Fall 1998

Over the past few years, FEMA has developed Digital Q3 Flood Data files for approximately 900 counties in the country. Q3s are more than "FIRMs on a screen."

Q3 Flood Data are developed by scanning the existing hardcopy Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and vectorizing an overlay of flood risks. Vector Q3 Flood Data files contain only certain features from the existing FIRM hardcopy. Q3 vector data are contained in one single countywide file, including all incorporated and unincorporated areas of a county.

The vectorized features contained in digital Q3 Flood Data files include:

• Annual chance floodplain areas of 1 and 0.2 percent (A Zones and B or shaded X Zones)
• Certain floodway areas
• FIRM zone designations
• Corporate boundaries and community identification numbers
• FIRM panel areas, panel number and suffix
• 7.5-minute quadrangle areas
• Mappable Letters of Map Change (LOMCs)

More details can be found in Q3 Flood Data Specifications. Q3 Flood Data Users Guide provides an overview of the product and its uses. Both can be downloaded as noted at the end of this article.

Each digital Q3 Flood Data file is accompanied by a metadata file that describes the contents and sources used for each digital Q3 Flood Data file. The metadata files may be accessed by users to determine if the vector files meet their needs. In addition, the metadata file provides information specific to the county, including the FIRMs and LOMCs that were digitized.

Cautions: Digital Q3 Flood Data do not replace the existing FIRM hardcopy or, if one exists, a Digital FIRM (DFIRM). The product is designed to support planning activities, some Community Rating System activities, insurance marketing, and mortgage portfolio reviews.

The Q3 product does not provide base flood elevation information; thus, it has limited application for engineering analysis, particularly for site design or rating flood insurance policies for properties located within Special Flood Hazard Areas.

Digital Q3 Flood Data are not tied to a base map, are not used to produce a new version of the FIRM hardcopy, and are not subjected to community review. The digital Q3 Flood Data are designed to provide guidance and a general proximity of the location of Special Flood Hazard Areas.

The digital Q3 Flood Data product can be a valuable tool in screening property addresses within a Geographic Information System to determine flood risks. However, since the geographic processing performed to develop digital Q3 Flood Data may introduce differences with the FIRM hardcopy source, FEMA warns users to apply considerable care and judgment in the application of this product.

For instance, digital Q3 Flood Data may be overlaid on highly detailed large-scale community base mapping data, but, if parcel level determinations are made, they must be prefaced with information about the accuracy of the data from which they are derived.

Availability: Currently, approximately 900 counties now have digital Q3 Flood Data available. These counties were chosen for the initial phase of digital Q3 Flood Data production to provide maximum coverage in areas of high-population density or growth, significant risk (from hurricanes or other flood events), or with a history of repetitive losses.

Q3 data are now available for 21 Illinois counties:

Adams, Alexander, Calhoun, Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Henry, Jersey, Kane, Kankakee, Lake, Livingston, McHenry, Madison, Peoria, Pike, Rock Island, St. Clair, Will and Winnebago

More information on Q3 flood maps can be found on FEMA's Map Service Center website at www.fema.gov/msc/. Sample digital Q3 Flood Data for 10 counties (none in Illinois) are available for download through this site. The sample files are accompanied by a "read.me" file that details their organization and naming. Users may download these data, along with their associated metadata, the digital Q3 Flood Data Users Guide, and the digital Q3 Flood Data Specifications.

The Q3 Flood Data are on CD-ROMs and may be ordered by calling FEMA's Map Service Center at (800) 358-9616. The hardcopy map products from which the digital Q3 Flood Data were derived are also available from the Map Service Center.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FEMA has started a bi-monthly newsletter on its mapping modernization program (see the Spring 1998 IAFSM News on the Map Modernization Plan). Work in Progress provides status reports on the program and articles on the latest developments.

The September edition of Work in Progress discusses the post-disaster hazard verification remapping program, plans for a mapping home page and telephone response center, and other topics of interest to floodplain and stormwater managers.

Subscriptions are free. To get on the mailing list, send a request by fax to 202/646-4596 or e-mail to:

mapmod@fema.gov.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As a result of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, FEMA must list all communities that are likely to be identified as having erosion hazard areas, estimate the amount of flood insurance claims that are attributable to erosion, and assess the full economic impact of erosion on the National Flood Insurance Fund.

