CEDS Tools and Resources

The Rogue River Watershed covers over 167,000 acres of land mostly in Kent and Newaygo Counties, in western, central Michigan, and is a main tributary to the Grand River, Michigan鈥檚 largest river. Fragmentation of the natural landscape was a major threat to the river鈥檚 health.

Environment

Habitat loss, alteration and fragmentation were major threats to the health of the Rogue River Watershed.

Conservation easements restricted the degradation and fragmentation of wetlands and immediately adjacent lands.
Fish and wildlife habitats were protected.
Water quality was improved through reduction of sediments and nutrient loads.
A scenic, open space was created.
An additional measure for flood control was established, particularly for flash floods.

Process

The environmental benefits and other opportunities offered by conservation are often not considered by private landowners. However, most private lands cannot be set aside for conservation without the consent of the property owner. Clear benefits for private land owners can encourage conservation of land not only in the short-term, but also in perpetuity, as part of the deed to the property through a conservation easement.

Land deeded as a conservation easement remains in the owner鈥檚 hands and can be used to meet the landowner鈥檚 needs. Aside from development rights and specific uses, the rest of property rights remains intact, allowing the landowner to benefit from the land in the form of certain recreational uses, ecosystem services, jobs, and economic activities.
Conservation easements may enable the landowner to qualify for tax benefits in compliance with established rules.

Lessons Learned

Conservation easements are a widely used tool for private land conservation in the United States. The Land Trust Alliance reports that the total acres conserved by local, state, and national land trusts grew to 47 million as of year-end 2010, an increase of about 10 million acres since 2005 and 23 million acres since 2000. Even though conservation easements do not necessarily provide public access, they can be used as a complement to other types of conservation tools, such as greenways. Although widely used, several challenges have to be overcome to ensure the successful implementation of conservation easements, including issues of permissible changes to the land, and evolving economic forces, community needs, and scientific information. Land trusts, managed by public or private entities or NGOs, are learning as they address these challenges and refining how conservation easements are applied.

This case of the Rogue River Watershed shows an example of how the implementation of this tool reduced threats to the natural ecosystem, while providing financial benefits for private landowners.

Prince George鈥檚 County is located within the coastal plain of Maryland, with a population of over 800,000 people and covering approximately 500 square miles. It is home to a diverse array of plant species, floodplains, wetlands and woodlands. Prince George鈥檚 County is adjacent to Washington, D.C. and lies in the heart of the Washington DC 鈥� Baltimore, MD corridor. The population has consistently increased in recent decades creating development pressure. This pressure led to new construction in the 1990s, which resulted in fragmented forests, destruction of natural habitats, decline in wildlife, and degraded water quality. Additionally, a substantial decline of freshwater wetlands, due to highway construction as well as commercial and industrial development has negatively impacted the wildlife and water quality of the area. The Prince George鈥檚 County 鈥淕eneral Plan鈥� (2002) was created because of community concerns over poor water quality, and a general lack of sustainable development and livability. The 2002 鈥淕eneral Plan鈥� provided a formal mandate for the Green Infrastructure Plan.

Environment

The decline of the natural resources in Prince George鈥檚 County occurred due to increased development to accommodate an increasing population. With demographic projections indicating continued population growth, the need to protect the natural resources became amplified.

The plan identifies sensitive ecological resources across the county in an effort to ensure their protection, restoration, and enhancement.
GIS analysis contributed to appropriate identification of areas to be included in the network by allowing different scenarios and results to be considered by the plan developers before making final decisions.
The Plan does not directly address wetland loss, but it provides implementation strategies aimed at expanding minimum stream buffer widths to protect wetlands and their drainage areas.

Community

Public outreach became a significant component of the green infrastructure planning process. The county believed public involvement would improve the accuracy of the plan and increase support from citizens, elected officials and non-profit partners.

Public outreach efforts included citizen focus groups to provide input before development of the plan, a citizen review group, and a formal public hearing for the final plan. The county also produced a website where meeting locations, dates and results were posted along with public presentation materials.
The Plan included simple, easy to understand graphics, which helped in gaining public support of the plan.

Process

All of the strategy statements in the plan were accompanied with a work program for implementation. This prevented the plan from becoming static, and made possible that implementation could begin the day of approval.

The Department was assisted by an interdisciplinary team which included representatives from the Department of Parks and Recreation; the County Department of Public Works and Transportation; the County Department of Environ颅mental Resources; and the Bi-County Washington Suburban Sanitary Com颅mission.
A Purchase of development Rights (PDR) Program was approved in 2008, providing funds to purchase permanent conservation easements on privately owned land.
The county鈥檚 2002 鈥淕eneral Plan鈥� for development provided county staff with a formal mandate to prepare a Green Infrastructure Plan based on functional master planning. Their functional plan, which aims to plan the implementation of projects, amends the General Plan but does not make land use or zoning recommendations.

Lessons Learned

The adoption of the plan has helped reduce woodland fragmentation, preserve wildlife habitat and improve water quality in Prince George鈥檚 County, Maryland. Through acquiring land and guiding new development for maximum conservation, the objectives of the project are being met. 43 acres in the coastal plain and over 50 acres of forest in Montgomery County have been preserved and protected as a result of being listed as part of the green infrastructure network.

Several keys to success were identified in the Prince George鈥檚 County Green Infrastructure Plan. They include developing a set of guiding principles to direct work on the plan, using GIS to inform decisions about what should be included or excluded from the green infrastructure network, using water quality maps to illustrate the need for better protection of ecological and human health, and using graphics to make material legible for citizens.

Additionally, local leadership helped garner support for the Green Infrastructure Plan and ensure its passage. A former elected official acted as a champion for the plan, communicating the ideas and progress of the plan to others. Leadership among elected and appointed officials provided support throughout the planning process. Finally, coordination between the Prince George鈥檚 County Planning Board and the County Executive allowed for both sides to support initiatives that meshed well with green infrastructure planning.

The Beach Front Management (BFM) Act of 1988 was put in place to establish a setback line on the coast of South Carolina. As such, some landowners on the sea side of the setback line owned property that no longer held its original value. In response, the legislature was prompted to amend the Beach Front Management Act in 1990 to allow for a rolling easement on any lot located on the sea side of the setback line.

Rolling easements are a special type of easement placed along the shoreline to prevent property owners from holding back the sea through hard shoreline stabilization structures, but allow any other type of use and activity on the land. As the sea advances, the easement automatically moves or 鈥渞olls鈥� landward. However, some 鈥渟oft鈥� erosion control methods can be used including beach renourishment, building up artificial dunes, and temporarily placing small sandbags around a home. If homes are damaged or destroyed during a storm, they are allowed to rebuild as long as high ground still exists. If the lot is submerged during high tide, rebuilding/repairing is no longer allowed.

Implementation & Funding

Because no land was physically changed during this process, the only actions taken by the government were those of the legislature to amend the BFM Act. No land acquisition process, or 鈥渢akings,鈥� was needed because all landowners were still allowed to use and develop on their land.

Economic Advantage

Since no physical changes were made, nor land acquired, the local, state, and national governments were not required to spend taxpayer dollars to implement rolling easements. Additionally, all land seaward of the setback line was able to be used at the property owner鈥檚 discretion, and any land could be used for profitability.

Unhappy with the high-density zoning handed down by the county government, the residents of Sanibel Island voted to become an incorporated city in 1974. This gave them the political power to make land use decisions that protected the natural resources of the island. The city council then selected Ian McHarg, author of Design with Nature, as their planning consultant to draft the plan and recommend zoning codes and maps. The planner was also responsible for receiving public input through interviews and workshops. The non-profit Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation (SCCF) organized scientists to write the Sanibel Report, which provided detailed descriptions of natural systems of Sanibel and to suggest means for conservation. The findings of the Sanibel Report were incorporated into the city鈥檚 official comprehensive plan (the Sanibel Plan).

In addition to environmentally-conscious development ordinances, the plan also called for much of the island鈥檚 land to be held in permanent conservation. Through voluntary land acquisitions that took place starting in 1967 and continue today, the majority of interior wetlands are in public ownership and protected for conservation purposes. Acquisitions are funded primarily by the SCCF, which works in conjunction with the city and state government to preserve natural lands.

Implementation & Funding

After incorporation, the city levied taxes to pay for the planning process. Funding for the environmental assessment and much of the land acquisitions is provided by the SCCF. Tourism, especially ecotourism, continues to bring in large amounts of money for the city every year through taxes that help fund continued conservation efforts and regular updates of the comprehensive plan.

Economic Advantage

Sanibel Island is commonly considered to be a great example of a sustainable community and has been awarded the prestigious National Planning Landmark Award for the 1976 Sanibel Plan. The protection of the natural environment has attracted new residents and millions of visitors, resulting in increased investment and a higher tax base, without exceeding the carrying capacity of the island. Additionally, informed development has limited loss of life and property on Sanibel Island, creating a prosperous and resilient community.

These Texas communities understand that undeveloped lands along the coast serve as a natural buffer for a large amount of storm surge, reducing flooding and property damage further inland. These lands provide a coastal system protection network and it makes sense to use these natural assets as part of a long-term non-structural flood mitigation system.

The Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area (NRA) is envisioned as a voluntary partnership among local, state and federal governments as well as non-governmental organizations and private parties. In order to obtain a National Recreation Area, Congress must designate it as such. This requires that the area (1) displays unique natural, cultural, or recreational resources, (2) represents a natural or cultural theme not already adequately represented in the park system, (3) must be of sufficient size and configuration to ensure long-term protection and accommodate public use, and (4) must have potential for efficient administration at a reasonable cost.

The NRA is planned as a non-contiguous cluster of lands, historic sites and structures within Matagorda, Brazoria, Galveston and Chambers counties, encompassing 450,000 acres of tidal marshland and adjacent brackish wetlands and coastal prairie along with 150,000 acres of bay and estuarine areas. The NRA鈥檚 management structure and land tenure it is expected to be managed under a custom-built partnership agreement between participating land owners and the National Park Service. The NPS will provide a coordinating presence for visitor services and tourism marketing.

The Lone Star Coastal National Recreation Area (NRA) is envisioned as a voluntary partnership among local, state and federal governments as well as non-governmental organizations and private parties. In order to obtain a National Recreation Area, Congress must designate it as such. This requires that the area (1) displays unique natural, cultural, or recreational resources, (2) represents a natural or cultural theme not already adequately represented in the park system, (3) must be of sufficient size and configuration to ensure long-term protection and accommodate public use, and (4) must have potential for efficient administration at a reasonable cost.

Implementation & Funding

Institutional support for the Lone Star Coastal NRA is provided by a Steering Committee comprised of a group of national, state, and local community leaders. Technical support is provided by the Severe Storm Prediction, Education, and Evacuation from Disasters (SSPEED) Center. A partner鈥檚 coalition has been established to bring together the private institutions involved in providing land resources to the project.

Economic Advantage

In 2005, the National Park Service generated almost $12 billion in revenues from the near 275 million visitation fees and associated sales in parks and surrounding communities. When completed, this NRA is expected to provide an economic boost to the participating counties. Additionally, the NRA is expected to reduce loss of life and property from tropical storms and the government millions of dollars on disaster relief.

Southern Shores is a small, coastal town located on a barrier island in North Carolina, encompassing approximately four square miles. It experiences an annual summer population boom that increases the number of residents from 2,300 to 10,000. Unregulated development has occurred along the coast to accommodate tourism, which has given rise to concern for the natural features of the town that help to attract tourists and provide protection to residents during hurricanes and Nor鈥檈aster storms. Without these features, Southern Shores would experience increased erosion, marsh degradation and declining beaches. Protection of the marshlands, open spaces, maritime forests and protective dunes are essential to the town鈥檚 economic and natural resiliency.

Southern Shores has implemented stringent zoning and building standards to prevent the increased impact of unregulated development on the environment. The tourist economy on which the town relies would threaten the island if such planning measures were not implemented. The town regulates what and where people can build through its zoning and flood damage protection ordinances. These ordinances value proper drainage and erosion prevention, which are essential for a barrier island community with this level of exposure to storms and flood. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance employs other tools, including lot disturbance inspection to assure that before any clearing, grubbing or topographic changes on an unimproved site, an inspector evaluates whether essential vegetation and landforms are being protected. Also, South Shores鈥� building code calls for all new and improved construction in flood level areas have the lowest floor elevated at least two feet above the FEMA base flood elevation. The Dune Protection Ordinance protects the area鈥檚 barrier dunes from encroachment by designating appropriate crossing areas for pedestrians and development.

Environment

Storms such as the Ash Wednesday Storm of 1962 (a Nor鈥檈aster) and Hurricane Isabelle in 2003 created a strong motivation for the citizens of Southern Shores to develop plans to safeguard their natural protective resources. The Zoning Ordinance, Waterway Ordinance, Flood Damage Protection Ordinance, and the Dune Protection Ordinance were developed to all work together to protect the natural resources in the area and allow for controlled and intelligent development.

The Hazard Mitigation Plan includes a series of codes and ordinances to ensure open space preservation and stormwater management to protect natural resources, including the barrier dune system, which breaks up storm-driven waves and attenuates the effects of coastal storms
The Waterway Ordinance provides a mechanism to assure that canals and waterways are maintained and kept free of debris. This in turn promotes proper drainage during floods.
The Reconstruction Task Force prioritizes and coordinates reconstruction after damaging storms.
GIS mapping is used to identify and locate the environmental features of the island, such as specific vegetation to be protected from clearcutting.

Community

The community relies primarily on volunteers, rather than outside consultants, to achieve their planning goals. The majority of the town鈥檚 governing and advisory boards are staffed by citizens who have volunteered to contribute to the community.

Regulations that require a thirty percent limit on lot coverage in the residential zone, increased open yard area, and specific setbacks enhance the feeling of open space within the community.
The Flood Damage Protection Ordinance requires that all new or substantially improved residential construction in special flood hazard areas have the lowest floors no lower than 2 feet above the base flood elevation.

Lessons Learned

Southern Shores, NC has decided to protect its community and its natural assets by adopting an extensive body of zoning regulations tailored to the coastal zone. By coordinating these regulations with multiple ordinances already in place, such as waterway, flood damage protection and dune protection, they maximize the protection capacity of the town. This effort allows growth to occur in appropriate areas, reducing vulnerability to storms and protecting the tourist draws of the area to ensure continued economic success. Though these protective ordinances work well with each other in a protective capacity, their success could be further built upon by coordinating the entire town鈥檚 development and growth efforts for a complete comprehensive strategy.

Sanibel Island, located in the Gulf of Mexico close to the cities of Cape Coral and Fort Myers, Florida, is home to approximately 6,000 residents and hosts tens of thousands of overnight tourists each year. Sanibel is a barrier island with beaches, dunes, wetlands, mangroves and natural ridges. Tourism, particularly ecotourism, is the city鈥檚 largest industry.

For hundreds of years, Sanibel was inhabited by a small number of people and visited by few tourists, but in 1963 a bridge was constructed that connected the island to the mainland. Immediately after its opening, residents found themselves dealing with unprecedented growth. At the time, the island community was under the jurisdiction of Lee County and subjected to land use and zoning ordinances developed by the county government with little local input. Ignoring the sensitive natural environment, the county commissioners zoned the island in such a way to allow a population of 90,000 people within its 17.21 square miles of land. Wetlands would be turned into golf courses and the dunes would be replaced by high-rise condominiums. Almost everything that made the island beautiful would be lost forever. Fortunately, this story took a different turn. In 1974, residents of the Island voted to become an incorporated city. Two years later, the city adopted an innovative comprehensive plan, entitled The Sanibel Plan, which utilized an extensive environmental inventory of the island as a basis for all land use planning decisions.

While government officials and consultants were drafting a comprehensive plan for the newly incorporated city, the Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation, a local non-profit comprised of concerned residents and scientists, was compiling an extensive natural system study of the island, titled The Sanibel Report. The organization was concerned about the potential negative impacts of development on the fragile environment of Sanibel Island. They took a proactive stance by gathering information, forming recommendations, and engaging the city government and master plan consultant team. The four main components of The Sanibel Report are:

Analysis of the island鈥檚 ecosystems
Identification of the principal ecological zones
Diagnosis of the conditions of these zones
Suggestions for management requirements to conserve the island鈥檚 natural systems and resources (Clark 1976).
For each ecological zone, the report identified the local climate, geology, subsurface and surface hydrology, soils, vegetation, wildlife, functions, and elements essential to these functions. Most of the recommendations in the report were included in the adopted 1976 Sanibel Plan. The ecological zones, in particular, became 鈥渢he basis for the permitted uses, density limits, and performance standards鈥� in the city鈥檚 zoning code and development ordinances (Clark 1976).

