Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences Floodplains

Similar documents
Appendix E Preliminary Location Hydraulic Study

FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT APPLICATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT W. Ten Mile Road Novi, MI (248)

When planning stormwater management facilities, the following principles shall be applied where possible.

CHECKLIST FOR PHASE II DRAINAGE REPORT

City of Waco Stormwater Management Regulations

Floodplain Technical Memorandum

SEMSWA s Role in the Land Development Process

KYTC and NFIP: Bridging Floodplain Management and Design KAMM CONFERENCE AUGUST 25, 2015

Northern Branch Corridor DEIS December 2011

Stormwater Regulations & Considerations Morse Study Area. Pam Fortun, P.E. CFM Senior Stormwater Treatment Engineer Engineering Services Division

DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION INTERSTATE 73 FEIS: I-95 to I-73/I-74 in North Carolina

HAZARD MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Zoning Ordinance Chapter 10

Richton Park Western Development Corridor Green Infrastructure Development Plan August 18, 2017

Please highlight flow chart where applicable and return with Form 2 and Form 3 (tab 1) to the City of St. Charles Engineering Department.

WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON

Overall Drainage Report

7th Avenue Creek Master Plan Development Project. City of St. Charles, IL. IAFSM CONFERENCE March 14, 2018 MARKET

17.1 INTRODUCTION CONTEXT CONCLUSIONS

PCE PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE ANALYSIS REPORT FOR WESTWOOD MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECT 772 NORTH FOREST ROAD TOWN OF AMHERST, ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK

Draft Rhode Island Stormwater Design and Installation Standards Manual

# 3 & 4 HOLDOVER ZON & ZON PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING APPROVAL STAFF REPORT Date: June 4, 2009

Level 1 Downstream Analysis

Chapter 4 - Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans

MEMORANDUM. September 10, 2018

Floodplain Discipline Report

MEMORANDUM OF BOG TURTLE HABITAT INVESTIGATION

MANUAL OF DESIGN, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS

Table of Contents G.1.a Water Resources - Surface Water - Drainage

What Can We Do to Reduce the Impact of Floods? Joe Barron, P.E. Fletcher Group, Inc. 148 River St. Suite 220 Greenville, S.C.

1. Project Description

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Date: June 2, 2016

City of Elmhurst. Comprehensive Flood Plan. City of Elmhurst. City Council Meeting September 15, 2014

Northern Branch Corridor SDEIS March 2017

MASTER DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE PLAN FOR MONUMENT HEIGHTS

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION DETERMINATION I 435/I 35/K 10 INTERCHANGE (JOHNSON COUNTY GATEWAY)

Poisoned Park? How Exide s Lead Contamination Risks Frisco s Grand Park

ST. MARY S SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT (SMSCD) AND DPW&T CONCEPT EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES AND CHECKLIST

Figure 1 Cypress Street Study Area Location Map

8.5 FLOODING. Environmental Setting

Public Open House. Welcome! Presentation at 5:15 p.m. Please sign-in at the registration table

Blake C. Kronkosky, PE, Ph.D.

C. WATER. 1. Surface Water Runoff. See Section C.3, Flood Hazard/Mudflow Hazard, page Ground Water

Drexel, Barrell & Co.

CASE # JC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - FLOODPLAIN STAFF CONTACT: MIKE TERTINGER

Checklists. Project Name: Location: File Number: Date of Submittal: Reviewer: Date: Applicant: Contact Name: Phone Number:

Chapter 3 Site Planning and Low Impact Development

Northern Branch Corridor SDEIS March 2017

NAPA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS Standards & Specifications

South Bismarck Watershed Model Update and Stormwater Improvement Project

Floodplain Management Strategies in Forsyth County Georgia Association of Floodplain Management 7 th Annual Technical Conference March 2012

STREAM BUFFERS

STORMWATER SITE PLAN INSTRUCTIONS AND SUBMITTAL TEMPLATE Medium and Large Projects

September 7, Mr. Brant Gary Director of Public Works City of Bellaire 7008 S. Rice Avenue Bellaire, Texas 77401

RCS: Prepared for: DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE Eglin Air Force Base. Okaloosa County, Florida. July Prepared by:

7.0 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

City of East Point Comprehensive Floodplain Management Program

WARSAW WAL-MART EXPANSION FLOODPLAIN EVALUATION STUDY

Chapter 1 GENERAL SOUTH DAKOTA DRAINAGE MANUAL

NAI Principles In Gwinnett County

A. Regional Detention Requirements

Final Design Activity Descriptions July, 2017

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING APPROVAL STAFF REPORT Date: April 4, 2013

Drexel, Barrell & Co.