FEMA has started a study to determine the technological feasibility of mapping Riverine Erosion Hazard Areas (REHA). The objectives of the study are to define riverine erosion processes, discuss geomorphic and engineering methods that could be used to map REHAs, evaluate the methods of predicting and modeling REHAs that have been applied in selected case studies within the United States, evaluate the cost to study and map REHAs, and discuss programmatic elements associated with mapping and regulating REHAs.

Some of the processes that may have an effect on riverine erosion include river mechanics, mass failure, ice-induced failure, localized bed and bank scour, wave action, and reservoir operations. The project will address past and ongoing research in assessing the effects of these and other factors on bank erosion. The effort will concentrate in examining physically-based and statistical models that have the potential to be used in predicting the occurrence and extent of erosion along stream banks.

FEMA's Technical Evaluation Contractor, Dewberry & Davis, is spearheading the Riverine Erosion Hazard Area effort. If you have information that may be valuable to FEMA for this study please e-mail Mike Grimm at michael.grimm@fema.gov.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Greetings again from the Chair of IAFSM. Looks like summer has come and gone. With cooler weather (and hurricane season) upon us, many of us now think again on issues of floodplain and stormwater management. Here's what's been blowing around the IAFSM lately.

The Fourth Annual Downstate Conference is being held October 21 and 22 in Collinsville. This conference has really grown to a major regional event. Kudos to the Conference organizers Sally McConkey and Paul Osman for a job well done. Unfortunately, due to a conflict, the Chair will be unable to attend this year. Look for our Vice Chair to provide updates on IAFSM goings-on.

Also noteworthy regarding this conference, we will have a new organizer for next year, Donna Beauchamp of the Collinsville office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Being more local to the Metro East area should provide Donna with additional insight and the ability to involve more local professionals in the planning of this conference.

In fact, planning has begun for the 1999 conference. It will be held at Pere Marquette Lodge in Grafton, Illinois, October 21-22, 1999. Those interested in helping Donna with this planning effort please call her at (618) 656-4710 ext. 202 or look for her at the Collinsville conference.

The Certification Committee held a meeting a few weeks ago. Plans are going forward to offer a pilot exam at the Annual Conference in March. Because the sole purpose will be to gain feedback on exam content, level of difficulty, etc., results will be "thrown out the window." The Committee also wants to develop a home study course after FEMA releases its draft of the national course.

Speaking of next year's conference, plans are going forward with our new venue, the Rosemont Ramada, located on Mannheim Road, just south of the Rosemont Horizon. Dates are set for March 17 and 18, 1999. The call for papers has been mailed.

A planning meeting has been scheduled for November 18, 1998 at the Oak Book Municipal Building Lower Level Conference Room at 9:00 a.m,. Anyone interested in moderating a session or in helping provide input to the conference is welcome and encouraged to attend.

I would like to announce that we currently have two vacant committee chairs: Awards and Education. Both committees are important to the mission of the Association.

Awards are our highly visible way of recognizing outstanding work within our group each year. The Awards Committee is responsible for soliciting nominations for our various annual awards, convening the committee to obtain consensus on award recipients, getting the awards made, and presenting them at our Annual Conference.

Many of our award recipients go on to win National awards (we cleaned up in Little Rock in 1997!!). As a former Awards Committee Chair, I can say that it is both rewarding and educational. It's great to honor those people and programs who deserve special recognition.

Education maintains a lower profile but attempts to involve our youth in floodplain management awareness issues. Past efforts by this committee involved essay contests among high school students with winners receiving cash awards as well as a certificate. Anyone interested in either committee should call me at my new number, (708) 366-7083 or e-mail me at cleighton.smith@dewberry.com

We are planning to do one or more Twilight seminars this fall. If anyone has any ideas on a good topic, please contact me. Please take note of our bimonthly Board meetings. They're open to general membership and are held at the Village of Oak Brook Municipal Building.

We are in the process of updating the IAFSM website. It is located at www.lincolnnet.net/users/lrflood. The updates were provided to our webmaster Arnel De Los Reyes. He can be reached at (847) 823-0500 or at cbbel@megsinet.net. Anyone with useful information should contact Arnel.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 Des Plaines River Flood Damage Reduction:

- Ward Miller, Executive Director, Lake County Stormwater Management Commission

Major damaging floods have occurred along the Des Plaines River 15 times in the last 50 years. Average annual damages are estimated at $21,407,000. By the year 2010, damages are projected to increase by 26%. The lack of overall flood damage reduction and, especially, the lack of flood depth reduction in the draft U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' plan prompted discussions during the last two years on what should come next.