The result of these efforts by the residents of Sanibel Island, local scientists, and consultants has been the creation of a visionary comprehensive plan that protects the remaining natural areas, sets in place policies and practices to restore damaged ecosystems, and supports the restoration of the island鈥檚 hydrology. The Sanibel Plan also makes provisions for all other aspects of community planning, including but not limited to hurricane safety, affordable housing, multi-modal transportation, historic preservation, and city services, such as sewage and solid waste. Many of these recommendations are very innovative and forward-thinking.

The Sanibel Plan is a marriage of a community master plan and a natural resource management plan, resulting in the development of a city that provides for its current residents while protecting the environment for the enjoyment of present and future generations. In 2007, the American Planning Association awarded the city the prestigious National Planning Landmark Award for the 1976 Sanibel Plan, recognizing it as a historically significant and innovative document that has greatly influenced the contemporary sustainable city planning movement.

For hundreds of years, Sanibel was inhabited by a small number of people and visited by few tourists, but in 1963 a bridge was constructed that connected the island to the mainland. Immediately after its opening, residents found themselves dealing with unprecedented growth. At the time, the island community was under the jurisdiction of Lee County and subjected to land use and zoning ordinances developed by the county government with little local input. Ignoring the sensitive natural environment, the county commissioners zoned the island in such a way to allow a population of 90,000 people within its 17.21 square miles of land. Wetlands would be turned into golf courses and the dunes would be replaced by high-rise condominiums. Almost everything that made the island beautiful would be lost forever. Fortunately, this story took a different turn. In 1974, residents of the Island voted to become an incorporated city. Two years later, the city adopted an innovative comprehensive plan, entitled The Sanibel Plan, which utilized an extensive environmental inventory of the island as a basis for all land use planning decisions.

Environment
Pressure from development following the opening of the Sanibel Causeway and lack of strong regulations from the country government put the natural environment of Sanibel Island at risk. Local government, residents, and advocates developed a plan to protect the ecologically sensitive barrier island. Regulations to protect natural communities also helped improve safety and quality-of-life for residents through decreased erosion, improved water quality, natural storm surge defenses, and recreational opportunities.
The plan uses an analysis of the city鈥檚 ecosystems, hydrology, and geology to influence land use and development decisions (Sanibel Plan 1976).
Development in all districts is subject to environmental performance standards tailored to the ecological zone of the parcel.
Lands unsuitable for building are reserved for conservation through the use of easements and zoning.
Areas of dense vegetation, such as mangroves and marshes, are maintained and protected to reduce wave heights and velocities and decrease storm damage.

Community
Unchecked development and lack of land use planning posed a serious threat to the residents and visitors of Sanibel Island as development decisions were made without consideration for resiliency and safety. To amend this situation, the city鈥檚 land use and building ordinances are designed to minimize property loss from hurricanes, but still allow Sanibel Island to thrive as a beach resort community.
Development is directed away from areas subjected to high storm surges and scour (erosion).
All non-conforming structures damaged more than 50% in a storm must be rebuilt in conformance with the flood and stormproofing requirements of the City鈥檚 current Land Development Code.
All buildings, even those not financed through a mortgage, must be elevated or floodproofed to FEMA鈥檚 100-year storm projected wave heights.
Sanibel engages in regional coordination for planning hurricane evacuations. Because there are no safe places to 鈥渞ide out the storm鈥� on Sanibel Island, the city officials plan evacuation routes and work with regional inland partners to provide shelter for evacuees.

Infrastructure
The transportation infrastructure of Sanibel Island, with only one road connecting to the mainland, can become very congested during peak tourism seasons and hurricane evacuations. With limited space, roadway expansion is not a viable option for the city. Therefore, the plan mandates the managing and limiting of population growth not only to protect the natural environment, but also to ensure the hurricane evacuation system is not overloaded, and people are able to leave the island in a safe and timely fashion.
Any future growth must follow improvements in the evacuation system.
Extensive networks of shared-use (bicycle and pedestrian) paths, sidewalks, and boardwalks have been built and expansion is planned to reduce the dependence on automobiles. Provisions for a transit system and mainland-to-island shuttles have been planned (Sanibel Plan 2007), but not yet implemented.
City Hall has been elevated and storm-proofed to act as a center of command and response in the event of hurricanes.
The city鈥檚 water infrastructure has been built with the goals of providing a high level of service to the community, sustaining the natural hydrology of the island, and preventing saltwater intrusion in to the aquifer and freshwater wetlands.

Process
Before incorporation and the adoption of the 1976 Sanibel Plan, county government did not consider the specific environmental context of the island, nor the needs and concerns of Sanibel鈥檚 residents when making development decisions. This lack of local influence in planning and policy making led to numerous problems in the 1960鈥檚 and 70鈥檚, during which Sanibel Island faced unprecedented growth.

Becoming an incorporated municipality was an essential process for Sanibel Island; without this designation, it was impossible for residents to assert control over the response to and regulation of localized issues.

Citizens were engaged in the development of The Sanibel Report (environmental plan) and played a vital role in pushing the environmental cause forward. Largely due to the public support of the conservation focus of the Sanibel Report, its findings were incorporated in the city鈥檚 official comprehensive plan.

The future roles of Sanibel Island as an environmental sanctuary, a livable community, and an attraction are presented and addressed as deeply intertwined in the 1976Sanibel Plan and its subsequent updates. The balancing of these roles has allowed for the development of one of the most desirable vacation destinations in south Florida.

Lessons Learned
This case represents a successful collaboration of citizens, planners, and scientists who worked together to develop and implement a plan that benefits people, businesses, and the environment. Limited time, resources, and funding often makes weighing all the environmental, social, political, and economic concerns of a community an extremely difficult undertaking during a master planning process. Utilizing the assistance of local non-profits, educational and research intuitions, and private citizen advocates, as the City of Sanibel has done, can reduce the burden on local government and paid consultants, and lead to the creation of a plan that is comprehensive, creative, and effective.

Three factors have contributed to the successful drafting and implementation of Sanibel鈥檚 comprehensive plan. First, The Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation took an active role in assisting the local government by providing an environmental inventory and recommendations for conservation and development. The Sanibel Report became critical in identifying areas suitable and unsuitable for development. Second, the language used in writing the plan鈥檚 provisions was identical to what would be found in legal provisions, which made for easy adoption into ordinances and codes. Lastly, adequate city staff were employed to implement and enforce the plan. Together, these factors have led to high returns on the city鈥檚 investment. The protection of the natural environment has attracted new residents and visitors, resulting in increased investment and a higher tax base, without exceeding the carrying capacity of the island. Additionally, informed development has limited loss of life and property on Sanibel Island, creating a prosperous and resilient community.

The City of Onkaparinga is a Local Government Area (LGA) located on the southern fringe of Adelaide, South Australia. It is the largest LGA in South Australia, with an estimated population of 164,800 people in both urban and rural communities. Geographically, the area is expansive, encompassing an area of 518.3 km虏 (approximately 200 square miles). Currently, a continual flow of water year round is retained by pumping water from the Murray River. The effects and limitations of this system, combined with climate change, have created concern for the city鈥檚 future water supply. 鈥淲aterproofing the South鈥� is a localized integrated water resource management strategy for the City of Onkaparinga. It promotes sustainable water use by providing alternative water sources to replace the use of traditional sources, such as piping river water and groundwater. The strategy also creates a secure source of water for the community through the development of the water reuse infrastructure. The focus of this strategy is the capture and reuse of wastewater and stormwater. The topography of the area offers opportunities for capturing stormwater by channeling flows into nine different catchment areas. Improvements to the wastewater treatment plant allow water to be supplied for agricultural and urban uses, reducing the nutrient load to the Gulf and the demand on potable water supply. Eight projects were selected and developed in conjunction with the plan to increase the amount of urban and rural water reuse, increase network storage capacities, create water saving, and to understand the suitability of treated wastewater to supplement water from the Onkaparinga River.

Environment

Several of the initial projects explicitly address the threats to the environment. These include addressing flooding risk, protecting water quality, and protecting and enhancing water dependent ecosystems.

The Morrow Road sedimentation ponds treat stormwater in the lower reaches of Christie Creek prior to it entering the marine environment. This process removes at least fifty percent of suspended solids, which could potentially resettle on reefs leading to the loss of sea grass.
The Wilfred Taylor Water Reserve has been created, with the capacity to harvest 850ML (approximately 225 million gallons) of stormwater for reuse, which addresses flooding risks and improving water quality.

Infrastructure

The key goal of Stage 1 of Waterproofing the South is to create infrastructure which will allow for wastewater to be collected and reused as many times as possible to reduce the nutrient load to the Gulf and reduce the demand on the potable water supply. Wastewater that once flowed out to sea is now returned to the city for irrigation of parks and reserves, and used as an important supply of water to industry and wineries.
The Christies Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant quality upgrade will provide reclaimed water for agricultural and urban use. The increase in reuse will improve the quality of the discharge to the marine environment and reduce demand on potable supply.
The city has developed a 17km (10.6 mile) distribution scheme to distribute collected stormwater for irrigation.

Process

This initiative was achieved through support from the state and federal government. Continued funding was then secured by demonstrating measured success of the initial pilot projects.
The Australian Government provided $34.5 million (AUD) for the project. The City of Onkaparinga Council, SA Water Corporation, Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board, Willunga Basin Water Company and Flinders University also contributed to the project to provide a total investment of approximately $122 million (AUD).
This project has been developed as a partnership between SA Water and Willunga Basin Water Co.

Lessons Learned

The integrated approach of Waterproofing the South allows multiple projects to work together to maximize the potential outcomes of the plan. By looking at the various water issues and opportunities of the region comprehensively, the city was able to coordinate efforts to reach their goals of water capture, reuse and quality improvement.

The success of the initial eight projects (now classified as Stage 1) has led to a second phase of the initiative, which will build upon the previous phase and is currently being developed. The Council has received approximately $15M (AUD) in funding from the Australian Government through the Water for the Future initiative and $7.5M (AUD) from the State Government to support the delivery of the $30M (AUD) Water Proofing the South Stage 2 initiative. Developing a comprehensive strategy for the city was imperative, and focusing pilot projects to highlight the potential success of the plan is an effective strategy for garnering political support and financing.

One year prior to the flood of 2008, the national Environment Agency (EA) began planning a flood alleviation scheme for Morpeth. Since the flood, the EA has been working diligently with the local community to help them become more resilient and involve them in the planning of a suitable flood alleviation proposal. The EA has also been working with the Northumberland County Council and Northumbrian Water on the program and assisting these local entities with plans to reduce flood risks from stormwater and improve drainage. The Morpeth Flood Alleviation Scheme, completed in December 2009, proposes a mix of structural and non-structural flooding defenses. The Standard of Protection provided will alleviate the risk of flooding up to a 1 in 137 year return period (or from a flood with a 0.7% chance of happening in any given year), equal to the flood level experienced in 2008.

When the plan was completed, funding was sought through a national Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA) in 2011-12 to provide the share of funds required under the new 鈥榩artnership funding鈥� regime. However, the grant was not received, so another source of external funding was sought. Recognizing the value of flood protection to the community, the Northumberland County Council committed to contributing between 拢7 鈥� 12 million towards the 拢21 million scheme. The local contribution helped the EA secure 拢10.6 million of government funding under the partnership funding regime.

The scheme includes improvements to existing floodwalls, along with realignments and construction of new floodwalls, which began in 2013. The central component to the scheme, however, is the establishment of flood storage areas upstream. Two floodwater detention areas are being constructed. The floodwater storage system at Mitford Estate will be capable of holding back 1.3 million cubic meters of water when it is completed in the autumn of 2014. Another smaller floodwater storage area is being constructed by Cotting Burn to provide protection to a one-in-100 year flood standard.

Non-Structural Measures

Floodwater storage

Because the River Wansbeck is very environmentally sensitive, dredging is not an ideal strategy for reducing flood risk. As an alternative way to increase the river鈥檚 ability to hold extra water during flood events, flood water storage areas are being built upriver from Morpeth. These areas will serve as temporary storage for up to 1.3 million cubic meters of water.

Information Center

The Environment Agency is running a public information center during the planning and construction of the flood defense system. The information center is open 4 days a week, giving the public an opportunity to gather information and voice their concerns, and giving agency representatives the opportunity to answer questions and build public trust.

Stormwater management

The Environment Agency is also providing technical support to the Northumberland County Council for the development of a surface water flooding scheme. Data gathered for the creation of the river flooding strategy will aid in the development of this second, complementary flood alleviation scheme.

National/Local funding partnership

After this program was denied funding from the National Flood Defence Grant in Aid for 2011/12, the Northumberland County Council committed to contributing between 拢7 鈥� 12 million towards this 拢21 million scheme. This commitment helped the Environment Agency secure 拢10.6 million from the national government through other funding streams.

Process

The flood alleviation project started as an initiative of the national Environment Agency, but after the flooding event of 2008, the EA included local partners in the planning process. The EA also reached out to citizens to participate in the process.

Lessons Learned

Morpeth in Northumberland is a great example of how a partnership approach is facilitating a comprehensive solution for reducing the risk of flooding in the town, not only from the river but also from surface water and drainage in the town.

In Morpeth, the EA was able to leverage local funding to help cover the costs of new flood protection infrastructure when national disaster aid funding fell through. Recognizing specific local benefits and the importance of flood protection to the local economy helped the local government commit to sharing some of the costs of the project. Having a portion of the necessary funds committed to the project, whether from a local, state, or national government, it may be easier to receive grants or apply for other funding. Such was the case in Morpeth.

In Morpeth, the EA ran a public information center 鈥� a storefront where citizens could gather information and ask questions. This seems to have helped build local support for the range of flood protection projects. The flood storage areas have been questioned and challenged in court in other parts of England, but the implementation of the storage areas in Morpeth has been relatively smooth.

The Netherlands, much like southern Louisiana, is located on a delta and experiences flooding from rivers and from ocean storms. The Dutch approach to flood control is touted as the international best practice. Most communities in the Netherlands are protected by dykes, levees, and floodgates. However several small rural villages are located outside of the flood protection infrastructure. Maasbommel, located along the Meuse River, is one of those communities. It is known mostly for water-based recreational activities and is home to a small permanent population.

River floods are the main threat faced by Maasbommel. In 2005, the Dutch government granted the construction firm Dura Vermeer 15 sites where their designers could use 鈥渁daptive building techniques鈥� for flood protection. The result was a collection of 鈥渁mphibious鈥� floating houses.

Dura Vermeer鈥檚 design is an innovative approach that combines the best features of floating house boats and elevated buildings to create homes that can adapt to changes in water level. House boats can withstand changes in the water level, but cannot safely withstand storms with high winds or floods with fast moving water. They can break away from their dock and be tossed in the waves. Elevated homes, while safe from flooding and wind if constructed properly, can feel isolated from its neighbors and the surrounding environment due to their high decks and extensive stairs. The amphibious houses in Massbommel float like house boats sited on a floating concrete 鈥渉ull.鈥� However, they are also secured against strong winds and waves by permanent mooring posts driven deep into the ground, similar to those used to elevate homes. These posts guide the building to rise up and lower down, in place, according to changing river levels. In non-flood conditions, the houses rest on the river bank, allowing for convenient water access and creating a flat walkable space between homes. Unlike a house boat, the amphibious houses also have basements, decks, and small gardens all supported by their foundations. They feature flexible pipes for electrical, water, and sewer lines that will keep the home 鈥渙n the grid鈥� even in a flooding event.

Currently, this model of housing is more expensive than conventional housing. The amphibious buildings in Maasbommel cost approximately 鈧�250,000 to 鈧�300,000 (approximately $322,000 to $386,000 in US dollars) for a 120 square meter (roughly 1290 square foot) home. The higher cost is due in part to the flexible nature of the construction techniques and materials, creating feed lines for gas, electricity, drinking water and drainage which are able to adapt to the changes in height of the premises. On the other hand, costly current building methods, such as securing foundations, are unnecessary. If the floating construction model becomes more widely used, the price should drop dramatically as these materials and construction techniques become mainstream practices.