Washington County, Maryland Division of Public Works Policy Manual

Technical Memorandum 5

North Metro Natural Gas Pipeline Project Routing Study. Exhibit I: Comment and Response Document

Farmers Investment Co. (FICO) Continental Farms

Shoreline Master Program Town of La Conner, Washington

WELCOME! 8 8:30 6: TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS. Open House. Presentation & Q&A

Lower Don River West Remedial Flood Protection Project TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. Executive Summary

Chapter 5: Natural Resources and Environment

Leduc Industrial Outline Plan SE W4

Appendix E Outfall Identification Standard Operating Procedure

17.18 SENSITIVE AREAS

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT Date: May 18, 2017

Stormwater. Management Manual

Village of Forest Park. July 27, Sewer Separation Evaluation

LICENSES FOR UTILITY CROSSINGS OF PUBLIC LANDS AND WATERS ACCORDING TO MINNESOTA RULES CHAPTER [Rules Effective July 1, 2004]

SUMMARY. Support the Southeast Arkansas Regional Intermodal Facility.

7.0 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION

Technical note. Option 3a (cyan route) Project: To: A428 Bus Enhancement Scheme. Rid Hollands, Colin Young

IMPLEMENTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT

Physical Map Revision Flood Insurance Study

5. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL MENORAH MEDICAL CENTER OFFICE BUILDING Vicinity of the southwest corner of 119 th Street and Nall Avenue

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED. 2.1 Purpose. 2.2 Need Traffic Congestion in and around Downtown Derry

PLANNING APPROVAL & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Date: April 6, 2017

City of Norfolk Coastal Flood Mitigation Program. March 13, 2013

DRAFT SCOPE FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR HUDSON HIGHLANDS RESERVE TOWN OF PHILIPSTOWN, NEW YORK June 5, 2018

Development Permit Application Form. Property Owner Information as Registered on Legal Title Property Owner Name: Phone:

Hazard Mitigation Planning. Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions Workshop Edison, New Jersey October 20, 2012

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CODES ANALYSIS RICHLAND COUNTY, SC SITE PLANNING ROUNDTABLE

4. Contractor (and subcontractors if applicable) certification statement(s)

Lower Meramec Multi-Jurisdictional Floodplain Management Plan Public Involvement (Results of Early Public Engagement) 27 June 2018

Do you know there your MS4 is?

Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Scoping Meeting for the Canyon Lane Roadway Improvements Development Project

Right-of-Way Acquisitions and Relocations Technical Memorandum

Introduction to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update. City of Bellingham Planning Department 2005

DRAFT DESIGN CRITERIA STORMWATER TREATMENT STANDARDS CITY OF OVERLAND PARK

13. PRELIMINARY PLAT NO MILLS FARM - Vicinity of the southeast corner of 159 th Street and Quivira Road

Transcription:

3.9 Environmental Consequences 3.8 3.8.1 WHAT ARE FLOODPLAINS? are low-lying areas adjacent to rivers, streams, and other waterbodies that are susceptible to inundation (flooding) during rain events. These areas provide important functions in the natural environment such as providing storage for flood waters, protecting the surrounding environment from erosion, and providing habitat for wildlife. As such, agencies are required to take actions that reduce the risk of impacts to floodplains and their associated floodway, or main channel of flow. Floodplain areas exist within the project study area of the Carolina Crossroads, and this chapter describes the potential impacts to those areas. 3.8.2 HOW ARE FLOODPLAINS REGULATED? Floodplain and floodway protection is required under several federal, state, and local laws, including Executive Order 11988 entitled Floodplain Management, which requires federal agencies to avoid making modifications to and supporting development in floodplains wherever practical. subject to inundation by the 1- percent-annual-chance flood event are regulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA publishes maps which depict areas of regulated floodplains and floodways. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 1 is the most common of these flood maps. The FIRM is an official map of a community on which FEMA has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. FIRMs depict the boundaries of flood hazard areas and differentiates them by zone. Zone A floodplains are areas subject to inundation by the 1-percentannual-chance flood event (100-year flood) and are generally determined using approximate methodologies. Because detailed hydraulic analyses have not been performed, base flood elevations (BFE) or flood depths are not available for Zone A floodplains. Zone AE floodplains are areas subject to inundation by the 1-percentannual-chance flood event and are determined by detailed methods. BFEs are available for Zone AE floodplains and are provided on FIRMs. What is a 100-year flood? A 100-year flood (also referred to as a base flood) is a flood that has 1% chance of occurring in any given year. A 100-year floodplain is the area around a water body that would be inundated by a 100-year flood. The Saluda River is also under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) because of its function as a hydroelectric power facility. FERC is the United States federal agency that regulates the transmission and wholesale of electricity, natural gas and oil (by pipeline) in interstate commerce. FERC also reviews proposals to build interstate natural gas pipelines, natural gas storage projects, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, in addition to licensing non-federal hydropower projects. The project would require 1 https://msc.fema.gov/portal/. Last accessed February 25, 2018. DEIS July 23, 2018 Page 3-283

3.9 Environmental Consequences coordination with FERC due to the bridge crossings over the Saluda River. The coordination would occur during final design once specific impacts are identified. 3.8.3 WHAT FLOODPLAINS ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA? Based upon a review of the floodplain mapping and a GIS analysis of the project study area, the proposed project crosses or encroaches on six FEMA-regulated floodplains. Table 3.8-1 below lists these floodplains by their associated waterbody. The extent of each floodplain is shown on Figures 3.8-1A through 3.8-1D. Table 3.8-1 FEMA-Regulated within the Project Study Area 1 Floodplain FIRM map ID Existing crossing Figure FEMA zone Moccasin Branch 45079C0206L Culvert 3.8-1A Zone AE Tributary to Kinley Creek 45063C0134G Culvert 3.8-1B Zone AE floodway Stoop Creek 45063C0161G Culvert 3.8-1B Zone AE floodway Saluda River 45063C0144G & 45063C0163G Bridge 3.8-1C Zone AE floodway Broad River 45079C0243L Bridge 3.8-1D Zone AE floodway Senn Branch 45063C0163G Culvert 3.8-1C Zone AE floodway 1 The flood plain is the area inundated by the base flood, usually the 100-year flood. The floodway is the portion of the flood plain needed to convey the base flood without increasing water surfaces more than a designated height. DEIS July 23, 2018 Page 3-284

3. Existing Conditions and 3.9Environmental Consequences Figure 3.8-1A FEMA 100-year floodplain map DEIS July 23, 2018 Page 3-285

3. Existing Conditions and 3.9Environmental Consequences Figure 3.8-1B FEMA 100-year floodplain map DEIS July 23, 2018 Page 3-286

3. Existing Conditions and 3.9Environmental Consequences Figure 3.8-1C FEMA 100-year floodplain map DEIS July 23, 2018 Page 3-287

3. Existing Conditions and 3.9Environmental Consequences Figure 3.8-1D FEMA 100-year floodplain map DEIS July 23, 2018 Page 3-288

