| (a) Based on analyses and decisions under §§361.33
- 361.37 of this title the RFPG shall identify and evaluate potential
FMEs and potentially feasible FMPs and FMSs, including nature-based
solutions, some of which may have already been identified by previous
evaluations and analyses by others. An FME may eventually result in
detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analyses and identification of projects
or strategies that could be amended into an RFP as FMPs or FMSs.
(b) When evaluating FMPs and FMSs, the RFPG will, at
a minimum, attempt to identify one solution that provides flood mitigation
associated a with 1% annual chance flood event. In instances where
mitigating for 1% annual chance events is not feasible, the RFPG shall
document the reasons for its infeasibility, and at the discretion
of the RFPG, other FMPs and FMSs to mitigate more frequent events
may also be identified and evaluated based on guidance provided by
the EA.
(c) A summary of the RFPG process for identifying potential
FMEs and potentially feasible FMPs and FMSs in subsection (a) of this
section shall be established and included in the draft and final adopted
RFP.
(d) The RFPG shall then identify potentially feasible
FMPs and FMSs in accordance with the RFPG process established under
subsection (c) of this section.
(e) For areas within the FPR that the RFPG does not
yet have sufficient information or resources to identify potentially
feasible FMPs and FMSs, the RFPG shall identify areas for potential
FMEs that may eventually result in FMPs.
(f) The RFPG shall evaluate potentially feasible FMPs
and FMSs understanding that, upon evaluation and further inspection,
some FMPs or FMSs initially identified as potentially feasible may,
after further inspection, be reclassified as infeasible.
(g) Recommended FMPs will be ranked in the state flood
plan and:
(1) shall represent discrete projects;
(2) shall not entail an entire capital program or drainage
masterplan; and
(3) may rely on other flood-related projects.
(h) Evaluations of potential FMEs will be at a reconnaissance
or screening-level, unsupported by associated detailed hydrologic
and hydraulic analyses. These will be identified for areas that the
RFPG considers a priority for flood risk evaluation but that do not
yet have the required detailed hydrologic and hydraulic modeling or
associated project evaluations available to evaluate specific FMPs
or FMSs for recommendation in the RFP. These FMEs shall be based on
recognition of the need to develop detailed hydrologic models or to
perform associated hydraulic analyses and associated project evaluations
in certain areas identified by the RFPG. Evaluations of potential
FMEs shall include the following analyses:
(1) a reference to the specific flood mitigation or
floodplain management goal to be addressed by the potential FME;
(2) an indication of whether the FME may meet an emergency
need;
(3) an indication regarding the potential use of federal
funds, or other sources of funding as a component of the total funding
mechanism;
(4) an equitable comparison and assessment among all
FMEs;
(5) an indication of whether hydrologic or hydraulic
models are already being developed or are anticipated in the near
future and that could be used in the FME;
(6) a quantitative reporting of the estimated flood
risk within the FME area, to include, as applicable:
(A) estimated habitable, living unit equivalent and
associated population in FME area;
(B) estimated critical facilities in FME area;
(C) estimated number of road closure occurrences in
FME area, when available;
(D) estimated acres of active farmland and ranchland
in FME area; and
(E) a quantitative reporting of the estimated study
cost of the FME and whether the cost includes use of existing or development
of new hydrologic or hydraulic models.
(7) For FMEs, RFPGs do not need to demonstrate that
an FME will not negatively affect a neighboring area.
(i) Evaluations of potentially feasible FMPs and FMSs,
as applicable, will require associated, detailed hydrologic and hydraulic
modeling results that quantify the reduced impacts from flood and
the associated benefits and costs. Information may be based on previously
performed evaluations of projects and related information. Evaluations
of potentially feasible FMPs and FMSs shall include the following
information and be based on the following analyses:
(1) a reference to the specific flood mitigation or
floodplain management goal addressed by the feasible FMP or FMS;
(2) a determination of whether FMP or FMS meets an
emergency need;
(3) an indication regarding the potential use of federal
funds or other sources of funding as a component of the total funding
mechanism;
(4) an indication of any water supply source benefits;
(5) an equitable comparison and assessment among all
FMSs and an equitable comparison and assessment among all FMPs that
the RFPGs determine to be potentially feasible;
(6) a demonstration that the FMP or FMS will not negatively
affect a neighboring area;
(7) a quantitative reporting of the estimated benefits
of the FMP or FMS, as applicable. This includes reductions of flood
impacts of the 1% annual chance flood event and other storm events
identified and evaluated if the project mitigates to more frequent
event to include, where applicable, but not limited to:
(A) associated flood events that must, at a minimum,
include the 1% annual chance flood event and other storm events identified
and evaluated;
(B) reduction in habitable, equivalent living units
flood risk;
(C) reduction in residential population flood risk;
(D) reduction in critical facilities flood risk;
(E) reduction in road closure occurrences;
(F) reduction in acres of active farmland and ranchland
flood risk;
(G) estimated reduction in fatalities, when available;
(H) estimated reduction in injuries, when available;
(I) reduction in expected annual damages from residential,
commercial, and public property;
(J) other benefits as deemed relevant by the RFPG including
environmental benefits and other public benefits;
(K) avoidance of future flood risk; and
(L) prevention of creation of future flood risk.
(8) a quantitative reporting of the estimated capital
cost of projects in accordance with guidance provided by the EA;
(9) for projects that will contribute to water supply,
all relevant evaluations required under §357.34(e) of this title
(relating to Identification and Evaluation of Potentially Feasible
Water Management Strategies and Water Management Strategy Projects),
as determined by the EA based on the type of contribution, and a description
of its consistency with the currently adopted State Water Plan;
(10) a description of potential impacts and benefits
from the FMP or FMS to the environment, agriculture, recreational
resources, navigation, water quality, erosion, sedimentation, and
impacts to any other resources deemed relevant by the RFPG;
(11) a description of residual, post-project, and future
risks associated with FMPs including the risk of potential catastrophic
failure and the potential for future increases to these risks due
to lack of maintenance;
(12) implementation issues including those related
to right-of-ways, permitting, acquisitions, relocations, utilities
and transportation; and
(13) funding sources and options that exist or will
be developed to pay for development, operation, and maintenance of
the FMP or FMS.
(j) RFPGs shall evaluate and present potential FMEs
and potentially feasible FMPs and FMSs with sufficient specificity
to allow state agencies to make financial or regulatory decisions
to determine consistency of the proposed action before the state agency
with an approved RFP.
(k) Analyses under this section shall be performed
in accordance with guidance requirements to be provided by the EA.
(l) All data produced as part of the analyses under §361.38
of this title (related to Identification and Assessment of Potential
Flood Management Evaluations and Potentially Feasible Flood Management
Strategies and Projects) shall be organized and summarized in the
RFP in accordance with guidance provided by the EA and shall be provided
in a format determined by the EA.
(m) Analyses shall clearly designate a representative
location of the FME and beneficiaries including a map and designation
of HUC level as determined by the EA and county location.
|