The engineers and architects at Dura Vermeer see these homes as a demonstration of how people in floodplains can better live with water through housing that adapts to changing water levels. This project has led to more large-scale adaptive designs such as the building of one of the first floating developments 鈥� a zero-footprint, solar-powered golf course in the Maldives.

Infrastructure

The typical ways of protecting homes in the area outside flood protection and the needs of the community to build a strong network were at odds with each other. Static, elevated homes could provide protection from storms and reduce losses, but would create isolation and were not conducive to building relationships in the community. The need for a solution that could address both needs was addressed in this project.

Houses adjust to changing water levels, but are secure enough to withstand strong currents and winds.
Each building鈥檚 utilities rely on municipal services and infrastructure hook-ups, but reconsider traditional materials and techniques to allow for flexibility. Thereby, they decrease stress on the infrastructure of both the individual homes and the municipal systems.

Community

The community in Maasbommel needed a new type of building construction to allow them to live, with limited risk to life and property, in the flood zones. However, they had a strong preference to live in residences that feel like living in a traditional home, rather than on a boat. Elevated homes would have disrupted the fabric, character, and use of neighborhoods.

The self-rising houses avoid damage from flood waters, eliminating costly repairs after storm events.
This design allows people to live along the water without relying on large, hydrologically and ecologically disruptive protective infrastructure for flood protection.
The features of a neighborhood network, such as gardens and pedestrian connections between homes, are preserved during non-flood conditions.

Process

The lack of funding investment in the private sector and lack of innovative building techniques and expertise within the government prevented either industry or government to address the projects needs on their own.

A private/public partnership allowed the architects to test an innovative design with financial support through government grants. The homes have seen been sold to private citizens.

Lessons Learned

Changing environmental and development conditions, climate change impacts including sea level rise, increasing populations, and urbanization, can lead to increases in the flooding risks and water-levels in river communities. The Maasbommel houses can adapt to these changes, always adjusting with the changes in the river level. Although rising sea levels will likely lead to the abandonment of some coastal communities, this area of Maasbommel can, theoretically, continue to be habitable for generations to come due to the adaptive nature of these homes. While engineered to withstand fast-moving riverine flood waters, it is unclear if these homes would be able to survive the extreme conditions of tropical storms and hurricanes. Other flood-prone communities might want to consider public-private partnerships to encourage creative, adaptive designs for their local conditions, such as the one between the Dutch government and Dura Vermeer which led to the creation of the amphibious houses.

Mecklenburg County covers an area of 525 square miles in south-central North Carolina, including the city of Charlotte and six incorporated towns. The floodplain management program is run by the Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services Division. Of the 32 watersheds in Mecklenburg County, all water sources originate in the county, with the exception of the Catawba River.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg鈥榮 approach of build-out land use conditions as the basis for floodplain modeling allowed them to use floodplain and construction data as an integral component for their planning process. Previous floodplain management efforts had not considered the changes to the landscape and flooding risks caused by building structures in the floodplain. Build-out land use conditions take into account the change in volume due to construction in the floodplain, which impacts the way water moves through the floodplain during rain events and flooding. The development of Mecklenburg County led to an increase in impervious surfaces, which greatly increased runoff. Communities in the county experienced a high level of flood damage during the late 80s and 90s. Major flooding events from that period include Hurricane Hugo in 1989, which caused $1 billion in damage, a flood in 1995 that caused $20 million in losses, and another large flood in 1997 that resulted in $60 million in losses. The 1997 flood inundated 10 homes with first floor elevations above the base flood elevation. This scenario provided evidence that the county鈥檚 current strategy for floodplain management was flawed and a new approach was needed. Charlotte-Mecklenburg adopted the Floodplain Management Guidance Document, which led the county to consider assuming ultimate build-out land use conditions for floodplain mapping. Considering the build-out land use conditions, the floodplain assumes new boundaries, accounting for space taken up by buildings. When this data is used in creating floodplain maps, the results are much more accurate than when ultimate build-out is not considered.

According to the new analysis by SWS, there are approximately 4,000 structures in the county鈥檚 regulated floodplains. SWS used a two-pronged approach to reduce loss due to flooding. The first approach is to implement floodplain regulations and the second is to incorporate flood hazard mitigation activities. In terms of regulatory oversight, the SWS provides recommendations to elected officials regarding floodplain ordinances, enforces those ordinances, issues floodplain development permits, reviews building elevation certificates, maintains accurate floodplain maps, and works with the National Flood Insurance Program to identify properties with a high risk of loss.

In addition to regulatory oversight, several flood mitigation efforts were set into motion. A Storm Water Services鈥� Floodplain Acquisition Program allows for the removal of the highest-risk structures located in the FEMA regulated floodplains along FEMA-regulated streams. The buyout program allows lush, restored wetlands to replace flood prone houses and buildings. Additional flood mitigation activities include: implementing capital improvement projects, encouraging owners to elevate buildings, operating a flood warning system for emergency responders, maintaining a stream and rain gage network, and educating the public about flood safety, insurance, and flood risks.

Hazard identification and mapping is a key component in the county鈥檚 floodplain management program. Before adopting the Floodplain Management Guidance Document, the county had been using maps from 1975. Updated maps were needed. SWS researched and quantified the effects of future development in the county鈥檚 floodplains and watersheds, and included stormwater runoff variables such as surface and soil conditions. New maps and regulations to address hazard areas are expensive, but the agency concluded that the costs would be offset by avoiding future damage and associated disaster costs. The research and subsequent modeling have been very important to the success of this program. Older regulations allowed development in the floodplain fringe, which would result in an increased base flood elevation of almost 2.5 ft because of the space taken up by development and the runoff it causes. The average base flood elevations based on ultimate build-out were approximately 4.3 feet higher than those on the 1975 land use maps. Setting aside stream buffers, which would improve infiltration of rain and runoff, was projected to decrease flood heights by 0.5 feet.

Overall, Mecklenburg County has used hazard identification and mapping to carry out their floodplain management program. Using updated maps that include the build-out land use conditions allow for a more accurate understanding of flooding across the county. The buyout program to replace flood prone buildings with wetlands improves the absorptive capacity of the floodplain and protects neighboring properties. Public outreach was also included in the program to educate the public on flood risk, safety, and insurance.

Environment

Mecklenburg County is located in a flood prone environment. Development within the floodplain during the 1980s and 1990s exacerbated the issue and as a response, the city-county government has implemented a program to mitigate flooding hazards.

Mapping floodplains inclusive of ultimate build-out has been critical to the success of the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County鈥檚 program to mitigate flooding hazards.

Community

The communities within this county are affected by flooding in terms of damage to their homes and personal property as well as damage to public amenities.

Public education and outreach has been instrumental in garnering community support. When the community understands the history of flooding and can see the options for mitigation, they are more likely to support measures such as an increase in utility fees.

Lessons Learned

Investing money into hazard research and mapping has proven critical in making informed decisions about floodplain regulations and mitigation efforts. The floodplain management program in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, NC has relied on such data to achieve significant levels of reduction in flood impacts. For example, SWS estimated that investing $250,000 in floodplain mapping could help prevent $16 million in future flood damage. Although the upfront cost may seem high, it can more than pay for itself by preventing losses.

South Holland, a relatively small town of 23,000 residents in north east Illinois approximately 20 miles south of Chicago, has developed a hazard mitigation plan to counter regular flooding from the Calumet River. South Holland is subject to slow rising, slow moving and slowly receding floods in all seasons due to localized storms, heavy rainfall and snow melt. The town鈥檚 flat topography results in floods with longer lasting effects. In reaction to the heavy flooding of the 1990s, the village adopted a number of strategies to protect itself from flooding. Created in 1994 and updated in 2000, the Flood Mitigation and Comprehensive Plan uses education, outreach, policy, code enforcement and structural protection to control annual flooding. South Holland is diligent in the education and engagement of its residents to avoid any removal of floodplain carrying capacity or storage. Pamphlets and floodplain maps distributed throughout the community, in addition to zoning and building codes, help residents clearly understand how inappropriate development can further exacerbate impacts from flooding.

Citizens and town staff came together to form the Flood Liaison Committee, which assisted in the development of their Floodplain Management Plan. The plan takes a no adverse impact approach, including multiple strategies that collectively reduce the town鈥檚 vulnerability to flooding. Enrolling in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System gave the committee a framework to begin development of their plan, while also offering a tool for measuring its success. Regular reviewing and updating of the plan ensures its improvement and continued relevance as needs evolve.

Environment

South Holland has implemented multiple regulations to combat adverse impacts on the environment due to development. These efforts comprehensively work together to prevent increased flooding caused by new development, retain floodplain carrying and storage capacity, reduce runoff from impervious surfaces, and protect fish and wildlife along with their supportive ecological habitats.

The project team constructed a regional diversion channel and a flood storage reservoir that created carrying capacity for overflow.
Codes and regulations were established to avoid overloading the expanded system.
The town has returned multiple sites to open space functioning as natural floodplain by purchasing then removing structures from flood prone areas.
Regulations were created requiring a one-foot freeboard above FEMA BFE (base flood elevation) for new construction. Additionally, any material fill in the floodplain must be compensated for by excavating 1.5 times the volume of the fill.
An ordinance was created for retention of runoff from all storms for new developments.
The Plan requires two inspections per year of riverine systems to assure they are clean, not in need of maintenance, and free flowing. South Holland maintains an Urban Forestry Commission as well as a full-time arborist to assure that protected trees and vegetation are maintained and protected from negligent development.

Community

By informing and educating citizens about areas most vulnerable to storms and the different approaches to reducing adverse impacts, South Holland has created an engaged community that is proactive about ensuring their own safety. This engagement has allowed them to make huge strides in their protective capabilities with a modest budget.

Workshops were held and handouts distributed door-to-door to inform citizens about flood protection and decreasing flood risk.
A website was created as a strategy within an overall public information program to help property owners learn about the hazards they are exposed to and what they can do about them.
The Flood Assistance Rebate Program offers land owners of single-family residences a 25% rebate (up to $2,500) per home for flood control projects.
The project team implemented various flood warning services.

Process

Really notable is the town鈥檚 public outreach and education efforts. Informing the town residents of their vulnerabilities fosters a proactive attitude to flood mitigation, which helps to increase their capacity to prepare and respond to storm events while working within the confines of a limited budget.

The Flood Liaison Committee was created to assist in the development of the Floodplain Management Plan. Made up of citizens and town staff, it ensured the town was engaged and informed in mitigation issues.
South Holland organized a series of open houses which were publicized door-to-door and in the newspaper. These open houses focused on informing citizens about their vulnerabilities to flooding and the options available to mitigate them, through handouts, videos and consultations with local staff and contractors.
Brochures, booklets and community maps were distributed to the community, which included emergency numbers and a description of government services.
The community newsletter, published monthly, addresses flooding issues, discusses flood reduction projects and includes summaries of committee meetings.
Letters are periodically sent to residents living in the floodplain, which contain pertinent information about the NFIP and the importance of purchasing flood insurance.
In cooperation with two other nearby communities, the Village also organizes an annual Flood Awareness Week by engaging the community through a series of events, including a Business Breakfast meeting to educate local real estate agents, lenders and insurance agents about flooding issues and the NFIP.

Warrington is a large town in northwest England. Parts of the town lay within the floodplains of the River Mersey and smaller tributaries that run through the community into the river. The Mersey River is also tidally influenced. To help alleviate fluvial and tidal flooding, the national Environment Agency worked with local partners to develop the Warrington Flood Risk Management Strategy plan and implement the Mersey River flood defense scheme. To fund the planning and development, the local council gathered contributions from the local utility company and housing developers, as well as from the central government.

In December 2010 the Warrington Flood Risk Management Strategy was approved. The strategy was developed as part of the Environment Agency鈥檚 national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England. The plan identified areas at risk from flooding, and those areas where flooding could be reduced. While the focus was on the town鈥檚 rivers, the project was coordinated with a Surface Water Management Plan led by the Warrington Borough Council to reduce stormwater flooding as well. The local utility company, United Utilities, also acted as a partner in developing the Flood Risk Management Strategy. As part of the planning process, the national agency, borough council, and utility company engaged stakeholders, hosted public workshops and exhibitions, and gathered and considered public comments at various phases of the project.

Through the planning process, it was determined that structural flood defenses were needed (such as levees and flood walls). The contributions of the central government (拢16.4 million) and the local government (拢3.4 million) were not enough to cover all the expenses (estimated at 拢23 million). Because official policies in England require housing developers and utility companies to protect development from flooding, the local government was able to establish funding partnerships with housing developers and United Utilities to cover the remaining costs of the new flood protection infrastructure. The utility company agreed to partially fund the program because it would provide a higher standard of protection around their infrastructure. United Utilities contributed 拢2 million. In their partnership with the housing developers, the council agreed to underwrite the provision of flood defenses in the area in the short term, and would then seek to recoup funding from the developers when the housing market picks up. Additionally, requiring new housing to be built with appropriate flood defenses resulted in an in-kind contribution of 拢1.2 million to the flood defense scheme.

Construction has already begun on parts of the River Mersey Flood Defense Scheme. Although the project will not be completed until 2015, locals are already praising the new structures for reducing flooding. When completed, the new flood defenses will improve flood protection for approximately 2,000 homes and businesses.

Process

The Environment Agency and Warrington Borough Council engaged United Utilities and housing developers as partners in the planning process for the Warrington Flood Risk Management Strategy. Building relationships with these stakeholders helped the government agencies leverage funding from them for implementation and construction of flood defense infrastructure when national contributions proved insufficient.

Selection/Funding Criteria

The UK government uses an 鈥淥utcome Measure Score鈥� based on a project鈥檚 cost-benefit analysis to determine which projects receive national funding. The score from the Warrington Project was not high enough for the national government to cover all expenses.
Partnerships between the national Environment Agency, Warrington Borough Council, United Utilities, and housing developers allowed the flood defense scheme to be completely funded.

Non-Structural Measures

Mapping flood risk increased the local community鈥檚 understanding of their risk. This also helped planners identify where flood risk could be reduced through structural and non-structural defenses.
Housing developers agreed to provide appropriate flood defenses for new houses they build. This reduces the need for structural flood defenses, such as flood walls, translating into an in-kind donation of 拢1.2 million to the flood defense system.

Policy Changes

National policy helped the local government leverage funding from housing developers and the utility company. Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) on development and flood risk aims to 鈥渆nsure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk. Where new development is, exceptionally, necessary in such areas, policy aims to make it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible, reducing flood risk overall.鈥�

Lessons Learned

This project is an example of how a partnership approach to flood management can provide a local community with a shared understanding of flood risk and long term investment needs.

Although this project is mostly a structural flood defense system, this case study can be considered as a model for establishing partnerships for a variety of projects, including planning and funding. By working together with the local council, local utility company, and housing developers, the national Environment Agency was able to develop a plan to address local needs and fill funding shortfalls. Housing developers and utility companies have much to gain financially from improved flood protection, so it only makes sense that they help pay for it. It is important to note that there was national policy that encouraged housing developers and the utility company to help pay for improvement (Planning Policy Statement 25). In the United States and Louisiana there are some laws and policies that encourage development to consider flooding risk (such as NFIP); however, stronger state or local laws would be needed to require new developments to more proactively consider flooding risks.

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Santa Cruz agreed to raise the height of the San Lorenzo River Levees from one to five feet and restore riparian habitat along the levees. A second part of this project was the replacement or repair of the Riverside Avenue Bridge, the Water Street Bridge, the Soquel Avenue Bridge, and the retrofit of the Broadway/Laurel Bridge. The third part of this project was to extend Laurel Street and stabilize the banks of Third Street. A natural rock wall was formed along this section to harden and prevent the collapse of these streets into the river. Vegetation was also planted along the toe of the wall adjacent to the river to provide shade for fish and other wildlife.

Implementation & Funding

The San Lorenzo Flood Control Project鈥檚 $66 million budget was shared between Federal, State and City Governments. The City created the Stormwater Management Utility to establish and collect utility fees, allowing the city to contribute an estimated $4.4 million to help pay for its share of costs for flood control projects and stormwater pollution prevention. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers aided in raising the levees of the San Lorenzo River. Congress approved this levee raising in phases, and eventually the State joined forces with the City and Federal Government. Bridge construction was funded both federally and through city stormwater fees and taxes. Bank stabilization was a joint effort with the use of City, State and Federal funds.

