to include the generation of 1'-2' inundation map libraries for Pacific, Benefits of FIM to Local agencies: Eureka, Valley Park, Fenton, and Arnold. FIMs translate a hydrograph (vertical • EMA director can focus warnings using automated technologies to get stage point information) into a series of concentric inundation maps (area based people/property out of harm's way information) that have many uses, including communicating risk and • Evacuation routes can be assessed quickly or flood access consequences. • Police would know where to place barricades in advance of flood crest to block • The focus is on deterministic mapping for all flood stages – NOT probabilistic flooded roads and prevent accidents mapping (i.e.; 1% chance floodway, etc.) • Officials would have answers more quickly • Public can be better educated to threat of floods Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment FIM becomes a tool for flood: - Preparedness ("what-if" scenarios) • Rapidly changing partners financial situation USGS $105K In-kind - Response (tied to gage and forecast data) led to opportunity - Recovery (damage assessment) MSD $30K to USGS • USGS able to advance the project - Mitigation and Planning (flood risk analyses) more than expected USACE $100K - Environmental and Ecological Assessments • This allows for flood inundation mapping to extend upstream to the City of Eureka $5k to USGS Bourbeuse River in and near Union, MO City of Arnold $5k to USGS

TOTAL: $245K Project Point of Contact Hal Graef USACE St. Louis District Missouri MO River Flood Event Simulation Mapping (FESM) Process Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes

•Enable a mapping process that during a flood event can account for levee •“Operationalizes" risk awareness during flood events breaches and overtopping and update maps of expected flooding with •Addresses past goals of the Missouri River Flood Task Force’s Floodplain quicker completion time Committee •Use newly available mapping and hydraulic modeling tools on the •Provides test map for state to communicate to public to improve Missouri River to enhance risk communication during events understanding of risks prior to investing in the floodplain •Leverage tools from joint efforts of the NOAA National Weather Service •Enables actionable risk reduction, including evacuation and emergency (NWS) and USACE Mapping Modeling and Consequence (MMC) Center response routes in advance of flooding •Produces event maps for over 500 miles of the river, helping Missouri to •Prevents needless flood fighting efforts which reduces costs communicate future risks and manage floodplains •Meets intent of the Integrated Water Resources Science and Services (IWRSS) memorandum of understanding

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Address past Interagency Levee Task Force goals •Collecting historical forecast data from past USACE $150k •Develop protocol for using this tool during real events, flood events needed for the process to be maintaining and communicating forward models and NOAA NWS FESM process $15k In-kind successful process •Developing techniques for choosing flow NOAA NWS new model ~$400k In-kind •Establish and document a consistent and repeatable input data will require trial and error to decide USACE MMC models ~$400k process for future users best way to refine models and produce useful •Test the process and the test maps in a flood event USACE MMC LiDAR $2M outputs exercise USACE MMC IWRSS $10k / yr (past 3 yrs) •Developing techniques to input levee USGS and FEMA ~$500k In-kind breaches and other near-real time geometry Missouri SEMA Minimal In-kind changes Project Point of Contact TOTAL Over $3.5 M •Model calibration has been tough Mitch Roberts, Silver Jackets Coordinator USACE Kansas City District Missouri Roubidoux Creek-Flood Forecast Inundation Map Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes •The product is a Flood Forecast Inundation Map for Waynesville, MO, in •Enables risk informed decision making for potential property owners prior to response to severe flooding, including the overtopping of Interstate-44 in flood events 2013 •Enables actionable risk reduction, including evacuation, for those willing to •National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service take steps when flooding is imminent (AHPS) website •Allows emergency responders to see flooded routes in advance •Map will be hosted on the web at water.weather.gov •Presents visual of flooding with all-the-time easy access on web •A warning system with NWS forecast point tied to the gage for awareness •Extends risk information beyond the base flood or 1%-AEP and action flood stages in the community •Prevents needless flood fighting efforts, which reduces costs •Watershed area upstream: 290 square miles •Educates public on causes of flooding •Peak flow timing: Less than 12 hours

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •New maps assist in managing future development •Leveraged NWS quality assurance review •Waynesville is at the downstream end of this Kansas Hazard Mitigation $4K In-kind watershed, close to the Upper Gasconade Team •Image of the NOAA NWS AHPS website is shown, for a River, and therefore the community can NOAA NWS $30K In-kind similar scenario, and this webpage is available 24 hours/ benefit from added awareness on flood risks, USACE $45K day and 7 days/week as a risk specifically for any future development to the USGS $1K In-kind south of the city communication device for the Pulaski County and City $4K In-kind public and for local officials •In the city limits, a sub-basin called Mitchell FEMA $1K In-kind Creek floods much more quickly TOTAL $85,000 Project Point of Contact Brian Rast USACE Kansas City District Missouri Shoal Creek – Flood Forecast Inundation Map Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • The project is a Flood Forecast Inundation Map for Joplin and •Enables risk informed decision making for community Newton County, Missouri in response to severe flooding in winter development and potential property owners prior to flood events 2015-16. Lives were lost and critical drinking water and wastewater •Enables actionable risk reduction, including evacuation, for those infrastructure serving the majority of community, two regional willing to take steps when flooding is imminent hospitals and two smaller villages/towns was affected. •Allows emergency responders to see flooded routes in advance •National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction •Presents visual of flooding with all-the-time easy access on web Service (AHPS) website •Extends risk information beyond the base flood or 1%-AEP •Map will be hosted on the web at water.weather.gov •Prevents needless flood fighting efforts, which reduces costs •A warning system with NWS forecast point tied to the stream gage •Educates public on risks, extent of flooding for awareness and action flood stages in the community •Watershed area upstream: 427 square miles

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •New maps assist in managing future •Staff turnover SEMA $10K In-kind development, especially location and elevation of •Establishing funding channel to address critical water and wastewater infrastructure. NOAA NWS $30K In-kind NWS web contractor fee. •Benefits emergency responders planning • LiDAR quality; City acquired LiDAR in USACE $50k in-kind •Leveraged USGS stream gage and NWS forecast point; NWS Quality Assurance Review 2012, but is questionable along Shoal City of Joplin $50k In-kind Creek. •Additional surveying may stretch Newton County and Joplin $4k In-kind project schedule. TOTAL: $144K Project Point of Contact Mitch Roberts, Silver Jackets Coordinator USACE Kansas City District Nebraska Scottsbluff Nonstructural Mitigation Identification, Online Mapping, and Development Decision Support

Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes • Hydraulics and mapping of the North Platte River • Hydraulic Models • Establish inundation areas that can be used for flood • Inundation Grids and Polygons risk awareness and development • NDNR website updates with new information • Provide resources for flood stage settings • Updated Flow Frequency Relationships • Provide FEMA with data for Risk MAP • Inundation Frequency Grids and Polygons • Leverage for FEMA Risk Map Products • Online FIMI mapping

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices • Installation and operation of USGS gage at the City of Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Current floodplain maps rely on National Scottsbluff • Development of communication tools allowing the Flood Insurance Program products from the NDNR $69K In-kind 1970’s that were developed without LiDAR community to view flood levels based on stream conditions data or the use of reservoir regulation USGS $58K In-kind • Identification of existing at risk properties for modeling. Local Sponsor $63K In-kind nonstructural mitigation focus in the city’s hazard • Cost reduction through collaboration of mitigation plan smaller communities • Using hydrology data from previous study USACE $97K • Length of study • Levee like features and water supply canal TOTAL $287K USACE Project Point of Contact along Winters Creek complicate modeling Tony D. Krause, P.E., CFM methods USACE - Omaha District Ohio MARION COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MAPPING Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •Based on FEMA’s evaluation of the Scioto River through Marion •Reliable floodplain mapping may significantly reduce life safety risk by County, OH, the current effective flood study is unverified. increasing public awareness and understanding of Risk MAP efforts and risks associated with flooding. •The project is to update hydraulics and hydrology (H&H) modeling •Updating floodplain mapping will allow state and local agencies to effectively along the Scioto River in Marion County, OH. and adequately express risk to citizens. While citizens will be able to more •The H&H modeling update will include the key Villages of La Rue, readily identify flooding risk, emergency planners and responders will be able Prospect, and Green Camp. These villages experience repeated, to take action to better protect citizens. State and local agencies will also use significant impacts due to flooding and will benefit from updated the updated mapping data to coordinate with FEMA to accept mapping mapping. updates. •Upon completion of H&H modeling, the process will begin for •Resiliency and public awareness will be increased due to the ability to respond incorporation into the Marion County, Ohio and Incorporated Areas more effectively in advance of flood events and enhance mitigation plans. Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Excellent success in leveraging of resources amongst •Early on, it was determined an increase in scope USACE $175,000 multiple agencies was required to effectively complete the project. USGS shared newly developed model of La Rue to be OEMA $6,000 in-kind • This scope increase called for an increase in used in current project ODNR $15,000 in-kind funding, which was ultimately secured through a •ODOT and Marion County Engineer collected most secondary proposal. ODOT $2,500 in-kind recent bridge and culvert data for model input •It takes 2-3 years for results to be incorporated Marion County Engineer $2,000 in-kind into the FIS and FIRM. There was concern the •Aqua America researched and provided data on a low- Villages would not use the updated data, but a USGS $50,000 in-kind head dam that must be included in the model resolution has been signed by Marion County and Aqua America $500 in-kind each Village to adopt the results of the study as TOTAL $251,000 best available data until the final results are Project Points of Contact published. Ashley Stephens and JoAnn Combs USACE Huntington District Oregon Rapid Flood Inundation Mapping (Rapid FIM) Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Communities want FIMs, but they are lengthy and expensive to •Results can be used to identify produce. populations at risk from more frequent •Main Idea: Produce FIMs that are less accurate than traditional events than the 1% floodplain, which FIMs, but much quicker can help communities target flood proofing or buyouts •Primarily for use in small communities with little information •Transportation agencies can use results •Displays uncertainty in the mapping directly to ensure the to project which roads may be results don’t get misused inundated during a flood •Uses RAS 2D hydraulic modeling. •Allow emergency managers to focus •Applied the process to 4 pilot communities in Oregon to flood protection efforts like evaluate how much error is being introduced. sandbagging

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Idea bubbled up from the grassroots level. •FIM data standards are constantly NOAA NWS $10K In-kind •Pilot communities expressed extreme evolving—difficult to keep up with USGS $10K In-kind enthusiasm for results the most current policies USACE $45K •Focused on integration with existing USACE •Rapid FIMs do not fit in neatly to Oregon Dept. of Land $10K In-kind data standards to ease future existing guidance—working on Conservation and Development implementation integrating it. Oregon Dept. of Geology $10K In-kind, •Communities got the message and Mineral Industries LiDAR value that these maps are not the “right $150,000 Project Point of Contact answer” TOTAL: $85K Ryan Cahill, Hydraulic Engineer USACE, Portland District PENNSYLVANIA Susquehanna River Flood Inundation Mapping Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •Inundation maps provide critical, timely information about the expected • Flood inundation mapping tool will be developed 100 miles extent and depth of flooding. Maps assist in better communicating the risk to along the Susquehanna River (covering 5 counties) the general public, and inform local official and emergency manager decisions Map layers will be tied to 4 USGS stream gages • •Using information provided by the maps, the general public will be able to •A map library will be developed and will be accessible through elevate or move possessions, reducing damages and reducing claims to the NWS AHPS site NFIP. •Maps will more effectively communicate flood risk to the •Local officials will also be able to take actions to reduce damages and general public, local officials, and emergency managers improve life safety, such as shutting down power grids, setting up evacuation routes, moving critical assets to higher ground •The new maps will be incorporated into flood emergency manuals

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Multiple agencies on team to ensure accuracy of •Draft mapping layer in one county has been USACE $163,000 maps questioned and is taking a lot of effort to FEMA $230,000 resolve the issue •There are many levees in the study area and NWS $45,000 developing a protocol on how to display the PEMA $3,000 flooding behind the various levees and getting agreement by 5 different counties has been SRBC $45,000 challenging •Developing mapping for 4 gages more 5 Counties $26,000 challenging than 1 gage Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $512,000 Stacey Underwood USACE Baltimore District South Dakota Black Hills Flood Risk Demonstration Project Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits Flood-Inundation maps: •Hydraulic modeling for 4-mile reach along Stagebarn •Provide expected extent of flooding relative to select Canyon drainage from SD Highway 79 (Sturgis Road) to frequency and associated flood depth Elk Creek •Emergency managers use this mapping to coordinate Flood inundation mapped for various flood • evacuation, road closures and the shutting down of power thresholds, such as the estimated 100-year and 500- grids. year flows •Review of the need for flood warning systems •There are currently no floodplain maps for this area and the project products are being reviewed by FEMA

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •FEMA has provided comments on the •The project is using the HEC-RAS 2D USACE $65K hydrology and will be providing comments modeling approach. Developing the USGS $4K In-kind on the hydraulics so it will meet FEMA review documentation has been more SD DOT $5K requirements for mapping. labor intensive than anticipated. SD OEM $4K In-kind

Total Cost: $78K Project Point of Contact Lowell Blankers, P.E., CFM USACE Omaha District Vermont Montpelier, Vermont FIM along the Winooski River Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • FIMs on the Winooski River in Montpelier Vermont will •USGS provided latest (Feb 2017) LiDAR Data reduce risk in an area plagued with repeated flood events •NWS provided gages and forecast points •USACE will develop maps to be reviewed by NWS/NOAA • Peak Flow 3 Nov 27 •NWS/NOAA AHPS website will host the FIMs (57,000 cfs) 8.5 Billion in damages (‘11 dollars), 84 •FIMs will be a tool for locals to casualties Reduces Flood Risk for • Hurricane Irene 28 Aug 11 Montpelier residents (14,600 cfs) 1 Billion in •FIMS can reduce risk and damages (‘11 dollars), 6 damages of flood events causalities

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment FIM have been identified as a tool for: •Source of funding AHPS publishing is USGS $10K In-kind - Preparedness ("what-if" scenarios) still under investigation - Response (tied to gage and forecast data) NOAA NWS $10K In-kind •State of Vermont has asked the SJ team - Recovery (damage assessment) to continue work while the team USACE $45K - Mitigation and Planning (flood risk analyses) identifies the source of funds VT DEC, DEMHS $250K In-kind - Team had an amazing kickoff in January of 2017 TOTAL: $315K for this project and we are engaged and actively moving forward!

Project Point of Contact Matt Cosby, Silver Jackets Coordinator USACE New York District Wyoming North Platte River Nonstructural Evaluation Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes • Hydraulics and mapping of the North Platte River • Hydraulic Models • Establish inundation areas that can be used for flood risk • Inundation Grids and Polygons awareness • Updated Flow Frequency Relationships • Provide resources for flood stage settings • Reservoir Regulation Models • Establish flow frequency • Inundation Frequency Grids and Polygons • Provide FEMA with data for Risk MAP • Leverage for FEMA Risk Map Products • Updating the reservoir regulation modeling • Online FIMI mapping

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices

Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Development of communication tools allowing • Current floodplain maps rely on the communities to view flood levels based on National Flood Insurance Program WOHS $24K In-kind stream conditions products from the 1970’s that were • Identification of existing at risk properties for FEMA $70K In-kind nonstructural mitigation focus in the city’s hazard developed without LiDAR data or Local Communities $17K In-kind mitigation plan the use of reservoir regulation • Built upon previous projects to obtain cost modeling. USACE $116K savings • Coordination into potential NFIP mapping timelines TOTAL $227K USACE Project Point of Contact Tony D. Krause, P.E., CFM USACE – Omaha District Flood Warning Iowa Indian Creek Hydrologic Warning System, Linn County, IA Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits A flood warning system was designed for the Indian Creek Watershed using •The results raised awareness of emergency managers and responders especially existing observation infrastructure and modeling tools, and identified data gaps regarding the limited evacuation times, prompting consideration of revisiting and information needs necessary for creating a system capable of providing Emergency Action Plans. Indian Creek Watershed Management Authority communities with adequate time for action. This project promotes shared Communities % of Population affected by the 1% and .2% Chance Event per capita responsibility, addresses priority in State or local hazard mitigation plans, and [Alburnett 43%, Cedar Rapids 20%, Hawatha 25%, Marion 13%, Robins 30%] leverages resources. The proposed flood warning system proactively reduces •Linn County and Indian Creek Watershed Management Authority (composed of hazard risks and invests in hazard response and recovery capacity. The flood five communities) have used results to make risk-informed decisions about flood warning system increases cooperation and communication in the identification proofing, buyouts, zoning, and evacuation planning. and implementation of regional flood mitigation strategies and increase the •Provided accurate and consistent rainfall, stage, and soil conditions on a reliable capacity of local government and residents to respond to the occurrence of real-time basis. Displayed the data in a user-friendly format to local, regional, and floods. This project satisfies Linn County Hazard Planning Guidance Principles federal agencies and the public to facilitate making decisions before, during and (Goal 2, Objectives 2.4 & 2.6; and Goal 3) after storm events

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Reduces Future Expenditures -- Indian Creek USACE Project Budget $70,000 Watershed Management Authority Communities % •Identifying and selection of flood warning of Community w/in the Floodplain [Alburnett 17%, Indian Ck Watershed Authority $25,000 action levels and communication system Cedar Rapids 9%, Hawatha 6%, Marion 7%, Robins $5,000 configuration. Leveraging Iowa Flood Linn County EMA 78%] Center personnel availability for the Iowa Flood Center $10,000 •FEMA Community Rating System (CRS 350/ CRS 410) incorporation of the Indian Creek flood NWS $5,000 Credits modeling tools into existing Iowa Flood USGS $5,000 •Opportunities to Implement Nationwide Information System. http://ifis.iowafloodcenter.org/ifis/main/ Project Point of Contact Total: $120,000 Shirley Johnson USACE Rock Island District Michigan Early Flood Warning System for the Greater Lansing Area, Michigan, to Identify Risk, Reduce Damages and Prevent Loss of Life Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes • A complex 3 river system that has confluences along a 1.5 The Greater Lansing Area did not have sufficient tools to mile reach through residential and business areas effectively plan for and respond to flooding in the study area. • No modeling or mapping existed that captured the entire Equipped with the stream gages, models, and inundation maps flood impacts to the study area from this project, the agencies can effectively project flood impact areas, prepare more detailed response plans, and give the • Effort included cross-section surveys, hydraulic modeling, affected communities earlier and more accurate flood warnings. inundation floodplain mapping, and the end product is now With these improvements, flood risk will be significantly lowered hosted on the USGS FIM website and flood damages will be reduced by as much as 30% for each event through effective early warning. • A USGS gage was also installed

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Addresses the critical need of getting flood Cit y of Lansing, locals $110K impacts in the hands of the local planners and EM • There was originally a slight delay by staff to use to reduce flood risk and communicate USGS $80K some of the local agencies to commit effectively to those in the flood plain about funds. Often this is politically based and USACE $90K mitigation options process oriented.