3.9 Environmental Consequences 3.8.4 HOW WOULD THE NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE IMPACT FLOODPLAINS? The No-build Alternative would not improve existing roads beyond what is currently planned. However, maintenance activities would continue to occur. The No-build Alternative would have no effect on floodplains since existing conditions would remain unchanged. 3.8.5 HOW WOULD THE REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES IMPACT FLOODPLAINS? A potential floodplain impact evaluation has been performed by overlaying the reasonable alternatives on the project study area FEMA maps. Both alternatives would be located within FEMA-regulated floodplains. Bridge Replacement Risk Assessment Forms have been completed and are included in Appendix J. 3.8.5.1 What impacts would RA1 (Recommended Preferred Alternative) have on floodplains? RA1 would impact approximately 22.91 acres of floodplains associated with the Saluda River, Broad River, Senn Branch, Stoop Creek, Moccasin Branch, and unnamed tributaries to Kinley Creek. Floodplain crossings predominantly occur near the Saluda River and the I-20/I-26 interchange. Approximately 15.94 acres of potential floodplain impacts are classified as Zone AE, while the remaining 6.97 acres are classified as Zone AE regulated floodways. While all of the floodplain crossings would occur in areas of existing crossings, detailed flood studies of stream and river crossings would be required as part of the final roadway design. The bridges and culverts would be designed to FEMA standards and would provide clearances above the flood elevation; therefore, an increase in flooding is not anticipated. Coordination with South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) and FERC would be required for the two Saluda River floodway crossings due to its function as a hydroelectric facility. Table 3.8-2 Summary of Potential Floodplain Impacts (in acres), RA1 (Preferred Alternative) Zone AE 15.94 Zone AE Regulatory Floodway 6.97 Total 22.91 RA1 (Preferred Alternative) Table 3.8-3 Potential Floodplain and/or Floodway Crossings, RA1 Saluda River 2 Stoop Creek 2 Senn Branch 1 Tributaries to Kinley Creek 2 Moccasin Creek 1 Broad River 1 Total Crossings 9 RA1 (Preferred Alternative) DEIS July 23, 2018 Page 3-289

3.9 Environmental Consequences 3.8.5.2 What impact would RA5 Modified have on floodplains? RA5 Modified would impact approximately 23.69 acres of floodplains associated with the Saluda River, Broad River, Senn Branch, Stoop Creek, Moccasin Branch, and unnamed tributaries to Kinley Creek. Floodplain crossings predominantly occur near the Saluda River and the I-20/I-26 interchange. Approximately 16.64 acres of potential floodplain impacts are classified as Zone AE, while the remaining 7.05 acres are classified as Zone AE regulated floodways. While all of the floodplain crossings would occur in areas of existing crossings, detailed flood studies of stream and river crossings would be required as part of the final roadway design. The bridges would be designed to FEMA standards and would provide clearances above the flood elevation; therefore, an increase in flooding is not anticipated. Coordination with SCE&G and FERC would be required for the two Saluda River floodway crossings due to its use as a hydroelectric facility. Table 3.8-4 Summary of Potential Floodplain Impacts (in acres), RA5 Modified RA5 Zone AE 16.64 Zone AE Regulatory Floodway 7.05 Total 23.69 Table 3.8-5 Potential Floodplain and/or Floodway Crossings, RA5 Modified RA5 Modified Saluda River 2 Stoop Creek 2 Senn Branch 1 Tributaries to Kinley Creek 2 Moccasin Creek 1 Broad River 1 Total Crossings 9 3.8.6 WHAT ARE THE FLOODING RISKS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO FLOODPLAIN VALUES? The FHWA Technical Advisory 6640.8A requires that all potential encroachments into floodplains resulting from a proposed project discuss the level potential risk or environmental impact resulting from any floodplain encroachments. The following discussion provides a summary of the expected impacts that the reasonable alternatives would have on various floodplain functions. 3.8.6.1 What are the flooding risks associated with the project? Floodplain encroachments of either reasonable alternative are not likely to increase the flooding in the area as bridge structures would be designed to FEMA standards as required by 23 CFR 650, Subpart A, Location and DEIS July 23, 2018 Page 3-290