Economic Advantage

A flood in December 1955 caused $40 million in damage, which is equivalent to $340 million in damage today. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that a 100-year flood in Santa Cruz would now only cause $86 million in damage; therefore, these flood control measures are potentially saving the city tens of millions of dollars in losses from future floods. In 2002, while the project was not yet complete, FEMA recognized that the levees were already providing increased flood protection and granted an interim A99 flood zone designation to most parcels in the 100-year floodplain to enable the levee project to be factored into the community鈥檚 insurance rating. This designation allows flood insurance premiums to be reduced by 40%.

The South Bayfront Levee and Flood Control Facilities Assessment District was formed in 2008 as a financing mechanism to spread the cost of certain improvements to all properties that receive direct and special benefit from such improvements. Property owners in the designated area have an opportunity to vote on the proposed assessment. Projects financed through the Assessment District include the San Mateo Creek Floodwall, Detroit Drive Floodway, Seal Slough, and East End Levee. Construction of all four components that made up the South Bayfront Levee Improvement Project were completed in late 2011. FEMA issued a 鈥淟etter of Final Determination鈥� to officially initiate the map revision process on April 16, 2012, known as a Physical Map Revision (PMR).

The reduction in flood risk was only expected to be significant enough for FEMA to remove 6,000 properties from the high-risk flood zone. However, following FEMA鈥檚 2012 certification that the levees met current standards to protect against the 100-year flood, all 8,000 properties were reclassified as 鈥渓ow risk鈥� (now included in flood zones A and B). These property owners are now able to purchase flood insurance under the standard rate, with the highest premiums reaching $1,600. The added protection also led FEMA to lift restrictions on new construction projects and upgrades in the area.

Implementation & Funding

The project was funded solely by the city and through taxpayer dollars. Although officials estimated the project would cost $7.5 million when the property owners approved the fees, the actual costs are now estimated to be approximately $8.35 million. The fees are expected to raise only $6.9 million over 20 years, leaving a deficit for construction and maintenance. To make up for the funding shortfall, the city is pulling $1.4 million from a fund meant to pay for a new downtown parking garage and spending it on the levee project.

Economic Advantage

The property owners behind the levee system in San Mateo are now at a lower risk of flooding and FEMA declared them as 鈥渓ow risk properties.鈥� As a result, these property owners are now able to purchase flood insurance at the standard rates, with a reduction of insurance premiums as much as $1,000 per year.

The Flood Protection Project (FPP) for Grand Forks is comprised of two flood control systems working together: a levee/floodwall system that holds back high water from the river and the English Coulee diversion channel that diverts overland flows around the west side of the city. Although most water is diverted around the city during times of flood, internal city drainage of the English Coulee must be collected. This water is pumped over the levee by the largest pumps constructed in the project, which have the capacity to pump 112,000 gallons per minute. This is the largest storm water pumping station in North Dakota. A series of smaller pumping stations handle runoff and snowmelt within the remainder of the city by pumping the rain and snowmelt runoff over the levees/floodwalls.

The floodwalls and levees in Grand Forks span nearly 8 miles. The top of the levees are about 10 feet wide and sit at a river gauge of approximately 60 feet. The Grand Forks floodwalls are built an additional three feet taller. Because of this additional height and the 10-foot width of the levees, the city could successfully fight a 500-year flood by adding clay to the top of the levees. The project included the construction of 12 new flood pump stations, 7 floodwall closure structures, 3 up-and-over crossings, and the 9.5 mile English Coulee Diversion Channel. Additionally, the project included 20 miles of greenway trails and the Lincoln Golf Course.

Implementation & Funding

The FPP began shortly after the 1997 flood. The original components of the FPP have been implemented, however the program remains active in improving flood protection measures in the city. The total cost of the project has been $403 million. The federal government provided $203 million. The rest of the costs were split between the cities of Grand Forks, North Dakota ($135 million, 45% coming from the State of North Dakota), and East Grand Forks, Minnesota ($65 million, majority coming from the State of Minnesota).

Economic Advantage

The 1997 flood produced almost $1 billion of damage to the communities in Grand Forks. The Grand Forks levee system will protect the city from a 500-year flood at river gauge level of approximately 60 feet. It is estimated that the benefit-cost ratio of the project is approximately $2.5 saved per $1 spent. Just 80 miles upriver in Fargo, North Dakota, residents are often forced to use sandbags as temporary dikes and dig craters for clay to prevent river water from entering the city.

After a flood in 1969 that caused $5 million in damages, the City of Boulder undertook their first major effort in flood control. Flood mitigation techniques that channeled water through concrete structures were popular at that time. However, as a city committed to improving the quality of life and the urban environment, the use of concrete structures to channel stream flow evoked considerable public opposition. Strong public sentiment during the 1980鈥檚 afforded the city the opportunity to provide 鈥渁 unique opportunity for creating a comprehensive Greenways system for the community鈥� that could be 鈥渃reatively developed to function as storm drainage and flood channels, efficient bicycle and pedestrian transportation systems, open space and wildlife corridors and attractive recreation areas鈥� (Tributary Greenways Master Plan). The Greenways Plan built upon efforts to reconsider typical, hardened flood controls after the 1969 flood.

In 1984, the City Council adopted the Boulder Creek Corridor Project, which laid the groundwork for the Greenways Master Plan. In 1989, City Council adopted the first Greenways Master Plan, which included Boulder Creek and six of its tributaries. The 2011 Plan incorporates the remaining main tributaries bringing the total to fourteen. The Plan鈥檚 objectives include: protecting and restoring riparian, floodplain, and wetland habitat; enhancing water quality; mitigating storm drainage and floods; providing alternative modes of transportation, namely routes or trails for pedestrians and bicyclists; providing recreational opportunities; and protecting cultural resources.

The development of the Greenways Master Plan began with an inventory of each tributary to assess its geographical description, type of environment, existing trails and cultural and historic resources, as well as its availability for flood mitigation and aquatic habitat. After the inventory was completed, sites for trails and facilities were identified along the river鈥檚 tributaries. Through the Plan, undeveloped areas along the tributaries are linked to provide a network of stream corridors for human use and ecological benefit.

The Greenways Master Plan provides the framework needed for the implementation of its objectives, including: planning, construction, funding sources, and maintenance. Existing policies and plans affect implementation of the Greenways Plan. The projects within the Greenways Plan are spoken for in various other plans as well, creating redundancy to ensure these projects are implemented and maintained. The Greenways Master Plan works most closely in connection and coordination with the City of Boulder鈥檚 Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan. Other plans with overlapping goals and programming regarding greenways include: the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Utility Master Plan, the Transportation Master Plan, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Water Quality Strategic Plan, sub community plans and stream specific flood mitigation plans (Greenways Master Plan).

Funding for the Greenways Program stems from different sources including the State鈥檚 Lottery Fund, the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Fund, and the Transportation Fund, for a total of $450,000 per year. In addition, Boulder has a long-standing commitment to, and strategy for, funding quality open space. Since 1967, the city has used a 0.88% sales tax to purchase, manage, and maintain open space. The Open Space and Mountain Parks department manages this fund. The Greenways Program is a major component of this department. The next phase of the program, including funding and projects, planned for the 2013-2018 time period, is underway.

Environment

Boulder Creek has many tributaries within the city of Boulder and in the surrounding area. Flooding in 1969 caused extensive damage and motivated the community to reconsider hardened flood controls and to protect the stream corridors.

The City of Boulder adopted a revised Stream, Wetland, and Water Body Protection Ordinance in 2009. This ordinance discourages development activities in wetlands and areas adjacent to wetlands. Any proposed project within the Greenways must receive a wetlands permit by demonstrating that the project has been designed to minimize adverse impacts to a wetland and its functions.
Greenways projects are subjected to a federal wetlands permitting process as well. Under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33U.S.C. 1344), the US Army Corps of Engineers is authorized to grant permits to projects which modify drainage channels or otherwise affect streamside vegetation. Projects must demonstrate that they will not discharge dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States.
The City has developed zoning and land use programs to assist the city in dealing with flooding more effectively. Under Title 11- Chapter 5 of the Boulder Revised Code, developed land must ensure adequate drainage and management of storm waters and floods falling on or flowing onto the property. Under Tile 9- Chapter 9, a Floodplain Development Permit is required for all development in the floodplain.

Community

The community of Boulder highly values its natural environment and has advocated for more effective means of flood mitigation since the 1970s. This initial advocacy laid the groundwork for the development and continued improvement of Boulder鈥檚 Greenways.

The greenways provide citizens alternative transportation routes and a public space for recreation.
Paved paths, unpaved trails, and fishing ponds are created for the community鈥檚 use.
The greenways are often crowded, showing their popularity among users.

Infrastructure

Greenways offer alternatives to vehicular transportation for the area鈥檚 residents. Additionally, green infrastructure, such as greenways, provides services such as filtration of rain water, flood mitigation, and stormwater drainage that are otherwise provided by large, expensive public works projects.

Paved pathways along the stream corridors offer pedestrians and bicyclists alternatives to roads for transportation. Additionally, unpaved trails were created for walking, hiking, and bicycling. The establishment of the Greenways Program falls within the category of green infrastructure.
Protecting the city鈥檚 natural areas provides infrastructural services such as rainwater filtration, flood mitigation, and stormwater drainage for the city.

Lessons Learned

The City of Boulder values its open spaces and has proactively taken action to implement a program that increases accessibility to these spaces, while also designing them in a way that offers flood protection and restores riparian environments.

The design of the Greenways Program has successfully integrated multiple uses and functions of riparian areas. It provides people with access to a variety of natural settings with many user groups visiting the network of stream corridors for pedestrian and bicycle transportation, as well as both active and passive recreation. Not only do people use these spaces for transportation and recreation, but the greenways also successfully address habitat protection, floodplain management, stormwater drainage, and water quality improvement.

The Greenways Program draws on the city鈥檚 revenue from sales tax to support the Open Space and Mountain Parks departments. Although the sales tax revenue was not implemented solely for the Greenways Program, it is a unique initiative that benefits the program. The Greenways Program also receives funding from the City鈥檚 Transportation Fund, Stormwater and Flood Control Utility Fund, and the State鈥檚 Lottery Fund, for a total of $450,000 annually. Additional funding is also available through the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District and Federal Transportation funds.

The Boulder, Colorado Greenways Program is continuously updated, building on itself and incorporating new knowledge and assessments. However, it has been reported that the linkages between some of the trails and trail networks are weak, and that crowding sometimes results in conflict from user groups. These are identified as areas for improvement of an otherwise successful program.

After years of battling small flooding events, the suburban community of Rahway, New Jersey, began looking to natural systems to help control flooding. The small, tidally influenced Rahway River runs through the center of the community. The hydrology of the river has changed drastically since it was first surveyed in 1922, and due to loss of wetlands, channelization, and increased impervious surfaces, frequent flash floods are now problematic in the floodplain.

In 1994, after enduring repetitive flooding, homeowners along a particularly vulnerable section of the river basin began asking the city for a buyout. In 2000, the City of Rahway purchased and demolished repetitive loss homes through a voluntary process with grants from FEMA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Projection Green Acres program. The land, originally a natural wetland and located across the river from a preexisting city park was used to create a small greenway, named the Michael S. Bezega Wetland Observation Park (also known as the Union/Allen Street conservation area). The new park aimed to restore the land to a natural floodway form, providing flood control services and creating habitat for native fish and wildlife species. Shallow ponds were constructed to temporarily detain floodwater; native trees, scrubs, and herbaceous plants were planted; and soils were amended throughout the park to create flood-tolerant forests and meadows.

Construction of the 4.45 acre (1.8 ha) park began in 2002 and was completed in the fall of 2005. Partnerships between the city, county, civic organizations, educational institutions, non-profits, and a local church contributed to the design, building, and maintenance of the restoration site. Citizens fulfilling court-ordered community service through the Sherriff鈥檚 Labor Assistant Program worked on the project, saving the city a considerable amount of labor costs for construction.

To gauge the success of the floodplain restoration at the Michael S. Bezega Wetland Observation Park, monitoring has been carried out by college students through a partnership between the city, Rutgers University, and the non-profit group Rahway River Association. Although this particular project might have seemed too small to accomplish any major goals, monitoring has shown that the park is an effective form of flood mitigation and has been successful in restoring wildlife habitat. Within two years, water quality improvements and a fast recolonization by native species was observed. Additionally, the site provides educational and recreational opportunities for the community through the incorporation of walking trails and a wildlife observation area.

Due to the success of this small floodplain restoration, the city commissioned Rutgers University鈥檚 planning school to create the Rahway River Greenway Master Plan in 2008 to outline a vision for the entire Rahway River corridor. The recommendations from the professors and students were well received and incorporated into the city鈥檚 master plan in 2010 in addition to other measures to improve the city鈥檚 sustainability. Approximately 5,000 acres of parkland in Essex and Union counties are located within the Rahway River basin. The Michael S. Bezega Wetland Observation Park and the Rahway River Greenway Master Plan will help link together natural areas along the river to create a regional greenway and improve flood control in this highly-urbanized part of the country.

Environment

Rahway is located on a tidally-influenced river which can experience flooding from rain, run-off, and storm surges. Heavy urbanization has led to development in the floodway and also the destruction of the riparian ecosystem, which supported many native plants and animals. The Michael S. Bezega Wetland Observation Park addresses both needs: to control flooding and to provide habitat for native species. Working with researchers at Rutgers helped ensure the design was ecologically sound and the project鈥檚 success or failure was rigorously monitored.

Although the initial goal of the project was to control flooding, the incorporation of ecosystem restoration improved the flood control capabilities of the landscape and increased use and enjoyment of the area by residents and native animal species.
Monitoring of the project helped inform future actions and guided long-term planning for the Rahway River corridor through the city.

Community

Implementing flood mitigation projects can be costly and time consuming. Often small city governments lack the funds and personnel to implement such projects.

By partnering with a local university, civic groups, and the Sheriff鈥檚 department, the City of Rahway not only reduced construction and maintenance costs, but also helped create a sense of ownership and excitement for the park in the bordering community, adding to the success of the project.

Infrastructure

Rahway was facing a flooding problem that could be addressed through different infrastructure measures: from traditional, engineered solutions to green infrastructure, to a combination of both.

The project is an example of the use of green infrastructure, as it utilizes the natural water storage capabilities of wetland plants and soils to accomplish flood control goals. The park also includes recreational walking and biking infrastructure.
Scientifically calculated water budgets for local flooding from runoff and inundation from the river were used to design the water detention areas in the park.
Runoff from surrounding streets and parking lots is rerouted through wetlands in the park, flowing through a series of meadows of flood-tolerant plants, shallow ponds, and scrub-shrub wetlands before discharging into the river. Much of the stormwater is infiltrated into the soil or evaporates in the process, reducing flow into the river.
Filtering runoff through wetlands reduces nonpoint source water pollution that would have entered the river.
Minor alterations to the elevation of the park allow river floodwaters to enter the wetland detention areas and drain out slowly over several days to reduce flash flooding.
A walking and cycling trail through the park connects it to another recreational trail that follows the river.
The success of the park inspired efforts to create a regional greenway following the entire length of the Rahway River.

Lessons Learned

The City of Rahway, with financial support from FEMA and the State of New Jersey, acquired a small number of flood-prone homes to create a park around a tidally-influenced river that often floods after heavy rainfalls or strong coastal storms. The strategy has two outcome goals: to remove residents from harm鈥檚 way through voluntary property buyouts, and to create passive recreational features for the enjoyment of all city residents. Several other featured case studies present large-scale, city-wide and regional projects for floodplain restoration and greenway creation, such as Tulsa, OK, Boulder, CO, and Travis County, TX. On the other hand, Rahway, NJ did not have the financial resources to implement large flood control projects such as the other featured communities, nor does it necessarily need projects of that scale. This example from Rahway can be examined as a starting point for restoring urbanized floodways, which could lead to regional greenway projects. It can also serve as an example to communities with localized flooding issues only needing a small project to serve their flood mitigation needs. By soliciting assistance from the community, including the Rahway River Association, Rutgers University, Boy Scout troops, volunteers, and workers through the Sheriff鈥檚 Labor Assistance Program, the city was able to minimize expenses and still create a park that benefits residents, enhances the natural environment, and reduces flooding losses along the Rahway River.