• Grateful to have positive, active local team member to rally the communities for this project. USACE Project Point of Contact TOTAL $280K Mary Weidel Jason Chrumka IWR/Detroit Detroit Ohio Flood Inundation Warning System Ohio & Lower Muskingum Rivers Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes •Installation of two stream gages to enhance National •By providing advance warning to the City of Marietta and Weather Service (NWS) flood forecast capabilities and surrounding communities, the flood warning inundation system will: augment the Corps’ operational network within the region •Facilitate emergency response by equipping local officials with information necessary to assess conditions and make decisions •Leveraged gage installation into the development of a necessary to protect life, property, and critical infrastructure flood inundation warning system for the Ohio River and •Reduce flood risk – not only risks associated with loss of life, but Lower Muskingum Rivers also property damages by up to 30% •Potentially reduce National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) claims •Published a US Geological Survey (USGS) Scientific and generate cost savings by reducing emergency and recovery Investigations Report detailing the analysis and needs implementation of the flood warning inundation system Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Highly collaborative effort – leveraging resources and expertise across multiple agencies • Establishing flood inundation USACE $75K boundaries with respect to the USGS $140K •Supports priorities and goals of the State’s Hazard Mitigation Plan backwater effects of the Ohio River on MWCD $400K the lower reach of the Muskingum City of Marietta $12K/year •Supplements an existing framework of gages – River. (annual improving forecast abilities and emergency •Overcame challenge with a matrix maintenance) response efforts solution of dominant water course TOTAL $615K* effect. USACE Project Points of Contact *Plus annual maintenance provided by Ashley Stephens and JoAnn Combs the City of Marietta. USACE, Huntington District Virginia AHPS Forecast Point Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits The USACE local flood protection system, located in Richmond, VA, lies along the James River and Reduces/Manages Flood Risk Protection of Life Safety - A forecast warning point at Richmond, VA protects 750 acres valued at approximately $153 million. The project, containing a total length of at Richmond Locks would allow for a more accurate prediction of total water level (fresh, tide and 17,327 feet consists of six roadway closures, six railroad closures, four personnel closure surge) and timing of the rising and falling of the crest, improving staffing levels and safety. locations, two combined roadway and railroad closures, three pumps stations and three Occasionally, the water has risen higher and faster than predicted and flooding designated ponding areas. To ensure success of the system, each closure is operated at specific has occurred resulting in property damage and requiring emergency responders for trapped forecasted water levels. The water level forecasts are developed by utilizing stage relationships motorists. from the nearest upstream gage. However, the local flood protection system is also vulnerable to Reduces Future Expenditures - Improved forecasts will provide for a more efficient operation of tidal water. The addition of tide can change expected water levels by 2 - 3 feet and could result in floodwall elements, to include the management and protection of staff members, and reduced risk a substantial difference in the personnel and equipment response required to operate the system of flood damage to businesses and protected property. Prior proper warning can help better inform and the safety of businesses and property protected. The project will consisted of the the public and reduce the risk to life safety and property damage. development of an unsteady HEC-RAS model from the USGS gauge at James River (VA) at Results in the Actions of Others - Richmond-Westham and end at the NOAA tide gauge Sewells Pt, VA, approximately 95 miles and *Improved forecasts will increase the efficiency of floodwall operations. the integration of the model into the Middle Atlantic River Forecast Center operation forecast *Virginia Department of Emergency Management will incorporate the relevant system to simulate the combined effects of freshwater, tide and surge. The model was developed information into their Flood Observation and Warning System Network. using existing hydrographic/topographic data and calibrated using historic events and flow *Forecasts can provide valuable information to citizens and business interests along the river. data provided by Middle Atlantic River Forecast Center. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Forecast point •Challenges – modeling 90+ miles of City of Richmond $4K Is operational! river through cuff-offs and storage areas NOAA NWS, WFO/RFC $40K In-kind USACE $100K VGIN $60K TOTAL: $204K

Project Point of Contact Michelle Hamor USACE Norfolk District Flood Risk Management Planning DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Watts Branch Flood Risk Management Study Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Bring together interagency partners to develop a holistic • Updated flood maps and modeling will provide local government approach to address flood risk in the Watts Branch and community a better understanding of flood risk neighborhoods, which consist of vulnerable populations • An outreach plan will provide community members and • Provide updated flood models, floodplain maps, and an outreach vulnerable populations with preemptive actions that can be taken plan to communicate flood risk to local communities and gov’t prior to flood events to reduce flood damages and impacts. • Develop a list of structural and non-structural flood mitigation • A list of flood risk reduction strategies and future funding measures that may be pursued in the future to reduce flood risk. methods will assist local government and communities in • Identify relevant federal and local policies which have a nexus implementing future projects with neighborhood flooding issues, land use issues and other community development issues.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Multiple agencies on team to ensure accuracy of • Large study area with over 700 USACE $175K maps and modeling and provide expertise for buildings affected DOEE $81K in-kind development of flood risk management strategies • Multiple agencies involved in the DC HSEMA $59K in-kind • EPA is part of team and will identify potential project for coordination USGS $15K in-kind green infrastructure opportunities EPA $14K in-kind • Created project task groups (with various task Georgetown University $14K in-kind leaders) to help manage coordination DC Office of Planning $12K in-kind FEMA/ NOAA/NWS/DC $11.5K in-kind Water, DCRA, (total) Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $381.5K Marco Ciarla USACE Baltimore District IDAHO South Fork Coeur d’Alene (SFCdA) Flood Risk Management (FRM) Project Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes • Worked with local communities to develop sustainable, • Compiled significant information that will improve community coordinated watershed flood risk management (FRM) approach in floodplain management, resulting in more efficient coordination SFCdA watershed - location of one of the Nation’s largest with Superfund remediation actions and reducing redundant Superfund remediation sites. analyses. • Assisted with formation of local FRM Working Group. • Established local FRM Working Group which will improve resource • Compiled watershed FRM library by inventorying, acquiring and sharing between communities and will result in more efficient organizing relevant datasets, models and reports. interaction with agencies involved in Superfund remediation. • Completed GIS analysis of current and future remediated site • Motivated County to maintain its HMP and keep it current. locations overlain on floodplain map. • Reduced community pressure for Federal investment in • Conducted outreach about agency flood risk programs and significant structural mitigation actions (e.g., levees) and to services, and developed agency program guide. consider other mitigation options. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Develop project management plan collaboratively with local community and focus on achieving defined project USACE $100 K • Turn over of elected officials and objectives, but be flexible, if appropriate. community staff. FEMA $18.5 K • Document meeting discussions, decisions and action • Limited community resources, e.g., lack NOAA NWS $8.0 K items. of funding and technical expertise. • Communicate extensively with local Working Group and USGS $10.0 K • Complex problems associated with Silver Jackets team outside of meetings to monitor Superfund remediation beyond Silver ID Bureau Homeland Security $7.8 K community perceptions and make adjustments as needed. Jackets expertise and authority. ID Dept of Environ Quality $8.0 K • Focus process on what the community can do. • Competing visions for the community ID Dept of Water Resources USACE Project Point of Contact by leaders that constrained community $8.0 K staff participation. Total Cost: $160.3 K Ellen Berggren, Deputy, Silver Jackets Program USACE IWR Illinois Small Communities Flooding Operations Planning, Barstow and Carbon Cliff Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes

The development of topographic maps, inundation maps, and Risk Communication and Evacuation flood response plans were completed based on the Carbon Cliff webpage ~ http://www.carbon-cliff.com/ community's needs leveraging the large amount of recently completed work (LIDAR data collection and hydraulic Flood Proofing Critical Infrastructure modeling) with a small incremental cost to organize the (City Hall, Police Dept, Houses, Businesses at the Flood Wave products into a comprehensive, collaborative community Inundation Fringe) based flood operations planning tools. Safety of flood fight personnel improved

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment Reduce Structural Damage No Challenges for small community USACE Project Budget $30,000 Risk Communication and Evacuation partners! Pilot Products completed w/in 6 months–available for seasonal flooding! Communities of Personnel / Risk Barstow and Carbon Communication and Communities updating Flood Action Plans / Cliff Emergency Action Evacuation Planning EAP to include results Continuing Challenge to Overcome – Partnership $150,000 Rock Island County’s unwillingness to Personnel / Risk accept most recent Rock Island Co EMA Communication and USACE/ISWS/IDNR/FEMA flood mapping (Potential Stakeholder) Evacuation Planning USACE Project Point of Contact products Shirley Johnson USACE Rock Island District Fast Track to Borrow Tool Minimizing flood event repair response time while reducing costs to the public BACKGROUND – Flood Response PRODUCT – Flood Response Tool at the Levee District Level PL84-99 The objective of the Fast Track to Borrow Tool is to provide and sustain comprehensive flood response and recovery within Disastrous flood events can occur around the United States at anytime warranting an immediate response. USACE the St. Louis District watershed boundaries that reliably minimizes response time while reducing costs to the public. The is empowered to respond to flood emergencies under the authority of Public Law 84-99, Section 5 of the Flood project synthesizes pertinent data (emergency response, real estate, geotechnical, cultural resources, environmental) and Control Act of 1921 (PL84-99). USACE disaster preparedness consists of coordination and planning with key local, compiles it into one layered product that can be easily accessed for quick and efficient determination of suitable borrow state, Tribal and Federal stakeholders under its statutory authorities. Further, emergency operations may include area locations. This tool is a layered GIS. It provides a standard levee district map and base coordinates indicating the providing advice and assistance on flood fighting methods and techniques, inundation mapping, flood modeling, boundaries and contains cultural resources information layer, a pertinent levee district information layer, a geotechnical and analyzing historical data. This process ensures USACE remains a Federal leader in Flood Risk Management. information layer, and real estate information layer. The tool also accelerates the response time to comply with the St. Louis District standard borrow process: Research - Data Collection - State Historic Preservation Office consultation - Emergency Response review, Real Estate review, Geotechnical review, Cultural Resources review, and Contracting review. This information is now There are currently 89 levee districts in the USACE St. Louis District, comprising more than 700 miles of structures easily compiled, filtered, and navigable to determine appropriate borrow areas, and in some cases pre-approved borrow that protect about 578,365 acres. Most levee districts comprise a unique boundary with their own levee areas, for immediate consideration and action. commission. Since 1960, they have prevented more than $11 billion in damages within the St. Louis District. The overall value of property protected by USACE Flood Response is an estimated $6.2 billion. NEED – Quicker Response Time and Borrow Areas Cost Savings An important step in the USACE Flood Response process is determining suitable borrow area locations used to provide material for levee repairs during and after flood events. The USACE process of determining a borrow area involves many internal steps, and requires multiple branches’ input and approval. These include USACE Emergency Response initiation, Cultural Resources and Environmental compliance, Real Estate verification, Geotechnical survey, Office of Counsel and Contracting review. Levee Districts To gather timely borrow information, the individual levee district is considered the common denominator. Therefore, the levee district is the unit of analysis. They possess unique characteristics: individual commissions, various land owners, different breach histories, and differing landforms. NEXT Additional Levee Districts The way forward will be to add more levee districts from various counties both in CONCLUSION Missouri and Illinois. This will allow sampling and testing to better analyze how The intent of the tool is to provide cost savings by minimized response time to a flood event. The efficiently and effectively it performs in a flood event. By adding more levee information within the data set can easily be built upon. Further, information verification and/or districts we will be able to track and review the intended benefits of cost savings new data can be updated to validate information. This is a proactive (vs. reactive) approach to and emergency response time. We can also better rank and justify which levee event management. In addition, the data set can serve as a predictive model for risk analysis for districts warrant quicker inclusion into the data set (e.g., breach frequency, flood high to moderate risk borrow areas with potential issues. The data set can also identify potential risk, property yield, etc.). borrow areas to survey prior to a flood event and bank them, as needed. It is the goal of the facilitators to work together throughout USACE to make the available information complete, USACE Project Point of Contact relevant, and up-to-date to allow all branches an equal stake in the levee district environment. Chris Koenig, EC-Z, MCX, St. Louis District Indiana Development of an Integrated Flood Risk Assessment Program for Observation and Flood Forecast Points in Indiana

Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits The Indiana Silver Jackets Team and the Indiana University-Purdue • Project raised flood risk awareness by combining the flood inundation maps previously developed with the HAZUS Level II damage data using HAZUS MH. It University of Indianapolis (IUPUI) Polis Center have added HAZUS presents the information in a realistic manner. The use of the USGS Flood Inundation level 2 Risk Analysis Modules to the flood inundation map libraries Mapping Portal allows the information to be accessed by both emergency officials and previously developed. The Work also includes standardizing members of the general public. Workshops were held throughout the state to train methodology for use as future flood inundation maps are people in how to use this technology and better understand their flood risk. developed, workshop for USACE personnel on HAZUS Level 2 Risk • Seeing damages presented in a graphical map based format better prompts action by Analyses, and outreach to the local communities. community officials and the public. The city of Tipton utilized this data to help create a comprehensive resiliency plan. Orange County also utilized the data to better plan the Senior PGA Golf Tournament and develop potential response plans (evacuation routes, alternate parking, egress/ingress plans, etc.) in case of flooding during the event. In addition Orange County has also utilized the tool to analyze impacts of flash flooding to their residents. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment Building on other successes throughout the State USACE Project Budget $100,000 (Statewide LiDAR, Flood Inundation Maps, etc.) •Personnel changes within USACE and at Local Communities (leveraged) $331,000 IUPUI were challenging Utilizing existing relationships between the USACE, $30,000 USGS IUPUI, State Government, and local government •Finding a method in which to utilize a State of Indiana (leveraged) $1,550,000 University to perform work was a Already being used by the State EOC during flood challenge. We were able to utilize an events. Intergovernmental Personnel Act Agreement between IWR and IUPUI to overcome this challenge Project Point of Contact Total: $2,011,000 Brandon R. Brummett, P.E., PMP USACE Louisville District Outreach Coordinator Indiana Development of an Integrated Flood Response Program for Orange County Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits Indiana Silver Jackets Team is building a comprehensive flood risk •This project raised flood risk awareness by combining the flood inundation maps and • dam breach maps to help the community understand their full risk and need for reduction program for Orange County, Indiana. effective plans. It presents the information in a realistic manner, and allows the • Work includes a dam breach analysis of a local lake, installation of information to be accessed by both emergency officials and members of the general gages at that lake, development of a flood inundation map from public. Workshops that were held helped train people in how to use this technology that analysis, development of a flood response plan based on a and better understand their flood risk. state model/template, as well as tabletop exercises and public • Seeing the inundation data and images presented in a graphical map based format better prompts action by community officials, and the public. Orange County utilized workshops. the data to help better plan the Senior PGA Golf Tournament and develop potential response plans (evacuation routes, alternate parking, egress/ingress plans, etc.) in case of flooding during the event. In addition Orange County has also utilized the tool to analyze impacts of flash flooding to their residents.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment Building on other successes in the county and utilizing •Personnel and local official scheduling USACE Project Budget $100,000 successful methodologies from other parts of the State. issues have been the biggest challenge to Private Industry $15,000 Continuing to educate new local officials about the completing this project USGS $47,000 •Turnover in some local officials due to importance of flood risk management. State of Indiana (leveraged) $66,475 election have also posed challenges; new local officials were not placing as much Local Funding $21,525 Inspiring similar planning efforts elsewhere in the state, emphasis on flood risk management as such as Columbus IN Flood Response Plan. previous officials did. •When weather patterns have not Project Point of Contact required the use of the tools, local Total: $250,000 Brandon R. Brummett, P.E., PMP officials forget the need. USACE Louisville District Outreach Coordinator KANSAS Florence Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Development of existing conditions, non-structural flood risk •Will provide and communicate technical data, risk drivers and assessment to provide technical assistance to City for identifying consequences of flooding. This will help to reduces/manage flood critical infrastructure in new floodplain behind a recently non- risk accredited levee •By identifying the new floodplain and flood hazard areas, can •Development of an EAP, modeling of interior flooding/drainage lead risk informed decisions which will reduce future expenditures which will be joined to exterior modeling from FEMA LAMP project •Will incorporate Marion Dam MMC models for the event of a dam •By identifying the flood hazards and critical infrastructure, the failure community can better focus risk reduction and/or flood response •Will evaluate life loss and economic damage resources and efforts. •Above items will assist in development of risk communication plan critical to increase public awareness of flood risk/consequences

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Project is initiating •A challenge will be for residents to FEMA Risk MAP $130K In-kind •Leverage previous and/or efforts and resources understand flood risk with non- from several local, state and Federal agencies. FEMA LAMP $40K In-kind accredited levee even though the levee •The FIS used old meteorology (from 1968-1974 has not been altered or failed. USACE $110K era), these efforts will greatly enhance accuracy of •Getting folks to think about flood risk KDA-DWR $60K In-kind maps/models. and take actions to reduce risk and TOTAL: $340K increase resiliency. •Maintaining the scope with changing local priorities may be difficult. Project Point of Contact Mitch Roberts, Silver Jackets Coordinator USACE Kansas City District KANSAS Pottawatomie County Floodplain Management Plan Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • This project is a county-wide Floodplain Management Plan. •Enables risk informed decision making for County, developers or •Pottawatomie County is on the eastern side of Riley County with Tuttle potential property owners prior to flood events. Creek Reservoir and the City of Manhattan sandwiched in between. The •Informed decision making can also reduce future expenditures. City of Manhattan has developed an extensive Floodplain Management •Establishes a preparedness plan with future actions and who Plan but it does not incorporate areas in the county does what and when. •Additional development is being considered outside Manhattan, this •Reduces flood risks by organizing next steps in development of FMP will add to the flood risk reduction measures and awareness action items for flood hazard mitigation. created by flood inundation maps on the Blue River and Wildcat Creek. Will increase the County’s ability to anticipate, prepare for, and •Further enhancement of County’s ability to make and communicate • risk-informed decisions. adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond to and recover rapidly from disaster related to flooding.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Could lead to improved environmental function by incorporation of green infrastructure or green areas. •Aligning floodplain management, flood FEMA/KDA $60K In-kind risk reduction and economic •Will leverage the State’s work to obtain high definition Pottawatomie County $210K In-kind LiDAR in 2012. development. •Will coordinate public participation and communication in USACE $70K •Development in accordance with FMP development of FMP with entities such as Pottawatomie could create improved function and KDA-DWR $60K In-kind County Economic Development Corp. and Flint Hills Area Builders Association. livability, as well as restored natural TOTAL: $400K floodplain functions.

Project Point of Contact Mitch Roberts, Silver Jackets Coordinator USACE Kansas City District Kentucky City of Liberty Flood Mitigation Analysis Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • City of Liberty has undergone two major flood events • Local officials, business owners, and residents will have that have significantly impacted the city's business increased understanding of flood risks and potential district and critical infrastructure mitigation alternatives as a result of this analysis.

• City officials have asked the Kentucky Silver Jackets • City officials and local business leaders will take action team to perform an analysis of the recent flooding in on items in the plan (committed to by both Mayor and Liberty, develop some alternatives that local officials County Judge Executive) and will look for grant could implement, and assist local officials with opportunities as applicable to implement measures. development of a community resilience plan. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Culture change in local officials and citizens is needed. Local buy-in will be critical. • Coordination and scheduling of team KY Division of $35K In-kind personnel has been challenging. Water • Successful partnerships between multiple KY Division of $134K In-kind agencies with support from State legislators will be • Culture change among local Geographic key for this project government and local citizens may Information prove challenging Local Government $15K In-kind USACE $75K Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $259K Brandon R. Brummett, P.E., PMP Louisville District Outreach Coordinator Louisiana City of Mandeville, LA FRM Mitigation Analysis Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • The City of Mandeville is located North of New Orleans • Analysis has shown that implementation of swing gates, adjacent to Lake Pontchartrain, making it susceptible to storm sheet pile wall, small earthen berm, and an increase in seawall surge and interior drainage issues height will reduce flood damages with a BC ratio of 1.8 (Cost • Provide the City with an assessment of flood events and $35M) develop structural and non-structural alternatives to reduce • Analysis has shown that raising structures below 7.3’ to 12’ current flood risk and flood proofing slab foundation structures will reduce flood • Analyze previously identified alternatives to identify an damages with a BC ratio of 5.75 (Cost $12M) economically feasible path forward to reduce flood damages for the City

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Based on previous analysis and this project, the City has implemented 1 alternative (replacement of flap Structural vs. Non Structural Alternatives City of Mandeville $280K In-kind • Challenge for Partners to embrace NS gates on drainage pipes) and has seen the benefits Alternatives St. Tammany Parish $15K In-kind during recent small scale storms • Not every structure is in need of raising; makes • City is now more aware of the potential benefits of some areas feel left out State of LA $15K In-kind NS alternatives and is moving forward with • NS alternatives will not prevent nuisance implementation flooding USACE $100k • Structural alternatives will provide flood protection and prevent nuisance flooding, but at a TOTAL $410K much higher construction cost Project Point of Contact • 1 Structural alternative (increase seawall height) will obstruct lake views, decreasing quality of life Nick Sims, PM, SJ Coordinator USACE New Orleans District Louisiana Flood Risk Management Strategies for Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • The project will address managing the flood risk in Terrebonne Parish • Toolkit will provide real-world and field-tested mechanisms to Parish and through two deliverables, a Toolkit and Spatial Analysis State Floodplain managers for implementing a variety of nonstructural risk • The Toolkit will address guidance on voluntary resettlement, flood management measures including flood proofing, structural elevation, and proofing, structural elevation, best practices, recommended building voluntary relocation standards, and opportunities for CRS points based on these initiatives. • Flood Plain managers will have recommendations regarding regulation, • The spatial analysis will apply the Toolkit recommendations to the parish permitting, outreach-and-education, and incentives of nonstructural FRM Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code and map flood hazards (storm surge approaches to protect life-safety, reduces risk, and increases resiliency and sea-level rise), public/private investments, and population migration • The Parish and community will be aware of future ordinances/design • The analysis will also describe (1) areas for various nonstructural guidelines/projects that will reduce future costs associated with future approaches; (2) priority areas for enhanced non-structural measures events State and Local Flood Plain Managers will plan future development (elevation at the neighborhood level), and (3) community resettlement away from at risk areas target areas (targeted growth areas).