3.9 Environmental Consequences Hydraulic Design of Encroachment on, and result in less than a one-foot rise in the base flood elevation. Additionally, structures would provide the minimum freeboard above the design flood elevation and would not be exceeded by the 100-year storm. A detailed hydrological study of the preferred alternative would be completed upon final design. This analysis would include establishing base flood elevations and adjusting bridge and culvert designs to minimize the risk of flooding upstream to less than one foot, as required by FEMA. A SCDOT Bridge Scope and Risk Assessment Form was completed for each crossing based on the preliminary analysis (Appendix J). 3.8.6.2 What are the impacts to the natural and beneficial floodplain values? No substantial impacts to floodplains are anticipated from construction of either reasonable alternative. The majority of the floodplain impacts would be adjacent to existing structures or within an existing transportation corridor, and all proposed crossings would be designed to provide existing or improved flow conditions. There may be temporary impacts to river access and/or use during construction and deconstruction over the Saluda and Broad Rivers. Sedimentation from construction may occur but appropriate best management practices would be incorporated to minimize these impacts. 3.8.6.3 Does the project support incompatible floodplain development? No incompatible floodplain development would result from the proposed project. All structures would be designed to FEMA standards and would generally be constructed within an existing transportation corridor. The project would be designed to be consistent with local floodplain development plans and coordinated with local floodplain officials. 3.8.6.4 What measures were used to minimize floodplain impacts? Various alternatives were analyzed from an engineering, environmental, and general public perspective. The design includes measures to avoid or minimize floodplain impacts through the use of piles instead of fill. Only minor fill would be needed to accommodate bridge, ramp, and culvert construction. Impacts would generally be adjacent to existing structures. 3.8.6.5 Were any measures used to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial floodplain values? No substantial impacts to floodplain values are anticipated from the proposed project. Impacts to floodplains would be minimized through careful design and construction methods. If conditions change based on final design, additional measures would be evaluated to restore lost floodplain values. 3.8.7 HOW WOULD IMPACTS TO FLOODPLAINS BE MITIGATED? In accordance with Executive Order 11988, a hydraulic analysis must be conducted for an encroachment of a FEMA-regulated floodplain. The hydraulic analysis is used to determine if the project is likely to increase the risk of flooding within the floodplain. In order to meet the requirements of a No-Rise condition, FEMA requires projects which would encroach on Regulated Floodways and Zone AE floodplains have to result in no more than a 0.1 foot change from the established 100-year flood elevations. Furthermore, SCDOT requires all Zone A DEIS July 23, 2018 Page 3-291

3.9 Environmental Consequences crossings be analyzed for the 100-year flood to insure that the floodplain encroachment does not cause one foot or more of backwater when compared to unrestricted or natural conditions. Hydrology studies have not been conducted at this stage of project development. At each cross drainage feature, a detailed hydraulic analysis will be performed to confirm that bridges and culverts identified during preliminary design would provide adequate conveyance of flood waters. The project will be designed in an effort to meet No-Rise requirements. In the event a No-Rise condition cannot be achieved, coordination with FEMA will require the preparation of a CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision)/ LOMR (Letter of Map Revision) package for the encroachment. This includes a detailed hydraulic analysis, determination of floodplain impacts, and preparation of the CLOMR. Following construction, impacts to the floodplain will be verified prior to the issuance of the LOMR. If the recommended preferred alternative includes a floodplain encroachment that would cause significant impacts, the Final EIS will include a finding that it is the only practicable alternative as required by 23 CFR 650, Subpart A. The finding should refer to Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650, Subpart A. The finding must be supported by the following information: The reason(s) why the proposed action must be located in the floodplain, The alternatives considered and why they were not practicable, and, A statement indicating whether the action conforms to applicable state or local floodplain protection standards. There is no practicable alternative to the preferred alternatives impacts on the floodplains. The floodplain crossings are perpendicular and cannot be avoided. Other alternatives would also impact the floodplains and result in greater impacts to other resources. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts to natural and beneficial floodplain values due to the minor nature of the impacts, their location adjacent to existing fills and/or within an existing transportation corridor. As previously mentioned, the project would be designed to be consistent with local floodplain development plans. It is FHWA s policy to avoid longitudinal encroachments, where practicable [23 CFR 650.103(b)]. Longitudinal encroachments are parallel or nearly parallel to a stream or the edge of a lake. Where regulatory floodplains are defined, hydraulic structures will be designed to accommodate a 100-year (1% annual chance) flood. Where no regulatory floodplain is defined, culverts and bridges will be designed to accommodate a 50-year magnitude flood event. Ongoing design efforts and coordination with resource and regulatory agencies would minimize floodplain impacts during the final design process. DEIS July 23, 2018 Page 3-292