The local economies of many Louisiana communities are tied to their natural resources. Fishing and hunting are important economic and recreational activities throughout the state; therefore, implementing flood protection projects that benefit humans as well the natural environment would be smart choices for Louisiana鈥檚 communities. With many organizations interested in coastal restoration and hurricane recovery, it would not be difficult for Louisiana municipalities to develop partnerships with groups that could help offset costs for the planning, construction, and monitoring of projects similar to what has been accomplished in Rahway, New Jersey.

Economic Impact of the Loma Prieta Earthquake

On October 17, 1989, an earthquake measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale rocked the San Francisco Bay Area in the early evening. Throughout the entire region, the Loma Prieta earthquake caused in 63 deaths and 13,757 injuries. Property losses amounted to 1,018 homes destroyed, 23,408 homes damaged, 366 businesses destroyed, and 3,530 businesses damaged. The total estimated direct economic loss was valued at more than $5.9 billion (US$ 1989 dollars) in public and private property damage. Alameda County, home to the City of Berkeley and the University of California-Berkeley, sustained $1.48 billion (US$ 1989 dollars) in damages to structures. Across the county, 17 businesses were destroyed and 414 were damaged (Kroll et al. 1991). In less than fifteen seconds of ground shaking, the Loma Prieta earthquake awakened a nation to the threats to life and safety posed by strong, urban earthquakes (NISEE 2005). In the 1991-1992 California Legislative Session, 55 bills addressing earthquake resilience and recovery were signed into law (National Research Council 1994).

Addressing Disaster Resilience; Promoting Economic and Social Sustainability

Following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and the 1991 East Bay Hills wildfire, the City of Berkeley crafted a community safety strategy to make itself economically and socially sustainable within a high-risk environment (Chakos et al. 2002). Berkeley voters have approved five local ballot measures to fund the seismic retrofit of municipal facilities and school buildings totaling over $390 million. The city has invested $2 million annually for seismic subsidies and safety programs. The city council adopted a transfer tax rebate program and a permit fee rebate program for homeowner seismic safety actions, and the city operates a loan program and a free home repair program for low income seniors or disabled people. Its rate of retrofit is the highest in the San Francisco Bay area. Designated as a FEMA 鈥淧roject Impact Community,鈥� the City of Berkeley has used that program鈥檚 seed money to build partnerships within the community and the region (Godschalk 2003).

In the City of Berkeley鈥檚 2003 master plan (鈥淕eneral Plan鈥�), disaster resilience goals, objectives, and policies were incorporated to reduce risk from natural hazards. Concerns over seismic safety were incorporated in developing the city鈥檚 approach to development and land use for the next 5-10 years. The General Plan policies provide authority for the development of on-going mitigation and sustainable development programs, incorporating principles of risk reduction into the everyday life of the community (Chakos n.d.).

Following the earthquake, the city also created the Disaster Resistant Berkeley Program to aid citizens and businesses in preparing for natural disasters. The program aids businesses through the development of free resources, presentations, and workshops. Additionally, Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) classes were offered by the fire department to prepare participants for emergency situations, in which the usual emergency responders are overwhelmed during the first hours or days following a disaster and are unable to attend to everyone needing help. These classes can help business owners to become more resilient by providing them with the skills to lessen the effects of disasters (Office of Emergency Services 2013).

By making physical and social resilience major goals, city leaders in Berkeley created a model, which other hazard mitigations organizations can learn from, and against which decisions and actions can be measured and plans and policies can be evaluated. They created an example that decision makers and the public can understand and act to achieve (Godschalk 2003).

The largest employer in the city is the University of California, Berkeley and the associated Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (with approximately 18,000 employees). Aside from the City of Berkeley and Berkeley Unified School District, the largest employment sector is healthcare and biomedical (鈥淐omprehensive Annual Financial Report鈥� 2012). Noting that the majority of economic activity stemmed directly from public institutions, or was directly dependent upon these institutions, seismic retrofitting of school buildings and municipal facilities was a top priority of disaster recovery in Berkeley (Chakos et al. 2002). Retrofitting public buildings was a necessary step in improving disaster reliance and supporting economic stability for the city.

Efforts in disaster resilience appear to have had a major impact on economic resilience as well. Berkeley experienced negative population growth through the 1980s and 1990s, but grew by approximately 10,000 residents from 2000 (population 102,743) to 2010 (population of 112,580). A revitalized arts district began to thrive in the city鈥檚 central corridor by the early 2000s and private investment lead to the redevelopment of commercial buildings (Chakos et al. 2002). Over the last nine fiscal years, there has been a trend of increasing tax revenue collected by the city (鈥淐omprehensive Annual Financial Report鈥� 2012).

Non-Structural Measures

After enduring a major earthquake in 1989, Berkeley, California focused not only on recovery, but also on strengthening resilience to future disasters. Because earthquakes occur without warning, Berkeley focused on improving structures to withstand earthquakes. Berkeley voters have approved ballot measures to fund the seismic retrofit of municipal facilities and school buildings totaling over $390 million. The city invested $2 million annually for seismic subsidies and safety programs.

The 2003 General Plan (aka master plan) pulls from lessons learned from the Loma Prieta earthquake. Policies in the plan provide authority for the development of on-going mitigation and sustainable development programs, incorporating principles of risk reduction into the everyday life of the community.

Selection/Funding Criteria

While some funding for earthquake resilience came from the state government, most of the funding for local programs was levied through a voter-approved tax. Citizens decided to invest in disaster resilience for their community.

Policy Changes

The 2003 General Plan was drafted to help incorporate disaster resilience measures throughout the community.

Leveraged Resources

Designated as a 鈥樷€楶roject Impact Community,鈥欌€� the City of Berkeley has used that program鈥檚 seed money to build partnerships within the community and the region (Godschalk 2003).

Lessons Learned

Investing in disaster resilience has helped Berkeley rebound from the 1989 earthquake and 1991 wildfire and contributed to the city鈥檚 economic growth. Although the state offered some assistance in the recovery of Berkeley, most of the initiatives in the city were driven by citizens and local government.

The Town of Pike Road, with a population of 5,406, is primarily a rural community located on the edge of the city limits of Montgomery, Alabama. After flourishing as an unincorporated 鈥渢own鈥� in Montgomery County for over 175 years, the threat of being annexed by the growing Montgomery County next door led to the consideration of incorporation. When the City of Montgomery developed a plan to run a highway bypass loop through the middle of town, the people in Pike Road gained enough voter and financial support to become an incorporated town in 1997. Incorporation has given Pike Road the ability to zone land for future use, leverage taxes, provide public services and annex properties to enable growth. Although the incorporation of Pike Road generated new opportunities, it also created new challenges for the community, such as maintaining roads, providing public services to citizens and staying ahead of the neighboring city鈥檚 efforts to annex land.

There was also a concern that the development needed to address these challenges would alter the town鈥檚鈥渟ense of place.鈥� In an effort to address these various issues, the community of Pike Road decided to implement Smart Growth principles in conjunction with zoning to protect the rural small town character of their community, establishing it as the first community in Alabama to adopt a zoning ordinance incorporating a Smart Code. The Pike Road Euclidean Zoning Ordinance and Form-Based Smart Code work together, allowing communities to grow and develop in appropriate areas while preserving and enhancing the town鈥檚 historical character. The Smart Code includes more aesthetic provisions than many traditional land use ordinances. It also promotes flexibility and creativity and allows for more complimentary uses in the same 鈥渮one鈥� without requiring variances.

Community

To ensure the goals of the community were met, the Town Planning Commission was created to develop appropriate codes and ordinances. Comprised of town residents, the Commission addressed the community鈥檚 priorities, including the protection of farmland and open space, mixed land uses, increased walkability, and preservation of a strong 鈥渟ense of place.鈥�

The neighborhood known as 鈥淭he Waters鈥� was created in Pike Road as a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND), which includes a mix of housing types and small businesses that promotes walkability. These types of development provide residents with amenities such as community schools, police/fire stations, and sports/recreational facilities that promote learning, safety, and public health. TNDs can be an economic development driver for an entire town.
The 2003 Zoning Ordinance of Pike Road, Alabama incorporated Smart Code Principles.
The Pike Road Natural Trail, funded by a Transportation Enhancement Grant from the Federal Highway Administration, connects many of the town鈥檚 neighborhoods and parks, offering alternative transportation and recreation options.

Lessons Learned

With the new autonomy to guide development in their town, the people of Pike Road have adopted a combination of land use and development regulations and standards to achieve a rural town character with access to urban amenities. By choosing to become incorporated, the town was able to identify their goals and form regulations to specifically address each goal. The Town of Pike Road now boasts a 300:1 resident-to-city council representative ratio, compared to the 21,500:1 ratio in the City of Montgomery. Being a small town allows greater access to elected officials and a stronger voice for citizens in local government.

The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and Division of Emergency Management required all of Florida鈥檚 coastal counties and municipalities to adopt a Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plan (PDRP). The Hillsborough County Plan, completed in 2010, complimented other local comprehensive plans and mitigation and emergency management strategies by identifying policies, operational strategies, and roles and responsibilities for implementation that will guide decision making in post-disaster redevelopment. It was chosen as one of five Florida communities to participate in a pilot program, whose PDRP now serves as a model for the rest of the State.

Hillsborough County鈥檚 PDRP was developed for disasters that require long-term redevelopment efforts, focusing on community redevelopment and restoring economic viability to the area. It emphasizes hazard mitigation and community improvement in a way that is consistent with its local comprehensive plan. Because its framework for implementation is flexible, the plan can be used at a range of scales and for multiple hazards, from minor localized events to major disasters affecting entire communities. Disasters are broken down into three categories based on the severity of resulting damage: catastrophic disaster (requiring state and federal assistance, including military involvement), major disaster (usually exceeds local capabilities and requires some state and federal assistance), and minor disaster (falls mostly within response capabilities of local government). Implementation actions are grouped into pre-disaster, short-term recovery, and long-term redevelopment phases.

Environment

Post-disaster monitoring programs ensure that air and water quality standards are maintained.

Community

One of the county鈥檚 main concerns post-disaster is enabling people to return to work and reopening businesses.

By adapting post-disaster needs for transportation, temporary housing, and the reopening of schools and childcare, employees are able to return to work faster, allowing business operations to resume.

Infrastructure

Technical Advisory Committees are used to facilitate a smooth transition and coordination between entities.

The plan outlines a list of entities that the Infrastructure and Public Facilities Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) can consult with on different issues in order to return infrastructure to working condition.
Critical infrastructure interdependencies for electric, gas and oil, water, communication, and transportation are outlined in order to help manage post-disaster transitions and responsibilities.

Process

Because coordination between the many entities and communities involved in disaster response was prioritized, Technical Advisory Committees are used to create smooth communication between these groups.

Assessments of existing capacity are taken, necessary updates are identified, and technical advisory committees are formed to prepare for disaster conditions.
The TAC鈥檚 role is specified and groups are created to coordinate related efforts to achieve a more sustainable plan and a faster recovery.
Expected issues during a disaster are outlined, related policy and procedures are stated, and strategies are suggested, including time frames, responsible parties and action items.

Lessons Learned

The Hillsborough County Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plan complements the local comprehensive plan, local mitigation strategy, and comprehensive emergency management plan. The clear institutional framework that outlines who is responsible for specific action items reduces the risk of overlaps and gaps in implementation. By suggesting milestones that may show a successful completion of the long-term redevelopment period, monitoring and evaluation of progress is possible. Major updates are made every 5 years and post-disaster updates are also suggested in order to keep the plan relevant.

The Glenwillow Town Center Strategic Plan facilitates the creation of a vibrant village center through the rehabilitation and reuse of existing historic structures. The plan assesses existing conditions through case studies; analyzes the budgets and impacts of specific projects; compares pros and cons of various scenarios of implementation; identifies potential funding sources; and discusses phasing options of proposed improvements. Glenwillow identifies the following areas and projects of interest: train depot relocation, general store and company houses renovation, vacant land analysis, streetscapes, gateways, general strategies, and design guidelines.

The 2009 Glenwillow Master Plan incorporates and provides a framework for the Town Center Strategic Plan by including a long-range land use plan for the county and tying the Town Center Strategic Plan into the larger context and goals of the community. A road capacity study was performed to assess if current infrastructure was sufficient to handle new growth in order to develop a future land use plan that can dictate industrial parcels for cluster development and attract knowledge-based business, while preserving more natural areas. The county also expects to coordinate planning and land use efforts regionally by attempting to buffer land on the border of the county or make development compatible with land use of adjacent areas.

Community

The Town Center Strategic Plan was developed with the purpose of rehabilitating and expanding the remains of the former company town.

The Master Plan incorporates the Town Center Plan and addresses recent growth to develop economically and attract businesses, while retaining its historic buildings and cultural heritage through the use of gateways and design guidelines.

Infrastructure

An inventory of existing infrastructure was taken to prioritize future improvements through a Capital Improvements Plan.

The Plan will reflect changing needs, revenue streams, development trends, and technological advances in infrastructure.

Process

The Master Plan incorporates the existing Town Center Strategic Plan in order to align goals and strategies moving forward. The train depot rehabilitation is prioritized in order to create a focal point for the district.

Improvements to the train depot were possible because of the cooperation between the village and Midwest Railway; the village is responsible for foundation and structural improvements, while Midwest Railway will make minor cosmetic repairs, paint the exterior, and build the interior museum.

Lessons Learned

While the Town Center Strategic Plan does an adequate job of analyzing current conditions, setting goals, and providing solutions to possible issues that may arise, it was not developed in conjunction with a master plan for the entire area. The subsequent 2009 Glenwillow Master Plan incorporates the Town Center Plan, grounding it in the context of a more extensive analysis of the county, yet it still fails to develop overall goals that have more meaningful direction.

This plan is similar to the Mandeville plan in that they both seek to eliminate vacant lots, improve the streetscape, erect town gateways, outline a town center plan, and set specific guidelines for new houses and the rehabilitation of existing structures to enhance the local image and maintain the local history. In addition, historic elements of buildings are given priority and standards for rehabilitation are set. They also encourage the incorporation of new technology (e.g. storm windows and doors).

Western Kansas is a large region, approximately the size of Ohio, known mostly for growing grain and raising livestock. The region has a relatively small population of approximately 350,000 people, with no one county having more than 40,000 people. The small, isolated communities in the region were facing problems with attracting new businesses and retaining residents. In addition, the needs of western Kansas communities were not a major concern for most members of the state legislature. In the 1990s, state lawmakers proposed consolidating the state鈥檚 105 counties into 13 mega-counties, but the initiative failed to pass. Western Kansas counties were interested in regional cooperation, but not in losing their unique identities.

The rural, regional approach to the problem is the western Kansas Rural Economic Development Alliance (wKREDA), where north and south subregions are represented equally on the board of directors and no one community鈥檚 interests are prioritized over another community鈥檚. The wKREDA is a 501(c)(6) nonprofit organization, which originally included 46 counties and now represents 53 of the state鈥檚 105 counties. Functioning mainly as an economic development alliance, wKREDA has marketed western Kansas as a region with much success.

The alliance has succeeded in promoting the region to industries that can benefit from what western Kansas has to offer: extensive open space, inexpensive property, pro-farming communities and high-quality feed production. Starting with the low-hanging fruit of dairy farms, wKREDA was able to build a strong regional network and industry respect, allowing continued success in other industries. Since 1995, wKREDA has helped bring to the region over 20 mega-dairy operations, many smaller dairy farms, small-scale manufacturing, retail, value-added agriculture, distribution and transportation support service businesses, agro-tourism and warehouses. A focus on the wind energy industry has also developed.

There is still a fair amount of competition between Kansas communities, but it is friendly competition. The communities know that when they pool their resources, they are able to bring in far larger companies than any one community could alone. Working together through wKREDA, the communities of Western Kansas also have a strong collective voice in state government. After decades of ignoring the western half of the state, lawmakers in Topeka (the capital) now listen.

Community

Afraid of losing their unique identities, participation in a regional collaboration with Western Kansas communities had previously been rejected. Yet, as counties began facing economic declines independently, they joined wKREDA. Participation in wKREDA provided economic assistance without loss of individuality. For instance, wKREDA develops annual position papers that outline issues of concern among all wKREDA members. However, when counties don鈥檛 agree on a particular issue, wKREDA does not comment to the Kansas Legislature, allowing individuals to lobby on their own behalf.