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • The Toolkit will identify non monetary social benefits by applying community design, accessibility, sociability, LA Coastal Protection Office $5K In-kind and other principles to nonstructural initiatives Resistance to Change LA GOHSEP $5K In-kind • Mapping of recommendations articulates positive • Current evaluation requirements are Terrebonne Parish $75K In-kind impacts via the parish Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code outdated OCD – Disaster Recovery $15k In-kind • Challenge for community to embrace • Future implementation of nonstructural alternatives Center for Planning Excellence $50k In-kind updated guidelines/ordinances will help restore the natural floodplain USACE $100k TOTAL: $250K Project Point of Contact Nick Sims, PM, SJ Coordinator USACE New Orleans District Louisiana Lafayette Parish, LA FRM Mitigation Analysis Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Located in Southwestern LA, Lafayette Parish has seen an • Final product will provide Lafayette Parish with an assessment increase in drainage issues as the Parish expands of flood events and capital improvement projects to reduce • Goal is to coordinate Parish wide H&H models and existing current flooding issues drainage studies in order to prioritize future capital • Prioritized list of future projects will allow the Parish to improvement projects for the greatest net benefit to the expand while also managing future flood risk Parish • Lafayette Parish is committed to implementing economically • Federal and State Programs for implementation will be feasible alternatives that benefit the Parish as a whole identified

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Agency Investment Continuing Challenges • Pilot project has re-established Coordination between Local Governments Town of Youngsville $40K In-kind communication at the State, Local, and Federal • Study area (Lafayette Parish) consists of 5 Town of Broussard $40K In-kind level towns (Youngsville, Broussard, Carencro, Scott &Lafayette ) Town of Carencro $40K In-kind • Partnerships have been rekindled in order to • Each has different priorities and a Town of Scott $40K In-kind better manage flood risk in the area different vision for future FRM • Emphasis being placed on managing risk at a Town of Lafayette $40K In-kind • Communication is key to ensure Parish wide, as opposed to community, level prioritized projects benefit the Parish as State of LA $50K In-kind a whole, not just individual communities USACE $100k •Local governments in the study area have felt Project Point of Contact left out of large scale FRM projects TOTAL $350K Nick Sims, PM, SJ Coordinator USACE New Orleans District Louisiana Southeast Louisiana NS Mitigation Analysis Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Located in Southeastern LA, Ascension and St. John Parishes • Analysis provides an assessment of flood events in problem are susceptible to localized flooding due to not only areas of each Parish, allowing each to concentrate FRM hurricanes, but also normal rainfall events. resources where they will have the most impact • Goal is to assess past flood events and identify and prioritize • Implementation of dry flood proofing in St. John Parish is mitigation options for repetitively damaged structures to anticipated to reduce future costs associated with flooding provide flood risk management guidance and improve Parish events for approximately 250 structures in the Parish resiliency. • Low implementation cost ($1 - $2 M) makes implementation very achievable

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges • St. John Parish is now more aware of the potential Study Area benefits of NS alternatives and implementation of • Each Parish experiences flooding in a large area Agency Investment these alternatives is now a possibility •Project focused on most at risk areas St. John the Baptist Parish $85K In-kind • Analysis confirmed flooding in Ascension Parish (confirmed through communication with Flood Plain Managers) study area to be nuisance flooding, allowing Parish Ascension Parish $95K In-kind flood plain managers to concentrate FRM efforts on Types of Flooding State of LA $10K In-kind other high risk areas • Balancing wants of each Parish vs actual Flood Risk Management needs USACE $89k • Nuisance flooding vs. Flood Damages TOTAL $279K •Project did not evaluate mitigation options for Project Point of Contact areas only experiencing nuisance flooding Nick Sims, PM, SJ Coordinator USACE New Orleans District Missouri Little Blue-Flood Forecast Inundation Maps & FP Mgmt Plan Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes (ongoing) •Create two Flood Forecast Inundation Maps (FFIMs) in Independence, MO •Enables risk informed decision making for community developers and to begin active risk communication with the public, especially for the high potential property owners prior to flood events risk development at BFE edge •Enables actionable risk reduction, including evacuation, for those willing to •Use the National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction take steps when flooding is imminent Service (AHPS) website to host inundation maps •Allows emergency responders to see flooded routes in advance •Communicate non-breach inundation for USACE’s upstream dams at Blue •Presents visual of flooding with all-the-time easy access on web Springs Lake and Longview Lake •Extends risk information beyond the base flood or 1%-AEP •Develop a draft Floodplain Management Plan (FMP) that describes flood •Establishes future action plan with who does what and when hazards, documents decisions made on flood risks, and formalizes an •Organizes the next step in pursuing action items towards comprehensive action plan especially in reviewing nonstructural measures with public flood hazard mitigation work involvement •Engages the public in decision process

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Harness the window of opportunity during FEMA Risk USACE $75k MAP work •Coping with public interest on FEMA mapping City planning $28k In-kind •Coordinate with FEMA Community Engagement and Risk and NFIP reform Communication (CERC) Addressing public misconceptions of risk level City AHPS fee $8k In-kind • •Evaluate full menu of measures (structural and managed below a dam NOAA NWS new FFIMs $48k In-kind nonstructural) and narrowing to the right tools Gaining public understanding of actions that • NOAA NWS AHPS $100k In-kind •Capture a decision history for managing floods would be most cost effective, as a thorough FEMA Risk MAP, CERC Unknown in-kind •Gives FEMA Community Rating System credit review of all possible structural and nonstructural measures USGS gage cost ~$28k USGS O&M ~$1.5M Project Point of Contact TOTAL $1.8 M Mitch Roberts, Silver Jackets Coordinator USACE Kansas City District Nebraska North Platte River Flood Risk Impacts Assessment and Communication Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes • H&H study including mapping of the • Project information is being used to make risk informed decisions by the City and UPRR through North Platte River the 404 process. This is resulting in increased • Establish inundation areas that can conveyance and ultimately reduced risk to 100+ be used for flood risk awareness and structures in North Platte. future flood fights • Project data will be used by the Platte River • Updating the reservoir regulation Recovery Implementation Program to evaluate the use of a spring pulse for ecosystem restoration. modeling • Presentation of results on AHPS to the public provides citizens the ability to address their personal risk. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Development of data in a post-flood scenario has lead to more interest and applications of results. • After Action 404 permitting process for NDNR $57K In-kind • AHPS interface provides user-friendly format construction during the 2011 flood has • Mapping through AHPS provides a context to start NWS $60K In-kind held up progress on project. discussion of risk management not simply • Community recently went through Other (PRRIP, NDOR, insurance. FEMA mapping process (2007) and is USBoR, UPRR, CNPPID, $11K In-kind • Basin modeling with HEC-RESsim reluctant to see mapping that shows risk Local Govt) areas in the community. USACE $145K USACE Project Point of Contact TOTAL $273K Tony D. Krause, P.E., CFM USACE - Omaha District NEVADA Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe Floodplain Management Plan Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits The Army Corps of Engineers, along with other •This effort will bring the tribe and agencies to look at the community's flood supporting agencies, are working on the Fort risk, increase life safety, reduce property losses, and identify other McDermitt Tribe Paiute and Shoshone Floodplain opportunities for managing the watershed in an integrated fashion. Management Plan. This Floodplain Management Plan could improve life safety, reduce or prevent flood risk •The floodplain management plan will be a guide on how to manage flood and increase resiliency for the Tribe. This will be risk and will help the community to understand where and how to build. This achieved by educating tribal members and land will decrease future disaster expenditures and provide a more resilient owners of the potential flood risk to their property community. and to potential structures that might be built in the •As the tribe learns more about flood risk management, the members can future. It also includes identifying potential flood risk take actions to protect lives and property. The floodplain management plan reduction strategies and tools and paths to attain the will help guide their efforts. Tribe's goals and objectives for their floodplain.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Proactively addressing changing conditions to reduce the risk of flood hazards in the future. •Down cutting and degradation of Truckee River due to Fort McDermitt Paiute and $20K In-kind •The Flood Plain Management Plan will supply the Tribe with human related activities. Shoshone Tribe guidelines for further restoration projects and prioritize the •Instability of river morphology has given rise to areas in need of stabilization. increased erosion making the area more susceptible to Bureau of Indian Affairs $5K In-kind A Flood Plain Management flooding. • Plan will provide the Tribe an Federal Core Team $20K In-kind opportunity to protect their FEMA $5K In-kind resources . USACE $100K TOTAL $150K Project Point of Contact Rachael Orellana USACE Sacramento District NEVADA Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe Flood Plain Management Plan Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •This effort brought the tribes and local and state agencies together to look at •The Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe developed a the community's flood risk, increase life safety, reduce property losses, and floodplain management plan in order to reduce identify other opportunities for managing the watershed in an integrated the risk from flood hazards on their land. fashion. •The plan increases flood risk awareness, communicates roles and responsibilities, and •The floodplain management plan serves as a guide on how to manage flood assists with disaster planning. risk and will help the community to understand where and how to build. This •Increased peak flows from the Truckee River will decrease future disaster expenditures and provide a more resilient flood project upstream creates a new challenge community. for the tribe. This maked it a good time for the •As the tribe learns more about flood risk management, the members can tribe to revisit flood preparedness and watershed take actions to protect lives and property. The floodplain management plan management. will help guide their efforts.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Agency Investment •Proactively addressing changing conditions to reduce the risk of flood Continuing Challenges hazards in the future. •Down cutting and degradation of Truckee River due to Nevada Department of $20K In-kind •The Flood Plain Management Plan will supply the Tribe with guidelines for human related activities. Water Resources further restoration projects and prioritize the areas in need of stabilization. •Instability of river morphology has given rise to •A Flood Plain Management Plan will provide the Tribe an opportunity to increased erosion making the area more susceptible to Nevada Division of $15K In-kind protect their resources . flooding. Emergency Management Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe $15K In-kind USACE $60K TOTAL $110K

Project Point of Contact Rachael Orellana USACE Sacramento District Ohio HAZUS LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • HAZUS is a nationally applicable software program (distributed and supported by •Loss estimates generated by the program reflect state-of-the-art FEMA) that provides a standardized methodology for estimating potential losses and scientific and engineering knowledge and can be used to inform physical, economic, and social impacts resulting from natural disasters, including decision-makers at all levels of government by providing a reasonable flooding. •The HAZUS Level 2 analysis consists of a flood analysis conducted for the 25- and basis for developing mitigation, emergency preparedness, and 100-year frequency based on a four square mile drainage area. response and recovery plans and policies. •The state of Ohio divides counties subject to risk into Planning Regions. Planning •The results of the HAZUS Level 2 analyses will be incorporated into Region 2 contains the most populated counties in the state and as a result has the state and corresponding local hazard mitigation plans and local increased flood exposure. Therefore, the HAZUS Level 2 analysis focuses on the 25 counties located in the high priority Planning Region 2. emergency operations plans. The results will also be used to assist • The analysis consists of the development of depth grids, collection of tax parcel data state and local officials in prioritizing proposed mitigation activities creating user-defined facilities, and input of data into HAZUS to generate estimates and identifying at-risk structures. for potential losses resulting from the respective flood events.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •The collaboration between USACE (Huntington, Buffalo, •Scope of State's contributions as outlined in the USACE $75,000 and Louisville Districts), Ohio EMA and county level GIS initial proposal was modified due to resource OEMA $2,500 in-kind personnel has brought forth diverse knowledge, constraints. While Ohio EMA was unable to ODNR $150 in-kind technical expertise, and leveraging of resources. perform HAZUS runs as originally planned, the 25 Counties in Ohio $12,500 in-kind •Supports priorities and goals of the State’s Hazard State was able to research and secure necessary Mitigation Plan by aiding in the prioritization of data from the counties to support the overall TOTAL $90,150 analysis. proposed mitigation activities and identifying at-risk •The team has faced the challenges of obtaining structures. all required input data from the counties and determining the technical process required. This has caused the need for assumptions to be made Project Points of Contact within a portion of the data and has also caused a Ashley Stephens and JoAnn Combs delay in schedule. USACE Huntington District South Carolina Lynchburg SC Flood Elevation Determination Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes • Low income community on Back •Community will be able to use the information to appropriately Swamp Rd near Lynchburg SC located modify, construct or rebuild structures in the floodplain at a reduced in a Zone A without BFE due to risk of property loss. Lynches River floodplain. •Properly elevated structures in the floodplain will reduce flood •Property owners cannot make any insurance claims and need for disaster assistance. modifications to their structures, build •Demonstrates to Lee County (as well as other counties), the use of or rebuild structures without BFE. “best available data” of flood elevations based on limited data. •Combine approximate and detailed models of three counties, and add bridges to compute base flood elevations, as “best available data”.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •County has “best available” flood elevation data SCDNR $6K In-kind based on scientific analysis for permitting. •Originally assumed to be one model to •Low Income Community has data needed to build modify, but it resulted three models SCDOT $2K In-kind or modify structures and reduce flood risk. combined. USACE $50K •Contribution of bridge data from SCDOT and HEC- •Obtaining the correct models RAS models from SCDNR in timely manner was •Selecting the best flow rate (all models critical to success. had different flow rates). •Modifying models to include bridges. USACE Project Point of Contact TOTAL $58K Sara Brown USACE/SAC/Charleston Tennessee Arlington, TN Floodplain Mapping, Response, and Education Effort Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits

•Identification of vulnerable areas and develop tools for effective •Define high-hazard/high-risk areas-Exercise emergency activities flood warning to the public and implement hazard precautions •Heighten community awareness, emphasize high risk flooding •Provide mapping to emergency responders and community to scenario(s) and develop emergency planning heighten awareness •Transport or egress routes will be identified for evacuation •Quantifying risk levels and areas can reduce potential life loss and planning and local emergency services. reduce economic damages, even with short response times • Utilize emergency plans for training purposes and to educate •Include findings in Shelby County and State Hazard Mitigation the public Plans-Increase funding potential

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Projects goals have not been obtained but desired •Flash floods are hard to predict and often Christian Brothers $8K In-kind outcomes are as follows: exceed design capacities University •Lessons learned and techniques (methodologies) •Identifying and capturing the drainage NOAA NWS $7.5K In-kind can applied in other county systems and performance issues Tennessee Emergency $75K in-kind communities •Reduced response times-Hampers Management Agency •Collaboration of local, state (Christian Brothers planning and emergency actions Town of Arlington, TN $7.5 In-kind University) and governmental agencies will be built •Developing reliable results with limited USACE-Memphis District $75K upon information •Major Challenge-Utilize methodologies Project Point of Contact and findings to other basins and TOTAL: $105.5K Shawn Phillips (PM)/Don Davenport (H&H) communities USACE Memphis District Tennessee Chattanooga Flood Preparedness Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes

• Multi-year, multi-phased, multi-agency approach •Increases warning times/capabilities • Products build on previous phases • Used for emergency & floodplain management •Preparedness guides for watersheds based on data • Update stream modeling throughout the City created (Group is currently discussing Outreach • Develop GIS tools that use modeling, gage, and critical opportunities to encourage use of the preparedness infrastructure data guides) • Goal is to effectively reduce flood risk in the Chattanooga area

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Create new modeling, new mapping, new GIS tools City of Chattanooga $475k for the preparedness partnership •All agencies working within their USACE $398k respective missions, budget cycles, USGS $45k Identify areas to locate new flow/crest/staff gages approval processes. • NWS $25K •Identify critical infrastructure and associated risks •Schedules pushed among the studied TVA $25k watersheds where the partner agencies TDOT $15k and departments have inter-dependent milestones. Hamilton County $15k USACE Project Point of Contact TOTAL $998k Mary Lewis Nashville District Texas San Antonio River Tournament for Integrated Flood Risk Management Project Description Anticipated Benefits •The San Antonio River (SAR) Authority creates flood Integration of the MHT with SARA SW plans will: risk reduction plans for SARA sub-watersheds (SW), • Increase stakeholders understanding of the threats to life •This project integrates SARA’s hydrologic and GIS based and property of flood under alternative risk reduction plans into a Muti-Hazard Framework (MHT) to increase plans economically, socially and environmentally. . understanding of SARA SW plans and potential to reduce flood impacts, • Foster increased and faster adoption of SARA SW plan’s, • The project will assess if the MHT can help SJ teams improve • Refine the ways The MHT can support USACE Smart their stakeholders understanding of the tradeoffs and planning and Silver Jacket Risk Reduction objectives, cost benefits of alternative flood risk reduction actions effectively across the Silver Jackets network. economically environmentally & socially.