One alternative that has been considered is the "Tunnel Concept." The tunnel would be about 6 miles in length beginning just downstream of the Mill Creek/mainstem confluence north of Gurnee. It would run east underneath public road rights-of-way and discharge to Lake Michigan. It would be at least 200 feet deep. At about the 5-year flood stage, floodwaters would be diverted from the Des Plaines to the downshaft of the tunnel and discharged to Lake Michigan. A reservoir or other impoundment of water may also be needed.

The tunnel alone is estimated to cost $53 million. This article reviews the advantages and concerns of the tunnel concept.

The primary advantages of the tunnel are that it would

• Reduce Lake County flood damage by about 93% and will probably have a benefit-to-cost ratio greater than 1.0.
• Use very little land, so land surface environmental impacts would be minimal.
• Significantly reduce the major cause of damage: flooded roads and disrupted, re-routed traffic.

Concerns raised about the tunnel are:

• It is a "one component" project with an overall price tag that could very easily exceed $60 million. Pieces of the project could not be built and function independently.
• Any needed on-river structures might have adverse environmental impacts on fisheries and aquatic habitats and the beneficial results of floodplain flooding.
• The project would most likely require formal approval by 5 states and 2 nations per the 1909 Great Lakes international agreement.

An Alternate Approach: Watershed Plans. An alternative approach would be to look at the watershed as a whole system and more adequately assess the potential for multi-objective, environmentally-friendly structural projects in the tributary sub-watersheds and along the river and non-structural approaches such as floodplain acquisition and floodproofing.

Components of this multi-faceted, watershed wide approach would include:

• Floodplain land acquisition for open space.
• Relocating flood damaged buildings out of the floodplain.
• Not allowing new buildings to be constructed in the floodplain.
• Raising the height of bridges and roadways that block flood flows and block transportation routes when flooded.
• Developing comprehensive watershed management plans for all tributaries.
• Identifying potential sites in the tributaries (including in Wisconsin) for floodwater storage.
• Restoring degraded and drained wetlands throughout the watershed.

The primary advantages of this watershed plan approach are:

• Each tax dollar spent could have multiple community benefits - flood damage reduction, water quality, habitat, recreation, open space, etc. on the tributaries and on the mainstem.
• The plans would result in a multitude of prioritized small, medium and large-scale projects that could be initiated by various jurisdictions throughout time as opportunities and incremental funds become available.
• Because this approach is consistent with current national trends, it is more likely federal funds, would be available for the various parts.

The plan would also be more consistent with the Corps of Engineers' new program, Challenge 21. Challenge 21 focuses on non-structural, sustainable approaches to flood protection, including relocation of buildings out of the floodplain, conservation of wetlands, watershed-based planning, riparian restoration and pre-flood planning for post-flood mitigation and recovery. It involves a 65/35 federal/local cost-share, an emphasis on local planning and coordination of existing federal programs, funding and expertise.

Concerns raised about the watershed plan alternative are:

• Even the cumulative benefits of all of the projects may not reduce mainstem flood damage as much as the tunnel.
• The complexity of this multitude of projects would be considerable. A high level of coordination would be required. Timelines for full plan implementation would be lengthy.
• Many of the components need a lot of land. Land costs are high. Vacant land is scarce.

The Lake County Stormwater Management Commission has developed a preliminary estimate of $3 million to study the tributary watersheds and non-structural alternatives. This study would generate cost-estimates for plan components, cost-benefit information and how much mainstem flood damage reduction would result from plan implementation.

Descriptions of the tunnel concept and the watershed approach raise more questions than answers. It is clearly premature to only investigate any one alternative over another. Allocations of scarce federal, state and local resources will be needed to get the needed answers before a financially sound and environmentally acceptable approach can be selected.

The real issue is how scarce resources should be allocated over the next three years to explore the various options.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The 5^th District Court of Appeals in Mount Vernon recently ruled in Glisson v. City of Marion that the Illinois Constitution allows individuals the right to file lawsuits to protect endangered species. The trial court in this case had held that the Constitution only gave the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the Attorney General's office standing to sue.