The alliance facilitates regional networking through quarterly meetings, conferences, e-mail lists and a website to promote economic development and cooperation, and increase legislative clout.
The alliance lobbies on behalf of their communities for tax incentives to attract and retain agricultural businesses.
Assistance is offered to businesses looking to move to western Kansas and support is given to existing businesses through the alliance.
By helping rural communities leverage their resources, the alliance allows Western Kansas to compete for business internationally.

Lessons Learned

Regional coordination and cooperation can greatly benefit the local economies of participating communities. Despite their hesitation to form a regional governing body, the counties of western Kansas have made major strides in economic resiliency and improved their influence in state government through participation in the wKREDA.

In 2013, the Genesee County (MI) Land Bank received a $15,000 grant to pilot a cost-effective solution to both the beautification and maintenance concerns surrounding publicly owned vacant lots in the City of Flint. Like many other Rust Belt cities, Flint has seen its economy and population collapse since World War II. Among a host of other issues, these declines have severely depressed Flint鈥檚 real estate market, precluding many of the nation鈥檚 contemporary best practices in vacant land reuse. While many larger cities aim to transition vacant lots to productive uses like urban agriculture, green infrastructure, or recreational green space, Flint鈥檚 demographic challenges require different kinds of interventions.

With foreclosures mounting and the municipal budget dwindling in the shrinking city, the Land Bank, who owns more than 5,000 vacant lots, is opting to replace the sprawling, quick-growing, and labor intensive plant species that cover vacant lots with less demanding varieties like clover. At 10-12 inches tall, native white clover grows less aggressively than do more common grasses and weeds, resulting in cheaper, less frequent maintenance for the Land Bank and city. The Land Bank anticipates that clover lots will only have to be mown semi-annually. While white clover鈥檚 roots are persistent enough to suppress weed growth, they are shallow enough to be easily removed when lots are ready for redevelopment. Finally, in addition to providing forage for wildlife, clover鈥檚 nitrogen fixing capabilities mean that the crop can actually improve soil conditions on vacant properties where structural demolition has introduced contaminants into the ground.

Still in its initial pilot phase, the sheer amount of vacant properties in Flint mean that wider application remains a challenge. Indeed, officials acknowledge that a more universal implementation 鈥渨ould require a significant amount of funds over a number of years.鈥� However, the Land Bank is optimistic that, should the clover approach to vacant lot management prove successful, the long-term savings will justify the upfront costs of adopting the practice citywide.

Environment

Clover is an excellent nitrogen fixer, improving conditions in soil compromised by demolition and years of neglect.

Community

The manicured, low-growing profile of clover lots mitigates negative visual impact of blight. Improved soil can make vacant lots more attractive and functional for future community uses such as agriculture.

Economic Advantage

Low-cost intervention frees up precious public resources for spending in other areas. Improved appearance of urban fabric helps maintain property values and facilitates economic investment.

Implementation and Funding

The Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative Network, a regional economic development community organization that supports a variety of projects related to agriculture, wildlife stewardship, water resources, and land use, provided $15,000 to support an initial pilot program.

Lessons Learned

While there are countless examples of innovative adaptive reuses for vacant urban land, not all approaches are appropriate in every community. In some places, vacancy is an opportunity for interactive reuse like urban agriculture and environmental education. In others, like Flint, the economic, demographic, or even physical climate might not be appropriate for these kinds of high-maintenance uses. This kind of intervention is successful in Michigan, where plant growth is curtailed by long, cold winters that naturally keep overgrowth under control and maintenance costs low. However, Flint鈥檚 clover strategy would be more difficult (and potentially impossible) in a more tropical climate like New Orleans鈥�, where warm, humid conditions facilitate more aggressive vegetative growth. Ultimately, the takeaway from this project is that strategies for targeting blight on vacant publicly owned parcels need to be sensitive and responsive to the community context.

In June 2011, Hammond adopted the Hammond Comprehensive Master Plan, which established a collective vision and set of policies to direct future development in the city. The plan balances quality of life concerns and economic opportunities, while promoting sustainable and responsible land use and development decisions. To help ensure the realization of the goals laid out in the Comprehensive Master Plan, the City of Hammond has developed a new Unified Development Code (UDC). This comprehensive zoning ordinance not only codifies the intentions of the master plan, it combines the city鈥檚 different regulatory statutes into one cohesive document. Furthermore, in preparing the UDC, the consultants conducted a rigorous set of audits of the Comprehensive Master Plan, to ensure that the regulations spelled out in the code respond accurately and appropriately to the desires of the master plan, and to highlight items requiring further action.

Resilience Planning in Action

The City of Hammond鈥檚 new Unified Development Code will help promote local resilience by providing a clear set of land use and development rules and regulations for achieving the community鈥檚 goals, as well as clarifying potentially conflicting provisions from multiple ordinances. In light of ongoing and expected rapid growth, the Hammond UDC integrates multiple regulations to mitigate the potential for new development to increase flood risks and subsequent impacts on the community. These broader impacts are recognized to include costs of recovery, infrastructure, and business down-time, thus elevating the concern, and need for action, beyond on-site flood risks.

Environment

The Hammond UDC address environmental factors through specific requirements related to drainage. Overall, the overriding concept is that any new development should not adversely impact or change natural drainage patterns, and a Drainage Study is required for many permits.

Any new construction or modification must demonstrate that it will not make any changes to the flow of water through the property, including the location and amount of water that enters and exits the property.
Flood information that determines regulatory standards and that is provided in the permit review process, must include not only FEMA designated floodways and floodplains, but also record flood extents and levels. In some cases, the greater of these determines on-site regulations.
Stormwater management proposals are encouraged to maximize efficient use of natural drainage systems.
Any proposed development on land abutting any drainage canal must be reviewed not only by the City Engineer but also by the Drainage District.
Permit requirements for any grading work must include significant information relating to impacts to runoff and flooding, including limits of floodplain, existing and proposed drainage structures or features, soils, topography, erosion and siltation control plans, and drainage calculations.
Stormwater runoff from a site must not cause detrimental impacts not only in the quantity of runoff, but also in the quality of the water, to avoid pollution of watercourses with nutrients, sediments, or other earthen material generated on or caused by surface runoff on or across the permit area.

Planned developments have specific open space requirements, including 50% greenways and a minimum of 1 acre of dry detention basins or retention areas.

Community

The Hammond UDC promotes resilience through consideration for economic development and community character 鈥� and how these priorities are undermined by flood risks. In addition, the UDC provides clear information and expectations for residents and potential development. This creates a positive climate for investment in a community, through a straightforward, clearly described permitting process and relevant information.

The UDC recognizes and promotes flood protection and mitigation for the goals of minimizing prolonged business interruptions, minimizing future flood blight areas, and minimizing the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public.
The UDC requires that potential buyers be notified if a property is in a flood area.
The Hammond Historic District considers community character concerns when fostering economic development.
The UDC lays out a clear review authority and includes a system for managing disputes or resolving conflicts.

Infrastructure

The Hammond UDC will foster the community鈥檚 resilience by ensuring that all infrastructure is constructed to meet the highest standards 鈥� both technically and in line with state and parish regulations 鈥� as well as to promote the community鈥檚 character. The thorough and technical requirements laid out in the code clarify required specifications, without being overly restrictive or limiting innovative solutions.

Roads must incorporate local flood risks. The minimum road grade for local streets should be greater than 1 foot above the 50-year flood elevation or record inundation elevation.
Large flood control infrastructure projects are discouraged, if other measures can be used to mitigate risk, in the interest of minimizing expenditure of public money on costly infrastructure.
Reductions in required parking are available based on specific uses, factors, and criteria. This ensures an efficient provision of infrastructure and encourages investment in areas with favorable conditions, such as access to public transit, mixed-use developments, or alternative transportation infrastructure. Furthermore, it limits stormwater runoff.
Landscape requirements can be met through a variety of interventions. Each measure equates to a predetermined number of points, and a set number has to be met to fulfill the requirement. This ensures the main goals are met, while allowing for innovative, alternative, or more economically viable options.
Street-section details in the Appendix provide clarity regarding street and community infrastructure requirements.
Road construction or improvements require a series of studies, including an impact study, trip generation modeling, and a soil boring report to determine appropriate materials for paving.

Next Steps

The next step for the City of Hammond is to implement the Unified Development Code to help realize the goals of the city鈥檚 comprehensive plan. The incentive tools outlined to encourage specific development within the overlay districts

The extensive, multi-part audit has highlighted additional items to be addressed. Furthermore, the approach of conducting such a thorough audit sets a good precedent for the city to evaluate needs and actions moving forward.

The City of Monroe, on the banks of the Ouachita River in Northeast Louisiana, has experienced a number of changes in the past years that have challenged its resilience. While the city serves as an important hub for northeast Louisiana and surrounding regions, it has suffered economically from the contraction in forest product industries and the closing of the Guide Automotive Plant. The impacts of Hurricane Katrina prompted a growth spurt in Monroe, helping to revitalize its economy and bring further changes to the region.

In response to these changes, Monroe adopted a new comprehensive plan in 2008, One City, One Future, which sets the overall policy framework for future development and growth in the city to the year 2020. This Comprehensive Plan addresses future land use, transportation, parks and recreation, and other infrastructure, as well as environmental challenges and opportunities. Through the comprehensive planning process, Monroe identified specific priorities for its future, namely fostering growth in jobs and the local economy, enhancing educational opportunities, and beautifying the city.

To ensure the goals of the Comprehensive Plan are realized, and through funding from OCD鈥檚 CRPP Program, Monroe commissioned new Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. In addition, and in keeping with their history of urban planning, the City of Monroe completed an update to the city鈥檚 Comprehensive Master Plan. Finally, the consultants hired to work on the planning documents for Monroe have also produced a report titled 鈥淩ecommendations for Sustainability & Resiliency in Monroe City Codes and Plans.鈥� This report raises ideas and makes suggestions to help guide the city鈥檚 actions moving forward, but in a less political manner, as it is non-binding and did not have to be approved by the City Council.

Resilience Planning in Action

Monroe鈥檚 new Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations help build resilience by clarifying requirements and regulations, incorporating concerns of environmental risk, and promoting economic development and community stability.

Environment

Monroe鈥檚 new zoning documents address environmental concerns at different scales in two main ways: by valuing natural sites and environmental systems, and by responding to environmental hazards.

Planned Unit Developments prioritize environmentally sensitive design, preservation of natural features, and functional and beneficial uses of open space.
Corridor design standards encourage reducing provision of redundant parking to minimize surface runoff.
Pervious surface cover is encouraged where feasible.
New or expanded off-street parking facilities, with 25 or more spaces, must filter or store the first inch of rainwater during each rain events, through use of pervious paving, rain gardens, bioswales, detention areas, constructed wetlands, or other methods approved by the City Engineer.
Wind risks to mobile homes are minimized by requiring specific ground anchor methods and number and types of tie-downs.

Community

The main focus of Monroe鈥檚 new Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations follows those of its Comprehensive Plan: to promote economic development and stable communities. These new documents present land use and design regulations to help achieve these goals. Specifically, several of the special use districts help focus on multiple, and complementary benefits, thereby fostering strong neighborhoods.

The Riverfront District special use district is established to promote revitalization and investment in the area by cultivating the unique characteristics of the area.
Open Space Recreation Districts are established to provide important connections between residential neighborhoods and public amenities through a range of recreational options and specific commercial activities.

Infrastructure

Monroe鈥檚 new ordinances ensure adequate and appropriate provision of infrastructure, given a range of contexts and needs.

To ensure that adequate infrastructure is constructed for a new subdivision, before beginning construction, the developer is required to provide a financial commitment, such as through a certified check or performance bond, which could cover the total construction costs of all required infrastructure improvements. This guarantees that the new infrastructure will be completed as required. If it is not, the city has the right to draw on those funds to finish construction.
Stormwater Management Requirements of the Subdivision Regulations not only prohibit adverse downstream drainage or flooding impacts, but also require that all on-site retention and detention systems be based on a 25-year storm event.
To efficiently allocate infrastructure resources, the zoning ordinance allows for shared parking facilities. Specifically, off-street parking spaces for separate uses may be provided collectively for two or more uses with different hours of operation in order for each use to meet its minimum off-street requirement.

Next Steps

The immediate next steps for Monroe are two-fold. First, the new Zoning Ordinances and Subdivision Regulations shall be adopted and implemented. Second, the findings from the consultants鈥� report 鈥淩ecommendations for Sustainability & Resiliency in Monroe City Codes and Plans鈥� should be incorporated into the city鈥檚 planning documents and process. In addition, the local government staff of Monroe will complete a training session with the consultants, to inform them about the new regulations as well as how to better integrate hazards concerns and into local planning.

In 2002, St. Mary Parish prepared its first comprehensive master plan, which was approved by resolution in December of that same year. A major component of the plan was a first-time parish wide zoning ordinance. The Parish has since established a planning and zoning office, planning and zoning commission, and board of adjustment, as well as completed several amendments to its land use maps. However, the recent spate of storms has made the significance of planning and mitigation all the more apparent.

St. Mary Parish is located in south Louisiana near the center of the state鈥檚 coastline. With its proximity to the coast and the Atchafalaya River, the Parish is subject to storm and riverine flooding throughout the year. In particular, the Atchafalaya River generates flooding in the region on a near annual basis during winter and spring. The Parish is also subject to stormwater events and backwater flooding resulting from the combination of riverine and surge events. State and Federal officials rated the Parish eighth in flood-related damages from Hurricanes Gustav and Ike.

Due to St. Mary Parish鈥檚 geographical location, vulnerabilities related to climate change are increasing. Through the new Unified Development Code, the Parish has been able to integrate ordinances that mitigate flood hazards and design standards that promote appropriate density in specific locations.

Environment

A key component to resilience planning is the integration of Hazard Mitigation and Urban Planning. St. Mary Parish is particularly vulnerable to riverine flooding, storm surge, and backwater flooding. The Unified Development Code includes standards that mitigate flood hazards to residential and non-residential structures by requiring certain mitigation activities. These regulations protect the natural environment as well as citizens鈥� property.

Proposed Actions

Require structures to be built at or above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and non-residential structures to be either built at or above BFE or the structure below BFE be water tight.
The document provides opening specifications for enclosed, waterproofed structures, ie minimum opening requirements; location above grade, etc.
Manufactured homes must be elevated and anchored to resist flotation, collapse, or lateral movement.
Base Flood Elevation data required for new subdivision proposals.
Prohibit the use of fill in floodplain
Prohibit man-made alterations of sand dunes and mangrove stands in the floodplain.
Infrastructure
St. Mary Parish employs a levee protection system to reduce its vulnerability to flooding. This requires careful consideration for how internal stormwater is managed. The plan acknowledges that it is in the public interest to control stormwater runoff increases due to construction and development activities, and protect from environmental degradation through soil erosion, stream channel erosion, and nonpoint source pollution.

Proposed Actions

Require separate storm and sewer systems in new developments.
Require a Drainage Impact Study for any project which subdivides, develops, improves or builds upon any residential, industrial, or commercial site, unless development increases runoff by less than 10%, or impervious surfaces of development are less than 20% of site area.

Community

The Unified Development Code does several things to promote a sense of community and ensure quality development in safe places across the Parish. Aspects of the code include various design standards, construction standards for building in high risk areas, and new planning and economic development oversight entities for the region.

Proposed Actions

Establish a new Regional Planning Commission, the Acadiana Regional Planning Commission.
Establish architectural standards for Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TND) per district (Center, General, and Edge) and pedestrian elements.
Implement building design standards to protect quality of building materials, property values, and community character.
Establish density and intensity of development and common open space requirements.
In coastal high hazard zones, all new construction to be located landward of mean high tide.
In coastal high hazard zone, all new construction and substantially improved structures shall be elevated on pilings and columns with the lowest horizontal member at or above BFE; and footings designed to withstand lateral movements due to wind or water loads.
New construction and subdivision improvements have a space below lowest floor free of obstruction or with non-load-bearing break away walls.

Morgan City is defined by its relationship to water. The economy, culture, and urban form are all functions of Morgan City鈥檚 position on the Atchafalaya River, Intracoastal Canal, and Lake Palourde, yet its proximity to these major bodies of water increases flood risks. Following damages and changes in base flood elevations resulting from Hurricane Katrina, new levee construction and upgrades were made to reduce the impacts of flooding. Despite increased protection, the city is considering the ongoing risks from sea level rise, subsidence, and storms as it maps out a plan for future growth and development.