Challenges Overcome Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Agency Investment •Builds on previous work of Multiple agencies • Identification of the SW damage Centers with diverse knowledge, expertise and • Translation of SW plan option into GIS & USACE S Jackets $206K hydrologic formats by SW and scenario. FW District $15K in-kind resources Current Challenges • Supports of understanding and $175K In-kind • Creation of Decision Support Tool data and implementation of flood risk recharge and • Creating supporting documentation, modeling from water recharge sustainability. • Complete logistics for 2 MHT events , SARA previous master- • Support increased SJ network capacities. • Conduct 2 MHT (Upper and Lower SAR) plan • Document results of event and make development recommendations to Silver Jackets based Project Point of Contact on the results of the project. Total $396K Marcia Hackett USACE/Fort Worth District TEXAS Upper Trinity Regional Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Establish a working group of floodplain managers/public works • Collaborative identification of a full spectrum of non-structural watershed directors/city engineers and/or administrators, as applicable, from management practices to be implemented by local governments to increase local communities and counties in a 16-county region in north floodplain resiliency and reduce communities vulnerability to flood risks associated with significant future population growth and development. central Texas to develop a Regional Comprehensive Watershed • To include such actions as: floodplain regulations, zoning and land use Management Plan for the Upper Trinity River watershed. changes, low impact development methods, use of riparian buffers, etc. • Increase awareness of flood risks associated with projected future • Implementation of watershed management practices would reduce population growth and development and encourage a feeling of communities vulnerability to flood risks and save mitigation costs. shared responsibility for implementation of the resulting • Establishes a process for collaborative development of a regional, recommendations to reduce flood risks and/or costly mitigation comprehensive watershed management plan and shared responsibility for efforts for the benefit of the local communities and the region. implementation of the resulting actions by local communities thereby saving future mitigation costs.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Partnering with the NCTCOG who represent over • Inconsistencies in watershed management by FEMA $5,000 in-kind 230 member governments in a 16-county region in counties and communities across the region. USACE $100,000 north central Texas because of their already • Lack of understanding by some counties that North Central Texas Council of $50,000 in-kind established relationships with the entities in the there is already state legislation that enables Governments (NCTCOG) counties to enforce higher watershed target region. TX Floodplain Managers Assoc. $5,000 in-kind management standards. • Choosing a couple of pilot areas to provide proof • Establishing a large enough group of local Tarrant County $5,000 in-kind of concept for preparing a larger regional communities and/or counties that are willing Parker County $5,000 in-kind watershed management plan. to collaborate in the development of a regional City of Richardson $5,000 in-kind watershed management plan to make such a City of Lewisville $5,000 in-kind Project Point of Contact plan viable. TOTAL: $180K Marcia Hackett, Silver Jackets Coordinator USACE/Fort Worth District UTAH Bluffdale Floodplain Management Plan Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •This effort will bring the city together with the local canal companies to look •This project will work with City of at the community's flood risk, increase life safety, reduce property losses, and Bluffdale to develop a floodplain identify other opportunities for managing the watershed in an integrated management plan in order to reduce fashion. the risk from flood hazards in the •The floodplain management plan will document tools the community is Bluffdale area. interested in using to help manage their flood risk. Being prepared for •The plan will increase flood risk flooding can lead to decrease future disaster expenditures and provide a awareness, communicate roles and more resilient community. •As the community learns more about flood risk management, the members responsibilities, and assist with disaster can take actions to protect lives and property. The floodplain management planning. plan will help guide their efforts.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Proactively addressing changing conditions to FEMA $5K In-kind reduce the risk of flood hazards in the future. • We anticipate that coordinating with Utah Geological Survey $10K In-kind • The Flood Plain Management Plan will provide the canal companies may be a USACE $100K additional information for decision making challenge due to busy schedules and City of Bluffdale $60k In-kind regarding development around canals and dry competing priorities Jordan River Commission $10K In-kind creeks which may prevent future properties from being exposed to flooding. Salt Lake County Flood $10K In-kind Control Canal Companies/Developers $10K/ 10K In- Kind Project Point of Contact TOTAL $215K Rachael Orellana, PE USACE Sacramento District Utah Grand County Floodplain Management Plan Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes • USACE and Silver Jackets assisted Grand •Developed a Floodplain Management Plan. County, Utah, home of Moab, in developing a •Determined actions to reduce future flood risk to people Floodplain Management Plan to build a living in or traveling around Grand County Floodplain. stronger, safer, and more flood resistant •Project informs local officials of flood risk management practices in their community. community. •Potential for more resilient community in terms of decreasing future disaster expenditures and providing the community an understanding of where and how to build.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges •This project has lead more agencies to talk about Agency Investment • Developing a plan to manage flood risk in area the County’s flood risk. that accommodates permanent residents and Grand County $15K In-kind •The State of Utah has indicated they may be high volume of seasonal tourists. Utah Division of Homeland $15K In-kind willing to fund additional efforts once the full •Corps turnover on the project made it Security scope of the problem is identified. challenging to maintain relationships and project •Strengthen Utah communities through improved continuity. FEMA Region VIII $20K floodplain management practices. USACE $90K

TOTAL $140K USACE Project Point of Contact

BLM Andrew Muha USACE Sacramento District UTAH Skull Valley Goshute Tribe Floodplain Management and Emergency Plan Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •The Skull Valley Goshute Tribe would •Having established plans and a greater educated like to develop a floodplain public and leadership will help the community be management plan in order to reduce more resilient to flooding. the risk from flood hazards on their • The plan will reduce or prevent flood risk, and land. increase resiliency by: educating tribal members •The plan will increase flood risk and land owners of the potential flood risk to their awareness, communicate roles and property and to potential structures that might be responsibilities, and assist with disaster built in the future. planning. •This study will provide the needed information on •The intent will be for the plan to fall how to better protect the residents from flooding, provide guidelines to decrease flood risk, and within the State Hazard Mitigation Plan. decrease health and safety issues.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Agency Investment Continuing Challenges •Proactively addressing changing conditions to Skull Valley Goshute Tribe $15K In-kind reduce the risk of flood hazards in the future. •Obtaining data on historic flood BIA $5K In-kind •The Flood Plain Management Plan will supply the conditions. USACE $100K Tribe with guidelines for further restoration projects •Lack of existing floodplain maps. and prioritize the areas in need of stabilization. USDA (NRCS) $5K In-kind •A Flood Plain Management Plan will provide the TOTAL $125K Tribe an opportunity to protect their resources .

Project Point of Contact Rachael Orellana USACE Sacramento District Guidebooks / Resource Guides CALIFORNIA California Post-Wildfire Resources Guide Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • This CA Silver Jackets is developing a • Increase community participation in the post-wildfire resources guide that will recovery process by providing resources for increase public awareness of flood hazards that are present in areas affected communities to use in the reduction of flood by wildfire. risk after a wildfire. • This document will provide a "one-stop" • Give people the information they need to compendium of resources available to prepare for and respond to a flood after a those affected from agencies that are wildfire which could reduce future responsible for hazard recognition and expenditures from post-wildfire floods. recovery.

Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Agency Investment • Documenting resources in a consolidated format helps state and local agencies know what resources DWR $20K In-kind are available to them after a wildfire. USACE $60K • Multiple agencies are bringing diverse knowledge, CGS $10K In-kind expertise and resources to the table. • This project reinforces the message that flood Cal OES $12K In-kind awareness is everyone’s responsibility and that it is USGS CA Water Science $10K In-kind important to be prepared, especially after a wildfire. Center Cal Fire $10K In-kind Project Point of Contact TOTAL $120K Rachael Orellana, PE USACE Sacramento District IDAHO Post-Wildfire Flood Risk Mitigation Resource Guide Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • After a wildfire, communities are at increased risk of flash •Preemptively providing jurisdictions with a resource guide that flooding, debris flows, and landslides. has a priority checklist of actions and easily accessible information •A coordinated, multi-agency approach to response and on resources available will reduce the lag time between the mitigation can leverage resources and programs, but local wildfire and post-fire flood readiness. communities are often not aware of what agencies and programs •The learning curve and implementation timeframe to mitigate may be available to help them. flash flood risk can be minimized with prompt and appropriate •The Resource Guide is a good reference for community leaders mitigation actions, reducing potentially devastating flood damage to quickly ascertain their potential risks, where they can turn for to persons, private property, and public infrastructure. help in addressing those risks, and help them educate their •Providing information on longer-term mitigation can also help citizens about risks and resources available. reduce future risk during the recovery and mitigation phases.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Drawing from a wide variety of experience of •Determining whether to present the USACE $43,900 personnel from different agencies brings a broad materials from the individual citizen perspective to this product. NOAA NWS $14,560 In-kind perspective or community leaders •Producing a concise printed product makes it easy perspective. IBHS $3,500 In-kind to broadly distribute and easy for community •Refining the large body of information IDWR $2,615 In-kind leaders to use and share. and lessons learned from previous fires TOTAL: $64,575 and various agencies into one concise printable guide. Project Point of Contact Brandon Hobbs, ID SJ Coordinator USACE Walla Walla District Kentucky Flood Risk Management Guidebook Development Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • The Kentucky Silver Jackets Team will develop a Flood • This guidebook will communicate resources, programs, Rick Management Guidebook for use by local flood risk and activities to local flood risk managers in order to give managers them a better idea of where to gain assistance with their • Guidebook will contain updated information in a flood risk management efforts. Floodplain Quick Guide that was previously developed The guidebooks will serve as a valuable resource for by the Commonwealth of Kentucky and will also contain • flood risk managers to manage and implement flood risk updated information on state and federal programs that management programs and techniques. can assist flood risk management efforts.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Utilizing existing information gathered by • Gathering information from each USACE $20,000 other teams for similar efforts has been a agency has been a challenge, great help in starting this project. Kentucky $5,000 however similar efforts by other Association of teams may assist in overcoming Mitigation this challenge Managers •USACE personnel reassignment is Other KY Silver $20,000+ an ongoing challenge Jacket Members (Estimated In- kind services) Project Point of Contact Total Cost: $45,000 Brandon R. Brummett, P.E., PMP USACE Louisville District RHODE ISLAND Rhode Island Floodplain Managers' Handbook Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • This resource would also be made available and serve as a • This proposal is to develop a Rhode Island specific handbook reference for design professionals, local decision makers, for floodplain managers. municipal staff, emergency managers and the public. • The Handbook will incorporate relevant state specific • The State receives inquires on floodplain management information that can inform users. training opportunities from municipalities on a regular basis. • The document will provide users with a synthesized resource that highlights administrative responsibilities, program Providing this handbook to local officials will streamline the components and implementation techniques for responsible delivery of applicable floodplain management regulations and floodplain management. standards. • Local communities will be better informed and aware of available tools to improve floodplain management.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • To become the State repository for USACE $75K floodplain management documents. • Data Collection from various FEMA $2K In-kind • This document will be distributed and sources (Federal, State and NBERR $3.5K In-kind used as a training tool to demonstrate the Local). RIEMA $5K In-kind value of appropriate program • Condensing information into a URI $2.5K In-kind implementation statewide. single document. RI Statewide $2K In-kind • The Handbook will be a living Planning document requiring revisions to RI Bldg. Code $2K In-kind Project Point of Contact Commission meet present day standards. Brian Balukonis, PG Total $139,700 USACE New England District Tennessee Tennessee Post Disaster Guide Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Compiles information needed by local, state, and federal • Quicken recovery efforts and limit redundant answers, allowing agencies after a disaster event – designed to be used as a field personnel to respond to the event reference for post disaster response and recovery • Allow for field personnel, local governments, and the general Consists of state and federal permitting requirements and • public to prepare for future disasters assistance programs, points of contact, NGO programs and volunteer organizations, and more • Reduce the need for coordination with the State • Tailored to meet the needs of Tennessee’s 95 counties • Allow entities at all levels of government to work more • Identified as a need on the State Hazard Mitigation Plan efficiently and focus their efforts where needed during an event

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Community Specific section is customizable – Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • ability to condense or expand, enables TEMA $7.6k • Multiple agencies with varying ideas of consolidation of local, state, and federal the end product FEMA $1.2k information USACE $30.2k • Appendices use pre-existing fact sheets – allows • Availability of Post Disaster Guide NRCS $1.36k easy access change and avoids duplication of effort contributors and coordinating schedules TN NFIP $0.5k • Identified areas of benefit for local governments and utilized lessons learned from past experiences • Costs of printing TDEC $3.6k OTHER $6.7k USACE Project Points of Contact TOTAL $51.1K Mary Lewis Lacey Thomason Nashville District Nashville District Information Compilation, Sharing and Alignment CALIFORNIA Regional Summaries of Local Hazard Mitigation Plans (LHMPs) Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •This project will develop a database • By developing a database of projects identified of LHMP identified projects which will support both Federal and state by LHMPs, both Federal and state agencies will be understanding of regional needs. able to leverage the information in the LHMPs in •This project will help identify flood risk reduction projects that align with a summarized manner to help prioritize projects Federal and/or state priorities and identify opportunities for collaboration. • A consolidated database will • Individually, each of the LHMPs identifies promote shared responsibility on the Federal, state, and regional levels. projects that could reduce risks to life safety.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges • Summarizing LHMP proposed projects to • Close coordination with FEMA has Agency Investment reduce flood risk helps identify been critical as we leverage FEMA’s DWR $500K In-kind opportunities for implementation and Action Tracker to avoid duplication CalOES $10K In-kind collaboration. of work. USACE $100K • This database will support a Federal and • Pulling together and compiling TOTAL $610K state understanding of regional needs. information from 58 counties with LHMPs that have varying levels of Project Point of Contact detail is a continued challenge. Rachael Orellana, PE USACE Sacramento District FLORIDA Silver Jackets High Water Mark (HWM) Mobile Application

PROJECT DESCRIPTION FLOOD RISK REDUCTION OUTCOMES • Develop a web-based mobile application to be used by field • The ability to create digital, real time, and historical records personal/volunteers to collect High Water Mark (HWM) data documenting a HWM event statewide • Real time field data/gage readings, field coordinates, and • Access to real time data related to flooded areas allowing current field conditions/observations (notes and pictures Federal, state, and local government agencies greater latitude in documenting flood conditions/damages) are collected using making decisions concerning evacuation of potentially affected Apple iOS/Android Mobile devices (phone or tablet) or populations, closure of roads, or to reallocate resources by laptop computers in the field anticipating where flooding may occur based on collected data • Collected data is uploaded to a common website specifically • Communities have additional information relative to flood events designed to collect/host HWM data and information to use when updating land use plans resulting in reductions in losses and improvements in recovery times

CHALLENGES OVERCAME/ PARTNERS AND PROJECT COST SUCCESSES/BEST PRACTICES CONTINUING CHALLENGES • Interagency collaboration and leveraging of AGENCY INVESTMENT • A data format/ presentation was resources among multiple agencies developed that is both convenient USACE $ 150,000.00 • Developed outreach presentation that and practicable instructs/demonstrates the use of the HWM • The “disconnected editing mode” $ 75, 000, mobile application feature was added, allowing field FDEM Existing GIS Data data collection under difficult or Website Host • State of Florida personal responding to Hurricanes Hermine and Matthew successfully hazardous conditions when no cellular FEMA Existing GIS Data signal/service is available used the HWM mobile application to collect • Improving agencies’ and the public’s NOAA Existing GIS Data HWM data perception, understanding, and SWFWMD Draft Form USACE PROJECT POINT OF CONTACT interpretation of how this data can David P. Apple, P.E. result in changes to life safety and Chief, Watershed/Restoration Planning Section $225,000 property protection will remain a Total Cost: Jacksonville District challenge 904-232-1757 Idaho Idaho Flood Insurance Rate Map Digitization Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •28 counties in Idaho were working from their original paper •Communities can better plan for and manage their floodplains FIRMs from the 1980s for floodplain management and NFIP and flood risk using flood hazard GIS mapping in conjunction with compliance. up-to-date parcel data and aerial imagery. •IDWR previously scanned and georeferenced images of the •Allows for more precise and accurate determination of flood maps, but . hazard areas in the application and enforcement of mapped flood •USACE took the georeferenced images and created GIS maps hazard areas. that can be distributed and/or hosted on the FEMA GeoPlatform. •Digital maps can be used for disaster planning and training as •FEMA/IDWR/IOEM will be providing education and outreach on best available flood information in rural jurisdictions. these new digital products to the counties benefitting.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Leverage existing information and investments – •The production of GIS products from USACE $60k in this case georeferenced image files were the available geo-referenced images developed into an even more useful product for IDWR $10K In-kind went smoothly. floodplain management and planning. •Success in outreach and widespread IOEM $10K In-kind adoption by rural counties will be FEMA $3K In-kind examined on a county-by-county basis. TOTAL: $83K

Project Point of Contact Brandon Hobbs, ID SJ Coordinator USACE Walla Walla District Illinois Mobile Information Collection Application (MICA) Project Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits This Silver Jackets pilot project has established a standard operating •Raises awareness of state, county, and community emergency procedure to provide the Illinois Emergency Management Agency management officials who use MICA in the field. Raises awareness of (IEMA) and the Department of Natural Resources, Office of Water those who view shared MICA data. Resources personnel log-in access to the mobile information •Improved process of communication between govt. agencies during collection application (MICA). The pilot project Phase II leverages flood events. Partner agencies use shared MICA data to respond to MICA Phase I knowledge to develop and incorporate additional and recover from flood hazards and to mitigate and prepare for essential features such as sketch tool, photo geo-location future flood events. documentation, data storage and retrieval. •More detailed, quicker characterization of flood hazards shared among partners reduces consequences by enabling faster, more complete response.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •MICA Tablets deployed just in time for seasonal USACE Project Budget Phase I $35,000 flooding! MICA Tablet field use by Team Members •Initial MICA device log-in was a little Apr-Sep w/ Record Illinois River Flooding July 1,2,3 USACE Project Budget Phase II $135,000 cumbersome for non-Federal participants; 2015!!! and again for December 2015 record flood $10,000 however, this was overcome with follow- Illinois DNR event on Illinois river tributaries! The team up calls to assist the participants. IEMA $5,000 developed and added IEMA Initial Damage NOAA $5,000 Assessment Form!!! Phase II provided participants FEMA $5,000 an opportunity to beta test MICA Version 3.0.

15 Illinois Counties $75,000 Project Point of Contact [$5,000/county] Total: $270,000 Shirley Johnson USACE Rock Island District Indiana IndianaMap Flood Mitigation Portal Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Enhance IndianaMap GIS database to include a Flood • IFMP will allow local and state officials (as well as Mitigation Planning module. members of the general public) access to actionable information about flood risk and mitigation • Will better equip decision makers, officials and developers in Indiana with information in support of risk- • Data will be used by both technical and non-technical informed choices to make their projects resilient today users (developers, planners, decision makers, etc) to make and into the future. their project more flood resilient.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Many agencies partnering together • Coordination of various data sources Indiana University-Purdue $375K In-kind University of Indianapolis will be challenging • Many previous successful projects serve as the Indiana University $250K In-kind foundation for this project • Cataloguing sources for easy access IN Geographic Info Council $20K In-kind will also be a challenge USACE $300K • Enthusiastic participation of team members Indiana Department of $20K in-kind • Will be working with Indiana Homeland Security University-Purdue University of Indiana Department of Natural $10K In-kind Indianapolis via an Intergovernmental Resources Project Point of Contact Personnel Act Agreement TOTAL: $975K Brandon R. Brummett, P.E., PMP USACE Louisville District Outreach Coordinator Iowa Iowa Flood Risk Data Inventory Project Description

The Iowa Flood Risk Data inventory will compile Federal, state, and county Flood Risk Reduction Benefits metadata from different flood risk data into a single source. The inter- agency stream models repository will be posted on the existing Iowa Flood As local jurisdictions gain knowledge and use of this inventory they will Information System. be more timely and accurate in their response, develop more effective mitigation plans, and adding new data will provide rigor to its use. By leveraging access to the already established IFIS, statewide system users will be able to quickly access availability of flood risk data models. Intergovernmental [Federal / State / County] capability to Inventory updates will be web-based to encourage the posting of newly query a flood source inventory of documented hydrologic and hydraulic developed models. A geospatial inventory map will identify study reaches model availability quickly during times of impending flood threat will that extend through multiple communities. For each model, the posted reduce and prevent increases in flood risk and increase resiliency. information would include: 1) Stream name and site description [study extent]; 2) Type of Model [hydrologic, hydraulic 1D, 2D ]; and 3) Agency name, point-of-contact, date of model data and model development. Partners and Project Cost Challenges Overcome / Agency Investment Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges FEMA $20K In-kind This pilot project fits well into the $97 million Iowa HUD Duration of incremental Continuing NOAA NWS $20K In-kind Disaster Resilience project with the goal of reducing Resolution funding period. Resource peak flow in a 1 % event. As part of the project, we will USACE $45K inefficiencies due to incremental Continuing be ensuring that the inventory and its use, becomes well Resolution funding period. USGS $20K In-kind known through educational and training efforts. Iowa Flood Center $45K In-kind

HSEMD $20K In-kind Iowa DNR $20K In-kind Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $190,000 Shirley Johnson, Hydrologist USACE Rock Island District Iowa Iowa Bridge Sensor Rating Curve Project Phases I & II Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits This project leverages the existing Iowa Flood Center (IFC) bridge •Community officials can view river stage and flow through IFIS website. Pending • confirmation of methodology, public will also be able to view flow [quantity of water sensor network (IFIS) data to demonstrate the need for rating curve passing by the bridge sensor] through the website in addition to stage data [depth of development at bridge sensor locations. Study partners (USACE, IFC, water] which is already available. NWS, USGS, IDNR, HSEMD) have prioritized state-wide rating curve •County will incorporate use of bridge sensors into its Hazard Mitigation Plan. Sensor needs and are developing a standard procedure for rating curve data (measured stage and calculated flow) will enhance risk communication and data collection by leveraging available data (Iowa state LIDAR data, evacuation planning and inform response of flood fight personnel. Communities aware of rising water levels may take action to flood proof critical infrastructure. Successful bridge plans). The demonstration study products will be made use of sensors and sensor data in Iowa opens opportunities to implement nationwide; available for flood preparedness planning. accuracy is acceptable for intended uses, installation, maintenance costs are low •More complete, accessible, real-time data about nature of flood hazard (river stage and flow) enables preventative actions to be taken to reduce flooding consequences – to be outlined in Hazard Mitigation Plan