Babette Salus, representing the environmentalist in the suit, says that the decision may lead to more active enforcement of environmental claims in the state. "The Court of Appeals found that in the context of an alleged violation of the "right to a healthful environment," Article XI, Section 2 of the Illinois Constitution gives individuals standing to sue for public wrongs. This decision would provide private citizens the opportunity to sue even after the state enforcement agency has decided not to sue for lack of evidence or for any other reason. In turn, Glisson represents a considerable expansion of environmental enforcement mechanisms in Illinois."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 Homeowner's Guide to Retrofitting; Six Ways of Protecting Your Home From Flood Damage. FEMA 312, 1998. 180 pages. Free from FEMA's Distribution Facility, P.O. Box 2012, Jessup, Maryland, 20794-2012; (800) 480-2520. The publication is also available on line at http://www.fema.gov/mit.

This new publication provides important information to people who are considering retrofitting their homes to reduce flood damage. The guide was written with special attention to the post-flood needs of flood victims. Areas of focus include meeting the NFIP substantial damage requirements, preliminary cost estimates, addressing retrofitting in areas subject to multiple hazards, and how to obtain technical and financial assistance. This publication will be the primary resource document FEMA will distribute following floods. The release of FEMA 312 has resulted in FEMA's "old" retrofit manual (FEMA 114) being declared obsolete.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Restoring and Managing Stream Greenways: A Landowner's Handbook. This 47-page handbook was developed by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission with funding through the Chicago Region Biodiversity Council.

The handbook presents an approach for managing stream corridors which preserves and enhances their natural functions. Improved stream corridor management, in conjunction with better controls on watershed development, can substantially reduce the potential for stream degradation, loss of beneficial uses, and costly damage to property. Improved stream management techniques also can be used to reclaim degraded streams, restoring aesthetics, water quality, and aquatic life.

The recommended stream management approach uses low-cost, ecologically-sensitive techniques that are targeted to streamside landowners. The handbook addresses a range of common management concerns, including:

• Streamside landscape buffers,
• Stream channel maintenance,
• Bank stabilization,
• Instream habitat restoration, and
• Accommodating trail access.

The handbook's recommended stream management approach embodies several interrelated principles.

• Effective management must address the stream and its riparian corridor as an integrated whole. The resultant stream greenway, a linear corridor of open land, can provide multiple, mutually-supportive functions, including habitat protection, water quality enhancement, flood storage and conveyance, and recreation.
• Techniques used for stream and river management systems must be multi-objective. Techniques designed for a single purpose, without full consideration of their effects on other functions, will cause or aggravate stream use conflicts.
• Techniques used for stream protection or mitigation should be sustainable; that is, they should address identified problems without the need for excessive or costly future maintenance, and with minimal adverse effects on the surrounding environment.
• Stream corridor management should rely on natural techniques, wherever feasible. Natural techniques are derived from systems and materials that have evolved in nature over thousands of years.
• Recommended stream management techniques must be cost-effective. Considering the large network of stream channels in northeastern Illinois, the region generally cannot afford expensive solutions. Low-cost techniques are more likely to be implemented by a higher percentage of streamside landowners.

The handbook provides alternatives to streamside property owners that will enable them to evaluate common stream management problems and opportunities from an ecologically sensitive perspective.

Copies of the handbook are available free (plus postage and handling) through the NIPC Publications Department at (312) 454-0400. For more information, contact Dennis Dreher at the same number.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FEMA has announced a Call for Issues on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The announcement is an invitation to submit suggestions and recommendations on how to improve the effectiveness of any aspect of the NFIP and is extended to all individuals, groups, or organizations that may be interested in assisting in the process. Comments may focus on, but should not be limited to:

• The NFIP's laws, regulations, and policies,
• The Standard Flood Insurance Policy,
• The flood insurance manual,
• Procedures or forms,
• Flood hazard mapping guidelines, specifications, or procedures,
• Floodplain management requirements, and
• Public information efforts.

Anyone wishing FEMA to consider recommendations to improve the NFIP's effectiveness should use the following format:

Issue: Briefly state the nature of the issue or concern.

Description: Identify the specific program reference. Cite any applicable references to section, page, paragraph number, etc. Explain also why the issue is a problem for the NFIP's customers and why it should be changed.

Suggestion: Offer a specific suggestion on how the issue may be addressed. Include specific language changes, where appropriate, and where such changes should be made. Explain also the benefits to the NFIP's customers.