The city is using a character-based approach to describe future land use that recognizes these risks and the importance of balancing economic, social, and environmental health for sustainable, long-term growth. The Future Land Use and Development Plan (FLUDP) describes the goals and objectives to achieve the type of development the community desires in light of existing environmental conditions. It sets the stage for the city鈥檚 Zoning and Land Development Code (ZLDC), which guides investment and ensures new development is consistent with the goals outlined in the FLUDP.

The FLUDP and ZLDC seek to improve dilapidated neighborhoods by identifying and targeting areas for investment. Opportunities for growth in the city are limited by population declines, insufficient number of sites for water-based development, and adequate lands to accommodate water-based development. In addition, much of Morgan City鈥檚 urban area exists in the older parts of the community that have been neglected and are in need of reinvestment. Revitalization of these critical urban areas is essential to the vitality of the community.

The FLUDP categorizes neighborhoods into conservation, stabilization, improvement, and redevelopment to evaluate and prioritize improvements. It also sets a plan for the growth and diversification of Morgan City鈥檚 economy. The new ZLDC refocuses the zoning ordinance to emphasize the character and form of development in appropriate zoning districts. It also establishes better screening and buffer yard provisions, and it preserves the city鈥檚 surrounding rural character.

Morgan City faces both near- and long-term risks from sea level rise, land loss, and storms. The city鈥檚 future vision must consider these risks while striving to maintain its importance as an industrial center. Both the FLUDP and ZLDC serve to guide future development in a way that contributes to the community鈥檚 overall character and minimally impacts the area鈥檚 natural resources to foster resilience and sustainability. They recognize that any short-term development must be considered in the context of a long-term vision that is based on sustainable growth and reinvestment.

Environment

Morgan City is ensuring that any new or substantially improved properties do not adversely affect the environment, and the ZLDC aims to minimize the impacts of flooding caused by new development on neighboring properties.

Strengthens the process for permitting procedures in floodplains by requiring the following information for development in special flood hazard areas: elevation of the lowest floor of all new or improved structures; elevation to which the structure will be floodproofed; certificate of compliance to floodproofing criteria; and a description of extent to which any natural water systems will be altered or relocated due to proposed development.
Prevents the overcrowding of land and the unnecessary concentration of population.
Uses development patterns that preserve and increase the amount of pervious surfaces to mitigate the impacts of storms, expand green spaces, and reduce the heat island effect with no additional strain on external infrastructure systems.
Prevents or regulates the construction of flood barriers that will unnaturally divert floodwaters or which increases flood hazards to other lands.
Landscaping incorporates storm water runoff best management practices, such as through the use of vegetated swales, bio-infiltration, and other types of water quality measures.

Infrastructure

The ZLDC aims to ensure that transportation systems are carefully planned and function smoothly. It also steers development in places where adequate infrastructure already exists and limits development where facilities do not exist.

Calls for the diversification of energy production and distribution infrastructure through the exploration of renewable energy sources and appropriate redundancies in the distribution network to reduce damage from major natural disasters.
Seeks to improve transportation by reducing congestion on roadways, enhancing multimodal travel opportunities, and reducing travel times.

Community

The ZLDC supports community growth with adequate public ways and utilities, as well as educational and recreational facilities to support healthy surroundings and quality of life. Traditional, conventional, and mixed neighborhoods each have respective characteristics that function in their distinct role within the city, and the FLUDP seeks to optimize the distinct neighborhoods that exist today. The ZLDC and FLUDP also ensure that the needs of businesses and industry are being met.

Promotes strategic growth, development, improvement, and redevelopment of the community.
Provides for sufficient commercial and industrial property to allow for economic development within the city.
Preserves and protects places and areas of historic, cultural, scenic, or architectural importance and significance.
Imposes specific elevation and other flood control standards for all new or substantially improved residential and nonresidential structures, including recreational vehicles, in special flood hazard areas.
Considers employing a form-based code to allow for greater variety in the city鈥檚 residential makeup.
Attempts to improve the community appearance by emphasizing the character and form of development in appropriate zoning districts.
Aims to improve the compatibility and transitions between districts by establishing better screening and buffer yard provisions to increase compatibility between competing uses and to preserve the rural character in the city鈥檚 periphery.

Next Steps

The Morgan City Future Land Use and Development Plan will prioritize key projects based on certain criteria to help decision-makers focus resources in a way that will achieve the overall long-term vision for growth. The city expects to pair new developments with investments in capital and neighborhood improvement programs, particularly related to public amenities, to maximize the impact of new developments on the city and improve quality of life. The city is also considering other codes and standards in addition to the ZLDC, such as municipal building code and public works and engineering standards, to achieve a more sustainable future.

In the winter of 2008 the City adopted the Slidell Tomorrow Master Plan, a set of policies regarding future land uses and roadways, annexation, and strategies for unique areas of the City, such as Olde Towne and the Fremaux corridor. The Plan identified the following priorities: sidewalk connectivity, property maintenance, traffic, flooding, land use conflicts, stronger development regulations, and commercial building aesthetics. To ensure that the goals of the Slidell Tomorrow Master Plan are enacted, the City of Slidell considered appropriate policies, ordinances, and codes for accomplishing those goals within the local context. In 2011 the city developed a Strategic Assessment and Annotated Outline to achieve that goal. One set of needs specifically identified in that assessment was the lack of direction, regulation, or compliance with local codes facing homeowners planning to raise homes in the floodplain with the assistance of FEMA Hazard Mitigation funds. By late 2011, much of the post-Katrina repair work and many of the FEMA funded development projects, such as a new municipal auditorium, were being completed. Yet many homeowners eligible to receive funding to raise their homes out of the floodplain, had not applied or started their projects. The city was concerned about regulating these new and raised homes 鈥� in terms of both structure and character 鈥� as well as dealing with anticipated widespread variance requests. In response, Slidell applied for and received funding through the Community Resiliency Pilot Program to amend sections of their Code of Ordinances to address these specific issues.

Environment

The environmental risks to residents and property owners in Slidell, particularly from flooding, are clear. This amendment to the code of ordinances addresses these risks as homeowners look to raise their new or existing homes, at multiple scales and levels of detail.

Proposed Actions

Regulations and requirements are provided for how homes should be raised and/or flood proofed.
Specific requirements for enclosing raised foundations are presented, explained, and diagrammed.
Break-away walls, enclosing raised foundations, must either be attached to the residence or heavy enough to ensure they will sink, to limit water-borne debris.

Community

Given the fundamental change to development of homes and properties and Slidell, there was considerable concern over changes to the character of the community. This amendment to the Code of Ordinances addresses a number of specific technical concerns as well as ensuring continued development in a consistent architectural and stylistic character. In addition, the benefits to resilience from this ordinance amendment relate to the clarity, transparency of this document and how it will facilitate the permitting process for city administrators, residents, and developers alike.

Proposed Actions

Use of materials, siting of entrances, height lines, etc. are all detailed to ensure a very cohesive character.
The clarity of explanations and wide-spread use of images and diagrams throughout.
Amendments to the Ordinance provide clarity for specific regulations and requirements.
Common requests for variance due to noncompliance of newly raised structures with local building codes are addressed in the amendment. One typical issue is stairs to raised entrances encroaching on required setbacks.
A set of guidelines are provided, that, if adhered to and approved by the planning staff, do not require the homeowner to apply for a variance.

Next Steps

Implementation of the March 2013 Amendment to the Code of Ordinances will help the city address its concerns over regulation and character of raised homes throughout the community. Additional next steps will include other actions to ensure the realization of the goals of the 2008 Slidell Tomorrow Master Plan and in response to the 2011 Strategic Assessment and Annotated Outline.

Mandeville, LA, located on the North Shore of Lake Pontchartrain, faces considerable threats from flooding and storm surge during tropical storms. The community cherishes their lakefront location and views, and does not want to sacrifice these for the protection provided by levees or a sea wall. Nevertheless, they recognize the risk of flooding, increasing risks as sea levels rise, and the significant damage the community experienced during Hurricanes Katrina (2005) and Isaac (2012). Hazard mitigation grants funded most affected homes to be raised in the aftermath of those two storms. However, a larger, coordinated effort to address the civic needs of the community and the Town Center as a whole was needed.

The Old Mandeville Town Plan builds on the efforts and recommendations of the city鈥檚 2007 Comprehensive Plan, a 2007 small area plan, and a 2006 redevelopment plan for the city, which all 鈥渆mphasized the critical need for a Town Center that will locate civic institutions within a mixed-use, walkable and economically thriving area.鈥� In determining the best location for a Town Center, the town paired the needs of economic opportunity, proximity to the highway, and existing infrastructure, with safety from flood and wind hazards from tropical storms.

The Old Mandeville Town Center Plan outlines an approach for ensuring the Old Town Center is resilient. It focuses on the related issues of economy, character, and disaster mitigation, which are all intertwined in ensuring a sustainable and resilient community.

Environment

The local environment and environmental risks plays an important role in choosing a location and appropriate interventions for different projects within the Old Mandeville Town Center Plan. Although environmental concerns are not presented in the beginning of the plan as the predominant priority, the weight of these concerns becomes evident in the details of the plan.

Proposed Actions

The plan directs new and targeted investment to areas of the city that are naturally least vulnerable to the flood, surge, and wind impacts of tropical storms.
The plan considers not only existing threats from natural hazards, but how these will change in the future 鈥� and how the city should prepare for them. Specifically, Mandeville is integrating future projections over two main concerns. The first is rising sea levels 鈥� and how that will exacerbate flood and surge probabilities off Lake Ponchartrain. The second concern addresses disappearing wetlands along Louisiana鈥檚 southern coast 鈥� and how that will allow for an increased number and intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes to impact Mandeville.

Infrastructure

Infrastructure investments are recommended to align with the concerns and priorities for the community character, economy, and environmental risk facing the City of Mandeville.

Community

The plan looks to strengthen the local economy with particular focus on the character of the Mandeville community.

Proposed Actions

The creation of a Mandeville Pattern Book provides guidance for both design and resiliency in promoting the local character. It also draws on the 鈥淟ouisiana Speaks鈥� Plan 鈥� in encouraging smarter growth and specific elements of Louisiana architecture.
The focus of economic growth is based in realistic expectations of what the city has to offer and its relationship within the region.
The creation of an Economic Resiliency Study looked at both short-term and long-term resilience.Next Steps

Next Steps

The next steps are plainly outlined in the Old Mandeville Town Center Plan. Furthermore, it identifies and explains priorities and the time-sensitiveness of different projects and initiatives outlined in the plan. This provides the city with a clear set of actions to move forward in a way that ensures the plan will be realized, and the citizens with great transparency about the workings of their local government.

Proposed Actions

The plan encourages the city enact 6-month building moratoria, to resolve preliminary negotiations related to the Town Center project.
The city鈥檚 available street-building funds are recommended to fund the traffic circles, as part of the Gateway Project.
A special use district for the downtown is encouraged to be incorporated into the local zoning ordinance, as a way to allow for more density and diversity of uses there.
The Town Center Project is presented as a priority as it concerns many properties which are considered in transition 鈥� both for economic reasons as well as due to storm impacts. The city sees it as an urgent priority to not lose this opportunity to direct development in the desired way.
The specific tasks and responsibilities required of a yet-to-be hired consultant are clearly laid out in the plan, to ensure that specific local issues are considered and incorporated into his/her work.

Comprehensive Land Use Regulations Ordinance

The Comprehensive Land Use Regulations Ordinance (CLURO) was established to lessen congestion in the streets, secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land to avoid undue concentration of population; and to facilitate the adequate provision of vehicular and pedestrian circulation, water, sewerage, storm drainage, schools, parks, open space and other public requirements.

These regulations have been established with consideration for the character of the City of Mandeville as a whole as well as the character of each zoning district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses to preserve property values and promote the economic well-being of the community as a whole by encouraging the most appropriate land use throughout the City while acknowledging the importance of maintaining the health of the environment for the health of the public.

The two primary challenges facing the city of Central involve the management of its extensive floodplain and the development of a civic center that provides Central a unique identity. The city has addressed these challenges through a planning process that promotes environmental, economic, and community resilience. This was accomplished through three distinct, yet inter-dependent deliverables: a Floodplain Management Plan; City Center implementation strategies; and Design Guidelines and Pattern Book for the City Center Development.

Central鈥檚 resiliency planning efforts build toward successful implementation of their 2010 Land Use Plan. The Floodplain Management Plan is based on a scientific analysis of the area鈥檚 natural features and flooding risks to test the proposed density and intensity of development in the land use plan. This approach proposes development types based on the drainage capacity of natural and built infrastructure, and provides the city a baseline of information to amend the land use plan and guide future development to be more resilient to flooding. The City Center Implementation Strategies provide the City a set of strategies that will bring the City Center from a proposal to construction. The Design Guidelines and Pattern Book create visual expressions of the regulations defined in the Land Use Plan. The Pattern Book and Design Guidelines provide guidance for the appropriate density, aesthetic, and quality of development for the proposed City Center. This includes a model ordinance of a City Center overlay district. These are valuable contributions to greater resilience for the city.

Environment

Central sits between the Amite and Comite Rivers and 70% of its 64 square miles are within the 100-year flood zone. This presents a challenge for effectively zoning the growing community to insure the safety of residents, minimize property damage from flooding, and protect the river ecosystems. The Resiliency Plan includes a Floodplain Management Plan, which will guide the city toward responsible development decisions in the future related to its floodplain and ecosystem services.

Proposed Actions

Improve environmental resiliency by demonstrating innovative development and best practices in compact development patterns, density, and design guidelines.
Based on floodplain zones identified in the plan (natural, simulated natural, and hard engineered) implement appropriate strategies as designated in the plan.
In 鈥渘atural zones鈥� minimize intensity of use in A and AE zones through passive detention in green spaces and buffering streams. These are low density areas.
In 鈥渘atural zones鈥� projects should demonstrate 100 year and 500 year flooding post-development; 2 and 10 year or 2 and 25 year events for design of projects.
In 鈥渟imulated natural zones鈥� avoid A and AE zones and move development to X and 0.2 zones by detaining water with structures and soft BMPs such as rain gardens and swales. These are middle density zones.
In 鈥渟imulated natural zones鈥� projects should demonstrate 100 year and 500 year flooding post-development.
In 鈥渉ard engineered zones鈥� minimize filling and conflicts with storage and conveyance capacity through the optimization of removal of water and maximize storage through structures and semi-engineered solutions such as rain gardens. These are core density areas.

Infrastructure

The Central Resiliency Plan largely focuses on drainage infrastructure as it relates to drainage basins, floodplains, and future projected development. The plan identifies inadequate capacity for stormwater, and provides mitigation recommendations.

Proposed Actions

Improve capacity of culvert and bridge sizing where flooding has occurred in the past.
Improve capacity of hard engineered structures through implementation of impervious surfaces, bio-swales, green roof techniques, and careful attention to detention systems.
Remove inadequate culverts/pass-through under Hooper Road and other roadway crossings. These improvements could be made whenever major road improvements are scheduled.
Community
As a young city, Central currently lacks civic space and public gathering space to foster a greater sense of community and identity. Through the city鈥檚 master plan the desire to create an identifiable place to centralize city services, as well as provide space for different types of public gathering became an evident shared value of the citizens.
The Resiliency Plan provides further guidance through both the City Center Implementation Strategies and the Design Guidelines and Pattern Book, which provides a model ordinance and standards for the City Center. The City Center is an important step for Central in the development of a shared identity of the community.

Proposed Actions

Improve social resiliency by creating a signature public space conducive to public gatherings, community interaction, and integration with other existing public facilities including schools, parks, and public service outlets.
Leverage public investment to build a City Hall to stimulate private investment in high-quality commercial and residential development
Improve economic resilience by diversifying commercial activity and attracting new retail, office, service and job creation in the city.
Develop site selection criteria for City Center; engage property owners
In site selection value image and community branding potential, location and connectivity to green space and other public assets, including schools.
Encourage a mix of uses in the City Center including city services, retail, office, residential, and green space.
Reference Design Guidelines and Pattern Book when creating a City Center overlay district, which will set standards and control development types in the new district.

Lafourche Parish, like other coastal parishes in the state, is highly vulnerable to risks from natural hazards and future land loss. The Lafourche Parish Comprehensive Resiliency Plan addresses the coastal issues threatening the long-term viability of the parish in conjunction with other parish needs, including greater diversity in jobs and housing options, improved transportation facilities, and greater quality of life for residents.