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Phase I: Selected & surveyed 6 sites, team USACE Project Budget Phase I $45,000 coordination / review of preliminary results (2015) •No Challenges, great interagency USACE Project Budget Phase II $45,000 •Phase II: Doubled the number of sites to 12, refined teamwork! Iowa Flood Center $50,000 methodology, Team report review / discussion IDNR $10,000 NWS $10,000 USGS $10,000 HSEMD $10,000 IDOT $10,000 Project Point of Contact Total: $190,000 Shirley Johnson USACE Rock Island District Ohio Interagency Data Compilation and Web-based Geospatial Platform Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • This project will collect data from team agencies and •This tool would help various agencies, organizations, and the compile data for available team use on a web-based public make better informed management decisions, investments, geospatial. and evaluate resources potentially impacted by flooding. •The overarching objective of this project is to compile, •Increased flood risk awareness through access to spatial data. •Having spatial data available in one location would allow for organize and convey the best available data and analyses increased response, efficiency, and protection of life and property. related to characterization, management and •Increase life safety by allowing agencies and the public to access communication of flood risks in the State of Ohio in a and analyze data to facilitate emergency response and recovery readily accessible GIS web-based application. and raise general awareness - Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Working as a team to effectively communicate USACE $185,000 needs of the State to ensure project deliverables •The initial project scope is meet needs of the State. FEMA $250,000 In-kind broad and the team has •Involved the Ohio Geographically Referenced HUD $75,000 In-kind recognized the need to better Information Program in this effort. This group is NOAA/NWS $50,000 In-kind define the scope to ensure the GIS coordinating body for the State of Ohio OEMA $25,000 In-kind and local government. success of the project. ODNR $25,000 In-kind •Determining platform of the TOTAL: $610,000 Project Point of Contact geospatial tool. Ashley Stephens and JoAnn Combs USACE Huntington District TEXAS Texas Flood Resiliency Activity Tracker Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Development of a one-step web-based mapping system • Will help to clarify cumulative project impacts to increase accuracy • Built from a comprehensive GIS database of flood risk profiles for improved mitigation activities and to identify • Includes interagency (federal, state, and local) flood risk the potential heightened flooding impacts to downstream projects and initiatives throughout the state of Texas. communities. Will identify geographic gaps in projects, and subsequently identify • Will be completed in phases: •  Phase 1 – Design TxFRAT GIS Database areas of social vulnerabilities based on physical and hazard risks.  Phase 2 – Identify Pilot Areas of State and Data Collection • Reduces duplication and overlap of federal and state project  Phase 3 – Outreach to Additional Agencies and Statewide Data Collection funding.  Phase 4 – Compilation of Statewide Data into Overall TxFRAT GIS Database • Establishes interagency platform for information exchange on on-  Phase 5 - TxFRAT Web Map Viewer Roll Out and Technical Support going projects.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Creating an effective interagency collaboration • Significant delays with PDT efforts due to FEMA $12,000 in-kind for informed decision making on flood risk frequent flood response and recovery USGS $12,000 in-kind identification and mitigation project prioritization. efforts over the last couple of years. USACE $128,000 ($48K in- • Eliminating conflicting project goals and building • Lack of continuity of PDT members kind, $78K cash) consistency in supporting documentation and data involved in initial project scoping; having NRCS $12,000 in-kind input for selection of effective flood risk mitigation to reinvigorate team and rescope TX Water Development Board $12,000 in-kind projects. activities based on new team membership TX Dept. of Emergency Mgmt $12,000 in-kind • The expertise needed for development TX Government Land Office $12,000 in-kind of the web-based mapping system TX Dept. of Transportation $12,000 in-kind Project Point of Contact requires a wider range of Corps expertise. TOTAL: $212K Marcia Hackett, Silver Jackets Coordinator USACE/Fort Worth District Washington Implementation of the RAFT in Washington state Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits The State of Washington uses the RAFT as a tool to relate flood forecasts from the The real-time flood assessment and data communication capabilities will reduce future National Weather Service to flood frequency and estimated flood damage data. consequences. Local emergency managers will have a more reliable tool at their Previous means to assess the effects of forecasted events, such as USGS's disposal when making critical preparedness and response decisions. The RAFT can be WaterWatch and NOAA's River Forecast Center, give an overview of current used as a planning tool to reduce property loss by identifying flooding patterns within conditions or a snapshot of flooding severity. The Rapid Assessment Flooding Tool NFIP communities. A better understanding of exposure to risk - especially with regards (RAFT) – originally developed by Oregon Silver Jackets – incorporates into one to critical infrastructure - increases resiliency. The RAFT identifies that exposure by database the "best" gage and frequency data ("best" as evaluated by the team to be relating the severity of flooding to the frequency of flooding. The last 20 years have most representative) to evaluate local or regional impacts. The Excel platform and produced an abundance of significant flood events across the state of Washington. The GoogleEarth KML map outputs provide familiarity so any agency or local emergency 17 major rivers in the Puget Sound, for example, have seen average peak flows steadily manager can run the tool with minimal explanation. Underlying data can be edited by and considerably increase. Flood frequency across the state is expected to continue more advanced users. Decision makers and emergency managers have to be efficient increasing over the next 50+ years due to climate change. The RAFT will result in and confident before and during floods in estimating impacts and pinpointing reduced future expenditures by making the correct data available to the right people in resources - implementation of the RAFT increases our ability to meet these a timely manner - it will improve our flood risk strategy in all four facets of the flood requirements. risk life cycle. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment The best part of the RAFT is it can be used by right people. When the Oregon SJ created this tool, they The schedule slipped on this project so that the USACE Project Budget $40,000 had applicability in mind, so they built it on a familiar entire duration was roughly 2 years instead of 1 NOAA $10,000 year. There was a good reason for the delay platform (Excel) with familiar outputs (Google Earth) EMD $10,000 however. A parallel effort to this project was and made the operation of it simple. When being completed by a SJ partner, the USGS, to USGS $10,000 completed and rolled out in WA, our SJ group expects update roughly 600 frequency curves across the ECY $10,000 the RAFT will be utilized by all the usual agencies, but state. It made no sense to complete the RAFT before being able to incorporate these updated FEMA $30,000 also by local FRM officials and EM personnel. curves. Project Point of Contact Total: $110,000 Travis Ball, WA SJ Coordinator, USACE Seattle District Levee Safety Iowa Evaluation of Urban Flooding Scenarios, Des Moines, IA Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •The levee breach analysis produced a product the city will use to •The results of the breach analysis raised awareness of the city public works engineers and emergency managers and responders especially regarding the reduce flood risk through planning and preparation. USACE used GIS limited evacuation times of only one to two hours depending on the specific data available from the Iowa LIDAR Project and the City of Des breach location. The daytime population at risk behind any one of the Des Moines for the analysis of flood modeling and inundation mapping. Moines levee systems is 16,000 people. The city's critical infrastructure, including The City and its stakeholders partnered with USACE in order to City Hall, the Police Station, a regional sewage treatment facility, and aviation fuel better understand and plan for potential levee capacity exceedance facilities is also at risk. or levee failure scenarios. •The City of Des Moines has used the breach analysis results to make risk- informed decisions about flood proofing, buyouts, zoning, and evacuation planning. •City of Des Moines has been successful in applying for flood risk damage reduction grant funding and has planned for river bridge raises to reduce the risk of levee overtopping or levee breaching. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •The successes and best practices included conference USACE Project Budget $85,000 calls with City relating to project scoping, input and •Software limitations. At the time of the feedback of Initial Modeling. City feedback along with $250,000 HEC-RAS 2D analysis, only a beta version City of Des Moines, Iowa district quality control review and agency technical of HEC-RAS 2D was available. The Polk County EMA $0 review was applied to subsequent scenarios of breach software served our purposes; however, analysis. The analysis was beneficial for risk at that time the software did not include communication and evacuation planning as well as the some of the output and export features USACE Des Moines Levee System Feasibility Study that are now available in the released initiated a year after the breach analysis study. versions. Project Point of Contact Total: $335,000 Shirley Johnson USACE Rock Island District Iowa Living Behind a Levee - Cedar Falls, IA Flooding Scenarios Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •The levee breach analysis produced a product the city used to •The results raised awareness of emergency managers and reduce flood risk through planning and preparation. USACE used GIS responders especially regarding the limited evacuation times, data available from the Iowa LIDAR Project and the City of Cedar prompting consideration of revisiting City and County Emergency Falls for analysis flood inundation modeling. Action Plans and Hazard Mitigation Plans. •The City and its stakeholders partnered with USACE in order to •City of Cedar Falls and Blackhawk County have used results to make better understand and plan for potential levee capacity exceedance risk-informed decisions about flood evacuation planning and flood or levee failure scenarios. This project satisfies Blackhawk County preparedness. Hazard Planning Strategy (Goals 1, 2, and 3) •Leveed area intensely developed with critical infrastructure, businesses, and industry which includes a daytime population at risk of 724 people.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Flood Proofing Critical Infrastructure (City Hall, USACE Project Budget $85,000 Police Dept and Nursing Home at the Flood Wave •Limited HEC-RAS 2D Model Capabilities City of Cedar Falls $5,000 Inundation Fringe). City relocated Flood Fight effort (Only the Beta version of HEC-RAS 2D was away from the leveed area, safety of flood fight Blackhawk County EMA $5,000 available at the time of the project) personnel improved. Opportunities to apply methodology to other Blackhawk County levee systems and nationwide.

Project Point of Contact Total: $95,000 Shirley Johnson USACE Rock Island District KANSAS Osawatomie Interagency Levee Safety Project Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • This project will leverage efforts and resources from KS Dept of Ag, KS •Additions to the regional hazard mitigation plan of risk inventory, Division of Emergency Management, FEMA LAMP and local levee sponsors improved preparedness. to develop an inventory of risks, hazard mitigation actions, and process for •Communication with levee sponsor will improve their awareness risk communication to potentially affected citizens. of the levee and associated risks, as well as communication with •Inventory of risks, mitigation actions, and risk communication process will all be comprised into an EAP type document to be amended to the regional locals. hazard mitigation plan. •By developing a risk inventory, risk reduction measures and •The project will include at least one public outreach meeting, as well as a response actions, future recovery expenditures will be reduced. table top exercise in disaster visioning where we will run through a •The table top event is geared to incite actions by the levee simulated, modeled levee failure, response and recovery. sponsor and locals through visualizing impacts and how they can •Will educate sponsor on risk drivers to prepare them for communicating mitigate those impacts to prevent life and property loss. with the folks behind the levee.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •The project is currently being initiated. •Development of the table top exercise; FEMA $4K In-kind format of meeting and invitees. •Community officials are involved, but KDEM $8K In-kind public involvement and understanding USACE $50K will be a challenge. KDA-DWR $65K In-kind •Staff turnover City of Osawatomie $4k In-kind •Project timeframe...staying on schedule may be a challenge Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $131K Mitch Roberts, Silver Jackets Coordinator USACE Kansas City District Montana System-Wide Improvement Framework (SWIF) Plans for Forsyth, Glasgow, and Havre, Montana Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • As a part of this project interagency collaboration was provided to • The communities have discussed the levee and SWIF plans at City assist the communities in establishing their SWIF plans. The ability Council Meeting, County Commissioners' Meeting, and Public of the community to take advantage of this assistance was a driver Meeting. These actions are raising the awareness to community in the success, or lack of, for each community. members. • Assisting the Levee sponsors with their SWIF Plan will prompt them to implement their System-Wide Improvement Framework (SWIF) Plans • Eliminating the levee systems unacceptable inspection items will reduced the risk to the population landward of the levees

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Agency Investment The effort has provided assistance to the three Continuing Challenges communities with sections of their SWIF, outreach, and USACE Project Budget $54,000 • Limited Local Resources Technical, developing templates used in their SWIFs. These benefits MT-DNRC $9,000 financial, and legal resources at the local also reach to other communities by providing examples level continued to be a challenge. MT-DES $3,000 and context for their SWIF efforts. Additionally, the project has provided an example of interagency collaboration • Evolving Criteria (Interim Guidance) MT-FWP $3,000 which has been instrumental in the communities’ success, Changes to the program criteria and the MT-DEQ $3,000 this can be seen in the City of Glasgow by establishing their inclusion of a 1-yr extension has altered levee team and applying for a HUD grant. the project scope and timeline. Project Point of Contact Total: $72,000 Tony D. Krause, P.E., CFM USACE – Omaha District Nebraska Levee Sponsor Engagement and Risk Communication NE Silver Jackets Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • The project will assist the District Levee Safety Team in •Sponsor will have a better understanding of the risk drivers of initiating the Omaha District’s Levee Screening Risk their levee system. Communication Plan. •A discussion of shared responsibility and promotion of risk •The effort will promote shared responsibility among interagency management, focused on what can be done and by whom. participants and prompt action. •A more informed public about the flood risk associated with •The project will be used to develop meeting material for risk levees. communication for levee within Nebraska and the participating agencies from local government to state agencies.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •The project is currently being initiated •The project is currently being initiated USACE $49,800 NE EMA $5,3000 In-KInd NE DNR $5,300 In-Kind Local Govt include Levee $38,240 In-Kind Sponsors FEMA Region VII $11,100 In-kind

Project Point of Contact Lowell Blankers, P.E., CFM and Tony Krause, P.E., CFM TOTAL: $235K USACE – Omaha District Nonstructural Analysis / Assessment Alabama Village Creek Non-Structural Analysis Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •Historically, The City of Birmingham, AL, has experienced significant flooding events resulting in several Presidential Declared Disasters in its more urbanized watershed, ► Mitigation Action will be identified for single structures or Village Creek. The City has a goal to understand each structure specific flood hazard groups of structures. and the feasible non-structural mitigation alternatives to reduce flood risk. USACE collected structure inventory data to update the existing inventory. Each property in ► Provides implementable recommendations that the city can the Village Creek Watershed will be characterized by three flood risk classification: and state can use to reduce overall flood risk low, moderate, high and the following property information will be collected to assist ► Actions will be taken on structures to reduce over all flood in property characterization: the finished floor information, identifying building type, address, ground elevation, base flood elevation, utility information and flood risk. openings. The specific non-structural alternatives proposed to evaluation include: ► Could reduce homeowners flood insurance premiums modifications to flood ordinance; structure elevation projects; map change/correction projects, elevation certificate projects; acquisition projects; berm protection projects; wet floodproofing and other minor structure and structure attendant utilities retrofit measures. USACE is using HEC-FIA to evaluate alternatives.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Used the Repetitive Loss Area Analysis that the City of •Obtaining structure valuation software Birmingham had already completed as a basis for targeting Alabama Office of Water $10K In-kind high risk structures and evaluating those first was difficult in dealing with the supplier. Resources •Identifying properties without elevation certificates and Caused a project delay. City of Birmingham $100K In-kind making a recommendation to the city if it is beneficial to •Narrowing the analysis to focus on USACE $250K the homeowner to obtain one specific outcomes. There were lots of •Team brainstormed on types of decisions the city would great ideas discussed an we had to FEMA 10K(in-kind) like to make and then focused on how the analysis could screen to the best ones. TOTAL $375K accomplish those. •Team member workload management has been a challenge. Project Point of Contact Meredith LaDart USACE/SAM/Birmingham, AL Colorado Nonstructural Flood Risk Resiliency Assessments for Brush and Sterling Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Provide the communities of Brush and Sterling, CO, with • Determine potential options for implementing nonstructural flood nonstructural recommendations for at-risk structures risk adaptive measures • Identify repetitive loss properties and prioritize mitigation • Collected elevation data can be used for benefit cost analysis of options nonstructural recommendations • Decrease damages to structures through implemented mitigation • Encourage the NFIP Community Rating System (CRS), measures community education, and include outreach efforts • Community Rating System application and class increase feasibility • Provide important information to encourage the completion of assessment Elevation Certificates • Risk communication and outreach sessions • Provide an example for other communities in Colorado

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Project is currently being initiated • Project is currently being initiated USACE $93k State $17k In-kind Local $22k In-kind

Total Cost: $132,000

Project Point of Contact Jamie Prochno, PE, CFM USACE – Omaha District Colorado Estes Park Flood Risk Analysis with Nonstructural Mitigation Assessment Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Nonstructural evaluation of several dozen • Determine potential options for implementing commercial buildings subject to flooding in Estes Park nonstructural flood risk adaptive measures • Many of the buildings are from the early 1900’s and • Decrease damages to structures through implemented are considered historic mitigation measures • Structures evaluated by engineer and architect from • Historic downtown area of Estes Park preserved and USACE National Nonstructural Flood Proofing continues to be economically viable Committee (NFPC) for flood risk adaptive measures

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Project is currently being initiated USACE $76K • Project is waiting for updated hydrology and hydraulics Town of Estes Park $25K In-kind CO DOT $30K In-kind CO WCB $50K In-kind

Total Cost: $181K Project Point of Contact Thomas Gorman, P.E., CFM USACE - Omaha District Illinois Structural Flood Damage Assessments

Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits

This inter-agency pilot project will develop a tool to provide risk This data will assist Rock Island County, the City of Rock Island, and communication to communities living behind levees. Structural flood the State calculating risk behind this levee system and in preparing a damage assessments for all structures located in the portion of the benefit cost analysis to prioritize buyouts and prepare project proposals City of Rock Island located behind the Mississippi River levee with the ultimate goal of creating a comprehensive plan and prioritizing system would be developed using multi-frequency Flood Depth mitigation projects. Grids. Survey data will be collected for the lowest entry point and first floor elevation for all residential, commercial and industrial structures within the 1% annual chance floodplain. Parcel data, GIS Use of this information by the City will communicate and educate the data, and elevation certificate data that have been prepared for public as to flood risk awareness which will yield life safety and resiliency structures in the floodplain will be obtained from Rock Island benefits immediately and into the future. County.

Successes/Best Practices Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Continuing Challenges This pilot project addresses E.O. 12898 P. 5 -161. Agency Investment which directs federal agencies to “develop environmental justice strategies to help Federal Duration of incremental Continuing Illinois DNR - OWR $165,000 in kind agencies identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects Resolution funding period. Resource Rock Island County, Illinois $15,000 in-kind inefficiencies due to incremental of their programs, policies, and activities on minority Continuing Resolution funding period. City of Rock Island, Illinois $15,000 in-kind and low-income populations” USACE $150,000

Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $345,000 Shirley Johnson, Hydrologist USACE Rock Island District IOWA Non-Structural Landuse Change Impacts on Structure Losses in Cedar River Communities Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes Rapid method to identify non-structural measures (buy- •Project highlights areas vulnerable to increased damages due to changes in stream flowrates. out, structure raises, update flow probability, mapping, •Info related to structure raises and buyouts may lead others to etc.) for communities sensitive to changes in structure take actions on those non-structural measures. losses due to changing hydrology and flood stage. •Results from updated flow record may result in others realizing most important non-structural measure is simply to use current Estimates change in potential structure loss in data in mapping and regulatory actions. communities in the Cedar River basin by: •Iowa Flood Center, FEMA, Dept. of Homeland Security may use this information for community outreach to reduce flood risk. • simulating altered hydrology and flood stages •Iowa Flood Center may incorporate data into mapping, flood • simulating structure damages information website and outreach. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Project has successfully demonstrated how the method of evaluation may impact the mapping • Team overcame limitations associated Corps $130k and economic evaluation accuracy. with hydrologic model (SWAT replaced •Use of existing data (LIDAR and FIS) may be useful with statistical approach) IDNR $15k for rapid evaluations of inundation extent and Team overcame limitations of • Iowa Flood $20k flood damages (i.e. flood risk). economic modeling tool (HAZUS •Non-structural measures may vary given range of replaced with HEC-FIA) Center uncertainty (change in precip, zoning, etc.).