All submissions must be in writing and should be received by October 30, 1998. For further information contact H. Joseph Coughlin Jr., Federal Insurance Administration (202) 646-3443 or Michael Robinson, Mitigation Directorate (202) 646-2716. FEMA's decisions will be reflected in a report to be published in the third quarter of fiscal year 1999.

IAFSM comment: IAFSM would like to submit a master set of Illinois comments. Any thoughts and recommendations should be sent to Vice Chair Vince Parisi by October 26 [see next article for address].

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- Vince Parisi, IAFSM Vice Chair, Illinois Department of Natural Resources

During the past several years there has been a lot of discussion about how the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) can facilitate its members' interest in international issues and provide technical assistance to professionals in other countries. In response, ASFPM has recently created the International Liaison Committee whose purposes are:

• To serve as a welcoming committee for, and provide technical assistance to, international members.
• To encourage ASFPM membership for international professionals.
• To serve as a liaison with other international organizations.
• To coordinate ASFPM grants for international projects.

This year's goals and objectives are to

• Secure funding for the "Flood Hazard Mitigation Mentoring Program" in Latin America,
• Translate the ASFPM newsletter into Spanish,
• Create a Spanish language web page, and
• Increase international participation at the 1999 Annual Conference.

The committee is currently seeking volunteers to translate the newsletter "News and Views" into Spanish and assist in creating a Spanish web page. If you can offer your services or are interested in serving on the committee, contact

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Editor's note: This article is taken from the Will County Forest Preserve District's newsletter, the Citizen. Our mascot wants it known that beavers are too often misunderstood. He has had to put up with many species slurs and insults, such as being called "rats with flat tails" and, here, "nuisance wildlife." He hopes that this article will open a dialogue with those who object to his long and loyal service to IAFSM. As always, opposing opinions are welcome and may even be printed.

Most people agree that an attraction to the outdoors involves an admiration and respect for wildlife. They inspire us, entertain us, and help maintain the environment. In fact, a relationship with wildlife has been a basic element of human life since the dawn of man.

Today, however, it seems this relationship is changing. Personally, I would love to live next to a nature preserve, state park, or wilderness area; but for others who have settled near wildlife habitats, animals are now impinging on people's lives in an undesirable way. The catch term for this situation is "nuisance wildlife," which has been applied in northern Illinois to such species as deer, mosquitoes, and beaver.

In an attempt to rectify these situations, man sometimes chooses to control these populations through organized hunts or excessive pesticide application.

But what about beaver? Beaver do not form large herds, nor do they concentrate their numbers in small areas. A single beaver family will establish a territory and attempt to prevent other beaver from utilizing the resources within that territory. Along a watershed, the available habitat will be divided among different beaver families. This typically results in relatively low beaver population densities within fragmented landscapes as compared to most so called nuisance wildlife.

Most control actions for nuisance wildlife are not designed or intended to completely remove that species from the area. The guiding belief is that increased biodiversity within wildlife communities is a desirable and healthy component of the conservation effort. The goal is to achieve a stable population that can be sustained within the carrying capacity of the habitat, while minimizing the negative impacts perceived, and sometimes legitimately suffered, by the public.

The difference with beaver is that generally only a single family unit is responsible for the problems within a given habitat, since few habitats remaining in northern Illinois are large enough to support multiple beaver families. Therefore, the control of nuisance beaver equates to the eradication of the species from the habitat. The problem is that this solution is contrary to the mission of wildlife and natural resource managers.

Furthermore, those beaver labeled as pests have typically received the title from a small portion of the public whose homes and businesses are built on what was historically the beavers' home. If typical control actions were imposed on nuisance beavers, wildlife managers would be forcing eradication in response to a minority public opinion upon a species whose presence is often required to maintain aquatic environments in natural conditions. The choice of initiating beaver control all too often means the degradation and sacrifice of an aquatic natural resource which was preserved for the benefit of everyone and everything.

With this in mind, the question becomes how should beavers be managed in the presence of increasing human encroachment and habitat loss? Or is the question, how should the needs of mankind be managed in response to the needs of wildlife? My answer is simple. Wildlife can exist without mankind, but mankind cannot exist without wildlife.

Illinois Association for Floodplain and Stormwater Management
Any questions, comments or postings? Please e-mail them to Arnel De Los Reyes at cbbel@megsinet.net
This page was last updated on 5/24/99.