Land development patterns along Bayou Lafourche follow the arpent system with long, narrow parcels of land, thereby constraining development. The town is strengthening its resilience to disasters by focusing on strategic economic growth and diversity while preserving the natural assets and existing character. To help lead Lafourche Parish toward greater long-term sustainability and resilience, Lafourche Parish partnered with the Center for Planning Excellence (CPEX) to develop the community-tailored Comprehensive Resiliency Plan and implement the Louisiana Land Use Toolkit, a resource for model development codes and ordinances. The plan utilizes both structural and non-structural tools to help the parish identify critical areas in need of protection while promoting sustainable growth patterns and resilient structures.

During the planning process, the advisory committee gathered input from citizens across the parish through in-person workshops, open houses, and online surveys and websites. Four land use scenarios were developed based on ideas from workshop participants to represent different levels and types of future growth, which were then combined to produce an overall shared vision for plan development. The result is a plan that reflects the values and desires of its residents, which are grounded in a strong cultural heritage, diverse economy, diverse amenities, job opportunities, regional cohesion, and access to the bayou.

Central to Lafourche Parish鈥檚 long-term resilience is protection from natural hazards and future land loss. The parish鈥檚 Comprehensive Resiliency Plan emphasizes structural and non-structural flood protection measures, including coastal restoration, economic diversity, and elevated homes, to ensure that impacts from storms and flooding are minimized. It recognizes the importance of regional coordination to maximize the effectiveness of coastal restoration projects, increase the sustainability of the parish and surrounding region, and secure the safety of parish residents.

Environment

Lafourche Parish is susceptible to coastal erosion, subsidence, and sea level rise. While Lafourche communities are protected by a levee system that parallels Bayou Lafourche on both sides, the area remains vulnerable to the impacts of flooding and hurricanes. Lafourche residents understand these risks and place coastal restoration and wetland preservation as top priorities to ensure the long-term stability of their communities and local economies. The Comprehensive Resiliency Plan stresses the need to plan for future land loss and restoration efforts while maximizing the many economic and recreational opportunities that stem from living so closely with water.

Proposed Actions

Plan waterways and water bodies as recreational amenities.
Introduce associated wetlands in long-term phasing in order to clean water and provide additional habitat and amenities on protected sides of levees.
Reduce the distance between storm drains and canals or detention/retention basins allowing for higher water levels, which can limit subsidence.
Enforce the International Building Code requirements for all new construction to strengthen buildings against high wind damage.
Expand and provide programs including land banking and preservation areas, and locate priority bayou-side, outside levees, farming, nature trails, birding, and fishing areas.
Promote land building, marsh creation, sediment diversion, barrier island restoration, and shoreline protection for natural lines of defense from storms and flooding.
Restore the region鈥檚 natural hydrologic function, where possible.

Infrastructure

Resilient infrastructure that can withstand the impacts of storms and handle large flooding events is required to protect residents from the impacts of natural hazards. The Comprehensive Resiliency Plan aims to strengthen stormwater infrastructure systems and pursue efficient regulatory actions. It directs future growth into areas equipped with adequate infrastructure to manage this growth, while hardening and improving existing infrastructure to ensure the safety and viability of communities.

Proposed Actions

Follow historic settlement patterns and building types with land uses organized by elevation and hydrology from high to low ground.
Develop an outreach and engagement plan to involve multiple stakeholders and partners in the design and performance of infrastructure.
Plan investments in infrastructure so they can be used as the basis for other kinds of investment and economic development, resulting in public dollars leveraging private investment and growth.
Use infrastructure investments to create private economic opportunities.
Widen drainage ditches and upgrade culverts to protect current structures and future construction from flood events.
Develop new green infrastructure that integrates into existing drainage systems for detaining and retaining stormwater.
Increase access routes and alternative routes for evacuations and traffic flow by supporting major highway initiatives through council resolution.
Coordinate with Port Fourchon to provide shuttle transportation for dock workers, coordinating this effort with residential service to Golden Meadow.
Design new developments to accommodate the 4% annual chance event (25-year storm), with a 24-hour duration event in accordance with a total depth of 10.8 inches according to the National Weather Service Technical Paper No. 40.
Limit flow rate and volume of discharge from any proposed development to the 25-year storm pre-development rate, and require all development to be above the peak water stage elevation for the 25-year storm or the FEMA BFE, whichever is higher.
Prioritize infrastructure projects that will support an enhance ecotourism industry.

Community

The economy of Lafourche Parish is strongly linked to the oil and gas and seafood industries. Port Fourchon distributes approximately 18 percent of the nation鈥檚 oil supply, and the Parish contributes nearly 40 percent of U.S. exports in the seafood industry. The plan seeks to strengthen these industries, meet the needs of workers employed in these industries, and attract new workers and businesses to the parish. In addition, many of the goals and actions outlined in the Comprehensive Resiliency Plan seek to increase quality of life, safety, and amenities for parish residents and workers. The parish has targeted specific growth sectors in which to attract business and visitors, and it capitalizes on the region鈥檚 existing natural amenities by providing recreational opportunities to support the rich cultural heritage and overall health of its residents.

Proposed Actions

Develop a parish-wide parks and recreation plan to fill gaps in needed parks and recreation sites and ensure adequate facilities are developed for future growth.
Identify funding and implementation actions for prioritized projects in the 2007 Bayou Lafourche Corridor Plan, including a trail system through publicly owned swampland forest in Lockport, a new seafood market and safe harbor marina in Golden Meadow, and a nature park and marina in Larose, among others.
Increase and design public access facilities along the bayou for visitors and residents.
Consider developing Eco Parks into the Bayou Plazas that are focused on sustainability principles.
Review ordinances for opportunities to require building using resilient design and construction techniques that also blend with the existing character.
Work with employers to create parish-wide regional transit partnerships from worker housing to employment centers.
Build the economy on innovation and entrepreneurship, such as by frequently revisiting the SWOT analysis in the South Central Region Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy to identify regionally unique assets that should be developed in coordination with the region to build synergy and leverage resources.
Use funding from BP to market and rebuild tourism in the parish.
Reduce barriers to creating new businesses, such as development of a micro-lending program for very small businesses and self-employment.
Create incubator programs for businesses focused on software, auto regulation, internet and telecommunications, and acoustic and other testing technologies.

Next Steps

The Comprehensive Resiliency Plan includes specific implementation goals and actions to ensure the plan鈥檚 vision is successfully integrated into future development and growth. In particular, the plan outlines specific actions to assist the implementation of the plan over the coming years. It recognizes the importance of public-private partnerships, community involvement, and flexibility in modifying sections of the plan as needed based on changing conditions.

Proposed Actions

Establish a five-year implementation work plan.
Conduct annual updates that summarize achievements each year.
Prepare a more extensive update every five years to establish a work plan for the subsequent five years.
Use the plan to advise and implement the Capital Improvement Plan.
Ensure that the plan鈥檚 goals and strategies are used to guide development decisions.

Flooding is a major concern in the Town of Livingston, the parish seat of Livingston Parish, approximately 25 miles east of Baton Rouge. The town is located at the convergence of four watersheds and frequently floods during severe weather events and routine rainfall events. Hurricane Gustav caused extensive flood damage as well as damages to structures and utilities from fallen trees throughout the town. Moreover, the town had trouble clearing debris from drainage ditches both in the town as well as the watersheds throughout the parish. This debris led to continued long-term flooding risk months after the actual storm. Compounding the risk of flooding is the town鈥檚 rapid population growth due to high quality of life, good schools, and close proximity to both Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Livingston Parish ranks among the top three fastest-growing parishes in the state. The town is seeing population growth rates of up to 2% per year and a 56% projected population increase from 1990-2015. Job growth in the area is projected to increase by 16 percent over the next 10 years. Subdivision and business growth along major corridors indicate these numbers are fairly accurate. Furthermore, the location of the Town of Livingston on the I-12 growth corridor, one of the fastest growing areas in the State of Louisiana, indicates a pressing need to address land use, watershed, and growth management issues in preparation for future need and development.

In response to future growth projections, the Town of Livingston adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 2010 to preserve the town鈥檚 integrity and way of life while guiding future growth and development through proper and flexible planning. The next step to realizing the goals laid out in this plan is to develop a set of accompanying codes and ordinances. Codifying these regulations provides clarity to residents and developers, while ensuring that the objectives of the plan are enacted. The development of Subdivision Regulations, particularly in a rapidly growing region, plays an important part in promoting a safe, desirable, and resilient community.

The Town of Livingston鈥檚 new Subdivision Regulations lay out clear rules, procedures, and regulations that will ensure new development does not increase flood risks in the community. These measures are laid out in Section 24 of the new ordinance, Stormwater Drainage Requirements. In addition, the new ordinance clarifies the town鈥檚 requirements, facilitating the application process for residents, developers, and local government staff alike.

Environment

The natural flood risks in Livingston, being located at the convergence of 4 watersheds, are exacerbated by the rapid development that does not address those risks. The town鈥檚 new Subdivision Regulations will require major new developments to incorporate those concerns

Proposed Actions

A Stormwater Drainage Impact study is required for all new developments over a certain size.
New subdivision developments are required to demonstrate that their construction and on-site mitigation measures will prevent any changes to stormwater runoff affecting either upstream, downstream, or neighboring properties.
These studies should take into account the predominant existing land use and future land use in project watershed using the latest data available. They should also describe the proposed development, soil types, vegetative cover, watershed slopes and provide an estimate of percent of impervious area for pre- and post- development conditions.
Infrastructure
The design, layout, and specifications of public infrastructure play a major role in determining how stormwater will be channeled through a new subdivision, and affect flooding risks throughout the community. These subdivision regulations include such requirements and regulations for infrastructure. Specifically, elements of Section 24. Stormwater Drainage Requirements address stormwater management and flood protection.

Community

An informed community is a major asset in promoting local resilience, as well as encouraging local investment. A clear ordinance provides valuable guidance, information, and transparency for current and potential residents, business owners, developers, and local government.

Proposed Actions

Clear requirements for construction and development of new subdivisions are provided.
Specifications are included for informing new landowners in areas with particular restrictions.
For example, for any property within an open ditch subdivision, the following statement must be placed on the bill of sale of property: BUYER BEWARE: Installation of any subsurface drainage (other than a driveway culvert) is prohibited in this subdivision designed for open ditches.

Next Steps

Implementation of the Subdivision Regulations, in conjunction with the town鈥檚 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and development of additional supporting plans and ordinances, including a Floodplain Management plan will help reduce local flooding risks and build resilience as Livingston continues to grow.

In 2011, the City of Walker began its first master planning process, despite being an incorporated municipality since 1909. The plan, 鈥淏lueprint of a City: A Community Vision for Walker, Louisiana,鈥� was adopted on May 14, 2012. Unlike some communities lacking master plans, Walker does have its own zoning code independent of the parish鈥檚 code. Current zoning and subdivision regulations do not consistently reinforce the community鈥檚 vision and goals for the future, though the land use ordinances have in many ways promoted sprawl. Overall, development and growth has been under-regulated inside Walker city limits and in adjacent areas under the jurisdiction of Livingston Parish.

Community concerns identified during the master planning process were grouped into the following categories: growth management, traffic congestion and access management, infrastructure, parks and recreation, community character and enhancement. 鈥淏lueprint of a City鈥� establishes priorities for the City of Walker based on the concerns of residents, businesses, civic groups, and public officials, developing a 20-year plan for sustainable and resilient growth. The plan includes specific recommendations related to community function, planning, and growth, organized hierarchically into goals, objects, and actions and initiatives. The city can adopt the actions and initiatives into policies, ordinances, or projects to implement the community鈥檚 vision of becoming 鈥渁 clean, safe, and highly livable community where residents can enjoy the conveniences of the city without losing its small town character comprised of close-knit and family friendly people. Walker envisions achieving this by accommodating growth through progressive grassroots thinking, well-planned annexation, smart infrastructure investments, strategic business support, and sustainable and efficient capital improvements鈥� (Blueprint of a City 2012).

When Hurricanes Gustav, Ike, Rita, and Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, deficiencies in the physical infrastructure and operational organization of many Louisiana communities were exposed, including the City of Walker. Walker is threatened by a number of natural hazards, particularly tropical storms and hurricanes, but also floods and tornados (Livingston Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan 2009). Heavy rains and strong winds initially cause problems for Walker during storm events, but following recent major hurricanes, a different category of threat has affected the resiliency of the city. Walker has seen a steep increase in population as residents from communities further south, displaced and/or frustrated by frequent storms, have migrated north to the Baton Rouge area.

Environment

Walker is at risk from tropical storms and flooding, so the expansion of impervious surfaces following new development has led to increased stormwater runoff and its associated problems of localized flooding and water pollution. Approximately 70% of Walker lies in the FEMA designated 100-year floodplain and a smaller portion in the 500-year floodplain. Before the completion of I-12 in the 1970鈥檚, water followed gravity, flowing northeast to southwest, towards the Amite River and into Lake Maurepas. The interstate, with only a few relatively small culverts, created a man-made barrier to natural drainage and exacerbated flooding problems in the area. The plan is comprehensive in examining Walker鈥檚 built environment, natural resources, and public services necessary for the city鈥檚 next 20 years of development. Aspects that the Walker plan related to resilience include a growth and annexation strategy, a proposal to develop a comprehensive stormwater drainage improvement plan, and extensive analysis of the city鈥檚 utility and transportation infrastructure.

Proposed Actions

Storm Drainage Master Plan: Walker will prepare a city-wide Storm Drainage Master Plan in conjunction with Livingston Parish Gravity Drainage District Five to develop a long-range plan for improvements.
Establishing a Capital Improvement Plan for drainage projects will aid in funding and constructing projects recommended in the plan.
The city will require dedicated drainage servitudes for all new construction and establish a storm drainage tax for all property owners.
The city proposes new provisions in zoning and subdivision regulations for Low Impact Development (LID), which uses site design techniques to store, infiltrate, evaporate, and detain runoff.
New provisions will require the use of bio-retention areas and bio-swales in parking lots and along roadways to collect and hold stormwater, enhance recharge rates, and improve water quality.
Incentives for density are encouraged to protect large tracts of natural resources, leaving them available for flood and drainage control and leaving less infrastructure for the city to maintain.
Adoption of construction and post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) will also help reduce pollution and erosion.
Adding incentives for private-sector development to meet established third-party green building standards will promote sustainability.
New municipal buildings should be used as pilot projects and designed with innovative rainwater capture.
Parks and greenways that serve environmental and recreation purposes: Establish a network of linear parks through property acquisition, conservation easements, and buffer requirements, that will protect sensitive natural environments, particularly creeks, preserve open space, and provide recreational opportunities to residents. The greenways will include water retention features and reduce flooding.

Infrastructure

Walker鈥檚 master plan outlines many actions to remedy the effects of decades of sprawl and improve the city for current and future generations. To aid in the implementation of these actions, the master plan explains primary means of implementation and prioritizes recommendations in a Summary Action Plan. While the Summary Action Plan ranks priorities, identifies primary action items, and includes the plan references, it does not specify a specific time frame for implementing these actions or identify which city agency will be responsible for overseeing their completion. The master plan mandates regular amendments and updates to the plan and reviews of the city鈥檚 progress in implementation, allowing the document to remain relevant as the city grows and evolves.

Proposed Actions

Update of zoning and subdivision regulations, or create a Unified Development Code, which will convert the actions and initiatives of the master plan into enforceable city ordinances.
Create transportation plan.
Create Capital Improvements Plan.
Utilize the Growth and Annexation Plan to annex territory.
Develop a fiscal impact model to weigh the benefits of expansion
Conduct an annexation study to identify individual properties identified as primary annexation areas.
City infrastructure and services will not be expanded unless developments strictly adhere to Walker鈥檚 Future Land Use and Thoroughfare Plans.

Community

The character and appearance of Walker was a top concern of residents throughout the public planning process. The plan proposes the development of attractive greenways, streetscape improvements, investment in green space with landscaping and screening of parking lots, as well as signage ordinances.

Proposed Actions

Update land use ordinances to promote the desired character of the community.
Development of an evacuation and emergency preparedness disaster response policy and plan.
Coordinate with the state to build a dwell-purpose state evacuation center and community center in one of their parks.