EMDHS $15k USACE Project Point of Contact FEMA $20k Jason T. Smith, IA SJ Lead Project Management, USACE Rock Island District MARYLAND Baltimore City Nonstructural Assessment Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Evaluate floodproofing measures for 9 prototype Concept Plan: historic structures. • The floodproofing analysis and economic analysis will help the City to prioritize projects, and will allow them to better inform developers of • Develop concept plans with cost estimates and floodproofing options related to historic structures. economic analysis for each building. • This project will increase community resiliency by informing residents and • Identify the pros and cons of each floodproofing commercial property owners of potential floodproofing measures that, when measure. implemented, could reduce flood risk and future flood damage. Floorproofing Guide: • Prepare a “Floodproofing Guide” describing The Guide will educate the public on their flood risk and floodproofing options recommended floodproofing measures that can be used and encourage home and business owners to take action to protect their for education and outreach to the historic property properties which will mitigate loss, prevent future impacts, and improve owners. aesthetics of the City. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Multiple agencies brought diverse USACE $98,2K knowledge, expertise and resources. Baltimore City $3K in-kind •Create a “Floodproofing Guide” that is •The Maryland Historic Trust brought a user friendly. Maryland Historic $72K In-kind unique and valuable expertise to the team. Trust •Recommending measures that are both •Outreach is an important component, as technically feasible AND also comply with Maryland $5K In-kind residential is different than commercial historic requirements. Department of Environment communication. National Weather $5K In-kind Service Project Point of Contact Total $183,200 Stacey Underwood USACE Baltimore District Nebraska Nonstructural Flood Risk Resiliency Assessments for Deshler, DeWitt, and Hebron Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Provide the communities of Deshler, DeWitt, and Hebron, NE • Determine potential options for implementing nonstructural flood with nonstructural recommendations for at-risk structures risk adaptive measures – especially for the assisted living facility that • Identify repetitive loss properties and prioritize mitigation was evacuated in 2015 options • Collected elevation data can be used for benefit costs analysis of nonstructural recommendations • Encourage the NFIP Community Rating System (CRS), • Decrease damages to structures through implemented mitigation community education, and include outreach efforts measures • Provide important information to encourage the completion of • Community Rating System application feasibility assessment Elevation Certificates • Risk communication and outreach sessions • Provide an example for other communities in Nebraska

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Project is currently being initiated • Project is currently being initiated USACE $90k NeDNR $20k In-kind NEMA $2k In-kind Local NRDs $6k In-kind Local Government $18k In-kind and County Assessor Project Point of Contact Total Cost: $136,000 Rachel Shoemaker, CFM USACE – Omaha District Nebraska Nonstructural Flood Risk Mitigation Assessment along the Platte River Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits This project included Nonstructural Assessments for the Village of • The project raised flood risk awareness, not only with the local floodplain administrators but with the community residents at risk in the Village of Cedar Cedar Creek and City of Louisville. A nonstructural assessment has Creek and City of Louisville. This was shown when the project provided identified feasible and financially viable nonstructural alternatives community outreach that was attended by 56 people. Additionally, the inventory using HEC-FDA and FEMA BCA justification. The study included an of 48 flood prone structures was shared with the communities and the leaders of outreach event, which was well attended by 56 people. The Village those communities now better understand the risks and solutions related to of Cedar Creek is working with the State to develop a mitigation flooding. grant application. • The project prompted action from multiple communities and project partners. The HEC-FDA and FEMA BCA analysis identified 48 structures at risk of flooding and the local communities decided to apply for a Hazard Mitigation Grant to raise funds to flood proof the structures. Additionally, the County and local communities have put together a Community Rating System (CRS) application, which will future incentivize floodplain activities. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • The most significant successes of the project USACE $68,156 include providing economic justification for The challenges that the project overcame were flooding proofing flood prone structures in the NDNR $29,716 both related to dealing with the federal project area. partners. It was challenging comparing and Local Govt/County Assessor $9,000 • The project also helped motivate applications to making fair judgment between the benefit cost NPSNRD (In-kind) $4,916 models that USACE uses verses what FEMA the Community Rating System (CRS) and Hazard NEMA $2,000 uses, as some homes that should of been Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). justified in FEMA's model were not, and vise • Best practices include continual sponsor versa. Additionally the local county and village engagement. had issues applying to the CRS program due to the amount of paperwork required. Project Point of Contact Total: $113,788 Tony D. Krause, P.E., CFM and Rachel Shoemaker, CFM USACE – Omaha District Nebraska Nonstructural Approach to Repetitive Loss Properties in Nebraska Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits There are 363 properties in the State of Nebraska classified as • Community officials in those communities involved have an improved understanding of the details of the repetitive loss areas and potential mitigation repetitive loss by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). actions, including of the problems that cause repetitive losses in defined areas These properties are in some of the areas of highest flood risk and • State officials have a clearer understanding of the risks of repetitive flooding for are ideal targets for nonstructural flood risk mitigation projects. The the State. most up-to-date version of a database containing information on • By having updated repetitive loss property information and details, FEMA, these properties was reviewed and updated using a combination of NeDNR, NEMA, and local governments will be better able to target mitigation Google Earth, County Assessor databases, and physical field audits. planning and action efforts. This may include more detailed risk assessments or nonstructural cost estimates. NeDNR will also be better able to support CRS The findings of the database review will be incorporated into the communities with repetitive loss property data. State Hazard Mitigation Plan and will help in future community risk assessments and mitigation cost estimates.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • The findings of the repetitive loss database update USACE $30,375 will be incorporated into the State Hazard The largest challenge encountered with this Mitigation Plan and will help in future community NeDNR $34,600 project included the updates necessary to risk assessments and mitigation cost estimates. locate each property listed within the original Local Govt/County Assessor $1,000 • Communities with repetitive loss properties repetitive loss property database provided NEMA $5,600 from the Nebraska Department of Natural successfully located now have the necessary FEMA $2,400 Resources (NeDNR). Properties that were information to enter the program or earn credit unable to be identified with certainty using points associated with the Community Rating desk audit resources were included in field System (CRS). audits to be physically verified to ensure the repetitive loss database is accurate. Project Point of Contact Total: $73,975 Rachel Shoemaker, CFM USACE – Omaha District New Jersey Cumberland County Assessments Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •History - Cumberland County is a rural county prone to flooding on the •Implementation of flood proofing methods can reduce total flood Delaware Bayshore. damages •History - Due to the rural nature of the area it is hard to determine any •Can lead to changes in policy and local ordinances flood control projects that can make a large impact. •Can lead to measures taken by the community and government USACE will physically visit and assess a number of properties in the • to apply some of the measures to homes and businesses to watershed for nonstructural flood proofing methods. •A report will be generated on the recommendations and shared with the reduce flood damage costs and risk local governments.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Once the local government and local residences •Getting the accurate elevation data for FEMA $10K In-kind see small ways they can improve resiliency they all the homes in the areas of interest is a take action NJ OEM $10K In-kind challenge •Local governments utilize these methods in future Bayshore Center $10K In-kind planning and policy Cumberland County $5K In-kind NJ DEP $5K In-kind

USACE $100K Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $235K Eric Majusiak Civil Engineer USACE NAP Philadelphia Ohio Loss Avoidance Study Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •Through FEMA’s hazard mitigation assistance grant programs, •Understanding performance of implemented mitigation projects state, local communities, and private citizens have been able to would ensure that current and future mitigation projects in Ohio successfully implement nonstructural flood mitigation projects. are effective in reducing property loss and increasing resiliency by •Using FEMA’s methodology, a Loss Avoidance Study will be strengthening knowledge of avoided flood losses. conducted to quantify the success of Ohio flood mitigation •Quantifying the actual losses avoided for mitigation projects projects over time at preventing physical damages. where there has been a subsequent flood event will reinforce that •The goal is to assess the performance of implemented mitigation is an investment that saves lives, enhances community mitigation projects. resilience, and saves money. •Ohio Emergency Management Agency selected the Village of •Study results will be incorporated into the State Hazard Ottawa and the City of Findlay for the study area. Mitigation Plan.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Excellent success in leveraging of resources •In order to conduct a Loss Avoidance amongst Ohio Emergency Management Agency, USACE $100,000 Study, the study area must have a post the Huntington District, and Buffalo District. flood event after the mitigation project OEMA $10,000 In-kind •Ohio Emergency Management Agency prioritized was completed to quantify project the location of the study area and provided data success. County/Municipality $10,000 In-kind required for USACE to complete the different phases of the Loss Avoidance Study. •Ohio Emergency Management Agency TOTAL: $120,000 was successful in identifying the study area to meet study criteria. Project Point of Contact Ashley Stephens and JoAnn Combs USACE Huntington District PENNSYLVANIA Lycoming County Nonstructural Economic Assessment Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •Flood proofing evaluation and economic analysis is assisting county • Nonstructural mitigation assessment of 19 in prioritizing and selecting projects for implementation of flood residential and commercial prototypical proofing measures, which could reduce property loss and protect life structures in 3 PA communities safety •Lycoming County has received grant funding that can be used to •Economic analysis was conducted to evaluate implement flood proofing activities identified through this study costs/benefits related to flood damages and •Future expenditures will be reduced if floodproofing is implemented due to less damage to homeowners and business owners, resulting in future flood insurance cost reduction reduced flood insurance claims. Individuals may also receive reduced flood insurance rates.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Lycoming County developed a flood insurance rate calculator, taking into consideration all of the • The structures in this study were in $100,000 $10K In-kind the fringe area of the floodplain, factors that go into the flood insurance rate. This which have a lower risk of flooding Lycoming County $40,000 was a huge benefit when comparing flood but still have the flood insurance FEMA $22,000 insurance rates for various mitigation options. requirement. The results of the study showed that in most SRBC $10,000 instances, filling in the basements PEMA $5,000 and elevating houses was very costly and was not economically justified from either a damage reduction or TOTAL: $177,000 Project Point of Contact flood insurance cost reduction Stacey Underwood standpoint. USACE Baltimore District Pennsylvania Rose Valley Assessments Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •History - A detailed flood study was completed throughout the entire •Implementation of flood proofing methods can reduce total flood watershed which added many areas and gave better data in the previously damages studied areas. •Can lead to changes in policy and local ordinances •History - A LOMR was also completed to change the FEMA flood maps. •Can lead to measures taken by the community and government History - Flooding continues to be a major problem in this watershed. • to apply some of the measures to homes and businesses to •USACE will physically visit and assess a number of properties in the watershed for nonstructural flood proofing methods. reduce flood damage costs and risk •A report will be generated on the recommendations and shared with the local governments.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Once the local government and local residences •Getting the accurate elevation data for FEMA $20K In-kind see small ways they can improve resiliency they all the homes in the areas of interest is a take action Ambler Borough $30K In-kind challenge •Local governments utilize these methods in future Whitpain Township $30K In-kind planning and policy Upper Dublin Township $30K In-kind PEMA $5K In-kind

USACE $100K Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $235K Eric Majusiak Civil Engineer USACE NAP Philadelphia South Dakota Madison, SD - Nonstructural Assessment Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes • Provide comprehensive • The assessment can be used for the following: nonstructural assessment to Prioritize mitigation options City of Madison, SD Address repetitive loss properties • Incorporate results into Provide flood risk reduction guidance to individual community outreach and homeowners education effort

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Comprehensive and collaborative • Field Survey effort hampered by FEMA $43K In-kind approach to nonstructural assessment technical difficulties • Framework provided for future • Future collaboration and SDOEM $6K In-kind implementation of mitigation actions leveraging of data with FEMA is City of Madison $5.5K In-kind • Development of an at-risk structure undefined inventory will benefit the community Lake County $2.5K In-kind

USACE $62K USACE Project Point of Contact TOTAL $119K Lowell Blankers, P.E., CFM USACE Omaha District Working with Nature Louisiana Terrebonne Living Mitigation Project Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Located in Southeastern LA, Terrebonne Parish is susceptible to • “Bioshield” will result in vegetative buffer to reduce storm storm surge and wind energy from the Gulf of Mexico surge and wind energy. Methods have been proven for previous • Goal is to evaluate a “Bioshield” to reduce flood damages in the projects area using living mitigation, or vegetative, techniques • Terracing and Vegetative Planting alternative has an estimated • The “Bioshield” is expected to dissipate storm surge and reduce construction cost of $35,000 per acre wind energy • Terrebonne Parish has committed $13,000,000 for the project, • Final product will provide a “ “Bioshield” site layout and which will result in approximately 350 acres of “Bioshield” preliminary design protection

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges • Thinking “outside of the box” Potential “Bioshield” Mitigation Techniques • A living mitigation “Bioshield” provides Alternatives Considered Agency Investment additional FRM benefits outside of what is seen • A - Marsh Creation using traditional structural and non-structural • B - Terracing (ridges) and Vegetative Planting Terrebonne Parish $75K In-kind • C - Embankments (levees) and Vegetative Planting FRM techniques • D - Fabric-Formed Terracing and Vegetative Planting State of LA $15K In-kind • E - Marsh Creation, Terracing, and Vegetative Planting USACE $75k • In addition to FRM benefits, environmental benefits • F - Marsh Creation, Fabric-Formed Terracing, and will be seen when project is implemented Vegetative Planting TOTAL $165K Alt B will provide greatest benefit per acre cost Placement of “Bioshield” Project Point of Contact • Maximizing alignment for surge/wind reduction • Coordination with land owners (industry, recreation, Nick Sims, PM, SJ Coordinator etc) USACE New Orleans District Washington Integrating Flood Risk Management with Salmon Habitat Restoration Priorities: An Early Opportunities Analysis Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits The Early Opportunities Analysis Pilot Project (Early Opps Project) A significant amount of information was compiled, analyzed, and provided in a ranking that resulted in an improved understanding by USACE and project partners about the was initiated by the Washington Silver Jackets team in collaboration location and magnitude of multi-benefit floodplain opportunities. Armed with this with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) through its nationwide information, project partners can make more informed floodplain management Floodplains-by-Design Program. The project identified “early decisions as the Floodplains-by-Design project progresses. opportunity areas” within the Puget Sound’s 17 major rivers where The state has awarded the FbD initiative roughly $80M over the last two budget cycles agencies could apply a coordinated investment approach to reduce to advance the Puget Sound risk reduction and restoration goals. Securing that funding flood risk and advance habitat restoration goals. Project activities did not rest on the results of this Early Opps pilot project - projects were and will continue to be selected and constructed. However, the PDT – and the FbD partners – focused on one overarching outcome: Identify and rank opportune thinks this ranking methodology can be applied to the selection and vetting process to Puget Sound floodplain areas in which management actions (focus make sure local, state, and federal dollars are being used efficiently within the on non-structural) may provide both flood risk reduction and floodplain management spectrum. floodplain restoration benefits. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment Single purpose projects are getting harder and harder The challenge with this project is that it uses a USACE Project Budget $125,000 to justify. Developing a ranking and methodology that incorporates flood risk AND ecosystem components different approach than most Corps/sponsor TNC $100,000 projects and studies. The prioritization of upfront is a forward step. Both FRM and Habitat $500,000 floodplain projects based on multiple benefits is a EPA models can be complex and some have limited departure from most single purpose USGS $100,000 application. This GIS-based system using existing data authorizations. That will make this process FEMA $55,000 difficult to implement, which is not unlike the sets is simple, effective, and defensible. Floodplains-by-Design program as whole. PSP $30,000 Presenting this process and data to local partners ECY $50,000 – who know their floodplains better than anyone – will take a delicate approach and a coordinated Project Point of Contact outreach effort with project partners is still Total: $960,000 Travis Ball, WA SJ Coordinator, USACE Seattle District needed. Washington River Basin Multi-Benefit Analysis: An Early Opportunities Sequel

Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits This poster will be easier to understand if you first read part one of Long term protection of natural and beneficial functions of floodplains, including both FRM and ecosystem considerations, is the #1 state priority. This project provides the this study, a Washington SJ poster titled: “Integrating Flood Risk science, process, and platform to identify floodplains that demonstrate the most Management with Salmon Habitat Restoration Priorities: An Early potential for improvement and it connects that prioritization with programs that get Opportunities Analysis.” The sequel attempts to apply the science multi-benefit projects funded. As funding constraints become an even higher hurdle, and methodology behind part one to existing FRM programs this projects offers an effective way to direct those dollars into real flood risk reduction opportunities. throughout the state. Projects from Floodplains-by-Design, USACE Additionally, the mapping proved there is an intersection between highly ranked CAP, and USACE PL84-99 programs were ranked and mapped using floodplain improvement opportunities and recent levee repair locations. This project the Early Opps system so that the results can be downscaled to a has allowed us to take a look into the PL84-99 program: an economic analysis of levee local level. The goal of this analysis remains to find an effective way rehabs over the last 15 years, a cross-check of federal NFIP claims data for properties behind those repaired levees, and how results from the this study may inform the to link multi-benefit floodplain improvement opportunities with PL84-99 program in the future. That analysis is continuing, though the interagency potential SJ partner funding programs at the local level. project has expired. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment Flexibility made this project a success. As the technical work progressed, some opportunities arose The project duration was longer than anticipated. USACE Project Budget $80,000 to investigate and improve on our approach to FRM Part of the delay was due to waiting on the state TNC $10,000 budget to see what FbD projects would be funded projects, which in the long-term is as or more ECY $10,000 so that we could focus our work on the unfunded important than scoring the floodplain projects. A proposals. We also endured a re-scoping effort FEMA $25,000 shift in direction proved valuable for the future of midway through the study when project partners FRM practice in the state. revised the short-term direction of the FbD FEMA program. Though the re-scoping proved to be valuable – and it will feed future analyses of our levee program – it caused a significant slip in schedule. Project Point of Contact Total: $125,000 Travis Ball, WA SJ Coordinator, USACE Seattle District West Virginia Incorporation of Green Infrastructure into Hazard Mitigation Planning Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •A nationally competed/selected Environmental Protection Agency •GI & LID sites will be identified and prioritized. Results will (EPA) Pilot Project to identify Green Infrastructure (GI) & Low Impact steer and encourage future sustainable development in the city Development (LID) sites in Huntington, WV. proper and the associated drainage basins/watersheds •Project results and lessons learned will be incorporated into the local/regional and state hazard mitigation planning/plans. impacting it’s flood risks. with public cooperation and •GIS Model/Tool development to assist in identifying potential Green engagement and zoning/code restrictions. infrastructure / Low Impact Development - The intent of the model is to • Future construction at identified target sites will focus efforts identify areas where green infrastructure can have the most impact on and maximize outcomes, utilizing GI/LID in the project area. mitigating flood hazards, reduce losses, and improve water quality. •West Virginia Planning and Development Council (WVPDC) •Model and lessons learned will be expanded to state regional and Region II will incorporate project results in current and future nation levels. hazard mitigation planning. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Identifying/narrowing project scope, EPA $120K Cash/In-kind roles and responsibilities to efficiently Huntington Storm Water Utility $15K In-kind utilize available resources/funding. KY/OH/WV Interstate Planning $15K In-kind HUNTINGTON, WV •Engaging local university participation Commission (KYOVA) WV PPDC – Region III $25K In-kind •Identifying project goals, end product USACE $115 format and outputs FEMA – Region III $15K In-kind •Project limits/boundaries Marshall University Team Member •Agency funding cycles differ WV DHS & Others $5K+ In-kind •Stakeholder outreach and ProjectProject Point Point of of Contact Contact TOTAL: $310K+ Steve O’Leary understanding Steve O’Leary USACEUSACE--HuntingtonHuntington District District Outreach California CA Flood Risk Outreach Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes • A Watershed University (WU) workshop was hosted •CFPW enabled communities to establish local flood risk awareness events and in Atwater as a part of this project and a second encourage citizens to take action. workshop is being planned in the Bay Area. •Increased public awareness of flood risk therefore saving lives, money and funds in • The project builds on existing efforts in California to terms for emergency response. raise awareness about flood risk, such as the Annual •Educated the public that over $660 California Flood Preparedness Week (CFPW). billion in assets are at risk from flooding. •Increased preparedness therefore • Outreach encourage citizens to “Be Aware. Be reducing future expenditures from Prepared. Take Action.” catastrophic events.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges • Interagency coordination and Agency Investment •Reaching out to the 7 million collaboration. CA Department of Water $150 K In-kind people that are exposed to Resources • Greater public awareness about flood risks. flood hazards is a continuing U.S. Army Corps of $75 K In-kind • Multiple agencies bring diverse knowledge, Engineers expertise and resources. challenge, more than half of Marin Co. Flood Control & $20K Water Conservation these people are unaware of District their flood risks according to TOTAL $245K USACE Project Point of Contact surveys. Hunter Merritt USACE Sacramento District Colorado Floodproofing and Flood Recovery Workshops Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes Joint State and USACE workshops presented to provide community leaders, local officials, stakeholders and the engineering community with information • Nonstructural actions that result from the education provided regarding floodplain management and the benefits of flood proofing measures for in these workshop will reduce future damages. buildings to reduce future flood damages. The workshops were held in connection with the 1-year anniversary of the devastating September 2013 floods • A large number of structures in the state could benefit from • 4 ½ hour sessions were held at Colorado Springs, Greeley and nonstructural measures following the 2013 floods. Grand Junction • State presentations on flood recovery and mitigation grant programs • After completion of workshops, several communities • National Nonstructural Flood Proofing Committee presentations on nonstructural flood risk adaptive measures (Arvada, Longmont and Estes Park) initiated communication • USACE District personnel provided presentations regarding Corps’ with USACE regarding potential nonstructural studies. FRM programs and authorities

Challenges Overcome Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices

• Short time frame from project Agency Investment • Workshops Presented September 16-18, 2014 approval to the preferred workshop USACE $26.6K • About 60 persons participated in the three dates Colorado Water workshops • State agencies were very busy with Conservation Board and $20K In-kind • State agencies received positive feedback from flood recovery, but were able to Colorado Office of workshop attendees participate Emergency Management • The 100 to 300 mile distances FEMA Region 8 $3K In-kind between the workshop venues required TOTAL $49.6K evening travel between locations. USACE Project Point of Contact Thomas Gorman USACE – Omaha District IDAHO Regional Nonstructural Flood Risk Workshops Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes • Will improve understanding of flood risk and available • Four nonstructural workshops were hosted in several Idaho locations, targeting county and city elected nonstructural mitigation options. officials and staff, floodplain managers, emergency • May lead community leaders and officials to revise managers, and homeowners. floodplain regulations and improve floodplain • Presentations were made by the USACE National management, or property owners to implement Nonstructural Flood Proofing Committee . nonstructural methods to reduce potential flood • The State Floodplain Coordinator discussed recent damages. reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program. • State representatives will continue to communicate the nonstructural message. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Agency Investment • Scheduling workshops in conjunction with county and city Continuing Challenges association conferences maximized access to elected officials USACE $ 50 K and their staff – the main targeted audience. • Identifying a forum to FEMA $ 1 K • Holding a virtual workshop improved ability to deliver effectively reach targeted message to floodplain and emergency managers that were audiences (See Successes/Best NOAA NWS $ 1 K unable to travel to conference sessions. • Bringing in national-level experts to jointly deliver a Practices). ID Bureau of $ 2 K nonstructural message alongside local state experts brought • Making the flood risk and Homeland Security credibility to the overall message. nonstructural flood proofing ID Dept of Water $ 4 K message relevant to rural Idaho. Resources USACE Project Point of Contact Total Cost: $58 K Brandon Hobbs, ID SJ Coordinator USACE Walla Walla District Nebraska Dam Safety Outreach Campaign Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • There are over 2,800 dams in the Nebraska Dam Inventory, 7% of • The social media campaign would largely be based on existing public affairs, which are classified as having significant hazard potential due to the media relations efforts as well as the Nebraska Silver Jackets Social Media Workshop held in 2014. potential for loss of life and property damage in the event of a • The trifold flyer would be developed and printed by USACE based upon failure. Of the 30 highest hazard dams a total of 376,860 people input and coordination with the various agencies, particularly the local NRD's, are at risk. The ownership of dams in Nebraska is varied including NDNR, and NRCS. The format and messaging of the flyer would be similar to 33 Federal Dams, 34 State, 35 public utilities, 1063 local that developed for the Nebraska Silver Jackets flood risk communication tool. governments, and 1660 private. Accordingly the task of • The table top exercise would be an extension of the currently scheduled communicating to this diverse audience is challenging. USACE dam safety outreach for the Papillion Creek and Salt Creek basins in Nebraska. Project efforts would be used primarily to expand the scope of the discussion to effectively and efficiently utilize staff and financial resource which will be applicable to other agencies and promote attendance.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • The project is currently being initiated USACE $25,400 • The project is currently being initiated Other Agencies (In-kind) $62,158 Sponsor $72,800

Project Point of Contact Total: $160,358 Tony D. Krause, P.E., CFM USACE – Omaha District Nebraska Nonstructural Flood Risk Reduction & Climate Adaptation Workshops Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Two workshops provided educational outreach programs focused • Both workshops provided clear descriptions and awareness of flood risks. The nonstructural workshop had a section devoted to the concept of risk to raise on local floodplain managers and stormwater officials. awareness in attendees. The climate change workshop provide clear explanations • Nonstructural Outreach provided information about the benefits of how changing climates will increase flood risks and presented tools on how to of nonstructural flood risk reduction. become more aware of risk to specific locations. These tools provided examples • Climate Change Outreach provided information about the effects of strategies to convert climate change from a concept to a quantifiable threat and impacts of climate change. source. It also covered strategies to more clearly identify climate change impacts through non-stationarity. • The most notable known action taken as a result of the workshops was a proposal to develop a climate change plan to the Papio NRD board. Similarly the Nebraska State Legislature has requested a workshop to educate themselves on impacts of climate change.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Cooperation between many different agencies to provide a coordinated message to local floodplain • Collection of data and coordination USACE $13,000 administrators and industry persons who attended between many different people and Other Agencies (In-kind) $25,000 agencies provided a challenge for the workshops organizing the workshop. • Using Pre/Post tests to quantitatively assess how • Scheduling and locating of the outreach successfully the information was presented during opportunities was challenging to benefit the workshops the most people possible in a comfortable learning environment. For the Climate Change workshop challenges included finding speakers with experience and Project Point of Contact concerns with local governments ability to Total: $38,000 Tony Krause P.E. CFM discuss climate change. USACE – Omaha District NEVADA Alluvial Fan Flooding Workshops and Mapping Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •Raise awareness about development in •By making communities aware of the alluvial fan floodplains through a series of risk of flooding this project will allow workshops throughout Nevada. those communities to take local action •GIS maps will be created, showing the and have a stake in planning and acting location and characteristics of alluvial fans to reduce their individual and in the Carson River Watershed. The maps community risks from flooding. will be available for local governments to use in the planning process and for public •By making information available, people awareness. are more aware of the effects of their actions in the floodplains.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •When citizens know their flood risk, they can make NV Div. of Water Resources $24K In-kind informed decisions to minimize their risk and the •Identifying subject matter experts CWSD $15K In-kind costs associated with emergency response during in alluvial fan flooding available to NOAA- Nevada River Forecast $10K In-kind flood events. present at the workshops. Center •Provide information and tools for flood risk Carson City, NV $10K In-kind awareness during the workshops. •Coordinating with partners to University of Nevada $20K In-kind •Increase knowledge of local alluvial fans and their determine workshop logistics. Cooperative Extension impacts on flood events. •Availability of funding to complete USACE/ Douglas County $100K the GIS mapping of alluvial fans. Douglas County $15K In-kind Project Point of Contact TOTAL $194K Rachael Orellana, PE USACE Sacramento District NEVADA Flood Awareness Outreach- Flood Tour Field Guide Booklet Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •Through this comprehensive •This project directly affects the ability of the residents of the various communities to take educated, preventive measures to flood risk awareness project, reduce the risk to life safety, injury and damage to property by communities will learn about educating the population on risk in areas prone to flooding flood risk in Nevada. events. •Develop a flood tour field guide •Increased flood preparedness booklet and conduct public which could reduce future outreach through Nevada Flood expenditures from catastrophic Awareness Week events. events.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Interagency coordination and •Helping and NV Div. of Water Resources $25K In-kind collaboration. encouraging the NOAA NRFC $15K In-kind • Greater public awareness about flood general public to USACE $135K risks. Carson City Public Works $15K In-Kind understand their risk • Multiple agencies bring diverse for flooding. University of Nevada $15K In-kind Cooperative Extension knowledge, expertise and resources. •Coordination among Mason Valley Conservation $15K In-kind multiple partners to District develop the flood tour Carson Water Subconservancy $30K In-kind field guide booklet. Project Point of Contact TOTAL $250K Rachael Orellana, PE USACE Sacramento District New York Genesee/Finger Lakes Education and Outreach Program Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Interagency program on flood risk management programs will be presented to the Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning • Participants will have an increased knowledge on the magnitude Council(GFLRPC) Local Government workshop which will be held of flood risk reduction programs available on May 18th in Genesee River watershed area • Participants will gain knowledge and may be encouraged to take • Participants will be able to discuss issues with agencies advantage of FRM programs • 9 counties and 250 communities are part of GFLRPC • May encourage neighboring communities to work together or • Site visit to 3 flood risk communities will identify site specific address a FRM concern holistically recommendations for applicability of programs will occur on the 2nd day

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Use of already scheduled workshop to provide FEMA $6K In-kind information on flood risk reduction • In the initial planning, strategizing • By using existing forum, participants do not need USDA/NRCS $5K In-kind which area in the state would benefit to attend another event the most from a presentation USACE $30K Cash • Developing a program which will cover USGS $2K In-Kind all participants from urbanized to rural NYSDEC $8K In-Kind communities Genesee/Finger Lakes $7K In-Kind Regional Planning Council Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $60K Laura Ortiz, Community Planner USACE Buffalo District North Dakota Nonstructural Workshops for Flood Risk Management Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Reduces/Manages Flood Risk: With so many existing structures being classified as at risk of • Thousands of North Dakota structures (residential and commercial) at risk of flooding flooding, the nonstructural techniques communicated during the workshops provides potential • Conduct educational outreach workshops on the benefits of nonstructural mitigation: opportunities for reducing flood risk on an individual structure basis.  Physical mitigation (elevation, relocation, wet and dry flood proofing)  Nonphysical mitigation (warnings, evacuations, emergency preparedness planning) • Reduces Future Expenditures: The nonstructural mitigation techniques should be considered in • Outreach directed at community officials, commercial owners, and residents conjunction with structural techniques (levees, detention, channelization, diversion) as effective • Outreach to inform on potential federal and state programs for potential mitigation funding measures for reducing future flood response and flood recovery expenditures. These techniques may also be considered for reducing life loss in addition to property damage reduction.

• Results in action by others: resultant actions from workshops is related to increased knowledge and familiarity of nonstructural techniques for local officials, residents, and commercial business owners, so that effective flood risk management occurs on an individual or community-wide basis in the future.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Workshops enabled detailed discussion regarding local flood risk. Identifying and communicating flood risk are important first steps when • Invalid perception regarding flood risk. That once a large ND-SWC $15K In-kind considering mitigating flood risk. flood event occurs, it is unlikely that another large flood will • Nonstructural discussions have led to engagement by community officials ever occur at that same location. ND-DES $10K In-kind (Linton, Beulah) with USACE and other agencies on the consideration of • Overcoming traditional views that flood risk management nonstructural flood risk adaptive measures for managing flood risk. is only achieved through construction of levees and dams. USACE $48K After communicating the effectiveness of nonstructural Linton/Emmons County $5K In-kind techniques, their compatibility with the existing environment, and their ability to adaptable to recreational Beulah/Mercer County $5K In-kind and environmental restoration activities, individuals and communities appear to be more receptive. TOTAL: $83K Project Point of Contact Randall Behm P.E. CFM, NFPC Chair Hydrologic Engineering/Omaha District Ohio Upper Ohio-Shade Watershed Nonstructural Regional Workshops Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits Four nonstructural workshops were held within the Upper Ohio- • Local stakeholders and the public were made aware of the flood risk through • workshop presentations and brochures. Leave behind material provided information on Shade Watershed (Pomeroy, OH; Marietta, OH; Parkersburg, WV; agency programs, nonstructural floodproofing and flood risk management measures. and Ripley, WV). •Information presented and provided as a handout increased the awareness of those •The purpose of these workshops was to promote flood risk attending significantly. awareness and to learn about the current problems, needs, and •In the future, local communities may use strategies identified at the workshops to reduce risk and flood losses by incorporating nonstructural measures into their local opportunities of the watershed. management plans and their hazard mitigation plans. •The project came about as a result of FEMA's Discovery process not •The project could potentially facilitate local communities' floodplain management being fully implemented within this watershed as the timeline for regulations and possibly assist with reducing the numbers of unprotected structures in the two states did not align. the floodplain. •While this informational meeting has not directly reduced flood risk, over time it is anticipated that quantifiable and quantitative actions would show improvement of management of flood risk due to increased awareness. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Bringing a variety of knowledge and expertise to the •Not all desired federal agencies were USACE Project Budget $36,500 project. represented at the workshops; full federal FEMA Region III $5,000 in-kind •Strong team collaboration and participation among attendance would have been ideal. local, state, and federal agencies. Ohio EMA $5,000 in-kind •Getting a lot of stakeholder and public •Held regular team meetings to ensure project stayed Ohio DNR $2,000 in-kind involvement as the turnout was less than within scope, schedule, and cost. anticipated. Mid-Ohio Valley Regional Council $2,000 in-kind •Local County Emergency Managers coordinated the •Encouraging community members to consider Total: $50,500 meeting with local stakeholders. nonstructural methods for their current flooding situations. Local stakeholders wanted to focus only on structural methods instead of Project Point of Contact nonstructural. Ashley Stephens and JoAnn Combs USACE Huntington District Ohio Ohio Multimedia Outreach Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • State partners expressed need to bring awareness to •Multimedia videos will increase public and community the general public, as well as, local officials regarding awareness in the areas of flood risk management and flood risk management and the positive impacts of nonstructural mitigation. nonstructural mitigation. •State partners will distribute videos as educational •This outreach effort would raise awareness by creating outreach material and provide to communities interested a series of short video segments highlighting the success in mitigation opportunities. of past risk reduction measures by drawing attention to •After gaining a better understanding of how mitigation historical flood events, implementation of mitigation reduces flood risk, communities might then seek out measures, and flood risk reduction benefits. nonstructural opportunities to reduce flood risk.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices •Ohio Emergency Management Agency (OEMA), Continuing Challenges Agency Investment Ohio Department of Natural Resources, and U.S. • Deciding on content and area of USACE $50,000 Geologic Survey participated in onsite working focus of each video sessions at OEMA in Columbus, Ohio. These OEMA $5,000 in-kind •Length of video segments meetings highlight multipole agencies with diverse •Coordinating with various ODNR $5,000 In-kind knowledge and expertise collaborating to create an important flood awareness outreach tool. agencies Public Affairs Offices USGS $5,000 In-kind

TOTAL: $65,000 Project Point of Contact Ashley Stephens and JoAnn Combs USACE Huntington District Pennsylvania Rose Valley Outreach Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •History - A detailed flood study was completed throughout the entire •Implementation of flood proofing methods can reduce total flood watershed which added many areas and gave better data in the previously damages studied areas. •Educating the community can lead to better planning and a safer •History - A LOMR was also completed to change the FEMA flood maps. public •History - Flooding continues to be a major problem in this watershed. •Can lead to changes in policy and local ordinances •Outreach educational sessions will be conducted by the National Nonstructural Flood Proofing Committee to help educate the public and local governments on nonstructural flood proofing measures and programs. •Multiple Organizations including USACE, PEMA, FEMA, and Montgomery County will be speaking about programs that benefit nonstructural flood proofing

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Homeowners feel that learning about these •Advertising of the workshops to ensure FEMA $20K In-kind methods can lead to small or large things they can we reach the maximum number of accomplish on their homes to be more resilient. Ambler Borough $30K In-kind residents •Local governments utilize these methods in future •Ensuring we are able to find all possible Whitpain Township $30K In-kind planning and policy ways for locals to get money for Upper Dublin Township $30K In-kind implementation of flood proofing PEMA $5K In-kind methods.

USACE $35K Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $235K Eric Majusiak Civil Engineer USACE NAP Philadelphia Utah Nonstructural Workshops Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes •The Corps conducted three workshops around the state • Provided community leaders, state officials and of Utah to educate the local flood agencies about stakeholders with information regarding floodplain alternative flood mitigation methods. management and the benefits of nonstructural flood risk adaptive measures to reduce future flood losses •Empowered property owners to know how to implement non-structural methods to reduce potential flood damages.

Challenges Overcome Successes/Best Practices Partners and Project Cost •As a result of one of the workshops, the City •Weather and scheduling challenges of Bluffdale requested Corps assistance to Agency Investment were overcome to make the create a Floodplain Management Plan for their workshops happen Utah Division of $10K In-kind community Emergency •Benefited underserved Utah communities that Management did not have the resources to create a FEMA Region VIII $15K In-kind comprehensive flood plan management plan USACE $26K about the value of non structural alternatives. TOTAL $51K USACE Project Point of Contact Melissa Hallas USACE Sacramento District Washington Post-Wildfire Flood Committee: Comprehensive Outreach Plan Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits The Washington Post-Wildfire Flooding Committee (PWFC), under This project is focused on the two-way action street between local government and landowners. The belief is that if local governments are armed with the right outreach the umbrella of Silver Jackets, was formed in June 2016 as a way to materials, the message will be clear and effective. In turn, if landowners are getting a fill a continuity gap within the post-wildfire flood risk cycle. The clear message from their preferred medium (whether public meetings, flyers, website, development and distribution of a Comprehensive Outreach Plan door-to-door, media, etc), they will invest in their own protection. Structural solutions, was identified as the first critical step the PWFC can take in flood insurance, and increased education and preparedness are excepted outcomes. addressing the challenges of post-fire flooding. Outcomes include Anticipated flood risk reduction factors include steps taken by local governments and landowners to reduce property damage by expecting post-fire flooding instead of being education for local government personnel, communication surprised by it. There have been several "close calls" regarding life loss in the last few materials for dissemination in the response phase, and resources years, which is unacceptable. (website, desktop materials) for use in the planning/mitigation phase.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment Wildfires in the Western US over the last several years have prompted outreach actions. This project The website will be a critical part of this project. USACE Project Budget $120,000 intends to use – when we can – ideas, strategies, and But website development, operation, and NOAA $10,000 maintenance can be tricky in a multi-agency materials developed by groups in Washington and EMD $10,000 environment. We have a commitment from PWFC other Western states. Using the New Mexico post-fire members to keep the website up to date after the AWPA $10,000 website – afterwildfirenm.org – as a template is an project funding expires, but it will probably take FAC $30,000 example of how we will utilize existing products. awhile get into a rhythm for how that is actually $50,000 accomplished. SCC ECY $10,000 Project Point of Contact Total: $240,000 Travis Ball, WA SJ Coordinator, USACE Seattle District Ice Jams Colorado Ice-Jam and Ice-Affected Flooding Workshops

Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits

• Two all-day workshops on ice-jams and related flooding • Improved flood risk management through increased local • Scheduled for May 9 and May 11, 2017 knowledge of the unique characteristics of ice-affected flooding • Regional locations (Gunnison and Denver) for maximum participation • Workshops are a cost-effective means of providing expert • Oriented for local, regional and state emergency and flood risk information to many communities at the same time management officials • Includes the USACE Cold Regions Research and Engineering • Local officials can take immediate warning/mitigation actions Laboratory, FEMA, State Silver Jackets partners and USACE with less need for outside consultations Districts

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Challenge coordinating different USACE $64K offices/agencies without in-person Colorado Water $8K In-kind meetings Conservation Board • Workshop venues may be FEMA $4K In-kind unfamiliar to the presenters Colorado Department of Successes/Best Practices Homeland Security and $4K In-Kind Emergency Management • High level of interest in the TOTAL: $80K Project Point of Contact workshops from officials in the ice- Thomas Gorman affected areas of the state. CO SJ Co-Coordinator/USACE Omaha District Montana River Hazard Project – Ice Jam Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Outcomes • Ice jam information is available in Montana, but it is •Easier accessibility of the CRREL and river hazard difficult to access databases •Build on the CRREL Ice Jam Archives and the Montana State •More complete archive of historic ice jam data Library’s mapping project •Mining for additional ice jam data •Create process for submittal of information to Ice Jam Archives •Set the groundwork for a future project to collect and map real time data

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Ice Jam Educational Outreach conducted •Montana is a very large state, so MT DEQ $24K via webinar developing areas of focus for adding •Ice Jam events identified in USGS gaging additional data to the Ice Jam USGS $1K records that were not in the CRREL Database has been a challenge CRREL $65K Database for Montana.

USACE $20K

TOTAL $110K USACE Project Point of Contact Lowell Blankers, P.E., CFM USACE Omaha District New Hampshire New Hampshire Ice Jam Assessment and Outreach Project Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits Through partnership with CRREL, state and town •NH Silver Jackets, in partnership with officials will be able to increase their understanding CRREL, engaged to enhance understanding of ice jam science, and causative mechanisms. The of ice jam science while addressing town ice river condition assessment and outreach package jam concerns. development will provide greater understanding of •Examination of Gale River at Franconia and how to mitigate ice jam hazards, and identify Sugar Hill, requested by towns, to assess potential future mitigation projects. Identification of existing conditions and make hydraulic and geomorphologic factors for ice jams recommendations to address concerns as can lead to more resilient infrastructure design. An appropriate. attendant benefit of the training package is a greater •Examination of river geomorphic features understanding by local officials on ice jam processes to identify potential connections with ice so that they are better able to make informed jam formation. mitigation and risk reduction decisions in the future. •Development of Ice Observer Training and outreach program to town officials and citizens.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Anticipated that training and technical evaluation • Connections between fluvial USACE $106K will better enable state agency personnel to geomorphology and ice jams worthy of NH Department $20K In-kind respond to town requests for assistance regarding investigation in mountainous terrain, but ice jams in future. methods will require strong partnership to Environmental Services develop. USGS $7K •Connections between ice jams, geomorphology and hydraulics developed in project can be USFS $3.1K transferred to other states.

NH Dept Transportation $1.5K In-kind Other Agencies $4.9K In-kind Project Point of Contact Brian Balukonis & Shane Csiki TOTAL: $142.5K USACE CENAE – NH Geological Survey, NH Dept of Environmental Services New York New York -Ice Jam Education and Awareness Training Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Four to Five workshops on ice jam education and risk reduction measures and mitigation programs will occur in communities • Education effort will provide participants information on across New York State characteristics of ice characteristics, types of ice jams and • Scheduled for Fall 2017 as a preparedness effort for upcoming potential mitigation opportunities winter • Training on applications of ice jam database • Audience will be local governments, Emergency Managers and • Will assist officials in responding to future events and may First Responders encourage application for mitigation programs • These workshops will capitalize on expertise of Cold Regions • Information gained may be applied to Emergency Action Plans Research and Engineering Laboratory, USGS, FEMA, NWS, SJ partners and USACE

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Source: www.eriecounty.gov Continuing Challenges Agency Investment FEMA $8k In-kind •Scheduling of the events through the state NOAA NWS $8K In-kind •Identification of locations and timing of USACE $57.7 Cash presentations USGS $7k In-kind Aftermath of Ice Jam flooding along Buffalo Creek, West NYSDEC $5K In-kind Seneca, Erie County, NY Successes •Interest in workshops throughout state NYSEOM $5K In-kind Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $96.7K Laura Ortiz, Community Planner USACE –Buffalo District Ohio Ice Jam Education and Awareness Training -Ohio Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Three workshops on ice jam education and risk reduction measures and mitigation programs will occur in communities • Education effort will provide participants information on along Lake Erie characteristics and knowledge on ice jam flooding characteristics • Scheduled for Fall 2017 as a preparedness effort for upcoming and potential mitigation opportunities winter • Training on use of ice jam database • Audience will be local governments, Emergency Managers and • Will assist officials in responding to future events and may First Responders encourage application for mitigation programs • These workshops will capitalize on expertise of Cold Regions •Emergency Action Plans may be revised to incorporate new Research and Engineering Laboratory, FEMA, NWS, SJ partners information and USACE

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Source: weather.gov Continuing Challenges Agency Investment FEMA $8k In-kind •Lack of significant ice development on Lake Erie and associated tributaries in NOAA NWS $8K In-kind 2017 USACE $57.7 Cash •Identification of locations and timing of USGS $7k In-kind presentations HUD $5K In-kind Successes ODNR $5K In-kind •Interest in workshops by communities OEMA $5K In-kind •Opportunity for adjacent states to Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $97.7K attend Laura Ortiz, Community Planner USACE –Buffalo District Vulnerability Assessment / Risk Analysis Arkansas Bob Kidd Flood Risk Assessment Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits •Multi-purpose study to address flood risks associated with dam failure. •Assess Bob Kidd Dam condition and determine if remedial •Investigate the conditions of the dam embankment and outlet works measures are warranted. and install lake elevation monitoring system. •Define high-hazard/high-risk areas and areas of residual flood risk •Project deliverables include inundations mapping of breach and non- with inundation mapping. breach flood hazard areas, pertinent flood wave timing information and •Supply inundations maps and flood wave timing parameters to hazard area identification. state and local emergency officials for evacuation preparation. •Inundation maps will be presented to the dam owners/operators, •Local outreach to communities in preparation and mitigation regulatory officials, and the state and local emergency managers. efforts. •Opportunities exists to tailor the outputs for future FEMA Flood Insurance Studies (FIS). •Supply models to FEMA for future FIS updates.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Leveraging expertise for the partnering USGS $40K In-kind agencies provides a sound multi-purpose •Discovering an economical approach to project. dam embankment composition analysis. Arkansas Natural Resource $30K In-kind/$10k Commission Cash •Determining the hydrological condition •Project informs the communities USACE $150K of the basin and downstream tributaries downstream of the flood risk. for dam loading conditions. Arkansas Department of $20K In-Kind •Help developing standards for State Dam Emergency Management •Lack of stream gages in the area causes Safety agencies. Arkansas Game and Fish $10K In-kind difficulties in calibration of the hydraulic Commission model. Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $260K Gabe Knight, Arkansas Silver Jackets Coordinator CESWL-EC-H/SWL/Little Rock, AR California San Mateo County Shoreline Vulnerability Assessment Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • San Mateo County has highest building replacement value in • Findings will result in projects that will reduce flood risk. the State. • Study will help prioritize project that should reduce the • Analysis will document the current level of flood protection on mitigation cost for future floods. both the bayside and coastline for most of the County. • Findings of the project will educate the public about the need • Model impacts of storms and sea level rise. for near-term public works projects and adaptive strategies to • Identify critical public infrastructure. address current and future flooding. • Develop a needs assessment for the County. • The County is considering forming a dedicated flood control district.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Utilized the best available data information to inform the assessment. • Successful coordination with regional, USACE $95.5K Labor state, and federal efforts is critical to • Findings will provide decision makers with useful success but added time and complexity. San Mateo County $20K Labor information that can lead to actionable outcomes. • Large amount of data, assets California State Coastal $550K Labor & AE • Collaboration with multiple agencies, cities, and identified and analyzed, and agency & Conservancy Contracts the public California Department of $20K Labor and • Information obtained during the study has led public engagement took longer than Water Resources Data expected. the County to hire additional staff for flood issues USGS $2K Labor • Final Report / assessment should be completed in April 2017 TOTAL $687.5K Project Point of Contact Craig Conner USACE San Francisco District Iowa Agricultural Flood Risk in the Iowa-Cedar Basin Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits Estimates potential agricultural loss associated with • Reduces/Manages Flood Risk by directly reducing damages flooding of row crops along the Cedar River main stem. associated with flooding of agricultural products, namely row crops. Partners with USDA agencies to identify where repetitive • Reduces Future Expenditures by aligning landowner interest in damages and landowner interest may warrant federal conservation easements with the areas of greatest risk for crop interest in non-structural actions (conservation damage. easements) to reduce flood damages. • Results in action by others by increasing landowner and This project leverages modeling tools developed for government awareness of magnitude and locations of previous structural FRM SJ pilot project completed in agricultural flood risk through mapping and prioritization of January 2016. easement opportunities.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Investment HEC-FIA can help evaluate how damages vary by Continuing Challenges Agency/Partner • • Overcame HEC-FIA model challenges Pre-Project Project the month flood occurs and the likelihood of USACE proj. budget $210,000 $85,000 flooding in each respective month. in generating ag damages using USDA - RMA $20,000 inundation extents and duration grids. • Aligning where damages are occurring with USDA - NRCS $20,000 landowner interest provides technical support to • Overcoming challenge with data USDA - FSA $20,000 sharing between the Corps of IDALS $10,000 landowners and may reduce overall federal Engineers, State Dept of Ag, USDA Iowa Flood Center $20,000 expenditure related to flood events. agencies and The Nature Conservancy IDNR $15,000 by developing an MOU for data IA EMDHS $15,000 FEMA $20,000 Project Point of Contact sharing consistent with section 1619 Project Total $280,000 $155,000 Jason T. Smith, Iowa SJ Lead of 2008 Farm Bill. Project Management, USACE Rock Island District Louisiana Coastal Louisiana Vulnerability Assessment of Critical and Essential Facilities Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • The project will inventory Critical and Essential Facilities and identify the • Facility inventory and updated model runs will inform State/Local officials storm surge/coastal flooding exposure of these facilities in the coastal and Facility Managers of critical infrastructure at risk to storm surge Louisiana communities of Golden Meadow and Morgan City. • At risk infrastructure will be identified and included for future FRM projects • Critical Facilities: Important for short-term response operations in the updated LA State Master Plan • Hospitals/Physician Offices • Officials will prioritize the development of nonstructural adaptation • Fire/Police Stations measures including developing individual mitigation measures, flood- Radio/TV broadcasting • proofing, raising structure elevations, and facility relocation for at risk • Essential Facilities: Important for long-term recovery facilities • Banks • Officials will be able to effectively prioritize where and when resources can • Gas Stations/Grocery Stores best be utilized during future events • Schools/Daycares • Modeling results will show the % of facilities expected to be inundated (>3ft) in the next 50 years if no action is taken Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Vulnerable facilities have been identified • Adaptation timelines can now be developed for State of LA $350K In-kind • Variations of facility exposure in similar officials to take proactive actions for protection during geographic regions City of Morgan City $50K In-kind future events • Although located only 70 miles apart City of Golden Meadow $50K In-kind • Final information will be made available to the public exposure levels vary greatly in the updated Louisiana State Mater Plan • Due to alteration of the distribution of USACE $100k water and sediments to the coastal basins through levee construction and water control structure operation

TOTAL: $550K Project Point of Contact Nick Sims, PM, SJ Coordinator USACE New Orleans District Louisiana Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping System, Bayou Teche, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • Located in Southcentral LA, St. Martin Parish experiences • Increased awareness of State and Local Flood Plain Managers who flooding from riverine and coastal storm events will have an interactive mapping system for accurate BFEs in St. • 369 of 395 river miles in St. Martin Parish currently lack model- Martin Parish backed Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) • Updated BFEs will identify areas of mitigation interest, enabling State and Local leaders to plan and implement mitigation projects at • The project will expand upon a previously developed hydraulic the local level model of the St. Martin Parish portion of Bayou Teche to: • State and Local Flood Plain Managers will plan future development • Develop a Parish wide Interactive Flood Mapping System away from at risk areas • Determine BFEs for areas where current BFEs have not • At risk individuals can apply for future grants to flood proof yet been determined homes/businesses

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • Identified areas of mitigation will be prime candidates for future green infrastructure initiatives FEMA $250K In-kind • 2016 August Floods • Communication - Increased public awareness of St. Martin Parish $120K In-kind • Substantial impacts to the study current flood risk area highlight the need for LADOTD $20K In-kind • Coordination with disadvantaged communities; accurate Base Flood Elevations Water Institute of the Gulf $40k In-kind study area includes inclusion of HUBZONE areas USACE $150k

Project Point of Contact TOTAL: $580K Nick Sims, PM, SJ Coordinator USACE New Orleans District New Hampshire Hinsdale Flood and River Vulnerability Assessment and Risk Communication Project Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits The report and products provided to Hinsdale can be •Town of Hinsdale concerned about Kilburn used by the town to reduce flood risk by an Brook flood risks increased awareness of infrastructure at risk from •Town had flood-related items in local future flood and river channel events, particularly hazard mitigation plan with insufficient related to stream crossings. Culvert data will be resources to execute placed in the town’s next hazard mitigation plan •Identified drinking/wastewater update, allowing for qualification for funds to replace infrastructure vulnerability culverts with new and properly sized structures, •Assess Kilburn Brook and perform culvert geomorphologically and hydraulically compatible, assessments that can reduce future long-term expenditures. The •Provided flood emergency plans for town now has information and data available that it upstream dams would not otherwise have to act upon in support of •Provided town with reports of vulnerability public safety protection. and assessments findings

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment •Provides a demonstration of how multiple • Coordinating the agencies with the right USACE $32K agencies can partner to assist towns in completing equipment to get onsite to perform the EPA $40K local hazard mitigation plan items for future efforts work was a challenge overcome. and projects in New Hampshire. • The project further enhanced connections NH Department $13K In-kind among agencies. Environmental Services •Provided data and information regarding public • A continuing challenge is that, while NH Office Energy and $2.3K In-kind safety risks that Hinsdale and the local regional Hinsdale has information that it would not Planning planning commission would not otherwise have. otherwise have, small towns, like Hinsdale, NH Dept Transportation $8K In-kind continue to face resource limitations in extensive implementation. NH Fish and Game $1K In-kind Project Point of Contact • Small towns often require further technical TOTAL: $96.3K Brian Balukonis & Shane Csiki assistance beyond project completion. USACE CENAE – NH Geological Survey, NH Dept of Environmental Services North Carolina Inland County Storm Surge Flood Risk Vulnerability and Evacuation Analysis Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • This study compliments the current coastal North Carolina •Reduces/Manages Flood Risk – the data and products provided Hurricane Evacuation Study. should be directly used by officials to impact life safety. • The following analyses and tools were conducted/developed • identify at risk populations, critical facilities and •Reduces Future Expenditures – it is assumed that this study will infrastructure in both Pitt and Lenoir counties. result in more efficient evacuation procedures. •Assist counties in developing evacuation areas •Develop evacuation clearance times for each of the •Results in action by others – Emergency managers will use the evacuation areas. information to support evacuation decisions. The public outreach •Develop graphic renderings of flooded local landmarks for tools should influence citizens evacuation behaviors. public outreach.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment • With coordination among various government •Developing evacuation areas that don’t FEMA $165K entities at all three levels (local, state, federal), over or under evacuate, while also patience and understanding is critical. NOAA $10K in-kind keeping them easy to communicate to the public, is exceptionally difficult. • Input and buy-in from the end-user of the study NCEM $23K in-kind product is critical •Facilitating efficient coordination USACE $44K between multiple partners in all three TOTAL $242K levels of government. Project Point of Contact Jason Glazener USACE/Wilmington District/Wilm, NC RHODE ISLAND Rhode Island Historical Structure Flood Hazard Vulnerability Assessment Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits • The Rhode Island Historical Preservation & Heritage • This mapping update will afford the State the opportunity to Commission (HPHC) operates the statewide historical conduct a comprehensive flood vulnerability assessment of preservation program that identifies over 21,000 historical historical assets. assets including historic buildings, districts, structures and • Results from the analysis will provide decision makers, emergency archaeological sites. managers and response personnel. • Many of these valued assets are located in flood prone areas. • Having a current and complete historical digital database available • The project will convert the data to a GIS format and complete for use at the municipal and State level will improve stakeholder a flood hazard vulnerability assessment of the historical awareness of flood impacts and risks to historical structures. features statewide. • Maps will be developed showing historical assets at risk and also made accessible on-line to local communities. Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges • GIS Based Maps Agency Investment • Consolidation of data and up to date • State and Municipal Level Access • Data Validation USACE $65K • Consolidation of data from • Multiple Interagency collaboration with the State FEMA $15K In-kind and Municipal Levels. various sources (Federal, State HPHC $155K In-kind • The project will improve the care and protection of and Local). historical and cultural resources throughout the • Developing data standard. RIEMA $3K In-kind state. • Keeping information up to date. Total $139,700 • Educating public about Project Point of Contact resource. Brian Balukonis, PG USACE New England District Washington Blue Creek Post-Wildfire Flood Risk Assessment Project Description Flood Risk Reduction Benefits Blue Creek Fire burned about 6,000 acres, approximately 10% of the •The project raised flood risk awareness of community officials and emergency planners that have the most direct contact with affected landowners at risk. The parent watershed in July 2015. The Blue Creek drainage is a culmination of all the data collection, modeling, and analysis is a simple ~25-page tributary of Mill Creek which flows through the community of Walla report that outlines the estimated increase in flow in Blue Creek and downstream in Walla and includes a USACE-owned off-stream storage flood control Mill Creek, the anticipated sediment impacts, and some possible mitigation actions. dam, reservoir and concrete-lined channel. Rain events over burned Dozens of people live alongside Blue Creek where the "flash" flood potential is greatest. Another 32,000 people live downstream of the USACE flood control project, areas can produce significantly greater runoff and sediment. This though the effects of increased Blue Creek runoff are dampened downstream due to assessment quantifies the post-wildfire flood risk using H&H higher channel capacity of Mill Creek and the flood control project itself. analysis. Coordination amongst federal, state, and local partners •The local county, city, and conservation district officials have been in continuous ensure local decision makers have a complete watershed contact with landowners about post-wildfire flood potential. The message is clearer now with the final assessment. No structural actions have been taken to this point but understanding of the increased flood risks. that does not eliminate the possibility of such measures in the future.

Challenges Overcome / Partners and Project Cost Successes/Best Practices Continuing Challenges Agency Investment 1) A really strong technical team was key. Walla Walla District (NWW) staff had a very good approach to the One challenge was estimating contributions from USACE Project Budget $65,000 technical analysis. projects partners. The box to the left shows the WA DNR $20,000 estimated actual contributions. The biggest USGS $10,000 variation in actual vs. proposed was for USGS 2) The NWW project team shared with others across which only needed about $10k in in-kind services WA ECY $20,000 the state the geospatial methodology for assessing to produce the debris flow modeling, as opposed NOAA $5,000 the burned-area, which many have since utilized in to the $50k that was originally estimated. Additionally, with the project site being upstream Walla Walla Conservation Distr $10,000 similar studies. of a USACE project, it became challenging to Local County/City Govts. $8,000 focus on both 1) possible USACE operational impacts and downstream effects, and 2) impacts Project Point of Contact and flood risks on upstream landowners, where Total: $138,000 Travis Ball, WA SJ Coordinator, USACE Seattle District the most immediate increase would be seen.